You can get this same story elsewhere, probably, written all polished and professional, with no wisecracks or misspellings or rants. And it would be a crashing bore to read. I like the rudeness, bad/stupid/brilliant/off topic chaos of/. It's what makes/./. and not just another:) cliche'd news website.
There IS a world of difference between reporters and police. Reporters are constrained by law to tell the truth, or face civil lawsuits for libel. The police, on the other hand, can "leak" all kinds of lies and inuendo about you or oh, hell, just hold a press conference and say you're a "person of interest" and cast suspicious looks about and make your life a living hell. Example: Richard Jewel - nobody's vote for boy scout of the year, but he was productively employed as a security guard, he helped his momma (by fixing her roof) and he saved the lives of a coupla dozen people in the case of the Olympic Park bombing a few years back. The FBI called him a suspect. They paraded him as the leading suspect. They investigated him, got him fired so thoroughly he couldn't get a job for years. Then they realized they were wrong and just stopped blabbing. No apologies, no corrections issued to the press, no nothing to try to make right what they had f**ked up. Oh yes, there's a world of difference between reporters going thru yer trash and the COPS going thru yer trash.
I was born July 5. I remember a Halloween party in the backyard of the house my family lived in when I was 3 years, 4 months old. I remember because I was the youngest, the older kids did a spooky fake-seance/witch dance around a big hole that the utility company had dug in the yard. Freaked me smooth out - I was too young to know anything other than how scary it was. My family confirmed that the event happened as (and when) described above. I have other memories of that house, and things that happened there. We moved out early in the summer that I turned four. I have at least 5 memories from that house. This is the earliest one I can pin down exactly to the date.
Assume everything Berman says about limits to the law is true, just to avoid bogging down in the details. Let's look at what this law is really about. Let's apply Berman's P2P "piracy protection" theory to laws about slander/libel: I have the right that only the truth should be told about me - anyone spreading lies can be sued for the damages it causes me. Therefore, I should have the right to block content on the internet to anything anyone says that I feel is slanderous. Further, I should be immune from prosecution if I do so. I promise I won't trash their hard drive - but I will shut them up and unilaterally deny them their free speech rights so long as I have good faith in doing so. I don't need the courts to validate that I'm right and the other person is wrong - no need to bother with law enforcement, probable cause, any of that. If I say it's libel, then I can enforce the law myself without the help (or hindrance) of the courts. Anybody else see anything wrong with this theory?
What he says can't be true. Think about it: He says the attacker (RIAA) can't change or delete any data on the target's computer, and can't affect the transfer of legal data to/from the target's computer. If you're not affecting the computer, and you're not affecting its ability to use the network, you're just lurking. This means you're doing nothing - so why the law in the first place? This law does definitely allow hacking and damage without legal oversight.
Actually, they can constrain what you do with computers. I'm a programmer. When I got into this biz in 1979 I could write any old damn code I needed to do anything I wanted to do with computers. But now I can face federal jailtime for doing things like trying to figure out a file's format or how to interface two pieces of hardware. Current laws make many things programmers need to do illegal. The DMCA makes criminals of virtually ALL programmers who venture outside of the database into the computer at large. You simply can't do these things anymore without breaking the law. "it will start again in a garage" - no it won't - they are busy illegalizing any kind of homebrew, do-it-yourself, build-a-better-mousetrap kind of innovations that created the computer revolution in the first place. Berman's law is the latest and worst in a long line of this.
At Nasa, in the Integrated Training Facility, bldgs 5 and 35, there are 3 fully functional simulators, two are fixed base and the other is 6-degree of freedom motion base. There are at least a dozen other "single system" or engineering simulators all over Johnson Space Center, for doing all kinds of development, testing and mission support. I forget what's in bldg 9. There's also several trainers for using (for example) the remote manipulator system (the robot arm) to move around big balloon "satellites" and such.
However, as a tax-payer I would have a fit if I found out all the custom stuff that was made when close-enough ones were available off-the-shelf. You can relax. Most of the knobs and switches, etc, in the crewstation are standard aviation parts. even the GPC (General Purpose Computer) that does the navigation and reads the kabillion sensors all over the inside of the shuttle was an IBM-off-the-shelf model with software customized for space flight.
The simulator shown is incredibly authentic, but I think there are actually TWO such non-Nasa sims. I saw one about 15 years ago at a mall that was having a "air and space hobby" show. The sim shown is what we call "Pre-MEDS". MEDS was an update to the cockpit (Multifunction Electronic Display System) to update the shuttle to semi-modern "glass cockpit", that is, use computer monitors instead of actual gauges. Also, there were two original simulators used to develop procedures and do leading-edge-of-wing math modeling in the early 80's and I understood that those two simulators (real NASA sims!) were sold to private individuals or companies (as scrap, as far as Nasa was concerned). I may be wrong about that. PS: I've worked at Nasa's shuttle astronaut training center since 1979.
It's a university, dadgummit...isn't thare a music school thair? can't they generate they're own content? Why use someone else's copyrighted content? and thaer's lots and lots of artists out their who want theighr own stuff to get exposure. Thaiy'd probly be willing to reduce or waive their royalties to do so.
What I notice is the US Govt's case is based on: 1> the fourth amendment doesn't apply cuz it didn't happen here, and 2> Russian law doesn't apply cuz it didn't happen there.
The FBI is using the courts' confusion over the internet to muddy the waters about where the crime took place and who should have jurisdiction. This twists the situation around so that Dmitriy is a US criminal for doing something in his own country that's entirely legal in his own country, and the FBI can do anything illegal in the US and not have to answer to US law.
What I notice is the US Govt's case is based on: 1> the fourth amendment doesn't apply cuz it didn't happen here, and 2> Russian law doesn't apply cuz it didn't happen there.
One thing that might help put a stop to this is to force patent owners to pay legal fees for patents that are overturned for being obvious applications. Punitive damages for "techno squatting" (as opposed to "cybersquatting") are also in order (IMHO).
I think the appropriate answer to the DoJ is "Give us a big enough pipe, we'll forward the data to you, and you can archive the hell out of it if you like." Drown them in their own sauce. Before long, they'll be telling all the ISPs in the country "UNCLE!" If nothing else, we'll get a BIG increase in the capacity of the Internet backbone before it's all over. Note for the humor-impaired: This suggestion is a joke. I think the bozo at DoJ who proposed this should be fired/recalled for constitutional abuse of power for even suggesting this.
Seldom has anyone ever expressed an opinion so foully that I actually agreed with. I'm normally a laid back guy, but this time I gotta say "What he sed!" But on the upside: They can't spoon back the tide forever. P2P will destroy the RIAA, or they will change their business model in order to survive. So friend, patience...we will overcome.
For one, I can understand the need to have a human at least look over a certification candidate once during the process. I'm a living example of this. In the 1980's I joined the Air Force, and took their most difficult avionics course. It was called "Inertial and Radar Navigation Systems". I was on the honor roll the whole time I was at Keesler AFB, Biloxi MI. I graduated at top of my class - 94.6% average. This class was a mix of everything - analog computers, digital, radar, lasers, gyroscopes, spherical and inertial space navigation, FM and AM, etc. I got into the field and couldn't fix a damn thing. Why? cuz I understood the theory and the math, which were standardized tests, but Couldn't turn that into the knowledge of "If the light blinks wrong and the direction points consistently 15 degrees west of where it should, what's wrong with the 'capacitive tachometer'?" A human instructor could have spotted my theory-to-practice problems with hardware. I'm all digital and software now, damn good at it, but The USAF's standardized tests miss read me.
"the government" in its most simplisticly stated form, a "government" is the group of people in a geographic area that has the most & best guns telling everyone else what to do. Everything else about government are rules they write for themselves limiting how they will go about doing what they want to everyone else, including you. In a democracy, anybody can join this group who wants to. Either get elected or get appointed or get hired (like an LA cop, for instance). Now, back to your question: Any pervert in Gov't who has a peeping-tom fetish, or a Dom sex kink in their brain, can use this to do whatever their perverted minds dream up. That's wy the government wants to look thru your clothes. Oh, yeah, and there are some minor benefits to law enforcement as well.
It's not "Copy Restricted" or "copy Protected" unless what it restricts or protects against is COPYING. What these CDs do is prevent normal, legal, fair rights use. They should be labelled "UNUSABLE"
About damaging equipment, here's an observation: They had to have tested this on MACs in order to be sure that the MAC, with its drastically non-windows tech, would also be prohibited from using the CDs. SO they knew it would do this, and warned nobody. They didn't care enough about their legal consumers who play music on their MACs. They were willing to ship this disk knowing what it would do to a MAC. Is there any doubt that they would willing ship a product that actually fries other technology?
Because the consumer pays for it. Fair use law says that once you buy it, it's yours for your personal use any way you want. I can buy the finest china platters and use them for skeet shooting. I can buy a porsche convertible and use it as a flowerpot. I can buy a newspaper and use it to train my dog, or read it on the subway, or read it in the john or at the breakfast table. It's unlawful for the copyright owner to determine how I use the product I buy from them. What I am buying is, in effect, a personal license to use the product (music). If I wish to wire it into the shower so it plays loudly while my mate sings, that's fair use. Designing the product so that it destroys or disables other products is unlawful. Eventually, rich enough lawyers will get on the right side of this issue and put a stop to RIAA/MPAA's illegal behavior. This entire post is an opinion only, as IANAL.
Another aspect of this: copy protection on a video game or other software still allows the software to be used in any technology that is designed to support it. If they want their music copy-crippled, then they need to invent a device and a formfactor that is not standard for other existing devices. Like say, a three foot diameter vinyl disc 2 inches thick with the music engraved acoustically on the surface.
Everything in this post is my own opinion and viewpoint, not NASA's or my employer's. I have worked at NASA for 22 years. NASA does NOT encrypt ANY of its downlinked data (not anymore). The concept is that this data belongs to the public. It's there for the taking, and if you don't know how to use it, don't worry - you can get most of it from NASA publications. Poke around at NASA.gov and you can find out anything you want about US space program - including (nearly) raw data from space.
Slashdot Mirror
You can get this same story elsewhere, probably, written all polished and professional, with no wisecracks or misspellings or rants. /. /. /. and not just another :) cliche'd news website.
And it would be a crashing bore to read.
I like the rudeness, bad/stupid/brilliant/off topic chaos of
It's what makes
There IS a world of difference between reporters and police. Reporters are constrained by law to tell the truth, or face civil lawsuits for libel. The police, on the other hand, can "leak" all kinds of lies and inuendo about you or oh, hell, just hold a press conference and say you're a "person of interest" and cast suspicious looks about and make your life a living hell.
Example: Richard Jewel - nobody's vote for boy scout of the year, but he was productively employed as a security guard, he helped his momma (by fixing her roof) and he saved the lives of a coupla dozen people in the case of the Olympic Park bombing a few years back. The FBI called him a suspect. They paraded him as the leading suspect. They investigated him, got him fired so thoroughly he couldn't get a job for years. Then they realized they were wrong and just stopped blabbing. No apologies, no corrections issued to the press, no nothing to try to make right what they had f**ked up.
Oh yes, there's a world of difference between reporters going thru yer trash and the COPS going thru yer trash.
I was born July 5. I remember a Halloween party in the backyard of the house my family lived in when I was 3 years, 4 months old. I remember because I was the youngest, the older kids did a spooky fake-seance/witch dance around a big hole that the utility company had dug in the yard. Freaked me smooth out - I was too young to know anything other than how scary it was. My family confirmed that the event happened as (and when) described above. I have other memories of that house, and things that happened there. We moved out early in the summer that I turned four. I have at least 5 memories from that house. This is the earliest one I can pin down exactly to the date.
I clicked "I do not accept" and it appears to have let me in anyway. Maybe the EULA is optional?
Assume everything Berman says about limits to the law is true, just to avoid bogging down in the details. Let's look at what this law is really about. Let's apply Berman's P2P "piracy protection" theory to laws about slander/libel: I have the right that only the truth should be told about me - anyone spreading lies can be sued for the damages it causes me. Therefore, I should have the right to block content on the internet to anything anyone says that I feel is slanderous. Further, I should be immune from prosecution if I do so. I promise I won't trash their hard drive - but I will shut them up and unilaterally deny them their free speech rights so long as I have good faith in doing so. I don't need the courts to validate that I'm right and the other person is wrong - no need to bother with law enforcement, probable cause, any of that. If I say it's libel, then I can enforce the law myself without the help (or hindrance) of the courts. Anybody else see anything wrong with this theory?
What he says can't be true. Think about it: He says the attacker (RIAA) can't change or delete any data on the target's computer, and can't affect the transfer of legal data to/from the target's computer.
If you're not affecting the computer, and you're not affecting its ability to use the network, you're just lurking. This means you're doing nothing - so why the law in the first place?
This law does definitely allow hacking and damage without legal oversight.
Actually, they can constrain what you do with computers. I'm a programmer. When I got into this biz in 1979 I could write any old damn code I needed to do anything I wanted to do with computers. But now I can face federal jailtime for doing things like trying to figure out a file's format or how to interface two pieces of hardware. Current laws make many things programmers need to do illegal. The DMCA makes criminals of virtually ALL programmers who venture outside of the database into the computer at large. You simply can't do these things anymore without breaking the law.
"it will start again in a garage" - no it won't - they are busy illegalizing any kind of homebrew, do-it-yourself, build-a-better-mousetrap kind of innovations that created the computer revolution in the first place. Berman's law is the latest and worst in a long line of this.
So take it up in an airplane. Drop it. Depending on how high u start, you'll get several seconds of "zero G". Watch out for the dismount, though.
At Nasa, in the Integrated Training Facility, bldgs 5 and 35, there are 3 fully functional simulators, two are fixed base and the other is 6-degree of freedom motion base. There are at least a dozen other "single system" or engineering simulators all over Johnson Space Center, for doing all kinds of development, testing and mission support. I forget what's in bldg 9. There's also several trainers for using (for example) the remote manipulator system (the robot arm) to move around big balloon "satellites" and such.
However, as a tax-payer I would have a fit if I found out all the custom stuff that was made when close-enough ones were available off-the-shelf.
You can relax. Most of the knobs and switches, etc, in the crewstation are standard aviation parts.
even the GPC (General Purpose Computer) that does the navigation and reads the kabillion sensors all over the inside of the shuttle was an IBM-off-the-shelf model with software customized for space flight.
The simulator shown is incredibly authentic, but I think there are actually TWO such non-Nasa sims. I saw one about 15 years ago at a mall that was having a "air and space hobby" show.
The sim shown is what we call "Pre-MEDS". MEDS was an update to the cockpit (Multifunction Electronic Display System) to update the shuttle to semi-modern "glass cockpit", that is, use computer monitors instead of actual gauges.
Also, there were two original simulators used to develop procedures and do leading-edge-of-wing math modeling in the early 80's and I understood that those two simulators (real NASA sims!) were sold to private individuals or companies (as scrap, as far as Nasa was concerned). I may be wrong about that.
PS: I've worked at Nasa's shuttle astronaut training center since 1979.
It's a university, dadgummit...isn't thare a music school thair? can't they generate they're own content? Why use someone else's copyrighted content? and thaer's lots and lots of artists out their who want theighr own stuff to get exposure. Thaiy'd probly be willing to reduce or waive their royalties to do so.
What I notice is the US Govt's case is based on: 1> the fourth amendment doesn't apply cuz it didn't happen here, and 2> Russian law doesn't apply cuz it didn't happen there.
The FBI is using the courts' confusion over the internet to muddy the waters about where the crime took place and who should have jurisdiction. This twists the situation around so that Dmitriy is a US criminal for doing something in his own country that's entirely legal in his own country, and the FBI can do anything illegal in the US and not have to answer to US law.
What I notice is the US Govt's case is based on: 1> the fourth amendment doesn't apply cuz it didn't happen here, and 2> Russian law doesn't apply cuz it didn't happen there.
One thing that might help put a stop to this is to force patent owners to pay legal fees for patents that are overturned for being obvious applications. Punitive damages for "techno squatting" (as opposed to "cybersquatting") are also in order (IMHO).
I think the appropriate answer to the DoJ is "Give us a big enough pipe, we'll forward the data to you, and you can archive the hell out of it if you like."
Drown them in their own sauce. Before long, they'll be telling all the ISPs in the country "UNCLE!"
If nothing else, we'll get a BIG increase in the capacity of the Internet backbone before it's all over. Note for the humor-impaired: This suggestion is a joke. I think the bozo at DoJ who proposed this should be fired/recalled for constitutional abuse of power for even suggesting this.
Seldom has anyone ever expressed an opinion so foully that I actually agreed with. I'm normally a laid back guy, but this time I gotta say "What he sed!"
But on the upside: They can't spoon back the tide forever. P2P will destroy the RIAA, or they will change their business model in order to survive.
So friend, patience...we will overcome.
For one, I can understand the need to have a human at least look over a certification candidate once during the process. I'm a living example of this. In the 1980's I joined the Air Force, and took their most difficult avionics course. It was called "Inertial and Radar Navigation Systems". I was on the honor roll the whole time I was at Keesler AFB, Biloxi MI. I graduated at top of my class - 94.6% average. This class was a mix of everything - analog computers, digital, radar, lasers, gyroscopes, spherical and inertial space navigation, FM and AM, etc.
I got into the field and couldn't fix a damn thing. Why? cuz I understood the theory and the math, which were standardized tests, but Couldn't turn that into the knowledge of "If the light blinks wrong and the direction points consistently 15 degrees west of where it should, what's wrong with the 'capacitive tachometer'?"
A human instructor could have spotted my theory-to-practice problems with hardware. I'm all digital and software now, damn good at it, but The USAF's standardized tests miss read me.
(I wondered if anyone would catch that!)
"the government"
in its most simplisticly stated form, a "government" is the group of people in a geographic area that has the most & best guns telling everyone else what to do. Everything else about government are rules they write for themselves limiting how they will go about doing what they want to everyone else, including you.
In a democracy, anybody can join this group who wants to. Either get elected or get appointed or get hired (like an LA cop, for instance).
Now, back to your question: Any pervert in Gov't who has a peeping-tom fetish, or a Dom sex kink in their brain, can use this to do whatever their perverted minds dream up.
That's wy the government wants to look thru your clothes.
Oh, yeah, and there are some minor benefits to law enforcement as well.
It's not "Copy Restricted" or "copy Protected" unless what it restricts or protects against is COPYING. What these CDs do is prevent normal, legal, fair rights use. They should be labelled "UNUSABLE"
About damaging equipment, here's an observation: .
They had to have tested this on MACs in order to be sure that the MAC, with its drastically non-windows tech, would also be prohibited from using the CDs. SO they knew it would do this, and warned nobody. They didn't care enough about their legal consumers who play music on their MACs
They were willing to ship this disk knowing what it would do to a MAC. Is there any doubt that they would willing ship a product that actually fries other technology?
Because the consumer pays for it. Fair use law says that once you buy it, it's yours for your personal use any way you want. I can buy the finest china platters and use them for skeet shooting. I can buy a porsche convertible and use it as a flowerpot. I can buy a newspaper and use it to train my dog, or read it on the subway, or read it in the john or at the breakfast table. It's unlawful for the copyright owner to determine how I use the product I buy from them. What I am buying is, in effect, a personal license to use the product (music). If I wish to wire it into the shower so it plays loudly while my mate sings, that's fair use.
Designing the product so that it destroys or disables other products is unlawful. Eventually, rich enough lawyers will get on the right side of this issue and put a stop to RIAA/MPAA's illegal behavior. This entire post is an opinion only, as IANAL.
Another aspect of this: copy protection on a video game or other software still allows the software to be used in any technology that is designed to support it.
If they want their music copy-crippled, then they need to invent a device and a formfactor that is not standard for other existing devices. Like say, a three foot diameter vinyl disc 2 inches thick with the music engraved acoustically on the surface.
Everything in this post is my own opinion and viewpoint, not NASA's or my employer's. I have worked at NASA for 22 years. NASA does NOT encrypt ANY of its downlinked data (not anymore). The concept is that this data belongs to the public. It's there for the taking, and if you don't know how to use it, don't worry - you can get most of it from NASA publications. Poke around at NASA.gov and you can find out anything you want about US space program - including (nearly) raw data from space.