I'd say the "anti-hack" policy of MS [et al.] is more to prevent playing copied games then it is to "secure customers". They play on the "secure customers" and "prevent" cheating because it sells better than "stop being stealing!"
If you need closed hardware to get secure and fair systems you're not doing it right. If the modern PC market has shown us anything proper use of cryptography is where its at.
Modding your own box should only allow you at most to cheat yourself, no one else.
How do you think smart cards work? the "anti-hacking" they put in them are to protect the user, not the network.
I don't get what you are trying to say. Yeah sure you own a *copy* of the material. Doesn't mean you have the right to copy it and give it to your friends, nor does it entitle you to the production steps.
That's all I was trying to say. Perhaps a concept beyond/. reason?
I've had [paid for all by my self!] broadband for over a year now. I'd say anyone who thinks "always on" is a useless feature should go shove their head up their ass and move to a non-speaking tribe of Africa.
Having a fairly constant net connection is a very useful thing since it lets you treat the net as a utility instead of a novelty.
"When I buy a book, I get access to what Tom Clancy actually wrote. No human wrote the binary image of kernel32.dll. The Copyright Clause is very specific that the rights cover the "writings and discoveries" of "authors and inventors." Both of these imply that copyright should not apply to the output of a mere machine."
Tom clancy wrote each copy of every book out there?
Wow, he must have sore hands. Just because the product was rendered as a binary executable doesn't make that any different than a book being rendered by a typesetter. Its still a product that deserves copyright protection because it is a work written [at some point] or developed.
"That's why the binary copy shouldn't be copyrighted. The seller is being benefitted by the strongest protection available, but is giving nothing in return."
Really? How about use of a program?
Consider if GCC were not free. Think you could do just as good of a job writing your own compiler? If you went out and bought GCC then you'd be paying for the talent that went out to maek the program.
The producer should have copyrights protection to stop you from in turn giving out copies for free. I mean do you fundamentally not understand the way commerce works?
"Source code is the final product of a programmer's creation. Binary executable code is created by a machine, not by the programmer."
That's irrelevent as well. Pepsi is made by machines too. The formula/recipe is made by humans. Should buying a pepsi bottle entitle you to the recipe as well?
"What copyright protects is the fiunal fruits of human creation"
That's wrong as well. By your logic copying movies should be legal because you're not copying the people just some mechanical product.
You don't by any chance work in a market that tries to make money do you?
"When you buy a Tom Clancy novel, you are buying something that Tom Clancy wrote. When you buy binary software, you are buying something that a compiler wrote. What the article is suggesting as long as the buyer is forced to suffer copyright restrictions on a completely machine-generated work, he should be allowed to see the final output that was created by a human. This happens automatically for books due to their nature, but not for software and so the extra condition is justified."
Again I say that's just childish and incorrect.
You're not paying for the source code. You're paying for permission to use a binary copy of the program and there is a big difference.
Its like paying Tom Clancy to know of one of his stories. You don't get to keep his source for the story [you could take notes I suppose] since that's not what you paid for.
"Closed binaries do not "promote progess" in the sense of the Copyright Clause in the US Constitution."
While I agree OSS promotes academic achievement its hardly practical for making money off of. Also I'd argue there exists competition in closed source circles. Compare Nvidia and ATI. Could you please send me the HDL/VHDL [etc] source for a GeForce processor please? Can't? Didn't think so. Yet there exists competition between Nvidia and ATI.
Similar for compilers, code management, photo tools, etc...
The thought you are entited to the source code because you want it is just plain immature. That's not how the world works.
"Oh, come off it. Ask scientists how far along science would be if some guy who spent 100 hours discovering something didn't make his methods available and reproducable to the public at large."
There is a difference which you guys seem to miss.
When I sell you an application I'm not selling you the source code. I'm selling you a license to use a binary copy of the program for your own use.
When you file for a grant you're an employee [of sorts] and as such required to show the granter how you earned the money.
You're comparison is hardly valid.
By your logic a restaurant is required to take you into the kitchen and show you how the meal is prepared.
Or the movie industry should take you on location to see the movie live.
That's hardly comparable. If I right good code it will be commented, modular, well designed and generally perfectly well suited for being stripped and used in your projects for free..
If I spend 100 hours optimizing some routine I don't want to give the source out for people to snatch. Heck if you reverse engineer it great but thats different.
That's the problem with the dudes argument. "If commercial software was OSS then they would be forced to have higher standards"... but... if they have higher standards they stand more to lose by giving it out.
How about built-in drivers for common hardware? Its bout time that there was some Nvidia support in the kernel [this of course, requires slapping nvidia upside the head and make their code fully GPL]
Happy? That link always worked. I just gave my home page because I want people to check out my other offerings while they're there [e.g. libtomcrypt, my BWT code, my winamp plugins, etc...]
" In the future they expect to have it worked out."
Typical Linux bullshit. "Use our software, openness, free, something about beer. Oh your mouse isn't supported and those nvidia drivers killed your RH 8.0 install? Wait till a patch comes out..."
Like fuckin hell I'd replace my perfectly working BIOS with some lame-ass hack bios that is likely to lock up and prevent me from booting my PC....
BTW companies like ASUS provide **FREE** updates to the BIOS so its hardly like I'm forking out a bag of cash to get it updated.
Actually depending on the ram in your PDA you may be able to use a design like my GBA ebook reader. For instance, in the GBA I'm stuck at 61.5KB blocks of text, but with say 1MB of ram to work with [unlike the 256KB in a GBA] I could up the block size to 250KB and get wickedly better compression...:-)
Why you would want 45 texts to read on a gameboy is beyond me though. I did this project mostly because I wanted to and less so than I'll actually sit down and read all 45 texts...
From what I recall reading the CPU has hardware MMU and exceptions that follow the x86 design. The processor is designed only to execute different native instructions.
So I doubt it could be easily used to emulate a PPC.
Are there not people who are just happy with what they have? I mean I must believe there are computer scientists out there with bigger problems to solve than which OS they want to run today...
Its cool and all that Linux exists but its still far from being the be-all of desktop computing. Until the OSS developers realize that "perdy UIs" are not just wussy-Windows stuff Linux won't be as mainstream as it should.
I mean for instance, to install a patch I shouldn't have any knowledge of the basics more than download this and double click. While RPM's are getting there I've seen quite a few that konk out due to dependency failures.
At least with windows the "Windows Update" thingy doesn't cause such problems.
In otherwords Linux distro's have to be designed for users not developers.
I bet if you were a RedHat customer, hacked the Kernel with your own code they wouldn't spend time supporting you more than they had to [unless they were bored].
Same thing. You hack your xbox and then MS doesn't have to support you at all.
You can write your own progs for the xbox [or hacks to your kernel] but just don't expect the respective company to honour it.
I think this is a tradeoff you have to make when you buy a 500$ PC....
Funny I never get spam [to speak of] on ICQ, MSN or YM. In fact the only spam I've received in the past year was on MSN sent via a "Mary-Sue" asking me to see her webcam. This person wasn't on my list but the block-sender list fixed that [mostly because the spammer is too stupid to change their name!]
As for ICQ I have it setup so you can't send me messages unless you're on my list and I haven't received a spam ever. Maybe you have an outdated client or you don't have the filters on?
Difference there which I see the typical/. AC cannot notice.
If you hack your X-Box you're knowingly [hopefully] trying to defy MSFT. Whether you should be allowed to [I think so] is not the issue here. The issue is whether MSFT should respect you as a user on the live service.
What I was trying to originally establish is if you hack your box then MSFT has every right to ban you from their service because I'm rather certain the TOS has something todo with that.
Why do you AC's think the world revolves around yourself? Sure you should be able to hack it, but no, the company shouldn't help you steal from them [because lets be honest the majority of people are not interested in putting Linux on a gaming station, you could for instance, but Linux on a normal desktop...]
Essentially yes. For example, with a modchip you can play hacked easily. I know if I payed for the service I'd want to play people who were not actively cheating.
Besides, its *their* service. To use it you have to play by their rules. So even if you don't cheat they may not like hacked boxes on their network.
Nobody said you had to buy an X-box however. So if you bought one, hacked your box then got kicked off the service all I have to say is HA HA, HA HA HA, HAHAHAHAHAHA.
Slashdot Mirror
Question: How does slashdot survive a slashdotting?
Tom
I'd say the "anti-hack" policy of MS [et al.] is more to prevent playing copied games then it is to "secure customers". They play on the "secure customers" and "prevent" cheating because it sells better than "stop being stealing!"
Tom
If you need closed hardware to get secure and fair systems you're not doing it right. If the modern PC market has shown us anything proper use of cryptography is where its at.
Modding your own box should only allow you at most to cheat yourself, no one else.
How do you think smart cards work? the "anti-hacking" they put in them are to protect the user, not the network.
Tom
I don't get what you are trying to say. Yeah sure you own a *copy* of the material. Doesn't mean you have the right to copy it and give it to your friends, nor does it entitle you to the production steps.
/. reason?
That's all I was trying to say. Perhaps a concept beyond
Tom
I've had [paid for all by my self!] broadband for over a year now. I'd say anyone who thinks "always on" is a useless feature should go shove their head up their ass and move to a non-speaking tribe of Africa.
Having a fairly constant net connection is a very useful thing since it lets you treat the net as a utility instead of a novelty.
Tom
"When I buy a book, I get access to what Tom Clancy actually wrote. No human wrote the binary image of kernel32.dll. The Copyright Clause is very specific that the rights cover the "writings and discoveries" of "authors and inventors." Both of these imply that copyright should not apply to the output of a mere machine."
Tom clancy wrote each copy of every book out there?
Wow, he must have sore hands. Just because the product was rendered as a binary executable doesn't make that any different than a book being rendered by a typesetter. Its still a product that deserves copyright protection because it is a work written [at some point] or developed.
Tom
"That's why the binary copy shouldn't be copyrighted. The seller is being benefitted by the strongest protection available, but is giving nothing in return."
Really? How about use of a program?
Consider if GCC were not free. Think you could do just as good of a job writing your own compiler? If you went out and bought GCC then you'd be paying for the talent that went out to maek the program.
The producer should have copyrights protection to stop you from in turn giving out copies for free. I mean do you fundamentally not understand the way commerce works?
"Source code is the final product of a programmer's creation. Binary executable code is created by a machine, not by the programmer."
That's irrelevent as well. Pepsi is made by machines too. The formula/recipe is made by humans. Should buying a pepsi bottle entitle you to the recipe as well?
"What copyright protects is the fiunal fruits of human creation"
That's wrong as well. By your logic copying movies should be legal because you're not copying the people just some mechanical product.
You don't by any chance work in a market that tries to make money do you?
Tom
"When you buy a Tom Clancy novel, you are buying something that Tom Clancy wrote. When you buy binary software, you are buying something that a compiler wrote. What the article is suggesting as long as the buyer is forced to suffer copyright restrictions on a completely machine-generated work, he should be allowed to see the final output that was created by a human. This happens automatically for books due to their nature, but not for software and so the extra condition is justified."
Again I say that's just childish and incorrect.
You're not paying for the source code. You're paying for permission to use a binary copy of the program and there is a big difference.
Its like paying Tom Clancy to know of one of his stories. You don't get to keep his source for the story [you could take notes I suppose] since that's not what you paid for.
"Closed binaries do not "promote progess" in the sense of the Copyright Clause in the US Constitution."
While I agree OSS promotes academic achievement its hardly practical for making money off of. Also I'd argue there exists competition in closed source circles. Compare Nvidia and ATI. Could you please send me the HDL/VHDL [etc] source for a GeForce processor please? Can't? Didn't think so. Yet there exists competition between Nvidia and ATI.
Similar for compilers, code management, photo tools, etc...
The thought you are entited to the source code because you want it is just plain immature. That's not how the world works.
"Exactly like good stories. But you don't see anyone stripping a chapter or a few paragraphs from Tom Clancy and using it in their own books, do you?"
That's hardly comparable. If I sell you a license to a binary package why exactly do I have to give you the source code?
That's like buying a Tom Clancy story requires Tom Clancy giving you his rough notes and sources as well.
There is a reason why they call them "products". You don't get the parts just the result.
Just like you don't get the preparation steps and ingredients for Pepsi just because you bought a Pepsi.
Tom
"Oh, come off it. Ask scientists how far along science would be if some guy who spent 100 hours discovering something didn't make his methods available and reproducable to the public at large."
There is a difference which you guys seem to miss.
When I sell you an application I'm not selling you the source code. I'm selling you a license to use a binary copy of the program for your own use.
When you file for a grant you're an employee [of sorts] and as such required to show the granter how you earned the money.
You're comparison is hardly valid.
By your logic a restaurant is required to take you into the kitchen and show you how the meal is prepared.
Or the movie industry should take you on location to see the movie live.
etc...etc...
Tom
That's hardly comparable. If I right good code it will be commented, modular, well designed and generally perfectly well suited for being stripped and used in your projects for free..
... but ... if they have higher standards they stand more to lose by giving it out.
If I spend 100 hours optimizing some routine I don't want to give the source out for people to snatch. Heck if you reverse engineer it great but thats different.
That's the problem with the dudes argument. "If commercial software was OSS then they would be forced to have higher standards"
Tom
Make less suck.
How about built-in drivers for common hardware? Its bout time that there was some Nvidia support in the kernel [this of course, requires slapping nvidia upside the head and make their code fully GPL]
Tom
arrg...
http://tom.iahu.ca/ebook.html
Happy? That link always worked. I just gave my home page because I want people to check out my other offerings while they're there [e.g. libtomcrypt, my BWT code, my winamp plugins, etc...]
!!!TOM WANTS A JOB PLEASE!!!
http://tom.iahu.ca/cv.html
[another perfectly fine link]
"One of the 10 fastest supercomputers in the world uses linuxBios"
So what. I bet one of the 10 fastest supercomputers is not the average joe-blow commodity piece of hardware?
Tom
" In the future they expect to have it worked out."
Typical Linux bullshit. "Use our software, openness, free, something about beer. Oh your mouse isn't supported and those nvidia drivers killed your RH 8.0 install? Wait till a patch comes out..."
Like fuckin hell I'd replace my perfectly working BIOS with some lame-ass hack bios that is likely to lock up and prevent me from booting my PC....
BTW companies like ASUS provide **FREE** updates to the BIOS so its hardly like I'm forking out a bag of cash to get it updated.
Tom
Actually depending on the ram in your PDA you may be able to use a design like my GBA ebook reader. For instance, in the GBA I'm stuck at 61.5KB blocks of text, but with say 1MB of ram to work with [unlike the 256KB in a GBA] I could up the block size to 250KB and get wickedly better compression... :-)
Why you would want 45 texts to read on a gameboy is beyond me though. I did this project mostly because I wanted to and less so than I'll actually sit down and read all 45 texts...
Tom
I turned my GBA into an ebook reader... :-) Managed to pack 45 texts from PG on a 8MB cart
http://tom.iahu.ca [see left frame for link]
Tom
From what I recall reading the CPU has hardware MMU and exceptions that follow the x86 design. The processor is designed only to execute different native instructions.
So I doubt it could be easily used to emulate a PPC.
Tom
Are there not people who are just happy with what they have? I mean I must believe there are computer scientists out there with bigger problems to solve than which OS they want to run today...
Its cool and all that Linux exists but its still far from being the be-all of desktop computing. Until the OSS developers realize that "perdy UIs" are not just wussy-Windows stuff Linux won't be as mainstream as it should.
I mean for instance, to install a patch I shouldn't have any knowledge of the basics more than download this and double click. While RPM's are getting there I've seen quite a few that konk out due to dependency failures.
At least with windows the "Windows Update" thingy doesn't cause such problems.
In otherwords Linux distro's have to be designed for users not developers.
(/rant)
Tom
I bet if you were a RedHat customer, hacked the Kernel with your own code they wouldn't spend time supporting you more than they had to [unless they were bored].
Same thing. You hack your xbox and then MS doesn't have to support you at all.
You can write your own progs for the xbox [or hacks to your kernel] but just don't expect the respective company to honour it.
I think this is a tradeoff you have to make when you buy a 500$ PC....
tom
Whoa slow down. Common sense? Where did you find that?
/. crowd todo just that.
Hehehehe
I bet it didn't occur to any of the
Tom
your sig... um? puts the VGA card into 320x240x256 mode? Besides
mov al,13h
int 10h
is shorter by one byte (and faster in 32-bit segments)...So if you want to show off how l33t y'are then optimize your code!
Funny I never get spam [to speak of] on ICQ, MSN or YM. In fact the only spam I've received in the past year was on MSN sent via a "Mary-Sue" asking me to see her webcam. This person wasn't on my list but the block-sender list fixed that [mostly because the spammer is too stupid to change their name!]
As for ICQ I have it setup so you can't send me messages unless you're on my list and I haven't received a spam ever. Maybe you have an outdated client or you don't have the filters on?
Tom
Difference there which I see the typical /. AC cannot notice.
If you hack your X-Box you're knowingly [hopefully] trying to defy MSFT. Whether you should be allowed to [I think so] is not the issue here. The issue is whether MSFT should respect you as a user on the live service.
What I was trying to originally establish is if you hack your box then MSFT has every right to ban you from their service because I'm rather certain the TOS has something todo with that.
Why do you AC's think the world revolves around yourself? Sure you should be able to hack it, but no, the company shouldn't help you steal from them [because lets be honest the majority of people are not interested in putting Linux on a gaming station, you could for instance, but Linux on a normal desktop...]
Tom
Essentially yes. For example, with a modchip you can play hacked easily. I know if I payed for the service I'd want to play people who were not actively cheating.
Besides, its *their* service. To use it you have to play by their rules. So even if you don't cheat they may not like hacked boxes on their network.
Nobody said you had to buy an X-box however. So if you bought one, hacked your box then got kicked off the service all I have to say is HA HA, HA HA HA, HAHAHAHAHAHA.
Tom