It does not 'protect' the end user from anything. It protects the publisher from the end user. It does not matter if the specs are open and a GPL demonstration has been written. The _use_ of this technology is for DRM and claims to the contrary are dishonest.
I've read that FAQ and it does not change that fact that TCPA _is_ about DRM. It is security for the publisher not for the end user. Regular ordinary users have no use for TCPA other than as a key for big media to take away Fair Use rights. Have a look at the Electronic Frontier Foundation for some clear thinking on this.
No, it is not DRM, but that is what it will be used for!
IBM is being dishonest when they suggest that TCPA is security for the end user. It is not and they are actively working with the big media companies to come up with DRM. TCPA is part and parcel of this effort. Any suggestion otherwise is just putting your head in the sand.
You shouldn't be trusting IBM on this. They do not deserve any trust when it comes to DRM. They have been very active in marketing DRM to the likes of RIAA and the entertainment industry.
Have a look at the Sony article for why you should not trust a company to do the right thing when they have conflicting interests (in this case, Linux and the Free Software philosophy VS DRM)
This is all about DRM and you are spreading FUD. The rebuttal to Ross Anderson's FAQ is similarly a bunch of FUD.
IBM is very involved in the fight to restrict consumers rights and TCPA is the bridge technology they wish to use for DRM. Just because IBM has been good to the linux community is not a good enough rational for letting them off the hook when it comes to TCPA and DRM.
For all of you who don't get this then understand that when IBM and Microsoft talk about 'Security' they are talking about security for the publisher and *not* the owner of the computer.
The Supremes have a conservative majority that are always talking about how the constitution that enumerates the powers of the congress. Under this theory any 'power' not specifically enumerated is unconstitutional on it's face.
Well, here you have the clause with a specific enumeration of a power and the conditions and intended consequences of exercising that power... and what does the Conservative majority do with it? They abrogate there role and say that the limit does not exist and congress can do what they want.
This decision shows just how intellectually dishonest this court is. Time to face the music: the Supremes are all a bunch of idealogues with an agenda. The 'law' is merely something to dodge or use as a kludge to enact the private agenda. The presidential election fiasco exposed this for all to see. They've done it again with this judgement.
So much for a country based upon laws and democracy.
The Supremes have a conservative majority that are always talking about how the constitution that enumerates the powers of the congress. Under this theory any 'power' not specifically enumerated is unconstitutional on it's face.
Well, here you have the clause with a specific enumeration of a power and the conditions and intended consequences of exercising that power... and what does the Conservative majority do with it? They abrogate there role and say that the limit does not exist and congress can do what they want.
This decision shows just how intellectually dishonest this court is. Time to face the music: the Supremes are all a bunch of idealogues with an agenda. The 'law' is merely something to dodge or use as a kludge to enact the private agenda.
So much for a country based upon laws and democracy.
You fucking people! If the constitution says that it _must_ be in the public interest and the court finds that it is _not_ in the public interest then it is _not__constitutional_. It is not that hard, man! No court legislating required.
You couldn't be more wrong. Although I completely agree with your sentiment as well as the sentiment of the parent post, it is important to realize that people are stupid. I mean really _really_ stupid.
In the Real World^TM 'public interest' does not exist nor do we have any kind of 'us'. The American public interest is made up of the have's and have not's and everything in between. The 'public' is just the name for a society chock full of individuals that are selfish, dumb, amoral beings.
Event's such as this further enforce my belief that the majority are just a step above cro-magnon. Certainly, the Supremes are intelligent folk, but surely this kind of decision (like the presidential election fiasco) indicates some severe emotional immaturity for our oh so esteemed court.
<sarcasm> Hey sounds good. So, I'll set up this 'ONE' layout engine and everyone can just code to that, ok? I am kinda busy right now, but I'll post here when it is up. I'm thinking sourceforge for the hosting and I'll be sure to check in KHTML as soon as it is registered. You can let the Gecko folks know that we've all agreed to focus on KHTML from now on and I'll notify the KDE/Apple developers... Mmmm k? </sarcasm>
Your criticism of C# style Properties are unwarranted, IMHO. Properties are just another feature that add some nice abstraction with fields and also offer some syntactical sugar. Yes, people can misuse them, but they can also be useful. I haven't found code to be any less readable btw. You should try them out and see for yourself. I like them;)
I think the delegates/events are a definite ARCHITECTURAL advantage as well as the Common Type System. The CLR is another advantage because it provides generic support for many other languages. Then you have the bytecode which offers an improvement for JITting because it was designed after a whole lot of research was done on this subject over the last few years. Also, the native generation is a nice feature.
Simply put, coming from a Java background I've found C#/.NET to be a very nice improvement. It just feels good to develop with it and it benefits from being new and shiny without all of the cruft that Java has built up over the years. That being said, I'd love for SUN to get onboard and create a Java# for the ECMA specs or perhaps to one up the C#/.NET standard. In the end I am both a developer with practical wishes/opinions and a Free Software advocate with philosophical needs..NET meets the technical wishes/opinions of my developer nature better than Java at this time and the advent of Mono and DotGNU satisfies my requirements for Free Software.
BTW, I want to add that I approached Mono/DotGNU/.NET with an extremely skeptical eye and a protective feeling for my beloved Java. To my amazement I found a really nice framework that was a joy to work with. I am still skeptical of Microsoft and in particular the patent grousing that Ballmer et al, have been spewing. I just don't think this is a good enough reason not to use/develop it. As I've said elsewhere, the entire world of Free Software and all FS projects are endangered by software patents. SAMBA, wine, GCJ, linux kernel... all! So, it just is not a good reason for me. I also think the DotGNU folks are smart to hedge there bets by only doing the ECMA specs plus the Portable.NET C# compiler is capable of producing Java bytecode and will support the upcoming bytecode for Parrot (Perl's new runtime). Anyways, Cheers!
Really folks, patents are a problem to Free Software in every project. No Free Software project is immune to these kind of concerns as well as other complicated interactions with corporations. Look at Samba which is every bit as susceptible to MS patents as Mono. Or how about OpenGL which has problems with corporate concerns. Sun has patents on Java. At least Microsoft is bound to the ECMA patent policy which is basically RAND with required disclosure.
Another important thing to understand is Mono isn't the only Free Software project out there that is implementing the ECMA standards. DotGNU/Portable.NET has a large par t of the ECMA specs implemented and the design goal of PNet is ECMA not the rest of MS's.NET infrastructure ie, System.Windows.Forms, ASP.NET, ADO.NET. The wine project is another area with every bit the risk that Mono faces.
So the conclusion to draw from this is: Patents are a danger to Free Software in every direction! Not just this one particular project...
What on earth are you spewing? I am a big fan of.NET (see: Qt#) and I think C# is a great improvement over Java, but you must be out of your mind if you think Sun has been unsuccessful with Java!!
The judge has it spot on with this. If.NET is to prevail then it should be on the merits not because Microsoft has a huge advantage shipping.NET with a monopoly product. This is good for the public, good for the community and everyone involved because it levels the playing field and allows the technologies to compete _on_the_merits_!
I don't have a scientific explanation and that is the whole point!
I am prepared and happy to admit that I do not _know_ who or what made those crop circles nor do I _know_ how they were made. Please read that last statement again.
Ask me if it is possible that aliens made those crop circles and I will say yes.
Ask me if it is possible that hoaxers made those crop circles and I will say yes.
If you press me I will admit that in my personal opinion it was a couple of hoaxers using an ingenious if unknown method, but I will not admit to having any *proof* for that and I will not state that my opinion is fact.
Your post as well as the parent stated as fact that _hoaxers could not be responsible_ as if you have proof or as if this were a fact. Once again, I submit you have no basis for saying hoaxers could not or did not create those crop circles. I submit you have no basis for stating anything as fact regarding the origin and method of creation of those crop circles. All is opinion and conjecture until we have proof. As far as the aliens, well I assume that is what the parent was alluding to...
Now, the reason I find all of this so funny? Because, the parent post calls for *proof* that a fantastical creature with no basis in reality *does not exist*! That is hilarious... IMHO of course;)
Re:It's not a question of likelihood
on
Bigfoot A Hoax?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
And this is a perfect example of the faulty reasoning used by people who mistake crop circles as proof of alien contact.
Simply because one can not adequately explain how the crop circles were made does not inevitably lead to the conclusion that 'aliens did it' or that it does not have a completely mundane and ordinary solution. I can not adequately explain many of the magical tricks performed by talented magicians, but I do not suppose that the *tricks* are truly magical in nature.
Now, you have every right to believe what you will, but do not mistake that *belief* with proof or evidence of the existence of aliens. After all, it is possible that aliens did make the crop circles (highly improbable IMHO;), but until we have proof we are just left with our respective opinions.
I am delighted that people require such strong 'proof or evidence' to disprove a fantastical notion, but require no proof and flimsy evidence to believe in a fantastical creature such as Bigfoot:)
This is beautiful!
on
Bigfoot A Hoax?
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I love it!
Actual proof is not required for the popular belief in the fantastical Bigfoot, but 'convincing and specific' proof with 'photo graphic evidence' and maybe 'a diary or something' is needed to refute the existence of a hypothetical fairy tale creature.
All true but it completely misses the 'limit' I was talking about. It is not a philosophical argument;) Some mono developers are not allowed to participate in the mono-hackers mailing list (where technical discussions about Mono reside) because they are also interested in helping and participating in the DotGNU/Portable.NET project. That is what I meant and that is _all_ that I meant.
This is all true, but right now people who choose to help or participate in the DotGNU/Portable.NET project are precluded from participating in mono-hackers which is the mailing list devoted to technical discussions about Mono. That is a clear limit placed upon the Mono project because of it's affiliation with Ximian. Miguel does not want Mono developers who are also affiliated with Portable.NET on the mono-hackers list because of confidential information relating to contracts Ximian has, or will have, with various groups. This limits Mono developers, who are also interested in Portable.NET, from contributing to technical discussions about Mono.
Because of Mono's affiliation with Ximian and its commercial interest some developers are precluded from participating in the mono-hackers development mailing list. Specifically, if a Mono developer is also associated with the DotGNU project or expresses an interest in Portable.NET, they are no longer allowed to participate in the mono-hackers mailing list.
Mono's compiler is written in C#. Mono has a fast JIT. Mono's libraries include preliminary versions of Microsoft.NET libraries (see non-ECMA) like System.Windows.Forms and support for ASP.NET and ADO.NET. Mono is a joint project of Ximian and the larger community. Mono's commercial nature also limits community participation.
DotGNU is a GNU project and has a CLR/.NET environment sub-project called Portable.NET. Some of the key differences with Portable.NET and Mono are:
PNet has a C# compiler written in C that is very fast, but not as complete. As a consequence it does not suffer from bootstrapping problems.
PNet's compiler architecture is meant to provide great support for new CIL language compilers. Currently, cscc (that's the IL compiler suite) supports compiling C and C# to CIL with other languages on the way. It can also compile a subset of C# to the JVM.
PNet only has an interpreter called ilrun (no JIT) at this time. PNet's libraries are not as far along, but one of the goals is complete ECMA compatibility while Mono's goal is to track Microsoft.NET as closely as possible. PNet is also talking with the Perl/Parrot folks about supporting C# on the next generation Perl runtime.
The parent said, "It's very dangerous to think of information as property."
Which launched this reply, "You are completely and utterly incorrect."
I will stipulate the copy right can be thought of as a possession of the author. It can be bought, sold, transferred and used for commercial gain so it is a commodity. However, the term 'Intellectual Property' is misleading in that it implies ownership of ideas and information which the copy right does not confer.
They said, "It's very dangerous to think of information as property."
You replied, "You are completely and utterly incorrect."
Looks like you need to read your own post. With your reply you say that it is correct to treat information as property. Perhaps, you make some distinction between 'ideas' and 'information'.
I will stipulate the copy right can be thought of as a possession of the author. It can be bought, sold, transferred and used for commercial gain so it is a commodity. However, the term 'Intellectual Property' is misleading in that it implies ownership of ideas and information which the copy right does not confer.
Slashdot Mirror
It does not 'protect' the end user from anything. It protects the publisher from the end user. It does not matter if the specs are open and a GPL demonstration has been written. The _use_ of this technology is for DRM and claims to the contrary are dishonest.
I've read that FAQ and it does not change that fact that TCPA _is_ about DRM. It is security for the publisher not for the end user. Regular ordinary users have no use for TCPA other than as a key for big media to take away Fair Use rights. Have a look at the Electronic Frontier Foundation for some clear thinking on this.
No, it is not DRM, but that is what it will be used for!
IBM is being dishonest when they suggest that TCPA is security for the end user. It is not and they are actively working with the big media companies to come up with DRM. TCPA is part and parcel of this effort. Any suggestion otherwise is just putting your head in the sand.
You shouldn't be trusting IBM on this. They do not deserve any trust when it comes to DRM. They have been very active in marketing DRM to the likes of RIAA and the entertainment industry.
Have a look at the Sony article for why you should not trust a company to do the right thing when they have conflicting interests (in this case, Linux and the Free Software philosophy VS DRM)
This is all about DRM and you are spreading FUD. The rebuttal to Ross Anderson's FAQ is similarly a bunch of FUD.
IBM is very involved in the fight to restrict consumers rights and TCPA is the bridge technology they wish to use for DRM. Just because IBM has been good to the linux community is not a good enough rational for letting them off the hook when it comes to TCPA and DRM.
For all of you who don't get this then understand that when IBM and Microsoft talk about 'Security' they are talking about security for the publisher and *not* the owner of the computer.
The most gauling part about this decision?
... and what does the Conservative majority do with it? They abrogate there role and say that the limit does not exist and congress can do what they want.
The Supremes have a conservative majority that are always talking about how the constitution that enumerates the powers of the congress. Under this theory any 'power' not specifically enumerated is unconstitutional on it's face.
Well, here you have the clause with a specific enumeration of a power and the conditions and intended consequences of exercising that power
This decision shows just how intellectually dishonest this court is. Time to face the music: the Supremes are all a bunch of idealogues with an agenda. The 'law' is merely something to dodge or use as a kludge to enact the private agenda. The presidential election fiasco exposed this for all to see. They've done it again with this judgement.
So much for a country based upon laws and democracy.
The most gauling part about this decision?
... and what does the Conservative majority do with it? They abrogate there role and say that the limit does not exist and congress can do what they want.
The Supremes have a conservative majority that are always talking about how the constitution that enumerates the powers of the congress. Under this theory any 'power' not specifically enumerated is unconstitutional on it's face.
Well, here you have the clause with a specific enumeration of a power and the conditions and intended consequences of exercising that power
This decision shows just how intellectually dishonest this court is. Time to face the music: the Supremes are all a bunch of idealogues with an agenda. The 'law' is merely something to dodge or use as a kludge to enact the private agenda.
So much for a country based upon laws and democracy.
You fucking people! If the constitution says that it _must_ be in the public interest and the court finds that it is _not_ in the public interest then it is _not__constitutional_. It is not that hard, man! No court legislating required.
Wil,
You couldn't be more wrong. Although I completely agree with your sentiment as well as the sentiment of the parent post, it is important to realize that people are stupid. I mean really _really_ stupid.
In the Real World^TM 'public interest' does not exist nor do we have any kind of 'us'. The American public interest is made up of the have's and have not's and everything in between. The 'public' is just the name for a society chock full of individuals that are selfish, dumb, amoral beings.
Event's such as this further enforce my belief that the majority are just a step above cro-magnon. Certainly, the Supremes are intelligent folk, but surely this kind of decision (like the presidential election fiasco) indicates some severe emotional immaturity for our oh so esteemed court.
You sir, are a moron.
The parent post and your follow-up should be hauled out to explain to children and freshman economic students the very concept of fairy-tale.
<sarcasm> ... Mmmm k?
Hey sounds good. So, I'll set up this 'ONE' layout engine and everyone can just code to that, ok? I am kinda busy right now, but I'll post here when it is up. I'm thinking sourceforge for the hosting and I'll be sure to check in KHTML as soon as it is registered. You can let the Gecko folks know that we've all agreed to focus on KHTML from now on and I'll notify the KDE/Apple developers
</sarcasm>
Your criticism of C# style Properties are unwarranted, IMHO. Properties are just another feature that add some nice abstraction with fields and also offer some syntactical sugar. Yes, people can misuse them, but they can also be useful. I haven't found code to be any less readable btw. You should try them out and see for yourself. I like them ;)
.NET meets the technical wishes/opinions of my developer nature better than Java at this time and the advent of Mono and DotGNU satisfies my requirements for Free Software.
... all! So, it just is not a good reason for me. I also think the DotGNU folks are smart to hedge there bets by only doing the ECMA specs plus the Portable.NET C# compiler is capable of producing Java bytecode and will support the upcoming bytecode for Parrot (Perl's new runtime). Anyways, Cheers!
I think the delegates/events are a definite ARCHITECTURAL advantage as well as the Common Type System. The CLR is another advantage because it provides generic support for many other languages. Then you have the bytecode which offers an improvement for JITting because it was designed after a whole lot of research was done on this subject over the last few years. Also, the native generation is a nice feature.
Simply put, coming from a Java background I've found C#/.NET to be a very nice improvement. It just feels good to develop with it and it benefits from being new and shiny without all of the cruft that Java has built up over the years. That being said, I'd love for SUN to get onboard and create a Java# for the ECMA specs or perhaps to one up the C#/.NET standard. In the end I am both a developer with practical wishes/opinions and a Free Software advocate with philosophical needs.
BTW, I want to add that I approached Mono/DotGNU/.NET with an extremely skeptical eye and a protective feeling for my beloved Java. To my amazement I found a really nice framework that was a joy to work with. I am still skeptical of Microsoft and in particular the patent grousing that Ballmer et al, have been spewing. I just don't think this is a good enough reason not to use/develop it. As I've said elsewhere, the entire world of Free Software and all FS projects are endangered by software patents. SAMBA, wine, GCJ, linux kernel
Really folks, patents are a problem to Free Software in every project. No Free Software project is immune to these kind of concerns as well as other complicated interactions with corporations. Look at Samba which is every bit as susceptible to MS patents as Mono. Or how about OpenGL which has problems with corporate concerns. Sun has patents on Java. At least Microsoft is bound to the ECMA patent policy which is basically RAND with required disclosure.
.NET infrastructure ie, System.Windows.Forms, ASP.NET, ADO.NET. The wine project is another area with every bit the risk that Mono faces.
Another important thing to understand is Mono isn't the only Free Software project out there that is implementing the ECMA standards. DotGNU/Portable.NET has a large par t of the ECMA specs implemented and the design goal of PNet is ECMA not the rest of MS's
So the conclusion to draw from this is: Patents are a danger to Free Software in every direction! Not just this one particular project...
What on earth are you spewing? I am a big fan of .NET (see: Qt#) and I think C# is a great improvement over Java, but you must be out of your mind if you think Sun has been unsuccessful with Java!!
.NET is to prevail then it should be on the merits not because Microsoft has a huge advantage shipping .NET with a monopoly product. This is good for the public, good for the community and everyone involved because it levels the playing field and allows the technologies to compete _on_the_merits_!
The judge has it spot on with this. If
I don't have a scientific explanation and that is the whole point!
... IMHO of course ;)
I am prepared and happy to admit that I do not _know_ who or what made those crop circles nor do I _know_ how they were made. Please read that last statement again.
Ask me if it is possible that aliens made those crop circles and I will say yes.
Ask me if it is possible that hoaxers made those crop circles and I will say yes.
If you press me I will admit that in my personal opinion it was a couple of hoaxers using an ingenious if unknown method, but I will not admit to having any *proof* for that and I will not state that my opinion is fact.
Your post as well as the parent stated as fact that _hoaxers could not be responsible_ as if you have proof or as if this were a fact. Once again, I submit you have no basis for saying hoaxers could not or did not create those crop circles. I submit you have no basis for stating anything as fact regarding the origin and method of creation of those crop circles. All is opinion and conjecture until we have proof. As far as the aliens, well I assume that is what the parent was alluding to...
Now, the reason I find all of this so funny? Because, the parent post calls for *proof* that a fantastical creature with no basis in reality *does not exist*! That is hilarious
And this is a perfect example of the faulty reasoning used by people who mistake crop circles as proof of alien contact.
;), but until we have proof we are just left with our respective opinions.
:)
Simply because one can not adequately explain how the crop circles were made does not inevitably lead to the conclusion that 'aliens did it' or that it does not have a completely mundane and ordinary solution. I can not adequately explain many of the magical tricks performed by talented magicians, but I do not suppose that the *tricks* are truly magical in nature.
Now, you have every right to believe what you will, but do not mistake that *belief* with proof or evidence of the existence of aliens. After all, it is possible that aliens did make the crop circles (highly improbable IMHO
I am delighted that people require such strong 'proof or evidence' to disprove a fantastical notion, but require no proof and flimsy evidence to believe in a fantastical creature such as Bigfoot
I love it!
:)
Actual proof is not required for the popular belief in the fantastical Bigfoot, but 'convincing and specific' proof with 'photo graphic evidence' and maybe 'a diary or something' is needed to refute the existence of a hypothetical fairy tale creature.
That is freakin awesome!
All true but it completely misses the 'limit' I was talking about. It is not a philosophical argument ;) Some mono developers are not allowed to participate in the mono-hackers mailing list (where technical discussions about Mono reside) because they are also interested in helping and participating in the DotGNU/Portable.NET project. That is what I meant and that is _all_ that I meant.
This is all true, but right now people who choose to help or participate in the DotGNU/Portable.NET project are precluded from participating in mono-hackers which is the mailing list devoted to technical discussions about Mono. That is a clear limit placed upon the Mono project because of it's affiliation with Ximian. Miguel does not want Mono developers who are also affiliated with Portable.NET on the mono-hackers list because of confidential information relating to contracts Ximian has, or will have, with various groups. This limits Mono developers, who are also interested in Portable.NET, from contributing to technical discussions about Mono.
Read the post. He never said mono didn't have community developers. "Mono's commercial nature also limits community participation."
Because of Mono's affiliation with Ximian and its commercial interest some developers are precluded from participating in the mono-hackers development mailing list. Specifically, if a Mono developer is also associated with the DotGNU project or expresses an interest in Portable.NET, they are no longer allowed to participate in the mono-hackers mailing list.
You should have a look at #Develop. I really like it and it is Free Software too :-)
t .a sp
http://www.icsharpcode.net/OpenSource/SD/defaul
Mono's compiler is written in C#. Mono has a fast JIT. Mono's libraries include preliminary versions of Microsoft.NET libraries (see non-ECMA) like System.Windows.Forms and support for ASP.NET and ADO.NET. Mono is a joint project of Ximian and the larger community. Mono's commercial nature also limits community participation.
DotGNU is a GNU project and has a CLR/.NET environment sub-project called Portable.NET. Some of the key differences with Portable.NET and Mono are:
PNet has a C# compiler written in C that is very fast, but not as complete. As a consequence it does not suffer from bootstrapping problems.
PNet's compiler architecture is meant to provide great support for new CIL language compilers. Currently, cscc (that's the IL compiler suite) supports compiling C and C# to CIL with other languages on the way. It can also compile a subset of C# to the JVM.
PNet only has an interpreter called ilrun (no JIT) at this time. PNet's libraries are not as far along, but one of the goals is complete ECMA compatibility while Mono's goal is to track Microsoft.NET as
closely as possible. PNet is also talking with the Perl/Parrot folks about supporting C# on the next generation Perl runtime.
The parent said, "It's very dangerous to think of information as property."
Which launched this reply, "You are completely and utterly incorrect."
I will stipulate the copy right can be thought of as a possession of the author. It can be bought, sold, transferred and used for commercial gain so it is a commodity. However, the term 'Intellectual Property' is misleading in that it implies ownership of ideas and information which the copy right does not confer.
They said, "It's very dangerous to think of information as property."
You replied, "You are completely and utterly incorrect."
Looks like you need to read your own post. With your reply you say that it is correct to treat information as property. Perhaps, you make some distinction between 'ideas' and 'information'.
I will stipulate the copy right can be thought of as a possession of the author. It can be bought, sold, transferred and used for commercial gain so it is a commodity. However, the term 'Intellectual Property' is misleading in that it implies ownership of ideas and information which the copy right does not confer.