Functional != unprotected
on
Duct Tape
·
· Score: 3
Any speech can be functional. Calling functional speech a device doesn't change that it is speech, and is therefore protected.
DeCSS is as much as device as the launch codes for a nuclear missle, or the combo to my gym locker.
In the right context they can perform a function, but they are speech nonetheless. If you want to prohibit the function they perform, make "speech-devices" illegal to use, not to distribute--and realize that making DeCSS illegal to use would lay bare the decimation of constitutionally required fair use that this ban on dissemination disguises.
Playing the "I'm not going to dignify that with a response" game will NEVER get you a win in the court of public opinion,
Microsoft had exactly that response the first time the Free Software Gang got together to respond to the FUD. "That was [so and so's] goal, to encourage debate." and that was their only direct response. Then they rang the bell and started round two.
Rather than responding defensively to Microsoft's offensive PR moves, the people who hold Free Software dear should find an offensive move of their own, and set Mcrosoft on the defensive. As it is, it's challenge-response PR, and the challenger looks like the winner because they look like they're in control, the responders lose because they're defensive.
The PR battle is fought as much on the direct as the meta playing fields. If Microsoft wanted to suddenly lash out at car manufacturers in a similar, irrational way, they would still sound like winners because they're on the offensive.
I wasn't talking about not responding, but about taking the high road. There is no reason that when taunted, you have to respond in kind--it is playing into the bully's hands.
Play a different game. Change the rules. React unexpectedly and they will spend more time meta-analyzing the motivations behind the response and less time pursuing the game plan. The last thing you want to do when put in a defensive position by an opponant is respond defensively. Take the offense and make them react.
Haven't we learned not to feed trolls? I hope that the Free Software luminaries give this guy the response he deserves this time: none at all.
By stooping to his level, we're playing their game. It is obvious to me, at least, that when you play Microsoft's game, they win. Instead, the good team should be pondering a way to force Microsoft to play a different PR game--probably one that starts off with "we don't think his ideas merit a response. He is clearly another empty mind pursuing another of Microsoft's intense PR campaigns that sound newsworthy but don't move forward the debate over intellectual property in this country one iota. We'll let our software do the talking."
Here's what lead me to know that it was related to the puzzle:
I found "Sentient Machine Therapist" Jeanine Salla's bio page at her place of work by searching on Google. That linked to a webpage of her family, where her sister hosts a page memorializing an Evan Chan. On that page is a chemistry-related puzzle (as easy as the one in the credits of the trailer), that leads to a coronor's website that reveals he was very probably sinning at the time of his death.
I wrote Jeanine's provided email address and was provided a URL that deepens the mystery (but for people who have been playing a while actually ties up loose ends).
This all in just a few minutes of searching, although Cloudmakers have discovered much, much more to the world. I will be very sad when the movie comes out and it is more like DARYL than like Blade Runner.
Jumping into the middle of things, you might take a look at the latest trailer for the movie. In the credits, certain letters are highlighted, and they spell "Warn her Evan died sinning."
Having read a little on the Cloudmakers site I see that it is related to the puzzle, but I don't know yet if it's already been played or not. Guess I'll read more and catch up.
I think the concept is neat, but I don't think it involves a complex calculus to ascertain a system's security rating. You don't need to add, multiply, or average the package ratings on a machine....
Just read off the lowest one. The security on a machine is only as good as the least secure package.
Of course, you run into the problem of who will be the authority issuing these ratings. No software developer would be honest or forthright about their number (or the measurements would be entirely uncomparable), so a trusted external body would be responsible for the ratings... and they'd be liable for all manner of litigation from trademark infringement to libel to spoiling a market for a product by telling the truth about it.
So I predict it'll never happen. It's hard enough to get vague information about security breaches. Nobody'd dare quantify the risks.
The motion picture industry picked 2600, not the other way around.
2600 is for the right to publish. For the right to publish cryptography and security news, and for the right to publish jokes and link on the internet.
You'll notice that fuckgeneralmotors isn't pointed at an anti-general motors site, it's just making a joke. 2600 owns several fuck*.com domain names, and, well, just read his declaration
I repeat, Eric's just doing what he has a right to do, and these companies are filing frivolous and abusive lawsuits against him. Tell me again that it's bull that big companies are evil.
Explain to me why you believe Eric wants to get sued? Who wants to get sued? He has to go around the country defending his right to speek freely, asking for donations from other like-minded first amendment advocates, all just to exercise a constitutional right!
Or are you suggesting we all just bend over and let the people with the money to shut us up and make us "consumers" run the country? Your argument is like saying the guy picketing scientology wanted to get killed in prison by scientologist mind-control drones, so he drew attention to himself.
Just because you're in trouble doesn't mean you did something bad. Being arrested doesn't make you guilty. Just because you're sued doesn't mean you're wrong.
Done that--in fact it's usually the only time I tell people copyright bars me from making their copies. Unless there's someone else around, since I'm in a position of authority and could get in a heap-of-trouble.
It makes ordinary people feel quite satisfied when I look left, then look right, and say sotto voce "I can do it for you... but don't tell anyone."
underwhelm, actively subverting copyright and promoting fair use in contravention of chickenshit corporate policy since at least 1999.
As many of you may know, I work for Kinkos, where we have a restrictive copyright policy (it has to be more restrictive than the actual law so we don't get sued *again*).
A lady came in yesterday wanting to copy the MN State Driver's Manual for her daughter, but I couldn't do it because it had a copyright notice in it. Now, I'm under the impression that the government doesn't own copyrights (everything the gov't owns is in the public domain), but this must have been prepared by someone else.
So I had to tell her no, and show her how to use the self-serve copiers so she could make copies (not of the copyrighted material, of course. *I don't know what in the world she actually copied, I hope she didn't break any laws!*).
We wouldn't want these people to know how to drive, would we? It's better this way.
Of course, they could always block port 80 by default and enable it for people paying them their protection money. It's certainly technically possible, and they had port 23 blocked for "security" purposes the tenure of my account with them so I know they're willing to do such things.
If I was taxing their bandwidth or causing other "problems" by running a server, wouldn't they have discovered my server earlier? Yes. They just want my money.
I appreciate the reasoned responses from you folks, which is the opposite of how my ISP treated me.
FIRST they disconnected my service, then on a Sunday the owner called me and chewed me out. It did sound like he thought I was reselling service (which isn't true--unless you think I was reselling service to myself). I repeatedly apologized for allegedly violating the TOS, and wanted to make it right. "How much for 'Servers OK' DSL?" I asked, "I don't know," the owner of the ISP replied.
What a load. It sounded like he didn't know what a DNS server was, and came across as a total MBA ignoramus. So I told him that I'd be happy to work with him because I wanted to keep them as my ISP (formerly MN Inter.net) because they treated me nicely in the past (read: left me alone), but that if they weren't willing to be reasonable (read: not disconnect first, ask questions later), I would be happy to find another ISP. He hung up on me.
That settled the matter, as far as I was concerned until I got the bill.
Also, if you look at their DSL prices, the price for "servers OK DSL" is $19.95/mo. I was paying $20.95/mo. That is what I referred to on my hastily written response at the bottom of their first bill.
That's the same argument my former ISP used to justify discontinuing my service when they got a letter from the MPAA and "discovered" that I was running my own webserver.
They said I was violating their terms of service, but see if you can find anything prohibiting or even mentioning servers for DSL users. The owner called me up at home and insinuated I was trying to "get away with something" by running my own server instead of paying them for hosting. So, with that twisted logic, they decided to bill me for 18 months of web hosting I didn't ask for or recieve. I called a lawyer.
Here's my documentation on the issue, and, needless to say, if you're in MN, avoid this place.
The moral of the story is because this is a capitalist country, it is a crime to avail yourself of a free service if someone is willing to charge you for it.
The argument should have been, "Look, by saying that we cannot link to something, that is like telling the New York Times that they cannot say that you can go to Amersdam to smoke pot. Do we limit that. No."
>1. Are the anti-trafficking provisions of the Digital Millennium
>Copyright Act content-neutral? See 111 F. Supp. 2d 294, 328-29
>(S.D.N.Y. 2000).
Quite the contrary, as DeCSS is a particular program and the message it contains would be entirely prohibited from publication by the DMCA. I was just rereading the lower court's decision, and he describes a content-neutral restriction as "not motivated by a desire to limit the message," such as place and time restrictions.
>2. Does DeCSS have both speech and non-speech elements?
While rereading the decision, I found the fulcrum upon which the non-speech argument turned. As it has been stated here many times, computer programs don't run themselves. The honorable judge states "DeCSS, like any other computer program, is a series of instructions that causes a computer to perform a particular sequence of tasks..."
That's the false premise, an error in fact, that might lead the appelate panel to think DeCSS has non-speech elements. Computer programs don't cause anything to happen. People do. I could understand a similar argument if it were made in the case where I was being tried for circumvention *and I claimed my act of using DeCSS* was protected speech, but DeCSS alone does not do anything.
Kaplan's argument is like saying "this Audi, like any other car, is a mass of metal and glass that causes a driver to collide with people at high speeds." It's the premise and the conclusion all-in-one. Convenient for the studios, but also critically false.
I'm also intruiged by the argument that *because it can be copyrighted* it is pure speech. Does Gone With the Wind have non-speech elements because I can use it to prop open a door? Does my Pearl Jam CD have non-speech elements because I can jimmy open a lock with it? Can someone provide me an example of a copyrighted work that has non-speech elements? Just because you can use it for something besides passively having it operate on your mind?
>3. Does the dissemination of DeCSS have both speech and non-speech
>elements?
This ties directly to the argument that publishing is not a non-speech element. Dissemination = publishing = speech, and sophistry should not be able to convince the judges that it is just another action that can be enjoined without bound. Dissemination of DeCSS on CD Rom in the middle of a trial could be enjoined, but that is a time and place restriction that allows me to distribute the message in another manner.
>4. Does the use of DeCSS to decrypt an encrypted DVD have both
>speech and non-speech elements?
Ah ha! See above argument about my defense to circumvention charges that use of DeCSS is protected speech. It's a weak defense, but it may be a defense nonetheless.
>5. Does the existence of non-speech elements, along with speech
>elements, in an activity sought to be regulated alone justify
>intermediate level scrutiny?
It seems to my non-lawyer eyes that they are trying to get us to assert that it is the presence of speech that justifies strict scrutiny, and deny the inverse--that non-speech elements reduce the level of scrutiny. The speech must be protected at the cost of permitting undesireable non-speech, if the only alernative available is to ban the speech.
>6. If DeCSS or its dissemination or its use to decrypt has both
>speech and non-speech elements and is not subject to intermediate
>level scrutiny simply because of the non-speech elements, is
>intermediate level scrutiny appropriate because of the close causal
>link between dissemination of DeCSS and its improper use? See 111 F.
>Supp. 2d at 331-32.
Is the premise, that there is a close causal link, supported by the record? I didn't see that. In fact, the record illustrates no link at all between dissemination and use. Furthermore, improper use is undefined, and it is the government's responsiblity to protect the ability of citizens to make proper use of DeCSS, not prevent its improper use.
1. Copyright is a limited monpoly--so strengthening that monopoly (eliminating fair use) or distorting the market for another product with that monopoly (controlling the licensing for DVD players) would seem to violate anti trust laws.
2. The DVDCCA, which purports to license DVD players is a front for and created by the studios. Only the studios have the authority to permit decryption of their works under the DMCA, so either the DVDCCA is the agent of the member studios, or the MPAA should be suing them for violating the DMCA. Since the latter isn't the case, the former can be safely assumed.
The connection between the market for DVD players and DVD media is ofuscated, but by observing the actions of the players, their relationship is clear... and reeks of an illegal trust.
Jack Valenti used steganography to hide the code to CSS_Descramble in his deposition in the Universal v. Corley trial. There's probably some other stuff, like the 7-line perl version and maybe Macbeth.
And still I wait for the plethora of PCI-based HDTV tuners... who should I blame for the plain vacancy in the market?
With video cards already able to decode MPEG-2 streams, and others that operate as SDTV tuners, I'm convinced there's an opposing force compelling manufacturers to avoid this obvious early-adopter market. So, is it the movie industry? Local broadcasters? Syndicators? Which copyright robber barons are exerting their influence on manufacturers this time?
If anyone needed an example of how copyright *failed* to promote the science and arts, its this endless paranoia about what level of control will be built into the next generation of media distribution. So the debate drags on for ten years about which fair-use prevention technique will be embedded in the new technology, and in the mean time, we twiddle our thumbs using technology from the 50s.
Where are the independent manufacturers not cowed by the content industry?
My monitor is capable of displaying every resolution HDTV has to offer, and my computer plenty versatile to handle the metadata, so why is my PC not yet equipped with a tuner?
Demographic studies indicate that overweight people voted for Bush 2:1, so he got a larger share of America's sub-atomic particles, fatty tissue, and water.
Democracy has finally arrived for America's quarks!
How hard is it to make your electronic voting system spit out a paper trail?
Which is more reliable, a paper trail generated by a computing machine with limited options (if Bush print "BUSH"; if Gore print "GORE") or one generated by humans?
I think we already have our control group.
Make the voting software open source, and the smart people don't have to trust the system, they can trust their own eyes (or what other trustworthy smart people tell them the code says). The dumb people don't need a "reason" not to trust something, they'll make something up. That's why we call them dumb.
Slashdot Mirror
Any speech can be functional. Calling functional speech a device doesn't change that it is speech, and is therefore protected.
DeCSS is as much as device as the launch codes for a nuclear missle, or the combo to my gym locker.
In the right context they can perform a function, but they are speech nonetheless. If you want to prohibit the function they perform, make "speech-devices" illegal to use, not to distribute--and realize that making DeCSS illegal to use would lay bare the decimation of constitutionally required fair use that this ban on dissemination disguises.
It's that easy. And that hard.
Playing the "I'm not going to dignify that with a response" game will NEVER get you a win in the court of public opinion,
Microsoft had exactly that response the first time the Free Software Gang got together to respond to the FUD. "That was [so and so's] goal, to encourage debate." and that was their only direct response. Then they rang the bell and started round two.
Rather than responding defensively to Microsoft's offensive PR moves, the people who hold Free Software dear should find an offensive move of their own, and set Mcrosoft on the defensive. As it is, it's challenge-response PR, and the challenger looks like the winner because they look like they're in control, the responders lose because they're defensive.
The PR battle is fought as much on the direct as the meta playing fields. If Microsoft wanted to suddenly lash out at car manufacturers in a similar, irrational way, they would still sound like winners because they're on the offensive.
I wasn't talking about not responding, but about taking the high road. There is no reason that when taunted, you have to respond in kind--it is playing into the bully's hands.
Play a different game. Change the rules. React unexpectedly and they will spend more time meta-analyzing the motivations behind the response and less time pursuing the game plan. The last thing you want to do when put in a defensive position by an opponant is respond defensively. Take the offense and make them react.
Haven't we learned not to feed trolls? I hope that the Free Software luminaries give this guy the response he deserves this time: none at all.
By stooping to his level, we're playing their game. It is obvious to me, at least, that when you play Microsoft's game, they win. Instead, the good team should be pondering a way to force Microsoft to play a different PR game--probably one that starts off with "we don't think his ideas merit a response. He is clearly another empty mind pursuing another of Microsoft's intense PR campaigns that sound newsworthy but don't move forward the debate over intellectual property in this country one iota. We'll let our software do the talking."
Here's what lead me to know that it was related to the puzzle:
I found "Sentient Machine Therapist" Jeanine Salla's bio page at her place of work by searching on Google. That linked to a webpage of her family, where her sister hosts a page memorializing an Evan Chan. On that page is a chemistry-related puzzle (as easy as the one in the credits of the trailer), that leads to a coronor's website that reveals he was very probably sinning at the time of his death.
I wrote Jeanine's provided email address and was provided a URL that deepens the mystery (but for people who have been playing a while actually ties up loose ends).
This all in just a few minutes of searching, although Cloudmakers have discovered much, much more to the world. I will be very sad when the movie comes out and it is more like DARYL than like Blade Runner.
Jumping into the middle of things, you might take a look at the latest trailer for the movie. In the credits, certain letters are highlighted, and they spell "Warn her Evan died sinning."
Having read a little on the Cloudmakers site I see that it is related to the puzzle, but I don't know yet if it's already been played or not. Guess I'll read more and catch up.
I think I saw one of these at JFK. It was crashed, and asking "OK?" and registered something like 5 hours of use at the top of the screen.
I doubt that it is "OK" to the person who was using it.
I think the concept is neat, but I don't think it involves a complex calculus to ascertain a system's security rating. You don't need to add, multiply, or average the package ratings on a machine....
Just read off the lowest one. The security on a machine is only as good as the least secure package.
Of course, you run into the problem of who will be the authority issuing these ratings. No software developer would be honest or forthright about their number (or the measurements would be entirely uncomparable), so a trusted external body would be responsible for the ratings... and they'd be liable for all manner of litigation from trademark infringement to libel to spoiling a market for a product by telling the truth about it.
So I predict it'll never happen. It's hard enough to get vague information about security breaches. Nobody'd dare quantify the risks.
The motion picture industry picked 2600, not the other way around.
2600 is for the right to publish. For the right to publish cryptography and security news, and for the right to publish jokes and link on the internet.
You'll notice that fuckgeneralmotors isn't pointed at an anti-general motors site, it's just making a joke. 2600 owns several fuck*.com domain names, and, well, just read his declaration
I repeat, Eric's just doing what he has a right to do, and these companies are filing frivolous and abusive lawsuits against him. Tell me again that it's bull that big companies are evil.
Or are you suggesting we all just bend over and let the people with the money to shut us up and make us "consumers" run the country? Your argument is like saying the guy picketing scientology wanted to get killed in prison by scientologist mind-control drones, so he drew attention to himself.
Just because you're in trouble doesn't mean you did something bad. Being arrested doesn't make you guilty. Just because you're sued doesn't mean you're wrong.
Odd that she wanted it copied, since she already had one in her posession. I try not to think too hard about these things.
It makes ordinary people feel quite satisfied when I look left, then look right, and say sotto voce "I can do it for you... but don't tell anyone."
underwhelm, actively subverting copyright and promoting fair use in contravention of chickenshit corporate policy since at least 1999.
As many of you may know, I work for Kinkos, where we have a restrictive copyright policy (it has to be more restrictive than the actual law so we don't get sued *again*).
A lady came in yesterday wanting to copy the MN State Driver's Manual for her daughter, but I couldn't do it because it had a copyright notice in it. Now, I'm under the impression that the government doesn't own copyrights (everything the gov't owns is in the public domain), but this must have been prepared by someone else.
So I had to tell her no, and show her how to use the self-serve copiers so she could make copies (not of the copyrighted material, of course. *I don't know what in the world she actually copied, I hope she didn't break any laws!*).
We wouldn't want these people to know how to drive, would we? It's better this way.
Of course, they could always block port 80 by default and enable it for people paying them their protection money. It's certainly technically possible, and they had port 23 blocked for "security" purposes the tenure of my account with them so I know they're willing to do such things. If I was taxing their bandwidth or causing other "problems" by running a server, wouldn't they have discovered my server earlier? Yes. They just want my money.
FIRST they disconnected my service, then on a Sunday the owner called me and chewed me out. It did sound like he thought I was reselling service (which isn't true--unless you think I was reselling service to myself). I repeatedly apologized for allegedly violating the TOS, and wanted to make it right. "How much for 'Servers OK' DSL?" I asked, "I don't know," the owner of the ISP replied.
What a load. It sounded like he didn't know what a DNS server was, and came across as a total MBA ignoramus. So I told him that I'd be happy to work with him because I wanted to keep them as my ISP (formerly MN Inter.net) because they treated me nicely in the past (read: left me alone), but that if they weren't willing to be reasonable (read: not disconnect first, ask questions later), I would be happy to find another ISP. He hung up on me.
That settled the matter, as far as I was concerned until I got the bill.
Also, if you look at their DSL prices, the price for "servers OK DSL" is $19.95/mo. I was paying $20.95/mo. That is what I referred to on my hastily written response at the bottom of their first bill.
That's the same argument my former ISP used to justify discontinuing my service when they got a letter from the MPAA and "discovered" that I was running my own webserver.
They said I was violating their terms of service, but see if you can find anything prohibiting or even mentioning servers for DSL users. The owner called me up at home and insinuated I was trying to "get away with something" by running my own server instead of paying them for hosting. So, with that twisted logic, they decided to bill me for 18 months of web hosting I didn't ask for or recieve. I called a lawyer.
Here's my documentation on the issue, and, needless to say, if you're in MN, avoid this place.
The moral of the story is because this is a capitalist country, it is a crime to avail yourself of a free service if someone is willing to charge you for it.
They did say that. Read the briefs.
>1. Are the anti-trafficking provisions of the Digital Millennium
..."
>Copyright Act content-neutral? See 111 F. Supp. 2d 294, 328-29
>(S.D.N.Y. 2000).
Quite the contrary, as DeCSS is a particular program and the message it contains would be entirely prohibited from publication by the DMCA. I was just rereading the lower court's decision, and he describes a content-neutral restriction as "not motivated by a desire to limit the message," such as place and time restrictions.
>2. Does DeCSS have both speech and non-speech elements?
While rereading the decision, I found the fulcrum upon which the non-speech argument turned. As it has been stated here many times, computer programs don't run themselves. The honorable judge states "DeCSS, like any other computer program, is a series of instructions that causes a computer to perform a particular sequence of tasks
That's the false premise, an error in fact, that might lead the appelate panel to think DeCSS has non-speech elements. Computer programs don't cause anything to happen. People do. I could understand a similar argument if it were made in the case where I was being tried for circumvention *and I claimed my act of using DeCSS* was protected speech, but DeCSS alone does not do anything.
Kaplan's argument is like saying "this Audi, like any other car, is a mass of metal and glass that causes a driver to collide with people at high speeds." It's the premise and the conclusion all-in-one. Convenient for the studios, but also critically false.
I'm also intruiged by the argument that *because it can be copyrighted* it is pure speech. Does Gone With the Wind have non-speech elements because I can use it to prop open a door? Does my Pearl Jam CD have non-speech elements because I can jimmy open a lock with it? Can someone provide me an example of a copyrighted work that has non-speech elements? Just because you can use it for something besides passively having it operate on your mind?
>3. Does the dissemination of DeCSS have both speech and non-speech
>elements?
This ties directly to the argument that publishing is not a non-speech element. Dissemination = publishing = speech, and sophistry should not be able to convince the judges that it is just another action that can be enjoined without bound. Dissemination of DeCSS on CD Rom in the middle of a trial could be enjoined, but that is a time and place restriction that allows me to distribute the message in another manner.
>4. Does the use of DeCSS to decrypt an encrypted DVD have both
>speech and non-speech elements?
Ah ha! See above argument about my defense to circumvention charges that use of DeCSS is protected speech. It's a weak defense, but it may be a defense nonetheless.
>5. Does the existence of non-speech elements, along with speech
>elements, in an activity sought to be regulated alone justify
>intermediate level scrutiny?
It seems to my non-lawyer eyes that they are trying to get us to assert that it is the presence of speech that justifies strict scrutiny, and deny the inverse--that non-speech elements reduce the level of scrutiny. The speech must be protected at the cost of permitting undesireable non-speech, if the only alernative available is to ban the speech.
>6. If DeCSS or its dissemination or its use to decrypt has both
>speech and non-speech elements and is not subject to intermediate
>level scrutiny simply because of the non-speech elements, is
>intermediate level scrutiny appropriate because of the close causal
>link between dissemination of DeCSS and its improper use? See 111 F.
>Supp. 2d at 331-32.
Is the premise, that there is a close causal link, supported by the record? I didn't see that. In fact, the record illustrates no link at all between dissemination and use. Furthermore, improper use is undefined, and it is the government's responsiblity to protect the ability of citizens to make proper use of DeCSS, not prevent its improper use.
Both good points. Now consider that:
1. Copyright is a limited monpoly--so strengthening that monopoly (eliminating fair use) or distorting the market for another product with that monopoly (controlling the licensing for DVD players) would seem to violate anti trust laws.
2. The DVDCCA, which purports to license DVD players is a front for and created by the studios. Only the studios have the authority to permit decryption of their works under the DMCA, so either the DVDCCA is the agent of the member studios, or the MPAA should be suing them for violating the DMCA. Since the latter isn't the case, the former can be safely assumed.
The connection between the market for DVD players and DVD media is ofuscated, but by observing the actions of the players, their relationship is clear... and reeks of an illegal trust.
In a manner of speaking. Listen.
Hear for yourself.
And still I wait for the plethora of PCI-based HDTV tuners... who should I blame for the plain vacancy in the market?
With video cards already able to decode MPEG-2 streams, and others that operate as SDTV tuners, I'm convinced there's an opposing force compelling manufacturers to avoid this obvious early-adopter market. So, is it the movie industry? Local broadcasters? Syndicators? Which copyright robber barons are exerting their influence on manufacturers this time?
If anyone needed an example of how copyright *failed* to promote the science and arts, its this endless paranoia about what level of control will be built into the next generation of media distribution. So the debate drags on for ten years about which fair-use prevention technique will be embedded in the new technology, and in the mean time, we twiddle our thumbs using technology from the 50s.
Where are the independent manufacturers not cowed by the content industry?
My monitor is capable of displaying every resolution HDTV has to offer, and my computer plenty versatile to handle the metadata, so why is my PC not yet equipped with a tuner?
Demographic studies indicate that overweight people voted for Bush 2:1, so he got a larger share of America's sub-atomic particles, fatty tissue, and water.
Democracy has finally arrived for America's quarks!
How hard is it to make your electronic voting system spit out a paper trail?
Which is more reliable, a paper trail generated by a computing machine with limited options (if Bush print "BUSH"; if Gore print "GORE") or one generated by humans?
I think we already have our control group.
Make the voting software open source, and the smart people don't have to trust the system, they can trust their own eyes (or what other trustworthy smart people tell them the code says). The dumb people don't need a "reason" not to trust something, they'll make something up. That's why we call them dumb.
It's easy. Just become a "theoretical" computer scientist.
I'm buying my pseudo-ticket today!