esswedl's reply covers my answer to your question. Which boils down to, under the DMCA could scratches on a cd that is being resold be considered an "effective security device"?
Also, requiring MS to make versions of Office for Linux etc. seems to contradict their point that a monoculture is bad for security. Porting Office to other operating systems would only increase the almost complete market saturation of that application. I don't see how they can recommend that without contradicting their warning against a monoculture.
Where exactly is the DMCA applicable? For instance, if I buy a used CD at a record store, does that CD also fall under the rules of the DMCA? If what you said is accurate, then that would make repairing scratches on that CD that prevented it from playing illegal under the DMCA. That sounds crazy, not that I would put it past our government.
> and also all those rights of acting as an individual for his own comfort and happiness , which are not injurious to the natural rights of others.
While I'm not arguing for or against driving being a right, that particular part of Paine's quote seems to paint a pretty broad stroke. That last portion of the quote seems to say anything that makes me comfortable/happy is a right. That opens the door for a lot of things to be considered rights. Now that may not have been his intent in that statement, but it certainly reads that way.
Of course, you could also argue that having multiple implementations of the same tools increases the likelihood of vulnerabilities. It stands to reason that as the number of projects increases, so will the number of security holes as a whole.
Regardless, I doubt that increasing security via more alternatives was the reasoning behind starting this project. I would much rather see these developers group together to debug problems and eliminate security issues.
"Of course it's all a matter of opinion as to how the market would react to an announcement from Intel of 64-bit extensions to the existing x86 ISA being included with Prescott, but I believe it would give AMD fuel to market x86-64, using the "we were first to deliver it, and the pioneers to push forward with it" argument."
I'm not arguing any inference you made based on history. I'm arguing the logic in the above statement is flawed. The above makes no sense. Whether Intel makes an announcement or not, AMD WILL be able to say "we were first to deliver it, and the pioneers to push forward with it". They're going to be first to the market with it. That's a fact. Nothing Intel does can change that.
Are you perhaps trying to say Intel marketing Prescott's 64 bit capability would make consumers not previously interested/aware of 64 bit computing interested/aware of it, and in doing so, provide fire for AMD sales of their already launched 64 bit offering? If that's the case, then I can see some logic there, but your intent was not very clear in that statement.
The historical inferences I'm not arguing and was not commenting on.
Ok, we'll work on the assumption that the Prescott has 64 bit instructions.
That gives us two scenerioes.
1. Intel doesn't make any press release saying it does, and AMD's chip launches. Verifying that AMD was the first to deliver.
2. Intel makes a press release saying their yet to be released processor will have 64 bit extensions, and AMD's chip launches. Verifying that AMD was the first to deliver.
Your logic seems flawed. How does a press release alter the public perception that AMD was the first to deliver if they will be the first to deliver regardless of any announcements?
> Apple has zealots for a reason. You don't see many Windows zealots.
I don't see many Mac zealots either. That doesn't mean neither exists. I personally prefer XP over any other desktop. I keep Linux with a KDE desktop installed to toy with and for web development, but I find myself booting into XP for general use. I have used OS X, and while it is a great desktop environment, it's not one that I really like.
The percentage of people that LOVE OS X I would expect to be higher than XP. Most OS X users put some thought into using that platform, and that thought process should lead them to a more pleasing experience. The vast majority of XP users never gave a thought to what OS they were selecting. It just came preinstalled on their computers.
Accessing all the files on your desktop is hardly something that most users need to do often if ever. If they need to, it's fairly simple to create a shortcut on your desktop to whatever drive you want to access, and it takes two steps to access all files without a shortcut (right click on start -> browse).
Most users access files via applications. I need to open a document I've written; I open my word processor and select the document from that app's file selection dialog. Most users typically don't have a need to access files via a file manager.
Your virus concern is a valid one for a novice buying a computer and corporate environment. But it's really not that big of a concern for a knowledgable home user. Keeping windows updated and proper security measures in place is not a difficult task.
Regarding the migration. Does it actually provide any benefits? I'm not talking arguments like it being open source or cross platform etc. Does it provide REAL benefits for your situation? If it does, then that's the first step to selling to your boss. If you can justify it to yourself, then most of the reasons should translate into a pretty good reason for him to agree.
If it saves you time that translates into money saved for him, as well as, more time for his work force to focus on other issues. If it's better suited for your applications, then it should be easy to show that to him in some form of improvement that he can see and that he would appreciate.
You've gotta think if you walk in and show him how PHP will save him X dollars and allow Y increase in productivity then he's going to pay attention to that. If it won't increase these, then from a business standpoint, there's not a lot of reason for him to change.
People are buying those computers, and the boxes sitting on the shelves at Wal-Mart. It doesn't really matter how they got there. Selling software is FAR from dead at the present. You are claiming your perception of the future as the present.
Redhat's business model is certainly a success but with Microsoft posting $8.07 billion in revenue and $1.92 billion in net income, it's pretty ridiculous to say that selling software is dead. I'm sure record industry numbers would probably support that their industry while in a slump isn't exactly dead either. Both business models have a place and are not mutually exclusive.
On another note, large corporations probably do more to support Redhat's business model than any of the other entities you listed. We have contracts with vendors for just about every product we use. Yes, we also have "experts" on staff, but vendors are called on quite a lot to deal with issues with hardware and software.
The difference in watching someone commit crimes (movies) and committing crimes (games) shouldn't be overlooked. In the game, you actually have control over the action. This allows for a sense of emersion you would be hard pressed to get while watching a movie.
Prioritizing food, water, shelter, and clothing over the internet is hardly shortsighted.
I appreciate your point that the internet is a powerful tool for learning, and one that at some point kids should be exposed to no doubt. But giving priority to an internet connection over things they NEED is unreasonable. If you truly value internet access over feeding your kids, then I think you've found a lot more uses for it than I have.
At any rate, that's slightly off topic. Obviously, these families have the money to spend on broadband, which is the point. They are not in some position where they require our sympathy based on their financial status. They may earn some sympathy for being the little guy fighting the big bully, but certainly not sympathy for being allegedly poor, which is where a lot of the emphasis has gone in the coverage of these suits.
I believe the following is the only part of the copyright law pertaining to fair use in this situation:
"107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use38
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include --
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors."
IANAL, but I don't think that distributing music even for free on the street would meet these terms. Has there been a ruling that says that it is legal to do so?
Ya know, it's really getting old hearing of these cases of people that are soooo poor they can't afford to buy this or that, but somehow manage to find it in their budget to pay for a broadband connection. I have little sympathy for the financial situation of a mom with 4 kids that's having a hard time making ends meet or a mom with a 12 year old living in public housing who somehow find the money to spend on something as frivalous as a broadband connection. While I don't necessarily like the stance the RIAA is taking, I'm pretty sure they didn't have the financial records of everybody they have filed claims against.
I agree that they should change their business model, but I don't think that means they shouldn't persue people they deem to be pirating or infringing upon their copyrights. Would you say the same thing about people distributing tapes on the street? Should they just change their model and not persue stopping that form of piracy? From their standpoint, regardless of whether they change their business model to take better advantage of the internet, people distributing music for free are still, in their view, costing them money.
"they dont use thier windowsupdate site to check if your cdkey is valid"
I'm pretty sure I had Windows Update refuse to update my girlfriend's computer for that very reason the other day. And unless something has changed recently, most game distributors still go to lengths to include keys and other anti-piracy mechanisms in their products. So they are not just ignoring the piracy issue.
"people buy botteled water...they buy gorumet coffee from startbucks instead of the free cup they can get at work...hell people even buy M$ windows over linux"
All these examples differ from the music situation in that every product you listed is perceived by the consumer buying it to be better than the alternative and thereby worth their money. That's a key point the product itself and not some service offered with the product is perceived to be better. The music industry really can't offer that for the average consumer. Most consumers can't tell the difference between a 192kbps mp3 and the same track playing from a cd. The consumers that can and care are already buying cds. Yes, they can offer services and ease of access and a lot of other things that I'm sure I can't even think of, but they can't actually offer a better product in most consumers eyes.
Having said all that, I doubt this will serve the RIAA well. I don't believe that file sharing is the major impact on the declining income of the music industry, and I doubt that the RIAA will profit in the long run from these actions. Perhaps they should just take this as a subtle hint that change is needed. Lower prices, better music, and easier access would go a long way to curbing their declining revenue.
As has been mentioned already, these games are written to an API generally either DirectX or OpenGL. The support for hardware comes from those products, so if you want to blame somebody for not supporting other cards then blame those responsible for DirectX and OpenGL.
You can't really expect game makers to spend time making their games compatible with hardware that isn't supported by one of those products as the market is simply too small to be cost effective.
Good point. Given the short history of these vehicles, I can see required maintenance in the future being used as a point of speculation for overall maintenance cost of these cars.
I hope you're not referencing the file manager pictured as being more coherent. Unless they picked a REALLY bad illustration of what this thing looks like and how it organizes files, I think I'd stab myself while trying to use it. It looks like a big freakin mess, an interesting mess, but a mess all the same.
"Please tell me why it's impossible to create an application that pulls an HTML document off the web, renders this and displays it on a monitor without any security problems?"
It's not impossible, but it's pretty much impossible to verify. The reality is that humans are fallable. We write software, and most of what is written will have bugs. Some will be small, others will be the nasty ones like we've been seeing recently.
That's not to say that in writing software we shouldn't strive for perfection in all aspects, but the reality is that goal will rarely if ever be reached.
"I know who think it's ok to go 10mph over the speed limit"
Are we talking ok from a safety stand point? If so then they very well may be right. A safe speed is dependent on a lot of things, and a sign with big numbers on it is hardly one of them. If it's a bright sunny day outside, it's obviously safe to go faster than if it's raining outside. Different vehicles are safer to operate at higher speeds due to having the proper tires among other factors. In the state I used to live in they raised the speed limit on a highway I commonly traveled from 55 to 70 without any change to the highway. Did it suddenly become ok to travel on that road at 15 mph over the previous speed limit?
Legally, there isn't much argument. The government says it's illegal so it is. But the qualifications of goverment agencies to set appropriate speed limits, presumably based on safety concerns, is somewhat questionable.
Slashdot Mirror
esswedl's reply covers my answer to your question. Which boils down to, under the DMCA could scratches on a cd that is being resold be considered an "effective security device"?
Also, requiring MS to make versions of Office for Linux etc. seems to contradict their point that a monoculture is bad for security. Porting Office to other operating systems would only increase the almost complete market saturation of that application. I don't see how they can recommend that without contradicting their warning against a monoculture.
Where exactly is the DMCA applicable? For instance, if I buy a used CD at a record store, does that CD also fall under the rules of the DMCA? If what you said is accurate, then that would make repairing scratches on that CD that prevented it from playing illegal under the DMCA. That sounds crazy, not that I would put it past our government.
> and also all those rights of acting as an individual for his own comfort and happiness , which are not injurious to the natural rights of others.
While I'm not arguing for or against driving being a right, that particular part of Paine's quote seems to paint a pretty broad stroke. That last portion of the quote seems to say anything that makes me comfortable/happy is a right. That opens the door for a lot of things to be considered rights. Now that may not have been his intent in that statement, but it certainly reads that way.
"Some technology does need to be tazed."
*takes out his tazer*
Yeah taze the technology taze it!! BZZZZZZZZZT!!!!
Of course, you could also argue that having multiple implementations of the same tools increases the likelihood of vulnerabilities. It stands to reason that as the number of projects increases, so will the number of security holes as a whole.
Regardless, I doubt that increasing security via more alternatives was the reasoning behind starting this project. I would much rather see these developers group together to debug problems and eliminate security issues.
"Of course it's all a matter of opinion as to how the market would react to an announcement from Intel of 64-bit extensions to the existing x86 ISA being included with Prescott, but I believe it would give AMD fuel to market x86-64, using the "we were first to deliver it, and the pioneers to push forward with it" argument."
I'm not arguing any inference you made based on history. I'm arguing the logic in the above statement is flawed. The above makes no sense. Whether Intel makes an announcement or not, AMD WILL be able to say "we were first to deliver it, and the pioneers to push forward with it". They're going to be first to the market with it. That's a fact. Nothing Intel does can change that.
Are you perhaps trying to say Intel marketing Prescott's 64 bit capability would make consumers not previously interested/aware of 64 bit computing interested/aware of it, and in doing so, provide fire for AMD sales of their already launched 64 bit offering? If that's the case, then I can see some logic there, but your intent was not very clear in that statement.
The historical inferences I'm not arguing and was not commenting on.
Ok, we'll work on the assumption that the Prescott has 64 bit instructions.
That gives us two scenerioes.
1. Intel doesn't make any press release saying it does, and AMD's chip launches. Verifying that AMD was the first to deliver.
2. Intel makes a press release saying their yet to be released processor will have 64 bit extensions, and AMD's chip launches. Verifying that AMD was the first to deliver.
Your logic seems flawed. How does a press release alter the public perception that AMD was the first to deliver if they will be the first to deliver regardless of any announcements?
Here's the google link directly to the story.
> Apple has zealots for a reason. You don't see many Windows zealots.
I don't see many Mac zealots either. That doesn't mean neither exists. I personally prefer XP over any other desktop. I keep Linux with a KDE desktop installed to toy with and for web development, but I find myself booting into XP for general use. I have used OS X, and while it is a great desktop environment, it's not one that I really like.
The percentage of people that LOVE OS X I would expect to be higher than XP. Most OS X users put some thought into using that platform, and that thought process should lead them to a more pleasing experience. The vast majority of XP users never gave a thought to what OS they were selecting. It just came preinstalled on their computers.
Accessing all the files on your desktop is hardly something that most users need to do often if ever. If they need to, it's fairly simple to create a shortcut on your desktop to whatever drive you want to access, and it takes two steps to access all files without a shortcut (right click on start -> browse).
Most users access files via applications. I need to open a document I've written; I open my word processor and select the document from that app's file selection dialog. Most users typically don't have a need to access files via a file manager.
Your virus concern is a valid one for a novice buying a computer and corporate environment. But it's really not that big of a concern for a knowledgable home user. Keeping windows updated and proper security measures in place is not a difficult task.
Regarding the migration. Does it actually provide any benefits? I'm not talking arguments like it being open source or cross platform etc. Does it provide REAL benefits for your situation? If it does, then that's the first step to selling to your boss. If you can justify it to yourself, then most of the reasons should translate into a pretty good reason for him to agree.
If it saves you time that translates into money saved for him, as well as, more time for his work force to focus on other issues. If it's better suited for your applications, then it should be easy to show that to him in some form of improvement that he can see and that he would appreciate.
You've gotta think if you walk in and show him how PHP will save him X dollars and allow Y increase in productivity then he's going to pay attention to that. If it won't increase these, then from a business standpoint, there's not a lot of reason for him to change.
I have no idea what the point of that post was.
This isn't about whose products is better. Nor were any claims made regarding Microsoft or Linux being better than the other.
People are buying those computers, and the boxes sitting on the shelves at Wal-Mart. It doesn't really matter how they got there. Selling software is FAR from dead at the present. You are claiming your perception of the future as the present.
Here is the report those numbers come from if anybody is interested. Forgot to include a link in the previous post.
Redhat's business model is certainly a success but with Microsoft posting $8.07 billion in revenue and $1.92 billion in net income, it's pretty ridiculous to say that selling software is dead. I'm sure record industry numbers would probably support that their industry while in a slump isn't exactly dead either. Both business models have a place and are not mutually exclusive.
On another note, large corporations probably do more to support Redhat's business model than any of the other entities you listed. We have contracts with vendors for just about every product we use. Yes, we also have "experts" on staff, but vendors are called on quite a lot to deal with issues with hardware and software.
The difference in watching someone commit crimes (movies) and committing crimes (games) shouldn't be overlooked. In the game, you actually have control over the action. This allows for a sense of emersion you would be hard pressed to get while watching a movie.
"drugs (LOTS of it, and not just pot either)"
I don't think drugs are much of a security issue. I know I'm not going to feel real threatened by a guy with pot in his pocket. =)
Prioritizing food, water, shelter, and clothing over the internet is hardly shortsighted.
I appreciate your point that the internet is a powerful tool for learning, and one that at some point kids should be exposed to no doubt. But giving priority to an internet connection over things they NEED is unreasonable. If you truly value internet access over feeding your kids, then I think you've found a lot more uses for it than I have.
At any rate, that's slightly off topic. Obviously, these families have the money to spend on broadband, which is the point. They are not in some position where they require our sympathy based on their financial status. They may earn some sympathy for being the little guy fighting the big bully, but certainly not sympathy for being allegedly poor, which is where a lot of the emphasis has gone in the coverage of these suits.
I believe the following is the only part of the copyright law pertaining to fair use in this situation:
"107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use38
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include --
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors."
IANAL, but I don't think that distributing music even for free on the street would meet these terms. Has there been a ruling that says that it is legal to do so?
Ya know, it's really getting old hearing of these cases of people that are soooo poor they can't afford to buy this or that, but somehow manage to find it in their budget to pay for a broadband connection. I have little sympathy for the financial situation of a mom with 4 kids that's having a hard time making ends meet or a mom with a 12 year old living in public housing who somehow find the money to spend on something as frivalous as a broadband connection. While I don't necessarily like the stance the RIAA is taking, I'm pretty sure they didn't have the financial records of everybody they have filed claims against.
I agree that they should change their business model, but I don't think that means they shouldn't persue people they deem to be pirating or infringing upon their copyrights. Would you say the same thing about people distributing tapes on the street? Should they just change their model and not persue stopping that form of piracy? From their standpoint, regardless of whether they change their business model to take better advantage of the internet, people distributing music for free are still, in their view, costing them money.
"they dont use thier windowsupdate site to check if your cdkey is valid"
I'm pretty sure I had Windows Update refuse to update my girlfriend's computer for that very reason the other day. And unless something has changed recently, most game distributors still go to lengths to include keys and other anti-piracy mechanisms in their products. So they are not just ignoring the piracy issue.
"people buy botteled water...they buy gorumet coffee from startbucks instead of the free cup they can get at work...hell people even buy M$ windows over linux"
All these examples differ from the music situation in that every product you listed is perceived by the consumer buying it to be better than the alternative and thereby worth their money. That's a key point the product itself and not some service offered with the product is perceived to be better. The music industry really can't offer that for the average consumer. Most consumers can't tell the difference between a 192kbps mp3 and the same track playing from a cd. The consumers that can and care are already buying cds. Yes, they can offer services and ease of access and a lot of other things that I'm sure I can't even think of, but they can't actually offer a better product in most consumers eyes.
Having said all that, I doubt this will serve the RIAA well. I don't believe that file sharing is the major impact on the declining income of the music industry, and I doubt that the RIAA will profit in the long run from these actions. Perhaps they should just take this as a subtle hint that change is needed. Lower prices, better music, and easier access would go a long way to curbing their declining revenue.
As has been mentioned already, these games are written to an API generally either DirectX or OpenGL. The support for hardware comes from those products, so if you want to blame somebody for not supporting other cards then blame those responsible for DirectX and OpenGL.
You can't really expect game makers to spend time making their games compatible with hardware that isn't supported by one of those products as the market is simply too small to be cost effective.
Good point. Given the short history of these vehicles, I can see required maintenance in the future being used as a point of speculation for overall maintenance cost of these cars.
I hope you're not referencing the file manager pictured as being more coherent. Unless they picked a REALLY bad illustration of what this thing looks like and how it organizes files, I think I'd stab myself while trying to use it. It looks like a big freakin mess, an interesting mess, but a mess all the same.
"Please tell me why it's impossible to create an application that pulls an HTML document off the web, renders this and displays it on a monitor without any security problems?"
It's not impossible, but it's pretty much impossible to verify. The reality is that humans are fallable. We write software, and most of what is written will have bugs. Some will be small, others will be the nasty ones like we've been seeing recently.
That's not to say that in writing software we shouldn't strive for perfection in all aspects, but the reality is that goal will rarely if ever be reached.
"I know who think it's ok to go 10mph over the speed limit"
Are we talking ok from a safety stand point? If so then they very well may be right. A safe speed is dependent on a lot of things, and a sign with big numbers on it is hardly one of them. If it's a bright sunny day outside, it's obviously safe to go faster than if it's raining outside. Different vehicles are safer to operate at higher speeds due to having the proper tires among other factors. In the state I used to live in they raised the speed limit on a highway I commonly traveled from 55 to 70 without any change to the highway. Did it suddenly become ok to travel on that road at 15 mph over the previous speed limit?
Legally, there isn't much argument. The government says it's illegal so it is. But the qualifications of goverment agencies to set appropriate speed limits, presumably based on safety concerns, is somewhat questionable.