The problem really isn't the security of the biometric being comprimised. Fingerprints, iris scans, etc.. are all inherintly BAD biometrics. The 1st aspect of a biometric is uniqueness. The 2nd, usually overlooked, aspect is LIVELINESS. Anyone can cutt of a finger or an eyeball and use it to circumvent biometric tests...
The industry is still waiting for the next big biometric that fullfills both the unique and liveliness qualities of a truly useful biometric.
Besides, biometrics should never be used on there own, rather they should be used as a locking mechanism for a secret key of some sort.
I'm not sure that todays software is at the level where we can simply "maintain" it to fit and work with newly emerging software. Today's most prolific form of "maintenance" might argueably be software patches. We have all seen the effects of daily patches to common software and the problems that this approach brings about, (::cough::::cough:: Windows.)
Sure, you can have software that lasts 200 years and doesn't need to be modified, but the tough part is to make it interoperable with tomorrow's technologies. We're making great progress with data formats and specs, (XML, webservies, etc...) but we still have a long way to go... I personally don't think that today's software can do this.
Can we the people do anything about this ridiculous possibility? Can the/. community start up a massive petition and push it right down Sen. Hatch's throat? Let's stop whining and start taking some action.
I think that the GPL is only in place because of the copyright laws and therefore wouldn't need protection if those laws were more leenient or non existant. The GPL tries to do exactly what I mentioned in the previous post. It gets the code and the software out there to those who could not afford the commercial substitute or want to make their own modificatons on it. This is where new ideas come from and where old ideas get augmented and improved upon.
Do I think that the prosecution of students, (or anyone for that matter) is justified? In some ways, yes I do. But people also have to remember that in most cases people download media as a precusor to actually seeing the movie or going to a live performance/buying the CD. Hopefully without retribution from the RIAA, I can say that I've downloaded music from an artist that I was previously not aware of. After I heard their music I spoke about them to friends and went to concerts... It's the best advertising anyone could ever ask for. Most importantly, it's free.
The same story is posted on CNN.com. Accompanying this article is one by Marci A. Hamilton, a chairman at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University. She states that going after students who illegally download media is not only OK, but is RIGHT. I wouldn't have a problem with this were it not for the reasons she supports it with. She says that a world without copyright laws would cater only to the rich and the government. When was the last time you heard of a government worker writing a song on the top 10 list? When was the last time a millionaire, (not a musician) created a song that made it to the hall of fame? My point is, without free music/media, many of the people who come up with the latest and greatest entertainment would never see any of the media that's out there. Marci claims to be looking out for the poor country music singers in her article. If they're as poor as she says, how are they ever going to be able to afford a CD at $15 a piece???
Musicians and music labels alike need to come to grips with the fact that their moneymaker, (CD sales) will need to take a back seat to actual performances by the artist. We need to take it back to the old days when music artists actually sang and performed and didn't just sit in a dark room behind some curtain tooling away on their synthesizer.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem really isn't the security of the biometric being comprimised. Fingerprints, iris scans, etc.. are all inherintly BAD biometrics. The 1st aspect of a biometric is uniqueness. The 2nd, usually overlooked, aspect is LIVELINESS. Anyone can cutt of a finger or an eyeball and use it to circumvent biometric tests... The industry is still waiting for the next big biometric that fullfills both the unique and liveliness qualities of a truly useful biometric. Besides, biometrics should never be used on there own, rather they should be used as a locking mechanism for a secret key of some sort.
God damn Manifest Destiny
I'm not sure that todays software is at the level where we can simply "maintain" it to fit and work with newly emerging software. Today's most prolific form of "maintenance" might argueably be software patches. We have all seen the effects of daily patches to common software and the problems that this approach brings about, (::cough:: ::cough:: Windows.)
Sure, you can have software that lasts 200 years and doesn't need to be modified, but the tough part is to make it interoperable with tomorrow's technologies. We're making great progress with data formats and specs, (XML, webservies, etc...) but we still have a long way to go... I personally don't think that today's software can do this.
Can we the people do anything about this ridiculous possibility? Can the /. community start up a massive petition and push it right down Sen. Hatch's throat? Let's stop whining and start taking some action.
I think that the GPL is only in place because of the copyright laws and therefore wouldn't need protection if those laws were more leenient or non existant. The GPL tries to do exactly what I mentioned in the previous post. It gets the code and the software out there to those who could not afford the commercial substitute or want to make their own modificatons on it. This is where new ideas come from and where old ideas get augmented and improved upon.
Do I think that the prosecution of students, (or anyone for that matter) is justified? In some ways, yes I do. But people also have to remember that in most cases people download media as a precusor to actually seeing the movie or going to a live performance/buying the CD. Hopefully without retribution from the RIAA, I can say that I've downloaded music from an artist that I was previously not aware of. After I heard their music I spoke about them to friends and went to concerts... It's the best advertising anyone could ever ask for. Most importantly, it's free.
The same story is posted on CNN.com. Accompanying this article is one by Marci A. Hamilton, a chairman at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University. She states that going after students who illegally download media is not only OK, but is RIGHT. I wouldn't have a problem with this were it not for the reasons she supports it with. She says that a world without copyright laws would cater only to the rich and the government. When was the last time you heard of a government worker writing a song on the top 10 list? When was the last time a millionaire, (not a musician) created a song that made it to the hall of fame? My point is, without free music/media, many of the people who come up with the latest and greatest entertainment would never see any of the media that's out there. Marci claims to be looking out for the poor country music singers in her article. If they're as poor as she says, how are they ever going to be able to afford a CD at $15 a piece???
s .hamilton.music/index.html
Musicians and music labels alike need to come to grips with the fact that their moneymaker, (CD sales) will need to take a back seat to actual performances by the artist. We need to take it back to the old days when music artists actually sang and performed and didn't just sit in a dark room behind some curtain tooling away on their synthesizer.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/07/findlaw.analysi