Umm.. no, they deliberately sent a message that said "send me the confidential information you have collected". There isn't a court in the land that wouldn't convict these bozos. All they have to rely on is that the majority of people infected with this ancient malware are not going to go after them, cause they're too stupid to know they are infected.
As I see it, pirating a game is only excusable if you're doing it to try it, after which you either buy it or stop playing.
You're still breaking the law.
So, clearly, you must believe that breaking the law when you don't agree with it is ok, so long as you feel morally justified. Surely, you admit that not everyone shares your view of morality.. so you must be ok with other people breaking the law so long as they feel morally justified.
So don't get uppity about people warezing games for non-trial purposes.
If you're playing a pirated copy right now [..] and have been for more than a few days, then you should either buy it or accept that you're a thief and quit rationalizing it any other way.
However, "making code run faster" is what you do after the code runs, and does what it's supposed to do, and is modular, flexible, and maintainable.
Yeah, and you say this like you've never experienced it. Honestly, if you're writing new code you're in the vast minority of programmers.. or you're just playing around. Most of us are working on code that was written years ago and has to keep doing what it does or the company will lose money.
Hehe, no I don't. Server machines with 16 processors and 64 gig of ram and the app still runs out of memory. This is what you get for trying to scale a multi-threaded app by throwing hardware at it.
Hehe.. dude, the purpose of self-modifying code these days is mostly as an anti-debugging trick.. although sometimes its as a replacement for this code:
static bool flag = true; if (flag) {/* do something once only */
flag = false; }
but I've not seen any compilers that do it automatically. When I worked at VMWare there was actually a bit of code that did self modification specifically to *cause* a cache clear of the current page.
If you don't know them, you're not a programmer. If you don't ever implement them, you're likely shipping more library code than application code.
* Creating your own GUIs
Umm.. well actually..
* GO TO and spaghetti code
goto is considered harmful, but it doesn't mean it isn't useful. Spaghetti code, yeah, that's the norm.
* Manual multithreading
All the time. select() is your friend, learn it.
* Self-modifying code
Yup, I actually write asm code.. plus he mentions "modifying the code while it's running".. if you can't do that, you shouldn't be wielding a debugger, edit and continue, my ass.
* Memory management
Yeah, garbage collection is cheap and ubiquitous, and I'm one of the few people that has used C++ garbage collection libraries in serious projects.. that said, I've written my own implementations of malloc/free/realloc and gotten better memory performance. It's what real programmers do to make 64 gig of RAM enough for anyone.
* Working with punch cards
Meh, I'm not that old. But when I was a kid I wrote a lot of:
100 DATA 96,72,34,87,232,37,49,82,35,47,236,71,231,234,207,102,37,85,43,78,45,26,58,35,3 110 DATA 32,154,136,72,131,134,207,102,37,185,43,78,45,26,58,35,3,82,207,34,78,23,68,127
on the C64.
* Math and date conversions
Every day.
* Hungarian notation
Every day. How about we throw in some reverse polish notation too.. get a Polka going.
* Making code run faster
Every fucking day. If you don't do this then you're a dweeb who might as well be coding in php.
* Being patient
"Hey, we had a crash 42 hours into the run, can you take a look?" "Sure, it'll take me about 120 hours to get to it with a debug build."
So why not just hire goons to go around and threaten everyone who competes with you. I mean, that's basically what you want the government to do. Why do you think legitimizing anti-competitive behavior is a good thing?
Authors already have the exclusive right to their writings. They wrote it. All they need do is not distribute it.
If someone who had never heard of copyright was reading that sentence of the constitution they would think that the founders were trying to say that the government can't bust into your writing room and take your writings. And when you consider that this is exactly what governments were doing before the revolution, it makes a lot of sense.
And the whole "limited times" part is basically saying, well obviously, if you're hoarding your work we might bust in and take it eventually, because otherwise you would be holding back the progress of science and the useful arts.
How exactly that got perverted into a justification for copyright law is one for the ages.
None of the "social aspects" you mentioned are remotely related to copyright. The problem with copyright is that it focuses on copying as the fundamental unit of regulation. This is insane in this day and age of cheap ubiquitous copying. The purpose of copyright is to encourage the creation of new works that would otherwise not be created. If that's your goal then restricting copying is exactly the wrong way to go about it. It's like saying your goal is to go skiing and restricting the falling of snow. Not only can you simply not do that, but it won't work either. So forget all you think you know about copyright and solve the damn problem. Specifically we're interested in encouraging the creation of new works that would otherwise not be created. So the natural question to ask is, what works will be created with no copyright and no new laws. I suggest the best way to do that is to simply abolish copyright (if this scares you, then "phase out" copyright over some period of time), then we measure the decrease (or increase!) in the creation of works. Once this process is complete then we can make a sensible judgment of what laws, if any, are required. Maybe the only thing to go will be multi-million dollar blockbuster films. Maybe we'll decide that we simply can't live without them (maybe we won't, we can hope) and decide that some new law is needed to encourage the creation of them. This does not mean we need to reinstate copyright as it stands now just for blockbuster films. It just means we need to encourage their creation. We could do this as simply as sponsoring their creation with a tax.
Wow, really? Companies that make physical products have no such guarantees.. and yet they keep churning out product. In fact, the only restriction on copy-a-like competition is in brand names. I can legally make handbags that look similar to designer products, but I may not sell them labeled as such. Now, think about it for a minute, how is Walmart going to sell copies of books/movies/music/etc if they're not allowed to label them? How's that going to work? "I'll have a mystery DVD please." For some reason I'm pretty sure the trademark owner is going to make a LOT more money than them.
Sigh. I'm kinda sick of having the same argument with idiots on Slashdot. Copyright exists to provide incentives to create works. That is all. It does not exist to protect anyone's "interests". Now kindly fuck off.
Lessig argued that repeated extensions were unconstitutional because they ran afoul of the Constitution's "limited times" requirement and also conflicted with the First Amendment's guarantees of freedom of speech.
But just moments into Lessig's opening remarks, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor interrupted and noted Congress had repeatedly extended the duration on copyrights, with no intervention before by the Supreme Court. What, O'Connor asked, is different about this case?
Lessig then continued to ramble on and the supremes continued to roll their eyes and wonder what the hell he was on about. He later said that, in retrospect, he should have shut up at that point and addressed the point made.
Lessig is not against copyright. He's a fundamental advocate of copyright, "especially in the digital era", he just thinks it is "out of sync" and "needs an update".
Whereas people like me are advocates of just scrapping the whole damn thing because the potential benefits of doing so are way more interesting than the deprecated business models that it will finally put to bed.. and because I believe it is fundamentally the right thing to do, from a "you don't tell me what I can and can't do and I'll do the same" sense of what right means.
Slashdot Mirror
Umm.. no, they deliberately sent a message that said "send me the confidential information you have collected". There isn't a court in the land that wouldn't convict these bozos. All they have to rely on is that the majority of people infected with this ancient malware are not going to go after them, cause they're too stupid to know they are infected.
The first host that sends a reply that identifies it as a valid C&C server is considered genuine,
They sent information.. that means they were illegally accessing a computer system.
Getting altruism out of people is hard enough at the best of times. Asking for altruism when the likely reward is getting arrested.. no.
how hard would it be to let that person know that they have a trojan. And to give directions on how to remove it
That would actually be effective? Very hard.
I know a programmer who has been fired 5 times, but not for incompetence.. he's an alcoholic. He thinks its perfectly normal to get fired.
As I see it, pirating a game is only excusable if you're doing it to try it, after which you either buy it or stop playing.
You're still breaking the law.
So, clearly, you must believe that breaking the law when you don't agree with it is ok, so long as you feel morally justified. Surely, you admit that not everyone shares your view of morality.. so you must be ok with other people breaking the law so long as they feel morally justified.
So don't get uppity about people warezing games for non-trial purposes.
hehe.. if you like copy protection then you probably should go talk to a professional..
He's a guy who thinks he can make bits not copyable.. that's like making water not wet.
If you're playing a pirated copy right now [..] and have been for more than a few days, then you should either buy it or accept that you're a thief and quit rationalizing it any other way.
First you admit that you're just a thug.
Ya, it's a land grab. Again. And that's the problem with copyright law.
Yes, that is sensible. Unfortunately, sensible isn't an option around these parts :)
"goto cleanup;" however, is hard to mess up.
hehe, have a look at Ian Kent's code in autofs sometime.
His use of "goto cleanup;" is an infinite source of double free bugs.
However, "making code run faster" is what you do after the code runs, and does what it's supposed to do, and is modular, flexible, and maintainable.
Yeah, and you say this like you've never experienced it. Honestly, if you're writing new code you're in the vast minority of programmers.. or you're just playing around. Most of us are working on code that was written years ago and has to keep doing what it does or the company will lose money.
I'm a web developer
Ahh, I see.
I'm.. not.
Hehe, no I don't. Server machines with 16 processors and 64 gig of ram and the app still runs out of memory. This is what you get for trying to scale a multi-threaded app by throwing hardware at it.
Hehe.. dude, the purpose of self-modifying code these days is mostly as an anti-debugging trick.. although sometimes its as a replacement for this code:
static bool flag = true; /* do something once only */
if (flag) {
flag = false;
}
but I've not seen any compilers that do it automatically. When I worked at VMWare there was actually a bit of code that did self modification specifically to *cause* a cache clear of the current page.
* Sorting algorithms
If you don't know them, you're not a programmer. If you don't ever implement them, you're likely shipping more library code than application code.
* Creating your own GUIs
Umm.. well actually..
* GO TO and spaghetti code
goto is considered harmful, but it doesn't mean it isn't useful. Spaghetti code, yeah, that's the norm.
* Manual multithreading
All the time. select() is your friend, learn it.
* Self-modifying code
Yup, I actually write asm code.. plus he mentions "modifying the code while it's running".. if you can't do that, you shouldn't be wielding a debugger, edit and continue, my ass.
* Memory management
Yeah, garbage collection is cheap and ubiquitous, and I'm one of the few people that has used C++ garbage collection libraries in serious projects.. that said, I've written my own implementations of malloc/free/realloc and gotten better memory performance. It's what real programmers do to make 64 gig of RAM enough for anyone.
* Working with punch cards
Meh, I'm not that old. But when I was a kid I wrote a lot of:
100 DATA 96,72,34,87,232,37,49,82,35,47,236,71,231,234,207,102,37,85,43,78,45,26,58,35,3
110 DATA 32,154,136,72,131,134,207,102,37,185,43,78,45,26,58,35,3,82,207,34,78,23,68,127
on the C64.
* Math and date conversions
Every day.
* Hungarian notation
Every day. How about we throw in some reverse polish notation too.. get a Polka going.
* Making code run faster
Every fucking day. If you don't do this then you're a dweeb who might as well be coding in php.
* Being patient
"Hey, we had a crash 42 hours into the run, can you take a look?"
"Sure, it'll take me about 120 hours to get to it with a debug build."
what's the price of pork in a vastly flooded market.
Delicious!
So why not just hire goons to go around and threaten everyone who competes with you. I mean, that's basically what you want the government to do. Why do you think legitimizing anti-competitive behavior is a good thing?
Authors already have the exclusive right to their writings. They wrote it. All they need do is not distribute it.
If someone who had never heard of copyright was reading that sentence of the constitution they would think that the founders were trying to say that the government can't bust into your writing room and take your writings. And when you consider that this is exactly what governments were doing before the revolution, it makes a lot of sense.
And the whole "limited times" part is basically saying, well obviously, if you're hoarding your work we might bust in and take it eventually, because otherwise you would be holding back the progress of science and the useful arts.
How exactly that got perverted into a justification for copyright law is one for the ages.
None of the "social aspects" you mentioned are remotely related to copyright. The problem with copyright is that it focuses on copying as the fundamental unit of regulation. This is insane in this day and age of cheap ubiquitous copying. The purpose of copyright is to encourage the creation of new works that would otherwise not be created. If that's your goal then restricting copying is exactly the wrong way to go about it. It's like saying your goal is to go skiing and restricting the falling of snow. Not only can you simply not do that, but it won't work either. So forget all you think you know about copyright and solve the damn problem. Specifically we're interested in encouraging the creation of new works that would otherwise not be created. So the natural question to ask is, what works will be created with no copyright and no new laws. I suggest the best way to do that is to simply abolish copyright (if this scares you, then "phase out" copyright over some period of time), then we measure the decrease (or increase!) in the creation of works. Once this process is complete then we can make a sensible judgment of what laws, if any, are required. Maybe the only thing to go will be multi-million dollar blockbuster films. Maybe we'll decide that we simply can't live without them (maybe we won't, we can hope) and decide that some new law is needed to encourage the creation of them. This does not mean we need to reinstate copyright as it stands now just for blockbuster films. It just means we need to encourage their creation. We could do this as simply as sponsoring their creation with a tax.
Wow, really? Companies that make physical products have no such guarantees.. and yet they keep churning out product. In fact, the only restriction on copy-a-like competition is in brand names. I can legally make handbags that look similar to designer products, but I may not sell them labeled as such. Now, think about it for a minute, how is Walmart going to sell copies of books/movies/music/etc if they're not allowed to label them? How's that going to work? "I'll have a mystery DVD please." For some reason I'm pretty sure the trademark owner is going to make a LOT more money than them.
Sigh. I'm kinda sick of having the same argument with idiots on Slashdot. Copyright exists to provide incentives to create works. That is all. It does not exist to protect anyone's "interests". Now kindly fuck off.
http://news.cnet.com/Supreme-Court-nixes-copyright-challenge/2100-1023_3-980792.html
Lessig argued that repeated extensions were unconstitutional because they ran afoul of the Constitution's "limited times" requirement and also conflicted with the First Amendment's guarantees of freedom of speech.
But just moments into Lessig's opening remarks, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor interrupted and noted Congress had repeatedly extended the duration on copyrights, with no intervention before by the Supreme Court. What, O'Connor asked, is different about this case?
Lessig then continued to ramble on and the supremes continued to roll their eyes and wonder what the hell he was on about. He later said that, in retrospect, he should have shut up at that point and addressed the point made.
Lessig is not against copyright. He's a fundamental advocate of copyright, "especially in the digital era", he just thinks it is "out of sync" and "needs an update".
Whereas people like me are advocates of just scrapping the whole damn thing because the potential benefits of doing so are way more interesting than the deprecated business models that it will finally put to bed.. and because I believe it is fundamentally the right thing to do, from a "you don't tell me what I can and can't do and I'll do the same" sense of what right means.
Yeah, and he's already had his ass handed to him court at least once.
Difference between theory and practice and all.