An advantage of Forth is that it is very small-- a Forth interpreter and a Forth program together are often smaller than the equivalent program in machine code. Hence its use in firmware, and other places where size is very important.
Without Forth, Battlezone would not have been possible. ^_^
I know yall hate the DMCA, but doesn't the.exe provided by Microsoft fall under it's rule? Section 1201, a section 3, part B. Then the instructions on how to bypass such a thing fall under section 3, part A. Just because you hate a law doesn't mean it isn't law.
To quote:
'`(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--
`(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
`(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
`(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
`(3) As used in this subsection--
`(A) to `circumvent a technological measure' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and
`(B) a technological measure `effectively controls access to a work' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
All right, this is getting crazy. People, let's stop the bible thumping for a minute and think this issue out. I'm really pissed off right now, so I'm going to keep this brief and to the point.
While it certainly was a pretty hostile move from Microsoft, and certainly not something that's going to win them friends among the hackers in the world, this email was a perfectly reasonable thing to send to slashdot. Let's everybody remember that in a medium like print, there is a spectrum that runs from free speech to plagarism and copyright violation.
Perhaps I should start putting chapters of O'Reily books on slashdot as comments? Or maybe chapters of the Cryptonomicon? No? Why not? Because, the laws that govern us say that the text is held under copyright. The GPL which you hold so dear is based on just such principles. Thus, it should be amazingly obvious to anybody with even the smallest little brains, that Microsoft copyrights their Kerberos PAC Spec, and then you put it up as a Slashdot comment, you've violated their copyright.
Period.
You have crossed the line between free speech and copyright infringement. Remember the good old saying-- "Your right to swing your fist stops at the end of my nose."
I wish I could go through and pick apart every line in the diatribe posted by emmet entitled "Censorship != Innovation". But it all stems from a single misconception-- what Microsoft is asking for is NOT censorship. It's a protection of their copyright.
So please stop the name calling and mindless drivel.
Please email me at j.doty@gte.net if you want to argue this in more detail.
But is an MP3 you ripped from your friend's CD an idea? Or is it a product?
If you loan a CD to a friend who burns himself a copy, have you stolen from the music industry? What if your friend would never have purchased that particular CD anyhow?
YES, you have stolen from the music industry. I'm SO tired of hearing this stupid argument. "But I would never have played that game if I hadn't pirated it!" So? If I steal candy from a store that I wouldn't have eaten otherwise, isn't it still stealing? Likewise for stealing music. If you wouldn't have purchased that CD, then what are you doing with a copy of it?
Now, I don't care if more people end up hearing the music because they steal it first. That's a question for the marketing people from the industry. So what if they're stupid? So what if it's a better marketing decision in the long run for them to allow people to do this? The point is, you can't make the decision for them.
Your argument is that since all these new-generation net kids have grown up pirating software and music already, we might as well not change it now. Of course, the only reason they got away with this in the past is because nobody in a position to do anything about it payed any attention. Software companies have indeed been trying to fight it for a long time, though. The Buisness Software Association, for example, is just such a group that has been around for a long time. But nobody really payed much attention to them.
From early adolescence, kids lucky enough to be both savvy and connected pass around games, music and movies gathered online. These transactions are virtual, hence not traditionally associated with property. It's often irresistible -- how can one reasonably expect an adolescent (or older) music lover to refuse to acquire a 1,000-song playlist she couldn't possibly afford to buy in the manner the recording industry prefers to distribute it? Most important, and most troublesome about attempts to reign such informal trading in, is that it's also fun, and social.
Thus goes the saying, "Thick as thieves"? ^_^
Seriously, though, this is a moral issue that you completely blow by. Say there's a cart of apples standing on the street, with a sign on it saying "DO NOT STEAL!" Should you still steal the apples? How can one reasonably expect an adolescent (or older) apple lover to refuse a nice juicy apple?
Unenforceable laws like traditional copyright restrictions don't promote morality or lawfulness; they undermine them. What kids learn isn't that it's wrong to steal, but that these kinds of laws are antiquated and toothless. Younger Net users have been able to acquire free music and other culture for so long they understandably view it as a right, not a sudden opportunity to steal. People tend to react most intensely to the loss of rights they already have.
This, to me, is a statement of the problem. This is what should be changed. The laws should not be toothless, children should be taught that what they are doing is indeed stealing, and not a right.
"Piracy" isn't a very accurate term for what amounts to a bloodless file download, so the usual moral inhibitions apparently don't apply.
So maybe we should just call it "theft". It's rediculous to take the choice of words used to describe the act as PROOF that it isn't wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
An advantage of Forth is that it is very small-- a Forth interpreter and a Forth program together are often smaller than the equivalent program in machine code. Hence its use in firmware, and other places where size is very important.
Without Forth, Battlezone would not have been possible. ^_^
To quote:
'`(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--
`(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
`(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
`(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
`(3) As used in this subsection--
`(A) to `circumvent a technological measure' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and
`(B) a technological measure `effectively controls access to a work' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
All right, this is getting crazy. People, let's stop the bible thumping for a minute and think this issue out. I'm really pissed off right now, so I'm going to keep this brief and to the point.
While it certainly was a pretty hostile move from Microsoft, and certainly not something that's going to win them friends among the hackers in the world, this email was a perfectly reasonable thing to send to slashdot. Let's everybody remember that in a medium like print, there is a spectrum that runs from free speech to plagarism and copyright violation.
Perhaps I should start putting chapters of O'Reily books on slashdot as comments? Or maybe chapters of the Cryptonomicon? No? Why not? Because, the laws that govern us say that the text is held under copyright. The GPL which you hold so dear is based on just such principles. Thus, it should be amazingly obvious to anybody with even the smallest little brains, that Microsoft copyrights their Kerberos PAC Spec, and then you put it up as a Slashdot comment, you've violated their copyright.
Period.
You have crossed the line between free speech and copyright infringement. Remember the good old saying-- "Your right to swing your fist stops at the end of my nose."
I wish I could go through and pick apart every line in the diatribe posted by emmet entitled "Censorship != Innovation". But it all stems from a single misconception-- what Microsoft is asking for is NOT censorship. It's a protection of their copyright.
So please stop the name calling and mindless drivel.
Please email me at j.doty@gte.net if you want to argue this in more detail.
The focus should be making laws preventing "piracy" relevant and effective, not in giving them up because they seem pointless now.
Now, I don't care if more people end up hearing the music because they steal it first. That's a question for the marketing people from the industry. So what if they're stupid? So what if it's a better marketing decision in the long run for them to allow people to do this? The point is, you can't make the decision for them.
Your argument is that since all these new-generation net kids have grown up pirating software and music already, we might as well not change it now. Of course, the only reason they got away with this in the past is because nobody in a position to do anything about it payed any attention. Software companies have indeed been trying to fight it for a long time, though. The Buisness Software Association, for example, is just such a group that has been around for a long time. But nobody really payed much attention to them.
Thus goes the saying, "Thick as thieves"? ^_^Seriously, though, this is a moral issue that you completely blow by. Say there's a cart of apples standing on the street, with a sign on it saying "DO NOT STEAL!" Should you still steal the apples? How can one reasonably expect an adolescent (or older) apple lover to refuse a nice juicy apple?
This, to me, is a statement of the problem. This is what should be changed. The laws should not be toothless, children should be taught that what they are doing is indeed stealing, and not a right. So maybe we should just call it "theft". It's rediculous to take the choice of words used to describe the act as PROOF that it isn't wrong.