Pardon me if I don't trust the creaters of CSS to manage what I can do with the movies I've purchased. Buzz Lightyear of Star Command may be worth purchasing once but 5 or 6 times? I think not.
The question remains why does the RIAA/MPAA get to decide the method of legal copying? Why do they get to mandate that I have to purchase inferior copying tools to replace the superior (but now palladium disabled) copying tool of the general purpose PC?
Because the computer has been used to wildly "pirate" media. Making some data untouchable by anything but the program that made it, a low-level erase, or an OS "delete" command solves this problem in a reasonable manner--unlike, oh, banning the use of sound cards.
Corporate control aside, can't you think of a situation where having data tied to one program would be beneficial to the system's owner? I can.
he answer is clear in both cases. DRM, to be done right, needs to be implemented by a company with a corporate culture that is trustworthy and there must be enough of an escape hatch for people to leave if the controlling firm goes bad. As far as corporate culture goes, MS starts off as the poster boy for corporate bad faith. The only reason that the paranoid scenarios are plausible is that in multiple cases paranoid scenarios have been documented as actual fact years later in court.
You're exactly and totally right. MS has to work up a steep, steep slope to convince people that THEY'RE trustworthy.
But, MS's horrid corporate culture, Palladium IS a good idea, and if MS opens it wide open and there are no back doors whatsoever--then, maybe, it'll live up to their hype.
As for your being a christian, so am I. If you think christianity requires you to abandon your secular duty as a citizen and not speak up against injustice in a democratic republic then I suggest you hit the books a bit more and study our shared faith. Rendering unto Caesar is more than paying your taxes in a society that elects representatives to form a government.
There is a difference between taking part in our democracy and playing politics with morals. I am of the belief that being upfront and honest about what your goals are, and pushing it consistently and without unjustified deviation can be a viable political methodology--and recent Republican political successes support me on this.
The political point wasn't "don't speak up against injustice," it was "take a defenseable position and make demands that you plan on losing.":)
I have a 1.5 year old who loves to teethe on CDs. I have a 3 year old who thinks its a blast to watch her teethe on CDs/DVDs. I *love* making disk images and automounting them for my kid when he logs onto his account so he can play his kids games, and watch his movies.
Ok, I admit I'm confused--you're using a Linux box to use media for your kid, and you've worried about _palladium_ making this unaccessable...
Riiight.
(And in any case, if you _did_ go to Palladium-enabled windows, you'd likely be able to setup the media on your HDD (maybe even on your removable media) and your kid wouldn't even know the difference--well, once he makes his hypothetical OS switch, anyway...)
How about taking a few frames and incorporating them into a report for school (classic fair use)? You'd have to be hopelessly naive to think so.
Hint: You can put those frames into a report the same way that you would from an old VHS tape or a printed book. The digital camera is your friend.
Now would I complain and bitch about Sony CDs only for Sony CD players? Sure I would and so would most parents. Why? Because we would have one more (in reality many more) thing to listen to our kids whine about having to get in order to be acceptable to the in crowd.
So, your kids whine about not having SD media, or Memory sticks? MAN, you're spoiling them.
Oh, and you get the bonus prize for identifying why Sony _won't_ lock down their media--because parents (and other adult consumers) would balk.
You make a key concession when you admit that Palladium will be "beyond the capabilities of most computer professionals to subvert". That implies that some will be able to subvert and those who can will have a portion who will actually do it and distribute the results. Think how exploits are created and passed on to script kiddies. This will be the prompt for the next step, making the scheme mandatory.
Maybe. Maybe, maybe, maybe.
If Palladium is properly designed and lives up to its hype, it'll take a highly skilled 'hacker' (for lack of a better word) to subvert the trust on _one_ machine--and if he distributes his work, whomever purchased those files originally would be traced and brought to trial.
If Palladium _doesn't_ live up to its hype, we're right back where we are today, and you have nothing to worry about.
This will be the prompt for the next step, making the scheme mandatory.
Why? If it doesn't work, making laws to _require_ it everywhere won't make it work any better.
It's illegal to pick a lock, but fairly easy to do--but you don't see locked doors as a requirement everywhere, do you? (And, as I've said before, if Palladium is simply _installed_ everywhere, you can just ignore it and not use it. Heck, MS's own press releases have said as much!)
As for how to fight for what you believe in, I find your tactics naive and unrealistic. You'll always get taken for a sucker if you don't stake out defensible positions and never lead with your bottom line position.
I'm a Christian--I have a religious obligation to be a sucker, and I'd much rather die and go to heaven with all the rest of the suckers than wind up in heaven with folks who play politics with morality.
Oddly enough, it looks like the current Administration in my country agrees with me--and, bugger all, they're getting their agenda passed!
Without any actual agreement, I'm restricted from running certain programs on my computer (servers) to serve up certain data that I have (movies, songss, etc).
No, you're not. If your data is data that you can legally distribute, you can distribute it however you want.
However, if you "data" is someone else's meal ticket/unfinished art, you are restrained from "serving" it just as you're restrained from making a million copies and giving them away.
If Palladium can be so easily circumvented the only reason to spend money developing, pushing, and deploying it is to prepare for the day when it *does* become mandatory. Is that too hard to figure out?
Palladium is a classic "opt in" system.
If I were to make CDs that could only be played in, oh, Sony CD-players, and they were clearly labeled as such, no one could complain or bitch--even if those CD players didn't have any audio-out jacks.
Palladium is purported to work just like this. If you don't want your MP3s to work under Palladium, buy the CDs, rip them yourself, and play them on the same programs you're playing now.
The whole "trusted computing" idea will make it viable to sell content wholly over the 'net with little to no fear of immediate file-sharing. It won't be a risky gamble against probability that relies on the goodwill and generosity of the masses--it'll be enforced at a technical level beyond the capabilities of most computer professionals to subvert.
The 2nd amendment people fight mandatory gun registrations on the same grounds. After the 10th or 15th country that went from registration to confiscation and full bans you draw the line further out where it's still politically viable to resist. The same logic holds true for the banning of the open system general purpose computer.
I hate people who play politics like that.
Pick what's right, and fight for that. Don't pick what's best for your side and scream and hope that you get what's right. Fight what's right and never, ever, EVER change that.
Guns should be tax-deductable, registered, and a free ticket to militia training at the local guard base. There should be no loopholes in the system, no exceptions for dealers or diabilities, no excuses for "losing" a gun--and no one should lose their guns for anything short of gross misuse of firearms.
And just what exactly are these bacteria going to eat while they're inside your skull to build all these little computer parts? Brain tissue? Meninges? Cerebrospinal fluid? Do tell.
I'd wager that they'd subside on the same nutrients from the bloodstream that everyone else does.
The entire copyright regime is an impediment to freedom.
No moreso than marriage, alimony, or employment contracts.
Despite what Ghandi said, everyone has a right to recieve something for their labor. If I come over and setup your computer when you ask, I may be able to take you to court for wages--which I couldn't get if i didn't have the right to those wages.
It (the right to copy) is specifically impinged as a societal bargain (a real honest to God social contract) that creators push along the arts and sciences faster than normal and in exchange get to have a limited monopoly for limited times.
It's not a "limited monopoly" in the constitution. It's a legal securing of a right for a limited time.
When you look at such things as Palladium, you have to ask, is this going to advance or retard the progress of the arts and sciences? I think it will retard it so I'm against it.
How? I mean that, honestly and truly, HOW can Palladium retard the progress of arts and sciences?
Knee-jerk reactions aside, I have heard nothing more malicious about Palladium than "it will let a program write data that only that program can read or write." How, exactly, does that retard the progress of arts and sciences?
I end up losing rights without promised access to new and wonderful goodies. That's no bargain so we either remake the deal or call it off. If the RIAA/MPAA piss off enough people, the latter will be what gets passed.
Unless Palladium becomes mandated--which, if you recall, MS is fighting against--the copyright bargain will remain unchanged no matter what is done.
Once you have a copyright, you can use it however the heck you want, to gain wide distribution or to keep your invention private for yourself. Using a digital system that enforces your (admiditly draconian) agreement for use is hardly an abridgement of the copyright agreement.
Arts and Sciences got along just fine for centuries without perfect digital copies, and I haven't seen file sharing advance any great art or science, myself.
It saddens me that some US people are spending all this time and energy protesting a war that hasn't happened yet and could give a crap about things happening in their own country in regards to their freedom. And it's not just this story, it's all the freedoms that are being taken away thinks to the events of 2001.
Sorry, but your freedoms aren't be impunged here.
Fair Use? You've got the same avenue for fair use that you've always had: you view the work, and then the sample it.
Actual Use? Well, aside from not having a right to have your purchases work perfectly, reading EULAs and only using Palladium-enabled systems that give you the use you want should be enough for that--and if that isn't enough, just don't sue them at all.
As for the freedoms that really are being taken away--we held our arms open, and we were stabbed for it. It'll be awhile before we open our arms like that again. When the South tried to succeed, when communist spies were aiding an enemy who wanted to destroy our way of life, and several other times in our history we have suspended the rights of some to preserve the whole. Yes, we went too far each time--but, paradoxially, if no one went to far, we might never have gotten those rights back.
But to ask users of standard English not run all phrases of standard English through some sort of sensitivity checker prior to use is just another way of enforcing the Christian notion of original sin on everybody. Surely at least some friends of the Cherokees have a few doubts left about the Christian worldview?
HEY!
If you're going to lump all Christians in, you should at least only compare them to as unfair a lumping--that being _all_ native americans, and not just the Cherokee.
Original Sin is defying God, and Jesus of Nazaraeth, who was Christ the Word of God, gave his life to pay it back for all people. Or in other words, the darn deed is done, and we can forget it except as an answer to "what did God ever do for us?"
And, while I'm ranting, sensitivity is only Christian by association. We are bade to love all men as our brothers, and that might mean be nice to them--but it also might mean that we should be honest, and rude, and forthright with them. I feel personally that I have a God-given right to offend people, and I trust that He will let me know if I'm wrong.
If anything, curbing your language because of senitivity is a lie and a deciet and is on that list of things that really should get you kicked out of the Christos-Club.
The Japanese are getting closer and closer everyday to adopting the Puritain view on nudity, i.e. that it's bad and abnormal.
Actually, they're probably just getting closer to the AMERICAN view of nudity--that it's crude and not "artistic." Heck, they might just be getting back to their own view of nudity--that it's not something that people do. (Honestly, last I heard Jappanese culture--as opposed to art--wasn't any more immodest than the American culture that set up their current government.)
And anyway, it is hard to be artistic when your work can be used as porn.
Sure there is, Jeans, T-shirt, and sneakers, blend right in.
That's a disguise. It's not camo.
Not that there isn't your redneck in camo, but i think most can tell the differance. The M16 helps in this way.
Plus the fact that soldier-boy's clothes are neat, he's standing at attention, and he's wearing a full uniform. Most rednecks wear some camo, occasionally, and even that is of a distinctly differnet cut than what the military uses.
Though I can't imagine even the most red redneck wearing camo to an airport today...
Actually, we should probably call it "Der Vaterland Sicherhiet." I never thought I'd see the day when you would see assault rifles and fatigues in American airports.
You've obviously never been to a military base, then. I grew up expecting the military guys to be guarding the airport.
Say, don't you thing that Green Camoflague is a bit inneffecting in an urban combat environment, like an Airport?
Yes and no.
Yes, because it makes for shitty cameflogue.
No, because there's no such thing as good urban camo, and the green camo's utility as a uniform is far better.
And, no, because most cities have parks and surrounding woodland.
Mayhap the reviewer needs to take a look at history for a bit.
Prior to the modern era, human life was cheap. Incredibly cheap. Armies fought essentially by throwing "cannon fodder" at each other in a hope to win by overwhelming the other side's meat grinder. Industry fired employees for damaging the machines by getting thier limbs caught up in the gearworks--why not, the employees were by far less expensive than the machine!
Quite simply, the farther back in time you go, back to the dawn of our civilization, the cheaper human life gets. The 20th century didn't "cheapen" human life--we put a value on it far above that of any other time in history.
Maybe in your redneck jurisdiction, but not in mine--and certainly not in CA.
EULAs are sometimes to have _some_ of their terms found unenforceable, and _some_ EULAs no doubt get thrown out for bad design--but last I heard, the USSC was behind them as "valid contracts."
The right to reverse engineer a product for interoperability is a fundamental right, and without it, we'd have no technology industry, period. Those who try to take this right will reap what they sow. Fuck em.
While you of course make sense for an American-bigoted view (We'd never have gotten the Industrial Revolution if not for corporate espionage), for a big enough "we", your point falls flat on its face.
Innovation might slow down, but the "technology industry" certainly wouldn't vanish.
I think id rather deal with the satanists then a bunch of people who go out of their way to let me know what religion they happen to believe in.. at least satanists seem to be quieter about their worships..
This is/., and I operate differently here.
I don't go up to people and say "hiya, I'm a Christain and I want to introduce you to Fuzzy Jr." But on slashdot, I've found that it solves more issues than it starts to get the "I believe in a religion, and it's not Bhuddism" point out of the way as early as possible.
If you can think of a nice, subtle way to point that out, I'd love to hear it.
Uh-huh. So how, exactly, have the principles of fermentation changed over the past few thousand years?
Fermentation has changed as much--well, more, actually--as politics, language, or religion has changed.
Sure, the fundamentals are same--we all speak using groups of phenomes, we all have some of us making decisions for the rest of us, and we all wonder about what's out there--but there's a heck of a difference between Romulus and Remus and George W. Bush.
Oh, and incidentally, go and look up "zythum" somewhere. Roman beer (well ale, technically, but I don't expect a USian to be able to tell the difference).
It's American, Eurotrash. (Hey, you get to malign my country, I get to malign your free market.)
You respond to my posting of "wine and beer have changed" with a quip about the difference between Beer and Ale? Do I even need to respond to that?
Interchangeable parts, thermometers, and refrigeration have changed beer and wine as much as any other aspect of society.
Oddly enough, all the grand Age of Reason did to my religion was slap it back to where it was just after The Man died. "Beer and Wine don't change" indeed.
Having a "members only" part of the 'net is hardly a new idea, and it certainly won't cause the extant public net to suddenly go away.
Truth be told, pay-for-access 'nets are the best answer anyone's thought of for micropayments.
If you could buy anything that Time Warner produced, electronically, for a nominal fee, but you had have an AOL account--well, this being/. you probably wouldn't, but I'm sure you could see the reason why someone would.
Odd, but hasn't the world of alcoholic beverages undergone a lot more upheaval than the world's major world religions?
Beer seems all but unheard of two thousand years ago, and I wager that "wine" from the time before that bore little resemblance to what we have today...
but don't get me wrong. "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." (Ben Franklin)
Every time I see an AOL commercial on TV, I think "man, their advertising department needs to be shot."
If I wasn't so entrenched in my current e-mail, I'd consdier getting AOL on top of my RoadRunner account. For the same price as RR, I'd get a whole slew of content et al that isn't out on the web at large.
I remember how AOL used to be, back in the days before my parents bailed and got a local ISP. It was fast, volomious, and the "custom AOL" bits were far slicker than anything i've seen before or since.
Forget about the ISP bit--let the market have that crowd. AOL should go after folks who have an internet connection, by promoting what they can do that the rest of the 'net can't.
If their only pitch is that they're easy to use, then they're going to get taken off just like any other set of training wheels.
And you gave me the exact reasons why I tend to trust science over faith...standards of evidence.
Ok. Then maybe you can tell the historical evolutionists that they should really be held to the same standards of evidence as every other branch of science--and if that puts them out of a job, well, tough.
(The rest of your post is spot-on, btw. And thanks for the compliment.)
Surely you don't suggest that Indians shouldn't be allowed to get the best paying jobs they can and sell software overseas?
Indians should not be able to do a job in the US without being subject to US labor laws. Forget the internet, and let them move the whole shop--management and all--if they really think that India's cheap labor is good.
No, clearly you're made of special god goo. I mean heck, that god goo must be the crucial difference between you and the chimp that looks a lot like you and shares a lot of your DNA.
That's not a scientific argument. You can make all of the rhetorical, philisophical, or religious arugments you want, and say any darn thing you want in those arguments. But the moment that you call it "science", you had better hold yourself to the same standard of evidence that everyone else (and every other branch of science) is held to.
Semantics....the WHY of the big bang is just another form of WHAT was there "before" the big bang and HOW did the big bang "happen".
No, it isn't.
Let's settle the semantics issue right here.
Science can tell us that Hiroshima was destroyed--this is the WHAT.
Science can tell us that an atomic bomb destroyed Hiroshima--the HOW.
But "science" cannot tell us why the US bombed Hiroshima--the WHY. We have to take the word of those who were there if we want to answer WHY.
Religion just says "here's the border of what you can hope to understand, don't even bother thinking you're way around it, that's God's turf".
Mine doesn't. My religion says "God is out there, and he made all of this, and he loves you." It doesn't so much as mention "don't even try to understand how I made this" or "don't even try and learn how it's all put together." Heck, God never said "don't try and understand me." He may have said "don't waste your time--you won't figure it out"--but that's something else, and He's been wrong before.
Admittedly testing theories at these levels is difficult, but I don't think it's sporting to just give up because "God says pay no attention to the man behind the curtain".
OK. Figure out a way to disprove the existance of a being who is not bound by time and has no physical form, who set up the natural order and likes it this way, who wants humanity to become better than we are--and who has admited to us that he wants to stay hidden.
Testing the existance of God isn't just difficult--it's out and out impossible.
I think the point he was trying to make is that you suggest that science is foolish in attempting to explain the origins of everything when you have the answer. "God did it."
I certainly didn't say that.
Science can explain and conjecture all that it wants, about any real thing that we can see and observe. But as far as propertly agnostic science is concerned, God is as irrelevant as fiction.
Oh, and at its heart isn't religion entirely about saying how the world is, why it is that way and where it came from? Only after you have answered those questions with "god(s)" can you start asking "What does God want from me
Yes, religion asks and answers "why." Not how, not what, just "why."
Slashdot Mirror
Pardon me if I don't trust the creaters of CSS to manage what I can do with the movies I've purchased. Buzz Lightyear of Star Command may be worth purchasing once but 5 or 6 times? I think not.
:)
You're exactly right. You should buy a work And until you do that, you should be able to make as many copies for your use as you want--but, by the same token, the copyright holder should be able to take reasonable measures to ensure that you don't make copies for all your friends.
The question remains why does the RIAA/MPAA get to decide the method of legal copying? Why do they get to mandate that I have to purchase inferior copying tools to replace the superior (but now palladium disabled) copying tool of the general purpose PC?
Because the computer has been used to wildly "pirate" media. Making some data untouchable by anything but the program that made it, a low-level erase, or an OS "delete" command solves this problem in a reasonable manner--unlike, oh, banning the use of sound cards.
Corporate control aside, can't you think of a situation where having data tied to one program would be beneficial to the system's owner? I can.
he answer is clear in both cases. DRM, to be done right, needs to be implemented by a company with a corporate culture that is trustworthy and there must be enough of an escape hatch for people to leave if the controlling firm goes bad. As far as corporate culture goes, MS starts off as the poster boy for corporate bad faith. The only reason that the paranoid scenarios are plausible is that in multiple cases paranoid scenarios have been documented as actual fact years later in court.
You're exactly and totally right. MS has to work up a steep, steep slope to convince people that THEY'RE trustworthy.
But, MS's horrid corporate culture, Palladium IS a good idea, and if MS opens it wide open and there are no back doors whatsoever--then, maybe, it'll live up to their hype.
As for your being a christian, so am I. If you think christianity requires you to abandon your secular duty as a citizen and not speak up against injustice in a democratic republic then I suggest you hit the books a bit more and study our shared faith. Rendering unto Caesar is more than paying your taxes in a society that elects representatives to form a government.
There is a difference between taking part in our democracy and playing politics with morals. I am of the belief that being upfront and honest about what your goals are, and pushing it consistently and without unjustified deviation can be a viable political methodology--and recent Republican political successes support me on this.
The political point wasn't "don't speak up against injustice," it was "take a defenseable position and make demands that you plan on losing."
I have a 1.5 year old who loves to teethe on CDs. I have a 3 year old who thinks its a blast to watch her teethe on CDs/DVDs. I *love* making disk images and automounting them for my kid when he logs onto his account so he can play his kids games, and watch his movies.
Ok, I admit I'm confused--you're using a Linux box to use media for your kid, and you've worried about _palladium_ making this unaccessable...
Riiight.
(And in any case, if you _did_ go to Palladium-enabled windows, you'd likely be able to setup the media on your HDD (maybe even on your removable media) and your kid wouldn't even know the difference--well, once he makes his hypothetical OS switch, anyway...)
How about taking a few frames and incorporating them into a report for school (classic fair use)? You'd have to be hopelessly naive to think so.
Hint: You can put those frames into a report the same way that you would from an old VHS tape or a printed book. The digital camera is your friend.
Now would I complain and bitch about Sony CDs only for Sony CD players? Sure I would and so would most parents. Why? Because we would have one more (in reality many more) thing to listen to our kids whine about having to get in order to be acceptable to the in crowd.
So, your kids whine about not having SD media, or Memory sticks? MAN, you're spoiling them.
Oh, and you get the bonus prize for identifying why Sony _won't_ lock down their media--because parents (and other adult consumers) would balk.
You make a key concession when you admit that Palladium will be "beyond the capabilities of most computer professionals to subvert". That implies that some will be able to subvert and those who can will have a portion who will actually do it and distribute the results. Think how exploits are created and passed on to script kiddies. This will be the prompt for the next step, making the scheme mandatory.
Maybe. Maybe, maybe, maybe.
If Palladium is properly designed and lives up to its hype, it'll take a highly skilled 'hacker' (for lack of a better word) to subvert the trust on _one_ machine--and if he distributes his work, whomever purchased those files originally would be traced and brought to trial.
If Palladium _doesn't_ live up to its hype, we're right back where we are today, and you have nothing to worry about.
This will be the prompt for the next step, making the scheme mandatory.
Why? If it doesn't work, making laws to _require_ it everywhere won't make it work any better.
It's illegal to pick a lock, but fairly easy to do--but you don't see locked doors as a requirement everywhere, do you? (And, as I've said before, if Palladium is simply _installed_ everywhere, you can just ignore it and not use it. Heck, MS's own press releases have said as much!)
As for how to fight for what you believe in, I find your tactics naive and unrealistic. You'll always get taken for a sucker if you don't stake out defensible positions and never lead with your bottom line position.
I'm a Christian--I have a religious obligation to be a sucker, and I'd much rather die and go to heaven with all the rest of the suckers than wind up in heaven with folks who play politics with morality.
Oddly enough, it looks like the current Administration in my country agrees with me--and, bugger all, they're getting their agenda passed!
Without any actual agreement, I'm restricted from running certain programs on my computer (servers) to serve up certain data that I have (movies, songss, etc).
No, you're not. If your data is data that you can legally distribute, you can distribute it however you want.
However, if you "data" is someone else's meal ticket/unfinished art, you are restrained from "serving" it just as you're restrained from making a million copies and giving them away.
If Palladium can be so easily circumvented the only reason to spend money developing, pushing, and deploying it is to prepare for the day when it *does* become mandatory. Is that too hard to figure out?
Palladium is a classic "opt in" system.
If I were to make CDs that could only be played in, oh, Sony CD-players, and they were clearly labeled as such, no one could complain or bitch--even if those CD players didn't have any audio-out jacks.
Palladium is purported to work just like this. If you don't want your MP3s to work under Palladium, buy the CDs, rip them yourself, and play them on the same programs you're playing now.
The whole "trusted computing" idea will make it viable to sell content wholly over the 'net with little to no fear of immediate file-sharing. It won't be a risky gamble against probability that relies on the goodwill and generosity of the masses--it'll be enforced at a technical level beyond the capabilities of most computer professionals to subvert.
The 2nd amendment people fight mandatory gun registrations on the same grounds. After the 10th or 15th country that went from registration to confiscation and full bans you draw the line further out where it's still politically viable to resist. The same logic holds true for the banning of the open system general purpose computer.
I hate people who play politics like that.
Pick what's right, and fight for that. Don't pick what's best for your side and scream and hope that you get what's right. Fight what's right and never, ever, EVER change that.
Guns should be tax-deductable, registered, and a free ticket to militia training at the local guard base. There should be no loopholes in the system, no exceptions for dealers or diabilities, no excuses for "losing" a gun--and no one should lose their guns for anything short of gross misuse of firearms.
And just what exactly are these bacteria going to eat while they're inside your skull to build all these little computer parts? Brain tissue? Meninges? Cerebrospinal fluid? Do tell.
I'd wager that they'd subside on the same nutrients from the bloodstream that everyone else does.
The entire copyright regime is an impediment to freedom.
No moreso than marriage, alimony, or employment contracts.
Despite what Ghandi said, everyone has a right to recieve something for their labor. If I come over and setup your computer when you ask, I may be able to take you to court for wages--which I couldn't get if i didn't have the right to those wages.
It (the right to copy) is specifically impinged as a societal bargain (a real honest to God social contract) that creators push along the arts and sciences faster than normal and in exchange get to have a limited monopoly for limited times.
It's not a "limited monopoly" in the constitution. It's a legal securing of a right for a limited time.
When you look at such things as Palladium, you have to ask, is this going to advance or retard the progress of the arts and sciences? I think it will retard it so I'm against it.
How? I mean that, honestly and truly, HOW can Palladium retard the progress of arts and sciences?
Knee-jerk reactions aside, I have heard nothing more malicious about Palladium than "it will let a program write data that only that program can read or write." How, exactly, does that retard the progress of arts and sciences?
I end up losing rights without promised access to new and wonderful goodies. That's no bargain so we either remake the deal or call it off. If the RIAA/MPAA piss off enough people, the latter will be what gets passed.
Unless Palladium becomes mandated--which, if you recall, MS is fighting against--the copyright bargain will remain unchanged no matter what is done.
Once you have a copyright, you can use it however the heck you want, to gain wide distribution or to keep your invention private for yourself. Using a digital system that enforces your (admiditly draconian) agreement for use is hardly an abridgement of the copyright agreement.
Arts and Sciences got along just fine for centuries without perfect digital copies, and I haven't seen file sharing advance any great art or science, myself.
It saddens me that some US people are spending all this time and energy protesting a war that hasn't happened yet and could give a crap about things happening in their own country in regards to their freedom. And it's not just this story, it's all the freedoms that are being taken away thinks to the events of 2001.
Sorry, but your freedoms aren't be impunged here.
Fair Use? You've got the same avenue for fair use that you've always had: you view the work, and then the sample it.
Actual Use? Well, aside from not having a right to have your purchases work perfectly, reading EULAs and only using Palladium-enabled systems that give you the use you want should be enough for that--and if that isn't enough, just don't sue them at all.
As for the freedoms that really are being taken away--we held our arms open, and we were stabbed for it. It'll be awhile before we open our arms like that again. When the South tried to succeed, when communist spies were aiding an enemy who wanted to destroy our way of life, and several other times in our history we have suspended the rights of some to preserve the whole. Yes, we went too far each time--but, paradoxially, if no one went to far, we might never have gotten those rights back.
But to ask users of standard English not run all phrases of standard English through some sort of sensitivity checker prior to use is just another way of enforcing the Christian notion of original sin on everybody. Surely at least some friends of the Cherokees have a few doubts left about the Christian worldview?
HEY!
If you're going to lump all Christians in, you should at least only compare them to as unfair a lumping--that being _all_ native americans, and not just the Cherokee.
Original Sin is defying God, and Jesus of Nazaraeth, who was Christ the Word of God, gave his life to pay it back for all people. Or in other words, the darn deed is done, and we can forget it except as an answer to "what did God ever do for us?"
And, while I'm ranting, sensitivity is only Christian by association. We are bade to love all men as our brothers, and that might mean be nice to them--but it also might mean that we should be honest, and rude, and forthright with them. I feel personally that I have a God-given right to offend people, and I trust that He will let me know if I'm wrong.
If anything, curbing your language because of senitivity is a lie and a deciet and is on that list of things that really should get you kicked out of the Christos-Club.
The Japanese are getting closer and closer everyday to adopting the Puritain view on nudity, i.e. that it's bad and abnormal.
Actually, they're probably just getting closer to the AMERICAN view of nudity--that it's crude and not "artistic." Heck, they might just be getting back to their own view of nudity--that it's not something that people do. (Honestly, last I heard Jappanese culture--as opposed to art--wasn't any more immodest than the American culture that set up their current government.)
And anyway, it is hard to be artistic when your work can be used as porn.
Sure there is, Jeans, T-shirt, and sneakers, blend right in.
That's a disguise. It's not camo.
Not that there isn't your redneck in camo, but i think most can tell the differance. The M16 helps in this way.
Plus the fact that soldier-boy's clothes are neat, he's standing at attention, and he's wearing a full uniform. Most rednecks wear some camo, occasionally, and even that is of a distinctly differnet cut than what the military uses.
Though I can't imagine even the most red redneck wearing camo to an airport today...
Actually, we should probably call it "Der Vaterland Sicherhiet." I never thought I'd see the day when you would see assault rifles and fatigues in American airports.
You've obviously never been to a military base, then. I grew up expecting the military guys to be guarding the airport.
Say, don't you thing that Green Camoflague is a bit inneffecting in an urban combat environment, like an Airport?
Yes and no.
Yes, because it makes for shitty cameflogue.
No, because there's no such thing as good urban camo, and the green camo's utility as a uniform is far better.
And, no, because most cities have parks and surrounding woodland.
I don't see how you can equate conditions in turn of the centry industry, and the Holocaust(sic).
Jews weren't considered cheap. They were considered a dangerous people who "needed" to be cut out of german society.
If they were "cheap", they would just have let them die--or, rather, not cared about them.
Writing the code, or giving out the code is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than USING the code to break the law.
You're right. That's why Congress passed the DMCA.
Arrest one script kiddie, and you give some punk a free education.
Arrest the black-hat hacker who makes the scripts for the kiddies, and you can actually do something.
I want communication separated out by purpose.
Then get a seperate line for your "business", and one for yourself. Any filtering beyond that can be handled by Caller ID.
Mayhap the reviewer needs to take a look at history for a bit.
Prior to the modern era, human life was cheap. Incredibly cheap. Armies fought essentially by throwing "cannon fodder" at each other in a hope to win by overwhelming the other side's meat grinder. Industry fired employees for damaging the machines by getting thier limbs caught up in the gearworks--why not, the employees were by far less expensive than the machine!
Quite simply, the farther back in time you go, back to the dawn of our civilization, the cheaper human life gets. The 20th century didn't "cheapen" human life--we put a value on it far above that of any other time in history.
EULA == nonbinding, unenforceable, illegal contract. Sorry bug, try again.
Maybe in your redneck jurisdiction, but not in mine--and certainly not in CA.
EULAs are sometimes to have _some_ of their terms found unenforceable, and _some_ EULAs no doubt get thrown out for bad design--but last I heard, the USSC was behind them as "valid contracts."
The right to reverse engineer a product for interoperability is a fundamental right, and without it, we'd have no technology industry, period. Those who try to take this right will reap what they sow. Fuck em.
While you of course make sense for an American-bigoted view (We'd never have gotten the Industrial Revolution if not for corporate espionage), for a big enough "we", your point falls flat on its face.
Innovation might slow down, but the "technology industry" certainly wouldn't vanish.
I think id rather deal with the satanists then a bunch of people who go out of their way to let me know what religion they happen to believe in.. at least satanists seem to be quieter about their worships..
/., and I operate differently here.
This is
I don't go up to people and say "hiya, I'm a Christain and I want to introduce you to Fuzzy Jr." But on slashdot, I've found that it solves more issues than it starts to get the "I believe in a religion, and it's not Bhuddism" point out of the way as early as possible.
If you can think of a nice, subtle way to point that out, I'd love to hear it.
Uh-huh. So how, exactly, have the principles of fermentation changed over the past few thousand years?
Fermentation has changed as much--well, more, actually--as politics, language, or religion has changed.
Sure, the fundamentals are same--we all speak using groups of phenomes, we all have some of us making decisions for the rest of us, and we all wonder about what's out there--but there's a heck of a difference between Romulus and Remus and George W. Bush.
Oh, and incidentally, go and look up "zythum" somewhere. Roman beer (well ale, technically, but I don't expect a USian to be able to tell the difference).
It's American, Eurotrash. (Hey, you get to malign my country, I get to malign your free market.)
You respond to my posting of "wine and beer have changed" with a quip about the difference between Beer and Ale? Do I even need to respond to that?
Interchangeable parts, thermometers, and refrigeration have changed beer and wine as much as any other aspect of society.
Oddly enough, all the grand Age of Reason did to my religion was slap it back to where it was just after The Man died. "Beer and Wine don't change" indeed.
Urmmm, and? Are they somehow mutually exclusive?
To some folks, yes.
I don't mean those semi-animated storybooks like Final Fantasy that call themselves RPGs. I mean real, create storytelling, pen-and-paper RPGs.
You know, the ones that had organizations founded to shut them down because they were "satanic."
And why would that be a bad thing?
/. you probably wouldn't, but I'm sure you could see the reason why someone would.
Having a "members only" part of the 'net is hardly a new idea, and it certainly won't cause the extant public net to suddenly go away.
Truth be told, pay-for-access 'nets are the best answer anyone's thought of for micropayments.
If you could buy anything that Time Warner produced, electronically, for a nominal fee, but you had have an AOL account--well, this being
Odd, but hasn't the world of alcoholic beverages undergone a lot more upheaval than the world's major world religions?
Beer seems all but unheard of two thousand years ago, and I wager that "wine" from the time before that bore little resemblance to what we have today...
but don't get me wrong. "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." (Ben Franklin)
Every time I see an AOL commercial on TV, I think "man, their advertising department needs to be shot."
If I wasn't so entrenched in my current e-mail, I'd consdier getting AOL on top of my RoadRunner account. For the same price as RR, I'd get a whole slew of content et al that isn't out on the web at large.
I remember how AOL used to be, back in the days before my parents bailed and got a local ISP. It was fast, volomious, and the "custom AOL" bits were far slicker than anything i've seen before or since.
Forget about the ISP bit--let the market have that crowd. AOL should go after folks who have an internet connection, by promoting what they can do that the rest of the 'net can't.
If their only pitch is that they're easy to use, then they're going to get taken off just like any other set of training wheels.
And you gave me the exact reasons why I tend to trust science over faith...standards of evidence.
Ok. Then maybe you can tell the historical evolutionists that they should really be held to the same standards of evidence as every other branch of science--and if that puts them out of a job, well, tough.
(The rest of your post is spot-on, btw. And thanks for the compliment.)
Surely you don't suggest that Indians shouldn't be allowed to get the best paying jobs they can and sell software overseas?
Indians should not be able to do a job in the US without being subject to US labor laws. Forget the internet, and let them move the whole shop--management and all--if they really think that India's cheap labor is good.
No, clearly you're made of special god goo. I mean heck, that god goo must be the crucial difference between you and the chimp that looks a lot like you and shares a lot of your DNA.
That's not a scientific argument. You can make all of the rhetorical, philisophical, or religious arugments you want, and say any darn thing you want in those arguments. But the moment that you call it "science", you had better hold yourself to the same standard of evidence that everyone else (and every other branch of science) is held to.
Semantics....the WHY of the big bang is just another form of WHAT was there "before" the big bang and HOW did the big bang "happen".
No, it isn't.
Let's settle the semantics issue right here.
Science can tell us that Hiroshima was destroyed--this is the WHAT.
Science can tell us that an atomic bomb destroyed Hiroshima--the HOW.
But "science" cannot tell us why the US bombed Hiroshima--the WHY. We have to take the word of those who were there if we want to answer WHY.
Religion just says "here's the border of what you can hope to understand, don't even bother thinking you're way around it, that's God's turf".
Mine doesn't. My religion says "God is out there, and he made all of this, and he loves you." It doesn't so much as mention "don't even try to understand how I made this" or "don't even try and learn how it's all put together." Heck, God never said "don't try and understand me." He may have said "don't waste your time--you won't figure it out"--but that's something else, and He's been wrong before.
Admittedly testing theories at these levels is difficult, but I don't think it's sporting to just give up because "God says pay no attention to the man behind the curtain".
OK. Figure out a way to disprove the existance of a being who is not bound by time and has no physical form, who set up the natural order and likes it this way, who wants humanity to become better than we are--and who has admited to us that he wants to stay hidden.
Testing the existance of God isn't just difficult--it's out and out impossible.
I think the point he was trying to make is that you suggest that science is foolish in attempting to explain the origins of everything when you have the answer. "God did it."
I certainly didn't say that.
Science can explain and conjecture all that it wants, about any real thing that we can see and observe. But as far as propertly agnostic science is concerned, God is as irrelevant as fiction.
Oh, and at its heart isn't religion entirely about saying how the world is, why it is that way and where it came from? Only after you have answered those questions with "god(s)" can you start asking "What does God want from me
Yes, religion asks and answers "why." Not how, not what, just "why."