Have you actually seen any pictures of Hitler, Adolf? Let me say this again, slowly:
The people giving the orders are not the same as the mindless pack animals carrying them out. They're not dumb, or inbred, or easily recognisable, and that's the danger.
DirectX, COM, and other technologies are well designed
DX (specifically D3D) took five versions before it was even remotely usable, due to MS forcing a dumb ass model (execute buffers) on developers, just to distinguish D3D from OpenGL. I happily concede that Dx8 is usable, but it took years of pain for MS to overcome their arrogance and provide developers with what they wanted, rather than what MS thought they needed.
COM is OK, but MS break their own rules in using it - for example in DirectX, where they're removed parts of previously published interfaces that they reckoned nobody was using. Again, breathtaking arrogance.
The best that you can say about MS is that they sometimes get it just about OK in the end.
Luckily for us, we [in the West] have significantly more freedom
We are allowed certain concessions, which are whittled away every day. In case you missed it, the policies of the G7 national governments are now dictated by corporations. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing, just don't kid yourself that it's by the people, of the people and for the people.
Sure, it's nutty, but... can anyone tell me where I can buy Kodak film that works in a 300 degree temperature gradient and doesn't fog up on exposure to hard radiation?
What a great way to publicise the findings of this paper. Without the threat of legal action, its presentation would probably have been largely unnoticed outside its field.
Sure, now that there's some angry geeks onboard, that about wraps it up for the DMCA then.
Seriously, can you find this story outside the geek press?
The whole participation of the Princeton group in the SDMI effort was a political statement from the beginning
Seems that way to me as well, and no, I can't figure it out either. Are they hoping to stir up sympathy, or point out the ludicrousness of the DMCA and/or the "# of lawyers de facto defines legality" system that protects it?
The only way they'll actually get this into the public eye is to provoke a ludicrous show trial and (even better) get a movie made of the whole debacle. I'm actually not joking, and I'd like to see Gillian Anderson playing "Justice seeking freedom fighting geek babe in a labcoat"
Maybe the DMCA isn't that time, but that time will eventually come.
There's no "maybe" about the DMCA, it's far too complicated and geekish for Joe Sixpack to care about. Despite our deluded "angry geek" attempts to convince ourselves otherwise, popular revolutions only occur over big, obvious issues that anyone with a 75 IQ can understand: race, dumb ass wars, unemployment, political fuel crises. In future it'll be Medicare, social security, real fuel crises (when there's none left), and possibly mass culling of old folks (I predict a "Die With Dignity Act").
"Oh, eek. It's an attack of the nazi beach bunnies with the 60 point IQs, eek, eek."
Kind of funny, but you can make the same argument for the US Marines. And in both cases, the guys actually giving the orders are intelligent, educated, well spoken, persuasive, and utterly convinced that they are fighting the good fight. They also look a lot like me and thee, only in fatigues and smart suits respectively.
Russian law may have been violated, but OTOH, it doesn't seem like the Russian authorities were too keen on following up on the original case against the crackers
It seems that way because that's what the FBI have said, and it fits our prejudices. This is the same FBI that are also boasting that they're great liars, remember? The same FBI that are releasing all their evidence to the media, threatening their chance of securing a fair trail.
This is a publicity stunt to increase their prestige, funding and jurisdiction. We don't have any investigative journalists left to find the other side of the story, but it's always best to consider the source and the motivation.
They were supposed to get a search warrant from a judge in the local oblast before they... hey, wait a second... Oblast? Oblast! This is a FOREIGN COUNTRY!
Hey, yeah, you're right! It's so obvious! So it's equally OK for Russian (Chinese, Iraqi, pick your own demonised nation) spooks to hack and crack boxen in the USA because it's convenient for them?
if these really are the guys the FBI says they are
Congratulations, this is the first post I've seen that even questions the possibility. Since when did coming up with a sweet social engineering hack allow a law enforcement agency to not only bypass due process, but to boast about how great it is that it kinda doesn't apply? And haven't we had enough of "trial by press release" by now? The presumption of innocence doesn't vanish just because the FBI sends out a press release which could be largely a work of fiction. Let's bear in mind that this is the agency that's boasting about how great it is at telling plausible lies!
Woo! Yeah! And those FBI d00dz have such a 1337 press spin that it's not even worth following due process, or presuming innocence or nothin'. String 'em up! Boo ya!
If this happened than FBI can happily know that it violated article 272, part 2 of chapter 28 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The article claims setences starting from 500 minimal salaries (about US$4000) and up to 5 years of detention. Note that this considers only the fact of illegally accessing a computer
Nice! Please mod up, pretty please. Oh, how I'd love Russia to ask for the extradition of the FBI goons who've not only admitted to breaking a Russian law, they're actually crowing about it.
If another country approached the U.S. for the extradition of a criminal
Say, for example, Russia asking the USA to extradite an FBI agent for hacking machines in Russia owned by a couple of (innocent until proven guilty) Russians.
What next - getting away with theft because the combination of the capitalist society we live in and the lack of a well-paying job meant that I was "forced" into it?
Er, isn't that exactly the argument Congress uses to vote themselves big payrises? Because otherwise they'd be open to corruption?
In this case, I imagine the lawyer is doing it pro bono
Which is a spanking good point, and also provokes the thought that in a pro bono case, the legal representative isn't independent council, they're an interested party and should probably be liable to being slapped for bringing a frivilous suit. Anyone know if this is the case?
If they falsely reported something, I think they should be forced to print a retraction and the retraction should be placed in the same position in the paper
That's a good start. Personally, I'd like to see gubmint mandated contextual inserts in TV/radio news reports. No, I don't mean that newsies should be required to do any research (god forbid), or be required to tell the truth (ha ha), or that their Freeeeeeeeedoms should be curtailled (the very thought!).
What I mean is that after Stacey Implants gets her chance to shriek about another brutal slaying, we cut to a simple five second visual/audio insert, produced and paid for by the gubmint, showing overall school violence figures. The press gets to keep their precious freedom to keep your eyeballs/ears glued to their sponsored antics, but they have to work with the possibility of having their hysterical ranting immediately exposed as such.
If that bothers you, just think of them as mini-infomercials, and consider that broadcast news is largely just sensationalist fluff to keep you watching until their next bunch of "Important Messages From Their Sponsors" anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you actually seen any pictures of Hitler, Adolf? Let me say this again, slowly:
The people giving the orders are not the same as the mindless pack animals carrying them out. They're not dumb, or inbred, or easily recognisable, and that's the danger.
DX (specifically D3D) took five versions before it was even remotely usable, due to MS forcing a dumb ass model (execute buffers) on developers, just to distinguish D3D from OpenGL. I happily concede that Dx8 is usable, but it took years of pain for MS to overcome their arrogance and provide developers with what they wanted, rather than what MS thought they needed.
COM is OK, but MS break their own rules in using it - for example in DirectX, where they're removed parts of previously published interfaces that they reckoned nobody was using. Again, breathtaking arrogance.
The best that you can say about MS is that they sometimes get it just about OK in the end.
We are allowed certain concessions, which are whittled away every day. In case you missed it, the policies of the G7 national governments are now dictated by corporations. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing, just don't kid yourself that it's by the people, of the people and for the people.
Sure, it's nutty, but... can anyone tell me where I can buy Kodak film that works in a 300 degree temperature gradient and doesn't fog up on exposure to hard radiation?
Seriously, you've got very low expectations. Here's the best result I can think of:
Sure, now that there's some angry geeks onboard, that about wraps it up for the DMCA then.
Seriously, can you find this story outside the geek press?
Seems that way to me as well, and no, I can't figure it out either. Are they hoping to stir up sympathy, or point out the ludicrousness of the DMCA and/or the "# of lawyers de facto defines legality" system that protects it?
The only way they'll actually get this into the public eye is to provoke a ludicrous show trial and (even better) get a movie made of the whole debacle. I'm actually not joking, and I'd like to see Gillian Anderson playing "Justice seeking freedom fighting geek babe in a labcoat"
There's no "maybe" about the DMCA, it's far too complicated and geekish for Joe Sixpack to care about. Despite our deluded "angry geek" attempts to convince ourselves otherwise, popular revolutions only occur over big, obvious issues that anyone with a 75 IQ can understand: race, dumb ass wars, unemployment, political fuel crises. In future it'll be Medicare, social security, real fuel crises (when there's none left), and possibly mass culling of old folks (I predict a "Die With Dignity Act").
Well said, that Anonymous Coward! ;)
Kind of funny, but you can make the same argument for the US Marines. And in both cases, the guys actually giving the orders are intelligent, educated, well spoken, persuasive, and utterly convinced that they are fighting the good fight. They also look a lot like me and thee, only in fatigues and smart suits respectively.
Defending freedom of speech by suppressing an article that questions it. Downmodders: are you even dimly aware of the dichotemy?
I'd like to hear people's fantasy cases then. Go wild, come up with a scenario that's a no brainer even for a circuit judge.
I have as much evidence as you've provided to support your statement. Fire away.
Is this true? I'd get spectators to send location information then only send updates on what I knew they could see. But then I'm living in the past.
It seems that way because that's what the FBI have said, and it fits our prejudices. This is the same FBI that are also boasting that they're great liars, remember? The same FBI that are releasing all their evidence to the media, threatening their chance of securing a fair trail.
This is a publicity stunt to increase their prestige, funding and jurisdiction. We don't have any investigative journalists left to find the other side of the story, but it's always best to consider the source and the motivation.
Hey, yeah, you're right! It's so obvious! So it's equally OK for Russian (Chinese, Iraqi, pick your own demonised nation) spooks to hack and crack boxen in the USA because it's convenient for them?
Congratulations, this is the first post I've seen that even questions the possibility. Since when did coming up with a sweet social engineering hack allow a law enforcement agency to not only bypass due process, but to boast about how great it is that it kinda doesn't apply? And haven't we had enough of "trial by press release" by now? The presumption of innocence doesn't vanish just because the FBI sends out a press release which could be largely a work of fiction. Let's bear in mind that this is the agency that's boasting about how great it is at telling plausible lies!
Woo! Yeah! And those FBI d00dz have such a 1337 press spin that it's not even worth following due process, or presuming innocence or nothin'. String 'em up! Boo ya!
Nice! Please mod up, pretty please. Oh, how I'd love Russia to ask for the extradition of the FBI goons who've not only admitted to breaking a Russian law, they're actually crowing about it.
Say, for example, Russia asking the USA to extradite an FBI agent for hacking machines in Russia owned by a couple of (innocent until proven guilty) Russians.
Please, oh please.
But kids spend it, or dictate the spending. Same way that men make more money than women, but women spend more money than men.
Er, isn't that exactly the argument Congress uses to vote themselves big payrises? Because otherwise they'd be open to corruption?
Which is a spanking good point, and also provokes the thought that in a pro bono case, the legal representative isn't independent council, they're an interested party and should probably be liable to being slapped for bringing a frivilous suit. Anyone know if this is the case?
That's a good start. Personally, I'd like to see gubmint mandated contextual inserts in TV/radio news reports. No, I don't mean that newsies should be required to do any research (god forbid), or be required to tell the truth (ha ha), or that their Freeeeeeeeedoms should be curtailled (the very thought!).
What I mean is that after Stacey Implants gets her chance to shriek about another brutal slaying, we cut to a simple five second visual/audio insert, produced and paid for by the gubmint, showing overall school violence figures. The press gets to keep their precious freedom to keep your eyeballs/ears glued to their sponsored antics, but they have to work with the possibility of having their hysterical ranting immediately exposed as such.
If that bothers you, just think of them as mini-infomercials, and consider that broadcast news is largely just sensationalist fluff to keep you watching until their next bunch of "Important Messages From Their Sponsors" anyway.
Lawsuit Spin: Flashpoint teaches you to be a paranoid, secretive and highly efficient killer. Compared to that, Quake's just a Friday night punch up.