I'm afraid that with breaking DRM being at least arguably illegal, buying iTMS DRM-cracking software via credit card would get me a court summons a few years down the line.
I am not at all a fan of iTunes, especially because I prefer Linux for my desktop. But at this point I feel like it's that, or giving up on a good bit of my music collection.
To exactly what about Wikipedia did the judge object? If the attorney had cited a print edition of Wikipedia, would his argument sudenly be more persuasive?
It seems to me that Wikipedia was just being more honest than most other sources in terms of its disclaimer.
they've already figured out a way to detect the hack and defeat it, so it's still pretty solid.
Perhaps, but there's a larger issue. Quantum crypto was supposed to be the end of the story, iirc. It was supposed to be theoretically impossible to crack. Discussion over.
Now, it appears that quantum crypto is engaged in the same kind of more arms race that other crypto mechanism are subject to. So it might be pretty solid, but it's apparently no silver bullet.
If this is indeed the case, then shouldn't a municipal broadband should be no threat at all to private industry, and therefore there should be nothing at all for them to worry about.
I suspect it's so expensive to lay the wires that most communities can't afford to have redundant cable/internet wiring just for the sake of breaking monopolies.
I can remember seeing any law, etc where the government is mandated to provide cable access.
The guy is a state senator, that particular issue doesn't apply here. But his statement about private industry vs. government roles was probably meant to pertain to both the state and federal goverments.
I would make it illegal to settle a lawsuit without admitting wrongdoing.
If you're innocent, then it's wrong for the plaintiff to get a dime from you. And if you're liable, then the results of discovery should be available to any other would-be plaintiff.
And that defeatist attitude is one of the main reasons that they can get away with this kind of crap.
How do you distinguish "defeatist" from "realistic"? I'd say it's based on the probability that enough people feel the same way but are just being silent about it, right?
In my experience, the people I talk to about this just aren't interested enough to participate in effecting change. So I reckon I'm being realistic.
On behalf of everyone who gives a shit... FUCK YOU!
Oh, I'm sorry, is this Abuse? I was here for an Argument.
If the police and government are going to take active duty to track all citizens, without the burden of providing a reasonable level of suspect, then I say we, as citizens fight back for our rights.
They're organized and have guns. Citizens are generally not organized, even when they have guns. I'm afraid the math doesn't work in your favor.
I think when we're young (mentally) we're CS, and as we age we gradually turn into Software Engineers.
Maybe because as our careers develop, many of us are given responsibility over increasingly large and complex development projects. And when we start to think hard about how to be successful with those projects, voila, we're doing software engineering.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a good bit of iTMS DRM'ed music.
I'm afraid that with breaking DRM being at least arguably illegal, buying iTMS DRM-cracking software via credit card would get me a court summons a few years down the line.
I am not at all a fan of iTunes, especially because I prefer Linux for my desktop. But at this point I feel like it's that, or giving up on a good bit of my music collection.
Imagine Skynet's embarassment when the Terminator took out Sarah Jones.
General Kenobi, Who's the more trollish? The troll, or the troll who follows him?
For the shrunken head of Darl McBride.
No, inexperienced programming requires that.
To exactly what about Wikipedia did the judge object? If the attorney had cited a print edition of Wikipedia, would his argument sudenly be more persuasive?
It seems to me that Wikipedia was just being more honest than most other sources in terms of its disclaimer.
Perhaps, but there's a larger issue. Quantum crypto was supposed to be the end of the story, iirc. It was supposed to be theoretically impossible to crack. Discussion over.
Now, it appears that quantum crypto is engaged in the same kind of more arms race that other crypto mechanism are subject to. So it might be pretty solid, but it's apparently no silver bullet.
That particular example would probably fall more under "code of conduct" or "professional standards" than "ethics", I think.
As Oscar on The Office put it, ethics is the reasoned debate about the good. Funny messages in your code is more about how to not get fired.
Sorry, you're on the wrong site for a debate on that topic.
Secure from cracking, or secure from competition?
Because, at least prior to Bush's Justice Department dropping all charges against Microsoft, the secound would be a pretty long list of felonies.
I suspect it's so expensive to lay the wires that most communities can't afford to have redundant cable/internet wiring just for the sake of breaking monopolies.
The guy is a state senator, that particular issue doesn't apply here. But his statement about private industry vs. government roles was probably meant to pertain to both the state and federal goverments.
At least he's puting his money where his mouth is, by handing the legislative process over to the private sector.
I'm going to start my own mercenary company, and the U.S. Army won't be allowed to compete for national defense!
I would make it illegal to settle a lawsuit without admitting wrongdoing.
If you're innocent, then it's wrong for the plaintiff to get a dime from you. And if you're liable, then the results of discovery should be available to any other would-be plaintiff.
Settlements basically set up a shakedown system.
The base's CO hates toy poodles.
Set it up as a bird bath, and get yourself a shotgun. With the size of the birds that would visit, you could feed your whole family.
That can't be right. I'm sure I've seen a human lawyer at the zoo.
I wasn't arguing against it, I was testing his idea. I would have been thrilled if he had a good response.
How do you distinguish "defeatist" from "realistic"? I'd say it's based on the probability that enough people feel the same way but are just being silent about it, right?
In my experience, the people I talk to about this just aren't interested enough to participate in effecting change. So I reckon I'm being realistic.
Oh, I'm sorry, is this Abuse? I was here for an Argument.
They're organized and have guns. Citizens are generally not organized, even when they have guns. I'm afraid the math doesn't work in your favor.
What really bothers me about stories like this is that the general public seems to not care.
I'm sure it's awful to live in a country where protesting the government will get you arrested or worse.
But it's a different kind of awful to have friends and neighbors who just can't be bothered to stick up for the civil rights of their fellow citizens.
Maybe because as our careers develop, many of us are given responsibility over increasingly large and complex development projects. And when we start to think hard about how to be successful with those projects, voila, we're doing software engineering.
Indeed. Rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble...
Yeah, or maybe he really stole a voting machine. Shouldn't people usually be arrested for doing that?