Ok, CSS used to be a trade secret, but DVD-CCA wants it to have the same power as a patent. Normally, once a trade secret is out, it is out. Fizzy-Cola can't call their cola Coca-Cola, but they can use Coca-Cola's recipe if they get it from taking a Coke to a lab and analysing it.
However, lately the tactic that the DVD CCA, MPAA and it's ilk are using to go after DeCSS is that it violates the Digital Millenium Copyright Act because legally you aren't allowed, under that act, to create a tool to defeat any copy protection scheme. In this case, it doesn't matter if you figured out the DeCSS Algorithm in a clean room, the law says, "Just trying to figure it out is illegal."
The DMCA is a horrible, evil law which was designed to upset the applecart on consumer's rights, destroying the delicate balance between the rights of copyright holders and those of the consumers who buy copyrighted material.
Oh, phrases like "legal license holder" is just FUD used by the DVD CCA to confuse the issue.
that can defeat their attempts to destroy fair use, they summon their lawyers and start making threats.
The real goal is to make fair use de facto illegal, so that whenever anyone does something that could cut into their profits they'll have legal precedent backing them when they go after him/her.
We are lucky because Mattel has been really sloppy here, I mean it should be pretty easy to point out to people:
A. None of these sites contain any nudity.
and
B. Mattel is blocking the sites as 'Full Nudity' anyway.
I would think that this is the kind of thing which would turn the average consumer against censorware if it got into the press. I would also think it is something that would turn the press against Mattel. I mean a lot of press companies have online versions, do they really want to be censored by Mattel if they print an article saying, "Mattels new toy X is proved to be toxic to children" or the like? We all know it could happen, we just need to get the newspapers with Web sites to see it.
Many people think that Unix's revival is all due to Linux. In a sense, they're right. But it's not so much Linux per se, or even open source; it's the fact that Linux has brought Unix unification.-- from anther ZDNET article, 21st Century Unix
If Linux is forking, then why is it acting as a unifying force on Unix? I mean, Linux has been a positive development for Unix, increasing compatibility.
The only thing that I can think of is that the commercialization of Linux might cause some compatibility problems in the short term. But, I mean how serious are they? It's like if you install Redhat you get a Gnome desktop as default, most of the others use KDE, but you can always switch to whatever Windowmanager you like by editing.xinitrc (I like Window Maker, myself) and installing the proper stuff off of the disk if it is missing.
I mean if you install the proper libraries into Debian(in the required directories), couldn't you get the program in the article working? Of course, if the program was closed source you might have a problem figuring out what was wrong, but then that's more of a closed source problem than a Linux problem, I think.
Closed source Linux vendors may, in fact, just use distribution X as a standard, and if you are using distribution Y (which doesn't install certain libraries by default) it might cause a headache if the people at the closed source vendors tech-support hotline don't know what they are doing and can't tell you that you need ncurses or whatever. So, this means good training to the closed source vendors tech support, not that there is a problem with Linux. If I had a problem like this, I wouldn't be complaining to Linus but to the person who sold me the incompatible closed source software.
Re:More money = better grade at the end?
on
Laptop Exams?
·
· Score: 2
Ok, I had a class like this, Analysis of Algorithms, where anyone could bring whatever type of computing device they had, whether it be my trusty TI-85 or a laptop. We could also bring a sheet of paper with information on both sides.
I did fairly well in the course, so I didn't complain even though I don't own a laptop. It seemed kind of unfair, however but I think my professor probably figured that it didn't matter that much. I mean after all there was a time limit, what were the students going to do, write each algorithm into a program and then try to run it on a computer to make sure they had the right answer?
No, the only thing I think the professor should've done was allow a whole notebook worth of notes, since the storage on the laptop was much greater than just one sheet of paper (or a TI-85.) (Please note, laptops were allowed but not modems, that's a big difference. My professor assumed "modem==outside help" and would allow rampant cheating.)
My personal opinion is that, in an ideal world, there would be a standard computer lab where everyone would take their exams on school computers.
Unlikely to happen at my school though, they'd rather spend money on the football team.
Oh.. ahh.. forget playing games through this right ?
I don't know, I intend to try rezrov and some z-machine games. Since they've got 0% graphics (well, the older ones), they will hopefully work. (Though I've had no success with using rezrov over telnet, I'm still hopeful.)
Imagine a cute, color PDA, not too expensive with a built in control pad. It would have a lower powered version of Linux specifically designed for it (still GPLed, naturally), and some way of retrieving and storing games quickly and easily.
This is not as absurd as it sounds, I know of many people who use their graphing calculators for playing games, so I don't see why this couldn't work.
Heck, I'd love one of these if it existed... well, I guess my NeoGeo Pocket is good enough for now, sigh...
I mean, I'll never get this. Money should, in theory, make almost anything respectable (ok, porn is the obvious exception). Games and game machines are a big, huge money industry. I mean people talk about the Internet revolution in the news all the time, but it seems that the video/computer gaming revolution has always been a stealth revolution.
Now, don't get me wrong, it always sickens me the way these days everyone (in the mainstream media) seems to think money is the only important thing about the information age. But you'd think something that has made fortunes for people at Sony, Sega and Nintendo wouldn't be able to get its jokes from Rodney Dangerfield. Now... I don't want people to think there are no innovative minds in American gaming hardware. For example, I'm fairly impressed by the way that Alienware markets gaming optimized computers. They don't try to pretend they've got "socially redeeming value" they just give their boxen cool names like Hivemind and put decent hardware inside of them.
When 3DO was first announced this was an actual advertising slogan:
Darling, would you ask the kids to lower the volume on the encyclopedia?
and also:
Now, turn on the TV and do your homework.--(source is Game Over by David Scheff, page 133)
Years ago, I read a science fiction story about a computer that could predict the future. This computer predicted the birth of a man who had a wrongly formulated scientific theory, but he was absolutely convinced it was correct and charismatic enough to convince other people that it was true. No matter how many disasters were caused by putting the theory into practice he wouldn't give up on it, and eventually a flawed machine based on his theory destroyed the entire universe.
The quasi-educational set-top box is like this for the American gaming industry. Somehow, business people who back these things need to be convinced that the quasi-educational boxes are uncool and unsexy and it is the game machines that are cool. After all, there is no reason why a Linux based set-top box couldn't be used to create decent games (I mean besides Nethack... though that would be pretty cool on a big screen TV;) especially considering Gameboy is still selling very well. It's just a philosophical problem... chain the investment bankers up and have them repeat the mantra "games are cool, games make money" until they understand it.
Ok, you sound like a knowledgable person about Asheron's Call so I have to ask this: Does the "social engineering" aspect of the game work to reduce the number of Twinks, PowerGamers and the like in the game, or not?
I remember when I was researching MMRPGs when I was interning for a company that was considering getting into the business, the social engineering aspect of AC seemed interesting. I wasn't sure if it was something that would really work in practice to prevent twinking, though. It seemed to be interesting in a theoretical sense.
I refer to the way people must gather retainers in order to amass power in AC.
That story makes me think that the best way to package this kind of game is as part of a specialized ISP.
I mean as far as I can understand the main way AOL gets customers is by presenting itself as entertainment (plus Email and Internet). Well, that and the coasters it gives away.
If I were in charge of a MMRPG, I'd forget about selling the game or selling time, I'd just set up an ISP and tell people "to play game or games X you have to use our ISP."
Hey, when I was a kid, the only reason why I was interested in Compuserve (in those days we didn't use the Internet, Compuserve was just a big BBS) was because they had online games. I didn't get to play British Legends as much as I would have like, but I enjoyed the concept of playing Zork multiplayer....
But if not for that, I would've just used the cheap, local BBSs.
The bad folks show up with the inevitability of death I'm afraid. (My signature link is relevant here.)
What is needed is a massively multiplayer version of Foundation in which an illuminated elite can use psycho-history (like Hari Seldon) to control the rabble.
Actually, though, that sounds sort of like what the evil out of Redmond (they've tried to code social engineering in their game) is trying to do with their online entity, at least according to what I've read about it.
Ok, VisiCalc wasn't OpenSource in the FSF sense because it wasn't copylefted. However, what it does show is that there was a more innocent time in computer science when:
At that time in history, and before, few fundamental programming concepts were patented. We all borrowed from each other. Just a few examples of concepts where patents played no role in those days: word wrapping, cut and paste, the word processing ruler, sorting and compression algorithms, hypertext linking, and compiler techniques. --- quote from the above page
I'm just glad this has been turned into a positive philosophy (with a legal backbone) rather than operating from just good will among hackers.
Let's hope Micro~1 never does this deliberately in order to damage Linux. You know a "plausable deniability" thing where the guy who made the improperly GPLed code ends up living the good life in Alcapulco... out of the public eye, or course.
Well... maybe the Microsoft server is actually running a *nix... I bet there are servers within Microsoft that do, people just don't tell Bill Gates ^_^
Of course, if a dead, mummified guy sat in front of a BSoD for 4 years or more, I'd be afraid the forces of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt would resurrect him as some sort of Barrow-Wight... scary, ne? O_o
It's an odd philosophy within government departments I've known about (I've had members of my family working in civil service for many years) that however much money you get in your budget, you'd better spend it all because if you have money left over your budget will be cut next year.
Of course, this is the exact opposite of a desire to economize, people will try to come up with anything they can think of to use up their budget to use it up. I won't say they waste money, exactly, but let's just say they always have enough office supplies.
I think, therefore, that the reason why NASA has been economizing is the fact that the axe had already fallen on the budget, the people at NASA knew it, and they wanted to put the best face on it. So, my question is, do you think the desire to do thing on the cheap is coming from within NASA or primarily from forces outside NASA who are putting the screws on it?
I figure its the latter, because i can't imagine anyone in any government department wanting to have budgets which shrink every year.
Actually, I think the moon mission was intended as a display of power (i.e. if we can put a man on the moon and bring him back safely, think how accurate we can be with our warheads.)
Actually, it was the commies who started the space race with Sputnik. (In Danse Macabre Stephen King pointed out that that was a pretty scary that the Russians had gotten to space first when he was a kid.) So maybe we don't need a war or a cold war, just someone to show NASA up and really rub our faces in it.
Of course, I'd rather it didn't take national humiliation to get us to Mars...
I can't think it is my party, the Libertarians, because NASA is part of the government. (Incidentally, NASA is one of the few things I like about our government, but I expect other Libertarians to say "privatize it!")
Republicans won't want it because they never want to increase the budget for government programs. (Unless it was turned into part of the military or law enforcement.)
Democrats probably want to take the money out of NASA and put it into social programs.
Greens would probably be afraid that rocket exhaust was damaging the atmosphere, and environmentalists would certainly object if a nuclear reactor was used to power the craft.
Socialists would probably be similar to Democrats in their thinking.
So, I was wondering if anyone, in any party has said, "Mars before 2035!" or something similar.
Question: What's the difference between a fan of say, "Neon Genesis Evangelion" telling people who like other anime series that what they like is for dorks and someone who likes Jesus telling people who are in other religions that they are dorks? (Isn't that trying to force your beliefs on someone through intimidation? Isn't that the "herd" thing to do in anime since EVA is so "hip," especially among wannabes?)
Answer: An order of magnitude maybe (you probably don't want to burn people who don't worship EVA at the stake. Well, maybe you don't.) but that's pretty much it. Dammit, I wish you wannabes would go find something else to "wanna be" and give up on anime. You know, I heard somewhere that anime is starting to be uncool again, just like it was when I was watching Star Blazers back in the 70's, you wouldn't want to be caught being into something uncool would you? The new fad is those "cup-and-ball" games, you'll be really cool if you leave anime to dorks like me and get into that.
Also... it's the truth according to who? You? A bunch of your conformist sheep? Well, I have some news for you. Just because you believe in something doesn't mean that it's the 'one true way'. Also, what if their *IS* no afterlife? Hm? You have no proof that any of this exists, so stop trying to force everyone to believe what you're saying.
Gee, it seems to me that I remember saying something that you disagreed with on another thread, and you flamed me for it. Of course, here you are trying to portray yourself as a wonderfully tolerant and open minded person who wouldn't dream of spitting on someone who didn't happen to share your tastes in things. I happen to know that that isn't true, so why don't you just drop it. There's nother worse than someone who condemns intolerance and hypocracy when they are themselves and intolerant, narrow-mind hypocrit. I mean, I have no objection if that's the kind of person you want to be, but why try to pretend you are something else.
A storybook created by some guy off in the middle of nowhere that had too much time on his hands.
You know, if you are trying to advocate skepticism or atheism, writing something this moronic isn't helpful. Obviously the Bible isn't "just a story book written by some guy" any more than the oral traditions of the American Indians or other tribal people are.
I'm all for skepticism, but only informed skepticism is useful.
Remember, just being an atheist doesn't necessarily make you intelligent. Try thinking about things before you write them.
PSX Emus run slowly? Not on my old Pentium II. You've probably made some kind of incompetant, major error in the set up of either the machine or your emulator, or else you only like games that aren't really compatible with the emulator.
Try getting someone who knows what they are doing to set the emulator up for you.
Of course, the biggest problem is that sometimes you are going to want to run as root, and you are probably going to want to install something while su'd to root. (It is wishful thinking to expect this not to happen. Someday there is going to be a really cool game for download in binary form that has a pop-up Window which says "enter root password" which may then turn out to be a trojan.)
My experience with virus checkers is that they don't work. I had a trojan eat an old Win95 machine of mine once, and the fact that it was running Norton's Anti-virus didn't help. However, Linux has more built in security against malicious actions than Win* systems, so I'm not expecting to see "a plague of Linux viruses."
True, which is why you have to pick your battles. You can't give up the necessities of life, but if you have a good option you can go with it.
And after all what's the point in buying a movie if you are never going to be allowed to really own it? You might as well just rent it and forget it. It won't be yours anyway, your license will expire (or they'll obsolete DVD players so you can't watch your disks any more.) So why buy it? What are you gaining?
I mean, the point of actually spending the money to buy a movie is so you'll own a favorite of yours and build your collection. The mega-corps are trying to alter the law so you don't really own it... you just have a license to use it.
I'm not interested in owning a collection of licenses, thanks.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, here it is as plain text.
However, lately the tactic that the DVD CCA, MPAA and it's ilk are using to go after DeCSS is that it violates the Digital Millenium Copyright Act because legally you aren't allowed, under that act, to create a tool to defeat any copy protection scheme. In this case, it doesn't matter if you figured out the DeCSS Algorithm in a clean room, the law says, "Just trying to figure it out is illegal."
The DMCA is a horrible, evil law which was designed to upset the applecart on consumer's rights, destroying the delicate balance between the rights of copyright holders and those of the consumers who buy copyrighted material.
Oh, phrases like "legal license holder" is just FUD used by the DVD CCA to confuse the issue.
Wired Article:"DVD Player at Apex of Controversy"
that can defeat their attempts to destroy fair use, they summon their lawyers and start making threats.
The real goal is to make fair use de facto illegal, so that whenever anyone does something that could cut into their profits they'll have legal precedent backing them when they go after him/her.
A. None of these sites contain any nudity.
and
B. Mattel is blocking the sites as 'Full Nudity' anyway.
I would think that this is the kind of thing which would turn the average consumer against censorware if it got into the press. I would also think it is something that would turn the press against Mattel. I mean a lot of press companies have online versions, do they really want to be censored by Mattel if they print an article saying, "Mattels new toy X is proved to be toxic to children" or the like? We all know it could happen, we just need to get the newspapers with Web sites to see it.
The only thing that I can think of is that the commercialization of Linux might cause some compatibility problems in the short term. But, I mean how serious are they? It's like if you install Redhat you get a Gnome desktop as default, most of the others use KDE, but you can always switch to whatever Windowmanager you like by editing .xinitrc (I like Window Maker, myself) and installing the proper stuff off of the disk if it is missing.
I mean if you install the proper libraries into Debian(in the required directories), couldn't you get the program in the article working? Of course, if the program was closed source you might have a problem figuring out what was wrong, but then that's more of a closed source problem than a Linux problem, I think.
Closed source Linux vendors may, in fact, just use distribution X as a standard, and if you are using distribution Y (which doesn't install certain libraries by default) it might cause a headache if the people at the closed source vendors tech-support hotline don't know what they are doing and can't tell you that you need ncurses or whatever. So, this means good training to the closed source vendors tech support, not that there is a problem with Linux. If I had a problem like this, I wouldn't be complaining to Linus but to the person who sold me the incompatible closed source software.
I did fairly well in the course, so I didn't complain even though I don't own a laptop. It seemed kind of unfair, however but I think my professor probably figured that it didn't matter that much. I mean after all there was a time limit, what were the students going to do, write each algorithm into a program and then try to run it on a computer to make sure they had the right answer?
No, the only thing I think the professor should've done was allow a whole notebook worth of notes, since the storage on the laptop was much greater than just one sheet of paper (or a TI-85.) (Please note, laptops were allowed but not modems, that's a big difference. My professor assumed "modem==outside help" and would allow rampant cheating.)
My personal opinion is that, in an ideal world, there would be a standard computer lab where everyone would take their exams on school computers.
Unlikely to happen at my school though, they'd rather spend money on the football team.
Oh, and I'm also going to try Nethack.
I just hope they activate my account soon...
Imagine a cute, color PDA, not too expensive with a built in control pad. It would have a lower powered version of Linux specifically designed for it (still GPLed, naturally), and some way of retrieving and storing games quickly and easily.
This is not as absurd as it sounds, I know of many people who use their graphing calculators for playing games, so I don't see why this couldn't work.
Heck, I'd love one of these if it existed... well, I guess my NeoGeo Pocket is good enough for now, sigh...
Customer: Does it play games?
Vendor: Yes, all Playstation compatible games....
I mean, I'll never get this. Money should, in theory, make almost anything respectable (ok, porn is the obvious exception). Games and game machines are a big, huge money industry. I mean people talk about the Internet revolution in the news all the time, but it seems that the video/computer gaming revolution has always been a stealth revolution.
Now, don't get me wrong, it always sickens me the way these days everyone (in the mainstream media) seems to think money is the only important thing about the information age. But you'd think something that has made fortunes for people at Sony, Sega and Nintendo wouldn't be able to get its jokes from Rodney Dangerfield. Now... I don't want people to think there are no innovative minds in American gaming hardware. For example, I'm fairly impressed by the way that Alienware markets gaming optimized computers. They don't try to pretend they've got "socially redeeming value" they just give their boxen cool names like Hivemind and put decent hardware inside of them.
When 3DO was first announced this was an actual advertising slogan:
Years ago, I read a science fiction story about a computer that could predict the future. This computer predicted the birth of a man who had a wrongly formulated scientific theory, but he was absolutely convinced it was correct and charismatic enough to convince other people that it was true. No matter how many disasters were caused by putting the theory into practice he wouldn't give up on it, and eventually a flawed machine based on his theory destroyed the entire universe.The quasi-educational set-top box is like this for the American gaming industry. Somehow, business people who back these things need to be convinced that the quasi-educational boxes are uncool and unsexy and it is the game machines that are cool. After all, there is no reason why a Linux based set-top box couldn't be used to create decent games (I mean besides Nethack... though that would be pretty cool on a big screen TV ;) especially considering Gameboy is still selling very well. It's just a philosophical problem... chain the investment bankers up and have them repeat the mantra "games are cool, games make money" until they understand it.
I remember when I was researching MMRPGs when I was interning for a company that was considering getting into the business, the social engineering aspect of AC seemed interesting. I wasn't sure if it was something that would really work in practice to prevent twinking, though. It seemed to be interesting in a theoretical sense.
I refer to the way people must gather retainers in order to amass power in AC.
I mean as far as I can understand the main way AOL gets customers is by presenting itself as entertainment (plus Email and Internet). Well, that and the coasters it gives away.
If I were in charge of a MMRPG, I'd forget about selling the game or selling time, I'd just set up an ISP and tell people "to play game or games X you have to use our ISP."
Hey, when I was a kid, the only reason why I was interested in Compuserve (in those days we didn't use the Internet, Compuserve was just a big BBS) was because they had online games. I didn't get to play British Legends as much as I would have like, but I enjoyed the concept of playing Zork multiplayer....
But if not for that, I would've just used the cheap, local BBSs.
What is needed is a massively multiplayer version of Foundation in which an illuminated elite can use psycho-history (like Hari Seldon) to control the rabble.
Actually, though, that sounds sort of like what the evil out of Redmond (they've tried to code social engineering in their game) is trying to do with their online entity, at least according to what I've read about it.
http://www.bricklin.com/patenting.htm
Ok, VisiCalc wasn't OpenSource in the FSF sense because it wasn't copylefted. However, what it does show is that there was a more innocent time in computer science when:
I'm just glad this has been turned into a positive philosophy (with a legal backbone) rather than operating from just good will among hackers.Let's hope Micro~1 never does this deliberately in order to damage Linux. You know a "plausable deniability" thing where the guy who made the improperly GPLed code ends up living the good life in Alcapulco... out of the public eye, or course.
Hey, are you aware of the story of the German guy who this actually happened to? Except he wasn't sitting in front of a computer monitor but in front of his TV set (left on, of course) for some remarkable number of years (four) after he died.
Of course, if a dead, mummified guy sat in front of a BSoD for 4 years or more, I'd be afraid the forces of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt would resurrect him as some sort of Barrow-Wight... scary, ne? O_o
Of course, this is the exact opposite of a desire to economize, people will try to come up with anything they can think of to use up their budget to use it up. I won't say they waste money, exactly, but let's just say they always have enough office supplies.
I think, therefore, that the reason why NASA has been economizing is the fact that the axe had already fallen on the budget, the people at NASA knew it, and they wanted to put the best face on it. So, my question is, do you think the desire to do thing on the cheap is coming from within NASA or primarily from forces outside NASA who are putting the screws on it?
I figure its the latter, because i can't imagine anyone in any government department wanting to have budgets which shrink every year.
Actually, it was the commies who started the space race with Sputnik. (In Danse Macabre Stephen King pointed out that that was a pretty scary that the Russians had gotten to space first when he was a kid.) So maybe we don't need a war or a cold war, just someone to show NASA up and really rub our faces in it.
Of course, I'd rather it didn't take national humiliation to get us to Mars...
I can't think it is my party, the Libertarians, because NASA is part of the government. (Incidentally, NASA is one of the few things I like about our government, but I expect other Libertarians to say "privatize it!")
Republicans won't want it because they never want to increase the budget for government programs. (Unless it was turned into part of the military or law enforcement.)
Democrats probably want to take the money out of NASA and put it into social programs.
Greens would probably be afraid that rocket exhaust was damaging the atmosphere, and environmentalists would certainly object if a nuclear reactor was used to power the craft.
Socialists would probably be similar to Democrats in their thinking.
So, I was wondering if anyone, in any party has said, "Mars before 2035!" or something similar.
We need a pro-tech lobby in Washington.
Answer: An order of magnitude maybe (you probably don't want to burn people who don't worship EVA at the stake. Well, maybe you don't.) but that's pretty much it. Dammit, I wish you wannabes would go find something else to "wanna be" and give up on anime. You know, I heard somewhere that anime is starting to be uncool again, just like it was when I was watching Star Blazers back in the 70's, you wouldn't want to be caught being into something uncool would you? The new fad is those "cup-and-ball" games, you'll be really cool if you leave anime to dorks like me and get into that.
In the words of Number 6, "Be seeing you."
Nemo me impune lacessit
You know, if you are trying to advocate skepticism or atheism, writing something this moronic isn't helpful. Obviously the Bible isn't "just a story book written by some guy" any more than the oral traditions of the American Indians or other tribal people are.
I'm all for skepticism, but only informed skepticism is useful.
Remember, just being an atheist doesn't necessarily make you intelligent. Try thinking about things before you write them.
Try getting someone who knows what they are doing to set the emulator up for you.
Of course, the biggest problem is that sometimes you are going to want to run as root, and you are probably going to want to install something while su'd to root. (It is wishful thinking to expect this not to happen. Someday there is going to be a really cool game for download in binary form that has a pop-up Window which says "enter root password" which may then turn out to be a trojan.)
My experience with virus checkers is that they don't work. I had a trojan eat an old Win95 machine of mine once, and the fact that it was running Norton's Anti-virus didn't help. However, Linux has more built in security against malicious actions than Win* systems, so I'm not expecting to see "a plague of Linux viruses."
And after all what's the point in buying a movie if you are never going to be allowed to really own it? You might as well just rent it and forget it. It won't be yours anyway, your license will expire (or they'll obsolete DVD players so you can't watch your disks any more.) So why buy it? What are you gaining?
I mean, the point of actually spending the money to buy a movie is so you'll own a favorite of yours and build your collection. The mega-corps are trying to alter the law so you don't really own it... you just have a license to use it.
I'm not interested in owning a collection of licenses, thanks.