It's as if developers are saying "Well, maybe MS have used every single previous language and platform to promote their Windows monopoly unfairly, but maybe it's different this time! And even if they -- Oooh, look! Shiny things!"
And on slashdot, of all places. SCO took a run at linux with almost no relationship, and people say M$ wouldn't do the same?
I can sympathize with enthusiasm for the technology, but it's just not honest to say there isn't a problem here.
Have them buy an approrpaite reference, like an O'Reilly book
Remember that half the learning is them reading and studying at home, half is in class, and the other half is them referencing the text long after the course is done. Two of those halves are about having a good reference.
Any recomendations on how to get just one for fun -- montivista for linux, but any hints for the rest (boxen/components/...), what vendor to call, what setup...
This story is not just about games, it's also YRO. What is DRM but the producer controlling the content? Thats what this story is, but with enough technical distinctions and reversed sympathies to make it interesting:
Blizzard made the game & items, and doesn't want them traded for cash. RIAA doesn't want CDs or digital music files resold for cash -- how is the iTunes/ACC after-market sale of songs? Nonexistent because they want the only sale to occur inside their game^H^H^H^H software. You can sell CDs, but would reselling your 'old' ACC songs on eBay bring a lawsuit? (I don't know, but I bet its against the agreement with iTunes, technical issues aside.)
Some players argue they *own* the in-game items: they paid the fees, did the adventuring, they control the items in all other respects, so its not fair for a company to try and restrict the usage. Are companies arguing that players are 'licensed' to use a magic sword (which would then be 'not fit for any purpose') only in their approved ways?
If the game is ruined with buying items, can't the producers restrict usage? Wikis have anti-spam and anti-defacement measures like history revisions and higher security accounts. Games should have the same options. Corporations should have the same option: to control content. Or does the particular issue of what content, in what context, related to whom, make all the difference?
None of this is a really important -- its just a game -- but all of it involves producers controlling content in a digital medium, and that is interesting.
IGE is like eBay for online games (like World of Warcraft.) You can arrange to pay real money, and get in-game items or 'gold' from other players. The cash payments are made outside the game, the items are transfered in-game between players.
The game makers universally ban this sort of sale:
If you were playing risk, would you want your opponent to 'buy' ten armys from third player? Companies also can't regulate the sales to ensure fairness, and don't want any liability issues; like a DB error deleting an item someone paid cash for.
Some players argue buying in-game items is fine:
The in game items are yours, and you can give them to any player for whatever reason you want, including cash payments. Why is it be OK to give a sword to my friend, but not a stranger? How does using money, rather then an in-game barter, or plain altruism, change this?
If I get trampled by a herd of malicious gnus on the way to work, the top-level admins will need access to my data, as will whoever replaces me.
What does HR think of the admins having access to their encrypted documents? Did they tell them they have access, or just avoid it 'cause they won't get it anyway, and it will just be another stupid turf battle?
More to the point: Why didn't Microsoft make the situation clear to the end users?
I totally agree about the issues with hiring virus writers, although I can imagine coming down on either side in different cases.
Do you agree for the ethical reasons, or technical? If you think they just won't be as good technically, there doesn't seem to be much to reflect on. If it's ethics, why are ethics more important in computer viri (?) then antrax? Do we ditch the principles because the fear/disaster is to great? Seems like it should be the other way around: the ethics should become more important in the most important situations. I don't know.
I was wrong though: there are times when the people on the wrong side have better technical knowledge. My argument was driven by the ethical bias against hiring criminals. All this really makes me wonder how often we dodge this question; it seems to come up often.
I would trust a bioweapons engineer to create a drug designed to block biological weapons far more than I would trust a doctor.
Are serious? It's common to think that being near a problem lends special insight, but lets be clear: Doctors spend years studying how to heal, a bioweapons engineer spends years studying how to kill. If the objective is to save the life, the doctor is the clear choice.
who better to blow up the bridge than a guy who builds bridges?
The person who spends years studying how to blow up bridges would be a better choice.
Its not that people on the wrong side of the problem know less then the average person, they *do* know more, but they aren't the best choice for the job. Hiring a Virus writers also is an ethical issue. Separate from their technical abilities:
Can they be trusted?
Do we encourage bad actions by rewarding the authors?
Do the companies compromise their customers trust by hiring the people they are protecting against?
Defamation consists of the following:
(1) a defamatory statement;
(2) published to third parties; and
(3) which the speaker or publisher knew or should have known was false.
Defamatory statements must be communicated to a third party. You cannot defame someone by speaking to them alone, or by muttering to yourself. This element of defamation is virtually always satisfied when claims are made against newspapers and broadcast media.
The second requirement is not met. The person sent the email to the 'victim' of this stupid act. It's hard to see how they could possibly be found guilty. So why should the ISP be forced to reveal the name? Can I get someone's identity by claiming I want to sue them for something that can't win?
(Isn't that why they have John Doe cases in the first place? not just when the name is unknown.)
from the article: "cable and the local phone providers... are trying to become the primary pipelines for delivering an array of entertainment and communications services"
Its the services that make the money, not being a commodity provider of bandwidth. What of IPv6 and stable VoIP for any service provider? Seems like they would be against it; all the better to lock in their customers. We should be looking to a market where we can get cable tv, phone, etc.. from any 'net provider rather then from the seller of our connection. Thats why we have an ISP market in conjunction with broadband providers.
Re:Here's the idea of the year (NYT: hint hint nud
on
The Year In Ideas
·
· Score: 1
The NYT wants a payment for viewing their content. That payment is your personal information.
They are not getting it though, and they still require a logon. They know the information is bad, but are still doing this for other reasons...
My guess is that this has more to do with company politics then anything else. Once they've decided to try to restrict the information, people have a lose-lose situation. Argue that you should open it and your for giving away the product, argue that you should keep the logon and your for collecting useless information. Most people working in an office would simply ignore the issue and pretend everything is fine.
Go programs work by simply looking up common scenarios in a large database...
Humans do to; they are called Joski
and there are many of them. The hard part is that a sequence is not definitive -- its just one small area of the board and it's linked to all the other areas with different strategies. This is very different then an opening sequence in chess where all the pieces start in the same place, or even a latter game sequence where a common arrangement might arise. The Go board is just too big for this. Brute force is impractical for the strategic decisions.
To use this service you MUST make sure that you have unlimited mobile-to-mobile calling activated on your wireless service calling plan.
...
Currently, the service is only for placing outgoing cellular calls.
It depends on the Wireless companies, only works for outgoing calls, and makes no mention of call quality or reliability. The cell phone companies will be the ones to decide how VOIP integrates with cell phones, and plans like this will just be loose out to them changing the rules.
Of course they won't be selling phones with WiFi features that can cut their meters out of the loop.
Most cell phones have free calls to co-workers/spouses/family in some manner. The wireless telco.'s won't loose their bussiness by having lower usage on their networks, they will loose it if the industry is standardized enough to work around them. Once they are just selling connections and not 'services' the profit goes down, and they are the provider of services because of a lack of standards.
... if Valve acutally put this 'warezed' version online then surely it isn't warez at all..
I mean, they uploaded for everyone else to copy. Freely. With no EULA presumably.
Thats an interesting legal question. We do know the intent of the participants though (assuming this happened at all, which seems doubtfull.)
The downloaders were trying to get a free version of something they knew was not free.
The company did not want to give away the game for free, just catch pirates.
Given those two intentions, and the governments willingness to make copyright infringement something the Department of Justice can prosecute, the law won't stop this sort of action for long. If companies want to do this and the law won't let them, the law will change quickly.
I think the what makes your argument seem so compelling is an ambiguity: "...they uploaded for everyone else to copy. Freely." Freely as in they did not want people to pay for the game? They may have made it possible (easier) for people to cheat the activation, but they did not intend to have people not paying. Just the opposite: they knew people would steal it and made it possible for them to do so, while collecting info. about the people. It's like putting a copyrighted picture on the web: people might steal it, but their the one's who've done wrong, not you for making it possible.
Makes me think the RIAA should post every song it can to its own web site and just see who downloads what.
Maybe, but thinking about it this would be an easy sell for corporates upgrading their machines as the dx9 IGP should be Longhorn compatible. Not that we'll see that in the next 2 years, but corporates don't change desktops too often.
Why do would DX9 be the standard for longhorn? (Won't whatever the xbox2 has be DX10?) Corporations won't be the early adopters anyway. This is for the home market. No need for the average buyer to get an expensive video card.
It's a bit tricky since the.torrent isn't actually the illegal file you're downloading, and might not necessarily lead to the downloading of the actual file.
IANAL, but that defense can't hold up. A '.torrent' for a file which is illegal to download, is a set of instructions on how to illegally get the file. It's not good for anything else. This is not like a bong you might smoke tobacco from, its like a hand grenade: its only good for one thing, and that one thing is illegal. The fact that it may not work is not a good argument either. What else do you do with a.torrent for getting illegal material?
I think we are into some real differences of opinion on government and market regulation. I hope you see that the issues of F/OSS are related to the other issues though. (If not, well I tried to explain as I see it.)
You seem to have a libertarian view, and this part is very extreme to me:
If the RIAA "had its way" and managed to get all its members to raise the price on their CDs to $25 apiece, then we probably should say "well, that's the market."
The MS anti-trust trial was weak IMHO; they did wrong by the market, society and the law. Check out the history of Standard Oil and how anti-trust came about... I think you'll change your mind on this.
ps - Nice to talk to someone on slashdot who's out for more then +1 Funny or a Troll.
...bidding up the cost of a product increases its availability.
Only for those who can afford it.
You offer a free market type of argument: more demand leads to more competition, which leads to cheaper prices and therefore more access. ie. More arthritis drug competition means cheaper drugs, and we all get to type without pain.
The free market is NOT about serving the most people. Its just a common effect of the market to serve more people, better. Yet we *know* this is not the case with health care in the US: there are lots of people with little or no care, and lots with really great health care.
Markets have always been regulated to balance the other aspects of life (like fairness) with the power of production it enables. The balance of regulating the market excesses (like DRM,) against enjoying the production benefits (like cheap software,) needs to be changed: both in software IP laws, and drug research. Its not just a single issue of using Linux/FOSS in Brazil, but many issues of freeing information, and consequently reducing the power of vested interests. The issue is how to regulate.
You point out that we may have different views of fairness. Then say that it will only be a matter of power which decides, and fairness will be in the eye of the beholder. Well thats life: we disagree and strive to reach good action and wisdom, but sometimes raw power wins out and the rest of us try to right it. If the RIAA has its way 100% should we say 'oh well, thats the market then' or should we be mad as hell at the political system which made it happen? And it will be the political system that decides: software patents, copyright, DCMA restrictions, etc... are all legal issues, not technology or market production issues. Power may decide these issues, or we may may win with systems that are more fair.
Slashdot Mirror
So how you treat people doesn't matter, as long as they're willing to put up with it? Abuse is OK so long as nobody complains?
And on slashdot, of all places. SCO took a run at linux with almost no relationship, and people say M$ wouldn't do the same?
I can sympathize with enthusiasm for the technology, but it's just not honest to say there isn't a problem here.
Remember that half the learning is them reading and studying at home, half is in class, and the other half is them referencing the text long after the course is done. Two of those halves are about having a good reference.
Because no manager ever fudges the staff numbers to make a case, right?
Also, a guess at the cost, if you would.
- Blizzard made the game & items, and doesn't want them traded for cash. RIAA doesn't want CDs or digital music files resold for cash -- how is the iTunes/ACC after-market sale of songs? Nonexistent because they want the only sale to occur inside their game^H^H^H^H software. You can sell CDs, but would reselling your 'old' ACC songs on eBay bring a lawsuit? (I don't know, but I bet its against the agreement with iTunes, technical issues aside.)
- Some players argue they *own* the in-game items: they paid the fees, did the adventuring, they control the items in all other respects, so its not fair for a company to try and restrict the usage. Are companies arguing that players are 'licensed' to use a magic sword (which would then be 'not fit for any purpose') only in their approved ways?
- If the game is ruined with buying items, can't the producers restrict usage? Wikis have anti-spam and anti-defacement measures like history revisions and higher security accounts. Games should have the same options. Corporations should have the same option: to control content. Or does the particular issue of what content, in what context, related to whom, make all the difference?
None of this is a really important -- its just a game -- but all of it involves producers controlling content in a digital medium, and that is interesting.The game makers universally ban this sort of sale:
Some players argue buying in-game items is fine:What does HR think of the admins having access to their encrypted documents? Did they tell them they have access, or just avoid it 'cause they won't get it anyway, and it will just be another stupid turf battle?
More to the point: Why didn't Microsoft make the situation clear to the end users?
The grandparents picture has the strings:
JFIF
Ducky
Adobe
Looks like it just came from photoshop, but I don't really know.
That's true.
I totally agree about the issues with hiring virus writers, although I can imagine coming down on either side in different cases.
Do you agree for the ethical reasons, or technical? If you think they just won't be as good technically, there doesn't seem to be much to reflect on. If it's ethics, why are ethics more important in computer viri (?) then antrax? Do we ditch the principles because the fear/disaster is to great? Seems like it should be the other way around: the ethics should become more important in the most important situations. I don't know.
I was wrong though: there are times when the people on the wrong side have better technical knowledge. My argument was driven by the ethical bias against hiring criminals. All this really makes me wonder how often we dodge this question; it seems to come up often.
Are serious? It's common to think that being near a problem lends special insight, but lets be clear: Doctors spend years studying how to heal, a bioweapons engineer spends years studying how to kill. If the objective is to save the life, the doctor is the clear choice.
who better to blow up the bridge than a guy who builds bridges?
The person who spends years studying how to blow up bridges would be a better choice.
Its not that people on the wrong side of the problem know less then the average person, they *do* know more, but they aren't the best choice for the job. Hiring a Virus writers also is an ethical issue. Separate from their technical abilities:
Can they be trusted?
Do we encourage bad actions by rewarding the authors?
Do the companies compromise their customers trust by hiring the people they are protecting against?
The issue is whether the plaintiff can compel the ISP to reveal the name of the person who may have committed the slander.
from: http://www.abbottlaw.com/defamation.html
The second requirement is not met. The person sent the email to the 'victim' of this stupid act. It's hard to see how they could possibly be found guilty. So why should the ISP be forced to reveal the name? Can I get someone's identity by claiming I want to sue them for something that can't win?(Isn't that why they have John Doe cases in the first place? not just when the name is unknown.)
The problem is the governments willingness to use criminals.
No: rights only exist if they can be exercised. Saying you can hang up ain't enough.
But there is no story here, and no big brother.
Its the services that make the money, not being a commodity provider of bandwidth. What of IPv6 and stable VoIP for any service provider? Seems like they would be against it; all the better to lock in their customers. We should be looking to a market where we can get cable tv, phone, etc.. from any 'net provider rather then from the seller of our connection. Thats why we have an ISP market in conjunction with broadband providers.
They are not getting it though, and they still require a logon. They know the information is bad, but are still doing this for other reasons...
My guess is that this has more to do with company politics then anything else. Once they've decided to try to restrict the information, people have a lose-lose situation. Argue that you should open it and your for giving away the product, argue that you should keep the logon and your for collecting useless information. Most people working in an office would simply ignore the issue and pretend everything is fine.
Humans do to; they are called Joski and there are many of them. The hard part is that a sequence is not definitive -- its just one small area of the board and it's linked to all the other areas with different strategies. This is very different then an opening sequence in chess where all the pieces start in the same place, or even a latter game sequence where a common arrangement might arise. The Go board is just too big for this. Brute force is impractical for the strategic decisions.
It depends on the Wireless companies, only works for outgoing calls, and makes no mention of call quality or reliability. The cell phone companies will be the ones to decide how VOIP integrates with cell phones, and plans like this will just be loose out to them changing the rules.
Most cell phones have free calls to co-workers/spouses/family in some manner. The wireless telco.'s won't loose their bussiness by having lower usage on their networks, they will loose it if the industry is standardized enough to work around them. Once they are just selling connections and not 'services' the profit goes down, and they are the provider of services because of a lack of standards.
Thats an interesting legal question. We do know the intent of the participants though (assuming this happened at all, which seems doubtfull.)
The downloaders were trying to get a free version of something they knew was not free.
The company did not want to give away the game for free, just catch pirates.
Given those two intentions, and the governments willingness to make copyright infringement something the Department of Justice can prosecute, the law won't stop this sort of action for long. If companies want to do this and the law won't let them, the law will change quickly.
I think the what makes your argument seem so compelling is an ambiguity: "...they uploaded for everyone else to copy. Freely." Freely as in they did not want people to pay for the game? They may have made it possible (easier) for people to cheat the activation, but they did not intend to have people not paying. Just the opposite: they knew people would steal it and made it possible for them to do so, while collecting info. about the people. It's like putting a copyrighted picture on the web: people might steal it, but their the one's who've done wrong, not you for making it possible.
Makes me think the RIAA should post every song it can to its own web site and just see who downloads what.
http://beta.search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=%22more
IANAL, but that defense can't hold up. A '.torrent' for a file which is illegal to download, is a set of instructions on how to illegally get the file. It's not good for anything else. This is not like a bong you might smoke tobacco from, its like a hand grenade: its only good for one thing, and that one thing is illegal. The fact that it may not work is not a good argument either. What else do you do with a
You seem to have a libertarian view, and this part is very extreme to me:
If the RIAA "had its way" and managed to get all its members to raise the price on their CDs to $25 apiece, then we probably should say "well, that's the market."
The MS anti-trust trial was weak IMHO; they did wrong by the market, society and the law. Check out the history of Standard Oil and how anti-trust came about... I think you'll change your mind on this.
ps - Nice to talk to someone on slashdot who's out for more then +1 Funny or a Troll.
Only for those who can afford it.
You offer a free market type of argument: more demand leads to more competition, which leads to cheaper prices and therefore more access. ie. More arthritis drug competition means cheaper drugs, and we all get to type without pain.
The free market is NOT about serving the most people. Its just a common effect of the market to serve more people, better. Yet we *know* this is not the case with health care in the US: there are lots of people with little or no care, and lots with really great health care.
Markets have always been regulated to balance the other aspects of life (like fairness) with the power of production it enables. The balance of regulating the market excesses (like DRM,) against enjoying the production benefits (like cheap software,) needs to be changed: both in software IP laws, and drug research. Its not just a single issue of using Linux/FOSS in Brazil, but many issues of freeing information, and consequently reducing the power of vested interests. The issue is how to regulate.
You point out that we may have different views of fairness. Then say that it will only be a matter of power which decides, and fairness will be in the eye of the beholder. Well thats life: we disagree and strive to reach good action and wisdom, but sometimes raw power wins out and the rest of us try to right it. If the RIAA has its way 100% should we say 'oh well, thats the market then' or should we be mad as hell at the political system which made it happen? And it will be the political system that decides: software patents, copyright, DCMA restrictions, etc... are all legal issues, not technology or market production issues. Power may decide these issues, or we may may win with systems that are more fair.
This is about a lot more than Linux.