If we had to pay even to read every single copy of an article,... they should be going after every single library that holds their books and also owns a copier
No, you don't have to pay individually if you pass around the magazine and share the one copy that the library paid for. That's why schools have libraries, so that people could share books. But if someone's going to make copies, it should be the copyright holder.
Yes, there WERE lawsuits about libraries introducing copiers, for precisely this reason. Printing used to be complicated and expensive in small quantity; early photocopies were poor quality and expensive, or very expensive for high quality. This copying problem (from the publisher's perspective) just didn't exist. The advent of xerography changed the balance of power by changing the price ratio.
Posting one copy that everyone can download is NOT fair use. The library has a physical book: fair use is that one person at a time can hold that book, and can write notes about that book into a notebook; then the physical book can be passed along to someone else for their turn. When photocopies became simple (yes, I'm old enough to remember when they weren't), making a photocopy and pasting it into your book became considered fair use just like hand-writing your notes. None of this is the same as having the library photocopy enough copies for the whole class - that battle was already fought years ago. Putting the PDF where everyone in the school can download it is comparable.
If you think everything should be free, ask yourself: "Why should anyone pay *me*?" (Assuming most readers here are knowledge workers of some kind.) You use your brainpower to get paid because you need to pay for food. Why insist that someone else give away their brainpower? It would certainly be nice, but you can't blame them for wanting to eat too.
This was NOT released as Open Source or GPL. Publishers exist to publish physical copies. They want to protect their physical copies from being copied; the sheer difficulty of replicating used to be enough of an energy barrier. Just because technology has made copying cheaper, the rules didn't change. If the professor wanted to write up his own notes and disseminate them, feeling that the university already pays him enough, that's fine; if people can find some existing available source for the same information, that's fine; but if someone else was paid to write that article with new information, or a particular idea, then the publisher paid that someone else expecting to recoup their investment by selling the physical copies - and they want to eat too.
...my neighbour at my old house had insecured WiFi. Knowing the dangers I looked at his printer on the network, grabbed the drivers, and printed to it, giving him instructions on how to secure his WiFi, and why it was important....
Mod up. Probably the only way to convince most people that there really *is* a danger, and that their computer with all of its personal data is just as vulnerable.
I'm betting your work systems are configured to accept emails only from within your company, or perhaps even from your company computers. This is trying to accept emails from *anywhere* - your phone, your camera . . anyone who broadcasts to all of the HP addresses . .
Maybe the problem isn't smart phones that take pictures, but phone services that try to lock those pictures inside the phone unless you pay data fees to email them out (rather than allowing data transfer).
With this you could set up an entire store, or museum, or trade-show display on one system (with SSD and full RAM, of course). Years ago I helped configure and pack ten computers for a trade show booth; this would make life much easier, and save on shipping and setup complexity.
We keep re-inventing the mainframe;-) because, you know what, for some problems a centralized server is the best solution.
I live and work near New York City. This is a prosperous (well, generally) area, thoroughly developed. (1) I work about a mile from lots of shopping and eating places, easy flat ground. Walking there means taking one's life in one's hands, because there is not even a paved shoulder for some of the distance, let alone a sidewalk. (2) The high school is on a side street with no pedestrian access, off a main road with no pedestrian access and busy office traffic, so kids have to be driven or bussed within a town that's barely two miles across. (3) In my home town area, one could be required to go miles out of one's way to cross a river to one side or a highway to the other by foot or bicycle because the area bridges either have no walkways, or have difficult access.
I am an avid cyclist, and would have no problem bicycling the distance to work, except at some point I would have to go on a busy highway among the cars and trucks. This suburban area was almost deliberately set up to *prevent* access without a car. I've often thought this is a component of the general obesity problem, too - maybe at one time kids still walked to school on the road, before the traffic became unsafe, and now nobody walks further than from the door to the car and the car to the door.
I would narrow your statement a little to the problem being *faith*; that is, religion(s) based on belief in some core concept, often illogical, without proof. The general concept of "Religion" includes philosophical attitudes and historical groupings, some of which are perfectly happy to focus on logical (or at least rational) discussion of their core texts and history.
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 1975 I believe, upgraded from a 360/50 to a 360/67 using the same 3.5 meg of core (four telephone-booth sized racks, water cooled). You could cook on it. Literally. One of the grad students managed to cook an egg.
My point is that some of the things done to save space and cycles were necessary evils under the resource constraints.
Sorry, Java and Javascript have exactly the same issue. They need the "appropriate binary" between the platform and the independent part. Just like BASIC in the 1960s, or any other 3GL (FORTRAN, Cobol, etc.).
Even the abstract web can't be independent. If your platform has a browser that works just fine, and people start using new features like style sheets and your browser doesn't handle it, then "the web" isn't platform-independent any more. The browser itself has replaced the BASIC interpreter as a translation layer, even before it loads the Java interpreter.
The abstract ideal needs real implementation to work in the real world.
Brooks has written about the lessons learned from OS/360, including some of the things that went wrong. If you're only going to judge someone by their work 40 years ago without paying any attention to any of the intervening time . . . heck, you're going to assume that a lot of people in the field today need their diapers changed.
Whatever you may think about OS/360 - and yes, I'm old enough to have worked with it, and written SVCs and channel programs - it was one of the biggest software efforts *ever* (let alone at the time), with high standards, thorough documentation, and tremendous success at satisfying its specifications and providing high reliability. We have gone so far beyond it because it was there to stand on and to show us both the good and bad results. Overcoming the limitations of the OS/360 VTOC, for example, was a prime impetus to the distributed-directory-tree concept that we now assume is normal (and ignoring those lessons - failing to learn from the past - leads one to the Windows Registry).
Remember that the total RAM of a typical 360 was less than 4 megabytes. Remember that the disk drives were under 200 Mb, and the data rate was 1 meg/second. I've got many times that inside the ARM embedded processor I work with. What they did with what they had was a giant step forward.
But not with Warhammer's permission (OK, GW's permission). And GW could get bad press for anything stupid they say if GW lets it slide. So the good-public-relations solution would be to require the subheading:
Not approved by GW, GW's names used by permission and with adoration, we love you GW.
I join the many who fail to understand companies that seem to oppose their own customers, users, and/or fan base.
>>>This is a correlation that most mobile subscribers think isn't possible because there isn't a public white pages directory of mobile numbers.
I think even the average user understands that the providers have and share such information to manage calls themselves, whether or not it's easily available. And security through obscurity that worked just fine in a landline-only era is wide open when you can listen to the challenge-response over the air. The only question is why anyone other than a telco can get to the databases; OTOH since anyone can be a telco nowadays, that wouldn't help much.
This does demonstrate how a difference of degree becomes a difference of kind, as is so often the case with data mining. When there was noticeable cost to get each piece of information and/or to correlate one set of information against another, it was only worthwhile for a targeted attack. Now when one can get millions of pieces of information and correlate them with minimal effort, scattershot attacks are economically productive. It was never worthwhile to just dial numbers sequentially, because you had to pay living people to do it, until robodialers were created (and permitted to be attached to the phone lines); then suddenly it became an industry.
No need to construct a new legal framework; we already have the concepts of partnerships among multiple people, and corporations that include yet live beyond the lives of individuals. The discussions aren't new; Robert Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" included such discussions (as a side note) all the way back in 1966, and he wasn't inventing the discussions from scratch then.
The biggest problem (that I don't see talked about) is financial. So many projections for insurance, benefits, retirement benefits, civil planning, etc. were based on existing percentages of people married, lifespans, and so forth. If you suddenly allow marriage contracts between any two people, can a young employee contract with their widowed grandparent and get them on the company health insurance at the discounted "married" rate? (Defer debate on health coverage!) All of the historical information would lose predictive power with such a massive shift in rules.
In the 1400s and 1500s, some European countries did not recognize any marriage other than a Catholic church registry. This was a problem for Jews and other non-Catholics when it came to such things as inheritance.
If "marriage" is defined by religious law, there should be NO reference to "marriage" in civil law. All such relationships defined under civil law should be called "civil union" or something along those lines. (I'm not arguing against the concept - I'm married and happy about it - I'm arguing about the terminology.)
The bigger problem appears that CS programs now focus on teaching [abstractions] as opposed to thinking or problem solving, in order to meet perceived industry demand. In industry, I've had to teach too many youngling graduates about basic... concepts...
I agree completely, while chuckling about how we sound just like the elders we scoffed at when WE came out of school.:-)
The original Multics design for virtual memory and dynamic linking & loading, from which Unix and Linux derive, relied on pointer fault handling to distinguish different stages of linking. People already understood these vulnerabilities in the 1950s, folks. We should regard this crap as ancient history because we could be standing on the shoulders of giants, if only a generation of know-nothings (Gates, I'm looking at *you*) hadn't blithely ignored most of the lessons already learned.
They also forgot that Basic was invented for portability, and the entire development of 3GLs in general was to provide common interfaces to disparate systems.
What you're describing is not spoofing. If the same entity owns both numbers, then putting a "return address" different from the actual "shipping address" is no different from putting a company's office address on mail shipped direct from a warehouse. It's connected to the same people, so it's not fraudulent.
Truth in Labeling: one of the few simple and valid places for government involvement. Don't censor, don't restrict, don't control, just insist on ACCURATE and TRUTHFUL labeling so those with allergies can avoid their problems. (I include intellectual and emotional allergies just like physical ones.)
If anything, the question should be why this needs a new law instead of being considered just like any other kind of forgery or fraud.
For the sticklers - having different outbound and
inbound numbers (like call centers do for outbound vs. incoming switchboard) is not spoofing if the same entity owns both numbers, any more than having multiple agents answering the phone is spoofing the company identity.
Another echo: differences dealing with family tech support. Age is not the issue.
One elder was a stereo freak in the old days, and very Rolodex/to-do-list oriented. When he calls with a problem, he tells me what happened reasonably well, reads what is on the screen, and can follow directions precisely (as long as I give them slowly and clearly). Another elder, formerly a professional artist, when told "Click where it says FOO", denied that it said FOO anywhere on the screen, then when directed there a column at a time skipped some of the column headers, then clicked on something else because it "sounded similar".
People simply don't see what doesn't fit their worldview.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, does anyone really know whether it makes good fertilizer?
There was a *lot* of stuff written about differences in weather patterns after the 9/11 flight ban. Satellite pictures showed distinct differences.
If we had to pay even to read every single copy of an article, ... they should be going after every single library that holds their books and also owns a copier
No, you don't have to pay individually if you pass around the magazine and share the one copy that the library paid for. That's why schools have libraries, so that people could share books. But if someone's going to make copies, it should be the copyright holder.
Yes, there WERE lawsuits about libraries introducing copiers, for precisely this reason. Printing used to be complicated and expensive in small quantity; early photocopies were poor quality and expensive, or very expensive for high quality. This copying problem (from the publisher's perspective) just didn't exist. The advent of xerography changed the balance of power by changing the price ratio.
Posting one copy that everyone can download is NOT fair use. The library has a physical book: fair use is that one person at a time can hold that book, and can write notes about that book into a notebook; then the physical book can be passed along to someone else for their turn. When photocopies became simple (yes, I'm old enough to remember when they weren't), making a photocopy and pasting it into your book became considered fair use just like hand-writing your notes. None of this is the same as having the library photocopy enough copies for the whole class - that battle was already fought years ago. Putting the PDF where everyone in the school can download it is comparable.
If you think everything should be free, ask yourself: "Why should anyone pay *me*?" (Assuming most readers here are knowledge workers of some kind.) You use your brainpower to get paid because you need to pay for food. Why insist that someone else give away their brainpower? It would certainly be nice, but you can't blame them for wanting to eat too.
This was NOT released as Open Source or GPL. Publishers exist to publish physical copies. They want to protect their physical copies from being copied; the sheer difficulty of replicating used to be enough of an energy barrier. Just because technology has made copying cheaper, the rules didn't change. If the professor wanted to write up his own notes and disseminate them, feeling that the university already pays him enough, that's fine; if people can find some existing available source for the same information, that's fine; but if someone else was paid to write that article with new information, or a particular idea, then the publisher paid that someone else expecting to recoup their investment by selling the physical copies - and they want to eat too.
...my neighbour at my old house had insecured WiFi. Knowing the dangers I looked at his printer on the network, grabbed the drivers, and printed to it, giving him instructions on how to secure his WiFi, and why it was important. ...
Mod up. Probably the only way to convince most people that there really *is* a danger, and that their computer with all of its personal data is just as vulnerable.
I'm betting your work systems are configured to accept emails only from within your company, or perhaps even from your company computers. This is trying to accept emails from *anywhere* - your phone, your camera . . anyone who broadcasts to all of the HP addresses . .
Maybe the problem isn't smart phones that take pictures, but phone services that try to lock those pictures inside the phone unless you pay data fees to email them out (rather than allowing data transfer).
With this you could set up an entire store, or museum, or trade-show display on one system (with SSD and full RAM, of course). Years ago I helped configure and pack ten computers for a trade show booth; this would make life much easier, and save on shipping and setup complexity.
;-) because, you know what, for some problems a centralized server is the best solution.
We keep re-inventing the mainframe
I live and work near New York City. This is a prosperous (well, generally) area, thoroughly developed. (1) I work about a mile from lots of shopping and eating places, easy flat ground. Walking there means taking one's life in one's hands, because there is not even a paved shoulder for some of the distance, let alone a sidewalk. (2) The high school is on a side street with no pedestrian access, off a main road with no pedestrian access and busy office traffic, so kids have to be driven or bussed within a town that's barely two miles across. (3) In my home town area, one could be required to go miles out of one's way to cross a river to one side or a highway to the other by foot or bicycle because the area bridges either have no walkways, or have difficult access.
I am an avid cyclist, and would have no problem bicycling the distance to work, except at some point I would have to go on a busy highway among the cars and trucks. This suburban area was almost deliberately set up to *prevent* access without a car. I've often thought this is a component of the general obesity problem, too - maybe at one time kids still walked to school on the road, before the traffic became unsafe, and now nobody walks further than from the door to the car and the car to the door.
I would narrow your statement a little to the problem being *faith*; that is, religion(s) based on belief in some core concept, often illogical, without proof. The general concept of "Religion" includes philosophical attitudes and historical groupings, some of which are perfectly happy to focus on logical (or at least rational) discussion of their core texts and history.
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 1975 I believe, upgraded from a 360/50 to a 360/67 using the same 3.5 meg of core (four telephone-booth sized racks, water cooled). You could cook on it. Literally. One of the grad students managed to cook an egg.
My point is that some of the things done to save space and cycles were necessary evils under the resource constraints.
Sorry, Java and Javascript have exactly the same issue. They need the "appropriate binary" between the platform and the independent part. Just like BASIC in the 1960s, or any other 3GL (FORTRAN, Cobol, etc.).
Even the abstract web can't be independent. If your platform has a browser that works just fine, and people start using new features like style sheets and your browser doesn't handle it, then "the web" isn't platform-independent any more. The browser itself has replaced the BASIC interpreter as a translation layer, even before it loads the Java interpreter.
The abstract ideal needs real implementation to work in the real world.
Brooks has written about the lessons learned from OS/360, including some of the things that went wrong. If you're only going to judge someone by their work 40 years ago without paying any attention to any of the intervening time . . . heck, you're going to assume that a lot of people in the field today need their diapers changed.
Whatever you may think about OS/360 - and yes, I'm old enough to have worked with it, and written SVCs and channel programs - it was one of the biggest software efforts *ever* (let alone at the time), with high standards, thorough documentation, and tremendous success at satisfying its specifications and providing high reliability. We have gone so far beyond it because it was there to stand on and to show us both the good and bad results. Overcoming the limitations of the OS/360 VTOC, for example, was a prime impetus to the distributed-directory-tree concept that we now assume is normal (and ignoring those lessons - failing to learn from the past - leads one to the Windows Registry).
Remember that the total RAM of a typical 360 was less than 4 megabytes. Remember that the disk drives were under 200 Mb, and the data rate was 1 meg/second. I've got many times that inside the ARM embedded processor I work with. What they did with what they had was a giant step forward.
But not with Warhammer's permission (OK, GW's permission). And GW could get bad press for anything stupid they say if GW lets it slide. So the good-public-relations solution would be to require the subheading:
Not approved by GW, GW's names used by permission and with adoration, we love you GW.
I join the many who fail to understand companies that seem to oppose their own customers, users, and/or fan base.
>>>This is a correlation that most mobile subscribers think isn't possible because there isn't a public white pages directory of mobile numbers.
I think even the average user understands that the providers have and share such information to manage calls themselves, whether or not it's easily available. And security through obscurity that worked just fine in a landline-only era is wide open when you can listen to the challenge-response over the air. The only question is why anyone other than a telco can get to the databases; OTOH since anyone can be a telco nowadays, that wouldn't help much.
This does demonstrate how a difference of degree becomes a difference of kind, as is so often the case with data mining. When there was noticeable cost to get each piece of information and/or to correlate one set of information against another, it was only worthwhile for a targeted attack. Now when one can get millions of pieces of information and correlate them with minimal effort, scattershot attacks are economically productive. It was never worthwhile to just dial numbers sequentially, because you had to pay living people to do it, until robodialers were created (and permitted to be attached to the phone lines); then suddenly it became an industry.
No need to construct a new legal framework; we already have the concepts of partnerships among multiple people, and corporations that include yet live beyond the lives of individuals. The discussions aren't new; Robert Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" included such discussions (as a side note) all the way back in 1966, and he wasn't inventing the discussions from scratch then.
The biggest problem (that I don't see talked about) is financial. So many projections for insurance, benefits, retirement benefits, civil planning, etc. were based on existing percentages of people married, lifespans, and so forth. If you suddenly allow marriage contracts between any two people, can a young employee contract with their widowed grandparent and get them on the company health insurance at the discounted "married" rate? (Defer debate on health coverage!) All of the historical information would lose predictive power with such a massive shift in rules.
In the 1400s and 1500s, some European countries did not recognize any marriage other than a Catholic church registry. This was a problem for Jews and other non-Catholics when it came to such things as inheritance. If "marriage" is defined by religious law, there should be NO reference to "marriage" in civil law. All such relationships defined under civil law should be called "civil union" or something along those lines. (I'm not arguing against the concept - I'm married and happy about it - I'm arguing about the terminology.)
The bigger problem appears that CS programs now focus on teaching [abstractions] as opposed to thinking or problem solving, in order to meet perceived industry demand. In industry, I've had to teach too many youngling graduates about basic ... concepts...
I agree completely, while chuckling about how we sound just like the elders we scoffed at when WE came out of school. :-)
The original Multics design for virtual memory and dynamic linking & loading, from which Unix and Linux derive, relied on pointer fault handling to distinguish different stages of linking. People already understood these vulnerabilities in the 1950s, folks. We should regard this crap as ancient history because we could be standing on the shoulders of giants, if only a generation of know-nothings (Gates, I'm looking at *you*) hadn't blithely ignored most of the lessons already learned.
They also forgot that Basic was invented for portability, and the entire development of 3GLs in general was to provide common interfaces to disparate systems.
Why isn't this a little easier to find on their site???? Search for 3.6.2 and find nothing!
What you're describing is not spoofing. If the same entity owns both numbers, then putting a "return address" different from the actual "shipping address" is no different from putting a company's office address on mail shipped direct from a warehouse. It's connected to the same people, so it's not fraudulent.
Truth in Labeling: one of the few simple and valid places for government involvement. Don't censor, don't restrict, don't control, just insist on ACCURATE and TRUTHFUL labeling so those with allergies can avoid their problems. (I include intellectual and emotional allergies just like physical ones.)
If anything, the question should be why this needs a new law instead of being considered just like any other kind of forgery or fraud.
For the sticklers - having different outbound and inbound numbers (like call centers do for outbound vs. incoming switchboard) is not spoofing if the same entity owns both numbers, any more than having multiple agents answering the phone is spoofing the company identity.
Has anyone considered that this is a reductio ad absurdum like Jonathan Swift's "Modest Proposal"?
Another echo: differences dealing with family tech support. Age is not the issue.
One elder was a stereo freak in the old days, and very Rolodex/to-do-list oriented. When he calls with a problem, he tells me what happened reasonably well, reads what is on the screen, and can follow directions precisely (as long as I give them slowly and clearly). Another elder, formerly a professional artist, when told "Click where it says FOO", denied that it said FOO anywhere on the screen, then when directed there a column at a time skipped some of the column headers, then clicked on something else because it "sounded similar".
People simply don't see what doesn't fit their worldview.