Hell, humanity might become the equivalent of the computers' pets, and as far as I'm concerned, that's not a bad thing. All my cat does is eat sleep, and play - how often I wished I had that lifestyle.
No it wouldn't.
Brute force would try shorter passwords first. Assuming passwords match \w+, that's 63^letters^. If you check letters-1 passwords first, you've only wasted 1/63rd more time than if you knew the length (well, 1/63 + 1/(63^2) +..., but that's tiny).
Besides, it's trivial to modify SSH clients to check for password prompts and obscure password timing and length (add in backspaces...).
Because record companies, having no way to gain a hold on their artists, will go away. So, a wider variety of artists will get radio play (no more payola). And since Napster will come back, more people will learn about new music that way too. With everyone getting wider exposure to all types of music, and music costing much less (no record companies), there will be far less incentive not to buy CDs, and artists (except for Brittany Spears types) will make more money.
He didn't say anything about artists starving. He suggested that pay for artists be more equitable - less for the superstars, and more for most artists. RTFP.
This is more standard libertarian rhetoric. Consider: If I "choose" to work a low-income job, and therefore "choose" to live in a high-crime area, men with guns will occasionally forcibly divest me of my property. Or, as happened to a friend of mine, they won't have guns - they'll just have lead pipes, and instead of just taking my property, they'll beat the shit out of me, putting me in the hospital for weeks and *then* take my wallet.
That's what I call freedom.
Sure, I could choose to live on Monaco, were there's virtually no crime as much as I could choose to build a rocket ship and live on Mars - that is, sure in an ideal fantasy world, but not in reality.
Raymond is comparing his ideal world, in which I would have the flerbage not to use Microsoft products, to the real world in which I have the choice of significantly fewer jobs if I make that choice. If I were a secretary, I might have the "choice" of using Microsoft products or finding a new profession, probably at lower wages.
Anyway, even if he weren't an adherent to a utopian philosophy, it's not the case that being disallowed from releasing proprietary software reduces my flerbage.
Here's what Raymond says:
"If I walk up to someone and offer them the same
proprietary license that I did before the law was passed, police may come to my house to drag me off to jail, or kill me if I resist arrest. My flerbage has seriously decreased."
And here's the definition of flerbage:
"I have the condition of flerbage when I can behave in the confidence that nobody will take my life, my physical property, or my time without my consent."
Well, obviously that doesn't include acts which are illegal - you can't expect to kill someone and get away with it. So, if you say "My flerbage is decreased because I can't break the law", well, tough. Or you might say "the law is bad because it decreases my flerbage," well, that's what all laws do - but we pass them to increase the sum flerbage of each person more than it decreases your flerbage. So, you're back in the same situation where flerbage means freedom. Oops.
Here's an interesting commentary on libertarianism:
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/faq.html
And if someone tried to buy content from you, would ever forget to ship the CD? Or would that be theft?
Not that that would ever happen, Bowie... No, I suspect it's just slipped your mind (despite the fact that I dropped by IRC to bug you about it... twice).
Dolby has lots of patents that mention AC-3. Here's one of them:
http://164.195.100.11/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P TO 2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search- bool.html&r= 1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=pall&s1=d olby.ASNM.&s2=ac-3&O S=AN/dolby+AND+ac-3&RS=AN/dolby+AND+ac-3
At least, the USPTO search said it mentioned AC-3...
Anyway, see figure 9 in that (the pseudocode). Not only is it dead obvious, it *doesn't work* in some cases. Consider chunks of len = 2, and the forbidden pattern 01, with replacement pattern 10:
Now, encode this: 01.
You get: 101. Which contains 01.
OK, so you're not allowed to pick 10 as your replacement... so what is allowed? 11? OK, encode this:
1101
You get:
111101
Contains: 01
Sure, that's not what they mean... But my point remains: this patent isn't worth the electrons it's printed on.
"Bullshit.... Slashbots claim... It's my content too! Baa baa baa!"
And can you present a compelling argument why one does not have this right? Other than several ad hominem attacks?
You need to realize that copyright is not created for authors, but for the public. The statement "It's my content too" is quite compelling, legally. More compelling would be "authors have a monopoly that is limited in time and extent". Visual artists have a stronger monopoly (see US Code title 17, section 106a), and might well have legal grounds to attack this - not that, IMO, they would have ethical grounds to.
Please post comments which contain some actual content and are worth reading - otherwise, why do you expect anyone to take your beliefs seriously?
OTOH, almost every Unix box on the net has Perl these days, so, except for some bootstrapping code, it could be network independant. Also, compilers (and cross-compilers) are more prevalent.
"Why don't you try writing a virus or worm that knows enough about each of the various *nix OSes, and the versions of Apache they are running, to infect them all. "
s/Apache/Sendmail and Robert T. Morris did it over 10 years ago.
"30 years ago, linked lists might have been novel, but today, anyone who doesn't understand them and claims to have some programming knowledge is a fool."
1. There's much more to TAOCP than linked lists, and I doubt you would claim to know every technique presented therein - or even half of them.
2. The idea is to get books for a library, where people who are learning programming might check them out, and be exposed to the fundamentals of computer science.
Unmatched right square bracket at bullshit.pl line 2, at end of line
syntax error at bullshit.pl line 2, near "6]"
Unmatched right curly bracket at bullshit.pl line 2, at end of line
syntax error at bullshit.pl line 2, near "$_}"
bullshit.pl had compilation errors.
(Of course, simply *reading* it would tell you that it's wrong - but since you believe Perl to be unreadable, you wouldn't expect others to do that)
Chester K. Illiterate wrote: In fact, it's simpler, more concise, and more direct than the GPL, and arguably doesn't restrict you any more than the GPL does (aside from "commercial use" of the code)
The GPL does not forbid commercial use or distribution of software. This does. Please learn to read.
I, um, did. "Is doomed to fail" is a summary of Schneier's article. Likewise "hurts consumers", although I suggest changing it to "hurts ordinary citizens".
In the spirit of Open Source, here's another version of this letter:
Dear Sir/Madam:
It was unacceptable of you to arrest Dmitry Sklyarov and attack Elcomsoft. Copy prevention software:
1. Is doomed to fail:
http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-0005.html #T rustedClientSoftware
2. Hurts consumers:
http://www.toad.com/gnu/whatswrong.html
I'll be telling everyone I know to avoid your products until you free Skylarov and issue a full apology.
When I tested this, I noticed that the player I used boosted the high end on Ogg and MP3, presumably to compensate for MP3 crushing it. Since Ogg didn't crush the high end, it sounded wrong. So, they need to choose good players.
Slashdot Mirror
So, free music is more important to you than free speech? You'll boycott over Napster, but not over Felten?
Taco is my hero. Not.
Hell, humanity might become the equivalent of the computers' pets, and as far as I'm concerned, that's not a bad thing. All my cat does is eat sleep, and play - how often I wished I had that lifestyle.
We know.
"Lots of companies offer incentives to upgrade; if there isn't a time limitation what's the incentive?"
Oh, you know, a better product. What, upgrades aren't actually better? Then why would you buy them at any price?
Here's Slashdot's last article about a company like this:h tm l
http://slashdot.org/articles/00/06/27/1156210.s
Good thing he doesn't have it patented, tho. As soon as he releases software, the algorithms will be available to everyone.
No it wouldn't. ..., but that's tiny).
Brute force would try shorter passwords first. Assuming passwords match \w+, that's 63^letters^. If you check letters-1 passwords first, you've only wasted 1/63rd more time than if you knew the length (well, 1/63 + 1/(63^2) +
Besides, it's trivial to modify SSH clients to check for password prompts and obscure password timing and length (add in backspaces...).
Because record companies, having no way to gain a hold on their artists, will go away. So, a wider variety of artists will get radio play (no more payola). And since Napster will come back, more people will learn about new music that way too. With everyone getting wider exposure to all types of music, and music costing much less (no record companies), there will be far less incentive not to buy CDs, and artists (except for Brittany Spears types) will make more money.
He didn't say anything about artists starving. He suggested that pay for artists be more equitable - less for the superstars, and more for most artists. RTFP.
This is more standard libertarian rhetoric. Consider: If I "choose" to work a low-income job, and therefore "choose" to live in a high-crime area, men with guns will occasionally forcibly divest me of my property. Or, as happened to a friend of mine, they won't have guns - they'll just have lead pipes, and instead of just taking my property, they'll beat the shit out of me, putting me in the hospital for weeks and *then* take my wallet.
That's what I call freedom.
Sure, I could choose to live on Monaco, were there's virtually no crime as much as I could choose to build a rocket ship and live on Mars - that is, sure in an ideal fantasy world, but not in reality.
Raymond is comparing his ideal world, in which I would have the flerbage not to use Microsoft products, to the real world in which I have the choice of significantly fewer jobs if I make that choice. If I were a secretary, I might have the "choice" of using Microsoft products or finding a new profession, probably at lower wages.
Anyway, even if he weren't an adherent to a utopian philosophy, it's not the case that being disallowed from releasing proprietary software reduces my flerbage.
Here's what Raymond says:
"If I walk up to someone and offer them the same
proprietary license that I did before the law was passed, police may come to my house to drag me off to jail, or kill me if I resist arrest. My flerbage has seriously decreased."
And here's the definition of flerbage:
"I have the condition of flerbage when I can behave in the confidence that nobody will take my life, my physical property, or my time without my consent."
Well, obviously that doesn't include acts which are illegal - you can't expect to kill someone and get away with it. So, if you say "My flerbage is decreased because I can't break the law", well, tough. Or you might say "the law is bad because it decreases my flerbage," well, that's what all laws do - but we pass them to increase the sum flerbage of each person more than it decreases your flerbage. So, you're back in the same situation where flerbage means freedom. Oops.
Here's an interesting commentary on libertarianism:
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/faq.html
And if someone tried to buy content from you, would ever forget to ship the CD? Or would that be theft?
Not that that would ever happen, Bowie... No, I suspect it's just slipped your mind (despite the fact that I dropped by IRC to bug you about it... twice).
"We need more culture jammers, not more homogenized mass media."
Culture Jamming is reaction. We need a new, not quite as fucked up culture - action.
Dolby has lots of patents that mention AC-3. Here's one of them:
P TO 2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search- bool.html&r= 1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=pall&s1=d olby.ASNM.&s2=ac-3&O S=AN/dolby+AND+ac-3&RS=AN/dolby+AND+ac-3
http://164.195.100.11/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=
At least, the USPTO search said it mentioned AC-3...
Anyway, see figure 9 in that (the pseudocode). Not only is it dead obvious, it *doesn't work* in some cases. Consider chunks of len = 2, and the forbidden pattern 01, with replacement pattern 10:
Now, encode this: 01.
You get: 101. Which contains 01.
OK, so you're not allowed to pick 10 as your replacement... so what is allowed? 11? OK, encode this:
1101
You get:
111101
Contains: 01
Sure, that's not what they mean... But my point remains: this patent isn't worth the electrons it's printed on.
"Bullshit. ... Slashbots claim ... It's my content too! Baa baa baa!"
And can you present a compelling argument why one does not have this right? Other than several ad hominem attacks?
You need to realize that copyright is not created for authors, but for the public. The statement "It's my content too" is quite compelling, legally. More compelling would be "authors have a monopoly that is limited in time and extent". Visual artists have a stronger monopoly (see US Code title 17, section 106a), and might well have legal grounds to attack this - not that, IMO, they would have ethical grounds to.
Please post comments which contain some actual content and are worth reading - otherwise, why do you expect anyone to take your beliefs seriously?
OTOH, almost every Unix box on the net has Perl these days, so, except for some bootstrapping code, it could be network independant. Also, compilers (and cross-compilers) are more prevalent.
See Nintendo v. Galoob for details. The Game Genie is hardware that alters Nintendo's copyrighted content. Tough.
"Why don't you try writing a virus or worm that knows enough about each of the various *nix OSes, and the versions of Apache they are running, to infect them all. "
s/Apache/Sendmail and Robert T. Morris did it over 10 years ago.
"30 years ago, linked lists might have been novel, but today, anyone who doesn't understand them and claims to have some programming knowledge is a fool."
1. There's much more to TAOCP than linked lists, and I doubt you would claim to know every technique presented therein - or even half of them.
2. The idea is to get books for a library, where people who are learning programming might check them out, and be exposed to the fundamentals of computer science.
3. What is with your attitude?
Unmatched right square bracket at bullshit.pl line 2, at end of line
syntax error at bullshit.pl line 2, near "6]"
Unmatched right curly bracket at bullshit.pl line 2, at end of line
syntax error at bullshit.pl line 2, near "$_}"
bullshit.pl had compilation errors.
(Of course, simply *reading* it would tell you that it's wrong - but since you believe Perl to be unreadable, you wouldn't expect others to do that)
perl -c
Copyright holders are stealing from the public domain and the future.
Chester K. Illiterate wrote: In fact, it's simpler, more concise, and more direct than the GPL, and arguably doesn't restrict you any more than the GPL does (aside from "commercial use" of the code)
The GPL does not forbid commercial use or distribution of software. This does. Please learn to read.
"Would it be possible to compel the company to show its source to a court in the event of a lawsuit?"
. html has a little info about that.
Of course! That's what the discovery process is all about. http://www.nolo.com/encyclopedia/articles/cm/cm11
I, um, did. "Is doomed to fail" is a summary of Schneier's article. Likewise "hurts consumers", although I suggest changing it to "hurts ordinary citizens".
In the spirit of Open Source, here's another version of this letter:
l #T rustedClientSoftware
Dear Sir/Madam:
It was unacceptable of you to arrest Dmitry Sklyarov and attack Elcomsoft. Copy prevention software:
1. Is doomed to fail:
http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-0005.htm
2. Hurts consumers:
http://www.toad.com/gnu/whatswrong.html
I'll be telling everyone I know to avoid your products until you free Skylarov and issue a full apology.
"And you can't complain that someone is keeping you from doing what you want with the tools you have, if the activity you want to do is illegal."
And if it is legal? Technological measures to prevent copying prevent legal as well as illegal copying.
Read this to learn more:
http://www.toad.com/gnu/whatswrong.html
When I tested this, I noticed that the player I used boosted the high end on Ogg and MP3, presumably to compensate for MP3 crushing it. Since Ogg didn't crush the high end, it sounded wrong. So, they need to choose good players.