See, MS said this wouldn't be an issue. Specifically this. Regardless whether ATI has an issue, the Vista kernel shouldn't sign something that can be modified, without the signature changing.
Please learn these important distinctions, before you support a system whereby people can purchase things, but never own them. With this analogy, I could be renting my damn tooth paste.
That's the point, idiot. You don't own World of Warcraft. You merely have purchased the right to use it in a particular way.
And I don't support that system. Not in the least bit. But it is the system we have, and fighting it is made much, much worse when we don't even know what it is we're supposed to be aiming for. We should be aiming for patent and copyright law changes. We should be aiming for laws far stronger than the vague "fair use" clause that so many people grasp on to. We should be supporting community-produced products more. Want a game that doesn't tell you when you're allowed to brush your teeth? Then write one, or get with some folks that are writing their own OSS game, and work with them.
As Ghandi said - "Be the change you want to see in the world." Whining in non-constructive ways is, - lo! As if by definition - non-constructive.
You do not own the software. It is not yours to do with as you please. Just like the stripper.
you buy the media knowing that it is capable of breaking. That is your fault as a consumer. You should demand more durable sources of the product that you are licensing.
no, that's not what the analogy would say. What the analogy would complete to in that way, if you want to do that, is if you told your customer, before you did it, that they weren't allowed to record, redistribute, teach, or in any way duplicate the lap dance you were going to give them, because it was a copywritten work of art.
Well, I would think that Common Sense would be well on this side of it...
and if you think a girl should have spent a night in jail, and should have to put up with a long, complicated court battle, just because it is unfair to ask a theatre manager to employ a little common sense, then you're an idiot. Sorry.
Your little drivel about the "predictable reply" is just as unreasonable. How about the theatre manager make the first step be asking the person to stop doing it? Instead of calling the police, and having her arrested? Think that maybe, just maybe, confronting her as a human instead of as an enemy might have made more sense?
Absolutely they treated her as the enemy, and not a customer. Absolutely. It was 20 seconds, she stopped before the police got there, no one even needed to ask her to stop. Regardless whether she wins or loses, she's lost. Her 19th birthday was spent in jail. She'll be fighting this for months. You, and the theatre manager, are both devoid of common sense and think this is somehow ok.
...unless the license to use the book prohibits selling it.
You don't own a copy of the software, you own a cd that has the software on it. If you buy a book, and the publisher somehow had a license that you couldn't resell it, then you could still resell the paper, just not the book. Because yes, you own the cd...just not what is on the cd.
You also need to stop thinking about CDs and such, because if that is what you're going to base an argument on, then your argument is also getting weaker by virtue of the fact that more and more software is, and will be, network-distributed. What will your retort be when you don't even have a physical chunk of media with the software on it?
Instead you should be addressing the underlying issue itself, that of IP. Knocking copyrights and patents down to 10-20 years, and forcing the holders to actually do something with them would be a start...then the Verizon v Vonage thing wouldn't happen, for instant. All sorts of things, really...right now we have a system that does nothing more than stiffle innovation, by preventing people from using the IP.
software != media. Is your reading comprehension bad, or did you just completely miss that I did make that distinction?
And clearly it's a complicated concept, as so many people here rely so much on this false, wrong, argument. Attack IP as a concept, but don't be so stupid as to suggest, as the article does, that it is a "piece of software you own."
This raises an important question: Are legitimate backup copies of a piece of software you own illegal under the DMCA?
False question. You don't own the software. You have purchased a license to use, nothing more.
I'm much against IP and such, but it is not helpful, at all, to rely upon this very weak, false, argument. You do not own the software!
If you can't figure out the distinction, let me give you an analogy. Pretend you are a stripper. Someone pays you $40 to give them a lap dance. Do they own you while you are giving them the lap dance? Or are they simply borrowing your time?
Now, replace "borrowing your time" with "license to use in a particular manner" and you have your answer. If you owned the software, you could change the license. Who owns World of Warcraft? Not you...Blizzard does. You merely have a license to use, in a particular way. I can't fathom why that is such a difficult concept for so many people.
can't have it both ways. Either it is meaningless, or you get intimacy out of it. If you're having intimate erotic encounters with someone other than your wife/husband/boyfriend/girlfriend, then hell yeah that's cheating.
SatanicPuppy (611928) When the "Think of the Children" crowd gets 'em to ban sex, Second Life will become officially pointless.
having "sex" in SecondLife, or any other game, is already pointless. That you would even call it sex, and not at least "sex," is very sad. You do understand the point of sex is, well, the physical touch, and the bonding from the intimacy? Neither of which is remotely possible, err, remotely. Rather, neither of which is remotely possible in a game.
Wake me when it looks at all remotely realistic, then maybe there will be room for the deeper philosophical and psychological discussions. As it is now? Ummm...it's not even as realistic as "erotic" manga, and even that is sad.
Yeah, sure, mod me troll and flamebait. "Sex" in SecondLife isn't "sex," it's just sex. Something so similar to the real thing, one can use the same word for it.
Was SecondLife "pointless" when neither of these two things were the primary attractions? Because it was that way for a while...
The very act of what they're doing is exporting their morality. The OLPC folks think it is morally wrong for some people to be so poor, they don't have access to things which, in today's day and age, are considered completely necessary for success. They have moral qualms with the disparity of knowledge, wealth, etc that their program seeks, as a moral imperitive, to lessen to some degree.
So you don't want the OLPC program to exist at all?
Count me among those who are really finding the heavy liberal bias and Bush/Republican/someone-other-than-me bashing to be way over the top here, especially from the/. editors.
Kelo v New London killed property rights. It was one of the top 3 worst SCOTUS rulings in the history of the US. What justices voted in the majority? The liberal Justices: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer. Also, Justice Kennedy, who is a...liberal libertarian? Common swing vote.
City takes away people's land, gives it to private businesses. Oh, but it's the Republicans that do that sort of thing, right?
Whatever. Keep at it,/. - you're just turning people off to your party, too.//proud to be neither.//votes on issues, not parties.
bylaws, contracts, and license agreements. Never having the group own any licenses. That, and if the corp is started as a 501c3, it cannot hold property and make an actual profit off it anyway.
Have you never participated in an OSS project? Set it up the same way. If Xfree goes nuts, we could replace it too, right? Oh yeah, we already did that, ala X.org.
the EFF or such could/should help set up a coalition of independent artists, one that had an exceptionally small fee to sign up ($10 or so - enough to prevent people from spamming the records, but little enough to not be prohibitive to real artists), and then any internet radio stations could play any of those songs. If small-time artists actually had a choice, then hey. If artists agreed to allow their songs to be played for free (even if just for a set amount of time), then net radio stations could register with the service (for a fee that is actually low, like $20 or so) and hey...they have the license covered.
hell, I'd almost like to start some such thing myself. Might be more effective if I just give someone else money to do it though. There's certainly enough people who want such a thing...there's a market for it (if even just 1% of the anti-RIAA chickenhawks on/. actually donated to it, it would be viable).
And as someone who has played in clubs for years because I love playing, and has turned down a couple contracts because I didn't want that sort of life - yes, damnit, there are musicians that would give their songs away for free, or close to free. That's precisely what happened to almost all music for the history of mankind until just a few decades ago.
the real customers, not the fringe folk who even know what DRM is.
The real customers care about what format has the most movies available.
The movie execs care about what format they feel protects and enhances their product the most.
Tada. Riddle solved. If the target audience for HD-DVD is going to be limited to "those who care about the DRM being cracked" then...HD-DVD is very, very doomed.
no, I understand the concept. But syncing up the bus speeds better wouldn't (shouldn't) change anything for the programmers, and adding more ram shouldn't either.
And damn, the things only have 512M.
I'm not wanting expansions, I'm wanting the cells to actually be usable. As is now, the bottlenecks inside are so great that the cells will never get much use, no matter how well people program games for them in the future.
A couple people have already mentioned that the hardware within a PS3 is unbalanced; several simple to overcome bottlenecks exist. Want me to actually consider the PS3 something that will be viable for years? Then at least let me upgrade the ram...
Also: keeping the price slightly higher means there are fewer kids, and whiners, playing in any online game I might play with a PS3. If I bought one. Which I was thinking about doing, until they started talking about lowering the price.
1) adding headers never improves speed. You're smoking crack. 2) we're not talking about preventing VPN tunnels in general, we're talking about preventing traffic (of any sort) in specific - specifically a certain site. If an ISP doesn't want you to get to that one site, it is beyond trivial for them to block your "easy" attempts to get it.
Slashdot Mirror
hi troll.
See, MS said this wouldn't be an issue. Specifically this. Regardless whether ATI has an issue, the Vista kernel shouldn't sign something that can be modified, without the signature changing.
Please learn these important distinctions, before you support a system whereby people can purchase things, but never own them. With this analogy, I could be renting my damn tooth paste.
That's the point, idiot. You don't own World of Warcraft. You merely have purchased the right to use it in a particular way.
And I don't support that system. Not in the least bit. But it is the system we have, and fighting it is made much, much worse when we don't even know what it is we're supposed to be aiming for. We should be aiming for patent and copyright law changes. We should be aiming for laws far stronger than the vague "fair use" clause that so many people grasp on to. We should be supporting community-produced products more. Want a game that doesn't tell you when you're allowed to brush your teeth? Then write one, or get with some folks that are writing their own OSS game, and work with them.
As Ghandi said - "Be the change you want to see in the world." Whining in non-constructive ways is, - lo! As if by definition - non-constructive.
You do not own the software. It is not yours to do with as you please. Just like the stripper.
you buy the media knowing that it is capable of breaking. That is your fault as a consumer. You should demand more durable sources of the product that you are licensing.
no, that's not what the analogy would say. What the analogy would complete to in that way, if you want to do that, is if you told your customer, before you did it, that they weren't allowed to record, redistribute, teach, or in any way duplicate the lap dance you were going to give them, because it was a copywritten work of art.
Where do you draw the line?
Well, I would think that Common Sense would be well on this side of it...
and if you think a girl should have spent a night in jail, and should have to put up with a long, complicated court battle, just because it is unfair to ask a theatre manager to employ a little common sense, then you're an idiot. Sorry.
Your little drivel about the "predictable reply" is just as unreasonable. How about the theatre manager make the first step be asking the person to stop doing it? Instead of calling the police, and having her arrested? Think that maybe, just maybe, confronting her as a human instead of as an enemy might have made more sense?
Absolutely they treated her as the enemy, and not a customer. Absolutely. It was 20 seconds, she stopped before the police got there, no one even needed to ask her to stop. Regardless whether she wins or loses, she's lost. Her 19th birthday was spent in jail. She'll be fighting this for months. You, and the theatre manager, are both devoid of common sense and think this is somehow ok.
...unless the license to use the book prohibits selling it.
You don't own a copy of the software, you own a cd that has the software on it. If you buy a book, and the publisher somehow had a license that you couldn't resell it, then you could still resell the paper, just not the book. Because yes, you own the cd...just not what is on the cd.
You also need to stop thinking about CDs and such, because if that is what you're going to base an argument on, then your argument is also getting weaker by virtue of the fact that more and more software is, and will be, network-distributed. What will your retort be when you don't even have a physical chunk of media with the software on it?
Instead you should be addressing the underlying issue itself, that of IP. Knocking copyrights and patents down to 10-20 years, and forcing the holders to actually do something with them would be a start...then the Verizon v Vonage thing wouldn't happen, for instant. All sorts of things, really...right now we have a system that does nothing more than stiffle innovation, by preventing people from using the IP.
what I said: "You do not own the software!"
software != media. Is your reading comprehension bad, or did you just completely miss that I did make that distinction?
And clearly it's a complicated concept, as so many people here rely so much on this false, wrong, argument. Attack IP as a concept, but don't be so stupid as to suggest, as the article does, that it is a "piece of software you own."
This raises an important question: Are legitimate backup copies of a piece of software you own illegal under the DMCA?
False question. You don't own the software. You have purchased a license to use, nothing more.
I'm much against IP and such, but it is not helpful, at all, to rely upon this very weak, false, argument. You do not own the software!
If you can't figure out the distinction, let me give you an analogy. Pretend you are a stripper. Someone pays you $40 to give them a lap dance. Do they own you while you are giving them the lap dance? Or are they simply borrowing your time?
Now, replace "borrowing your time" with "license to use in a particular manner" and you have your answer. If you owned the software, you could change the license. Who owns World of Warcraft? Not you...Blizzard does. You merely have a license to use, in a particular way. I can't fathom why that is such a difficult concept for so many people.
uhhh...Sony isn't suing themselves. Good job actually reading the article there, bud.
can't have it both ways. Either it is meaningless, or you get intimacy out of it. If you're having intimate erotic encounters with someone other than your wife/husband/boyfriend/girlfriend, then hell yeah that's cheating.
"...however bringing BitTorrent capabilities to the cell phone is a giant step forward."
a giant step forward towards...what? I mean, seriously...just umm...how much space ya got on your phone there that you need to torrent files to it?
Is it April 1, 2008, already?
SatanicPuppy (611928) When the "Think of the Children" crowd gets 'em to ban sex, Second Life will become officially pointless.
having "sex" in SecondLife, or any other game, is already pointless. That you would even call it sex, and not at least "sex," is very sad. You do understand the point of sex is, well, the physical touch, and the bonding from the intimacy? Neither of which is remotely possible, err, remotely. Rather, neither of which is remotely possible in a game.
Wake me when it looks at all remotely realistic, then maybe there will be room for the deeper philosophical and psychological discussions. As it is now? Ummm...it's not even as realistic as "erotic" manga, and even that is sad.
Yeah, sure, mod me troll and flamebait. "Sex" in SecondLife isn't "sex," it's just sex. Something so similar to the real thing, one can use the same word for it.
Was SecondLife "pointless" when neither of these two things were the primary attractions? Because it was that way for a while...
"insightful?" How is this post "insightful?"
The very act of what they're doing is exporting their morality. The OLPC folks think it is morally wrong for some people to be so poor, they don't have access to things which, in today's day and age, are considered completely necessary for success. They have moral qualms with the disparity of knowledge, wealth, etc that their program seeks, as a moral imperitive, to lessen to some degree.
So you don't want the OLPC program to exist at all?
Count me among those who are really finding the heavy liberal bias and Bush/Republican/someone-other-than-me bashing to be way over the top here, especially from the /. editors.
/. - you're just turning people off to your party, too. //proud to be neither. //votes on issues, not parties.
Kelo v New London killed property rights. It was one of the top 3 worst SCOTUS rulings in the history of the US. What justices voted in the majority? The liberal Justices: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer. Also, Justice Kennedy, who is a...liberal libertarian? Common swing vote.
City takes away people's land, gives it to private businesses. Oh, but it's the Republicans that do that sort of thing, right?
Whatever. Keep at it,
bylaws, contracts, and license agreements. Never having the group own any licenses. That, and if the corp is started as a 501c3, it cannot hold property and make an actual profit off it anyway.
Have you never participated in an OSS project? Set it up the same way. If Xfree goes nuts, we could replace it too, right? Oh yeah, we already did that, ala X.org.
the EFF or such could/should help set up a coalition of independent artists, one that had an exceptionally small fee to sign up ($10 or so - enough to prevent people from spamming the records, but little enough to not be prohibitive to real artists), and then any internet radio stations could play any of those songs. If small-time artists actually had a choice, then hey. If artists agreed to allow their songs to be played for free (even if just for a set amount of time), then net radio stations could register with the service (for a fee that is actually low, like $20 or so) and hey...they have the license covered.
/. actually donated to it, it would be viable).
hell, I'd almost like to start some such thing myself. Might be more effective if I just give someone else money to do it though. There's certainly enough people who want such a thing...there's a market for it (if even just 1% of the anti-RIAA chickenhawks on
And as someone who has played in clubs for years because I love playing, and has turned down a couple contracts because I didn't want that sort of life - yes, damnit, there are musicians that would give their songs away for free, or close to free. That's precisely what happened to almost all music for the history of mankind until just a few decades ago.
the real customers, not the fringe folk who even know what DRM is.
The real customers care about what format has the most movies available.
The movie execs care about what format they feel protects and enhances their product the most.
Tada. Riddle solved. If the target audience for HD-DVD is going to be limited to "those who care about the DRM being cracked" then...HD-DVD is very, very doomed.
no, I understand the concept. But syncing up the bus speeds better wouldn't (shouldn't) change anything for the programmers, and adding more ram shouldn't either.
And damn, the things only have 512M.
I'm not wanting expansions, I'm wanting the cells to actually be usable. As is now, the bottlenecks inside are so great that the cells will never get much use, no matter how well people program games for them in the future.
A couple people have already mentioned that the hardware within a PS3 is unbalanced; several simple to overcome bottlenecks exist. Want me to actually consider the PS3 something that will be viable for years? Then at least let me upgrade the ram...
Also: keeping the price slightly higher means there are fewer kids, and whiners, playing in any online game I might play with a PS3. If I bought one. Which I was thinking about doing, until they started talking about lowering the price.
what beyondkaoru said.
1) adding headers never improves speed. You're smoking crack.
2) we're not talking about preventing VPN tunnels in general, we're talking about preventing traffic (of any sort) in specific - specifically a certain site. If an ISP doesn't want you to get to that one site, it is beyond trivial for them to block your "easy" attempts to get it.
um, yes there is.
Query various name services for the crap you want to block. They'll give you an IP. Block those IPs.
Block the meta-IPs for TOR and any other such thing. At some point, you're relying upon something with a stable name/ip association. Block that thing.
trust me, it wouldn't be difficult. If you can find it easily, then they can block it easily. Matters not if you use a different name service.
How could the ISP filter or block VPN traffic without annoying the rest of the professionals who rely on corporate VPN access?
They don't need to. They just need to block traffic to Relakks, then all other legit traffic can continue.
most blogs allow you to back-date things. I could write a LJ post today and have it show as posted for Sept 11, 2001, for instance.