Hot damn...gotta like being one of the Anonymous Cowards in that sid. Is anyone else concerned by the sheer number of people that went ahead and clicked it? Aren't you people the ones that are always crowing about how much smarter you are than the average "luser"? Everyone just believed that all that script would do is post a comment, just like a bunch of idiots believed that someone at Dow Jones sent them love letters.
All it did was post a comment. Theres a link to the source at sid=numb. It could have done worse though if I had added the javascript thing (provided you use Windows and IE.) As for clicking links no one is safe (unless they have redirection disabled.) I could e-mail a similar link and have it look completely benign, yet have it post something incredibly embarrassing.
or just go to http://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=displaystory&sid=2000/ 5/9/183550/1910 if you don't trust the link:)
One other thing, I used a PHP script because Slashdot's software recognizes duplicate posts and I needed to make the content dynamic. However, for a targeted attack plain old HTML on a geocities web page would do the trick.
I mentioned this yesterday in the Hotmail thread but it kinda got lost in the shuffle. Slashdot should post an article about the "client-side trojans" discussion that is going on at Zope. Slashdot isn't the only site affected by this--and it's a simple hack:
Obviously such a link wouldn't need to warn you what is does, or post such an innocuous message. Maybe I could make it post you slashdot cookies to o:)
You can see the results in sid=numb and there is a link to the source in there too.
I got a pricelist from a local place that does CD duplication. $1.90 per CD including jewelbox, 4 page full-color insert, and shrinkwrapping. That's when buying 1000. I'm sure it costs significantly less as you increase the volume.
The following text is something I was writing to someone as a critique, but I wanted to post it in this forum as well. It's basically about something I as well as others have been guilty of. I haven't been acknowleging the affect of free distribution on the artists in my posts, although they have been on my mind. Anyway, here's the snippet:
This is where the biggest issue, in my opinion, comes into play. And this is where the RIAA will do the greatest evil. What they're doing is playing on the whole conflict between our freedom to distribute media over the Internet and their right to control distribution. You can't have one without taking away from the other. For example, having Napster blocked from campuses is in fact a way that the RIAA took away our freedom to distribute and gained back some control of music distribution. If anyone thinks they'll stop with Napster, my guess is they are wrong. The big problem is that the more control the RIAA has over distribution, the harder it becomes for us to do our own promotion and distribution of music. Napster was a great distribution channel for independent artists. Indie music is bigger on college campuses than anywhere--and now it just got a little harder for us to get in there. We know that the distribution of MP3's has been making the recording industry money because it helps them promote their music. The problem is that as MP3 distribution becomes more popular people will learn how to promote and distribute music leaving the RIAA out of the picture. When this happens they're going to be hurting. They'll do everything they can to close down distribution channels that create an even playing field. Let's face it, it's their job to control the distribution of media. They're not going to give a shit about freedom and independent artists--other than the fact that it will infringe on their profits. If they get in the way they'll stop it. You don't have to look far to find historical and anecdotal evidence of how much they really care about artists. I think we're falling into a trap here though. We sound just as bad as the RIAA because we're neglecting the artists point of view. I think this is mainly because we've seen it as a moot point. The artists that are against free distribution don't understand that it can't be stopped or they understand that their music isn't good enough that people will pay them for it unless they're promoted by a major label. I really think it's important to work on winning them over to free distribution. I believe the artists with talent will stand a better chance of making money through free distribution than through a big label. Yeah, some will get picked up by major labels and make obscene amounts of money, but most will go unnoticed without free distribution. These are the guys that need us, and we need them.
There was a problem with the code I was using so this wasn't working properly earlier. It is now. There's an interesting article about this type of web trojan on kuro5hin.org. There's a lot of discussion about it on Zope as well. It affects just about every web site out there.
I decided not to have the link cause you to profess your love for Bill Gates to this thread. Instead I set up a sid here.
For a good laugh check out the open letter from Metallica on Brunching Shuttlecocks. It explains the importance of promotional money aka "We don't suck" money. It answers your question "Why am I paying for someone to tell me what I like?"
For the humor-impaired--it's a joke. At any rate, I got a chuckle out of it.
I only moved my project to Sourceforge recently (less than 2 months ago.) This is the first open source project I've worked on. So far I've been using Option 1, but only because it's so early in development. It also uses PHP scripts, contains no documentation, and is completely free (GPL.)
So I release stuff that's imperfect but contains important parts of the framework as development (odd number) releases. When I finally have something that I feel is stable I'll make a stable (even number) release. Then back to dev releases again. So far I've received a couple e-mails from people that are setting up or planning on setting up the software, but I haven't had to deal with patches yet since I've done all the coding so far myself. I don't understand why they don't update their CVS repository more often. I update mine almost daily. Is it possibly because they're too busy to incorporate patches on a regular basis? I could see that happening. I do hope they find some time for the people that want to submit patches. I know it might seem like the AC was being an ingrate, but OTOH it's in SF's best interests to give these guys what they want--provided it doesn't take away from the things that they need to work on right now.
Keep in mind, I'm not criticizing Sourceforge for doing it differently. I host my project on Sourceforge, but I'm not involved in the development of their site. Sourceforge gives me a great place to host the project, complete with shell account, web space, ftp server, bug tracking, project and task management, forums, mailing lists, cvs, and a load of other stuff that's enabled me to accomplish a lot more than I would have been able to otherwise. It's free. Sourceforge has my full appreciation.
The judge said: no, digital copies are not the all the same. The crux of the matter seems to be that MP3.com ripped its own copy of the CD [call it copy1] and played it to a user who certified that he owns a copy [copy2] of that particular song. Because copy1 and copy2 are not the same thing, allowing the user to listen to copy1 is copyright infringement.
A couple months ago a friend of mine was staying with me that had a scratched Sublime CD (40oz--one of my favorites.) Using cdparanoia I attempted to create a "repaired" copy for him using my computer, my CD burner, and my recordable media. Is that illegal? Should that be illegal?
However the disc was so badly damaged that I couldn't create a good copy for him. So I made a copy from my legal purchased copy of the CD. Is that illegal? Should that be illegal?
I'm not trying to make a point by asking this. I'm looking for your and others' opinions.
For anyone that's interested there's another article about this on Wired. I found it on kuro5hin 3 days ago. I just stopped by there the for first time a couple days ago--very cool site for tech news junkies.
I rarely go to web sites I read about in print or see on TV because most of the time they don't point you directly to the content you want. I always pictured a cheap pen reader hooked to a USB port a good method of getting the URL from paper to the computer. If a web cam can do it that's great, but it will have to be fairly reliable. This technology will be great for business cards too. Especially if you can encode all the printed data on a business card into the barcode.
We have 600 PC's at the site I support. So far not one infected computer. I'm certainly glad we're running Notes. Otherwise I'd be running around to 600 PC's today.
There are users at some of the company's other sites though that have the virus but it appears to be a very small number. As you pointed out, our users were able to receive the e-mail, but it didn't propogate. Outlook can't send e-mail over our network.
I'm sure you're aware that there are musicians that want to use Napster to distribute their music. I'm not just talking about Limp Bizkit either. I'm talking about the musicians that don't have and/or don't want to use one of the major record labels. Do you feel that protecting your music from unauthorized distribution is more important than protecting the newly forming distribution channels that unsigned artists finally have available to them?
I agree with what G27 is saying here. What I do not agree with is the fact that this comment has been moderated up to a 5. While I am in no way saying that this is a weak comment, I am saying that all this person did was include a few quoted lines from the article in this comment.
No, it really isn't worthy of a 5--I'm as suprised as you that it got moderated that high. It could've happened because two people moderated at the same time. I've moderated 2's before and by the time it actually goes through the proxy server the post is a 5.
I felt it was worth mentioning though because the Slashdot summary neglected to point it out. In fact it doesn't appear that they were aware that there was a potential problem with Garbus defending Corley. It's a pretty big deal as far as the case goes.
I think the "American Dream" has a lot to answer for. The dream of gaining wealth and possessions through the mechanisms of capitalism is one of the core national beliefs of Americans, and it pervades every part of their culture. Beneath its hope-filled surface, it subliminally encourages people to put themselves ahead of others, to work against them to better oneself, and to treat every opportunity in life as a means of making more money for yourself.
I think I agree. But I don't think it's only an American dream. So many of the people I meet care primarily about the way their material make them appear to others.
I remember when I was younger (mid-teens to mid-twenties) I hated the fact that I couldn't afford a cool car, cool clothes, cool clubs, ski trips--all the things that the "cool" people had. It took me a while, but I finally put it together.
For most of my life I'd been brainwashed by television and other forms of advertising. The idea that grew in my mind was that I was somehow inferior because I didn't have the things that "cool" people had.
As I got older I realized that something just wasn't working--my life was miserable. Everyone I knew was miserable, even the people that had all the cool cars and toys and girls. Money and material goods weren't enough to make anyone happy--people wonder why stars that "have everything" commit suicide all the time. It's because they don't have everything.
If you're someone that feels like you need to buy stuff to make yourself complete, please take a second and think on this: You've been brainwashed. It's not about material possessions. It's not about money. What you really want is to be happy. You'll be a lot happier when you don't give a rat's ass about what you have.
The article makes the good point that the open source / hacker community don't want DeCSS to pirate, only to watch their DVDs on Linux. However, its DeCSS for 'doze that could be the problem. Using the windows version and some easy to download tools, "script kiddies" and their contemporaries can easily re-encode dvds to lower bandwidths & other codecs, say to put them onto one or two cds, or post a 180kbit version to the web. Its these sort of people who are giving a bad name to the DeCss lot, and whos actions are only going to increase, which is a shame for those of us who use it for its oringinal use.
I don't think even the script kiddies are that interested in DeCSS. It's completely unnessecary for decrypting video streams if all you intend to do is make a copy. Any DVD player has to decrypt the stream before it goes to the display. Intercepting the stream on the way to the display would have been a lot easier if that was what it was really about--isn't there software for Windows already that does this?
Another thing I'd like to point out is that the value of DeCSS is not just that it allows Linux users to watch DVD's. DeCSS without the source would probably be ignored by OSS people as well as the MPAA. It's the availability of the source code that makes it so important.
With the source code we can make as many different DVD players for as many different operating systems as we want. This includes embedded operating systems that could run on more traditional DVD players like the kind that people hook up to their TV's.
It subverts the whole region coding scam that the MPAA put into place which effectively allows them to censor movies for certain areas. I can buy a movie made in a foreign country, but I can't play it in the US unless the foreign film company has a US region code on it.
Take the Stanley Kubrick movie "Eyes Wide Shut" for example. In the US only the censored version of the movie is available as far as I know. (I'm not sure if it's out on DVD yet or not, but that's not my point.) My point is that the MPAA wants to control who gets to see what and where.
I think that the OSS guys are concerned about more than just watching DVD's in Linux--like freedom of choice and speech. The MPAA is concerned about something other than piracy--piracy is just a convenient excuse although it's innaccurate. Things like price-fixing are a lot easier if you can restrict where people get playable DVD's from.
The lawyer, Martin Garbus, is going to be defending Eric Corley aka Emmanuel Goldstein, and is a/very sharp/ cookie.
Look a little further in the article and you'll see that there is a good chance that Time Warner can stop Garbus from defending Corley:
On April 25, attorneys for the movie association filed a motion to disqualify Garbus from the case. Garbus's firm, it turns out, represents Scholastic in an unrelated case. Time Warner, a member of the association, owns Scholastic, and you're not supposed to defend and attack the same client at the same time. This technicality may be enough to kick Garbus out of the suit. "He probably has a 50-50 chance," speculated one legal observer close to the action.
That would seriously suck. I appreciate the hard work of the EFF attornies, but Garbus has an awesome track record and is well respected in the legal system. Losing his support will be a great loss to Corley and anyone else that cares about things like fair use.
Part of the problem with flywheels is that if they come apart, they kill people... there's a sh*tload of energy stored up, and it's moving really really fast... one cool solution I've heard is to make it out of a tightly wound kevlar cord - then if it fails, it just turns into a ball of spaghetti instead of flying shrapnel in the mall parking lot.:-)
I read the article too The flywheels are made of wound carbon fiber so they won't just fly apart. They monitor for defects and have plenty of warning when defects begin to show up. Even in the case of a total failure they are confident of safety.
I don't know much about it other than what I read in the Wired article, but they certainly make it sound like a promising technology and quite safe.
"There has to be some laws and guidelines to go by before it gets too out of hand and sucks the life out of musicians who will stop making music," said James Hetfield, Metallica guitarist and singer.
I can't believe Hetfield said that with a straight face. He's supporting the RIAA and at the same time saying that Napster will suck the life out of musicians? What about all the musicians that have made the RIAA millions and have been left with nothing?
I think Metallica's problem is that they are too far past their prime. Don't get me wrong, I still love most of their music, mostly stuff prior to the Black Album. S&M is actually pretty impressive, but how many many times can a band do that for an encore when they run out of good original music. They need a business model where crap can be sold as if it's gold.
Contrast this to the bands that support Napster. Limp Bizkit has a new album coming out. If their record label does nothing to promote it the fans will still run out any buy it because it has value. How about Public Enemy and Cypress Hill? They're not getting the promotional support that they used to, so they'd rather be able to move the music themselves. Then there are the several musicians that I know personally that have never been involved with the recording industry yet. They support Napster because it will allow their music to be distributed without signing away their creations to a record label.
"For the doubters out there, Metallica will carry on for the next 20 years," Ulrich said. Whether you're around for the ride or not, that's your problem, not ours."
Honestly I don't think I could take another 20 years of the crap you guys will put out Lars. I'll still listen to the pre-Black albums I have. After all, there was a time when you guys were for real and listening to your music made me feel good. Thanks for the good music and I'm sorry that I can no longer continue to support your career. You will be missed.
A deeply controversial amendment to the 1976 Copyright Act--added without congressional debate or input from artists--now allows record companies to treat musicians' recordings as "works for hire." Tacked onto an omnibus appropriations bill by a congressional staffer and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on Nov. 29, the new amendment could prevent artists from reclaiming the rights to their work after 35 years, the current legal waiting period.
Just another one of those little laws that got passed without anyone knowing about it. Must be nice to have that kind of clout in Washington. Most of us have to make a lot of noise to get laws passed. The RIAA on the other hand manages to have laws passed quietly when no one is looking.
That the Open Source Movement seemingly supports these hardened criminals is ludicrous. No wonder no one takes you seriously, you seem like a bunch of children screaming "Mine! Mine! All mine!".
Hardened criminals? Anyway, it's not the OSS people that sound like children screaming "Mine! Mine! All Mine!" It's the RIAA plants that have shown up in the forum that fit that description.
As far as my feelings go I'll continue to resist anyone that tries to close off distribution channels for music on the Internet. If the RIAA could find a way to stop their music from being distributed without screwing it up for everyone else I'd say "more power to ya."
I know it must be upsetting to the RIAA that people on here don't seem to care about their rights and such. Speaking for myself alone, it's because I understand the technology to realize that you can't stop it--at least not without stopping everyone else from being able to distribute their own music. That's why the issue of copyright infringement means so little to me in this case--because it's freedom of speech and expression that will get choked to stop this so-called piracy. I'm sure I'm not the only one that feels that way, but I can't speak for everyone.
The RIAA wants things to be "business as usual" as it's been for the last 50 years. I won't just sit here and let that happen.
Slashdot Mirror
After what I've seen today, I'm not about to click on that.
numb
That beats mine by a longshot. BTW, do you have any references so we know that you didn't keep our passwords? You da man.
numb
You would have earned a place in the annals of Slashdot history.
:)
That's OK. I now have the most active user-created sid in Slashdot history
numb
Hot damn...gotta like being one of the Anonymous Cowards in that sid. Is anyone else concerned by the sheer number of people that went ahead and clicked it? Aren't you people the ones that are always crowing about how much smarter you are than the average "luser"? Everyone just believed that all that script would do is post a comment, just like a bunch of idiots believed that someone at Dow Jones sent them love letters.
/ 5/9/183550/1910 if you don't trust the link :)
All it did was post a comment. Theres a link to the source at sid=numb. It could have done worse though if I had added the javascript thing (provided you use Windows and IE.) As for clicking links no one is safe (unless they have redirection disabled.) I could e-mail a similar link and have it look completely benign, yet have it post something incredibly embarrassing.
BTW, to find out more about it click here.
or just go to http://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=displaystory&sid=2000
One other thing, I used a PHP script because Slashdot's software recognizes duplicate posts and I needed to make the content dynamic. However, for a targeted attack plain old HTML on a geocities web page would do the trick.
numb
numb
I mentioned this yesterday in the Hotmail thread but it kinda got lost in the shuffle. Slashdot should post an article about the "client-side trojans" discussion that is going on at Zope. Slashdot isn't the only site affected by this--and it's a simple hack:
:)
WARNING: Clicking this link will cause an article to be posted on Slashdot in your name
Obviously such a link wouldn't need to warn you what is does, or post such an innocuous message. Maybe I could make it post you slashdot cookies to o
You can see the results in sid=numb and there is a link to the source in there too.
numb
I got a pricelist from a local place that does CD duplication. $1.90 per CD including jewelbox, 4 page full-color insert, and shrinkwrapping. That's when buying 1000. I'm sure it costs significantly less as you increase the volume.
Link to pricelist
numb
The following text is something I was writing to someone as a critique, but I wanted to post it in this forum as well. It's basically about something I as well as others have been guilty of. I haven't been acknowleging the affect of free distribution on the artists in my posts, although they have been on my mind. Anyway, here's the snippet:
This is where the biggest issue, in my opinion, comes into play. And this is where
the RIAA will do the greatest evil. What they're doing is playing on the whole
conflict between our freedom to distribute media over the Internet and their right
to control distribution. You can't have one without taking away from the other. For
example, having Napster blocked from campuses is in fact a way that the RIAA took
away our freedom to distribute and gained back some control of music distribution.
If anyone thinks they'll stop with Napster, my guess is they are wrong. The big
problem is that the more control the RIAA has over distribution, the harder it
becomes for us to do our own promotion and distribution of music. Napster was a
great distribution channel for independent artists. Indie music is bigger on
college campuses than anywhere--and now it just got a little harder for us to
get in there. We know that the distribution of MP3's has been making the recording
industry money because it helps them promote their music. The problem is that as
MP3 distribution becomes more popular people will learn how to promote and
distribute music leaving the RIAA out of the picture. When this happens they're
going to be hurting. They'll do everything they can to close down distribution
channels that create an even playing field. Let's face it, it's their job to
control the distribution of media. They're not going to give a shit about freedom
and independent artists--other than the fact that it will infringe on their profits.
If they get in the way they'll stop it. You don't have to look far to find
historical and anecdotal evidence of how much they really care about artists. I
think we're falling into a trap here though. We sound just as bad as the RIAA
because we're neglecting the artists point of view. I think this is mainly
because we've seen it as a moot point. The artists that are against free
distribution don't understand that it can't be stopped or they understand
that their music isn't good enough that people will pay them for it unless
they're promoted by a major label. I really think it's important to work on
winning them over to free distribution. I believe the artists with talent will
stand a better chance of making money through free distribution than through
a big label. Yeah, some will get picked up by major labels and make obscene
amounts of money, but most will go unnoticed without free distribution. These
are the guys that need us, and we need them.
numb
There was a problem with the code I was using so this wasn't working properly earlier. It is now. There's an interesting article about this type of web trojan on kuro5hin.org. There's a lot of discussion about it on Zope as well. It affects just about every web site out there.
I decided not to have the link cause you to profess your love for Bill Gates to this thread. Instead I set up a sid here.
numb
If you click here a message declaring your love for Bill Gates will be posted to Slashdot in your name.
Any takers?
numb
For a good laugh check out the open letter from Metallica on Brunching Shuttlecocks. It explains the importance of promotional money aka "We don't suck" money. It answers your question "Why am I paying for someone to tell me what I like?"
For the humor-impaired--it's a joke. At any rate, I got a chuckle out of it.
numb
I only moved my project to Sourceforge recently (less than 2 months ago.) This is the first open source project I've worked on. So far I've been using Option 1, but only because it's so early in development. It also uses PHP scripts, contains no documentation, and is completely free (GPL.)
So I release stuff that's imperfect but contains important parts of the framework as development (odd number) releases. When I finally have something that I feel is stable I'll make a stable (even number) release. Then back to dev releases again. So far I've received a couple e-mails from people that are setting up or planning on setting up the software, but I haven't had to deal with patches yet since I've done all the coding so far myself. I don't understand why they don't update their CVS repository more often. I update mine almost daily. Is it possibly because they're too busy to incorporate patches on a regular basis? I could see that happening. I do hope they find some time for the people that want to submit patches. I know it might seem like the AC was being an ingrate, but OTOH it's in SF's best interests to give these guys what they want--provided it doesn't take away from the things that they need to work on right now.
Keep in mind, I'm not criticizing Sourceforge for doing it differently. I host my project on Sourceforge, but I'm not involved in the development of their site. Sourceforge gives me a great place to host the project, complete with shell account, web space, ftp server, bug tracking, project and task management, forums, mailing lists, cvs, and a load of other stuff that's enabled me to accomplish a lot more than I would have been able to otherwise. It's free. Sourceforge has my full appreciation.
numb
hmm. my brain must have started filtering the word "innovation" about halfway through. thanks for the correction.
numb
Summary:
innovative/innovation: used 4 times
protect the children: used once
janet reno is a nazi: zero
So I guess this debate isn't over yet...
numb
The judge said: no, digital copies are not the all the same. The crux of the matter seems to be that MP3.com ripped its own copy of the CD [call it copy1] and played it to a user who certified that he owns a copy [copy2] of that particular song. Because copy1 and copy2 are not the same thing, allowing the user to listen to copy1 is copyright infringement.
A couple months ago a friend of mine was staying with me that had a scratched Sublime CD (40oz--one of my favorites.) Using cdparanoia I attempted to create a "repaired" copy for him using my computer, my CD burner, and my recordable media. Is that illegal? Should that be illegal?
However the disc was so badly damaged that I couldn't create a good copy for him. So I made a copy from my legal purchased copy of the CD. Is that illegal? Should that be illegal?
I'm not trying to make a point by asking this. I'm looking for your and others' opinions.
numb
For anyone that's interested there's another article about this on Wired. I found it on kuro5hin 3 days ago. I just stopped by there the for first time a couple days ago--very cool site for tech news junkies.
I rarely go to web sites I read about in print or see on TV because most of the time they don't point you directly to the content you want. I always pictured a cheap pen reader hooked to a USB port a good method of getting the URL from paper to the computer. If a web cam can do it that's great, but it will have to be fairly reliable. This technology will be great for business cards too. Especially if you can encode all the printed data on a business card into the barcode.
numb
We have 600 PC's at the site I support. So far not one infected computer. I'm certainly glad we're running Notes. Otherwise I'd be running around to 600 PC's today.
There are users at some of the company's other sites though that have the virus but it appears to be a very small number. As you pointed out, our users were able to receive the e-mail, but it didn't propogate. Outlook can't send e-mail over our network.
numb
I'm sure you're aware that there are musicians that want to use Napster to distribute their music. I'm not just talking about Limp Bizkit either. I'm talking about the musicians that don't have and/or don't want to use one of the major record labels. Do you feel that protecting your music from unauthorized distribution is more important than protecting the newly forming distribution channels that unsigned artists finally have available to them?
numb
I agree with what G27 is saying here. What I do not agree with is the fact that this comment has been moderated up to a 5. While I am in no way saying that this is a weak comment, I am saying that all this person did was include a few quoted lines from the article in this comment.
No, it really isn't worthy of a 5--I'm as suprised as you that it got moderated that high. It could've happened because two people moderated at the same time. I've moderated 2's before and by the time it actually goes through the proxy server the post is a 5.
I felt it was worth mentioning though because the Slashdot summary neglected to point it out. In fact it doesn't appear that they were aware that there was a potential problem with Garbus defending Corley. It's a pretty big deal as far as the case goes.
numb
I think the "American Dream" has a lot to answer for. The dream of gaining wealth and possessions through the mechanisms of capitalism is one of the core national beliefs of Americans, and it pervades every part of their culture. Beneath its hope-filled surface, it subliminally encourages people to put themselves ahead of others, to work against them to better oneself, and to treat every opportunity in life as a means of making more money for yourself.
I think I agree. But I don't think it's only an American dream. So many of the people I meet care primarily about the way their material make them appear to others.
I remember when I was younger (mid-teens to mid-twenties) I hated the fact that I couldn't afford a cool car, cool clothes, cool clubs, ski trips--all the things that the "cool" people had. It took me a while, but I finally put it together.
For most of my life I'd been brainwashed by television and other forms of advertising. The idea that grew in my mind was that I was somehow inferior because I didn't have the things that "cool" people had.
As I got older I realized that something just wasn't working--my life was miserable. Everyone I knew was miserable, even the people that had all the cool cars and toys and girls. Money and material goods weren't enough to make anyone happy--people wonder why stars that "have everything" commit suicide all the time. It's because they don't have everything.
If you're someone that feels like you need to buy stuff to make yourself complete, please take a second and think on this: You've been brainwashed. It's not about material possessions. It's not about money. What you really want is to be happy. You'll be a lot happier when you don't give a rat's ass about what you have.
numb
The article makes the good point that the open source / hacker community don't want DeCSS to pirate, only to watch their DVDs on Linux. However, its DeCSS for 'doze that could be the problem. Using the windows version and some easy to download tools, "script kiddies" and their contemporaries can easily re-encode dvds to lower bandwidths & other codecs, say to put them onto one or two cds, or post a 180kbit version to the web. Its these sort of people who are giving a bad name to the DeCss lot, and whos actions are only going to increase, which is a shame for those of us who use it for its oringinal use.
I don't think even the script kiddies are that interested in DeCSS. It's completely unnessecary for decrypting video streams if all you intend to do is make a copy. Any DVD player has to decrypt the stream before it goes to the display. Intercepting the stream on the way to the display would have been a lot easier if that was what it was really about--isn't there software for Windows already that does this?
Another thing I'd like to point out is that the value of DeCSS is not just that it allows Linux users to watch DVD's. DeCSS without the source would probably be ignored by OSS people as well as the MPAA. It's the availability of the source code that makes it so important.
With the source code we can make as many different DVD players for as many different operating systems as we want. This includes embedded operating systems that could run on more traditional DVD players like the kind that people hook up to their TV's.
It subverts the whole region coding scam that the MPAA put into place which effectively allows them to censor movies for certain areas. I can buy a movie made in a foreign country, but I can't play it in the US unless the foreign film company has a US region code on it.
Take the Stanley Kubrick movie "Eyes Wide Shut" for example. In the US only the censored version of the movie is available as far as I know. (I'm not sure if it's out on DVD yet or not, but that's not my point.) My point is that the MPAA wants to control who gets to see what and where.
I think that the OSS guys are concerned about more than just watching DVD's in Linux--like freedom of choice and speech. The MPAA is concerned about something other than piracy--piracy is just a convenient excuse although it's innaccurate. Things like price-fixing are a lot easier if you can restrict where people get playable DVD's from.
numb
The lawyer, Martin Garbus, is going to be defending Eric Corley aka Emmanuel Goldstein, and is a /very sharp/ cookie.
Look a little further in the article and you'll see that there is a good chance that Time Warner can stop Garbus from defending Corley:
On April 25, attorneys for the movie association filed a motion to disqualify Garbus from the case. Garbus's firm, it turns out, represents Scholastic in an unrelated case. Time Warner, a member of the association, owns Scholastic, and you're not supposed to defend and attack the same client at the same time. This technicality may be enough to kick Garbus out of the suit. "He probably has a 50-50 chance," speculated one legal observer close to the action.
That would seriously suck. I appreciate the hard work of the EFF attornies, but Garbus has an awesome track record and is well respected in the legal system. Losing his support will be a great loss to Corley and anyone else that cares about things like fair use.
numb
Part of the problem with flywheels is that if they come apart, they kill people... there's a sh*tload of energy stored up, and it's moving really really fast... one cool solution I've heard is to make it out of a tightly wound kevlar cord - then if it fails, it just turns into a ball of spaghetti instead of flying shrapnel in the mall parking lot. :-)
I read the article too The flywheels are made of wound carbon fiber so they won't just fly apart. They monitor for defects and have plenty of warning when defects begin to show up. Even in the case of a total failure they are confident of safety.
I don't know much about it other than what I read in the Wired article, but they certainly make it sound like a promising technology and quite safe.
numb
I just read the article you linked to:
"There has to be some laws and guidelines to go by before it gets too out of hand and sucks the life out of musicians who will stop making music," said James Hetfield, Metallica guitarist and singer.
I can't believe Hetfield said that with a straight face. He's supporting the RIAA and at the same time saying that Napster will suck the life out of musicians? What about all the musicians that have made the RIAA millions and have been left with nothing?
I think Metallica's problem is that they are too far past their prime. Don't get me wrong, I still love most of their music, mostly stuff prior to the Black Album. S&M is actually pretty impressive, but how many many times can a band do that for an encore when they run out of good original music. They need a business model where crap can be sold as if it's gold.
Contrast this to the bands that support Napster. Limp Bizkit has a new album coming out. If their record label does nothing to promote it the fans will still run out any buy it because it has value. How about Public Enemy and Cypress Hill? They're not getting the promotional support that they used to, so they'd rather be able to move the music themselves. Then there are the several musicians that I know personally that have never been involved with the recording industry yet. They support Napster because it will allow their music to be distributed without signing away their creations to a record label.
"For the doubters out there, Metallica will carry on for the next 20 years," Ulrich said. Whether you're around for the ride or not, that's your problem, not ours."
Honestly I don't think I could take another 20 years of the crap you guys will put out Lars. I'll still listen to the pre-Black albums I have. After all, there was a time when you guys were for real and listening to your music made me feel good. Thanks for the good music and I'm sorry that I can no longer continue to support your career. You will be missed.
numb
If the RIAA was so concerned about the artists, they wouldn't be making them sign their work over for 35-40 years, or now even forever.
;)
//www.livedaily.com/archive/2000/2k01/wk3/Amendmen tToCopyrightActCo.html
Here's an article about it -- a little more informative than the RIAA FAQ
http:
Here's what to expect if you click the link:
A deeply controversial amendment to the 1976 Copyright Act--added without congressional debate or input from artists--now allows record companies to treat musicians' recordings as "works for hire." Tacked onto an omnibus appropriations bill by a congressional staffer and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on Nov. 29, the new amendment could prevent artists from reclaiming the rights to their work after 35 years, the current legal waiting period.
Just another one of those little laws that got passed without anyone knowing about it. Must be nice to have that kind of clout in Washington. Most of us have to make a lot of noise to get laws passed. The RIAA on the other hand manages to have laws passed quietly when no one is looking.
numb
That the Open Source Movement seemingly supports these hardened criminals is ludicrous. No wonder no one takes you seriously, you seem like a bunch of children screaming "Mine! Mine! All mine!".
Hardened criminals? Anyway, it's not the OSS people that sound like children screaming "Mine! Mine! All Mine!" It's the RIAA plants that have shown up in the forum that fit that description.
As far as my feelings go I'll continue to resist anyone that tries to close off distribution channels for music on the Internet. If the RIAA could find a way to stop their music from being distributed without screwing it up for everyone else I'd say "more power to ya."
I know it must be upsetting to the RIAA that people on here don't seem to care about their rights and such. Speaking for myself alone, it's because I understand the technology to realize that you can't stop it--at least not without stopping everyone else from being able to distribute their own music. That's why the issue of copyright infringement means so little to me in this case--because it's freedom of speech and expression that will get choked to stop this so-called piracy. I'm sure I'm not the only one that feels that way, but I can't speak for everyone.
The RIAA wants things to be "business as usual" as it's been for the last 50 years. I won't just sit here and let that happen.
numb