What makes you think I live in the same society you do? For good and bad, and as Morrisey put it, "America is not the world"
FAQ: Slashdot seems to be very U.S.-centric. Do you have any plans to be more international in your scope?
Slashdot is U.S.-centric. We readily admit this, and really don't see it as a problem. Slashdot is run by Americans, after all, and the vast majority of our readership is in the U.S. We're certainly not opposed to doing more international stories, but we don't have any formal plans for making that happen.
Although this DRM stuff will obviously impact the whole world, I am indeed talking about the US government and its hand in helping out those poor needy multi-national corporations. And believe it or not:-) I am very aware that the US is not the world. And thank god, because the rest of the world is looking better and better every day.
But I think we're looking at global fascism here (or "corporatism," as Il Duce liked to call it). Corporations running the world with governments as their weakened benefactors: that's what the future is shaping up to be, and if it takes firm hold here in the States, you can bet it's on the way in most other countries too.
If a company or group of companies tries to force consumers to do things in a way they don't want, then another company or group of companies will move in to fill that void. Not out of the kindness of their hearts, but simply because they're greedy, too. That's the fundamental difference between being evil and being greedy. They're not out to screw you, they're just out to get rich (screwing you is just a side effect).
That's capitalism you're describing. It's endearing that you believe we still live in a capitalist society. Poor kid.
Within a few scant years, we will be in a full-blown fascist state. Groups of companies will indeed block the ability for anyone to offer anything but highly controlled "purchase offers." You'll eat what you're fed because if you don't, you'll starve. Welcome to the future.
I am a fan of copyright protection -- it's a good thing. It lets movies happen.
Only because you guys have the idea that a movie is a piece of "property," like it's a pair of shoes or something.
Copyright protection gives you the freedom to produce winning efforts like Mr. and Mrs. Smith and The Dukes of Hazzard. Nice work, there.
Maybe if someone got off his ass and came up with a business model that didn't try to shoe-horn scarcity into a medium that automatically creates plentitude...
Nahhhh. We just need some new encryption. Yeah, that's it. And -- what was the name of that one '60s TV show about the talking car? My Mother, The Car, yeah! It's gold, box office gold. Oh, they did that one already? Has there been a sequel yet?
I would love to chill. I used to think that one failure, like DivX, was enough to discourage these megacorps from trying to mold us into cash-producing batteries.
I was wrong.
They will try again and again, and every failure just seems to give them new resolve. Nothing -- not even a benevolent government (which the US does not currently have) -- will stop them.
As you say, though, a lot of times it's hard to tell the difference.
The greediest thing a company could do is to prevent publishers from issuing unprotected shows, eliminating the competition you imagine would save us. And better yet: they will create MS-style deals where you can't get access to the one good show you want to watch without paying for three or four other really crappy shows. This would help cement the New New Media.
Think the government will step in and help the consumers? Of course it won't. It'll help pass laws and enforce patents -- and the next thing you know, we'll be paying a corporate tax just to own a TV, muchless see anything on it.
Ok, I have an idea: just don't watch TV!
Sounds good, but the truly greedy will find a way to force you to own one and to pay for it. Like you can't get this week's ID key that lets you buy food or get gas unless you pick it up by watching a certain show at a certain time. It just so happens that to get access to that show, you have to purchase licenses to access four other shows. You don't want to watch any of them, but you have to pay for five shows and actually have to watch one. Just to eat.
Sound like big-brother-inspired paranoia to you? It would to me too, but take a look at the actions of the mega-glomerates and tell me you don't see a trend.
And then let the greedy part of your imagination run just slightly wild.
You'll come up with the same kind of scenarios I have -- scenarios that seem, now, all too inevitable.
All information is not created equally -- something this submitter is deliberately glossing over.
Privacy means keeping information that could be used to harm you from public access.
"Information wants to be free" means that stuff that obviously already belongs to the public -- a song you know by heart, for instance -- cannot be effectively kept "private" or otherwise controlled. This does not include my medical records and bank account information. It does include a joke I once made up.
The bottom line is that this sort of "rule, not law" won't stand up in court -- at least, a fair court. I can't speak for Kangeroo courts, but US citizens have the right to free speech and free assembly, period. If the company you work for doesn't want you to do that, then yes, then can fire you -- but they cannot stop you. (And you'd probably have a pretty good basis for a lawsuit anyway.)
The US constitution guarantees the right to free speech and the right to peacefully assemble. So in any circumstance, employees who are told they cannot "fraternize" have an obvious right to sue based on the bill of rights.
The latest update from Blizzard is that all US WoW servers will be down for 5 days while their database engineers sift through event logs to undo dupe actions.
Stay tuned for more info; this time may extend to as long as 3 weeks.
I have heard this guy propose his nonsense in person. This is a classic case of throwing the baby out of the bathwater; his proposition summarizes as "firewalls aren't a silver bullet, so they're worthless."
He proposes that we secure all individual boxes, which is umpteen times more difficult, more time-consuming, and less secure.
Is it stealing to listen to someone else's copyrighted music? Not that I know of.
The RIAA says it is. Spokesman Martin G. Reyes has said several times recently that the RIAA believes that hearing another person's CD is an act that requires record company compensation, and that there are plans to begin suing violators before the end of the year.
Re:strange definitions of warez, xss, etc.
on
Anatomy of a Hack
·
· Score: 1
Speaking of IDS, from TFA: Once we took over an entire network through an intrusion detection system.
WTF? I'm not sure if by their definition Snort qualifies as an IDS, but I run Snort in a passive way: no IP, not a single packet emitting from the box, etc. If an IDS becomes an entry point for intruders, then it's not an IDS but an IAS: Intrusion Automation System;)
Interestingly enough, there have been vulnerabilities in Snort that actually did allow one to compromise it. Seems impossible given that Snort runs passively, but there was some sort of buffer overflow that let you get an active connection to a passive box. Go figure.
Slashdot Mirror
What makes you think I live in the same society you do? For good and bad, and as Morrisey put it, "America is not the world"
:-) I am very aware that the US is not the world. And thank god, because the rest of the world is looking better and better every day.
FAQ:
Slashdot seems to be very U.S.-centric. Do you have any plans to be more international in your scope?
Slashdot is U.S.-centric. We readily admit this, and really don't see it as a problem. Slashdot is run by Americans, after all, and the vast majority of our readership is in the U.S. We're certainly not opposed to doing more international stories, but we don't have any formal plans for making that happen.
Although this DRM stuff will obviously impact the whole world, I am indeed talking about the US government and its hand in helping out those poor needy multi-national corporations. And believe it or not
But I think we're looking at global fascism here (or "corporatism," as Il Duce liked to call it). Corporations running the world with governments as their weakened benefactors: that's what the future is shaping up to be, and if it takes firm hold here in the States, you can bet it's on the way in most other countries too.
If a company or group of companies tries to force consumers to do things in a way they don't want, then another company or group of companies will move in to fill that void. Not out of the kindness of their hearts, but simply because they're greedy, too. That's the fundamental difference between being evil and being greedy. They're not out to screw you, they're just out to get rich (screwing you is just a side effect).
That's capitalism you're describing. It's endearing that you believe we still live in a capitalist society. Poor kid.
Within a few scant years, we will be in a full-blown fascist state. Groups of companies will indeed block the ability for anyone to offer anything but highly controlled "purchase offers." You'll eat what you're fed because if you don't, you'll starve. Welcome to the future.
I am a fan of copyright protection -- it's a good thing. It lets movies happen.
...
Only because you guys have the idea that a movie is a piece of "property," like it's a pair of shoes or something.
Copyright protection gives you the freedom to produce winning efforts like Mr. and Mrs. Smith and The Dukes of Hazzard. Nice work, there.
Maybe if someone got off his ass and came up with a business model that didn't try to shoe-horn scarcity into a medium that automatically creates plentitude
Nahhhh. We just need some new encryption. Yeah, that's it. And -- what was the name of that one '60s TV show about the talking car? My Mother, The Car, yeah! It's gold, box office gold. Oh, they did that one already? Has there been a sequel yet?
Linux will be illegal soon enough -- along with all other terrorware (formerly known as software not created in a huge corporation).
The software terrorists -- they hate us for our freedom.
I would love to chill. I used to think that one failure, like DivX, was enough to discourage these megacorps from trying to mold us into cash-producing batteries.
I was wrong.
They will try again and again, and every failure just seems to give them new resolve. Nothing -- not even a benevolent government (which the US does not currently have) -- will stop them.
Media companies are not evil; they are greedy
As you say, though, a lot of times it's hard to tell the difference.
The greediest thing a company could do is to prevent publishers from issuing unprotected shows, eliminating the competition you imagine would save us. And better yet: they will create MS-style deals where you can't get access to the one good show you want to watch without paying for three or four other really crappy shows. This would help cement the New New Media.
Think the government will step in and help the consumers? Of course it won't. It'll help pass laws and enforce patents -- and the next thing you know, we'll be paying a corporate tax just to own a TV, muchless see anything on it.
Ok, I have an idea: just don't watch TV!
Sounds good, but the truly greedy will find a way to force you to own one and to pay for it. Like you can't get this week's ID key that lets you buy food or get gas unless you pick it up by watching a certain show at a certain time. It just so happens that to get access to that show, you have to purchase licenses to access four other shows. You don't want to watch any of them, but you have to pay for five shows and actually have to watch one. Just to eat.
Sound like big-brother-inspired paranoia to you? It would to me too, but take a look at the actions of the mega-glomerates and tell me you don't see a trend.
And then let the greedy part of your imagination run just slightly wild.
You'll come up with the same kind of scenarios I have -- scenarios that seem, now, all too inevitable.
Isn't a virus actually a relatively crude form of life? How is it not alive?
The *BSD license has been revoked by the UC board of regents.
You are all fucked.
It may be time. The pressure's getting to me.
I @/\/\ e7337!! G!\/3 m3 W@r3z, d00DZ!!
You have a better suggestion? Some word or phrase that nicely summarizes the we-don't-need-your-fucking-multi-national-corporat ion attitude?
Tell us. We're dying to know what it is.
It's not streaming.
The shows are inventive and markedly different from traditional radio, which streaming radio imitates.
This isn't about technological innovation so much as it is creating a new killer app for internet-based media. And it's working.
If you don't get it, it's because you're ignorant of it.
All information is not created equally -- something this submitter is deliberately glossing over.
Privacy means keeping information that could be used to harm you from public access.
"Information wants to be free" means that stuff that obviously already belongs to the public -- a song you know by heart, for instance -- cannot be effectively kept "private" or otherwise controlled. This does not include my medical records and bank account information. It does include a joke I once made up.
The bottom line is that this sort of "rule, not law" won't stand up in court -- at least, a fair court. I can't speak for Kangeroo courts, but US citizens have the right to free speech and free assembly, period. If the company you work for doesn't want you to do that, then yes, then can fire you -- but they cannot stop you. (And you'd probably have a pretty good basis for a lawsuit anyway.)
Since there is no law protecting the right of workers to socialize outside of work
Actually the bill of rights specifically allows US citizens to peacefully assemble. That trumps any law or any ruling by any court.
The US constitution guarantees the right to free speech and the right to peacefully assemble. So in any circumstance, employees who are told they cannot "fraternize" have an obvious right to sue based on the bill of rights.
FUCK YOU.
He invented the window.
Because slashdot must be destroyed. It supports *BSD.
The latest update from Blizzard is that all US WoW servers will be down for 5 days while their database engineers sift through event logs to undo dupe actions.
Stay tuned for more info; this time may extend to as long as 3 weeks.
I cannot live without Adblock. If Safari only supported an extension like that -- oh, and Googlebar and Yahoo's bar -- then I'd probably switch.
Just a typing mistake, man. Chill.
I have heard this guy propose his nonsense in person. This is a classic case of throwing the baby out of the bathwater; his proposition summarizes as "firewalls aren't a silver bullet, so they're worthless."
He proposes that we secure all individual boxes, which is umpteen times more difficult, more time-consuming, and less secure.
He's not an innovator; he's a contrarian.
I do believe, sir, that you have been trolled. You have lost. Have a nice day. :-)
Is it stealing to listen to someone else's copyrighted music? Not that I know of.
The RIAA says it is. Spokesman Martin G. Reyes has said several times recently that the RIAA believes that hearing another person's CD is an act that requires record company compensation, and that there are plans to begin suing violators before the end of the year.
Meanwhile, the Overheard Compensation page is at http://www.riaa.org/overheard.
Speaking of IDS, from TFA: Once we took over an entire network through an intrusion detection system.
;)
WTF? I'm not sure if by their definition Snort qualifies as an IDS, but I run Snort in a passive way: no IP, not a single packet emitting from the box, etc. If an IDS becomes an entry point for intruders, then it's not an IDS but an IAS: Intrusion Automation System
Interestingly enough, there have been vulnerabilities in Snort that actually did allow one to compromise it. Seems impossible given that Snort runs passively, but there was some sort of buffer overflow that let you get an active connection to a passive box. Go figure.