In that case, DRM is nothing more than a return to the status quo: "information" that happens _not_ to be easily copied.
I'm not so sure about returning to the status quo. Once you've paid for your car, the dealer can't tell you how you can/can't drive it, where you can/can't drive it, and more importantly, it can't tell you that you are no longer allowed to drive it. DRM, when fully implemented, gives content providers exactly those kinds of powers. In essence, DRM represents a shift from one extreme to the other.
Our entire argument to the UN for attacking Iraq was a resounding "we know they have WMD, but unfortunately, we can't give you our evidence," and the public PR machine has been spewing a nonstop "Saddam supports terrorists and has WMD," all with zero hard proof given. Given his history, I hardly doubt that Saddam has chemical and biological weapons... but I would have rather seen a more compelling argument than a "Iraq has them... trust us." The US populace seems to disagree with me, dashing your assertion that the American people require more than FUD to take people seriously. We used FUD to start a war.
If perhaps I've missed something, I'd be quite happily corrected, should you choose to provide links. I'd love to see the proof we had before attacking that Iraq has/had chemical/biological weapons. Thus far, the best evidence I've seen is, as one comedian put it "we know they have WMD... we have the receipts," as seen in greater detail here, indicating that we ourselves supplied WMD to Iraq.
Don't get me wrong... I shed no tears for Saddam, and I fully support the guys stuck fighting right now. I just wish we had more to go on than "trust us."
Welcome to America: if you want us to take you serious, you have to present your arguement reasonably, backed up with facts. If you dish out FUD, we assume you are full of shit, and anything you say is meaningless.
...unless you're a high-ranking member of the US Government.
Also, Keven was part of the "Hacker Community." Maher was a suit at Intel.
If only Maher had worked for AMD...
Re:Exactly!
on
BSA IDC FUD
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The same applies to the music industry, book publishing, or any other intellecutal property enterprise. Keep that in mind next time you are firing up your P2P client and downloading the latest "free" software or music or whatever. Remember that your "free" software has a cost - rather than being measured in a few dollars out of your wallet, this cost is measured in people's jobs.
The music/movie industry would have us believe that free distribution = end of profit.
"Publishers and authors: listen up! We know you may be concerned about all this book-sharing talk, and what it might do to your sales. You may be surprised to know that we have many, many publishers and authors that are big BookCrossing fans. They've seen the paradoxical value in encouraging the sharing of books. In fact, if one were to compare the number of people who buy books based on seeing book reviews here as the books change hands, to the number of people who actually find free books, we can assure you there are far more buyers than finders. This site is not about saving people money. Many of our members, in fact, have started purchasing two copies of every book they pick out, so they can keep one and release the other into the wild! Here's a good forum discussion re: authors, book sales, and bookcrossing that should alleviate any concerns about lost sales."
Maybe if the code monkeys were personally financially liable for their (numerous and varied) screwups they'd appreciate test analysts and testers a bit more.
I would imagine programmers would be more likely to accept personal liability if management and marketing didn't force projects to go out before they were ready.
The vast majority of programming in the world is not creative. It's a skilled craft, sure, but it's not about creativity - that is, making something exist that did not exist before.
By that definition, the vast majority of music is not creative. I can't say I'd really argue against that point, though:)
...and I'm tired of reading articles that assume that all programmers are men.
The assumption is not that all programmers are men. The assumption is that the vast majority of programmers are men. This is a simple fact of the industry, and judging from the composition of computer science students, it isn't likely to change soon. Whether this is good or not isn't the issue.
This is, of course, assuming the choice of he/him/himself for pronouns is intended to indicate masculinity. Once the gender-neutral pronouns were removed from our language, the masculine pronouns effectively took over the role. As a result, many people simply default to masculine pronouns without thinking about it, unless there's a significant reason to assume the subject is female.
as long as people keep writing articles that make that assumption, people will keep thinking that there aren't female programmers.
There aren't[ many].
Besides, I would argue that part of the reason that there aren't that many female programmers is because of people like you who act like it's some major attack on your psyche to have someone talk about programmers and not use masculine language.
The arguments above read more like a general commentary on the feel of the article. Your immediate parent was a little more abrasive about it, but it was not without merit. It *is* inappropriate to use femenine pronouns here. The subject of discussion (programmers) is predominantly male. If gender-neutrality was the main goal, you are unfortunately stuck with using he/him/himself or going with the incorrect they/them/themself. The latter would have drawn some criticism as well, but I like the idea of a gender-neutral singluar pronouns, and the only way to bring them back is through increasing their common usage.
However, going out of your way to use feminine pronouns when they are clearly inappropriate for the situation, and then going so far as say that women are being held underfoot by those addressing the inappropriate usage is merely beating the same type of gender war drum you seem so adamantly opposed to.
I've found that the trick is to know when to switch the music off, so that I can use 100% of my creativity when it's needed...
This depends on the person. For me, when I'm really concentrating on something(be it reading, coding, gaming, etc), I will mentally block-out whatever is going on around me, and any music I have going ceases to exist.
The outside world dissolves away.
There has been more than one occasion where someone will try to interrupt me while I'm focused on something else, and I didn't realize the person was there until they tapped my shoulder. It's great for avoiding smaller interruptions, but unfortunately, it seems to leave a bigger train wreck when someone finally takes me away from what I was doing.
As for "philosophical issues"... everyone with a right mind or at least some experience *knows* that a good firewall will block *everything* you haven't said personally is OK, whether from outside *or* inside. I sure hope you are not one of those that blocks everything from the outside, and then let everything from the inside pass unchecked. That is a disaster just waiting to happen.
Let me put it another way... assuming you have a well-configured firewall, would you still knowingly install a program infected with a trojan?
ZoneAlarm is a horrid example of an overzelous firewall blocking legitemate traffic and scaring users on the risks of harmless things like ident checks. Leads to fun things like ISPS shutting off servers over complaints from cluless users armed with Zone Alarm logs.
I had a roommate one semester that came to me with a Zone Alarm log with hundreds of blocked packets from the same IP. He was freaked-out that it might be a hacker trying to get into his system.
The source of the packets: our school's DNS server
What on Earth makes you think Microsoft would care enough about you to delete things of your machine ? More importantly, what makes you think they'd take the risk of being sued for deleting the wrong thing ?
My first point was actually much less of a concern to me. I probably should have noted its minor consideration. However, it's worth discussing anyways.
Depending on how the system is set up, it could be a relatively simple task to enter a particular file into a database and send mass-messages to systems to find and delete the file (blacklisting). This would require zero consideration on Microsoft's part whether or not you *personally* have the file.
I was under the impression that this feature was geared more towards integration with DRM controls, though, ultimately for the purpose of deleting pirated software/mp3s by checking for a digital signature and deleting files lacking them.
Note that lacking a digital signature would not necessitate the fact that a file is pirated. I doubt my brother would bother digitally signing mp3s from his (relatively small time)band. Older archived files of mine wouldn't be signed. Backing up to CD is nice, but I also like to have files handy on my drive.
As far as legal concerns go, Microsoft would probably have some disclaimer that would eliminate most of their liability. Also realize that there's a damage threshold before you can do anything - the damages need to be above $5k. The only *real* problem that would arise would be for the system to delete critical files on a corporate system. Even then, though... how many people would attribute the deletion to anything other than a cracker getting past security?
Even more worrying would be agreements with the US government - either openly or under-the-table - to allow them selective access to certain machines.
Oh, I doubt it would be selective at all. Eventually, the government would chisel out a deal where it gets unrestricted access to any machine(running Palladium, of course) it chooses.
You haven't got much of an imagination then. Think multiple, simultaneous authorizations required by public/private keypairs kept on USB keychains in geographically separated safes that only a few people know the combinations of. And that's just something that occurred to me immediately - I'm sure someone with a real imagination could come up with some much more elaborate.
Step back for a second and remember what company we're talking about;)
But give them a chance with it, let them screw up before you chastise them.
Given one of the features in Palladium is supposed to allow for remote deletion of files by Microsoft, I'll have to decline giving them the chance to screw up. I see 2 major problems with this:
1. I don't trust Microsoft with this power. Should I run software Microsoft doesn't like, what's to stop it from deleting the software?
2. With Microsoft's famous security in software, coupled with this new feature, how long do you think it will take for a person to crack into a Microsoft server and issue commands to thousands of computers to delete files? Palladium may be designed to only run trusted programs to issue these commands, but I can't imagine gaining trusted access being much more difficult than grabbing administrater or root privledges on a machine.
Sure, you could set up your firewall to block the remote deletion commands, if you know what port it's using. I have philosophical issues with using firewalls to protect myself from the programs running on my computer, as opposed to protecting myself from outside threats, though. I'd much prefer not putting Palladium on my system. The risk is much too great, especially if I were to screw up configuring things to block this "feature"(and I'm hardly a good sysadmin).
Unless you have the server keep track of occlusion as well, wallhacks can still be used via video drivers. If you were to have the server keep track of little details like "there's a wall between player 1 and players 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7, but not between player 1 and players 5, 8, and 9,"
you are imposing a huge processing burden on the server. Take that instance I mentioned, realize you have to perform that check for every connected player at every moment of the game, and you can bet that server better be ungodly fast or it will grind to a halt.
Unfortunately, it is unrealistic to think you can effectively and efficiently limit what the client gets only to what it should know.
Yes. If any of it does violate the Constitution - and I haven't yet found any part which does - that part is null and void.
Not exactly. An unconstitutional law is only null and void when the court system decides it is null and void. To reach such a decision, someone has to fall victim to the law and successfully navigate their way (via losses + appeals) up to a court high enough to strike down the law.
As I understand it, to strike down a federal law, you need to make it to the Supreme Court, which is very rare. If the law is blatantly unconstitutional, you may simply get let off in a lower court, which ultimately leaves the law on the books to catch another unsuspecting victim.
But seriously, why would PC's need a standard gaming controller?? I can't see the keyboard mouse combo going anywhere anytime soon..
Considering Microsoft's console entry, XBox, the hardware it runs on, and the fact it runs windows... this could be a push to finally turn computers into a total entertainment solution. As it stands now, you can play PC games, watch movies, check email, etc, etc, etc... and it's not that much of a stretch to turn your PC into a console as well, should they standardize controllers. The XBox is already essentially a wintel machine, so coming out with software that added console functionality couldn't be terribly hard.
The video game industry is huge, and I could very easily see Microsoft trying to push windows into the console industry as well. Why would you ever want to buy a console again, if playing the games was as simple as buying a $30 controller and some $30-50 games for a computer you already have?
I already play tons of old emulated games on my PC with a game controller. Personally, I would be quite happy if I could just grab console games and play them without having to drop another $200-300 on console hardware.
Of course, this is all conjecture, so take it cum grano salis.
Everything has the capacity to become a form of political control. The fact that a piece of technology could be used for evil is not a sufficient argument to outweigh the fact that it will be used for good.
Information control is by its very nature political control. Instead of deciding who can and cannot speak, we are instead deciding who can and cannot listen.
(2) Term. -
Subject to the payment of fees under this title, such grant shall be for a term beginning on the date on which the patent issues and ending 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States or, if the application contains a specific reference to an earlier filed application or applications under section 120, 121, or 365(c) of this title, from the date on which the earliest such application was filed.
You missed the entire point. You're seizing assets of an arguably innocent company (the ISP), and affecting millions of innocent people (the subscribers), all in the name of *potentially* grabbing some information on a handful of thieves.
That's like shutting down an airport for a few days and locking everyone inside because you think there might have been a few criminals arriving on one of the planes. You potentially cost the airlines millions of dollars in lost sales, both because of the downtime and because of lost customers, and you potentially harm every passenger trapped in the airport, due to missed work and lost/damaged personal posessions due to the search. And, like with the ISPs, all the authorities had to do was ask for a passenger manifest from each airline.
That doesn't even get into arguments about how screwed up copyright are, but I'll leave the argument about what's wrong with IP law for another time.
The other thing that I'm shuddering about is the possible downtime effects that this has on everyone else who uses the equipment for fully legitimate purposes. Suddenly, the possibility of server outages, network outages, and other miscellaneous service problems ensue, especially if a federal entity decides that equipment itself is to be confinscated as evidence, and they don't take care to properly handle what mess they leave behind.
This bothers me as well. There's a good chance that raids like this can do far greater financial damage than the piracy they are trying to combat. How many online businesses will be affected? What happens if valuable subscriber data is lost as a result of the raids?
It sickens me how the authorities and lawmakers bend over backwards for the recording/movie industry without so much as considering the negative consequences of what they are doing. I suppose this is just another glaring example of how you can buy "justice." It's only a matter of time before stuff like this happens in the US, and I wonder how many times I can look forward to lose 'net access because some tard using my ISP leaves his linkin park (or some other equally worthless band) mp3 collection on his webspace.
Because OpenGL is, well... open, and DirectX is proprietary??
I would suspect it's more that there is a free version of OpenGL floating around, called Mesa. Mesa is essentially a full OpenGL implementation that's open source. Check out Mesa here.
My computer graphics class uses Mesa because it's free. Were it not, I don't think my school would even have a computer graphics class.
Why should the trademark name 'Apple' have been approved?
Why should any non-proper noun be allowed to be a trademark??
The difference is really simple: the term "apple" has nothing to do with computers. However, "windows" has quite a bit to do with computers, as the primary draw to Windows is the use of a GUI that is based around... surprise, surprise... graphical windows.
However, don't take my word for it:
Are there other reasons the examining attorney might refuse my mark?
Yes. In addition to likelihood of confusion (discussed above), an examining attorney will refuse registration if the mark is:
* primarily merely descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive of the goods/services;
* primarily geographically descriptive or primarily geographically deceptively; misdescriptive of the goods/services;
* primarily merely a surname; or
* ornamental.
Slashdot Mirror
In that case, DRM is nothing more than a return to the status quo: "information" that happens _not_ to be easily copied.
I'm not so sure about returning to the status quo. Once you've paid for your car, the dealer can't tell you how you can/can't drive it, where you can/can't drive it, and more importantly, it can't tell you that you are no longer allowed to drive it. DRM, when fully implemented, gives content providers exactly those kinds of powers. In essence, DRM represents a shift from one extreme to the other.
Okay... I'll bite.
Our entire argument to the UN for attacking Iraq was a resounding "we know they have WMD, but unfortunately, we can't give you our evidence," and the public PR machine has been spewing a nonstop "Saddam supports terrorists and has WMD," all with zero hard proof given. Given his history, I hardly doubt that Saddam has chemical and biological weapons... but I would have rather seen a more compelling argument than a "Iraq has them... trust us." The US populace seems to disagree with me, dashing your assertion that the American people require more than FUD to take people seriously. We used FUD to start a war.
If perhaps I've missed something, I'd be quite happily corrected, should you choose to provide links. I'd love to see the proof we had before attacking that Iraq has/had chemical/biological weapons. Thus far, the best evidence I've seen is, as one comedian put it "we know they have WMD... we have the receipts," as seen in greater detail here, indicating that we ourselves supplied WMD to Iraq.
Don't get me wrong... I shed no tears for Saddam, and I fully support the guys stuck fighting right now. I just wish we had more to go on than "trust us."
Welcome to America: if you want us to take you serious, you have to present your arguement reasonably, backed up with facts. If you dish out FUD, we assume you are full of shit, and anything you say is meaningless.
...unless you're a high-ranking member of the US Government.
Also, Keven was part of the "Hacker Community." Maher was a suit at Intel.
If only Maher had worked for AMD...
The same applies to the music industry, book publishing, or any other intellecutal property enterprise. Keep that in mind next time you are firing up your P2P client and downloading the latest "free" software or music or whatever. Remember that your "free" software has a cost - rather than being measured in a few dollars out of your wallet, this cost is measured in people's jobs.
The music/movie industry would have us believe that free distribution = end of profit.
They would seem to disagree:
"Publishers and authors: listen up! We know you may be concerned about all this book-sharing talk, and what it might do to your sales. You may be surprised to know that we have many, many publishers and authors that are big BookCrossing fans. They've seen the paradoxical value in encouraging the sharing of books. In fact, if one were to compare the number of people who buy books based on seeing book reviews here as the books change hands, to the number of people who actually find free books, we can assure you there are far more buyers than finders. This site is not about saving people money. Many of our members, in fact, have started purchasing two copies of every book they pick out, so they can keep one and release the other into the wild! Here's a good forum discussion re: authors, book sales, and bookcrossing that should alleviate any concerns about lost sales."
He would seem to disagree as well.
More here.
True... none have anything to do with piracy, but it would appear that free does not necessitate loss.
Maybe if the code monkeys were personally financially liable for their (numerous and varied) screwups they'd appreciate test analysts and testers a bit more.
I would imagine programmers would be more likely to accept personal liability if management and marketing didn't force projects to go out before they were ready.
The vast majority of programming in the world is not creative. It's a skilled craft, sure, but it's not about creativity - that is, making something exist that did not exist before.
:)
By that definition, the vast majority of music is not creative. I can't say I'd really argue against that point, though
...and I'm tired of reading articles that assume that all programmers are men.
The assumption is not that all programmers are men. The assumption is that the vast majority of programmers are men. This is a simple fact of the industry, and judging from the composition of computer science students, it isn't likely to change soon. Whether this is good or not isn't the issue.
This is, of course, assuming the choice of he/him/himself for pronouns is intended to indicate masculinity. Once the gender-neutral pronouns were removed from our language, the masculine pronouns effectively took over the role. As a result, many people simply default to masculine pronouns without thinking about it, unless there's a significant reason to assume the subject is female.
as long as people keep writing articles that make that assumption, people will keep thinking that there aren't female programmers.
There aren't[ many].
Besides, I would argue that part of the reason that there aren't that many female programmers is because of people like you who act like it's some major attack on your psyche to have someone talk about programmers and not use masculine language.
The arguments above read more like a general commentary on the feel of the article. Your immediate parent was a little more abrasive about it, but it was not without merit. It *is* inappropriate to use femenine pronouns here. The subject of discussion (programmers) is predominantly male. If gender-neutrality was the main goal, you are unfortunately stuck with using he/him/himself or going with the incorrect they/them/themself. The latter would have drawn some criticism as well, but I like the idea of a gender-neutral singluar pronouns, and the only way to bring them back is through increasing their common usage.
However, going out of your way to use feminine pronouns when they are clearly inappropriate for the situation, and then going so far as say that women are being held underfoot by those addressing the inappropriate usage is merely beating the same type of gender war drum you seem so adamantly opposed to.
I've found that the trick is to know when to switch the music off, so that I can use 100% of my creativity when it's needed...
This depends on the person. For me, when I'm really concentrating on something(be it reading, coding, gaming, etc), I will mentally block-out whatever is going on around me, and any music I have going ceases to exist.
The outside world dissolves away.
There has been more than one occasion where someone will try to interrupt me while I'm focused on something else, and I didn't realize the person was there until they tapped my shoulder. It's great for avoiding smaller interruptions, but unfortunately, it seems to leave a bigger train wreck when someone finally takes me away from what I was doing.
As for "philosophical issues"... everyone with a right mind or at least some experience *knows* that a good firewall will block *everything* you haven't said personally is OK, whether from outside *or* inside. I sure hope you are not one of those that blocks everything from the outside, and then let everything from the inside pass unchecked. That is a disaster just waiting to happen.
Let me put it another way... assuming you have a well-configured firewall, would you still knowingly install a program infected with a trojan?
ZoneAlarm is a horrid example of an overzelous firewall blocking legitemate traffic and scaring users on the risks of harmless things like ident checks. Leads to fun things like ISPS shutting off servers over complaints from cluless users armed with Zone Alarm logs.
I had a roommate one semester that came to me with a Zone Alarm log with hundreds of blocked packets from the same IP. He was freaked-out that it might be a hacker trying to get into his system.
The source of the packets: our school's DNS server
What on Earth makes you think Microsoft would care enough about you to delete things of your machine ? More importantly, what makes you think they'd take the risk of being sued for deleting the wrong thing ?
;)
My first point was actually much less of a concern to me. I probably should have noted its minor consideration. However, it's worth discussing anyways.
Depending on how the system is set up, it could be a relatively simple task to enter a particular file into a database and send mass-messages to systems to find and delete the file (blacklisting). This would require zero consideration on Microsoft's part whether or not you *personally* have the file.
I was under the impression that this feature was geared more towards integration with DRM controls, though, ultimately for the purpose of deleting pirated software/mp3s by checking for a digital signature and deleting files lacking them.
Note that lacking a digital signature would not necessitate the fact that a file is pirated. I doubt my brother would bother digitally signing mp3s from his (relatively small time)band. Older archived files of mine wouldn't be signed. Backing up to CD is nice, but I also like to have files handy on my drive.
As far as legal concerns go, Microsoft would probably have some disclaimer that would eliminate most of their liability. Also realize that there's a damage threshold before you can do anything - the damages need to be above $5k. The only *real* problem that would arise would be for the system to delete critical files on a corporate system. Even then, though... how many people would attribute the deletion to anything other than a cracker getting past security?
Even more worrying would be agreements with the US government - either openly or under-the-table - to allow them selective access to certain machines.
Oh, I doubt it would be selective at all. Eventually, the government would chisel out a deal where it gets unrestricted access to any machine(running Palladium, of course) it chooses.
You haven't got much of an imagination then. Think multiple, simultaneous authorizations required by public/private keypairs kept on USB keychains in geographically separated safes that only a few people know the combinations of. And that's just something that occurred to me immediately - I'm sure someone with a real imagination could come up with some much more elaborate.
Step back for a second and remember what company we're talking about
But give them a chance with it, let them screw up before you chastise them.
Given one of the features in Palladium is supposed to allow for remote deletion of files by Microsoft, I'll have to decline giving them the chance to screw up. I see 2 major problems with this:
1. I don't trust Microsoft with this power. Should I run software Microsoft doesn't like, what's to stop it from deleting the software?
2. With Microsoft's famous security in software, coupled with this new feature, how long do you think it will take for a person to crack into a Microsoft server and issue commands to thousands of computers to delete files? Palladium may be designed to only run trusted programs to issue these commands, but I can't imagine gaining trusted access being much more difficult than grabbing administrater or root privledges on a machine.
Sure, you could set up your firewall to block the remote deletion commands, if you know what port it's using. I have philosophical issues with using firewalls to protect myself from the programs running on my computer, as opposed to protecting myself from outside threats, though. I'd much prefer not putting Palladium on my system. The risk is much too great, especially if I were to screw up configuring things to block this "feature"(and I'm hardly a good sysadmin).
Developers wishing to write 'Nexus-aware' applications will apparently have to pay a licensing fee to do so.
And, I suppose it will only be a matter of time before Palladium dictates that only Nexus-aware programs will run. Nice business model.
Unless you have the server keep track of occlusion as well, wallhacks can still be used via video drivers. If you were to have the server keep track of little details like "there's a wall between player 1 and players 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7, but not between player 1 and players 5, 8, and 9," you are imposing a huge processing burden on the server. Take that instance I mentioned, realize you have to perform that check for every connected player at every moment of the game, and you can bet that server better be ungodly fast or it will grind to a halt.
Unfortunately, it is unrealistic to think you can effectively and efficiently limit what the client gets only to what it should know.
Yes. If any of it does violate the Constitution - and I haven't yet found any part which does - that part is null and void.
Not exactly. An unconstitutional law is only null and void when the court system decides it is null and void. To reach such a decision, someone has to fall victim to the law and successfully navigate their way (via losses + appeals) up to a court high enough to strike down the law.
As I understand it, to strike down a federal law, you need to make it to the Supreme Court, which is very rare. If the law is blatantly unconstitutional, you may simply get let off in a lower court, which ultimately leaves the law on the books to catch another unsuspecting victim.
But seriously, why would PC's need a standard gaming controller?? I can't see the keyboard mouse combo going anywhere anytime soon..
Considering Microsoft's console entry, XBox, the hardware it runs on, and the fact it runs windows... this could be a push to finally turn computers into a total entertainment solution. As it stands now, you can play PC games, watch movies, check email, etc, etc, etc... and it's not that much of a stretch to turn your PC into a console as well, should they standardize controllers. The XBox is already essentially a wintel machine, so coming out with software that added console functionality couldn't be terribly hard.
The video game industry is huge, and I could very easily see Microsoft trying to push windows into the console industry as well. Why would you ever want to buy a console again, if playing the games was as simple as buying a $30 controller and some $30-50 games for a computer you already have?
I already play tons of old emulated games on my PC with a game controller. Personally, I would be quite happy if I could just grab console games and play them without having to drop another $200-300 on console hardware.
Of course, this is all conjecture, so take it cum grano salis.
Everything has the capacity to become a form of political control. The fact that a piece of technology could be used for evil is not a sufficient argument to outweigh the fact that it will be used for good.
Information control is by its very nature political control. Instead of deciding who can and cannot speak, we are instead deciding who can and cannot listen.
... the power of bullshit.
If we could round up all the politicians in DC, we could power the world.
found here at section 154.
You missed the entire point. You're seizing assets of an arguably innocent company (the ISP), and affecting millions of innocent people (the subscribers), all in the name of *potentially* grabbing some information on a handful of thieves.
That's like shutting down an airport for a few days and locking everyone inside because you think there might have been a few criminals arriving on one of the planes. You potentially cost the airlines millions of dollars in lost sales, both because of the downtime and because of lost customers, and you potentially harm every passenger trapped in the airport, due to missed work and lost/damaged personal posessions due to the search. And, like with the ISPs, all the authorities had to do was ask for a passenger manifest from each airline.
That doesn't even get into arguments about how screwed up copyright are, but I'll leave the argument about what's wrong with IP law for another time.
The other thing that I'm shuddering about is the possible downtime effects that this has on everyone else who uses the equipment for fully legitimate purposes. Suddenly, the possibility of server outages, network outages, and other miscellaneous service problems ensue, especially if a federal entity decides that equipment itself is to be confinscated as evidence, and they don't take care to properly handle what mess they leave behind.
This bothers me as well. There's a good chance that raids like this can do far greater financial damage than the piracy they are trying to combat. How many online businesses will be affected? What happens if valuable subscriber data is lost as a result of the raids?
It sickens me how the authorities and lawmakers bend over backwards for the recording/movie industry without so much as considering the negative consequences of what they are doing. I suppose this is just another glaring example of how you can buy "justice." It's only a matter of time before stuff like this happens in the US, and I wonder how many times I can look forward to lose 'net access because some tard using my ISP leaves his linkin park (or some other equally worthless band) mp3 collection on his webspace.
Because OpenGL is, well... open, and DirectX is proprietary??
I would suspect it's more that there is a free version of OpenGL floating around, called Mesa. Mesa is essentially a full OpenGL implementation that's open source. Check out Mesa here.
My computer graphics class uses Mesa because it's free. Were it not, I don't think my school would even have a computer graphics class.
Why should any non-proper noun be allowed to be a trademark??
The difference is really simple: the term "apple" has nothing to do with computers. However, "windows" has quite a bit to do with computers, as the primary draw to Windows is the use of a GUI that is based around... surprise, surprise... graphical windows.
However, don't take my word for it:
Look here for more.
Grabbing a trademark on "windows" for GUI-OSs is like grabbing a trademark on "balls" for a sports equipment chain.
Seriously, COBOL is a waste of both hard drive and brain space.
"The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should, therefore, be regarded as a criminal offense." -- Edsgar Dijkstra