You've come close to the argument I held for several weeks on OpenLaw; that DeCSS is merely an implementation of the decryption half of the CSS encoding mechanism.
DeCSS is no more a tool for circumvention than any other software that decodes CSS encoded data. Either every DVD player circumvents, or none do.
It's a shame that, though I didn't read a refutation of my claim, that the position was not taken in trial... but much of OpenLaw's musings on authority did appear in the form of one paragraph in the appeal brief:
The Studios argue that a purchaser of a DVD containing their movies does not receive legal "authority" to decrypt the work. Studios at 63 n. 43. Instead, they claim that "authorization by the Studios [upon purchase of a DVD] has been limited to accessing DVD content via authorized equipment." Id. But where and how has this authority "limited"? Nowhere during or after the purchase transaction are consumers informed, much less contractually bound, to view the work only on "authorized equipment." To the contrary, DVDs are sold with no contractual restrictions whatsoever (paragraph 2, section c, Appellate Reply Brief)
I'll admit, you might have me on cutsey UI, if you're just thinking about stock OS X. But with the option to run Linux and windows, and the likely flexibility of the OS X UI, I can have any UI I want.
Firewire. USB. PCMCIA. Up to 1 gig of ram. The only things I can't upgrade are the CPU and the video card... It's a damn sight better than Audrey, and a lot more portable than my desktop systems. With my 1.3" thick Cannon scanner, Tascam US-428 and a digital video camera, I can produce a [insert creative endeavor] anywhere that there's enough oxygen for me to run the devices.
I know, you were just joking... but even I'm overwhelmed by the versatility and usefulness of this gadget. It's the 200 lb. gorilla of swiss-army-knives-that-we-call-general-purpose-com puters in a one-inch-thin sack (to blend my metaphors).
Get a visor deluxe. They come with 8mb of ram. Then get a wireless modem. I think they go for $200-300. Total expenditure: $350-$600. In may, you'll also be able to get an 802.11 module. There is already one cellular phone module available, with more to come.
Downsides: modules aren't built-in functionality, so you have to give up one to benefit from another. Small screen. Wireless modem plans are pricey.
Upsides: Visor deluxes take regular AAA batteries, and I get several weeks of life our of my NiMH rechargeables. Palm OS application base, Palm OS functionality. Color is available for an added price.
The only thing that I've seen that fits my requirements for a webpad is the powerbook G4. It's a little heavy (5-6 lbs), and runs a little hot, but it gets 5 hours of battery life, is an inch thick, has 802.11b ethernet, a giant screen, and runs linux, OSX (BSD), Mac OS 9, and Windows.
The touch screen is the only thing missing, and I don't miss it that much. It's got the much more efficient "keyboard" technology that full-featured computers come with. Did I mention it's expandable through USB, firewire AND PCMCIA?
I was holding out for a webpad, too, but I realized I'll never be happy with a proprietary, unexpandable, unupgradeable, ISP-locked sub-computer with a cutsey UI. You get what you pay for (especially if you wait 10 years for something nobody ever brings to market).
Exactly as much effort is "wasted" on cynicism as there is on creativity and discovery.
turns into a positive affirmation of human action and generally makes the world a better place:
... but I'm not one to argue that either is more valuable than the other... I value them both. Your cynicism, while irritating and unfounded, serves a purpose too, my child.
DMCArt is the application of the human mind, as much as advertising, architecture, fornication, or whatever, and is also an explicit rejection of intellectual control by governing bodies or corporate beings--a double whammy if you ask me. Enjoy your aimless cynical life, and I will enjoy my aimless and creative one.
There is only one online comic worth reading. I try to read it aloud every day (along with several back-episodes) to my girlfriend. I rarely amuse her, but any self-respecting, easily amused geek will find something to enjoy.
Back when I went to MPA, we didn't have fancy things like laptops. We had insecure windows 95 machines with censorware in the library and we liked it. Some of the more wealthy students like to play golf on their personal laptops during study hall, but I rarely saw them used otherwise.
I remember very little else except that certain US students had to battle to keep the Mac lab open after school. That's quite a cooked agreement you have to sign to use their laptops, though. If you're ever downtown St. Paul and need wireless access, my network's available. Keep up the good fight.
Pretty soon you're going to have to get licensed by the state to own multiple computers. The program will be sponsored by Microsoft, and will double as the "Home Computing Security Bureau" (read: Anti-Piracy division). Poor people, students and minorities need not apply unless you're willing to submit to background checks and keyboard logging.
It's fascinating how the FBI or local police can arrest anyone, and publish that they had "multiple computers" and it sounds like bona fide evidence that they commited a computer crime--when in fact the they arrested them because they knew the person had multiple computers, and thought they could squeeze a confession or a new suspect out of the poor sucker. Correlation does not imply causation.
Kinda takes all the fun out of showing your geek friends your phat new in-home wireless/wired broadband multimedia network when you're just creating character witnesses for your future prosecution. "Yeah, I was at his place once. 100Mbps switched network, mp3s... He probably did it."
What I want to know is, who makes IP addressable stereo components? If my damn refrigerator is going to be networked, the least they could do is make the one appliance in my house that can actually deliver something (sound) remotely configurable. That way, with 802.11, I can control the music/video from anywhere in the house.
I'd even buy the first, basic model that just let you change inputs, volume and stations while they developed the advanced features like multiple destinations and personal profiles.
So who makes this beauty, and why aren't they advertising it? I can already turn on my lights and open my apartment security door from a webpage or via telnet, when am I going to be able to change the channel?
According to Florida law, among the legal grounds for challenging the results of an election are:
The grounds for contesting an election under this section are:
(a) Misconduct, fraud, or corruption on the part of any election official or any member of the canvassing board sufficient to change or place in doubt the result of the election.
(b) Ineligibility of the successful candidate for the nomination or office in dispute.
(c) Receipt of a number of illegal votes or rejection of a number of legal votes sufficient to change or place in doubt the result of the election.
HDTV is a substandard of the DigitalTV standard, of higher non- and interlaced resolutions.
So you can buy a DigitalTV that doesn't do HD, or you can buy a HDTV that does it all. For now.
Usually you're buying a monitor that is spec'd for its capable resolutions, and you'll buy the tuner seperately, and if you're not using an HD set, somewhere in there scan lines will be discarded. The monitor, I suppose.
The value of transparent systems and perfect information available to decision makers (voters, citizens) far exceeds skimpy assurances that everything's kosher.
This is a central tenet to capitalism, and the reason behind the SEC, why wouldn't it translate to every facet of public life? Decision making and basing democracy on imperfect information is wholly unsatisfactory. Would people have bought those SUVs had every sales contract revealed the potential defects in the tire system? Do you appreciate having to buy software with no foreknowledge of how it will operate, or whether it will work, but knowing that nobody will take it back when you discover that it doesn't meet your requirements?
"It's all about the information;" and we need more, not assurances that we can get by with less.
True, true. I tried to acknowledge that he's got strings attached as well, but at least in the debates we are able to see what latitute those strings provide.
Gore is a better-defined candidate than Bush is my point, and therefore must be more trustworthy. You can't trust an enigma. Bush is a black box that the debates failed to reverse engineer.
People that support Bush are certifiable if they think he's got "policies." What he's got is notions and "I'm not the other guy" rhetoric.
Is one of his policies "I'll bring dignity back to the Oval Office?" Well, what will he do for an encore? It takes 30 seconds to bring dignity somewhere, and then he's got 3.999 years left to sit and be dignified. Furthermore, the voters who think that such an "issue" is a legitimate reason to elect a person president have been decieved by the right. Dignity alone does not get bills passed or provide national security. It's a red herring.
As far as I can tell his other policy is to end partisan bickering. Which is impossible unless there are no partisans. So he can only deliver on this promise if the Republicans carry a wide majority in the house and senate and there is no disagreement on how to screw the public. A democrat can just as easily accomplish the same thing with a congress of the same party. Hell, if we elected an entire capitol filled with trained rats there'd be no partisan bickering because they'd all agree: cheese.
Bush is a non-candidate. He's using the anti-incumbent rhetoric just swell, using to his advantage that the republican majority has made for a noisy but EQUITABLE few years, but has no other issues. He's got strategy, not issues. He's saving that until the people controlling him can whisper their issues in his ear after he's elected.
All Bush can come up with in these unscripted encounters is touchy-feely "I hate washington, but I'm a uniter" vagueries.
Gore will explain in intricate detail what he plans to do. Specific bills, dollar amounts, motivations. Bush responds by saying, "That's great Mr. Gore, but I can actually do whatever it is I think I want done."
You're telling me that's trustworthy or competent? How can you trust Bush to do something he never said what he'd do, or how he'd overcome the "rancor and discord" in Washington. He has no standing! He has no actual will! I don't even think he's read his own tax plan. Gore, when discussing his plan, or Bush's for that matter, can tell you how it will apply to you. Bush, when asked last night about his tax plan, said it'd be great and started talking about NATIONAL DEFENSE and MEDICARE (which, by the way, are "big government entitlement programs," liberal stuff).
Tell me some more about how you trust the man, what exactly you trust him to do, and how he has earned your trust. Bush is the cleanest example of a puppet I have seen in my short life. He even looks like a muppet. He has made no substantive commitments to the populace, just vague suggestions. You'd better believe that he's going to be controlled by his advisors. Voting for Bush is electing the NRA and the Christian Coalition directly into office.
Gore, conversely, is his own man. He at least knows what he wants to do as president (SPECIFICALY), and how he plans to get it done. And he can tell you about it.
Me, I'm still voting for Nader. I have no doubts that either one will succumb to PAC money until campaign finance reform is a reality.
Now I'm planning to vote for Nader, but this is interesting. "I am making a statement that I will no longer compromise"
I have heard that politics is the art of compromise. It seems that our country's political breakdown is a bell curve, that's maybe slanted right. So the parties clamor for the center (image-wise) because it's the most rewarding at the election booth. Then they cast their own vote (or sign the bills) in the way that will get them the money to run for the next time, pandering to wealthy PACs.
Meantime as the major parties shift to the center, people like the lady you mention decide they're not going to compromise anymore and new parties form at the outside.
INAPS, but the people actually making decisions are still going to be the candidates that pander to the center because that's where the majority lay. If the fringes decide not to compromise in a national election with this bell-shaped representation, they will not be represented at all (in our current system of representation).
In my opinion, the only solution for the fringe voters not willing to compromise is to all move to the same congressional district. By being spread all over the country, they weaken their ability to be represented nationally. The interesting thing is that I think we see this with right-wing fringies, but the left-wingers find themselves in a sea of centrism, drowned out.
Hmmmm..
So I still plan on voting for Nader, but the answer is not to resist compromise but to educate America to realize that the issues facing this country are not four-year issues, but hundred-year issues. This will not happen unless a party like the green party can be heard regularly.
Slashdot Mirror
DeCSS is no more a tool for circumvention than any other software that decodes CSS encoded data. Either every DVD player circumvents, or none do.
It's a shame that, though I didn't read a refutation of my claim, that the position was not taken in trial... but much of OpenLaw's musings on authority did appear in the form of one paragraph in the appeal brief:
The Studios argue that a purchaser of a DVD containing their movies does not receive legal "authority" to decrypt the work. Studios at 63 n. 43. Instead, they claim that "authorization by the Studios [upon purchase of a DVD] has been limited to accessing DVD content via authorized equipment." Id. But where and how has this authority "limited"? Nowhere during or after the purchase transaction are consumers informed, much less contractually bound, to view the work only on "authorized equipment." To the contrary, DVDs are sold with no contractual restrictions whatsoever (paragraph 2, section c, Appellate Reply Brief)
Read my full argument at: OpenLaw
19 Q. Who wrote DeCSS?
20 A. I and two other people wrote DeCSS.
21 Q. How did this come about?
22 A. In September, October, 1999 I met a person on the Internet
23 and he was also a Linux user. We decided to investigate and
24 find out how we could make a DVD player for Linux. You'll make a fine federal judge someday.
I'll admit, you might have me on cutsey UI, if you're just thinking about stock OS X. But with the option to run Linux and windows, and the likely flexibility of the OS X UI, I can have any UI I want.
m puters in a one-inch-thin sack (to blend my metaphors).
Firewire. USB. PCMCIA. Up to 1 gig of ram. The only things I can't upgrade are the CPU and the video card... It's a damn sight better than Audrey, and a lot more portable than my desktop systems. With my 1.3" thick Cannon scanner, Tascam US-428 and a digital video camera, I can produce a [insert creative endeavor] anywhere that there's enough oxygen for me to run the devices.
I know, you were just joking... but even I'm overwhelmed by the versatility and usefulness of this gadget. It's the 200 lb. gorilla of swiss-army-knives-that-we-call-general-purpose-co
Get a visor deluxe. They come with 8mb of ram. Then get a wireless modem. I think they go for $200-300. Total expenditure: $350-$600. In may, you'll also be able to get an 802.11 module. There is already one cellular phone module available, with more to come.
Downsides: modules aren't built-in functionality, so you have to give up one to benefit from another. Small screen. Wireless modem plans are pricey.
Upsides: Visor deluxes take regular AAA batteries, and I get several weeks of life our of my NiMH rechargeables. Palm OS application base, Palm OS functionality. Color is available for an added price.
The only thing that I've seen that fits my requirements for a webpad is the powerbook G4. It's a little heavy (5-6 lbs), and runs a little hot, but it gets 5 hours of battery life, is an inch thick, has 802.11b ethernet, a giant screen, and runs linux, OSX (BSD), Mac OS 9, and Windows.
The touch screen is the only thing missing, and I don't miss it that much. It's got the much more efficient "keyboard" technology that full-featured computers come with. Did I mention it's expandable through USB, firewire AND PCMCIA?
I was holding out for a webpad, too, but I realized I'll never be happy with a proprietary, unexpandable, unupgradeable, ISP-locked sub-computer with a cutsey UI. You get what you pay for (especially if you wait 10 years for something nobody ever brings to market).
Exactly as much effort is "wasted" on cynicism as there is on creativity and discovery.
turns into a positive affirmation of human action and generally makes the world a better place:
... but I'm not one to argue that either is more valuable than the other... I value them both. Your cynicism, while irritating and unfounded, serves a purpose too, my child.
DMCArt is the application of the human mind, as much as advertising, architecture, fornication, or whatever, and is also an explicit rejection of intellectual control by governing bodies or corporate beings--a double whammy if you ask me. Enjoy your aimless cynical life, and I will enjoy my aimless and creative one.
There is only one online comic worth reading. I try to read it aloud every day (along with several back-episodes) to my girlfriend. I rarely amuse her, but any self-respecting, easily amused geek will find something to enjoy.
Here is the same point made in comic form, less the spiky chair.
Are you suggesting that Win2k is not just spaghetti, but something like the platonic ideal of spaghetti?
I can buy that.
Back when I went to MPA, we didn't have fancy things like laptops. We had insecure windows 95 machines with censorware in the library and we liked it. Some of the more wealthy students like to play golf on their personal laptops during study hall, but I rarely saw them used otherwise.
I remember very little else except that certain US students had to battle to keep the Mac lab open after school. That's quite a cooked agreement you have to sign to use their laptops, though. If you're ever downtown St. Paul and need wireless access, my network's available. Keep up the good fight.
For the record: joking.
Pretty soon you're going to have to get licensed by the state to own multiple computers. The program will be sponsored by Microsoft, and will double as the "Home Computing Security Bureau" (read: Anti-Piracy division). Poor people, students and minorities need not apply unless you're willing to submit to background checks and keyboard logging.
It's fascinating how the FBI or local police can arrest anyone, and publish that they had "multiple computers" and it sounds like bona fide evidence that they commited a computer crime--when in fact the they arrested them because they knew the person had multiple computers, and thought they could squeeze a confession or a new suspect out of the poor sucker. Correlation does not imply causation.
Kinda takes all the fun out of showing your geek friends your phat new in-home wireless/wired broadband multimedia network when you're just creating character witnesses for your future prosecution. "Yeah, I was at his place once. 100Mbps switched network, mp3s... He probably did it."
What I want to know is, who makes IP addressable stereo components? If my damn refrigerator is going to be networked, the least they could do is make the one appliance in my house that can actually deliver something (sound) remotely configurable. That way, with 802.11, I can control the music/video from anywhere in the house.
I'd even buy the first, basic model that just let you change inputs, volume and stations while they developed the advanced features like multiple destinations and personal profiles.
So who makes this beauty, and why aren't they advertising it? I can already turn on my lights and open my apartment security door from a webpage or via telnet, when am I going to be able to change the channel?
If it weren't baloney, you'd see a lot more constitutional powergrabs by the states with that as the excuse.
Instead, you don't hear about it at all--because it's baloney.
That's actually a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional color chart.
Turn your monitor 90 clockwise to see sque.
Make sure that any color-matching plugin you use has Squant support.
The grounds for contesting an election under this section are:
(a) Misconduct, fraud, or corruption on the part of any election official or any member of the canvassing board sufficient to change or place in doubt the result of the election.
(b) Ineligibility of the successful candidate for the nomination or office in dispute.
(c) Receipt of a number of illegal votes or rejection of a number of legal votes sufficient to change or place in doubt the result of the election.
Found at The Florida Election Commission. (sorry, a direct link is impossible)
The fundamental legal question is "was the will of the people thwarted?" And there is little doubt that it was in this case.
So you can buy a DigitalTV that doesn't do HD, or you can buy a HDTV that does it all. For now.
Usually you're buying a monitor that is spec'd for its capable resolutions, and you'll buy the tuner seperately, and if you're not using an HD set, somewhere in there scan lines will be discarded. The monitor, I suppose.
Here is Best Buy's attempt at an explanation.
Why risk the accusations of partiality.
The value of transparent systems and perfect information available to decision makers (voters, citizens) far exceeds skimpy assurances that everything's kosher.
This is a central tenet to capitalism, and the reason behind the SEC, why wouldn't it translate to every facet of public life? Decision making and basing democracy on imperfect information is wholly unsatisfactory. Would people have bought those SUVs had every sales contract revealed the potential defects in the tire system? Do you appreciate having to buy software with no foreknowledge of how it will operate, or whether it will work, but knowing that nobody will take it back when you discover that it doesn't meet your requirements?
"It's all about the information;" and we need more, not assurances that we can get by with less.
True, true. I tried to acknowledge that he's got strings attached as well, but at least in the debates we are able to see what latitute those strings provide.
Gore is a better-defined candidate than Bush is my point, and therefore must be more trustworthy. You can't trust an enigma. Bush is a black box that the debates failed to reverse engineer.
Seriously.
People that support Bush are certifiable if they think he's got "policies." What he's got is notions and "I'm not the other guy" rhetoric.
Is one of his policies "I'll bring dignity back to the Oval Office?" Well, what will he do for an encore? It takes 30 seconds to bring dignity somewhere, and then he's got 3.999 years left to sit and be dignified. Furthermore, the voters who think that such an "issue" is a legitimate reason to elect a person president have been decieved by the right. Dignity alone does not get bills passed or provide national security. It's a red herring.
As far as I can tell his other policy is to end partisan bickering. Which is impossible unless there are no partisans. So he can only deliver on this promise if the Republicans carry a wide majority in the house and senate and there is no disagreement on how to screw the public. A democrat can just as easily accomplish the same thing with a congress of the same party. Hell, if we elected an entire capitol filled with trained rats there'd be no partisan bickering because they'd all agree: cheese.
Bush is a non-candidate. He's using the anti-incumbent rhetoric just swell, using to his advantage that the republican majority has made for a noisy but EQUITABLE few years, but has no other issues. He's got strategy, not issues. He's saving that until the people controlling him can whisper their issues in his ear after he's elected.
Believe it.
All Bush can come up with in these unscripted encounters is touchy-feely "I hate washington, but I'm a uniter" vagueries.
Gore will explain in intricate detail what he plans to do. Specific bills, dollar amounts, motivations. Bush responds by saying, "That's great Mr. Gore, but I can actually do whatever it is I think I want done."
You're telling me that's trustworthy or competent? How can you trust Bush to do something he never said what he'd do, or how he'd overcome the "rancor and discord" in Washington. He has no standing! He has no actual will! I don't even think he's read his own tax plan. Gore, when discussing his plan, or Bush's for that matter, can tell you how it will apply to you. Bush, when asked last night about his tax plan, said it'd be great and started talking about NATIONAL DEFENSE and MEDICARE (which, by the way, are "big government entitlement programs," liberal stuff).
Tell me some more about how you trust the man, what exactly you trust him to do, and how he has earned your trust. Bush is the cleanest example of a puppet I have seen in my short life. He even looks like a muppet. He has made no substantive commitments to the populace, just vague suggestions. You'd better believe that he's going to be controlled by his advisors. Voting for Bush is electing the NRA and the Christian Coalition directly into office.
Gore, conversely, is his own man. He at least knows what he wants to do as president (SPECIFICALY), and how he plans to get it done. And he can tell you about it.
Me, I'm still voting for Nader. I have no doubts that either one will succumb to PAC money until campaign finance reform is a reality.
Sure didn't take long for New Deal economic policy to affect change.
Interesting.
Now I'm planning to vote for Nader, but this is interesting. "I am making a statement that I will no longer compromise"
I have heard that politics is the art of compromise. It seems that our country's political breakdown is a bell curve, that's maybe slanted right. So the parties clamor for the center (image-wise) because it's the most rewarding at the election booth. Then they cast their own vote (or sign the bills) in the way that will get them the money to run for the next time, pandering to wealthy PACs.
Meantime as the major parties shift to the center, people like the lady you mention decide they're not going to compromise anymore and new parties form at the outside.
INAPS, but the people actually making decisions are still going to be the candidates that pander to the center because that's where the majority lay. If the fringes decide not to compromise in a national election with this bell-shaped representation, they will not be represented at all (in our current system of representation).
In my opinion, the only solution for the fringe voters not willing to compromise is to all move to the same congressional district. By being spread all over the country, they weaken their ability to be represented nationally. The interesting thing is that I think we see this with right-wing fringies, but the left-wingers find themselves in a sea of centrism, drowned out.
Hmmmm..
So I still plan on voting for Nader, but the answer is not to resist compromise but to educate America to realize that the issues facing this country are not four-year issues, but hundred-year issues. This will not happen unless a party like the green party can be heard regularly.
What's wrong with socialism? You use it as if it has inherent negative connotations, which it does not.
Please defend this position, because socialism is not antithetical to democracy as you suggest.