As a side note, I also don't really understand the significance of Vitamin D's fat solubility making it any more or less dangerous in higher dosages.
I have a guess why that might be true. Anything dissolved in fat is pretty much inactive so long as it remains stored there. When you lose weight your body breaks down and consumes your fat reserves - any fat-soluble stuff stored there generally gets dumped out into the bloodstream. If you continue vitamin D intake while fat breakdown dumps stored vitamin D into your blood stream, that might spike the level of active circulating vitamin D to dangerous levels. That would be true for pretty much anything that builds up in fat tissues.
NOTE: While there is technically nothing wrong with the results of that image search, I strongly advise people to treat it as NSFW. It only takes the slightest bit of imagination for it to go sailing across not just one but TWO of the most extreme lines there are.
DRM can be about restricting the distribution of some copyright protected materials.
And putting automatically triggered oil slick dispensers on all cars can be about reducing tailgating.
I am not arguing against the why. The 'why' for DRM is fine. It is the how of DRM that is black. Have you ever heard the phrase "The ends does not justify the means"?
your religious view of everything should be free
And your religious view that women in miniskirts were asking for it if they get raped.
See? I too can win the argument and prove you wrong&stupid by MAKING SHIT UP.
There is no legitimate program that denies me my rights as a content owner afforded by existing law.
Right. Which is why VCRs, photocopiers, faxes, cameras, camcorders, and more are all illegal.
Note to the sarcasm impaired, "Right" was sarcasm.
DRM does several functions outside what your willing to admit like records who is illegally distributing copyrighted materials
It is not DRM to (for example) connect to a bittorrent swarm and record who is illegally distributing something.
What would be DRM is if you expect to put me in prison for circumventing some intended tracking scheme on a product I bought. Note that you can still civilly or criminally go after people who infringe, for copyright infringement. I am objecting to the insane notion of imprisoning INNOCENT people who have NOT committed infringement. I am talking about the evil notion of imprisoning someone who circumvents such a scheme on their own property and either does nothing, or who engages in a NONINFRINGING copying or distribution.
I'm going to argue that you have blinders on and are only looking at the black sheep on purpose
You can't point to a white GOAT to claim sheep are white.
It isn't a lock on your door, it is more like a lock on a hotel rooms door.
Yes, it is my door. By copyright law I am in fact the OWNER of the particular copy of a song or whatever that I buy, but I don't even need to make that argument. I can prove my point strictly on the hardware property level.
If I buy a computer or other hardware device, it is my property and I can rewire it at will. Not only can I circumvent any DRM scheme designed into the hardware, but that in fact is sufficient circumvent any DRM scheme in software and any DRM scheme on any content.
Strictly by customizing my hardware I can cause it to interpret and process any DRM-laden software or any DRM-laden data file in any conceivable way. Without even altering DRM software, the hardware could be made to interpret that code in a way that does not carry out the intended DRM scheme. Software is just a series of numbers, and a certain number might normally be interpreted by a CPU as an instruction to delete certain information, well the hardware could be altered such that the 4th time that number appears it is instead interpreted as an instruction to copy the information.
If you try to run Windows DRM software on an Apple computer, it will not carry out the DRM - it will generally just crash. The reason for that is that the Windows DRM software assumes that it will be run on a common Intel processor, and it assumes that the processor will interpret and apply the software numerical codes in a certain way, it assumes that one software numerical code will be read and applied as an instruction to add two numbers, and another numerical code will be treated as an instruction to move or delete data, etc. An Apple Motorola CPU interprets and applies the numerical codes in the software in a different way, usually in a way that turns Windows software into meaningless crashing gibberish. By changing the hardware it can match up each and every software numerical code with any meaning you want. The number for an add instruction could be read and applied as a multiply instruction instead. The number for a move or delete instruction could be read and ap
That is absolutely _not_ representative of DRM as a whole. Just because one sheep is black does not mean all sheep are black.
Yes, all the sheep are black.
I essentially made two points: (1) DRM is about expecting to put people in prison for making legitimate valuable software (and products) (2) DRM is about crippled products
Both for (1) and (2), ALL the sheep are indeed black. (1) If we get rid of the DMCA and get rid of the insane notion of putting people in prison for supplying circumvention products, there would be no such thing as DRM. Oh sure some people would persist in various methods trying to interfere with copying, like the old bad-sector-floppy anti-copy gimmicks from 30 years ago. But that was never "DRM", it was a minor nuisance but anyone could make and sell a fix, there was no irrational expectation that it would actually "work" and be enforceable. (2) It is physically, logical, legally impossible to create a DRM that does not impede non-infringing uses. All DRM is by definition crippleware. More precisely it is deliberate crippleware with the irrational expectation that you will not, should not, or cannot fix it.
Now, if you want disagree, well there's two ways it could go. You could argue that (1) or (2) above isn't all black, ok I'll argue that if you want. Or some people try to defend DRM by claiming a ridiculous overbroad definition of DRM, by trying to throw actual security examples under the heading of DRM. The lock on my front door or the lock on my car is not DRM because there is no intent or expectation that they be secure against me. I can and will "crack" those locks and no one imagines there's anything wrong with that. I can encrypt my harddrive or implement all sorts of digital security for myself on my computer, and none of it falls under DRM - it is not intended or expected to be secure against me, and no one imagines there's anything wrong with me circumventing my own genuine security measures. If that's what you were thinking, I'm going to simply reject that bogus definition of DRM. You cannot defend the blacksheep DMCA (and defend blacksheep DMCA-reliant DRM) by pointing to white sheep actual security that has absolutely nothing to do with DRM, actual security that is not in any way reliant on the DMCA, actual security that is not based on irrational notion that there is something wrong with an owner "cracking" his own system.
You make perfect sense there I just don't believe you.
I'm unclear on exact what it is you don't believe.
Note that I am not talking about Stallman's intent, or the FSF's four point principals of software freedom, or any of the other fuzzy-feely stuff I've seen others mention in this thread. I am saying I see a legal violation of the text of the GPLv2. I am saying that TiVo broke the law.
What point(s) do you not believe? (1) The GPLv2 requires that if you distribute a binary executable, you must make source available? (2) You must supply the entire source that you actually used to create that particular binary executable? (3) That TiVo distributed a binary executable along with an associated crypto signature? (4) That by TiVo's own intent and purposes, that executable would have been non-functional if they distributed it without that signature? (5) That by TiVi's own intents and purposes, that signature is a functional element of that executable, intended-to and in-actuality modifying the functionality of that executable in its intended use? (6) points 5 + 2, for TiVo itself that that signature is part of that executable so TiVo must supply the complete source they used during the compilation of that signed binary? (7) TiVo used a crypto key and the naked executable as source files to derive that signature? (8) Points 6+7, the "complete source" for that signed binary includes that that key? (9) All of which leads to the result that failure to include that key is copyright infringement.
Note that this would not apply to people using similar signatures merely to say "this came from us", authenticating the origin of something. Someone doing that has no intent or purpose of the signature being a functional component of the executable. For their intents and purposes, the naked executable is indeed complete and functional. Their intent and purpose is that the signature is a completely separate and optional object, purely informative, and not affecting the executable in any way. Whereas TiVo intents and purposes are that the signature is an integral functional part of the intended executable.
Linus doesn't see any problem with what Tivo did
It doesn't matter whether I "have a problem" or not with what TiVo did. It doesn't matter whether you "have a problem" or not with what TiVo did. It doesn't matter whether Stallman "has a problem" or not with what TiVo did. It doesn't matter whether Linus "has a problem" or not with what TiVo did.
The only thing that matters is whether TiVo violated the copyright license or not. The only thing that matters is whether a court would rule against TiVo. The only thing that matters is that any contributor to Linux would have the right to sue TiVo on this basis.
Not that it matters, but I doubt Linus has considered my above reasoning that (due to the way TiVo is using it) the key is a required component of the source. Linus doesn't care much about the philosophical stuff, but he does insist on following legal requirements. It's quite possible he'd reverse his position on TiVo based on the above.
The GPL says that if you distribute an executable, you have to make available *ALL* of the source you used to compile that executable. If you you distribute an executable for a Cray supercomputer, you cannot supply DIFFERENT source code sufficient for a similar program that would run on a Commodore64.
Unless I am mistaken, the TiVo executable has a signature added. That signature is, both in intent and in fact, a functional component of that intended executable. That signature is created and linked to that executable as the final step in compiling that intended final executable. The crypto key used to create that signature is in fact part of the source used and required to compile that executable. Failure to supply the FULL source used to make that executable is a violation of the GPL. They can't ship incomplete source sufficient to compile a similar but different(unsigned) executable that theoretically could run on some other machine.
TiVo knows damn well that an unsigned executable would be incomplete and non-functional if they were to ship it themselves along with with their TiVos. The key to make that signature is a functional part of the source for their intended executable. If they were to include that key then there would be no "TiVoisaztion" issue, we could use that key to successfully compile working modifications.
I really don't understand what all the fuss about DRM in an open source world is.
Oh I dunno, maybe it has something to do with the fact some people have the evil obnoxious idea that they can and should lock us in fucking PRISON for writing legitimate valuable software. Some of us kinda take offense at that. We're also not exactly fans of deliberately crippled products, and that we need to work out how to fix them.
Here ya go. A Sourceforge project for sociopathic opensource developers(*).
One of the many wonderful highlights of this project is all of an owner's sealed data on his harddrive MUST and WILL be irretrievably destroyed if the motherboard Trusted Platform Module ever dies or otherwise glitches its internal control data. Recovering sealed data on a drive is forbidden and impossible, and restoring from a backup copy of sealed data is forbidden and impossible. According to their own FAQ, the project ensures explicitly and deliberately that "You are hosed".
(*)Footnote, I'm not sure if there are any sociopathic opensource developers actually working on that project or not. It is quite possible that all of it is corporate produced code, effectively a hostile false-flag attack from outside the opensource commmunity rather than sociopathic members of the community. One does not consider a soldier "sociopathic" for hostile acts attacking an enemy community.
Better yet when they get that command line and they come to you asking what to do, start screaming at them "What did you do to my computer?! YOU BROKE MY WINDOWS!"
It's great to see that victory logo on MrModchip's front page, but what the heck is that timer countdown about? If I have my time zones right, it runs out at midnight their local time, a week from now.
I've seen the video. It was indeed an attempted act of homosexual bestiality.
However as you noted, the donkey was quite aroused. It was also quite clear that the one being abused was the poor guy who just wanted to take a shit in the bushes.
Have you ever tried to outrun a donkey?
Have you ever tried to outrun a horny donkey?
Have you ever tried to outrun a horny donkey with your pants tangled around your ankles?
Have you ever had your buddy just sit there with a video camera taping you while you attempted to run with your pants wrapped around your ankles because a couple-a-hundred pound donkey was violently and repeatedly attempting to rectally mount you?
Welcome to the internet. We have some rules around here. Rule 34 states that for any conceivable subject matter, there exists porn of it. No exceptions.
I know I saw the pic years ago, but I had a bitch of a time Googling it. This is the picture you want. It is almost certainly the pic on the judge's computer. Two women on all fours, body-painted like cows. They are completely nude and the camera angle is from behind, so it's extremely NSFW.
And while I'm at it, pictures one and two of individual nude women pained like cows. I suspect the bodyart in all three pics is from a single artist (notice the distinctive black collar on the wrists/ankles/neck, the bare-nipple holes, and the similar spot patterning).
And what the hell while I'm at it... during the cow search I came across a collection of 12 photos of women from PETA protesting the treatment of circus animals - the women are all caged, nearly nude, and painted like tigers. I think I'm going to have to start attending PETA rallies - apparently almost all PETA women are either really hot or really cute.
Slashdot Mirror
As a side note, I also don't really understand the significance of Vitamin D's fat solubility making it any more or less dangerous in higher dosages.
I have a guess why that might be true. Anything dissolved in fat is pretty much inactive so long as it remains stored there. When you lose weight your body breaks down and consumes your fat reserves - any fat-soluble stuff stored there generally gets dumped out into the bloodstream. If you continue vitamin D intake while fat breakdown dumps stored vitamin D into your blood stream, that might spike the level of active circulating vitamin D to dangerous levels. That would be true for pretty much anything that builds up in fat tissues.
-
Disney will have to pay for disney.fun, disney.kids... just to make sure that those don't turn into porn sites or worse.
Wouldn't want those sites getting parked with this: Google image search "donald duck ride".
NOTE: While there is technically nothing wrong with the results of that image search, I strongly advise people to treat it as NSFW. It only takes the slightest bit of imagination for it to go sailing across not just one but TWO of the most extreme lines there are.
What the HELL was Disney thinking?!?!
-
In related news, if a camera takes your picture it will not steal your soul.
-
it's just a coincidence that you have characters named Frodo and Gandalf.
Actually it is just a coincidence that I have have characters named Frodo and Gandalf.
My game takes place on a gay porn film set.
-
while keeping a straight face.
Excuse me, why does this itemized legal bill include a $600 listing for a cosmetic surgery clinic?
It's a legitimate business expense. Your case required a double dose of Botox.
-
DRM can be about restricting the distribution of some copyright protected materials.
And putting automatically triggered oil slick dispensers on all cars can be about reducing tailgating.
I am not arguing against the why. The 'why' for DRM is fine. It is the how of DRM that is black.
Have you ever heard the phrase "The ends does not justify the means"?
your religious view of everything should be free
And your religious view that women in miniskirts were asking for it if they get raped.
See? I too can win the argument and prove you wrong&stupid by MAKING SHIT UP.
There is no legitimate program that denies me my rights as a content owner afforded by existing law.
Right. Which is why VCRs, photocopiers, faxes, cameras, camcorders, and more are all illegal.
Note to the sarcasm impaired, "Right" was sarcasm.
DRM does several functions outside what your willing to admit like records who is illegally distributing copyrighted materials
It is not DRM to (for example) connect to a bittorrent swarm and record who is illegally distributing something.
What would be DRM is if you expect to put me in prison for circumventing some intended tracking scheme on a product I bought. Note that you can still civilly or criminally go after people who infringe, for copyright infringement. I am objecting to the insane notion of imprisoning INNOCENT people who have NOT committed infringement. I am talking about the evil notion of imprisoning someone who circumvents such a scheme on their own property and either does nothing, or who engages in a NONINFRINGING copying or distribution.
I'm going to argue that you have blinders on and are only looking at the black sheep on purpose
You can't point to a white GOAT to claim sheep are white.
It isn't a lock on your door, it is more like a lock on a hotel rooms door.
Yes, it is my door.
By copyright law I am in fact the OWNER of the particular copy of a song or whatever that I buy, but I don't even need to make that argument. I can prove my point strictly on the hardware property level.
If I buy a computer or other hardware device, it is my property and I can rewire it at will. Not only can I circumvent any DRM scheme designed into the hardware, but that in fact is sufficient circumvent any DRM scheme in software and any DRM scheme on any content.
Strictly by customizing my hardware I can cause it to interpret and process any DRM-laden software or any DRM-laden data file in any conceivable way. Without even altering DRM software, the hardware could be made to interpret that code in a way that does not carry out the intended DRM scheme. Software is just a series of numbers, and a certain number might normally be interpreted by a CPU as an instruction to delete certain information, well the hardware could be altered such that the 4th time that number appears it is instead interpreted as an instruction to copy the information.
If you try to run Windows DRM software on an Apple computer, it will not carry out the DRM - it will generally just crash. The reason for that is that the Windows DRM software assumes that it will be run on a common Intel processor, and it assumes that the processor will interpret and apply the software numerical codes in a certain way, it assumes that one software numerical code will be read and applied as an instruction to add two numbers, and another numerical code will be treated as an instruction to move or delete data, etc. An Apple Motorola CPU interprets and applies the numerical codes in the software in a different way, usually in a way that turns Windows software into meaningless crashing gibberish. By changing the hardware it can match up each and every software numerical code with any meaning you want. The number for an add instruction could be read and applied as a multiply instruction instead. The number for a move or delete instruction could be read and ap
That is absolutely _not_ representative of DRM as a whole. Just because one sheep is black does not mean all sheep are black.
Yes, all the sheep are black.
I essentially made two points:
(1) DRM is about expecting to put people in prison for making legitimate valuable software (and products)
(2) DRM is about crippled products
Both for (1) and (2), ALL the sheep are indeed black.
(1) If we get rid of the DMCA and get rid of the insane notion of putting people in prison for supplying circumvention products, there would be no such thing as DRM. Oh sure some people would persist in various methods trying to interfere with copying, like the old bad-sector-floppy anti-copy gimmicks from 30 years ago. But that was never "DRM", it was a minor nuisance but anyone could make and sell a fix, there was no irrational expectation that it would actually "work" and be enforceable.
(2) It is physically, logical, legally impossible to create a DRM that does not impede non-infringing uses. All DRM is by definition crippleware. More precisely it is deliberate crippleware with the irrational expectation that you will not, should not, or cannot fix it.
Now, if you want disagree, well there's two ways it could go. You could argue that (1) or (2) above isn't all black, ok I'll argue that if you want. Or some people try to defend DRM by claiming a ridiculous overbroad definition of DRM, by trying to throw actual security examples under the heading of DRM. The lock on my front door or the lock on my car is not DRM because there is no intent or expectation that they be secure against me. I can and will "crack" those locks and no one imagines there's anything wrong with that. I can encrypt my harddrive or implement all sorts of digital security for myself on my computer, and none of it falls under DRM - it is not intended or expected to be secure against me, and no one imagines there's anything wrong with me circumventing my own genuine security measures. If that's what you were thinking, I'm going to simply reject that bogus definition of DRM. You cannot defend the blacksheep DMCA (and defend blacksheep DMCA-reliant DRM) by pointing to white sheep actual security that has absolutely nothing to do with DRM, actual security that is not in any way reliant on the DMCA, actual security that is not based on irrational notion that there is something wrong with an owner "cracking" his own system.
-
You make perfect sense there I just don't believe you.
I'm unclear on exact what it is you don't believe.
Note that I am not talking about Stallman's intent, or the FSF's four point principals of software freedom, or any of the other fuzzy-feely stuff I've seen others mention in this thread. I am saying I see a legal violation of the text of the GPLv2. I am saying that TiVo broke the law.
What point(s) do you not believe?
(1) The GPLv2 requires that if you distribute a binary executable, you must make source available?
(2) You must supply the entire source that you actually used to create that particular binary executable?
(3) That TiVo distributed a binary executable along with an associated crypto signature?
(4) That by TiVo's own intent and purposes, that executable would have been non-functional if they distributed it without that signature?
(5) That by TiVi's own intents and purposes, that signature is a functional element of that executable, intended-to and in-actuality modifying the functionality of that executable in its intended use?
(6) points 5 + 2, for TiVo itself that that signature is part of that executable so TiVo must supply the complete source they used during the compilation of that signed binary?
(7) TiVo used a crypto key and the naked executable as source files to derive that signature?
(8) Points 6+7, the "complete source" for that signed binary includes that that key?
(9) All of which leads to the result that failure to include that key is copyright infringement.
Note that this would not apply to people using similar signatures merely to say "this came from us", authenticating the origin of something. Someone doing that has no intent or purpose of the signature being a functional component of the executable. For their intents and purposes, the naked executable is indeed complete and functional. Their intent and purpose is that the signature is a completely separate and optional object, purely informative, and not affecting the executable in any way. Whereas TiVo intents and purposes are that the signature is an integral functional part of the intended executable.
Linus doesn't see any problem with what Tivo did
It doesn't matter whether I "have a problem" or not with what TiVo did.
It doesn't matter whether you "have a problem" or not with what TiVo did.
It doesn't matter whether Stallman "has a problem" or not with what TiVo did.
It doesn't matter whether Linus "has a problem" or not with what TiVo did.
The only thing that matters is whether TiVo violated the copyright license or not. The only thing that matters is whether a court would rule against TiVo. The only thing that matters is that any contributor to Linux would have the right to sue TiVo on this basis.
Not that it matters, but I doubt Linus has considered my above reasoning that (due to the way TiVo is using it) the key is a required component of the source. Linus doesn't care much about the philosophical stuff, but he does insist on following legal requirements. It's quite possible he'd reverse his position on TiVo based on the above.
-
I want my knobs to go to Pi.
I know, it's an irrational desire.
-
They work great on harddrive music collections too!
I was playing John Cage's classic 4'33, and the the audio reproduction has never been more perfect!
-
What? You have a solid gold toilet?
Well I shit gold.
And I flush it.
Bite me.
-
TiVo didn't actually violate the GPL license
I think they did.
The GPL says that if you distribute an executable, you have to make available *ALL* of the source you used to compile that executable. If you you distribute an executable for a Cray supercomputer, you cannot supply DIFFERENT source code sufficient for a similar program that would run on a Commodore64.
Unless I am mistaken, the TiVo executable has a signature added. That signature is, both in intent and in fact, a functional component of that intended executable. That signature is created and linked to that executable as the final step in compiling that intended final executable. The crypto key used to create that signature is in fact part of the source used and required to compile that executable. Failure to supply the FULL source used to make that executable is a violation of the GPL. They can't ship incomplete source sufficient to compile a similar but different(unsigned) executable that theoretically could run on some other machine.
TiVo knows damn well that an unsigned executable would be incomplete and non-functional if they were to ship it themselves along with with their TiVos. The key to make that signature is a functional part of the source for their intended executable. If they were to include that key then there would be no "TiVoisaztion" issue, we could use that key to successfully compile working modifications.
-
I really don't understand what all the fuss about DRM in an open source world is.
Oh I dunno, maybe it has something to do with the fact some people have the evil obnoxious idea that they can and should lock us in fucking PRISON for writing legitimate valuable software. Some of us kinda take offense at that. We're also not exactly fans of deliberately crippled products, and that we need to work out how to fix them.
-
Fucking Peice of Gargbage Architecture
-
Here ya go. A Sourceforge project for sociopathic opensource developers(*).
One of the many wonderful highlights of this project is all of an owner's sealed data on his harddrive MUST and WILL be irretrievably destroyed if the motherboard Trusted Platform Module ever dies or otherwise glitches its internal control data. Recovering sealed data on a drive is forbidden and impossible, and restoring from a backup copy of sealed data is forbidden and impossible. According to their own FAQ, the project ensures explicitly and deliberately that "You are hosed".
(*)Footnote, I'm not sure if there are any sociopathic opensource developers actually working on that project or not. It is quite possible that all of it is corporate produced code, effectively a hostile false-flag attack from outside the opensource commmunity rather than sociopathic members of the community. One does not consider a soldier "sociopathic" for hostile acts attacking an enemy community.
-
...as long as everyone completely ignores him and his orders.
-
Better yet when they get that command line and they come to you asking what to do, start screaming at them "What did you do to my computer?! YOU BROKE MY WINDOWS!"
-
I suggest you return that letter to him.
And reply in that envelope with an equal serving of bullshit.
I think you might need extra stamps.
-
It's great to see that victory logo on MrModchip's front page, but what the heck is that timer countdown about? If I have my time zones right, it runs out at midnight their local time, a week from now.
-
I've seen the video. It was indeed an attempted act of homosexual bestiality.
However as you noted, the donkey was quite aroused. It was also quite clear that the one being abused was the poor guy who just wanted to take a shit in the bushes.
Have you ever tried to outrun a donkey?
Have you ever tried to outrun a horny donkey?
Have you ever tried to outrun a horny donkey with your pants tangled around your ankles?
Have you ever had your buddy just sit there with a video camera taping you while you attempted to run with your pants wrapped around your ankles because a couple-a-hundred pound donkey was violently and repeatedly attempting to rectally mount you?
-
I come across the acronym IANAL, I have the same thought. It's particularly apt in a thread about pornography.
Yeah Brain. But what if the judge was a llama?
-
Pr0n!
-
Welcome to the internet. We have some rules around here.
Rule 34 states that for any conceivable subject matter, there exists porn of it. No exceptions.
-
Never ever have sex with a bird.
You can catch chirpies.
It's a canarial disease.
It's untweetable.
-
I know I saw the pic years ago, but I had a bitch of a time Googling it.
This is the picture you want. It is almost certainly the pic on the judge's computer. Two women on all fours, body-painted like cows. They are completely nude and the camera angle is from behind, so it's extremely NSFW.
And while I'm at it, pictures one and two of individual nude women pained like cows. I suspect the bodyart in all three pics is from a single artist (notice the distinctive black collar on the wrists/ankles/neck, the bare-nipple holes, and the similar spot patterning).
And what the hell while I'm at it... during the cow search I came across a collection of 12 photos of women from PETA protesting the treatment of circus animals - the women are all caged, nearly nude, and painted like tigers. I think I'm going to have to start attending PETA rallies - apparently almost all PETA women are either really hot or really cute.
-