Quite an interesting read. Tons of great quotes to choose from, so here's one which isn't catchy, but sure as hell packs a punch:
Advancing technology does not change what is right or what is wrong. It does not
convert good law to bad. It just increases the contrast and makes it more obvious
that a lot of seemingly good ideas that we have made into law are not really such
good ideas after all.
Yes, I agree, people most certainly want simple. But there's a line. There are many functions of a computer that just cannot be accessed by using a remote, short of that remote being some type of keyboard.
On the other hand, if what you use a computer for can be boiled down into functions a remote control can send to your computer, then you can probably find something much cheaper than that computer to acomplish the task. If all you plan on using your computer for is tv viewing, buy a tivo, it's much cheaper than a computer, and you get all the same functionality. If you only use your computer to play mp3s, invest in an mp3 player, the computer is overkill.
Also, with respect to your PS2 comment, it's a device designed for a specific task, and is much cheaper than a computer.
In my roundabout way, I think what I'm getting at is that computers should be generalized. You should be able to do what you want with them. If you buy a computer and it's set up to do only one thing well, then to me you're not buying a computer, you're buying an appliance. TiVo is an appliance in that sense, so is the PS2. And those appliances are much cheaper than the general computer you could buy which can perform all those tasks. So if remote controls become the "next big peripheral", then the machine they come attached to better be damn cheap, or that remote control better include a keyboard.
I hope I've made some sense, I running on 0 hours of sleep right now.
This thing scares me. It costs $1,400, and a monitor is *extra*. In other words, they're just selling a computer preconfigured to hook up to your television.
The article is short on details about the computer, this is what it says:
The HP computer, which will be available
by the end of October, comes with a
remote control, television tuner, and can
record and play television shows and
digital music. A monitor is extra.
Nothing special whatsoever, but what really scares me is what the executive VP of CompUSA says: "The remote control could well become the next standard PC peripheral". Huh? Is he saying that computers are heading down the path of glorified televisions and that in the near future all that you will need to operate your computer is a remote control?
Something's very fishy. This thing is a computer with a tv tuner card, it shouldn't approach $1,400, even with a monitor included. There have to be some other gimics, otherwise this thing seems to be one big rip off.
If someone's got real information on this thing to counteract the lack of information presented by CNN, that would be greatly appreciated.
I'm not sure I completely understand what you're saying. Here's what I propose (not certain if it's what you're saying or not):
The author of a package should digitally sign the package he is distributing, and part of that signature should necessarily contain the appropriate MD5 checksum for the package.
This way, one can easily tell if the package has been tampered with (if the signature does not unencode with the author's public key, or the unencoded checksum is invalid). Of course, the one flaw with this is that there needs to be a way to determine who the author is and grab the author's public key. If the author's identity is stored in the package, then this method is useless. If the author's identity can be found via some central resource (say, a searchable database of projects and their authors on the FSF or GNU websites), then the security of this method is only as strong as the security of that database.
All in all, food for thought, but no real foolproof way of verifying you're installing untampered binaries.
apt-get also validates MD5 checksums before installing a package. Very helpful, but of course, if someone can modify the binary that is getting distributed, what would stop them from modifying the checksum?
Of course, it would certainlly be funny if all the modified binary did was, in addition to the normal functionality of the program, also told you that you should verify the relevant checksums before installing.
With the amount of "IANAL" legal advice given on slashdot and through other mediums, I'm actually sort of scared about what this "bringing the law to the layman" type of article will actually accomplish. Now, although this article looks like it's geared more towards helping one disect a court's opinion than help lawyer want-to-bes, I'm still afraid of the ramifications of those who take this "law documents in a nutshell" as a substitute for actually learning the law.
The more people who think they know the law but are unaware of its subtleties and precedants make for a less intelligent exchange of ideas and more "I know what I'm talking about, listen to me, not them" type of exchanges.
I know this for two reasons: I come from a family of lawyers and legal experts, and I tend to fall into the "I'm correct, damnit!" category I just mentioned. Therefore, I'm usually shot down by the legal minds in my family, even when I'm being particularly intelligent in my own right, or *cough* quoting a piece of "+5 Insightful" legal advice gleaned from slashdot.
There is no substitute for a real legal education and pursuing real-world applications (be you a judge, law professor, trial lawyer or law clerk). I guess what I'm really attempting to say is that thinking you know something is no replacement for actually knowing that thing. Not that having a law degree makes you eligable to offer legal advice (I wouldn't ask an IP lawyer for help with closing on a house), but it does place you in better standing.
Use this article to help you better understand the legal document you are reading, do NOT use it to further legal advice to others -- that is not what this article, or any other like it, is meant for.
</rant>
I've been reading slashdot since damn near the beginning. Hell, I didn't even bother getting an account for a few months because the norm of posters were anonymous cowards -- and most had quite interesting things to say. It's a shame that's changed so much since the early days. Inevitable, but still a shame.
In fact, I wrote a short rant the other night (literally) in my journal about almost this very subject.
Although my posting goes through short intermittent spurts, I still read slashdot quite frequently, scanning it for anything which piques my interest.
The other amazing thing about slashdot is all the clone sites it appears to have influenced. To all you people who compain about slashdot, or its editorial style, I'm sure you can find some little site inspired by slashdot which you actually will like. I think that's a pretty impressive legacy.
I just wanted to reitterate what I said a year ago today: CmdrTaco and the rest of you slashdot guys, thanks for the excellent coverage and needed forum.
It's hard for me right now -- my grandmother passed away on Friday, and we buried her Monday, forcing me to return to New York after I had decided to stay away for the 11th, making yesterday doubly hard -- and I'm at a loss for new words, so I'll simply link to what I wrote on slashdot last September 11th and 12:
What can be done? Nothing. [Why America must react to the terrorism, even though it might be wise not to]
What about New Yorkers? [How do we go about preserving our rights when our Congressmen are too busy with understandably more pressing issues]
None of the posts are as eloquent as I would like them to be (or as I remembered them being), but they get my thoughts across rather clearly, and in a much more manageable way than I am able to muster at this time.
Let me conclude by saying that yes, Taco, this story has certainly helped others cope with the events which happened a year and a day ago. It significantly helped me -- and many others -- by providing an immediate forum in which to rant, grieve, and rant some more. Just look at my posts and those like them, you have helped us more than you will ever know.
Someone could do a CRC (cyclic redundancy check) on all the pages in the cache, that way, one could tell when the Internet's been updated...
Even Stupider: Not only easy, but it could allow google to create static result pages for common searches: it would just update the result page when the cache CRC changes.
I get it now... according to the RIAA, I'm guilty until proven innocent. They want to be able to crack my system in order to prove me innocent. Oh, and if they fry my system, sorry, but I can't do anything about it.
RIAA: "Well, we thought she was a witch, so we tied her up and threw her in the ocean. See, witches float, so if she was a witch, she would have floated and then we could have killed her."
Inspector: "Uh..."
RIAA: "So anyway, she drowned. She wasn't a witch, so we don't see the problem."
Inspector: "So, you're admitting you killed an innocent woman?"
RIAA: "No, we simply proved she wasn't a witch and that there's nothing wrong with her."
A license designed by checkboxes is still standard
Let me elaborate. Over time, the poorer licenses will stop being used, therefore lowering the number of licenses in your pool of "too many", making less work for lawyers, and a higher quality of acceptable licenses for the public to use.
Simple free market -- and evolutionary -- thinking: advances do not come to fruition in a timely manner when there are only one or two main competitors. If someone wants a different license, they have the right to use it, or make up one suited for their particular project from scratch. Conclusion: multiple, conflicting licenses are healthy.
Lastly, your idea of a "dynamic" open source license has a few major flaws (which, if they could be worked out, would make your idea incredibly feasible). Most contracts, and licenses, only work to protect the parties involved when the document is taken as a whole, and one clause from one section reinforces another clause from another section. By mixing and matching sections, you could easily lose this reinforcement, making your license full of loopholes or "ambiguous" terms. You would not believe how many cases are in arbitration over "ambiguous" clauses in contracts. You must avoid this problem at all costs, but I cannot see a way around this problem, without having to pay a lawyer to sit there, go over your custom contract by hand, and fine-tune it for your project. Your idea provides a baseline contract to work with, and could save people large ammounts of money in legal fees if they needed a custom contract, but would not work well for the individual developer.
I have just added my signature to the petition. I thought I wrote a pretty decent response as to why I was signing the petition, so I'll post it below. [Feel free to copy if you feel like it, although I don't see why you'd want to.]
My office is five blocks north of where the World Trade Center once stood. My old high school (Stuyvesant) is four blocks north. The center of my world was just destroyed by terrorists. But with that in mind, I am extremely angry. But I must also remain level-headed. To curtail civil liberties in the name of "revenge" is a disgusting ideal. Peace must be attained! But it will not be attained through short-sighted thinking and calls for immediate revenge.
RMS, i respect your opinion when it comes to software, but please don't voice any other political opinions. the remark about our 'unelected president' makes your peice look stupid anyways...
I too, respect RMS's opinions when it comes to software and licensing. But I disagree with your sentiment that he should not voice other political opinions. Stallman has every right to voice any other political opinions he might entertain. Just as you have the right to your beliefs, and I have the right to respond to them, and everyone has the right to respond to me.
It is your choice whether you accept RMS's remarks concerning "other political opinions", but in no way should you attempt to bar him from offerring those opinions.
Your point about RMS saying "unelected president" is right on the money. The President was certainly elected -- not by the people -- by the Supreme Court. I have my own strong opinions on this issue, but all they do is interfere with the matter at hand. I stand behind our President now: not because I agree with him or his approaches, but because I realize the turmoil disagreal would cause at this point in time.
I, for one, took RMS's words to heart. The last clause about our "unelected president" detracted from his point, but does not render his points irrelevant.
So, to sum up: if you believe in your own civil liberties, please do not attempt to curtail others'.
Sorry that was so long winded, it's been a crazy week. If you think I'm wrong, please don't flame me, respond and offer your views instead.
I can barely get through to my friends and family in New York. Getting through to my member of the House is almost impossible. Same goes with getting through to Schumer or Clinton.
New York (and New Jersey, D.C., etc.) congressmen are probably bogged down with an incredible amount of correspondence concerning the incidents, and to me it seems like there is a high chance that a message about preserving your rights in America will get lost within the massive bulk of other correspondences.
Contacting my members of Congress -- getting them to read or hear my thoughts -- is next to impossible to do by Friday the 21st. They're too understandably busy right now. This does not mean I will not write them: I will.
So my question is this: what else can I do? Since contacting my representatives will not do as much as if I were a registered voter in Michigan, what other organizations or people should I try and contact? Is the EFF collecting donations to lobby for exactly this cause? Is someone else?
I've got a hectic week (my office is five blocks north of the Trade Center) and tons to deal with. Who can I talk to that will be able to listen, if only for a minute?
Re:What can be done? Nothing.
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
You are absolutely correct. Terrorism's point is to force a change within your target -- in this case, retaliation could be exactly what the terrorists are hoping for. I sure don't know what they're thinking.
Doing absolutely nothing would be an impressive reaction. But it will never happen. America must react. Why? My reasoning is slightly different than yours: Politicians must fight for re-election. Any politician who is against retaliation would be comitting professional suicide. Speaking of reservations is one thing, but doing anything other than fully going along with whatever the President's plan will be would cause a massive public uproar. This has caused to much pain for too many people -- ignoring it is not an option. Emotions conflict with logical reasoning. I've unfortunately encounterred this sentiment more frequently than I'd like to admit.
FBI Head says no arrests related to bombings
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 4, Informative
A short while ago, there was a press conference from the Pentagon. Rumsfield and the director of the FBI both spoke. The Director said that no arrests have yet been made of any suspects. There were some "questionings" -- an uninformative word to me -- but no arrests.
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand, if what you use a computer for can be boiled down into functions a remote control can send to your computer, then you can probably find something much cheaper than that computer to acomplish the task. If all you plan on using your computer for is tv viewing, buy a tivo, it's much cheaper than a computer, and you get all the same functionality. If you only use your computer to play mp3s, invest in an mp3 player, the computer is overkill.
Also, with respect to your PS2 comment, it's a device designed for a specific task, and is much cheaper than a computer.
In my roundabout way, I think what I'm getting at is that computers should be generalized. You should be able to do what you want with them. If you buy a computer and it's set up to do only one thing well, then to me you're not buying a computer, you're buying an appliance. TiVo is an appliance in that sense, so is the PS2. And those appliances are much cheaper than the general computer you could buy which can perform all those tasks. So if remote controls become the "next big peripheral", then the machine they come attached to better be damn cheap, or that remote control better include a keyboard.
I hope I've made some sense, I running on 0 hours of sleep right now.
The article is short on details about the computer, this is what it says:
Nothing special whatsoever, but what really scares me is what the executive VP of CompUSA says: "The remote control could well become the next standard PC peripheral". Huh? Is he saying that computers are heading down the path of glorified televisions and that in the near future all that you will need to operate your computer is a remote control?
Something's very fishy. This thing is a computer with a tv tuner card, it shouldn't approach $1,400, even with a monitor included. There have to be some other gimics, otherwise this thing seems to be one big rip off.
If someone's got real information on this thing to counteract the lack of information presented by CNN, that would be greatly appreciated.
The author of a package should digitally sign the package he is distributing, and part of that signature should necessarily contain the appropriate MD5 checksum for the package.
This way, one can easily tell if the package has been tampered with (if the signature does not unencode with the author's public key, or the unencoded checksum is invalid). Of course, the one flaw with this is that there needs to be a way to determine who the author is and grab the author's public key. If the author's identity is stored in the package, then this method is useless. If the author's identity can be found via some central resource (say, a searchable database of projects and their authors on the FSF or GNU websites), then the security of this method is only as strong as the security of that database.
All in all, food for thought, but no real foolproof way of verifying you're installing untampered binaries.
Of course, it would certainlly be funny if all the modified binary did was, in addition to the normal functionality of the program, also told you that you should verify the relevant checksums before installing.
The more people who think they know the law but are unaware of its subtleties and precedants make for a less intelligent exchange of ideas and more "I know what I'm talking about, listen to me, not them" type of exchanges.
I know this for two reasons: I come from a family of lawyers and legal experts, and I tend to fall into the "I'm correct, damnit!" category I just mentioned. Therefore, I'm usually shot down by the legal minds in my family, even when I'm being particularly intelligent in my own right, or *cough* quoting a piece of "+5 Insightful" legal advice gleaned from slashdot.
There is no substitute for a real legal education and pursuing real-world applications (be you a judge, law professor, trial lawyer or law clerk). I guess what I'm really attempting to say is that thinking you know something is no replacement for actually knowing that thing. Not that having a law degree makes you eligable to offer legal advice (I wouldn't ask an IP lawyer for help with closing on a house), but it does place you in better standing.
Use this article to help you better understand the legal document you are reading, do NOT use it to further legal advice to others -- that is not what this article, or any other like it, is meant for.
</rant>
In fact, I wrote a short rant the other night (literally) in my journal about almost this very subject.
Although my posting goes through short intermittent spurts, I still read slashdot quite frequently, scanning it for anything which piques my interest.
The other amazing thing about slashdot is all the clone sites it appears to have influenced. To all you people who compain about slashdot, or its editorial style, I'm sure you can find some little site inspired by slashdot which you actually will like. I think that's a pretty impressive legacy.
I just wanted to reitterate what I said a year ago today: CmdrTaco and the rest of you slashdot guys, thanks for the excellent coverage and needed forum.
It's hard for me right now -- my grandmother passed away on Friday, and we buried her Monday, forcing me to return to New York after I had decided to stay away for the 11th, making yesterday doubly hard -- and I'm at a loss for new words, so I'll simply link to what I wrote on slashdot last September 11th and 12:
None of the posts are as eloquent as I would like them to be (or as I remembered them being), but they get my thoughts across rather clearly, and in a much more manageable way than I am able to muster at this time.
Let me conclude by saying that yes, Taco, this story has certainly helped others cope with the events which happened a year and a day ago. It significantly helped me -- and many others -- by providing an immediate forum in which to rant, grieve, and rant some more. Just look at my posts and those like them, you have helped us more than you will ever know.
Take a look at www.alexa.com, that's pretty much what they're all about.
Even Stupider: Not only easy, but it could allow google to create static result pages for common searches: it would just update the result page when the cache CRC changes.
From the
microsoft.atr : bit-bucket
<\sarcasm>Hollywood, geeze.
This is what I use. The source code is available. Quite helpful. Enjoy.
If you don't tell anyone that the construction company used shoddy materials, then no one will figure out how to make the building collapse!
Inspector: "Uh..."
RIAA: "So anyway, she drowned. She wasn't a witch, so we don't see the problem."
Inspector: "So, you're admitting you killed an innocent woman?"
RIAA: "No, we simply proved she wasn't a witch and that there's nothing wrong with her."
Inspector: "By killing her???"
I hope my analogy is clear.
But there are three problems with your agrument:
- The licenses have yet to stand the test of time
- Competition is good
- A license designed by checkboxes is still standard
Let me elaborate. Over time, the poorer licenses will stop being used, therefore lowering the number of licenses in your pool of "too many", making less work for lawyers, and a higher quality of acceptable licenses for the public to use.Simple free market -- and evolutionary -- thinking: advances do not come to fruition in a timely manner when there are only one or two main competitors. If someone wants a different license, they have the right to use it, or make up one suited for their particular project from scratch. Conclusion: multiple, conflicting licenses are healthy.
Lastly, your idea of a "dynamic" open source license has a few major flaws (which, if they could be worked out, would make your idea incredibly feasible). Most contracts, and licenses, only work to protect the parties involved when the document is taken as a whole, and one clause from one section reinforces another clause from another section. By mixing and matching sections, you could easily lose this reinforcement, making your license full of loopholes or "ambiguous" terms. You would not believe how many cases are in arbitration over "ambiguous" clauses in contracts. You must avoid this problem at all costs, but I cannot see a way around this problem, without having to pay a lawyer to sit there, go over your custom contract by hand, and fine-tune it for your project. Your idea provides a baseline contract to work with, and could save people large ammounts of money in legal fees if they needed a custom contract, but would not work well for the individual developer.
Scientists, hobbyists, you name it: everyone is effected by these laws.
All that I can say is what hundreds of people have already said: write your congressmen and senators! Do NOT let these laws pass.
It is your choice whether you accept RMS's remarks concerning "other political opinions", but in no way should you attempt to bar him from offerring those opinions.
Your point about RMS saying "unelected president" is right on the money. The President was certainly elected -- not by the people -- by the Supreme Court. I have my own strong opinions on this issue, but all they do is interfere with the matter at hand. I stand behind our President now: not because I agree with him or his approaches, but because I realize the turmoil disagreal would cause at this point in time.
I, for one, took RMS's words to heart. The last clause about our "unelected president" detracted from his point, but does not render his points irrelevant.
So, to sum up: if you believe in your own civil liberties, please do not attempt to curtail others'.
Sorry that was so long winded, it's been a crazy week. If you think I'm wrong, please don't flame me, respond and offer your views instead.
New York (and New Jersey, D.C., etc.) congressmen are probably bogged down with an incredible amount of correspondence concerning the incidents, and to me it seems like there is a high chance that a message about preserving your rights in America will get lost within the massive bulk of other correspondences.
Contacting my members of Congress -- getting them to read or hear my thoughts -- is next to impossible to do by Friday the 21st. They're too understandably busy right now. This does not mean I will not write them: I will.
So my question is this: what else can I do? Since contacting my representatives will not do as much as if I were a registered voter in Michigan, what other organizations or people should I try and contact? Is the EFF collecting donations to lobby for exactly this cause? Is someone else?
I've got a hectic week (my office is five blocks north of the Trade Center) and tons to deal with. Who can I talk to that will be able to listen, if only for a minute?
Doing absolutely nothing would be an impressive reaction. But it will never happen. America must react. Why? My reasoning is slightly different than yours: Politicians must fight for re-election. Any politician who is against retaliation would be comitting professional suicide. Speaking of reservations is one thing, but doing anything other than fully going along with whatever the President's plan will be would cause a massive public uproar. This has caused to much pain for too many people -- ignoring it is not an option. Emotions conflict with logical reasoning. I've unfortunately encounterred this sentiment more frequently than I'd like to admit.
Just wanted to clarify that.
You neglected to read my followup to that post. Read the thread next time. I felt the same way you did upon re-reading the article.
I completely missed part of the release which stated that they never have, and plan to never sue anyone over issues like this.
That release is interesting. What I'm wonderring is whether their lawyers plan on following that policy. As they say, actions speak louder than words.