Which surely says that we should be opposing the patents system not Intel here?
Yes, there are some bad faith patent enforcements out there, with LZW & GIF being probably the best known example. But the real problem is surely not that they've got the patent, but that the legal system made the patent possible and so effectively required them to at least try for their own protection?
Standard disclaimer in this sort of thing - I'm British and have no idea what the patent situation is over here. And I accept that I'm discussing matters in a jurisdiction which doesn't affect me, to stop potential flames.
Surely the invention is the product of the combination of the algorithm and the input stream? In which case it's the property of whoever controlled it, plus whoever owns the copyright to the algorithm. If the algorithm relies on library features for operation (so disk and screen I/O shouldn't count) then their copyright holders have to be factored in, too...
This one is going to keep lawyers busy for some time:) - though, standard disclaimer, that isn't a category which I'm in.
Slashdot's slogan has been 'News for Nerds. Stuff that matters.' for as long as I can remember. Not just news for Linux users, but news for all nerds. So why's this article headed NVidia releasing OpenGL ICD by End of Year then? They've already released this, just not for Linux. And not everyone here is a Linux user.
If Rob, Hemos & co. want Slashdot to be a Linux community site, they should say so. If they want it to be a general nerd site which happens to be rather fond of Linux (which is how I would view it right now) then they shouldn't make posts like this which assume that Linux is all that matters to the readers. Otherwise we'll start viewing Slashdot as a Linux community site and I, for one, would stop using it. Nothing against Linux per se, it's just not what I want or use so a Linux news site is entirely irrelevant to me.
What about the Orbital 2-stroke? That's way cooler. Only about 6 parts andonly a few of them move. Wonderful idea, way nicer than the (already very nice) Wankel.
GCSE Information Systems, 1995. I had to play with some robotics, and we did this all with Lego running through Control Lab (I think - memory's a little hazy) under MacOS 7. Gave us lights, motors, rotation sensors, temperature sensors, light sensors and push switches. Programmed in something that I remember looking like a weird BASIC derivative. We made a greenhouse with a temperature regulation system - it was the original assignment, we just went thoroughly OTT on it! Others managed some really fun stuff like automated carwashes (well, simulated models... you get the idea!) , so it was a fairly powerful system. Not ideal, by any means - I remember being frustrated that I couldn't interrupt things - but it worked.
The real interest in my family (mostly from my father!) would be if this sort of thing is usable with Meccano - Erector to anyone in the US. Not as quick to use as Lego, but you can do far more proper engineering to get some really nice models. If we could use this somehow, it'd be nice...
Why didn't I think of this why I made my earlier reply? Oh well...
Helicopters are tricky to fly. But modern jet fighters are basically impossible to fly on manual controls, so what do they do? They have them controlled by computers and servo motors, with the control stick being replaced by a joystick and some clever software automagically working out how to combine the pilot's iedas of what do do with the aircraft's. Now, there's a few programmers on this site I'm guessing:), so why couldn't someone write the software to handle this and give you control as easy as Zeewolf on the Amiga? Then stick it on a laptop, plug in your joystick somehow and you've got your easier to fly 'copter. Even got a screen for the camera display if someone sorts that out, too.
C and Unix - with a lot of help from Microsoft - have plunged the computer industry into the dark ages like the Catholic Church plunged Europe into the Dark Ages.
Oh, it's nice to find someone else who doesn't like C!
My attitude for quite a while has simply been that it was devised as a portable asembler for writing operating systems. All well and good, and a purpose it fulfils admirably, I'm sure. But I don't write operating systems - I natter on about them lots with KOSH, but I'm not an OS coder. So why should I have to use that level of control? I'd much rather use Delphi (or an equivalent uprated Pascal) which gives me power when I need it, simplicity the rest of the time. That way writing the code becomes second nature so quickly it's silly, whereas there's a lot more language to learn with C, for little or no benefit to most programmers IMO.
BTW, this isn't me saying that I would fight the use of C within KOSH to anyone who knows what I'm talking about, merely that I don't choose it for my own coding.
Me too, if they can drop the price a bit. Helicopters are cool.
For that matter, so are hovercrafts. I want to play with one but I've not seen any for sale, so my project this christmas? See if I can nick the RC gear from a cheap old car and build a hovercraft round it!
Having video cameras on this sort of thing has to be cool, too - wonder if you could modify a £50 webcam to do this?
Er, I didn't moan about the processor speed. Wouldn't mind if it was faster, but didn't ask for it to be. But would a full height screen really make it bigger and heavier? No. Would it be much more expensive? Not really. Would it be more usable? Sure.
I think it's a fair machine. It's not brilliant, it's not revolutionary and the interface isn't anything special. And Graffiti really is poor. Its success is mainly a factor of its low(ish) price - the reason I bought mine. That no-one has done a more successful PDA is more a demostration of their inability rather than Palm's genius.
As for keyboard, no way. The point of a Palm is that I hold it in one hand and write with another. Stick one of those keyboard on the bottom and I suddenly have to stick it on a desk. At which point it becomes a rather poor imitation of a Psion 5, which I could make a far better stab at using without a desk than I could one of them.
I quite like my machine, but it's not the best possible by a long way, despite what some people seem to think.
Ooh, that last bit's just reminded me of something.
Anyone else ever see an Anniversary Mac? Wow, did they look nice. Expensive, sure, and outdated by now, but I still like them:)
Old cheap computers (or even just components) in general are a good idea though. I'd be delighted if I got a pile of bits I could play with. Sad, but true:)
Partly because I've got a Palm III and so quite like not having to worry about leaving it in the cradle with the computer turned on for long periods of time, but partly because I actually think the Palm machines are rather cheap and nasty... Got one because of the first of them.
They need a proper, full-size screen like the WinCE palmtops (so no silkscreen) and better recognition than Graffiti if they're going to be a true object of desire IMO.
I find my machine very useful, but I don't think it's anything special and would prefer a Psion Revo TBH - unfortunately too expensive for me:(
Not even then. In the main, tyres are mounted on wheels in a very standard way which anyone can use. There's a few odd ways Michelin use, but they're still open standards IIRC. And oil? One may be better at the job than another, but there's nothing fundamental that stops interoperation. It's pretty well known how to make automotive lubricants:)
The problem here is the barrier to entry. It's huge, which isn't the case with the car parts analogy.
Forced, no. But have they made it impractical to use anything else? Sure.
I was a longterm Amiga user who loved those machines. Criticise me if you will, but I like Amigas. Now, I'm not trying to blame Microsoft for the death of the Amiga - contributory factor, perhaps, but it went thanks to massive incompetence at Commodore in the main. So, I looked at the market, wanting a new platform. I couldn't get another Amiga seriously. I couldn't get a BeOS machine. I could get a Mac (which I actually quite like...) but I'd then be in a very similar position to that which had made me dump Amigas - little or no software. So, much to my displeasure, I get a Windows 98 PC. The OS is horrible in most respects, the hardware is a triumph of engineering effort over basic design and it shows in some big ways. Do I like the machine? No, not really. Did I have a practical choice? No, not really. Do I think Microsoft have harmed the market? Of course.
The analogy with the car is just as flawed as the same analogy regarding intellectual property (that copying a cd is like stealing a car). Fact is, it is mathematically possible to secure my communications, it is not mathematically possible to secure my car. In one case, the law is necessary, easily verified (you will know if your car has been stolen) and enforceable through finite effort, in the other it is the opposite of all that.
Speaking as a musician here, why should copying a CD be different from stealing a car? I'm no fan of the record industry either, but it's still taking my work without permission or reward.
To get back to the main point, though, I agree about the effort to enforce. Hence my earlier comment: make this illegal and such evidence becomes inadmissable. So what if we can't tell whether they've actually done this? Why would they bother if they couldn't sumbit this as evidence in court or as a justification for a search warrant? The effort then becomes disproportionate to the reward for them. I'd still like to see it as a fundamental right regardless, but I can't see how it's impractical.
Most of the things that Echelon allegedly does are clearly not legal (such as the NSA keeping tabs on Americans). I have no doubt in my mind that they laugh in the face of the laws and consitution. What makes you think that this law will be any different? Which will be your method of ensuring this? Enforcing it?
Actually, as long as the current situation where our data transmissions aren't legally protected remains, I can't see that this is actually illegal. Immoral, sure and against the spirit of the law perhaps, but illegal? No. My point, again, was simple: make it illegal and the evidence becomes inadmissable. At which point they can search as hard as they like, but it's not worth anything other than amusement value to them. So why should they bother?
You cannot get around the fact that the problem here is not one of computer litteracy but one of attitude, people just don't care. Maybe that is because they are under the illusion that they are not being spied on, but my suggestion of simply ending the hypocracy on this subject goes a lot farther towards solving that then passing another, unenforceable, law.
This was my point, TBH - most people simply don't realise that it's an issue so market forces don't kick in as the market is entirely unaware of the possibility. As for suggesting that this is unenforceable, pardon? This sort of law - well, constitutional amendment if you check back to my original proposal, and I'm well aware that I'm debating within the terms of reference of a foreign jurisdiction and I'd still support what I said for the UK - would make evidence gained by such means inadmissable in court. There's certainly been suggestions that the NSA's lstening station at RAF Menwith Hill is being used for commercial espionage, too, which I accept that this wouldn't help hugely as it's not very easy to prove this sort of thing. But ATM it's legal, however undesirable it is. Even if you know they're doing it there's nothing anyone can do to stop them. Make it illegal and you can at least censure them if they're found doing it.
In theory, I do believe that (private security over authoritarian forced upon policing), but I am also pragmatic in my anarchism.
Ouch. The idea that we should all be responsible for our own law enforcement is abhorrent to me and, I would hope, the majority of others here. PLEASE don't let this actually happen.
It might explain why we're having this argument, though, if you would dismantle official law enforcement structures and require us all to make our own provisions. Which is exactly what we have on this issue ATM and exactly what I was opposing, simply as it means you only get rights and protection for an elite. Not good.
That does not mean I cannot say no to further movement in the direction of laws to patronise over us rather than being honest and giving the individual responsibility (and don't fool yourself: responsibility == freedom) in a matter where it is so readily available.
No, I really don't see that parallel in the least. I can accept that you don't like this law, but responsibility == freedom and freedom always being best? No way. While we live in a society governed by human nature, there will always be people who want to abuse something like this. Why is this even being discussed? Because we feel our freedom is being infringed by this system. Do we agree that this infringement is wrong? Yes. So why is it that you are happy for them to continue infringing your right to privacy?
Let's put this another way. Theft. Is it right for me to break into my neigbour's house and steal their posessions? No. So is it legal for me to do so? No. Yet, by extension, you are arguing that I should have the freedom to do that while my neigbour should protect their freedom to retain their posessions by hiring a policeman to stand outside their door or keeping them all locked in safes when they'r not being used. Which is patently ludicrous.
We are (almost) all agreed that we have a right to private communications unless there is strong grounds of suspicion that we might be using such communications to facilitate illegal acts. So why on earth should the various law enforecment agencies have the right to intercept my communications, which they currently do?
I find your idea of what is elitist deeply disturbing. By extension, anything that gives the person willing to think and work towards an end an advantage over he who doesn't is elitist. It figures you are European (disclaimer: so am I) because this is a very Euro-Socialist way of thinking.
Interesting - I'm not a socialist by any means. I'm a Liberal Democrat.
Anyway, to get back to the main thrust of the argument, no, that's crazy. What you've just said is that it's better to only give the protection to the intelligent and computer literate. Which is discriminatory in the extreme and exactly why this sort of law is needed. There are plenty of people out there, blissfully ignorant of the threat of eavesdropping. You and I are paranoid souls who know very well what is possible and so can judge for ourselves whether we want the risks, but apply the mother test here: would you expect your mother to be have thought of this and then to know how to solve it? Sorry if this offends anyone as a test - purely that IME men tend to pick up computers more quickly than women, while the older generations tend to pick up more slowly full stop. Hence mothers are a fairly good test that most of us can use for a standard baseline user.
Personally, I find your attitude towards this arrogant. I do not presume myself to be any more intelligent than most people, and I don't give myself the right to decide who of the stupid people(sic) is most in need of my forcing protection on them. The "vast majority who do not think about these issues" do so by choice, they are perfectly capable of behaving intelligently regarding issues that are important to them. It is not my place to tell them that privacy should be.
I don't presume myself to be automatically more intelligent than others either, but I do automatically regard myself as more computer literate than the average person based on simple experience. That isn't disciminatory in the least, nor arrogant as I'm not making claims to be the best, merely above average. Considering I'm a Computer Science undergraduate with A-level and GCSE computer qualifications, I think I'm justified in making that claim. Now, I say again - you and I know what we're doing broadly. Our very presence on this site suggests that as a possibility, certainly our participation in this thread suggests marginally more knowledge about this sort of topic than most. Would we gain from this sort of rule? Sure, everyone would. Our gain would be less, though, as we're more capable of using the available barrier technologies. But imagine your example average user again. Do they know this sort of thing is possible? Unlikely, based on my experience. Are they going to know what to do to protect themselves, should they desire such protection? Equally unlikely.
I'm sorry if you think I'm being elitist or arrogant here - I'd consider that I'm mostly trying to defend civil liberties, and this seems to be a way to do it. You, on the other hand, are suggesting that the government and their agencies should be permitted to eavesdrop on our private communications whenever they want for whatever purpose they want, and it's up to us to protect ourselves should we desire. Which I would see as being on a similar level to suggesting that we abolish the police force and hire private security to cover ourselves, though on a knowledge rather than financial elite.
Sorry, but this attitude is repugnant to me and suggests that you simply haven't thought this one through properly - or that you are so blinkered that you don't understand the average user.
For example, a photographer can take portraits of you, and give you prints. However, the photographer owns the copyright of the prints - not you. Which is why you can't get duplicates of professional photos made in any photography store.
Not quite true actually.
If you commission the art, it's yours. Do what you want with it. Artist has no rights unless they're explicity agreed.
If you buy the art, it depends on the contract you've entered into. In that case they'd probably adjudge that you'd commissioned them, but you may have to sign forms stating that that's not the case.
If a photographer wishes to exploit your image though, you have to explicitly grant them permission, normally with model release forms. This doesn't seem to be the case thanks to common sense with crowd photos and the like in the news, but you get the idea. If the artist takes a portrait of you, it's joint property unless agreed otherwise.
Software is no more intellectual property then the setting of the light switch in my living room to on or off is IP. No more IP than a computer formula is IP.
But a movie is IP because it is a work of art. There was an author, a director, actors and hundreds of others all working together as a team to produce art.
AC, I'm assuming that you don't develop software yourself? With serious projects, it involves hundreds of people working together to produce it. And in many ways it's more a black art than a science.
Software is a work of art. Period. You may wish to donate your art to the world and permit them to attempt to improve upon it in which case I salute your generosity, but should we all be compelled to do that? No. I write software, I play the trumpet. Both have taken me many years of practice to get to my current ability (more on the trumpet, but I'm a better musician than developer) so why should one be regarded as valueless?
Isn't it nice to see a post that came first and is actually worth reading? Especially when there's two more normaly first post attempts below, both of which were beaten:)
Yup, the colour schemes we've got recently are pretty nasty aren't they?
The old grey for Ask Slashdot was alright - a bit tricky to read, but not too offensive. But the current YRO and BSD colourschemes (may well be others, these are just the ones I've noticed) are downright offensive and should be pulled ASAP.
Slashdot Mirror
Simple enquiry - why bother making a claim when you're not going to sign it? No-one can know of your (possible) success...
Greg
Which surely says that we should be opposing the patents system not Intel here?
Yes, there are some bad faith patent enforcements out there, with LZW & GIF being probably the best known example. But the real problem is surely not that they've got the patent, but that the legal system made the patent possible and so effectively required them to at least try for their own protection?
Standard disclaimer in this sort of thing - I'm British and have no idea what the patent situation is over here. And I accept that I'm discussing matters in a jurisdiction which doesn't affect me, to stop potential flames.
Greg
Surely the invention is the product of the combination of the algorithm and the input stream? In which case it's the property of whoever controlled it, plus whoever owns the copyright to the algorithm. If the algorithm relies on library features for operation (so disk and screen I/O shouldn't count) then their copyright holders have to be factored in, too...
:) - though, standard disclaimer, that isn't a category which I'm in.
This one is going to keep lawyers busy for some time
Greg
Slashdot's slogan has been 'News for Nerds. Stuff that matters.' for as long as I can remember. Not just news for Linux users, but news for all nerds. So why's this article headed NVidia releasing OpenGL ICD by End of Year then? They've already released this, just not for Linux. And not everyone here is a Linux user.
If Rob, Hemos & co. want Slashdot to be a Linux community site, they should say so. If they want it to be a general nerd site which happens to be rather fond of Linux (which is how I would view it right now) then they shouldn't make posts like this which assume that Linux is all that matters to the readers. Otherwise we'll start viewing Slashdot as a Linux community site and I, for one, would stop using it. Nothing against Linux per se, it's just not what I want or use so a Linux news site is entirely irrelevant to me.
Greg
Thanks! IANAL so I wasn't prepared to go out and say it, but as worked up as we can get about this, it isn't going to happen. It's not legal.
What is now worrying me is why they're trying to pass it despite this problem...
Greg
This is truly nasty, I'll agree, but...
Is it legal? I mean, will this get through the European Court of Human Rights?
Greg
Maybe, but...
What about the Orbital 2-stroke? That's way cooler. Only about 6 parts andonly a few of them move. Wonderful idea, way nicer than the (already very nice) Wankel.
Greg
I knew this sounded familiar!
GCSE Information Systems, 1995. I had to play with some robotics, and we did this all with Lego running through Control Lab (I think - memory's a little hazy) under MacOS 7. Gave us lights, motors, rotation sensors, temperature sensors, light sensors and push switches. Programmed in something that I remember looking like a weird BASIC derivative. We made a greenhouse with a temperature regulation system - it was the original assignment, we just went thoroughly OTT on it! Others managed some really fun stuff like automated carwashes (well, simulated models... you get the idea!) , so it was a fairly powerful system. Not ideal, by any means - I remember being frustrated that I couldn't interrupt things - but it worked.
Would this be the same system, by any chance?
Greg
The real interest in my family (mostly from my father!) would be if this sort of thing is usable with Meccano - Erector to anyone in the US. Not as quick to use as Lego, but you can do far more proper engineering to get some really nice models. If we could use this somehow, it'd be nice...
Greg
Why didn't I think of this why I made my earlier reply? Oh well...
:), so why couldn't someone write the software to handle this and give you control as easy as Zeewolf on the Amiga? Then stick it on a laptop, plug in your joystick somehow and you've got your easier to fly 'copter. Even got a screen for the camera display if someone sorts that out, too.
Helicopters are tricky to fly. But modern jet fighters are basically impossible to fly on manual controls, so what do they do? They have them controlled by computers and servo motors, with the control stick being replaced by a joystick and some clever software automagically working out how to combine the pilot's iedas of what do do with the aircraft's. Now, there's a few programmers on this site I'm guessing
Greg
My attitude for quite a while has simply been that it was devised as a portable asembler for writing operating systems. All well and good, and a purpose it fulfils admirably, I'm sure. But I don't write operating systems - I natter on about them lots with KOSH, but I'm not an OS coder. So why should I have to use that level of control? I'd much rather use Delphi (or an equivalent uprated Pascal) which gives me power when I need it, simplicity the rest of the time. That way writing the code becomes second nature so quickly it's silly, whereas there's a lot more language to learn with C, for little or no benefit to most programmers IMO.
BTW, this isn't me saying that I would fight the use of C within KOSH to anyone who knows what I'm talking about, merely that I don't choose it for my own coding.
Greg
Me too, if they can drop the price a bit. Helicopters are cool.
For that matter, so are hovercrafts. I want to play with one but I've not seen any for sale, so my project this christmas? See if I can nick the RC gear from a cheap old car and build a hovercraft round it!
Having video cameras on this sort of thing has to be cool, too - wonder if you could modify a £50 webcam to do this?
Greg
Erm....
:)
Well, it's getting as close to a laugh as is sensible in a University computer lab
In case anyone else was reading this, I was thinking more in terms of old components...
Greg
Er, I didn't moan about the processor speed. Wouldn't mind if it was faster, but didn't ask for it to be. But would a full height screen really make it bigger and heavier? No. Would it be much more expensive? Not really. Would it be more usable? Sure.
I think it's a fair machine. It's not brilliant, it's not revolutionary and the interface isn't anything special. And Graffiti really is poor. Its success is mainly a factor of its low(ish) price - the reason I bought mine. That no-one has done a more successful PDA is more a demostration of their inability rather than Palm's genius.
As for keyboard, no way. The point of a Palm is that I hold it in one hand and write with another. Stick one of those keyboard on the bottom and I suddenly have to stick it on a desk. At which point it becomes a rather poor imitation of a Psion 5, which I could make a far better stab at using without a desk than I could one of them.
I quite like my machine, but it's not the best possible by a long way, despite what some people seem to think.
Greg
Ooh, that last bit's just reminded me of something.
:)
:)
Anyone else ever see an Anniversary Mac? Wow, did they look nice. Expensive, sure, and outdated by now, but I still like them
Old cheap computers (or even just components) in general are a good idea though. I'd be delighted if I got a pile of bits I could play with. Sad, but true
Greg
Me?
:(
Partly because I've got a Palm III and so quite like not having to worry about leaving it in the cradle with the computer turned on for long periods of time, but partly because I actually think the Palm machines are rather cheap and nasty... Got one because of the first of them.
They need a proper, full-size screen like the WinCE palmtops (so no silkscreen) and better recognition than Graffiti if they're going to be a true object of desire IMO.
I find my machine very useful, but I don't think it's anything special and would prefer a Psion Revo TBH - unfortunately too expensive for me
Greg
Not even then. In the main, tyres are mounted on wheels in a very standard way which anyone can use. There's a few odd ways Michelin use, but they're still open standards IIRC. And oil? One may be better at the job than another, but there's nothing fundamental that stops interoperation. It's pretty well known how to make automotive lubricants :)
The problem here is the barrier to entry. It's huge, which isn't the case with the car parts analogy.
Greg
Forced, no. But have they made it impractical to use anything else? Sure.
I was a longterm Amiga user who loved those machines. Criticise me if you will, but I like Amigas. Now, I'm not trying to blame Microsoft for the death of the Amiga - contributory factor, perhaps, but it went thanks to massive incompetence at Commodore in the main. So, I looked at the market, wanting a new platform. I couldn't get another Amiga seriously. I couldn't get a BeOS machine. I could get a Mac (which I actually quite like...) but I'd then be in a very similar position to that which had made me dump Amigas - little or no software. So, much to my displeasure, I get a Windows 98 PC. The OS is horrible in most respects, the hardware is a triumph of engineering effort over basic design and it shows in some big ways. Do I like the machine? No, not really. Did I have a practical choice? No, not really. Do I think Microsoft have harmed the market? Of course.
Greg
To get back to the main point, though, I agree about the effort to enforce. Hence my earlier comment: make this illegal and such evidence becomes inadmissable. So what if we can't tell whether they've actually done this? Why would they bother if they couldn't sumbit this as evidence in court or as a justification for a search warrant? The effort then becomes disproportionate to the reward for them. I'd still like to see it as a fundamental right regardless, but I can't see how it's impractical.
Actually, as long as the current situation where our data transmissions aren't legally protected remains, I can't see that this is actually illegal. Immoral, sure and against the spirit of the law perhaps, but illegal? No. My point, again, was simple: make it illegal and the evidence becomes inadmissable. At which point they can search as hard as they like, but it's not worth anything other than amusement value to them. So why should they bother?
Greg
It might explain why we're having this argument, though, if you would dismantle official law enforcement structures and require us all to make our own provisions. Which is exactly what we have on this issue ATM and exactly what I was opposing, simply as it means you only get rights and protection for an elite. Not good.
No, I really don't see that parallel in the least. I can accept that you don't like this law, but responsibility == freedom and freedom always being best? No way. While we live in a society governed by human nature, there will always be people who want to abuse something like this. Why is this even being discussed? Because we feel our freedom is being infringed by this system. Do we agree that this infringement is wrong? Yes. So why is it that you are happy for them to continue infringing your right to privacy?Let's put this another way. Theft. Is it right for me to break into my neigbour's house and steal their posessions? No. So is it legal for me to do so? No. Yet, by extension, you are arguing that I should have the freedom to do that while my neigbour should protect their freedom to retain their posessions by hiring a policeman to stand outside their door or keeping them all locked in safes when they'r not being used. Which is patently ludicrous.
We are (almost) all agreed that we have a right to private communications unless there is strong grounds of suspicion that we might be using such communications to facilitate illegal acts. So why on earth should the various law enforecment agencies have the right to intercept my communications, which they currently do?
Greg
Anyway, to get back to the main thrust of the argument, no, that's crazy. What you've just said is that it's better to only give the protection to the intelligent and computer literate. Which is discriminatory in the extreme and exactly why this sort of law is needed. There are plenty of people out there, blissfully ignorant of the threat of eavesdropping. You and I are paranoid souls who know very well what is possible and so can judge for ourselves whether we want the risks, but apply the mother test here: would you expect your mother to be have thought of this and then to know how to solve it? Sorry if this offends anyone as a test - purely that IME men tend to pick up computers more quickly than women, while the older generations tend to pick up more slowly full stop. Hence mothers are a fairly good test that most of us can use for a standard baseline user.
I don't presume myself to be automatically more intelligent than others either, but I do automatically regard myself as more computer literate than the average person based on simple experience. That isn't disciminatory in the least, nor arrogant as I'm not making claims to be the best, merely above average. Considering I'm a Computer Science undergraduate with A-level and GCSE computer qualifications, I think I'm justified in making that claim. Now, I say again - you and I know what we're doing broadly. Our very presence on this site suggests that as a possibility, certainly our participation in this thread suggests marginally more knowledge about this sort of topic than most. Would we gain from this sort of rule? Sure, everyone would. Our gain would be less, though, as we're more capable of using the available barrier technologies. But imagine your example average user again. Do they know this sort of thing is possible? Unlikely, based on my experience. Are they going to know what to do to protect themselves, should they desire such protection? Equally unlikely.I'm sorry if you think I'm being elitist or arrogant here - I'd consider that I'm mostly trying to defend civil liberties, and this seems to be a way to do it. You, on the other hand, are suggesting that the government and their agencies should be permitted to eavesdrop on our private communications whenever they want for whatever purpose they want, and it's up to us to protect ourselves should we desire. Which I would see as being on a similar level to suggesting that we abolish the police force and hire private security to cover ourselves, though on a knowledge rather than financial elite.
Sorry, but this attitude is repugnant to me and suggests that you simply haven't thought this one through properly - or that you are so blinkered that you don't understand the average user.
Greg
Not quite true actually.
If you commission the art, it's yours. Do what you want with it. Artist has no rights unless they're explicity agreed.
If you buy the art, it depends on the contract you've entered into. In that case they'd probably adjudge that you'd commissioned them, but you may have to sign forms stating that that's not the case.
If a photographer wishes to exploit your image though, you have to explicitly grant them permission, normally with model release forms. This doesn't seem to be the case thanks to common sense with crowd photos and the like in the news, but you get the idea. If the artist takes a portrait of you, it's joint property unless agreed otherwise.
This all being from memory and in the UK.
Greg
AC, I'm assuming that you don't develop software yourself? With serious projects, it involves hundreds of people working together to produce it. And in many ways it's more a black art than a science.
Software is a work of art. Period. You may wish to donate your art to the world and permit them to attempt to improve upon it in which case I salute your generosity, but should we all be compelled to do that? No. I write software, I play the trumpet. Both have taken me many years of practice to get to my current ability (more on the trumpet, but I'm a better musician than developer) so why should one be regarded as valueless?
Greg
Isn't it nice to see a post that came first and is actually worth reading? Especially when there's two more normaly first post attempts below, both of which were beaten :)
Greg
Yup, the colour schemes we've got recently are pretty nasty aren't they?
:)
The old grey for Ask Slashdot was alright - a bit tricky to read, but not too offensive. But the current YRO and BSD colourschemes (may well be others, these are just the ones I've noticed) are downright offensive and should be pulled ASAP.
IMHO
Greg