You can turn it off, and as soon as you can't people will start using another media player that doesn't limit their freedoms which is a good thing (IMO). The only way I see this being newsworthy is if steps are being taken to make it a law that all media players must implement this feature, that would be really bad for the windows users. Of course the linux users could just download a GPLed media player and disable the feature by editing the source and recompiling. Wouldn't even be that hard for non programmers most likely, anyone designing an open source media player for linux would probably put something like this into the source:
//ATTENTION: delete the next three lines to disable the annoying copy protection.
so this is really only a problem for windows users, and if you voluntarily use MS Windows as your primary OS then you should already be used to giving up your freedoms.
Well, I can see how the judge can require him to give up the parts of the app he's already coded, but I can't see how they can force him to finish coding it. If I'm working at a company on a big project and I quit mid-stream they can't force me to finish the project or maintain the code. Hopefully all this guy has recorded is a sloppy, complicated, unfinished program that only he can understand so he can say, "Hey, it's all yours" and leave them with something useless.
After all, what if someone decided they didn't like him and dumped a bucket of water on his head? Would the eyes short-circuit, possibly killing him? What if it rains?
are they going to get the idea now that they've won it? Pry it out of his head with a crowbar? The article says the idea is only in his head, does the court expect him to spend his time finishing developing it? If I was him I'd appeal and if I lost again, I'd delete any portion of the code (or at least encrypt it and say I deleted it) and refuse to write the code. Basically say "Well, if it's YOUR idea then YOU code it", then I'd probably move because you can be damned sure I wouldn't be paying those legal fees.
If a company owns the ideas in our head, shouldn't they own the bad ones too? What about postal workers who had the idea to kill their co-workers? Is this idea property of the USPS?
Oh I see, so all of us "zealots should shut up and accept the fact that MS can do whater the fuck it wants to regardless of the laws it's breaking so we don't cause trouble? Personally, I feel a computer is ALMOST a necessity, and no I don't feel like I should have to pay for windows when I don't fucking want it. Before MS once again used their monopoly to crush competition I could have ordered a PC with no OS and been happy. Now I'm being forced to buy a PC with an OS I don't want and have no intention of using? Fuck that, if I'm going to be forced to pad MSs pockets then they're going to be forced to put up with me when I enter SUPER ASSHOLE MODE.....and NO-ONE can stand up to my SUPER ASSHOLE MODE. 10 to 1 if I ever decide to buy a PC and am forced to purchase windows I will return it AND get a refund. Why? Because I'm a Linux Zealot whose willing to fight for MY RIGHT no to be forced to buy shit I don't want, As opposed to a weasel who thinks that anyone who has some sort of ideal and won't help companies rape them is being a dumbass.
hmmm, obviously you missed the point of the article. The Torque engine is licensed for peanuts because any game made using the engine myust be published through the makers of the engine, Garage Games. Now I'm not a genius but I think the royalties they'd recieve from just ONE successful game would be WELL over $250,000. If id sold their engine for a lower price (hell it wouldn't even have to be too much lower) and set up the same rights to publishing deal, they'd make a LOT MORE MONEY. Personally I'm all for open source and Free software but I understand that in the game industry it's simply not practical. I hope to go into the industry once and you can damn well be sure I plan on getting paid, but if it's up to me the source for any game I'm involved in will be GPLed and released AFTER the game has been out for a while just like id does now.
BTW, I haven't heard anyone on/. say that the RIAA are bastards for wanting people to pay for their music....I have heard people call them bastards for trying to get the power to bypass the justice system and blast P2P networks off the net simply because they have "reason to believe" that piracy is occuring.
We're talking about the era of 8-bit gaming here not the 21st century. The NES was one step up from the Atari, the video-game industry was still in it's infancy when these peripherials was designed. Sure they make MUCH better wireless controllers now, but where do you think the basis for these Super Peripherials came from? The shoddy NES peripherials of course! Sure the pads were a bad idea (which is why we don't see many similar ones produced today) but give them a break, they thought it would be cool so they did it. It wasn' so they dumped it. The people that created these peripherials were pioneers and innovators, trying out new ideas in a new market, which is why you can go out and buy a beautifully designed and implemented wavebird now:).
Of course I'm sure consumers would have been happier if the crappier of the peripherials (such as the pads) had never gotten out of the labs but we can't forget that this was before the days of the internet (well at least as a popular communication medium). If they wanted to see how people would respond to an idea (wireless controllers) they had to make them and see how well they sold, I'm willing to bet that the profits from those shoddy peripherials went into the R&D of better versions which leads us to the 21st century and all the neat toys we have now.
In short, yesterdays peripherials may have been bulky and error prone but they paved the way for the light and near-perfect ones we have today. Just my $.02
Jedi Knight 2 anyone? I'd love to use one of these for the force attacks. Imagine, rather than pressing a key to do the Jedi choke trick you simply reach out and grip.......hmmmm ebay here I come.
But if they tried to do that they'd piss off companies that make hardware, which would adversely affect their campaign contributions. Hardware companies have the money to tell the politicians "Hey, heres a few mil now FUCK OFF"
He's not calling for us to lay down and die, he saying FIGHT, but do it smart. You don't have the cash to make laws (yes, thats really all it takes) but you do have the power to make code that circumvents these laws. Who cares if they pass a bill giving the RIAA power to DOS a P2P network when we can right code that protects that network and possibly, if we have the balls, blasts the RIAA into the dark ages for even trying such a thing.
Basically in this situation it's better to be Malcom X than Dr. King.
The civil war wasn't about how bad slavery was, basically the South felt that the North was trying to take away their rights (one of those being the "right" to own slaves) and when Lincoln was elected they decided to leave the Union because the were afraid that Lincoln would "destroy" the south. Lincoln went to war to bring the South back into the Union, not to free slaves. The reason Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclomation (ending slavery in all rebel states) was to cripple the south by cutting off their trade with Britain. For a while Britain freely traded with the South, but after the proclomation human rights groups in Britain prevented it. It's a little more complicated than that, but thats accurate enough for my purposes.
This article isn't a call to bend over and take it in the rear, it's a call to do the "Malcom X" thing. Fight unjust laws with code, not words. Chaining yourself to the gate is exactly what he WANTS, the woman in question realized that lobbying wasn't getting much done so she chained herself to a gate. Enviromentalists lobby a lot but that doesn't stop companies from cutting down trees.....chaining themselves to those trees or the tree-cutting equipment does though. Basically the author believes, correctly in my opinion, that there is little we can do to change the minds of law-makers....we don't have the neccessary skills (read: huge stacks of cash), but with code we can make them so impotent even viagra won't be able to raise them.
describes my feelings on the subject exactly. I may only be 18 years old but I learned long ago that my opinions do not matter at all to the people who right laws. Therefore I don't care about the opinions (read laws) of those people. I won't try to change the laws I feel violate my freedoms because I am CERTAIN it can't be done, instead I will break them whenever I feel the need and do my best not to get caught. I'm not worried about whether or not the bill allowing companies to "hack" P2P programs because I'm confident that as soon as it becomes clear that the law is going to pass the makers of P2P applications will find a way arround this (ie encryption).
Like the article says, most of us are not well-suited for politics and even if we were we don't have the type of financial backing it would take to get the public on our side. Basically all that needs to be done to get the majority of the people to accept a law is for a politician who supports it to go on TV and say "This law will stop EVIL SUPERHACKERS" or something equally ridiculous and the uninformed (read majority) will say "Duhhhh, OK!!!".
The net is our territory not theirs, so why don't we act like it? Why was the U.S unsuccessful in Vietnam? Because the Vietnamese had the "home-field" advantage. Thats what we have on the net. Politicians can make laws concerning the net as fast as they want, but WHO is going to ENFORCE them. If the RIAA uses a DOS attack on a P2P network I'm fairly confident that within 24 hours someone somewhere will blast their asses off the net in retaliation. Sure it's illegal for that person to do so but that doesn't mean the attack costs the company any less money. Sure the government can spend billions trying to crush all resistance, but regardless of what they do we have a MUCH larger talent pool. Eventually when the majority is whining about incredibly high taxes (something they do pay attention to) some politician somewhere will go "Umm, maybe we should cut back" and that will be it.
Let's face it, we need to stop trying, and failing, to influence law-makers who could give a shit less what we think and start doing what we do best.....PISSING THEM OFF:)
Well, I'm heading off to begin working on my CS degree in a few days and the school I'm going to has generously decided to supply me with an IBM thinkpad T30. The stats on it are VERY nice (especially since it's free) but the one thing that dissapoints me is the 16MB ATI Mobility Radeon.....16MB!!!!! I can't run tetris on that. Now I know there is hope that one day (read: when I get the money) I will be able to play Team Fortress at a decent resolution while the rest of the class is learning the intricacies of the while loop. And to think I had some crazy idea of trying to fit my Voodoo 5 in there.
BTW, does anyone know how well linux handles mobile graphics cards? Particularly Slackware 8.x as thats my preferred distro.
The main problem in translation is not individual words, but instead grammar. Ever wonder why people who learned English as a second langauge occasionally seem to mix up the words in a sentence? It's because thats how the idea is expressed in their langauge. A simple example would be the phrase "I want to go to Madison Square Garden" in spanish this phrase would be (roughly...I never was to good at Spanish) Yo tango ir el jardin de madison caudrado (yes I left out all punctuation). Which when translated word for word is I want to go to the garden of madison square. True we can infer the meaning of the word for word translation but in many cases it is not as simple.
Company X: We have designed the perfect solution to copyright infringement, our new technology is unbelievably advance....almost 3 years in the making. This time we're FOR REAL.
15 minutes later.....
Bored Teenager: Wow, so thats how they did it.
2 days later:
Bored Teenager: Uhh I found a security flaw in your new Super Duper Extra Secret Copy Protection
Company X: Shoot him, he's EVIL. Years of work and millions down the drain, kill him I say!!
Bored Teenager: Shit...I was only trying to help
BANG BANG BANG
Company X: HAHAHAHA lets see someone pull a stunt like that again.
Seriously, they waste more money trying to stop copying than they lose by allowing it to occur. Don't those fancy accountants they pay tell them that?
yea but then again someone who puts their code out wants people to learn from it not sell it. If their not making money off it why should someone else? You have the right to use it however you want as long as you don't sell it, anything you add to it must be given back to the community, this promotes learning. Closed source products give you no rights except running the program. Which brings up a question....if companies have an unlimited right to keep their source closed how can anyone know if they illegally included GPL'd source code?
Well if you kick a dog everytime he comes near you, eventually he'll stay away, everyime you come near him he will run. Microsoft has put out so many bloated, inefficient, insecure programs that now it is simply assumed that any bug report on microsoft products is true (and it probably is). If it had been an open source database it would already have been completely patched a long, long, time ago. As for jumping to conclusions, Microsoft admitted there was a hole and said they patched it.....the only thing is it's Microsoft so of course we're not gonna trust them ( think of Outlook ), they said it wasn't a big deal....hmmm missing nuclear material not a big deal. I find the most scary knee-jerk thing about this article is the fact that a Microsoft (security through obscurity...yeah like win 2000 and IIS and Outlook and NT 4.* and below) product is being used to keep track of incredibley dangerous NUCLEAR MATERIAL. Don't you think that given MS's historic bad security and laziness in the area of good fast patches, having their product keep track of nuclear materials is scary to say the least?
damn I tire of coming all the way back to this old post, jeez your right. If someone has a cure that costs $100 per person they should be able to charge 100,000,000 for each cure and patent their method to prevent competition......that way the 1,000 people who could actually afford this will buy it and he will make about 99,999,900,000 dollars profit.....I mean who could expect him to sell it for $200 and only make a few hundred million from the people who could then afford it....I don't know whats wrong with me....yeah your right a few hundred million profit just isn't worth the trouble so I guess no one would want to develop a cure, besides who cares if only the rich can afford the cure, at least the IMPORTANT people will still be alive. Let the poor die, your right I secede from the argument.
No, I have no problem with a person who comes up with the cure for AIDS getting payed. If each pill cost 9,500 dollars to make then a $10,000 dollar price tag per pill seems fair, however if a pill costs $5 to make then someone who would think to charge $10,000 for it should be shot. Also, that person doesn't need to charge too much more than cost to make a lot of money, millions of people with AIDS + $5 profit per pill = lot of money. Not to mention with the threat of AIDS gone cases would increase dramatically because it would no longer matter if you got AIDS. Patent law however would allow an unscrupulous man to seriously take advantage of people. I think you should read some of my other posts before you judge me, I outlined in quite a few of them several plans to pay the creator of a cure, I just don't think that person should be able to say millions of people who can't afford the cure must die because I want my money.
A crime had taken place? By our (US) law maybe, but Dmitri is a Russian, last time I checked they're only subject to our law while in our country, so unless he wrote that program and posted it on the web while he was in America (and even then it should have to be through an american ISP, server it was on located in america, etc.). I think the other legal remedy would have been best, thank Dmitri for pointing out their incompetence and FIX IT.
ok, the whole arument of loyal customer base was based arround my assumption that the other companies would use the exact same method I came up with...except possibly cheaper, if I'd already proven myself to do a good job my customers would be willing to pay a little more rather than risk counting on the skills of a new unproved builder. Now if a rival company added a significant improvement to my method then the customers would leave and flock to the other company, leaving me to come up with more improvements or go out of business, thus the buliding process gets better. I wouldn't stop going to Google because a site perfectly imitated them, only if they added significant improvements.
Now, simply add a gigabyte of storage, audio recording software, playback options, and wireless network support and BAM your next P2P music sharing network.
he could have just accidently hit the o before the r:).......give people a break my spelling is far from perfect too, btw I've used a bunch of distros (Mandrake, Redhat, Debian, Slackware, Suse, Immunix) IMO SuSe definately beat them all.
Slashdot Mirror
You can turn it off, and as soon as you can't people will start using another media player that doesn't limit their freedoms which is a good thing (IMO). The only way I see this being newsworthy is if steps are being taken to make it a law that all media players must implement this feature, that would be really bad for the windows users. Of course the linux users could just download a GPLed media player and disable the feature by editing the source and recompiling. Wouldn't even be that hard for non programmers most likely, anyone designing an open source media player for linux would probably put something like this into the source:
//ATTENTION: delete the next three lines to disable the annoying copy protection.
so this is really only a problem for windows users, and if you voluntarily use MS Windows as your primary OS then you should already be used to giving up your freedoms.
Well, I can see how the judge can require him to give up the parts of the app he's already coded, but I can't see how they can force him to finish coding it. If I'm working at a company on a big project and I quit mid-stream they can't force me to finish the project or maintain the code. Hopefully all this guy has recorded is a sloppy, complicated, unfinished program that only he can understand so he can say, "Hey, it's all yours" and leave them with something useless.
After all, what if someone decided they didn't like him and dumped a bucket of water on his head? Would the eyes short-circuit, possibly killing him? What if it rains?
are they going to get the idea now that they've won it? Pry it out of his head with a crowbar? The article says the idea is only in his head, does the court expect him to spend his time finishing developing it? If I was him I'd appeal and if I lost again, I'd delete any portion of the code (or at least encrypt it and say I deleted it) and refuse to write the code. Basically say "Well, if it's YOUR idea then YOU code it", then I'd probably move because you can be damned sure I wouldn't be paying those legal fees.
If a company owns the ideas in our head, shouldn't they own the bad ones too? What about postal workers who had the idea to kill their co-workers? Is this idea property of the USPS?
EULA television/radio programs (you may not discuss what you view with anyone)
EULA cars (must use brand X gas and only brand X gas)
EULA hardware (only MS products or MS approved products may be stored on this hard disk)
EULA sex dolls (end user agrees not to share doll with anyone)
EULA phones (only approved subjects may be discussed on these phones)
Oh I see, so all of us "zealots should shut up and accept the fact that MS can do whater the fuck it wants to regardless of the laws it's breaking so we don't cause trouble? Personally, I feel a computer is ALMOST a necessity, and no I don't feel like I should have to pay for windows when I don't fucking want it. Before MS once again used their monopoly to crush competition I could have ordered a PC with no OS and been happy. Now I'm being forced to buy a PC with an OS I don't want and have no intention of using? Fuck that, if I'm going to be forced to pad MSs pockets then they're going to be forced to put up with me when I enter SUPER ASSHOLE MODE.....and NO-ONE can stand up to my SUPER ASSHOLE MODE. 10 to 1 if I ever decide to buy a PC and am forced to purchase windows I will return it AND get a refund. Why? Because I'm a Linux Zealot whose willing to fight for MY RIGHT no to be forced to buy shit I don't want, As opposed to a weasel who thinks that anyone who has some sort of ideal and won't help companies rape them is being a dumbass.
hmmm, obviously you missed the point of the article. The Torque engine is licensed for peanuts because any game made using the engine myust be published through the makers of the engine, Garage Games. Now I'm not a genius but I think the royalties they'd recieve from just ONE successful game would be WELL over $250,000. If id sold their engine for a lower price (hell it wouldn't even have to be too much lower) and set up the same rights to publishing deal, they'd make a LOT MORE MONEY. Personally I'm all for open source and Free software but I understand that in the game industry it's simply not practical. I hope to go into the industry once and you can damn well be sure I plan on getting paid, but if it's up to me the source for any game I'm involved in will be GPLed and released AFTER the game has been out for a while just like id does now.
/. say that the RIAA are bastards for wanting people to pay for their music....I have heard people call them bastards for trying to get the power to bypass the justice system and blast P2P networks off the net simply because they have "reason to believe" that piracy is occuring.
BTW, I haven't heard anyone on
We're talking about the era of 8-bit gaming here not the 21st century. The NES was one step up from the Atari, the video-game industry was still in it's infancy when these peripherials was designed. Sure they make MUCH better wireless controllers now, but where do you think the basis for these Super Peripherials came from? The shoddy NES peripherials of course! Sure the pads were a bad idea (which is why we don't see many similar ones produced today) but give them a break, they thought it would be cool so they did it. It wasn' so they dumped it. The people that created these peripherials were pioneers and innovators, trying out new ideas in a new market, which is why you can go out and buy a beautifully designed and implemented wavebird now :).
Of course I'm sure consumers would have been happier if the crappier of the peripherials (such as the pads) had never gotten out of the labs but we can't forget that this was before the days of the internet (well at least as a popular communication medium). If they wanted to see how people would respond to an idea (wireless controllers) they had to make them and see how well they sold, I'm willing to bet that the profits from those shoddy peripherials went into the R&D of better versions which leads us to the 21st century and all the neat toys we have now.
In short, yesterdays peripherials may have been bulky and error prone but they paved the way for the light and near-perfect ones we have today. Just my $.02
Jedi Knight 2 anyone? I'd love to use one of these for the force attacks. Imagine, rather than pressing a key to do the Jedi choke trick you simply reach out and grip.......hmmmm ebay here I come.
But if they tried to do that they'd piss off companies that make hardware, which would adversely affect their campaign contributions. Hardware companies have the money to tell the politicians "Hey, heres a few mil now FUCK OFF"
He's not calling for us to lay down and die, he saying FIGHT, but do it smart. You don't have the cash to make laws (yes, thats really all it takes) but you do have the power to make code that circumvents these laws. Who cares if they pass a bill giving the RIAA power to DOS a P2P network when we can right code that protects that network and possibly, if we have the balls, blasts the RIAA into the dark ages for even trying such a thing.
Basically in this situation it's better to be Malcom X than Dr. King.
First a small history lesson....
The civil war wasn't about how bad slavery was, basically the South felt that the North was trying to take away their rights (one of those being the "right" to own slaves) and when Lincoln was elected they decided to leave the Union because the were afraid that Lincoln would "destroy" the south. Lincoln went to war to bring the South back into the Union, not to free slaves. The reason Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclomation (ending slavery in all rebel states) was to cripple the south by cutting off their trade with Britain. For a while Britain freely traded with the South, but after the proclomation human rights groups in Britain prevented it. It's a little more complicated than that, but thats accurate enough for my purposes.
This article isn't a call to bend over and take it in the rear, it's a call to do the "Malcom X" thing. Fight unjust laws with code, not words. Chaining yourself to the gate is exactly what he WANTS, the woman in question realized that lobbying wasn't getting much done so she chained herself to a gate. Enviromentalists lobby a lot but that doesn't stop companies from cutting down trees.....chaining themselves to those trees or the tree-cutting equipment does though. Basically the author believes, correctly in my opinion, that there is little we can do to change the minds of law-makers....we don't have the neccessary skills (read: huge stacks of cash), but with code we can make them so impotent even viagra won't be able to raise them.
describes my feelings on the subject exactly. I may only be 18 years old but I learned long ago that my opinions do not matter at all to the people who right laws. Therefore I don't care about the opinions (read laws) of those people. I won't try to change the laws I feel violate my freedoms because I am CERTAIN it can't be done, instead I will break them whenever I feel the need and do my best not to get caught. I'm not worried about whether or not the bill allowing companies to "hack" P2P programs because I'm confident that as soon as it becomes clear that the law is going to pass the makers of P2P applications will find a way arround this (ie encryption).
:)
Like the article says, most of us are not well-suited for politics and even if we were we don't have the type of financial backing it would take to get the public on our side. Basically all that needs to be done to get the majority of the people to accept a law is for a politician who supports it to go on TV and say "This law will stop EVIL SUPERHACKERS" or something equally ridiculous and the uninformed (read majority) will say "Duhhhh, OK!!!".
The net is our territory not theirs, so why don't we act like it? Why was the U.S unsuccessful in Vietnam? Because the Vietnamese had the "home-field" advantage. Thats what we have on the net. Politicians can make laws concerning the net as fast as they want, but WHO is going to ENFORCE them. If the RIAA uses a DOS attack on a P2P network I'm fairly confident that within 24 hours someone somewhere will blast their asses off the net in retaliation. Sure it's illegal for that person to do so but that doesn't mean the attack costs the company any less money. Sure the government can spend billions trying to crush all resistance, but regardless of what they do we have a MUCH larger talent pool. Eventually when the majority is whining about incredibly high taxes (something they do pay attention to) some politician somewhere will go "Umm, maybe we should cut back" and that will be it.
Let's face it, we need to stop trying, and failing, to influence law-makers who could give a shit less what we think and start doing what we do best.....PISSING THEM OFF
Well, I'm heading off to begin working on my CS degree in a few days and the school I'm going to has generously decided to supply me with an IBM thinkpad T30. The stats on it are VERY nice (especially since it's free) but the one thing that dissapoints me is the 16MB ATI Mobility Radeon.....16MB!!!!! I can't run tetris on that. Now I know there is hope that one day (read: when I get the money) I will be able to play Team Fortress at a decent resolution while the rest of the class is learning the intricacies of the while loop. And to think I had some crazy idea of trying to fit my Voodoo 5 in there.
BTW, does anyone know how well linux handles mobile graphics cards? Particularly Slackware 8.x as thats my preferred distro.
The main problem in translation is not individual words, but instead grammar. Ever wonder why people who learned English as a second langauge occasionally seem to mix up the words in a sentence? It's because thats how the idea is expressed in their langauge. A simple example would be the phrase "I want to go to Madison Square Garden" in spanish this phrase would be (roughly...I never was to good at Spanish) Yo tango ir el jardin de madison caudrado (yes I left out all punctuation). Which when translated word for word is I want to go to the garden of madison square. True we can infer the meaning of the word for word translation but in many cases it is not as simple.
Company X: We have designed the perfect solution to copyright infringement, our new technology is unbelievably advance....almost 3 years in the making. This time we're FOR REAL.
15 minutes later.....
Bored Teenager: Wow, so thats how they did it.
2 days later:
Bored Teenager: Uhh I found a security flaw in your new Super Duper Extra Secret Copy Protection
Company X: Shoot him, he's EVIL. Years of work and millions down the drain, kill him I say!!
Bored Teenager: Shit...I was only trying to help
BANG
BANG
BANG
Company X: HAHAHAHA lets see someone pull a stunt like that again.
Seriously, they waste more money trying to stop copying than they lose by allowing it to occur. Don't those fancy accountants they pay tell them that?
yea but then again someone who puts their code out wants people to learn from it not sell it. If their not making money off it why should someone else? You have the right to use it however you want as long as you don't sell it, anything you add to it must be given back to the community, this promotes learning. Closed source products give you no rights except running the program. Which brings up a question....if companies have an unlimited right to keep their source closed how can anyone know if they illegally included GPL'd source code?
Wow, u should sell that excuse to MS, they'll love it maybe even give you a job
Well if you kick a dog everytime he comes near you, eventually he'll stay away, everyime you come near him he will run. Microsoft has put out so many bloated, inefficient, insecure programs that now it is simply assumed that any bug report on microsoft products is true (and it probably is). If it had been an open source database it would already have been completely patched a long, long, time ago. As for jumping to conclusions, Microsoft admitted there was a hole and said they patched it.....the only thing is it's Microsoft so of course we're not gonna trust them ( think of Outlook ), they said it wasn't a big deal....hmmm missing nuclear material not a big deal. I find the most scary knee-jerk thing about this article is the fact that a Microsoft (security through obscurity...yeah like win 2000 and IIS and Outlook and NT 4.* and below) product is being used to keep track of incredibley dangerous NUCLEAR MATERIAL. Don't you think that given MS's historic bad security and laziness in the area of good fast patches, having their product keep track of nuclear materials is scary to say the least?
damn I tire of coming all the way back to this old post, jeez your right. If someone has a cure that costs $100 per person they should be able to charge 100,000,000 for each cure and patent their method to prevent competition......that way the 1,000 people who could actually afford this will buy it and he will make about 99,999,900,000 dollars profit.....I mean who could expect him to sell it for $200 and only make a few hundred million from the people who could then afford it....I don't know whats wrong with me....yeah your right a few hundred million profit just isn't worth the trouble so I guess no one would want to develop a cure, besides who cares if only the rich can afford the cure, at least the IMPORTANT people will still be alive. Let the poor die, your right I secede from the argument.
No, I have no problem with a person who comes up with the cure for AIDS getting payed. If each pill cost 9,500 dollars to make then a $10,000 dollar price tag per pill seems fair, however if a pill costs $5 to make then someone who would think to charge $10,000 for it should be shot. Also, that person doesn't need to charge too much more than cost to make a lot of money, millions of people with AIDS + $5 profit per pill = lot of money. Not to mention with the threat of AIDS gone cases would increase dramatically because it would no longer matter if you got AIDS. Patent law however would allow an unscrupulous man to seriously take advantage of people. I think you should read some of my other posts before you judge me, I outlined in quite a few of them several plans to pay the creator of a cure, I just don't think that person should be able to say millions of people who can't afford the cure must die because I want my money.
A crime had taken place? By our (US) law maybe, but Dmitri is a Russian, last time I checked they're only subject to our law while in our country, so unless he wrote that program and posted it on the web while he was in America (and even then it should have to be through an american ISP, server it was on located in america, etc.). I think the other legal remedy would have been best, thank Dmitri for pointing out their incompetence and FIX IT.
ok, the whole arument of loyal customer base was based arround my assumption that the other companies would use the exact same method I came up with...except possibly cheaper, if I'd already proven myself to do a good job my customers would be willing to pay a little more rather than risk counting on the skills of a new unproved builder. Now if a rival company added a significant improvement to my method then the customers would leave and flock to the other company, leaving me to come up with more improvements or go out of business, thus the buliding process gets better. I wouldn't stop going to Google because a site perfectly imitated them, only if they added significant improvements.
Now, simply add a gigabyte of storage, audio recording software, playback options, and wireless network support and BAM your next P2P music sharing network.
he could have just accidently hit the o before the r :).......give people a break my spelling is far from perfect too, btw I've used a bunch of distros (Mandrake, Redhat, Debian, Slackware, Suse, Immunix) IMO SuSe definately beat them all.