For those that say they are entitled or should have the right, if most people agree then there is no reason to be ashamed. If most people don't agree then maybe you need to reassess whether or not you should be ashamed. I'm betting some will disagree with me. If you can provide me an example of where I might be wrong I'm certainly willing to think about it.
Are you saying the majority is always in the right? I can think of a few examples where the majority would deem an act "shameful" that shouldn't really be. Stealing a newspaper is (in most cases) shameful, as is not cleaning up after your dog. But what about, for example, getting rejected when asking someone out?
Furthermore, there is the issue of a mistaken act. Think of Seinfield where Jerry's girlfriend sees him scratching his nose in his car. From her angle it looks like he's picking his nose. Should that go on these sites?
Finally, even with shameful acts, there is the idea that the punishment should fit the crime. What if you stumble home drunk, piss on your car, and collapse in your doorway. Now, first of all, that's pretty pathetic, and you probably deserve ridicule. But that ridicule should come from friends and neighbours. Should that video go online, where your employer might see it? Does it have your name on it? What if it affects future employment opportunities?
I don't think it's as clear cut as "don't do something you'd be ashamed to do."
This would totally suck. It would require always connected to the internet just to access the 'application' [because you have to load the web page].
I guess I was assuming some sort of caching mechanism to make sure the data doesn't get re-downloaded each time it's opened (You can browse multiple sites simultaneously, I believe).
Maybe I am missing the point of Widgets, but on the iPhone, wouldn't their primary use come from being connected to the Internet, anyway? I don't use Widgets very extensively in Dashboard, but it seems they'd mostly be useful for tracking simple things: hockey scores, movie times, etc. I guess games are one aspect where network connectivity is unnecessary. If it were cached properly, would it matter?
I don't think it will really matter about Widgets. You can still run WebKit (Safari), right? Essentially, that's all there is to a widget, as I understand it. Dashboard runs on WebKit, and this is supposed to be the whole WebKit -- a "real" web browser.
(Widgets get access to more system resources, but is this really something you need on a phone? Are you going to want to monitor CPU levels?)
So "widgets" could be replaced by web apps, which could then be bookmarked. Since bookmarks sync with your computer, the "installation" process would be incredibly easy, and you'd never need to actually know the URL.
Even if you aren't allowed to install widgets, it should be pretty simple to provide web apps to take their place.
You bring up a good point, but I think I may not have been clear. What I meant by, "How can anyone possibly think this is the case?" was in the current legal system. My post was in reply to RMH101, who said:
Some people think when they buy a CD, they're buying a physical artifact and can do what they like with it.
I wasn't defending the morality of the law, I was saying in the current system it's an open and shut case for me (and I think you agree).
As for defending the morality of copyright, I'm not sure I'm able to. What I can say is it seems intuitive to me that if we copied art freely there would be less incentive for artists to distribute it.
Or, how about this example: Since we are talking about copyright, can we move away from art? If so, consider the GPL, which is protected by copyright. Now, without copyright, Microsoft (or anyone) can take GPL code and compile it into their software. Now, even without copyright we still don't get access to the source code of Microsoft software.
"So? You could still copy MS software for free," you might be thinking. Not necessarily. They could lock down computers so much it would be incredibly difficult to do so.
Some people think when they buy a CD, they're buying a physical artifact and can do what they like with it.
That's where I'm confused. How can anyone possibly think this is the case? Clearly you don't have the right to redistribute the music, including (I think?) public performaces, amongst other things. There are obviously restrictions on what you can do with a CD you've bought.
If CDs came with a massive (and probably illegal, certainly controversial!) EULA shinkwrap licence then it'd probably do two things: 1) clarify the record label's position on this argument, and 2) hopefully wake up a lot of consumers who would realise what a stupid situation we're in...
But do they need to provide a EULA, or are there already laws that govern the use of CDs? I would prefer if they put a EULA, but from what I understand there are already laws in place for this kind of thing. If you want a different EULA/license on your CD (say, Creative Commons), maybe you could put something on the front of the case or something.
Also, I think consumers may already be "awake" to this kind of thing. They are, after all, buying music from the iTunes Store, and other digital music stores. Do they mistakenly think they can do what they want with their music files? It seems pretty clear to me that once you are no longer getting a physical copy of the music, you are clearly licensing it.
Notice also that there is a difference between your saying something, and having any ethcial basis for enforcing it. I certainly think you should be able to request that people not make copies. I don't think people should have to abide by your request.
But we have a system for enforcing such agreements: contract law. I think the difficulty here is you think you're buying the rights to whatever "non-distributive" rights on the music. No, that wasn't part of the contract. Granted, I can't actually enforce it (pesky civil liberties!;-) but that doesn't mean it would be legal for you to break our contract.
For another example, do you have the same rights when renting a movie? Are you paying for "rights to use this disc as you see fit for 3 days", or are there more restrictions? I would say there are more restrictions involved: you aren't allowed to copy it, for one.
Now, if what you're getting at is strictly enforcement, then you may have a point. It's nearly impossible to enforce a "don't-copy-this clause", but I had DRM in mind in the first place. If the songwriter says they only want their music distributed with DRM, why not? Again, there are DRM-cracking utilities (analog hole, at worst), so it's still difficult to enforce. (And no, I don't think anti-DRM tech should be outlawed.) But I think creators should set the terms of their distribution, even if that includes DRM, and whatever terms they want, so long as these terms are known to the consumer.
Is brit spears gonna make a ton of money covering the song? You mean by touring?
I meant touring, partially, but also selling CDs, songs, etc. I think big money would win out on this one. Better recording equipment, can get bigger stages, better stage shows, etc.
It is because we aren't talking about art, or beauty, but rather money. The value of one system doesn't necessarily translate over to the values of the other.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand this point. Are you saying an original Van Gogh should "Gogh" (sorry) for the same price as a duplicate?
If songwriting value can't be monetized, what is the incentive for a songwriter to distribute his work, then? You may say, "because that's what songwriters do", but it's entirely possible he'd keep it for himself, play only to his close friends, etc. It's a hassle to go out and peddle your wares. I would want a system where people that go to the trouble of writing songs are reimbursed for it somehow. (Though I'm not completely sure of this argument, either, let me play Devil's Advocate.)
I think the post was suggesting that inherent to property rights should be the right to use the property you've purchased however you see fit. Thus, buying a CD should give you the right to rip it to your hard drive, and your iPod. This makes sense to me, since there is no redistribution involved.
How does that make sense? If I've written and recorded a song, are you entitled to my recording? No, you've already agreed that you are not. So why can't I say, "You can have a copy of my song, but only if you do not rip it to your hard drive or your iPod"?
Not that it's a good idea to do that or anything, but why can't I, as a songwriter, say that?
I ask with specific reference to libertarianism, but it could be any other political philosophy.
I agree that no one should be able to force you to sing your song, that is up to you. But once you give in to the urge to let it loose, at least in my mind, in the system of ethics that makes the most sense to me, you've let it loose. You don't own the air. You don't own the soundwaves propagating from your lips, even though you created them. You certainly don't own the memories of people who heard you.
So you've just de-valued songwriting in favour of performance. What is the songwriter's incentive to record his or her music, knowing a Britney Spears is going to come along and cover it making tons of money in the process? Doesn't songwriting (or other artistic creation) have some value?
(Note: I am not actually a songwriter, I am just extending the example.)
Well, actually, no... It's a basic human right to be able to access the cultural sphere.
...
Now I don't want to all libertarian on ya, and all that, BUT... Being able to listen to music or watch video or interact with any cultural form on a machine that you own is a fundamental and basic right that comes with the purchase of the machine. It's really time to put that concept into the forefront of all discussions of the topic of so-called intellectual property (a contradiction of terms, actually).
OK, now please bear with me because I'm not familiar with libertarianism past the basic concepts. I'm don't know much about it when it comes down to intellectual property (or the environment, or generally "abstract" rights.)
So to you, cultural access is a "basic right", but only if you own the physical property to play.
First, isn't this a contradiction in terms? How can something be a "basic right" and be conditional? Whenever I hear about "basic rights" it's things like life, liberty, pursuit of happiness/property, (maybe) education, (maybe) medical care, etc. Maybe I do not understand what you mean by "basic right".
What you're saying, as I understand it, is poor people don't have the right to access the cultural sphere. I can't see how this is a "basic right".
Next, if "intellectual property" is a contradiction in terms, what is the creator's incentive to contribute to the "cultural sphere"? Or how should what we now call "intellectual property" work? We ask creators to create for free initially and then allow them to demand money for future works?
Finally, how do you resolve the (apparent) conflict of creator rights vs buyer rights? It seems to me the DRM system is what libertarians would want, but like I said I'm not familiar with the idea.
For example, let's say I write a song. It's my song. You don't have the right to force me to publish and distribute it in any way, including singing it, recording it, etc. Can I (the creator) not place restrictions on how the song is used? Can I not sell the rights to my song to another party, such as a record company? If not, why not? Can the record company not place restrictions on the reproduction or distribution of my (their) song? If not, why not?
Thanks in advance to anyone who answers my questions.
Well that's the impression I got at the start of the article, but around the middle he seemed to jump to some other idea.
Napster wasn't "hosting" information at the direction of its users, but rather providing a tool for users to find and download predominantly infringing content.
So, if I understand his argument correctly:
YouTube is protected because if a copyright holder complains they can remove the offending video (OK)
Because Napster didn't have the ability to remove the offending MP3s, they weren't protected. (OK)
If Napster had've hosted the MP3s they could have removed them (OK)
Therefore, because YouTube hosts the files and Napster didn't, YouTube is protected and Napster wasn't. If you host files you're safe. (What?)
There seems to be a logical jump between 3 and 4. Right, if Napster hosted the files they certainly could have removed them. But if they maintained an index (I'm not entirely clear how Napster worked), couldn't they remove the songs from the index? There seem to be other ways than hosting a file to guarantee you can "remove" it in a timely manner. Maybe I should re-read the article, though.
Thanks to the Bells, all these companies [YouTube, etc.] are now protected by a "notice and take down" system when they host user content. That means that if Jon Stewart notices an infringing copy of The Daily Show on YouTube, Comedy Central can write a letter to YouTube and demand it be taken down.
OK, so the system works because Comedy Central can tell YouTube to take some infringing work down, and that wasn't the case with Napster. I remember the RIAA wanted Napster to take files down, Napster said they couldn't, then they started filtering searches or something. That makes sense.
But then...
Why isn't YouTube is trouble in the same way Napster and Grokster were? The first difference, as indicated, is that Napster simply wasn't covered by the 512 safe-harbor law, and YouTube is. Napster wasn't "hosting" information at the direction of its users, but rather providing a tool for users to find and download predominantly infringing content.
Huh? It sounds to me like everyone's covered by this 512, but Napster couldn't hold up their end of the agreement. Nothing to do with "hosting" from what I understand, other than because they weren't hosting the files they couldn't remove offending files.
Could someone with more information clarify this?
Also, if this precedent is set, what would stop someone from setting up a "company" that hosts MP3s on a website, same as YouTube hosts videos? The RIAA would swamp the company with requests to take down specific songs, and the community could respond to it.
Since that's the only way to keep the site up, it would be in the community's best interest to take down the files within a reasonable time limit. I'm sure the files would be uploaded again, anyway. There could even be some points system for taking down offending files.
What would this achieve? Files would be shared, for one, but I'm not especially concerned with that. It would bleed the RIAA since they would have to have people request every file be removed, individually. Since they'd probably try to use software to find all files made by their artists, a CAPTCHA could be used to ensure a real person is making the requests.
Yeah man, before I clearly note I don't know the details of the subject, and then ask a question, noting it's based on my initial reaction, I could go read a bunch of literature on the subject. Or maybe you could scroll down or answer my question instead of a bunch of hand-wavy appeals to authority and "the real world." You colossal moron.
Because I'm bored, let's review your retarded post.
Before you decide to volunteer your expert opinion on this subject
Did you not read the part where I said this is my initial reaction, and basically qualified my ignorance. Then I asked for thoughts. Which people offered before you.
do you think you could go and read-up on what's been happening with Diebold machines? You see, quite a few of us are rather familiar with what we get with closed source voting machine software, because you see, that's what we have now, you know? That means there's actual, real world experience that you might like to become familiar with, instead of attempting to reason everything out from first principles.
Right, you have a mess on your hands with Diebold. But is that necessarily because it's closed source? Could there be a secure, closed source voting machine? That's what I was getting at. Are Diebold machines just the result of shoddy planning and implementation? A lot of the news stories suggest that is at least part of the reason.
"Security through obscurity isn't", (the second most popular Slashdot bumper sticker next to "correlation does not equal causation") may not be applicable here, since this is not a standard computer program. That's what I was asking about. You know, from people that know more about the subject than I do. Which is usually why someone would ask a question.
How could such a closed source voting machine be possible? I don't know. Maybe if you hired enough security experts to validate the code. It wouldn't have to be open source, but it could wind up being just as secure. That's another thing I was asking.
You might even, just to go above and beyond the call of duty, make some attempt to read the writings of people like Bruce Schneier, because you see, he's spent a lot of time thinking about things like this, and you might hurt his feelings if you figured it all out on your own in just a couple of minutes.
Right, that part of my post where I asked for opinions, not to mention posting it on a fucking discussion board was really me "trying to figure it out all on my own."
Incidentally, I went to Bruce Schneier's site (not the blog post you linked to, where he just states his opinion without backing it up), where I found this:
Missile guidance algorithms is another example. Would the government be better off publishing their algorithms for guiding missiles? I believe the answer is no, because the system lacks the second characteristic above. There isn't a large community of people who can benefit from the information, but there are potential enemies that could benefit from the information. Therefore, it is better for the government to keep the information classified and only disclose it to those it believes should know.
So, in other words even Bruce Schneier claims in certain cases "security through obscurity" can be beneficial. Now, maybe not for voting, but that's what I came here to discuss, and that's what other people posted -- perfectly rational and helpful answers to my question before you came along and stroking your ego with two unsubtantiated claims and some unjustified condescension.
Repeat after me: Security through obscurity DOES NOT WORK...it might make you a lower profile target in certain situations but if somebody does target your system, it will be WEAKER than if it had been fully open to scrutiny from the beginning.
Generally that might be true, but in this particular situation I'm not sure your bumper sticker applies.
To take this to the extreme, let's say you're only going to be able to use the software in question for thirty seconds. Which of these solutions is going to be more secure?
Open source program available months in advance
Closed source program unavailable
For the first option you have months to find all the exploits you can, and thirty seconds to exploit them. For the second option, you have thirty seconds to find and use the exploits.
I don't know. I mean, I'm not sure of the details of the current system, but is the software available before the election?
If not, it is more secure in a way, since malicious users can't test exploits on it before the election, and then they have limited timeframe to do that during the election. If it's open source, and up for review, someone could find the exploit and not tell anyone, right?
This is just my initial reaction to the idea, so I might be way off. Any thoughts?
How vain do you have to be to prefer a nice GUI to having several hundred dollars in your pocket?
vain: excessively proud of or concerned about one's own appearance, qualities, achievements, etc.; conceited: a vain dandy.
It's not vain to want a nice GUI. First because people don't usually show their GUI off, it's something they use, unlike say a flashy car or clothes (although those don't necessarily reflect vanity).
A nice GUI is useful to some people. It's not just about the shiny buttons, but it works differently/better. The GUI is part of the function of the software, so to say it's "vain" to want a nice GUI is to say that it's "vain" to want nice software.
And some might say wanting "several hundred dollars in your pocket" is a "vain" act, anyway.
I've read that article, too. I'm not sure what he's talking about. If I recall correctly, other Windows-based services were coming out at the same time (Napster, PureTracks). Maybe he tried to sell it to them like that, though.
(And as for your point, I think he was actually talking about the iTunes Music Store [as it was called at the time], and not the iPod, which came out years before.)
I wish you could take a peek at what other people are "searching" for with this tool at the same time; it would no doubt be profoundly entertaining and troubling.
Yeah that would be great, but I guess we'll just have to wait until AOL buys them out.
I don't think the iPod would be able to decompress whatever compression they wind up using, unless software is written for the iPod, which would be undesirable. I don't want to reboot my iPod just to read Wikipedia. Then there's battery life to consider. I don't know how much battery life it would use up to decompress parts of Wikipedia, but that might be an annoyance, too.
I know at my house we have about 5 PCs, and only one is actively used for surfing the internet (and therefore only one has a plausible chance of being counted in this survey).
Oh, so what web browsers are the other four PCs using?
An AC makes some insightful side points, which I'll quote for the +2 masses:
And I'll quote this bad boy for those of you that have "Insightful" posts modded down, and anyone that has added me as a "Friend"
We're the Cut'n'paste generation. We don't really think about what we write before putting 'pen to paper' anymore for the following reasons:
1. You can cut'n'paste you sentances to make some resemblance of ordered thought.
2. You can get a quick response, so if you're imprecise, you'll know about it quicker.
So basically latency has plummeted, but we're probably less efficient at doing things than we used to be before all this 'new fangled technology'.
Am I going to read this comment through? Do a spellcheck? nope, I'm going to spin in out, with it's imprecision, flaws and ambiguity, for I know that someone else will pick up on those point very rapidly and therefore I do not need to bother...
======
Unfortunately, this is very accurate. The digital age has made the hurried, poorly-thought-out, flung-to-the-winds reply that much easier to commit, as any flamewar veteran can attest.
The nearest pen-and-paper equivalent would be to read only the first line of each snailmail letter received, then reply by scribbling on postcards, right three at the post office, and immediately throwing them into the Outgoing Mail slot.
IIRC they posted a cryptic message when Kid A was accidentally put up on iTMS alongs the lines of "Even you, Mr Jobs, can't get away with this. Unbundle Kid A immediately."
Slashdot Mirror
As Mac users know, The Big Truck file-sharing application has been around for years!
Furthermore, there is the issue of a mistaken act. Think of Seinfield where Jerry's girlfriend sees him scratching his nose in his car. From her angle it looks like he's picking his nose. Should that go on these sites?
Finally, even with shameful acts, there is the idea that the punishment should fit the crime. What if you stumble home drunk, piss on your car, and collapse in your doorway. Now, first of all, that's pretty pathetic, and you probably deserve ridicule. But that ridicule should come from friends and neighbours. Should that video go online, where your employer might see it? Does it have your name on it? What if it affects future employment opportunities?
I don't think it's as clear cut as "don't do something you'd be ashamed to do."
Maybe I am missing the point of Widgets, but on the iPhone, wouldn't their primary use come from being connected to the Internet, anyway? I don't use Widgets very extensively in Dashboard, but it seems they'd mostly be useful for tracking simple things: hockey scores, movie times, etc. I guess games are one aspect where network connectivity is unnecessary. If it were cached properly, would it matter?
I don't think it will really matter about Widgets. You can still run WebKit (Safari), right? Essentially, that's all there is to a widget, as I understand it. Dashboard runs on WebKit, and this is supposed to be the whole WebKit -- a "real" web browser.
(Widgets get access to more system resources, but is this really something you need on a phone? Are you going to want to monitor CPU levels?)
So "widgets" could be replaced by web apps, which could then be bookmarked. Since bookmarks sync with your computer, the "installation" process would be incredibly easy, and you'd never need to actually know the URL.
Even if you aren't allowed to install widgets, it should be pretty simple to provide web apps to take their place.
I wasn't defending the morality of the law, I was saying in the current system it's an open and shut case for me (and I think you agree).
As for defending the morality of copyright, I'm not sure I'm able to. What I can say is it seems intuitive to me that if we copied art freely there would be less incentive for artists to distribute it.
Or, how about this example: Since we are talking about copyright, can we move away from art? If so, consider the GPL, which is protected by copyright. Now, without copyright, Microsoft (or anyone) can take GPL code and compile it into their software. Now, even without copyright we still don't get access to the source code of Microsoft software.
"So? You could still copy MS software for free," you might be thinking. Not necessarily. They could lock down computers so much it would be incredibly difficult to do so.
That's where I'm confused. How can anyone possibly think this is the case? Clearly you don't have the right to redistribute the music, including (I think?) public performaces, amongst other things. There are obviously restrictions on what you can do with a CD you've bought.
But do they need to provide a EULA, or are there already laws that govern the use of CDs? I would prefer if they put a EULA, but from what I understand there are already laws in place for this kind of thing. If you want a different EULA/license on your CD (say, Creative Commons), maybe you could put something on the front of the case or something.
Also, I think consumers may already be "awake" to this kind of thing. They are, after all, buying music from the iTunes Store, and other digital music stores. Do they mistakenly think they can do what they want with their music files? It seems pretty clear to me that once you are no longer getting a physical copy of the music, you are clearly licensing it.
For another example, do you have the same rights when renting a movie? Are you paying for "rights to use this disc as you see fit for 3 days", or are there more restrictions? I would say there are more restrictions involved: you aren't allowed to copy it, for one.
Now, if what you're getting at is strictly enforcement, then you may have a point. It's nearly impossible to enforce a "don't-copy-this clause", but I had DRM in mind in the first place. If the songwriter says they only want their music distributed with DRM, why not? Again, there are DRM-cracking utilities (analog hole, at worst), so it's still difficult to enforce. (And no, I don't think anti-DRM tech should be outlawed.) But I think creators should set the terms of their distribution, even if that includes DRM, and whatever terms they want, so long as these terms are known to the consumer.
I meant touring, partially, but also selling CDs, songs, etc. I think big money would win out on this one. Better recording equipment, can get bigger stages, better stage shows, etc.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand this point. Are you saying an original Van Gogh should "Gogh" (sorry) for the same price as a duplicate?
If songwriting value can't be monetized, what is the incentive for a songwriter to distribute his work, then? You may say, "because that's what songwriters do", but it's entirely possible he'd keep it for himself, play only to his close friends, etc. It's a hassle to go out and peddle your wares. I would want a system where people that go to the trouble of writing songs are reimbursed for it somehow. (Though I'm not completely sure of this argument, either, let me play Devil's Advocate.)
Not that it's a good idea to do that or anything, but why can't I, as a songwriter, say that?
I ask with specific reference to libertarianism, but it could be any other political philosophy.
So you've just de-valued songwriting in favour of performance. What is the songwriter's incentive to record his or her music, knowing a Britney Spears is going to come along and cover it making tons of money in the process? Doesn't songwriting (or other artistic creation) have some value?
(Note: I am not actually a songwriter, I am just extending the example.)
OK, now please bear with me because I'm not familiar with libertarianism past the basic concepts. I'm don't know much about it when it comes down to intellectual property (or the environment, or generally "abstract" rights.)
So to you, cultural access is a "basic right", but only if you own the physical property to play.
First, isn't this a contradiction in terms? How can something be a "basic right" and be conditional? Whenever I hear about "basic rights" it's things like life, liberty, pursuit of happiness/property, (maybe) education, (maybe) medical care, etc. Maybe I do not understand what you mean by "basic right".
What you're saying, as I understand it, is poor people don't have the right to access the cultural sphere. I can't see how this is a "basic right".
Next, if "intellectual property" is a contradiction in terms, what is the creator's incentive to contribute to the "cultural sphere"? Or how should what we now call "intellectual property" work? We ask creators to create for free initially and then allow them to demand money for future works?
Finally, how do you resolve the (apparent) conflict of creator rights vs buyer rights? It seems to me the DRM system is what libertarians would want, but like I said I'm not familiar with the idea.
For example, let's say I write a song. It's my song. You don't have the right to force me to publish and distribute it in any way, including singing it, recording it, etc. Can I (the creator) not place restrictions on how the song is used? Can I not sell the rights to my song to another party, such as a record company? If not, why not? Can the record company not place restrictions on the reproduction or distribution of my (their) song? If not, why not?
Thanks in advance to anyone who answers my questions.
So, if I understand his argument correctly:
There seems to be a logical jump between 3 and 4. Right, if Napster hosted the files they certainly could have removed them. But if they maintained an index (I'm not entirely clear how Napster worked), couldn't they remove the songs from the index? There seem to be other ways than hosting a file to guarantee you can "remove" it in a timely manner. Maybe I should re-read the article, though.
OK, so the system works because Comedy Central can tell YouTube to take some infringing work down, and that wasn't the case with Napster. I remember the RIAA wanted Napster to take files down, Napster said they couldn't, then they started filtering searches or something. That makes sense.
But then...
Huh? It sounds to me like everyone's covered by this 512, but Napster couldn't hold up their end of the agreement. Nothing to do with "hosting" from what I understand, other than because they weren't hosting the files they couldn't remove offending files.
Could someone with more information clarify this?
Also, if this precedent is set, what would stop someone from setting up a "company" that hosts MP3s on a website, same as YouTube hosts videos? The RIAA would swamp the company with requests to take down specific songs, and the community could respond to it.
Since that's the only way to keep the site up, it would be in the community's best interest to take down the files within a reasonable time limit. I'm sure the files would be uploaded again, anyway. There could even be some points system for taking down offending files.
What would this achieve? Files would be shared, for one, but I'm not especially concerned with that. It would bleed the RIAA since they would have to have people request every file be removed, individually. Since they'd probably try to use software to find all files made by their artists, a CAPTCHA could be used to ensure a real person is making the requests.
Because I'm bored, let's review your retarded post.
Did you not read the part where I said this is my initial reaction, and basically qualified my ignorance. Then I asked for thoughts. Which people offered before you.
Right, you have a mess on your hands with Diebold. But is that necessarily because it's closed source? Could there be a secure, closed source voting machine? That's what I was getting at. Are Diebold machines just the result of shoddy planning and implementation? A lot of the news stories suggest that is at least part of the reason.
"Security through obscurity isn't", (the second most popular Slashdot bumper sticker next to "correlation does not equal causation") may not be applicable here, since this is not a standard computer program. That's what I was asking about. You know, from people that know more about the subject than I do. Which is usually why someone would ask a question.
How could such a closed source voting machine be possible? I don't know. Maybe if you hired enough security experts to validate the code. It wouldn't have to be open source, but it could wind up being just as secure. That's another thing I was asking.
Right, that part of my post where I asked for opinions, not to mention posting it on a fucking discussion board was really me "trying to figure it out all on my own."
Incidentally, I went to Bruce Schneier's site (not the blog post you linked to, where he just states his opinion without backing it up), where I found this:
So, in other words even Bruce Schneier claims in certain cases "security through obscurity" can be beneficial. Now, maybe not for voting, but that's what I came here to discuss, and that's what other people posted -- perfectly rational and helpful answers to my question before you came along and stroking your ego with two unsubtantiated claims and some unjustified condescension.
Generally that might be true, but in this particular situation I'm not sure your bumper sticker applies.
To take this to the extreme, let's say you're only going to be able to use the software in question for thirty seconds. Which of these solutions is going to be more secure?
For the first option you have months to find all the exploits you can, and thirty seconds to exploit them. For the second option, you have thirty seconds to find and use the exploits.
It seems to me the second would be more secure.
I don't know. I mean, I'm not sure of the details of the current system, but is the software available before the election?
If not, it is more secure in a way, since malicious users can't test exploits on it before the election, and then they have limited timeframe to do that during the election. If it's open source, and up for review, someone could find the exploit and not tell anyone, right?
This is just my initial reaction to the idea, so I might be way off. Any thoughts?
vain: excessively proud of or concerned about one's own appearance, qualities, achievements, etc.; conceited: a vain dandy.
It's not vain to want a nice GUI. First because people don't usually show their GUI off, it's something they use, unlike say a flashy car or clothes (although those don't necessarily reflect vanity).
A nice GUI is useful to some people. It's not just about the shiny buttons, but it works differently/better. The GUI is part of the function of the software, so to say it's "vain" to want a nice GUI is to say that it's "vain" to want nice software.
And some might say wanting "several hundred dollars in your pocket" is a "vain" act, anyway.
Yeah, right after it puts you through years of destitution and misery.
I've read that article, too. I'm not sure what he's talking about. If I recall correctly, other Windows-based services were coming out at the same time (Napster, PureTracks). Maybe he tried to sell it to them like that, though.
(And as for your point, I think he was actually talking about the iTunes Music Store [as it was called at the time], and not the iPod, which came out years before.)
Yeah, I don't see anyone using Sony products, either.
Yeah that would be great, but I guess we'll just have to wait until AOL buys them out.
I don't think the iPod would be able to decompress whatever compression they wind up using, unless software is written for the iPod, which would be undesirable. I don't want to reboot my iPod just to read Wikipedia. Then there's battery life to consider. I don't know how much battery life it would use up to decompress parts of Wikipedia, but that might be an annoyance, too.
And I'll quote this bad boy for those of you that have "Insightful" posts modded down, and anyone that has added me as a "Friend"
IIRC they posted a cryptic message when Kid A was accidentally put up on iTMS alongs the lines of "Even you, Mr Jobs, can't get away with this. Unbundle Kid A immediately."
This is gonna tear Radiohead up, but I just listened to Idioteque. But I had my CD player on random, so Morning Bell didn't come up next.
wuh WUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHH