(At first, I thought you were saying that you ignored this for a living. Bad joke, and not the point of this post.)
You're making one mistake here, the same one that most pundits are making: you're confusing vandalism with terrorism. The difference is in motive. Y'see, most of the attacks are for bragging rights, not to terrify people. Or are you suggesting that the terrorism here is an attempt to scare people away from the Internet? In that case, the media reports themselves are the attack.
"Terrorism" is getting overused a lot nowadays. A lot of what was called extortion is now called terrorism, and spreading FUD is also now slapped with the terrorism label. Just like "genocide" got devalued to mean any percieved oppression, not just the murder of an entire ethnic group.
So yes, there are attacks on electronic resources, but the possibilities of mass destruction/murder are not high enough to warrant the T-word.
Instead of becoming a full-widget PC architecture, Apple may be playing with strengthening the open source Unix derivatives like *BSD and Linux with partial ports and APIs. Why would they do this?
It's all about getting more developers into the boat. If they write their apps on Mac OS X, then Apple could be promising them a painless port to BSD and Linux. That way, they can also suggest that Windows is less important (more apps for Linux helps weaken Microsoft's biggest lever).
I think Apple would *love* to see Linux/BSD win on the x86 front. Then they can compete on the merits of their widgets, and worry less about fighting Windows software lock-in (and let's be honest: that's what scares a lot of people away from Apple).
Small bit of history here: at one time, a Swedish company ran a contest they named Crack a Mac, and offered about US$10K to the first person to be able to break into the system. They ran this twice, with one prize award (there was a second exploit, but the contest runners denied that the exploit happened. Nevertheless, it is accepted by most that it happened).
So MacOS/WebStar-based web servers have been hacked, but there is only one famous case. And never forget that any system is vulnerable to "social engineering" and shoddy passwords.
The unique thing about Ambrosia is that they've managed to survive for so long despite being a Mac-only shareware company. The quality of their games is better the a lot of standard offerings out there, and the openness of their architeture encourages fan-created mods and add-on scenarios. I just wish there were more companies like them out there.
Your questions are valid, but I don't think Apple is doing the same thing that Microsoft did.
a) most of these programs are stand-alone apps that can be removed without fuss. If you own Photoshop, you can delete iPhoto without breaking anything.
b) integration between the iApps is no more than what Apple allows other programs to do. In fact, I think Apple uses these programs as technology showcases/examples to inspire developers.
Apple's philosophy behind including programs is markedly different than Microsoft's. MS adds programs to the OS in an effort to squeeze out competition, but Apple wants to make its hardware more attractive-sell more units. That's why they include these iApps without integrating them into the OS. You really can take them or leave them.
IMO, a lot of these studies are started with the premise already fixed, and then looking for data to back up the prejudice. In this case, the researcher thinks MP3's must have a negative impact, and looks for evidence to support his theory.
It could (and will) get worse. Just like the tobacco industry, the IP empires are fighting to maintain a position of power, and will use any tool possible. Even more studies will be appearing, showing just how much was lost in revenues that should have gone to the "rightful" owners.
To be quite honest, these numbers are all "coulda, woulda" fantasy. Lots of people copy software, photocopy books and articles and trade software that they had no real intention of buying. And there are real-life for-profit "pirates", though I prefer to call them "counterfeiters", but I've never met them nor seen their goods.
One other thing that *really* irritates and scares the IP empires is the way intellectual property leaks out *before* it is supposed to be released. That's what kicked off the Metallica v. Napster thingie, and why Apple attacks rumor sites that post "sneak previews" of their new machines.
The IP empires hate it when IP escapes before it can be buried. Studios have been known to sit on albums after recording, just to punish the artist. P2P networks offer a way to "smuggle" such works out into the open where they can be freely traded. It robs them of one of their favorite weapons.
And that's what it's all about, and why studies like this are the new battleground. It's less about the money, but about controlling who gets to see/hear what, and for what price.
(sigh...)
I don't know why I had to rant for so long like this. I guess it's because the next have/have-not battle is going to be over IP. Stallman is this generation's Karl Marx, and Disney is the "evil capitalist" bent on maintaining power. It will be interesting to follow...
OK, so you admit that your evidence that Mac OS X is slow comes from reviews and statements, not first-hand experience.
My first-hand experience with Mac OS X was that there were two areas where the OS was slow, and that was Quartz and Classic mode. Mac OS X.2 goes a long way in speeding up Quartz, and the Classic issue will resolve itself as more and more programs/devices are designed for the newer OS. As most reviews concentrated on those two areas that I mentioned, I think your basis is not solid.
What I have noticed, though, is that various elements of the OS actually make work on the computer faster, either through intuitive placement of the controls or through the fact that it works the way I want to work (instead of the other way around).
The Darwin underpinnings have ben updated as well, and the developer tools encourage better, streamlined programming (I'm always amazed at how cruft swallows processing speed!).
Oh, and as for Apple and the technical reasons: you can find them at the Apple Developer Connection website, as well as at Apple's World Wide Developer's Conference. Ever since Apple caused mass drowsiness with its explanation of the "Megahrtz Myth", they've been careful to keep the boring techie stuff on the sidelines.
I appreciate the fact that you have way more experience with the guts of an OS than I do, but I would appreciate it if you would test the OS first-hand before telling me how slow it is.
Re:this is very limited in usability
on
CD Copy Stopper
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
1. This is nothing more than a CD that carries its own dongle. This might be attractive to companies like Quark and Microsoft, but isn't applicable to music CDs.
2. The company hasn't said how much this costs. If the price is much higher than what it costs to mass-produce normal CDs/DVDs, then only a few software publishers will bite. Also, not every CD production facility will be willing to invest in new machines.
3. PR releases tend to hype (and even lie) about how many companies are "interested" in an attempt to lure the others in. We need to shine more light on this subject fast.
I understand your (offtopic) rant, but the phrase "Politically Correct" normally is a derogatory term for going too far in order not to offend anybody. Disney is most definitely guilty of this.
When companies get as big as Disney has, artistic values are sacrificed for profits. If they feel being less offensive (and thus bland) will mean more money, then they're all for it. This is as old as Walt.
Some companies have learned how appearing "politically incorrect" (what used to be called contraversial) can win viewers, but Disney is afraid of offending any potential customers. In the case of "Sen", this may actually mean that Disney might be too afraid of alienating anime fans to make too many changes. Whether that is good or bad, I don't know. I'm just not an anime expert.
Oh, and as for slaughtering animals: I'm afraid you're a little too late to save the wooly mammoth. We homo sapiens already ate them all. (In other words, your "slaughtering animals" comment is a perfect example of what pundits like to label as being politically correct. It's a derogatory term, remember?)
Actually, I think Apple would be wise to help Linux and BSD receive desktop environments, as that would help balkanise the PC hardware market again. When the computing world is less dominated by Microsoft, then Apple can shine again as "best of breed" amongst all of the other desktop units instread of looking like a wierd alternative.
I think this would also be better for computer customers, as then the accent would go to more open, transportable file formats. What difference does it make if you use MS Word or OpenOffice, as long as both programs use an open file format?
(Pssst... I think this is slowly happening anyways. It's just happening at a glacial pace.)
I don't think they'll do OS X for Linux, mainly because they have a lot of stuff in it that belongs to others (Adobe etc.) and can't be ported without straining relationships. But they can insure that Unix compatibility remains high, as well as possible helping the KGE and GNOME teams improve their offerings. Maybe eventually offering AppleWorks for KDE/GNOME, figure out how to release QuickTime for Linux without breaking any licenses, or iPod support, or their internet services for Linux...there's lot of opportunities out there.
"Divide and conquer" ought to be Apple's strategy, but they're not playing Monopoly or Risk. They're playing one of those games where the coolest player wins, not the player with the most territory.
It's because the person who gets upset by this behavior is normally from Legal, and thus fights with the tools he knows. Most lawyers probably haven't considered the technical solution.
Besides, the technical solution doesn't generate income for them. Nastygrams and horrifically complex legal documents do. Why let the webmonkeys gearn money you could have?
More likely the person who wrote the policy has nothing to do with the actual web site maintenance. The current caretaker probably had too many other tasts to read the policy somebody else had written, and so was taken by surprise.
What this may mean is that law.com may actually sit down and write a link/reference policy that would make sense. But don't hold your breath.
Things like Columbine are extremely rare, and barely effect statistics. Columbine (or Erfurt, or any of the other tragedies) are nigh impossible to blame on one source, be it the games the perpetrators played, their home life, their neurochemical imbalance, whatever. I guess you could call it a spike in the statistics.
What is important is that violence overall is dropping. This is measured in how many kids get expelled/suspended/reported to police for violent activities. This doesn't have to result in death, just a potential injury. This is measurable.
People tend to think of the past in nostalgic terms, but Columbine (or Erfurt) could have happened in the 1950's just as easily as in the 1990's. Your school is probably just as safe an environment now as it was when you attended.
How can they call this a "gift" if there are strings attatched? The city *has* to buy the software, eventually, and they have to let Microsoft use them in commercials.
It may not be money they're paying with, but they are paying.
Quoth the anonymous coward: "All we need is a search warrent for searching other conturies property? Hell someone get for saddam and lets check for weapons!"
Wrong analogy. Consider it more like a search warrant to go through a package of documents adressed to the suspect. In this case the package is in the US (the FBI computer). The problem is how the package arrived in the US? The FBI claim that the suspects' computer sent it, and the suspects clain the FBI broke Russian law by breaking into the computer and stealing the package.
So yes, you could send strike teams with search warrants to Iraq to steal evidence, but they're subject to Iraqi law as long as they're there. Are you sure that's worth the risk just to retrieve evidence?
You know what might be interesting? Both the Russian and American laws may be right.
Think about it: the "sting" was under US jurisdiction as far as the physical location of the agents and the operation, so peeking at the records might be allowed. However, the hoovered computer was in Russia, so Russian laws apply to those efforts as well.
The what might help is to visualise what the non-computer version would be. Say the data in the US is a perfect fax of the Russian originals: did the agents "break and enter" into a data warehouse with forged keys, or did they trick the warehouse into voluntarily sending the copies? If the method in which these copies were obtained is illegal in Russia, are they still admissible in the US as evidence?
It's way too complicated, and I have no idea how I should feel about it.
"Let the market rule?" I think you're confusing something here.
These directives are analog a huge corporate directive setting restrictions on the IT departments. They state what requirements that the software must fulfil, namely that the documents it generates are accessible by 3rd parties, and that the corporation can audit the source code.
Remember, we're talking about what software the government buys for itself. If (as in another post) a voting machine uses proprietary software, two problems arise: 1. how do you recover the data for use in another program if the file format is proprietary? and 2. how can you be sure that the software isn't secretly manipulating its results?
If a proprietary software manufacturer wants to sell to the government, then he must follow these guidelines. His software can remain proprietary, but the government needs an open (documented) file format and the right to audit the code. That's my belief.
You're missing the point of most of these initiatives. What these people want is for software contractors to meet certain requirements.
1. Files created by your software need to be in an open, documented format. This is to prevent "lock-in" of documents. Since so many people have to exchange files with the government, it is important that the government doesn't dictate which program they should use.
2. Governments need to be able to examine the source code of a program, so that they can (theoretically) protect themselves from malicious code. It also allows them the ability to further develop the software should the original contractor no longer be able to.
3. Research done for the government is assumed to be for the general public. Legal licensing restrictions need to protect the interests of the general public.
Mind you, these are the intents. Whether the actual bills do this or not I can't tell, because my eyes tend to glaze over when I read legal documents.
In my example, I imagine a typical TV cop action scene. Resolution is for the TV screen meaing less detail needed. The shot would be far enough away that details aren't important. A director on a schedule might then want a "clipart" CGI rendered to match the filmed outdoor shot. Future CGI "cliparts" might even have movement algorythms added to make the digital "stuntman" move more realistically, adjust for wind, et cetera.
Longer, complicated scenes might require morphing the blue-screened actor to the real 'copter, with the computers churning out better mattes, lighting and weather touch-ups. Another possibility is that the action scenes are done by a stunt expert who is then tweaked by CGI to match the actor.
Remember: I feel the driving force won't be artistic reasons, but insurance premiums and budgets.
So I think we agree: standard action cuts might move more into stock adapted CGI, but original scenes will remain (at least partly) the domain of the actor/stuntman.
What you are essentially saying is that should CGI achieve the level of detail and cost efficiency that everybody's predicting, then actors and set designers will move from being the "heavy lifters" to being the inspiration. Actors will still be around, but you just might not ever recognise them in some movies after the CGI department does its job, but they'll still be there.
The job I see being in danger is that of the stunt doubles. Why hang from a helicopter when the CGI department can make an adequate replacement? This will not be for artistic reasons, but due to pressure from insurance companies. (Oh, stuntmen won't go away completely, as realistic movement will still have its price as well as establishing reference stunts for the CGI artists to imitate; but the demand will be less).
Matte painting was one of the first casualties, but even those artists have found a way to survive in the new environment. Building physical models will also still be in demand, as you've also noted. Sets may require less detail, but the actors will still need somewhere to stand and props to hold, if only as placeholders for the CGI.
This isn't a reliable indicator. A lot of politicians discover the idea that they can take the mony and then stiff the contributors if it will get them more votes. They realise that voters love that crap, as it makes them look more independant.
Campaign contributions are only one part of the equation. You can use it to purchase voter sympathy with ads, but looking like a maverick trumps heavy ad saturation.
Microsoft may lobby like the dickens to kill this bill, but California-based companies will be more important, and it's the taxpayers in places like Cupertino and Mountain View that matter.
The way I see it, the Australians are calling the game right. What the law is essentialy allowing is vigilante vandalism within the US. It's the same as if the MPAA/RIAA sent goons over to whack your home entertainment system with baseball bats.
Now even if this were allowed in the USA, it ain't allowed in Australia*. Even if the target is an American, as soon as the goons start vandalising Australian property, they're subject to Australian jurisdiction. Their corporate masters could aso be charged for giving the orders ("taking out a contract").
If you think about it, all it takes is the following:
An Australian ISP suffers an attack originating from Sony Entertainment in the US. A Sony spokesman claims the attack was a legal application of the Berman Law*, directed at a "pirate" on a peer-to-peer network. The ISP files suit, as its legitimate customers suffered from the bandwidth-flooding as well as the accused "pirate".
As for getting the executives, if they try to hide their attacks behind the Berman Law, then they are assuming responsibility for their company's actions, and thus culpable. It could also well be that one of the programmers hred to carry out the attack could blow the whistle.
*Yes, I know that Berman's bill isn't a law, but it's a mental exercise. And of course IANAL, but you knew that already.
Yeah, I remember chanting "Spock is dead, deal with it!" in college...
My favourite production note is that they could only get Nimoy to commit if they killed Spock. He hated the make-up. It was painful. He wanted out, so they wrote the script around this.
As soon as the death scene was done, and everybody was happy to be done with the movie, Nimoy said something like "That was fun. I can't wait until the next one!"
You can imagine the panicked reaction in the production team one they realised he wasn't kidding! They quickly added the "Remember" mini-scene, and sat down trying to puzzle out a screenplay that would let them bring back Spock...
Slashdot Mirror
(At first, I thought you were saying that you ignored this for a living. Bad joke, and not the point of this post.)
You're making one mistake here, the same one that most pundits are making: you're confusing vandalism with terrorism. The difference is in motive. Y'see, most of the attacks are for bragging rights, not to terrify people. Or are you suggesting that the terrorism here is an attempt to scare people away from the Internet? In that case, the media reports themselves are the attack.
"Terrorism" is getting overused a lot nowadays. A lot of what was called extortion is now called terrorism, and spreading FUD is also now slapped with the terrorism label. Just like "genocide" got devalued to mean any percieved oppression, not just the murder of an entire ethnic group.
So yes, there are attacks on electronic resources, but the possibilities of mass destruction/murder are not high enough to warrant the T-word.
Instead of becoming a full-widget PC architecture, Apple may be playing with strengthening the open source Unix derivatives like *BSD and Linux with partial ports and APIs. Why would they do this?
It's all about getting more developers into the boat. If they write their apps on Mac OS X, then Apple could be promising them a painless port to BSD and Linux. That way, they can also suggest that Windows is less important (more apps for Linux helps weaken Microsoft's biggest lever).
I think Apple would *love* to see Linux/BSD win on the x86 front. Then they can compete on the merits of their widgets, and worry less about fighting Windows software lock-in (and let's be honest: that's what scares a lot of people away from Apple).
Small bit of history here: at one time, a Swedish company ran a contest they named Crack a Mac, and offered about US$10K to the first person to be able to break into the system. They ran this twice, with one prize award (there was a second exploit, but the contest runners denied that the exploit happened. Nevertheless, it is accepted by most that it happened).
So MacOS/WebStar-based web servers have been hacked, but there is only one famous case. And never forget that any system is vulnerable to "social engineering" and shoddy passwords.
There are some products that are available for Windows such as Pillars of Garendall, and others like Escape Velocity Nova are being ported by 3rd party companies (in this case Contraband Entertainment).
The unique thing about Ambrosia is that they've managed to survive for so long despite being a Mac-only shareware company. The quality of their games is better the a lot of standard offerings out there, and the openness of their architeture encourages fan-created mods and add-on scenarios. I just wish there were more companies like them out there.
Your questions are valid, but I don't think Apple is doing the same thing that Microsoft did.
a) most of these programs are stand-alone apps that can be removed without fuss. If you own Photoshop, you can delete iPhoto without breaking anything.
b) integration between the iApps is no more than what Apple allows other programs to do. In fact, I think Apple uses these programs as technology showcases/examples to inspire developers.
Apple's philosophy behind including programs is markedly different than Microsoft's. MS adds programs to the OS in an effort to squeeze out competition, but Apple wants to make its hardware more attractive-sell more units. That's why they include these iApps without integrating them into the OS. You really can take them or leave them.
IMO, a lot of these studies are started with the premise already fixed, and then looking for data to back up the prejudice. In this case, the researcher thinks MP3's must have a negative impact, and looks for evidence to support his theory.
It could (and will) get worse. Just like the tobacco industry, the IP empires are fighting to maintain a position of power, and will use any tool possible. Even more studies will be appearing, showing just how much was lost in revenues that should have gone to the "rightful" owners.
To be quite honest, these numbers are all "coulda, woulda" fantasy. Lots of people copy software, photocopy books and articles and trade software that they had no real intention of buying. And there are real-life for-profit "pirates", though I prefer to call them "counterfeiters", but I've never met them nor seen their goods.
One other thing that *really* irritates and scares the IP empires is the way intellectual property leaks out *before* it is supposed to be released. That's what kicked off the Metallica v. Napster thingie, and why Apple attacks rumor sites that post "sneak previews" of their new machines.
The IP empires hate it when IP escapes before it can be buried. Studios have been known to sit on albums after recording, just to punish the artist. P2P networks offer a way to "smuggle" such works out into the open where they can be freely traded. It robs them of one of their favorite weapons.
And that's what it's all about, and why studies like this are the new battleground. It's less about the money, but about controlling who gets to see/hear what, and for what price.
(sigh...)
I don't know why I had to rant for so long like this. I guess it's because the next have/have-not battle is going to be over IP. Stallman is this generation's Karl Marx, and Disney is the "evil capitalist" bent on maintaining power. It will be interesting to follow...
OK, so you admit that your evidence that Mac OS X is slow comes from reviews and statements, not first-hand experience.
My first-hand experience with Mac OS X was that there were two areas where the OS was slow, and that was Quartz and Classic mode. Mac OS X.2 goes a long way in speeding up Quartz, and the Classic issue will resolve itself as more and more programs/devices are designed for the newer OS. As most reviews concentrated on those two areas that I mentioned, I think your basis is not solid.
What I have noticed, though, is that various elements of the OS actually make work on the computer faster, either through intuitive placement of the controls or through the fact that it works the way I want to work (instead of the other way around).
The Darwin underpinnings have ben updated as well, and the developer tools encourage better, streamlined programming (I'm always amazed at how cruft swallows processing speed!).
Oh, and as for Apple and the technical reasons: you can find them at the Apple Developer Connection website, as well as at Apple's World Wide Developer's Conference. Ever since Apple caused mass drowsiness with its explanation of the "Megahrtz Myth", they've been careful to keep the boring techie stuff on the sidelines.
I appreciate the fact that you have way more experience with the guts of an OS than I do, but I would appreciate it if you would test the OS first-hand before telling me how slow it is.
1. This is nothing more than a CD that carries its own dongle. This might be attractive to companies like Quark and Microsoft, but isn't applicable to music CDs.
2. The company hasn't said how much this costs. If the price is much higher than what it costs to mass-produce normal CDs/DVDs, then only a few software publishers will bite. Also, not every CD production facility will be willing to invest in new machines.
3. PR releases tend to hype (and even lie) about how many companies are "interested" in an attempt to lure the others in. We need to shine more light on this subject fast.
I understand your (offtopic) rant, but the phrase "Politically Correct" normally is a derogatory term for going too far in order not to offend anybody. Disney is most definitely guilty of this.
When companies get as big as Disney has, artistic values are sacrificed for profits. If they feel being less offensive (and thus bland) will mean more money, then they're all for it. This is as old as Walt.
Some companies have learned how appearing "politically incorrect" (what used to be called contraversial) can win viewers, but Disney is afraid of offending any potential customers. In the case of "Sen", this may actually mean that Disney might be too afraid of alienating anime fans to make too many changes. Whether that is good or bad, I don't know. I'm just not an anime expert.
Oh, and as for slaughtering animals: I'm afraid you're a little too late to save the wooly mammoth. We homo sapiens already ate them all. (In other words, your "slaughtering animals" comment is a perfect example of what pundits like to label as being politically correct. It's a derogatory term, remember?)
Actually, I think Apple would be wise to help Linux and BSD receive desktop environments, as that would help balkanise the PC hardware market again. When the computing world is less dominated by Microsoft, then Apple can shine again as "best of breed" amongst all of the other desktop units instread of looking like a wierd alternative.
I think this would also be better for computer customers, as then the accent would go to more open, transportable file formats. What difference does it make if you use MS Word or OpenOffice, as long as both programs use an open file format?
(Pssst... I think this is slowly happening anyways. It's just happening at a glacial pace.)
I don't think they'll do OS X for Linux, mainly because they have a lot of stuff in it that belongs to others (Adobe etc.) and can't be ported without straining relationships. But they can insure that Unix compatibility remains high, as well as possible helping the KGE and GNOME teams improve their offerings. Maybe eventually offering AppleWorks for KDE/GNOME, figure out how to release QuickTime for Linux without breaking any licenses, or iPod support, or their internet services for Linux...there's lot of opportunities out there.
"Divide and conquer" ought to be Apple's strategy, but they're not playing Monopoly or Risk. They're playing one of those games where the coolest player wins, not the player with the most territory.
It's because the person who gets upset by this behavior is normally from Legal, and thus fights with the tools he knows. Most lawyers probably haven't considered the technical solution.
Besides, the technical solution doesn't generate income for them. Nastygrams and horrifically complex legal documents do. Why let the webmonkeys gearn money you could have?
More likely the person who wrote the policy has nothing to do with the actual web site maintenance. The current caretaker probably had too many other tasts to read the policy somebody else had written, and so was taken by surprise.
What this may mean is that law.com may actually sit down and write a link/reference policy that would make sense. But don't hold your breath.
Things like Columbine are extremely rare, and barely effect statistics. Columbine (or Erfurt, or any of the other tragedies) are nigh impossible to blame on one source, be it the games the perpetrators played, their home life, their neurochemical imbalance, whatever. I guess you could call it a spike in the statistics.
What is important is that violence overall is dropping. This is measured in how many kids get expelled/suspended/reported to police for violent activities. This doesn't have to result in death, just a potential injury. This is measurable.
People tend to think of the past in nostalgic terms, but Columbine (or Erfurt) could have happened in the 1950's just as easily as in the 1990's. Your school is probably just as safe an environment now as it was when you attended.
Do you realise you just justified the title? It's asking "Why did you have to be such a cool product that met such an ignoble fate?"
How can they call this a "gift" if there are strings attatched? The city *has* to buy the software, eventually, and they have to let Microsoft use them in commercials.
It may not be money they're paying with, but they are paying.
Quoth the anonymous coward: "All we need is a search warrent for searching other conturies property? Hell someone get for saddam and lets check for weapons!"
Wrong analogy. Consider it more like a search warrant to go through a package of documents adressed to the suspect. In this case the package is in the US (the FBI computer). The problem is how the package arrived in the US? The FBI claim that the suspects' computer sent it, and the suspects clain the FBI broke Russian law by breaking into the computer and stealing the package.
So yes, you could send strike teams with search warrants to Iraq to steal evidence, but they're subject to Iraqi law as long as they're there. Are you sure that's worth the risk just to retrieve evidence?
You know what might be interesting? Both the Russian and American laws may be right.
Think about it: the "sting" was under US jurisdiction as far as the physical location of the agents and the operation, so peeking at the records might be allowed. However, the hoovered computer was in Russia, so Russian laws apply to those efforts as well.
The what might help is to visualise what the non-computer version would be. Say the data in the US is a perfect fax of the Russian originals: did the agents "break and enter" into a data warehouse with forged keys, or did they trick the warehouse into voluntarily sending the copies? If the method in which these copies were obtained is illegal in Russia, are they still admissible in the US as evidence?
It's way too complicated, and I have no idea how I should feel about it.
"Let the market rule?" I think you're confusing something here.
These directives are analog a huge corporate directive setting restrictions on the IT departments. They state what requirements that the software must fulfil, namely that the documents it generates are accessible by 3rd parties, and that the corporation can audit the source code.
Remember, we're talking about what software the government buys for itself. If (as in another post) a voting machine uses proprietary software, two problems arise: 1. how do you recover the data for use in another program if the file format is proprietary? and 2. how can you be sure that the software isn't secretly manipulating its results?
If a proprietary software manufacturer wants to sell to the government, then he must follow these guidelines. His software can remain proprietary, but the government needs an open (documented) file format and the right to audit the code. That's my belief.
You're missing the point of most of these initiatives. What these people want is for software contractors to meet certain requirements.
1. Files created by your software need to be in an open, documented format. This is to prevent "lock-in" of documents. Since so many people have to exchange files with the government, it is important that the government doesn't dictate which program they should use.
2. Governments need to be able to examine the source code of a program, so that they can (theoretically) protect themselves from malicious code. It also allows them the ability to further develop the software should the original contractor no longer be able to.
3. Research done for the government is assumed to be for the general public. Legal licensing restrictions need to protect the interests of the general public.
Mind you, these are the intents. Whether the actual bills do this or not I can't tell, because my eyes tend to glaze over when I read legal documents.
In my example, I imagine a typical TV cop action scene. Resolution is for the TV screen meaing less detail needed. The shot would be far enough away that details aren't important. A director on a schedule might then want a "clipart" CGI rendered to match the filmed outdoor shot. Future CGI "cliparts" might even have movement algorythms added to make the digital "stuntman" move more realistically, adjust for wind, et cetera.
Longer, complicated scenes might require morphing the blue-screened actor to the real 'copter, with the computers churning out better mattes, lighting and weather touch-ups. Another possibility is that the action scenes are done by a stunt expert who is then tweaked by CGI to match the actor.
Remember: I feel the driving force won't be artistic reasons, but insurance premiums and budgets.
So I think we agree: standard action cuts might move more into stock adapted CGI, but original scenes will remain (at least partly) the domain of the actor/stuntman.
I just have to throw my EUR 0.02 into the ring...
What you are essentially saying is that should CGI achieve the level of detail and cost efficiency that everybody's predicting, then actors and set designers will move from being the "heavy lifters" to being the inspiration. Actors will still be around, but you just might not ever recognise them in some movies after the CGI department does its job, but they'll still be there.
The job I see being in danger is that of the stunt doubles. Why hang from a helicopter when the CGI department can make an adequate replacement? This will not be for artistic reasons, but due to pressure from insurance companies. (Oh, stuntmen won't go away completely, as realistic movement will still have its price as well as establishing reference stunts for the CGI artists to imitate; but the demand will be less).
Matte painting was one of the first casualties, but even those artists have found a way to survive in the new environment. Building physical models will also still be in demand, as you've also noted. Sets may require less detail, but the actors will still need somewhere to stand and props to hold, if only as placeholders for the CGI.
This isn't a reliable indicator. A lot of politicians discover the idea that they can take the mony and then stiff the contributors if it will get them more votes. They realise that voters love that crap, as it makes them look more independant.
Campaign contributions are only one part of the equation. You can use it to purchase voter sympathy with ads, but looking like a maverick trumps heavy ad saturation.
Microsoft may lobby like the dickens to kill this bill, but California-based companies will be more important, and it's the taxpayers in places like Cupertino and Mountain View that matter.
The way I see it, the Australians are calling the game right. What the law is essentialy allowing is vigilante vandalism within the US. It's the same as if the MPAA/RIAA sent goons over to whack your home entertainment system with baseball bats.
Now even if this were allowed in the USA, it ain't allowed in Australia*. Even if the target is an American, as soon as the goons start vandalising Australian property, they're subject to Australian jurisdiction. Their corporate masters could aso be charged for giving the orders ("taking out a contract").
If you think about it, all it takes is the following:
An Australian ISP suffers an attack originating from Sony Entertainment in the US. A Sony spokesman claims the attack was a legal application of the Berman Law*, directed at a "pirate" on a peer-to-peer network. The ISP files suit, as its legitimate customers suffered from the bandwidth-flooding as well as the accused "pirate".
As for getting the executives, if they try to hide their attacks behind the Berman Law, then they are assuming responsibility for their company's actions, and thus culpable. It could also well be that one of the programmers hred to carry out the attack could blow the whistle.
*Yes, I know that Berman's bill isn't a law, but it's a mental exercise. And of course IANAL, but you knew that already.
Yeah, I remember chanting "Spock is dead, deal with it!" in college...
My favourite production note is that they could only get Nimoy to commit if they killed Spock. He hated the make-up. It was painful. He wanted out, so they wrote the script around this.
As soon as the death scene was done, and everybody was happy to be done with the movie, Nimoy said something like "That was fun. I can't wait until the next one!"
You can imagine the panicked reaction in the production team one they realised he wasn't kidding! They quickly added the "Remember" mini-scene, and sat down trying to puzzle out a screenplay that would let them bring back Spock...