I don't take credit for it, and was actually embarrased at shamelessly using an old and rather stale joke, but hey, like the man said, it's always the first time for _someone_.
The "key" is knowing how to arrange the letters. If you use ROT13, the key is 13. If you XOR everything by 42 the key is 42.
As silly as it is, I think the logic is valid. I personally prefer double or even quadruple ROT13 for maximum safety, but this is an interesting application of the "logic" used to create the DMCA.
There's no doubt that as more and more legislation is passed, we'll see more and more examples of ludicrous conslusions drawn from the tortured reasoning behind the legislation. Face it, our generally techno-illiterate legislatures know what they want to do, but they don't know how. Preventing people from ripping off the record companies is a reasonable goal (not that they have made any effort to keep the record companies from ripping off the consumers, but that's a slightly different issue). However, any legislation that is going to work, has to crafted by people who not only understand intimately the capabilities of the state-of-the-art, but have enough insight to predict what things might be like 10, 20 or more years down the road. The current legislation smacks of 19th century law (which isn't bad in itself) and seems to completely fail to understand 21st century technology (which is disasterous).
My parents bought me a Hanimex (or Hamm'n'Eggs as I called it) pong game for Christmas in about '76 when I was 11. It had the classic Pong, pong with two linked paddles each, "Hockey" which was double-paddle Pong with walls (definitely the best game), and squash, which had the two players on the same side playing against a wall...and the wall always won!;)
I might have heard of the 2600 by that time, and realizing that cartridge games were on the horizon, saw the potential for video games to explode. I made a comment to that effect shortly before Christmas not realizing I was getting one. Nevertheless, the Hanimex pong game got a lot of usage. My parents may even still have it.
Ahh, back in the days when hand-held games had about a dozen LED's, 6 buttons (and probably not more than a couple hundred transistors) and kept us entranced for hours!
Yeah, kinda like Voyager. They travel halfway across the galaxy only to find everybody looks like humans with small bits of latex glued to their faces. I know there are budget concerns, but Star trek hasn't had a really unique and/or interesting alien culture in about 10 years or more.
>But americans are "ignorant" - they haven't received a good education, they simply don't know stuff, because they haven't been told, or they haven't asked, or whatever.
Ignorant? Why you dad-blasted commie sumbitch faggit! We 'merkans aren't ignorant. We knew enough to come over here and kick the injuns off our God-given land (otta send 'em all back to Africa if you ask me!), and kicked the English off our God-given land (and whooped 'em again in Dubya Dubya 2!) and created the greatest nation in the world. If yer so dern smart, how comes Eye-re-land is still owned by the Russkies!?
Ignorant? That's the dern stoopidest thing I heard since Canada became a state. You otta stay in Eye-re-land with all those other commie pinkos and sit and eat weener schnitzel and surrender to Germans or whatever it is you do over in that sissy part of the world with yer pronography and yer wimmen with hairy armpits and eatin' snails and whatever.
Ignorant? It's a good thing you ain't here, 'cos me a Smith and Wesson got a few words for people like you. At least in 'merka we don't have no sissy king or queen or whatever. We got President Dubya, a real man with real principials and integruity... and if you don't like it we can just shove a noo-cyoo-lar missile up your nose like we shooda done to Saddom an' Kadoffy an' Hitler an' Krooshef an' George III....
No doubt. But I referred to "fusion power"... right now the fusion reactors are a great way to use power, but there are still hurdles until it reaches the break-even point. My thesis in general here is just because something is trivial now (or in 40 years) doesn't mean it is trivial when it is first developed/discovered/conceived.
I like the statement from the web roll computer technology piece a few weeks back. Paraphrased it went, "The first one will cost $500,000,000. The second one will cost $10."
Nowadays, perspective drawing is something any mildly talented person can do. In the 15th century it was revolutionary.
You're right. This discussion may (and will hopefully) seem silly in 40 years, but on the other hand, 40 years ago, they were saying we'd have fusion reactors in 40 years. Last I heard, they're saying we'll have fusion power in 40 years.
You cannot really dismiss technical hurdles on the basis of the fact that technology will grow exponentially over the next X years. The fact remains that the problem of quantum computing devices (if it exists), still must be solved!
Sure, we can laugh about those poor clods with their narrow ties and horned-rimmed glasses that had to suffer with transistors you could actually see with the naked eye, but they in fact were the ones that started the ball rolling for us to be able to sit around and guffaw at the fact that the Pentium IV performs as if it were a few hundred megahertz slower.
I don't think the original poster was trying to dismiss the technology. He was just rightly pointing out a concern that a quantum computing device could be fragile.
So I guess when you record a show to watch later on your VCR, YOU'D BETTER NOT SKIP THE COMMERCIALS! You must watch them and then go out and buy the products. our American way of life is at stake. Must. Go. Purchase. Cars. That. Skid. Sideways. On. TV....
Let's face it, no one forces you to watch TV commercials and you do not owe anyone watching them. COmmercials work because most people do watch them... if they weren't effective companies would stop using them.
Banner ads are a little different because they are not as effective, but the same still holds. I am under no moral obligation to look at banner ads. Yes, if everyone did what I do, then I might have to start paying for all these sites, which wouldn't be so bad, but they don't. I'm not about to feel any obligation to participate in a form of communication that I find to be poorly done and irrelevant to me. I guess I'm just not a good capitalist.
I always thought that was a good idea. I'm glad somebody actually implemented it.
Of course, you realize that we Americans are just upset because the gummint is infringing on our God-given right to flush vast quantities of water for even a tiny little pee. Hey, it's in the constitution!
Actually, my understanding is that the low-flow toilets are 1.5 gallons per flush... and when I've done some major, uh, business, two flushes is lucky...
We are hearing more and more about technology that will impose capricious and draconian restrictions on what we consumers can do with the products we buy. From the DCMA and its offspring like SDMI, to built-in GPS for region control, to the alleged new CD format that will prevent copying, to digital TV that won't allow the signal to be recorded, to speakers that won't allow unauthorized signals to be played, there are so many new ideas being floated about of ways for companies to "protect their rights" (which also means artifically increase profits and take advantage of helpless customers). The industry's reaction to things like Napster could end up having a terrible effect on people who have never even used it.
When these technologies become incorporated into new CD players, DVD players, VCR's, etc, those products had better offer something so new, so cool, and so revolutionary that people will be willing to submit to Soviet-style restrictions on fair use in order to get them. If that doesn't happen, you can guarantee that savvy customers will boycott the products.
Let's look at DIVX. Now there was a product that was needlessly complicated and overly restictive and Circuit City probably lost a bundle when it failed. Who, in the tech community _didn't_ see it coming? Not many, I imagine. I have a feeling that this kind of application of technology could backfire immensely on any companies that choose to use it.
I always thought the American environmental regulations controlling toilet flow creating a black market in old toilets was the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of, just wait until we see old analog A/V equipment becoming more and more of a prized possesion, so people can make reasonable use of the products and software (i.e., music, movies, etc) they buy.
Big Brother is alive and well, but he's currently employed in the private sector.
Thanks for the legal update. I was using a very broad definition for the word "criminal" and wasn't trying to be legally correct. My original point was that equal protection under the law also means equal enforcement of the law.
I wasn't saying that _all_ members of that generation defined themselves that way, but it certainly is a strong trend. To point out a specific counterexample is irrelevant to my point.
For that matter, the people who made the original decision might have been older or younger than the Baby Boomer generation, but my point still holds: A lot of people do not practice what they preach with respect to freedom of speech.
>If I run a red light on a deserted road at 2am, am I a criminal?
Yes.
>They come from a different culture - having different morals (and experiences) is a crime?
It can be.
Leaving aside such issues as absolute morality and natural law, here is what I was trying to say:
The law is the law. If you break the law, you are defined to be a criminal. I'm not making any judgements on the merit of any law, nor whether any crime, however trivial, must be punished. You are reading more into the word "criminal" than I ever intended. My point was that we need equal opportunities, not equal results.
If you are going to take this extremely relativistic attitude towards "criminality" than you should follow it to its logical conclusion and become an anarchist, since you seem to be arguing that a person is accountable only to his or her own moral judgement. Recall that I said "criminal" not "morally wrong".
Otherwise, join the rest of us and work to reach a common ground of justice and equitability.
Yes, we should never allow people to reach beyond what they can do. No one should ever strive to improve him- or herself, nor attempt to reach beyond a comfortable boundary of experience.
We can't have that. Who knows what might happen? God forbid! Someone might suggest that Newtonian physics are wrong! Someone might suggest that the Earth is not the center of the Universe.
Everyone should be muffled in a warm cocoon of simplicty.
Isn't it ironic that the previous generation definted themselves in terms of rebellion against authority, and now that they're in charge, all they do is give people reasons to want to rebel against authority. Power corrupts whether you're a fat, old white guy in a hidden smoky room or an idealistic young hippie out to change the world.
And it's amazing how fast the Bill of Rights gets thrown out the door when an ideology anywhere across the political spectrum feels threatened.
Note to people in charge of the world:
People of different races have a right to be treated equally. Regardless of genetic makeup, a person deserves the same rights as anyone else.
However, that does not mean all people _are_ equal. Nor does it mean that people of different behaviors have a right to be treated equally. If you are a criminal, you deserved to be punished. If you are not a criminal, then you deserve to be left alone.
It's amazing how hard it is for people to understand this... and I'm not talking about only racists. At least the racists are honest about it. It's amazing how often members of the "diversity" crowd are as narrow-minded and prejudiced as any sheet-wearing hick or Neo-Nazi.
I was involved in developing code for a flash EEPROM-programmed device that was reprogrammable over the wire (i.e., downloadable software updates) about 12 years ago. Just like almost all these other software patents, the ideas are neither unique nor new.
Yes, you're right. Yes, that goes at least as far back as Henry Ford, but you're also right that it's for a completely different reason.
There's nothing wrong with a company selling products that are planned to fail after a certain time, because another company can come along and sell one that won't. If you're the kind of person who wants to keep something a long time, you can usually find a product that will last longer... of course it might cost a little more.
That's why I buy Hondas. I plan to drive my one-year-old off to college in the Odyssey I have now.
>By having things break, however, jobs are >created, and...
By that logic, we should just cut out the middle man (machines) entirely and have people do all these things the machines are doing. We could create more jobs than we know what to do with.
The idea that something needs to be done in a less than optimal way just to create jobs is the kind of mentality that ran the Soviet Union, not the United States. Wake up! It's the 21st century.
Slashdot Mirror
You've got a point there.
Having not read the DCMA itself, does it give a meaningful definition of "encryption"?
Rogerborg:
That's the first really funny variation of the "ALL YOUR BASE" quote I've seen yet (and that includes a few feeble attempts on my part).
Rick
I don't take credit for it, and was actually embarrased at shamelessly using an old and rather stale joke, but hey, like the man said, it's always the first time for _someone_.
The "key" is knowing how to arrange the letters. If you use ROT13, the key is 13. If you XOR everything by 42 the key is 42.
As silly as it is, I think the logic is valid. I personally prefer double or even quadruple ROT13 for maximum safety, but this is an interesting application of the "logic" used to create the DMCA.
There's no doubt that as more and more legislation is passed, we'll see more and more examples of ludicrous conslusions drawn from the tortured reasoning behind the legislation. Face it, our generally techno-illiterate legislatures know what they want to do, but they don't know how. Preventing people from ripping off the record companies is a reasonable goal (not that they have made any effort to keep the record companies from ripping off the consumers, but that's a slightly different issue). However, any legislation that is going to work, has to crafted by people who not only understand intimately the capabilities of the state-of-the-art, but have enough insight to predict what things might be like 10, 20 or more years down the road. The current legislation smacks of 19th century law (which isn't bad in itself) and seems to completely fail to understand 21st century technology (which is disasterous).
My parents bought me a Hanimex (or Hamm'n'Eggs as I called it) pong game for Christmas in about '76 when I was 11. It had the classic Pong, pong with two linked paddles each, "Hockey" which was double-paddle Pong with walls (definitely the best game), and squash, which had the two players on the same side playing against a wall ...and the wall always won! ;)
I might have heard of the 2600 by that time, and realizing that cartridge games were on the horizon, saw the potential for video games to explode. I made a comment to that effect shortly before Christmas not realizing I was getting one. Nevertheless, the Hanimex pong game got a lot of usage. My parents may even still have it.
Ahh, back in the days when hand-held games had about a dozen LED's, 6 buttons (and probably not more than a couple hundred transistors) and kept us entranced for hours!
Yeah, kinda like Voyager. They travel halfway across the galaxy only to find everybody looks like humans with small bits of latex glued to their faces. I know there are budget concerns, but Star trek hasn't had a really unique and/or interesting alien culture in about 10 years or more.
>But americans are "ignorant" - they haven't received a good education, they simply don't know stuff, because they haven't been told, or they haven't asked, or whatever.
Ignorant? Why you dad-blasted commie sumbitch faggit! We 'merkans aren't ignorant. We knew enough to come over here and kick the injuns off our God-given land (otta send 'em all back to Africa if you ask me!), and kicked the English off our God-given land (and whooped 'em again in Dubya Dubya 2!) and created the greatest nation in the world. If yer so dern smart, how comes Eye-re-land is still owned by the Russkies!?
Ignorant? That's the dern stoopidest thing I heard since Canada became a state. You otta stay in Eye-re-land with all those other commie pinkos and sit and eat weener schnitzel and surrender to Germans or whatever it is you do over in that sissy part of the world with yer pronography and yer wimmen with hairy armpits and eatin' snails and whatever.
Ignorant? It's a good thing you ain't here, 'cos me a Smith and Wesson got a few words for people like you. At least in 'merka we don't have no sissy king or queen or whatever. We got President Dubya, a real man with real principials and integruity... and if you don't like it we can just shove a noo-cyoo-lar missile up your nose like we shooda done to Saddom an' Kadoffy an' Hitler an' Krooshef an' George III....
No doubt. But I referred to "fusion power"... right now the fusion reactors are a great way to use power, but there are still hurdles until it reaches the break-even point. My thesis in general here is just because something is trivial now (or in 40 years) doesn't mean it is trivial when it is first developed/discovered/conceived.
I like the statement from the web roll computer technology piece a few weeks back. Paraphrased it went, "The first one will cost $500,000,000. The second one will cost $10."
Nowadays, perspective drawing is something any mildly talented person can do. In the 15th century it was revolutionary.
You're right. This discussion may (and will hopefully) seem silly in 40 years, but on the other hand, 40 years ago, they were saying we'd have fusion reactors in 40 years. Last I heard, they're saying we'll have fusion power in 40 years.
You cannot really dismiss technical hurdles on the basis of the fact that technology will grow exponentially over the next X years. The fact remains that the problem of quantum computing devices (if it exists), still must be solved!
Sure, we can laugh about those poor clods with their narrow ties and horned-rimmed glasses that had to suffer with transistors you could actually see with the naked eye, but they in fact were the ones that started the ball rolling for us to be able to sit around and guffaw at the fact that the Pentium IV performs as if it were a few hundred megahertz slower.
I don't think the original poster was trying to dismiss the technology. He was just rightly pointing out a concern that a quantum computing device could be fragile.
Actually my first version was,
:)
ALL YOUR BUCK ARE BELONG TO US
I should have left it that way...
Or they could link to a page that says:
ALL YOUR DOLLAR ARE BELONG TO US
Score: -10, Stupid
So I guess when you record a show to watch later on your VCR, YOU'D BETTER NOT SKIP THE COMMERCIALS! You must watch them and then go out and buy the products. our American way of life is at stake. Must. Go. Purchase. Cars. That. Skid. Sideways. On. TV....
Let's face it, no one forces you to watch TV commercials and you do not owe anyone watching them. COmmercials work because most people do watch them... if they weren't effective companies would stop using them.
Banner ads are a little different because they are not as effective, but the same still holds. I am under no moral obligation to look at banner ads. Yes, if everyone did what I do, then I might have to start paying for all these sites, which wouldn't be so bad, but they don't. I'm not about to feel any obligation to participate in a form of communication that I find to be poorly done and irrelevant to me. I guess I'm just not a good capitalist.
I always thought that was a good idea. I'm glad somebody actually implemented it.
Of course, you realize that we Americans are just upset because the gummint is infringing on our God-given right to flush vast quantities of water for even a tiny little pee. Hey, it's in the constitution!
Actually, my understanding is that the low-flow toilets are 1.5 gallons per flush... and when I've done some major, uh, business, two flushes is lucky...
We don't even need to do that. If Sony puts it in the PS2's, Saddam's weapons program will be set back years.
We are hearing more and more about technology that will impose capricious and draconian restrictions on what we consumers can do with the products we buy. From the DCMA and its offspring like SDMI, to built-in GPS for region control, to the alleged new CD format that will prevent copying, to digital TV that won't allow the signal to be recorded, to speakers that won't allow unauthorized signals to be played, there are so many new ideas being floated about of ways for companies to "protect their rights" (which also means artifically increase profits and take advantage of helpless customers). The industry's reaction to things like Napster could end up having a terrible effect on people who have never even used it.
When these technologies become incorporated into new CD players, DVD players, VCR's, etc, those products had better offer something so new, so cool, and so revolutionary that people will be willing to submit to Soviet-style restrictions on fair use in order to get them. If that doesn't happen, you can guarantee that savvy customers will boycott the products.
Let's look at DIVX. Now there was a product that was needlessly complicated and overly restictive and Circuit City probably lost a bundle when it failed. Who, in the tech community _didn't_ see it coming? Not many, I imagine. I have a feeling that this kind of application of technology could backfire immensely on any companies that choose to use it.
I always thought the American environmental regulations controlling toilet flow creating a black market in old toilets was the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of, just wait until we see old analog A/V equipment becoming more and more of a prized possesion, so people can make reasonable use of the products and software (i.e., music, movies, etc) they buy.
Big Brother is alive and well, but he's currently employed in the private sector.
Only as long as you don't take what _I_ say as gospel. :)
Thanks for the legal update. I was using a very broad definition for the word "criminal" and wasn't trying to be legally correct. My original point was that equal protection under the law also means equal enforcement of the law.
I wasn't saying that _all_ members of that generation defined themselves that way, but it certainly is a strong trend. To point out a specific counterexample is irrelevant to my point.
For that matter, the people who made the original decision might have been older or younger than the Baby Boomer generation, but my point still holds: A lot of people do not practice what they preach with respect to freedom of speech.
>Is a speeder a criminal?
Yes.
>If I run a red light on a deserted road at 2am, am I a criminal?
Yes.
>They come from a different culture - having different morals (and experiences) is a crime?
It can be.
Leaving aside such issues as absolute morality and natural law, here is what I was trying to say:
The law is the law. If you break the law, you are defined to be a criminal. I'm not making any judgements on the merit of any law, nor whether any crime, however trivial, must be punished. You are reading more into the word "criminal" than I ever intended. My point was that we need equal opportunities, not equal results.
If you are going to take this extremely relativistic attitude towards "criminality" than you should follow it to its logical conclusion and become an anarchist, since you seem to be arguing that a person is accountable only to his or her own moral judgement. Recall that I said "criminal" not "morally wrong".
Otherwise, join the rest of us and work to reach a common ground of justice and equitability.
Yes, we should never allow people to reach beyond what they can do. No one should ever strive to improve him- or herself, nor attempt to reach beyond a comfortable boundary of experience.
We can't have that. Who knows what might happen? God forbid! Someone might suggest that Newtonian physics are wrong! Someone might suggest that the Earth is not the center of the Universe.
Everyone should be muffled in a warm cocoon of simplicty.
Ignorance is bliss!
Isn't it ironic that the previous generation definted themselves in terms of rebellion against authority, and now that they're in charge, all they do is give people reasons to want to rebel against authority. Power corrupts whether you're a fat, old white guy in a hidden smoky room or an idealistic young hippie out to change the world.
And it's amazing how fast the Bill of Rights gets thrown out the door when an ideology anywhere across the political spectrum feels threatened.
Note to people in charge of the world:
People of different races have a right to be treated equally. Regardless of genetic makeup, a person deserves the same rights as anyone else.
However, that does not mean all people _are_ equal. Nor does it mean that people of different behaviors have a right to be treated equally. If you are a criminal, you deserved to be punished. If you are not a criminal, then you deserve to be left alone.
It's amazing how hard it is for people to understand this... and I'm not talking about only racists. At least the racists are honest about it. It's amazing how often members of the "diversity" crowd are as narrow-minded and prejudiced as any sheet-wearing hick or Neo-Nazi.
I was involved in developing code for a flash EEPROM-programmed device that was reprogrammable over the wire (i.e., downloadable software updates) about 12 years ago. Just like almost all these other software patents, the ideas are neither unique nor new.
Yes, you're right. Yes, that goes at least as far back as Henry Ford, but you're also right that it's for a completely different reason.
There's nothing wrong with a company selling products that are planned to fail after a certain time, because another company can come along and sell one that won't. If you're the kind of person who wants to keep something a long time, you can usually find a product that will last longer... of course it might cost a little more.
That's why I buy Hondas. I plan to drive my one-year-old off to college in the Odyssey I have now.
>By having things break, however, jobs are >created, and ...
By that logic, we should just cut out the middle man (machines) entirely and have people do all these things the machines are doing. We could create more jobs than we know what to do with.
The idea that something needs to be done in a less than optimal way just to create jobs is the kind of mentality that ran the Soviet Union, not the United States. Wake up! It's the 21st century.