At this point, better only for the consumer shouldn't be a stretch. Don't forget that the original argument for copyright is to maximize the value of the public domain. By encouraging authors to produce works that will later enter the public domain and benefit everyone, that is. From the current state of the laws, we could back all the way out to registered copyrights with one extension and your argument is still valid, but just as irrelevant.
I understand the original reason for copyright. My
point is that if there is no possibility of making
money creating content then fewer people will
create content. Many valuable works of art,
literature and film would never have been produced
without a profit motive.
As I've stated before I recognize that there are
many problems with modern US copyright, but
abolishing copyright or making unauthorized copies
is not the answer.
Well, as it is the public that is sacrificing something in order to grant a copyright to begin with, it doesn't seem inappropriate for them to be the only people that count.
The public is granting the right to control
a creative work for some period of time. This
gives the creator a chance to make some money,
gives the public the chance to enjoy the work,
and gives the public complete control of the
work when copyright expires. That seems like a
good basis for a fair system.
If you take the period of control away from the
creator then the system is no longer fair, the
public is granting nothing to the creator.
However, you're underestimating what the public wants. Essentially there are two goals. First, the public wants works created. Original and derivative works. Second, the public wants to use them. And not to merely use them, but to be able to get them for free, copy them, change them, distribute them, base derivative works upon them, etc.
The existence of copyright does not prevent people
from releasing their work directly into the public
domain. These two goals could be fulfilled with
public domain works, but the public seems to have
a preference for professional works produced with
the expectation of payment.
I recognize that there are many issues with the
current infinite copyright, restricts on
fan fiction, restrictions on media transfer, etc.
But I don't think removing copyright is ever going
to happen or that it would even be a good idea.
First, that if the public isn't doing better than they otherwise would be, why should they have that copyright system? Shouldn't they change it to something that better suits them?
The "something better" being advocated here is
better only for the consumer.
There are two particapants in this transaction,
the consumer is happy to get something for free,
but the producer has no incentive to create
anything (or share it if he did).
So if everyone really does feel that it's okay to copy creative works and not pay for them under some circumstances -- and we realize that this will have certain consequences and we're alright with that -- then perhaps we ought to do that.
The problem is that there is nothing more than a
desire to get something of value for free on the
part of the consumer in this case. This is not
making a back up copy, or lending a movie to a
friend, this is you renting the right to view a
movie for 48 hours and cheating. The author (or
owner) of the creative work is not paid what he
is owed.
Am I the only one who thinks there is something just a little cracked in the general conscience?
Nope, I'm baffled by how acceptable theft has
become. I know the big media companies are bad
and want to restrict our rights, but that does
not justify consuming their product and not paying
for it.
The attitude of "if I can get away with it
then I should do it" seems to be everywhere.
You think the corporations aren't going to get ahold of that data? You know they're just drooling at the concept of it -- full-time, high-resolution demographic data recording, as good as having us radio collared like bears.
We'll be forced to live
like wild animals in some kind of police state!
-Phil Hartman as Bill McNeal
I only give good info to my bank, insurance company,
employer and the government.
Anyone else? I Lie. Sometimes I'm a yak herder with
a yearly income of ~$6000, other times I'm a
"Decision Maker" with a yearly income of $800k+.
I used to get frustrated and angry when asked for
personal info. Now I wind up happy because I'm
stickin' it to
the man, and the shlub collecting my info is happy
because he didn't get called a nosy fuckhead by an
irate stranger.
I wish Sony would just go away--I've never owned a Sony produt that didn't have QC issues.
I never had a PS2 game crash. I have several XBox
games that crash on a fairly regular basis. I've
talked to several other people with the same sort
of issues.
That said, I hope this handheld does not have
the disk read problems that the PS2 develops after
a couple years - which is likely the quality
problem that the AC is talking about.
The problem i have is with wi-fi...its like having one big hub...so peope can sniff the tcp packet header, get the flags off your wi-fi card that go over tcp (ie MAC Address) and spoof themselves as you...and the radius server often thinks the machine is already authenticated, because they really already have authenticated.
If your NAS and client supports it you might use
EAP to negotiate a session key for use with TLS.
An attacker could possibly still masquerade as an
authenticated session, but be unable to do
anything.
Not sure what kind of NAS, proxies, link-layer
(I'm assuming PPOE), or user-clients you are
using, but it sounds like an interesting project -
good luck.
1. Forget about WEP
2. Set up a radius server
3. tunnel trafic through ssh (as you mentioned)
This is similar to what T-Mobile does for auth
currently.
The problem is that standard RADIUS lacks many of
the capabilities needed for this environment. Once
a reseller market (like the dialup market)
develops things will get even hairier.
I have the feeling that public pay-for-access
wireless may
actually lead to some of the first real life
diameter deployments.
"As much as"? So the guy makes a maximum of 52k
a year (if you believe a piece of human refuse
like a spammer). Sounds like a lot of work just
to make middle class wages.
well I've seen 10 people get axed since I have been with the company and I'm still standing and from speaking to the our director it is not gonna happen. Of course, he could be lying but then again he hired me on the spot after interviewing with him for an hour.
He's telling the truth as far as that goes. If
you commit to something that can't be done he will
turn on you. "Golden Boys" tarnish easily.
Operator overloading is ammunition for the inexperienced to do something that looks cool but is actually extraordinarily unwise.
I attribute this mostly bad teaching examples,
and lack of experience.
One of the most important things to realize about
programming in C++ is that you must learn how the
features work. I personally don't use op
overloading unless there is an "obvious and
expected behaviour" to be implemented.
Const and const correct sound good until you inform the newbie of the mutable keyword and later find that you don't have const methods after all.
By using 'const' you have made a contract
regarding the visible state of an object.
'mutable' is a statement that you are allowed to
violate the letter, but not the spirit of that
contract wrt a single member. No black magic
there.
Templates are similarly powerful/risky. Java will get them in 1.5, but the issues around their effective use are legion.
There is definitely some tricky stuff in the
standard re templates, and every vendor implements
those parts differently. I've put off using
templates in portable code for at least another
6 months.
Using threads in C++ is akin to a black art. I used to literally start any discussion of C++ threads by drawing a pentagram on the whiteboard to remind everyone in the room that we were about to descend into the depths of the various C++ threading models.
Threads are tough in any lanuage, but Java's
portability is a nice change.
Dealing with other people's screwed up multiply inherited class structures was the only time in my life I've had migraine headaches
Those people are wrong. MI is very rarely
justified.
How about syntax-dependent semantics for the static keyword?
I chalk this up to a strong desire to avoid adding
keywords, every new keyword causes problems with
old code. Also, the different meanings of 'static'
are not likely to cause confusion in real code.
And though I tend to prefer the more explicit hpp/cpp interface/implementation separation, method inlining manages to ruin it right away (without any known benefit since the compiler will inline or not without your hint). Also, do I really need to type so much to get the hpp/cpp separation to work?
and it can cause problems in shared libs
(in addition to those brought on if you use
templates). I pretty much agree here, leave
'inline'
to the compiler.
You've still got the C-preprocessor. Have you ever seen how much damage someone can do to code readability with the C-preprocessor? It's worth it to move to Java just to avoid dealing with cpp.
I wouldn't go that far, but I do hate dealing
with cpp damgage. cpp macros should be prefixed
and used sparingly (to do things the compiler
cannot).
Portability. Java isn't really 100% portable either, so I'm not going to make that claim. But unless you're able to stick to gcc, porting a C++ app to another system is agonizingly difficult unless you're a guru on both systems. Even then, I'd probably get a whole chicken just to make sure
But you can often be "portable enough".
C++ has plenty of problems, but Java will not
replace it for many applications that have limited
portability requirements and need very high
performance. The fact that C++ is not especially
easy to use will not change that.
My main comlpaint with Java is a specific
attitude: "If one level of abstraction is good,
then 10 must be even better". This can cause more
of a portability headache than overuse of #ifdef.
A careful C++ programmer will often move
portability problems to a single module, and
require a new version of that module for new
systems. This acknowledges and deals with the
problem, rather than adding additional translation
layers that can kill performance or
lead to programmers
using non-standard hacks to avoid those
performance problems (or vendors adding
non-standard extensions for the same reason).
I'm curious whether you have any first-hand experience with these so-called HTML-monkeys making 100K+.
Not html guys, but I did run into quite a few
"senior architects" and "senior designers" who
made 120k+ and were completely useless,
hand-waving monkeys (their primary skills were in
drawing UML diagram of unworkable architectures
that ignored the messy details that exist in real
systems and talking really loud).
I used to run into web guys all the time who
claimed to be making that much, but had no way to
know if they were telling the truth.
All large organizations
have hordes of lawyers for
offense and defense, it is a cost of doing
business.
A larger (somewhat related) problem is how much
money companies pay for advertising.
I'd like to see some sort of requirement for
companies to meet a minimum spending
ratio on how much they pay for quality assurance
versus how much they pay for adversting.
Service companies should have a similar limit on
money spent on advertising versus money spent for
supporting the customers they already have.
The problem is that in both software and service
we often have limited choices, so poor quality and
bad service don't have a negative effect on
profit - which is the only thing (baring
legislation) that would cause companies to change
their behaviour.
More careful readers noticed that this collection of rants arose from people who came to UNIX from other, less familiar, more robust platforms, and who were frustrated by what struck them in comparison as obvious omissions and limitations.
I don't think it requires a careful reading to
realize that a book in which the forward refers
to the authors as a "rock throwing rabble" is not
meant to be taken at face value.
Well goverment... write Theo a check.... and pave my street... You are not the Goverment you elect officials!! The US Goverment is a REPUBLIC !!! please return to GOV 101
If your local government does not pave your
street with the taxes you pay, then you are
justified in complaining.
If research funds don't go to beneficial
projects with a proven track record, then we have
a right to complain.
Slashdot Mirror
I understand the original reason for copyright. My point is that if there is no possibility of making money creating content then fewer people will create content. Many valuable works of art, literature and film would never have been produced without a profit motive.
As I've stated before I recognize that there are many problems with modern US copyright, but abolishing copyright or making unauthorized copies is not the answer.
The public is granting the right to control a creative work for some period of time. This gives the creator a chance to make some money, gives the public the chance to enjoy the work, and gives the public complete control of the work when copyright expires. That seems like a good basis for a fair system.
If you take the period of control away from the creator then the system is no longer fair, the public is granting nothing to the creator.
However, you're underestimating what the public wants. Essentially there are two goals. First, the public wants works created. Original and derivative works. Second, the public wants to use them. And not to merely use them, but to be able to get them for free, copy them, change them, distribute them, base derivative works upon them, etc.
The existence of copyright does not prevent people from releasing their work directly into the public domain. These two goals could be fulfilled with public domain works, but the public seems to have a preference for professional works produced with the expectation of payment.
I recognize that there are many issues with the current infinite copyright, restricts on fan fiction, restrictions on media transfer, etc. But I don't think removing copyright is ever going to happen or that it would even be a good idea.
The "something better" being advocated here is better only for the consumer. There are two particapants in this transaction, the consumer is happy to get something for free, but the producer has no incentive to create anything (or share it if he did).
So if everyone really does feel that it's okay to copy creative works and not pay for them under some circumstances -- and we realize that this will have certain consequences and we're alright with that -- then perhaps we ought to do that.
The problem is that there is nothing more than a desire to get something of value for free on the part of the consumer in this case. This is not making a back up copy, or lending a movie to a friend, this is you renting the right to view a movie for 48 hours and cheating. The author (or owner) of the creative work is not paid what he is owed.
How is that anything other than theft?
Nope, I'm baffled by how acceptable theft has become. I know the big media companies are bad and want to restrict our rights, but that does not justify consuming their product and not paying for it.
The attitude of "if I can get away with it then I should do it" seems to be everywhere.
We'll be forced to live like wild animals in some kind of police state!
-Phil Hartman as Bill McNeal
Anyone else? I Lie. Sometimes I'm a yak herder with a yearly income of ~$6000, other times I'm a "Decision Maker" with a yearly income of $800k+.
I used to get frustrated and angry when asked for personal info. Now I wind up happy because I'm stickin' it to the man, and the shlub collecting my info is happy because he didn't get called a nosy fuckhead by an irate stranger.
I never had a PS2 game crash. I have several XBox games that crash on a fairly regular basis. I've talked to several other people with the same sort of issues.
That said, I hope this handheld does not have the disk read problems that the PS2 develops after a couple years - which is likely the quality problem that the AC is talking about.
Nice.
Hmm, can your theory explain "Nightcaster II"?
If your NAS and client supports it you might use EAP to negotiate a session key for use with TLS. An attacker could possibly still masquerade as an authenticated session, but be unable to do anything.
Not sure what kind of NAS, proxies, link-layer (I'm assuming PPOE), or user-clients you are using, but it sounds like an interesting project - good luck.
2. Set up a radius server
3. tunnel trafic through ssh (as you mentioned)
This is similar to what T-Mobile does for auth currently. The problem is that standard RADIUS lacks many of the capabilities needed for this environment. Once a reseller market (like the dialup market) develops things will get even hairier.
I have the feeling that public pay-for-access wireless may actually lead to some of the first real life diameter deployments.
"As much as"? So the guy makes a maximum of 52k a year (if you believe a piece of human refuse like a spammer). Sounds like a lot of work just to make middle class wages.
"Aristoi"
"Hardwired"
"Angel Station"
"Voice of the Whirlwind"
"Facets", short story collection
I think all of these have gone out of print now.
He's telling the truth as far as that goes. If you commit to something that can't be done he will turn on you. "Golden Boys" tarnish easily.
Performance science? Art experiment?
Not at all, the barriers will mostly be legal.
I see that the hiring manager used to do maintenance programming.
I attribute this mostly bad teaching examples, and lack of experience. One of the most important things to realize about programming in C++ is that you must learn how the features work. I personally don't use op overloading unless there is an "obvious and expected behaviour" to be implemented.
Const and const correct sound good until you inform the newbie of the mutable keyword and later find that you don't have const methods after all.
By using 'const' you have made a contract regarding the visible state of an object. 'mutable' is a statement that you are allowed to violate the letter, but not the spirit of that contract wrt a single member. No black magic there.
Templates are similarly powerful/risky. Java will get them in 1.5, but the issues around their effective use are legion.
There is definitely some tricky stuff in the standard re templates, and every vendor implements those parts differently. I've put off using templates in portable code for at least another 6 months.
Using threads in C++ is akin to a black art. I used to literally start any discussion of C++ threads by drawing a pentagram on the whiteboard to remind everyone in the room that we were about to descend into the depths of the various C++ threading models.
Threads are tough in any lanuage, but Java's portability is a nice change.
Dealing with other people's screwed up multiply inherited class structures was the only time in my life I've had migraine headaches
Those people are wrong. MI is very rarely justified.
How about syntax-dependent semantics for the static keyword?
I chalk this up to a strong desire to avoid adding keywords, every new keyword causes problems with old code. Also, the different meanings of 'static' are not likely to cause confusion in real code.
And though I tend to prefer the more explicit hpp/cpp interface/implementation separation, method inlining manages to ruin it right away (without any known benefit since the compiler will inline or not without your hint). Also, do I really need to type so much to get the hpp/cpp separation to work?
and it can cause problems in shared libs (in addition to those brought on if you use templates). I pretty much agree here, leave 'inline' to the compiler.
You've still got the C-preprocessor. Have you ever seen how much damage someone can do to code readability with the C-preprocessor? It's worth it to move to Java just to avoid dealing with cpp.
I wouldn't go that far, but I do hate dealing with cpp damgage. cpp macros should be prefixed and used sparingly (to do things the compiler cannot).
Portability. Java isn't really 100% portable either, so I'm not going to make that claim. But unless you're able to stick to gcc, porting a C++ app to another system is agonizingly difficult unless you're a guru on both systems. Even then, I'd probably get a whole chicken just to make sure
But you can often be "portable enough".
C++ has plenty of problems, but Java will not replace it for many applications that have limited portability requirements and need very high performance. The fact that C++ is not especially easy to use will not change that.
My main comlpaint with Java is a specific attitude: "If one level of abstraction is good, then 10 must be even better". This can cause more of a portability headache than overuse of #ifdef. A careful C++ programmer will often move portability problems to a single module, and require a new version of that module for new systems. This acknowledges and deals with the problem, rather than adding additional translation layers that can kill performance or lead to programmers using non-standard hacks to avoid those performance problems (or vendors adding non-standard extensions for the same reason).
Taibo dude, before it is too late.
Not html guys, but I did run into quite a few "senior architects" and "senior designers" who made 120k+ and were completely useless, hand-waving monkeys (their primary skills were in drawing UML diagram of unworkable architectures that ignored the messy details that exist in real systems and talking really loud).
I used to run into web guys all the time who claimed to be making that much, but had no way to know if they were telling the truth.
Same reason there will never be a "World's Kindest Man" competition.
All large organizations have hordes of lawyers for offense and defense, it is a cost of doing business. A larger (somewhat related) problem is how much money companies pay for advertising.
I'd like to see some sort of requirement for companies to meet a minimum spending ratio on how much they pay for quality assurance versus how much they pay for adversting. Service companies should have a similar limit on money spent on advertising versus money spent for supporting the customers they already have.
The problem is that in both software and service we often have limited choices, so poor quality and bad service don't have a negative effect on profit - which is the only thing (baring legislation) that would cause companies to change their behaviour.
I don't think it requires a careful reading to realize that a book in which the forward refers to the authors as a "rock throwing rabble" is not meant to be taken at face value.
If your local government does not pave your street with the taxes you pay, then you are justified in complaining.
If research funds don't go to beneficial projects with a proven track record, then we have a right to complain.