"Sure, just like the electronic security patches that are placed inside the back pocket on jeans, or inside the cover of a book. Wow, I've never been able to remove one of those." These are removed before you leave the store. If RFID tags are removed when I leave I'd have no problem with them being used as barcode replacements.
" Just because I just bought something from Wal-Mart that has a UPC code on it doesn't mean that if I take it to Best Buy they will know that I just purchased it from Wal-Mart. RFID is the same, it might serve some sort of tracking purpose in the store where I bought it, but all that is nullified the minute I walk out the door." If walmart can read the tag so can another store. All they have to do is figure out what they are looking for. This would make it so walking out of the door wouldn't stop anyone tracking the product (when it's within a range).
If the RIAA is offering the files doesn't that mean they're distributing them? Couldn't you argue in court that the RIAA gave you the music, free of charge, and with full knowledge of what they were doing?
Um...I believe that other OS's (linux being one IIRC) already impliment something like this. It makes the whole thing more stable by not letting programs start writing over other important things in memory (like parts of the OS). It's a GOOD thing.
All they're doing is making their problem worse. I never thought of copying music off digital radio (I used to tape analog radio but got very tired of having the DJ talk over the beggining and end of the songs) and I'm willing to bet a whole lot of other people havn't either. But now they're highlighting it as a problem lots more people will be doing it. If they get the go-ahead to enforce this new system, it'll just mean all those new "pirates" will have to use the latest 'cracking' utilities to get around the restrictions (or use other methods mentioned in other posts).
Seriously, I don't see the point in this. I don't support illegal copying (except for personal use, or making your friend a copy of a CD you own) but this is just plain silly. They're just prolonging the fashionable thing to do at the moment (download music off the internet).
And I suppose, assuming that you don't just download your email and read it while you're offline. All they could really confirm is that the email was delivered.
How so? If they arn't asked for ID now, why would they be when a new ID system is in place? And who's to say they won't just borrow their older sister or brothers card, and make themselves look a little more like said older sibling before going off to try and buy the stuff? It happens now, so kids will find a way around it. In order to tackle underage drinking, you need to tackle the people selling it (I was very rarly asked for ID and when I was I usually managed to convince the person selling it that I'd left my ID at home).
Like you said, it already seems that we're already required to carry around ID. So why do we need more? And why will they make it mandatory to carry these new ID cards around with us? Is there actually a valid reason to spend all this money (and make us pay for the "privalidge")?
"Often, people who are reducing caffeine intake report being irritable, unable to work, nervous, restless, and feeling sleepy, as well as having a headache. In extreme cases, nausea and vomiting has also been reported."
I don't. And I don't hate "the man" either. I hate unfairness in business, and I think places like starbucks, McDonalds and MS all have unfair business practices (as well as being over-priced for what they are, oh and starbucks seem to disallow teaspoons in their establishments aswell;). As such, I boycott.
No-one's forcing you to be there and breath in the smoke, so no, you couldn't claim self-defence. In fact, you could were a mask to filter out the smoke (and get lots of funny looks to:)
Actually, no. Many closed source developers don't work for large corporations. In fact, a good many work by themselves. They only want to pay the rent, and software is a good way for them to do so. Also, just look at the amount of closed source "free-ware" that you can download. There's a huge amount, and none of the writers get paid for it. It's just not open source. Many of the motivations are they same (such as bragging rights and the possiblity of a jump start to a career). You're looking at it with a very narrow view of the two models and don't seem to get it. Lots of people write software, not all of it is closed source and not all of it is open source, but as long as it's quality software it shouldn't matter what license it falls under (unless, of course, the license impacts the end user to a higher degree (MS anyone?)). Use the best tool for the job, and if you insist on being so religious about your distinctions I suggest you start writing better tools that the closed source competition.
"Nobody said anything about taking away their rights to use OSS software. They just can't use any Open Patents in THEIR products." And neither did I. I just said that taking away their rights to use OSS patents just because they're suing an OSS project (for good reason in my example) would be bullying.
Yes, "tit for tat" works in many situations but it is also open for abuse: "if you don't let me do what I want I'll cripple your project". In theory it's a good idea but in practice people wouldn't play fairly (as is shown by current business practice) and would use the flaws to their own advantage.
No, SCO arn't arguing a patent, they're arguing about copyright (or contract law, I seem to remember them changing their mind one way or the other). The SCO Vs IBM case isn't anything to do with patents.
What if company X is right to sue XFree (as in your example)? Then taking away their right to use OSS patents amounts to bullying. Also, lets say that company X sues me (and I have a little OSS project running). It's just an allegation with no real substance, but it still goes to court (al la SCO). I don't have the funds to fight it and so I will go under as a result. They might not even care about their rights to OSS patents but Ive still been put out of business. Where's my advantage? I have none and have no guarantee that company X even uses OSS patents in their own products.
This scenario is more like an execution: If you shoot me, I'll die and you can make money at my funeral.
Caldera was. But then they became SCO and changed to a CEO who likes litigation. Don't discard a companies history so easily. They changed a whole lot of things before starting down their current road.
Of course, saying that, if I were a lawyer in the OSS world I would be keeping an eye on IBM just incase they decide OSS isn't a good option for them any more.
"I ( and I suspect many others here ) would endure a lot worse than an RFID doorlock to be granted a research position at MIT." Yep, and I wouldn't consider the cards a compromise of my privacy either. You could think of them as a type of punchcard rolled together with a kind of pin number. IMHO the only people who need to be concerned with types of access cards are security specialists (due to the cards fallible nature, ie. someone stealing one) and people who don't have official access to the building/room in question.
In a way I'd have to agree. It would give the attacker only a single target and any problems with that targets security could end up with it being compromised. Although, with something like nuclear materials, does it matter if only one out of hundreds of targets are attacked? The results could still be rather dramatic.
And lots of people WOULD proofread their code. That's assuming it even made it into the official source tree. If it was that easy to get bad code into a large open source project most of them wouldn't last as long as they have done. No, I'm not saying that there is no buggy or bad code in there already, but some of the problems plagueing IE wouldn't even be considered for distribution.
"We clammor for more scurity and fewer bugs and so forth. What if MS ACTUALLY provided a secure and stable OS? And then people upgraded to it. What then of Linux, OS X, and the like?" Then everybodies happier. Alternative OS's have their own merits to work with and survive, the home Windows user wins by getting a reliable and usable OS and maybe MS will finally be able to offer some inovation to the tech industry. I don't like MS or their past and present products, I'm an OSS advocate, but I have to admit that I'm hoping longhorn will be a stable, secure system. I look forward to the release of longhorn just to see what they've managed to do with it.
It won't be free, the cost will just be included in the bottom line of the new PC. I wonder if the price of PC's will go up, or if the OEM licences will be proportionatly cheaper.
Slashdot Mirror
Here. Although that link seems a bit slow aswell... *sigh*
"Sure, just like the electronic security patches that are placed inside the back pocket on jeans, or inside the cover of a book. Wow, I've never been able to remove one of those."
These are removed before you leave the store. If RFID tags are removed when I leave I'd have no problem with them being used as barcode replacements.
"
Just because I just bought something from Wal-Mart that has a UPC code on it doesn't mean that if I take it to Best Buy they will know that I just purchased it from Wal-Mart. RFID is the same, it might serve some sort of tracking purpose in the store where I bought it, but all that is nullified the minute I walk out the door."
If walmart can read the tag so can another store. All they have to do is figure out what they are looking for. This would make it so walking out of the door wouldn't stop anyone tracking the product (when it's within a range).
If the RIAA is offering the files doesn't that mean they're distributing them? Couldn't you argue in court that the RIAA gave you the music, free of charge, and with full knowledge of what they were doing?
Um...I believe that other OS's (linux being one IIRC) already impliment something like this. It makes the whole thing more stable by not letting programs start writing over other important things in memory (like parts of the OS). It's a GOOD thing.
All they're doing is making their problem worse. I never thought of copying music off digital radio (I used to tape analog radio but got very tired of having the DJ talk over the beggining and end of the songs) and I'm willing to bet a whole lot of other people havn't either. But now they're highlighting it as a problem lots more people will be doing it. If they get the go-ahead to enforce this new system, it'll just mean all those new "pirates" will have to use the latest 'cracking' utilities to get around the restrictions (or use other methods mentioned in other posts).
Seriously, I don't see the point in this. I don't support illegal copying (except for personal use, or making your friend a copy of a CD you own) but this is just plain silly. They're just prolonging the fashionable thing to do at the moment (download music off the internet).
And I suppose, assuming that you don't just download your email and read it while you're offline. All they could really confirm is that the email was delivered.
How so? If they arn't asked for ID now, why would they be when a new ID system is in place? And who's to say they won't just borrow their older sister or brothers card, and make themselves look a little more like said older sibling before going off to try and buy the stuff? It happens now, so kids will find a way around it.
In order to tackle underage drinking, you need to tackle the people selling it (I was very rarly asked for ID and when I was I usually managed to convince the person selling it that I'd left my ID at home).
Like you said, it already seems that we're already required to carry around ID. So why do we need more?
And why will they make it mandatory to carry these new ID cards around with us?
Is there actually a valid reason to spend all this money (and make us pay for the "privalidge")?
Tell that to newspaper reporters.
Not everyone likes to post in HTML.
"Often, people who are reducing caffeine intake report being irritable, unable to work, nervous, restless, and feeling sleepy, as well as having a headache. In extreme cases, nausea and vomiting has also been reported."
Nice.
I don't. And I don't hate "the man" either. I hate unfairness in business, and I think places like starbucks, McDonalds and MS all have unfair business practices (as well as being over-priced for what they are, oh and starbucks seem to disallow teaspoons in their establishments aswell ;). As such, I boycott.
No-one's forcing you to be there and breath in the smoke, so no, you couldn't claim self-defence. In fact, you could were a mask to filter out the smoke (and get lots of funny looks to :)
Actually, no.
Many closed source developers don't work for large corporations. In fact, a good many work by themselves. They only want to pay the rent, and software is a good way for them to do so.
Also, just look at the amount of closed source "free-ware" that you can download. There's a huge amount, and none of the writers get paid for it. It's just not open source. Many of the motivations are they same (such as bragging rights and the possiblity of a jump start to a career).
You're looking at it with a very narrow view of the two models and don't seem to get it.
Lots of people write software, not all of it is closed source and not all of it is open source, but as long as it's quality software it shouldn't matter what license it falls under (unless, of course, the license impacts the end user to a higher degree (MS anyone?)). Use the best tool for the job, and if you insist on being so religious about your distinctions I suggest you start writing better tools that the closed source competition.
Or, if you were being forced to smoke (which is seriously harmful) you could take the life of the person forcing you to smoke and claim self-defence.
IANAL
"Nobody said anything about taking away their rights to use OSS software. They just can't use any Open Patents in THEIR products."
And neither did I. I just said that taking away their rights to use OSS patents just because they're suing an OSS project (for good reason in my example) would be bullying.
Yes, "tit for tat" works in many situations but it is also open for abuse: "if you don't let me do what I want I'll cripple your project".
In theory it's a good idea but in practice people wouldn't play fairly (as is shown by current business practice) and would use the flaws to their own advantage.
No, SCO arn't arguing a patent, they're arguing about copyright (or contract law, I seem to remember them changing their mind one way or the other).
The SCO Vs IBM case isn't anything to do with patents.
What if company X is right to sue XFree (as in your example)? Then taking away their right to use OSS patents amounts to bullying. Also, lets say that company X sues me (and I have a little OSS project running). It's just an allegation with no real substance, but it still goes to court (al la SCO). I don't have the funds to fight it and so I will go under as a result. They might not even care about their rights to OSS patents but Ive still been put out of business. Where's my advantage? I have none and have no guarantee that company X even uses OSS patents in their own products.
This scenario is more like an execution: If you shoot me, I'll die and you can make money at my funeral.
Caldera was. But then they became SCO and changed to a CEO who likes litigation.
Don't discard a companies history so easily. They changed a whole lot of things before starting down their current road.
Of course, saying that, if I were a lawyer in the OSS world I would be keeping an eye on IBM just incase they decide OSS isn't a good option for them any more.
"I ( and I suspect many others here ) would endure a lot worse than an RFID doorlock to be granted a research position at MIT."
Yep, and I wouldn't consider the cards a compromise of my privacy either. You could think of them as a type of punchcard rolled together with a kind of pin number.
IMHO the only people who need to be concerned with types of access cards are security specialists (due to the cards fallible nature, ie. someone stealing one) and people who don't have official access to the building/room in question.
In a way I'd have to agree. It would give the attacker only a single target and any problems with that targets security could end up with it being compromised.
Although, with something like nuclear materials, does it matter if only one out of hundreds of targets are attacked?
The results could still be rather dramatic.
And lots of people WOULD proofread their code. That's assuming it even made it into the official source tree.
If it was that easy to get bad code into a large open source project most of them wouldn't last as long as they have done.
No, I'm not saying that there is no buggy or bad code in there already, but some of the problems plagueing IE wouldn't even be considered for distribution.
"We clammor for more scurity and fewer bugs and so forth. What if MS ACTUALLY provided a secure and stable OS? And then people upgraded to it. What then of Linux, OS X, and the like?"
Then everybodies happier. Alternative OS's have their own merits to work with and survive, the home Windows user wins by getting a reliable and usable OS and maybe MS will finally be able to offer some inovation to the tech industry.
I don't like MS or their past and present products, I'm an OSS advocate, but I have to admit that I'm hoping longhorn will be a stable, secure system. I look forward to the release of longhorn just to see what they've managed to do with it.
oooooo!! ;)
1. Get job at MS.
2. Threaten to blow the whistle on some illegal behaviour.
3. Profit!
It won't be free, the cost will just be included in the bottom line of the new PC.
I wonder if the price of PC's will go up, or if the OEM licences will be proportionatly cheaper.