Further, it's not legal for a 3rd party to take money in exchange for converting your DVD to VHS for you, without giving some of the profits to the copyright owner. (re: MP3.com case)
But it IS legal for a 3rd party to sell you a box which will allow you to convert your DVD's to VHS yourself, without paying any money to the copyright owner. --
In the case of EULAs, companies should be able to mandate whatever they want? Or should there be government required restrictions what EULAs can require? (eg. consumers get compulsory EULA liscence sections). --
All this time our policy has been that the trademarks cannot be used by others without a proper acknowledgment, and cannot be used in product names without a special license from us," he said. "We have enforced it against all significant players in the field," he added. "We have not felt it appropriate to go after every random web page or the various non-commercial student projects done at universities."
So which is it? Do we think it's better for a trademark owner to go after every single petty violation? Or does it seem to be more fair when a trademark owner lets some of the little guys slip through the cracks, but then has to take action if they become larger? You can't have both worlds...
(granted, there was that other clincher, but your particular argument conflicts with other common slashdot sentiment) --
It's only legal weasling if a law is being used contrary to its original intent.
But this part of the law was created for exactly this case... when a trademark owner allows others to invest a large amount of time and/or money into an infringing mark without their knowledge of infringement, and then tries to pull the rug out from everyone at exactly the worst time. --
Communism does not threaten freedom. You can not threaten something that doesn't exist. The right to freedom is a fiction invented by common folk who thought that the less intelligent populous could choose a better ruler.
Hint: some things are social constructs that are agreed to by the inhabitants of a country. And until the people act against those constructs, those fictions will remain as real as anything else. --
OSS is unstoppable because it's not a business,... it's an ideal, a practice.
That's exactly the point.
Linux ignores the whole profit game and focuses instead on ideals and feel-good game. Microsoft has realized this, and has chosen to play the game on our field. --
Encryption & cryptoanalysis are in a constant arms race, so if (BIG if) the US could keep improved encryption out of the hands of criminals, then in a decade, the government would have the technology and/or CPU power to decrypt most of what's out there now. --
is no reason in evolutionary psychology to suppose that we are capable of differentiating in the long term between different representations of reality, which are all in the end subjective.
Isn't the classic example... a horrible tyrant (eg. Hitler) who's able to go home to his family and love them? Or a clergyman who can be saintly in front of his church and still commit sins when away from the public eye?
IMHO, there are significant examples where a person is able to entertain two conflicting sets of morals in different circumstances, and still be able to cope relatively well. I don't see why different realities would be any different. --
foreach (@urls) {
my $subpage = get "http://www.goto.com$_";
print "-- ", ($subpage =~/<TITLE>\s*(.*?)<\/TITLE>/i)[0], "\n";
}
--
Re:Been done here for ages, and it works.
on
The Unblinking Eye
·
· Score: 2
It's the same difference between one website watching their access logs, and doubleclick using technology to tie access logs together around the 'net. It gives the particular organization unprecedented power to track you in ways that are hard to stay away from, no matter if the trackers are doing thing ethically/legally/unethically/illegally. --
eg. A direct neural connection, not attempting to distinguish a signal from millions of ganglia through the skull. So my proposal is a little different from the way they've done the airplane control.
And yes, neurons in the CNS are a little different than ones in the PNS. But not enough to make a difference, especially once you've put electrodes into them, because they both use the sodium/potassium/etc. ions for electrical signalling.
--
Well, it appears that they've programmed the computer to only respond to input if the pilot has curled his hand into a fist. So it is possible for the pilot to "let go", just as they would release their grip on a real stick before moving their hand. --
The advantage to this scheme is that it's completely voluntary. It's no more than a more convenient and hidden keyboard that you can choose what to type onto. Granted, there may be circumstances where you don't think before... thinking (to the computer), but it would take a lot of trickery before someone else could get you to tell them whatever they want. --
If you've used a mouse for a couple years, you already use it without thinking about the individual muscle movements.
Cochlear ear implants already exist that interface directly to nerves. This removes the requirements for muscle movement, so mass doesn't need to be accelerated, so the bandwidth should be higher than normal humans' typing rates. --
Well, it's kind of absurd to argue about something this far off, but it seems to me that everyone would know the same things, to the extent that now, everyone has access to the same things on the Web. But there's a difference between having access to the text of "The Cathedral and the Bazaar", and fulling understand all of its implications. That's why I said that I think humanity will focus on understanding and mastering. So society can still be stratified-- by how quickly understanding comes to each person. --
This sort of technology can lead to mind controlled machines. In a decade or two, it could be possible for you to look up the definition for a word on m-w.com while simultaneoulsy carrying on a conversation, and the other person wouldn't ever know that you needed to look the word up.
It would be just like walking... at first, interacting with the computer pack would be awkward, but after a while you'd do it without thinking, and it would become a part of you.
Just as the avilablility of an always-on DSL connection allows people to use mapquest rather than storing an atlas at their house, this technology will allow humans to forget the millions of trivial facts and focus on understanding and mastering skills. --
Re:These briefs hit hard: TripleDES key-strength
on
DVD Case Follow-Up
·
· Score: 2
Actually, it's the other way around. Double DES is not much stronger than single DES, thus the need for triple DES to get twice the strength. (see here, section 2.2)
'Cuz if double DES and triple DES were just as strong, then nobody would consume the extra CPU cycles or hardware traces to do 50% more computation, just to have the same results. --
Of course, all the key length in the world isn't going to help when...
No doubt. From the cases I've seen where the feds managed to decrypt some suspected files, often the key was gotten directly from the user in some way (cache laying around on disk), rather than brute forcing the password, because such human engineering efforts take less time.
For instance, which would cost more? 10e27 as much brute forcing equipment? Or financing a tactical operation to get someone to leak the key from the inside, and provide enough money to keep that person from being exposed? After a certain point, the something akin to the latter becomes more cost-effective. (though the advantage of the former is that it can sometimes be done with mere brains and time, which are things that bored college students often in abundance) --
switch to son-of-CSS - and you can bet that it will be 10e27 * more powerful than CSS was.
Are you suggesting that CSS was possibly intentionally weakened to allow hackers to get at it, to bring this sort of precedent into existance faster? --
Slashdot Mirror
But it IS legal for a 3rd party to sell you a box which will allow you to convert your DVD's to VHS yourself, without paying any money to the copyright owner.
--
In the case of EULAs, companies should be able to mandate whatever they want? Or should there be government required restrictions what EULAs can require? (eg. consumers get compulsory EULA liscence sections).
--
Also, unless Tatu is lying outright, he says (in the paragraph that I quoted) that OpenSSH is NOT the first to be "attacked".
--
I guess this is the sort of headline that one has to write to get ones story noticed by the Slashdot cabal.
--
All this time our policy has been that the trademarks cannot be used by others without a proper acknowledgment, and cannot be used in product names without a special license from us," he said. "We have enforced it against all significant players in the field," he added. "We have not felt it appropriate to go after every random web page or the various non-commercial student projects done at universities."
So which is it? Do we think it's better for a trademark owner to go after every single petty violation? Or does it seem to be more fair when a trademark owner lets some of the little guys slip through the cracks, but then has to take action if they become larger? You can't have both worlds...
(granted, there was that other clincher, but your particular argument conflicts with other common slashdot sentiment)
--
But this part of the law was created for exactly this case... when a trademark owner allows others to invest a large amount of time and/or money into an infringing mark without their knowledge of infringement, and then tries to pull the rug out from everyone at exactly the worst time.
--
Hint: some things are social constructs that are agreed to by the inhabitants of a country. And until the people act against those constructs, those fictions will remain as real as anything else.
--
That's exactly the point.
Linux ignores the whole profit game and focuses instead on ideals and feel-good game. Microsoft has realized this, and has chosen to play the game on our field.
--
- The creation of new ideas
- The eventual disclosure of those ideas to the public commons
OSS clearly fulfills the second one. As for the first, OSS is still generating new ideas.If anything, OSS is undermining corporations' arguments that there's a need for IP in the first place.
--
Encryption & cryptoanalysis are in a constant arms race, so if (BIG if) the US could keep improved encryption out of the hands of criminals, then in a decade, the government would have the technology and/or CPU power to decrypt most of what's out there now.
--
Humans can adapt.
--
Isn't the classic example... a horrible tyrant (eg. Hitler) who's able to go home to his family and love them? Or a clergyman who can be saintly in front of his church and still commit sins when away from the public eye?
IMHO, there are significant examples where a person is able to entertain two conflicting sets of morals in different circumstances, and still be able to cope relatively well. I don't see why different realities would be any different.
--
If NetBSD is ported to the original Dreamcast, and older games run on the Mark II without modification, it should be a cinch to run NetBSD on it.
--
perl -MLWP::Simple -e '(get("http://www.goto.com$_") =~ m{<TITLE>\s*(.*?)</TITLE>}i) && print "-- $1\n" foreach (grep /xargs/, get("http://goto.com/d/search/?Keywords=bulk+email ") =~ /<a href=(\S+)/g)'
--
use LWP::Simple;
l "; /xargs/, /<a href=(\S+)/g);
/<TITLE>\s*(.*?)<\/TITLE>/i)[0], "\n";
$page = get "http://www.goto.com/d/search/?Keywords=bulk+emai
@urls = grep
($page =~
foreach (@urls) {
my $subpage = get "http://www.goto.com$_";
print "-- ", ($subpage =~
}
--
It's the same difference between one website watching their access logs, and doubleclick using technology to tie access logs together around the 'net. It gives the particular organization unprecedented power to track you in ways that are hard to stay away from, no matter if the trackers are doing thing ethically/legally/unethically/illegally.
--
And yes, neurons in the CNS are a little different than ones in the PNS. But not enough to make a difference, especially once you've put electrodes into them, because they both use the sodium/potassium/etc. ions for electrical signalling.
--
Well, it appears that they've programmed the computer to only respond to input if the pilot has curled his hand into a fist. So it is possible for the pilot to "let go", just as they would release their grip on a real stick before moving their hand.
--
The advantage to this scheme is that it's completely voluntary. It's no more than a more convenient and hidden keyboard that you can choose what to type onto. Granted, there may be circumstances where you don't think before... thinking (to the computer), but it would take a lot of trickery before someone else could get you to tell them whatever they want.
--
Cochlear ear implants already exist that interface directly to nerves. This removes the requirements for muscle movement, so mass doesn't need to be accelerated, so the bandwidth should be higher than normal humans' typing rates.
--
Well, it's kind of absurd to argue about something this far off, but it seems to me that everyone would know the same things, to the extent that now, everyone has access to the same things on the Web. But there's a difference between having access to the text of "The Cathedral and the Bazaar", and fulling understand all of its implications. That's why I said that I think humanity will focus on understanding and mastering. So society can still be stratified-- by how quickly understanding comes to each person.
--
It would be just like walking... at first, interacting with the computer pack would be awkward, but after a while you'd do it without thinking, and it would become a part of you.
Just as the avilablility of an always-on DSL connection allows people to use mapquest rather than storing an atlas at their house, this technology will allow humans to forget the millions of trivial facts and focus on understanding and mastering skills.
--
'Cuz if double DES and triple DES were just as strong, then nobody would consume the extra CPU cycles or hardware traces to do 50% more computation, just to have the same results.
--
No doubt. From the cases I've seen where the feds managed to decrypt some suspected files, often the key was gotten directly from the user in some way (cache laying around on disk), rather than brute forcing the password, because such human engineering efforts take less time.
For instance, which would cost more? 10e27 as much brute forcing equipment? Or financing a tactical operation to get someone to leak the key from the inside, and provide enough money to keep that person from being exposed? After a certain point, the something akin to the latter becomes more cost-effective. (though the advantage of the former is that it can sometimes be done with mere brains and time, which are things that bored college students often in abundance)
--
Are you suggesting that CSS was possibly intentionally weakened to allow hackers to get at it, to bring this sort of precedent into existance faster?
--