If you do not trust people, how can you trust technology?
Either do not sent messages which may embrass you to untrusted people or risk being embrassed.
If your dad feels good about such cool new features of DRM, that he should also take in account, then there is always someone able to break technology. At least for as long as IQ of said technology is far bellow IQ of living person.
Using such DRM feature is like throwing junk from your window at people bellow the window and feeling "secure" because you are "at the 26th floor". But after throwing enought junk at enought people, someone will do something about it. Examples:
Someone will come up, break the door and beat you.
Someone will fire the building you are in, wait for you to come out and beat you or let you burn with the building.
Someone will bring some junk-gun and will fire some junk back to you.
Someone will take helicopter, fly above you and throw junk at you.
...
So just let the DRM come, let the people trust DRM, let the people send sensitive content to other people they do not trust and then laugh when that sensitive content "escapes" protective bed of DRM and get posted as "everybody can see it and copy it as many times as he likes".
Well, it looks like world is speeding directly to Hell (or Dark Age or some other equivalent) with Microsoft at the leading position.
What else is humanity going to achieve by restricting access to data (data = knowlegde)?
Maybe in short term, market can gain from such restrictions but what is market good for if there is no civilisation (maybe just very small group of "gods")?
... because all sites will require Palladium copy protection to prevent theft of material.
"Even later every newly born human being have to receive "this being is allowed to live" from Microsoft based on who knows what criteria and life on Earth(TM) (or by that time in Universe(TM) ?) will be Heaven(TM) and all people(C)MS will(TM) be(R) happy(TM) under the lead of our holly Bill Gates IV."
Your view of the future looks very unoptimistic to me. I do not want such future for my children and neither for yours.
Our governments have to put everybody into the prison and also all newly born babies will remain there!
That's the only way how to ensure, that good citizens (that people outside of prison) wont be endangered by criminals, suspect-criminals and will-be-criminals ever.
... a massive licensing violation to put someone else's GPLed work in the public domain.
Well, they can maintain and distribute patches. And while patch is theirs as a whole, they can licence it under whatever licences they like: GPL, public domain, some commercial licenses. All at the same time.
Sure it is less practical, but so is rewritting whole Linux or Windows.
IIRC lame used such tactic to avoid problems with licence of code they used as building base - they distributed patch licensed under GPL used to patch software under some "free to use but restricted" license.
(Btw, lame managed to rewrite whole base so now it is fully functional and all under GPL. But "Lame Aint Mp3 Encoder" is not "Linux":)
So based on what you wrote, Linux patches (which makes SE Linux) should be release under dual licence: GPL (to not to conflict with Linux licence) and public domain (to protect investments made with tax dolars).
Now under which licence should be released patches to Windows created using tax dolars? Looks like under two licences too: some Microsoftish and again public domain. (question is: How will Microsoft like that? IMO they wont give permission for such hacking in the first place).
And also what about intelectual property? I make some hacking for say NSA, patches are release as public domain (so the results of the research paid by tax dolars is available) but I can (at least try to) defend my IP and stop everybody from using that public domain code, so I'm defeating the reason for which public domain licence has been used in the first place.
Well, maybe far better that political activism or code writing would be boycott.
Boycott politicians, politacal organisations and other organisations and companies which are supporting politicians.
The point is: Do not let them work with information technology, or with technology at all (while "we" can still use it). And if they try to outlaw all technology then... well either almost everybody will beat them or the problem is uncurrable and we deserve going back to stone age.
Imagine a big (majority) of "techies" not providing politicians with PCs, phones, DVDs, TV sets, cabling, storage media, phone networks, support for such equipment, training,... Will they (politicians) notice and understand?
Most of the recent increases in defense spending have been toward increasingly precise weapons that focus intense violence on smaller areas.
Precision of weapons is good (I mean: precise weapons can be tolerated easily than those with broad destructive effect). But what I found the main part of HanzoSan's post is:
How long until one of the monkeys pushes the button?
US now has a lot of weapons, a lot of very destructive weapons and also very precise weapons. But is increased risk of missusing destructive weapons addressed? (even if such weapons are very precise)
Re:When will society and government learn
on
Spy Fly
·
· Score: 1
We've been spending all this money for almost 50 years and the world is still here.
This statement is meant to be perfect argument that playing russian roulette is safe?
Otherwise, we could face the horrors Orwell wrote about: economic ruin, mass unemployment, global warming,...
And do not forget about artists starving to death - our faithfull RIAA and MPAA are reminding us and our government about that. So think also about starving artists! Throw out your brain (and CD burners) and believe your government! (and RIAA and MPAA and Microsoft and...)
The only difference is that with the GPL, the developer has the option of either making his license compatible with the GPL or removing the component from his project.
3rd option: Negotiate a special licence from copyright holder of GPLed work under which you can keep borrowed code in your software and still distribute it under other that GPL license.
Steve Balmer: "I do have a fundamental faith that the technology industry, our company, our partners, the people in our business, still have more of an opportunity to have a positive impact on the world than anybody else around,"
So that's why a lot of companies are working on technologies like DRM or censorware proxies so people wont be able to excersise fair use rights (I repeat fair use rights, not piracy), the right to speak freely and actualy control, what their computers contain and run?
Or are they just missing that opportunity (purposedly or not) in exchange for money and control?
If you want multiple "personalities" you are either schizofrenic or terorist.
That's why MS is promoting that "one computer, one person, one identity" thingie and is fighting against those who do not like it (i.e. "curing" those shizofrenics and "fighting against" those terorists).
And also that's the reason why they are promoting the idea of every Windows user having Administrators rights: why anybody want to be a regular user mostly and administrator only sometimes? Again, that's schyzofreny or terorism.
</irony>
:) But after all that time it is hard to keep smiling about such jokes.
Every honest citizen of the United States (which I am not) have to know that and thus have to support 'R1AFOCSHPWHFHMCAHPFCPATITUIJ Act' a.k.a. 'Remove 1st Amendment From Our Constitution So Honest Politiacians With Help From Honest Media Coprorations And Honest Police Forces Can Put All Terorist In The Universe Into Jail . Act'.
I agree with you that it is OK to try to protect your own data (music, text, financial information,...) by (almost) whatever means you are able to use.
For that reason maybe the best way to protect your data is to encrypt them. It is good, easy and deny no rights of others. Unless you are in for example France, where you are forbidden by law to use effective encryption. But that's problem between french citizens and their government, because that's IMO stupid law.
Also for same reason (protection of your own data) it is plain wrong to leave your data widely available with uneffective encryption (or no encryption at all) but make encryption cracking (or plainly seeing/hearing/...) illegal. You are denying rights of other people to watch and to think about what they saw (because that's what encryption cracking actualy is:) . I.e. you are denying them to use their own eyes and their own brains to process what you transmited to them by lying your data somewhere and somewhat that it reflects light which is interpreted by eyes, brains,... of others.
What I'm trying to say is, that problems should be solved where they are, not "hacked" where they are not and where by that "hacking" you are damaging interests of others.
Those big media (and you and I and whoever want to protect his data) should better come up with good encryption models than trying to pass laws which bans seeing, hearing and thinking at all.
As a user, if I'm going to evaluate some piece of software, I do not like to give my data (even just e-mail address) just for that. I mostly fear increase of junk mail trafic.
But as a developer, it is very intriguing to know who, where, why,... is evaluating my software.
At the end, it is plain that user have to have great desire for particular software if he is willing to pay or to give some data for just evaluating the software. And that is not common. So your experience is little surprise.
IIRC yesterday there was some article about giving something absolutely for free in order to drive sales. So for your company it would be good to:
make demo download free without any data submission required
if the usage of demo is limited by certain period of time be sure uninstallation is painless (no junk left, no "please buy full copy" repeated hundereth times,...)
make purchase easy and quick - if evaluation proceeds sucesfully, people will be willing to get full copy quickly up and running
""Microsoft's development of reliable and scalable server operating systems has enabled AMD to enter and compete more effectively in the server businesses...because most non-Microsoft server operating systems only run on specialized microprocessors," he testified."
I wonder whether they forgot Linux - IIRC AMD processors are popular among Linux users.
I also wonder whether there are more Windows or Linux servers based on AMD?
"Sanders praised Microsoft for helping to bring standardization to the computer industry. "Standardized platforms promote competition," he asserted. The absence of this standardization "would diminish overall competition as many software and hardware vendors would have to decide which particular operating system(s) to target as a development platform.""
Standardisation is good. I agree on that. But I have a question: Is such standardisation good even if it is controled (and I can also say abused) by single privatly held company?
Slashdot Mirror
Better thing to do: Patent it!
Either do not sent messages which may embrass you to untrusted people or risk being embrassed.
If your dad feels good about such cool new features of DRM, that he should also take in account, then there is always someone able to break technology. At least for as long as IQ of said technology is far bellow IQ of living person.
Using such DRM feature is like throwing junk from your window at people bellow the window and feeling "secure" because you are "at the 26th floor". But after throwing enought junk at enought people, someone will do something about it. Examples:
...
So just let the DRM come, let the people trust DRM, let the people send sensitive content to other people they do not trust and then laugh when that sensitive content "escapes" protective bed of DRM and get posted as "everybody can see it and copy it as many times as he likes".
It looks to me that Jupiter9 is interested to the second Laura. :)
(Btw, that nationalgeographic.com page has black text on black background - looks like optimized for some "other" browser).
What else is humanity going to achieve by restricting access to data (data = knowlegde)?
Maybe in short term, market can gain from such restrictions but what is market good for if there is no civilisation (maybe just very small group of "gods")?
"Even later every newly born human being have to receive "this being is allowed to live" from Microsoft based on who knows what criteria and life on Earth(TM) (or by that time in Universe(TM) ?) will be Heaven(TM) and all people(C)MS will(TM) be(R) happy(TM) under the lead of our holly Bill Gates IV."
Your view of the future looks very unoptimistic to me. I do not want such future for my children and neither for yours.
What irony that those money comes from CD & co. sales i.e. from consumers themselves.
This shows the power of ignorance (or in other words "I want a CD, I do not want to think about 'distant' future" attitude).
They do not have DMCA?!?! Bomb them into the stone age!!!
Our governments have to put everybody into the prison and also all newly born babies will remain there!
That's the only way how to ensure, that good citizens (that people outside of prison) wont be endangered by criminals, suspect-criminals and will-be-criminals ever.
</sarcasm>
Well, they can maintain and distribute patches. And while patch is theirs as a whole, they can licence it under whatever licences they like: GPL, public domain, some commercial licenses. All at the same time.
Sure it is less practical, but so is rewritting whole Linux or Windows.
IIRC lame used such tactic to avoid problems with licence of code they used as building base - they distributed patch licensed under GPL used to patch software under some "free to use but restricted" license.
(Btw, lame managed to rewrite whole base so now it is fully functional and all under GPL. But "Lame Aint Mp3 Encoder" is not "Linux" :)
Now under which licence should be released patches to Windows created using tax dolars? Looks like under two licences too: some Microsoftish and again public domain. (question is: How will Microsoft like that? IMO they wont give permission for such hacking in the first place).
And also what about intelectual property? I make some hacking for say NSA, patches are release as public domain (so the results of the research paid by tax dolars is available) but I can (at least try to) defend my IP and stop everybody from using that public domain code, so I'm defeating the reason for which public domain licence has been used in the first place.
Boycott politicians, politacal organisations and other organisations and companies which are supporting politicians.
The point is: Do not let them work with information technology, or with technology at all (while "we" can still use it). And if they try to outlaw all technology then ... well either almost everybody will beat them or the problem is uncurrable and we deserve going back to stone age.
Imagine a big (majority) of "techies" not providing politicians with PCs, phones, DVDs, TV sets, cabling, storage media, phone networks, support for such equipment, training, ... Will they (politicians) notice and understand?
Precision of weapons is good (I mean: precise weapons can be tolerated easily than those with broad destructive effect). But what I found the main part of HanzoSan's post is:
How long until one of the monkeys pushes the button?
US now has a lot of weapons, a lot of very destructive weapons and also very precise weapons. But is increased risk of missusing destructive weapons addressed? (even if such weapons are very precise)
This statement is meant to be perfect argument that playing russian roulette is safe?
If so, then governments (and everyone) worldwide should take him seriously and avoid Microsoft products at all cost!
After all, that guy worked for Microsoft at high security related position so he should know!
And do not forget about artists starving to death - our faithfull RIAA and MPAA are reminding us and our government about that. So think also about starving artists! Throw out your brain (and CD burners) and believe your government! (and RIAA and MPAA and Microsoft and ...)
3rd option: Negotiate a special licence from copyright holder of GPLed work under which you can keep borrowed code in your software and still distribute it under other that GPL license.
So that's why a lot of companies are working on technologies like DRM or censorware proxies so people wont be able to excersise fair use rights (I repeat fair use rights, not piracy), the right to speak freely and actualy control, what their computers contain and run?
Or are they just missing that opportunity (purposedly or not) in exchange for money and control?
<irony>
If you want multiple "personalities" you are either schizofrenic or terorist.
That's why MS is promoting that "one computer, one person, one identity" thingie and is fighting against those who do not like it (i.e. "curing" those shizofrenics and "fighting against" those terorists).
And also that's the reason why they are promoting the idea of every Windows user having Administrators rights: why anybody want to be a regular user mostly and administrator only sometimes? Again, that's schyzofreny or terorism.
</irony>
Every honest citizen of the United States (which I am not) have to know that and thus have to support 'R1AFOCSHPWHFHMCAHPFCPATITUIJ Act' a.k.a. 'Remove 1st Amendment From Our Constitution So Honest Politiacians With Help From Honest Media Coprorations And Honest Police Forces Can Put All Terorist In The Universe Into Jail . Act'.
Disclaimer: This is irony.
Testing version has been available for about a year now and "production" release is now avialable for trial and purchase.
And my experience: So far I'm testing previous development release and it works.
For that reason maybe the best way to protect your data is to encrypt them. It is good, easy and deny no rights of others. Unless you are in for example France, where you are forbidden by law to use effective encryption. But that's problem between french citizens and their government, because that's IMO stupid law.
Also for same reason (protection of your own data) it is plain wrong to leave your data widely available with uneffective encryption (or no encryption at all) but make encryption cracking (or plainly seeing/hearing/...) illegal. You are denying rights of other people to watch and to think about what they saw (because that's what encryption cracking actualy is :) . I.e. you are denying them to use their own eyes and their own brains to process what you transmited to them by lying your data somewhere and somewhat that it reflects light which is interpreted by eyes, brains, ... of others.
What I'm trying to say is, that problems should be solved where they are, not "hacked" where they are not and where by that "hacking" you are damaging interests of others.
Those big media (and you and I and whoever want to protect his data) should better come up with good encryption models than trying to pass laws which bans seeing, hearing and thinking at all.
But as a developer, it is very intriguing to know who, where, why, ... is evaluating my software.
At the end, it is plain that user have to have great desire for particular software if he is willing to pay or to give some data for just evaluating the software. And that is not common. So your experience is little surprise.
IIRC yesterday there was some article about giving something absolutely for free in order to drive sales. So for your company it would be good to:
Standardisation is good. I agree on that. But I have a question: Is such standardisation good even if it is controled (and I can also say abused) by single privatly held company?
IIRC nuclear power stations are designed to endure that.
They should endure also earthquakes of some magnitude, ...