Having taught many college math classes, I can tell you invariably (haha:)) that the students have problems with arithmetic if they don't something in class.
Doing arithmetic in your head means moving numbers around in your mind and combining them.
Doing algebra is one step beyond this. So, if you never understood arithmetic, you won't understand algebra.
I blame the purveyors of calculators for "convincing" state school boards to give kids calculators from day 1. They shouldn't get calculators until high school at the earliest or they'll never learn arithmetic and they'll never get abstraction and they won't be able to solve problems.
But those are bots on IRC, not IM. IM changes everything don't you see? Maybe I should take out a patent on bots over wireless text messaging networks?:P
The argument is that by making a copy of the software to have it run on your computer, you're making a copy of the whole piece of software, beyond fair-use rights.
US Code Section 17, article 117:Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.-Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
When I buy a piece of software, a copy of it comes on a disk. I do have a copy. I own the media. I do own a copy of the software. I may not be able to use it due to a license, but I do own a copy since it is clearly in my possession and it is a copy. This section says that I can make copies if I need to be able to use the software. So, there really isn't a need to have licenses.:)
They will argue that you don't own a copy, but if I go to a store and I pay money for a box and a copy of the software is on a disk in that box, then yes I do own a copy of the software. I own the little shiny disk, and contained in that disk is a copy of the software.
Then licenses could apply to all digital media. Why not e-books? Copyright gives you the right to make enough copies of the digital media to use it. Licenses are BS addons that companies use to control you.
If it's valid for software and E-books then why not for regular books? Copyright gives you just as much right to use both things.
By this logic, you could sell a book with a lock on it and tell people that they have to go to a website and agree to a license to get a key to unlock the book to read it. If you broke the lock, you would be violating the big bad anti-circumvention laws out there. I expect this sort of crap to come to pass. It's probably time to decide how much stupid shit you're willing to take before you go to jail to become a drain on the system.
In the US (probably in the EU, also), you aren't allowed to defend yourself at a patent trial because it's assumed that you can't understand the patent.
On the other hand, the only reason patents exist is to convince inventors to put their research out there for everyone to see and build upon (after a certain time period).
So, if these inventors are supposed to look at a patent and it's supposed to be "reduced to practice" then they're supposed to be able to implement it, right? Which means that they have to understand the patent right? If they're expected to EXTEND the patent, then they have to understand the current patent right?
But they can't understand a patent since they're not patent lawyers...
It makes no sense to me. If people are assumed to be unable to understand a patent unless they're patent lawyers, and if the only reason patents exist is to let engineers avoid reinventing the wheel by reading and understanding the patents, then aren't they worthless?
Or if not, could you explain the legal contortions that give two totally separate meanings to "understanding" a patent?
No I think you're the shill who keeps mentioning the Sony/Ericsson T68i Cellphone/Digital Camera by name thereby increasing its brand recognition. Perhaps if everyone here would stop talking about the Sony/Ericsson T68i Cellphone/Digital Camera then these companies wouldn't get so much free press about the Sony/Ericsson T68i Cellphone/Digital Camera.
And btw, this is a neat marketing campaign. I usually don't like marketing drones but getting/.ers all riled up rocks...:) I wouldn't buy it myself since I've never had a cellphone and don't plan on getting one anytime soon, but it's still a neat marketing idea.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. This has nothing to do with piracy. It is about control and preventing competition. This is an example of that.
If hardware makers only make machines that play "watermarked content" and you can't add a watermark to your own content to play it, then they've taken the control back. When you write your congressmen, point out that this will make it harder for independent artists to make and distribute art and it therefore hinders the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
Umm if you actually write the virus/worm/trojan or if you take something from the public domain and assume copyright over it, you're automatically a copyright holder. So, the very act of creating these kinds of malicious programs makes you a copyright holder.:P
Damn. It makes me wish that I had patented a method and apparatus for moving your website to a new host when your old host turns out to be a lying sack of shit and goes bankrupt.
So I guarantee that these free OSes will find a way to bypass it in software
You're correct. It can and will be bypassed in software. However, I am not so sure about this:
So I guarantee that these free OSes will find a way to bypass it in software LEGALLY
You see it isn't a question of whether or not it can be bypassed, it's a question of whether or not it can be bypassed legally.
How could it be made illegal? Two examples:
Circumventing an encryption device. They allow you to do it on your own comp, but it's illegal to tell others how to do it.
Patents. They set it up so you need to use a patented process to run programs using the hardware, and Linux and FS/OSS don't get the licenses.
So, it's not a question of CAN you get around it, it's question of are you permitted to get around it?
I think I'm prepared to make any crippled machines I buy in the future as capable as machines that I have today. It hasn't gotten to that point yet, but I do understand what I'm saying. I hope that I'm willing to carry through with my threat to make my machines as capable as the ones I have today should it ever become necessary.
It seems reasonable doesn't it? After all, so much of science and new types of art are dependent on computers and technology that this country has an obligation to promote the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
If giant companies use copyright and patents to cripple computers, then they're using copyright and patents to hinder the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
Because I think that's wrong, I will fix my crippled property and tell others how to fix their crippled property so that they can use their machines to create software, and art, and do scientific and other fun things. In that way, I will be promoting the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
These bastards paid for a government regulation that restricts my use of my own property. Where's my compensation under the 5th Amendment takings clause for all of these thousands of regulations that restrict how I can use my own property?
They're just playing the wrong games. I have to use my brainpower and creativity to play my favorite game: KarmaQuest on Slashdot. If I just sit back don't think and post any microsoft rules old mpaa rocks crap lunix suxxx0rz, then I lose points.
On the other hand, if I spend some time and get creative and construct a witty, self-referential post that admits that it's there to whore karma, then I can win a lot of points.
Well, not specifically that. But, my guess is that they'll have a booth with descriptions of all 538 Microsoft pure thought patents that linux users violate every time they turn on their computers.
They'll have cameras and facial recognition software to use to find out who's at the expo since they can assume that everyone there not working for Microsoft must be using Linux or wants to use Linux.
That way, they can go after current hardcore users of Linux for infringement of Microsoft's pure thought patents, and make it clear that anyone who even attempts to use Linux will put themselves at grave risk for future lawsuits!!!
There's no boycott. However, if you think this company did something that you don't like, then you don't have to give them your money just because they came out with something new that you want. If you don't have a problem with this company's track record and you like the product, then go buy it. People will applaud and mock you no matter what you do, so just make the decision for yourself.
If they let you buy more "packs" from WoTC online, then then they're just fucking printing money. I mean how hard is it to create 20 records in an account and generate 20 random numbers?:P My hat goes off to them. They finally found a way to make money off the Internet. This should be listed as a form of gambling. Maybe the MMOGs will follow suit and let you buy "bags of mystery" that can contain crap eq but sometimes a piece of really good eq. Hmm....
You could probably reverse engineer the card numbers. But, IMO you shouldn't ever get those numbers sent to the client. There's no reason for this. Hopefully they will keep the messages to the client simple, like sending the N cards of the account holder to the client, and telling the client what kinds of cards those are. Then, all information back to the server is in the form of "I used card K for this" or something along those lines, so the server always knows that it's one of the N cards, but it doesn't accept that it was an UberCard or anything like that. Hopefully...
Of course, if they let you have cards in your client and let you upload them from your own collection...then they deserve to get "diabloed."
An all out DoS attack?
on
Cyber-Attacks?
·
· Score: 2, Flamebait
So might this be an all-out DoS attack looking to shut down the spread of the fruits of the decadent, imperialist American culture? Would they try to clog the networks so that people can't share any type of creative endeavour that represents the freedom that all Americans enjoy? Oh wait. That would be these people. My bad. Move along. Nothing to see here. I get those groups trying to subvert freedom at all costs in pursuit of their twisted ideology confused sometimes. (NB: I am not condoning piracy. But you shouldn't let companies engage in the kinds of activities that terrorits might do.:P) Also, is there a new version of Godwin's law relating to calling someone a terrorist?
That's what I don't get either. If you write some dickhead code to attack other peoples' computers, you're a copyright holder on that code. So, you should be able to use it to check if people have that code on their computers or not. Of course they will once you put it on there so...
FYI: there is NO source for accurate, unbiased information.
Why should I believe you? You sound like you have an "agenda".:P
But seriously. I live in the Washington DC area, and this is why I read the Washington Post and the Washington Times. It's quite enlightening reading about the same things with two drastically different biases.
I still think they'll try it. They might not ever get the chips produced, but they will at least go into backroom negotations with major chipmakers and try to do this. They might even be able to sneak some of this past before people notice it. They probably won't get all of the manufacturers, but they will get some.
I don't know if they'll succeed, but I expect them to try. If they can get Intel and AMD to go along with it, they take Linux out of a large part of the market. I expect at that point the rest of the market would expand in response...but that's another issue.
MS will coerce chipmakers into putting circuits on ALL of their chips that require software running on those chips to carry out patented processes. (Note that the terms of the licenses will state that the companies can only make these chips if ALL chips have these patented circuits.)
They will then license the ability to use these patented processes in software to companies who make approved/trusted software.
Any guesses on whether Linux and GPLed software will get this permission.?
Any guesses on whether or not the terms MS gives to software developers will be nice or not?
I really hope that this doesn't happen, but I can see them trying. My hope is that the chipmakers balk at some point, or at least one of them does for each of the necessary parts.
But VFX (like ILM) are a part of Hollywood. Where do they get their money? You can't say that some random guy with a hotdog cart outside the studio is Hollywood, but good lord, where else does ILM get their money (besides making things for the copyright industry)? It's like I consider tire makers to be a part of the auto industry. No, they don't make the cars themselves, but they provide something essential, and they get their money from the auto industry.
You're right. They don't get that they're dependent on technology. They don't get that they won't be able to distribute movies over the Internet if they get what they want. They don't realize that they won't get their neato FX made if they get what they want. Oh well. Maybe they'll figure it out.
Slashdot Mirror
J. Valenti: Everything people are doing legally today, they'll be able to do legally tomorrow'
Hmm... He conspicuously failed to address the day after tomorrow and all subsequent days.
Having taught many college math classes, I can tell you invariably (haha :)) that the students have problems with arithmetic if they don't something in class.
Doing arithmetic in your head means moving numbers around in your mind and combining them.
Doing algebra is one step beyond this. So, if you never understood arithmetic, you won't understand algebra.
I blame the purveyors of calculators for "convincing" state school boards to give kids calculators from day 1. They shouldn't get calculators until high school at the earliest or they'll never learn arithmetic and they'll never get abstraction and they won't be able to solve problems.
But those are bots on IRC, not IM. IM changes everything don't you see? Maybe I should take out a patent on bots over wireless text messaging networks? :P
The argument is that by making a copy of the software to have it run on your computer, you're making a copy of the whole piece of software, beyond fair-use rights.
:)
And I quote: from this page:
US Code Section 17, article 117:Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.-Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
When I buy a piece of software, a copy of it comes on a disk. I do have a copy. I own the media. I do own a copy of the software. I may not be able to use it due to a license, but I do own a copy since it is clearly in my possession and it is a copy. This section says that I can make copies if I need to be able to use the software. So, there really isn't a need to have licenses.
They will argue that you don't own a copy, but if I go to a store and I pay money for a box and a copy of the software is on a disk in that box, then yes I do own a copy of the software. I own the little shiny disk, and contained in that disk is a copy of the software.
Then licenses could apply to all digital media. Why not e-books? Copyright gives you the right to make enough copies of the digital media to use it. Licenses are BS addons that companies use to control you.
If it's valid for software and E-books then why not for regular books? Copyright gives you just as much right to use both things.
By this logic, you could sell a book with a lock on it and tell people that they have to go to a website and agree to a license to get a key to unlock the book to read it. If you broke the lock, you would be violating the big bad anti-circumvention laws out there. I expect this sort of crap to come to pass. It's probably time to decide how much stupid shit you're willing to take before you go to jail to become a drain on the system.
In the US (probably in the EU, also), you aren't allowed to defend yourself at a patent trial because it's assumed that you can't understand the patent.
On the other hand, the only reason patents exist is to convince inventors to put their research out there for everyone to see and build upon (after a certain time period).
So, if these inventors are supposed to look at a patent and it's supposed to be "reduced to practice" then they're supposed to be able to implement it, right? Which means that they have to understand the patent right? If they're expected to EXTEND the patent, then they have to understand the current patent right?
But they can't understand a patent since they're not patent lawyers...
It makes no sense to me. If people are assumed to be unable to understand a patent unless they're patent lawyers, and if the only reason patents exist is to let engineers avoid reinventing the wheel by reading and understanding the patents, then aren't they worthless?
Or if not, could you explain the legal contortions that give two totally separate meanings to "understanding" a patent?
No I think you're the shill who keeps mentioning the Sony/Ericsson T68i Cellphone/Digital Camera by name thereby increasing its brand recognition. Perhaps if everyone here would stop talking about the Sony/Ericsson T68i Cellphone/Digital Camera then these companies wouldn't get so much free press about the Sony/Ericsson T68i Cellphone/Digital Camera.
/.ers all riled up rocks... :) I wouldn't buy it myself since I've never had a cellphone and don't plan on getting one anytime soon, but it's still a neat marketing idea.
And btw, this is a neat marketing campaign. I usually don't like marketing drones but getting
I've said it before and I'll say it again. This has nothing to do with piracy. It is about control and preventing competition. This is an example of that.
If hardware makers only make machines that play "watermarked content" and you can't add a watermark to your own content to play it, then they've taken the control back. When you write your congressmen, point out that this will make it harder for independent artists to make and distribute art and it therefore hinders the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
Umm if you actually write the virus/worm/trojan or if you take something from the public domain and assume copyright over it, you're automatically a copyright holder. So, the very act of creating these kinds of malicious programs makes you a copyright holder. :P
Damn. It makes me wish that I had patented a method and apparatus for moving your website to a new host when your old host turns out to be a lying sack of shit and goes bankrupt.
You're correct. It can and will be bypassed in software. However, I am not so sure about this:
So I guarantee that these free OSes will find a way to bypass it in software LEGALLY
You see it isn't a question of whether or not it can be bypassed, it's a question of whether or not it can be bypassed legally.
How could it be made illegal? Two examples:
So, it's not a question of CAN you get around it, it's question of are you permitted to get around it?
I think I'm prepared to make any crippled machines I buy in the future as capable as machines that I have today. It hasn't gotten to that point yet, but I do understand what I'm saying. I hope that I'm willing to carry through with my threat to make my machines as capable as the ones I have today should it ever become necessary.
It seems reasonable doesn't it? After all, so much of science and new types of art are dependent on computers and technology that this country has an obligation to promote the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
If giant companies use copyright and patents to cripple computers, then they're using copyright and patents to hinder the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
Because I think that's wrong, I will fix my crippled property and tell others how to fix their crippled property so that they can use their machines to create software, and art, and do scientific and other fun things. In that way, I will be promoting the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
These bastards paid for a government regulation that restricts my use of my own property. Where's my compensation under the 5th Amendment takings clause for all of these thousands of regulations that restrict how I can use my own property?
They're just playing the wrong games. I have to use my brainpower and creativity to play my favorite game: KarmaQuest on Slashdot. If I just sit back don't think and post any microsoft rules old mpaa rocks crap lunix suxxx0rz, then I lose points.
On the other hand, if I spend some time and get creative and construct a witty, self-referential post that admits that it's there to whore karma, then I can win a lot of points.
Well, not specifically that. But, my guess is that they'll have a booth with descriptions of all 538 Microsoft pure thought patents that linux users violate every time they turn on their computers.
They'll have cameras and facial recognition software to use to find out who's at the expo since they can assume that everyone there not working for Microsoft must be using Linux or wants to use Linux.
That way, they can go after current hardcore users of Linux for infringement of Microsoft's pure thought patents, and make it clear that anyone who even attempts to use Linux will put themselves at grave risk for future lawsuits!!!
Or, they'll exhibit Palladium.
But I repeat myself.
There's no boycott. However, if you think this company did something that you don't like, then you don't have to give them your money just because they came out with something new that you want. If you don't have a problem with this company's track record and you like the product, then go buy it. People will applaud and mock you no matter what you do, so just make the decision for yourself.
If they let you buy more "packs" from WoTC online, then then they're just fucking printing money. I mean how hard is it to create 20 records in an account and generate 20 random numbers? :P My hat goes off to them. They finally found a way to make money off the Internet. This should be listed as a form of gambling. Maybe the MMOGs will follow suit and let you buy "bags of mystery" that can contain crap eq but sometimes a piece of really good eq. Hmm....
You could probably reverse engineer the card numbers. But, IMO you shouldn't ever get those numbers sent to the client. There's no reason for this. Hopefully they will keep the messages to the client simple, like sending the N cards of the account holder to the client, and telling the client what kinds of cards those are. Then, all information back to the server is in the form of "I used card K for this" or something along those lines, so the server always knows that it's one of the N cards, but it doesn't accept that it was an UberCard or anything like that. Hopefully...
Of course, if they let you have cards in your client and let you upload them from your own collection...then they deserve to get "diabloed."
So might this be an all-out DoS attack looking to shut down the spread of the fruits of the decadent, imperialist American culture? Would they try to clog the networks so that people can't share any type of creative endeavour that represents the freedom that all Americans enjoy? Oh wait. That would be these people. My bad. Move along. Nothing to see here. I get those groups trying to subvert freedom at all costs in pursuit of their twisted ideology confused sometimes. (NB: I am not condoning piracy. But you shouldn't let companies engage in the kinds of activities that terrorits might do. :P) Also, is there a new version of Godwin's law relating to calling someone a terrorist?
That's what I don't get either. If you write some dickhead code to attack other peoples' computers, you're a copyright holder on that code. So, you should be able to use it to check if people have that code on their computers or not. Of course they will once you put it on there so...
FYI: there is NO source for accurate, unbiased information.
:P
Why should I believe you? You sound like you have an "agenda".
But seriously. I live in the Washington DC area, and this is why I read the Washington Post and the Washington Times. It's quite enlightening reading about the same things with two drastically different biases.
I still think they'll try it. They might not ever get the chips produced, but they will at least go into backroom negotations with major chipmakers and try to do this. They might even be able to sneak some of this past before people notice it. They probably won't get all of the manufacturers, but they will get some.
I don't know if they'll succeed, but I expect them to try. If they can get Intel and AMD to go along with it, they take Linux out of a large part of the market. I expect at that point the rest of the market would expand in response...but that's another issue.
I really hope that this doesn't happen, but I can see them trying. My hope is that the chipmakers balk at some point, or at least one of them does for each of the necessary parts.
But VFX (like ILM) are a part of Hollywood. Where do they get their money? You can't say that some random guy with a hotdog cart outside the studio is Hollywood, but good lord, where else does ILM get their money (besides making things for the copyright industry)? It's like I consider tire makers to be a part of the auto industry. No, they don't make the cars themselves, but they provide something essential, and they get their money from the auto industry.
You're right. They don't get that they're dependent on technology. They don't get that they won't be able to distribute movies over the Internet if they get what they want. They don't realize that they won't get their neato FX made if they get what they want. Oh well. Maybe they'll figure it out.
What could happen if the company decides to stop letting the code be distributed under the GPL?
Can a government agency (like the NSA) distribute source code for a patented software invention without the consent of the patent holder?
Is the government immune from the rules on not distributing source code?