Lessee... US, not in Asia. China is in Asia. Country not in Asia being hypocritical... that would be US in this case. We'll leave that on the side for the moment. That leaves a country NOT being hypocritical, and we end up with ???CHINA???
It wasn't so much the pirating parties as the sales via street vendors. If you can get a copy of a brand new movie, but questionable quality for $5 off of a street vendor, or the real deal for $80, you'd might be willing to try the guy on the street. Even if half the copies are no good, it's still far cheaper. Bring that price down to $20 (or nowadays, $15 or less), and it's barely tempting at all.
They'd only come down to $20 or so after a few months. I'm actually a bit surprised (but happy) they don't still do that.
IIRC, that practice was stopped in efforts to counteract piracy, the assumption being that a reasonable price early in the market would reduce the number of people who would go and grab a pirated version instead. They haven't reverted, so it must be working at some level.
The poor people that can't figure out that the BMW web site is www.bmw.com.
Whenever I need to look for a company's website, I put the company name into google unless I already know the site. Mostly because I have no idea if BMW's site is www.bmw.com, or something less obvious because some company named "Baseball Merchandise Warehouse" already owns bmw.com. So let's pretend BMW's site is really www.bmw-auto.com, which I might guess, or I might not, but I really don't feel like trying 50 things in hopes that one will work when google usually gets it for me on the first try.
It wouldn't get the exec whacked though. He'd suddenly have union troubles and every last thing he'd ever done that was remotely illegal would have local cops investigating it. It'll all go away when he drops the suit AND pays a handsome penalty.
A bigger truism is don't whack a guy when you can extort him for some cash.
It sounded more to me like he was accusing him of political idiocy. For a private citizen, paying as little in taxes as possible is a common and quite understandable goal. For a wealthy public figure who's trying to argue that certain wealthy people should be paying more, he'd better make sure he's paying at least as much as he's asking them to.
Worse off would be if they were completely opposed, like someone teaching creation by that damn spaghetti monster.
I think that was one of the more subtle points that he was trying to make with the Spaghetti Monster idea. I think he was trying to point out that if you teach ID, you're teaching somebody's religion, but whose?
My point wasn't that gun control necessarily reduces crime. I was trying to state that increased gun ownership does not necessarily decrease crime.
That and I wanted to point out the glaring flaw in the original poster's argument, mainly that big cities in Texas don't have the lowest crime rates around.
There's a reason large cities in texas have such low violent crime rates compared to other parts of the country.
This presupposes that large cities in Texas have low violent crime rates. They don't.
The three largest cities in Texas would be (in order) Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio.
All three have higher rates (as of 2002) of Murder, Rape, and Aggravated Assault than NYC, and Houston and Dallas have higher Robbery rates than NYC as well.
NYC has some of the stricter gun control laws in the US.
And in response to the other poster I saw who replied to you, I don't know what Miami gun saturation is, but the violent crime rates are no where near the worst in US big cities.
The problem with recidivism stats is that we don't really know what they would have done had things turned out different (not been caught) or with some alternate punishment/rehabilitation/whatever. The only way to be sure of what could happen is to execute everybody (which obviously has its own problems) or devise an acceptable but non-prison based form of punishment and see how the recidivism rates between the groups compare. And even then it only matters if the alternate does not incorporate the characteristics of prison that are suspected to cause recidivism.
I semi-cheated and listened to the album. I picked Bullet in the Head on the third try (after Bombtrack and Take the Power Back). It's been a couple years since I listened to that.
From the Nth degree ancestor post (the one from playfullyclever):
I am a teenager and I have gotten in trouble with school for "hacking"
I had no malintentions, but I see why they have to do such penalties.
However, the main problem is that the code is not secure, not that I was messing around during a free period and found a way to bypass the "security."
It sounds like he wasn't supposed to go in, knew he wasn't supposed to go in, and tried to find a way anyway. We still don't know what he did, but it sounds like he had to do something to break in.
Do you have any links to research that indicates that prison time causes crime? I've heard various opinions on the subject, some of which are logical and support your position, but I don't know of any actual research done on the matter.
BTW, is your sig a quote from 'Bombtrack'? I could look it up but that feels like cheating.
I suppose this is really closer to breaking and entering than trespass, since it's not a case of the door being unlocked but the lock on the door being worn out and rusty or very trivially picked. The lock is obviously insecure, but you still have to bypass it somehow to get in. Which in turn might make it a kind of attractive nuisance.
The word 'hack' has many definitions. Some of them are neutral (like cutting wood). Some of them are negative, in ways completely unrelated to each other. Some examples:
* A rough, dry cough. * One who undertakes unpleasant or distasteful tasks for money or reward.
Language evolves over time, and sometimes out of the control of the group that originally coined the phrase(s). Of course the real problem is that the word 'hacking' (or hacker or any other variation) is a piss poor choice of a word if you want it to be associated with something good. His use of the word hacking is just fine, even if it doesn't mean now what it used to.
Second, while I agree that he has no right to bypass security and enter other people's systems, he's also not dumping shit all over. He's not doing any permanent damage or anything that takes time/effort/money to fix. It's much closer to noticing that someone's front door is unlocked, and then letting yourself in and looking around a bit. He might see some things that no one wanted him to see, and they might have to take some steps to convince themselves that he really didn't steal or damage anything. That's about it. No dumptrucks full of sewage.
Again, that doesn't make it okay, it just means that the real damage isn't quite what you described.
The discussion started around the question of whether or not GPLv3 DRM restrictions covered *nix style permissions. Obviously discussing OSX moves outside the discussion, but take the Apple scenario as a hypotherical and it can just as easily apply to some linux desktop distribution if they've got it configured similar to OSX by default. The context of the discussion makes the legal distinctions important.
However, a couple of things: 1) I am certain there are real technical differences between what tends to qualify as a DRM scheme and unix style permissions. I can't quite put my finger on it, but then I suspect that's partly because I'm not aware of a universally agreed upon definition for DRM.
2) Putting the DRM language into the GPL seems silly. If someone releases a moderately popular product that supports DRM under the GPL, someone else will take that product and re-release it without the DRM in a fairly short amount of time. It's a self correcting problem.
I'd say the legal issues do make a substantial difference in this case. Basically, can you either find out how to get root somewhere, or (more importantly) will Apple tell you if you ask?
The permissions on OSX have a built-in, intended work-around method. The permissions are there more to protect you from either yourself or malicious programs than to actually prevent you from having full control of your machine. DRM on DVDs are not intended to be breakable (despite that it can be done), and require a tool (DeCSS) from a third party to disable the DRM.
From the responses these articles are getting, I'd say it's pretty obvious that your reader base is quite interested in these articles.
OT, but it's in my head so... any plans to fix the moderation % summaries when you click on a specific comments so that they're not rounded to the nearest 10%? It's a trivial thing, but it always bugged me.
Re:Screw that, I wrote about Web 4.0
on
Web 3.0
·
· Score: 3, Funny
ahem... but it turns out that the real use is...
Web 1.0 is about allowing individuals to create and share porn. Web 2.0 is about allowing groups to create and share porn. Web 3.0 is about allowing societies to create and share porn.
Or more succintly, since the above distinctions seem pretty meaningless (in both my and your versions), web = porn (or ideas, or whatever you think really happens on the web).
Slashdot Mirror
Lessee... US, not in Asia. China is in Asia. Country not in Asia being hypocritical... that would be US in this case. We'll leave that on the side for the moment. That leaves a country NOT being hypocritical, and we end up with ???CHINA???
China not being hypocritical here? What???
I'm having a hard time seeing the unethical side of this.
Loosely translated, Microsoft is saying "If we screwed up and you get sued because of that, we'll help to cover the costs."
I don't quite see the shadiness in there.
It wasn't so much the pirating parties as the sales via street vendors. If you can get a copy of a brand new movie, but questionable quality for $5 off of a street vendor, or the real deal for $80, you'd might be willing to try the guy on the street. Even if half the copies are no good, it's still far cheaper. Bring that price down to $20 (or nowadays, $15 or less), and it's barely tempting at all.
They'd only come down to $20 or so after a few months. I'm actually a bit surprised (but happy) they don't still do that.
IIRC, that practice was stopped in efforts to counteract piracy, the assumption being that a reasonable price early in the market would reduce the number of people who would go and grab a pirated version instead. They haven't reverted, so it must be working at some level.
The poor people that can't figure out that the BMW web site is www.bmw.com.
Whenever I need to look for a company's website, I put the company name into google unless I already know the site. Mostly because I have no idea if BMW's site is www.bmw.com, or something less obvious because some company named "Baseball Merchandise Warehouse" already owns bmw.com. So let's pretend BMW's site is really www.bmw-auto.com, which I might guess, or I might not, but I really don't feel like trying 50 things in hopes that one will work when google usually gets it for me on the first try.
It wouldn't get the exec whacked though. He'd suddenly have union troubles and every last thing he'd ever done that was remotely illegal would have local cops investigating it. It'll all go away when he drops the suit AND pays a handsome penalty.
A bigger truism is don't whack a guy when you can extort him for some cash.
I actually (for whatever reason) thought of Tak of the Archives rather than Pratchett.
And the people who removed that line are trying to suppress the truth about beavers.
It sounded more to me like he was accusing him of political idiocy. For a private citizen, paying as little in taxes as possible is a common and quite understandable goal. For a wealthy public figure who's trying to argue that certain wealthy people should be paying more, he'd better make sure he's paying at least as much as he's asking them to.
Worse off would be if they were completely opposed, like someone teaching creation by that damn spaghetti monster.
I think that was one of the more subtle points that he was trying to make with the Spaghetti Monster idea. I think he was trying to point out that if you teach ID, you're teaching somebody's religion, but whose?
I actually agree with you.
My point wasn't that gun control necessarily reduces crime. I was trying to state that increased gun ownership does not necessarily decrease crime.
That and I wanted to point out the glaring flaw in the original poster's argument, mainly that big cities in Texas don't have the lowest crime rates around.
I hate to say it, but if that were the case, we'd never have anything pass.
Actually, I thought that was the goal.
There's a reason large cities in texas have such low violent crime rates compared to other parts of the country.
This presupposes that large cities in Texas have low violent crime rates. They don't.
The three largest cities in Texas would be (in order) Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio.
All three have higher rates (as of 2002) of Murder, Rape, and Aggravated Assault than NYC, and Houston and Dallas have higher Robbery rates than NYC as well.
NYC has some of the stricter gun control laws in the US.
And in response to the other poster I saw who replied to you, I don't know what Miami gun saturation is, but the violent crime rates are no where near the worst in US big cities.
The problem with recidivism stats is that we don't really know what they would have done had things turned out different (not been caught) or with some alternate punishment/rehabilitation/whatever. The only way to be sure of what could happen is to execute everybody (which obviously has its own problems) or devise an acceptable but non-prison based form of punishment and see how the recidivism rates between the groups compare. And even then it only matters if the alternate does not incorporate the characteristics of prison that are suspected to cause recidivism.
I semi-cheated and listened to the album. I picked Bullet in the Head on the third try (after Bombtrack and Take the Power Back). It's been a couple years since I listened to that.
From the Nth degree ancestor post (the one from playfullyclever):
I am a teenager and I have gotten in trouble with school for "hacking"
I had no malintentions, but I see why they have to do such penalties.
However, the main problem is that the code is not secure, not that I was messing around during a free period and found a way to bypass the "security."
It sounds like he wasn't supposed to go in, knew he wasn't supposed to go in, and tried to find a way anyway. We still don't know what he did, but it sounds like he had to do something to break in.
Do you have any links to research that indicates that prison time causes crime? I've heard various opinions on the subject, some of which are logical and support your position, but I don't know of any actual research done on the matter.
BTW, is your sig a quote from 'Bombtrack'? I could look it up but that feels like cheating.
I suppose this is really closer to breaking and entering than trespass, since it's not a case of the door being unlocked but the lock on the door being worn out and rusty or very trivially picked. The lock is obviously insecure, but you still have to bypass it somehow to get in. Which in turn might make it a kind of attractive nuisance.
The word 'hack' has many definitions. Some of them are neutral (like cutting wood). Some of them are negative, in ways completely unrelated to each other. Some examples:
* A rough, dry cough.
* One who undertakes unpleasant or distasteful tasks for money or reward.
The correct word is cracking not hacking
Language evolves over time, and sometimes out of the control of the group that originally coined the phrase(s). Of course the real problem is that the word 'hacking' (or hacker or any other variation) is a piss poor choice of a word if you want it to be associated with something good. His use of the word hacking is just fine, even if it doesn't mean now what it used to.
Second, while I agree that he has no right to bypass security and enter other people's systems, he's also not dumping shit all over. He's not doing any permanent damage or anything that takes time/effort/money to fix. It's much closer to noticing that someone's front door is unlocked, and then letting yourself in and looking around a bit. He might see some things that no one wanted him to see, and they might have to take some steps to convince themselves that he really didn't steal or damage anything. That's about it. No dumptrucks full of sewage.
Again, that doesn't make it okay, it just means that the real damage isn't quite what you described.
There were two questions in the original. I thought you were answering:
Aren't file permissions in *ix and Windows systems a form of DRM?
So we're really talking about different issues. Never mind then.
The discussion started around the question of whether or not GPLv3 DRM restrictions covered *nix style permissions. Obviously discussing OSX moves outside the discussion, but take the Apple scenario as a hypotherical and it can just as easily apply to some linux desktop distribution if they've got it configured similar to OSX by default. The context of the discussion makes the legal distinctions important.
However, a couple of things:
1) I am certain there are real technical differences between what tends to qualify as a DRM scheme and unix style permissions. I can't quite put my finger on it, but then I suspect that's partly because I'm not aware of a universally agreed upon definition for DRM.
2) Putting the DRM language into the GPL seems silly. If someone releases a moderately popular product that supports DRM under the GPL, someone else will take that product and re-release it without the DRM in a fairly short amount of time. It's a self correcting problem.
I'd say the legal issues do make a substantial difference in this case. Basically, can you either find out how to get root somewhere, or (more importantly) will Apple tell you if you ask?
The permissions on OSX have a built-in, intended work-around method. The permissions are there more to protect you from either yourself or malicious programs than to actually prevent you from having full control of your machine. DRM on DVDs are not intended to be breakable (despite that it can be done), and require a tool (DeCSS) from a third party to disable the DRM.
Was it Europe, or Europe + Middle East + Africa?
TFA and the summary both seem to confuse the issue.
Except that it's not.
*nix permissions would only be a form of DRM if they were imposed on the owner of the machine by someone who was not the owner of the machine.
Unless you really want to try and argue that they're trying to protect user's rights on other people's machines.
From the responses these articles are getting, I'd say it's pretty obvious that your reader base is quite interested in these articles.
OT, but it's in my head so... any plans to fix the moderation % summaries when you click on a specific comments so that they're not rounded to the nearest 10%? It's a trivial thing, but it always bugged me.
ahem... but it turns out that the real use is...
Web 1.0 is about allowing individuals to create and share porn.
Web 2.0 is about allowing groups to create and share porn.
Web 3.0 is about allowing societies to create and share porn.
Or more succintly, since the above distinctions seem pretty meaningless (in both my and your versions), web = porn (or ideas, or whatever you think really happens on the web).