Also doesn't every recipient of the binary+source get permission to redistribute that?
Yes, they retain that right. The main point he was making is that you are only required to make the source code available to someone you gave the binaries to, not the general public. That is one point of the GPL that often gets misunderstood, you do not have to give your GPL code to the public per se, only to those who you selected to have the binaries. If they further distribute the binaries, you are not responsible to provide the source code to those 3rd parties. This means you can sell GPL binaries, and only provide direct copies of the source to those customers, and never the "public". This is a feature of the GPL, not a bug.
I'm pretty sure that if someone hacks into your wifi connection and commits crimes, you won't be held responsible. For that matter, you can drive up to most hotels, coffee houses, airports, private homes, etc. and connect to their wifi without any password or encryption, which is exactly what someone would do if they needed the connection, not crack one.
They can't arrest you for child porn, etc. if they don't have the evidence (ie: it being on your computer), nor for threats of violence or any thing else you claim, simply because it comes back to your IP address at that time. They might be able to get a warrant, but certainly not an arrest or conviction without some actual evidence. Ask your lawyer. As for political candidates, how is the "other side" going to get the ISP records to track it back to you?
I think you are overstating the danger as the connection owner just a tad.
My neighbors have all started encrypting their wireless routers:-(.
Fortunately for you, you can get one of those Chinese wifi cracking kits cheap. Likely, your neighbors won't be thinking twice about security INSIDE the network, since they "know" they are secure now, making it easier to browse their pr0n collection.
Simpler means more than just the goals of the game, although you are 100% correct. Space Invaders was the same kind of simple. I constantly get frustrated with new games that require entirely too many key combinations, codes, memorization, etc. to make playing somewhat casually impossible.
I still love to play TFC over TF2 because it is simpler, I can focus on the game play instead of the interface. I still enjoy AOE3 because they simplified it over AOE2, making it less of a burden to advance, and beat the crap out of the other guys. Simcity 3 kicks Simcity 4's ass because it was simpler. The Half-Life series got simpler in movement control as it progressed, which made it better (no more fancy jump/duck combinations). Even Portal keeps it very simple in concept, so you can focus on one thing: figuring out how to get from point A to point B using physics. The older first person shooters were like this, Duke 3D, Redneck Rampage, etc. Simple, fun, with some humor to boot.
My recent favorite is Bioshock, which is simple enough to learn fast, yet open enough that you aren't being forced to follow a specific script to get to the goal. The "hack" feature is simple and easy enough to master. The features have *very* good depth, but are simple enough in concept so you don't spend hours figuring it out, and you have infinite combinations of plasmids you can arm. Like HL, the underlying story is also quite good (and simple), with the Ayn Rand dystopia overtones.
Lots of us 40+ guys still love to play games a few times a week but don't want to have to memorize overly complex key controls and poorly written plots. We do have day jobs and games are supposed to be fun, not work. We also have credit cards and don't mind spending the bucks if the games deliver.
We use Dell servers (small company, 4x lower prices servers like the T300 series) and while I like the hardware "ok", the service is pretty thin when it comes to Linux. We run CentOS, which half of the techs that I have talked to have never heard of. They have flatly told me that they are a "Microsoft shop" and they can't help with Linux. In my experience, they are useless for anything relative to software unless it is Microsoft.
On the other hand, I have a couple of spare servers (testing only, dual PIII, around $2500 ea. back them) that run 24/7, from the late 1990s, and they still run perfectly in every way with never a replaced part. I have installed Redhat/Fedora/CentOS on a dozen Dell servers, 4 different models, and have never had an issue with everything installing perfect the first time. So from my experience, their hardware is easy to install, lasts a very long time, and the few times I have had warranty issues, they were handled quickly.
I did once have a cooling fan die out of warranty, and their price for a rebuilt fan "kit" was $75. I went and bought the exact same fan online from a industrial supplier for $13 and just soldered the wires into their proprietary connector (the extra part in the "kit"). They are too expensive for replacement parts. But all and all, if you can take care of your own software, I still recommend Dell. We even use them on the desktop (meh, they are ok) because of price vs performance. The big difference is that while Dell isn't the most powerful systems, you get a little less performance for about half the price.
I also have some IBM servers from 96/97 that still ran when I finally retired them, after cannibalizing them a little. Of course, those were $4500 with one PPro and no hard drives, making them closer to $6k+ each for similar reliability, but exceptional performance.
Hey, I'm just like each and every American. After careful thought and consideration, these basic fundamentals come to mind: We eat tuna fish, our cars have VIN numbers, and these are true facts. The end results still remains, that sometimes we are redundant in any and all of our expressions;)
Amen with cringeworthy. The girls walking in at the beginning were not even remotely synced, it was like they accepted the first take of everything, with no rehearsal, and a bad script to start with.
The MS DOS 5 Upgrade rap commercial makes me ashamed to be Caucasian. That guy was a Navin Johnson, tuna fish sandwich eating, with the crusts cut off, and a twinkie for dessert kind of Caucasian. I could actually visualize Bill Gates clapping his hands and stomping his foot, almost in rhythm with the video, just like Navin.
Mitnick used social engineering, not reverse engineering, to gain access to networks. I don't think we have enough information to know what skillz they have or do not have. Either way, I don't *blame* them for trying to get into the security biz for a job. I didn't say I would be hiring them, just said it shouldn't be shocking that they are trying to enter a field they know at least something about.
What about Kevin Mitnick? He is making a living by switching his hat from black to white, and no one had a problem with that. It would seem that Panda might do better having a few people who know how to make malware so successfully. The question, of course, is "can you trust them?" and only they can answer that.
What did you expect the guys to do for jobs, flip burgers? Become stock brokers? Of course they would pursue careers in security. It seems they must know a fair amount about it to get away with so much, for so long. They certainly know more than someone coming straight from a CS degree.
That is all fine until you produce a video that actually makes you money, and they sue you for royalties because you used their codecs to do so. This would be above and beyond the price you paid for the products. And there isn't anything you can do about it, because it is "clearly stated in the license agreement".
Or worse yet, if they disagreed with your video for political reasons, they could go after you for that, claiming it is because you failed to license it.
DRM aims to prevent 1) and the MPAA/RIAA/etc. are hoping that most people will find their witch hunts on people who do 2) necessary and morally right.
I agree, but it's a stupid method as they end up doing more damage than good. They have contributed toward many more people learning how to use bittorrent than would have otherwise, for instance. And like in this instance, the only people prevented from watching the movie are legitimate customers. As someone said above, in the end, the pirates are offering a better product (no drm, no forced FBI warnings, plays on any computer). Even if the price was the same, the pirated versions are BETTER than the commercial versions. Again, DRM is about control, not piracy.
DRM prevents regular people from sharing with their friends.
This is becoming less and less true today, however, as more people start using bittorrent. It prevents the "Hey, I just bought $x, lemme make you a copy" situation, but now it is becoming "Hey I just downloaded $x, lemme burn you a copy". If they weren't so hard for the average person to copy, perhaps they might originate a few more sales, from people who want "clean" copies.
Hell, the people who ripped it and uploaded it may already returned it,
That's it! Finally a foolproof way to prevent nasty pirates from copying your disks and putting them on bittorrent! All the movie distributors have to do is sell disks that won't play on any device, so they can't be copied! Brilliant!;)
he problem with calling it "doublespeak" is that it's true.
No, it is false. DRM doesn't stop pirating, and they know this. If anything, DRM *causes* more piracy than it prevents.
1. DRM doesn't stop people from making bit for bit copies of the disks and selling them. 2. DRM has never prevented any movie from being released to bittorrent. 3. DRM on movies or games seldom slows down the release of pirated versions by more than one hour, or one day. 4. DRM *does* force legitimate buyers to sometimes seek an unencumbered version, to use it the way they want to use it. 5. DRM is about control, not piracy. 6. Profit! If you live in zone 1, you can't buy and use DVDs in less expensive zones. They use DRM to make more money by controlling when and where you buy the copy.
In this case, the only way the people who bought Avatar on DVD and Bluray can watch it, is to download a copy, effectively making them pirates because the manufacturer sold them a defective copy, since it won't play on all players.
You are assuming that those 309 million approve, which is not the case.
But the people paying for the campaigns and perks for our congressmen DO want it. So a few thousands lobbyists are paying a lot of money to a few congressmen, to get their version of "fair" shoved down the throats of 6.5 billion people. Welcome to America.
But of course - the movie industry will be VERY silent about problems caused by DRM.
Don't underestimate them. They will likely find a way to blame pirates. "If the movie hadn't been pirated for months before it was released on DVD, then DRM wouldn't be needed and these problems could be avoided". This is exactly the type of marketing doublespeak that I would expect, with the hope of deflecting the blame from their own incompetent asses.
Didn't anyone actually try playing the master disks in a couple different players before they stamped a million of them out?
The FTC wasn't much different under Clinton. It isn't a Democrat/Republican thing, it's a bureaucratic thing. OSHA is also less effective than two decades ago.
It would seem to me that if Fox really wanted to keep Google off their website, all they would have to do is ask or use robots.txt. They don't want Google off their network, they want to charge people to use their "obviously better news website".
1. Blame Google 2. ????? 3. Profit!
For once, this meme actually applies to the topic.
Slashdot Mirror
Also doesn't every recipient of the binary+source get permission to redistribute that?
Yes, they retain that right. The main point he was making is that you are only required to make the source code available to someone you gave the binaries to, not the general public. That is one point of the GPL that often gets misunderstood, you do not have to give your GPL code to the public per se, only to those who you selected to have the binaries. If they further distribute the binaries, you are not responsible to provide the source code to those 3rd parties. This means you can sell GPL binaries, and only provide direct copies of the source to those customers, and never the "public". This is a feature of the GPL, not a bug.
I'm pretty sure that if someone hacks into your wifi connection and commits crimes, you won't be held responsible. For that matter, you can drive up to most hotels, coffee houses, airports, private homes, etc. and connect to their wifi without any password or encryption, which is exactly what someone would do if they needed the connection, not crack one.
They can't arrest you for child porn, etc. if they don't have the evidence (ie: it being on your computer), nor for threats of violence or any thing else you claim, simply because it comes back to your IP address at that time. They might be able to get a warrant, but certainly not an arrest or conviction without some actual evidence. Ask your lawyer. As for political candidates, how is the "other side" going to get the ISP records to track it back to you?
I think you are overstating the danger as the connection owner just a tad.
Ok, this thread is starting to sound like an Austin Power's bit...
My neighbors have all started encrypting their wireless routers :-(.
Fortunately for you, you can get one of those Chinese wifi cracking kits cheap. Likely, your neighbors won't be thinking twice about security INSIDE the network, since they "know" they are secure now, making it easier to browse their pr0n collection.
Simpler means more than just the goals of the game, although you are 100% correct. Space Invaders was the same kind of simple. I constantly get frustrated with new games that require entirely too many key combinations, codes, memorization, etc. to make playing somewhat casually impossible.
I still love to play TFC over TF2 because it is simpler, I can focus on the game play instead of the interface. I still enjoy AOE3 because they simplified it over AOE2, making it less of a burden to advance, and beat the crap out of the other guys. Simcity 3 kicks Simcity 4's ass because it was simpler. The Half-Life series got simpler in movement control as it progressed, which made it better (no more fancy jump/duck combinations). Even Portal keeps it very simple in concept, so you can focus on one thing: figuring out how to get from point A to point B using physics. The older first person shooters were like this, Duke 3D, Redneck Rampage, etc. Simple, fun, with some humor to boot.
My recent favorite is Bioshock, which is simple enough to learn fast, yet open enough that you aren't being forced to follow a specific script to get to the goal. The "hack" feature is simple and easy enough to master. The features have *very* good depth, but are simple enough in concept so you don't spend hours figuring it out, and you have infinite combinations of plasmids you can arm. Like HL, the underlying story is also quite good (and simple), with the Ayn Rand dystopia overtones.
Lots of us 40+ guys still love to play games a few times a week but don't want to have to memorize overly complex key controls and poorly written plots. We do have day jobs and games are supposed to be fun, not work. We also have credit cards and don't mind spending the bucks if the games deliver.
We use Dell servers (small company, 4x lower prices servers like the T300 series) and while I like the hardware "ok", the service is pretty thin when it comes to Linux. We run CentOS, which half of the techs that I have talked to have never heard of. They have flatly told me that they are a "Microsoft shop" and they can't help with Linux. In my experience, they are useless for anything relative to software unless it is Microsoft.
On the other hand, I have a couple of spare servers (testing only, dual PIII, around $2500 ea. back them) that run 24/7, from the late 1990s, and they still run perfectly in every way with never a replaced part. I have installed Redhat/Fedora/CentOS on a dozen Dell servers, 4 different models, and have never had an issue with everything installing perfect the first time. So from my experience, their hardware is easy to install, lasts a very long time, and the few times I have had warranty issues, they were handled quickly.
I did once have a cooling fan die out of warranty, and their price for a rebuilt fan "kit" was $75. I went and bought the exact same fan online from a industrial supplier for $13 and just soldered the wires into their proprietary connector (the extra part in the "kit"). They are too expensive for replacement parts. But all and all, if you can take care of your own software, I still recommend Dell. We even use them on the desktop (meh, they are ok) because of price vs performance. The big difference is that while Dell isn't the most powerful systems, you get a little less performance for about half the price.
I also have some IBM servers from 96/97 that still ran when I finally retired them, after cannibalizing them a little. Of course, those were $4500 with one PPro and no hard drives, making them closer to $6k+ each for similar reliability, but exceptional performance.
"Dave" is a man's channel. Endless comedy and fast cars. And one week later, they shown the same programmes again!
So it's like Spike TV with a funny accent? ;)
I say "enhance" out loud whenever I click the zoom button on google maps.
Fail.
"We are sorry, we don't have imagery at this zoom level for this region. Try zooming out for a broader look."
Hey, I'm just like each and every American. After careful thought and consideration, these basic fundamentals come to mind: We eat tuna fish, our cars have VIN numbers, and these are true facts. The end results still remains, that sometimes we are redundant in any and all of our expressions ;)
($10 to whoever picks out all of them...)
Amen with cringeworthy. The girls walking in at the beginning were not even remotely synced, it was like they accepted the first take of everything, with no rehearsal, and a bad script to start with.
The MS DOS 5 Upgrade rap commercial makes me ashamed to be Caucasian. That guy was a Navin Johnson, tuna fish sandwich eating, with the crusts cut off, and a twinkie for dessert kind of Caucasian. I could actually visualize Bill Gates clapping his hands and stomping his foot, almost in rhythm with the video, just like Navin.
I don't feel so good now.
Mitnick used social engineering, not reverse engineering, to gain access to networks. I don't think we have enough information to know what skillz they have or do not have. Either way, I don't *blame* them for trying to get into the security biz for a job. I didn't say I would be hiring them, just said it shouldn't be shocking that they are trying to enter a field they know at least something about.
They still have to file with SEC every year, so I don't think they can really hide any such thing.
What about Kevin Mitnick? He is making a living by switching his hat from black to white, and no one had a problem with that. It would seem that Panda might do better having a few people who know how to make malware so successfully. The question, of course, is "can you trust them?" and only they can answer that.
What did you expect the guys to do for jobs, flip burgers? Become stock brokers? Of course they would pursue careers in security. It seems they must know a fair amount about it to get away with so much, for so long. They certainly know more than someone coming straight from a CS degree.
Like gravity, thermodynamics is more than a good idea, it's the law.
That is all fine until you produce a video that actually makes you money, and they sue you for royalties because you used their codecs to do so. This would be above and beyond the price you paid for the products. And there isn't anything you can do about it, because it is "clearly stated in the license agreement".
Or worse yet, if they disagreed with your video for political reasons, they could go after you for that, claiming it is because you failed to license it.
DRM aims to prevent 1) and the MPAA/RIAA/etc. are hoping that most people will find their witch hunts on people who do 2) necessary and morally right.
I agree, but it's a stupid method as they end up doing more damage than good. They have contributed toward many more people learning how to use bittorrent than would have otherwise, for instance. And like in this instance, the only people prevented from watching the movie are legitimate customers. As someone said above, in the end, the pirates are offering a better product (no drm, no forced FBI warnings, plays on any computer). Even if the price was the same, the pirated versions are BETTER than the commercial versions. Again, DRM is about control, not piracy.
DRM prevents regular people from sharing with their friends.
This is becoming less and less true today, however, as more people start using bittorrent. It prevents the "Hey, I just bought $x, lemme make you a copy" situation, but now it is becoming "Hey I just downloaded $x, lemme burn you a copy". If they weren't so hard for the average person to copy, perhaps they might originate a few more sales, from people who want "clean" copies.
This is the next best thing.
Hell, the people who ripped it and uploaded it may already returned it,
That's it! Finally a foolproof way to prevent nasty pirates from copying your disks and putting them on bittorrent! All the movie distributors have to do is sell disks that won't play on any device, so they can't be copied! Brilliant! ;)
he problem with calling it "doublespeak" is that it's true.
No, it is false. DRM doesn't stop pirating, and they know this. If anything, DRM *causes* more piracy than it prevents.
1. DRM doesn't stop people from making bit for bit copies of the disks and selling them.
2. DRM has never prevented any movie from being released to bittorrent.
3. DRM on movies or games seldom slows down the release of pirated versions by more than one hour, or one day.
4. DRM *does* force legitimate buyers to sometimes seek an unencumbered version, to use it the way they want to use it.
5. DRM is about control, not piracy.
6. Profit! If you live in zone 1, you can't buy and use DVDs in less expensive zones. They use DRM to make more money by controlling when and where you buy the copy.
In this case, the only way the people who bought Avatar on DVD and Bluray can watch it, is to download a copy, effectively making them pirates because the manufacturer sold them a defective copy, since it won't play on all players.
You are assuming that those 309 million approve, which is not the case.
But the people paying for the campaigns and perks for our congressmen DO want it. So a few thousands lobbyists are paying a lot of money to a few congressmen, to get their version of "fair" shoved down the throats of 6.5 billion people. Welcome to America.
But of course - the movie industry will be VERY silent about problems caused by DRM.
Don't underestimate them. They will likely find a way to blame pirates. "If the movie hadn't been pirated for months before it was released on DVD, then DRM wouldn't be needed and these problems could be avoided" . This is exactly the type of marketing doublespeak that I would expect, with the hope of deflecting the blame from their own incompetent asses.
Didn't anyone actually try playing the master disks in a couple different players before they stamped a million of them out?
The FTC wasn't much different under Clinton. It isn't a Democrat/Republican thing, it's a bureaucratic thing. OSHA is also less effective than two decades ago.
It would seem to me that if Fox really wanted to keep Google off their website, all they would have to do is ask or use robots.txt. They don't want Google off their network, they want to charge people to use their "obviously better news website".
1. Blame Google
2. ?????
3. Profit!
For once, this meme actually applies to the topic.