So in other words...the wealthy are fine, while the poor get to choose between privacy and higher education?
How about some sensible oversight of the government and a warrant requirement with teeth in ALL cases? We need to retain evidence suppression for evidence obtained illegally, but the key word here is ILLEGALLY obtained evidence. It's punishable for you or me to attempt to look at -one- other person's private information without their consent (or a court order). Why is no one going to jail for doing it to thousands and millions?
Government forms should be required to list EXACTLY who may have access to the information and why. Not some vague "We might share this data with various other agencies", but a very specific "We will be providing this data to the IRS to make sure you didn't lie about your income and to the Department of Education for the fulfillment of your grants/loans if they are approved." No law enforcement or intelligence agency should be covered under this at any time or for any reason, they should require a warrant, each time, every case.
And while I'm at it here, let's plug up the end-run they're pulling around data-mining laws and prevent good old Uncle Sam from purchasing private databases. Those laws were there for a reason, and that reason was "The government should not possess vast collections of personal data," not "so ChoicePoint would have something to do."
ALL bands were unsigned at one point. Some of my favorite bands, such as Roger Clyne and the Peacemakers are on an indie label and virtually unknown. The Beatles were rejected at the first label they tried. Not every great band has 5 platinum records, nor is every band with 5 platinums great!
I've heard that argument before, and it's silly. Saying "we don't guarantee a given speed" would be interpreted by any reasonable person to mean "we can't guarantee that circumstances outside our control won't keep you from getting full speed," NOT "we're going to deliberately throttle it back." It would certainly not be acceptable for them to state they don't "guarantee" a certain speed but throttle every customer of theirs back to dial-up speed, for example. Consider the clause as having the implicit addition of "but we'll do the best we can at it." This would be the expectation of any reasonable person. While my lease specifically states that the landlord is not responsible for circumstances beyond her control such as a fire, that doesn't mean she can deliberately come put a torch to my place and claim or expect protection from that clause.
If they want to do explicit restrictions, they should explicitly spell those out in their contracts AND advertising. If you're going to promise "unlimited" net access, then by god it'd better be unlimited! If you -want- to sell limited net access, that's fine too, but advertise it as such!
As far as I'm concerned, if an ISP's advertising contradicts its contract, the contradicted parts of the contract should be considered null and void, and the advertisement considered to be what was promised and must now be delivered. (Nor should this be restricted to ISP's, that should apply to -anyone- who advertises one thing and hides something entirely different in the fine print.) My problem isn't that some ISP's sell limited access, they can sell access that only allows you to access three websites once each per month for all I care. But they better not state in their advertising that such access is "unlimited." They want to have it both ways-the glossy ads screaming one thing and the fine-print in the contract stating that you don't necessarily get what they sold you, you have no right to get what they sold you, and even if you're initially getting what they sold you they can change the terms anytime! (This abominable phrasing should be banned as well, any contract stating "one side may unilaterally change the terms" is no contract at all. A contract should bind -both- sides.)
Now, how about, instead of all this garbage, just -leave things alone-! I wouldn't have a problem with prioritization of real-time type traffic (ssh, Web browsing, VoIP) over download traffic (streaming stuff (this buffers), Bittorrent, FTP.) Where the problem -does- arise is when users are deliberately disallowed from using those services at the promised speeds (or at all). Prioritization is NOT the same as throttling-if there's enough clear space on the network both downloads and real-time will steam full speed ahead. If the network begins to clog, real-time traffic will be prioritized (as most of it is very much a burst, such as grabbing a Web page) and will have a minimal impact on the download traffic (there's a big difference between Web pages taking 5 seconds longer to load each and a download taking 2 minutes more to complete!).
When I purchased my Net access, there was no * by the speed rating that said (For web browsing and checking email only.) Fortunately, my ISP has so far made good on their promise, and not said a word. I expect that they will continue this. If they don't, no trouble, I'll find one who will!
As to the person who spoke earlier of a buffet: Your analogy is flawed. This is not a person trying to "stuff" bandwidth in their pockets and "take it with them" (just how would one go about that anyway?) This is a case of someone going into the restaurant, specifically stating "All you can eat," going to fill up their seventh plate, and being told "Uh-uh, sorry, there's a six-plate limit." In this case, they are at -least- owed a refund-they did not get what was advertised to them.
To date, I have not seen anything approaching a casual description of DRM.
I'm not sure that's necessarily so. While I use Linux and will not use encumbered media (at least none on which I can't trivially break the "locks", and even then I avoid it as much as possible) most of the less geek-oriented people I know will eventually run into trouble with it...and then they ask me for my help. At this point, you can give them a few basics (lock-in, not wanting things copied, etc.) However, what they inevitably take away from these discussions is exactly what I'd hope:
DRM is what is causing my problem.
At that point, they lump it in with all the other things which cause problems even though they don't have a full technical understanding of what they are. This particular heap also includes viruses, spyware, adware, and good things like that-exactly the classification DRM belongs in.
Except here we're not talking about ownership of anything. Except perhaps the brother's hard drive-and the brother owns that and the bits on it. What others don't like is the way in which he's shuffling -his- bits around.
It is acceptable for a person to watch or imagine any type of fictional scenario that appeals to them. It is not acceptable for a person to commit a violent or harmful act against another person.
That an easy enough standard for you, or would you like some clarification?
Well, you've apparently studied that particular case in depth so I'll take your word. All the same, Farnsworth's situation would've -met- my criteria. Television was a leap-ahead, non-obvious advance, it was physical, it was possible to make a working prototype, it was not a mathematical algorithm or a biological process. And actually, I recall noting that in many cases scaling-back rather then elimination could well be the best solution, drugs may perhaps be another example of this.
And apparently even in that particular case, patents ended up being a stumbling block.
Though, actually, that's not far from my recommendation. Learn a bunch of different stuff. Learn vi and emacs, they both have their place. Spend some more time with Eclipse, I'm curious as to what you found lacking there? If you still don't like it kick around some of the other Linux IDE's. Hell even if you do like it kick around some that look appealing. Try some different frontends for gdb/vim/emacs/etc./etc. Just like anything, different tools are appropriate to different projects, and if you don't get too stuck with one (as seems to be the sad state of affairs for many here) you won't find yourself in the frustrating situation of trying to put in a nail with a screwdriver or hammer in a screw.
Well, as always, the fact that I disagree with you periodically doesn't stop you from coming up with some very clear and insightful arguments.
That being said, I don't see Napster as a "mugger who jaywalked". Maybe, at best, a person who sees so many muggings a day going on outside their bedroom window that they don't bother calling the police because they couldn't possibly report even a tiny fraction of them. Napster neither hosted nor distributed a single copyrighted file during its existence, and no amount of twisted legal logic will change that technical fact-the content was (and still is on any P2P network) entirely under the control of the users.
Stating that Napster "could have" exerted control over such content is irrelevant. Any number of construction companies build and install light poles. While they "could" provide security guards and lawyers to check and ensure that any message posted on the light pole is legally correct and approved, to actually do so is technically cumbersome and difficult. Therefore, we do not require it of them.
Please also note that I'm in strong favor of any not-for-profit copying being fair use, period, whether or not it's -actually- that way under current law. And I don't buy that a friend (or stranger) sharing something back is "profit", I mean by that term a cash reward.
I've read What Colour Are Your Bits. I just reread it as well and loved it just as much this time as the first time. But remember, you are a lawyer, and I'm a programmer-and to me it seems to blow your position away. Xor an mp3 with a webpage and it has no definable form as copyrighted. Define the xor of an mp3 with an arbitrary set of random data as copyrighted and the copyright holder of that mp3 has just copyrighted everything (since with the correct xor that mp3 will result in everything from every webpage in existence to an mp3 of every other song!). By the same token, if Person A's file from Limewire and Person B's file from iTMS are bitwise identical, it doesn't wash with me that the source somehow makes them "different" or makes one OK to play while the other is forbidden. Same with Person A's CD he bought from the store and Person B's copy made for him by person A. Again, the WAV's are (barring copying errors or physical damage, which can also happen to the store CD's) bitwise identical.
It still rather tends to be my belief that digital technology, which brought the cost and time required for making large numbers of copies down to near zero, calls for a radical overhaul to copyright law-not simply a hacking of a status quo intended for paper and plastic onto bits and bytes. Napster, whatever else you might want to say about it, brought this point into immediate and sharp focus. Gnutella made it even clearer-outlaw Napster because the bits at some point flow through their server? No problem, we'll decentralize the network altogether! And the whole issue should bring the issue into clear focus for lawmakers. It never used to be anywhere near feasible for a single person to share a copy of something for free withwhoever in the world may want one. Now it's not only possible but easy and nearly free, even if it's still illegal. And easy and desirable will, in the end, always win over illegal. That means time for a change in the law to reflect reality, not time for a change in reality to reflect the law.
As to Napster, I'm still not entirely sure how they did break the law (or in your analogy, commit any muggings.) They may have been selling brass knuckles in the bad part of town, to be sure, but there's no law against that. (Or in my analogous town there isn't one, I'm sure there is such a law somewhere or another.) The court, rather then responding as it should ("Sorry, might be shady but it's not illegal, if you want that you'll have to go buy a law") seemed to stretch around existing law to say that Napster was somehow responsible for its users. And if that bending of the law was somewhat understandable with a central network, the type involved with the Gro
Please do not tell me that "Israel has no problem with Iran being Muslim." If you would -really- like to see what Israel's attitude is toward Muslims, try traveling to that country dressed in traditional Muslim clothing. I imagine you'd be surprised.
I'm also a bit suspicious of -any- religious state (and yes, Israel is a religious state associated with Judaism, just as Iran is a religious state associated with Islam) whose religion states that it is the "one true path", stating that they accept other religions. They must either reject a teaching of their religion (the "one true path" doctrine) or reject the state founded on another religion. I know where I'm placing my bets on that decision. Of course, for that same reason, Iran will refuse to accept a Jewish state. So yes, the differences between the two states are primarily religious in origin, aside the kindergarten argument over who "started it."
As to MAD working? Guess what, it works. It worked between the USA and USSR, and it'd work the same here. Religious leaders, like political ones, almost always seek such positions out of a desire for power and control, and are essentially selfish (though sometimes they must maintain the -appearance- that they're not, in both cases.) They may -grandstand- to aggrandize themselves and push their followers into fear and rage, making them easier to control, but they're not -actually- going to take an action that leads to their own destruction or is likely to.
You'll still in fact find some racist here and there, in America, who says they wish the blacks would "go back" to Africa, or that Hispanics in their community (even those who are citizens and often third to fifth generation) should "go back" to Mexico. It's a silly polemic and just as unrealistic, but it sounds good in their head at the time.
The USSR had no problem with the citizens of the US being where they are.
This is a non-sequitur. The USSR and USA's differences were over economic ideology, Iran and Israel's is over religious ideology. Both are silly and in both cases more tolerance should have been (or should be) practiced, but in the end, USA vs. USSR boiled down to "My Adam Smith can beat up your Karl Marx!" "Can not!" "Can too!" In Iran vs. Israel, it comes to "My invisible man in the sky can beat up yours!" "Can not!" "Can too!" There's obviously difference between the two scenarios-but not so much difference as you think.
on the other side you have a theocracy who glorifies honorable death, and has publicly stated it's will to distroy the other side.
While I agree with you that this situation is different in many ways, polemics mean nothing. Bush stated that we "will not tolerate" members of the "axis of evil" gaining nuclear weapons, but we've tolerated North Korea developing them just fine. Nikita Khruschev threatened "We will bury you!" and yet no nuclear war occurred between the US and Russia. Politicians grandstand. All of them, including the ones I just listed at the times I just listed, and many others. Let's quit making so much out of it when it suits us and ignoring it when we don't-pick one or the other.
And you must be joking about the Cuban Missile Crisis. Most who lived during that era were well aware of just how close to nuclear war the world was and were terrified.
I don't find you really need to know any secrets to those, you just say "operator" a few times. It's usually set up to recognize that, but even if not it'll get confused after a few tries and give you one.
I've actually proposed a solution to that...every time any legislature (city, state, federal, what have you) meets, that government's founding document (the city's charter, the U.S. Constitution, whatever the case may be) should be read aloud, followed by the full text of every law passed by that body. I think we'd very quickly see shorter, more to-the-point laws.
I also tend to believe that laws at every level should have a mandatory sunset of 1 or 2 years. Every law, every time. Of course, it can be renewed as often as they like, but if it's not important enough to get around to it's no longer needed.
That seems -awfully- slippery. What about if (in our hypothetical scenario of being handed a CD) I actually play it? In that case, there is a copy being made to RAM (which is relatively temporary) or if the system's swapping, maybe to the swap file. Am I "infringing" now?
Even car stereos have some type of temporary buffer in which data can be "held ahead" to prevent skipping when you hit a pothole. By that definition, wouldn't it be illegal to play a CD using any device with any buffering capacity, ever, even if the CD were legally purchased?
And if such buffering is legal, why would it make a difference whether you got the file from iTunes or Limewire as to whether a resident copy in RAM is alright? Would you be breaking the law as soon as you play the MP3 CD from your friend in your car? On your PC? What if that CD were legally purchased instead? If it weren't illegal for you to receive it in the first place what's the difference? What's the difference then between having the information on a spinning disc on your desk or a spinning platter inside your computer?
The whole thing stank of "trying too hard" at the time and it still does. It really seemed the court was biased against Napster and wanted 'em shut down, and ignored the fact that a lot of what happens is technically -not- illegal.
The politicians are not stupid and they have advisors. They have lawyers to talk to. They're damn well aware that every time one of these laws gets passed it's going to get struck down.
Problem is, they don't care! It's all in the spin. "Ladies and gentlemen of this great state, I tried to pass a law allowing YOU to decide what kind of video games your children should be exposed to. A single liberal activist judge has decided he knows better..."
Sure, the people of the state lose. But the politician still wins. Politicians may be a lot of things, very few if any of those things good, and probably most of them can't even be said on the radio. But for the most part, they're not stupid. Nasty, cold, arrogant, vicious, cynical, uncaring, dishonest? Sure, and probably then some. But they are dangerous in these things precisely because they are -not- stupid-and we are not watching closely.
(Note before anyone's head explodes: All those not-so-nice things apply to politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle.)
It has recently come to our attention that you have recently published a rhyme to the website "slashdot.org" in a similar cadence to the protected IP of Barney. You are hereby notified that in our informed legal opinion this constitutes infringement of our copyright.
Copyright infringement is a serious matter. If you are found liable in a civil suit you could be liable for damages up to $150,000 per willful infringement. Criminal sanctions are also possible. If you are found guilty of criminal copyright infringement you could be sentenced to up to 10 years in prison. In extreme cases you may be sentenced instead to watching one full day of Barney videos.*
We request that you cease immediately utilizing poetry and rhyming, and cease to make offending posts to any websites. If you do not comply we will initiate legal investigation against you.
*We are required to disclose that a pending court case claims that the second criminal sentence may be construed as cruel, unusual, and excessive punishment.
Sincerely yours,
The attorneys of the Barney and Associates law firm.
I've been using Linux 3 years or so now, and I've yet to have or witness this supposedly commonplace "noobs are dumb" experience.
Of course, I also generally know how to at minimum perform a basic Google search and look at documentation to make sure someone hasn't -already answered- my question. 99% of the time, I find someone in fact has. Those remaining 1% are the tough ones, but I've found community support ready and willing on those. It saves your time and theirs when you come in saying "I found this on google, I tried it but am still having the same problem, I've also already tried a few other things that seemed like they might work, like..."
I generally have the same philosophy when being asked for help. If you've got a genuinely tough problem it's obvious you tried to solve on your own, I'll spend hours helping you if need be-whether the problem is with Windows, Linux, or your car. If I ask what you found on Google and you give me a blank stare, you'll probably get referred to a website I've always found helpful to resolve such questions, located here. I don't mind helping, I do mind having my time wasted.
As to those from whom you hear "Linux is hard!" in a high-pitched whine? Stay away from my operating system. Buy your Dell and call them to ask them what end of the cable to plug in to make the Interwebs work. If Linux were ever made into a form that -does- appeal to such a person I'll go use something else. I suppose it would work alright if the front end were made "easier" while everything remains just as powerful and flexible, but that's a -very- difficult trick to pull off.
Does that mean I hate Windows? Not really, though I wish those who work on it would at least bother to secure it properly. It's certain the users won't. Windows is much like a $40 toolset from Sears containing a hammer, a few screwdrivers, and a ratchet set. It'll do a few things, it won't do them great, but it'll do adequately for occasional light work. Linux is a professional's garage containing tools from chain saws to backhoes. Those tools are powerful and capable of doing far more jobs, and far more effectively, but can and should only be operated by those who have learned to do so properly. There's a place for both in the world.
That being said, my tech-illiterate mother-in-law used one of my old Linux systems for e-mail and Web surfing while hers was broken, for months on end, and I doubt she ever even -did- notice it wasn't Windows. Certainly I was never asked for help, I pointed her to the web browser and away she went. Did she install and configure it? Absolutely not! But she'd not have the first clue how to install and configure Windows either. I believe a lot of people lose sight of that-true, Joe Sixpack would be lost installing Linux, but he'd be lost installing Windows too.
I know a little about the invention of television, and it is doubtful that Farnsworth could have afforded to invent it without patents.
Possibly true, possibly not. May sound harsh, but who cares? If not him someone else would've done it. Advances like that, once all the technology to build them is in place, tend to be pretty inevitable. And from those inventors I've known, they do it for the love of putting something together and seeing if it works.
I'd suggest some different reforms:
No individual or corporation should be able to hold more than ten patents at any time. Strict rules should be in place to prevent playing games with "subsidiaries", shell corporations, or patent trolls. Any corporation which does not produce what it patents and is not in the process of preparing to do so should be barred from bringing suit based on that patent. Of course, if you have your ten, and you come out with something earth-shattering, you may wish to patent it instead-and you can! Just drop an existing one.
If someone else was working on what you were working on, or something substantially similar, it is automatically considered to have been "obvious" to those in the field and an inevitable, incremental, and unpatentable advance.
Patents should never be allowed on any mathematical formula or algorithm (including a computer program or algorithm), any biological process (including DNA sequences), any living creature, plant, or microorganism (sorry Monsanto), or anything for which a working prototype does not or cannot exist.
Someone suggested this earlier but I like the idea. If it can be demonstrated that a patent application could have been written far more clearly without losing specificity (e.g. "A better keyboard" rather then "An improved human-machine user interface consisting of multiple alphanumerically labeled moving parts composed mainly of polymer") it gets thrown out. This is stupid game-playing and is deliberately designed to make it harder for you or me to do a patent search.
Want to stop "marginal" patents? If a patent is held invalid, its former holder must pay back -all- licensing fees, judgments/settlements, or any other money received on the basis of it. With interest. And the attorney's fees and costs of the challenger.
Patents should not be considered "property" and should not be transferable from the original inventor. While they could be licensed perpetually and exclusively to a third party for production purposes, they would still count against the initial holder's ten-patent limit.
I have no problem with the patent system as a whole. I DO have a problem, however, when patents begin to be used to obstruct rather than to encourage innovation, and it's a shame the courts didn't look at the Constitutional basis allowing such things in the first place:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; (emphasis added)
I don't think that was just put in there to sound pretty. The courts should look at the current system of patents (and copyrights, but that's another discussion!) and -actually- bother to do their jobs and determine if they're doing what the Constitution demands-or the direct opposite. If it's the opposite (or a period much longer then the human lifespan is not by any reasonable definition a "limited time", but again that's a different subject), they need to issue the same challenge they have many times-"Folks, YOU fix the law on this, or else WE will."
That is an important thing to note though. The purpose of patents is not, absolutely, positively, demonstrably, NOT intended to "reward the inventor." That is not its primary or even secondary purpose. IF rewarding the inventor will advance the progress of science the Constitution authorizes it. If -not- "rewarding the inventor" is a greater advancement to science, that's the track we should follow. If we need to strongly scale back (but not eliminate) such "rewards" in order to advance science, that's what we should do.
I doubt the CTO personally authorized the release, and after this I suppose all supervisors will lose some sleep over the prospect of being (unintentionally) torpedoed by a subordinate.
Any good supervisor does lose sleep over this. The job of a supervisor is, well, to supervise. That does mean accepting responsibility not only for your own actions, but for the actions of those who you are responsible for managing and overseeing.
At a "C" level position, that certainly is a lot of people to take responsibility for! And certainly, you won't be responsible for the individual supervision of each and every one. However, you -are- responsible to ensure that policies and procedures are in place to prevent catastrophic events and catch them before they occur.
Also, keep in mind we don't know everything. This could well have been her idea from the start, and the board agreed but said "Keep it quiet and if it blows up in our face it's your ass." They're not very likely to let us know that...
In order to protect the reporters you have to lose any possibility of protecting secrets legally.
First: GOOD! (Couldn't resist.) In all seriousness though, there are often "grey area" practices, not technically covered by whistleblower laws, but which are clearly questionable ethically. (See secret prisons, NSA wiretapping, so on so on so on.) Quite often, the only way for a person to reveal these and let the public decide if, for example, such a practice SHOULD be illegal, is to leak anonymously. There's way too much secrecy as it is in government and corporate circles, and I sure wouldn't mind seeing it get a little (or a lot) harder for organizations to keep a secret.
We've got it rather backward: The privacy of an individual should be sacrosanct except upon probable cause and a warrant, but damn near anything a public organization does (and yes, a chartered corporation is a public organization) should be open to the inspection of the public. With those very few things allowed to be kept secret, strict audits should be conducted by those who ARE NOT INVOLVED with the people or processes occurring, and harsh and strict penalties (this means jail time, NOT fines against the corporate bank account or getting demoted a couple ranks in the military) should be in place for cloaking wrongdoing or illegal activity behind the allowed secrecy.
Secondly, even leaking anonymously can carry significant risks. If you're one of three people that signed the NDA and know that secret, do you think you're not going to be investigated very closely when it ends up on the front page? What about one of ten people in the military who knew the deal on a classified program? Obviously, if these things are any -genuine- kind of secret, there's a pretty small subset of the general population who know the information. If it's a secret worth protecting, and those keeping it are smart, they'll make sure there are a few small parts that only one person or a few know, a watermark if you will.
However, we -should- protect reporters against having to give away their sources. A press that can't protect a source is not a free press. Their job is not to be a "booby trap" for those who thought they were speaking confidentially only to find out that they really were not, and even one occurrence of that would be enough to have a serious and significant chilling effect.
Having a separate root user you have to explicitly log in as would make the most sense from a security point of view, but it is simply not feasible for the average home user to learn how and why they need to use one.
Why not?
When I purchase -any- technological item, I expect to spend some amount of time figuring out and learning how to use it properly. Your "average computer user" learns the proper way to care for everything conceivable, from pets to hardwood floors to cars, if they want them to last as long as they should. Why shouldn't they expect to do the same with the shiny new computer?
With -any- item with as many varied and complex functions as a computer, and every user using it in a different way, "just works" is a myth that will never occur. Anyone who wants to get the machine to do what they want is going to -have- to spend some time learning how to work with it, what you should and should not expect it to be able to do, and how to properly operate and maintain it. That's true of -any- machine more complex then maybe a toaster, not just a computer.
Giving the illusion that the computer will "just work" without a bit of effort or learning is a worse idea than making it clear to the user that some basic learning is required. That doesn't mean they'll need to know the thing inside and out, be able to tear it apart and rebuild it, or learn how to program it. It DOES mean that they should have some basic idea what the difference between root-level and user-level accounts are, and what the proper use is for each. It does mean they should know what types of maintenance are required and when (even if that's just "Open up the case and blow the dust out.") It does mean they should know that a lot of different programs are available which may meet their needs, some of which are free and some of which are not, and how to find information on what programs are reliable and crapware-free.
The laziness of people blows my mind sometimes. These are all things that could be taught to a person of average intelligence in a day or two (yes, I've done it). Without fail, those who have been willing to learn are -not- the ones begging me to fix up their broken system-they either know how to do the basic fixes themselves or don't land in trouble in the first place. In the end, a day or two's worth of learning has saved them time, money, and trouble, simply by -not- doing the things they should know not to in the first place.
Re:I think we all owe a debt of gratitude to this
on
The Man Behind MySpace
·
· Score: 1
That was coffee-on-the-keyboard, +6-type funny. And so true too! Maybe there is some good to myspace after all.
Slashdot Mirror
So in other words...the wealthy are fine, while the poor get to choose between privacy and higher education?
How about some sensible oversight of the government and a warrant requirement with teeth in ALL cases? We need to retain evidence suppression for evidence obtained illegally, but the key word here is ILLEGALLY obtained evidence. It's punishable for you or me to attempt to look at -one- other person's private information without their consent (or a court order). Why is no one going to jail for doing it to thousands and millions?
Government forms should be required to list EXACTLY who may have access to the information and why. Not some vague "We might share this data with various other agencies", but a very specific "We will be providing this data to the IRS to make sure you didn't lie about your income and to the Department of Education for the fulfillment of your grants/loans if they are approved." No law enforcement or intelligence agency should be covered under this at any time or for any reason, they should require a warrant, each time, every case.
And while I'm at it here, let's plug up the end-run they're pulling around data-mining laws and prevent good old Uncle Sam from purchasing private databases. Those laws were there for a reason, and that reason was "The government should not possess vast collections of personal data," not "so ChoicePoint would have something to do."
ALL bands were unsigned at one point. Some of my favorite bands, such as Roger Clyne and the Peacemakers are on an indie label and virtually unknown. The Beatles were rejected at the first label they tried. Not every great band has 5 platinum records, nor is every band with 5 platinums great!
started blocking ports 80/53/25...
I imagine that ISP became unpopular REAL quickly, after blocking the HTTP port?
I've heard that argument before, and it's silly. Saying "we don't guarantee a given speed" would be interpreted by any reasonable person to mean "we can't guarantee that circumstances outside our control won't keep you from getting full speed," NOT "we're going to deliberately throttle it back." It would certainly not be acceptable for them to state they don't "guarantee" a certain speed but throttle every customer of theirs back to dial-up speed, for example. Consider the clause as having the implicit addition of "but we'll do the best we can at it." This would be the expectation of any reasonable person. While my lease specifically states that the landlord is not responsible for circumstances beyond her control such as a fire, that doesn't mean she can deliberately come put a torch to my place and claim or expect protection from that clause.
If they want to do explicit restrictions, they should explicitly spell those out in their contracts AND advertising. If you're going to promise "unlimited" net access, then by god it'd better be unlimited! If you -want- to sell limited net access, that's fine too, but advertise it as such!
As far as I'm concerned, if an ISP's advertising contradicts its contract, the contradicted parts of the contract should be considered null and void, and the advertisement considered to be what was promised and must now be delivered. (Nor should this be restricted to ISP's, that should apply to -anyone- who advertises one thing and hides something entirely different in the fine print.) My problem isn't that some ISP's sell limited access, they can sell access that only allows you to access three websites once each per month for all I care. But they better not state in their advertising that such access is "unlimited." They want to have it both ways-the glossy ads screaming one thing and the fine-print in the contract stating that you don't necessarily get what they sold you, you have no right to get what they sold you, and even if you're initially getting what they sold you they can change the terms anytime! (This abominable phrasing should be banned as well, any contract stating "one side may unilaterally change the terms" is no contract at all. A contract should bind -both- sides.)
Now, how about, instead of all this garbage, just -leave things alone-! I wouldn't have a problem with prioritization of real-time type traffic (ssh, Web browsing, VoIP) over download traffic (streaming stuff (this buffers), Bittorrent, FTP.) Where the problem -does- arise is when users are deliberately disallowed from using those services at the promised speeds (or at all). Prioritization is NOT the same as throttling-if there's enough clear space on the network both downloads and real-time will steam full speed ahead. If the network begins to clog, real-time traffic will be prioritized (as most of it is very much a burst, such as grabbing a Web page) and will have a minimal impact on the download traffic (there's a big difference between Web pages taking 5 seconds longer to load each and a download taking 2 minutes more to complete!).
When I purchased my Net access, there was no * by the speed rating that said (For web browsing and checking email only.) Fortunately, my ISP has so far made good on their promise, and not said a word. I expect that they will continue this. If they don't, no trouble, I'll find one who will!
As to the person who spoke earlier of a buffet: Your analogy is flawed. This is not a person trying to "stuff" bandwidth in their pockets and "take it with them" (just how would one go about that anyway?) This is a case of someone going into the restaurant, specifically stating "All you can eat," going to fill up their seventh plate, and being told "Uh-uh, sorry, there's a six-plate limit." In this case, they are at -least- owed a refund-they did not get what was advertised to them.
To date, I have not seen anything approaching a casual description of DRM.
I'm not sure that's necessarily so. While I use Linux and will not use encumbered media (at least none on which I can't trivially break the "locks", and even then I avoid it as much as possible) most of the less geek-oriented people I know will eventually run into trouble with it...and then they ask me for my help. At this point, you can give them a few basics (lock-in, not wanting things copied, etc.) However, what they inevitably take away from these discussions is exactly what I'd hope:
DRM is what is causing my problem.
At that point, they lump it in with all the other things which cause problems even though they don't have a full technical understanding of what they are. This particular heap also includes viruses, spyware, adware, and good things like that-exactly the classification DRM belongs in.
Except here we're not talking about ownership of anything. Except perhaps the brother's hard drive-and the brother owns that and the bits on it. What others don't like is the way in which he's shuffling -his- bits around.
Actually, here's your standards:
It is acceptable for a person to watch or imagine any type of fictional scenario that appeals to them. It is not acceptable for a person to commit a violent or harmful act against another person.
That an easy enough standard for you, or would you like some clarification?
Well, you've apparently studied that particular case in depth so I'll take your word. All the same, Farnsworth's situation would've -met- my criteria. Television was a leap-ahead, non-obvious advance, it was physical, it was possible to make a working prototype, it was not a mathematical algorithm or a biological process. And actually, I recall noting that in many cases scaling-back rather then elimination could well be the best solution, drugs may perhaps be another example of this.
And apparently even in that particular case, patents ended up being a stumbling block.
Agnosticism. (ducks)
Though, actually, that's not far from my recommendation. Learn a bunch of different stuff. Learn vi and emacs, they both have their place. Spend some more time with Eclipse, I'm curious as to what you found lacking there? If you still don't like it kick around some of the other Linux IDE's. Hell even if you do like it kick around some that look appealing. Try some different frontends for gdb/vim/emacs/etc./etc. Just like anything, different tools are appropriate to different projects, and if you don't get too stuck with one (as seems to be the sad state of affairs for many here) you won't find yourself in the frustrating situation of trying to put in a nail with a screwdriver or hammer in a screw.
Well, as always, the fact that I disagree with you periodically doesn't stop you from coming up with some very clear and insightful arguments.
That being said, I don't see Napster as a "mugger who jaywalked". Maybe, at best, a person who sees so many muggings a day going on outside their bedroom window that they don't bother calling the police because they couldn't possibly report even a tiny fraction of them. Napster neither hosted nor distributed a single copyrighted file during its existence, and no amount of twisted legal logic will change that technical fact-the content was (and still is on any P2P network) entirely under the control of the users.
Stating that Napster "could have" exerted control over such content is irrelevant. Any number of construction companies build and install light poles. While they "could" provide security guards and lawyers to check and ensure that any message posted on the light pole is legally correct and approved, to actually do so is technically cumbersome and difficult. Therefore, we do not require it of them.
Please also note that I'm in strong favor of any not-for-profit copying being fair use, period, whether or not it's -actually- that way under current law. And I don't buy that a friend (or stranger) sharing something back is "profit", I mean by that term a cash reward.
I've read What Colour Are Your Bits. I just reread it as well and loved it just as much this time as the first time. But remember, you are a lawyer, and I'm a programmer-and to me it seems to blow your position away. Xor an mp3 with a webpage and it has no definable form as copyrighted. Define the xor of an mp3 with an arbitrary set of random data as copyrighted and the copyright holder of that mp3 has just copyrighted everything (since with the correct xor that mp3 will result in everything from every webpage in existence to an mp3 of every other song!). By the same token, if Person A's file from Limewire and Person B's file from iTMS are bitwise identical, it doesn't wash with me that the source somehow makes them "different" or makes one OK to play while the other is forbidden. Same with Person A's CD he bought from the store and Person B's copy made for him by person A. Again, the WAV's are (barring copying errors or physical damage, which can also happen to the store CD's) bitwise identical.
It still rather tends to be my belief that digital technology, which brought the cost and time required for making large numbers of copies down to near zero, calls for a radical overhaul to copyright law-not simply a hacking of a status quo intended for paper and plastic onto bits and bytes. Napster, whatever else you might want to say about it, brought this point into immediate and sharp focus. Gnutella made it even clearer-outlaw Napster because the bits at some point flow through their server? No problem, we'll decentralize the network altogether! And the whole issue should bring the issue into clear focus for lawmakers. It never used to be anywhere near feasible for a single person to share a copy of something for free withwhoever in the world may want one. Now it's not only possible but easy and nearly free, even if it's still illegal. And easy and desirable will, in the end, always win over illegal. That means time for a change in the law to reflect reality, not time for a change in reality to reflect the law.
As to Napster, I'm still not entirely sure how they did break the law (or in your analogy, commit any muggings.) They may have been selling brass knuckles in the bad part of town, to be sure, but there's no law against that. (Or in my analogous town there isn't one, I'm sure there is such a law somewhere or another.) The court, rather then responding as it should ("Sorry, might be shady but it's not illegal, if you want that you'll have to go buy a law") seemed to stretch around existing law to say that Napster was somehow responsible for its users. And if that bending of the law was somewhat understandable with a central network, the type involved with the Gro
Please do not tell me that "Israel has no problem with Iran being Muslim." If you would -really- like to see what Israel's attitude is toward Muslims, try traveling to that country dressed in traditional Muslim clothing. I imagine you'd be surprised.
I'm also a bit suspicious of -any- religious state (and yes, Israel is a religious state associated with Judaism, just as Iran is a religious state associated with Islam) whose religion states that it is the "one true path", stating that they accept other religions. They must either reject a teaching of their religion (the "one true path" doctrine) or reject the state founded on another religion. I know where I'm placing my bets on that decision. Of course, for that same reason, Iran will refuse to accept a Jewish state. So yes, the differences between the two states are primarily religious in origin, aside the kindergarten argument over who "started it."
As to MAD working? Guess what, it works. It worked between the USA and USSR, and it'd work the same here. Religious leaders, like political ones, almost always seek such positions out of a desire for power and control, and are essentially selfish (though sometimes they must maintain the -appearance- that they're not, in both cases.) They may -grandstand- to aggrandize themselves and push their followers into fear and rage, making them easier to control, but they're not -actually- going to take an action that leads to their own destruction or is likely to.
You'll still in fact find some racist here and there, in America, who says they wish the blacks would "go back" to Africa, or that Hispanics in their community (even those who are citizens and often third to fifth generation) should "go back" to Mexico. It's a silly polemic and just as unrealistic, but it sounds good in their head at the time.
The USSR had no problem with the citizens of the US being where they are.
This is a non-sequitur. The USSR and USA's differences were over economic ideology, Iran and Israel's is over religious ideology. Both are silly and in both cases more tolerance should have been (or should be) practiced, but in the end, USA vs. USSR boiled down to "My Adam Smith can beat up your Karl Marx!" "Can not!" "Can too!" In Iran vs. Israel, it comes to "My invisible man in the sky can beat up yours!" "Can not!" "Can too!" There's obviously difference between the two scenarios-but not so much difference as you think.
on the other side you have a theocracy who glorifies honorable death, and has publicly stated it's will to distroy the other side.
While I agree with you that this situation is different in many ways, polemics mean nothing. Bush stated that we "will not tolerate" members of the "axis of evil" gaining nuclear weapons, but we've tolerated North Korea developing them just fine. Nikita Khruschev threatened "We will bury you!" and yet no nuclear war occurred between the US and Russia. Politicians grandstand. All of them, including the ones I just listed at the times I just listed, and many others. Let's quit making so much out of it when it suits us and ignoring it when we don't-pick one or the other.
And you must be joking about the Cuban Missile Crisis. Most who lived during that era were well aware of just how close to nuclear war the world was and were terrified.
I don't find you really need to know any secrets to those, you just say "operator" a few times. It's usually set up to recognize that, but even if not it'll get confused after a few tries and give you one.
I've actually proposed a solution to that...every time any legislature (city, state, federal, what have you) meets, that government's founding document (the city's charter, the U.S. Constitution, whatever the case may be) should be read aloud, followed by the full text of every law passed by that body. I think we'd very quickly see shorter, more to-the-point laws.
I also tend to believe that laws at every level should have a mandatory sunset of 1 or 2 years. Every law, every time. Of course, it can be renewed as often as they like, but if it's not important enough to get around to it's no longer needed.
That seems -awfully- slippery. What about if (in our hypothetical scenario of being handed a CD) I actually play it? In that case, there is a copy being made to RAM (which is relatively temporary) or if the system's swapping, maybe to the swap file. Am I "infringing" now?
Even car stereos have some type of temporary buffer in which data can be "held ahead" to prevent skipping when you hit a pothole. By that definition, wouldn't it be illegal to play a CD using any device with any buffering capacity, ever, even if the CD were legally purchased?
And if such buffering is legal, why would it make a difference whether you got the file from iTunes or Limewire as to whether a resident copy in RAM is alright? Would you be breaking the law as soon as you play the MP3 CD from your friend in your car? On your PC? What if that CD were legally purchased instead? If it weren't illegal for you to receive it in the first place what's the difference? What's the difference then between having the information on a spinning disc on your desk or a spinning platter inside your computer?
The whole thing stank of "trying too hard" at the time and it still does. It really seemed the court was biased against Napster and wanted 'em shut down, and ignored the fact that a lot of what happens is technically -not- illegal.
The politicians are not stupid and they have advisors. They have lawyers to talk to. They're damn well aware that every time one of these laws gets passed it's going to get struck down.
Problem is, they don't care! It's all in the spin. "Ladies and gentlemen of this great state, I tried to pass a law allowing YOU to decide what kind of video games your children should be exposed to. A single liberal activist judge has decided he knows better..."
Sure, the people of the state lose. But the politician still wins. Politicians may be a lot of things, very few if any of those things good, and probably most of them can't even be said on the radio. But for the most part, they're not stupid. Nasty, cold, arrogant, vicious, cynical, uncaring, dishonest? Sure, and probably then some. But they are dangerous in these things precisely because they are -not- stupid-and we are not watching closely.
(Note before anyone's head explodes: All those not-so-nice things apply to politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle.)
DEAR SIR:
It has recently come to our attention that you have recently published a rhyme to the website "slashdot.org" in a similar cadence to the protected IP of Barney. You are hereby notified that in our informed legal opinion this constitutes infringement of our copyright.
Copyright infringement is a serious matter. If you are found liable in a civil suit you could be liable for damages up to $150,000 per willful infringement. Criminal sanctions are also possible. If you are found guilty of criminal copyright infringement you could be sentenced to up to 10 years in prison. In extreme cases you may be sentenced instead to watching one full day of Barney videos.*
We request that you cease immediately utilizing poetry and rhyming, and cease to make offending posts to any websites. If you do not comply we will initiate legal investigation against you.
*We are required to disclose that a pending court case claims that the second criminal sentence may be construed as cruel, unusual, and excessive punishment.
Sincerely yours,
The attorneys of the Barney and Associates law firm.
I've been using Linux 3 years or so now, and I've yet to have or witness this supposedly commonplace "noobs are dumb" experience.
Of course, I also generally know how to at minimum perform a basic Google search and look at documentation to make sure someone hasn't -already answered- my question. 99% of the time, I find someone in fact has. Those remaining 1% are the tough ones, but I've found community support ready and willing on those. It saves your time and theirs when you come in saying "I found this on google, I tried it but am still having the same problem, I've also already tried a few other things that seemed like they might work, like..."
I generally have the same philosophy when being asked for help. If you've got a genuinely tough problem it's obvious you tried to solve on your own, I'll spend hours helping you if need be-whether the problem is with Windows, Linux, or your car. If I ask what you found on Google and you give me a blank stare, you'll probably get referred to a website I've always found helpful to resolve such questions, located here. I don't mind helping, I do mind having my time wasted.
As to those from whom you hear "Linux is hard!" in a high-pitched whine? Stay away from my operating system. Buy your Dell and call them to ask them what end of the cable to plug in to make the Interwebs work. If Linux were ever made into a form that -does- appeal to such a person I'll go use something else. I suppose it would work alright if the front end were made "easier" while everything remains just as powerful and flexible, but that's a -very- difficult trick to pull off.
Does that mean I hate Windows? Not really, though I wish those who work on it would at least bother to secure it properly. It's certain the users won't. Windows is much like a $40 toolset from Sears containing a hammer, a few screwdrivers, and a ratchet set. It'll do a few things, it won't do them great, but it'll do adequately for occasional light work. Linux is a professional's garage containing tools from chain saws to backhoes. Those tools are powerful and capable of doing far more jobs, and far more effectively, but can and should only be operated by those who have learned to do so properly. There's a place for both in the world.
That being said, my tech-illiterate mother-in-law used one of my old Linux systems for e-mail and Web surfing while hers was broken, for months on end, and I doubt she ever even -did- notice it wasn't Windows. Certainly I was never asked for help, I pointed her to the web browser and away she went. Did she install and configure it? Absolutely not! But she'd not have the first clue how to install and configure Windows either. I believe a lot of people lose sight of that-true, Joe Sixpack would be lost installing Linux, but he'd be lost installing Windows too.
I know a little about the invention of television, and it is doubtful that Farnsworth could have afforded to invent it without patents.
Possibly true, possibly not. May sound harsh, but who cares? If not him someone else would've done it. Advances like that, once all the technology to build them is in place, tend to be pretty inevitable. And from those inventors I've known, they do it for the love of putting something together and seeing if it works.
I'd suggest some different reforms:
I have no problem with the patent system as a whole. I DO have a problem, however, when patents begin to be used to obstruct rather than to encourage innovation, and it's a shame the courts didn't look at the Constitutional basis allowing such things in the first place:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; (emphasis added)
I don't think that was just put in there to sound pretty. The courts should look at the current system of patents (and copyrights, but that's another discussion!) and -actually- bother to do their jobs and determine if they're doing what the Constitution demands-or the direct opposite. If it's the opposite (or a period much longer then the human lifespan is not by any reasonable definition a "limited time", but again that's a different subject), they need to issue the same challenge they have many times-"Folks, YOU fix the law on this, or else WE will."
That is an important thing to note though. The purpose of patents is not, absolutely, positively, demonstrably, NOT intended to "reward the inventor." That is not its primary or even secondary purpose. IF rewarding the inventor will advance the progress of science the Constitution authorizes it. If -not- "rewarding the inventor" is a greater advancement to science, that's the track we should follow. If we need to strongly scale back (but not eliminate) such "rewards" in order to advance science, that's what we should do.
I doubt the CTO personally authorized the release, and after this I suppose all supervisors will lose some sleep over the prospect of being (unintentionally) torpedoed by a subordinate.
Any good supervisor does lose sleep over this. The job of a supervisor is, well, to supervise. That does mean accepting responsibility not only for your own actions, but for the actions of those who you are responsible for managing and overseeing.
At a "C" level position, that certainly is a lot of people to take responsibility for! And certainly, you won't be responsible for the individual supervision of each and every one. However, you -are- responsible to ensure that policies and procedures are in place to prevent catastrophic events and catch them before they occur.
Also, keep in mind we don't know everything. This could well have been her idea from the start, and the board agreed but said "Keep it quiet and if it blows up in our face it's your ass." They're not very likely to let us know that...
Of course, then the musicians will be at the mercy of crapy (sic) radio stations
You say this almost as though it weren't already true!
In order to protect the reporters you have to lose any possibility of protecting secrets legally.
First: GOOD! (Couldn't resist.) In all seriousness though, there are often "grey area" practices, not technically covered by whistleblower laws, but which are clearly questionable ethically. (See secret prisons, NSA wiretapping, so on so on so on.) Quite often, the only way for a person to reveal these and let the public decide if, for example, such a practice SHOULD be illegal, is to leak anonymously. There's way too much secrecy as it is in government and corporate circles, and I sure wouldn't mind seeing it get a little (or a lot) harder for organizations to keep a secret.
We've got it rather backward: The privacy of an individual should be sacrosanct except upon probable cause and a warrant, but damn near anything a public organization does (and yes, a chartered corporation is a public organization) should be open to the inspection of the public. With those very few things allowed to be kept secret, strict audits should be conducted by those who ARE NOT INVOLVED with the people or processes occurring, and harsh and strict penalties (this means jail time, NOT fines against the corporate bank account or getting demoted a couple ranks in the military) should be in place for cloaking wrongdoing or illegal activity behind the allowed secrecy.
Secondly, even leaking anonymously can carry significant risks. If you're one of three people that signed the NDA and know that secret, do you think you're not going to be investigated very closely when it ends up on the front page? What about one of ten people in the military who knew the deal on a classified program? Obviously, if these things are any -genuine- kind of secret, there's a pretty small subset of the general population who know the information. If it's a secret worth protecting, and those keeping it are smart, they'll make sure there are a few small parts that only one person or a few know, a watermark if you will.
However, we -should- protect reporters against having to give away their sources. A press that can't protect a source is not a free press. Their job is not to be a "booby trap" for those who thought they were speaking confidentially only to find out that they really were not, and even one occurrence of that would be enough to have a serious and significant chilling effect.
Having a separate root user you have to explicitly log in as would make the most sense from a security point of view, but it is simply not feasible for the average home user to learn how and why they need to use one.
Why not?
When I purchase -any- technological item, I expect to spend some amount of time figuring out and learning how to use it properly. Your "average computer user" learns the proper way to care for everything conceivable, from pets to hardwood floors to cars, if they want them to last as long as they should. Why shouldn't they expect to do the same with the shiny new computer?
With -any- item with as many varied and complex functions as a computer, and every user using it in a different way, "just works" is a myth that will never occur. Anyone who wants to get the machine to do what they want is going to -have- to spend some time learning how to work with it, what you should and should not expect it to be able to do, and how to properly operate and maintain it. That's true of -any- machine more complex then maybe a toaster, not just a computer.
Giving the illusion that the computer will "just work" without a bit of effort or learning is a worse idea than making it clear to the user that some basic learning is required. That doesn't mean they'll need to know the thing inside and out, be able to tear it apart and rebuild it, or learn how to program it. It DOES mean that they should have some basic idea what the difference between root-level and user-level accounts are, and what the proper use is for each. It does mean they should know what types of maintenance are required and when (even if that's just "Open up the case and blow the dust out.") It does mean they should know that a lot of different programs are available which may meet their needs, some of which are free and some of which are not, and how to find information on what programs are reliable and crapware-free.
The laziness of people blows my mind sometimes. These are all things that could be taught to a person of average intelligence in a day or two (yes, I've done it). Without fail, those who have been willing to learn are -not- the ones begging me to fix up their broken system-they either know how to do the basic fixes themselves or don't land in trouble in the first place. In the end, a day or two's worth of learning has saved them time, money, and trouble, simply by -not- doing the things they should know not to in the first place.
That was coffee-on-the-keyboard, +6-type funny. And so true too! Maybe there is some good to myspace after all.