You're just jealous because the warez scene at Bob Jones' consists of Bible software, DC Talk mp3s, and third generation VHS copies of "The Omega Code".
Not only that but NURV^H^H^H^H Microsoft steals code using a sophisticated survielance network, and has murdered competing programers who are deemed "too good". Bill Gates owns the government, so we can't go to the law to help. Our only recourse is a cheesy juvenile plan of vigilante terrorism that involves the Internet in some way, set to a hip soundtrack and using graphic interfaces with ridiculously high bandwidth requirements.
His whole line of reasoning in the decision rests on the assumption that DeCSS is a tool for piracy, and because it is a tool for piracy, fair use rights therefore don't apply. With a bit of hand waving and circular logic, he dismissed the defense's strongest argument. Regardless of his "understanding" of the technology in question, he deserves our contempt.
If you want portable music, buy (protected) CDs, don't steal it with your dirty mp3s. This exists so you have no excuse in whining about not being able to play music on your computer.
See? Capitalism works. All needs are being satisfied by the market. God Bless America, God Bless the RIAA
Heh, I can't believe only one person pointed that out, and the comment is at four now. That sucking sound you hear is the vacuum created by the complete lack of credibility.
You're a twit, and still a worm compared to the guys who signed this.
My graphics background is stale and academic, so I'm not too familiar with the differences between the new cards or the current state of OpenGL vs. Direct3d. If you may humble yourself I have a question.
Riddle me this: Why would anyone write a game dependant on the features of a particular card? Even if Direct3d can emulate them in software, woudln't that kill the performance of the game?
I suspect the popularity of Direct3d has little to do with advanced features and everything to do with the fact that it is a de facto Microsoft standard. Why bother learning OpenGL when you're going to be stuck using Direct3d anyway. It will only raise your support costs to use a non-native API that is decidely hostile to Microsoft's agenda.
These "scientists" are not afraid of alien microbes from Mars. Quite the opposite, really.
You see, after enjoying sixty years of bug-eyed monsters in science fiction, people want there to be danger on and from Mars. It's what makes it interesting. It's the only reason Joe Sixpack even cares that there is a red ball of dust in the sky.
These ivory tower academics understand this, so they issue calls for prudence and caution, fulfilling our expectations of the calm and careful scientist. But what they really want is credibility for the idea that Mars is some kind of dangerous alien menace. It is a brilliant but devious propoganda technique.
You see, by demonishing haste in Mars research, they whet the public's appetite for it even more. Like Pavlovian dogs, we salivate for more pretty pictures, more cute toy cars, more saved at the last minute drama. The thought that life exists on this barren planet, and better, dangerous life, is like a candle flame to the moths of our imagination.
But in reality, these "scientists" are actually COMMUNISTS, hell-bent on taking your hard earned money and devoting it to more Godless "research". They know there is no life on Mars, because otherwise it would be mentioned in the Bible. What they really want is to get at those dead Mars rocks, to support the lie that the Solar System is billions of years old. Life means nothing to their cold, emotionless hearts. It is only a convient cover to trick you into submitting to their evil schemes.
-- Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
And who bought Big Government to bring you that war? Maybe you need to get your head out your ass, punk. -- Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
Flaimbait... geez. This probably the single most insightful comment under the article.
Instead, people are bumping up a bunch of posts that amount to "they're only doing it so we can clean up their code"... yea, right. You obnoxious college brats can't even clean up your own spittle. -- Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
For the uninitiated, when a web designer says this, he actually intends the obnoxious, bandwidth hogging version to be "high quality". They're funny like that. -- Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
They will when it is impossible to prevent. When nano-bugs become available, how likely is it they will be outlawed? When outlawed, how likely is it that the rich and powerful will use them anyways?
Your argument is essentially the position that we should prevent private citizens the use of survelance technology, while trusting the government to be responsible with it.
Yea... I thought you'd see it my way. -- Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
1. All your other psycho ex-girlfriend's crazy comments will be available too. If your potential wife is too stupid to evaluate the credibility of the source, then why are you marrying her?
2. The reason errors occur so much, and are so hard to catch, and the credit bureau's are so obnoxious is that we treat identifying information as secrets. Once upon a time, you couldn't even get your own credit report. If the industry weren't so stupid as to treat identifiers like secret keys, and we weren't so paranoid about it, it would be a heck of a lot easier to verify information, and the power provided by the credit bureaus' monopoly on your credit history would be destroyed.
3. The more data there is to cross-reference, the harder it is to pass a forgery. One instance of anything can be a forgery, or signed by a stolen key, or whatever, and you'd never be able to prove it.
4. Or, because no one has any secrets, people will realize that social conservatism is hyporcracy, and people will stop giving a damn about prudish things. And if you are concerned about your boss judging you for what you do outside of your work, then get over it, because they can already. With total transparency however, you can turn the tables on him, as can everyone else under him.
More importantly, there will be greater awareness to that sort of thing in the workforce as a whole, thus changing the very nature of the labor market that currently allows that sort of thing. In addition to full knowledge of salaries and past employment history of other workers, it will be a lot easier for people negotiate a fair salary and fair working conditions.
The fact is, people are already paranoid about people will perceive their actions, because of that knowlege can be used against them by those in power. Transparency removes that power. The most conservative societies are the ones where secrecy reigns. Open societies are the most open to difference. Compare thehippie commune to the corporate boardroom. Which one trades secrets like a commodity? -- Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
The big deal is that any halfway competent programmer could have implemented this in an afternoon. It's blindingly obvious given the nature of the problem. If you were to attempt to make slashdot's login URL more secure, this is exactly the sort of route one would take.
Patents were suppost to protect the investment required to create novel and innovative inventions. This is a kludge. Since stupidity is learned, it must take an MBA not to see the difference.
-- Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
Xerces is a sweet little library. Xalan is one big honking mess. I can't believe some of the same people wrote both. I hope TrAX will insulate people from all of that nonsense. -- Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
Slashdot Mirror
Seems kind of sad that so much work will be done on something that noone will use.
Aw, poor Napster. Compare to the musicians' lament: Seems kind of sad that so much work will be done on something that everyone will steal.
Man, I can't wait to find a ROM of the McDonald's game.
But a patch is already available, as is information about the vulnerability.
You're just jealous because the warez scene at Bob Jones' consists of Bible software, DC Talk mp3s, and third generation VHS copies of "The Omega Code".
If you +1 this funny, -1 the parent troll, punk.
His whole line of reasoning in the decision rests on the assumption that DeCSS is a tool for piracy, and because it is a tool for piracy, fair use rights therefore don't apply. With a bit of hand waving and circular logic, he dismissed the defense's strongest argument. Regardless of his "understanding" of the technology in question, he deserves our contempt.
See? Capitalism works. All needs are being satisfied by the market. God Bless America, God Bless the RIAA
Heh, I can't believe only one person pointed that out, and the comment is at four now. That sucking sound you hear is the vacuum created by the complete lack of credibility.
That Linus Torvalds is a lazy, theiving pussy. He's not even half as honest and respectful as Bill Gates.
No one is putting a gun to your head forcing you to license this software. If you don't like it, buy something else.
You're a twit, and still a worm compared to the guys who signed this.
My graphics background is stale and academic, so I'm not too familiar with the differences between the new cards or the current state of OpenGL vs. Direct3d. If you may humble yourself I have a question.
Riddle me this: Why would anyone write a game dependant on the features of a particular card? Even if Direct3d can emulate them in software, woudln't that kill the performance of the game?
I suspect the popularity of Direct3d has little to do with advanced features and everything to do with the fact that it is a de facto Microsoft standard. Why bother learning OpenGL when you're going to be stuck using Direct3d anyway. It will only raise your support costs to use a non-native API that is decidely hostile to Microsoft's agenda.
These "scientists" are not afraid of alien microbes from Mars. Quite the opposite, really.
You see, after enjoying sixty years of bug-eyed monsters in science fiction, people want there to be danger on and from Mars. It's what makes it interesting. It's the only reason Joe Sixpack even cares that there is a red ball of dust in the sky.
These ivory tower academics understand this, so they issue calls for prudence and caution, fulfilling our expectations of the calm and careful scientist. But what they really want is credibility for the idea that Mars is some kind of dangerous alien menace. It is a brilliant but devious propoganda technique.
You see, by demonishing haste in Mars research, they whet the public's appetite for it even more. Like Pavlovian dogs, we salivate for more pretty pictures, more cute toy cars, more saved at the last minute drama. The thought that life exists on this barren planet, and better, dangerous life, is like a candle flame to the moths of our imagination.
But in reality, these "scientists" are actually COMMUNISTS, hell-bent on taking your hard earned money and devoting it to more Godless "research". They know there is no life on Mars, because otherwise it would be mentioned in the Bible. What they really want is to get at those dead Mars rocks, to support the lie that the Solar System is billions of years old. Life means nothing to their cold, emotionless hearts. It is only a convient cover to trick you into submitting to their evil schemes.
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
And who bought Big Government to bring you that war? Maybe you need to get your head out your ass, punk.
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
Flaimbait... geez. This probably the single most insightful comment under the article.
Instead, people are bumping up a bunch of posts that amount to "they're only doing it so we can clean up their code"... yea, right. You obnoxious college brats can't even clean up your own spittle.
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
7) Keep repeating to yourself "There's no such thing as too paranoid" and "My secrets are every bit as interesting I believe them to be".
Otherwise, all that other stuff will start to feel like a big waste of time.
And remember that your "smart media" is only as smart as the device you stick it in. Even if it can't read your key, it can log your communications.
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
For the uninitiated, when a web designer says this, he actually intends the obnoxious, bandwidth hogging version to be "high quality". They're funny like that.
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
They will when it is impossible to prevent. When nano-bugs become available, how likely is it they will be outlawed? When outlawed, how likely is it that the rich and powerful will use them anyways?
Your argument is essentially the position that we should prevent private citizens the use of survelance technology, while trusting the government to be responsible with it.
Yea... I thought you'd see it my way.
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
1. All your other psycho ex-girlfriend's crazy comments will be available too. If your potential wife is too stupid to evaluate the credibility of the source, then why are you marrying her?
2. The reason errors occur so much, and are so hard to catch, and the credit bureau's are so obnoxious is that we treat identifying information as secrets. Once upon a time, you couldn't even get your own credit report. If the industry weren't so stupid as to treat identifiers like secret keys, and we weren't so paranoid about it, it would be a heck of a lot easier to verify information, and the power provided by the credit bureaus' monopoly on your credit history would be destroyed.
3. The more data there is to cross-reference, the harder it is to pass a forgery. One instance of anything can be a forgery, or signed by a stolen key, or whatever, and you'd never be able to prove it.
4. Or, because no one has any secrets, people will realize that social conservatism is hyporcracy, and people will stop giving a damn about prudish things. And if you are concerned about your boss judging you for what you do outside of your work, then get over it, because they can already. With total transparency however, you can turn the tables on him, as can everyone else under him.
More importantly, there will be greater awareness to that sort of thing in the workforce as a whole, thus changing the very nature of the labor market that currently allows that sort of thing. In addition to full knowledge of salaries and past employment history of other workers, it will be a lot easier for people negotiate a fair salary and fair working conditions.
The fact is, people are already paranoid about people will perceive their actions, because of that knowlege can be used against them by those in power. Transparency removes that power. The most conservative societies are the ones where secrecy reigns. Open societies are the most open to difference. Compare thehippie commune to the corporate boardroom. Which one trades secrets like a commodity?
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
Mmm.... sacrilicious.
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
They're not guerrillas, they're "freedom fighters".
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
Yea, whatever. Please keep your tentacle rape drawings to yourselves.
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
If one owns themself, doesn't that imply that one may own other people? This is the doublespeak used to justify slavery in the first place.
People are not property, people are the owners of property. Property does not have rights. So how can property own property?
Your Randite propoganda falls down under it's own twisted complexity.
All your rights are belong to us!!!
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
The big deal is that any halfway competent programmer could have implemented this in an afternoon. It's blindingly obvious given the nature of the problem. If you were to attempt to make slashdot's login URL more secure, this is exactly the sort of route one would take.
Patents were suppost to protect the investment required to create novel and innovative inventions. This is a kludge. Since stupidity is learned, it must take an MBA not to see the difference.
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
I mean, God could have been one half-assed programmer.
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom
I'm glad somebody said it!
Xerces is a sweet little library. Xalan is one big honking mess. I can't believe some of the same people wrote both. I hope TrAX will insulate people from all of that nonsense.
--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom