It's about time a disinterested body tries to set some standards for software development. In hardware design, this has long been the case. No one invests millions in developing chips without following some generally agreed standards to allow it to operate with other hardware components. In the software inductry however, their seem to be no standards boards. Instead, developers, whether they are Unix, Windows, MacOS, etc., create their own standards, and expect everyone else to follow them, or even worse, refuse to even publish the standards. Standards should be agreed on by all interested parties before products following the standards are released.
ok. So we'll just let anyone in Los Alamos, Sandia, etc. since security through obscurity doesn't work. You're confusing issues. Security through obscurity is not the best way to secure a computer system, but for other types of security, you don't have many options.
Re:Differnet times for a different world
on
Security Versus Science
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Sept. 11 changed everyone's PERCEPTION of the threat of terrorism, including Bush, as you pointed out. This was a change for the better as it's more in line with reality. As you point out, terrorism existed before 9/11. We didn't take it seriously enough before 9/11, however. No one needed to be sold on a wholesale change in policy. It's obvious that changes were needed. Exactly what those changes are is still a point of debate, but your clai that no changes were necessary is ludicrous.
According to the GPL "Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software
patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free
program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the
program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any
patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all."
Therefore, if MS is restricted by this pattent, no web browser under GPL is allowed to use plugins.
Since the stats for percentage hacks of linux vs. windows boxes seems to correlate very strongly with the percentage of linux servers vs windows servers (around 65% vs. 25%), it is likely that the OS being run isn't the main cause of the security problems. My theory is that the breakins are due to poor configuration and maintenance of the software. I doubt anyone would disagree that unpatched servers that aren't properly configured are vulnerable, regardless of the OS running.
"With a CD, you get about an hour worth of music (I've seen some go as low as 40 mintues), and even if you really like all the songs, it only engages your ears. Hence, on average, CDs are less entertaining."
So why does the average person watch a movie they like only once or twice, but if someone likes an album, he'll listen to it repeatedly. There is a value to music that is different from a movie. The amount of data required to reproduce it is irrelevant and claiming that lack of visual stimulation means it is less valuable is oversimplifying. It's the file sharers who are unfairly lowering the value of music by offering it to everyone for free.
Of course, people cooperate with the FSF when they threaten to sue, and it's a lie if you say they've never threatened to sue anyone. None of the 261 individuals has cared despite repeated pleas to stop sharing files and threats of lawsuits. They're getting what they deserve, just like anyone who violates the GPL and refuses to amend their ways when called on the illegal behavior deserves to be sued. You should reconsider who the guilty parties are and stop protecting them.
My understanding of VoIP is that it still requires the last mile switch solution. If AT&T uses VoIP in their backbone, it's transparent to the end user, but they're still required to be regulated. Why should a startup that uses the same network, but calls it the internet, get away without following regulations. The same rules should apply to everyone.
You apparently do understand the definition you linked to. MS negotiates contracts, they don't command armies. Comparing a company that negotiates a contract with other companies and individuals and a nation that uses force to exert its will is absurd.
Wow. 1st post I've seen from someone who actually understands the arguement. If a govt. provides a free os (which I don't think they have the right to spend taxpayer money developing), it should at least have a BSD-style license, rather than a GPL license, since GPL limits freedom with respect to BSD licenses.
You've missed the point. They're not saying OSS is "un-American". They're saying a govt. developing an OS, whether open-source or propreitary is un-American, or at least anti-capitalist, i.e. communist.
The difference is that in the cases you've cited, the US is purchasing MS software. In this instance, these Asian countries are paying to DEVELOP software. There's an incredible difference between this seemingly small distinction. The former is a govt. paying for a product. The latter is tampering with the free market, and could be defined as communism.
Microsoft's arguement is simple. It is bad policy for govts. to run businesses that compete with industry. A govt. that cares about individual rights has no business taking taxpayer money and using it to develop products that compete with industries. A govts. only job is to defend individual rights. It shouldn't be wasting taxpayer money on social engineering by messing with the free market. I certainly would object to the US govt investing in software that wasn't directly related to national security or other govt. functions. A govt developing software to compete directly with commercial software is taking a step towards communism. Let Redat, Mandrake, and free orgs. like FSF develop Linux, but don't force taxpayers to pay for it by turning it into a govt. project unless you have a really good reason. I won't even get into the practical problems of who's in charge of development when govts. get involved.
Everyone's blaming DirectTV because it's cheaper to settle the case for $3500 plus your smart card reader, than to hire a lawyer to defend yourself if you're innocent. Shouldn't we be instead placing the blame on the lawyers. There's nothing illegal about offering someone a settlement to avoid litigation, particularly when the evidence is compelling. You don't need to prove someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to file a complaint, only have some reasonable evidence. I don't consider suing someone who bought equipment advertized primarily for reprogramming DirctTV smart cards inherently wrong, because they're more than likely guilty. If they're not, they have the option to defend themselves in court. If they settle instead, that doesn't make it extortion. It's unfortunate that a reasonable settlement fee for a guilty party is less than the cost of defending yourself if you're innocent, but the lawyers are to blame for that, not DirectTV.
" The laws are also contrary to the nature of the universe. Information is easily copied. Attempting to (unenforcably) restrict the copying of information, and ignoring the benefits that mass-distribution of information can bring (especially in education and the arts) is counterproductive. Might as well try to legislate against gravity."
And it's easier to throw a brick through a window to obtain a nice computer than it is to work for a week to get the money to buy one. Do you also advocate that? Basically your arguement is for anarchy.
I think you should examine your premise that the RIAA is doing something immoral. Ask yourself these questions. Is it immoral for the FSF to sue someone for violation of GPL, which is essentially a copyright agreement? Is it immoral for someone to presecute a shoplifter? The RIAA has every right to sue copyright infringers. I doubt you can come up with a rational basis for calling the RIAA actions immoral without condemning the GPL as well as other form of abuse of property.
The average artist (that you've) never heard of) fails, and declares bankruptcy. That's about $1.5M lost by the label, using Love's numbers. Saying the label doesn't take a risk on a band is like saying a bank doesn't take a risk on a loan. And the odds of a band becoming successful, even after being signed, aren't that great.
"Yes, but when a CD is hugely successful, who reaps most of the profits, the band, or everyone else?"
Who deserves most of the profit, they guy who wrote the music, or the guy who took the risk on the guy who wrote the music. (Hint. It's not the guy who wrote the music). The risk is not pushed onto the band because they can declare bankruptcy, and the label is stuck with the bill. As for your arguement that they aren't signing of their own free will, that's silly. If it's such a great opportunity, why are they complaining after the fact. It's they're own fault if they sign a bad deal.
"Instead of an online, somewhat trackable, moderately controllable service, the RIAA is now faced with millions of teens (and pre-teens) with computers and CD burners. No single point of control, just my daughter's friend borrowing her CD so she can rip a copy."
You make the probably false assumption that cracking down on p2p caused cd burners to become more popular. I submit that cd burners would have caught on anyway, with or without p2p. Don't confuse coincidence with cause/effect.
How do you explain why concert ticket sales are up if a bad economy is the reason for lower cd sales? Also, do you boycott stores that prosecute shop lifters?
from the article: "Meanwhile, he noted record stores report that blank recordable CDs are outselling recorded CDs, a trend that shows computer users are not only downloading songs, but copying and burning CDs."
So it appears the the rise of the CD-recorder is the real culprit for lost cd sales. This has always been the nightmare of the RIAA, long before napster. Digital copies can be recopied without loss of quality, so stolen music can spread like a virus. I don't believe all the cdr are being bought to back up data, so don't bother replying with that excuse. That's as bad as the excuse that a bad economy is causing lower cd sales (which doesn't correlate with rise in concert ticket sales over the same period of time). So, increased decline in cd sales is not a protest against RIAA prosecution of file sharers, but instead a result of cd-recorders becoming for widespread.
Slashdot Mirror
"What else can you call people being forced to give money to the RIAA through the use of threats?"
Justice
It's about time a disinterested body tries to set some standards for software development. In hardware design, this has long been the case. No one invests millions in developing chips without following some generally agreed standards to allow it to operate with other hardware components. In the software inductry however, their seem to be no standards boards. Instead, developers, whether they are Unix, Windows, MacOS, etc., create their own standards, and expect everyone else to follow them, or even worse, refuse to even publish the standards. Standards should be agreed on by all interested parties before products following the standards are released.
ok. So we'll just let anyone in Los Alamos, Sandia, etc. since security through obscurity doesn't work. You're confusing issues. Security through obscurity is not the best way to secure a computer system, but for other types of security, you don't have many options.
Sept. 11 changed everyone's PERCEPTION of the threat of terrorism, including Bush, as you pointed out. This was a change for the better as it's more in line with reality. As you point out, terrorism existed before 9/11. We didn't take it seriously enough before 9/11, however. No one needed to be sold on a wholesale change in policy. It's obvious that changes were needed. Exactly what those changes are is still a point of debate, but your clai that no changes were necessary is ludicrous.
According to the GPL "Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all."
Therefore, if MS is restricted by this pattent, no web browser under GPL is allowed to use plugins.
According to this slashdot post VoIP should remain unregulated. Now that AT&T is using VoIP, do they get the same treatment?
Since the stats for percentage hacks of linux vs. windows boxes seems to correlate very strongly with the percentage of linux servers vs windows servers (around 65% vs. 25%), it is likely that the OS being run isn't the main cause of the security problems. My theory is that the breakins are due to poor configuration and maintenance of the software. I doubt anyone would disagree that unpatched servers that aren't properly configured are vulnerable, regardless of the OS running.
I have yet to actually see the amnesty agreement. Is it publicly available. If so, where? If not, how did this guy get a copy?
"With a CD, you get about an hour worth of music (I've seen some go as low as 40 mintues), and even if you really like all the songs, it only engages your ears. Hence, on average, CDs are less entertaining."
So why does the average person watch a movie they like only once or twice, but if someone likes an album, he'll listen to it repeatedly. There is a value to music that is different from a movie. The amount of data required to reproduce it is irrelevant and claiming that lack of visual stimulation means it is less valuable is oversimplifying. It's the file sharers who are unfairly lowering the value of music by offering it to everyone for free.
Of course, people cooperate with the FSF when they threaten to sue, and it's a lie if you say they've never threatened to sue anyone. None of the 261 individuals has cared despite repeated pleas to stop sharing files and threats of lawsuits. They're getting what they deserve, just like anyone who violates the GPL and refuses to amend their ways when called on the illegal behavior deserves to be sued. You should reconsider who the guilty parties are and stop protecting them.
My understanding of VoIP is that it still requires the last mile switch solution. If AT&T uses VoIP in their backbone, it's transparent to the end user, but they're still required to be regulated. Why should a startup that uses the same network, but calls it the internet, get away without following regulations. The same rules should apply to everyone.
You apparently do understand the definition you linked to. MS negotiates contracts, they don't command armies. Comparing a company that negotiates a contract with other companies and individuals and a nation that uses force to exert its will is absurd.
"The US is not imperialist but MS certainly is"
That's a false statement if I've ever heard one. MS has never pointed a gun at anyone to force them to use their products.
Wow. 1st post I've seen from someone who actually understands the arguement. If a govt. provides a free os (which I don't think they have the right to spend taxpayer money developing), it should at least have a BSD-style license, rather than a GPL license, since GPL limits freedom with respect to BSD licenses.
You've missed the point. They're not saying OSS is "un-American". They're saying a govt. developing an OS, whether open-source or propreitary is un-American, or at least anti-capitalist, i.e. communist.
The difference is that in the cases you've cited, the US is purchasing MS software. In this instance, these Asian countries are paying to DEVELOP software. There's an incredible difference between this seemingly small distinction. The former is a govt. paying for a product. The latter is tampering with the free market, and could be defined as communism.
Microsoft's arguement is simple. It is bad policy for govts. to run businesses that compete with industry. A govt. that cares about individual rights has no business taking taxpayer money and using it to develop products that compete with industries. A govts. only job is to defend individual rights. It shouldn't be wasting taxpayer money on social engineering by messing with the free market. I certainly would object to the US govt investing in software that wasn't directly related to national security or other govt. functions. A govt developing software to compete directly with commercial software is taking a step towards communism. Let Redat, Mandrake, and free orgs. like FSF develop Linux, but don't force taxpayers to pay for it by turning it into a govt. project unless you have a really good reason. I won't even get into the practical problems of who's in charge of development when govts. get involved.
Everyone's blaming DirectTV because it's cheaper to settle the case for $3500 plus your smart card reader, than to hire a lawyer to defend yourself if you're innocent. Shouldn't we be instead placing the blame on the lawyers. There's nothing illegal about offering someone a settlement to avoid litigation, particularly when the evidence is compelling. You don't need to prove someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to file a complaint, only have some reasonable evidence. I don't consider suing someone who bought equipment advertized primarily for reprogramming DirctTV smart cards inherently wrong, because they're more than likely guilty. If they're not, they have the option to defend themselves in court. If they settle instead, that doesn't make it extortion. It's unfortunate that a reasonable settlement fee for a guilty party is less than the cost of defending yourself if you're innocent, but the lawyers are to blame for that, not DirectTV.
" The laws are also contrary to the nature of the universe. Information is easily copied. Attempting to (unenforcably) restrict the copying of information, and ignoring the benefits that mass-distribution of information can bring (especially in education and the arts) is counterproductive. Might as well try to legislate against gravity."
And it's easier to throw a brick through a window to obtain a nice computer than it is to work for a week to get the money to buy one. Do you also advocate that? Basically your arguement is for anarchy.
I think you should examine your premise that the RIAA is doing something immoral. Ask yourself these questions. Is it immoral for the FSF to sue someone for violation of GPL, which is essentially a copyright agreement? Is it immoral for someone to presecute a shoplifter? The RIAA has every right to sue copyright infringers. I doubt you can come up with a rational basis for calling the RIAA actions immoral without condemning the GPL as well as other form of abuse of property.
The average artist (that you've) never heard of) fails, and declares bankruptcy. That's about $1.5M lost by the label, using Love's numbers. Saying the label doesn't take a risk on a band is like saying a bank doesn't take a risk on a loan. And the odds of a band becoming successful, even after being signed, aren't that great.
"Yes, but when a CD is hugely successful, who reaps most of the profits, the band, or everyone else?"
Who deserves most of the profit, they guy who wrote the music, or the guy who took the risk on the guy who wrote the music. (Hint. It's not the guy who wrote the music). The risk is not pushed onto the band because they can declare bankruptcy, and the label is stuck with the bill. As for your arguement that they aren't signing of their own free will, that's silly. If it's such a great opportunity, why are they complaining after the fact. It's they're own fault if they sign a bad deal.
"Instead of an online, somewhat trackable, moderately controllable service, the RIAA is now faced with millions of teens (and pre-teens) with computers and CD burners. No single point of control, just my daughter's friend borrowing her CD so she can rip a copy."
You make the probably false assumption that cracking down on p2p caused cd burners to become more popular. I submit that cd burners would have caught on anyway, with or without p2p. Don't confuse coincidence with cause/effect.
How do you explain why concert ticket sales are up if a bad economy is the reason for lower cd sales? Also, do you boycott stores that prosecute shop lifters?
from the article: "Meanwhile, he noted record stores report that blank recordable CDs are outselling recorded CDs, a trend that shows computer users are not only downloading songs, but copying and burning CDs."
So it appears the the rise of the CD-recorder is the real culprit for lost cd sales. This has always been the nightmare of the RIAA, long before napster. Digital copies can be recopied without loss of quality, so stolen music can spread like a virus. I don't believe all the cdr are being bought to back up data, so don't bother replying with that excuse. That's as bad as the excuse that a bad economy is causing lower cd sales (which doesn't correlate with rise in concert ticket sales over the same period of time). So, increased decline in cd sales is not a protest against RIAA prosecution of file sharers, but instead a result of cd-recorders becoming for widespread.