Agreed. However (hopefully by now it is painfully clear that IANAL) are you liable for past unknowing violations? Ie. there is as yet no justification of SCO's claims, therefore no one is currently or previously in breech of anything in regards to their claim. As far as you or I or anyone but SCO now knows there is no SCO copyrighted material in linux which is restricted as of right now - we use linux in the full faith and knowledge that we are in fact entitled to do so by all legal means at the current time. If SCO were vindicated in their claim does that mean they are entitled to collect for code used in the past that only recently has become taboo? I seem to recall rules in place to disallow such things, but again I am not by any means an expert on such things.
I would like to think that those who attempt to rectify any discovered infringements in good faith would not be subject to compensating SCO for prior "damages" unknown and unproven to either party at the time of the alleged infringement. Someone else can probably think of apt analogies. Then again our legal system doesn't always operate in ways that seem logical to me. As always more information from more knowledgeable sources would be welcome.
This is slightly off topic, but it was running through my head on my bike ride home from work yesterday....
If one was served with a cease and desist from SCO regarding linux code, would it not be an acceptable response to then ask them to identify the offending code so that you could remove it from the code base you are using, and then replace it with code from elsewhere (created by you, obtained from another source, etc.) which would not infringe on their "technology"? Additionally would you not also be within your rights to request proof of SCO "ownership" of the offending code? Simply put, would not the burden of proof still be on SCO if they make such an accusation?
Note that one would be attempting to comply with their request, not going to court or settling for damages. Would this remedy avoid those two outcomes?
Basically it seems to me that given the nature of open source it would be trivial to shrug off any and all such threats/claims by SCO. I mention this not to discourage those who wish to punish SCO for their actions by dragging them through court and beating them, but more along the lines of attemting to nip any fear businesses may have in consideration of adopting Linux about the legality of using "tainted" code in the bud by establishing clear and easy methods of circumventing such chicanery.
You could kill the SCO ploy quickly and easily if it was viable to say that if SCO came calling you just need to have them identify "their" code, prove it is theirs, and then replace it by having coder x create substitute code from scratch or obtaining substitute code from open source project y. Would this work?
I'm as concerned about the nuetering of technology due to the whims of greedy corporations and cartels as the next/.'er. But (and I realize this may not be popular here), many of those users you mention are criminals in that they are illegally copying and distributing copyrighted works. And bear in mind they are criminals in a criminal sense that existed BEFORE DMCA, PATRIOT and any addendums to copyright terms. Frankly I'm as unhappy with the people who have ABUSED technology to the point that their misbehavior has brought everyone to the brink of crippled technology as I am in the companies that are proposing the crippling.
In other words, this problem started with the people who illegally swiped goodies using a peer to peer network, and hopefully with rulings like this it will end with those same people. Am I in favor of destroying the lives of college students engaged in such activities - absolutely not, the punishment should fit the crime (I don't think any individiual could ever "steal" $98M worth of music via peer to peer networks). But people who commit such crimes do need to be punished for them. That is the most correct way to deal with this issue, as long as copyright law is retained (which is a separate issue). The viability of the entertainment industry's current distribution and revenue models is also a separate issue - but it can not be used to justify criminal behavior. You can't justify stealing a Lamborghini because they've priced it out of your reach, and you can't justify illegally copying things because you can't afford the product either (yes I'm aware that theft and copyright infringement are different, but they bear enough similarities in this light to be used together for this discussion). In fact, engaging in such sophistry truly only serves to cloud all three separate issues.
If those using peer to peer networks for illegal activity are punished and discouraged from doing so, hopefully, peer to peer networks can be used (and publicized) for more legitimate, fruitful use (like distributing music which is not fettered by rampant copyright restrictions), and the stigma will revert to bad behavior, not "bad" technology. Simply put, those committing crimes should be punished accordingly, thereby avoiding everyone being saddled with the punishment (which this judgement avoids) - as it should have been from the outset. Shame on big entertainment for trying to make us CITIZENS slaves to their profit model. Shame on the copyright infringers for giving big entertainment a ready sham for coopting our technology to enforce the lock in.
"we are the only rational ones and the rest of the world is full of savages that need to be tamed"
Who is we in this case? Honestly, as a U.S. citizen, I'm much more afraid of what could happen if one of our overblown corporations latch on to potentially dangerous technology than if some "colony" did. If the corp. figures out that the tech will make it money, I have no faith that the corp. would eschew the technology for fear of potentially dangerous repercussions. I'd almost rather take my chances with the "terrorists" having it instead, at least you know they aren't pretending to have your best interests at heart (you can attempt some kind of preventative measure), and they'd likely have fewer resources to do something drastic.
Besides, Rees's warning is more oriented toward the fallout from experiments gone wrong in general, regardless of whether they are done by "good" guys or "bad" guys. Accidents don't have moral values or political agendas - they just happen.
Exactly. With the DRM OS focus they've got going now, M$ pretty much will be able to rightly say EVERYTHING falls under this umbrella - thereby allowing them to continue the same practices they have now. Nothing's changed.
Also of interest is the defenition of "Communications Protocols". At first blush this does not seem to include file fomats - or does it? Not as big a point as the above, but still probably a cause for debate.
In summation (and to infringe on the IP of Mountain Dew):
Somewhat, my only point was that such a "replication" device not only exists, but we have plenty of feedback on its perceived effects (which of course is under severe debate right now). So we don't really need MMOPRG virtual worlds to see what could happen in real economies, it's already happening.
"I think when bugs are discovered in games that allow rampant cloning of items or free money to spread, is parallel to what would happen in society when and if we discover a way to make a "replicator" type device."
Yeah I wonder what would happen if someone could make some sort of "replicator type device" that produced unlimited copies of a piece of music, or a movie, or a literary work for little to no cost and also be able to distribute them at little to no cost....oh wait a minute......
Re:Gov is owned by Corporate America so...its WRON
on
Politicizing Science
·
· Score: 1
As I get older, I continue to become more pragmatic - but I refuse to give up all my idealism. But in this last presidential (I refuse to capitalize it for our current office holder) election, it was very, very, very, very obvious that junior was, is and always will be an utter moron . Thus it was clear that I needed to vote for Gore to keep braino out of the White House. Unfortunately, junior and his family are as crooked as they are stupid. But normally I will vote based on my conscience AND on what my research tells me. Party be damned - I'm unafilliated.
UML - I'm afraid Booch et. al. may have a problem with someone else coopting that acronym. Not that I think it's right, but I can see some confusion resulting....
Hi all, I'm currently a volunteer for ReclaimDemocracy.org, mainly to try and fight things such as this. What would be really helpful is a write up, in normal person speak, about what the repercussions of this Microsoft/Intel/Entertainment Industry power grab will have on the common man.
I need analysis on why this technology means you won't be able to share copies of video of your kids' first steps or words with his grandparents, that this technology means you won't be able to freely produce creative works (from code to music to pictures) using your own paid for equipment and share it with others - things like that. Again the goal is to get this out to the rest of the citizens of the U.S., and perhaps the rest of the world, so it needs to be in terms and phrases that the layman will understand. There have been many good articles linked in previous comments but they are a bit too technical for the common folk. I'm offering an outlet to start reaching the non-slashdot crowd to alert them to the fact that their Rights will be circumvented in a way that will damage their Freedoms behind their backs if we allow this kind of thing to continue.
Please respond here if you think you can do such a thing and we'll take if from there. Or just go ahead and post it for all to see.
Anyone else notice that whenever we hear about these mutigazillion dollar acquisitions and mergers all that's ever talked about is obtaining an already existing product and by extension an already existing customer base? You never hear about them, I don't know, maybe intending to create a NEW product or something? Think about the amount of money that is spent just shifting ownership from one entity to another with no items of actual worth (a subjective term I know, but I think you get the idea) being created. More likely, jobs will be lost as a result. Here's a crazy idea, how about we take all that money and invest in more research or supporting fledgeling inventions or industries. I'd love to see a breakdown of total dollars spent on mergers/acquisitions vs. R&D in this country, I bet the discrepancy is staggering.
It's just one more example of how here in the U.S. we've totally transitioned from being a nation and society of mostly producers to being a nation and society of mostly consumers - be it multibillion dollar companies, customer bases, automobiles, hamburgers or lousy mass media. I'm not saying we should all go back to being farmers, but sweet fancy jeebus, how many middle managers, investment advisors, busines oriented laywers and accountants do we really need? We've created a bizzaro culture of championing parasitic occupations which feed off the results of an ever shrinking pool of actual producers and creators. So if you're with me, go out there and hug an artist, craftsman or scientist (even a computer scientist) today!
Thanks for putting up with me, I think I'll go buy something now.
"Under US law, this result seems foolish and foreign, but we in the US do not get to impose our constitution on France "
Thank you for highlighting my point (though it seems you didn't understand it). Similarly, France does not get to impose their laws on people in the U.S. Yet we have entities operating on the internet originating from all over the world. How do you regulate or legislate such a thing effectively and fairly? THAT is my point, and it is the point the author missed.
In a case seemingly involving two parties, as with France and Yahoo you can get away with saying something like "Prof. Goldsmith says that Yahoo, since it has a subsidiary in France, should no more be immune to French laws than General Motors is..." What if there was no subsidiary - as there often isn't. The "subsidiary" element of this example lends itself to a more simple analysis, but you don't have to do too much extrapolation to see that the reality of the situation is that applying the author's and his quoted sources manner of thinking becomes unworkable when you consider just how many parties could be involved in the case of internet based entities. But no acknowledgement of this is made anywhere in the article. Therefore the article does miss a major point in consideration of its topic "Cyberlaw: Cybersmart or cybersilly?" if the question to be answered is whether or not a different approach needs to be taken in regards to regulating and legislating the internet and the entities it supports.
When you say something like "the poster seems to have as much difficulty understanding the law", it serves to highlight the difficulties quite well. Which law? Whose law? Zimbabwe's? Nepal's? Ecuador's? The responder's? Mine? Which nations' laws apply to the internet and all entities participating in it? All? None? Things are a little more complicated than the author, and apparently this responder would like to consider.
So in the end the responder misses the point along with the author and his sources. However I'll give the responder bonus points for attempting to use the straw man cliche - can't hear that one enough can we? I chalk it up to just another case of attempting to over simplify something that won't bear being treated that way.
Proof that the author and those quoted don't really understand what they're dealing with lies in the underlying assumption that one nation's laws can be binding on something like the internet. Certainly the French government/judiciary may rule that Nazi memorabilia advertisements and sales are not legal (online or otherwise) in France and take measures to prevent that. However the ruling in France has nothing to do with the availability of such things in India. That is the somewhat unique nature of the internet - it is multinational.
The author further tips his hand by reducing the discussion to a discourse on laws, pundits and law students in America (meaning the U.S.), showing no awareness of the extranational nature of the internet. Just as the internet is no one application (a suprisingly apt realization on the author's part), the internet does not exist in any particular place, making it indeed worthy of special consideration when it comes to legislation and legalization.
Certainly some do get carried away with the internet as champion of true democracy, etc., but the fact remains that the internet does form a unique medium for all sorts of activities carried out by participants from around the globe. It only bears comparison to the steam engine in that it has definitely changed our way of life, but the comparison ends there. Attempting to approach the ramifications of the internet in the same manner as the steam engine was approached is to suffer from "insufficient perspective, (and a )disdain for history..." as well as being short sighted and overly simplistic.
I don't think that he's concerned about this crowd anymore. He's concerned with the public at large that sees IBM commercials during basketball games (you know, the ones where they have a couple of basketball teams where the players all bear names related to the computing world) which mention linux, asking "why does he play for free", with an answer of "because he loves the game." Seeing the commercial, one only equates free with not having to pay money - there's no evocation of the other (and ostensibly more important) connotation of free that Stallman advocates. Had it been called GNU/Linux, perhaps the other connotation would have been more evident - I have my doubts. But that is Stallman's thinking here - throwing the GNU in front may actually expose more people to the idea of freedom in software than would otherwise normally encounter it. At least perhaps it would cause them to wonder about the GNU part and in finding out about it, they would eventually run into the freedom concept.
For myself I doubt that most people would put the freedom concept above the doesn't cost money concept, or that they would even look beyond the doesn't cost money concept - but if you can get to even a few more of those that would value the freedom concept if exposed to it, then it is probably worthwhile.
"would apply to... decapitation, amputation, killing of humans with lethal weapons or through hand-to-hand combat, rape, car-jackings, aggravated assault and other violent felonies"
But we can still have this stuff on t.v. and in movies right? Oh and let's make sure we can still legally have easy access to weapons and at the same time criminalize commoditized sexual release (ie. prostitution) too - that wouldn't have anything to do with the desire and ability to commit said crimes, nope it's all because of those damn video games. I mean, that Kent State sniper, Son of Sam, Jack The Ripper, etc., etc. must have had some precognition of Max Payne when they did their thing, because video games are the primary cause of such anti-social behavior - it can't possibly be because our society has some serious problems which video game content is just a symptom of. Let's see, if we outlawed guns, then it's less likely someone gets shot - if we outlaw video games it's less likely someone will get their throat cut by a jagged Doom CD. So lets ban the video games, I can see that logic. Whew, I sure am glad the government is looking out for the kids. With that settled congress can go back to figuring out how to keep people from pirating those wholesome Jason kills and rapes everyone movies on the internet.
Allright, so I'm reading through the Chapter 4: Processes section (brushing up on my basic threads and synchronization concepts) of the Silberschatz/Galvin "Operating Systems Concepts" (you know, the dinosaur book) and it hits me. Fundamentally, all this garbage MS bundles in its "OS" is extraneous to an operating system. Looking through the book, there's no chapter on Media Players, no chapter on Web Browsers, no chapter on personal information managers....no chapter on WINDOW MANAGERS!!! These things are not part of the OS proper.
Has anyone at any point in these hearings ever offered up a working defenition of a computer operating system? Don't you think that would go a long way toward determining exactly what should and shouldn't be "part of" an operating system? It seems to me like everyone involved is working backward by looking at individual, extraneous components and querying whether it is or isn't "part of" the OS. Shouldn't they really figure out what an OS is and then look at the components to see if they belong?
Truly, the book provides a very basic, somewhat low level, and very academic view of operating systems (basically the OS facilitates IO, Storage Management, Process Management, Security and possibly Networking/Distributed Computing in using a given collection of hardware). I would grant that at this point having some kind of GUI environment for an OS is pretty much a requirement in order to make a machine "useable" by an appreciable number of people. But after that how much further do you have to go?
It seems to me that looking at things from this perspective would make it abundantly clear to everyone involved that MS has gone way beyond the bounds of what an OS is in their Windows product. It would also probably provide obvious deliniation points for breaking up the business (for instance there is no good reason for the window manager to be integrated with the underlying graphics routines). It would also highlight just how spurious all of MS's arguments are in regards to how breaking things up would ruin MS Windows, by highlighting either that MS has no clue about what an OS actually is and their code is incredibly flawed as a result, OR (more likely) MS has gone to great lengths to obscure what an OS actually is to further their own ends at the expense of the user and other application developers.
Admittedly it is not as all cut and dried in practice as it is in acedamia, but I do believe that attempting to establish the basic notion of what an OS is would further illuminate the problems presented by MS's current approach to its "operating system" in relation to the States' (and our) concerns in this case.
See I knew paying attention in class (or at least keeping the books I was supposed to have read for class) would pay off some day....
"We have no real immortal soul. Although I can't prove this, I think we should all live as if this were in fact the case - being told to "settle" for misery so that we can live it up in the next life is a BIG mistake, IMHO."
I completely agree with this. By soul I was implying the many perceptible yet hard to describe components of peoples' inner workings. The appreciation for beauty, the ability to experience the sublime, having a cognizant awareness of being somehow connected to the things around us, the capacity for love, things like that. Things that while other creatures may experience, they do not seem to experience and cultivate to the degree that humans do. They are hard to describe and explain, so the term soul tends to serve nicely as a summation for all those types of things. And I do not feel that technology can realy augment people's abilities in this regard.
This article points out that we are at a confluence of some pretty heavy technological developments, ones that will change our physiology and our intellectual capacity. I personally find it somewhat scary.
While it is great that we are creating the capacity to effect such change, it is clear to me that we are not necessarily ready to handle such change - and it bothers me that the article makes nothing but nonsequitor mentions of this. We are not ready to handle this change emotionally, societally, economically, ecologically and in many other ways. We currently do not know the real effects that our current technology is having on us, and I'm talking about things as "simple" as televisions and personal computers. We do know that not all the effects are positive.
The things being heralded as "inevitable technological advances" are many times more powerful than simple technologies such as televisions - what effects will they have? How can we know when we don't even understand the effects of the technology we do have? Have we caused global warming, and if so how detrimental is it? Does violence in the media cause violence in individuals? You can think of more questions I'm sure. But do we really want to just throw the stuff out there and hope it works out o.k.?
I'll be the first to admit, technology itself cannot be good or bad, but it can be put to good use and bad use. I'm not sure I trust the mass of humanity to put these things to good use more often than bad use. More importantly, I am not convinced the mass of humanity could come close to agreeing on what a good use or a bad use would be. And I think these technologies will bring us to a point where we really will need answers to those questions. I don't think it's a great idea to enable the creation of cadres of "super humans" or "post humans" or "virtual immortality" without quite a bit more understanding of what consequences such things could have.
One of the most disconcerting elements of the article was the vague use of the notion of human nature. It seemed to me that most mentions of it relegated it to a purely physiological sense. To me human nature means much more than that. Can you augment a human soul through technological implants? Can you factor out tendancies toward greed, corruption, violence and hate through these advancements - or will you actually be creating the means to amplify and augment them? These are elements of human nature too, very prominent ones, and I don't think the people involved have taken the time to comtemplate how these technological breakthroughs relate to these elements of "human nature." Indeed my greatest fears regarding these technologies stem from concerns of what our current "human nature" continues to inflict on our fellow humans - and how these advances will greatly enhance our abilities to fully indulge the darkest parts of human nature.
I realize that my diatribe here is vague, and perhaps even chicken littleish, but these issues are too complex to address satisfactorilly on a message board. All I would ask is that you stop and think for a bit about all the repercussions these types of developments may have. I believe it is wrong to equate human evolution solely with technological advancement. If such advancement is not accompanied by similar gains in human decency, wisdom, compassion, understanding and a host of other non-technologically improveable qualities, we may be doing much more harm than good.
Then Bill Gates took on a fair guise and called himself Anatar bearer of gifts....finally he gave copies of Visual.NET to nine Universities of men and eventually those that used Visual.NET became Gateswraiths, terrible shadows of his great shadow......
Sorry to dispell this illusion, and I'm sure it's been said better elsewhere, but code is not art. Coding is not an art.
Take your favorite piece of code, hang it on the wall next to your favorite painting - does your code inspire you the way the painting does?
I'm always amused at how coders like to convince themselves and others that they're actually rock stars, beatnic writers or avant guard painters - people don't get it but they just use a different medium. Let's get something straight - code is a means to produce a tool (which makes it a tool itself of sorts). The tool may fall into the hands of an artist, and thus become an implement of artistic creation. This does not make the code itself art, and does not make the coder an artist.
To reiterate - coders are tool makers, artists are tool users. Therein lies the magic intersection of technology and art. Sometimes people may perform both as tool makers and tool users and therefore be both coder and artist. They may even perform in their role as coder to create a tool for use in their role as artist. However, though the person is the same, the roles are different. But for some reason people like Katz tend to enjoy obscuring that dichotomy.
You may say, but what about screen savers, digitally produced images, computer generated music....? Someone had to come up with the images, someone had to direct the sequencing of the notes - that person is the artist. The person who figured out how to translate 0's and 1's into pixels or soundwaves, make the translation functions available through a GUI, write the hardware drivers to carry out the data transfer - that person is the coder. Get the difference?
Coding as art? Let me know when the source code for Linux is the featured display in the Louvre. Then maybe we'll have something to talk about. And on the flip side, let me know when Eddie Van Halen is a physics guest lecturer at MIT. Then we'll really have something to talk about.
it's a continent. The United States of America is a nation. Don't go dragging poor old Mexico and everyone else in America into this mess - they've got enough problems as is.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. However (hopefully by now it is painfully clear that IANAL) are you liable for past unknowing violations? Ie. there is as yet no justification of SCO's claims, therefore no one is currently or previously in breech of anything in regards to their claim. As far as you or I or anyone but SCO now knows there is no SCO copyrighted material in linux which is restricted as of right now - we use linux in the full faith and knowledge that we are in fact entitled to do so by all legal means at the current time. If SCO were vindicated in their claim does that mean they are entitled to collect for code used in the past that only recently has become taboo? I seem to recall rules in place to disallow such things, but again I am not by any means an expert on such things.
I would like to think that those who attempt to rectify any discovered infringements in good faith would not be subject to compensating SCO for prior "damages" unknown and unproven to either party at the time of the alleged infringement. Someone else can probably think of apt analogies. Then again our legal system doesn't always operate in ways that seem logical to me. As always more information from more knowledgeable sources would be welcome.
This is slightly off topic, but it was running through my head on my bike ride home from work yesterday....
If one was served with a cease and desist from SCO regarding linux code, would it not be an acceptable response to then ask them to identify the offending code so that you could remove it from the code base you are using, and then replace it with code from elsewhere (created by you, obtained from another source, etc.) which would not infringe on their "technology"? Additionally would you not also be within your rights to request proof of SCO "ownership" of the offending code? Simply put, would not the burden of proof still be on SCO if they make such an accusation?
Note that one would be attempting to comply with their request, not going to court or settling for damages. Would this remedy avoid those two outcomes?
Basically it seems to me that given the nature of open source it would be trivial to shrug off any and all such threats/claims by SCO. I mention this not to discourage those who wish to punish SCO for their actions by dragging them through court and beating them, but more along the lines of attemting to nip any fear businesses may have in consideration of adopting Linux about the legality of using "tainted" code in the bud by establishing clear and easy methods of circumventing such chicanery.
You could kill the SCO ploy quickly and easily if it was viable to say that if SCO came calling you just need to have them identify "their" code, prove it is theirs, and then replace it by having coder x create substitute code from scratch or obtaining substitute code from open source project y. Would this work?
I'm as concerned about the nuetering of technology due to the whims of greedy corporations and cartels as the next /.'er. But (and I realize this may not be popular here), many of those users you mention are criminals in that they are illegally copying and distributing copyrighted works. And bear in mind they are criminals in a criminal sense that existed BEFORE DMCA, PATRIOT and any addendums to copyright terms. Frankly I'm as unhappy with the people who have ABUSED technology to the point that their misbehavior has brought everyone to the brink of crippled technology as I am in the companies that are proposing the crippling.
In other words, this problem started with the people who illegally swiped goodies using a peer to peer network, and hopefully with rulings like this it will end with those same people. Am I in favor of destroying the lives of college students engaged in such activities - absolutely not, the punishment should fit the crime (I don't think any individiual could ever "steal" $98M worth of music via peer to peer networks). But people who commit such crimes do need to be punished for them. That is the most correct way to deal with this issue, as long as copyright law is retained (which is a separate issue). The viability of the entertainment industry's current distribution and revenue models is also a separate issue - but it can not be used to justify criminal behavior. You can't justify stealing a Lamborghini because they've priced it out of your reach, and you can't justify illegally copying things because you can't afford the product either (yes I'm aware that theft and copyright infringement are different, but they bear enough similarities in this light to be used together for this discussion). In fact, engaging in such sophistry truly only serves to cloud all three separate issues.
If those using peer to peer networks for illegal activity are punished and discouraged from doing so, hopefully, peer to peer networks can be used (and publicized) for more legitimate, fruitful use (like distributing music which is not fettered by rampant copyright restrictions), and the stigma will revert to bad behavior, not "bad" technology. Simply put, those committing crimes should be punished accordingly, thereby avoiding everyone being saddled with the punishment (which this judgement avoids) - as it should have been from the outset. Shame on big entertainment for trying to make us CITIZENS slaves to their profit model. Shame on the copyright infringers for giving big entertainment a ready sham for coopting our technology to enforce the lock in.
"we are the only rational ones and the rest of the world is full of savages that need to be tamed"
Who is we in this case? Honestly, as a U.S. citizen, I'm much more afraid of what could happen if one of our overblown corporations latch on to potentially dangerous technology than if some "colony" did. If the corp. figures out that the tech will make it money, I have no faith that the corp. would eschew the technology for fear of potentially dangerous repercussions. I'd almost rather take my chances with the "terrorists" having it instead, at least you know they aren't pretending to have your best interests at heart (you can attempt some kind of preventative measure), and they'd likely have fewer resources to do something drastic.
Besides, Rees's warning is more oriented toward the fallout from experiments gone wrong in general, regardless of whether they are done by "good" guys or "bad" guys. Accidents don't have moral values or political agendas - they just happen.
Exactly. With the DRM OS focus they've got going now, M$ pretty much will be able to rightly say EVERYTHING falls under this umbrella - thereby allowing them to continue the same practices they have now. Nothing's changed.
Also of interest is the defenition of "Communications Protocols". At first blush this does not seem to include file fomats - or does it? Not as big a point as the above, but still probably a cause for debate.
In summation (and to infringe on the IP of Mountain Dew):
"What happened Davey?"
"We got hosed Tommy....We got hosed."
Somewhat, my only point was that such a "replication" device not only exists, but we have plenty of feedback on its perceived effects (which of course is under severe debate right now). So we don't really need MMOPRG virtual worlds to see what could happen in real economies, it's already happening.
"I think when bugs are discovered in games that allow rampant cloning of items or free money to spread, is parallel to what would happen in society when and if we discover a way to make a "replicator" type device."
Yeah I wonder what would happen if someone could make some sort of "replicator type device" that produced unlimited copies of a piece of music, or a movie, or a literary work for little to no cost and also be able to distribute them at little to no cost....oh wait a minute......
As I get older, I continue to become more pragmatic - but I refuse to give up all my idealism. But in this last presidential (I refuse to capitalize it for our current office holder) election, it was very, very, very, very obvious that junior was, is and always will be an utter moron . Thus it was clear that I needed to vote for Gore to keep braino out of the White House. Unfortunately, junior and his family are as crooked as they are stupid. But normally I will vote based on my conscience AND on what my research tells me. Party be damned - I'm unafilliated.
UML - I'm afraid Booch et. al. may have a problem with someone else coopting that acronym. Not that I think it's right, but I can see some confusion resulting....
Hi all, I'm currently a volunteer for ReclaimDemocracy.org, mainly to try and fight things such as this. What would be really helpful is a write up, in normal person speak, about what the repercussions of this Microsoft/Intel/Entertainment Industry power grab will have on the common man. I need analysis on why this technology means you won't be able to share copies of video of your kids' first steps or words with his grandparents, that this technology means you won't be able to freely produce creative works (from code to music to pictures) using your own paid for equipment and share it with others - things like that. Again the goal is to get this out to the rest of the citizens of the U.S., and perhaps the rest of the world, so it needs to be in terms and phrases that the layman will understand. There have been many good articles linked in previous comments but they are a bit too technical for the common folk. I'm offering an outlet to start reaching the non-slashdot crowd to alert them to the fact that their Rights will be circumvented in a way that will damage their Freedoms behind their backs if we allow this kind of thing to continue. Please respond here if you think you can do such a thing and we'll take if from there. Or just go ahead and post it for all to see.
Anyone else notice that whenever we hear about these mutigazillion dollar acquisitions and mergers all that's ever talked about is obtaining an already existing product and by extension an already existing customer base? You never hear about them, I don't know, maybe intending to create a NEW product or something? Think about the amount of money that is spent just shifting ownership from one entity to another with no items of actual worth (a subjective term I know, but I think you get the idea) being created. More likely, jobs will be lost as a result. Here's a crazy idea, how about we take all that money and invest in more research or supporting fledgeling inventions or industries. I'd love to see a breakdown of total dollars spent on mergers/acquisitions vs. R&D in this country, I bet the discrepancy is staggering.
It's just one more example of how here in the U.S. we've totally transitioned from being a nation and society of mostly producers to being a nation and society of mostly consumers - be it multibillion dollar companies, customer bases, automobiles, hamburgers or lousy mass media. I'm not saying we should all go back to being farmers, but sweet fancy jeebus, how many middle managers, investment advisors, busines oriented laywers and accountants do we really need? We've created a bizzaro culture of championing parasitic occupations which feed off the results of an ever shrinking pool of actual producers and creators. So if you're with me, go out there and hug an artist, craftsman or scientist (even a computer scientist) today!
Thanks for putting up with me, I think I'll go buy something now.
"Under US law, this result seems foolish and foreign, but we in the US do not get to impose our constitution on France "
Thank you for highlighting my point (though it seems you didn't understand it). Similarly, France does not get to impose their laws on people in the U.S. Yet we have entities operating on the internet originating from all over the world. How do you regulate or legislate such a thing effectively and fairly? THAT is my point, and it is the point the author missed.
In a case seemingly involving two parties, as with France and Yahoo you can get away with saying something like "Prof. Goldsmith says that Yahoo, since it has a subsidiary in France, should no more be immune to French laws than General Motors is..." What if there was no subsidiary - as there often isn't. The "subsidiary" element of this example lends itself to a more simple analysis, but you don't have to do too much extrapolation to see that the reality of the situation is that applying the author's and his quoted sources manner of thinking becomes unworkable when you consider just how many parties could be involved in the case of internet based entities. But no acknowledgement of this is made anywhere in the article. Therefore the article does miss a major point in consideration of its topic "Cyberlaw: Cybersmart or cybersilly?" if the question to be answered is whether or not a different approach needs to be taken in regards to regulating and legislating the internet and the entities it supports.
When you say something like "the poster seems to have as much difficulty understanding the law", it serves to highlight the difficulties quite well. Which law? Whose law? Zimbabwe's? Nepal's? Ecuador's? The responder's? Mine? Which nations' laws apply to the internet and all entities participating in it? All? None? Things are a little more complicated than the author, and apparently this responder would like to consider.
So in the end the responder misses the point along with the author and his sources. However I'll give the responder bonus points for attempting to use the straw man cliche - can't hear that one enough can we? I chalk it up to just another case of attempting to over simplify something that won't bear being treated that way.
Proof that the author and those quoted don't really understand what they're dealing with lies in the underlying assumption that one nation's laws can be binding on something like the internet. Certainly the French government/judiciary may rule that Nazi memorabilia advertisements and sales are not legal (online or otherwise) in France and take measures to prevent that. However the ruling in France has nothing to do with the availability of such things in India. That is the somewhat unique nature of the internet - it is multinational.
The author further tips his hand by reducing the discussion to a discourse on laws, pundits and law students in America (meaning the U.S.), showing no awareness of the extranational nature of the internet. Just as the internet is no one application (a suprisingly apt realization on the author's part), the internet does not exist in any particular place, making it indeed worthy of special consideration when it comes to legislation and legalization.
Certainly some do get carried away with the internet as champion of true democracy, etc., but the fact remains that the internet does form a unique medium for all sorts of activities carried out by participants from around the globe. It only bears comparison to the steam engine in that it has definitely changed our way of life, but the comparison ends there. Attempting to approach the ramifications of the internet in the same manner as the steam engine was approached is to suffer from "insufficient perspective, (and a )disdain for history..." as well as being short sighted and overly simplistic.
I don't think that he's concerned about this crowd anymore. He's concerned with the public at large that sees IBM commercials during basketball games (you know, the ones where they have a couple of basketball teams where the players all bear names related to the computing world) which mention linux, asking "why does he play for free", with an answer of "because he loves the game." Seeing the commercial, one only equates free with not having to pay money - there's no evocation of the other (and ostensibly more important) connotation of free that Stallman advocates. Had it been called GNU/Linux, perhaps the other connotation would have been more evident - I have my doubts. But that is Stallman's thinking here - throwing the GNU in front may actually expose more people to the idea of freedom in software than would otherwise normally encounter it. At least perhaps it would cause them to wonder about the GNU part and in finding out about it, they would eventually run into the freedom concept.
For myself I doubt that most people would put the freedom concept above the doesn't cost money concept, or that they would even look beyond the doesn't cost money concept - but if you can get to even a few more of those that would value the freedom concept if exposed to it, then it is probably worthwhile.
"would apply to ... decapitation, amputation, killing of humans with lethal weapons or through hand-to-hand combat, rape, car-jackings, aggravated assault and other violent felonies"
But we can still have this stuff on t.v. and in movies right? Oh and let's make sure we can still legally have easy access to weapons and at the same time criminalize commoditized sexual release (ie. prostitution) too - that wouldn't have anything to do with the desire and ability to commit said crimes, nope it's all because of those damn video games. I mean, that Kent State sniper, Son of Sam, Jack The Ripper, etc., etc. must have had some precognition of Max Payne when they did their thing, because video games are the primary cause of such anti-social behavior - it can't possibly be because our society has some serious problems which video game content is just a symptom of. Let's see, if we outlawed guns, then it's less likely someone gets shot - if we outlaw video games it's less likely someone will get their throat cut by a jagged Doom CD. So lets ban the video games, I can see that logic. Whew, I sure am glad the government is looking out for the kids. With that settled congress can go back to figuring out how to keep people from pirating those wholesome Jason kills and rapes everyone movies on the internet.
Slightly off topic....
Allright, so I'm reading through the Chapter 4: Processes section (brushing up on my basic threads and synchronization concepts) of the Silberschatz/Galvin "Operating Systems Concepts" (you know, the dinosaur book) and it hits me. Fundamentally, all this garbage MS bundles in its "OS" is extraneous to an operating system. Looking through the book, there's no chapter on Media Players, no chapter on Web Browsers, no chapter on personal information managers....no chapter on WINDOW MANAGERS!!! These things are not part of the OS proper.
Has anyone at any point in these hearings ever offered up a working defenition of a computer operating system? Don't you think that would go a long way toward determining exactly what should and shouldn't be "part of" an operating system? It seems to me like everyone involved is working backward by looking at individual, extraneous components and querying whether it is or isn't "part of" the OS. Shouldn't they really figure out what an OS is and then look at the components to see if they belong?
Truly, the book provides a very basic, somewhat low level, and very academic view of operating systems (basically the OS facilitates IO, Storage Management, Process Management, Security and possibly Networking/Distributed Computing in using a given collection of hardware). I would grant that at this point having some kind of GUI environment for an OS is pretty much a requirement in order to make a machine "useable" by an appreciable number of people. But after that how much further do you have to go?
It seems to me that looking at things from this perspective would make it abundantly clear to everyone involved that MS has gone way beyond the bounds of what an OS is in their Windows product. It would also probably provide obvious deliniation points for breaking up the business (for instance there is no good reason for the window manager to be integrated with the underlying graphics routines). It would also highlight just how spurious all of MS's arguments are in regards to how breaking things up would ruin MS Windows, by highlighting either that MS has no clue about what an OS actually is and their code is incredibly flawed as a result, OR (more likely) MS has gone to great lengths to obscure what an OS actually is to further their own ends at the expense of the user and other application developers.
Admittedly it is not as all cut and dried in practice as it is in acedamia, but I do believe that attempting to establish the basic notion of what an OS is would further illuminate the problems presented by MS's current approach to its "operating system" in relation to the States' (and our) concerns in this case.
See I knew paying attention in class (or at least keeping the books I was supposed to have read for class) would pay off some day....
"We have no real immortal soul. Although I can't prove this, I think we should all live as if this were in fact the case - being told to "settle" for misery so that we can live it up in the next life is a BIG mistake, IMHO."
I completely agree with this. By soul I was implying the many perceptible yet hard to describe components of peoples' inner workings. The appreciation for beauty, the ability to experience the sublime, having a cognizant awareness of being somehow connected to the things around us, the capacity for love, things like that. Things that while other creatures may experience, they do not seem to experience and cultivate to the degree that humans do. They are hard to describe and explain, so the term soul tends to serve nicely as a summation for all those types of things. And I do not feel that technology can realy augment people's abilities in this regard.
This article points out that we are at a confluence of some pretty heavy technological developments, ones that will change our physiology and our intellectual capacity. I personally find it somewhat scary.
While it is great that we are creating the capacity to effect such change, it is clear to me that we are not necessarily ready to handle such change - and it bothers me that the article makes nothing but nonsequitor mentions of this. We are not ready to handle this change emotionally, societally, economically, ecologically and in many other ways. We currently do not know the real effects that our current technology is having on us, and I'm talking about things as "simple" as televisions and personal computers. We do know that not all the effects are positive.
The things being heralded as "inevitable technological advances" are many times more powerful than simple technologies such as televisions - what effects will they have? How can we know when we don't even understand the effects of the technology we do have? Have we caused global warming, and if so how detrimental is it? Does violence in the media cause violence in individuals? You can think of more questions I'm sure. But do we really want to just throw the stuff out there and hope it works out o.k.?
I'll be the first to admit, technology itself cannot be good or bad, but it can be put to good use and bad use. I'm not sure I trust the mass of humanity to put these things to good use more often than bad use. More importantly, I am not convinced the mass of humanity could come close to agreeing on what a good use or a bad use would be. And I think these technologies will bring us to a point where we really will need answers to those questions. I don't think it's a great idea to enable the creation of cadres of "super humans" or "post humans" or "virtual immortality" without quite a bit more understanding of what consequences such things could have.
One of the most disconcerting elements of the article was the vague use of the notion of human nature. It seemed to me that most mentions of it relegated it to a purely physiological sense. To me human nature means much more than that. Can you augment a human soul through technological implants? Can you factor out tendancies toward greed, corruption, violence and hate through these advancements - or will you actually be creating the means to amplify and augment them? These are elements of human nature too, very prominent ones, and I don't think the people involved have taken the time to comtemplate how these technological breakthroughs relate to these elements of "human nature." Indeed my greatest fears regarding these technologies stem from concerns of what our current "human nature" continues to inflict on our fellow humans - and how these advances will greatly enhance our abilities to fully indulge the darkest parts of human nature.
I realize that my diatribe here is vague, and perhaps even chicken littleish, but these issues are too complex to address satisfactorilly on a message board. All I would ask is that you stop and think for a bit about all the repercussions these types of developments may have. I believe it is wrong to equate human evolution solely with technological advancement. If such advancement is not accompanied by similar gains in human decency, wisdom, compassion, understanding and a host of other non-technologically improveable qualities, we may be doing much more harm than good.
"You're essentially claiming that a user's experience is related to the software available to the user."
Uh what else would a user care about? Currently a computer is pretty much useless without software.......
For all you LOTR fans.....
Then Bill Gates took on a fair guise and called himself Anatar bearer of gifts....finally he gave copies of Visual.NET to nine Universities of men and eventually those that used Visual.NET became Gateswraiths, terrible shadows of his great shadow......
I'm in.
There are some very good ideas in this comment.
"eeriely like real life, huh?"
Yeah, and who wants to play that game?
Sorry to dispell this illusion, and I'm sure it's been said better elsewhere, but code is not art. Coding is not an art. Take your favorite piece of code, hang it on the wall next to your favorite painting - does your code inspire you the way the painting does? I'm always amused at how coders like to convince themselves and others that they're actually rock stars, beatnic writers or avant guard painters - people don't get it but they just use a different medium. Let's get something straight - code is a means to produce a tool (which makes it a tool itself of sorts). The tool may fall into the hands of an artist, and thus become an implement of artistic creation. This does not make the code itself art, and does not make the coder an artist. To reiterate - coders are tool makers, artists are tool users. Therein lies the magic intersection of technology and art. Sometimes people may perform both as tool makers and tool users and therefore be both coder and artist. They may even perform in their role as coder to create a tool for use in their role as artist. However, though the person is the same, the roles are different. But for some reason people like Katz tend to enjoy obscuring that dichotomy. You may say, but what about screen savers, digitally produced images, computer generated music....? Someone had to come up with the images, someone had to direct the sequencing of the notes - that person is the artist. The person who figured out how to translate 0's and 1's into pixels or soundwaves, make the translation functions available through a GUI, write the hardware drivers to carry out the data transfer - that person is the coder. Get the difference? Coding as art? Let me know when the source code for Linux is the featured display in the Louvre. Then maybe we'll have something to talk about. And on the flip side, let me know when Eddie Van Halen is a physics guest lecturer at MIT. Then we'll really have something to talk about.
it's a continent. The United States of America is a nation. Don't go dragging poor old Mexico and everyone else in America into this mess - they've got enough problems as is.