I was halfway through my right-click procedure to open this up when I froze. What was I doing? Almost gave the Firewall boys something interesting to do today. They just love catching pr0n surfers.
He can claim that because as he has stated many times, he gets email from these people. He didn't say that the ONLY people who read him were involved with technology, nor did he said that ALL of these people read him. He simply said that these people made up his audience.
How do you claim that you are read by highly technical linux geeks, when you rarely write about anything technical, much less a topic that can be highly technical?
So linux geeks read ONLY technical articles. How boring. You better not tell that to the Linux games site, otherwise they'll have to shut down.
You shouldn't abuse your position.
So doing his job is abusing his position, huh? He's paid to write for this site. He was hired by Rob. How is it abuse if he does what he is paid to do?
You are not respected, your opinions are not well founded or much less explained in any fashion.
Let me answer this in your own words: "How can you claim that? You are more arrogant that I ever imagined!" You have even less credibility to pass this kind of judgement. You don't speak for me, or the thousands of others here (even the ones who might agree with you). You criticize Katz for doing something and then do it yourself. No hipocrasy there.
Contrary to what world you have created in your mind, you sir are not a technocrat.
Hmmm. He never said he was. Perhaps you got him confused with Bruce Perens?
Its your choice to not like Katz. But to criticize his articles based on points is foolish. Get a better argument.
Since you're only doing this once, screw signing up with a pay service. Just use netzero and upload your stuff that way. They have access numbers all over the place, and its easy to download onto a laptop from their website. After the trip, just delete, and you're done.
I think the source of the problem comes from an old system trying to cope with the new influx of business. Most would argue that squatting is a Bad Thing, but there are many who say its just like land. I own it by virtue of being here first and buying it.
I think the rules of how domain names are assigned need to be carefully reexamined to reflect the needs of the corporation *and* the individual.
Yes there have been 3d cameras that produce 3d images. But to my knowledge, this is the first that can be used to provide a 3d model of the subject (using the software) which then can be used in 3d Apps (depending on the format). So there is a difference.
I agree with you except the part about net result. MP3 players are already being manufactured. When hardware companies see that people don't want SDMI devices they will remember the the unrestricted MP3 devices sold like hotcakes and they'll go back to selling them (if they ever stopped in the first place). Follow the money.
And I don't think they're evil. They are morons. Then don't understand the concept of a toothpaste tube (its one way).
I understand the need to have this case decided favorably (for the DeCSS crowd) for many reasons. What I don't like are many of the ones being bandied about as arguments.
Point 5 - that Xing had been smart about encryption, this wouldn't be an issue is a bad rationalization. It doesn't matter if Xing had been competent or not with their security. Opening a closed door that isn't your house can be breaking and entering.
Point 4 - If they'd produce a viewer from Linux, this might not have been a problem so quickly, but it still would of been a problem. There are many determined to break encryption and steal stuff. Just look at the warez sites to see if linux is needed for this.
Point 3 - Mostly true at the present time. Copying is happening, though in an altered form. Just check out alt.binaries.movies and watch how many dvd rips get posted there over time. These have been rerun into MPG1 files, but the source was a ripped DVD. So DeCSS *DOES* enable copying right now.
Point 2 - As has been noted many times, this will change.
Point 1 - True, but not necessarily pertinent to this case.
The true case here is how DeCSS was made. If it was made for the purpose of viewing under linux (which is the claim) and properly reverse engineered, then by all the rules, it should be legal to use in legal settings (like for a Linux DVD program). If it is found that the program was made for pirating purposes, then it is illegal by the Millenium Copyright act. Same can be said for the method of reverse engineering.
As far as the linking goes, this is a much more dangerous area of the case. There is first amendment issues here, and how they integrate with the other part of the case will be critical for our future.
Having said all this, I believe that DeCSS was created for legitimate purposes, and in a legitimate way. That being the case, it should fall under the exemptions to the copyright law.
With a self destructing disk, it would force me to create a good copy of it. Sounds like they're just pushing the idea of piracy to many people who might not normally do something like that.
Another bogus argument. You could turn him off in preferences and you won't have any of his articles pushing others off the page. AFAIK, other articles aren't rejected because Katz has an article coming out. That's absurd. As far as preventing worthwhile comments to other articles -- what's your reasoning there? Are they too busy flaming? Then perhaps they should forgo that and just post the good content to the other article. We all have free will and choice in what we read. If you don't like Katz, don't read it. Or post a flame. But to say that somehow Katz is messing up other articles is just absurd.
Out of the box which is more secure for the average user (not a server), NT or Linux? I'm stipulating that Outlook is not the email program and that no downloaded executables are run without scan.
My thoughts run thus: I realize that NT has many security holes and needs somthing like 200 changes to be made secure, but for the average user who is *not* running a server, are these changes necessary? Contrast that with many versions of Linux, which out of the box for the average user can be hacked in 15 minutes on the net. I am talking out of the *box* not using updates from either linux sites or M$.
So when do we reach critical mass? As technology improves, and the power to encrypt and maintain your own privacy improves to the astronomical level -- i see one of two things happening.
1. The NSA routes around the problems using the U.S. government. Using new laws forbidding the use of private security and encryption (in the name of something like national security or other constitutional loophole) -- the NSA can then grow and be able to monitor all the informations on the many different channels it now comes around. This is a changing-the-rules to get around the critical mass. May happen. Though our constitution and the nature of the net make it difficult at best (unless we go behind a national firewall like china).
2. Critical mass is reached with no workable route around and the NSA is rendered fairly innefectual. Realizing they can't monitor every channel and can't limit the channels everyone can use, they start doing their real job and specifically targeting that information they need and find the criminals/terrorists that they need to. They won't be extrememly effective, but will more rely on tips or other info (like the police have to).
Perhaps these predictions are a bit simplistic. Okay maybe a bit more than a bit. But I believe that the essential point is critical mass will be reached, and they will either 1. change the rules to push back the critical mass, 2. succumb to it and have to operate like any other agency that isn't given root access to the world.
Remember the anon.petit.fi (or whatever it was) the anonymous remailer was shut down by scientology. The scientologist have been harrasing and trying to shut down websites left and right so that the only time someone can mention scientology at all is when they are part of the church. Xenu.com had a tremendous amount of information on this cult. And that's what threatened them. Xenu and those that ran it are considered the scientologist equivalent of heretic, and just like the old days of christianity, the doctrine is to do anything to harrass the heretics. This is just one form they have chosen to use.
This cult is just another force that wants to take away your rights. Learn more about it online by reading the scientology newsgroups. But remember that those groups are being harrassed as well.
Good thoughts. What I guess I was trying to say, was if people only knew how *much* suicide really impacts those around them, they might realize how important they really are. But you're right. In the throws of depression, its very difficult to think about anyone else besides your problems.
I would hope that if someone became lucid enough to think about other people's reaction to their death, that they might realize the profound impact it would have. Perhaps then they might realize that maybe they should stick it out and try to improve things. Its my hope. Not necessarily realistic.
I tend to agree with a lot of what you say but would like to clarify something. You say that suicides are to end severe depression. I would like to add that you also must have a component of hopelessness in that equation. If one looses all hope of ever getting better, that is when suicide starts to become a 'viable' option. As long as one has hope that things are changeable, generally the person will hold out for those changes. Again, this only describes a portion (maybe a large one) of suicides.
Like you say, suicide is definetely a social taboo. I found a variety of strange reactions (including from myself) when having to talk to people about it. Most people assign pretty harsh judgement in some way -- including some who like to assign blame. Its a shame it is so taboo, as with open discussion, we might be able to bring the suicide rate down (which IIRC, surpassed the murder rate this year by a good margin).
The real sadness, is that because of this attitude most people who are thinking about suicide never come out and talk about their feelins, as they know there is no "safe" place to do that...
This is all too true, though maybe not in the context you mention it. I don't believe that its fear of being prevented from killing themselves that stops most people from talking about their suicidal feelings. Most suicides make multiple attempts to let people clue into their pain. Often these attempts may be too cryptic for relatives or friends to realize. Often the fear that keeps them from being more open about their pain is that whatever they fear will be confirmed from those around them -- eg. I confess that i'm extremely lonely and if I tell someone they might tell me its cause I'm an asshole, or ugly or something along those lines.
And this is still a way too simplistic explanation. I've spent over 8 years dealing with the suicide in my family. I've been in therapy and have examined this problem from many angles. Its just too complex to reduce to some pat explanation, even as I have above. The biggest damage that suicides bring are usually to those around the victim. Having lived through one, I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. Its not something you get over very easily.
But I also agree with part of your assessment. I have come to believe that there are many situations where suicide may be warranted. I don't believe you have outlined any suicides i would consider acceptable (which i define as something I would be able to accept if it happened to a family memeber or loved one). Chronic pain with no cure is one of these. Perhaps a debilitating condition that one can't work through might be another. Its a personal choice. But this choice is also one that your loved-ones will have to deal with. To only consider your own view is selfish. Many others will be severly impacted by your decision. At least recognize that.
Its a sticky subject, and there are lots of emotions on all sides of it. Its something I wish I didn't have to examine so closely, but I think I'm better off from having done so.
Well one reason is that versatility in voice over work is hard to come by. Look at the amazing differences in Bergman's voice styles. Its hard to be able to give up your own voice mannerisms in favor of the characters. I came into contact with one of the voices of the animaniacs a while ago. One of the things he said that was most important for a cartoon actors rep, is *not* being recognized when doing a new character or show. The harder it is to recognize the actor behind the voice, the better the rep for the actor doing it. How many of you knew that Bergman did all the female voices of the show when it first came on? I didn't.
I've lost a family member to suicide. Its always a sad occasion when this should happen. And this begs the question "What now" for south park? All I can do is hope that critics of southpark won't seize this as proof of their criticism.
Just saw this on ZDnet, but there is an article about the deCSS and strangely enough they are calling it "A Good Thing." Never expected ZDNet to jump on the hack er... Crack er... HRACK(?) bandwagon.
It is a bit wishy washy though. But since the average ZDNet reader only reads the headline and any applicable "Berst-I-Told-You-So" Links, they'll probably miss the part where the author says: "What is learned here can be applied to making future systems stronger."
In case the development stopped, no prob. Just design the DVD players for linux to use DeCSS as a plugin. That way you get around the legal rangle in the same way MAME did by not packaging the roms with the emu. That way, if it is found that DeCSS does violate either copyright or patent, then it would be up to the individual user to find (easy) and download (easy) the decryptor or use a licenced one. That way the program can't be stopped on the decryption basis.
Slashdot Mirror
I was halfway through my right-click procedure to open this up when I froze. What was I doing? Almost gave the Firewall boys something interesting to do today. They just love catching pr0n surfers.
He can claim that because as he has stated many times, he gets email from these people. He didn't say that the ONLY people who read him were involved with technology, nor did he said that ALL of these people read him. He simply said that these people made up his audience.
How do you claim that you are read by highly technical linux geeks, when you rarely write about anything technical, much less a topic that can be highly technical?
So linux geeks read ONLY technical articles. How boring. You better not tell that to the Linux games site, otherwise they'll have to shut down.
You shouldn't abuse your position.
So doing his job is abusing his position, huh? He's paid to write for this site. He was hired by Rob. How is it abuse if he does what he is paid to do?
You are not respected, your opinions are not well founded or much less explained in any fashion.
Let me answer this in your own words: "How can you claim that? You are more arrogant that I ever imagined!" You have even less credibility to pass this kind of judgement. You don't speak for me, or the thousands of others here (even the ones who might agree with you). You criticize Katz for doing something and then do it yourself. No hipocrasy there.
Contrary to what world you have created in your mind, you sir are not a technocrat.
Hmmm. He never said he was. Perhaps you got him confused with Bruce Perens?
Its your choice to not like Katz. But to criticize his articles based on points is foolish. Get a better argument.
Why in the world do you want to ignore him? You seem to take great delight in critisizing him.
Since you're only doing this once, screw signing up with a pay service. Just use netzero and upload your stuff that way. They have access numbers all over the place, and its easy to download onto a laptop from their website. After the trip, just delete, and you're done.
I think the source of the problem comes from an old system trying to cope with the new influx of business. Most would argue that squatting is a Bad Thing, but there are many who say its just like land. I own it by virtue of being here first and buying it.
I think the rules of how domain names are assigned need to be carefully reexamined to reflect the needs of the corporation *and* the individual.
Like how I didn't actually say anything?
Yes there have been 3d cameras that produce 3d images. But to my knowledge, this is the first that can be used to provide a 3d model of the subject (using the software) which then can be used in 3d Apps (depending on the format). So there is a difference.
I agree with you except the part about net result. MP3 players are already being manufactured. When hardware companies see that people don't want SDMI devices they will remember the the unrestricted MP3 devices sold like hotcakes and they'll go back to selling them (if they ever stopped in the first place). Follow the money.
And I don't think they're evil. They are morons. Then don't understand the concept of a toothpaste tube (its one way).
I understand the need to have this case decided favorably (for the DeCSS crowd) for many reasons. What I don't like are many of the ones being bandied about as arguments.
Point 5 - that Xing had been smart about encryption, this wouldn't be an issue is a bad rationalization. It doesn't matter if Xing had been competent or not with their security. Opening a closed door that isn't your house can be breaking and entering.
Point 4 - If they'd produce a viewer from Linux, this might not have been a problem so quickly, but it still would of been a problem. There are many determined to break encryption and steal stuff. Just look at the warez sites to see if linux is needed for this.
Point 3 - Mostly true at the present time. Copying is happening, though in an altered form. Just check out alt.binaries.movies and watch how many dvd rips get posted there over time. These have been rerun into MPG1 files, but the source was a ripped DVD. So DeCSS *DOES* enable copying right now.
Point 2 - As has been noted many times, this will change.
Point 1 - True, but not necessarily pertinent to this case.
The true case here is how DeCSS was made. If it was made for the purpose of viewing under linux (which is the claim) and properly reverse engineered, then by all the rules, it should be legal to use in legal settings (like for a Linux DVD program). If it is found that the program was made for pirating purposes, then it is illegal by the Millenium Copyright act. Same can be said for the method of reverse engineering.
As far as the linking goes, this is a much more dangerous area of the case. There is first amendment issues here, and how they integrate with the other part of the case will be critical for our future.
Having said all this, I believe that DeCSS was created for legitimate purposes, and in a legitimate way. That being the case, it should fall under the exemptions to the copyright law.
With a self destructing disk, it would force me to create a good copy of it. Sounds like they're just pushing the idea of piracy to many people who might not normally do something like that.
Hmm. Methinks the greed has blinded them.
Another bogus argument. You could turn him off in preferences and you won't have any of his articles pushing others off the page. AFAIK, other articles aren't rejected because Katz has an article coming out. That's absurd. As far as preventing worthwhile comments to other articles -- what's your reasoning there? Are they too busy flaming? Then perhaps they should forgo that and just post the good content to the other article. We all have free will and choice in what we read. If you don't like Katz, don't read it. Or post a flame. But to say that somehow Katz is messing up other articles is just absurd.
Out of the box which is more secure for the average user (not a server), NT or Linux? I'm stipulating that Outlook is not the email program and that no downloaded executables are run without scan.
My thoughts run thus: I realize that NT has many security holes and needs somthing like 200 changes to be made secure, but for the average user who is *not* running a server, are these changes necessary? Contrast that with many versions of Linux, which out of the box for the average user can be hacked in 15 minutes on the net. I am talking out of the *box* not using updates from either linux sites or M$.
Didya know that having something from l0pht on your machine is grounds for termination? I do ... now.
Oops.
Just wanted to say that I love the Uplift saga and would highly recommend it to all comers.
What am I missing? Where do you meta moderate? I can't find any links and doing a search only gives me the article that proposed it.
Thanks.
So when do we reach critical mass? As technology improves, and the power to encrypt and maintain your own privacy improves to the astronomical level -- i see one of two things happening.
1. The NSA routes around the problems using the U.S. government. Using new laws forbidding the use of private security and encryption (in the name of something like national security or other constitutional loophole) -- the NSA can then grow and be able to monitor all the informations on the many different channels it now comes around. This is a changing-the-rules to get around the critical mass. May happen. Though our constitution and the nature of the net make it difficult at best (unless we go behind a national firewall like china).
2. Critical mass is reached with no workable route around and the NSA is rendered fairly innefectual. Realizing they can't monitor every channel and can't limit the channels everyone can use, they start doing their real job and specifically targeting that information they need and find the criminals/terrorists that they need to. They won't be extrememly effective, but will more rely on tips or other info (like the police have to).
Perhaps these predictions are a bit simplistic. Okay maybe a bit more than a bit. But I believe that the essential point is critical mass will be reached, and they will either 1. change the rules to push back the critical mass, 2. succumb to it and have to operate like any other agency that isn't given root access to the world.
Remember the anon.petit.fi (or whatever it was) the anonymous remailer was shut down by scientology. The scientologist have been harrasing and trying to shut down websites left and right so that the only time someone can mention scientology at all is when they are part of the church. Xenu.com had a tremendous amount of information on this cult. And that's what threatened them. Xenu and those that ran it are considered the scientologist equivalent of heretic, and just like the old days of christianity, the doctrine is to do anything to harrass the heretics. This is just one form they have chosen to use.
This cult is just another force that wants to take away your rights. Learn more about it online by reading the scientology newsgroups. But remember that those groups are being harrassed as well.
Good thoughts. What I guess I was trying to say, was if people only knew how *much* suicide really impacts those around them, they might realize how important they really are. But you're right. In the throws of depression, its very difficult to think about anyone else besides your problems.
I would hope that if someone became lucid enough to think about other people's reaction to their death, that they might realize the profound impact it would have. Perhaps then they might realize that maybe they should stick it out and try to improve things. Its my hope. Not necessarily realistic.
I tend to agree with a lot of what you say but would like to clarify something. You say that suicides are to end severe depression. I would like to add that you also must have a component of hopelessness in that equation. If one looses all hope of ever getting better, that is when suicide starts to become a 'viable' option. As long as one has hope that things are changeable, generally the person will hold out for those changes. Again, this only describes a portion (maybe a large one) of suicides.
Like you say, suicide is definetely a social taboo. I found a variety of strange reactions (including from myself) when having to talk to people about it. Most people assign pretty harsh judgement in some way -- including some who like to assign blame. Its a shame it is so taboo, as with open discussion, we might be able to bring the suicide rate down (which IIRC, surpassed the murder rate this year by a good margin).
This is all too true, though maybe not in the context you mention it. I don't believe that its fear of being prevented from killing themselves that stops most people from talking about their suicidal feelings. Most suicides make multiple attempts to let people clue into their pain. Often these attempts may be too cryptic for relatives or friends to realize. Often the fear that keeps them from being more open about their pain is that whatever they fear will be confirmed from those around them -- eg. I confess that i'm extremely lonely and if I tell someone they might tell me its cause I'm an asshole, or ugly or something along those lines.
And this is still a way too simplistic explanation. I've spent over 8 years dealing with the suicide in my family. I've been in therapy and have examined this problem from many angles. Its just too complex to reduce to some pat explanation, even as I have above. The biggest damage that suicides bring are usually to those around the victim. Having lived through one, I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. Its not something you get over very easily.
But I also agree with part of your assessment. I have come to believe that there are many situations where suicide may be warranted. I don't believe you have outlined any suicides i would consider acceptable (which i define as something I would be able to accept if it happened to a family memeber or loved one). Chronic pain with no cure is one of these. Perhaps a debilitating condition that one can't work through might be another. Its a personal choice. But this choice is also one that your loved-ones will have to deal with. To only consider your own view is selfish. Many others will be severly impacted by your decision. At least recognize that.
Its a sticky subject, and there are lots of emotions on all sides of it. Its something I wish I didn't have to examine so closely, but I think I'm better off from having done so.
Well one reason is that versatility in voice over work is hard to come by. Look at the amazing differences in Bergman's voice styles. Its hard to be able to give up your own voice mannerisms in favor of the characters. I came into contact with one of the voices of the animaniacs a while ago. One of the things he said that was most important for a cartoon actors rep, is *not* being recognized when doing a new character or show. The harder it is to recognize the actor behind the voice, the better the rep for the actor doing it. How many of you knew that Bergman did all the female voices of the show when it first came on? I didn't.
I've lost a family member to suicide. Its always a sad occasion when this should happen. And this begs the question "What now" for south park? All I can do is hope that critics of southpark won't seize this as proof of their criticism.
It is a bit wishy washy though. But since the average ZDNet reader only reads the headline and any applicable "Berst-I-Told-You-So" Links, they'll probably miss the part where the author says: "What is learned here can be applied to making future systems stronger."
--cringe--
Man. That nixes my plans for my open source eCSHln project. Crap.
In case the development stopped, no prob. Just design the DVD players for linux to use DeCSS as a plugin. That way you get around the legal rangle in the same way MAME did by not packaging the roms with the emu. That way, if it is found that DeCSS does violate either copyright or patent, then it would be up to the individual user to find (easy) and download (easy) the decryptor or use a licenced one. That way the program can't be stopped on the decryption basis.
My $0.02
I think that's one of the audio options on the DVD of X-files. Its under "Really Obvious Comments from a viewer" section. ;)