Duh. If you'lll notice, NO ONE watches all the credits because NO ONE cares who the executive assistant best grip gaffer was, except for the executive assistant best grip gaffer. The same with software credits. They're just a morale boost for the people who write software.
Speak for yourself; I always stay through the credits, and I'm rarely the only person in the theater who does.
Re:power != rights, except in China
on
License to Surf
·
· Score: 1
You can pretend that rights are "natural" in order to try to develop a consistent belief system, but you'll pretty quickly run into the fact that rights are a human construct, not a property of the universe. Then you have to start to accept that rights are what those in power define them to be. You are still free to argue about what rights people "should" have, but then you're engaging in political discussion rather than physics.
Xing having forgotten to encrypt their key only made the inevitable easier. It was a software-only player which presumably would work without a network connection. Thus, even if they encrypt their DVD key, they have to have the decryption key for THAT cipher in the clear, or else the key to the cipher for THAT key, etc. Since it's software, it takes only someone with way too much time on their hands to walk through the disassembly line by line until they figure it out.
Secondly, negative zero is the same as positive zero, is the same as zero squared, is the same as zero multiplied by infiniy. I understand the point being made, but if a point's worth making, it's worth making without being dressed up to look more than it really is.
"infinity" isn't a number in any system in which people who aren't at least senior math majors do arithmetic, so "zero multiplied by infinity" doesn't have any real meaning unless you specify the number system you're using as one that includes infinity. lim(x->inf) 0*x = 0, sure, but that's not quite what you said. So, if you're going to call someone else on it...
Understand that under US law (and international law I believe) you have no rights to use someone else's copyrighted work, unless they grant you a license that gives you those rights.
Copyright law restricts what you may do with a work without the permission of the Copyright holder, but there are any number of things which you are allowed to do, collectively refered to as "Fair Use."
Copyright is not an absolute right of the holder, it is a social contract created by the government to balance the economic interests of creators with the freedom of the public. At least, it was before DMCA and WIPO.
The mere fact that software-only DVD players could exist is sufficient to ensure that the scheme was crackable, 40-bits or 2048. Why? Because obviously the software player could decode the stream in order to play it. They key has to be either on the disc, or in the player; there's no way around that. A hardware-assisted solution could have at least hidden the keys in a chip somewhere, but a software one is all out in the open, requiring only patience before it falls.
Don't get me wrong - your philosophy is better than the original posters, but it's still a blatent violation of intellectual property laws. It's the same thing as if I stole a movie from Sam Goody's and only paid for it after I decided it was decent. Even if it was bad and I return it, I just got a free rental.
The difference here is that while you were in posession of the physical manifestation of the movie which you removed from the premises of the store, the store couldn't sell it to someone else.
If I make a copy of something of yours, you still have it.
Your ability to make money by artificially creating scarcity is removed. Because of this, you may not choose to continue to create. My actions may be illegal, they may even be immoral, but to call it theft ignores the obvious fact that you still have that which I supposedly stole from you, and at no point did you not have it!
Unless these guys paid for the license to the descrambling algorithm, they're breaking the law. It doesn't matter how they got that algorithm, it's still not their intellectual property.
Why? If they just copied the decoding software they'd be violating the copyright, but if they recreated it from a specification someone else got by reverse engineering it, then how are they at fault? I seriously doubt the alrogrithm itself was patented, since that would mean it would have to have been disclosed to the public.
Whether or not Katz thinks Christians shouldn't be rich, the Bible certainly has a few things to say about the subject. Or maybe the designers will sell all they own, give it to the poor, and follow Jesus AFTER their stock options have vested.
E-mail tax, gimmie a f***ing break. Screw the Post Office....whoops, did I say that out loud?... sorry. Anyway...
Yeah, you did say that out loud, and you probably shouldn't have, since the whole thing was just a stupid chain-letter hoax. But, of course, just be because the government didn't actually do something is no reason to hate them for doing it, right?
Re:Is this guy on any of the Kook Lists?
on
Time Doesn't Exist
·
· Score: 1
Ahhh. The Objectivity of the Scientific Establishment. "He disagrees with us, therefore he's a kook".
Arguments as to the nature of time based on notions from calculus make the a priori assumption that time is isomorphic to a continuum of points. The best you should try to argue is that IF time works the way YOU think it does, then this guy is wrong.
I'm surprised nobody's mentioned Hofstadter yet; he had a pretty good translation of Jabberwocky into German and French. Should you translate "Campbell's Soup" to "Borscht"? "Jakobstrasse" to "Jacob Street"? Why bother translating Dickens; just read Dostoyevsky!
But, the GNU model isn't freedom because it restricts my choice (I can't chose what I want to do with my source).
What do you mean by your source? Do you mean source which you have created from scratch? Then you are free either to use or not to use the code. Do you mean your freedom to modify someone else's code? Copyright law gives the original author the right to control derivative works. You are "free" either to violate copyright law, or to agree to the terms of the GPL, but in that case it isn't "your" source.
The MAC address does not get sent out over the internet, just over your Ethernet LAN. The only MAC address the web server is going to receive is theMAC address of the router that gave it the packet from the internet.
Unless things changed very recently, there are both civil and criminal RICO actions. I remember watching on CSPAN how some congressional subcomittee wanted to ditch RICO because it was typically used in BS situations (i.e. you haven't done anything otherwise against the law, but we "know" you should be punished) and the justice department said they "needed" both civil and criminal RICO.
Programs using async IO can specify a callback completion routine which gets executed immediately. Although this code gets executed at interrupt time, so it can't make most sytem calls, it CAN chain to another async IO request. So, you can grab a chunk of data from the disk, then chain to your routine to stuff it out the network, then chain back to your disk routine. None of which is as nice as "real" multitasking, but it doesn't have to be as bad as you make it sound.
The current thread manager only supports cooperative threads. Previously, 68k threads could be preemptively scheduled, but apparantly even that is gone. The Multiprocessing Services manager lets you create preemptive threads, even on a single processor machine, but these threads can't make system calls.
Of course there are all kinds of tricks apps can play to work well, "even when the mouse is down". Anarchie, a popular FTP client, does a lot of stuff using asynchronous network calls, so it works well in the background. There's also a hack called the "Menutasking Enabler" that lets other apps run while menus are down. I don't know how well it works on recent systems, haven't tried it lately.
A lot of people here seem to think the GPL has something to say about public vs. private distribution. Section 2b refers to distribution, saying that anything you distribute must be under the terms of the license. Nothing about public distribution only. But, even if it were the case that a beta release somehow didn't count as distribution, then section 4 would come into play, which says that you may not copy or sublicense the program except under the terms of the GPL. Even if giving people the program to beta test isn't distribution, it's certainly making a copy!
The GPL doesn't say everyone has to share. It's creators -may- believe that everyone SHOULD share, but the GPL says only that you have to share IF you want the rights to the copyright holder's intellectual property. The GPL says I'll share with you, but only if you promise to share with everyone else.
If it's unfair to "force" others to share, then it's only because it's unfair to allow the creator of intellectual property to control how others use it. This may be. But if it weren't the case, there'd be no need for software licesnes, of ANY kind.
Slashdot Mirror
Mac IIcx
Speak for yourself; I always stay through the credits, and I'm rarely the only person in the theater who does.
You can pretend that rights are "natural" in order to try to develop a consistent belief system, but you'll pretty quickly run into the fact that rights are a human construct, not a property of the universe. Then you have to start to accept that rights are what those in power define them to be. You are still free to argue about what rights people "should" have, but then you're engaging in political discussion rather than physics.
Used to be. Now it's illegal to use the Military for domestic law enforcement, unless drugs are (suspected to be) involved.
Xing having forgotten to encrypt their key only made the inevitable easier. It was a software-only player which presumably would work without a network connection. Thus, even if they encrypt their DVD key, they have to have the decryption key for THAT cipher in the clear, or else the key to the cipher for THAT key, etc. Since it's software, it takes only someone with way too much time on their hands to walk through the disassembly line by line until they figure it out.
"infinity" isn't a number in any system in which people who aren't at least senior math majors do arithmetic, so "zero multiplied by infinity" doesn't have any real meaning unless you specify the number system you're using as one that includes infinity. lim(x->inf) 0*x = 0, sure, but that's not quite what you said. So, if you're going to call someone else on it...
Copyright law restricts what you may do with a work without the permission of the Copyright holder, but there are any number of things which you are allowed to do, collectively refered to as "Fair Use."
Copyright is not an absolute right of the holder, it is a social contract created by the government to balance the economic interests of creators with the freedom of the public. At least, it was before DMCA and WIPO.
Sure, that's what "color correctors" are for.
The mere fact that software-only DVD players could exist is sufficient to ensure that the scheme was crackable, 40-bits or 2048. Why? Because obviously the software player could decode the stream in order to play it. They key has to be either on the disc, or in the player; there's no way around that. A hardware-assisted solution could have at least hidden the keys in a chip somewhere, but a software one is all out in the open, requiring only patience before it falls.
The difference here is that while you were in posession of the physical manifestation of the movie which you removed from the premises of the store, the store couldn't sell it to someone else.
If I make a copy of something of yours, you still have it.
Your ability to make money by artificially creating scarcity is removed. Because of this, you may not choose to continue to create. My actions may be illegal, they may even be immoral, but to call it theft ignores the obvious fact that you still have that which I supposedly stole from you, and at no point did you not have it!
Why? If they just copied the decoding software they'd be violating the copyright, but if they recreated it from a specification someone else got by reverse engineering it, then how are they at fault? I seriously doubt the alrogrithm itself was patented, since that would mean it would have to have been disclosed to the public.
Whether or not Katz thinks Christians shouldn't be rich, the Bible certainly has a few things to say about the subject. Or maybe the designers will sell all they own, give it to the poor, and follow Jesus AFTER their stock options have vested.
Yeah, you did say that out loud, and you probably shouldn't have, since the whole thing was just a stupid chain-letter hoax. But, of course, just be because the government didn't actually do something is no reason to hate them for doing it, right?
Ahhh. The Objectivity of the Scientific Establishment. "He disagrees with us, therefore he's a kook".
Arguments as to the nature of time based on notions from calculus make the a priori assumption that time is isomorphic to a continuum of points. The best you should try to argue is that IF time works the way YOU think it does, then this guy is wrong.
I'm surprised nobody's mentioned Hofstadter yet; he had a pretty good translation of Jabberwocky into German and French. Should you translate "Campbell's Soup" to "Borscht"? "Jakobstrasse" to "Jacob Street"? Why bother translating Dickens; just read Dostoyevsky!
What do you mean by your source? Do you mean source which you have created from scratch? Then you are free either to use or not to use the code. Do you mean your freedom to modify someone else's code? Copyright law gives the original author the right to control derivative works. You are "free" either to violate copyright law, or to agree to the terms of the GPL, but in that case it isn't "your" source.
NT 4.0 "pioneered" Async I/O? Hell, even Macs have had that forever.
The MAC address does not get sent out over the internet, just over your Ethernet LAN. The only MAC address the web server is going to receive is theMAC address of the router that gave it the packet from the internet.
Unless things changed very recently, there are both civil and criminal RICO actions. I remember watching on CSPAN how some congressional subcomittee wanted to ditch RICO because it was typically used in BS situations (i.e. you haven't done anything otherwise against the law, but we "know" you should be punished) and the justice department said they "needed" both civil and criminal RICO.
Programs using async IO can specify a callback completion routine which gets executed immediately. Although this code gets executed at interrupt time, so it can't make most sytem calls, it CAN chain to another async IO request. So, you can grab a chunk of data from the disk, then chain to your routine to stuff it out the network, then chain back to your disk routine. None of which is as nice as "real" multitasking, but it doesn't have to be as bad as you make it sound.
The current thread manager only supports cooperative threads. Previously, 68k threads could be preemptively scheduled, but apparantly even that is gone. The Multiprocessing Services manager lets you create preemptive threads, even on a single processor machine, but these threads can't make system calls.
Of course there are all kinds of tricks apps can play to work well, "even when the mouse is down". Anarchie, a popular FTP client, does a lot of stuff using asynchronous network calls, so it works well in the background. There's also a hack called the "Menutasking Enabler" that lets other apps run while menus are down. I don't know how well it works on recent systems, haven't tried it lately.
Reference to information about threads manager (It also mentions this on page 9 of this PDF.)
Menutasking Enabler
A lot of people here seem to think the GPL has something to say about public vs. private distribution. Section 2b refers to distribution, saying that anything you distribute must be under the terms of the license. Nothing about public distribution only. But, even if it were the case that a beta release somehow didn't count as distribution, then section 4 would come into play, which says that you may not copy or sublicense the program except under the terms of the GPL. Even if giving people the program to beta test isn't distribution, it's certainly making a copy!
It may or may not be distribution. It is, however, definately copying the software. Which is specifically covered in section 4, as I mentioned above.
The GPL doesn't say everyone has to share. It's creators -may- believe that everyone SHOULD share, but the GPL says only that you have to share IF you want the rights to the copyright holder's intellectual property. The GPL says I'll share with you, but only if you promise to share with everyone else.
If it's unfair to "force" others to share, then it's only because it's unfair to allow the creator of intellectual property to control how others use it. This may be. But if it weren't the case, there'd be no need for software licesnes, of ANY kind.