This is just Microsoft's way of making sure there will be enough desktop support people available to support it's OSes in the furture. Could there be a better training ground for our future IT professionals than having to tweak Vista and work around its restrictions so they can make the games they want to play work?
Our wars are fought far away by those that have, at least temporarily, been removed from society. What happens in war has come to be viewed as a grim necessity however the war itself might be viewed. When the violent deaths of people much like those we know happen so close to home there is much greater emotional charge. We are separated from the horrors of war but not those tragedies that happen to those much like ourselves so the response is understandably greater.
While I support the right for these games to be created, regardless of the outcry, and feel that any rejection of them should be done with our wallets I am concerned that this game, and others like it, will likely be used as an excuse for legislation to further control just what we are allowed to say and do.
Don't you just love it when the Feds tell us what to watch, listen, even say? Doesn't it make life so much easier when we can let some else do our thinking for us?
It's the way our Intellectual Property laws have been going for years and it will not get better any time soon ( See the perform act ). It's not only a crime to use someone else's IP without permission but it's also become a crime to enable others to do so - without regard as to whether or not it's your intent to do so either in the statements you make or the technologies you create. One thing that amazes me is that if someone walks into a Best Buy and swipes a CD it's considered petty theft (punishable by up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine) but if that same person downloads just one of those songs from the Internet it's considered piracy (punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $250,000 fine)
...Net Neutrality and Munuciple Networks?...Because I resoundingly do. If I honestly thought legislation could be created to protect them that really wouldn't just be a smoke screen for increasing the megacorps' stranglehold over everyone I would support that too. We now have copyrights for works that will outlive their author by 70 years, patents on how information is manipulated, and Telcos entering the television market with federal assistance to help them drive cable-based ISPs out of business all made possible by legislation cosponsored by members of both major polical parties. While I heartily support both ideas and would love to see them protected I can't see any legislation being passed that wouldn't pervert both beyond recognition.
Amazing...So Iowa could very well have a claim on the source code too! Don't you just love it when the government gets as tangled up as the rest of us in these wonderful IP laws.
Most states have fairly employer slanted work produt laws and there's a good chance the cop'll will have surrender the source code...but will it be to Wisconsin or Iowa?
The owners of each and every one of these creative works already have the right to deny these services permission to use their works. Let them negotiate with these services for those protections in exchange for permission to use their works instead of creating new law.
Your situation reminds me of the old IT parable that goes something like this...
On his first day on the job a new IT Director has a meeting with the outgoing one. At the end of the meeting the ougoing IT Director hands the new on 3 envelopes and tells him to use them to get out of his first 3 major meltdowns, "just make sure you wait to open them until you need them."
About 3 months later the new IT Director has his first major disaster and remembers the envelopes. Opening the first one he sees, "Blame Me" in big bold letters. Which he does and it works.
Six months after that the second blow up happens and the second letter reads, "Blame the Vendors" which also works.
One year later when everything falls apart the new IT Director opens the third letter full of hope. It reads, "Write 3 Letters."
...I think it's time you opened the third envelope. Good luck in your future endeavors.
Yes, any code written by or for any government agency should be Open Source. If The People own it The People should be able to use it and further develop it.
As to wether or not the court should require that the code be opened in this case I'd have to say no. The only thing the court should be concerned with is whether or not there is enough evidence to show that the device is accurate. If this is a mature product there should be more than enough evidence to make such a determination. If, however, the product is relatively new and the manufacturer is relying on the technology rather than the device itself for their claims of accuracy then the device, including its source code, should be scrutinized before allowing the results of the test into evidence. Since most of Science relies on "When I do this that happens" with most of the whys being guesses this should not be held to any higher standard.
A couple of yearss back I started looking into using an alternative ISP for my DSL service. After checking into several that had packages that more closely suited my needs I quickly discovered that the rates that the few providers that offered service in my area were 2 - 3 times higher that what I was already paying for with my telco based ISP. It seems that the FCC regulations that required telcos to open their networks to regional ISPs at discounted rates applied to everyone except Verizon. Economic legislation should only be used to encourage competition not stifle it as we see with any legislation promoted by the Bigs (like the DMCA an the idea of software patents). My hat's off to Mr. Ziari and the people of Hermiston, Oregon for getting this set up on their own.
The simple fact is we gave up any right we had to privacy in this area when we caved in to the E911 movement. Big Brother already can, will, and does track our movements through our cell phones. I see no reason not to use the info that can already be used to an individual's detriment for the common good. The only real concern here is that this information will be more publicly available. Special care should be taken to insure that only enough information is collected to meet their advertised purpose.
Slashdot Mirror
This is just Microsoft's way of making sure there will be enough desktop support people available to support it's OSes in the furture. Could there be a better training ground for our future IT professionals than having to tweak Vista and work around its restrictions so they can make the games they want to play work?
Our wars are fought far away by those that have, at least temporarily, been removed from society. What happens in war has come to be viewed as a grim necessity however the war itself might be viewed. When the violent deaths of people much like those we know happen so close to home there is much greater emotional charge. We are separated from the horrors of war but not those tragedies that happen to those much like ourselves so the response is understandably greater. While I support the right for these games to be created, regardless of the outcry, and feel that any rejection of them should be done with our wallets I am concerned that this game, and others like it, will likely be used as an excuse for legislation to further control just what we are allowed to say and do.
Don't you just love it when the Feds tell us what to watch, listen, even say? Doesn't it make life so much easier when we can let some else do our thinking for us?
It's the way our Intellectual Property laws have been going for years and it will not get better any time soon ( See the perform act ). It's not only a crime to use someone else's IP without permission but it's also become a crime to enable others to do so - without regard as to whether or not it's your intent to do so either in the statements you make or the technologies you create. One thing that amazes me is that if someone walks into a Best Buy and swipes a CD it's considered petty theft (punishable by up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine) but if that same person downloads just one of those songs from the Internet it's considered piracy (punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $250,000 fine)
By that reasoning since Cisco has the name iPhone trademarked http://gigaom.com/2007/01/10/battle-for-iphone-bra nd-cisco-sues-apple/ they should rip the name out from under Apple right?
...Net Neutrality and Munuciple Networks?...Because I resoundingly do. If I honestly thought legislation could be created to protect them that really wouldn't just be a smoke screen for increasing the megacorps' stranglehold over everyone I would support that too. We now have copyrights for works that will outlive their author by 70 years, patents on how information is manipulated, and Telcos entering the television market with federal assistance to help them drive cable-based ISPs out of business all made possible by legislation cosponsored by members of both major polical parties. While I heartily support both ideas and would love to see them protected I can't see any legislation being passed that wouldn't pervert both beyond recognition.
Amazing...So Iowa could very well have a claim on the source code too! Don't you just love it when the government gets as tangled up as the rest of us in these wonderful IP laws.
Most states have fairly employer slanted work produt laws and there's a good chance the cop'll will have surrender the source code...but will it be to Wisconsin or Iowa?
The owners of each and every one of these creative works already have the right to deny these services permission to use their works. Let them negotiate with these services for those protections in exchange for permission to use their works instead of creating new law.
Dear Project Director,
...I think it's time you opened the third envelope. Good luck in your future endeavors.
Your situation reminds me of the old IT parable that goes something like this...
On his first day on the job a new IT Director has a meeting with the outgoing one. At the end of the meeting the ougoing IT Director hands the new on 3 envelopes and tells him to use them to get out of his first 3 major meltdowns, "just make sure you wait to open them until you need them."
About 3 months later the new IT Director has his first major disaster and remembers the envelopes. Opening the first one he sees, "Blame Me" in big bold letters. Which he does and it works.
Six months after that the second blow up happens and the second letter reads, "Blame the Vendors" which also works.
One year later when everything falls apart the new IT Director opens the third letter full of hope. It reads, "Write 3 Letters."
Sincerely,
The Guy Before You
Yes, any code written by or for any government agency should be Open Source. If The People own it The People should be able to use it and further develop it.
As to wether or not the court should require that the code be opened in this case I'd have to say no. The only thing the court should be concerned with is whether or not there is enough evidence to show that the device is accurate. If this is a mature product there should be more than enough evidence to make such a determination. If, however, the product is relatively new and the manufacturer is relying on the technology rather than the device itself for their claims of accuracy then the device, including its source code, should be scrutinized before allowing the results of the test into evidence. Since most of Science relies on "When I do this that happens" with most of the whys being guesses this should not be held to any higher standard.
A couple of yearss back I started looking into using an alternative ISP for my DSL service. After checking into several that had packages that more closely suited my needs I quickly discovered that the rates that the few providers that offered service in my area were 2 - 3 times higher that what I was already paying for with my telco based ISP. It seems that the FCC regulations that required telcos to open their networks to regional ISPs at discounted rates applied to everyone except Verizon. Economic legislation should only be used to encourage competition not stifle it as we see with any legislation promoted by the Bigs (like the DMCA an the idea of software patents). My hat's off to Mr. Ziari and the people of Hermiston, Oregon for getting this set up on their own.
The simple fact is we gave up any right we had to privacy in this area when we caved in to the E911 movement. Big Brother already can, will, and does track our movements through our cell phones. I see no reason not to use the info that can already be used to an individual's detriment for the common good. The only real concern here is that this information will be more publicly available. Special care should be taken to insure that only enough information is collected to meet their advertised purpose.