Then you will be sick for a long time, since they are different crimes. If copyright infringement (a modern crime) was already covered by theft (a very old crime), why go to the trouble of creating new laws and crimes for something that was already covered?
The reason is very simple - because the legislators, courts, lawyers and judges actually care what the law says. They have this strange reluctance to waste their time applying inappropriate laws that a junior defense lawyer could argue out of in his sleep.
You are free to see theft and copyright infringement as equally wrong if you like - but they are still separate crimes. If you care about the law, then read what it says and talk to people who understand how it operates. Then you will accept that they are different crimes - and more importantly, you will understand why.
As for rebelling against authority, I take the viewpoint that if God lets us be placed under an authority, even a bad one, then rebelling against the authority is also rebelling against God. Better not do it -- better just accept the trials that will come.
I just don't get this attitude. If God "lets" anything bad happen, you are advocating doing nothing about it? If a landslide buries your mother, you'd do nothing about it? I am not a Christian, but even I understand that free will requires that God does not intervene - that we are free to make our own decisions, for better or worse. Surely this freedom imposes a responsibility to act when you perceive a wrong?
That was the whole point of the Sony TV metaphor, poor as it was. The iPlayer is not based on open standards, it's software/protocol is locked in to Windows only. Rather like a hypothetical situation where you could only receive certain TV programmes on a TV made by a single manufacturer...
Bizarrely enough, I have actually stuck my hand in liquid nitrogen* , albeit very, very briefly.
When I was about 10 years old, I was taken around the physics department at my local university. The guy showing me around demonstrated it, and let me have a go. Your hand is so hot compared to the liquid, it keeps a layer of evaporated nitrogen surrounding it. For a very short time only!
* at least, I remember it as being liquid nitrogen, but it was a long time ago - might have been another liquified gas.
Good point:) I'm bemused that the engineers didn't build in some kind of obvious identifier to the replicants though. After all, the artificial snake scale contained a serial number!
Anyway, I like the Voigt-Kampff tests, and I think part of the point in the film was to emphasise just how similar they are to us and how hard it is to tell them apart.
Sorry to reply to myself, but I just realised you had a much better point than I gave you credit for.
Since these replicants can plunge their hands into liquid nitrogen without harm, and apparently have an assortment of other enhanced physical capabilities, there must be some much easier tests than emotional response.
Because replicants are biologically identical to us. They're bio-engineering, not AI devices. So one way to tell them apart is the lack of normal emotional responses. Which is why implanting memories in them is such a big deal - "to create a cushion"...
No kidding! I recently tried a quick hack to automate some simple document processing with OpenOffice using python. How hard could it be? It turned into several days of hacking to get it working at all. It really is a documentation nightmare.
Hmmm... that seems wrong to me. Christians and Muslims seem pretty close - same basic origin, same idea of an afterlife, same basic God, same fundamentalist maniacs. Buddhists are nothing like either of them.
Can you explain why you think Christians are more like Buddhists?
He wants to know if there are encryption algorithms that ordinary computers can run that are UNBREAKABLE by quantum computers, i.e. normal encryption that's safe from quantum computers.
And yes, there is. Quantum computers are good at breaking encryption that relies on a simple mathematical transformation using a big key. This applies particularly to public key ciphers (e.g. RSA). Block and stream ciphers on the other hand rely on doing complex serial, arbitrary and iterative transformations of the data, so you can't parallelize the algorithm.
In fact, most encryption algorithms out there can't be broken by quantum computers. Just the public key ones we use all the time right now. I believe there are already public key algorithms that can't be broken by quantum computers, but I'm not quite sure which ones.
Calm down! I specifically said most of your comments were fine, and that you weren't really trolling. But I did feel that, right at the end of your post, you descended to calling the GPL "the license of zealots", and that this was a trollish comment, only designed to provoke.
To take another car analogy, let's say you saw a speeding driver, and called him a speeding driver, but he couldn't hear you, so you sped up a bit to call him names to his face. Making you a speeding driver too;)
I don't get it. You think suing a company over copyright infringement, when they were politely asked to come into compliance and refused, is childish?
Great - I have this fantastic product "MattoSoft Winders" - guaranteed to behave just like Microsoft Windows, and always 50% cheaper. Let's just hope Microsoft don't get all childish on me;) That would really start scaring the punters away from these difficult "proprietary" licenses.
Frankly, your comments were fine, right up to the point you said "the license of zealots" - which is instant trolling, IMHO.
Yes, there are some people like that in the GPL camp, just like there are some pretty zealous people right across the board when it comes to discussing copyright. Oftentimes, the loudest voices come from those camps. Personally, I like the GPL, and think it makes an important contribution to our software ecosystem, although it's not right for everyone or all projects.
I don't normally feed the trolls, but in this case, I don't think you intended to troll - you just ironically ended up behaving just like one.
No, the GPL places no restrictions on using GPLd code. Anyone can do that. If you modify GPL code and use it, but don't distribute the software, you can also do that with no restrictions at all.
It just says that if you modify GPL code and distribute (i.e. copy) the resulting software, you have to make the source code available.
Wrong. GPL has nothing whatsoever to do with "non copyrighted material". It applies to copyrighted material - you seem to be confusing GPL works with public domain material, which is already free for everyone, and needs no license in the first place.
Copyright material is covered by copyright law, as you say. You cannot copy copyright material without permission - i.e. a license - from the copyright owner. The GPL is a license to copy, subject to various restrictions. Without it, copyright law says you can not make copies. Only with the license are you allowed to do this.
Copyright Law (can't make copies of copyrighted material without license) + GPL (a license to make copies of copyrighted material). The GPL is a copyright license, built on top of copyright law.
Same here. It's the one proprietary app that I can't find a decent open source replacement for. Granted, it sucks if the diagrams get too big, but it's great for making all sorts of quick diagrams. I've tried dia, xfig and just about every vector drawing tool out there, but none of them make it quite so drag and drop, with auto-routing connectors.
That's a bogus argument. Of course they're not interested in you specifically, but they don't ignore people who just keep their heads down. They aren't looking to target specific, well known people. They are interested in exploiting any vulnerability to steal user data, machines, bank account details, etc.
If you think you're secure because you don't think you're important enough to be to be a "target", then you'll probably end up as one.
Agreed, the way that the additional complexity is managed will be key to its success. But it's also true that abstracting out some the current mess may actually simplify its management.
For example, at present network access policy is left up to individual applications - your browser has a policy, java has a policy, etc. None of these things can be centrally controlled or managed. You are left to rely on a software firewall to block outgoing connections, but you can't enforce more interesting policies or consistent ones, for example, e.g. same sender policies. Non technical users won't even try to understand all of that. If we centralise access control to the network, we can reduce the overall amount of work to be done, and make more transparent to the user what is actually going on.
I'm very much against the idea that users are dumb (not that I'm saying you said that). I prefer to believe that our systems and metaphors are dumb. The old paradigm is that a computer is a hotel. We are in full control of our own room, but have no knowledge or control over the other rooms. We can send messages to other rooms, but we don't receive guests.
Our current paradigm is that we leave our door open to any visitor, invited or otherwise, and we hardly know who anyone is, or even if they are there or not. We need a way for non-technical people to intuitively understand what is safe and what is not, and to be able to manage those risks in the same way that they very capably do in the physical world.
Unhappy is what normal people feel when something exists to make them unhappy. Depression is what depressed people feel all, or most of, the time, for no apparent reason.
Anti depressants allow a depressed person to feel normal - i.e. they can feel unhappy again, as well as happy and everything in between. It reconnects their emotional response to everything, rather than being permanently, well, literally depressed.
Yes, it is the fault of the OS. No, linux isn't any better in this regard. They all essentially use the multi-user (on a single box), non-networked security models devised in the late 60s and early 70s.
Why should downloaded (i.e. tainted / potentially unsafe) code have any rights at all except to its own files by default? Should it be able to read your documents, open a network connection and send them out? Should it be able to format your disk? Hell, why even have a globally accessible file system at all?
We can't improve the users much, so we're going to have to improve the OS. Actually, some of the early security models were much better than the ones we use now, but carried too much overhead for the machines of the day.
Hmmm... I wasn't aware that if you live in a country that does some stupid things, you were not allowed to criticize another country that also does stupid things. I guess this means we should all just shut up.
I take it Americans are still allowed to speak their own minds? We can still do that in the UK (we just get observed doing it!)
Pretty routine for a distribution developer to do, and not too hard for mere mortals like myself. But I've never had the need to do it, although I have played with making custom kernels just to see how it all worked. Not really that hard - check your options in a GUI, do a build, deploy it.
Versus not being able to do any of that with a closed source operating system at all. Even simpler!
Slashdot Mirror
Then you will be sick for a long time, since they are different crimes. If copyright infringement (a modern crime) was already covered by theft (a very old crime), why go to the trouble of creating new laws and crimes for something that was already covered?
The reason is very simple - because the legislators, courts, lawyers and judges actually care what the law says. They have this strange reluctance to waste their time applying inappropriate laws that a junior defense lawyer could argue out of in his sleep.
You are free to see theft and copyright infringement as equally wrong if you like - but they are still separate crimes. If you care about the law, then read what it says and talk to people who understand how it operates. Then you will accept that they are different crimes - and more importantly, you will understand why.
Is it copyright infringement to use a hacked version of an operating system to which you possess a valid license?
As for rebelling against authority, I take the viewpoint that if God lets us be placed under an authority, even a bad one, then rebelling against the authority is also rebelling against God. Better not do it -- better just accept the trials that will come.
I just don't get this attitude. If God "lets" anything bad happen, you are advocating doing nothing about it? If a landslide buries your mother, you'd do nothing about it? I am not a Christian, but even I understand that free will requires that God does not intervene - that we are free to make our own decisions, for better or worse. Surely this freedom imposes a responsibility to act when you perceive a wrong?
Whoosh!
That was the whole point of the Sony TV metaphor, poor as it was. The iPlayer is not based on open standards, it's software/protocol is locked in to Windows only. Rather like a hypothetical situation where you could only receive certain TV programmes on a TV made by a single manufacturer...
Bizarrely enough, I have actually stuck my hand in liquid nitrogen* , albeit very, very briefly.
When I was about 10 years old, I was taken around the physics department at my local university. The guy showing me around demonstrated it, and let me have a go. Your hand is so hot compared to the liquid, it keeps a layer of evaporated nitrogen surrounding it. For a very short time only!
* at least, I remember it as being liquid nitrogen, but it was a long time ago - might have been another liquified gas.
Good point :) I'm bemused that the engineers didn't build in some kind of obvious identifier to the replicants though. After all, the artificial snake scale contained a serial number!
Anyway, I like the Voigt-Kampff tests, and I think part of the point in the film was to emphasise just how similar they are to us and how hard it is to tell them apart.
No, it doesn't. Unless you believe that human life is worth intrinsically more than replicant life in the first place.
Sorry to reply to myself, but I just realised you had a much better point than I gave you credit for.
Since these replicants can plunge their hands into liquid nitrogen without harm, and apparently have an assortment of other enhanced physical capabilities, there must be some much easier tests than emotional response.
Because replicants are biologically identical to us. They're bio-engineering, not AI devices. So one way to tell them apart is the lack of normal emotional responses. Which is why implanting memories in them is such a big deal - "to create a cushion"...
There's a fantastic sci-fi book called "Tau Zero" by Poul Anderson about this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tau_Zero
No kidding! I recently tried a quick hack to automate some simple document processing with OpenOffice using python. How hard could it be? It turned into several days of hacking to get it working at all. It really is a documentation nightmare.
Hmmm... that seems wrong to me. Christians and Muslims seem pretty close - same basic origin, same idea of an afterlife, same basic God, same fundamentalist maniacs. Buddhists are nothing like either of them.
Can you explain why you think Christians are more like Buddhists?
Nope - he had it right, you have it backwards.
He wants to know if there are encryption algorithms that ordinary computers can run that are UNBREAKABLE by quantum computers, i.e. normal encryption that's safe from quantum computers.
And yes, there is. Quantum computers are good at breaking encryption that relies on a simple mathematical transformation using a big key. This applies particularly to public key ciphers (e.g. RSA). Block and stream ciphers on the other hand rely on doing complex serial, arbitrary and iterative transformations of the data, so you can't parallelize the algorithm.
In fact, most encryption algorithms out there can't be broken by quantum computers. Just the public key ones we use all the time right now. I believe there are already public key algorithms that can't be broken by quantum computers, but I'm not quite sure which ones.
Calm down! I specifically said most of your comments were fine, and that you weren't really trolling. But I did feel that, right at the end of your post, you descended to calling the GPL "the license of zealots", and that this was a trollish comment, only designed to provoke.
;)
To take another car analogy, let's say you saw a speeding driver, and called him a speeding driver, but he couldn't hear you, so you sped up a bit to call him names to his face. Making you a speeding driver too
I don't get it. You think suing a company over copyright infringement, when they were politely asked to come into compliance and refused, is childish?
;) That would really start scaring the punters away from these difficult "proprietary" licenses.
Great - I have this fantastic product "MattoSoft Winders" - guaranteed to behave just like Microsoft Windows, and always 50% cheaper. Let's just hope Microsoft don't get all childish on me
It's exactly the same, Mr. Double Standards!
Frankly, your comments were fine, right up to the point you said "the license of zealots" - which is instant trolling, IMHO.
Yes, there are some people like that in the GPL camp, just like there are some pretty zealous people right across the board when it comes to discussing copyright. Oftentimes, the loudest voices come from those camps. Personally, I like the GPL, and think it makes an important contribution to our software ecosystem, although it's not right for everyone or all projects.
I don't normally feed the trolls, but in this case, I don't think you intended to troll - you just ironically ended up behaving just like one.
No, the GPL places no restrictions on using GPLd code. Anyone can do that. If you modify GPL code and use it, but don't distribute the software, you can also do that with no restrictions at all.
It just says that if you modify GPL code and distribute (i.e. copy) the resulting software, you have to make the source code available.
Wrong. GPL has nothing whatsoever to do with "non copyrighted material". It applies to copyrighted material - you seem to be confusing GPL works with public domain material, which is already free for everyone, and needs no license in the first place.
Copyright material is covered by copyright law, as you say. You cannot copy copyright material without permission - i.e. a license - from the copyright owner. The GPL is a license to copy, subject to various restrictions. Without it, copyright law says you can not make copies. Only with the license are you allowed to do this.
Copyright Law (can't make copies of copyrighted material without license) + GPL (a license to make copies of copyrighted material). The GPL is a copyright license, built on top of copyright law.
Geddit?
Same here. It's the one proprietary app that I can't find a decent open source replacement for. Granted, it sucks if the diagrams get too big, but it's great for making all sorts of quick diagrams. I've tried dia, xfig and just about every vector drawing tool out there, but none of them make it quite so drag and drop, with auto-routing connectors.
That's a bogus argument. Of course they're not interested in you specifically, but they don't ignore people who just keep their heads down. They aren't looking to target specific, well known people. They are interested in exploiting any vulnerability to steal user data, machines, bank account details, etc.
If you think you're secure because you don't think you're important enough to be to be a "target", then you'll probably end up as one.
Agreed, the way that the additional complexity is managed will be key to its success. But it's also true that abstracting out some the current mess may actually simplify its management.
For example, at present network access policy is left up to individual applications - your browser has a policy, java has a policy, etc. None of these things can be centrally controlled or managed. You are left to rely on a software firewall to block outgoing connections, but you can't enforce more interesting policies or consistent ones, for example, e.g. same sender policies. Non technical users won't even try to understand all of that. If we centralise access control to the network, we can reduce the overall amount of work to be done, and make more transparent to the user what is actually going on.
I'm very much against the idea that users are dumb (not that I'm saying you said that). I prefer to believe that our systems and metaphors are dumb. The old paradigm is that a computer is a hotel. We are in full control of our own room, but have no knowledge or control over the other rooms. We can send messages to other rooms, but we don't receive guests.
Our current paradigm is that we leave our door open to any visitor, invited or otherwise, and we hardly know who anyone is, or even if they are there or not. We need a way for non-technical people to intuitively understand what is safe and what is not, and to be able to manage those risks in the same way that they very capably do in the physical world.
depression != unhappy
Unhappy is what normal people feel when something exists to make them unhappy.
Depression is what depressed people feel all, or most of, the time, for no apparent reason.
Anti depressants allow a depressed person to feel normal - i.e. they can feel unhappy again, as well as happy and everything in between. It reconnects their emotional response to everything, rather than being permanently, well, literally depressed.
Yes, it is the fault of the OS. No, linux isn't any better in this regard. They all essentially use the multi-user (on a single box), non-networked security models devised in the late 60s and early 70s.
Why should downloaded (i.e. tainted / potentially unsafe) code have any rights at all except to its own files by default? Should it be able to read your documents, open a network connection and send them out? Should it be able to format your disk? Hell, why even have a globally accessible file system at all?
We can't improve the users much, so we're going to have to improve the OS. Actually, some of the early security models were much better than the ones we use now, but carried too much overhead for the machines of the day.
Hmmm... I wasn't aware that if you live in a country that does some stupid things, you were not allowed to criticize another country that also does stupid things. I guess this means we should all just shut up.
I take it Americans are still allowed to speak their own minds? We can still do that in the UK (we just get observed doing it!)
Pretty routine for a distribution developer to do, and not too hard for mere mortals like myself. But I've never had the need to do it, although I have played with making custom kernels just to see how it all worked. Not really that hard - check your options in a GUI, do a build, deploy it.
Versus not being able to do any of that with a closed source operating system at all. Even simpler!