"I think Carmack is supporting what MS has being doing for quite a long time since Windows 3.x: Compatibility mode. It detects whether a certain program is running and adjusts itself accordingly to support quirks and bugs. But a driver that deceives the end-users without they ever knowing that it is "optimizing" on their behalf (and degrading the quality and as if it is good for them) is not acceptable."
I wholeheartedly agree. I can even think of several cases where such "compensation" has been very valuabel in solving certain engineering problems (not all related to gfx, but what the heck). It just seems they went a bit stir-crazy in their mad pursuit of benchmark glory. Of course, they're telling customers something resembling "hey, you've got it all wrong... we just wanna help you frag faster!" he he he.
About the other stuff (IE and LookOut), it's just been so gosh darned long since I used Windows... all I can really comment on is KMail;).
"Making any automatic optimization based on a benchmark name is wrong. It
subverts the purpose of benchmarking, which is to gauge how a similar class of
applications will perform on a tested configuration, not just how the single
application chosen as representative performs.
It is never acceptable to have the driver automatically make a conformance
tradeoff, even if they are positive that it won't make any difference. The
reason is that applications evolve, and there is no guarantee that a future
release won't have different assumptions, causing the upgrade to misbehave.
We have seen this in practice with Quake3 and derivatives, where vendors
assumed something about what may or may not be enabled during a compiled
vertex array call. Most of these are just mistakes, or, occasionally,
laziness."
Carmack seems pretty well decided on this one, and not in favor of it. He *does* show a bit of support for having super-ultra-tweak control panels on driver config screens, but that's (almost) an entirely different matter.
It seems pretty cut and dried, at least from his perspective. I for one have got to agree with this viewpoint. Of course, to anyone who has said or will say that you should just rename the executable, I completely agree that this is the only real way of getting an objective test out of it.
Card manufacturers who do this sort of thing *will* get egg on their faces when they start hearing all about the crappy performance of their cards after a new game version comes out with different thinking on what's important visually. Unfortunately, as John points out, a lot of the flack will end up on the developers' doorsteps (misplaced, but a lot of gamers won't know that).
Here's my problem: I just don't see it that way. Let's examine a potential outcome for this scenario, assuming your position is the most likely.
DOJ Guy/Gal: Well, we're done examining the feedback of our citizens, and ready to proceed as previously planned.
Judge Guy/Gal Overseeing Process: Alrighty, if you'll just have the most relevant pieces of correspondence sent over to my office, I'll review your findings on this matter.
DOJ Guy: Well, ummm, we didn't actually save any of those emails... so I guess we'll just proceed as planned, eh?
Judge: Hmm, let me see if I understand; you decided that the opinions of thousands of citizens didn't matter? I don't think I like the direction this is going in.
DOJ Guy: But we've got this nifty piece chart with 3 color-coded sections: red = Microsoft Bad, green = Microsoft Good, grey = Who Cares, brown = Crap Mail. From looking at this chart, it's 99% "Who Cares".
Judge: Right-o, but you do have the actual documents to back that up, right?
DOJ Guy: Oh, umm, yes (psstt... Junior Admin Boy, whip up some convincing mail logs and such right quick before we get our asses handed to us)!
As much as I enjoy the whole BOFH series, I somehow don't see the people in charge of dealing with the responses as being completely willing to toss their careers out the window in this manner. Sorry, but Gross Miscarriage Of Justice (TM) would be the phrase of the day (patent pending) here. Not damned likely, especially given the massive media attention the whole debacle has received over the last couple of years.
I just can't buy it. Are they legally required to take feedback? Yes. Heck, the fact that they've chosen email as the vehicle is actually good, considering the fact that most of the "concerned parties" are wired. I don't trust government any farther than I can toss it, but in this case it's a rather short throw.
I have absolutely no problem with people having opinions which differ from my own (given the fact that it's impossible to go through life without that happening anyhow).
That said, I do have a problem (and will voice my opinion as such) with people recommending/promoting idiotic courses of action. Basically, I have the same attitude toward people who claim that shooting doctors is okay as long as it's because they performed abortions. Granted, your post is substantially less severe, but the point stands.
You don't think it's the end of the world, but you also don't have to manually filter the possibly gigs of sheer shit that will get emailed to that address. They don't pay gov tech people enough to do that stuff anyhow. Why take a decent gesture and piss all over it? Grow the hell up.
Here's to ISPs cutting off access to morons who crapflood that address.
First things first. You, Sir, are a fool and a troll. Yes, I am lowering myself to petty name calling.
How the hell did that get modded up "interesting"?!?!?! That has got to be one of the DUMBEST courses of action I can possibly think of. Perhaps the post was intended to be "funny", but it's just not (IMHO).
Do you have any idea what a bad idea that is? Do you want to give the gov a reason to stop reaching out AT ALL, even in small ways?
For further reference, please refer to my other post to someone talking a similar game.
This is patently absurd, but mostly for the fact that that comment got modded up "interesting". Jesus K. Christ, what the hell? I'll probably lose karma for all my shouting on this topic, but I don't freaking care. I feel very strongly about this!
Alright, that has *got* to be a troll post, but heck, I'm in a sporting mood...
"I really think that our government's resources could be better allocated to fighting a war than listening to a bunch of angry nerds."
Government by the People, for the People. Nuff said. We're all "the People", nerds included. Geez, grow a spine and stand up for your rights man.
"Just noting that it might be a little wasteful, if, indeed, the entirety of the e-mails are read... and a little pointless if they're not read."
Dear Lord, somebody hand this dude a clue stick... do you have any idea how rare it actually IS for the government (local, federal, whatever) to openly ask for public feedback on *any* issue, let alone one with this much at stake? We (Americans, that is) live in a (supposed) representative democracy, which means the folks we install on Capitol Hill are supposed to listen to our thoughts and feelings on issues. Granted, this doesn't always happen, but pardon me for appluading even the smaller gestures.
Even if the gov doesn't read a single email that flies into that box, the very concept is worth much more than the bandwidth spent sending them. Given the fact that you seem to feel democracy and rational behavior are silly concepts, perhaps you'd like to live in a nation where these ideas are frowned upon. Oops, I'm sorry... you probably wouldn't even be able to GET web access in most of those places.
Which is all fine and dandy with me, because people like you make me rather ill. I hate to be extreme here, but this is one case where "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem" actually does apply.
Yes, I know "I have been trolled". This message is intended primarily for anyone out there with a generic "fuck it" attitute toward these issues. Unfortunately, given the percentage of Americans who actually vote come election time, this group seems to have a healthy number of members.
"Has anyone even seen a PNG file online? I think I ran across a grand total of 1. Of course there could have been inline graphics that I didn't notice, but really?"
Well, every image on our site is PNG (a couple of JPEGs, but whatever). We haven't, done't, and won't use GIF for the obvious reasons. I somehow doubt we're the only site using PGN graphics; you must not be online very much...
ATTENTION MODERATORS: MOD PARENT UP +FUNNY! Geez, that just made my morning:).
Back to reality for a moment, what's the real potential for a scenario like this to play out? I suppose there might be cases where universities had students agree to obscure policies involving something like this, although if that's the case, it'd be on the student for not reading through all policies before signing on.
Well, last time I check, GiFT had severe issues due to the ever-changing FastTrack protocol. This appears to be largely to keep open source clients that don't want to connect to a central "authorization server" from working, but I can't say for certain.
First and foremost, everyone please observe: someone has posted a very thoughtful reply as Anonymous Coward. To all the trolls out there, please observe and attempt to act in the same manner.
Here's my take on the opinions expressed:
"One must be able to justify their own actions within their heart and mind. Otherwise, what sort of life are you living?"
Here I've got to wholeheartedly agree with you. We all have to choose our own path.
"As many musicians have pointed out themselves, downloading an MP3 and listening to it isn't much different than turning on your radio and listening to a song. Either way, you enjoyed the music without personally paying a dime for it. Even if you tape the music off the radio so you can listen to it again and again at will, who would really find fault with that action?"
I can't agree with this. Even in the case of radio distribution of music, mechanisms are in place to channel money back to those who are entitled to it. With the sharing of copyrighted MP3s, no such mechanism is inherently in place. Now, I for one would love to see this change. If the music industry would just pull its head out of its ass, it might see the enourmous potential for giving consumers what they want: convenience at a fair price point.
"Once an artist puts his/her work out in the open, I feel it becomes fair game for people to copy and redistribute. You can either choose to pay to get one that's distributed by the official record company and be guaranteed it's of a certain quality with nice liner notes, album cover art, etc. etc. -- or you can grab a free or counterfeit copy and take your chances."
YOU don't have the right to tell anyone (artist) how they can and can't define the rules governing use of their material. Only they can do that. To give you an analogy, let's say I write a piece of software (likely, these days). I have the option of choosing any license I like to define how people may use my code and/or binaries. Why? The material is, plainly, owned by me. The same condition exists for music, period, just as with any other copyrighted works. Now, I don't like the fact that the majority of the money for music goes to the fat cats at the recording companies, but the way to fight the status quo is rarely by patently breaking the law.
"The fact remains that the work is still a creation of the original artist, no matter how many copies get passed around on the Internet. That's what can't ever be taken away from them."
I agree that this can't ever be taken away from them, but why should their right to fair compensation be taken as well? As a matter of fact, under the law, it isn't taken if they don't want to allow it to be. If an artist wants to allow people to trade their files to anyone who asks, fine. However, if they want to be more restrictive, that IS their right as well.
I don't have any issue whatsoever with true fair use. If you want to make a copy of a CD (or a few copies for that matter) for you own use in the car (or wherever) go right ahead. If you want to rip your entire collection to MP3 or OGG and stream it over 802.11b througout your house, be my guest. But don't try to justify tossing it into your Shared Files directory in LimeWire. That boat don't float.
Again, thank you for the thoughtful reply. People should use your post as an example of HOW NOT TO ABUSE AC POSTING. Replies are welcome!
normally I strenuously object to allowing government interference in business-related arenas, but this is no good at all for Joe Consumer.
A decent analogy might be an imaginary world where air is bought and sold on the market. There's a limited supply of the stuff to begin with, and without regulation large players can just buy up all the "air blocks".
Now, I know that technically the analogy is critically flawed because we all need air to survive, and we don't "need" cell phones. However, one could easily argue that (at least for most countries) telecommunications technologies (and by natual wireless technology) plays a critical role in economies both local and national in scope.
There's a limit to the spectrum available for wireless device use. Yes, competing companies can "use" frequencies owned by competing networks, but they have to pay more (and charge the consumer more) for this capability ("roaming" off your home network incurs charges).
This is probably more a bad thing than good. You can't really make the argument that consumers can still fight with their wallets, because doing so would require moving to a geographic region where the dominant players have lesser influence. I don't know about anybody else, but I'm not prepared to move because I dislike my mobile provider. It seems to me this gives the big guys a huge chance to shaft their customers. It's the ultimate "my way or the highway" scenario.
Plus, this may have more far-reaching implications than we realize. Wireless devices (meaning those other than just phones) are beginning to be common these days. How great is the chance that development on these devices could be somewhat stifled if they don't "play along" with the bigger companies that own certain frequency ranges? Sounds like a pretty far-reaching consequence to me.
and for reasons even "Average Joe/Jane" can easily appreciate.
To begin with, (as a programmer) I consider most code art in and of itself. When you consider that video games are composed of creative code, graphics, and sound, you have to classify it as an art form.
The very fact that the people who create the visual environment for video games are most commonly described as "graphic artists" is compelling evidence that our society considers their work a form of art in a very tangible sense.
I for one would love to see an exhibit that's based on various interpretations/muses on video games, both in part and as "complete packages".
Home in on recharge station...
on
New AIBO Demo'd
·
· Score: 4, Funny
heh, sounds like a great way to get back at that pesky neighbor who's cat is always making all that damned racket at night...
It's simple, really. Just follow these easy steps:
Convince all neighbors to buy AIBO pets once they can do this.
Dissect AIBO home station, extracting components that do RF communication with pets.
Mount said components on neighbor's cat.
Watch in glee as AIBO pets attempt to plug into "recharging station".
Repeat as necessary with offending cats, employ shotgun technique if ineffective after several days.
My cats live indoors:). Am I a sick bastard for even thinking of this? Yessir.
I've heard a lot of folks complaining on other boards about downloading MP3s that are "bad rips" from "protected" CDs.
Now, my personal opinion is simple here. I don't believe the protection method is AT ALL fair, since it has the potential to prevent paying customers from making fair use of their media. However, I can't stand hearing people complain about "wasting time downloading useless MP3s", since that's not fair use in my book.
Some people say sharing files with others is fair use. Legally, this may actually be so, but it doesn't sound fair ethically to me (with respect to the artist and the people behind the album production). On the other hand, the ability to copy my CD for my own personal use, or to rip it to a series of MP3 files is critical to me. It's also nice to know my PC CD player won't barf on a CD (since I almost never use "standalone" audio equipment anymore, all linked into my PC).
Any thoughts on that? Anyone heard of similar complaints or "issues" with bad MP3 rips to due this?
And did you write your representative in United States Congress yet? Did you submit an amica brief at Dmitry's preliminary hearing? Did you join the EFF [eff.org] to help battle the DMCA? Did you at least buy a Free Dmitry t-shirt [thinkgeek.com] so some of your purchase goes to stop the DMCA?
The answer is Y-E-S to all but the second action. To be more precise, bought t-shirts for myself and a number of friends. Participated heavily in loads of debate on the subject. Donate routinely to the EFF (it's just a good idea anyhow).
I do not believe Cox is behaving reasonably. It would be an EXTREMELY tough twist of logic to apply the DMCA to this at all in a real-world situation. I despise the damned law as much as the rest of us on this topic, but I also know what the law says. Cox is essentially using Linux as his own personal soapbox to cry out against the DMCA, possibly partly in humour (since he knows the "true" changelogs will circulate around eventually anyhow).
Linux is not Cox's soapbox. I have to wonder how Linus feels about this. Nobody seems to be asking that particular question.
I acknowledge the fact that the DMCA could be twisted to prosecute someone on these grounds, but that's about as likely as a meteor hitting my girlfriend and getting her pregnant.
There are problems with this line of reasoning, as I will attempt to describe.
Yes, we could all just diff the code, and we could even set up a secondary website(s) to discuss the impact of the changes we find. However, this is a very inefficient mode of operation when it comes to something as critical as security.
Your comment about "helping the script kiddies" is disturbing in that it sounds way too close to Microsoft's "plea to the security community". That's just no good; I want to see the full details of other peoples' reasoning on these things so I'll be better able to intelligently digest and evaluate the information myself. I'm not an outstanding C coder (although I do a lot of Perl and C), so I could easily miss important things.
The other trouble with this is that since this deals with open source software, the "user" has the immediate option of contributing in a meaningful way to the project. Unlike traditional "closed source" models, the average user (at least currently) of high security impact open source software is likely to have a few more than average clues on security topics.
If you make it harder for these people (read: us) to get at the requisite information, you're not only putting security at risk; you're also defeating a large part of the open source / free software philosophy. Nowhere in the GPL or any other similar license that I'm aware of does it say that changelogs are subject to geographic censorship. Now, IANAL, but I also don't think the DMCA really has anything to do with this, from my following of other threads here related to all that mess.
how many times does it have to be repeated: Disclose, Disclose, Disclose.
Full disclosure is essential to the success of any project, especially where security is involved. Heck, even Suits (ornery business types) understand this: in a corporation or LLC, lack of disclosure can lead to loss of limited personal liability.
This is unacceptable. I could understand a project admin not disclosing trivial changes that didn't go into a release of a product/system, but failing to disclose non-trivial changes that did go in is inexcusable.
We depend on the proper functioning of group development and understanding in Linux. From folks who just want to keep boxes on their home DSL/cable lines secure, to others (such as myself) who are involved in web hosting businesses, the need is real for disclosure.
This is very troubling. Surely I'm not getting the whole story here, at least I hope I'm not.
First off, outstanding job with that setup. I think that's a setup most of us would like to have in our pads.
My only worry is the security of the whole thing. Consider the following scenarios:
Some luser keeps spamming your image email address, and you get these odd "background.gif" images popping up (MS Outcrud backgrounds).
Somebody discovers the CGI, or the image post email address, and kindly posts it to/. for you. You're forevermore haunted by the Goatse man popping up on your living room wall at inopportune moments.
Note to moderators: yes, it was supposed to be funny:).
Holy shit, now THAT'S a funny post:). Moderators, please mod parent up "+x funny".
Tell ya what, I'll put up the venture capital for the "Super Animated Version" of the device you desribe. It'll come with 50,000 sheets of paper, and a rubber-band powered motor/release mechanism (environmentally friendly, like those little balsa wood planes you flew as a kid).
but what about some system where you pipe the image itself (not a digital representation thereof) directly over fiber optic cable to be rear projected onto a surface of your choosing?
It seems to me this device would consist of a unit to first convert the signal from any generic PC video card to its "analog" image form, then boost the image amplification, and send it down the cable. The receiving unit would take the image coming in off the cable, perform any desired magnification or whatever, and project it onto a glass surface.
I am not an optics expert AT ALL. It just seems like this might have some potential for looking into.
You make a good point there. The price/performance ration isn't terribly good at the moment for this sort of thing in general.
The Gyricon system looks extremely cool! Of course, I'd want the "paper" to be re-writable more than a few thousand times (to allow for fun stuff like streaming MPEG movies, so I wouldn't burn out my display in a few seconds;) ). Xerox has a history of backing up their "promises" with proof, so I'll eagerly wait in antici... PAtion (sorry, gratuitous movie reference).
Now, there is always the possibility of checking around with local hospital systems for "old hardware" that they're tossing out. A couple of years ago, I managed to secure two 21" monitors and a couple of decent PCs from a hospital that had decided the hardware was "obsolete". True, they really ought to have been giving the stuff away to charity of educational insititutions, but they were literally thowing the monitors in the dumpster. Now, I just need to carve up my wall with a saw...
Buy a $60 dollar printer, and when the cartridges dry up, pitch it. You're out less money, and the pictures work everywhere but in the dark. (Okay, TWO benefits to a digital picture frame.)
Well, there's a few problems with that approach. Number one, ink cartidges ain't cheap (and could, after a while, add up to more than the cost of a device). Second, you lose the ability to cycle through pictures on the fly.
I may just be a wierdo for thinking so, but a big advantage of the digital device would be the ability to incorporate it into some "instant room theming" system. Perhaps coding dynamic theming apps has just gone to my head, but I think it'd be cool.
Besides, we already know how to click "File -> Print -> Ok", but the fun is in the hackery of something to suit our own purposes. I could buy pre-built Lego models too, but that wouldn't be very nifty.
I have two parts in response to this question. Here we go.
In specific reply to your question, if you were directly criticizing one or a subset of Muslims [those supporting/advocating female circumcision] for the practice, this would not be racism in the true sense. If you were criticizing the faith as a whole for the practice (when clearly the vast majority of Muslims do not support it), this *would* taking racist actions.
Unfortunately, given the nature of the proposal, even using "harsh language" containing anything resembling a racist slur would be considered "hate speech", no matter the intended target. This is where the core issue really lies, in the ability of a person to criticize freely the actions of another person or group of people based on specific criteria.
Furthermore, as much as I may dislike racist thought in general, it must be maintained that people are allowed to express themselves in this manner if they desire to. I may not like what people say, but I am compelled to defend their right to say it.
Just my thoughts on the matter. Thank you for your post!
Slashdot Mirror
"I think Carmack is supporting what MS has being doing for quite a long time since Windows 3.x: Compatibility mode. It detects whether a certain program is running and adjusts itself accordingly to support quirks and bugs. But a driver that deceives the end-users without they ever knowing that it is "optimizing" on their behalf (and degrading the quality and as if it is good for them) is not acceptable."
I wholeheartedly agree. I can even think of several cases where such "compensation" has been very valuabel in solving certain engineering problems (not all related to gfx, but what the heck). It just seems they went a bit stir-crazy in their mad pursuit of benchmark glory. Of course, they're telling customers something resembling "hey, you've got it all wrong... we just wanna help you frag faster!" he he he.
About the other stuff (IE and LookOut), it's just been so gosh darned long since I used Windows... all I can really comment on is KMail
"Making any automatic optimization based on a benchmark name is wrong. It subverts the purpose of benchmarking, which is to gauge how a similar class of applications will perform on a tested configuration, not just how the single application chosen as representative performs.
It is never acceptable to have the driver automatically make a conformance tradeoff, even if they are positive that it won't make any difference. The reason is that applications evolve, and there is no guarantee that a future release won't have different assumptions, causing the upgrade to misbehave. We have seen this in practice with Quake3 and derivatives, where vendors assumed something about what may or may not be enabled during a compiled vertex array call. Most of these are just mistakes, or, occasionally, laziness."
Carmack seems pretty well decided on this one, and not in favor of it. He *does* show a bit of support for having super-ultra-tweak control panels on driver config screens, but that's (almost) an entirely different matter.
It seems pretty cut and dried, at least from his perspective. I for one have got to agree with this viewpoint. Of course, to anyone who has said or will say that you should just rename the executable, I completely agree that this is the only real way of getting an objective test out of it.
Card manufacturers who do this sort of thing *will* get egg on their faces when they start hearing all about the crappy performance of their cards after a new game version comes out with different thinking on what's important visually. Unfortunately, as John points out, a lot of the flack will end up on the developers' doorsteps (misplaced, but a lot of gamers won't know that).
Here's my problem: I just don't see it that way. Let's examine a potential outcome for this scenario, assuming your position is the most likely.
DOJ Guy/Gal: Well, we're done examining the feedback of our citizens, and ready to proceed as previously planned.
Judge Guy/Gal Overseeing Process: Alrighty, if you'll just have the most relevant pieces of correspondence sent over to my office, I'll review your findings on this matter.
DOJ Guy: Well, ummm, we didn't actually save any of those emails... so I guess we'll just proceed as planned, eh?
Judge: Hmm, let me see if I understand; you decided that the opinions of thousands of citizens didn't matter? I don't think I like the direction this is going in.
DOJ Guy: But we've got this nifty piece chart with 3 color-coded sections: red = Microsoft Bad, green = Microsoft Good, grey = Who Cares, brown = Crap Mail. From looking at this chart, it's 99% "Who Cares".
Judge: Right-o, but you do have the actual documents to back that up, right?
DOJ Guy: Oh, umm, yes (psstt... Junior Admin Boy, whip up some convincing mail logs and such right quick before we get our asses handed to us)!
As much as I enjoy the whole BOFH series, I somehow don't see the people in charge of dealing with the responses as being completely willing to toss their careers out the window in this manner. Sorry, but Gross Miscarriage Of Justice (TM) would be the phrase of the day (patent pending) here. Not damned likely, especially given the massive media attention the whole debacle has received over the last couple of years.
I just can't buy it. Are they legally required to take feedback? Yes. Heck, the fact that they've chosen email as the vehicle is actually good, considering the fact that most of the "concerned parties" are wired. I don't trust government any farther than I can toss it, but in this case it's a rather short throw.
I have absolutely no problem with people having opinions which differ from my own (given the fact that it's impossible to go through life without that happening anyhow).
That said, I do have a problem (and will voice my opinion as such) with people recommending/promoting idiotic courses of action. Basically, I have the same attitude toward people who claim that shooting doctors is okay as long as it's because they performed abortions. Granted, your post is substantially less severe, but the point stands.
You don't think it's the end of the world, but you also don't have to manually filter the possibly gigs of sheer shit that will get emailed to that address. They don't pay gov tech people enough to do that stuff anyhow. Why take a decent gesture and piss all over it? Grow the hell up.
Here's to ISPs cutting off access to morons who crapflood that address.
First things first. You, Sir, are a fool and a troll. Yes, I am lowering myself to petty name calling.
How the hell did that get modded up "interesting"?!?!?! That has got to be one of the DUMBEST courses of action I can possibly think of. Perhaps the post was intended to be "funny", but it's just not (IMHO).
Do you have any idea what a bad idea that is? Do you want to give the gov a reason to stop reaching out AT ALL, even in small ways?
For further reference, please refer to my other post to someone talking a similar game.
This is patently absurd, but mostly for the fact that that comment got modded up "interesting". Jesus K. Christ, what the hell? I'll probably lose karma for all my shouting on this topic, but I don't freaking care. I feel very strongly about this!
Alright, that has *got* to be a troll post, but heck, I'm in a sporting mood...
"I really think that our government's resources could be better allocated to fighting a war than listening to a bunch of angry nerds."
Government by the People, for the People. Nuff said. We're all "the People", nerds included. Geez, grow a spine and stand up for your rights man.
"Just noting that it might be a little wasteful, if, indeed, the entirety of the e-mails are read... and a little pointless if they're not read."
Dear Lord, somebody hand this dude a clue stick... do you have any idea how rare it actually IS for the government (local, federal, whatever) to openly ask for public feedback on *any* issue, let alone one with this much at stake? We (Americans, that is) live in a (supposed) representative democracy, which means the folks we install on Capitol Hill are supposed to listen to our thoughts and feelings on issues. Granted, this doesn't always happen, but pardon me for appluading even the smaller gestures.
Even if the gov doesn't read a single email that flies into that box, the very concept is worth much more than the bandwidth spent sending them. Given the fact that you seem to feel democracy and rational behavior are silly concepts, perhaps you'd like to live in a nation where these ideas are frowned upon. Oops, I'm sorry... you probably wouldn't even be able to GET web access in most of those places.
Which is all fine and dandy with me, because people like you make me rather ill. I hate to be extreme here, but this is one case where "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem" actually does apply.
Yes, I know "I have been trolled". This message is intended primarily for anyone out there with a generic "fuck it" attitute toward these issues. Unfortunately, given the percentage of Americans who actually vote come election time, this group seems to have a healthy number of members.
This will probably result in a Karma hit, but what the hell
For all of you who don't know Bob, check out his site: SlashDuh.org. Pretty decent stuff over there, generally.
"Has anyone even seen a PNG file online? I think I ran across a grand total of 1. Of course there could have been inline graphics that I didn't notice, but really?"
Well, every image on our site is PNG (a couple of JPEGs, but whatever). We haven't, done't, and won't use GIF for the obvious reasons. I somehow doubt we're the only site using PGN graphics; you must not be online very much...
ATTENTION MODERATORS: MOD PARENT UP +FUNNY! Geez, that just made my morning
Back to reality for a moment, what's the real potential for a scenario like this to play out? I suppose there might be cases where universities had students agree to obscure policies involving something like this, although if that's the case, it'd be on the student for not reading through all policies before signing on.
Well, last time I check, GiFT had severe issues due to the ever-changing FastTrack protocol. This appears to be largely to keep open source clients that don't want to connect to a central "authorization server" from working, but I can't say for certain.
Anyhow, here is the press release giving a better picture of the gory details.
First and foremost, everyone please observe: someone has posted a very thoughtful reply as Anonymous Coward. To all the trolls out there, please observe and attempt to act in the same manner.
Here's my take on the opinions expressed:
"One must be able to justify their own actions within their heart and mind. Otherwise, what sort of life are you living?"
Here I've got to wholeheartedly agree with you. We all have to choose our own path.
"As many musicians have pointed out themselves, downloading an MP3 and listening to it isn't much different than turning on your radio and listening to a song. Either way, you enjoyed the music without personally paying a dime for it. Even if you tape the music off the radio so you can listen to it again and again at will, who would really find fault with that action?"
I can't agree with this. Even in the case of radio distribution of music, mechanisms are in place to channel money back to those who are entitled to it. With the sharing of copyrighted MP3s, no such mechanism is inherently in place. Now, I for one would love to see this change. If the music industry would just pull its head out of its ass, it might see the enourmous potential for giving consumers what they want: convenience at a fair price point.
"Once an artist puts his/her work out in the open, I feel it becomes fair game for people to copy and redistribute. You can either choose to pay to get one that's distributed by the official record company and be guaranteed it's of a certain quality with nice liner notes, album cover art, etc. etc. -- or you can grab a free or counterfeit copy and take your chances."
YOU don't have the right to tell anyone (artist) how they can and can't define the rules governing use of their material. Only they can do that. To give you an analogy, let's say I write a piece of software (likely, these days). I have the option of choosing any license I like to define how people may use my code and/or binaries. Why? The material is, plainly, owned by me. The same condition exists for music, period, just as with any other copyrighted works. Now, I don't like the fact that the majority of the money for music goes to the fat cats at the recording companies, but the way to fight the status quo is rarely by patently breaking the law.
"The fact remains that the work is still a creation of the original artist, no matter how many copies get passed around on the Internet. That's what can't ever be taken away from them."
I agree that this can't ever be taken away from them, but why should their right to fair compensation be taken as well? As a matter of fact, under the law, it isn't taken if they don't want to allow it to be. If an artist wants to allow people to trade their files to anyone who asks, fine. However, if they want to be more restrictive, that IS their right as well.
I don't have any issue whatsoever with true fair use. If you want to make a copy of a CD (or a few copies for that matter) for you own use in the car (or wherever) go right ahead. If you want to rip your entire collection to MP3 or OGG and stream it over 802.11b througout your house, be my guest. But don't try to justify tossing it into your Shared Files directory in LimeWire. That boat don't float.
Again, thank you for the thoughtful reply. People should use your post as an example of HOW NOT TO ABUSE AC POSTING. Replies are welcome!
I'm your worst nightmare.
I guess I really don't give a damn about karma
normally I strenuously object to allowing government interference in business-related arenas, but this is no good at all for Joe Consumer.
A decent analogy might be an imaginary world where air is bought and sold on the market. There's a limited supply of the stuff to begin with, and without regulation large players can just buy up all the "air blocks".
Now, I know that technically the analogy is critically flawed because we all need air to survive, and we don't "need" cell phones. However, one could easily argue that (at least for most countries) telecommunications technologies (and by natual wireless technology) plays a critical role in economies both local and national in scope.
There's a limit to the spectrum available for wireless device use. Yes, competing companies can "use" frequencies owned by competing networks, but they have to pay more (and charge the consumer more) for this capability ("roaming" off your home network incurs charges).
This is probably more a bad thing than good. You can't really make the argument that consumers can still fight with their wallets, because doing so would require moving to a geographic region where the dominant players have lesser influence. I don't know about anybody else, but I'm not prepared to move because I dislike my mobile provider. It seems to me this gives the big guys a huge chance to shaft their customers. It's the ultimate "my way or the highway" scenario.
Plus, this may have more far-reaching implications than we realize. Wireless devices (meaning those other than just phones) are beginning to be common these days. How great is the chance that development on these devices could be somewhat stifled if they don't "play along" with the bigger companies that own certain frequency ranges? Sounds like a pretty far-reaching consequence to me.
and for reasons even "Average Joe/Jane" can easily appreciate.
To begin with, (as a programmer) I consider most code art in and of itself. When you consider that video games are composed of creative code, graphics, and sound, you have to classify it as an art form.
The very fact that the people who create the visual environment for video games are most commonly described as "graphic artists" is compelling evidence that our society considers their work a form of art in a very tangible sense.
I for one would love to see an exhibit that's based on various interpretations/muses on video games, both in part and as "complete packages".
heh, sounds like a great way to get back at that pesky neighbor who's cat is always making all that damned racket at night...
It's simple, really. Just follow these easy steps:
- Convince all neighbors to buy AIBO pets once they can do this.
- Dissect AIBO home station, extracting components that do RF communication with pets.
- Mount said components on neighbor's cat.
- Watch in glee as AIBO pets attempt to plug into "recharging station".
- Repeat as necessary with offending cats, employ shotgun technique if ineffective after several days.
My cats live indoorsI've heard a lot of folks complaining on other boards about downloading MP3s that are "bad rips" from "protected" CDs.
Now, my personal opinion is simple here. I don't believe the protection method is AT ALL fair, since it has the potential to prevent paying customers from making fair use of their media. However, I can't stand hearing people complain about "wasting time downloading useless MP3s", since that's not fair use in my book.
Some people say sharing files with others is fair use. Legally, this may actually be so, but it doesn't sound fair ethically to me (with respect to the artist and the people behind the album production). On the other hand, the ability to copy my CD for my own personal use, or to rip it to a series of MP3 files is critical to me. It's also nice to know my PC CD player won't barf on a CD (since I almost never use "standalone" audio equipment anymore, all linked into my PC).
Any thoughts on that? Anyone heard of similar complaints or "issues" with bad MP3 rips to due this?
And did you write your representative in United States Congress yet? Did you submit an amica brief at Dmitry's preliminary hearing? Did you join the EFF [eff.org] to help battle the DMCA? Did you at least buy a Free Dmitry t-shirt [thinkgeek.com] so some of your purchase goes to stop the DMCA?
The answer is Y-E-S to all but the second action. To be more precise, bought t-shirts for myself and a number of friends. Participated heavily in loads of debate on the subject. Donate routinely to the EFF (it's just a good idea anyhow).
I do not believe Cox is behaving reasonably. It would be an EXTREMELY tough twist of logic to apply the DMCA to this at all in a real-world situation. I despise the damned law as much as the rest of us on this topic, but I also know what the law says. Cox is essentially using Linux as his own personal soapbox to cry out against the DMCA, possibly partly in humour (since he knows the "true" changelogs will circulate around eventually anyhow).
Linux is not Cox's soapbox. I have to wonder how Linus feels about this. Nobody seems to be asking that particular question.
I acknowledge the fact that the DMCA could be twisted to prosecute someone on these grounds, but that's about as likely as a meteor hitting my girlfriend and getting her pregnant.
I've put up, so I guess I won't be shutting up...
There are problems with this line of reasoning, as I will attempt to describe.
Yes, we could all just diff the code, and we could even set up a secondary website(s) to discuss the impact of the changes we find. However, this is a very inefficient mode of operation when it comes to something as critical as security.
Your comment about "helping the script kiddies" is disturbing in that it sounds way too close to Microsoft's "plea to the security community". That's just no good; I want to see the full details of other peoples' reasoning on these things so I'll be better able to intelligently digest and evaluate the information myself. I'm not an outstanding C coder (although I do a lot of Perl and C), so I could easily miss important things.
The other trouble with this is that since this deals with open source software, the "user" has the immediate option of contributing in a meaningful way to the project. Unlike traditional "closed source" models, the average user (at least currently) of high security impact open source software is likely to have a few more than average clues on security topics.
If you make it harder for these people (read: us) to get at the requisite information, you're not only putting security at risk; you're also defeating a large part of the open source / free software philosophy. Nowhere in the GPL or any other similar license that I'm aware of does it say that changelogs are subject to geographic censorship. Now, IANAL, but I also don't think the DMCA really has anything to do with this, from my following of other threads here related to all that mess.
Just my thoughts, nothing more. Thank you.
how many times does it have to be repeated: Disclose, Disclose, Disclose.
Full disclosure is essential to the success of any project, especially where security is involved. Heck, even Suits (ornery business types) understand this: in a corporation or LLC, lack of disclosure can lead to loss of limited personal liability.
This is unacceptable. I could understand a project admin not disclosing trivial changes that didn't go into a release of a product/system, but failing to disclose non-trivial changes that did go in is inexcusable.
We depend on the proper functioning of group development and understanding in Linux. From folks who just want to keep boxes on their home DSL/cable lines secure, to others (such as myself) who are involved in web hosting businesses, the need is real for disclosure.
This is very troubling. Surely I'm not getting the whole story here, at least I hope I'm not.
First off, outstanding job with that setup. I think that's a setup most of us would like to have in our pads.
My only worry is the security of the whole thing. Consider the following scenarios:
Note to moderators: yes, it was supposed to be funny
Holy shit, now THAT'S a funny post
Tell ya what, I'll put up the venture capital for the "Super Animated Version" of the device you desribe. It'll come with 50,000 sheets of paper, and a rubber-band powered motor/release mechanism (environmentally friendly, like those little balsa wood planes you flew as a kid).
I can see the $$$ rolling in now...
but what about some system where you pipe the image itself (not a digital representation thereof) directly over fiber optic cable to be rear projected onto a surface of your choosing?
It seems to me this device would consist of a unit to first convert the signal from any generic PC video card to its "analog" image form, then boost the image amplification, and send it down the cable. The receiving unit would take the image coming in off the cable, perform any desired magnification or whatever, and project it onto a glass surface.
I am not an optics expert AT ALL. It just seems like this might have some potential for looking into.
You make a good point there. The price/performance ration isn't terribly good at the moment for this sort of thing in general.
The Gyricon system looks extremely cool! Of course, I'd want the "paper" to be re-writable more than a few thousand times (to allow for fun stuff like streaming MPEG movies, so I wouldn't burn out my display in a few seconds
Now, there is always the possibility of checking around with local hospital systems for "old hardware" that they're tossing out. A couple of years ago, I managed to secure two 21" monitors and a couple of decent PCs from a hospital that had decided the hardware was "obsolete". True, they really ought to have been giving the stuff away to charity of educational insititutions, but they were literally thowing the monitors in the dumpster. Now, I just need to carve up my wall with a saw...
Buy a $60 dollar printer, and when the cartridges dry up, pitch it. You're out less money, and the pictures work everywhere but in the dark. (Okay, TWO benefits to a digital picture frame.)
Well, there's a few problems with that approach. Number one, ink cartidges ain't cheap (and could, after a while, add up to more than the cost of a device). Second, you lose the ability to cycle through pictures on the fly.
I may just be a wierdo for thinking so, but a big advantage of the digital device would be the ability to incorporate it into some "instant room theming" system. Perhaps coding dynamic theming apps has just gone to my head, but I think it'd be cool.
Besides, we already know how to click "File -> Print -> Ok", but the fun is in the hackery of something to suit our own purposes. I could buy pre-built Lego models too, but that wouldn't be very nifty.
I have two parts in response to this question. Here we go.
In specific reply to your question, if you were directly criticizing one or a subset of Muslims [those supporting/advocating female circumcision] for the practice, this would not be racism in the true sense. If you were criticizing the faith as a whole for the practice (when clearly the vast majority of Muslims do not support it), this *would* taking racist actions.
Unfortunately, given the nature of the proposal, even using "harsh language" containing anything resembling a racist slur would be considered "hate speech", no matter the intended target. This is where the core issue really lies, in the ability of a person to criticize freely the actions of another person or group of people based on specific criteria.
Furthermore, as much as I may dislike racist thought in general, it must be maintained that people are allowed to express themselves in this manner if they desire to. I may not like what people say, but I am compelled to defend their right to say it.
Just my thoughts on the matter. Thank you for your post!