I could, I suppose, although I admit that the physical reality is that even musical flatulence is beyond me. Your speculation, albeit much funnier than mine, shows nothing whatsoever about whether this is true; if that were your goal, you probably should have suggested ways in which DNS might not be connected, the simplest being that the alleged URL of the blacklist server is coded with a fixed IP address.
But considering the amount of real info the "article" had, everything which was posted here was speculation.
The combination of this and DNS cache poisoning attacks sounds bad. Of course, it could be checking some kind of server certificate, if Apple is smart. The "article" (more a rumor report) doesn't say...
The scientists forgot to compute how many "NO CARRIER" jokes can safely coexist on one forum. On that fateful day, Slashdotters will post one too many "NO CARRIER" jokes and they will collapse into a mega-anti-carrier, swallowing all force carrier particles and ending life as we know it on Earth!
Geeks + bikes always makes me a bit nervous, one of my high school math teachers was killed by a traffic accident he had while biking to school; and then as an adult I read about Jerry Keiper dying similarly.
And yes, being a fan of Bruce Schneier, I understand that this nervousness is probably not commensurate with the actual risks involved in traveling by bicycle.
Want registering for a webmail account with fraudulent info to be a felony? Want using words forbidden by a website's terms of service legalese to be a felony?
The EFF doesn't want that either, even if they probably DO want that woman to be punished.
I agree totally with you, but want to add that if they would prosecute her on something less than a felony, which would make it easier to win, I would think, then a subsequent civil suit for enormous monetary damages would probably be a "shoe-in", and it itself might be fitting punishment.
If the teenager had died as the result of mere negligence on the part of the neighbor, people wouldn't be up in arms about this; the reason for the overreaction is because there was a degree of "malice aforethought" involved, which revs up everyone's "revenge" circuitry. Unfortunately, it seems it wasn't enough (provable) malice to enable the DOJ to prosecute the woman for anything spectacular, so they're grasping at straws without regard to the consequences.
> dense legalese that most people don't even bother to read
You forgot to add that it gets updated at the whim of a third party, with no regulation of how the users of the website are notified.
God only knows why they don't try her for "reckless endangerment" or "child endangerment". My guess is that the punishment isn't as spectacular as the DOJ would want.
> Free speech has never been completely without limits
Your post indicates that you totally miss the point of the whole thing. The EFF is only opposed to considering violations of the terms of service of websites as being "malicious computer hacking" which is, what, a felony, no? The EFF is not defending the behavior of the woman in any way (i.e., trying to justify it as "free speech"), it is just trying to prevent her being prosecuted for the wrong crime, a precedent which would make anyone who opens a webmail account with false information into a case for the FBI.
> This person is strictly not mentally ill, since he integrates well > socially and handles stress efficiently.
"Love and work are the cornerstones of our humanness." - Sigmund Freud
Freud probably would have considered your acquaintance "ill", even if that enormous tome which tries to classify mental illness (don't remember its name) has no entry for him.
I agree with you that the decision is quite disturbing, even in the light of other comments that this has been the status quo for a long, long time.
I would have found the decision rather balanced, actually, if it had been explicitly limited to the DCMA, for several reasons. First, works of the US government (or the military, anyway) are automatically in the public domain --- the government has waived its "right" to copyright. Interestingly, this means that the crack itself is in the public domain (but not the cracked software, which is a derived work). Secondly, if the US gov't is not bound by the DCMA, it is then legal for it to distribute tools for breaking DRM, which might be useful in many situations (e.g., if Microsoft is vaporized in a war, or if public libraries need them for the purposes of archiving cultural works in danger of disappearance).
Then you missed the fact that the article says it uses a coherent 2-level cache for inter-core communications; the Cell BE is quite exotic in that it uses DMA transfers and has no memory coherency between the SPEs.
The article doesn't explicitly state that the Larrabee cores are homogeneous, but I would be surprised if they weren't; the Cell cores are somewhat heterogeneous if you want to use the PowerPC core to squeeze the last drop of processing power out of it.
You are correct in that Intel appears to have copied the ring network of the Cell BE, although I don't understand why they need it in addition to the coherent cache. Oh, well, guess I'll have to wait until the paper really hits the public.
I'm pretty sure that it's possible to just glue new fingerprints on your fingers before showing up for the fingerprinting, although doing it in a way which would not be obvious looks quite a bit more difficult.
> A law that tries to control the right to copy makes no sense in a > world where everyone has every day access to copying machines
So if I invent a cheap machine with a red button which when pressed kills everyone except me within a 1 mile radius, and publish the plans on the Internet so everyone has access to one, the use of these machines should be legalized?
That particular part of your argument sounds stupid to me.
As for the rest, I do believe there is a place for copyright in a much more limited form than now exists --- much shorter time spans, much smaller civil and criminal (or possibly no criminal) penalties for violations. Probably a stance close to that of the poster you replied to.
> They can set up shop in a building across the street (with permission) > and go paparazzi to their heart's content.
This probably depends how exaggerated the behavior is and whether there are laws against stalking in the applicable jurisdictions. Unless, of course, the subject is considered to be of interest to the general public (i.e., famous), in which case they may have less protection.
Everything new has a "shallow learning curve". This "insight" makes your initial post inane, in retrospect, except for the "cult-of-Apple" part, on which I have no comment.
Any insightful discussion on the "just works" part of your post would have to get into differential comparisons of new user experiences under various OS's.
I think that you're confused. Laws are often contradictory. This is why we have courts and judges and the legal system.
For example: the US legal system has, in general, defended free political anonymous speech as a legal right. Unfortunately, by borrowing techniques from steganography, it is possible to take any digital work under copyright and manually convert it to an instance of meaningful political speech (probably not a very insightful one, or elegant one).
This contradiction probably wouldn't phase the legal system at all. The court would probably just start to analyze whether the motivation for the speech was real political expression, or copyright infringement.
Well, yes, exactly --- that would be just as fucked up as RIAA's behavior.
> Honestly, I fail to see your point.
No you didn't fail, that was my point. You just didn't understand that you had succeeded in seeing it.:-)
Perhaps you didn't read the whole thread? Here's a summary:
1) AC posts pro-RIAA flamebait
2) PunkOfLinux claims that the monetary damages that RIAA wants are out of proportion
3) larry bagina posts a flamebait-ish post in a "pro-GPL camp is just as bad" vein
4) I reply to (3) saying that the FSF only sues for distribution of source, which is
not many times out of proportion like PunkOfLinux claimed RIAA wanted
5) AC nitpicks that many times zero money is zero money
6) I reply to the nitpicking that AC is multiplying the wrong thing, that the proper analogy would be to demand many times the number of source code distributions
as opposed to many times the price of the software (btw he ignores the fact that
the distributing company might have paid money to someone to develop or enhance
the GPL-ed software, but I didn't post about that). I did not claim this would be a
"good thing" --- analogies to bad things (RIAA behavior) are almost never good.
I hold you in the deepest regard, but it seems to me that you didn't answer the point in question, which is only whether agents of the copyright owner can be legally considered "the public". My understanding, from reading a lot of the material on your blog, is that they aren't.
(Your answer was equivalent to "for distribution to occur, A, B, C, and D must be all true, and they all aren't", whereas the question was whether C would be considered true for a download from Media Sentry. My apologies if you meant that none of A, B, C, and D were true.)
Slashdot Mirror
You also have to watch out not to run it through Adobe's Distiller, and for sure, never recompile drivers under its influence.
> Or you could be talking out of your arse
I could, I suppose, although I admit that the physical reality is that even musical flatulence is beyond me. Your speculation, albeit much funnier than mine, shows nothing whatsoever about whether this is true; if that were your goal, you probably should have suggested ways in which DNS might not be connected, the simplest being that the alleged URL of the blacklist server is coded with a fixed IP address.
But considering the amount of real info the "article" had, everything which was posted here was speculation.
The combination of this and DNS cache poisoning attacks sounds bad. Of course, it could be checking some kind of server certificate, if Apple is smart. The "article" (more a rumor report) doesn't say...
The scientists forgot to compute how many "NO CARRIER" jokes can safely coexist on one forum. On that fateful day, Slashdotters will post one too many "NO CARRIER" jokes and they will collapse into a mega-anti-carrier, swallowing all force carrier particles and ending life as we know it on Earth!
I, for one, welcome our new born-knowing-Windows with-mouse-in-the-hand overlords!
Geeks + bikes always makes me a bit nervous, one of my high school math teachers was killed by a traffic accident he had while biking to school; and then as an adult I read about Jerry Keiper dying similarly.
And yes, being a fan of Bruce Schneier, I understand that this nervousness is probably not commensurate with the actual risks involved in traveling by bicycle.
But if I told you what it is, I'd be astroturfing...
Want registering for a webmail account with fraudulent info to be a felony? Want using words forbidden by a website's terms of service legalese to be a felony?
The EFF doesn't want that either, even if they probably DO want that woman to be punished.
Ouch, confused the initials of that law again --- not enough coffee, I suppose.
I agree totally with you, but want to add that if they would prosecute her on something less than a felony, which would make it easier to win, I would think, then a subsequent civil suit for enormous monetary damages would probably be a "shoe-in", and it itself might be fitting punishment.
If the teenager had died as the result of mere negligence on the part of the neighbor, people wouldn't be up in arms about this; the reason for the overreaction is because there was a degree of "malice aforethought" involved, which revs up everyone's "revenge" circuitry. Unfortunately, it seems it wasn't enough (provable) malice to enable the DOJ to prosecute the woman for anything spectacular, so they're grasping at straws without regard to the consequences.
> dense legalese that most people don't even bother to read
You forgot to add that it gets updated at the whim of a third party, with no regulation of how the users of the website are notified.
God only knows why they don't try her for "reckless endangerment" or "child endangerment". My guess is that the punishment isn't as spectacular as the DOJ would want.
> Free speech has never been completely without limits
Your post indicates that you totally miss the point of the whole thing. The EFF is only opposed to considering violations of the terms of service of websites as being "malicious computer hacking" which is, what, a felony, no? The EFF is not defending the behavior of the woman in any way (i.e., trying to justify it as "free speech"), it is just trying to prevent her being prosecuted for the wrong crime, a precedent which would make anyone who opens a webmail account with false information into a case for the FBI.
> This person is strictly not mentally ill, since he integrates well
> socially and handles stress efficiently.
"Love and work are the cornerstones of our humanness." - Sigmund Freud
Freud probably would have considered your acquaintance "ill", even if that enormous tome which tries to classify mental illness (don't remember its name) has no entry for him.
I agree with you that the decision is quite disturbing, even in the light of other comments that this has been the status quo for a long, long time.
I would have found the decision rather balanced, actually, if it had been explicitly limited to the DCMA, for several reasons. First, works of the US government (or the military, anyway) are automatically in the public domain --- the government has waived its "right" to copyright. Interestingly, this means that the crack itself is in the public domain (but not the cracked software, which is a derived work). Secondly, if the US gov't is not bound by the DCMA, it is then legal for it to distribute tools for breaking DRM, which might be useful in many situations (e.g., if Microsoft is vaporized in a war, or if public libraries need them for the purposes of archiving cultural works in danger of disappearance).
> so far it looks like the x86 version of Cell
Then you missed the fact that the article says it uses a coherent 2-level cache for inter-core communications; the Cell BE is quite exotic in that it uses DMA transfers and has no memory coherency between the SPEs.
The article doesn't explicitly state that the Larrabee cores are homogeneous, but I would be surprised if they weren't; the Cell cores are somewhat heterogeneous if you want to use the PowerPC core to squeeze the last drop of processing power out of it.
You are correct in that Intel appears to have copied the ring network of the Cell BE, although I don't understand why they need it in addition to the coherent cache. Oh, well, guess I'll have to wait until the paper really hits the public.
I'm pretty sure that it's possible to just glue new fingerprints on your fingers before showing up for the fingerprinting, although doing it in a way which would not be obvious looks quite a bit more difficult.
> A law that tries to control the right to copy makes no sense in a
> world where everyone has every day access to copying machines
So if I invent a cheap machine with a red button which when pressed kills everyone except me within a 1 mile radius, and publish the plans on the Internet so everyone has access to one, the use of these machines should be legalized?
That particular part of your argument sounds stupid to me.
As for the rest, I do believe there is a place for copyright in a much more limited form than now exists --- much shorter time spans, much smaller civil and criminal (or possibly no criminal) penalties for violations. Probably a stance close to that of the poster you replied to.
> They can set up shop in a building across the street (with permission)
> and go paparazzi to their heart's content.
This probably depends how exaggerated the behavior is and whether there are laws against stalking in the applicable jurisdictions. Unless, of course, the subject is considered to be of interest to the general public (i.e., famous), in which case they may have less protection.
Sorry, then; just be aware that your meaning wasn't clear to me until you replied. You might want to add the "No OS just works" up front next time.
Everything new has a "shallow learning curve". This "insight" makes your initial post inane, in retrospect, except for the "cult-of-Apple" part, on which I have no comment.
Any insightful discussion on the "just works" part of your post would have to get into differential comparisons of new user experiences under various OS's.
I think that you're confused. Laws are often contradictory. This is why we have courts and judges and the legal system.
For example: the US legal system has, in general, defended free political anonymous speech as a legal right. Unfortunately, by borrowing techniques from steganography, it is possible to take any digital work under copyright and manually convert it to an instance of meaningful political speech (probably not a very insightful one, or elegant one).
This contradiction probably wouldn't phase the legal system at all. The court would probably just start to analyze whether the motivation for the speech was real political expression, or copyright infringement.
You could have just hyperlinked your first comment into the others, thus making the moderators' job a bit easier, in the case they cared.
> ...and that would be just as fucked up?
Well, yes, exactly --- that would be just as fucked up as RIAA's behavior.
> Honestly, I fail to see your point.
No you didn't fail, that was my point. You just didn't understand that :-)
you had succeeded in seeing it.
Perhaps you didn't read the whole thread? Here's a summary:
1) AC posts pro-RIAA flamebait
2) PunkOfLinux claims that the monetary damages that RIAA wants are out of proportion
3) larry bagina posts a flamebait-ish post in a "pro-GPL camp is just as bad" vein
4) I reply to (3) saying that the FSF only sues for distribution of source, which is
not many times out of proportion like PunkOfLinux claimed RIAA wanted
5) AC nitpicks that many times zero money is zero money
6) I reply to the nitpicking that AC is multiplying the wrong thing, that the proper
analogy would be to demand many times the number of source code distributions
as opposed to many times the price of the software (btw he ignores the fact that
the distributing company might have paid money to someone to develop or enhance
the GPL-ed software, but I didn't post about that). I did not claim this would be a
"good thing" --- analogies to bad things (RIAA behavior) are almost never good.
I hold you in the deepest regard, but it seems to me that you didn't answer the point in question, which is only whether agents of the copyright owner can be legally considered "the public". My understanding, from reading a lot of the material on your blog, is that they aren't.
(Your answer was equivalent to "for distribution to occur, A, B, C, and D must be all true, and they all aren't", whereas the question was whether C would be considered true for a download from Media Sentry. My apologies if you meant that none of A, B, C, and D were true.)