If your web browser prohibited you from removing the notice that would be DRM. As such, it doesn't. So what does that mean if you violate the terms of this license? It means that a person will have to enforce the license, by prosecuting you in a court of law.
Obviously it would be illegal to remove the DRM. So although you, a single technically advanced user, would be free, you would not be able to share your freedom with anyone else.
For instance, she said, UK law allows people to make copies of parts of copyrighted works for the purposes of critiquing or reviewing them.
"That's an exemption thwarted by DRM systems," she said. "The technologies are extending beyond the law they are supposed to uphold."
Uhh.. I was under the silly impression that it was the duty of the police and the courts to uphold the law. If you're going to start talking about DRM as "upholding the law" then shouldn't the government be doing it? Ahh shit, I just made the case for government mandated standardized DRM didn't I? Bugger.
Who gives a shit what impresses you? I don't mean that in a rabid, you're not important kind of way. I mean that in a you'll install what we tell you to install kind of way. Microsoft still calls the shots. You might like living in alternative land but the majority of people like the mainstream, that's a truism, and the mainstream is whatever the hell Microsoft says it is. Maybe one day that won't be the case, but until a good majority of the mainstream are more technically literate, that day won't be any time soon.
Jesus, what a bullshit argument. No court in the world would convict solely on DNA evidence. Even the worst lawyer would ask the arresting officer if his client's DNA could have got on the weapon after it was dumped. The potential for accidents is hardly a good reason to oppose this stuff. For any argument you can make as to how this technology might be abused or cause an accident, you've just shown how ineffective it will be in a court of law. So what's it good for? The same way a telephone book is good for looking up a criminal's address, to make it harder to commit a crime and get away with it. Now if you'd like to say that we, as free persons, need to be able to commit crimes, we can have a real philosophical argument.
get used to that slogan, because you're going to be hearing a lot of it in 2008. Personally I agree with you, but ever since the 19th century a vast majority of people have not. We don't live isolated lives anymore. Maladjusted little shit kids grow up and commit crimes. More crime means more police. More police means less personal liberty for everyone. So the argument goes, we need to control and standardize parenting to ensure criminals are not nurtured.
Why is it every idiot who runs a wiki wants to meet you on irc or email before they'll give you an account? The people who should understand most intimately how important it is to make it easy for people to access your site.
The only way to legally play a DVD is to sign a contract with the licensing authority for CSS. That contract is the only right you have to decrypt a DVD. The contract requires you to honour the UAP restrictions. If you violate the contract, you no longer have the right to decrypt DVDs. Therefore you are circumventing a copy protection mechanism. Yes, we can all play DVDs under Linux or with some software DeCSS based player, but it isn't legal.
I'm all for basic research.. I just don't understand why you would put a hand on ASIMO that has less dexterity than the grippers grounds keepers use to pick up cigerette butts. Where's the research in that? I think ASIMO has shown that the time for solely basic research into humanoid robotics is coming to an end. It's time to see what we've got and the best way to do that is to take the best-of-breed technologies and combine them into one robot, then set that robot some tasks that are practical and useful.
No, we didn't you hanger-on. The only person, ever, who has originally refered to people who break into computer systems as "crackers" is Eric S. Raymond. Everyone else who used the term "crackers" to refer to people who break into computer systems was just a sheep who read the jargon file, the entry of which was written by Eric S. Raymond. The fact that the media had (and continue to have) no interest in your prefered definition of the word and, as such, the mainstream public still consider your meaning of the word for be incorrect, does not give you warrant to rewrite history. If you wanna continue the propoganda compaign to make everything think of "hacker" as meaning a shiny happy tree friend who writes code for the good of humanity, don't do it in response to my Slashdot posts. And in case anyone is struggling to remember what "cracking" was all about, go have a look at how copy protection on software was broken back before every idiot figured out they could charge customers for a serial number. Those guys who did the cracking, we called them crackers. Eric S. Raymond probably wasn't concerned with them because he was already living a super-nerd-it-up life style over on VAX mainframes and minicomputers when the rest of us were discovering the personal computer revolution.
Because despite the millions of dollars that have been spent on other robots (*cough* ASIMO) they still can't perform a single useful task. Unless, of course, you consider entertaining gawkers as useful.
It is impressive if the goal is "something to gawk at" but if you actually wanna a see a robot doing something useful, go to your local automobile factory. cute-but-useless, what a great thing to waste money on. I hear the current research version of ASIMO will have 2 seperate motors to control its fingers. One for the thumb, one for every other finger. With dexterity like that I would expect it could actually pick up a beer can, although it might be a little heavy for it, so it won't be able to walk with it at the same time.
It's a cultural thing, the Japanese measure how effective a robot is by how polite it can be. They don't actually try to make it do any work. On the other hand, I guess the americans would measure how effective a robot is by how many people it can kill in 5 seconds. So it's not all bad.
I hate it when people say this, but I'll say it anyways, it's a slippery slope. People notice that you can't fast forward these things, they just accept them. So next time someone makes a device that does what is in the best interests of their "partners" and not in the best interest of their customer you will happily accept it, cause that's the way the world is.
Tell me, do you know *anyone* who returned their DVD player because it prohibited them from fast forwarding the parts of the disc that are marked as not fast forwardable? The market is clearly brain dead.
I had an interesting experience the other day. I put in a disc, saw the stupid logo fly up and realised I had put the wrong disc in the drive. So I pressed Eject. The screen displayed "operation prohibited by disc". So I pressed Skip Forward. The screen displayed "operation prohibited by disc". So I pressed Stop. I couldn't believe it, but the screen displayed "operation prohibited by disc". Finally I pressed the Power button. That shut it up. What's my point? Well the guy who's job it was to encode that disc probably got a memo saying that the restrictions on the company's logo being displayed should be the maximum allowed. He didn't really think about whether or not the user should have the right to skip the stupid logo, or even stop the DVD player from displaying it in any way. He just selected "maximum restrictions". That's what happens. If people can strict others from doing something, they do it. These arn't "evil" people. They're just taking every advantage they believe is available to them.
It's not about supporting it, it's about tolerating it. Consider, when you bought your DVD player and found that you couldn't fast forward certain parts of media (like those stupid logos and copyright notices) did you take it back to the store and ask for a refund? No, you just put up with it. What we're calling DRM today is just the warm up game.
The point of political protest against DRM is that the proponents of DRM are pushing for laws that force people to use DRM. You are right, DRM is "flawed", but that hardly matters when there are laws demanding that no-one tell anyone that it is flawed. As for your question about the DMCA, exactly what laws do you think we're talking about? The DMCA is just the first of many that will make DRM workable.
Slashdot Mirror
If your web browser prohibited you from removing the notice that would be DRM. As such, it doesn't. So what does that mean if you violate the terms of this license? It means that a person will have to enforce the license, by prosecuting you in a court of law.
Jesus Christ. How can you make a snide remark about double standards and use the term "stealing" with a straight face.
Obviously it would be illegal to remove the DRM. So although you, a single technically advanced user, would be free, you would not be able to share your freedom with anyone else.
For instance, she said, UK law allows people to make copies of parts of copyrighted works for the purposes of critiquing or reviewing them.
"That's an exemption thwarted by DRM systems," she said. "The technologies are extending beyond the law they are supposed to uphold."
Uhh.. I was under the silly impression that it was the duty of the police and the courts to uphold the law. If you're going to start talking about DRM as "upholding the law" then shouldn't the government be doing it? Ahh shit, I just made the case for government mandated standardized DRM didn't I? Bugger.
Who gives a shit what impresses you? I don't mean that in a rabid, you're not important kind of way. I mean that in a you'll install what we tell you to install kind of way. Microsoft still calls the shots. You might like living in alternative land but the majority of people like the mainstream, that's a truism, and the mainstream is whatever the hell Microsoft says it is. Maybe one day that won't be the case, but until a good majority of the mainstream are more technically literate, that day won't be any time soon.
Jesus, what a bullshit argument. No court in the world would convict solely on DNA evidence. Even the worst lawyer would ask the arresting officer if his client's DNA could have got on the weapon after it was dumped. The potential for accidents is hardly a good reason to oppose this stuff. For any argument you can make as to how this technology might be abused or cause an accident, you've just shown how ineffective it will be in a court of law. So what's it good for? The same way a telephone book is good for looking up a criminal's address, to make it harder to commit a crime and get away with it. Now if you'd like to say that we, as free persons, need to be able to commit crimes, we can have a real philosophical argument.
get used to that slogan, because you're going to be hearing a lot of it in 2008. Personally I agree with you, but ever since the 19th century a vast majority of people have not. We don't live isolated lives anymore. Maladjusted little shit kids grow up and commit crimes. More crime means more police. More police means less personal liberty for everyone. So the argument goes, we need to control and standardize parenting to ensure criminals are not nurtured.
Why is it every idiot who runs a wiki wants to meet you on irc or email before they'll give you an account? The people who should understand most intimately how important it is to make it easy for people to access your site.
Yes. I agree.
The only way to legally play a DVD is to sign a contract with the licensing authority for CSS. That contract is the only right you have to decrypt a DVD. The contract requires you to honour the UAP restrictions. If you violate the contract, you no longer have the right to decrypt DVDs. Therefore you are circumventing a copy protection mechanism. Yes, we can all play DVDs under Linux or with some software DeCSS based player, but it isn't legal.
I'm all for basic research.. I just don't understand why you would put a hand on ASIMO that has less dexterity than the grippers grounds keepers use to pick up cigerette butts. Where's the research in that? I think ASIMO has shown that the time for solely basic research into humanoid robotics is coming to an end. It's time to see what we've got and the best way to do that is to take the best-of-breed technologies and combine them into one robot, then set that robot some tasks that are practical and useful.
No, we didn't you hanger-on. The only person, ever, who has originally refered to people who break into computer systems as "crackers" is Eric S. Raymond. Everyone else who used the term "crackers" to refer to people who break into computer systems was just a sheep who read the jargon file, the entry of which was written by Eric S. Raymond. The fact that the media had (and continue to have) no interest in your prefered definition of the word and, as such, the mainstream public still consider your meaning of the word for be incorrect, does not give you warrant to rewrite history. If you wanna continue the propoganda compaign to make everything think of "hacker" as meaning a shiny happy tree friend who writes code for the good of humanity, don't do it in response to my Slashdot posts. And in case anyone is struggling to remember what "cracking" was all about, go have a look at how copy protection on software was broken back before every idiot figured out they could charge customers for a serial number. Those guys who did the cracking, we called them crackers. Eric S. Raymond probably wasn't concerned with them because he was already living a super-nerd-it-up life style over on VAX mainframes and minicomputers when the rest of us were discovering the personal computer revolution.
It's not a test platform, it's a show pony.
Using C# is a far call from using VB, even if it is VB.NET.
Have you actually read the DMCA?
My congratulations if you happen to be outside the USA and don't have a similar law in your country.
Because despite the millions of dollars that have been spent on other robots (*cough* ASIMO) they still can't perform a single useful task. Unless, of course, you consider entertaining gawkers as useful.
Yeah, one of them is economically valuable.
It is impressive if the goal is "something to gawk at" but if you actually wanna a see a robot doing something useful, go to your local automobile factory. cute-but-useless, what a great thing to waste money on. I hear the current research version of ASIMO will have 2 seperate motors to control its fingers. One for the thumb, one for every other finger. With dexterity like that I would expect it could actually pick up a beer can, although it might be a little heavy for it, so it won't be able to walk with it at the same time.
It's a cultural thing, the Japanese measure how effective a robot is by how polite it can be. They don't actually try to make it do any work. On the other hand, I guess the americans would measure how effective a robot is by how many people it can kill in 5 seconds. So it's not all bad.
Seeing as it is illegal to produce or trade in DVD players that have these features, I expect that "a lot of slashdotters" did no such thing.
I hate it when people say this, but I'll say it anyways, it's a slippery slope. People notice that you can't fast forward these things, they just accept them. So next time someone makes a device that does what is in the best interests of their "partners" and not in the best interest of their customer you will happily accept it, cause that's the way the world is.
Tell me, do you know *anyone* who returned their DVD player because it prohibited them from fast forwarding the parts of the disc that are marked as not fast forwardable? The market is clearly brain dead.
I had an interesting experience the other day. I put in a disc, saw the stupid logo fly up and realised I had put the wrong disc in the drive. So I pressed Eject. The screen displayed "operation prohibited by disc". So I pressed Skip Forward. The screen displayed "operation prohibited by disc". So I pressed Stop. I couldn't believe it, but the screen displayed "operation prohibited by disc". Finally I pressed the Power button. That shut it up. What's my point? Well the guy who's job it was to encode that disc probably got a memo saying that the restrictions on the company's logo being displayed should be the maximum allowed. He didn't really think about whether or not the user should have the right to skip the stupid logo, or even stop the DVD player from displaying it in any way. He just selected "maximum restrictions". That's what happens. If people can strict others from doing something, they do it. These arn't "evil" people. They're just taking every advantage they believe is available to them.
It's not about supporting it, it's about tolerating it. Consider, when you bought your DVD player and found that you couldn't fast forward certain parts of media (like those stupid logos and copyright notices) did you take it back to the store and ask for a refund? No, you just put up with it. What we're calling DRM today is just the warm up game.
The point of political protest against DRM is that the proponents of DRM are pushing for laws that force people to use DRM. You are right, DRM is "flawed", but that hardly matters when there are laws demanding that no-one tell anyone that it is flawed. As for your question about the DMCA, exactly what laws do you think we're talking about? The DMCA is just the first of many that will make DRM workable.
That's Theo de Raddt for you, a walking contradiction.