The country Georgia uses the Georgian Lari as it's currency and there is about $4 billion worth in total. (Around 2/3 the total value of bitcoin.) I wouldn't consider Georgia as a major economic power, but I wouldn't dismiss the legitimacy of its currency based on the total number transactions done in Lari. The Lari is a big fish in its own pond. I find that comparison interesting even if it doesn't directly prove anything about the strength of bitcoin as a currency. I'd certainly say the Lari has critical mass.
I would agree that "Bitcoin isn't just a protocol, it's the block chain." You have to accept the Nakamoto block chain as the single legitimate chain in order to work with bitcoin in any of the common systems, otherwise you're working with a system which excludes the most common use opportunities. So what? The same can be said for IPv4 because ICANN is accepted as the authoritative system. Plenty of people start networks that don't use it as the authority and even large groups have toyed with creating their own authorities, and IPv4 doesn't mean ICANN. If you want the most common use opportunities then you accept the Nakamoto block chain and ICANN authority. Seeing a major change in either one is possible and extremely unlikely to happen anytime soon.
That's also the answer to "why would people like me who weren't early adopters of the original block chain want to grant early adopters huge fractions of the world's wealth for doing nothing of economic value?" If you want to use bitcoin or IPv4 (or IPv6 for that matter) then you have the widest range of opportunities by following the largest crowd.
That's not to say either system couldn't be changed if there was enough momentum behind a change. IPv6 is poised to replace IPv4 but if countries decided that they were going to each implement their own ICANN like authorities and provide a method for conversion/communication between countries, then IPv4 could be saved and some might argue that it should be. If a couple countries were to start their own new bitcoin chains with methods of conversion between national bitcoin chains, then they could make it work. In fact, I think that's probably the largest threat to the Nakamoto based system; nations setting up competing chains. Take Gerogia, they could start the Lari chain and set up to own the majority of their own chain then set up an exchange rate with the value of the traditional Lari decreasing in value each year for official transactions and in as little as a decade, we could see Georgia having a solid bitcoin based on the Lari change with the additional benefit of having better control of their own currency than they have now.
I'm not actually betting on the Nakamoto bitcoin system being the long term successor to traditional currency. I'm actually only investing in the idea that the dollar has at least 50 years of being a reliable currency. As a thought experiment, consider this scenario: You get one of two vouchers. Each is worth the equivalent $1 million in today's money in either "Lari" or "some future bitcoin like currency." The catch is that you only get paid if the ability to spend the one you choose is easier to spend in South Africa in January 2064. If I had that choice, I'd choose "some future bitcoin like currency" but if it was specifically "bitcoin based on the Nakamoto chain" then I don't know which I'd choose.
The difference with bitcoin is simply that it has already been widely adopted and protocols that are widely adopted are very, very, very hard to replace. IPv4, POP, FTP, Telnet and SMTP all have better replacements and yet they're still used practically everywhere. Being the first protocol to be widely adopted isn't just important, it is by far the single most important factor.
IPv5, IPv6, IPv7, IPv8 and IPv9 are making IPv4 pointless just like all the possible other digital currencies are making bitcoin pointless. I guess that's technically unfair since IPv4 does have to be replaced and look how quickly people are doing that.
The first widely adopted protocol is very, very, very hard to replace. Take IPv4, SMTP, FTP and Telnet as examples. All of them need replaced but they are still used and relied on all over the world.
The problem is that there are an infinite possible number of cryptographically signed digital currencies.
The problem is that there are an infinite possible number of ways to print something and call it a "dollar bill."
Is there any other cryptographically signed digital currency with a cumulative value near $6 billion dollars? If there isn't, then the infinite possible number of cryptographically signed digital currencies don't matter. Just like there are an infinite number of potential ways to print a new kind of dollar bill, they don't count unless a lot of other people are willing to accept it. If anything, bitcoins are much more difficult to fake.
Bitcoin has value because people use it to hold and exchange value, exactly like any other currency. Of course there are differences and I expect you are right about the future of speculation dying off, but precisely because I expect bitcoin to stabilize in ten years or so.
Oh, and read up on the tulip bulb thing. I thought the same thing you apparently think now until I got an education by somebody who actually knew the history.
All laws should have sunset provisions. No really, I mean it.
Those with strong support should have longer terms, maybe 100 years, but even the "obvious" ones should have sunset provisions. The Constitution? The only reason it has survived so long is because it has been modified, which is the whole point of sunset provisions. Do you think the Constitution would still work today if the three-fifths clause were still in effect or if women couldn't vote? The point of sunset provisions isn't to get rid of laws, but to give people an opportunity to correct problems with them. Yes, we correct problems with laws, but it takes an act of congress (literally) to get a law modified that desperately needs it, and you can forget about improving the hundreds of laws that have lots of problems but aren't on anybody's campaign points.
Or would you argue that there should be sunset provisions on the laws against murder?
Yes, of course there should be! Yes, murder should be illegal, but no, of course the laws we had for murder in the 1800's should not be in effect and they absolutely should be re-evaluated after a reasonable period of time has passed.
1800: Senator Bob: So it looks like the murder law is in sunset, do we vote to renew it?
1800: Senator Kim: No, my constituents think hanging is barbaric and want to switch to the electric chair, so we need to rewrite the law.
1900: Senator Ralph: So it looks like the murder law is in sunset, do we vote to renew it?
1900: Senator Kelly: No, my constituents think murder shouldn't have an automatic death penalty, and some people should just be imprisoned, so we need to rewrite the law.
And the budget? While I'm making imaginary changes to how US law works, I have a fix for the budget problem too. It should be required to be set three years in advance, with Congress and the Senate sequestered, with no other legislative action allowed until they have passed it. Emergency funding for unexpected issues should be what gets debated, not what we could have seen coming three years ago (or 50 for that matter.)
Every new law should have a sunset provision of 1 year to give it a chance at debate every year until (at least) every representative who was present when it was introduced is out of office. After that set a cap of 10 years, then 20, then 40, then 80 and max it at 120 since that's long enough that you can depend on the generation that got it passed to have also passed.
And not just "know where they are going," you can limit them to target=yourAccessTarget from the perimeter so they are limited at least in the first hop.
Good point. There are predictable physiological differences between genders and races and age groups. Understanding the differences is important in medicine and science and should be studied. Unfortunately the differences are also often misused as an excuse for people to mistreat each other.
But if there is a difference that is relevant to your business, is it reasonable to expect people to ignore it?
I've seen this type of comment several times. I wholeheartedly believe that producing valuable services or products is more important than aesthetics, but.... why do people assume they aren't? If you've got a company that is doing what it needs to be doing on the production side, why wouldn't you want to make the environment as comfortable and inviting as you can? Staff that feels comfortable is probably going to be easier to retain and if you have clients who see your workspace, then aesthetics are actually important to the bottom line.
I have a theory. Sometimes when you say "they can't be that stupid" the next thing you should think is "what if they actually aren't that stupid?" What if somebody with a lot of money and a lot if influence is knowingly getting the *AAs to do self destructive things?
You caught me being my own worst editor. I meant "I can say that I don't believe it was totally eliminated in either" but had previously typed "It wasn't totally eliminated in either." When I changed my mind about how to best phrase it, I missed that.
While I agree in general, for the sake of dissoi logoi, allow me to present the counter-argument. (I had to look up dissoi logoi by the way, it's not a phrase I've used before.)
I've worked in environments where drug tests were required and very similar environments where they were not. After working in both for several years and getting to know co-workers well, I feel I have a pretty good idea how common drug use was in both. I can say that I don't believe it wasn't totally eliminated in either, but was less common in the workplaces that at least used it for initial screening. Both had excellent longetivity and reasonable productiveness from their employees. I'd be hard pressed to make the case that the places that screen get better employees, but if your goal is to hire employees that won't use drugs, I think that testing as part of the employee screening process has some success in discouraging applicants that are likely to use drugs.
Further, I can say that in some jobs I've had, drug use was rather common and in those, testing wasn't even considered. In those jobs where drug use was common, I can say that it cost the employer higher turnover as a result. If I were made manager in that type of situation, I can certainly say that I would institute a drug test screen for hiring. If I knew that my company would be more profitable as a result of that type of screening, even if it was only because the less suitable candidates would be less likely to apply if they expected to fail, then certainly I'd seek to do the screening. I suspect that is why minimum wage jobs are more likely to have a screening policy.
If I worked for a government agency where I knew the stable and productive employees were those most likely to be willing to take a voodoo test, why wouldn't I want to screen for those type of employees? I'll agree that the polograph is essentially voodoo so lets take it literally for the sake of discussion. Lets say that I'm in charge of setting hiring policy for the TSA (voodoo is a reasonable connection in my mind for this.) Lets say that my bosses will agree to a voodoo test where I shake a rubber chicken and maracas in a dark room to "test of theiving spirits" and experience has shown employees willing to take the "test" are less likely to abuse their position, then I'd do the test. Even knowing the voodoo test in itself had no real effect, if I also know that the result is better employees, assuming that's my priority, why not?
When I write a program with my own resources, regardless of what is in that program, it doesn't violate anyones rights. Only when I use it is it possible for me to violate someone's rights. If I do something with it in a way that gets me in trouble with the law, then yes, I may loose rights.
I've seen a lot of arguments to my comments, and dismissed most of them, but you actually presented your argument logically enough that I must concede that you have a point. I disagree with the judge's ruling, but not your arguments.
Should I ever have such a restraining order, and cure cancer while saving nuns from a burning orphanage and by doing so violate the terms of the order, and have charges pressed against me for doing so and have a judge decide to punish me by taking away my rights to use, sell or give away programs I've written... then your argument would still be valid and I'd still believe the judgment was a bad one. Why? Because I believe some things are important enough that they shouldn't be ignored.
Free speech, the right to own property and the moral obligation to save nuns from a burning orphanage while curing cancer if you have the opportunity are among the things that I don't believe someone should be deprived of by a judge without a very strong reason. I don't believe Blizzard's arguments are a strong enough reason for for a judge to deprive someone of any of them. Were I a judge or the defendants' lawyer, I would disagree with this particular judgment for that reason.
I have mod points, but I never use them on a discussion I'm involved in. I don't know if it would work anyway, but I hope somebody else gives your comments a bump up.
There is a big difference between saying "you agree to not use our software and servers a certain way" and "any software you build on your own computer belongs to us."
I'm genuinely curious how people keep making this mistake. Software I build on my own computer, regardless of what it might be intended to do is not in any way the same as my rights to use somebody else's service. One is a right to use something somebody else provides and one is something that I create and own all the rights to independently.
You'd have to say that the ATVs were custom built for [that specific] golf [course] and those ATVs and anything based on the work that went into building them should be banned everywhere forever by law because they were used on [that] one golf course. Which would prevent them from selling other custom built ATVs based on their experience and parts they were able to reuse. That is clearly an infringement on their normal rights to conduct business.
That is a bit better, but it's wordy and a little complex. I guess that's the problem with accurate analogies.
I had a little trouble following that, but I'll assume you had a good reason for the missing words, like a bottle merlot or something. (Which is my current excuse.)
you agree that blizzard can do whatever they want with your account, for any reason at all.
I didn't say otherwise. There is a big difference between "your account" and a program that you create.
They can [ban] you, at will, because you agree to let them.
Yup. I didn't say otherwise.
They can [control any aspect of] you[r life and work outside of the game], at will, because you agree to let them.
That's what I actually disagree with... but I doubt you intended to say that.
Your argument about someone "hacking" their servers, etc, would only imperil the original authors to additional civil fines and possible criminal charges (as going against a court order would do).
You're right of course. They'd probably be pulled back into court where someone would have to prove that they were intentionally responsible or negligent in protecting their computers and CDs and any flash drives where they might have put a backup. That can be difficult to prove to say the least.
Had they open sourced it to begin with, then it wouldn't be a huge issue. Then again, if it were open sourced, there would be tons more compromised accounts because of dumb people....
Yeah, um, sorta. I wonder if you meant banned accounts, but I don't have any problem with people who like to cheat being banned.
I accept that Blizzard is an entertainment company. I like that they put effort into protecting the game experience of their customers. I don't even play and I appreciate that a company will go to court and fight to ensure that the service they offer be as fair as they can make it. If I was at a golf course and someone was messing up the carefully maintained surface with ATVs, I'd be happy when the course owners banned them. If I was playing competitive online solitarie and someone found a way to have a computer make their moves for them rather than play fairly, I'd be happy when they were banned.
I'm okay with a judge saying that you cannot break the terms of service (which I assume they did.) Up to that point, I feel like we're in agreement.
However, the software I build myself on my own computer is mine and I believe I have a right to use it on my computer, or sell it or open source it as a basic free speech right. So long as what I do on my machine or contracts I enter into that allow other people to use the software doesn't interact with Blizzard, my rights should be protected. I haven't read the TOS of WoW, but I doubt there is any clause that says anything like "by agreeing to this, you also give us rights to anything you create which might be related to the service we offer."
That's where the ATV and solitare analogies don't make sense. If you wanted those analogies to be fair, you'd have to say that the ATVs were custom built for golf and those ATVs should be banned everywhere forever by law because they were used on one golf course. If I made a cheat friendly solitaire program, and used it to cheat, it is reasonable to ban me from using it on specific systems where the TOS disallow it, but to say that the program I wrote is itself illegal and can never be used, sold or given to anyone because it broke the rules on one system; that's just wrong.
I honestly hope that this judgement gets thrown out on an appeal or someone "hacks" into the computers of the developers and makes it open source, distributed from a server not under the jurisdiction of this court. I don't say that because I think the bots shouldn't be banned by Blizzard, I think they should be. I think the court would be reasonable to say that using them is breaking the TOS and anyone doing so is subject to the terms they've agreed to in order to use Blizzard's servers. However, I think that banning the sale or open sourcing of software that someone creates which is an original work is morally and ethically wrong and I hope that for that reason, that part of the judgment will be overturned or clearly demonstrated to be worthless.
I thought it was just me. I enjoyed a subscription for quite a while, and was content to ignore the political and social commentary for quite a while. Eventually, however, I found it just more effort to focus on the actual science than it was worth. With plenty of other sources to turn to for actual science, finally I just decided not to renew.
I miss the old days when I could hold the printed pages in my hand and learn something. I still get the data from other sources of course but it isn't quite the same. From time to time I have considered resubscribing in the hope of finding that missed feeling, but it sounds like I wouldn't be pleasantly surprised.
He promoted the website using his real name attached to a gmail account with his real name as part of the address. They may not have found that out until they were ready to make a bigger case against him, but as I was reading the criminal complaint and saw that, I was dumbfounded that anyone could actually be that dense about security. Reading an older article, I see where he was asked if he was worried about law-enforcement agencies trying to track him down. He said "I have confidence in our security measures."
Yup: murderers, rapists, robbers, fraudsters... why do we bother with all these laws when some smart enough people will get away with each of these crimes.
I don't suggest that people shouldn't be prosecuted when caught or that nobody should bother trying to catch them, I just expect you to be aware that with the internet, there is a far lower chance of getting caught and prosecution has very little deterrent effect. I'm not trying to say "don't bother" so much as "it obviously isn't working very well."
It wouldn't be a threat if there weren't people who wanted to exploit vulnerabilities. Circular argument, sigh.
There are plenty of examples of companies that have done stupid things like putting customer information in a URL they didn't expect people to stumble onto. Bad security practices cause problems that go beyond "someone really clever might find a buffer overflow." If there weren't people who actually seek to exploit the vulnerabilities, there would be a lot more companies with terrible security practices and there would be a lot more accidental personal data breaches. It isn't circular, but obviously I needed to be clearer.
You know what makes a strong immune system? Exposure to germs. Guess what makes a strong internet society?
You know what germs aren't? Human. Stop reducing humans to factors in a flawed model.
An internet society is made up of computers and people. It is a complex mix and a model would need to be complex to represent it accurately. This however, is an analogy, and the analogy is solid.
Meanwhile there will be many, many people who are getting away with doing bad things because they are smart enough to figure out how to and hard enough to catch that they can get away with it for a long time, maybe forever.
And your morality is what fuels some of them, at least the "build a better society" part. See the thing is that security vulnerabilities need to be exploited in both high and low profile companies in order for those and other companies like them to spend effort and money on security. The very thing that you believe is good for society would be ignored or even punished if it weren't for the very real threat that is posed by people who exploit the vulnerabilities. You may think they're immoral or amoral for doing it but they're providing a very valuable service to society even as they harm it.
You know what makes a strong immune system? Exposure to germs. Guess what makes a strong internet society?
Somebody beat you to it and I'm not talking about the film. There is a product called Solent intended to be an inexpensive meal substitute. Apparently it is not too bad, and leaves you feeling full (and gassy.)
Slashdot Mirror
The country Georgia uses the Georgian Lari as it's currency and there is about $4 billion worth in total. (Around 2/3 the total value of bitcoin.) I wouldn't consider Georgia as a major economic power, but I wouldn't dismiss the legitimacy of its currency based on the total number transactions done in Lari. The Lari is a big fish in its own pond. I find that comparison interesting even if it doesn't directly prove anything about the strength of bitcoin as a currency. I'd certainly say the Lari has critical mass.
I would agree that "Bitcoin isn't just a protocol, it's the block chain." You have to accept the Nakamoto block chain as the single legitimate chain in order to work with bitcoin in any of the common systems, otherwise you're working with a system which excludes the most common use opportunities. So what? The same can be said for IPv4 because ICANN is accepted as the authoritative system. Plenty of people start networks that don't use it as the authority and even large groups have toyed with creating their own authorities, and IPv4 doesn't mean ICANN. If you want the most common use opportunities then you accept the Nakamoto block chain and ICANN authority. Seeing a major change in either one is possible and extremely unlikely to happen anytime soon.
That's also the answer to "why would people like me who weren't early adopters of the original block chain want to grant early adopters huge fractions of the world's wealth for doing nothing of economic value?" If you want to use bitcoin or IPv4 (or IPv6 for that matter) then you have the widest range of opportunities by following the largest crowd.
That's not to say either system couldn't be changed if there was enough momentum behind a change. IPv6 is poised to replace IPv4 but if countries decided that they were going to each implement their own ICANN like authorities and provide a method for conversion/communication between countries, then IPv4 could be saved and some might argue that it should be. If a couple countries were to start their own new bitcoin chains with methods of conversion between national bitcoin chains, then they could make it work. In fact, I think that's probably the largest threat to the Nakamoto based system; nations setting up competing chains. Take Gerogia, they could start the Lari chain and set up to own the majority of their own chain then set up an exchange rate with the value of the traditional Lari decreasing in value each year for official transactions and in as little as a decade, we could see Georgia having a solid bitcoin based on the Lari change with the additional benefit of having better control of their own currency than they have now.
I'm not actually betting on the Nakamoto bitcoin system being the long term successor to traditional currency. I'm actually only investing in the idea that the dollar has at least 50 years of being a reliable currency. As a thought experiment, consider this scenario: You get one of two vouchers. Each is worth the equivalent $1 million in today's money in either "Lari" or "some future bitcoin like currency." The catch is that you only get paid if the ability to spend the one you choose is easier to spend in South Africa in January 2064. If I had that choice, I'd choose "some future bitcoin like currency" but if it was specifically "bitcoin based on the Nakamoto chain" then I don't know which I'd choose.
The difference with bitcoin is simply that it has already been widely adopted and protocols that are widely adopted are very, very, very hard to replace. IPv4, POP, FTP, Telnet and SMTP all have better replacements and yet they're still used practically everywhere. Being the first protocol to be widely adopted isn't just important, it is by far the single most important factor.
IPv5, IPv6, IPv7, IPv8 and IPv9 are making IPv4 pointless just like all the possible other digital currencies are making bitcoin pointless. I guess that's technically unfair since IPv4 does have to be replaced and look how quickly people are doing that.
The first widely adopted protocol is very, very, very hard to replace. Take IPv4, SMTP, FTP and Telnet as examples. All of them need replaced but they are still used and relied on all over the world.
Is there any other cryptographically signed digital currency with a cumulative value near $6 billion dollars? If there isn't, then the infinite possible number of cryptographically signed digital currencies don't matter. Just like there are an infinite number of potential ways to print a new kind of dollar bill, they don't count unless a lot of other people are willing to accept it. If anything, bitcoins are much more difficult to fake.
Bitcoin has value because people use it to hold and exchange value, exactly like any other currency. Of course there are differences and I expect you are right about the future of speculation dying off, but precisely because I expect bitcoin to stabilize in ten years or so.
Oh, and read up on the tulip bulb thing. I thought the same thing you apparently think now until I got an education by somebody who actually knew the history.
All laws should have sunset provisions. No really, I mean it.
Those with strong support should have longer terms, maybe 100 years, but even the "obvious" ones should have sunset provisions. The Constitution? The only reason it has survived so long is because it has been modified, which is the whole point of sunset provisions. Do you think the Constitution would still work today if the three-fifths clause were still in effect or if women couldn't vote? The point of sunset provisions isn't to get rid of laws, but to give people an opportunity to correct problems with them. Yes, we correct problems with laws, but it takes an act of congress (literally) to get a law modified that desperately needs it, and you can forget about improving the hundreds of laws that have lots of problems but aren't on anybody's campaign points.
Yes, of course there should be! Yes, murder should be illegal, but no, of course the laws we had for murder in the 1800's should not be in effect and they absolutely should be re-evaluated after a reasonable period of time has passed.
1800: Senator Bob: So it looks like the murder law is in sunset, do we vote to renew it?
1800: Senator Kim: No, my constituents think hanging is barbaric and want to switch to the electric chair, so we need to rewrite the law.
1900: Senator Ralph: So it looks like the murder law is in sunset, do we vote to renew it?
1900: Senator Kelly: No, my constituents think murder shouldn't have an automatic death penalty, and some people should just be imprisoned, so we need to rewrite the law.
And the budget? While I'm making imaginary changes to how US law works, I have a fix for the budget problem too. It should be required to be set three years in advance, with Congress and the Senate sequestered, with no other legislative action allowed until they have passed it. Emergency funding for unexpected issues should be what gets debated, not what we could have seen coming three years ago (or 50 for that matter.)
Every new law should have a sunset provision of 1 year to give it a chance at debate every year until (at least) every representative who was present when it was introduced is out of office. After that set a cap of 10 years, then 20, then 40, then 80 and max it at 120 since that's long enough that you can depend on the generation that got it passed to have also passed.
And not just "know where they are going," you can limit them to target=yourAccessTarget from the perimeter so they are limited at least in the first hop.
Good point. There are predictable physiological differences between genders and races and age groups. Understanding the differences is important in medicine and science and should be studied. Unfortunately the differences are also often misused as an excuse for people to mistreat each other.
But if there is a difference that is relevant to your business, is it reasonable to expect people to ignore it?
Actually made me laugh out loud. Then I wondered if your humor was intentional or not.
I've seen this type of comment several times. I wholeheartedly believe that producing valuable services or products is more important than aesthetics, but.... why do people assume they aren't? If you've got a company that is doing what it needs to be doing on the production side, why wouldn't you want to make the environment as comfortable and inviting as you can? Staff that feels comfortable is probably going to be easier to retain and if you have clients who see your workspace, then aesthetics are actually important to the bottom line.
I have a theory. Sometimes when you say "they can't be that stupid" the next thing you should think is "what if they actually aren't that stupid?" What if somebody with a lot of money and a lot if influence is knowingly getting the *AAs to do self destructive things?
You caught me being my own worst editor. I meant "I can say that I don't believe it was totally eliminated in either" but had previously typed "It wasn't totally eliminated in either." When I changed my mind about how to best phrase it, I missed that.
While I agree in general, for the sake of dissoi logoi, allow me to present the counter-argument. (I had to look up dissoi logoi by the way, it's not a phrase I've used before.)
I've worked in environments where drug tests were required and very similar environments where they were not. After working in both for several years and getting to know co-workers well, I feel I have a pretty good idea how common drug use was in both. I can say that I don't believe it wasn't totally eliminated in either, but was less common in the workplaces that at least used it for initial screening. Both had excellent longetivity and reasonable productiveness from their employees. I'd be hard pressed to make the case that the places that screen get better employees, but if your goal is to hire employees that won't use drugs, I think that testing as part of the employee screening process has some success in discouraging applicants that are likely to use drugs.
Further, I can say that in some jobs I've had, drug use was rather common and in those, testing wasn't even considered. In those jobs where drug use was common, I can say that it cost the employer higher turnover as a result. If I were made manager in that type of situation, I can certainly say that I would institute a drug test screen for hiring. If I knew that my company would be more profitable as a result of that type of screening, even if it was only because the less suitable candidates would be less likely to apply if they expected to fail, then certainly I'd seek to do the screening. I suspect that is why minimum wage jobs are more likely to have a screening policy.
If I worked for a government agency where I knew the stable and productive employees were those most likely to be willing to take a voodoo test, why wouldn't I want to screen for those type of employees? I'll agree that the polograph is essentially voodoo so lets take it literally for the sake of discussion. Lets say that I'm in charge of setting hiring policy for the TSA (voodoo is a reasonable connection in my mind for this.) Lets say that my bosses will agree to a voodoo test where I shake a rubber chicken and maracas in a dark room to "test of theiving spirits" and experience has shown employees willing to take the "test" are less likely to abuse their position, then I'd do the test. Even knowing the voodoo test in itself had no real effect, if I also know that the result is better employees, assuming that's my priority, why not?
Wow, not only an arsonist, but also an anachronist!
When I write a program with my own resources, regardless of what is in that program, it doesn't violate anyones rights. Only when I use it is it possible for me to violate someone's rights. If I do something with it in a way that gets me in trouble with the law, then yes, I may loose rights.
I've seen a lot of arguments to my comments, and dismissed most of them, but you actually presented your argument logically enough that I must concede that you have a point. I disagree with the judge's ruling, but not your arguments.
Should I ever have such a restraining order, and cure cancer while saving nuns from a burning orphanage and by doing so violate the terms of the order, and have charges pressed against me for doing so and have a judge decide to punish me by taking away my rights to use, sell or give away programs I've written... then your argument would still be valid and I'd still believe the judgment was a bad one. Why? Because I believe some things are important enough that they shouldn't be ignored.
Free speech, the right to own property and the moral obligation to save nuns from a burning orphanage while curing cancer if you have the opportunity are among the things that I don't believe someone should be deprived of by a judge without a very strong reason. I don't believe Blizzard's arguments are a strong enough reason for for a judge to deprive someone of any of them. Were I a judge or the defendants' lawyer, I would disagree with this particular judgment for that reason.
I have mod points, but I never use them on a discussion I'm involved in. I don't know if it would work anyway, but I hope somebody else gives your comments a bump up.
Does it say they own rights to something I create on my own computer in my own time? Because otherwise it doesn't have any relevance to my arguments.
There is a big difference between saying "you agree to not use our software and servers a certain way" and "any software you build on your own computer belongs to us."
I'm genuinely curious how people keep making this mistake. Software I build on my own computer, regardless of what it might be intended to do is not in any way the same as my rights to use somebody else's service. One is a right to use something somebody else provides and one is something that I create and own all the rights to independently.
Okay, I'll buy that. Let me amend my analogy.
That is a bit better, but it's wordy and a little complex. I guess that's the problem with accurate analogies.
I had a little trouble following that, but I'll assume you had a good reason for the missing words, like a bottle merlot or something. (Which is my current excuse.)
I didn't say otherwise. There is a big difference between "your account" and a program that you create.
Yup. I didn't say otherwise.
That's what I actually disagree with... but I doubt you intended to say that.
You're right of course. They'd probably be pulled back into court where someone would have to prove that they were intentionally responsible or negligent in protecting their computers and CDs and any flash drives where they might have put a backup. That can be difficult to prove to say the least.
Yeah, um, sorta. I wonder if you meant banned accounts, but I don't have any problem with people who like to cheat being banned.
I accept that Blizzard is an entertainment company. I like that they put effort into protecting the game experience of their customers. I don't even play and I appreciate that a company will go to court and fight to ensure that the service they offer be as fair as they can make it. If I was at a golf course and someone was messing up the carefully maintained surface with ATVs, I'd be happy when the course owners banned them. If I was playing competitive online solitarie and someone found a way to have a computer make their moves for them rather than play fairly, I'd be happy when they were banned.
I'm okay with a judge saying that you cannot break the terms of service (which I assume they did.) Up to that point, I feel like we're in agreement.
However, the software I build myself on my own computer is mine and I believe I have a right to use it on my computer, or sell it or open source it as a basic free speech right. So long as what I do on my machine or contracts I enter into that allow other people to use the software doesn't interact with Blizzard, my rights should be protected. I haven't read the TOS of WoW, but I doubt there is any clause that says anything like "by agreeing to this, you also give us rights to anything you create which might be related to the service we offer."
That's where the ATV and solitare analogies don't make sense. If you wanted those analogies to be fair, you'd have to say that the ATVs were custom built for golf and those ATVs should be banned everywhere forever by law because they were used on one golf course. If I made a cheat friendly solitaire program, and used it to cheat, it is reasonable to ban me from using it on specific systems where the TOS disallow it, but to say that the program I wrote is itself illegal and can never be used, sold or given to anyone because it broke the rules on one system; that's just wrong.
I honestly hope that this judgement gets thrown out on an appeal or someone "hacks" into the computers of the developers and makes it open source, distributed from a server not under the jurisdiction of this court. I don't say that because I think the bots shouldn't be banned by Blizzard, I think they should be. I think the court would be reasonable to say that using them is breaking the TOS and anyone doing so is subject to the terms they've agreed to in order to use Blizzard's servers. However, I think that banning the sale or open sourcing of software that someone creates which is an original work is morally and ethically wrong and I hope that for that reason, that part of the judgment will be overturned or clearly demonstrated to be worthless.
I thought it was just me. I enjoyed a subscription for quite a while, and was content to ignore the political and social commentary for quite a while. Eventually, however, I found it just more effort to focus on the actual science than it was worth. With plenty of other sources to turn to for actual science, finally I just decided not to renew.
I miss the old days when I could hold the printed pages in my hand and learn something. I still get the data from other sources of course but it isn't quite the same. From time to time I have considered resubscribing in the hope of finding that missed feeling, but it sounds like I wouldn't be pleasantly surprised.
He promoted the website using his real name attached to a gmail account with his real name as part of the address. They may not have found that out until they were ready to make a bigger case against him, but as I was reading the criminal complaint and saw that, I was dumbfounded that anyone could actually be that dense about security. Reading an older article, I see where he was asked if he was worried about law-enforcement agencies trying to track him down. He said "I have confidence in our security measures."
I don't suggest that people shouldn't be prosecuted when caught or that nobody should bother trying to catch them, I just expect you to be aware that with the internet, there is a far lower chance of getting caught and prosecution has very little deterrent effect. I'm not trying to say "don't bother" so much as "it obviously isn't working very well."
There are plenty of examples of companies that have done stupid things like putting customer information in a URL they didn't expect people to stumble onto. Bad security practices cause problems that go beyond "someone really clever might find a buffer overflow." If there weren't people who actually seek to exploit the vulnerabilities, there would be a lot more companies with terrible security practices and there would be a lot more accidental personal data breaches. It isn't circular, but obviously I needed to be clearer.
An internet society is made up of computers and people. It is a complex mix and a model would need to be complex to represent it accurately. This however, is an analogy, and the analogy is solid.
Sure, let me know how that works out for you.
Meanwhile there will be many, many people who are getting away with doing bad things because they are smart enough to figure out how to and hard enough to catch that they can get away with it for a long time, maybe forever.
And your morality is what fuels some of them, at least the "build a better society" part. See the thing is that security vulnerabilities need to be exploited in both high and low profile companies in order for those and other companies like them to spend effort and money on security. The very thing that you believe is good for society would be ignored or even punished if it weren't for the very real threat that is posed by people who exploit the vulnerabilities. You may think they're immoral or amoral for doing it but they're providing a very valuable service to society even as they harm it.
You know what makes a strong immune system? Exposure to germs. Guess what makes a strong internet society?
Somebody beat you to it and I'm not talking about the film. There is a product called Solent intended to be an inexpensive meal substitute. Apparently it is not too bad, and leaves you feeling full (and gassy.)
A good story about somebody who tried it for a week: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/08/nothing-but-the-soylent-were-trying-1-full-week-of-the-meal-substitute/
Their site where you can pre-order: https://campaign.soylent.me/soylent-free-your-body