No, technically you own a copy of the work. A copy is a material object in which a work is fixed. The are one entity and the same. You can buy, sell and own copies just as you do with anything else in the world. It is unrelated to copyright and the ownership of copyright and one does not imply the other.
So if you own the disc and everything on it, then why is the owner of a disc with software on it (say, Windows) constrained by its end-user license agreement? By your post, it sounds to me like you're saying once you buy something you have the right to do whatever you want with it, which I don't think is the case for Windows.
Ultimately, the way DRM and DMCA is going, you will not have owned DVDs, CDs, LPs, 45s, etc. You will merely have rented them until the march of technology locks you out of enjoying the content any further.
Technically, you only own the disc the media is on. You don't have any inherent right (according to contemporary licensing laws) to use the content on them as you see fit. The license you agree to abide by -- which happens when you buy the disc -- is what makes it illegal for you to make copies for others or convert them into other formats. That is, unless you bought a CD that uses a license more liberal than most.
This whole thing could have been resolved months ago if the administration were willing to just say, "Oh, yeah, you're right, we should be getting warrants for this sort of thing. We'll start doing so immediately."
I believe the problem with this, and the reason why this wasn't done from the beginning, is that the government would have to get a warrant for every telephone record they get. Meaning, in order for their data mining methods to be effective, they would have to file millions of individual applications for warrants. This, no matter how much boilterplate you use, would probably make the program unfeasible.
If I leave my bike outside unlocked for 10 minutes, am I giving explicit permission to anyone who sees it that they can take it?
Stealing a bike in the real world is different than any kind of theft you can commit in most modern computer systems with adequate privileges (e.g. file permissions). If you leave a file unprotected and someone misuses it (from your perspective), it's your fault. Why? Because other users have a reasonable expectation that a file's permissions explicitly dictate what they can do with it. In a system of perfect control (unlike the real world), any allowed behavior is explicitly authorized by the administrator.
Repeat after me folks: devices CANNOT give and receive permission for human actions without those permissions EXPRESSly being granted via some other means.
Correct, but devices can follow privilege polices set by the administrator, which CAN grant privileges.
The problem with your argument is that in the yard scenario, the child would only grant permission to use the yard based upon the policy determined by the dad. So if the child granted permission to use the yard to the neighbor, then it's because the dad's usage policy allows it. If dad doesn't want his neighbor to use his yard, then he shouldn't tell his kid, "let everyone use the yard."
I agree. The way I see it, in a system of perfect control, any allowed behavior is explicitly authorized by the administrator(s). If you don't want someone using it, then take it away from him/her.
Because a secure protocol design does not require secrecy. If the security of a design relies upon its secrecy, then it won't be secure for very long. This is why it doesn't matter that the encryption algorithms commonly used today, such as RSA, are open and can be freely inspected.
If the Skype protocol is made unsecure because it was reverse-engineered, then it's not worth using anyway.
Honestly, IANAL, but I don't see it as within the rights of eBay to dictate how people accomplish the financial transactions for Rearranging the World's Junk, as they are merely the facilitators.
It's their site, why can't they do what they want with it? If they shut it down tomorrow, would you complain that they don't have the right to do so? This is a web site, not a financial institution. No web surfer should have "rights" to expect something from the web sites they visit IMO. You can always surf elsewhere. If Google could successfully sue, then you could sue any company for not accepting your credit card.
But seriously, the point of really "good" bio-metrics is that they can't be duplicated without some major invasive measure such as cutting off their hands eyes or head to place before a camera.
You should chat with my computer security professor. He has a great story about a student in Japan who was able to bypass the top-of-the-line commercial fingerprint biometric systems using Jello with an 80% success rate.
I wouldn't put so much faith in biometrics if I were you. Not yet, at least.
I don't think people would be amazed that he was overlooked. The police and the psychologist had no problem with what the kid did, yet the school punished him anyway. Obviously the school only involved the police to punish the kid, not because they were interested in whether what he did was legal or not.
If he did show up to school with guns blazing, it would be a fluke -- the exception, not the rule. The kid was evaluated and found to be perfectly normal and healthy. Like so many people have said before, it's the equivalent of muttering threats under your breath. It means nothing. It's an IM icon, for crying out loud. Furthermore, the "death threat" wasn't even delivered to the teacher, so it can't even be considered a threat. If the kid's friend hadn't reported him, the teacher would never had known.
Why is it not protected speech? The kid did not actually threaten to kill the teacher -- "Kill Mr. X", not "I will kill Mr. X". The school has no control over students outside of school. For instance, a school can punish a student for swearing in class, but not at home. Yet that's exactly what's happening here: the school's punishing the kid for what he did at home, not at school. I just don't get it.
Minix3 messages work by indicating a message buffer to be copied between processes. Calling send or receive activates an OS trap that will copy the data from the sender process into the address space of the recipient process.
To address earlier posts: Minix3 uses virtual memory/paging, but intentionally lacks more contemporary features on purpose. Tanenbaum has repeatedly refused to add these features to keep Minix uncluttered and easy to understand -- it's made for students to study, after all. If anyone is interested in making it the new Linux, feel free to fork it any time you want...if the license allows. I'm not familiar with which license covers it. I thought I remembered someone saying the reason Minix hasn't taken off like Linux was because its license was too strict.
Because when the network driver craps out you won't lose that 20-page report you just finished and haven't saved yet. It's not the perfect solution (which would be eliminating driver bugs altogether), but it's better than letting a single driver crash the entire system.
Restarting drivers does just that: restarts drivers. A software solution. If hardware starts doing something that corrupts the whole system, not much can be done at that point. So no, a microkernel probably wouldn't recover from your hardware failure senario, but then again what OS could recover?
No, it's compartmentalization of the applications. Besides, the analogy is really bad because a ship with a blown compartment is quite useful. Computers with a blown network driver will e.g. break any network connections going on, in other words a massive failure. What about a hard disk controller which crashes while data is being written? Drivers should not crash, period. Trying to make a system that could survive driver failure will just lead to kernel bloat with recovery code.
Easy. Minix (the OS that Tanenbaum created) uses a reincarnation server that restarts any drivers that crash. All drivers are run in userspace, so if one crashes then the kernel isn't brought down with it (yes, even the file system driver). Then you can debug all you want.
Yes, it would be nice if drivers never failed. Better yet, why don't we all just agree to make all of our programs fault-free? Not going to happen, at least not when written in C/C++. The best you can hope for is to reload the driver without compromising the rest of the system, which is what Minix's reincarnation accomplishes.
The reason Tanenbaum advocates this stuff is because it can work if designed correctly. Again, see Minix.
Oh yes, but the microkernel doesn't implements almost any user-visible functionality - TCP/IP stack, VFS, filesystems, USB, random devices....
So? Why does a kernel need to have those things? It doesn't, and that's why it should be separate.
You know, the linux core kernel is also quite stable.
I'm sure that's true, but the point is that a microkernel will likely always be more stable than a monolithic design. That's one of the benefits that come from modular programming: it helps you get it right, and isolates buggy code from good code.
A microkernel itself can be perfect, but the userspace daemons implementing funcionality will also have bugs, and those daemons will take more or less the million of lines that linux takes.
Whether a driver's code is in a userspace daemon or in the kernel, it's bound to have errors. Choosing to have those errors crop up in userspace seems better to me. Any code dealing with drivers, TCP/IP, etc. are bound to be large, no matter what OS you're using. I don't see why a microkernel daemon would take more code than its counterpart in a monolithic kernel.
Why can't Japanese pronounce it? It's a one-syllable word; I think anyone can manage it. Nintendo has officially stated this as one reason why they chose Wii:
"Wii sounds like 'we,' which emphasizes the console is for everyone. Wii can easily be remembered by people around the world, no matter what language they speak. No confusion. No need to abbreviate. Just Wii."
You can view the quotation and the rest of Nintendo's explanation of the name here.
I stand corrected about PS2 profitability. Since I can't find any articles backing up what I said about it right now, I'll concede the point.
As for GameCube profitability, the first two links you provided point to estimations and expectations, not factual outcomes. Just because Main thought (before the console was released) they might "incur a small loss on the GameCube hardware initially" doesn't mean that's what ended up happening. The quotation from Perrin is taken out of context: she's referring to the GameCube price drop to $99, not the initial price of the console. They chose to lower the price to essentially break even to maintain a competitive price.
Third place in which contest? If you mean numbers, then yes, I suppose GameCube came in third, Xbox second, and PlayStation 2 first. But then again, if you jump into this business with a few billion dollars to spare, anyone can initially succeed. What remains to be seen is whether MS can retain their followers in their second run.
In my experience, the enjoyment I feel while playing my GameCube console has little to do with what other people think of it or how many people own one and more to do with the games I play. In that department, I believe that GameCube won. But that is, of course, according to my personal preferences.
I suppose the moral of this post is that in the long run what matters is what your console and games mean to you, not what everyone else thinks or owns.
Yes, the PS2 is not being sold at a loss _now_. That's not so impressive considering it's been on the market for five or six years. Nintendo has profited from every GameCube sold since its inception, yet Sony lost money on every PS2 unit sold for several years. It can't be denied that Nintendo is the only truly solvent console maker. Sony and Microsoft support their console costs with their other businesses.
As much as bloggers like to be considered the new form of journalism they aren't, they are just people (often with overinflated ego's) who want to have their say.
How do you define "journalist" or "journalism"? Physically printing something you've written and distributing it to people? Hell, I can do that out of my garage. If a New York Times reporter's articles are always displayed on the web site but never printed in the paper, is he still a journalist? What would be the difference between that and blogging? I think if you took a well-written blog and slapped it into a nytimes.com article template, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
The point of protecting a journalist's sources is to protect free speech and enable journalists to make damaging information public. If someone from the FBI comes to me about a high-level cover-up and I want to tell people about it (because it's the right thing to do and everyone would want to know about it), shouldn't I be afforded the same protections when writing about it? Does it matter whether I collect a paycheck from a newspaper? Are only paycheck-collecting journalists now allowed to be whistleblowers? Where do you draw the line?
Slashdot Mirror
Plants cannot work without light. Therefore, light is part of plants.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-- Bejamin Franklin
So if you own the disc and everything on it, then why is the owner of a disc with software on it (say, Windows) constrained by its end-user license agreement? By your post, it sounds to me like you're saying once you buy something you have the right to do whatever you want with it, which I don't think is the case for Windows.
Technically, you only own the disc the media is on. You don't have any inherent right (according to contemporary licensing laws) to use the content on them as you see fit. The license you agree to abide by -- which happens when you buy the disc -- is what makes it illegal for you to make copies for others or convert them into other formats. That is, unless you bought a CD that uses a license more liberal than most.
I believe the problem with this, and the reason why this wasn't done from the beginning, is that the government would have to get a warrant for every telephone record they get. Meaning, in order for their data mining methods to be effective, they would have to file millions of individual applications for warrants. This, no matter how much boilterplate you use, would probably make the program unfeasible.
Stealing a bike in the real world is different than any kind of theft you can commit in most modern computer systems with adequate privileges (e.g. file permissions). If you leave a file unprotected and someone misuses it (from your perspective), it's your fault. Why? Because other users have a reasonable expectation that a file's permissions explicitly dictate what they can do with it. In a system of perfect control (unlike the real world), any allowed behavior is explicitly authorized by the administrator.
Correct, but devices can follow privilege polices set by the administrator, which CAN grant privileges.
The problem with your argument is that in the yard scenario, the child would only grant permission to use the yard based upon the policy determined by the dad. So if the child granted permission to use the yard to the neighbor, then it's because the dad's usage policy allows it. If dad doesn't want his neighbor to use his yard, then he shouldn't tell his kid, "let everyone use the yard."
I agree. The way I see it, in a system of perfect control, any allowed behavior is explicitly authorized by the administrator(s). If you don't want someone using it, then take it away from him/her.
Because a secure protocol design does not require secrecy. If the security of a design relies upon its secrecy, then it won't be secure for very long. This is why it doesn't matter that the encryption algorithms commonly used today, such as RSA, are open and can be freely inspected.
If the Skype protocol is made unsecure because it was reverse-engineered, then it's not worth using anyway.
It's their site, why can't they do what they want with it? If they shut it down tomorrow, would you complain that they don't have the right to do so? This is a web site, not a financial institution. No web surfer should have "rights" to expect something from the web sites they visit IMO. You can always surf elsewhere. If Google could successfully sue, then you could sue any company for not accepting your credit card.
You should chat with my computer security professor. He has a great story about a student in Japan who was able to bypass the top-of-the-line commercial fingerprint biometric systems using Jello with an 80% success rate.
I wouldn't put so much faith in biometrics if I were you. Not yet, at least.
If he did show up to school with guns blazing, it would be a fluke -- the exception, not the rule. The kid was evaluated and found to be perfectly normal and healthy. Like so many people have said before, it's the equivalent of muttering threats under your breath. It means nothing. It's an IM icon, for crying out loud. Furthermore, the "death threat" wasn't even delivered to the teacher, so it can't even be considered a threat. If the kid's friend hadn't reported him, the teacher would never had known.
Why is it not protected speech? The kid did not actually threaten to kill the teacher -- "Kill Mr. X", not "I will kill Mr. X". The school has no control over students outside of school. For instance, a school can punish a student for swearing in class, but not at home. Yet that's exactly what's happening here: the school's punishing the kid for what he did at home, not at school. I just don't get it.
You mean parents can be held financially responsible, right? I hardly think a parent could be tried for murder because their kid killed someone.
To address earlier posts: Minix3 uses virtual memory/paging, but intentionally lacks more contemporary features on purpose. Tanenbaum has repeatedly refused to add these features to keep Minix uncluttered and easy to understand -- it's made for students to study, after all. If anyone is interested in making it the new Linux, feel free to fork it any time you want...if the license allows. I'm not familiar with which license covers it. I thought I remembered someone saying the reason Minix hasn't taken off like Linux was because its license was too strict.
Nintendo has officially stated Wii will be 2-3 times as powerful as the GameCube.
Restarting drivers does just that: restarts drivers. A software solution. If hardware starts doing something that corrupts the whole system, not much can be done at that point. So no, a microkernel probably wouldn't recover from your hardware failure senario, but then again what OS could recover?
Yes, it does..
Easy. Minix (the OS that Tanenbaum created) uses a reincarnation server that restarts any drivers that crash. All drivers are run in userspace, so if one crashes then the kernel isn't brought down with it (yes, even the file system driver). Then you can debug all you want.
Yes, it would be nice if drivers never failed. Better yet, why don't we all just agree to make all of our programs fault-free? Not going to happen, at least not when written in C/C++. The best you can hope for is to reload the driver without compromising the rest of the system, which is what Minix's reincarnation accomplishes.
The reason Tanenbaum advocates this stuff is because it can work if designed correctly. Again, see Minix.
So? Why does a kernel need to have those things? It doesn't, and that's why it should be separate.
You know, the linux core kernel is also quite stable.
I'm sure that's true, but the point is that a microkernel will likely always be more stable than a monolithic design. That's one of the benefits that come from modular programming: it helps you get it right, and isolates buggy code from good code.
A microkernel itself can be perfect, but the userspace daemons implementing funcionality will also have bugs, and those daemons will take more or less the million of lines that linux takes.
Whether a driver's code is in a userspace daemon or in the kernel, it's bound to have errors. Choosing to have those errors crop up in userspace seems better to me. Any code dealing with drivers, TCP/IP, etc. are bound to be large, no matter what OS you're using. I don't see why a microkernel daemon would take more code than its counterpart in a monolithic kernel.
You can view the quotation and the rest of Nintendo's explanation of the name here.
I stand corrected about PS2 profitability. Since I can't find any articles backing up what I said about it right now, I'll concede the point.
As for GameCube profitability, the first two links you provided point to estimations and expectations, not factual outcomes. Just because Main thought (before the console was released) they might "incur a small loss on the GameCube hardware initially" doesn't mean that's what ended up happening. The quotation from Perrin is taken out of context: she's referring to the GameCube price drop to $99, not the initial price of the console. They chose to lower the price to essentially break even to maintain a competitive price.
Third place in which contest? If you mean numbers, then yes, I suppose GameCube came in third, Xbox second, and PlayStation 2 first. But then again, if you jump into this business with a few billion dollars to spare, anyone can initially succeed. What remains to be seen is whether MS can retain their followers in their second run.
In my experience, the enjoyment I feel while playing my GameCube console has little to do with what other people think of it or how many people own one and more to do with the games I play. In that department, I believe that GameCube won. But that is, of course, according to my personal preferences.
I suppose the moral of this post is that in the long run what matters is what your console and games mean to you, not what everyone else thinks or owns.
Yes, the PS2 is not being sold at a loss _now_. That's not so impressive considering it's been on the market for five or six years. Nintendo has profited from every GameCube sold since its inception, yet Sony lost money on every PS2 unit sold for several years. It can't be denied that Nintendo is the only truly solvent console maker. Sony and Microsoft support their console costs with their other businesses.
How do you define "journalist" or "journalism"? Physically printing something you've written and distributing it to people? Hell, I can do that out of my garage. If a New York Times reporter's articles are always displayed on the web site but never printed in the paper, is he still a journalist? What would be the difference between that and blogging? I think if you took a well-written blog and slapped it into a nytimes.com article template, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
The point of protecting a journalist's sources is to protect free speech and enable journalists to make damaging information public. If someone from the FBI comes to me about a high-level cover-up and I want to tell people about it (because it's the right thing to do and everyone would want to know about it), shouldn't I be afforded the same protections when writing about it? Does it matter whether I collect a paycheck from a newspaper? Are only paycheck-collecting journalists now allowed to be whistleblowers? Where do you draw the line?
Actually, Revolution will be quite capable of 16:9, as is the current GameCube hardware:
Source