I think the first issue is the cost of keeping those machines up to date.
The second is what the machines are supposed to be doing. If it's just surfing the web, emails, and basic word processing then you should be able to do this much cheaper than paying the annual MS tax.
A terminal server like setup would allow you to use cheaper boxes at the front. (Maybe you could put out 10 more boxes with the savings in hardware and software.)
Finally, it'll discourage the script kiddies. When Joe Jr. goes to logon and use his floppy disk with the latest priviledge elevating holes in Windows they'll be stuck at step one.
The best approach would be to figure out how to set up the new boxes and use them whenever you replace/rebuild a system. (You could probably create a pretty nice computer center with a server grade box and 10-20 PII class machines acting as terminals.)
In that particular case you've gone too far with the argument. The screwdriver wouldn't be classified as a circumvention device as opening the TV wouldn't circumvent the copy control.
I suppose you could try to argue that maybe a soldering iron (if you had to solder in or remove chips) MIGHT qualify, but I think it would also get a pass. The real problem is when you issue a single purpose specific tool/software/instruction that is for circumventing the copy control. (Hence, DeCSS is illegal while GCC [which might have been used to compile DeCSS] is fine.)
This of course completely ignores the "sufficient non-infringing uses" test, but that's something that will have to be fought out in the future.
First, since it's a Newton then you'll have to avoid hand writing recognition.
But seriously, you can use bridged wireless and could probably turn windows into antenae/run the antenas in the window sill/frame. So wire up from house to house and get a bunch of cheap US Robotics WAPs and use the Open802 software to turn them into mini-Linux boxes. (http://opensource.instant802.com/) This will allow you to take a $70 WAP and turn it into a bridge. You could also probably reprogram one of the points to run backwards and drive the wired connection to run a hub in a house if you don't want to put wireless cards in all the computers.
The DMCA does not outlaw reverse engineering or circumventing copy protection. What is does outlaw is the *distribution* of these tools or the information about them. If we all figured out how to do DeCSS on our own it wouldn't be a violation. It is the distribution of the code that is the violation.
I do, however, fail to see how DeCSS can be considered a violation considering its significant non-infringing uses.
Well, I'm glad you know the stock rebuttals, here's a few counter-claims:
The telegram industry was a perfectly legitimate industry that employed millions of people. If they were the RIAA, they would lobby to ban the telephone because it is a threat to their bottom line. It makes little sense.
Except you left out a major difference between telegrams and music. The telegram was rendered obsolete by the telephone. Music isn't becoming obsolete; CDs are. That's a huge distinction.
No, the analogy is quite apt. What really happened was that a content/information delivery mechanism was made obsolete. In this case, the RIAA member companies' power comes from controlling the current music distribution scheme. Napster and the Internet destroy that artificial choke point. Thus, the companies need to adjust to this fact or go the way of the telegram companies. (Or horse buggy manufacturers...)
Look at their sales records, in the days of Napster (when music piracy was totally rampant) they enjoyed RECORD SALES. Sales have since dropped.
I always love this one. As if the relationship between piracy and music sales is so direct and immediate that you could turn Napster on and sales would immediately skyrocket.
Actually, it's the RIAA that's been pushing this argument. They've been claiming direct sales losses due to piracy. Thus, "turning Napster off" should have stopped those losses. (The fact that they can't point to any statistically significant losses makes their argument even more specious.)
The problem lies in the fact that I can't put the new Linkin Park CD into my MP3 collection.
Oh look, a red herring. We weren't discussing DRM. We were discussing piracy specifically. Don't try to confuse the two.
While the main issue is an attempt to prevent piracy, the result of the proposed legislation and current "anti-piracy" technologies are to prevent things like this scenario. Most DRM initiatives are directly aimed at restricting current fair-use capabilities. (Look at Valenti's claim that copying DVD's is illegal.)
If the RIAA wants to stay in business, they should move from strongarm anti-piracy attempts to actually improving their product.
This is the most specious argument of all. Firstly, you are basically justifying mob rule. Secondly, people obviously people want the product or they wouldn't be pirating it.
No, he's advocating for consumers. Basically all sales are aimed at appealing to the "mob" (or a specific segment of it). If a company (or association) fails to please their target customers then they can expect to lose them. As to the pirating, there are some people who will always want stuff for free no matter what. Many of the users of Napster used it as a "try before you buy" service and to get tracks from out of print albums. (Yes Eminem was #1 with his new CD for downloads. Strangely, he was also #1 for actual CD sales. So, where's the cause and effect of downloads reducing sales? Ms. Rosen continues to be unable to backup her claims.)
Oh wait, you didn't repeat *every* single commonly-used/. argument. You forgot the bit about the labels ripping off the artists. Strange... very few people forget that one.
Now you're the one straying off subject. This particular debate is about "anti-piracy" measures. We already know that the RIAA's member companies are closer to slave traders when it comes to how they treat their artists (especially thanks to a little "edit" to a bill one night).
BSD and GPL aren't compatible licenses because of the GPL restrictions. Since SELinux is an expansion of current GPL code it has to be GPL licensed as well. If it were a collection of libraries then it might be possible to use BSD for the libraries as long as they access the core Linux in an LGPL compatible manner.
Your "mathematics" are really bankrupt from the beginning.
You assigned the watch a 0.01% probabilty of working. I'd contest that number and probably put it at 0.00001% or lower. Why? The technology required for it to work is just too fragile for the application.
First off, it's simplicity itself to block the signals needed for the watch to function. Second, because of it's high visibility it's also quite easy to merely cut it off the child's wrist (I can see it now, cut it off, toss it in the back of a truck and let the would be rescuers go off on a merry chase while you casually walk off in the other direction.) Finally, the parents who will use this device will use it as a substitute for good parenting. Thus you've INCREASED the risks to the child without a matching decrease from the device.
Finally, as we've explored the true abduction danger is from other family members. So, as I've said we're selling to paranoia here. (Look at the number of stranger kidnappings we hear about in the news and we realize that more good can be done by buying bicycle helmets for all kids then this device will accomplish.)
But what risk are you managing with a device like this?
First off, you've got a watch that SCREAMS out its identity (look at the pictures of it on the site). Second, it requires two different technologies (GPS and Digital Cellular) to work. Finally, it requires that you have it on the kid all the time. Is it water proof? (They talk about being able to remotely unlock the watch so they can participate in a pool party) How shock proof is this thing? How heavy is it?
Risk management is also about avoiding a false sense of security (like people who eschew escorts because they have pepper spray). Personally, I think this device has far too many shortcomings to it. (And yes, I'm a recent father so this will become more and more of a concern for me.)
The issue, to use your car analogy, isn't that airbags or this particular device are pointless, it's that they don't provide the protection that you think they do. (Though arguably air bags are quite effective.)
As far as I know, this system would not be sending in its location all the time. Maybe it would send updates every minute at the fastest. The issue is the effectiveness of the data that it gathers and transmits. Additionally, the issue is about how parents would treat this tool. This is not a substitute for watching your kid and escorting them from place to place.
(As for the 90% I think the number is actually MUCH higher: from http://www.lostchildren.org/STATISTICS.htm we have over 350,000 family abductions in the US yearly. How many stranger abduction cases have we heard about lately? 3? 5?)
We could make sure Crazy Taxi 4 is REALLY accurate.
Also, I was trying to figure out how long a download it would be if you converted the data to a UT map. (Do you think you could rocket launch a player across Central Park?)
First off, despite the recent spait of publicity about child abductions, well over 90% of them are by family members. So, they either probably have the code to turn this thing off or it isn't on the kid when they're taken.
Second, GPS signals and wireless signals are quite easy to block. GPS doesn't work indoors and the most common place to lose a child is a large department store or mall. So, it doesn't do you any good there.
Finally, battery life. How long will this thing run before recharges? If it doesn't last long then you can just wrap some tinfoil around the thing to block the GPS signal and wait for the battery to die.
Though, you have to admire how quicly companies can market to the latest paranoia.
We need more English lessons here and less bad lyrics:
Irony (from our friends over at m-w.com) 3 a (1) : incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2) : an event or result marked by such incongruity
So, rain on your wedding day may be tragic, or at least inconvenient, but it sure as heck ain't ironic. Getting divorced on your wedding day might be.
So, Ms. Morrisette should have been singing "Isn't it inconvenient?" Or maybe the age-old standard "life's a bummer".
I'm all for it. I agree with you it's just a bit ironic sometimes when we try to mobilize the troops around here.
Additionally, I liked the point that you added *and file downloads* to your original boycott call. A boycott will only be successful if we actively cut ourselves off from the music rather than merely using an alternative source.
As others have pointed out. The RIAA's "business plan" is to run interference for the big 5.
We're all too busy fuming over Ms. Rosen's latest pronouncements to bother remembering that it's Sony and Vivendi and the others that are ultimately responsible for this.
So the business plan is: 1) Bad PR 2) Distract public from Sony 3) Sony makes mondo profits. 4) Sony pays RIAA.
Feel free to substitute other RIAA member companies for Sony.
The issue is the "when" of the hacker, not the way
on
Cheap KVM Over IP?
·
· Score: 2
Sometimes a problem should be solved using efficiency and pre-created/existing tools. Sometimes the "let's hack this" mentality is appropriate.
The true master knows when to use the correct approach. Calling either one a cop out or wasted effort isn't the way to go.
In this case, I think you would want to go with a more "off the shelf" solution" and direct your hacking energies towards the machines that are actually being run. Instead of spending a week tweaking a home made KVM over IP solution you could purchase something and use that week to tweak the servers and maybe consolidate a box or two.
Remember, at the end of the day you have to evaluate the priorities and direct your energies. Having a really cool home-brew KVM solution will not improve your overall system. Having a really well tweaked set of servers will.
If the MPAA/RIAA heads surf the 'net (which isn't a forgone conclusion) then they'll have copyrighted material in their web caches.
Everyone should monitor their web server logs for hits from the big five music companies. When you see one, launch a "probe" against that IP address and ensure that they don't have any of your copyrighted material (say that logo on your home page, or maybe use an IE exploit to shove an MP3 onto their box) in their computer. (You'll have to make sure that you place language on your sight asserting your copyright and restricting the permissions to your logo.)
Since Hillary Rosen, et. al. are still using tin cans and strings and wax cylinders as the height of technology it'll be tough to DDOS them. I suppose a pair of scissors might wreak havoc with 'em...
Hmmm, AOL (WinAmp's parent) could file an injunction and maybe even a restraining order. (NT7 shall not venture within 1,000 miles of any corporate AOL site...)
If that failed, I suppose we could get the guy to record "You've got asteroid."
Re:Big boost for space tech if it is on course...
on
A Rock Moves In Space
·
· Score: 1
Slashdot Mirror
I think the first issue is the cost of keeping those machines up to date.
The second is what the machines are supposed to be doing. If it's just surfing the web, emails, and basic word processing then you should be able to do this much cheaper than paying the annual MS tax.
A terminal server like setup would allow you to use cheaper boxes at the front. (Maybe you could put out 10 more boxes with the savings in hardware and software.)
Finally, it'll discourage the script kiddies. When Joe Jr. goes to logon and use his floppy disk with the latest priviledge elevating holes in Windows they'll be stuck at step one.
The best approach would be to figure out how to set up the new boxes and use them whenever you replace/rebuild a system. (You could probably create a pretty nice computer center with a server grade box and 10-20 PII class machines acting as terminals.)
I can see how they could be held responsible for negligence in correcting the matter in a non-expeditious manner....
Seeing as how it took 5 years to get the domain back that would probably qualify under the "non-expeditious manner".
It seems that a lot of the problems/issues related specifically to the Colorado Public Utilities Board and their laws.
What items/issues do you feel are universal to any broadband/ISP startup? [Licensing, incorporation, etc.]
Where would one go for the state/county specific issues for each particular ISP?
In that particular case you've gone too far with the argument. The screwdriver wouldn't be classified as a circumvention device as opening the TV wouldn't circumvent the copy control.
I suppose you could try to argue that maybe a soldering iron (if you had to solder in or remove chips) MIGHT qualify, but I think it would also get a pass. The real problem is when you issue a single purpose specific tool/software/instruction that is for circumventing the copy control. (Hence, DeCSS is illegal while GCC [which might have been used to compile DeCSS] is fine.)
This of course completely ignores the "sufficient non-infringing uses" test, but that's something that will have to be fought out in the future.
First, since it's a Newton then you'll have to avoid hand writing recognition.
But seriously, you can use bridged wireless and could probably turn windows into antenae/run the antenas in the window sill/frame. So wire up from house to house and get a bunch of cheap US Robotics WAPs and use the Open802 software to turn them into mini-Linux boxes. (http://opensource.instant802.com/) This will allow you to take a $70 WAP and turn it into a bridge. You could also probably reprogram one of the points to run backwards and drive the wired connection to run a hub in a house if you don't want to put wireless cards in all the computers.
The DMCA does not outlaw reverse engineering or circumventing copy protection. What is does outlaw is the *distribution* of these tools or the information about them. If we all figured out how to do DeCSS on our own it wouldn't be a violation. It is the distribution of the code that is the violation.
I do, however, fail to see how DeCSS can be considered a violation considering its significant non-infringing uses.
Well, I'm glad you know the stock rebuttals, here's a few counter-claims:
/. argument. You forgot the bit about the labels ripping off the artists. Strange... very few people forget that one.
The telegram industry was a perfectly legitimate industry that employed millions of people. If they were the RIAA, they would lobby to ban the telephone because it is a threat to their bottom line. It makes little sense.
Except you left out a major difference between telegrams and music. The telegram was rendered obsolete by the telephone. Music isn't becoming obsolete; CDs are. That's a huge distinction.
No, the analogy is quite apt. What really happened was that a content/information delivery mechanism was made obsolete. In this case, the RIAA member companies' power comes from controlling the current music distribution scheme. Napster and the Internet destroy that artificial choke point. Thus, the companies need to adjust to this fact or go the way of the telegram companies. (Or horse buggy manufacturers...)
Look at their sales records, in the days of Napster (when music piracy was totally rampant) they enjoyed RECORD SALES. Sales have since dropped.
I always love this one. As if the relationship between piracy and music sales is so direct and immediate that you could turn Napster on and sales would immediately skyrocket.
Actually, it's the RIAA that's been pushing this argument. They've been claiming direct sales losses due to piracy. Thus, "turning Napster off" should have stopped those losses. (The fact that they can't point to any statistically significant losses makes their argument even more specious.)
The problem lies in the fact that I can't put the new Linkin Park CD into my MP3 collection.
Oh look, a red herring. We weren't discussing DRM. We were discussing piracy specifically. Don't try to confuse the two.
While the main issue is an attempt to prevent piracy, the result of the proposed legislation and current "anti-piracy" technologies are to prevent things like this scenario. Most DRM initiatives are directly aimed at restricting current fair-use capabilities. (Look at Valenti's claim that copying DVD's is illegal.)
If the RIAA wants to stay in business, they should move from strongarm anti-piracy attempts to actually improving their product.
This is the most specious argument of all. Firstly, you are basically justifying mob rule. Secondly, people obviously people want the product or they wouldn't be pirating it.
No, he's advocating for consumers. Basically all sales are aimed at appealing to the "mob" (or a specific segment of it). If a company (or association) fails to please their target customers then they can expect to lose them. As to the pirating, there are some people who will always want stuff for free no matter what. Many of the users of Napster used it as a "try before you buy" service and to get tracks from out of print albums. (Yes Eminem was #1 with his new CD for downloads. Strangely, he was also #1 for actual CD sales. So, where's the cause and effect of downloads reducing sales? Ms. Rosen continues to be unable to backup her claims.)
Oh wait, you didn't repeat *every* single commonly-used
Now you're the one straying off subject. This particular debate is about "anti-piracy" measures. We already know that the RIAA's member companies are closer to slave traders when it comes to how they treat their artists (especially thanks to a little "edit" to a bill one night).
BSD and GPL aren't compatible licenses because of the GPL restrictions. Since SELinux is an expansion of current GPL code it has to be GPL licensed as well. If it were a collection of libraries then it might be possible to use BSD for the libraries as long as they access the core Linux in an LGPL compatible manner.
(IANAOLE - I am not an OSS License Expert)
Heh, well I'll take Reynold's Wrap down with me!
Your "mathematics" are really bankrupt from the beginning.
You assigned the watch a 0.01% probabilty of working. I'd contest that number and probably put it at 0.00001% or lower. Why? The technology required for it to work is just too fragile for the application.
First off, it's simplicity itself to block the signals needed for the watch to function. Second, because of it's high visibility it's also quite easy to merely cut it off the child's wrist (I can see it now, cut it off, toss it in the back of a truck and let the would be rescuers go off on a merry chase while you casually walk off in the other direction.) Finally, the parents who will use this device will use it as a substitute for good parenting. Thus you've INCREASED the risks to the child without a matching decrease from the device.
Finally, as we've explored the true abduction danger is from other family members. So, as I've said we're selling to paranoia here. (Look at the number of stranger kidnappings we hear about in the news and we realize that more good can be done by buying bicycle helmets for all kids then this device will accomplish.)
But what risk are you managing with a device like this?
First off, you've got a watch that SCREAMS out its identity (look at the pictures of it on the site). Second, it requires two different technologies (GPS and Digital Cellular) to work. Finally, it requires that you have it on the kid all the time. Is it water proof? (They talk about being able to remotely unlock the watch so they can participate in a pool party) How shock proof is this thing? How heavy is it?
Risk management is also about avoiding a false sense of security (like people who eschew escorts because they have pepper spray). Personally, I think this device has far too many shortcomings to it. (And yes, I'm a recent father so this will become more and more of a concern for me.)
I think you miss the point.
The issue, to use your car analogy, isn't that airbags or this particular device are pointless, it's that they don't provide the protection that you think they do. (Though arguably air bags are quite effective.)
As far as I know, this system would not be sending in its location all the time. Maybe it would send updates every minute at the fastest. The issue is the effectiveness of the data that it gathers and transmits. Additionally, the issue is about how parents would treat this tool. This is not a substitute for watching your kid and escorting them from place to place.
(As for the 90% I think the number is actually MUCH higher: from http://www.lostchildren.org/STATISTICS.htm we have over 350,000 family abductions in the US yearly. How many stranger abduction cases have we heard about lately? 3? 5?)
A scary thought. Though quite entertaining too.
We could make sure Crazy Taxi 4 is REALLY accurate.
Also, I was trying to figure out how long a download it would be if you converted the data to a UT map. (Do you think you could rocket launch a player across Central Park?)
First off, despite the recent spait of publicity about child abductions, well over 90% of them are by family members. So, they either probably have the code to turn this thing off or it isn't on the kid when they're taken.
Second, GPS signals and wireless signals are quite easy to block. GPS doesn't work indoors and the most common place to lose a child is a large department store or mall. So, it doesn't do you any good there.
Finally, battery life. How long will this thing run before recharges? If it doesn't last long then you can just wrap some tinfoil around the thing to block the GPS signal and wait for the battery to die.
Though, you have to admire how quicly companies can market to the latest paranoia.
Hmmm, what does $300 get you in the mail-order bride business?
Oh come on the explanation is incredibly simple.
We just finally found out where Intel unloaded all those old defective Pentium 90 chips.
We need more English lessons here and less bad lyrics:
Irony (from our friends over at m-w.com)
3 a (1) : incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2) : an event or result marked by such incongruity
So, rain on your wedding day may be tragic, or at least inconvenient, but it sure as heck ain't ironic. Getting divorced on your wedding day might be.
So, Ms. Morrisette should have been singing "Isn't it inconvenient?" Or maybe the age-old standard "life's a bummer".
I'm all for it. I agree with you it's just a bit ironic sometimes when we try to mobilize the troops around here.
Additionally, I liked the point that you added *and file downloads* to your original boycott call. A boycott will only be successful if we actively cut ourselves off from the music rather than merely using an alternative source.
Yeah, let's do it.
But we have to make sure that it doesn't coincide with the release of the special edition DVD of FoTR.
errr...ummmm...
Whoops.
As others have pointed out. The RIAA's "business plan" is to run interference for the big 5.
We're all too busy fuming over Ms. Rosen's latest pronouncements to bother remembering that it's Sony and Vivendi and the others that are ultimately responsible for this.
So the business plan is:
1) Bad PR
2) Distract public from Sony
3) Sony makes mondo profits.
4) Sony pays RIAA.
Feel free to substitute other RIAA member companies for Sony.
Sometimes a problem should be solved using efficiency and pre-created/existing tools. Sometimes the "let's hack this" mentality is appropriate.
The true master knows when to use the correct approach. Calling either one a cop out or wasted effort isn't the way to go.
In this case, I think you would want to go with a more "off the shelf" solution" and direct your hacking energies towards the machines that are actually being run. Instead of spending a week tweaking a home made KVM over IP solution you could purchase something and use that week to tweak the servers and maybe consolidate a box or two.
Remember, at the end of the day you have to evaluate the priorities and direct your energies. Having a really cool home-brew KVM solution will not improve your overall system. Having a really well tweaked set of servers will.
If the MPAA/RIAA heads surf the 'net (which isn't a forgone conclusion) then they'll have copyrighted material in their web caches.
Everyone should monitor their web server logs for hits from the big five music companies. When you see one, launch a "probe" against that IP address and ensure that they don't have any of your copyrighted material (say that logo on your home page, or maybe use an IE exploit to shove an MP3 onto their box) in their computer. (You'll have to make sure that you place language on your sight asserting your copyright and restricting the permissions to your logo.)
Since Hillary Rosen, et. al. are still using tin cans and strings and wax cylinders as the height of technology it'll be tough to DDOS them. I suppose a pair of scissors might wreak havoc with 'em...
Hmmm, AOL (WinAmp's parent) could file an injunction and maybe even a restraining order. (NT7 shall not venture within 1,000 miles of any corporate AOL site...)
If that failed, I suppose we could get the guy to record "You've got asteroid."
Well, we're doomed then.
In 19 years Bruce Willis will be hopelessly old.