If the US just went ahead and did it anyway, that's kind of a scary precedent, meaning that now, no matter where you are in the world, the long arm of US law enforcement can come after you for doing something it doesn't happen to like?
Why do folks keep misrepresenting what actually happened here? The bottom line is, he was in this country, giving a talk and selling a product which was thought to violate the DMCA. Foreign nationals are not immune from our laws when they are in our country. Where he came from didn't matter; only that he was thought to be breaking the law, here, on U.S. soil.
Is it a bad law? Yes. Was he (or Elcomsoft, later) violating it? Apparently not. But these are seperate issues. Questioning whether or not we had the right to arrest him merely distracts from the more important issues at stake here.
So let me get this straight...NASA is considering sendng Iron Butterfly to Mars? Quite frankly, I think until we get the issue of the boy bands booked on one way trips resolved, we shouldn't worry about sending these guys.
Although In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida would make for much cooler space music than Thus Spake Zarathustra.
Judging from Dagg's posts, it appears all his posts are strictly to link to that same one sex question, which appears to be somehow revenue producing...probably by doing a referrer link to Amazon. For the love of God, please stop modding these posts up.
(and I do have mod points today, I just feel better actually ranting about this one)
It's an interesting new angle for them anyway, with the point exentuated by George Lucas
The closest I can find is exenterate:
To remove surgically all the organs and other contents of a body cavity, usually to minimize the spread of cancer
Seems like an extreme way of making a point, but you know George Lucas, never one for subtlety.
The other story "Carthaginian Rose" completely ignores the existence of an immortal soul. You can't transfer a soul into a machine (Tracy Kidder's tome notwithstanding). Sorry, patently absurd.
If I had mod points today, I would have marked the post troll. To me the above is akin to saying "flying pigs can't possibly break the sound barrier. That's absurd."
While screening is an ominous first step, prenatal screening and gene therapy are where this gets really frightening. For starters, as with any cutting edge medical technology, this will be expensive. Therefore, those who would "improve" the dna of their offspring will be the elites. As they branch out from diseases to other areas...intelligence, looks, etc., the line between the rich and the poor will only grow wider. And here in the U.S., minorities represent a greater percentage of the poor than their overall numbers, meaning any growing divide between rich and poor will also widen the racial divide. Unless society comes up with some good answers, the spells big time social problems for the future.
Personally, I am against single sign on. I think it is fundamentally dangerous, and ultimately unnecessary. What bothers me though is the degree to which some zealots here are willing to dismiss Microsoft out of hand. As a long time mac user, I know well the feeling of having a superior technology that is dwarfed by the 800 pound gorilla. However, I have never been under the dillusion that MacOS will defeat Microsoft's offerings in the marketplace. And it seems absurd to make such a broad assertion. Better would have been "here is why Plan 9 could (or should) defeat MS..." Quite frankly, if you don't give your competition the respect they deserve and recognize their strengths, you have no hope of defeating them. I'm sure Sun Tzu said something about this. Even MS knows that...look at their efforts to counter open source, etc...they recognize it as a force to be reckoned with.
At this point, I'm not sure where this post is going or what my original point was. But to repsond more directly to some of your questions: I don't have a problem with integration of passport in XP. Its their operating system. For those that need that functionality, having it tightly integrated into the OS can make sense. Having said that, if using XP requires you to use passport, it is one more reason I would personally avoid XP. I don't trust Microsoft, but I use them when it makes sense. I use Office v.X (the office suite unfortunately named after a powerful nerve gas) because it rocks. Say what you will about feature bloat, but it has the features everyone in my office needs. No one uses all of them (or nearly all) but everyone has different needs and I know with Office those needs will be met. And I can disable clippy.
In summary: Single sign-on bad. Microsoft good and bad. Rabid zealotry bad. Any questions?
Here I was worried that a company with billions of dollars would be able to dominate the market with their single sign on technology, but apparently some technology I have never heard of that is named after an Ed Wood movie will defeat it.
This one may not stand the test of peer review. If you read the article, you'll note that the apparatus used was a maglite, a mirror and a stopwatch, with all results certified by Victor Ninov.
It's good to know that we have some well-funded idealists on our side, even if they are 'Anonymous Cowards.';^)
Interesting article submission, yet it violates my patent on "a method for using ASCII test to simulate a pointy nosed person winking and smiling." You will be hearing from my lawyers.
I can't say enough good things about the newer Risk 2210, published by Avalon Hill. It takes all that is good about the original and makes it better. Commanders rolling with 8 sided die, command cards that can have devastating effect, energy points to buy said commanders and cards, bidding for turn order, water and moon colonies and its limited to 5 turns. No more 6 hour marathons. It is one of the best variation on an old game I have seen.
It seems to me they should have the right to the idea, but not the work he did on it after leaving the company.
Which means that since it is a method of reverse engineering, the best they can do is reverse engineer the work that he has done on the project since he left. In this case, that would be reverse engineering a reverse engineering process. So all they need to do is compile.
I'm wondering if the copyright infringement had to do with the content of the mod chip. It would be one thing if the mod chip told the machine "don't look for this particular code on the game discs when loading" and quite another thing if the mod chip actually contained the proper code and told the machine "look here for the necessary code." In that case, that information is no doubt copyrighted, and by putting it on a chip and selling it, you are infringing copyrights.
I thought mod chips worked that way (the latter) but perhaps someone here could clear this up.
that the world's second photo was of a naked woman.
I've lost track of the humber of technologies that were initially driven by porn. BBS's, Video CD's, e-commerce, and of course, the amazing X10 camera.
While I tend to think the judge ruled on the wrong grounds on this one, I personally have no problem with limiting the access of video games to minors. Everyone likes to trot out the argument that it is the parents' responsibility, but that only works to a certain degree. A parent cannot, and should not, be around their child 100% of the time. There should be times when the child can be with their friends without parental supervision. And when that happens, I see no problem if the parent gets a little assistance from retailers who won't sell overly violent video games, or porn, or beer or cigarettes to their children. The movie rating system seems to work well, and there is no reason the video game ratings should not work the same way. And just as with a movie, if the parent wants their child to be exposed to the video games, they can buy it for them. This is not an issue of asking retailers to do the parenting. It may be a little bit of assistance, but I see no reason why this is patently wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
If the US just went ahead and did it anyway, that's kind of a scary precedent, meaning that now, no matter where you are in the world, the long arm of US law enforcement can come after you for doing something it doesn't happen to like?
Why do folks keep misrepresenting what actually happened here? The bottom line is, he was in this country, giving a talk and selling a product which was thought to violate the DMCA. Foreign nationals are not immune from our laws when they are in our country. Where he came from didn't matter; only that he was thought to be breaking the law, here, on U.S. soil.
Is it a bad law? Yes. Was he (or Elcomsoft, later) violating it? Apparently not. But these are seperate issues. Questioning whether or not we had the right to arrest him merely distracts from the more important issues at stake here.
So let me get this straight...NASA is considering sendng Iron Butterfly to Mars? Quite frankly, I think until we get the issue of the boy bands booked on one way trips resolved, we shouldn't worry about sending these guys.
Although In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida would make for much cooler space music than Thus Spake Zarathustra.
Judging from Dagg's posts, it appears all his posts are strictly to link to that same one sex question, which appears to be somehow revenue producing...probably by doing a referrer link to Amazon. For the love of God, please stop modding these posts up.
(and I do have mod points today, I just feel better actually ranting about this one)
It's an interesting new angle for them anyway, with the point exentuated by George Lucas
The closest I can find is exenterate:
To remove surgically all the organs and other contents of a body cavity, usually to minimize the spread of cancer
Seems like an extreme way of making a point, but you know George Lucas, never one for subtlety.
The other story "Carthaginian Rose" completely ignores the existence of an immortal soul. You can't transfer a soul into a machine (Tracy Kidder's tome notwithstanding). Sorry, patently absurd.
If I had mod points today, I would have marked the post troll. To me the above is akin to saying "flying pigs can't possibly break the sound barrier. That's absurd."
build up hydrogen gas and blow the rubber bung out the end
/. has seemed incredibly slow today. Anyone else running into this?
Let the juvenile comments commence. I understand that this is an accurate description, but still...
On another note, access to
Something tells me John Ashcroft is behind the whole plan.
"So we can take 20,000 of the most free thinking individuals in this country and put them all in one place?"
(tents hands and smiles wryly)
"Excellent."
Worse yet, it could be GW's idea of "sanctions". Smart bombs and cruise missiles and ground troops, oh my!
While screening is an ominous first step, prenatal screening and gene therapy are where this gets really frightening. For starters, as with any cutting edge medical technology, this will be expensive. Therefore, those who would "improve" the dna of their offspring will be the elites. As they branch out from diseases to other areas...intelligence, looks, etc., the line between the rich and the poor will only grow wider. And here in the U.S., minorities represent a greater percentage of the poor than their overall numbers, meaning any growing divide between rich and poor will also widen the racial divide. Unless society comes up with some good answers, the spells big time social problems for the future.
I'm not surprised that so many /.ers don't understand carbon dating. I'm guessing most of them have never dated a carbon based life form.
Or as Kelsey Grammer put it on the SNL episode (a Delicious Dish sketch):
"Remember: GORP stands for granola, oatmeal.. shoe leather, urine.. and Carl! "
The network outage was unrelated to WorldCom's bankruptcy, and the cause is unknown, Burns said.
I have this image that in order to save money, the are routing all of the Southeast's traffic through and AOL dialup using Windows internet sharing.
Personally, I am against single sign on. I think it is fundamentally dangerous, and ultimately unnecessary. What bothers me though is the degree to which some zealots here are willing to dismiss Microsoft out of hand. As a long time mac user, I know well the feeling of having a superior technology that is dwarfed by the 800 pound gorilla. However, I have never been under the dillusion that MacOS will defeat Microsoft's offerings in the marketplace. And it seems absurd to make such a broad assertion. Better would have been "here is why Plan 9 could (or should) defeat MS..." Quite frankly, if you don't give your competition the respect they deserve and recognize their strengths, you have no hope of defeating them. I'm sure Sun Tzu said something about this. Even MS knows that...look at their efforts to counter open source, etc...they recognize it as a force to be reckoned with.
At this point, I'm not sure where this post is going or what my original point was. But to repsond more directly to some of your questions: I don't have a problem with integration of passport in XP. Its their operating system. For those that need that functionality, having it tightly integrated into the OS can make sense. Having said that, if using XP requires you to use passport, it is one more reason I would personally avoid XP. I don't trust Microsoft, but I use them when it makes sense. I use Office v.X (the office suite unfortunately named after a powerful nerve gas) because it rocks. Say what you will about feature bloat, but it has the features everyone in my office needs. No one uses all of them (or nearly all) but everyone has different needs and I know with Office those needs will be met. And I can disable clippy.
In summary: Single sign-on bad. Microsoft good and bad. Rabid zealotry bad. Any questions?
Here I was worried that a company with billions of dollars would be able to dominate the market with their single sign on technology, but apparently some technology I have never heard of that is named after an Ed Wood movie will defeat it.
Can we mod the article -1, Presumputous?
This one may not stand the test of peer review. If you read the article, you'll note that the apparatus used was a maglite, a mirror and a stopwatch, with all results certified by Victor Ninov.
It's good to know that we have some well-funded idealists on our side, even if they are 'Anonymous Cowards.' ;^)
." You will be hearing from my lawyers.
Interesting article submission, yet it violates my patent on "a method for using ASCII test to simulate a pointy nosed person winking and smiling
The currency coverter in 10.2 in built into the calculator. An inexplicably slow calculator on my system, but its there nonetheless.
I actually read the summary on the index page and thought to myself "I could have sworn I removed Katz articles from my main page."
Actually though, a Katz article on the topic would have referenced some Columbine inspired flash game.
I can't say enough good things about the newer Risk 2210, published by Avalon Hill. It takes all that is good about the original and makes it better. Commanders rolling with 8 sided die, command cards that can have devastating effect, energy points to buy said commanders and cards, bidding for turn order, water and moon colonies and its limited to 5 turns. No more 6 hour marathons. It is one of the best variation on an old game I have seen.
More info here
It seems to me they should have the right to the idea, but not the work he did on it after leaving the company.
Which means that since it is a method of reverse engineering, the best they can do is reverse engineer the work that he has done on the project since he left. In this case, that would be reverse engineering a reverse engineering process. So all they need to do is compile.
I'm wondering if the copyright infringement had to do with the content of the mod chip. It would be one thing if the mod chip told the machine "don't look for this particular code on the game discs when loading" and quite another thing if the mod chip actually contained the proper code and told the machine "look here for the necessary code." In that case, that information is no doubt copyrighted, and by putting it on a chip and selling it, you are infringing copyrights.
I thought mod chips worked that way (the latter) but perhaps someone here could clear this up.
a yro article.
My first instinct was to agree with the headline, since Jose Padilla is hispanic. It would have at least made for a more interesting discussion.
that the world's second photo was of a naked woman.
I've lost track of the humber of technologies that were initially driven by porn. BBS's, Video CD's, e-commerce, and of course, the amazing X10 camera.
RedHat has restored Jim Henson to life? I KNEW linux was miraculous ! !
Well, Linux was used for animation in Shrek. The logical next step was reanimation.
While I tend to think the judge ruled on the wrong grounds on this one, I personally have no problem with limiting the access of video games to minors. Everyone likes to trot out the argument that it is the parents' responsibility, but that only works to a certain degree. A parent cannot, and should not, be around their child 100% of the time. There should be times when the child can be with their friends without parental supervision. And when that happens, I see no problem if the parent gets a little assistance from retailers who won't sell overly violent video games, or porn, or beer or cigarettes to their children. The movie rating system seems to work well, and there is no reason the video game ratings should not work the same way. And just as with a movie, if the parent wants their child to be exposed to the video games, they can buy it for them. This is not an issue of asking retailers to do the parenting. It may be a little bit of assistance, but I see no reason why this is patently wrong.