At the end of the day you are creating a product. And people create products to make money. It wouldn't be fare to buy a box of corn flakes and take it home, and put is in your Plexstor 24x corn copier and make all you want and never by corn flakes again... thats not right, and neither is copying a friends CD to aviod buying it.
Actually, I think this would be an extrreamly good thing to do if possible. Hell, I could do a huge ammount to solve world hunger if I did this.Although I may or may not disagree with your point, comparing this to actual physical products doesn't make sense.
Sadly, I think he is right about the ineffectiveness, but I don't think the author is right about our ability to out pace new legislation. What happens when controls are embedded in the hardware, legally required to be there, and you can't make your computer run 'unauthorized' software like PGP (unauthorized, or forced into key escarow by the gov.) and DeCSS? This isn't that far fetched, I'd call it a step or two away from the CBDTPA. How do you hack that? It has to be stopped before it gets to that point.One can't do much once computers are legislated into glorified DVD players.
Although the Register's take on this is amusing it is incorrect. This bill only allows technical messures to be used against "publicly accessible peer-to-peer file trading network". So, you couldn't go rifling through the MPAA's stuff looking for your files. You also have to give the DoJ seven days notice, and tell them what specific technical mesure you intend to use. Mind you, this bill is still stupid.
The fact that something like this is a demonstration shows how foolish a law the DMCA is. Basically, this is a presentation showing people how to play their own DVDs and yet this is some how illegal. The absurdity of this is stupendous. Hopefully, this will serve to enlighten people as to the idiocy of such legislation.
Reverse Engineering isn't illegal, the DMCA 'merely' (the quotes mean sarcasim) makes it illegal to distribute something which would 'circumvent an effective copyright control mechanisim.' Now, reverse engineering was probably involved in the production of that something, but the reverse engineering aspect of it is not itself illegal (well, atleast not as a result of the DMCA).
If the releasing of this code allows the circumvention of some stupid DRM thing in windows media player and associated formats, then MS might actually have a case with the DMCA. Which would put me actually agreeing with Real about something, which would be damned weird. I haven't used WMP in years though, so I have no idea if it actually implements any DRM things or not.Any one care to enlighten me on this?
Occam's Razor, that 'The simplest answer is most often the correct one.' has no actual logical value behind it. I don't think it should be used in an logical argument. Think about how often a complex solution is the answer. Quantum Physics vs. Classical Physics, for instance. Heck, Science in general has shown that the world operates in way that are often more complex then they seem.
Actually, many cable ISP's (AT&T for instance, atleast around here) already do block port 80, on the incoming any way. Any packet sent to my port 80 will be eaten by their routers before it ever reaches me. Is this annoying? Yes, now I have to run my webservers on port 81.
Above, I notice posts saying things like "Just use xxx filesharing program instead". This ignores the bigger picture.
Does no one see the obvious issues here? If a provider is able to get away with things, they are essentially allowed to arbitrarily restrict various services. This is a dangerous ability for them to have, and as several posters pointed out all ready, in many areas there is no usable alternative.
Out of curiosity, how on earth does one turn this off? Looked around xfree86.org's documentation for ever to try to turn that off, but I didn't find it any where.
Probably would be unwise to use a lossy-format like JPEG or PNG. Every time you convert to a new format, you would loose a little more. I'm not really sure what the ideal format would be, but it's definatly something loseless. Bitmap might be good, since it is fairly simple to view (basically just a two dimensional array with some checksums and stuff).
I hope you have good enough sense for that to be sarcastic. That is the kind of logic that will ultimatly allow this sorta thing to stand. Put simply, if you don't stand up for others,there will be no one left to stand up for you-- and good luck fighting a giant by yourself. If these outrageous abuses of EULA's and intellectual property law continue, eventually every one will be a victim-- So don't let them stand.
If your one of their customers, I suggest you write them a letter telling them just how disgusted you are by this sort of practice. Don't flame them, but a rational letter formally explaing the repugnance of this can't hurt. Even monopolies have to listen to their customers, and if they don't, who wants to be their customers any way?
This is like trying to teach a child about sentance structure before they know how to talk. Ie; it wouldn't make any sense to talk about predicates and subjects to a student who doesn't know any words. People need something concrete to grasp first. They need a real syntax, or things like objects, and pretty flow charts don't mean anything. Only once you have the rudiments down can you understand more complicated design issues.
Xine (xine.sourceforget.net) says it support frame buffer out-put, although it is labeled as experimental. I haven't personally tried it, so I can't vouch for it's quality. You'd also have to have a video card with frame buffer drivers for this to work. Also, it could be useful to check xine's plugin section.
Really? Wow, I actually like Xine's interface. Although, admitedly, I've never tried to open a file from within the program, or use the playlist, I just go bash> xine somefile.avi:) I guess this is the kind of interface I am most used to, I find it much easier then clicking on things.
Wow, as a student soon to be entering the job market (I graduate in 2003), its reassuring to know that there are some ethical (if possibly a little angry =)individuals out there. It makes it easier for me to take a stand on ethical grounds knowing that the next person might not just go ahead and do it.
I've been looking for a summer job in the IT field this year (I am between my Junior and Senior year of college). Last year I found one pretty easily, but now it doesn't seem like there is anything out there. They don't even bother to send me rejection letters any more.
So, it looks like I will be working at Wal-Mart, unless any of you guys are looking to hire a comp-sci student for the summer:) There must be some company out there that wants to exploit cheap student labor...
Well, since this seems to be turing into a dialogue about UI's, here are some things I hate about both Mac OS and/or Windows.
Desk Top Icons- What a useless thing. I can't get to these if I have windows open.The startmenu is some what of an improvement, but it would be nice if you could make it appear any where.
Have to go to corner to resize/shade(okay, the top)/maximize/minimize/move windows. It's very obnoxious, you should be able to do this any where.
Having to do funky stuff to force quite when an application dies. I want to hit a button and brutally murder it.
There is probably other stuff I forgot about too.
Re:what a predicament ...
on
Linux Turns 10
·
· Score: 1
Linux is the kernel, not the OS.
Need Bilingual Clients
on
Secure IRC?
·
· Score: 1
If we want this, or some other form of secure-IRC style communication, it's going to require clients that can speak both protocols.
If the client can speak both (IRC and whatever Secure IRC), eventually a seamless transition becomes possible. Once the new clients have sufficiently diffused (say, if they came out now a year or two), servers could switch to the new protocol with out most of the users even noticing (Although it would probably be a good idea to show a little icon saying weather the connection is secure or not).
Any way, the advantages of a secure protocol are obvious, and here you have my thoughts on how to get it into use. Of course, this requires IRC clients to actaully implement the second protocol. What do the rest of you think of this idea?
Unless I'm mistaken (which is not improbable) the earlier Fraunhofer codecs basically sucked. They put it on their FTP, and people found the code and started fidling with it. Eventually, it was made to not suck. Fraunhofer then went and made their own. They claim its better, but I don't know of any unbiased test that demonstrates this. I can't distinguish it from gogo or BladEnc myself.
Slashdot Mirror
At the end of the day you are creating a product. And people create products to make money. It wouldn't be fare to buy a box of corn flakes and take it home, and put is in your Plexstor 24x corn copier and make all you want and never by corn flakes again... thats not right, and neither is copying a friends CD to aviod buying it.
Actually, I think this would be an extrreamly
good thing to do if possible. Hell, I could do a huge ammount to solve world hunger if I did this.Although I may or may not disagree with your point, comparing this to actual physical products doesn't make sense.
Sadly, I think he is right about the ineffectiveness, but I don't think the author is right about our ability to out pace new legislation. What happens when controls are embedded in the hardware, legally required to be there, and you can't make your computer run 'unauthorized' software like PGP (unauthorized, or forced into key escarow by the gov.) and DeCSS? This isn't that far fetched, I'd call it a step or two away from the CBDTPA. How do you hack that? It has to be stopped before it gets to that point.One can't do much once computers are legislated into glorified DVD players.
Although the Register's take on this is amusing it is incorrect. This bill only allows technical messures to be used against "publicly accessible peer-to-peer file trading network". So, you couldn't go rifling through the MPAA's stuff looking for your files. You also have to give the DoJ seven days notice, and tell them what specific technical mesure you intend to use. Mind you, this bill is still stupid.
You know, I'm pretty sure the author is trying to be sarcastic here. Am I wrong? Other repliers don't seem to be getting that.
Sadly, it is not this way in the US because of the DMCA.
The fact that something like this is a demonstration shows how foolish a law the DMCA is. Basically, this is a presentation showing people how to play their own DVDs and yet this is some how illegal. The absurdity of this is stupendous. Hopefully, this will serve to enlighten people as to the idiocy of such legislation.
Reverse Engineering isn't illegal, the DMCA 'merely' (the quotes mean sarcasim) makes it illegal to distribute something which would 'circumvent an effective copyright control mechanisim.' Now, reverse engineering was probably involved in the production of that something, but the reverse engineering aspect of it is not itself illegal (well, atleast not as a result of the DMCA).
If the releasing of this code allows the circumvention of some stupid DRM thing in windows media player and associated formats, then MS might actually have a case with the DMCA. Which would put me actually agreeing with Real about something, which would be damned weird. I haven't used WMP in years though, so I have no idea if it actually implements any DRM things or not.Any one care to enlighten me on this?
Occam's Razor, that 'The simplest answer is most often the correct one.' has no actual logical value behind it. I don't think it should be used in an logical argument. Think about how often a complex solution is the answer. Quantum Physics vs. Classical Physics, for instance. Heck, Science in general has shown that the world operates in way that are often more complex then they seem.
Actually, many cable ISP's (AT&T for instance, atleast around here) already do block port 80, on the incoming any way. Any packet sent to my port 80 will be eaten by their routers before it ever reaches me. Is this annoying? Yes, now I have to run my webservers on port 81.
Above, I notice posts saying things like "Just use xxx filesharing program instead". This ignores the bigger picture.
Does no one see the obvious issues here? If a provider is able to get away with things, they are essentially allowed to arbitrarily restrict various services. This is a dangerous ability for them to have, and as several posters pointed out all ready, in many areas there is no usable alternative.
Out of curiosity, how on earth does one turn this off? Looked around xfree86.org's documentation for ever to try to turn that off, but I didn't find it any where.
Probably would be unwise to use a lossy-format like JPEG or PNG. Every time you convert to a new format, you would loose a little more. I'm not really sure what the ideal format would be, but it's definatly something loseless. Bitmap might be good, since it is fairly simple to view (basically just a two dimensional array with some checksums and stuff).
"No sense fighting a giant before your a victim."
I hope you have good enough sense for that to be sarcastic. That is the kind of logic that will ultimatly allow this sorta thing to stand. Put simply, if you don't stand up for others,there will be no one left to stand up for you-- and good luck fighting a giant by yourself. If these outrageous abuses of EULA's and intellectual property law continue, eventually every one will be a victim-- So don't let them stand.
If your one of their customers, I suggest you write them a letter telling them just how disgusted you are by this sort of practice. Don't flame them, but a rational letter formally explaing the repugnance of this can't hurt. Even monopolies have to listen to their customers, and if they don't, who wants to be their customers any way?
This is like trying to teach a child about sentance structure before they know how to talk. Ie; it wouldn't make any sense to talk about predicates and subjects to a student who doesn't know any words. People need something concrete to grasp first. They need a real syntax, or things like objects, and pretty flow charts don't mean anything. Only once you have the rudiments down can you understand more complicated design issues.
Xine (xine.sourceforget.net) says it support frame buffer out-put, although it is labeled as experimental. I haven't personally tried it, so I can't vouch for it's quality. You'd also have to have a video card with frame buffer drivers for this to work. Also, it could be useful to check xine's plugin section.
Really? Wow, I actually like Xine's interface. Although, admitedly, I've never tried to open a file from within the program, or use the playlist, I just go bash> xine somefile.avi :) I guess this is the kind of interface I am most used to, I find it much easier then clicking on things.
Wow, as a student soon to be entering the job market (I graduate in 2003), its reassuring to know that there are some ethical (if possibly a little angry =)individuals out there. It makes it easier for me to take a stand on ethical grounds knowing that the next person might not just go ahead and do it.
Tried that already :) Nada. They spent a lot of their budget refurbishing the computer labs, so they cut back on student employees this summer.
I've been looking for a summer job in the IT field this year (I am between my Junior and Senior year of college). Last year I found one pretty easily, but now it doesn't seem like there is anything out there. They don't even bother to send me rejection letters any more.
:) There must be some company out there that wants to exploit cheap student labor...
So, it looks like I will be working at Wal-Mart, unless any of you guys are looking to hire a comp-sci student for the summer
What the hell does that even mean? Check your grammer guys.
Hmm, do you have links on this? I'd be interested in reading them.
There is probably other stuff I forgot about too.
Linux is the kernel, not the OS.
If we want this, or some other form of secure-IRC style communication, it's going to require clients that can speak both protocols.
If the client can speak both (IRC and whatever Secure IRC), eventually a seamless transition becomes possible. Once the new clients have sufficiently diffused (say, if they came out now a year or two), servers could switch to the new protocol with out most of the users even noticing (Although it would probably be a good idea to show a little icon saying weather the connection is secure or not).
Any way, the advantages of a secure protocol are obvious, and here you have my thoughts on how to get it into use. Of course, this requires IRC clients to actaully implement the second protocol. What do the rest of you think of this idea?
Unless I'm mistaken (which is not improbable) the earlier Fraunhofer codecs basically sucked. They put it on their FTP, and people found the code and started fidling with it. Eventually, it was made to not suck. Fraunhofer then went and made their own. They claim its better, but I don't know of any unbiased test that demonstrates this. I can't distinguish it from gogo or BladEnc myself.