I really don't think the statement is aimed at women in particular. It's more of a child/parent relationship thing. Most (not all) people I know have closer relationships with their mothers and thus seem more willing to help them out. Also, alot of fathers try and hide the fact that they don't know something where as women (mothers) usually don't have a problem asking for help thus their offspring are more opt to help them.
But they do important and often critical stuff. No one would try to use NT or Linux to do what HP/UX or Solaris or AIX can do. And those who need the high-end OS' are more then willing to pay what they are worth.
I think this is changing as Linux gains more market share and PC's become more powerful. And it really depends on what you need the OS to do. I have been working for a company that develops UNIX based manufacturing software for 15 years and in the last year we have had many of our customers switch from using expensive Sun/HP/IBM workhorses to less expensive x86 based Linux/Unixware boxes because they can get the same performance for ALOT less money. When I was first testing our product to see if it would run on Linux, a little over a year ago, I installed it on a throw away P200. I was quite impressed when it compiled (on the first try =) our complete system in 20 minutes - compared to our $20,000 Ultra Sparc which does it in a little over 15 minutes. Since then, we (and our customers) have found that even running 50 - 300 concurrent users (which isn't a large number, but the average size for our customer base) there is not a large performance difference between Linux and the other 'major' UNIX's.
when you invest in the stock market you ARE doing something - you are giving your money to a company so they can improve THEIR business. It's your money that they are playing with, why shouldn't you be compensated for it if they do well.
using your Ford Mustang® example would be to use the product as the server name like http://mustang.ford.com. This makes way more sense to me than chewing up a domain for every type of product that Ford makes (especially since it fits the same format as an email addy). Like the method you mentioned, they could have an unlimited number of products but only use one domain name.
I understand that companies gobble up all the possible combinations of domains to try and stop others from making sites that either compete with or bash the company but I believe alot of the issues they are worried about are already covered by Trademark and Copyright laws.
They didn't reverse engineer the movie, they reverse engineered the process of de-encrypting the movie for playback. In this case the movie is exactly like a Word or Excel file (it's just data) and the DMCA specifically states that it is legal to reverse engineer the process to read/save this data on systems in which the capablity does not currently exist.
As for being only US law, then explain to me how they had somebody in Norway detained and questioned regarding this even though they did all their developement outside of the US.
and you will see that what they did is perfectly legal:
(f) Reverse Engineering. - (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title. (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title. (3) The information acquired through the acts permitted under paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may be made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate applicable law other than this section. (4) For purposes of this subsection, the term ''interoperability'' means the ability of computer programs to exchange information, and of such programs mutually to use the information which has been exchanged.
(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
Would have me believe that since there are already (free) software players available for Winblows then it would be illegal to reverse engineer the code to create another player for that OS.
Two interesting paragraphs in chapter 12 are: (e) Law Enforcement, Intelligence, and Other Government Activities. - This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, information security, or intelligence activity of an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or a person acting pursuant to a contract with the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State. For purposes of this subsection, the term ''information security'' means activities carried out in order to identify and address the vulnerabilities of a government computer, computer system, or computer network.
I know there are many other examples of this, but it bothers me when the Government can do something legaly but the people (who the Government is supposed to represent) can not.
(f) Reverse Engineering. - (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title. (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title. (3) The information acquired through the acts permitted under paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may be made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate applicable law other than this section. (4) For purposes of this subsection, the term ''interoperability'' means the ability of computer programs to exchange information, and of such programs mutually to use the information which has been exchanged.
To me, this paragraph all by itself says that the creation of DeCSS (for Linux) is completely legal, as long as you are doing it for your own personal use. Using it for playback in Winblows would be illegal because there are already software DVD players for Winblows available.
You respond back to the author (or publisher) of the article explaining the points that you see as incorrect, BUT you must do it civily - don't flame them, or call them morons. Just state the facts (maybe supplying links to them) and nothing else. It does not help our cause to be slamming the media - believe it or not they can be our friend.
I've been using Linux for a few years (and I plead the 5th concerning hacking). I haven't graduated from college, but I did go for a year or so - 14 years ago.
Hackers (and Linux hackers) have been around for years - in fact I probably know a hacker movie or two that is older than you are (guessing by your post)
this paragraph bothers me: Windows 2000 demonstrated poor write performance across all our file tests. In fact, we found that its write performance was about 10% of its read performance. After consulting with both Microsoft and Client/Server Solutions, the author of the Benchmark Factory testing tool we used, we determined that the poor write performance could be due to two factors. One, which we were unable to verify, might be a possible performance problem with the SCSI driver for the hardware we used.
Awful fishy to me that they actually consulted with others to figure out why W2K wasn't performing up to snuff in this test but they seem to have fiddled with the other OS's themselves for the other tests.
is just don't buy DVD's or DVD drives/players - it's called a boycott.
We (as consumers) also need to get the news out to the people not on the web and reading/. Write letters to the editor of your local newspaper(s), stage protest rallys to get the news media involved, post fliers, explaining the case and why it is bad for consumers, around local video rental stores and electronic stores. For the real radically inclined, create some urban legends like watching DVD's can raise your chances of catching a STD or something.
Basically let the MPAA know that these monopolistic actions will hurt them more than the pirating.
Believe me I know it sucks (I just bought my DVD player about two weeks before this shit hit the fan), but hitting them in the wallet is really the only way these people will get the point - bitching about all this on/. will get us nowhere.
I believe it is yet another method of copy protection. They figure the pirates will only make copies of their local versions thus making the copies useless (and less desirable) to users in other locations.
They'll care if we burn them in front of their main office =)
Anybody remember the 'Death of Disco' during a White Sox game at Commisky park in Chicago during the late 70's? A local DJ had enticed the fans to bring disco albums to the game and they started a huge bon-fire in center field during the 7th inning stretch.
The Bill of Rights is there to protect the American people from an unfair Government - not to dictate how and why laws get passed (though many laws are created to protect those Rights). The problem is that we have given corporations those same Rights so now they have the ability to create/pass laws that protect their interests - something that the creator of the BoR (Thomas Jefferson) would have been completly against. This is not a weakness of the BoR, but a weakness of the American people to let it continue. The BoR actually gives us the power to change it - the problem is a majority of American people either: just don't understand that, refuse to do anything about it or just plain give up their rights.
Yes, the constitution was origianlly written up by lawyers and business men but the parts giving us free speach and the right to bear arms were added later to protect us from those same lawyers and business men (if they get out of hand). The sad part is that most of the American people don't realize this anymore and so are in the process of giving up these rights.
Many people are now buying DVD's to replace the video tapes that they bought a year ago. Even if the DVD code hadn't been cracked a new technology will be released and you will have to buy everything all over again anyways (my guess is the next technology will be some type of ROM card).
By forcing the consumer to use only 'licensed' devices to play DVD's (or any other media) you are also forcing them to have to upgrade those devices when the industry decides it's time for an upgrade.
I hate video tape and I watched very few movies at home because of it. I waited a long time for the stupid DVD standards to settle down before I bought a player because I wanted to avoid the problem mentioned above (technology change). I purchased my player about 2 weeks before this whole DeCSS thing blew up. My feeling is that if they (the movie industry) decide to scrap the current standard and produce another one, I, as a consumer, will just decide to scrap the whole format.
Slashdot Mirror
I really don't think the statement is aimed at women in particular. It's more of a child/parent relationship thing. Most (not all) people I know have closer relationships with their mothers and thus seem more willing to help them out. Also, alot of fathers try and hide the fact that they don't know something where as women (mothers) usually don't have a problem asking for help thus their offspring are more opt to help them.
But they do important and often critical stuff. No one would try to use NT or Linux to do what HP/UX or Solaris or AIX can do. And those who need the high-end OS' are more then willing to pay what they are worth.
I think this is changing as Linux gains more market share and PC's become more powerful. And it really depends on what you need the OS to do. I have been working for a company that develops UNIX based manufacturing software for 15 years and in the last year we have had many of our customers switch from using expensive Sun/HP/IBM workhorses to less expensive x86 based Linux/Unixware boxes because they can get the same performance for ALOT less money. When I was first testing our product to see if it would run on Linux, a little over a year ago, I installed it on a throw away P200. I was quite impressed when it compiled (on the first try =) our complete system in 20 minutes - compared to our $20,000 Ultra Sparc which does it in a little over 15 minutes. Since then, we (and our customers) have found that even running 50 - 300 concurrent users (which isn't a large number, but the average size for our customer base) there is not a large performance difference between Linux and the other 'major' UNIX's.
this is why I build my own boxes. I can build any system sold by any of the major HW supplies for at least 30% of their cost - in many cases 50% less.
Then the NSA can still be responsible since it's still a secret who is behind it.
and not for Winblows?
I wouldn't touch a binary only application provided by the FBI with a 10 foot cattle prod.
/. thread - the timing and anonomity of all this just seems too fishy to me.
My gut feeling is to agree with the comment posted in the head of this
but if they have the HD then they have the PGP key.
when you invest in the stock market you ARE doing something - you are giving your money to a company so they can improve THEIR business. It's your money that they are playing with, why shouldn't you be compensated for it if they do well.
using your Ford Mustang® example would be to use the product as the server name like http://mustang.ford.com. This makes way more sense to me than chewing up a domain for every type of product that Ford makes (especially since it fits the same format as an email addy). Like the method you mentioned, they could have an unlimited number of products but only use one domain name.
I understand that companies gobble up all the possible combinations of domains to try and stop others from making sites that either compete with or bash the company but I believe alot of the issues they are worried about are already covered by Trademark and Copyright laws.
They didn't reverse engineer the movie, they reverse engineered the process of de-encrypting the movie for playback. In this case the movie is exactly like a Word or Excel file (it's just data) and the DMCA specifically states that it is legal to reverse engineer the process to read/save this data on systems in which the capablity does not currently exist.
As for being only US law, then explain to me how they had somebody in Norway detained and questioned regarding this even though they did all their developement outside of the US.
That's exactly what they are trying to say (unless you pay them many thousands of dollars - then they'll give you the 'right' to make one).
and you will see that what they did is perfectly legal:
(f) Reverse Engineering. - (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.
(3) The information acquired through the acts permitted under paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may be made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate applicable law other than this section.
(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term ''interoperability'' means the ability of computer programs to exchange information, and of such programs mutually to use the information which has been exchanged.
My interpetation of this paragraph:
(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
Would have me believe that since there are already (free) software players available for Winblows then it would be illegal to reverse engineer the code to create another player for that OS.
Two interesting paragraphs in chapter 12 are:
(e) Law Enforcement, Intelligence, and Other Government Activities. - This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, information security, or intelligence activity of an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or a person acting pursuant to a contract with the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State. For purposes of this subsection, the term ''information security'' means activities carried out in order to identify and address the vulnerabilities of a government computer, computer system, or computer network.
I know there are many other examples of this, but it bothers me when the Government can do something legaly but the people (who the Government is supposed to represent) can not.
(f) Reverse Engineering. - (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.
(3) The information acquired through the acts permitted under paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may be made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate applicable law other than this section.
(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term ''interoperability'' means the ability of computer programs to exchange information, and of such programs mutually to use the information which has been exchanged.
To me, this paragraph all by itself says that the creation of DeCSS (for Linux) is completely legal, as long as you are doing it for your own personal use. Using it for playback in Winblows would be illegal because there are already software DVD players for Winblows available.
You respond back to the author (or publisher) of the article explaining the points that you see as incorrect, BUT you must do it civily - don't flame them, or call them morons. Just state the facts (maybe supplying links to them) and nothing else. It does not help our cause to be slamming the media - believe it or not they can be our friend.
I've been using Linux for a few years (and I plead the 5th concerning hacking). I haven't graduated from college, but I did go for a year or so - 14 years ago.
Hackers (and Linux hackers) have been around for years - in fact I probably know a hacker movie or two that is older than you are (guessing by your post)
-Want to play a game?
VB is considered a 'higher level' language and I have yet to see it run on anything other than Winblows.
Windows 2000 demonstrated poor write performance across all our file tests. In fact, we found that its write performance was about 10% of its read performance. After consulting with both Microsoft and Client/Server Solutions, the author of the Benchmark Factory testing tool we used, we determined that the poor write performance could be due to two factors. One, which we were unable to verify, might be a possible performance problem with the SCSI driver for the hardware we used.
Awful fishy to me that they actually consulted with others to figure out why W2K wasn't performing up to snuff in this test but they seem to have fiddled with the other OS's themselves for the other tests.
is just don't buy DVD's or DVD drives/players - it's called a boycott.
/. Write letters to the editor of your local newspaper(s), stage protest rallys to get the news media involved, post fliers, explaining the case and why it is bad for consumers, around local video rental stores and electronic stores. For the real radically inclined, create some urban legends like watching DVD's can raise your chances of catching a STD or something.
/. will get us nowhere.
We (as consumers) also need to get the news out to the people not on the web and reading
Basically let the MPAA know that these monopolistic actions will hurt them more than the pirating.
Believe me I know it sucks (I just bought my DVD player about two weeks before this shit hit the fan), but hitting them in the wallet is really the only way these people will get the point - bitching about all this on
I believe it is yet another method of copy protection. They figure the pirates will only make copies of their local versions thus making the copies useless (and less desirable) to users in other locations.
They'll care if we burn them in front of their main office =)
Anybody remember the 'Death of Disco' during a White Sox game at Commisky park in Chicago during the late 70's? A local DJ had enticed the fans to bring disco albums to the game and they started a huge bon-fire in center field during the 7th inning stretch.
The Bill of Rights is there to protect the American people from an unfair Government - not to dictate how and why laws get passed (though many laws are created to protect those Rights). The problem is that we have given corporations those same Rights so now they have the ability to create/pass laws that protect their interests - something that the creator of the BoR (Thomas Jefferson) would have been completly against. This is not a weakness of the BoR, but a weakness of the American people to let it continue. The BoR actually gives us the power to change it - the problem is a majority of American people either: just don't understand that, refuse to do anything about it or just plain give up their rights.
Yes, the constitution was origianlly written up by lawyers and business men but the parts giving us free speach and the right to bear arms were added later to protect us from those same lawyers and business men (if they get out of hand). The sad part is that most of the American people don't realize this anymore and so are in the process of giving up these rights.
Many people are now buying DVD's to replace the video tapes that they bought a year ago. Even if the DVD code hadn't been cracked a new technology will be released and you will have to buy everything all over again anyways (my guess is the next technology will be some type of ROM card).
By forcing the consumer to use only 'licensed' devices to play DVD's (or any other media) you are also forcing them to have to upgrade those devices when the industry decides it's time for an upgrade.
I hate video tape and I watched very few movies at home because of it. I waited a long time for the stupid DVD standards to settle down before I bought a player because I wanted to avoid the problem mentioned above (technology change). I purchased my player about 2 weeks before this whole DeCSS thing blew up. My feeling is that if they (the movie industry) decide to scrap the current standard and produce another one, I, as a consumer, will just decide to scrap the whole format.
Check it out here:
http://www.teamdelta.com/roboglad/