Then maybe when a company tells one of their programmers that they need to patent something blatantly stupid, they'll show some backbone and say "no, its not patentable. It would be a waste of money and time."
Any one of the voting machine vendors could turn their implementation into an Open Source one, simply by releasing source under an appropriate license.
The last election was so wrought with scandal. I don't trust the electronic voting machines (and I'm glad my state still uses paper!), and the news about them during the election only served to strengthen my distrust. I cannot be alone.
The outcome of our elections should not be determined by a Black Box. We need to be able to peek inside and know it can be trusted.
Yeah. We're arguing semantics, but if anyone was to bring up a lawsuit, that's what it would boil down to anyway. The software is "preset to only accept Intels chips as having the performance necessary." It doesn't say "Only Intel chips have the performance necessary," which would be an outright lie.
To me it sends the message, "Non-Intel chips might have the performance, but Skype is programmed to ignore them."
The intended implication to the consumer is that only Intel has the performance, but its worded cleverly enough to keep them out of court.
In any case, its a cheap ploy that will hopefully bite them in the ass. Its like they're blatantly admitting that their processors can't compete on their own. Maybe the crackers could mod it to support 12-person conferences on non-Intel hardware.
Not quite true. It said "...preset to only accept Intel's chip...", which is more or less meaningless market-speak. It says nothing of the actual performance of any of the chips. It doesn't say AMD chips don't have the performance, just that Skype won't utilize the performance on other chips.
Intel does this crap all the time. They partner with companies and have them put "if (cpu == intel)" restrictions around some features so users will have an arbitrarily "better" experience on an Intel chip than on others, even though the experience is based on money not tech. I know a developer who was annoyed that he had to put special code in his Java app to disable certain features when not on Intel because Intel was giving his company a ridiculous amount of money to do it. It sucks, but small companies like receiving big checks, especially when its some rich idiot writing it.
I think its fantastic that it has been "cracked". Eventually this BS should come back to haunt them. If Intel can't compete on performance in an arena where performance is all that matters, all the crutches in the world won't help them. No system builder with half a clue will choose Intel over AMD based solely on the size of Skype conferences, especially when they know its a false "benchmark". Low-end consumers, who are more likely to be fooled by these shady tactics, buy their computers in a box based on the brand name of HP, Dell, or Gateway, not Intel or AMD. I really see no upside for Intel on this, just downside.
I've personally been boycotting the music industry ever since Napster (the real one, not the new one that stole the name) shut down. Not just Sony, but all of them. Except indy's. And no iTunes store either (because of DRM). I haven't been 100%. I mean, I've bought 5 or 6 CDs over that time. Overall that's a huge drop in my music purchasing, and besides I'm only human.
I did pretty well until I discovered allofmp3.com. Now I can buy music in open formats at a better than reasonable price. Allofmp3.com is my "good faith" way of showing that if someone offers a product I'm interested in (music downloads that will play wherever *I* want to play them, without restriction) I'm willing to buy. I think that's a much better statement than simply boycotting.
But I back this sony boycott for sure. They attacked their cusomters. In the name of "anti-piracy" they put stuff on their CDs that *only* attacked their PAYING CUSTOMERS' machines.
Did it infect the computers of people trading ColdPlay music on Kazaa? No.
Did it infect the computers of people mass-producing bootleg CDs? No
Did it infect the people who bought the bootlegs? Not likely, unless the bootlegs were copies of the original infected CD... if its a rip/burn, its safe...
Only the people who forked over $12 or $15 or whatever got screwed by this. Anyone who didn't *legally* buy ColdPlay is fine... Sony's rootkit helps "keep honest users" get fucked.
So yeah, I'll boycott their entire company as best as I can. If we only boycotted their music dept, the remaining divisions will cover for them. Sony's strength is in their diversity. The only way to make an impact is to stop giving them your money across the board. Maybe I can't special order a motherboard with no Sony capacitors on it, but I can definitely stop buying high-margin Sony items (ie, everthing Sony sells directly to consumers).
(and actually, I'm not sure I've even seen a sony semiconductor recently...)
You think maybe the "overhead projector group" might get a little annoyed if their quarterly revenue drops because the music group's anti-consumer practices? Maybe that could affect change from the inside, too.
Just for kicks, let's see how well I'm doing by your standards.
- haven't seen Memoirs of a Geisha. In fact I haven't seen many new movies this year, as most have gotten terrible reviews, and the few I have seen were so bad that they've really turned me off from going to the theater. I'll admit that this wasn't a conscious sony-boycott measure... I just didn't go see it.
- DaVinci Code - I probably won't see DVC, since it has Tom Hanks in it, and I'm still boycotting him until he gets over himself and does another "Bachelor Party" type comedy (my last tom hanks movie: forest gump). Besides, I read the book and the movie will likely be a crappy adaptation.
- Spiderman 3... you might have me on that one. But again, i'm only human.
- Hellboy 2 - I might see this one... in Hell. The first Hellboy was bad enough. I won't have a problem boycotting this one.
- Peer pressure - If my friends invite me to see a movie that I don't want to go see, I'll pass. If its a Sony movie (even one that I wouldn't have wanted to see regardless of the studio), I'll tell them its because I'm boycotting Sony. They'll laugh and understand. They're my friends.
If your friends consider shitty movies more important than your integrity, you should find new friends.
- Tom & Jerry SG-1 - haven't seen either in a long ass time. In fact I haven't seen but maybe 1/2 an episode of SG-1 ever. I saw the movie, but not the TV show. Through no fault of my own this boycott is a cakewalk.
- I didn't buy a PSP, nor do I plan to. I *am* holding out for a Playstation 3, but Sony has another year or so to shape up before I have to worry about that. And maybe by then I'll have enough will power to not waste money on video game systems that I hardly ever play (I have PS2 and probably 10 gam
Because the Coldplay CD was the FIRST known incident of Sony putting a rootkit on their media. Read their responses and you'll see that they pretty much left things open to do it again when they can figure out how to hide^H^H^H^Hmake it work better.
If it hadn't made such a ruckus, you can bet they'd be doing that crap all over the place. Besides, DVDs have the DMCA to back them up (since they have encryption... lol), while CDs have been left "unprotected" (you know, except for copyright).
Then again, if you listen to coldplay you deserve what you got;)
DRM-free mp3 files beat the hell out of both FairPlay and Playz-Fer-Sher!
My mp3s play on all of my computers, all of my mp3 players (2 ipods, oakley glasses (they were a GIFT), empeg car, xbox media center...
FairPlay plays on a few of my macs at a time; only 4 because, sadly, one of my "authorized" computers got blown away when I reinstalled the OS on that box. I'm sure there's a way to resolve this, but its one of those steps that "keeps honest users" from using the iTunes Store. So I can't play FairPlay songs on 2 macs (more than 5 in this household... is Steve Jobs trying to tell me I buy too many boxes from him?), 2 PCs, my car, my non-ipod mp3 players, or my xboxes. That ain't fair. I've stopped using the iTMS, since I'd have to convert them to mp3 if I want to listen to them (and that's against the license).
PlaysForSure - somehow I doubt those will play anywhere in my house. Hmm... Maybe on the windows laptop we keep around for configuring a couple of devices that are *only* supported by Windows, but sometimes I like to listen to music outside of my office cabinets, where these files SurelyWon'tPlay.
For now I'm still "stuck" buying CDs and ripping them myself. The only real drawback is having to store all of the physical media (as backups) in boxes somewhere in my basement once its ripped to disk.
The irony is that you are correct, but that still doesn't make the interface either intuitive or consistent, particularly not consistent. Once again we can have the 10 developer, 11 different outcome situation. And the "+" icon being the non-intuitive bit. X closes, - minimizes, and +... well, it does something else. To be more precise, yet still as vague, it zooms between two states defined by the developer...
The inconsistency is consistent by definition. And, well, now I know what the + means, so its intuitive, too.
Yeah that all depends on your definition of "own".
Sure you own your iPod, but you don't own your iTunes downloads. You license them, and can lose them at any time with a simple iTunes update. You can only use your iTunes on 5 computer... no, they reduced it to 3... so 3 computers. Already I'd have to break the "law" to listen to the music I "own" on just the Macs in my house. My own computers. Those I actually do own, but the music files make me jump through hoops to listen to them.
They pwn me.
And microsoft... le'ts see... I have a couple of Microsoft keyboards that I bought and own... and a mouse... and an xbox. All bought and owned. About even with Apple on this.
And linux... I have my linux... umm... oh yeah. Its free. I've neither bought nor owned it, but I use it all the time.
Ding dong, you're wrong.
I'm currently writing this on my Mac, but on FireFox, which is the same on my Mac as it is on my Linux. Macs are consistent and intuitive, most of the time. Like that green button on the window titlebar... the one that sometimes maximizes windows, but in iTunes it makes it the small floating window, and on some apps it just kind of makes the window bigger... or maybe smaller. I just clicked a bunch and none of them did the same thing.
In iChat, the "Bonjour" list shrunk to 2 cells, but when I clicked the AIM buddylist it stretched to the full height of the screen. You can't buy consistency like that!
All software is crap. You just have to choose the one that's least crappy for your application. In my case, MacOSX tends to be less crappy than Linux, which is several courses of nachos (with extra jalapenos!) less crappy than Windows.
The roomba definitely doesn't outperform a Dyson by traditional measurements, but try turning on a Dyson, then walk away for an hour and see how much of the room it has cleaned. They're very different devices.
I've been using my roomba in my home office and basement, just to keep the dust bunnies down. Its also great for collecting stray Air-Soft rounds that ricochet around the room (I just need to come up with a good way to separate the BBs from the dust once they're in the bin). Both rooms have hard floors (wood upstairs, concrete in the basement), so it works well. I have an area rug in the basement that gets decently clean.
I also have several pets, so running the Roomba every couple of days (or every day, once the Scheduler upgrade arrives) keeps things nice between visits from the maid service.
As a bonus, the Roomba has "trained" me to not leave as much junk on the floor. It tends to get trapped if there are too many obstacles. Now my house looks much nicer, though my desktop now gets all the clutter.
The distinction between R and NC-17 is pretty subtle. The idea, I suppose, is that R movies have mature content, but responsible parents should be allowed to decide if their kids can see it or not. NC-17 tries to close the loophole where a bunch of kids could pay a homeless guy to get them in, but it is only used in special cases.
Heh.. I guess the MPAA wants to keep the kids out, so they don't the children to get "confused" hearing a message in the film that is different from what the Guest Speakers at school tell them, and perhaps contradicts the "Who Makes Movies?" commercial they saw right before the previews (the one where an actor playing a blue-collar crew member calls the ticket-holding theater audience a bunch of thieves)... but i digress..
The studios, special interest groups and even the MPAA all exploit these rating systems as they see fit.
Going up against an authoritarian system controlled by 2 authoritarian parties unwilling to give up their power is a tough fight. Perhaps the EFF could blow their entire budget trying to bring a lawsuit to change the entire government, but that's a longshot.
This voting machine BS is a blatant violation of a state law by the state election committee. Its pretty cut-and-dry.
Bogus election machines would give that authoritarian system unlimited control over the outcomes of election. Right now they have plenty of opportunities (as you described) to stack the vote in their favor, but they still can't absolutely control an individual's vote. When I'm in the booth, I still ultimately make the choice between punching out the big huge red blinking chad next to "Republican", or the pinhole for the independant candidate printed in 3-point font on the back cover, if it comes to that. That's still my choice.
With a rigged electronic machine, I could punch "Anarchy Party" all day long, but my "vote" would be re-routed to the pre-determined winner.
I'm as sore as anyone about the 2000 election, and the redistricting to ease a Republican win in 2004. But at the end of the day, the winner was sort of more or less determined by the outcome of the votes and the election process. If we lose the connection between our votes and the tally, then the whole system moves straight past corruption and becomes a complete joke.
I'm glad the EFF is working to try to keep things from getting worse before they get better.
Choosing a better performing product over a lesser one is good business.
But a blanket policy against NC-17 movies is different. They do that "for the children". You don't hate children, do you?;)
Its a lame CYA policy. If they don't show the movies, they won't get complaints and boycotts and other crap. If they proactivelty say they won't show NC-17 movies, that keeps all the radical religious freaks out of their hair.
You know... Kind of like how all those IMAX theaters decided not to show that movie about the ocean since it had the word "evolution" in it.
I was at a bar one night. An older couple stumbled in, quite obviously drunk. The man ordered a drink, but bartender refused to serve the woman, as she could barely sit on the barstool. The man takes a sip of his drink, then leans over to give his partner a kiss. But instead of kissing her, he was spitting the drink into her open mouth. I sh*t you not.
The bartender took the drink, cut them off and called them a cab.
Neither how the bug gets there, nor why are important. There may be some in place already. Who knows?
The point of the contest is to see what people come up with as ways to hide such bugs in the code. How hard is it to make a change to some code, like, say,
if (user == "NULL") { evil_laugh(); }
instead of
if (user == NULL) { evil_apology(); }
could easily slip by someone scanning the code for the zillionth time under heavy deadline pressures. And there's no way that's gonna win the contest.
So is there a way to detect these sorts of obfuscated sneak attacks before they strike?
If the evil() code is innocuous looking, someone could slip it in as part of a major bug-fix patch. Or maybe ease it into the code over time. Or sneak it in as part of a port to the C-64. Or maybe use some other back-door to install it on the maintainer's source repository. There's all sorts of ways they could do it, if the happy, smiling, blood-sucking code can be created in the first place.
A few versions later, it reaches the main branch. No one found it because it was hiding really well, and no one is specifically looking for it, because it looks like normal, well-structured, i'm not totally sure what its doing, but it doesn't really look too complicated, and i don't want to seem like an idiot in my first week, clean-compiling code. Then it goes on all of those 100 approved download places.
A few versions later, there have been enough major upgrades, and sufficient debugging that most installations will have been upgraded at least once. The author merely has to wait as long as needed to get to a critical mass of zombies-in-waiting. Then BOOM!
How do you find things that the most scrutinizing examiners missed, particularly when you don't know what you're looking for?
How does a software company with only a few programmers or maybe only a few tens of thousands to examine all the code while at the same time developing it on a tight schedule, double-check something that was diliberately obscured to pass the coding standards of the corporation?
Slashdot Mirror
Geeks fit into hard drives like goldfish fit in bowls; they grow to fill the space...
There's a name on the patent. Jail that person.
Then maybe when a company tells one of their programmers that they need to patent something blatantly stupid, they'll show some backbone and say "no, its not patentable. It would be a waste of money and time."
Lesson - posession is still 9/10 of the law.
In this Post-9/11 world we live in, 9/10 doesn't mean jack sh*t.
Any one of the voting machine vendors could turn their implementation into an Open Source one, simply by releasing source under an appropriate license.
The last election was so wrought with scandal. I don't trust the electronic voting machines (and I'm glad my state still uses paper!), and the news about them during the election only served to strengthen my distrust. I cannot be alone.
The outcome of our elections should not be determined by a Black Box. We need to be able to peek inside and know it can be trusted.
That may be true, but try having one node of your RAID array located offsite and see how blazingly slow it is.
RAID is redundancy, not backup.
It boils down to a lack of any sort of business ethics.
When you can't compete on your merits, lie but run it by the lawyers first.
Yeah. We're arguing semantics, but if anyone was to bring up a lawsuit, that's what it would boil down to anyway. The software is "preset to only accept Intels chips as having the performance necessary." It doesn't say "Only Intel chips have the performance necessary," which would be an outright lie.
To me it sends the message, "Non-Intel chips might have the performance, but Skype is programmed to ignore them."
The intended implication to the consumer is that only Intel has the performance, but its worded cleverly enough to keep them out of court.
In any case, its a cheap ploy that will hopefully bite them in the ass. Its like they're blatantly admitting that their processors can't compete on their own. Maybe the crackers could mod it to support 12-person conferences on non-Intel hardware.
Not quite true. It said "...preset to only accept Intel's chip...", which is more or less meaningless market-speak. It says nothing of the actual performance of any of the chips. It doesn't say AMD chips don't have the performance, just that Skype won't utilize the performance on other chips.
Intel does this crap all the time. They partner with companies and have them put "if (cpu == intel)" restrictions around some features so users will have an arbitrarily "better" experience on an Intel chip than on others, even though the experience is based on money not tech. I know a developer who was annoyed that he had to put special code in his Java app to disable certain features when not on Intel because Intel was giving his company a ridiculous amount of money to do it. It sucks, but small companies like receiving big checks, especially when its some rich idiot writing it.
I think its fantastic that it has been "cracked". Eventually this BS should come back to haunt them. If Intel can't compete on performance in an arena where performance is all that matters, all the crutches in the world won't help them. No system builder with half a clue will choose Intel over AMD based solely on the size of Skype conferences, especially when they know its a false "benchmark". Low-end consumers, who are more likely to be fooled by these shady tactics, buy their computers in a box based on the brand name of HP, Dell, or Gateway, not Intel or AMD. I really see no upside for Intel on this, just downside.
I've personally been boycotting the music industry ever since Napster (the real one, not the new one that stole the name) shut down. Not just Sony, but all of them. Except indy's. And no iTunes store either (because of DRM). I haven't been 100%. I mean, I've bought 5 or 6 CDs over that time. Overall that's a huge drop in my music purchasing, and besides I'm only human.
I did pretty well until I discovered allofmp3.com. Now I can buy music in open formats at a better than reasonable price. Allofmp3.com is my "good faith" way of showing that if someone offers a product I'm interested in (music downloads that will play wherever *I* want to play them, without restriction) I'm willing to buy. I think that's a much better statement than simply boycotting.
But I back this sony boycott for sure. They attacked their cusomters. In the name of "anti-piracy" they put stuff on their CDs that *only* attacked their PAYING CUSTOMERS' machines.
Did it infect the computers of people trading ColdPlay music on Kazaa? No.
Did it infect the computers of people mass-producing bootleg CDs? No
Did it infect the people who bought the bootlegs? Not likely, unless the bootlegs were copies of the original infected CD... if its a rip/burn, its safe...
Only the people who forked over $12 or $15 or whatever got screwed by this. Anyone who didn't *legally* buy ColdPlay is fine... Sony's rootkit helps "keep honest users" get fucked.
So yeah, I'll boycott their entire company as best as I can. If we only boycotted their music dept, the remaining divisions will cover for them. Sony's strength is in their diversity. The only way to make an impact is to stop giving them your money across the board. Maybe I can't special order a motherboard with no Sony capacitors on it, but I can definitely stop buying high-margin Sony items (ie, everthing Sony sells directly to consumers).
(and actually, I'm not sure I've even seen a sony semiconductor recently...)
You think maybe the "overhead projector group" might get a little annoyed if their quarterly revenue drops because the music group's anti-consumer practices? Maybe that could affect change from the inside, too.
Just for kicks, let's see how well I'm doing by your standards.
- haven't seen Memoirs of a Geisha. In fact I haven't seen many new movies this year, as most have gotten terrible reviews, and the few I have seen were so bad that they've really turned me off from going to the theater. I'll admit that this wasn't a conscious sony-boycott measure... I just didn't go see it.
- DaVinci Code - I probably won't see DVC, since it has Tom Hanks in it, and I'm still boycotting him until he gets over himself and does another "Bachelor Party" type comedy (my last tom hanks movie: forest gump). Besides, I read the book and the movie will likely be a crappy adaptation.
- Spiderman 3... you might have me on that one. But again, i'm only human.
- Hellboy 2 - I might see this one... in Hell. The first Hellboy was bad enough. I won't have a problem boycotting this one.
- Peer pressure - If my friends invite me to see a movie that I don't want to go see, I'll pass. If its a Sony movie (even one that I wouldn't have wanted to see regardless of the studio), I'll tell them its because I'm boycotting Sony. They'll laugh and understand. They're my friends.
If your friends consider shitty movies more important than your integrity, you should find new friends.
- Tom & Jerry SG-1 - haven't seen either in a long ass time. In fact I haven't seen but maybe 1/2 an episode of SG-1 ever. I saw the movie, but not the TV show. Through no fault of my own this boycott is a cakewalk.
- I didn't buy a PSP, nor do I plan to. I *am* holding out for a Playstation 3, but Sony has another year or so to shape up before I have to worry about that. And maybe by then I'll have enough will power to not waste money on video game systems that I hardly ever play (I have PS2 and probably 10 gam
Easy, nimrod...
;)
Because the Coldplay CD was the FIRST known incident of Sony putting a rootkit on their media. Read their responses and you'll see that they pretty much left things open to do it again when they can figure out how to hide^H^H^H^Hmake it work better.
If it hadn't made such a ruckus, you can bet they'd be doing that crap all over the place. Besides, DVDs have the DMCA to back them up (since they have encryption... lol), while CDs have been left "unprotected" (you know, except for copyright).
Then again, if you listen to coldplay you deserve what you got
DRM-free mp3 files beat the hell out of both FairPlay and Playz-Fer-Sher!
My mp3s play on all of my computers, all of my mp3 players (2 ipods, oakley glasses (they were a GIFT), empeg car, xbox media center...
FairPlay plays on a few of my macs at a time; only 4 because, sadly, one of my "authorized" computers got blown away when I reinstalled the OS on that box. I'm sure there's a way to resolve this, but its one of those steps that "keeps honest users" from using the iTunes Store. So I can't play FairPlay songs on 2 macs (more than 5 in this household... is Steve Jobs trying to tell me I buy too many boxes from him?), 2 PCs, my car, my non-ipod mp3 players, or my xboxes. That ain't fair. I've stopped using the iTMS, since I'd have to convert them to mp3 if I want to listen to them (and that's against the license).
PlaysForSure - somehow I doubt those will play anywhere in my house. Hmm... Maybe on the windows laptop we keep around for configuring a couple of devices that are *only* supported by Windows, but sometimes I like to listen to music outside of my office cabinets, where these files SurelyWon'tPlay.
For now I'm still "stuck" buying CDs and ripping them myself. The only real drawback is having to store all of the physical media (as backups) in boxes somewhere in my basement once its ripped to disk.
Ohhh! So THAT's what the + icon means...
... well, it does something else. To be more precise, yet still as vague, it zooms between two states defined by the developer...
The irony is that you are correct, but that still doesn't make the interface either intuitive or consistent, particularly not consistent. Once again we can have the 10 developer, 11 different outcome situation. And the "+" icon being the non-intuitive bit. X closes, - minimizes, and +
The inconsistency is consistent by definition. And, well, now I know what the + means, so its intuitive, too.
Hooray! Pass the Kool-Aid!
Yeah that all depends on your definition of "own".
Sure you own your iPod, but you don't own your iTunes downloads. You license them, and can lose them at any time with a simple iTunes update. You can only use your iTunes on 5 computer... no, they reduced it to 3... so 3 computers. Already I'd have to break the "law" to listen to the music I "own" on just the Macs in my house. My own computers. Those I actually do own, but the music files make me jump through hoops to listen to them.
They pwn me.
And microsoft... le'ts see... I have a couple of Microsoft keyboards that I bought and own... and a mouse... and an xbox. All bought and owned. About even with Apple on this.
And linux... I have my linux... umm... oh yeah. Its free. I've neither bought nor owned it, but I use it all the time.
Ding dong, you're wrong.
I'm currently writing this on my Mac, but on FireFox, which is the same on my Mac as it is on my Linux. Macs are consistent and intuitive, most of the time. Like that green button on the window titlebar... the one that sometimes maximizes windows, but in iTunes it makes it the small floating window, and on some apps it just kind of makes the window bigger... or maybe smaller. I just clicked a bunch and none of them did the same thing.
In iChat, the "Bonjour" list shrunk to 2 cells, but when I clicked the AIM buddylist it stretched to the full height of the screen. You can't buy consistency like that!
All software is crap. You just have to choose the one that's least crappy for your application. In my case, MacOSX tends to be less crappy than Linux, which is several courses of nachos (with extra jalapenos!) less crappy than Windows.
The roomba definitely doesn't outperform a Dyson by traditional measurements, but try turning on a Dyson, then walk away for an hour and see how much of the room it has cleaned. They're very different devices.
I've been using my roomba in my home office and basement, just to keep the dust bunnies down. Its also great for collecting stray Air-Soft rounds that ricochet around the room (I just need to come up with a good way to separate the BBs from the dust once they're in the bin). Both rooms have hard floors (wood upstairs, concrete in the basement), so it works well. I have an area rug in the basement that gets decently clean.
I also have several pets, so running the Roomba every couple of days (or every day, once the Scheduler upgrade arrives) keeps things nice between visits from the maid service.
As a bonus, the Roomba has "trained" me to not leave as much junk on the floor. It tends to get trapped if there are too many obstacles. Now my house looks much nicer, though my desktop now gets all the clutter.
Mine keeps trying, but the collision detector keeps foiling its plan.
No. They were more or less founded based on that.
:)
It took 17 years to learn that telling the truth might be good marketing.
No one said it wasn't hypocritical nonsense.
The distinction between R and NC-17 is pretty subtle. The idea, I suppose, is that R movies have mature content, but responsible parents should be allowed to decide if their kids can see it or not. NC-17 tries to close the loophole where a bunch of kids could pay a homeless guy to get them in, but it is only used in special cases.
Heh.. I guess the MPAA wants to keep the kids out, so they don't the children to get "confused" hearing a message in the film that is different from what the Guest Speakers at school tell them, and perhaps contradicts the "Who Makes Movies?" commercial they saw right before the previews (the one where an actor playing a blue-collar crew member calls the ticket-holding theater audience a bunch of thieves)... but i digress..
The studios, special interest groups and even the MPAA all exploit these rating systems as they see fit.
How else do you explain "Showgirls"?
Yeah... my bad. I should have included a link, but I'm lazy. :)
Its pretty ridiculous when SCIENCE centers are rejecting SCIENCE movies for religious reasons.
I think its good that the EFF is doing something.
Going up against an authoritarian system controlled by 2 authoritarian parties unwilling to give up their power is a tough fight. Perhaps the EFF could blow their entire budget trying to bring a lawsuit to change the entire government, but that's a longshot.
This voting machine BS is a blatant violation of a state law by the state election committee. Its pretty cut-and-dry.
Bogus election machines would give that authoritarian system unlimited control over the outcomes of election. Right now they have plenty of opportunities (as you described) to stack the vote in their favor, but they still can't absolutely control an individual's vote. When I'm in the booth, I still ultimately make the choice between punching out the big huge red blinking chad next to "Republican", or the pinhole for the independant candidate printed in 3-point font on the back cover, if it comes to that. That's still my choice.
With a rigged electronic machine, I could punch "Anarchy Party" all day long, but my "vote" would be re-routed to the pre-determined winner.
I'm as sore as anyone about the 2000 election, and the redistricting to ease a Republican win in 2004. But at the end of the day, the winner was sort of more or less determined by the outcome of the votes and the election process. If we lose the connection between our votes and the tally, then the whole system moves straight past corruption and becomes a complete joke.
I'm glad the EFF is working to try to keep things from getting worse before they get better.
Duh. The same place every criminal gets the authority (and stones) to override laws. They just do it, and hope they don't get caught.
Oops. Busted!
Choosing a better performing product over a lesser one is good business.
;)
But a blanket policy against NC-17 movies is different. They do that "for the children". You don't hate children, do you?
Its a lame CYA policy. If they don't show the movies, they won't get complaints and boycotts and other crap. If they proactivelty say they won't show NC-17 movies, that keeps all the radical religious freaks out of their hair.
You know... Kind of like how all those IMAX theaters decided not to show that movie about the ocean since it had the word "evolution" in it.
No way!
Are you sure they just don't want to interfere with the artistic vision of the filmmaker?
I mean (heh, heh) the MPAA really cares (snicker) about the artists!
Bwa hahahahahahhahahahahah!!!
Sorry. I couldn't keep a straight face.
One better...
I was at a bar one night. An older couple stumbled in, quite obviously drunk. The man ordered a drink, but bartender refused to serve the woman, as she could barely sit on the barstool. The man takes a sip of his drink, then leans over to give his partner a kiss. But instead of kissing her, he was spitting the drink into her open mouth. I sh*t you not.
The bartender took the drink, cut them off and called them a cab.
Neither how the bug gets there, nor why are important. There may be some in place already. Who knows?
The point of the contest is to see what people come up with as ways to hide such bugs in the code. How hard is it to make a change to some code, like, say,
if (user == "NULL") { evil_laugh(); }
instead of
if (user == NULL) { evil_apology(); }
could easily slip by someone scanning the code for the zillionth time under heavy deadline pressures. And there's no way that's gonna win the contest.
So is there a way to detect these sorts of obfuscated sneak attacks before they strike?
Its a big what if scenario...
If the evil() code is innocuous looking, someone could slip it in as part of a major bug-fix patch. Or maybe ease it into the code over time. Or sneak it in as part of a port to the C-64. Or maybe use some other back-door to install it on the maintainer's source repository. There's all sorts of ways they could do it, if the happy, smiling, blood-sucking code can be created in the first place.
A few versions later, it reaches the main branch. No one found it because it was hiding really well, and no one is specifically looking for it, because it looks like normal, well-structured, i'm not totally sure what its doing, but it doesn't really look too complicated, and i don't want to seem like an idiot in my first week, clean-compiling code. Then it goes on all of those 100 approved download places.
A few versions later, there have been enough major upgrades, and sufficient debugging that most installations will have been upgraded at least once. The author merely has to wait as long as needed to get to a critical mass of zombies-in-waiting. Then BOOM!
How do you find things that the most scrutinizing examiners missed, particularly when you don't know what you're looking for?
How does a software company with only a few programmers or maybe only a few tens of thousands to examine all the code while at the same time developing it on a tight schedule, double-check something that was diliberately obscured to pass the coding standards of the corporation?