Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this exactly the kind of thing that Palladium aims to prevent ? If you are not allowed to capture your screen or to record sound via the soundcard, then you can't copy protected material.
The article says that the idea in question involves
converting machine- executable binary code into high-level source code; reverse-engineering the intelligence from existing programs and recoding it into high-level language; and converting certain machine code into C language source.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this just a decompiler ? Isn't the idea of a decompiler in the public domain now ? Furthermore, I was under the impression that there are several decompilers currently on the market, some of which are even copyrighted by their makers. In view of this, how can Alcatel ever hope to win their lawsuit ?
In my experience, one really needs to buy an extra computer in order to use Linux at all. You set up Linux on it, install ant, oracle, etc. so you can do development, and then never hook up a monitor to it again. This gives you the best of both worlds: development tools under Linux (via eXceed/ssh), and he multimedia capabilities of a real desktop os (Windows). Of course, this solution is twice as expensive as booting Linux directly, but it's worth it, because Linux is unusable on the desktop by itself, mostly for the reasons listed in the article.
In other words, Linux is an OS specifically for developers and server admins who have some extra cash. It's a niche, to be sure, but it's probably a large one, so maybe Linux has a chance.
It is, apparently, perfectly valid to make weird cyber-laws when they protect the profits of corporations (SSSCA or whatever it's called now days, DMCA, etc.), or Save Our Children (tm). It's only silly to make cyber-laws when they extend the rights of the consumer, instead.
Personally, I don't think there should be any "cyber"-specific laws. Fair use should be the same for books and data; child porn should be equally illegal in any medium; and producers of defective merchandise should be liable regardless of whether they sell spoons or software. But I guess starving lawyers need money too, so we should have as many new laws as possible...
Can someone refresh my memory, please: does quantum entanglement work instantaneously, or at the speed of light ? In the second case, this "quantum teleportation" would be no more interesting than just beaming a laser the conventional way... by shining it on things. How does quantum entanglement work, anyway ?
...between a lone inventor and a corporate employee is that the inventor can decide what he wants to build. If he has some crazy visionary idea, like transmitting moving pictures over pieces of wire, he can go ahead and build it.
The corporate employee, however, builds whatever his employer tells him to build. Usually, this involves upgrading existing technology in some way. Corporations are slow and cautious; they cannot afford to invest much of their time into crackpot inventions (moving pictures ? bah !) that most likely will tank.
I think there is also a distinction between building a prototype and a complete product. An inventor usually only has resources to complete an initial "proof-of-concept" version of his device. The marketing, improvements, aesthetically pleasing translucent plastic shells, etc., are beyound his price range. Which is why his best choice is to sell out to someone, an inverstor or a corporation, who has those kind of resources.
In conclusion, inventors and corporations are interdependent. Coroporations cannot innovate, and investors cannot market their products. It takes both for some new technology (cell phones, TV, AC power) to take off.
Is anyone else reminded of the Plank from Michael Flynn's Firestar when reading this ? Only it's not a megacorporation doing this, but some private individuals... Which makes it even cooler:-)
An oath is useless, unless it is backed up by some sort of force. It's a cynical view, I know, but consider: how many people would follow an oath, if they knew that breaking it would lead to no reprecussions ? Not many.
The original Oath worked because oaths were taken seriously in ancient times; an oathbreaker would be ostracized by the community, and may suffer great financial harm, as no one would be willing to deal with him. In modern times, however, the global community is so large that it does not care about individual members. You can break any oath any time you want, and no one would notice.
That is why most of our important oaths, such as "I shall not kill", or "I shall not disclose the secrets I gained while working at XYZ", are backed up by laws and enforcment agencies, set up specifically for that purpose. It would of course be possible to set up another such agency, but I contend that it would quickly be hijacked by corporate interests, and rendered useless or malicious. Similar things are happening now to the original Hippocratic Oath, actually.
The bottom line is, if the majority of people prefer to do harm in exchange for some generous compensation, that's what they'll do. No number of empty promises is going to stop them.
Speaking as a Windows junkie, I will install Linux on my desktop when someone teaches me to configure it to dialup to my ISP, using my Linux-compatible USR modem. I am not looking for lessons such as, "well, you need to patch the modem driver in 3 places"; I am looking for someting like, "Click here to edit this one file, put in your username, and then it works".
Of course, the above assumes that the Red Hat dialer doesn't work... which it doesn't.
Also note that, yes, it would be very educational for me to learn how pppd and chat talk to each other; it would also be very informative to know which API is better for controlling the modem, and so on. However, as a Windows user, I know one thing: Windows can dialup right out of the box; Linux dialup requires me to take a 2-week seminar.
Which is why I am still using Windows on my home desktop.
It doesn't really matter if Java or C# is better. In most people's minds, Microsoft is synonymous with computers. MS makes computers work; without MS, there would be no civilization as we know it. When people are told about Linux, for example, they ask, "Which version is that ? Was that before or after Windows 95 ?".
So, when MS announces that Java is no longer supported on their OS, the message people hear is, "Java doesn't work". This includes ordinary users and clueless CTOs; the techies know better, but no one listens to them.
In addition, "everyone knows" that.NET is built into every computer in the world, for free (well, there is that MS tax, but you need to pay it anyway, right ?). If you were developing a new server-side application from scratch right now, what would you use - a framework which is already built into every computer on the planet, or some dubious 3rd-party software that you have to download and learn ? Plus, it might be un-american to boot, who knows... better stay away from it.
You might think that the level of ignorance I described above is excessive, but I do not believe it is. As a comparison, consider this: recently, I advised my friend (who doesn't have much cash) to install Linux on his old PC, and he said, "No, that's too expensive". Can you expect people who ask questions like this to understand what a "Java library" is ?
In conclusion, I give Java about 3 more years (I think 5 years is optimistic). It's sad, but.NET is the future. MS simply has better marketing.
Actually, I once read an interesting analysis of the Genesis chapter that tried to determine what the phrase "God created Adam in his own image" means. The idea that God really has 2 arms, 2 legs, and all the other squishy bits, is kinda ridiculous, so it probably shouldn't be taken literally. The author's conclusion was that "...in his own image" refers to the qualities that make humans different from animals - self-awareness, reasoning power, and the ability to create new things.
In other words, what makes us human is the same "stuff" that makes us closer to being divine than, say, a frog. In this case, it would be almost blasphemy to not "play God", since we would be debasing ourselves to the level of worms, and God obviously had something different in mind for us.
(BTW, sorry, I read this a while ago and do not have the source)
It looks like their main objective is to filter out email attachments with.exe,.com, or other executable filenames. So what's the problem ? People who aren't smart enough to rename their attachment "new_flash_game_e_x_e.txt" aren't smart enough to not get infected, anyway.
What really is scary, though, is that it never occurred to these people to turn off Outlook. It's a given fact of life that every computer runs Windows, Outlook, Word and IE. Other software simply does not exist. Linux on the desktop my ass...
Re:You are absolutely wrong
on
SSSCA Hearing
·
· Score: 1
Well, the problem will really manifest itself only when it becomes 100% illegal to manufacture any device without DRM. Then you have a situation where you cannot vote with your dollars, since there are only two choices:
Submit to DRM
Never watch another video, or listen to another CD or...
Given those choices, most consumers will choose #1. A small minority of/. readers will choose #2, but the losses of revenue would be insignificant.
And that's why the media companies are trying to put the force of law behind DRM.
Strictly speaking, this is not a gauss gun. A real gauss gun would use the Lentz (sp?) effect or something similar to accelerate the ball down the rails; this weapon, however, is built entirely out of plain old permanent magnets and kinetic energy. Actually, I suppose that maglev trains could be considered as gigantic gauss guns also, though they do not use the Lentz effect.
Re:Compromise or be ignored - it's the only option
on
SSSCA Hearing
·
· Score: 1
Hear hear -- that's the first sane comment I have read on this thread.
Wake up people: arguments such as "I have the right to do X", or "I should be able to do Y with my DvD" aren't worth anything. The/. community is an inconsequential minority in the global population of consumers. The average consumer will buy whatever DvD or CD is on the market; the thought of ripping it or backing it up wouldn't even occur to him. That's why the MPAA/RIAA can safely choose to make the format as restrictive as possible.
And there is nothing you can do about it. You cannot educate the vast majority of consumers about the dangers of copy-prevention, you can't buy your own politicians (not enough money), and you can't oust the senators (not enough votes). The only viable solution is to compromise.
Yeah... Actually, don't get the original Jin-Roh DVD - it looks like the video was transferred to DVD by some 10-year old kid with an old camcorder, or something. Furthermore, and believe me, this is an exception rather than the rule, the dubbing of the movie hat came out in theaters recently is really superb. So, if you can, wait for the new DVD to come out -- hopefully it will have a better video transfer and the English dub.
Note to all you slashdot trolls: before you flame me, let me mention that the ONLY instances of good dubbing that I have seen so far are:
I think the problem is that "everyone knows" that cartoons are for kids. Now, imagine what would happen if a generation of kids were raised on Lain and Evangelion... We'd have mass psychosis on our hands:-)
This is an excellent idea in theory, but the proposed implementation wouldn't work. First of all, AFAIK, there is no way to change the process priority in Javascript. This means that the leech program will take all the CPU cycles, not just idle ones -- and thus expose itself even to the most clueless of users. Second of all, Javascript is just slow, even compared to Java, which is the prince of slow. Thus, it will only be able to syphon an infinitesmal amount of useful CPU time from each user, even despite taking all the CPU cycles.
Actually, an embedded Java applet (make it 1 by 1 pixels) may fit the job description better, especially if there is a way for that applet to denice itself.
Seeing as the roots of computers can't communicate with us, what makes you really think that the first true AI on a computer/machine will be able to communicate with us?
The Turing Test just tests if the subject is human, in the mental sense. It is possible to have a "varelse" (er... is that the right one ? OSC fans ?) intelligence that is intelligent yet so inhuman that you can't even communicate with it -- for example, some methane-breathing, pseuodopod-slithering alien might fit into this category.
Other problems with the Turing test is that it leaves great room for interpretation- there were some people who thought that Eliza was their friend, honest to goodness, and considered it to pass.
On the average though, people were able to see quite clearly that Eliza is a bot. And the Turing Test works with averages, unless I am mistaken.
On the subject of IRC bots and code - IRC bots are in the same category as Eliza (so far). And the Turing Test explicitly does not look at the code -- behavior is the only thing that matters.
So, I think that the premise "if it communicates like a human, it's a human" of the Turing test is still correct, with all moral and ethical issues attached.
This is actually a difference in philosophy on education that is causing lots of debates today. What is the purpose of schools ? Is it
Teaching specific skills to students to make them more employable, or
Teaching general science concepts, critical thinking, etc. ?
Learning BASIC fails criterion #1 spectacularly - no one uses qbasic for anything useful anymore. However, things like variables, loops, if statements, subprograms, etc. will be in use long after any "language of the day" crumbles to dust. So, learning BASIC can help schools achieve #2.
So, it all depends on what you view as being more valuable - specific skills or abstract concepts.
In my school, classes progressed in parallel. In Physics, we learned how to conduct experiments. In Statistics, we learned standard deviation, etc., so we can correlate the data from the experiments. In DBase (yes, I'm old) we learned how to organize a database for all the data. In Pascal, we learned how to write simulations, etc., which DBase wasn't all that great for. It was virtually impossible to get a good grade in any of these classes without thorough understanding of the material - if you can't understand physics, you won't be able to write a program that understands it, either.
So, I'd say that computers are a good thing, if used properly. Obviously, giving every student a laptop with Web access and then walking away won't do anyone any good; however, it does not follow that computers are completely useless. When used as an instruction tool, computers are priceless.
What is "professionalism", though ? We had a "professional" programmer on our team once. All he ever did was dress up in a suit and talk about programming techniques. He didn't actually do jack shit. In my mind, the professional programmer has to be able to:
Write good code (and documentation, etc.)
Communicate with the rest of the team
Make the deadlines (at least more than half the time)
That's it. I don't care if he wears a wookie shirt and Spock ears, I don't care if he drinks jolt, I don't even care if he is not familiar with the latest marketspeak. If he is able to work with me on the project, and pull his own weight, he is an ideal teammate. And a strong team is always a win for any project.
It seems that the crux of all your anger can be summarized as follows:
Programmers embarass management in front of clients
There are at least 2 solutions to this problem:
Make programmers less embarassing
Don't let the clients see the programmers
You obviously opt for #1. However, I would argue that #2 is more practical. For one thing, solution #2 is cheaper - putting window blinds in your office should take care of it. Contrast that with the cost of hiring new developers (as some of your current developers will quit due to draconian measures), slipping deadlines (sleepy programmers don't get much done), and the hidden costs of alienating your workers (angry workers are highly uncooperative). I think that solution #1 is a definite win here.
I think you are pretty correct about that. Giving children PDAs for 2 days is nothing more than a publicity trick; in fact, I can't recall a single subject that took me (or anyone else) just 2 days to learn. Of course, giving 3000 children the Young Lady's Illustrated Primer could in fact change the world in significant ways; however, the technology to create the software for something like that does not exist, and probably won't exist until year 3000 or so.
Slashdot Mirror
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this exactly the kind of thing that Palladium aims to prevent ? If you are not allowed to capture your screen or to record sound via the soundcard, then you can't copy protected material.
In other words, Linux is an OS specifically for developers and server admins who have some extra cash. It's a niche, to be sure, but it's probably a large one, so maybe Linux has a chance.
Personally, I don't think there should be any "cyber"-specific laws. Fair use should be the same for books and data; child porn should be equally illegal in any medium; and producers of defective merchandise should be liable regardless of whether they sell spoons or software. But I guess starving lawyers need money too, so we should have as many new laws as possible...
Can someone refresh my memory, please: does quantum entanglement work instantaneously, or at the speed of light ? In the second case, this "quantum teleportation" would be no more interesting than just beaming a laser the conventional way... by shining it on things. How does quantum entanglement work, anyway ?
The corporate employee, however, builds whatever his employer tells him to build. Usually, this involves upgrading existing technology in some way. Corporations are slow and cautious; they cannot afford to invest much of their time into crackpot inventions (moving pictures ? bah !) that most likely will tank.
I think there is also a distinction between building a prototype and a complete product. An inventor usually only has resources to complete an initial "proof-of-concept" version of his device. The marketing, improvements, aesthetically pleasing translucent plastic shells, etc., are beyound his price range. Which is why his best choice is to sell out to someone, an inverstor or a corporation, who has those kind of resources.
In conclusion, inventors and corporations are interdependent. Coroporations cannot innovate, and investors cannot market their products. It takes both for some new technology (cell phones, TV, AC power) to take off.
Is anyone else reminded of the Plank from Michael Flynn's Firestar when reading this ? Only it's not a megacorporation doing this, but some private individuals... Which makes it even cooler :-)
The original Oath worked because oaths were taken seriously in ancient times; an oathbreaker would be ostracized by the community, and may suffer great financial harm, as no one would be willing to deal with him. In modern times, however, the global community is so large that it does not care about individual members. You can break any oath any time you want, and no one would notice.
That is why most of our important oaths, such as "I shall not kill", or "I shall not disclose the secrets I gained while working at XYZ", are backed up by laws and enforcment agencies, set up specifically for that purpose. It would of course be possible to set up another such agency, but I contend that it would quickly be hijacked by corporate interests, and rendered useless or malicious. Similar things are happening now to the original Hippocratic Oath, actually.
The bottom line is, if the majority of people prefer to do harm in exchange for some generous compensation, that's what they'll do. No number of empty promises is going to stop them.
Of course, the above assumes that the Red Hat dialer doesn't work... which it doesn't.
Also note that, yes, it would be very educational for me to learn how pppd and chat talk to each other; it would also be very informative to know which API is better for controlling the modem, and so on. However, as a Windows user, I know one thing: Windows can dialup right out of the box; Linux dialup requires me to take a 2-week seminar.
Which is why I am still using Windows on my home desktop.
So, when MS announces that Java is no longer supported on their OS, the message people hear is, "Java doesn't work". This includes ordinary users and clueless CTOs; the techies know better, but no one listens to them.
In addition, "everyone knows" that .NET is built into every computer in the world, for free (well, there is that MS tax, but you need to pay it anyway, right ?). If you were developing a new server-side application from scratch right now, what would you use - a framework which is already built into every computer on the planet, or some dubious 3rd-party software that you have to download and learn ? Plus, it might be un-american to boot, who knows... better stay away from it.
You might think that the level of ignorance I described above is excessive, but I do not believe it is. As a comparison, consider this: recently, I advised my friend (who doesn't have much cash) to install Linux on his old PC, and he said, "No, that's too expensive". Can you expect people who ask questions like this to understand what a "Java library" is ?
In conclusion, I give Java about 3 more years (I think 5 years is optimistic). It's sad, but .NET is the future. MS simply has better marketing.
In other words, what makes us human is the same "stuff" that makes us closer to being divine than, say, a frog. In this case, it would be almost blasphemy to not "play God", since we would be debasing ourselves to the level of worms, and God obviously had something different in mind for us.
(BTW, sorry, I read this a while ago and do not have the source)
What really is scary, though, is that it never occurred to these people to turn off Outlook. It's a given fact of life that every computer runs Windows, Outlook, Word and IE. Other software simply does not exist. Linux on the desktop my ass...
- Submit to DRM
- Never watch another video, or listen to another CD or...
Given those choices, most consumers will choose #1. A small minority ofAnd that's why the media companies are trying to put the force of law behind DRM.
Strictly speaking, this is not a gauss gun. A real gauss gun would use the Lentz (sp?) effect or something similar to accelerate the ball down the rails; this weapon, however, is built entirely out of plain old permanent magnets and kinetic energy. Actually, I suppose that maglev trains could be considered as gigantic gauss guns also, though they do not use the Lentz effect.
Wake up people: arguments such as "I have the right to do X", or "I should be able to do Y with my DvD" aren't worth anything. The /. community is an inconsequential minority in the global population of consumers. The average consumer will buy whatever DvD or CD is on the market; the thought of ripping it or backing it up wouldn't even occur to him. That's why the MPAA/RIAA can safely choose to make the format as restrictive as possible.
And there is nothing you can do about it. You cannot educate the vast majority of consumers about the dangers of copy-prevention, you can't buy your own politicians (not enough money), and you can't oust the senators (not enough votes). The only viable solution is to compromise.
Note to all you slashdot trolls: before you flame me, let me mention that the ONLY instances of good dubbing that I have seen so far are:
- Jin-Roh
- FFX
That's it. I wish it wasn't, but...Try Lain, Perfect Blue or Jin-Roh.
I sure wish the situation would change though...
Actually, an embedded Java applet (make it 1 by 1 pixels) may fit the job description better, especially if there is a way for that applet to denice itself.
On the subject of IRC bots and code - IRC bots are in the same category as Eliza (so far). And the Turing Test explicitly does not look at the code -- behavior is the only thing that matters.
So, I think that the premise "if it communicates like a human, it's a human" of the Turing test is still correct, with all moral and ethical issues attached.
Learning BASIC fails criterion #1 spectacularly - no one uses qbasic for anything useful anymore. However, things like variables, loops, if statements, subprograms, etc. will be in use long after any "language of the day" crumbles to dust. So, learning BASIC can help schools achieve #2.
So, it all depends on what you view as being more valuable - specific skills or abstract concepts.
So, I'd say that computers are a good thing, if used properly. Obviously, giving every student a laptop with Web access and then walking away won't do anyone any good; however, it does not follow that computers are completely useless. When used as an instruction tool, computers are priceless.
- Write good code (and documentation, etc.)
- Communicate with the rest of the team
- Make the deadlines (at least more than half the time)
That's it. I don't care if he wears a wookie shirt and Spock ears, I don't care if he drinks jolt, I don't even care if he is not familiar with the latest marketspeak. If he is able to work with me on the project, and pull his own weight, he is an ideal teammate. And a strong team is always a win for any project.- Make programmers less embarassing
- Don't let the clients see the programmers
You obviously opt for #1. However, I would argue that #2 is more practical. For one thing, solution #2 is cheaper - putting window blinds in your office should take care of it. Contrast that with the cost of hiring new developers (as some of your current developers will quit due to draconian measures), slipping deadlines (sleepy programmers don't get much done), and the hidden costs of alienating your workers (angry workers are highly uncooperative). I think that solution #1 is a definite win here.I think you are pretty correct about that. Giving children PDAs for 2 days is nothing more than a publicity trick; in fact, I can't recall a single subject that took me (or anyone else) just 2 days to learn. Of course, giving 3000 children the Young Lady's Illustrated Primer could in fact change the world in significant ways; however, the technology to create the software for something like that does not exist, and probably won't exist until year 3000 or so.