What did JP do? In typical fashion, he bought a special computer program, or "bot" as they are called, which, when let loose on a Web site, basically rips off the entire site. He downloaded the Packet Storm info to AntiOnline for examination, and JP took what they wanted from it. During this raping of the Packet Storm site, the bot came across a private directory (not a publicly-visible directory). It had a picture of JP and his sister from their high school's online year book, as well as a collection of a few e-mails and Web sites Ken had been sent regarding JP (none of which were very favorable towards JP, but none of which I saw advocated violence or contained pornography).
JP saw an opportunity, and he ran with it. The next day, he contacted Harvard and told them Ken had a directory on his site containing "pornographic material," "degrading pictures" of him and his family, and contained "death threats" against him and his family. He even went on to say he had to hire a full time security guard for his offices because he feared for his life, and that Harvard was going to have to pay the price if they didn't remove the site ASAP. Again in typical fashion, JP implied he was going to take legal actions against them. Harvard's reaction was knee-jerk: It had never been in a situation like this before, so the school sent someone to pull the plug on Packet Storm and dismantle the box. It was done so fast they didn't even talk to the administrators at Harvard who had direct control over the box, and even notify Ken as to what was going on.
Do any government agencies really take antionline seriously? I mean, I could see it happening, but I wouldn't expect it, because I happen to know that there are people at the FBI who have really killer computer skills, and considering all that I've read about antionline they wouldn't take it very seriously. On the other hand, like many skilled computer professionals these people work for people who have better people skills than technical skills (political types), so I guess it is possible.
Also the fact that he took an obviously satirical question seriously is tyical of a certain type of politician. I'm talking about the ones with no sense of humor. I always wonder how completely humorless politicians manage to succeed, though...
In which all the businesses pay homage to members of the government. Communist? China's government cares nothing about what happens to the members of China's working class, how can any country that claims to be communist oppress the working class in the name of making profits! (I admit all countries that claim to be communist oppress the working class, but only China has been so unashamed of doing so in the pursuit of wealth for an elite upper class! At least in the Soviet Union, the party hid the fact that they were living lives of wealth and privalege).
Well, it's nice to know that so many of you people claiming to be Leftists are in with greedy, capitolist members of the Republican party on this one. It just goes to show that in the end all pro-government people look alike, reminds me of Animal Farm.
The Chinese government is an extremely oppressive one which uses slave labor to produce consumer goods for people in the United States. Their use of the term communist to describe their government is comedic, they are willing to pollute their people's air and water and otherwise ruin their lives in the service of getting good old US greenbacks. Of course, it's perfectly OK for you and Trudeau to be in favor of that type of government, it's a free country. I'll be damned if I'll ever let the US government reduce me (and other members of the working class) to penury so that Senators, Congressmen and President's can live like kings on our back, which is more or less the way things in communist countries always are for the working class. Remember to vote Libertarian! Libertarian party!
Hmm, is communist-libertarian the same thing as anarchist (or, if you prefer, anarcho-syndicalist)? Going off on a tangent which is just a stray thought, not a criticism of the previou poster:
Communism as it's practiced in "communist" countries has little to do with the working class, pre-Cold War, communist/anarchist movements in which big government was seen as the lapdog of big business. (Which, comedically enough is exactly what the "communist" government of China is, more so than any other government I can think of off-hand, including the US government, where unions at least have an influence.) The original communist/anarchist/trade-unionist movements were about liberating the working class from the shackles of oppressive business (which was backed up by the government). Eventually, the communist movements around the world were infiltrated by the ruthless, organized agents of the Soviet government, and became mere apologists for the oppression of working-class people in communist countries (and thus, anti-Liberty). I don't agree with Marx's interpretation of historical data, and in fact time has proved him wrong. (He believed technology wasn't going to progress much beyond the 19th century, and that's why he felt the need for capitolism to drive innovation was no longer neccessary. He also saw the way human beings were brutally oppressed in the name of capitolism in England, much as Charles Dickens did. But when the nasty, rutheless government of Russia came to power, they didn't call themselves Dickensists;) When Carnegie could send Pinkertons in to massacre striking steel workers whenever he wanted, the extremism of the anti-capitolist movements make a lot more sense. People just don't see that the legitimate working class movements of the 20th century included people from a movement whose name has become synonymous with evil, ruthless, brutally oppressive government. I'm a libertarian at the moment because I see a potential for evil coming from government as being many times greater than what corporations are capable of, but I hate big corporations, too. Don't know why people think that being anti-government means being pro-rampant, oppressive capitolism. Last time I checked, the government was influenced in a big way by Wall Street, they just try to absorb power from the private sector wherever they can, they are not trying to help people. I wouldn't be surprised at the US government trying to mandate the use of Windows, for example, because people can disable the NSA-backdoors/V-chip-type-censorship software in OpenSource operating systems.
The Chinese government is what the United States governments (plural, Federal, State and Local) aspire to be (i.e. governments that can murder people for "their own good" and not be held accountable for it.) but the US Federal government is nowhere near that powerful yet (though I am not speaking for every state and local government here. I'm well aware that in certain states it was defacto legal for people to be murdered, either lynched or through a corrupt judicial system. That's exactly the same kind of human rights violation China has been guilty of, and yes we tend to ignore things like that when we think about the US as a whole. I do think we have a fairly weak Federal Government though.) If it was, I'd have been dragged out in front of my apartment and shot in the head for writing all those letters to members of Congress complaining about them assaulting my Liberties. (My friends from Thailand are just waiting for me to be dragged off to prison, they think I'm crazy;) Of course, left unchecked, the US Federal government will become that powerful, and once it is it will commit the same types of crimes. Oh, I don't know any people from China, but I have a few close friends from Viet Nam, who I've found to be kind, decent, liberty-loving people. Don't judge the people of a country based on the feelings that you have for their government, but also don't judge the government of a country based on the feelings you have for its people. China has a bad government because it is too powerful, and the people who really suffer from that are the people of China.
I think he's talking about that episode of Batman: the Animated Series with "Brant Walker," an insane utopian visionary modelled on Walt Disney. (It's the one where Mr. Freeze gets kidnapped from Arkham asylum by a cool looking robot.) But I could be wrong....
These types of cracks, "taking things out," seem far less effective to me than the more subtle uses of information warfare. I'm talking about a really old form of information warfare (used, among other wars, during World War II to crack the German and Japanese code). In other words, you infiltrate your enemies communications network and use that information to see where they are vulnerable, and use that to strategically plan an attack. If you use your hackers to take out their power grid, are you warning them to improve their security?
The Court recognized in paragraph 408 of its findings that consumers have benefited from Microsoft's actions: "The debut of Internet Explorer and its rapid improvement gave Netscape an incentive to improve Navigator's quality at a competitive rate. The inclusion of Internet Explorer with Windows at no separate charge increased general familiarity with the Internet and reduced the cost to the public of gaining access to it, at least in part because it compelled Netscape to stop charging for Navigator. These actions thus contributed to improving the quality of Web browsing software, lowering its cost, and increasing its availability, thereby benefiting consumers."
Are there people out there who actually believe this? These actions a) Eliminated a company which was competing with MS (Netscape) b) Required the purchase of a Wintel machine c) Meant that if you wanted to create a competing, superior browser on the Windows OS, you couldn't charge for it. Hmm, let's say we decide to make all the car companies stop charging for cars... anyone think the quality of the cars will improve?
Does anyone remember the great (and surprisingly subtle) Mel Brooks film The Producers? In it, two Broadway producers get the idea to sell an 1000% investment in a show (keeping all the people they were selling it to from knowing they were selling more than 100%). Then they found the worst, most offensive play they could, Springtime for Hitler, and found the worst actors they could to cast it. Of course, with an IPO, the stock can be way overvalued without having to sell over 100% of the company........
It isn't "a scam" that you get paid to write code. Never think that, never let others convince you of it. Remember there are people in the world who do no work and produce nothing that get paid a lot. How long would any software company last without any coders? Not long, that's for sure.
The fact is Micros~1 got in trouble for wiping out their commercial competition in the Web browser market, e.g. Netscape. MS did that deliberately, with malice, purely to gain control of another industry. They suceeded, but they did so with an obvious disregard for the law. I'm sure they looked at is as a calculated risk, e.g. "We can convince the judge that the browser is just part of the OS." Well, they didn't suceed, and now they are going to be punished for it. While I'll hate to see the clumsy, hamfisted way the government is going to handle this, I don't particularly feel sorry for MS.
Interesting, but I worked a lot harder and and was much more underpaid when I worked in K-mart, Winn-Dixie Super Markets, Bradlees, that one crooked liquor store... the list goes on. I admit, I'm not paid what I'm worth and I don't buy into the stock options bit (I'm not expecting easy millions, especially since I'm just being told I'll get them, I've got nothing on paper.) But there are a lot of former co-workers from those other places whose only choice was to remain at K-mart in the hope of being raised to the exalted position of manager one day. I'm happy to have gotten out...
All a browser is is a program, it's not that much different than a WordProcessor, Spreadsheet, etc. It really is not part of the OS, despite Micros~1's claims to the contrary. Just as there are some in the OpenSource community working on a great little program called Gimp, there ought to be some in the OpenSource community working on a browser. It's a program that runs in an Operating System, not a part of the operating system, itself. The fact is, I have a perfectly sound ftp program for Linux, but I don't have a sound browser, because the Web has changed so much. But that is no reason to trash the idea of coming up with a decent browser for Linux. As to "lowest common denominator," if you are talking about Web TV, well I don't think much of Web TV either (it's a crippled computer). On the other hand, if you are talking about the average person who isn't obsessed with computers but would like to use them for various things, well, I disagree with you. As to "knowledgable users" do you really mean knowledgable users or users who are willing to spend what it takes to make sure that their computer hardware is Linux compatible? Some people can't afford the latest hardware, and some of those people are in fact knowledgable users. Money != Knowledge
Show a penguin in that room in the Emerald City before the great and powerful OS, which would look just like the great and powerful (and scary) Wizard of OZ. The penguin would be looking behind the curtain at the little man pulling all the levers and turning all the knobs. What is the picture illustrating? That when you understand the concepts behind and OS, programming it isn't so intimidating (i.e. Open Source). Maybe put a sign on the booth that says, "source code."
It might interest you to know that in China, the following series of events occured with Jurassic Park:
1. A print of the movie was smuggled out of a theatre.
2. The print was used to create a laser disc verion of the movie.
3. Thousands of pirate tapes were created from this pirated laser disk version, and sold the way pirate goods normally are.
The point? The block stopped you from copying the tape but not the hard core pirates. Hmm, as to getting around the block, I assume there are ways to do it (as there are for Nintendo games, eg z64 copy machine for Nintendo 64 games.) I don't know how but if you check the Internet you may find one (with the disclamer "for personal use only in making backup copies of legally obtained tapes," sort of like the way loaded dice always have the disclamer "for amusement purposes only." : )
Hmm, they suggest some truly wonderful ideas to the DVD makers, like that all computer DVD-Rom drives ought to be crippled so they can't play movies! This is my opinion of piracy, piracy is not, mainly, the average person copying some form of media for their own use rather than buying it. If this were true, why would people buy tapes of anything that had ever appeared on TV or cable? No, the main problem with piracy is commercial pirates, big organized crime operations located in Asia (and other parts of the world, including, I imagine, the US) who sell professional-quality versions of tapes, CDs, etc. (The fact is, consumerism operates on a few principles and one of them is that an official product is always held in higher regard than a cheap, sorry-looking knock-off. People don't buy tapes because they have too, they do it because they want too.) This article seems to be written by information luddites, who advocate crippling consumer technology or holding it back because it is too dangerous. Incidentally, the most laughable thing in the article is that content will be restricted if cracked DVD continues to exist in the world. What they actually mean is that "you won't be able to get an official copy of Star Wars for DVD, but you'll probably be able to get a professional quality version made from a print of the movie in China at that sleazy, disreputable pawn shop up the street, or wherever pirate goods are sold." If this is the case, doesn't it make more sense for studios to release official versions of DVDs, rather than losing their potential profits to pirates? You know, once upon a time there was no protection against piracy except the law, which was all people relied upon. Nowadays, if people want to rely on technology to stop piracy, they should realize that they are fighting a losing battle. Once I own something, as long as I'm not planning to break the law, it is my right to rewire the thing as I see fit. I'm offended by the concept that any piece of consumer technology that I own which is crippled needs to be allowed to stay crippled or else I'm some kind of evil person. Anyway, that's what this article seemed to be implying.
It's a good thought for a poll, actually. I've read 1984, Animal Farm, and Homage to Catalonia. I think in this case seeing the movie might be thought to count, though.:)
Currently, there is a war going on between Sony and mod-chippers over encryption. You see, a while ago I got a mod chip installed in my Playstation purely so I could play one disk (Samurai Spirits 1 & 2, a legitimate import version, not available in the US region.) Even though I chipped my Playstation to play games which were coded for outside my region, that same chip works for copied games too. Recently, Sony became aware of the encryption crack, and has started coding some of its disks (such as Dino Crisis from Capcom) so they will detect the chip and fail to play. Of course, now there are people coming out with new ways to get around the new encryption, including new hacked pirate disks and GameShark codes. I wonder if DVD companies will attempt something similar.
Well, I agree with you that the Bill of Rights doesn't prevent all censorship (especially considering the blue-nosed, puritanical beliefs of what may be the majority of Americans.) It's a huge failing, but I still believe in the principle of a Bill of Rights. On the other hand, I'm not stupid enough to knock the Australian form of government without more knowledge of it. I think it is extremely arrogant when other Americans do so. Just understand, some of this rhetoric is driven by fear. "Oh, well, that happens in Australia because their system of government isn't as good as ours. It won't ever happen here." When deep down most Americans know that it could very well happen here and indeed does quite often. So, just feel some pity for us poor Americans who have to listen to wild-eyed, fire-and-brimstone, witch-burning Puritan fanatics propose absurd and obscenely intrusive laws on an almost daily basis and understand why some cling to the Bill of Rights like a security blanket:) That said, I still believe that the US Constitution with its Bill of Rights and seperation of powers was a good idea. But in any democracy, it is the quality of the people you elect to represent you which determines whether you have good or bad government, everything else is close to being window dressing.
Hmm, No, I don't think so, let's look at history. Back during the Great Depression we had a popular, powerful President who managed to get a lot of the things he wanted done, done. However, when he ran up against the Supreme Court, he basically tried to undermine the Constitution by packing the court with judges who would do his bidding. He didn't succeed because of the huge public outrage (he was trying to change the size of the court, I believe, something unheard of.) Changing the Constitution wasn't even considered an option in this case, or else I'm sure he would of considered it. I'm not trying to make out here that FDR was bad, just that he was powerful and good at pushing through legislation, some of which ran afoul of the Supreme Court. Now, I will admit that the unwritten Bill of Rights that exists in Britain and Australia will have a similar effect when people try to create laws which violate it. However, the fact that it is an abstract concept (based on things like British Common Law precedents rather than enumerated rights) means that if their is no massive public outrage against a given law, there is a good chance it will be enforced for many years without it being challenged, and even if it is challenged it might not be defeated. By defeated, here, I don't mean "ruled unconstitutional" because as far as I know the British courts haven't had that power (at least since Star Chamber ceased to be an active part of the government), just rendered unenforcable because a previous precedent is held to have more force of law. In the United States, you have an extra check, the Supreme Court can toss out any law that is at issue in a case brought before them by ruling it unconstitutional. This is an added level of protection against people making an unconstitutional law. Changing the Constitution is, currently, a long and involved process. It is true that ridiculous Constitutional Amemendments have been made (Prohibition springs to mind) but these Amendments haven't yet destroyed one of the rights enumerated in the first ten amendments. There is an awesome majesty that goes along with the Bill of Rights that makes it hard for American politicians to tamper with it, even if they privately think that Americans could do with less liberty than is afforded them by this document. British law is fascinating, complex and very well thought out in most cases. US law is based on the firm foundation that British law gave us. However, I still prefer to be able to look up what my enumerated rights are rather than trying to hunt through mounds and mounds of old case law to find them, though:) While I don't agree with your thesis that the Constitution is easily amended, I will admit that your thesis could be properly applied to the Supreme Court, which if "packed" with bad jurists can indeed make our rights disappear through bad case law. There have been a few cases in US history where the Supreme Court has done just that. (Ok, I'll bring up the infamous Dredd Scott decision which precipitated the American Civil War.) By and large though, I think that the system works well, as long as good politicians are elected by the voters. But I think the British system works well with the same caveat, it is just a more protean system than the US.
I don't think that someone who has never committed an act of violence before should be punished because he failed the violence aptitude test. I suspect that any student who actually will become violent has probably committed some kind of violent act at some point in his history. I think that these violence prone students are ignored despite getting into fist fights or breaking windows because it is easier than trying to figure out a way to deal with them. Why were so many students guilty of criminal activity, including the two murderers treated so leniently by the school?
That January, during one of their nocturnal pranks, Harris and Klebold were arrested on juvenile charges of felony burglary for stealing from a van. They got the lightest sentence available: a diversion program, with the charges expunged after 10 months of counseling and community service. In fact, their own light sentence has provoked questions among some parents that school officials were lax not only toward athletes, but toward all sorts of student misbehavior.--Lorraine Adams and Dale Russakoff, Washington Post Staff Writers
) Why would having a computerized test, even if it worked, change matters? I suspect that the "violence-prone students" will simply be forced to attend useless anti-violence classes one or two days a week, while suffering the taunts of fellow classmates "Oooh, look it's Violence Bob. Oooh, I'm scared he's going to kill me... Come on, take swing at me, Bob..."
Since nothing constructive is actually done about proven violent students, nothing useful will actually be done about students "caught" by MOSAIC. But it will let people think that the school's are doing something to protect our children, and that's really its job, isn't it?
Computers just aren't ready to do some of the jobs they are being asked to do. I'm sorry, but I don't believe in computers when you ask them to do a job that an actual person should be doing. It's happening throughout society, but interestingly it stops at the point that people will experience financial loss if something goes wrong. That's why they haven't yet replaced cashiers with a couple of armed guards and "scan yourself" groceries.
After the string of school shootings that ended at Columbine, school systems decided that we needed to do something. I agree. I believe that that something is to train and hire personnel that will solve the problem of school violence. Generally speaking, when a computer program is created to do something that is supposed to be done by a person it is because the people want to do something on the cheap. If we need profilers working at the school, so be it. But let them be people and not "Mosaic."
Metal Detectors and guards are there to cover up a major flaw in America's school systems, that's what's wrong with them. Do you think we always needed these? The fact is, as schools become more locked down, they are starting to resemble juvenile halls or reform schools. Why? Are all students criminals? Potential criminals? No. I believe that the problem is that students who actually are criminals are not seperated from the general student population. Remember, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold had commited actual crimes before they went on their killing spree. So why were they stuck in that cavernous school with law abiding students? So, we make Americas schools into forbidding, prison-like environments, because we plan to leave the criminally inclined student with the general population. It doesn't take what is likely to be this bad, buggy program called "Mosaic" to solve this problem. I think "Mosaic" is going to identify the wrong people, I have little faith in software miracles that are doing a job that should be handled by a school psychologist. Besides, I do believe in the notion that a person should not be convicted because of their desires but only their actions. Once a student is judged guilty of any serious crime, that student needs to be removed from the general population and placed in a seperate school system. Nothing else will protect the other students from violence effectively.
Slashdot Mirror
--Quoted from "Internet Wars Episode One The Antionline Menace" at The Synthesis
Do any government agencies really take antionline seriously? I mean, I could see it happening, but I wouldn't expect it, because I happen to know that there are people at the FBI who have really killer computer skills, and considering all that I've read about antionline they wouldn't take it very seriously. On the other hand, like many skilled computer professionals these people work for people who have better people skills than technical skills (political types), so I guess it is possible.
Also the fact that he took an obviously satirical question seriously is tyical of a certain type of politician. I'm talking about the ones with no sense of humor. I always wonder how completely humorless politicians manage to succeed, though...
Well, it's nice to know that so many of you people claiming to be Leftists are in with greedy, capitolist members of the Republican party on this one. It just goes to show that in the end all pro-government people look alike, reminds me of Animal Farm.
The Chinese government is an extremely oppressive one which uses slave labor to produce consumer goods for people in the United States. Their use of the term communist to describe their government is comedic, they are willing to pollute their people's air and water and otherwise ruin their lives in the service of getting good old US greenbacks. Of course, it's perfectly OK for you and Trudeau to be in favor of that type of government, it's a free country. I'll be damned if I'll ever let the US government reduce me (and other members of the working class) to penury so that Senators, Congressmen and President's can live like kings on our back, which is more or less the way things in communist countries always are for the working class. Remember to vote Libertarian! Libertarian party!
Going off on a tangent which is just a stray thought, not a criticism of the previou poster:
Communism as it's practiced in "communist" countries has little to do with the working class, pre-Cold War, communist/anarchist movements in which big government was seen as the lapdog of big business. (Which, comedically enough is exactly what the "communist" government of China is, more so than any other government I can think of off-hand, including the US government, where unions at least have an influence.) The original communist/anarchist/trade-unionist movements were about liberating the working class from the shackles of oppressive business (which was backed up by the government). Eventually, the communist movements around the world were infiltrated by the ruthless, organized agents of the Soviet government, and became mere apologists for the oppression of working-class people in communist countries (and thus, anti-Liberty). I don't agree with Marx's interpretation of historical data, and in fact time has proved him wrong. (He believed technology wasn't going to progress much beyond the 19th century, and that's why he felt the need for capitolism to drive innovation was no longer neccessary. He also saw the way human beings were brutally oppressed in the name of capitolism in England, much as Charles Dickens did. But when the nasty, rutheless government of Russia came to power, they didn't call themselves Dickensists ;) When Carnegie could send Pinkertons in to massacre striking steel workers whenever he wanted, the extremism of the anti-capitolist movements make a lot more sense. People just don't see that the legitimate working class movements of the 20th century included people from a movement whose name has become synonymous with evil, ruthless, brutally oppressive government.
I'm a libertarian at the moment because I see a potential for evil coming from government as being many times greater than what corporations are capable of, but I hate big corporations, too. Don't know why people think that being anti-government means being pro-rampant, oppressive capitolism. Last time I checked, the government was influenced in a big way by Wall Street, they just try to absorb power from the private sector wherever they can, they are not trying to help people. I wouldn't be surprised at the US government trying to mandate the use of Windows, for example, because people can disable the NSA-backdoors/V-chip-type-censorship software in OpenSource operating systems.
The Chinese government is what the United States governments (plural, Federal, State and Local) aspire to be (i.e. governments that can murder people for "their own good" and not be held accountable for it.) but the US Federal government is nowhere near that powerful yet (though I am not speaking for every state and local government here. I'm well aware that in certain states it was defacto legal for people to be murdered, either lynched or through a corrupt judicial system. That's exactly the same kind of human rights violation China has been guilty of, and yes we tend to ignore things like that when we think about the US as a whole. I do think we have a fairly weak Federal Government though.) If it was, I'd have been dragged out in front of my apartment and shot in the head for writing all those letters to members of Congress complaining about them assaulting my Liberties. (My friends from Thailand are just waiting for me to be dragged off to prison, they think I'm crazy ;) Of course, left unchecked, the US Federal government will become that powerful, and once it is it will commit the same types of crimes. Oh, I don't know any people from China, but I have a few close friends from Viet Nam, who I've found to be kind, decent, liberty-loving people. Don't judge the people of a country based on the feelings that you have for their government, but also don't judge the government of a country based on the feelings you have for its people. China has a bad government because it is too powerful, and the people who really suffer from that are the people of China.
I think he's talking about that episode of Batman: the Animated Series with "Brant Walker," an insane utopian visionary modelled on Walt Disney. (It's the one where Mr. Freeze gets kidnapped from Arkham asylum by a cool looking robot.) But I could be wrong....
These types of cracks, "taking things out," seem far less effective to me than the more subtle uses of information warfare. I'm talking about a really old form of information warfare (used, among other wars, during World War II to crack the German and Japanese code). In other words, you infiltrate your enemies communications network and use that information to see where they are vulnerable, and use that to strategically plan an attack. If you use your hackers to take out their power grid, are you warning them to improve their security?
Are there people out there who actually believe this? These actions a) Eliminated a company which was competing with MS (Netscape) b) Required the purchase of a Wintel machine c) Meant that if you wanted to create a competing, superior browser on the Windows OS, you couldn't charge for it. Hmm, let's say we decide to make all the car companies stop charging for cars... anyone think the quality of the cars will improve?
Does anyone remember the great (and surprisingly subtle) Mel Brooks film The Producers? In it, two Broadway producers get the idea to sell an 1000% investment in a show (keeping all the people they were selling it to from knowing they were selling more than 100%). Then they found the worst, most offensive play they could, Springtime for Hitler, and found the worst actors they could to cast it.
Of course, with an IPO, the stock can be way overvalued without having to sell over 100% of the company........
It isn't "a scam" that you get paid to write code. Never think that, never let others convince you of it. Remember there are people in the world who do no work and produce nothing that get paid a lot. How long would any software company last without any coders? Not long, that's for sure.
The fact is Micros~1 got in trouble for wiping out their commercial competition in the Web browser market, e.g. Netscape. MS did that deliberately, with malice, purely to gain control of another industry. They suceeded, but they did so with an obvious disregard for the law.
I'm sure they looked at is as a calculated risk, e.g. "We can convince the judge that the browser is just part of the OS." Well, they didn't suceed, and now they are going to be punished for it. While I'll hate to see the clumsy, hamfisted way the government is going to handle this, I don't particularly feel sorry for MS.
Interesting, but I worked a lot harder and and was much more underpaid when I worked in K-mart, Winn-Dixie Super Markets, Bradlees, that one crooked liquor store... the list goes on. I admit, I'm not paid what I'm worth and I don't buy into the stock options bit (I'm not expecting easy millions, especially since I'm just being told I'll get them, I've got nothing on paper.) But there are a lot of former co-workers from those other places whose only choice was to remain at K-mart in the hope of being raised to the exalted position of manager one day. I'm happy to have gotten out...
All a browser is is a program, it's not that much different than a WordProcessor, Spreadsheet, etc. It really is not part of the OS, despite Micros~1's claims to the contrary. Just as there are some in the OpenSource community working on a great little program called Gimp, there ought to be some in the OpenSource community working on a browser. It's a program that runs in an Operating System, not a part of the operating system, itself. The fact is, I have a perfectly sound ftp program for Linux, but I don't have a sound browser, because the Web has changed so much. But that is no reason to trash the idea of coming up with a decent browser for Linux.
As to "lowest common denominator," if you are talking about Web TV, well I don't think much of Web TV either (it's a crippled computer). On the other hand, if you are talking about the average person who isn't obsessed with computers but would like to use them for various things, well, I disagree with you. As to "knowledgable users" do you really mean knowledgable users or users who are willing to spend what it takes to make sure that their computer hardware is Linux compatible? Some people can't afford the latest hardware, and some of those people are in fact knowledgable users. Money != Knowledge
Show a penguin in that room in the Emerald City before the great and powerful OS, which would look just like the great and powerful (and scary) Wizard of OZ. The penguin would be looking behind the curtain at the little man pulling all the levers and turning all the knobs. What is the picture illustrating? That when you understand the concepts behind and OS, programming it isn't so intimidating (i.e. Open Source). Maybe put a sign on the booth that says, "source code."
1. A print of the movie was smuggled out of a theatre.
2. The print was used to create a laser disc verion of the movie.
3. Thousands of pirate tapes were created from this pirated laser disk version, and sold the way pirate goods normally are.
The point? The block stopped you from copying the tape but not the hard core pirates. Hmm, as to getting around the block, I assume there are ways to do it (as there are for Nintendo games, eg z64 copy machine for Nintendo 64 games .) I don't know how but if you check the Internet you may find one (with the disclamer "for personal use only in making backup copies of legally obtained tapes," sort of like the way loaded dice always have the disclamer "for amusement purposes only." : )
Hmm, they suggest some truly wonderful ideas to the DVD makers, like that all computer DVD-Rom drives ought to be crippled so they can't play movies! This is my opinion of piracy, piracy is not, mainly, the average person copying some form of media for their own use rather than buying it. If this were true, why would people buy tapes of anything that had ever appeared on TV or cable? No, the main problem with piracy is commercial pirates, big organized crime operations located in Asia (and other parts of the world, including, I imagine, the US) who sell professional-quality versions of tapes, CDs, etc. (The fact is, consumerism operates on a few principles and one of them is that an official product is always held in higher regard than a cheap, sorry-looking knock-off. People don't buy tapes because they have too, they do it because they want too.)
This article seems to be written by information luddites, who advocate crippling consumer technology or holding it back because it is too dangerous.
Incidentally, the most laughable thing in the article is that content will be restricted if cracked DVD continues to exist in the world. What they actually mean is that "you won't be able to get an official copy of Star Wars for DVD, but you'll probably be able to get a professional quality version made from a print of the movie in China at that sleazy, disreputable pawn shop up the street, or wherever pirate goods are sold." If this is the case, doesn't it make more sense for studios to release official versions of DVDs, rather than losing their potential profits to pirates?
You know, once upon a time there was no protection against piracy except the law, which was all people relied upon. Nowadays, if people want to rely on technology to stop piracy, they should realize that they are fighting a losing battle. Once I own something, as long as I'm not planning to break the law, it is my right to rewire the thing as I see fit. I'm offended by the concept that any piece of consumer technology that I own which is crippled needs to be allowed to stay crippled or else I'm some kind of evil person. Anyway, that's what this article seemed to be implying.
It's a good thought for a poll, actually. I've read 1984, Animal Farm, and Homage to Catalonia. I think in this case seeing the movie might be thought to count, though. :)
Currently, there is a war going on between Sony and mod-chippers over encryption. You see, a while ago I got a mod chip installed in my Playstation purely so I could play one disk (Samurai Spirits 1 & 2, a legitimate import version, not available in the US region.) Even though I chipped my Playstation to play games which were coded for outside my region, that same chip works for copied games too. Recently, Sony became aware of the encryption crack, and has started coding some of its disks (such as Dino Crisis from Capcom) so they will detect the chip and fail to play. Of course, now there are people coming out with new ways to get around the new encryption, including new hacked pirate disks and GameShark codes. I wonder if DVD companies will attempt something similar.
Well, I agree with you that the Bill of Rights doesn't prevent all censorship (especially considering the blue-nosed, puritanical beliefs of what may be the majority of Americans.) It's a huge failing, but I still believe in the principle of a Bill of Rights. :)
On the other hand, I'm not stupid enough to knock the Australian form of government without more knowledge of it. I think it is extremely arrogant when other Americans do so. Just understand, some of this rhetoric is driven by fear. "Oh, well, that happens in Australia because their system of government isn't as good as ours. It won't ever happen here." When deep down most Americans know that it could very well happen here and indeed does quite often. So, just feel some pity for us poor Americans who have to listen to wild-eyed, fire-and-brimstone, witch-burning Puritan fanatics propose absurd and obscenely intrusive laws on an almost daily basis and understand why some cling to the Bill of Rights like a security blanket
That said, I still believe that the US Constitution with its Bill of Rights and seperation of powers was a good idea. But in any democracy, it is the quality of the people you elect to represent you which determines whether you have good or bad government, everything else is close to being window dressing.
Hmm, :)
No, I don't think so, let's look at history. Back during the Great Depression we had a popular, powerful President who managed to get a lot of the things he wanted done, done. However, when he ran up against the Supreme Court, he basically tried to undermine the Constitution by packing the court with judges who would do his bidding. He didn't succeed because of the huge public outrage (he was trying to change the size of the court, I believe, something unheard of.) Changing the Constitution wasn't even considered an option in this case, or else I'm sure he would of considered it. I'm not trying to make out here that FDR was bad, just that he was powerful and good at pushing through legislation, some of which ran afoul of the Supreme Court.
Now, I will admit that the unwritten Bill of Rights that exists in Britain and Australia will have a similar effect when people try to create laws which violate it. However, the fact that it is an abstract concept (based on things like British Common Law precedents rather than enumerated rights) means that if their is no massive public outrage against a given law, there is a good chance it will be enforced for many years without it being challenged, and even if it is challenged it might not be defeated. By defeated, here, I don't mean "ruled unconstitutional" because as far as I know the British courts haven't had that power (at least since Star Chamber ceased to be an active part of the government), just rendered unenforcable because a previous precedent is held to have more force of law. In the United States, you have an extra check, the Supreme Court can toss out any law that is at issue in a case brought before them by ruling it unconstitutional. This is an added level of protection against people making an unconstitutional law. Changing the Constitution is, currently, a long and involved process. It is true that ridiculous Constitutional Amemendments have been made (Prohibition springs to mind) but these Amendments haven't yet destroyed one of the rights enumerated in the first ten amendments. There is an awesome majesty that goes along with the Bill of Rights that makes it hard for American politicians to tamper with it, even if they privately think that Americans could do with less liberty than is afforded them by this document.
British law is fascinating, complex and very well thought out in most cases. US law is based on the firm foundation that British law gave us. However, I still prefer to be able to look up what my enumerated rights are rather than trying to hunt through mounds and mounds of old case law to find them, though
While I don't agree with your thesis that the Constitution is easily amended, I will admit that your thesis could be properly applied to the Supreme Court, which if "packed" with bad jurists can indeed make our rights disappear through bad case law. There have been a few cases in US history where the Supreme Court has done just that. (Ok, I'll bring up the infamous Dredd Scott decision which precipitated the American Civil War.) By and large though, I think that the system works well, as long as good politicians are elected by the voters. But I think the British system works well with the same caveat, it is just a more protean system than the US.
See this Washingt on Post story Quote:
That January, during one of their nocturnal pranks, Harris and Klebold were arrested on juvenile charges of felony burglary for stealing from a van. They got the lightest sentence available: a diversion program, with the charges expunged after 10 months of counseling and community service. In fact, their own light sentence has provoked questions among some parents that school officials were lax not only toward athletes, but toward all sorts of student misbehavior.--Lorraine Adams and Dale Russakoff, Washington Post Staff Writers
) Why would having a computerized test, even if it worked, change matters? I suspect that the "violence-prone students" will simply be forced to attend useless anti-violence classes one or two days a week, while suffering the taunts of fellow classmates "Oooh, look it's Violence Bob. Oooh, I'm scared he's going to kill me... Come on, take swing at me, Bob..."
Since nothing constructive is actually done about proven violent students, nothing useful will actually be done about students "caught" by MOSAIC. But it will let people think that the school's are doing something to protect our children, and that's really its job, isn't it?
After the string of school shootings that ended at Columbine, school systems decided that we needed to do something. I agree. I believe that that something is to train and hire personnel that will solve the problem of school violence. Generally speaking, when a computer program is created to do something that is supposed to be done by a person it is because the people want to do something on the cheap. If we need profilers working at the school, so be it. But let them be people and not "Mosaic."
Metal Detectors and guards are there to cover up a major flaw in America's school systems, that's what's wrong with them. Do you think we always needed these? The fact is, as schools become more locked down, they are starting to resemble juvenile halls or reform schools. Why? Are all students criminals? Potential criminals?
No.
I believe that the problem is that students who actually are criminals are not seperated from the general student population. Remember, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold had commited actual crimes before they went on their killing spree. So why were they stuck in that cavernous school with law abiding students?
So, we make Americas schools into forbidding, prison-like environments, because we plan to leave the criminally inclined student with the general population. It doesn't take what is likely to be this bad, buggy program called "Mosaic" to solve this problem. I think "Mosaic" is going to identify the wrong people, I have little faith in software miracles that are doing a job that should be handled by a school psychologist. Besides, I do believe in the notion that a person should not be convicted because of their desires but only their actions.
Once a student is judged guilty of any serious crime, that student needs to be removed from the general population and placed in a seperate school system. Nothing else will protect the other students from violence effectively.