Eh, good point. It's not likely that we can expect the average user to know he's doing something wrong, which mitigates any 'fault' that can be assigned to him.
So what of the people who know enough about 802.11 to describe how it works (ie, everyone in this thread)? Should we let Dale Earnhardt Jr. claim ignorance when his runaway car runs over an old lady?
Nope. You bought the computer, you're expected to know how it works. Just because the default setting is to scan everything doesn't mean you're not responsible.
Third obligatory car analogy: If you park your car without setting the brake, it will by default roll downhill. Your fault, not the car's. The car (or your OS) cannot express any volition, only you can.
It's a nice idea but your conclusions are contained within your premise. You have something of a bootstrapping problem here. Even the "self-evident truths" in the Declaration of Independence can be traced back to, for instance, Kant, who laid the groundwork by sorting out the basic principles of morals.
Whereas, here you suggest that "society" is a self-evident objective good, and since it enables money to exist (along with a bunch of other nice things) then those other things are subordinate. Do you see the circularity here? We form society for certain goods, but at some point, society becomes the end, not the means, and those goods now become means when before they were ends. So at first people participate in society because they get something out of it, and if they are successful, then society takes it all away. Kind of like how, for some, safety is seen as a requirement for liberty to function, but then later, security becomes more important than freedom.
There is a short-circuit here somewhere.
On the face of it I don't disagree with your sentiment--that once you make billions of dollars you ought to stop worrying about collecting money and start giving back--I just think your justification isn't working.
Yah, I tend to use them conceptually as the same thing. Where I work, "Stuff we don't want the users to do" and "Stuff we don't allow the users to do" are one and the same. I also work with an "allow by exception" network with is basically a security guy's wet dream:P
How do you arrive a that figure? Are you saying you're really motivated by concern for whether or not authors get lazy? They make more than a million dollars and their art suffers?
I think you have the cart before the horse: creating content is a lot harder than simply enjoying it. In music, there has long been an issue where artists remix and mashup other artist's work...that's not the same as bittorenting a song!
As an aside, publishers are really not teh debbil. That would be Barnes & Noble, Borders, and Amazon. Research what they force publishers to do sometime, and see what a horrible effect they're having. Independent local bookstores FTW!
I don't see how that's relevant. Either the website is exercising fair use rights or not. Case closed. Whether or not she is a billionaire or a pauper is irrelevant, unless you want to discuss how rich she should have to get before she gives up her rights.
Yes! Fine, I don't disagree, but look back. This is a tangent. We were talking about whether or not she "deserves" to make more money, since she's already a billionaire. THAT is just politics of envy. "Wow, that JK is such a bitch, she has so much money, and she won't let her fans profit off her ideas!"
Whether or not the fans have that right is an entirely separate issue that should be decided by existing laws (there must be a better way to handle this).
And whether or not JKR is being a fool is a third issue (there is DEFINATELY a better way to handle this).
Yeah, but I think that's because WINE and Samba tie into some core functionality. Emulating windows (yes, I know what "WINE" stands for:P) =/= running programs ON windows.
If I understand your point, talking ABOUT Harry Potter should be fair use? I can agree with that. Talking about Harry Potter for money?
Well...most of the instances I can think of where you might do that would also be fair use--like where you give a lecture or something. So maybe she doesn't have a leg to stand on after all. Maybe she's just overreacting?
Oh, goody. I was wondering when the poor analogies would show up.
Microsoft releases APIs and so forth allowing other entities to produce software: It is explicitly allowed because it adds value.
Rowling explicitly allowed these folks to add value with their fan work. She does not explicitly allow them to make a profit by selling books.
The only "point" in your post is that she would be a lot smarter to try other options. This is correct. But nowhere do you state a case that she is legally or morally obligated to pick another option.
Likewise, if M$ stopped allowing people to develop windows programs, it would be stupid on their part, but it's their OS, they control the keys to the kingdom, and they can do whatever they want. In fact, since you have suggested it, it would not amaze me to think that in order to exert more control and generate more revenue, they might charge people fees to develop for the platform.
You're totally correct, but the original question was why should she profit more when she's already worth billions?
It's the wrong question to ask because it implies she's being immoral for profiting. The correct question is, why alienate your fans? This merely implies that she's being shortsighted (or even stupid).
Also, once again, let me point out that she's not trying to "take down" the site. She contributes to the site. But she does not want them to make money by publishing a book.
Network security starts with defining the requirements for the network and then determining user policies, and then eventually determining what hardware and software you need. Good policy will make a secure environment regardless of what operating systems you use.
You gave some good examples of this principle. If you provide the users with network shares or a collaboration solution, then they don't need to use thumb drives. If you sandbox Outlook and IE, you don't have to worry about the malware du jour. And so on and so forth.
Ok...what have you done with my tax dollars this week?
One time my ex got my car detailed and tuned up. Great random present. Then she cheated on me several times. She doesn't get to point to that one gift and argue that I'm missing out on the "facts" of what went wrong with our relationship. Capisce?
People often say "Nobody can ACCESS it, so it's secure." That is, until the next 0-day comes out, or someone figures out how to access it. Simply having your DB server exposed to the net--depending on authentication alone for security--is inadequate. You don't even have to spend money, just a little time, making it secure (another poster referenced VPNs--you could as easily tunnel your connection over secure sockets with an insanely long password known only to your automated java apps, and you'd be a lot better off).
I disagree somewhat...sometimes you spend millions on R&D to discover a very basic concept that can be implemented any number of ways. That kind of thing ought to be protected as well.
I mean, say you're caveman Zog and you are the first person to discover how tasty (and healthy) cooked food is. There are plenty of ways to cook it, but for a little while at least Zog should get sole credit for being the inventor of "cooking," rather than simply the patent-holder for "flambe."
Well, you know just enough to make yourself look a little foolish in front of people who have done this for a living.
Pretty much your entire post hinges on this idea that you would use automated equipment to do signal search. You don't; you start with the Mk. 1 Ear, a couple of receivers, and a pair of phones. Acquiring frequency hoppers in a pain in the ass, but not impossible, and typically neither is determining their pattern, assuming you have the right gear.
Hope this clears things up for you. If not, well, QXX.
If you put out a strong signal, no matter how well-encrypted, I guarantee you a bunch of yokels with foxhunting gear could get a pretty accurate fix on you.
Slashdot Mirror
Eh, good point. It's not likely that we can expect the average user to know he's doing something wrong, which mitigates any 'fault' that can be assigned to him.
So what of the people who know enough about 802.11 to describe how it works (ie, everyone in this thread)?
Should we let Dale Earnhardt Jr. claim ignorance when his runaway car runs over an old lady?
Yeah...however, the car HAS a parking brake, but by default it not engaged.
Nope. You bought the computer, you're expected to know how it works. Just because the default setting is to scan everything doesn't mean you're not responsible.
Third obligatory car analogy: If you park your car without setting the brake, it will by default roll downhill. Your fault, not the car's. The car (or your OS) cannot express any volition, only you can.
No. YOU are in violation of the law for allowing your computer to do it.
Obligatory car analogy: If I run someone over, the car's not at fault, I am.
It's a nice idea but your conclusions are contained within your premise. You have something of a bootstrapping problem here. Even the "self-evident truths" in the Declaration of Independence can be traced back to, for instance, Kant, who laid the groundwork by sorting out the basic principles of morals.
Whereas, here you suggest that "society" is a self-evident objective good, and since it enables money to exist (along with a bunch of other nice things) then those other things are subordinate. Do you see the circularity here? We form society for certain goods, but at some point, society becomes the end, not the means, and those goods now become means when before they were ends. So at first people participate in society because they get something out of it, and if they are successful, then society takes it all away. Kind of like how, for some, safety is seen as a requirement for liberty to function, but then later, security becomes more important than freedom.
There is a short-circuit here somewhere.
On the face of it I don't disagree with your sentiment--that once you make billions of dollars you ought to stop worrying about collecting money and start giving back--I just think your justification isn't working.
Yah, I tend to use them conceptually as the same thing. :P
Where I work, "Stuff we don't want the users to do" and "Stuff we don't allow the users to do" are one and the same.
I also work with an "allow by exception" network with is basically a security guy's wet dream
How do you arrive a that figure?
Are you saying you're really motivated by concern for whether or not authors get lazy? They make more than a million dollars and their art suffers?
I think you have the cart before the horse: creating content is a lot harder than simply enjoying it. In music, there has long been an issue where artists remix and mashup other artist's work...that's not the same as bittorenting a song!
As an aside, publishers are really not teh debbil. That would be Barnes & Noble, Borders, and Amazon. Research what they force publishers to do sometime, and see what a horrible effect they're having. Independent local bookstores FTW!
I thought enacting policy was implied in that statement: e.g., shut off the USB ports to all your user's workstations.
I don't see how that's relevant. Either the website is exercising fair use rights or not. Case closed. Whether or not she is a billionaire or a pauper is irrelevant, unless you want to discuss how rich she should have to get before she gives up her rights.
Yes! Fine, I don't disagree, but look back. This is a tangent. We were talking about whether or not she "deserves" to make more money, since she's already a billionaire. THAT is just politics of envy. "Wow, that JK is such a bitch, she has so much money, and she won't let her fans profit off her ideas!"
Whether or not the fans have that right is an entirely separate issue that should be decided by existing laws (there must be a better way to handle this).
And whether or not JKR is being a fool is a third issue (there is DEFINATELY a better way to handle this).
*ahem*
That's not really a lot of money, these days.
Yeah, but I think that's because WINE and Samba tie into some core functionality. Emulating windows (yes, I know what "WINE" stands for :P) =/= running programs ON windows.
If I understand your point, talking ABOUT Harry Potter should be fair use? I can agree with that. Talking about Harry Potter for money?
Well...most of the instances I can think of where you might do that would also be fair use--like where you give a lecture or something. So maybe she doesn't have a leg to stand on after all. Maybe she's just overreacting?
Your question is irrelevant to the issue at hand; I therefore feel no need to answer it.
Oh, goody. I was wondering when the poor analogies would show up.
Microsoft releases APIs and so forth allowing other entities to produce software: It is explicitly allowed because it adds value.
Rowling explicitly allowed these folks to add value with their fan work. She does not explicitly allow them to make a profit by selling books.
The only "point" in your post is that she would be a lot smarter to try other options. This is correct. But nowhere do you state a case that she is legally or morally obligated to pick another option.
Likewise, if M$ stopped allowing people to develop windows programs, it would be stupid on their part, but it's their OS, they control the keys to the kingdom, and they can do whatever they want. In fact, since you have suggested it, it would not amaze me to think that in order to exert more control and generate more revenue, they might charge people fees to develop for the platform.
You're totally correct, but the original question was why should she profit more when she's already worth billions?
It's the wrong question to ask because it implies she's being immoral for profiting. The correct question is, why alienate your fans? This merely implies that she's being shortsighted (or even stupid).
Also, once again, let me point out that she's not trying to "take down" the site. She contributes to the site. But she does not want them to make money by publishing a book.
She's not suing because of the website. She's suing because they're trying to make money off the website by publishing a book.
Capisce?
Network security starts with defining the requirements for the network and then determining user policies, and then eventually determining what hardware and software you need. Good policy will make a secure environment regardless of what operating systems you use.
You gave some good examples of this principle. If you provide the users with network shares or a collaboration solution, then they don't need to use thumb drives. If you sandbox Outlook and IE, you don't have to worry about the malware du jour. And so on and so forth.
Ok. So, how much money should I get to make off of my IP before I don't get to profit anymore?
Ok...what have you done with my tax dollars this week?
One time my ex got my car detailed and tuned up. Great random present. Then she cheated on me several times. She doesn't get to point to that one gift and argue that I'm missing out on the "facts" of what went wrong with our relationship. Capisce?
People often say "Nobody can ACCESS it, so it's secure."
That is, until the next 0-day comes out, or someone figures out how to access it.
Simply having your DB server exposed to the net--depending on authentication alone for security--is inadequate. You don't even have to spend money, just a little time, making it secure (another poster referenced VPNs--you could as easily tunnel your connection over secure sockets with an insanely long password known only to your automated java apps, and you'd be a lot better off).
More like oranges and grapefruits. Would Sony have installed the rootkits if they didn't seek some benefit? What could it have been?
If it serves the purpose of something as simple as making their marketing strategy work, then the rootkit added value, and its use constitutes fraud.
I disagree somewhat...sometimes you spend millions on R&D to discover a very basic concept that can be implemented any number of ways. That kind of thing ought to be protected as well.
I mean, say you're caveman Zog and you are the first person to discover how tasty (and healthy) cooked food is. There are plenty of ways to cook it, but for a little while at least Zog should get sole credit for being the inventor of "cooking," rather than simply the patent-holder for "flambe."
Well, you know just enough to make yourself look a little foolish in front of people who have done this for a living.
Pretty much your entire post hinges on this idea that you would use automated equipment to do signal search. You don't; you start with the Mk. 1 Ear, a couple of receivers, and a pair of phones. Acquiring frequency hoppers in a pain in the ass, but not impossible, and typically neither is determining their pattern, assuming you have the right gear.
Hope this clears things up for you. If not, well, QXX.
That's not really what encryption is for.
If you put out a strong signal, no matter how well-encrypted, I guarantee you a bunch of yokels with foxhunting gear could get a pretty accurate fix on you.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direction_finding
Yeah. One of the technologies they mentioned, though, was frequency-hopping. It's kinda difficult to fix those.