...Studies found that many people undergoing chemotherapy eventually die of cancer. The number was so high, in fact, that the only conclusion we can draw is that chemotheraphy causes cancer.
And tonight at 10: "Tylenol: headache in a bottle?"
Of course that's not legally binding. The law is not stupid.
I don't see how this is any different then when you "purchase" something on-line. I mean, you send a request for some item, they send the item, and you send the payment. Lets say you make an mp3, charge $6500 for it, and have people send requests for it to I_WANT_TO_BUY_YOUR_MP3_FOR_6500_DOLLARS@domain.org
Does suing spammers work? For example, if you made a web-page that CLEARLY reads: If you agree to pay me $52,000, please send email to foo@bar.com. Consent of this contract will be shown by sending an email to that address, regardless of content.
Post this email NOWHERE else. Wait for a spider to come around and harvest... Is such a contract legally binding? I would think it would be, considering you can make online-payments and such, and those contracts are binding (i.e. if you promise to pay Amazon for your book, you have to do it, right?)
Don't throw this around lightly. If you ar war with your neighbor, and he suddenly catches the black plauge and it kills off 2/3 of his population, that DOESN'T mean the black plauge is your friend... Becuase as soon as you go invade, guess what happens to 2/3 of YOUR population?
What I really take issue with is when someone implies or says that everything should be protected
No, EVERYTHING should be protected. Why? Becuase we want a smoothly fuctioning society? Because we think freedom is cool or we want to protect expression?
NO
Because they are unalienable rights given to us not by some societal contract, but by the fact that we exist at all.
Like I said, you are being wrongheaded. You're implicitly assuming that all software has the same number of security vulnerabilities which is false. All your arguments fall apart when you acknowledge that fundamental truth.
Yes, I mentioned that in the original post. However, if you do not assume that the number of bugs are the same, the only alternative to to make no assumptions whatsoever, which makes the entire discussion moot. If you are not willing to say system X and system Y have the same number of bugs, then you can say nothing at all, because system X may have 50 bugs or 50 million, and the same is true for system Y.
If some writer is going to compare, say Linux to Windows and base that comparison purely on bug counts, then it is his duty to assume that the total number of bugs are equal. To not do so makes his argument speculation and hearsay at best. Otherwise who is to say that the 100 bugs found in Linux are out of a total of 101 and the two bugs found in Windows are out of two hundred trillion? Or vice versa? The argument is completely invalid.
So using your metric the system where more bugs were discovered is more secure? That is the most ridiculous metric I have ever heard.
As opposed to using the metric where more bugs left undiscovered is secure? No, I'm saying if arbitrary metrics are going to be used, you MUST use the one that fixes the bugs.
Every tim eI read one of these, I am always astounded how they can't use simple logic in thier arguments. They argue that X operating system had found more bugs than Y operating system. The assumption, the illogical assumption, they make is that X operating system must have more bugs in it than Y.
Since, logically, there is no way to determine which one has more total bugs (found plus unfound), the only recourse is to assume that both systems have roughly equivilent numbers of bugs.
From that foundation, whichever system can demonstrate more FIXED bugs is going to be the one that is more stable. All of the bugs listed by the article are not outstanding bugs, they are fixed.
Well, the super easy way would be to get *one machine* connected to NIST, and attach a wireless card to it. Have it ping out the time every few milliseconds.
The other machines could have wireless cards too, but alter the driver such that it can't do anything but listen for this one signal, and can't actually send any data or recieve anything but the ping.
This way you get the security of non-connected machines, but the accuracy of a clock synched over the internet, and it'll set you back a couple hundred dollars at the most.
If my wife sees this, it'll make my Burger King/Onion Ring proposal look horrible! And just when I finished convincing her that it was what "all the guys" were doing... Shoot!
However, if that person who downloads music for free would have bought the CD had it not been available for download, then yes, the artist has lost something.
This is child logic, and it's sadly becoming more popular these days. "Could have" is not valid, especially in the face of new technology. Elton John would have died at age 15 due to pnumonia if it weren't for antibiotics, so does that mean he should be executed? Madonna would have been a penniless Burger King manager if it weren't for the recording companies, so should we take away her money? Acme Buggy Whips would have gotten a lot of business if it weren't for the invention of the automobile, so by your logic, the profits from GM and Toyota should all be funneled to them.
Theft is not copying music that you already own. If you ripped it from a CD, chances are good that the artist was compensated. You may not like the terms that the artist gets, but then again, you're not the artist, and you didn't sign the contract. The "moral" highground of not paying for CD's because you don't like the way companies rip off artists is not moral at all; in fact, you're contributing to the devaluation of the artists' career by refusing to pay for the music at all.
Wrong and wrong. Chances are the artist ISN'T getting paid. Chances are he's being ripped a new one, and he probably doesn't even understand what is happening to him. In the long run, by HURTING the record companies, you are doing the artists all ove rthe world a huge favor, becuase you'll be giving them less leverage (i.e. money) for passing laws that work in thier favor and making them less attractive to new artists who may decide to distribute thier work without the record companies and make some real money.
Reproducing music, or a book, is a little more difficult. I can't possibly remember all of the ideas represented in a book, so thus, I need a copy of the book as a reference when I forget. Same thing with music - I may learn a song, but I will never be able to sing as well as the original artist. This is what we pay for, folks. It is the effort that another went through to produce the music, the movie, the source code, or the book. It is not the idea.
Again you are wrong. We don't pay for the music, we pay for the distribution. If we actually paid for the music itself, we would be paying directly to the artists.
Granted, in electronic form, the work can be reproduced for almost zero cost. However, this fact doesn't put food on the table for the artist or author. If you believe that you should be able to enjoy someone else's work without justly compensating them for it, then you are a thief.
If I take a picture of a beautiful woman on the street, your logic says that I am a thief. She worked hard to look that good, and all that hard work is being "stolen" by me for free. Just because an artist feels the need to make money from his work doesn't mean that he should automatically get it. If an artist wants to sell his work, he needs to do just that, sell it! OTown has yet to send a sales representative to my office...
The sad part is that my kids are growing up in a time where the message is that it's ok to steal what you don't want to pay for, if you feel the price is too high.
No, the sad part is that your kids are growing up in a time where the message is that imaginary and intangible things are as important, or even considerably more important than real things.
TV is pumped through my home (and my body) without my consent on a daily basis. The courts have ruled time and time again that a person's emails/ideas/etc can be "owned" by thier employer/ISP if they are using equipment or bandwidth that the employer/ISP "owns". Well, seeing as I own my own home and my body, I can impose any kind of regulation or fee onto anyone attempting to use it as a medium.
My terms and conditons are very simple: If you or your company wish to use my body as a medium to carry your radio waves, all you have to do is transfer *all* rights to the copyrighted works being transmitted on those waves to me. Radiating those waves into me will considered consent to this contract.
So there you have it, if you are watching non-cable TV in the San Francisco area: I, THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OF ALL SAN FRANCISCO TV, HEREBY GRANT PERMISSION TO REDISTRIBUTE THOSE WORKS FREELY.
They are looking at this from the wrong perspective. Instead of saying "Linux had more bugs than Windows in 2001" it should say "Linux *fixed* more bugs than Windows in 2001". Simply becuase those Windows bugs haven't been found yet does *NOT* mean tha they are not there waiting to be exploited (or are already being exploited).
Slashdot Mirror
...Studies found that many people undergoing chemotherapy eventually die of cancer. The number was so high, in fact, that the only conclusion we can draw is that chemotheraphy causes cancer.
And tonight at 10: "Tylenol: headache in a bottle?"
this does not mean that flying to Paris every day will make you any richer.
DAMN IT!
DAMN IT! DAMN IT! DAMN IT! And I thought I was just about to strike it big....
Oh well, I guess that means I should call off my IPO.
Let's say my phone number is 1-900-PAY-LOTS
Oh, I should add, for you non-Americans, 900 numbers are charge-per-minutes things.
Let's say my phone number is 1-YOUPAY5. Does that mean you have to pay five bucks when you dial a wrong number?
Let's say my phone number is 1-900-PAY-LOTS
Does that mean you have to pay me $3.95 when you dial a wrong number?
Of course that's not legally binding. The law is not stupid.
g
I don't see how this is any different then when you "purchase" something on-line. I mean, you send a request for some item, they send the item, and you send the payment. Lets say you make an mp3, charge $6500 for it, and have people send requests for it to I_WANT_TO_BUY_YOUR_MP3_FOR_6500_DOLLARS@domain.or
Finally! Nay-sayers be damned, sign me up for this! This is one of those things that makes me proud to be human!
(I am not being sarcastic, I really think this is exactly the kind of thing that science should be doing.)
Does suing spammers work? For example, if you made a web-page that CLEARLY reads: If you agree to pay me $52,000, please send email to foo@bar.com. Consent of this contract will be shown by sending an email to that address, regardless of content.
Post this email NOWHERE else. Wait for a spider to come around and harvest... Is such a contract legally binding? I would think it would be, considering you can make online-payments and such, and those contracts are binding (i.e. if you promise to pay Amazon for your book, you have to do it, right?)
Amazing, simply amazing!
I wonder what took them so long?
Now I understand why all those futuristic movies in the old days had people wearing silver jumpsuits... to protect against the lasers!
Seriously, though, would a mirror-chrome covering be enough to deflect the beams off the tanks and planes? It would make for a cool looking army!
The enemy of my enemy is my friend
Don't throw this around lightly. If you ar war with your neighbor, and he suddenly catches the black plauge and it kills off 2/3 of his population, that DOESN'T mean the black plauge is your friend... Becuase as soon as you go invade, guess what happens to 2/3 of YOUR population?
What I really take issue with is when someone implies or says that everything should be protected
No, EVERYTHING should be protected. Why? Becuase we want a smoothly fuctioning society? Because we think freedom is cool or we want to protect expression?
NO
Because they are unalienable rights given to us not by some societal contract, but by the fact that we exist at all.
Irony? Irony is advocating anal rape as a fit punishment for virtual vandalism.
Like I said, you are being wrongheaded. You're implicitly assuming that all software has the same number of security vulnerabilities which is false. All your arguments fall apart when you acknowledge that fundamental truth.
Yes, I mentioned that in the original post. However, if you do not assume that the number of bugs are the same, the only alternative to to make no assumptions whatsoever, which makes the entire discussion moot. If you are not willing to say system X and system Y have the same number of bugs, then you can say nothing at all, because system X may have 50 bugs or 50 million, and the same is true for system Y.
If some writer is going to compare, say Linux to Windows and base that comparison purely on bug counts, then it is his duty to assume that the total number of bugs are equal. To not do so makes his argument speculation and hearsay at best. Otherwise who is to say that the 100 bugs found in Linux are out of a total of 101 and the two bugs found in Windows are out of two hundred trillion? Or vice versa? The argument is completely invalid.
So using your metric the system where more bugs were discovered is more secure? That is the most ridiculous metric I have ever heard.
As opposed to using the metric where more bugs left undiscovered is secure? No, I'm saying if arbitrary metrics are going to be used, you MUST use the one that fixes the bugs.
Every tim eI read one of these, I am always astounded how they can't use simple logic in thier arguments. They argue that X operating system had found more bugs than Y operating system. The assumption, the illogical assumption, they make is that X operating system must have more bugs in it than Y.
Since, logically, there is no way to determine which one has more total bugs (found plus unfound), the only recourse is to assume that both systems have roughly equivilent numbers of bugs.
From that foundation, whichever system can demonstrate more FIXED bugs is going to be the one that is more stable. All of the bugs listed by the article are not outstanding bugs, they are fixed.
Uh-huh. No. -- autocracy
you are a complete idiot. -- AC
Moron -- AC
Excellent rebuttals, folks. Whoever said the art of conversation was dead?
Well, the super easy way would be to get *one machine* connected to NIST, and attach a wireless card to it. Have it ping out the time every few milliseconds.
The other machines could have wireless cards too, but alter the driver such that it can't do anything but listen for this one signal, and can't actually send any data or recieve anything but the ping.
This way you get the security of non-connected machines, but the accuracy of a clock synched over the internet, and it'll set you back a couple hundred dollars at the most.
George Lucas presents Attack of the Clones, direct to video?
If my wife sees this, it'll make my Burger King/Onion Ring proposal look horrible! And just when I finished convincing her that it was what "all the guys" were doing... Shoot!
However, if that person who downloads music for free would have bought the CD had it not been available for download, then yes, the artist has lost something.
This is child logic, and it's sadly becoming more popular these days. "Could have" is not valid, especially in the face of new technology. Elton John would have died at age 15 due to pnumonia if it weren't for antibiotics, so does that mean he should be executed? Madonna would have been a penniless Burger King manager if it weren't for the recording companies, so should we take away her money? Acme Buggy Whips would have gotten a lot of business if it weren't for the invention of the automobile, so by your logic, the profits from GM and Toyota should all be funneled to them.
Theft is not copying music that you already own. If you ripped it from a CD, chances are good that the artist was compensated. You may not like the terms that the artist gets, but then again, you're not the artist, and you didn't sign the contract. The "moral" highground of not paying for CD's because you don't like the way companies rip off artists is not moral at all; in fact, you're contributing to the devaluation of the artists' career by refusing to pay for the music at all.
Wrong and wrong. Chances are the artist ISN'T getting paid. Chances are he's being ripped a new one, and he probably doesn't even understand what is happening to him. In the long run, by HURTING the record companies, you are doing the artists all ove rthe world a huge favor, becuase you'll be giving them less leverage (i.e. money) for passing laws that work in thier favor and making them less attractive to new artists who may decide to distribute thier work without the record companies and make some real money.
Reproducing music, or a book, is a little more difficult. I can't possibly remember all of the ideas represented in a book, so thus, I need a copy of the book as a reference when I forget. Same thing with music - I may learn a song, but I will never be able to sing as well as the original artist. This is what we pay for, folks. It is the effort that another went through to produce the music, the movie, the source code, or the book. It is not the idea.
Again you are wrong. We don't pay for the music, we pay for the distribution. If we actually paid for the music itself, we would be paying directly to the artists.
Granted, in electronic form, the work can be reproduced for almost zero cost. However, this fact doesn't put food on the table for the artist or author. If you believe that you should be able to enjoy someone else's work without justly compensating them for it, then you are a thief.
If I take a picture of a beautiful woman on the street, your logic says that I am a thief. She worked hard to look that good, and all that hard work is being "stolen" by me for free. Just because an artist feels the need to make money from his work doesn't mean that he should automatically get it. If an artist wants to sell his work, he needs to do just that, sell it! OTown has yet to send a sales representative to my office...
The sad part is that my kids are growing up in a time where the message is that it's ok to steal what you don't want to pay for, if you feel the price is too high.
No, the sad part is that your kids are growing up in a time where the message is that imaginary and intangible things are as important, or even considerably more important than real things.
If you weren't going to buy a copy, why would you *want* a copy?
Are you planning on buying a first class ultra deluxe vacation package to Aruba for yourself and all your friends this year?
No?
Oh, then I guess you wouldn't want this free one then, oh well, I guess I'll just throw it out...
So you get a free turkey, a 200 gift certificate AND all the added protien of all those yummy yummy 'features'? You are living large my friend!
TV is pumped through my home (and my body) without my consent on a daily basis. The courts have ruled time and time again that a person's emails/ideas/etc can be "owned" by thier employer/ISP if they are using equipment or bandwidth that the employer/ISP "owns". Well, seeing as I own my own home and my body, I can impose any kind of regulation or fee onto anyone attempting to use it as a medium.
My terms and conditons are very simple: If you or your company wish to use my body as a medium to carry your radio waves, all you have to do is transfer *all* rights to the copyrighted works being transmitted on those waves to me. Radiating those waves into me will considered consent to this contract.
So there you have it, if you are watching non-cable TV in the San Francisco area: I, THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OF ALL SAN FRANCISCO TV, HEREBY GRANT PERMISSION TO REDISTRIBUTE THOSE WORKS FREELY.
They are looking at this from the wrong perspective. Instead of saying "Linux had more bugs than Windows in 2001" it should say "Linux *fixed* more bugs than Windows in 2001". Simply becuase those Windows bugs haven't been found yet does *NOT* mean tha they are not there waiting to be exploited (or are already being exploited).