So when does it become unethical? If you share it with 3 friends? 4? 5?
42?
Seriously, though, the Napster model wasn't "sharing with friends." It's "sharing with strangers."
If you need a line to draw that isn't "when the copyright holder objects over their unfinished songs showing up on your network," I suggest you use "when you share with strangers".
So, assuming that's not possible -- is the DMCA a viable tool to ensure security?
The DMCA isn't about secruity--it's about copyright. Read the DMCA, also known as Chapter 12 of Title 17, USC, and decide for yourself.
IMO, the law should either be moved to a general security law, or it shouldn't be interpreted to cover anything except the aiding and abeiting of real anti-copyright infringment sale aid--that is, unless a device is intended to protect a document that's transmitted / broadcast, the DMCA shouldn't touch it.
Then again, these are new positions for me--reply and you might change me again.
Then again we should be happy the United Nations doesn't have the power it wants otherwise the world would be under a single set of laws.. so with bad comes a bit of good.
What, exactly, would be wrong from having a single set of worldwide laws?
A system wherein anyone could impose any law on the whole world is obviously bad--but a single system of worldwide laws sounds like a fine idea.
Confronted with the same problem, the Russians used a pencil.
Which adds unnecessary free-floating dust to clog up the whole darn air filtration system.
NASA didn't develop the space pen; IIRC, they used grease pencils for the first serveral missions. The pen was developed by a private inventor, who sold them to NASA at a rather reasonable price (far less than 12 billion) and the general public of space-geeks.
I leave my computer on 24/7 and do not like to reboot either which only hurts the situation.
Let's assume that you're running a desktop version of windows, which wasn't designed to be ran 24/7 without reboots--and that you don't leave all your programs open all the time.
I humbly suggest that you install SOME kind of memory management software. Or, alternately, schedule your PC to reboot itself at 5 am ever day, log in automatically, and then lock / turn on its screen saver / whatever else your security mechanism is.
I have a 700 mhz PC, and it's plenty fast for just about anything I do. Of course, I also shut the darn thing down when I'm not using it.
There is too much complexity when going back, unless it is completely 'read only', and you can only observe and not interfere.
Actually, it'll probably be no more complex than heavier-than-air flight, lighter-than-air navigation, or rocket science.
Theoretically it's complex--but theoretically, there are a lot of possibilities, simply because we don't have any frame of refernece beyond human intuition for "real" time travel.
They are there to make money and keep it. If they now make half their profit from sales of cd's which are massly pirated they will do everything in their power to stop it. They must at all costs.
To date, there has been no effective method of stopping electronic media The best case is removing pure digital copies, and leaving only the analog hole--which still gives "good enough for free" copies.
If Apple changes at all, we can expect more money to be spent on the social problem of file sharing, rather than an attempt to technically force people to do the right thing.
Now you can't own the product. It's not yours. Not only is it not yours but you can't tinker with it. Tinkering with it is illegal. If the manufacturer says it's the safest product ever devised and you suspect that it's full of holes you aren't allowed to look.
Bullocks. You can tinker with it all you want and even dislcose what you find--but if your "tinkering" is "how do I get this box to do something it was never meant to do" and by "disclose" you mean "tell everyone how to do exactly what you did, which just happens to defeat the copy-protection measures in this thing", then you're guilty of two crimes: one very horrible count of doublespeak, and one clear-cut violation of the DMCA.
Look at some EULA's lately. One EULA I got a couple of years ago said that "reviews can only be published after the written consent of 'COMPANYX'. COMPANYX reserves the right to sole editorship of any published reviews of it's products." This meant that ANY review that you saw on the web or in a magazine they effectively wrote. The problem was trying to find any real data on the product - every review was glowing, no problems, no benchmarks, and no real information.
Pay for the license, review it, and call it like you see it. If the company has the cojones to take you to court, you might just get their EULA tossed out on its ear.
I'll even send you $10 if you do it.
If they say it has technology developed by NASA and you suspect code looted from a GPL'd product - you can't check - it's illegal.
Because of Florida has more electorial votes, when they swayed towards Bush it was enough (barely) for him to win the presidency.
Which means that the election was really divided anyway, so it was more of an "acceptable error" than a "theft."
Democracy survived the 2000 election unscathed.
Re:Just when was the ""greed is good" era?
on
Implementing VisiCalc
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Would that be when corporations like Enron and Global Crossing were running accounting scams unchecked by the federal Government? When pardons and sleepovers in the Lincoln bedroom were for sale?
No, that's the "public outrage over greed" era. During "Greed is Good", 'shrewd' deals like that would have been lauded by everyone who heard about them.
Don't be too sure. The Supremes just upheld a law that makes burning a cross at a gathering a crime. Not on someone else's lawn, mind you, but your own cross on your own property among your own people. That gets you three months in jail.
No, they did not.
The SCOTUS found that a law making using a burning cross as an instrument of intimidation illegal is constitutional. Just like a law making speaking to intimidate is constitutional.
Burn a cross on your own lawn for some reason that doesn't involve intimidating someone--oh, like if you were an atheist and wanted to make a statement that "god was dead", or as a haloween decoration--and the 1st still protects you.
The first amendment may be the most vital of the ten in the bill of rights--but it's hardly an absolute law, and the SCOTUS (and the people at large) have upheld time and time again that it can be abridged for causes that don't overly restrict the right of someone to hold and express any opinion they want with any number of people that they want.
And what happens when you get stuck in traffic on your way home and get back half an hour later than usual? You got telepahtic cron?
You send a message via your PDA in the slow moments of traffic to delay cooking, of course. Voice-activation would do it best, but even a keyboard and mail could do in a pinch: just stop and type.
No. Obviously they can, and do. And they're likely going too far, to boot.
But a prison cell is a great place to keep someone from changing from "probable terrorist" to "definite terrorist."
As I've said before, the PATRIOT act gives powers that are far too likely to be abused, and probably will be abused. But that's because they were done reactively, and not proactively. They will be abused, and then checked & balanced, and the gov't will wind up with powers that it needs to have.
I am no more worried about the PATRIOT act turning my country into a dystopia than I am of the protestors out in front of the Albany armory from making us leave Iraq before the job is done. They're all patriots, and if I can't trust my fellow american citizens, then I can trust no man.
How long until you are stopped driving and asked for your 'papers', where are you going, why? Sounds far fetched, it probably is, but where it the line that once the governemnt crosses it is no longer OK for them to have unfettered access to our personal lives?
Ever be stopped by a police officer, either in your car or while you're out walking at night?
They ask you who you are and where you're going--and, AFAIK, it's a misdemanor to not tell them who you are.
Oddly enough, this has done exactly nothing to my freedoms, except give me a reason to carry by wallet with me--which is a good idea anyway, considering it's hard to identify myself if I'm struck unconcious and my wife needs to be notified.
If the government wants to know that I have read "such and such author", they should be required to tell me that they want to know, and further they should show a good reason for neededing the information.
If the government got a warrant to see the library records, there isn't (AFAIK, IANAL-RU?) a rule saying that I need to be told.
OTOH, if they BRING CHARGES against me, I get to know everything that they know about me. This is a constitutionally protected right, and the PATRIOT act can't touch it.
Wow, I'd heard that there were people who run every program maximized, but I'd never met any.
You--you mean that you don't? Wow!
And stupid web designers DON'T build their websites with me in mind. They either assume a 640 pixel or an 800 pixel width, rather than tying the main section of their website to a percentage of the full page.
Those stupidly designe sites have a lot of whitespace alongside the content--which is just plain annoying, IMO.
Unless you can prove that the majority of gun owners are E.g. using their firearms to effectivly bore holes for the purposes of wood working, a gun is designed to destroy or damage. Which is the whole point, which is why a gun is different to an SUV or a knife, and which you know full well but will go blue in the face attempting to deny, in order to cling on to an outdated, un-needed and useless section of the constitution.
Anyone who tries to tell you that the 2nd amendment was intended for hunting is lying to you.
The right to bear arms is as necessary to a free society as trial by jury. Normally, they AREN'T necessary--normally the police aren't ineffective, the government isn't unacceptably corrupt, and the country isn't being invaded by a hostile power. But disarming the populace would make all three of those more likely, not less.
I'll argue 'til I'm blue in the face that there's no reason at all to be secret about who has a gun, and that gun regulation and control is a Very Good Thing that the NRA should support instead of mock, but I'll also argue against anyone trying to tell me that the 2nd amendment is "outdated, un-needed, and useless."
Including Windows 1.0 in this company is a joke as Windows 1.0 was nothing more than a shell and not a true OS. In fact, it could be argued that Windows was a shell with DOS being the real OS up until Windows 98.
?
Don't you mean XP/NT (depending on when you move "the OS" away from 9x.) or Win95?
All that Win98 did over 95 was IE integration and some small tweaks. DOS was still there, still built-in--and still in a vital part of the OS through ME.
In Win95 MS bundled DOS closer to Windows, such that DOS 7 wasn't called a seperate program, they were (AFAIK) never sold seperately, and DOS always assumed that you wanted to head right into windows.
DOS didn't get tossed until the NT kernel rolled out--which was in NT 3.5 at all, and XP for the "home" market.
Slashdot Mirror
So when does it become unethical? If you share it with 3 friends? 4? 5?
42?
Seriously, though, the Napster model wasn't "sharing with friends." It's "sharing with strangers."
If you need a line to draw that isn't "when the copyright holder objects over their unfinished songs showing up on your network," I suggest you use "when you share with strangers".
What the heck does "better genes" mean? For that matter, what does "more superiority"?
Complexity and adaptability. More astetic. More elegant design. Producing a more robust creature that is able to do more.
Of course, most of this comes from intelligence rather than directly from genetic programming...
So, assuming that's not possible -- is the DMCA a viable tool to ensure security?
The DMCA isn't about secruity--it's about copyright. Read the DMCA, also known as Chapter 12 of Title 17, USC, and decide for yourself.
IMO, the law should either be moved to a general security law, or it shouldn't be interpreted to cover anything except the aiding and abeiting of real anti-copyright infringment sale aid--that is, unless a device is intended to protect a document that's transmitted / broadcast, the DMCA shouldn't touch it.
Then again, these are new positions for me--reply and you might change me again.
Then again we should be happy the United Nations doesn't have the power it wants otherwise the world would be under a single set of laws.. so with bad comes a bit of good.
What, exactly, would be wrong from having a single set of worldwide laws?
A system wherein anyone could impose any law on the whole world is obviously bad--but a single system of worldwide laws sounds like a fine idea.
Confronted with the same problem, the Russians used a pencil.
Which adds unnecessary free-floating dust to clog up the whole darn air filtration system.
NASA didn't develop the space pen; IIRC, they used grease pencils for the first serveral missions. The pen was developed by a private inventor, who sold them to NASA at a rather reasonable price (far less than 12 billion) and the general public of space-geeks.
I leave my computer on 24/7 and do not like to reboot either which only hurts the situation.
Let's assume that you're running a desktop version of windows, which wasn't designed to be ran 24/7 without reboots--and that you don't leave all your programs open all the time.
I humbly suggest that you install SOME kind of memory management software. Or, alternately, schedule your PC to reboot itself at 5 am ever day, log in automatically, and then lock / turn on its screen saver / whatever else your security mechanism is.
I have a 700 mhz PC, and it's plenty fast for just about anything I do. Of course, I also shut the darn thing down when I'm not using it.
The US? Not really, no physical evidence of the files.
Sure they can. Remember: in the end, you'd be judged by a jury, and to a jury a computer is a "magic box" anyway.
And, theoretically, the US and Mexican police could just cooperate.
Once upon a time the average Joe HAD to adjust the timing on the spark, or pay someone else to do it.
There is too much complexity when going back, unless it is completely 'read only', and you can only observe and not interfere.
Actually, it'll probably be no more complex than heavier-than-air flight, lighter-than-air navigation, or rocket science.
Theoretically it's complex--but theoretically, there are a lot of possibilities, simply because we don't have any frame of refernece beyond human intuition for "real" time travel.
They are there to make money and keep it. If they now make half their profit from sales of cd's which are massly pirated they will do everything in their power to stop it. They must at all costs.
To date, there has been no effective method of stopping electronic media The best case is removing pure digital copies, and leaving only the analog hole--which still gives "good enough for free" copies.
If Apple changes at all, we can expect more money to be spent on the social problem of file sharing, rather than an attempt to technically force people to do the right thing.
Of course, IMO, the proper thing to do is change copyright's model.
Now you can't own the product. It's not yours. Not only is it not yours but you can't tinker with it. Tinkering with it is illegal. If the manufacturer says it's the safest product ever devised and you suspect that it's full of holes you aren't allowed to look.
Bullocks. You can tinker with it all you want and even dislcose what you find--but if your "tinkering" is "how do I get this box to do something it was never meant to do" and by "disclose" you mean "tell everyone how to do exactly what you did, which just happens to defeat the copy-protection measures in this thing", then you're guilty of two crimes: one very horrible count of doublespeak, and one clear-cut violation of the DMCA.
Look at some EULA's lately. One EULA I got a couple of years ago said that "reviews can only be published after the written consent of 'COMPANYX'. COMPANYX reserves the right to sole editorship of any published reviews of it's products." This meant that ANY review that you saw on the web or in a magazine they effectively wrote. The problem was trying to find any real data on the product - every review was glowing, no problems, no benchmarks, and no real information.
Pay for the license, review it, and call it like you see it. If the company has the cojones to take you to court, you might just get their EULA tossed out on its ear.
I'll even send you $10 if you do it.
If they say it has technology developed by NASA and you suspect code looted from a GPL'd product - you can't check - it's illegal.
Because of Florida has more electorial votes, when they swayed towards Bush it was enough (barely) for him to win the presidency.
Which means that the election was really divided anyway, so it was more of an "acceptable error" than a "theft."
Democracy survived the 2000 election unscathed.
Would that be when corporations like Enron and Global Crossing were running accounting scams unchecked by the federal Government? When pardons and sleepovers in the Lincoln bedroom were for sale?
No, that's the "public outrage over greed" era. During "Greed is Good", 'shrewd' deals like that would have been lauded by everyone who heard about them.
Don't be too sure. The Supremes just upheld a law that makes burning a cross at a gathering a crime. Not on someone else's lawn, mind you, but your own cross on your own property among your own people. That gets you three months in jail.
No, they did not.
The SCOTUS found that a law making using a burning cross as an instrument of intimidation illegal is constitutional. Just like a law making speaking to intimidate is constitutional.
Burn a cross on your own lawn for some reason that doesn't involve intimidating someone--oh, like if you were an atheist and wanted to make a statement that "god was dead", or as a haloween decoration--and the 1st still protects you.
The first amendment may be the most vital of the ten in the bill of rights--but it's hardly an absolute law, and the SCOTUS (and the people at large) have upheld time and time again that it can be abridged for causes that don't overly restrict the right of someone to hold and express any opinion they want with any number of people that they want.
And what happens when you get stuck in traffic on your way home and get back half an hour later than usual? You got telepahtic cron?
You send a message via your PDA in the slow moments of traffic to delay cooking, of course. Voice-activation would do it best, but even a keyboard and mail could do in a pinch: just stop and type.
Think they won't jail a "potential terrorist?"
No. Obviously they can, and do. And they're likely going too far, to boot.
But a prison cell is a great place to keep someone from changing from "probable terrorist" to "definite terrorist."
As I've said before, the PATRIOT act gives powers that are far too likely to be abused, and probably will be abused. But that's because they were done reactively, and not proactively. They will be abused, and then checked & balanced, and the gov't will wind up with powers that it needs to have.
I am no more worried about the PATRIOT act turning my country into a dystopia than I am of the protestors out in front of the Albany armory from making us leave Iraq before the job is done. They're all patriots, and if I can't trust my fellow american citizens, then I can trust no man.
How long until you are stopped driving and asked for your 'papers', where are you going, why? Sounds far fetched, it probably is, but where it the line that once the governemnt crosses it is no longer OK for them to have unfettered access to our personal lives?
Ever be stopped by a police officer, either in your car or while you're out walking at night?
They ask you who you are and where you're going--and, AFAIK, it's a misdemanor to not tell them who you are.
Oddly enough, this has done exactly nothing to my freedoms, except give me a reason to carry by wallet with me--which is a good idea anyway, considering it's hard to identify myself if I'm struck unconcious and my wife needs to be notified.
If the government wants to know that I have read "such and such author", they should be required to tell me that they want to know, and further they should show a good reason for neededing the information.
If the government got a warrant to see the library records, there isn't (AFAIK, IANAL-RU?) a rule saying that I need to be told.
OTOH, if they BRING CHARGES against me, I get to know everything that they know about me. This is a constitutionally protected right, and the PATRIOT act can't touch it.
There's a difference between "terrorist" and "potential terrorist." You jail the first, you simply pay close attention to the second.
Don't like the gov't paying attention to you? Then don't stand out--follow the herd. Loss of anonymnity is the price of individuality.
Now I am a Gentoo guy and said "buy-buy" to RH last year
Did you mean "bye-bye", or did you start promoting Red Hat stock?
But, MAN, how can he take $2,000,000 from the US Gov't and still criticize them at the same time?
The same way US taxpayers do.
Wow, I'd heard that there were people who run every program maximized, but I'd never met any.
You--you mean that you don't? Wow!
And stupid web designers DON'T build their websites with me in mind. They either assume a 640 pixel or an 800 pixel width, rather than tying the main section of their website to a percentage of the full page.
Those stupidly designe sites have a lot of whitespace alongside the content--which is just plain annoying, IMO.
I mean I guess the task bar is close but that interface sucks...when will we get a mini thumbnail in the tab?
IIRC, OS X has this. You can get ObjectDock to have the same effect in windows.
As for BeOS--I keep meaning to give it a try, but I'm not sure it'll be worth it.
Unless you can prove that the majority of gun owners are E.g. using their firearms to effectivly bore holes for the purposes of wood working, a gun is designed to destroy or damage. Which is the whole point, which is why a gun is different to an SUV or a knife, and which you know full well but will go blue in the face attempting to deny, in order to cling on to an outdated, un-needed and useless section of the constitution.
Anyone who tries to tell you that the 2nd amendment was intended for hunting is lying to you.
The right to bear arms is as necessary to a free society as trial by jury. Normally, they AREN'T necessary--normally the police aren't ineffective, the government isn't unacceptably corrupt, and the country isn't being invaded by a hostile power. But disarming the populace would make all three of those more likely, not less.
I'll argue 'til I'm blue in the face that there's no reason at all to be secret about who has a gun, and that gun regulation and control is a Very Good Thing that the NRA should support instead of mock, but I'll also argue against anyone trying to tell me that the 2nd amendment is "outdated, un-needed, and useless."
(yet i cannot become president because i was born in germany)
I'd check about that. If you're born to two american citizens, I think that makes you a "natural-born citizen" as far as the Constitution cares.
Tell 'ya what. If you run for President, I'll swap birth cities with you to make it all well and good.
Including Windows 1.0 in this company is a joke as Windows 1.0 was nothing more than a shell and not a true OS. In fact, it could be argued that Windows was a shell with DOS being the real OS up until Windows 98.
?
Don't you mean XP/NT (depending on when you move "the OS" away from 9x.) or Win95?
All that Win98 did over 95 was IE integration and some small tweaks. DOS was still there, still built-in--and still in a vital part of the OS through ME.
In Win95 MS bundled DOS closer to Windows, such that DOS 7 wasn't called a seperate program, they were (AFAIK) never sold seperately, and DOS always assumed that you wanted to head right into windows.
DOS didn't get tossed until the NT kernel rolled out--which was in NT 3.5 at all, and XP for the "home" market.