To which I'd say... most Westerners take a free nation for granted. You grossly underestimate the value of this privilege. Imagine living in Afghanistan. Or Sierra Leone. Or even Fiji.
It's really easy to say that when you've got a full belly and a roof over your head for the foreseeable future, isn't it?
And who are you to judge the importance of the stability of the state? What if the state is engaged in wrongdoing? Should we preserve stability at all costs? Seems like a strange end to strive for...
Sigh. You really have no concept of the real world, do you? The state had better be engaged in a damn good deal of wrongdoing before you start acting up, because chances are you'd make matters much worse in the process of trying to "improve" things.
If the opposite of stability is chaos and anarchy, that's one thing.
Yes. And it's only because the Western world is so rich and complacent that it can sometimes afford to have stability and freedom at the same time -- and even then, sometimes sacrifices need to me made to keep the nation from sliding down a slippery spiral into chaos and lawlessness.
Often, though, "stability" is a placated populace, happily listening to Britney Spears and munching on Cheetos, and threats to that notion of "stability" are dealt with severely. That sort of stability generates the big bucks.
That's all what you've chosen to do with the fact that you're rich and content enough to not have to worry about whether rebel (or government) militia leaders are going to come to your house and steal all your food (at best).
People in the Western world (especially the US) are generally well-off enough that freedom can coexist with stability. They don't want to lose what they have. However, when you start getting desperate elements in the population (who have the power to make life miserable for everyone), the story changes.
I mean, everyone knows that whenever a government practices surveillance on its citizens, it's only if that citizen is truly a dangerous criminal. A quick scan of history reveals that, right off!
What makes you so much more fit to judge who's a criminal and who's not than your government?
All those communists in the McCarthy era got what was coming to them.
They were undermining the stability of the state, a charge that most Westerners greatly underestimate the importance of. True, theese people were charged for the wrong thing, but those were trying times for the American nation, and unruly groups causing chaos and unrest were the last thing it needed.
And those damn Japanese-Americans during WWII.
This was out of line, agreed.
Arlo Guthrie most certainly deserved to have his life on file at the FBI. As did Pete Seeger. Damned agitators...
Once again, most Westerners take a stable nation for granted. You grossly underestimate the value of this privilege. Imagine living in Afghanistan. Or Sierra Leone. Or even Fiji.
1. I have a door with a broken lock and I don't tell anybody.
2. I have a door with a broken lock and I put a sign in my front lawn reading, "I have a broken Brand X lock. Can somebody tell me where to get a new one?"
Sure, security through obscurity isn't so good when it's used by itself, but it certainly helps.
First Echelon, then Carnivore, and now yet another attempt to track the actions of average citizens on the Internet.
Wait, I thought they said "perpetrators of DDoS attacks".
Sure, stopping DDoS attacks sounds good in theory, but so does stopping "child molesters" or "foreign spies."
Uh.... Those sound good in practice, too, I think. Do you have any reasons to the contrary?
Like we need more information about ourselves being handed out online.
Like anyone even cares about what you do online. I'm constantly amazed by the number of Slashdot readers that have delusions of government agencies tracking their every move online, reading their every email, and so on. "They" just plain don't care about most of you. Get it? It may be comforting to have these delusions that you are somehow significant, but I'm pretty sure that nobody here is important enough for "them" to care about.
And then there's the everpresent question of just who "they" are.
I'm sick and tired of good intentions being used to defend bad plans.
Well, that's wonderful, but I don't see any good plans coming from you. If you don't like the plan, come up with a better one.
People have gotten away with taking our guns (protected by the Third Amendment)
Second.
We can't let take them our right to privacy too.
Funny, I don't recall seeing an amendment guaranteeing you a "right to privacy."
The majority of net users do not conduct DDoS attacks. Therefore, there is no need for an anti-DoS ICMP.
The majority of citizens do not commit murders. Therefore there is no need for a police homicide unit.
I think it's pretty obvious to everyone that something fishy is going on down at the Napster corporation: parasitising the work of musicians and artists for their own corporate gain, defended with a thinly-disguised cry of "information wants to be free," while they're extremely tight-fisted with their own property.
What's not obvious, though, is what might be the real reason behind this whole mess. Think carefully for a moment. What group was one of the biggest contributors to Bill Clinton's campaign and to the Democrats? Entertainment. (Especially Hollywood.) What group is this hurting most? Big entertainment corporations.
The current controversy surrounding DeCSS and the MPAA only serves to make things clearer. And whose suspicions wouldn't be raised by the sentence:
Mr. Amram also helped Napster raise money from the large pool of wealthy "angel" investors that resides in Silicon Valley, especially those with "dot-com" money
-- when Newt Gingrich is currently politically and financially active in Silicon Valley? (Check the July 24 issue of Newsweek.) This seems to me like a blatantly illegal attempt by the Republican party to punish the entertainment industry for financing Democratic campaigns.
Let's face it. The users of these services are breaking very clear copyright laws. I can't see any real defense for this, or any reason that the trial's not over already, unless somebody very powerful is defending these criminals behind the scenes. And I can't see any reason that the news media would have cause to defend (yes, defend. what else would you call the NYT linking to 2600?) this ragtag bunch of pirates unless they've got a very good reason to.
I'm not crying foul over this -- power politics is a rough game, and people are going to play it, and all I have to say to those who don't like it is, "deal with it." This just might be a good thing to keep in mind.
I think you're confusing a scam with a hoax. A hoax is meant to be a joke on people that results in no harm, except possibly to the pride of the humor-impaired.
Where, exactly, are you supposed to draw this line? If play a prank that results in someone's death, you can be convicted for manslaughter, and if you run a hoax that results in someone losing money, you should be prosecuted for fraud.
"No, your honor, my blatantly fraudulent MLM scheme was a hoax! Honest! Funny, ha ha, get it?"
1. Airwaves are public property. Treat them as such. If you don't, it's your fault when somebody reads your mail.
2. A government has the final say over what its land is used for. Once again, if you don't keep this in mind, it's your fault when your messages get intercepted.
When there's so much strong encryption readily available, I'm amazed that people will complain about this sort of thing at length rather than use the most basic measures to prevent it.
..and perhaps a life. ...and take a class in critical thinking...
Sigh.
It seems all people have for me these days is personal attacks.
Dead wrong. I'm not the hoaxer and I am greatly amused. It's hard to type while holding your belly with both hands.
Ok. Hoaxers and people with twisted, sadistic senses of humor. Fair enough?
Waste your time perhaps, but this sort of entertainment is much more enjoyable than spending hours if front of a tv. Go download a good Steven King book!
I hate TV. And I certainly have better forms of entertainment than this.
No, they cause you to make plans with out verifying data. That's your mistake, not mine, not theirs.
I've seen plenty of hoaxes that had all the credibility in the world (I did plenty of research) until the hoaxers revealed the hoax. I've even made future purchasing decisions based on some of the most credible.
I now often miss great opportunities because they're hard to verify and often seem like hoaxes.
Hahaha, this is a good one. I can see it now. You stand up in front of the court and say "I solemnly swear that yes I am stupid enough to be taken in by this scam, this scam that has done nothing but deflect me from my other stupid ideas and has prevented me from doing other stupid things." It's going to be interesting proving damage.
"Yes, your honor, the S&L did take all my money and not return any of it."
I will doubt you from day one until you show me that I should change my mind.
Yeah, and everything's right and wrong or black and white and nothing in between,too, right? You have to have a certain amount of trust in your fellows to function in this world. If you don't, you're a paranoid. Doubt is fine, but this incessant hoaxing means I have to actively distrust everything I see. It also mean that people with new and innovative ideas who are short on resources don't really have much of an ability to build credibility because nobody will trust them much in the first place.
You are the one that abuses trust and credibility by giving these valuable and powerful items away without regard for the consequences of your actions
Look, idiot, I think there is just about no one posting to Slashdot or in the entire software industry who doesn't actually work for Micros~1 who thinks that the power they wield is a "right."
Oh. Really. Well, I guess it's understandable that you overlook Sun and Oracle and IBM and Adobe and Corel and all those other minor little companies that exercise those exact same rights.
In fact, I'm pretty sure that's why the Federal Government decided to break them up.
I certainly don't see another IBM antitrust trial on the horizon.
Don't cite Micros~1, for God's sake, as an example of fair business practices if you want to get any respect.
Ok. Apple. Borland / Inprise. Napster. They all exercise that same right.
Oh, and I realize some people (yourself included) will figure this whole post is invalid because I called you an idiot.
Translation: "I know my argument is weak, but I'll attempt to discredit you by trying to get you to base your defense on my blatant attacks on your intelligence."
I call 'em as I see 'em.
Please consult an optometrist.
Oh, and I normally don't read responses to my posts... or posts that are at 1 (or lower). But feel free to reply anyway.
"I want to have a way out in case I can't think of any way to rebut what you have to say."
It is much more likely that a potential infringer would use a Microsoft Windows tool rather than a Linux tool.
If the DeCSS people had never published it, these people probably wouldn't have found the decryption algorithm, correct? So they're all essentially DeCSS offshoots.
In fact there are several Windows programs to decrypt DVDs, why are they not in court?
Copyright (and other intellectual property) isn't some sort of magical natural right. It's something we've set up as a society because in general it's a good idea that promotes creative expression.
How is this relevant?
However, it's not an infinite right -- there are limits to its extent, including the fair use doctrine. These limits exist for exactly the same reason as the IP laws themselves: the benefit of the public as a whole.
So, if I understand you, copyright is good, but it's bad. Which is it?
But why should we radically increase the rights given? Large copyright interests are taking the opportunity presented by digital media to attempt an overcompensation -- they're asking for rights they've never had before.
You're completely ignoring my point. We're giving Microsoft rights that we're not giving the MPAA and the RIAA. Why shouldn't the MPAA have the same rights as Microsoft?
DeCSS is simply a tool that lets you decode the format of a DVD movie. What you do with the movie after that is your buisness, legal or illegal.
What other need would you have for it? Handguns are heavily regulated, despite a constitutional amendment that often gets in the way -- DeCSS is in the very same category.
Banning a tool simply because it has the ability to facilitate illegal actions is as stupid as banning a hammer for the same reason (you could break into a house via smashing a window, or injure someone with it).
I agree -- to an extent. If a tool has no real purpose other than lawbreaking, it should certainly be banned. Hammers are use in carpentry and plenty of other things. Assault rifles and lockpicks and DeCSS are use primarily for lawbreaking. One group should be regulated. The other shouldn't. Simple enough?
It seems that you can't go for ten minutes ago on the Internet these days without seeing a hoax. SETI Accelerator, the "Slashdot is suing me" hoax, email viruses, fake announcements of upcoming synthesizers (just ask the Analogue Heaven list how much they just loved that one) -- the list goes on and on.
What do these hoaxes have in common? One thing:
They amuse nobody but the hoaxer.
For the rest of us? They waste our time, cause us to make plans based on false information, and destroy the credibility of those who want to use the Internet for legitimate purposes.
What happens the next time somebody has a crazy idea for some new hardware? Or the next time there's a very real, very destructive virus that people need to be warned about? Nobody's going to believe it, and somebody's going to get hurt. Nobody will research or buy the hardware, nobody will believe the warnings, the list goes on.
This is destructive enough a phenomenon that I would suggest that those harmed by the hoax should have the power to sue the hoaxer for damages. Trust and credibility are very rare and valuable things these days, and those who abuse them should not be treated lightly.
I don't know why the Times article repeats so often that DeCSS is about copying DVDs.
Well, most of it is, isn't it? I'll let this slide for now.
It isn't, it's about access control and the movie studios trying to control what you can you with a DVD *after* you have bought and paid for it.
I keep wondering just where everyone gets the idea that studios have to get the hell out of your DVD-owning experience after you buy the damn thing.
Here, let me give you an example. I'll even assume that code is a form of creative expression, just for you (and if it's not, then 2600 has no case):
Movies are a form of creative expression. Code (and, by extension, compiled software) is a form of creative expression. You can put a EULA on code. Or a GPL. Or a BSD license. Or whatever. So why can't you put these on some other form of creative expression?
Note that all these licenses have substantial influences on what you can do with the code or the binary after it's in your hands.
We know this all ready, but the general public doesn't and it is a shame to see the Times drop the ball.
Well, it's a shame, but not exactly surprising. They're not the bastion of good journalism that they like to think they are.
Well, at least the article wasn't written by John Markoff
And what do you have against him? That he was against destructive computer crimes? How is that wrong?
I think we're essentially in agreement here -- however, you're putting far too much trust in the reviewing sites. I believe that the unbiased sites should state that fact loudly and clearly, and any other site should be suspect.
The problem is that these sites are supposedly providing un-biased opinions. They may not expressly state it, but that's what they are implying.
I don't even believe everything I read. Taking implied meanings for granted is really asking for trouble.
By nVidia providing free cards on the condition that they only get positive reviews, nVidia is acting unethically. Not quite illegally, but definitely unethically.
How is this unethical? The site simply can't say "we do not give positive reviews in exchange for product" any more (if they do say that, then they are clearly in the wrong).
Truly independent review sites should be proud of this and state is loudly and clearly.
And if the sites accept the free demo unit with the understanding that the cost is that they receive a positive review, then the sites are acting just as unethically as nVidia.
Only if they explicitly say that they were under no influence from nVidia.
Almost every computer manufacturer provided free demo units. It's a solid assumption to make that every hardware review site receives free demo units. And I'm willing to bet hard cash that a sizable portion of them sway the review to the favor of the provider of free equipment.
That's not a bet I'm willing to take. For me, it's quite simple: I trust any site that says, flat out, that they're independent. I don't trust any site that doesn't bring the issue up. And if a trusted site turns out to have been doing some shady deals, I'll try to make sure they get what's coming to them.
Everybody's out to make money in this world, and trusting people too much is your own mistake. Don't blame people for trying to make a living.
The ISSUE is whether or not a small site should post a favorable review based on a corporation's strong arming tactics.
If you will note, the original poster implies that nVidia is not within their rights in doing this. My original reply was to him.
And if you want to know my opinion on this, I've already stated, but if you want it spelled out: it's a non-issue. The site admins decide what they want to do. "should" never enters the picture.
I guess it's not a question of whether or not you read the article, it's really a question of whether or not you used any braincells to think before you post.
Funny how your lack of comprehension turns into my not thinking.
Sigh, i wish people would bother to read the whole article before posting nonsense.
I wish people would think for a second before making comments like these.
The issue isn't whether or not the sites get free cards
That's certainly an issue.
but whether or not a small site should have to bend towards a corporation's wishes when posting up a positive review of a competitor's product.
You're having a really hard time grasping what I was saying, aren't you?
If nVidia gives you free cards, good for you. If you do something they don't like, they can stop giving you free cards. They can do whatever they damn well please. If you don't care if you get the cards or not, you can tell nVidia to piss off. If you do care, you dance to their tune.
And, if you need me to explicitly generalize this for you, both the small site and nVidia are perfectly free to do what they damn well please; they just need to keep the consequences in mind.
Sigh, can't you see this is exactly what he wants?
No. Please explain.
It writes them for the express purpose of getting people testy and to incite flame wars and things.
That's quite an accusation -- and extraordinary accusations require extraordinary evidence. Where is yours?
If it was a real person and it was writing unpopular things because it really believed them, then that would be another thing.
Agreed. I am of the opinion, though, that he is a real poster.
It is a carefully cultivated persona that is lovingly cared for until such time as it can be used to write ridiculously outlandish trolls with an ounce of credibility
Do you always espouse these kinds of consipracy theories?
did you read the one it wrote on cloning and how gods and jesuses were going to descend upon us and kill us all?
I didn't see this one, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were real. Religion is a commonly-held delusion that leads people to say a lot of stupid things.
"Jon Erikson" is not the guardian of free speech on Slashdot.
No, but while quite a few Slashdotters think they're in this position, very few actually are, and I'm not sure Erikson has any such delusions.
What it is is an entity that capitalizes on the effect of unpopular opinions for no other reason than to entertain a couple of socially-challenged trolls.
Once again, this is quite a claim. Anyone doing this sort of thing is wasting other peoples' time and degrading the level of otherwise-serious discussion taking place in the forum, and, as such, should be banned.
I don't see Erikson doing this, though.
You might as well be writing letters to Santa Claus.
Funny, I've never seen Santa Claus write back.
It is all a joke to them and by replying to it or even defending it (!) you are falling for it in a BIG way.
Personally, I don't believe this, and think that you're doing the very same thing that you're accusing Erikson of doing.
However, if you're correct, then I've fallen for his ruse, along with many other people, and he should certainly be prevented from deceiving people this way again in the future.
I have to disagree that the increasing intrusion of the media into the lives of politicians and public figures is a bad thing, at least for the rest of us. These people accept that they are to have their lives scrutinised to a far greater extent than normal people - it's part and parcel of being in the public eye.
What are you saying -- that our leaders have fewer rights than we do? How are we ever going to get decent leaders if we remove all possible incentives to take leadership roles?
Having journalists who are unafraid to dig into the private lives of politicians means that there is a far greater chance of scandal and corruption being uncovered and exposed, something which can only benefit society in the long run - who wants corrupt leaders?
Now here you go completely off track. What is a leader supposed to do? Lead, obviously. And how the hell is a leader supposed to lead if he is constantly hounded by the media and has no support from those under him? A government depends on the support and respect of those that it leads, and, as a strong government is absolutely crucial to protecting the interests of the people, it is vital that it not let its credibility be undermined.
There was a case in Belgium IIRC where a paedophile ring had been running for years thanks to press cover-ups from people in power.
This is most likely as a result of Belgium's punishments for pedophilia being overly lax.
This sort of thing is a direct consequence of having a press whose ability to speak is curtailed, and is not something that any freedom-loving person would want.
No,it's not, it's a result of having incompetent rulers. Rulers must have total respect, and strict punishments must apply to them as well as to the people: they cannot be treated any differently, and must be incentivised to act rightly.
I've lived both here and in the US and both countries have a vocal press who aren't afraid to dig out and publicize political scandal and corruption.
You'll notice that the US (you don't mention your current country of residence) government gets no respect from those it governs, crime there is on the rise again after beginning to trend downwards towards barely-acceptable levels for five years, and that the US is universally despised in the international community.
Sure it may look bad at the time, but who knows what goes on in countries where the press can't or won't let people know what's going on?
Well, it's quite obvious what happens in countries where the press is allowed to run wild and destroy the foundations that the nation is built upon: they quickly degenerate into cesspools of crime, scandal, and apathy.
I can't help but notice that, here on Slashdot, the second anyone does anything that violates some insanely strict, unwritten code, people are suddenly up in arms.
This is one of those occasions. This is deja's service, they clearly mark the links with an orange "deja triangle", and, if you don't want to see the links, find another way to browse Usenet. This is a free service on their part; I don't see what right any of you have to sit around and bitch about it. There could even be people who find this feature useful, and I really don't see how you can justify taking this away from them.
Use it or don't, but don't complain and whine about how this is violating your basic natural rights or how it's a sign of creeping corporatism that's going to take over your brain and steal your children.
It's just a website trying to make a little money. Deal with it.
You cannot have enforced licensing without a government (again, unless you want Microsoft to be able to throw people in jail for license violations, in which case you're quite literally insane, and we can abandon the argument).
I was unclear. Let me restate this.
If you create intellectual property, you have an absolute right to it. This can be sold or leased or rented or whatever you wish. However, you created it, the world would not have it without you, it is yours. If you can prove that you created it with no prior exposure to the original (learned about it after the fact, etc.), then you also have that absolute right. That's all.
Say a researcher at DrugCo discovers (fan-fare, drum roll) a cure for cancer, and since he's signed over all his rights to DrugCo, now they own it. And since it'll never, ever enter the public domain, they own it forever.
If DrugCo hadn't sponsored this, the cure wouldn't have been found. So nobody's worse off for it.
What if this is the only cure anyone ever finds (there are any number of diseases that have only one known cure, thank god in the "public domain")
This is what charities are for. Or someone can duplicate it with zero exposure to the original research. That's all.
If you want society, in the form of the government, to spend time and money on creating and maintaining a system of property rights, along with the enforcement mechanisms, there are going to be strings attached. The system is going to have to be in the public interest, providing tangible benefits to society, not just to the "owners" of property.
Not at all. If the owners of property are the ones paying for the upkeep of the system, then they should be the ones who get to decide how it works. If you bought 51% of the stock in a corporation, you'd be pretty damn pissed if you didn't get to call the shots, right?
All of the "natural rights" in the world are worthless if there is no remedy for their violation.
In my experience, "natural rights" are a concept paraded around by the lazy and apathetic when they want someone to hand their rights to them on a silver platter. The very concept of "natural rights" is misguided -- at the most primal level, you do not have any rights. None. You have as many rights as you can make sure you can get.
The money you pay is largely sucked up by corporations who provide no special service except to hook up to public (as in government-owned) networks.
Really? Do you hav evidence for this? Even if this is the case, I'm still paying through the nose (taxes) for those services. I'd be more than happy to see the government get out and pay the ISP for those services directly.
Since the corproration-dominated mega-conglomerate you so charmingly consider the "real world" has not assimilated everyone yet,
You certainly haven't assimilated into the real world yet.
My "world" is not one in which you can be dragged to court for practicing your right to free speech on the internet, or anywhere else.
What about your "right" to theft? And if you can't be dragged to court for that yet, it's only because you're too small time for them to care. They'll get you sooner or later, and I'll have no sympathy.
Few people would claim that napster users are "supporting" a monopoly.
Ok, so maybe you're breaking the law. If you listen to the music at all, you're either supporting them (in which case you're a hypocrite and don't have any grounds to argue from) or breaking the law (in which case you should be arrested). That simple.
I think I'm [educating people about the evils of big recording studios] now.
Fair enough. What you shouldn't be doing is exhorting them to criminal behavior.
Legality is an artificial construct created by those in power to justify that power. Consider ethicality instead.
Mighty big words for somebody who doesn't want to pay for the creation and distribution of books, movies, and music.
You no doubt remember the Tienammin Square "incident"? What those protesters did was, according to the government, illegal.But no one could judge them as unethical.
You could certainly judge them as stupid. If you want democracy, demonstrating that you're a bunch of unruly hooligans in the main square of the capital is not the way to get it.
And even so, by recent accounts, more soldiers were killed than protestors, and the protestors started the violence first.
Democracy is a right which everyone is entitled to
First, I don't think so, and second, how do you intend to create democracy when you refuse to enforce basic property rights?
And our fight agianst the RIAA is no different than theirs against the Chinese government.
Slashdot Mirror
To which I'd say... most Westerners take a free nation for granted. You grossly underestimate the value of this privilege. Imagine living in Afghanistan. Or Sierra Leone. Or even Fiji.
It's really easy to say that when you've got a full belly and a roof over your head for the foreseeable future, isn't it?
And who are you to judge the importance of the stability of the state? What if the state is engaged in wrongdoing? Should we preserve stability at all costs? Seems like a strange end to strive for...
Sigh. You really have no concept of the real world, do you? The state had better be engaged in a damn good deal of wrongdoing before you start acting up, because chances are you'd make matters much worse in the process of trying to "improve" things.
If the opposite of stability is chaos and anarchy, that's one thing.
Yes. And it's only because the Western world is so rich and complacent that it can sometimes afford to have stability and freedom at the same time -- and even then, sometimes sacrifices need to me made to keep the nation from sliding down a slippery spiral into chaos and lawlessness.
Often, though, "stability" is a placated populace, happily listening to Britney Spears and munching on Cheetos, and threats to that notion of "stability" are dealt with severely. That sort of stability generates the big bucks.
That's all what you've chosen to do with the fact that you're rich and content enough to not have to worry about whether rebel (or government) militia leaders are going to come to your house and steal all your food (at best).
People in the Western world (especially the US) are generally well-off enough that freedom can coexist with stability. They don't want to lose what they have. However, when you start getting desperate elements in the population (who have the power to make life miserable for everyone), the story changes.
I mean, everyone knows that whenever a government practices surveillance on its citizens, it's only if that citizen is truly a dangerous criminal. A quick scan of history reveals that, right off!
What makes you so much more fit to judge who's a criminal and who's not than your government?
All those communists in the McCarthy era got what was coming to them.
They were undermining the stability of the state, a charge that most Westerners greatly underestimate the importance of. True, theese people were charged for the wrong thing, but those were trying times for the American nation, and unruly groups causing chaos and unrest were the last thing it needed.
And those damn Japanese-Americans during WWII.
This was out of line, agreed.
Arlo Guthrie most certainly deserved to have his life on file at the FBI. As did Pete Seeger. Damned agitators...
Once again, most Westerners take a stable nation for granted. You grossly underestimate the value of this privilege. Imagine living in Afghanistan. Or Sierra Leone. Or even Fiji.
Not pretty alternatives, are they?
I have a quick quiz for all of you.
How is my house more likely to get broken into:
1. I have a door with a broken lock and I don't tell anybody.
2. I have a door with a broken lock and I put a sign in my front lawn reading, "I have a broken Brand X lock. Can somebody tell me where to get a new one?"
Sure, security through obscurity isn't so good when it's used by itself, but it certainly helps.
First Echelon, then Carnivore, and now yet another attempt to track the actions of average citizens on the Internet.
Wait, I thought they said "perpetrators of DDoS attacks".
Sure, stopping DDoS attacks sounds good in theory, but so does stopping "child molesters" or "foreign spies."
Uh.... Those sound good in practice, too, I think. Do you have any reasons to the contrary?
Like we need more information about ourselves being handed out online.
Like anyone even cares about what you do online. I'm constantly amazed by the number of Slashdot readers that have delusions of government agencies tracking their every move online, reading their every email, and so on. "They" just plain don't care about most of you. Get it? It may be comforting to have these delusions that you are somehow significant, but I'm pretty sure that nobody here is important enough for "them" to care about.
And then there's the everpresent question of just who "they" are.
I'm sick and tired of good intentions being used to defend bad plans.
Well, that's wonderful, but I don't see any good plans coming from you. If you don't like the plan, come up with a better one.
People have gotten away with taking our guns (protected by the Third Amendment)
Second.
We can't let take them our right to privacy too.
Funny, I don't recall seeing an amendment guaranteeing you a "right to privacy."
The majority of net users do not conduct DDoS attacks. Therefore, there is no need for an anti-DoS ICMP.
The majority of citizens do not commit murders. Therefore there is no need for a police homicide unit.
I think it's pretty obvious to everyone that something fishy is going on down at the Napster corporation: parasitising the work of musicians and artists for their own corporate gain, defended with a thinly-disguised cry of "information wants to be free," while they're extremely tight-fisted with their own property.
What's not obvious, though, is what might be the real reason behind this whole mess. Think carefully for a moment. What group was one of the biggest contributors to Bill Clinton's campaign and to the Democrats? Entertainment. (Especially Hollywood.) What group is this hurting most? Big entertainment corporations.
The current controversy surrounding DeCSS and the MPAA only serves to make things clearer. And whose suspicions wouldn't be raised by the sentence:
Mr. Amram also helped Napster raise money from the large pool of wealthy "angel" investors that resides in Silicon Valley, especially those with "dot-com" money
-- when Newt Gingrich is currently politically and financially active in Silicon Valley? (Check the July 24 issue of Newsweek.) This seems to me like a blatantly illegal attempt by the Republican party to punish the entertainment industry for financing Democratic campaigns.
Let's face it. The users of these services are breaking very clear copyright laws. I can't see any real defense for this, or any reason that the trial's not over already, unless somebody very powerful is defending these criminals behind the scenes. And I can't see any reason that the news media would have cause to defend (yes, defend. what else would you call the NYT linking to 2600?) this ragtag bunch of pirates unless they've got a very good reason to.
I'm not crying foul over this -- power politics is a rough game, and people are going to play it, and all I have to say to those who don't like it is, "deal with it." This just might be a good thing to keep in mind.
I think you're confusing a scam with a hoax. A hoax is meant to be a joke on people that results in no harm, except possibly to the pride of the humor-impaired.
Where, exactly, are you supposed to draw this line? If play a prank that results in someone's death, you can be convicted for manslaughter, and if you run a hoax that results in someone losing money, you should be prosecuted for fraud.
"No, your honor, my blatantly fraudulent MLM scheme was a hoax! Honest! Funny, ha ha, get it?"
1. Airwaves are public property. Treat them as such. If you don't, it's your fault when somebody reads your mail.
2. A government has the final say over what its land is used for. Once again, if you don't keep this in mind, it's your fault when your messages get intercepted.
When there's so much strong encryption readily available, I'm amazed that people will complain about this sort of thing at length rather than use the most basic measures to prevent it.
..and perhaps a life.
...and take a class in critical thinking...
Sigh.
It seems all people have for me these days is personal attacks.
Dead wrong. I'm not the hoaxer and I am greatly amused. It's hard to type while holding your belly with both hands.
Ok. Hoaxers and people with twisted, sadistic senses of humor. Fair enough?
Waste your time perhaps, but this sort of entertainment is much more enjoyable than spending hours if front of a tv. Go download a good Steven King book!
I hate TV. And I certainly have better forms of entertainment than this.
No, they cause you to make plans with out verifying data. That's your mistake, not mine, not theirs.
I've seen plenty of hoaxes that had all the credibility in the world (I did plenty of research) until the hoaxers revealed the hoax. I've even made future purchasing decisions based on some of the most credible.
I now often miss great opportunities because they're hard to verify and often seem like hoaxes.
Hahaha, this is a good one. I can see it now. You stand up in front of the court and say "I solemnly swear that yes I am stupid enough to be taken in by this scam, this scam that has done nothing but deflect me from my other stupid ideas and has prevented me from doing other stupid things." It's going to be interesting proving damage.
"Yes, your honor, the S&L did take all my money and not return any of it."
I will doubt you from day one until you show me that I should change my mind.
Yeah, and everything's right and wrong or black and white and nothing in between,too, right? You have to have a certain amount of trust in your fellows to function in this world. If you don't, you're a paranoid. Doubt is fine, but this incessant hoaxing means I have to actively distrust everything I see. It also mean that people with new and innovative ideas who are short on resources don't really have much of an ability to build credibility because nobody will trust them much in the first place.
You are the one that abuses trust and credibility by giving these valuable and powerful items away without regard for the consequences of your actions
This must make life really difficult for you.
Look, idiot, I think there is just about no one posting to Slashdot or in the entire software industry who doesn't actually work for Micros~1 who thinks that the power they wield is a "right."
Oh. Really. Well, I guess it's understandable that you overlook Sun and Oracle and IBM and Adobe and Corel and all those other minor little companies that exercise those exact same rights.
In fact, I'm pretty sure that's why the Federal Government decided to break them up.
I certainly don't see another IBM antitrust trial on the horizon.
Don't cite Micros~1, for God's sake, as an example of fair business practices if you want to get any respect.
Ok. Apple. Borland / Inprise. Napster. They all exercise that same right.
Oh, and I realize some people (yourself included) will figure this whole post is invalid because I called you an idiot.
Translation: "I know my argument is weak, but I'll attempt to discredit you by trying to get you to base your defense on my blatant attacks on your intelligence."
I call 'em as I see 'em.
Please consult an optometrist.
Oh, and I normally don't read responses to my posts... or posts that are at 1 (or lower). But feel free to reply anyway.
"I want to have a way out in case I can't think of any way to rebut what you have to say."
DeCSS is NOT used primarily for law breaking.
Well then, what is it used for?
It is much more likely that a potential infringer would use a Microsoft Windows tool rather than a Linux tool.
If the DeCSS people had never published it, these people probably wouldn't have found the decryption algorithm, correct? So they're all essentially DeCSS offshoots.
In fact there are several Windows programs to decrypt DVDs, why are they not in court?
Good question. Why aren't they?
Copyright (and other intellectual property) isn't some sort of magical natural right. It's something we've set up as a society because in general it's a good idea that promotes creative expression.
How is this relevant?
However, it's not an infinite right -- there are limits to its extent, including the fair use doctrine. These limits exist for exactly the same reason as the IP laws themselves: the benefit of the public as a whole.
So, if I understand you, copyright is good, but it's bad. Which is it?
But why should we radically increase the rights given? Large copyright interests are taking the opportunity presented by digital media to attempt an overcompensation -- they're asking for rights they've never had before.
You're completely ignoring my point. We're giving Microsoft rights that we're not giving the MPAA and the RIAA. Why shouldn't the MPAA have the same rights as Microsoft?
DeCSS is simply a tool that lets you decode the format of a DVD movie. What you do with the movie after that is your buisness, legal or illegal.
What other need would you have for it? Handguns are heavily regulated, despite a constitutional amendment that often gets in the way -- DeCSS is in the very same category.
Banning a tool simply because it has the ability to facilitate illegal actions is as stupid as banning a hammer for the same reason (you could break into a house via smashing a window, or injure someone with it).
I agree -- to an extent. If a tool has no real purpose other than lawbreaking, it should certainly be banned. Hammers are use in carpentry and plenty of other things. Assault rifles and lockpicks and DeCSS are use primarily for lawbreaking. One group should be regulated. The other shouldn't. Simple enough?
It seems that you can't go for ten minutes ago on the Internet these days without seeing a hoax. SETI Accelerator, the "Slashdot is suing me" hoax, email viruses, fake announcements of upcoming synthesizers (just ask the Analogue Heaven list how much they just loved that one) -- the list goes on and on.
What do these hoaxes have in common? One thing:
They amuse nobody but the hoaxer.
For the rest of us? They waste our time, cause us to make plans based on false information, and destroy the credibility of those who want to use the Internet for legitimate purposes.
What happens the next time somebody has a crazy idea for some new hardware? Or the next time there's a very real, very destructive virus that people need to be warned about? Nobody's going to believe it, and somebody's going to get hurt. Nobody will research or buy the hardware, nobody will believe the warnings, the list goes on.
This is destructive enough a phenomenon that I would suggest that those harmed by the hoax should have the power to sue the hoaxer for damages. Trust and credibility are very rare and valuable things these days, and those who abuse them should not be treated lightly.
I don't know why the Times article repeats so often that DeCSS is about copying DVDs.
Well, most of it is, isn't it? I'll let this slide for now.
It isn't, it's about access control and the movie studios trying to control what you can you with a DVD *after* you have bought and paid for it.
I keep wondering just where everyone gets the idea that studios have to get the hell out of your DVD-owning experience after you buy the damn thing.
Here, let me give you an example. I'll even assume that code is a form of creative expression, just for you (and if it's not, then 2600 has no case):
Movies are a form of creative expression. Code (and, by extension, compiled software) is a form of creative expression. You can put a EULA on code. Or a GPL. Or a BSD license. Or whatever. So why can't you put these on some other form of creative expression?
Note that all these licenses have substantial influences on what you can do with the code or the binary after it's in your hands.
We know this all ready, but the general public doesn't and it is a shame to see the Times drop the ball.
Well, it's a shame, but not exactly surprising. They're not the bastion of good journalism that they like to think they are.
Well, at least the article wasn't written by John Markoff
And what do you have against him? That he was against destructive computer crimes? How is that wrong?
I think we're essentially in agreement here -- however, you're putting far too much trust in the reviewing sites. I believe that the unbiased sites should state that fact loudly and clearly, and any other site should be suspect.
I elaborated on this point in this post.
The problem is that these sites are supposedly providing un-biased opinions. They may not expressly state it, but that's what they are implying.
I don't even believe everything I read. Taking implied meanings for granted is really asking for trouble.
By nVidia providing free cards on the condition that they only get positive reviews, nVidia is acting unethically. Not quite illegally, but definitely unethically.
How is this unethical? The site simply can't say "we do not give positive reviews in exchange for product" any more (if they do say that, then they are clearly in the wrong).
Truly independent review sites should be proud of this and state is loudly and clearly.
And if the sites accept the free demo unit with the understanding that the cost is that they receive a positive review, then the sites are acting just as unethically as nVidia.
Only if they explicitly say that they were under no influence from nVidia.
Almost every computer manufacturer provided free demo units. It's a solid assumption to make that every hardware review site receives free demo units. And I'm willing to bet hard cash that a sizable portion of them sway the review to the favor of the provider of free equipment.
That's not a bet I'm willing to take. For me, it's quite simple: I trust any site that says, flat out, that they're independent. I don't trust any site that doesn't bring the issue up. And if a trusted site turns out to have been doing some shady deals, I'll try to make sure they get what's coming to them.
Everybody's out to make money in this world, and trusting people too much is your own mistake. Don't blame people for trying to make a living.
The ISSUE is whether or not a small site should post a favorable review based on a corporation's strong arming tactics.
If you will note, the original poster implies that nVidia is not within their rights in doing this. My original reply was to him.
And if you want to know my opinion on this, I've already stated, but if you want it spelled out: it's a non-issue. The site admins decide what they want to do. "should" never enters the picture.
I guess it's not a question of whether or not you read the article, it's really a question of whether or not you used any braincells to think before you post.
Funny how your lack of comprehension turns into my not thinking.
Sigh, i wish people would bother to read the whole article before posting nonsense.
I wish people would think for a second before making comments like these.
The issue isn't whether or not the sites get free cards
That's certainly an issue.
but whether or not a small site should have to bend towards a corporation's wishes when posting up a positive review of a competitor's product.
You're having a really hard time grasping what I was saying, aren't you?
If nVidia gives you free cards, good for you. If you do something they don't like, they can stop giving you free cards. They can do whatever they damn well please. If you don't care if you get the cards or not, you can tell nVidia to piss off. If you do care, you dance to their tune.
And, if you need me to explicitly generalize this for you, both the small site and nVidia are perfectly free to do what they damn well please; they just need to keep the consequences in mind.
Simple enough?
1. This is nVidia's card.
2. These are free cards that these review sites are lucky to have at all
so,
3. When it comes to giving free cards to review sites, nVidia can do whatever the hell they want.
And if they can't make that decision, then I'm putting up a Geocities page tomorrow and getting my own free cards.
Sigh, can't you see this is exactly what he wants?
No. Please explain.
It writes them for the express purpose of getting people testy and to incite flame wars and things.
That's quite an accusation -- and extraordinary accusations require extraordinary evidence. Where is yours?
If it was a real person and it was writing unpopular things because it really believed them, then that would be another thing.
Agreed. I am of the opinion, though, that he is a real poster.
It is a carefully cultivated persona that is lovingly cared for until such time as it can be used to write ridiculously outlandish trolls with an ounce of credibility
Do you always espouse these kinds of consipracy theories?
did you read the one it wrote on cloning and how gods and jesuses were going to descend upon us and kill us all?
I didn't see this one, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were real. Religion is a commonly-held delusion that leads people to say a lot of stupid things.
"Jon Erikson" is not the guardian of free speech on Slashdot.
No, but while quite a few Slashdotters think they're in this position, very few actually are, and I'm not sure Erikson has any such delusions.
What it is is an entity that capitalizes on the effect of unpopular opinions for no other reason than to entertain a couple of socially-challenged trolls.
Once again, this is quite a claim. Anyone doing this sort of thing is wasting other peoples' time and degrading the level of otherwise-serious discussion taking place in the forum, and, as such, should be banned.
I don't see Erikson doing this, though.
You might as well be writing letters to Santa Claus.
Funny, I've never seen Santa Claus write back.
It is all a joke to them and by replying to it or even defending it (!) you are falling for it in a BIG way.
Personally, I don't believe this, and think that you're doing the very same thing that you're accusing Erikson of doing.
However, if you're correct, then I've fallen for his ruse, along with many other people, and he should certainly be prevented from deceiving people this way again in the future.
I have to disagree that the increasing intrusion of the media into the lives of politicians and public figures is a bad thing, at least for the rest of us. These people accept that they are to have their lives scrutinised to a far greater extent than normal people - it's part and parcel of being in the public eye.
What are you saying -- that our leaders have fewer rights than we do? How are we ever going to get decent leaders if we remove all possible incentives to take leadership roles?
Having journalists who are unafraid to dig into the private lives of politicians means that there is a far greater chance of scandal and corruption being uncovered and exposed, something which can only benefit society in the long run - who wants corrupt leaders?
Now here you go completely off track. What is a leader supposed to do? Lead, obviously. And how the hell is a leader supposed to lead if he is constantly hounded by the media and has no support from those under him? A government depends on the support and respect of those that it leads, and, as a strong government is absolutely crucial to protecting the interests of the people, it is vital that it not let its credibility be undermined.
There was a case in Belgium IIRC where a paedophile ring had been running for years thanks to press cover-ups from people in power.
This is most likely as a result of Belgium's punishments for pedophilia being overly lax.
This sort of thing is a direct consequence of having a press whose ability to speak is curtailed, and is not something that any freedom-loving person would want.
No,it's not, it's a result of having incompetent rulers. Rulers must have total respect, and strict punishments must apply to them as well as to the people: they cannot be treated any differently, and must be incentivised to act rightly.
I've lived both here and in the US and both countries have a vocal press who aren't afraid to dig out and publicize political scandal and corruption.
You'll notice that the US (you don't mention your current country of residence) government gets no respect from those it governs, crime there is on the rise again after beginning to trend downwards towards barely-acceptable levels for five years, and that the US is universally despised in the international community.
Sure it may look bad at the time, but who knows what goes on in countries where the press can't or won't let people know what's going on?
Well, it's quite obvious what happens in countries where the press is allowed to run wild and destroy the foundations that the nation is built upon: they quickly degenerate into cesspools of crime, scandal, and apathy.
I can't help but notice that, here on Slashdot, the second anyone does anything that violates some insanely strict, unwritten code, people are suddenly up in arms.
This is one of those occasions. This is deja's service, they clearly mark the links with an orange "deja triangle", and, if you don't want to see the links, find another way to browse Usenet. This is a free service on their part; I don't see what right any of you have to sit around and bitch about it. There could even be people who find this feature useful, and I really don't see how you can justify taking this away from them.
Use it or don't, but don't complain and whine about how this is violating your basic natural rights or how it's a sign of creeping corporatism that's going to take over your brain and steal your children.
It's just a website trying to make a little money. Deal with it.
You cannot have enforced licensing without a government (again, unless you want Microsoft to be able to throw people in jail for license violations, in which case you're quite literally insane, and we can abandon the argument).
I was unclear. Let me restate this.
If you create intellectual property, you have an absolute right to it. This can be sold or leased or rented or whatever you wish. However, you created it, the world would not have it without you, it is yours. If you can prove that you created it with no prior exposure to the original (learned about it after the fact, etc.), then you also have that absolute right. That's all.
Say a researcher at DrugCo discovers (fan-fare, drum roll) a cure for cancer, and since he's signed over all his rights to DrugCo, now they own it. And since it'll never, ever enter the public domain, they own it forever.
If DrugCo hadn't sponsored this, the cure wouldn't have been found. So nobody's worse off for it.
What if this is the only cure anyone ever finds (there are any number of diseases that have only one known cure, thank god in the "public domain")
This is what charities are for. Or someone can duplicate it with zero exposure to the original research. That's all.
If you want society, in the form of the government, to spend time and money on creating and maintaining a system of property rights, along with the enforcement mechanisms, there are going to be strings attached. The system is going to have to be in the public interest, providing tangible benefits to society, not just to the "owners" of property.
Not at all. If the owners of property are the ones paying for the upkeep of the system, then they should be the ones who get to decide how it works. If you bought 51% of the stock in a corporation, you'd be pretty damn pissed if you didn't get to call the shots, right?
All of the "natural rights" in the world are worthless if there is no remedy for their violation.
In my experience, "natural rights" are a concept paraded around by the lazy and apathetic when they want someone to hand their rights to them on a silver platter. The very concept of "natural rights" is misguided -- at the most primal level, you do not have any rights. None. You have as many rights as you can make sure you can get.
The money you pay is largely sucked up by corporations who provide no special service except to hook up to public (as in government-owned) networks.
Really? Do you hav evidence for this? Even if this is the case, I'm still paying through the nose (taxes) for those services. I'd be more than happy to see the government get out and pay the ISP for those services directly.
Since the corproration-dominated mega-conglomerate you so charmingly consider the "real world" has not assimilated everyone yet,
You certainly haven't assimilated into the real world yet.
My "world" is not one in which you can be dragged to court for practicing your right to free speech on the internet, or anywhere else.
What about your "right" to theft? And if you can't be dragged to court for that yet, it's only because you're too small time for them to care. They'll get you sooner or later, and I'll have no sympathy.
Few people would claim that napster users are "supporting" a monopoly.
Ok, so maybe you're breaking the law. If you listen to the music at all, you're either supporting them (in which case you're a hypocrite and don't have any grounds to argue from) or breaking the law (in which case you should be arrested). That simple.
I think I'm [educating people about the evils of big recording studios] now.
Fair enough. What you shouldn't be doing is exhorting them to criminal behavior.
Legality is an artificial construct created by those in power to justify that power. Consider ethicality instead.
Mighty big words for somebody who doesn't want to pay for the creation and distribution of books, movies, and music.
You no doubt remember the Tienammin Square "incident"? What those protesters did was, according to the government, illegal.But no one could judge them as unethical.
You could certainly judge them as stupid. If you want democracy, demonstrating that you're a bunch of unruly hooligans in the main square of the capital is not the way to get it.
And even so, by recent accounts, more soldiers were killed than protestors, and the protestors started the violence first.
Democracy is a right which everyone is entitled to
First, I don't think so, and second, how do you intend to create democracy when you refuse to enforce basic property rights?
And our fight agianst the RIAA is no different than theirs against the Chinese government.
Pirate an mp3 for democracy today!
...
Gimme a break.