But that's true of,say, unix 'root' vs Vax VMS 'superuser'. Root doesn't map directly to the equivalent on any non-unix OS.
I hate to sound rude, but what's the point?
There isn't a "root-class" exploit in Windows, but there are exploits that allow system-level priviledges to be assigned to a remote user (localsystem account is different than administrator or domain administrator), there are exploits that allow administrator priviledges to be assigned to an intruder (administrator is different than localsystem and domain administrator) and there are exploits---well, you get my point.
but there's no "root-class" exploit.
On a UNIX box there are still several different subclasses of "root-class" exploit, and if you want to badly enough you can bundle the 3 accounts I mentioned as well as a few other groups in windows and call it "root-class", but it's still not the same.
If I crack into a UNIX host and root it, I now have complete and total power over the machine, because I am root. If I crack into a Windows box, in order to establish complete and total power over the machine I have to gain LocalSystem and Administrator priviledges both (The main difference is that Administrator usually can't run as service while LocalSystem can--needed for trojans to do anything really useful). On the domain level the differences become more sincere.
When Verisign signs something (after the developer has paid them), the binary is certified as being the binary that they reviewed. But they don't actually review it, as far as I know. BUT, when your stupid IE tells you that something is signed, that means that the binary you are receiving is exactly the same as the binary verisign received. But this fact does NOT certify that the developer didn't program in vulnerabilities either intentionally or unintentionally.
Unfortunately, MS' website doesn't seem to say much about what WHQL actually does. Further investigation on that website seems to reveal that the signature only means that a driver is "compatible" with a Windows release, and that not installing unsigned drivers "may prevent problems such as... system instability". So, in the end, signed drivers are compatible with Windows and should be more stable than the unsigned. Oh, and that this copy is unmodified from the copy WHQL got. It seems Microsoft doesn't read too much into what its signing policy means for driver quality beyond "does it install, and will it crash?"...
Microsoft hasn't exactly been in the business of certifying that stuff is secure. It's just like your car dealer selling you a car with an alarm system, automatic locks, etc, but saying "You might still get robbed."
Now, personally, I don't think Microsoft should be held responsible if they certify a driver as stable on their system and it turns out to have vulnerabilities. Furthermore, I don't think Microsoft should be held responsible for their architecture lacking certain secure characteristics.
HOWEVER
The dialog that displays when you install a driver leads the user to believe that the driver being installed is both stable and secure (I don't recall the exact wording, since it's been so long since I've used Windows). Furthermore, the dialog for ActiveX installation does the same thing AND tells you that if "an Authority" hasn't certified the control, then it may compromise your system. Furthermore, it says something about if you install a control that's not safe for scripting, then your system may be compromised.
The driver scenario is similar still. First, when it's signed all that means is that what Microsoft has on their server that they're sending to you and what you receive is the SAME THING. In OSS, of course, we just provide checksums. When you apply this "signing" to an activex control, you're only really getting a signature that says that the download you made was not modified IN TRANSIT. You don't always know if the developer signs shit or not, and there's plenty of useful activex controls that aren't signed. Furthermore, signing it according to Microsoft and Verisign (the Authority mentioned) only costs money. That's it. Just pay a fee.
As for safe for scripting, well, the developer of the control decides that.
So, the bottom line is, regardless of where you get the driver or the activex control, it's still the DEVELOPER or the COMPANY MAKING THE DRIVER that you are trusting with your system. Considering that you trusted them enough to put their hardware in your computer in the first place, you're in something of a rut. And Microsoft's misleading dialogs do a great deal to improve your own position, because you can say "I was duped into thinking it was safe for my kids!".
The wording of the dialog reads to me the same as the words on the game that says "Ages 7+". So my 4-year-old might get hurt by things that would be obviously stupid to the average 7-year old, but the average 7-year-old wont' get hurt by things that are obviously stupid (about the toy, of course).
Now please, show me some (complete) sample code from any company that I *can't* rip apart for flaws.
#include "stdio.h"
int main(void) { printf("Hello, World!\n"); }
This sample code is pulled from any company's literature that describes basic structure of a C/C++ application. (Ok, not all C++ books include this exact code, but I've seen it in a few of them)
Somehow I have a feeling that you're aware that an administrator in Windows doesn't map directly to root on real OSs. For one thing, ANYONE can be an administrator. Now, I know you can make root of regular users, but typically you don't. If someone actually is an administrator on the network, he doesn't use a root-level account as his normal, everyday, email-reading and web-surfing account. However, on a Windows network, it's quite common to give an everyday email-reading web-surfing account administrative priviledges, or some portion thereof.
The "role" is the same, for the most part, and has varying degrees of delegation, but the "implementation" is different.
I decided to go ahead and make a system-wide menu item for the K menu that contains "mplayer -dvd 1 -zoom -framedrop -alang en" and add it to the panel. Since 99% of the time I'll be playing the first track anyway, this is an acceptable compromise, although not a perfect solution.
Also, in ~/.kde/share/mimelnk are all the files that contain the filetype associations. I'm considering centrally locating them, chowning them to root and making them a+r-w so that they can't be accidentally changed, and then just putting symlinks to the central configuration. I don't understand why the default for these things are per user config, but when I do understand I will make my decision about centrally locating it.:)
Other than that, I am well pleased with the result. I had forgotten (?!) that you can do this. Thank you for mentioning it to me.:)
Because it's often true, especially for remote-root class exploits
there aren't any "root" class exploits, since there's no "root" user in Windows.
Because it gets a rise from their audience
Sensationalism at its best, but not journalism of any sort.
Because the editors are too outright lazy toi actually spend 30 seconds with Google, CERT etc checking
Do they actually read the stories before posting the link, or do they depend on the synopsis of the story before making the decision to post it? There's a great deal of potential exploit of slashdot if they depend on the synopsis, the sort of exploit they criticize windows for.
On top of this, and everybody seems to be ignoring this basic fact, but after you get up to 18 bytes of information out of an ethernet packet, you *still* have to chain enough of these together to be a useful chunk of data. The problem drops significantly when you add more machines to the network, because it gets steadily harder and harder to put them together in order from the same machine. (Yeah, I know, you can use the mac or IP address to chain them together, but ethernet allows out-of-order packet delivery)
Ok, I went ahead and set it up to open mplayer for all mpeg and avi files, and I created a button on the panel that plays dvd track 1. I figure that if I really wanna get anal about watching other tracks I can still open a command line.
I'll run it for myself for awhile and see how well it works.:) If it works well, then I'll set it up that way for my wife. It would be nice to be able to provide a file to mplayerhq that a user can download and it'll make these settings for him. I don't know enough about KDE to provide this file for them, (a shell script or a brief program to run while make installing may be needed for all I know) but as soon as I do, I'll "make it so.":)
A fine solution for most file types, and I will pursue it;). However, I don't see how it solves the dvd problem, which still requires a long command line:
mplayer -dvd 1 -framedrop -fs -zoom
Lately I've dropped the -fs option because it's quicker to wait until the mplayer window appears and hit "f".
Anyway, I can't setup Konqueror to just use mplayer to play every dvd when I click on the dvd, because then it would prevent me from reading data discs, right? I suppose I could make a panel button that just played the first track of the dvd, but what about for multiple track dvds?
Maybe I'll be able to quit using xine, though, which would be nice. I like it a lot, but mplayer kicks the ass out of xine, and I don't need the gui part of xine.
Ook, that's a troll. I haven't used XP because I refuse to install an OS where I have to call someone's tech department and ask for permission before I install it.
It's the little things they do that really piss me off.
However, I'd like to agree with the spirit of your post. I personally switched to GNU/Linux because I was sick of clicking OK buttons in Windows and then having to reboot. I only reboot my computers now when a breaker blows, and instead of a long series of stupid fucking OK dialogs I get a single dialog that says "If you think you're qualified to do this to your computer, you know the ROOT PASSWORD:".
All the stress, the frustration, the headaches of Windows just fell away and I felt myself becoming empowered to do exactly what I wanted, when I wanted.
Freedom is a beautiful thing, often not missed when it's not known to be missing.
So the laws of supply and demand no longer apply to the marketplace? Is that what you're saying?
Forgive me for putting words into your fingers, but as long as GNU/Linux grows on the desktop WITHOUT proprietary formats, we have a chance to defeat them. Completely. Reason is: If they will only supply something, and we don't demand, we will NOT pay for it. Sooner or later they have to come to us with what we want, or go out of business.
This doesn't even require massive adoption of GNU/Linux. We probably only need about 1/3 of the market, which is an attainable goal in the next 5 years (I don't htink I'm being optimistic, but you might think I am). We're a "growth market" for them now, if they're willing to grow this direction, which they're not.
However, when the GNU/Linux (and free OS market in general) market gets big enough, they'll either have to just make less money (unacceptable, this is a proven fact but I won't cite 'cause I don't expect disagreement) or make their content available in the "new growth market". As long as we stick to our guns (ain't nobody gonna hurt you baby) and demand open standards, then we will win.
Freedom and responsibility go hand in hand, you can't have one without the other. Removing guns from the market will not stop people from hurting their feet.
Putting Microsoft on a GNU/Linux platform isn't all bad, but it's not strictly a good thing, either. The original poster said "You don't like MS, don't install the software". They got their monopoly because people installed the software. They got it by forcing people to install the software. They are working on schemes to CONTINUE FORCING PEOPLE to install their software.
Why should we think their approach to GNU/Linux software is going to be any different? First it was "You want to use our stuff, you have to use our OS". What's next? The solution is to not use their stuff, and if you feel inconvenienced by it then tough shit. Ask a heroin addict how much of an inconvenience withdrawal is. Then, after they OD, ask them if it was worth the convenience.
I'll try again. I'd like to point out that Konqueror is a piece of crap. Heh.
Oh fuck, nevermind. Konqueror won't clear out its clipboard and put new shit in it. If KDE's supposed to act just like Windows, then why won't it copyNpaste in a predictable fashion?
So, my last reply included text NOT from your post that was intended to be from your post.
Too obvious. Sorry dude, I'm half-trolling right now, and half-serious.
Why not? Isn't the purpose of copyright to create a (monopoly) market for the holder? What does it matter to him whether you charged or not? You still used his own work to "compete" with him.
How would your RENTing dvds affect blockbuster's SALES? Sales != rent, especially when it comes to revenue streams.
Why not? Isn't the purpose of copyright to create a (monopoly) market for the holder? What does it matter to him whether you charged or not? You still used his own work to "compete" with him.
Besides the fact that another poster brought up something I don't know about that could potentially defeat my entire position, I will continue to defend my position.:) (haven't looked up what he said yet)
The purpose of copyright is to balance an "artist's" ability to capitalize on his work (and I use the term artist loosely) and the public's right to use his work. That's where "fair use" comes into play.
On EVERY CD that you purchase, it says "Unauthorized duplication, lending, public performance..." etc. HOWEVER, you ARE allowed to lend it to your friend, and he can listen to it. Same with books, vhs and dvds, etc. Once upon a time, it was the same with software even!
The thing is, now people are accepting the idea that copyright provides a monopoly for the holder, and that it's his and only his right to say what can and can't be done with the material. While the more people accept this idea the more it becomes law (regardless of how it's legislated), it's complete and utter bullshit.
The reason it's bullshit is for all the reasons the EFF has been fighting to restore the balance to copyright law. It stifles innovation and competition in the marketplace.
Now, IMHO (which wasn't asked for:) ) I'd like to do away with intellectual property law completely for awhile and see how that works. I don't claim it'll work better or worse, but then I'd like to introduce a law that says "You can't use someone else's material and claim it's yours" and see how well that works.
Also, with the advent of digital filesharing, the concept of lending isn't nearly as black and white as it used to be. I could load you a CD, but while you had it I couldn't listen to it (except that I probably would have a copy on tape, because back in the days I had a tape copy of all of my CDs that was usually made before I bought the CD). Nowadays, I can give you the whole CD, or at least the content of the CD, without any loss to me personally.
But I digress. The point is, copyright law was never intended to provide a monopoly for anybody, it was only intended to protect for a time the creator's right to make money off his own work.
First I fire up Xine, because it's convenient. If Xine chokes, I open up a shell and throw mplayer at it. If mplayer chokes, well, I don't know what I'll do because that hasn't happened yet.
MPlayer reads all formats, including Quicktime Sorenson 1 and 3, RealVideo, all Windows Media Player formats (WMV 1, 2 and 3) and does not cost anything !
MPlayer rocks! Now if only they'll give us a GUI that isn't more draining on CPU and memory than the player itself, maybe my wife could use it!
I say that, but just for all you geeks out there, not only is she big-boobed and pretty, but she also opens up konsole to watch dvds!
I use mozilla too and have it configured for google seach, but the search button is too far away to be useful. What I ment was having a whole link system, where you can click on a hyperlink that is a standard for google search. Like:
I know that's what you meant, but it would not be an open standard. I mean, the link itself would be part of an open standard, but it would depend on Google's proprietary search technology.
Now, if it was just a "search://In Soviet Russia" deal, it would be different, but then your end-users would expect drastically different results based on what they configured to use as their search protocol.
On the other hand, while the search button itself is too far to click, and in fact grabbing the mouse and moving it to click on a button after you type in your search terms is a pain, there is the other option, which is what I use most. When you start typing something into the URL bar, you usually get a combobox widget containing your history (also called the "history bar"). You can use your arrow keys to navigate down to a choice below urls that is a search choice. I realize this is a feature that can be turned off, but I find it extremely useful.
Admittedly, the solution we have isn't as good as a link you can just click on a page, but what you're talking about is a shorthand for "http://www.google.com/search?q=in+soviet+russia".
There's still another option, though. But it may require several additions to the standard.
First, a search attribute, such as:
<a href="search://in soviet russia" engine="www.google.com">Russian Google Search</a>
Second, more attribute choices for the link tag, that would define a search engine for the entire page.
Finally, a meta tag for the entire site that would define a search engine to use for the search protocol. Since this would have to be used on every page on account of the webmaster never knowing what page a visitor will enter the site, then this will be a fairly useless tag, actually.
Slashdot Mirror
crap, I"ll have to check the stupid printf prototype now. Ok, I'll just ask. what's the printf prototype? :) Or rather, what type does it return?
Although I've never heard of stdout not being writable...
But that's true of ,say, unix 'root' vs Vax VMS 'superuser'. Root doesn't map directly to the equivalent on any non-unix OS.
I hate to sound rude, but what's the point?
There isn't a "root-class" exploit in Windows, but there are exploits that allow system-level priviledges to be assigned to a remote user (localsystem account is different than administrator or domain administrator), there are exploits that allow administrator priviledges to be assigned to an intruder (administrator is different than localsystem and domain administrator) and there are exploits---well, you get my point.
but there's no "root-class" exploit.
On a UNIX box there are still several different subclasses of "root-class" exploit, and if you want to badly enough you can bundle the 3 accounts I mentioned as well as a few other groups in windows and call it "root-class", but it's still not the same.
If I crack into a UNIX host and root it, I now have complete and total power over the machine, because I am root. If I crack into a Windows box, in order to establish complete and total power over the machine I have to gain LocalSystem and Administrator priviledges both (The main difference is that Administrator usually can't run as service while LocalSystem can--needed for trojans to do anything really useful). On the domain level the differences become more sincere.
I realize I was nitpicking to begin with. :)
Crap, I forgot to mention something.
When Verisign signs something (after the developer has paid them), the binary is certified as being the binary that they reviewed. But they don't actually review it, as far as I know. BUT, when your stupid IE tells you that something is signed, that means that the binary you are receiving is exactly the same as the binary verisign received. But this fact does NOT certify that the developer didn't program in vulnerabilities either intentionally or unintentionally.
Unfortunately, MS' website doesn't seem to say much about what WHQL actually does. Further investigation on that website seems to reveal that the signature only means that a driver is "compatible" with a Windows release, and that not installing unsigned drivers "may prevent problems such as ... system instability". So, in the end, signed drivers are compatible with Windows and should be more stable than the unsigned. Oh, and that this copy is unmodified from the copy WHQL got. It seems Microsoft doesn't read too much into what its signing policy means for driver quality beyond "does it install, and will it crash?" ...
Microsoft hasn't exactly been in the business of certifying that stuff is secure. It's just like your car dealer selling you a car with an alarm system, automatic locks, etc, but saying "You might still get robbed."
Now, personally, I don't think Microsoft should be held responsible if they certify a driver as stable on their system and it turns out to have vulnerabilities. Furthermore, I don't think Microsoft should be held responsible for their architecture lacking certain secure characteristics.
HOWEVER
The dialog that displays when you install a driver leads the user to believe that the driver being installed is both stable and secure (I don't recall the exact wording, since it's been so long since I've used Windows). Furthermore, the dialog for ActiveX installation does the same thing AND tells you that if "an Authority" hasn't certified the control, then it may compromise your system. Furthermore, it says something about if you install a control that's not safe for scripting, then your system may be compromised.
The driver scenario is similar still. First, when it's signed all that means is that what Microsoft has on their server that they're sending to you and what you receive is the SAME THING. In OSS, of course, we just provide checksums. When you apply this "signing" to an activex control, you're only really getting a signature that says that the download you made was not modified IN TRANSIT. You don't always know if the developer signs shit or not, and there's plenty of useful activex controls that aren't signed. Furthermore, signing it according to Microsoft and Verisign (the Authority mentioned) only costs money. That's it. Just pay a fee.
As for safe for scripting, well, the developer of the control decides that.
So, the bottom line is, regardless of where you get the driver or the activex control, it's still the DEVELOPER or the COMPANY MAKING THE DRIVER that you are trusting with your system. Considering that you trusted them enough to put their hardware in your computer in the first place, you're in something of a rut. And Microsoft's misleading dialogs do a great deal to improve your own position, because you can say "I was duped into thinking it was safe for my kids!".
The wording of the dialog reads to me the same as the words on the game that says "Ages 7+". So my 4-year-old might get hurt by things that would be obviously stupid to the average 7-year old, but the average 7-year-old wont' get hurt by things that are obviously stupid (about the toy, of course).
This sample code is pulled from any company's literature that describes basic structure of a C/C++ application. (Ok, not all C++ books include this exact code, but I've seen it in a few of them)
Yes there is. It's called "administrator".
Somehow I have a feeling that you're aware that an administrator in Windows doesn't map directly to root on real OSs. For one thing, ANYONE can be an administrator. Now, I know you can make root of regular users, but typically you don't. If someone actually is an administrator on the network, he doesn't use a root-level account as his normal, everyday, email-reading and web-surfing account. However, on a Windows network, it's quite common to give an everyday email-reading web-surfing account administrative priviledges, or some portion thereof.
The "role" is the same, for the most part, and has varying degrees of delegation, but the "implementation" is different.
I decided to go ahead and make a system-wide menu item for the K menu that contains "mplayer -dvd 1 -zoom -framedrop -alang en" and add it to the panel. Since 99% of the time I'll be playing the first track anyway, this is an acceptable compromise, although not a perfect solution.
Also, in ~/.kde/share/mimelnk are all the files that contain the filetype associations. I'm considering centrally locating them, chowning them to root and making them a+r-w so that they can't be accidentally changed, and then just putting symlinks to the central configuration. I don't understand why the default for these things are per user config, but when I do understand I will make my decision about centrally locating it. :)
Other than that, I am well pleased with the result. I had forgotten (?!) that you can do this. Thank you for mentioning it to me. :)
On top of this, and everybody seems to be ignoring this basic fact, but after you get up to 18 bytes of information out of an ethernet packet, you *still* have to chain enough of these together to be a useful chunk of data. The problem drops significantly when you add more machines to the network, because it gets steadily harder and harder to put them together in order from the same machine. (Yeah, I know, you can use the mac or IP address to chain them together, but ethernet allows out-of-order packet delivery)
Be nice to us and we'll be nice to you.
If I remember my childhood and early adulthood correctly, people have never been nice to geeks. Should we hold a grudge?
Ok, I went ahead and set it up to open mplayer for all mpeg and avi files, and I created a button on the panel that plays dvd track 1. I figure that if I really wanna get anal about watching other tracks I can still open a command line.
I'll run it for myself for awhile and see how well it works. :) If it works well, then I'll set it up that way for my wife. It would be nice to be able to provide a file to mplayerhq that a user can download and it'll make these settings for him. I don't know enough about KDE to provide this file for them, (a shell script or a brief program to run while make installing may be needed for all I know) but as soon as I do, I'll "make it so." :)
A fine solution for most file types, and I will pursue it ;). However, I don't see how it solves the dvd problem, which still requires a long command line:
mplayer -dvd 1 -framedrop -fs -zoom
Lately I've dropped the -fs option because it's quicker to wait until the mplayer window appears and hit "f".
Anyway, I can't setup Konqueror to just use mplayer to play every dvd when I click on the dvd, because then it would prevent me from reading data discs, right? I suppose I could make a panel button that just played the first track of the dvd, but what about for multiple track dvds?
Maybe I'll be able to quit using xine, though, which would be nice. I like it a lot, but mplayer kicks the ass out of xine, and I don't need the gui part of xine.
You mistake me for a geek just because I read slashdot? Heh.
Sorry dude, I'm sleepy. Maybe I'll have to rewrite it later and turn RMS into Socrates, eh?
Besides, as a side effect of my sleep deprived state, I laughed my ass off writing the damn script and couldn't really focus.
So I'll write something up later...
Adjust your monitor, dude. It's your imagination.
Ook, that's a troll. I haven't used XP because I refuse to install an OS where I have to call someone's tech department and ask for permission before I install it.
It's the little things they do that really piss me off.
Is the answer "ya", by any chance?
Ok, that sentence is a troll. :)
However, I'd like to agree with the spirit of your post. I personally switched to GNU/Linux because I was sick of clicking OK buttons in Windows and then having to reboot. I only reboot my computers now when a breaker blows, and instead of a long series of stupid fucking OK dialogs I get a single dialog that says "If you think you're qualified to do this to your computer, you know the ROOT PASSWORD:".
All the stress, the frustration, the headaches of Windows just fell away and I felt myself becoming empowered to do exactly what I wanted, when I wanted.
Freedom is a beautiful thing, often not missed when it's not known to be missing.
So the laws of supply and demand no longer apply to the marketplace? Is that what you're saying?
Forgive me for putting words into your fingers, but as long as GNU/Linux grows on the desktop WITHOUT proprietary formats, we have a chance to defeat them. Completely. Reason is: If they will only supply something, and we don't demand, we will NOT pay for it. Sooner or later they have to come to us with what we want, or go out of business.
This doesn't even require massive adoption of GNU/Linux. We probably only need about 1/3 of the market, which is an attainable goal in the next 5 years (I don't htink I'm being optimistic, but you might think I am). We're a "growth market" for them now, if they're willing to grow this direction, which they're not.
However, when the GNU/Linux (and free OS market in general) market gets big enough, they'll either have to just make less money (unacceptable, this is a proven fact but I won't cite 'cause I don't expect disagreement) or make their content available in the "new growth market". As long as we stick to our guns (ain't nobody gonna hurt you baby) and demand open standards, then we will win.
I don't apologize for the corny lines, either.
Microsoft: We'll let you play WiMP files on Linux so you can legally download purchased music from the internet.
RMS: Uh, it's GNU/Linux.
Microsoft: Who gives a shit?
RMS: I do. Will the WiMP player be GPL?
Microsoft: No, and you have to add some features to ALSA.
RMS: I don't think we should do that. It should be GPL.
Microsoft: Well, if you don't, then we won't make WiMP available for Linux.
RMS: It's GNU/Linux.
Microsoft: Who gives a shit?
RMS: I do.
... Later ...
Microsoft washes hands.
Microsoft: Gonna catch a goddamn virus from that RMS character. Who the fuck is he anyway?
Apple: He's the reason we call it GNU/Linux, idiot.
You guys are both on crack.
Freedom and responsibility go hand in hand, you can't have one without the other. Removing guns from the market will not stop people from hurting their feet.
Putting Microsoft on a GNU/Linux platform isn't all bad, but it's not strictly a good thing, either. The original poster said "You don't like MS, don't install the software". They got their monopoly because people installed the software. They got it by forcing people to install the software. They are working on schemes to CONTINUE FORCING PEOPLE to install their software.
Why should we think their approach to GNU/Linux software is going to be any different? First it was "You want to use our stuff, you have to use our OS". What's next? The solution is to not use their stuff, and if you feel inconvenienced by it then tough shit. Ask a heroin addict how much of an inconvenience withdrawal is. Then, after they OD, ask them if it was worth the convenience.
I'll try again. I'd like to point out that Konqueror is a piece of crap. Heh.
Oh fuck, nevermind. Konqueror won't clear out its clipboard and put new shit in it. If KDE's supposed to act just like Windows, then why won't it copyNpaste in a predictable fashion?
So, my last reply included text NOT from your post that was intended to be from your post.
Sorry.
Too obvious. Sorry dude, I'm half-trolling right now, and half-serious.
Why not? Isn't the purpose of copyright to create a (monopoly) market for the holder? What does it matter to him whether you charged or not? You still used his own work to "compete" with him.
How would your RENTing dvds affect blockbuster's SALES? Sales != rent, especially when it comes to revenue streams.
Why not? Isn't the purpose of copyright to create a (monopoly) market for the holder? What does it matter to him whether you charged or not? You still used his own work to "compete" with him.
Besides the fact that another poster brought up something I don't know about that could potentially defeat my entire position, I will continue to defend my position. :) (haven't looked up what he said yet)
The purpose of copyright is to balance an "artist's" ability to capitalize on his work (and I use the term artist loosely) and the public's right to use his work. That's where "fair use" comes into play.
On EVERY CD that you purchase, it says "Unauthorized duplication, lending, public performance..." etc. HOWEVER, you ARE allowed to lend it to your friend, and he can listen to it. Same with books, vhs and dvds, etc. Once upon a time, it was the same with software even!
The thing is, now people are accepting the idea that copyright provides a monopoly for the holder, and that it's his and only his right to say what can and can't be done with the material. While the more people accept this idea the more it becomes law (regardless of how it's legislated), it's complete and utter bullshit.
The reason it's bullshit is for all the reasons the EFF has been fighting to restore the balance to copyright law. It stifles innovation and competition in the marketplace.
Now, IMHO (which wasn't asked for :) ) I'd like to do away with intellectual property law completely for awhile and see how that works. I don't claim it'll work better or worse, but then I'd like to introduce a law that says "You can't use someone else's material and claim it's yours" and see how well that works.
Also, with the advent of digital filesharing, the concept of lending isn't nearly as black and white as it used to be. I could load you a CD, but while you had it I couldn't listen to it (except that I probably would have a copy on tape, because back in the days I had a tape copy of all of my CDs that was usually made before I bought the CD). Nowadays, I can give you the whole CD, or at least the content of the CD, without any loss to me personally.
But I digress. The point is, copyright law was never intended to provide a monopoly for anybody, it was only intended to protect for a time the creator's right to make money off his own work.
Dude! NOTHING can play all the stuff mplayer can!
First I fire up Xine, because it's convenient. If Xine chokes, I open up a shell and throw mplayer at it. If mplayer chokes, well, I don't know what I'll do because that hasn't happened yet.
MPlayer reads all formats, including Quicktime Sorenson 1 and 3, RealVideo, all Windows Media Player formats (WMV 1, 2 and 3) and does not cost anything !
MPlayer rocks! Now if only they'll give us a GUI that isn't more draining on CPU and memory than the player itself, maybe my wife could use it!
I say that, but just for all you geeks out there, not only is she big-boobed and pretty, but she also opens up konsole to watch dvds!
I use mozilla too and have it configured for google seach, but the search button is too far away to be useful. What I ment was having a whole link system, where you can click on a hyperlink that is a standard for google search. Like:
I know that's what you meant, but it would not be an open standard. I mean, the link itself would be part of an open standard, but it would depend on Google's proprietary search technology.
Now, if it was just a "search://In Soviet Russia" deal, it would be different, but then your end-users would expect drastically different results based on what they configured to use as their search protocol.
On the other hand, while the search button itself is too far to click, and in fact grabbing the mouse and moving it to click on a button after you type in your search terms is a pain, there is the other option, which is what I use most. When you start typing something into the URL bar, you usually get a combobox widget containing your history (also called the "history bar"). You can use your arrow keys to navigate down to a choice below urls that is a search choice. I realize this is a feature that can be turned off, but I find it extremely useful.
Admittedly, the solution we have isn't as good as a link you can just click on a page, but what you're talking about is a shorthand for "http://www.google.com/search?q=in+soviet+russia".
There's still another option, though. But it may require several additions to the standard.
First, a search attribute, such as:
<a href="search://in soviet russia" engine="www.google.com">Russian Google Search</a>
Second, more attribute choices for the link tag, that would define a search engine for the entire page.
Finally, a meta tag for the entire site that would define a search engine to use for the search protocol. Since this would have to be used on every page on account of the webmaster never knowing what page a visitor will enter the site, then this will be a fairly useless tag, actually.