If he wasn't going to get any money from you, then you should not obtain a copy of the work.
Are you saying that simply because you created something that you somehow have some moral standing to take a payment from anyone who ever benefits from it?
I'm hard pressed to imagine what moral principle you are invoking to rationalize that point of view.
- if you attribute no value to the work, then you have no reason to want it. If you obtain a copy of it, you indicate that you either have a want or need of it, and therefore that you attribute a value to it
Of course I attribute "value" to the work. But the "utility function" for selecting it is competing with other free options. I can download a TV series X that I don't receive on cable illegally, buy the DVDs or, buy the episodes on itunes, or watch a different TV series Y that I do get by PVRing it on cable.
I prefer X, and I agree I "attribute value to watching X" but not enough to pay for it. If I can't download it for free, I'm not going to shell out for the itunes episodes or the DVDs, I'm going to watch series Y instead.
But if I can get X for free, then I'll choose it over Y for free.
What moral argument can you give me for not watching X in this scenario?
that just makes you a hypocrite.
I am not a hypocrite.
But I find it amusing being called one by someone defending the industry that uses copyright law to extract rents on intellectual property for corporations that by definition can't actually create anything, while depriving the actual creators any benefits from their work, and continuing to do so long after the original creators are dead.
"Disney Corporation" didn't create mickey mouse. Who ever did is dead. And it should have been in the public domain decades ago.
In this case the copied software was used to design a new product, and it's reasonable to assume that the new product was sold to people some of whom would have otherwise bought the copied product. Therefor, real damage was done to the owners of the copied product.
The product was copied for the purpose of creating a competing product? That's actually pretty interesting morally. Suppose he had paid for his copy... and then created a competing product. In that case the same "real harm" would have been done to the ownsers right?... so that harm, though real, is incidental to the argument, not material to it.
In other cases, acquiring an unauthorized copy of a rare and expensive product may reduce the value of the original, due to reduction of the quality "rarity".
This argument hinges on the assumption that preserving artificial rarity is morally good. Is there any moral argument for preserving artificial "rarity" ? Especially Given that rarity is the property by which the fewest people can enjoy something, and the primary reason for enjoying it is that other people can't ? That hardly seems morally defensible.
In the physical realm, if you steal a book from me that I've already read and have no intention of rereading or selling, you've still committed theft and should be treated accordingly. No judge or jury would have the slightest interest about whether I had any use for the book; they'd simply be interested in the questions of ownership and theft.
Although entirely correct, that is a legal argument not a moral one. If I have something that I will never use, never read, never sell, and never enjoy, then there is no reason for me to have it, and to then deprive it from someone who genuinely wants it? What moral argument is there for justifying that decision? There isn't one.
The true crux is the immoral and illegal decision to take something without reimbursing the owner.
What is the moral basis for arguing that it is wrong to make a copy of something you would not have paid for if you couldn't make a copy.
I'm serious. What moral principle are you applying in that situation?
I can't find one.
The idea that the creator should be reimbursed for his work is reasonable, but since we have as a stated premise that I wasn't going to have paid for it then he wasn't going to get any money from me. If I can obtain a copy without causing him any material harm he has lost nothing.
At best there is a slippery slope argument that if we let people who won't pay have a copy, then people who could/would pay will stop paying for their copies too, But that's not a moral argument for depriving people who would never pay a copy, but merely a recognition of the practical difficulty of differentiating between those who would and those who wouldn't.
The kind of calories that exist in McDonald's food.......You get fat. That's about as long term storage of calories as you can get.
Aboslutely false. I can spend a couple of hours a week preparing very healthy meals at less than half the cost of a McDonald's value meal.
It was the premise the poster I was responding to put into place. I don't disagree with you, and that's why I had no problem allowing your premise.
You're suggesting that a person's time is better spent collecting enough cans to buy McDonald's than it is in spending that same time at home preparing a meal?
I said no such thing.
Being rational by definition precludes being self-destructive.
No it doesn't. Being rational just means you have reasons for the course of actions you take.
Valuing the instant gratification of a mcdonalds meal over the long term health cumulative health effects is perfectly rational. Especially given you are guaranteed the instant gratification, while the distant future is anything but certain... including whether or not you'll even be there to see it.
To combat this lack of leisure time, said victim will spend more money in order to eat less healthy food, which provides less energy.
No. McDonalds food has more than enough energy (calories). There is a heatlh cost, but not an energy deficit.
The additional cost of the unhealthy food requires more hours of work to compensate.
No. The premise was that the cost of the McDonalds meal was on par with a cooked meal.
But even if we accept your assumption that the meal costs more. The hours worked is relatively inelastic. They have merely allocated a portion of their disposable income to McDonalds, and now it won't buy books, or dental coverage, or a Christmas tree, or whatever.
This you have dubbed "rational self interest".
Yes.
Yes, it is entirely rational to decide to do things for short term enjoyment even if it carries a potential long term self-destructive component.
Lots of things I do are "bad for me". I rationally do them anyway, because I've decided spending my life living it is better than spending it preserving it.
So you claim your sister is lazy, has no desire to better herself, doesn't think eating healthy is important, and thus deliberately mal-nourishes her children.
That reeks of bullshit if you ask me.
But lets for a second assume its all true -- how do you propose we solve it? Oh, wait... you don't. In fact you vehemently are opposed to doing anything to solve it, even for your own sister.
Cost is not the determining factor when most people like her make food decisions, her reasoning is why waste an hour preparing a meal when a meal the same price takes no time at all.
Most of the working poor don't have a lot of leisure time. They work at either physically demanding jobs, or mind numblingly boring ones and either way get home completely drained. They often have long commutes on crowded busses.
Its not "laziness" to decide not to spend a large fraction of what little leisure time they have each day preparing a meal.
Its rational self interest. She's choosing to give herself a break from the kitchen and increase the time she can relax and get other things done, while providing her kids a treat she can afford that they all enjoy. That's not "laziness"... that's how people derive pleasure out of being alive.
I often see a poor person called out as "lazy" whenever they choose to do anything but work to better themselves. They can work a full day at a menial job, commute for 3-4hrs a day on top of that, and live on 5-6 hrs of sleep... but if they watch a couple hours of TV and go to mcdonalids instead of grocery shopping (which takes a good chunk of time -- and fresh healthy food doesn't keep all that well either increasing the amount of time spent shopping.) and cooking and they sleep in on the weekends instead of collecting cans for deposits and growing a garden then they are "lazy".
Its bullshit. Even if you are on food stamps. Even if you are homeless. There is nothing wrong with taking time out to smell the roses and enjoy the life you have instead of constantly trying to work towards a better life.
That doesn't make you "lazy", that makes you "human".
You must only use the GPL not the MIT, BSD, Apache, University of Illinois, etc... licenses.
You can choose whatever license you want if you write the software from scratch.
But if you decide to take GPL software to make your project, then you have release your project under the same license. Those were the conditions you accepted when you took SOMEONE ELSES CODE and used it in your project.
If you don't like those conditions, don't incorporate code that belongs to those people into your project.
I have seen this (from a union member): arrive at job site, sit in trucks for 45 minutes, get out, turn a knob/fiddle with stuff for 5 minutes, get back in truck for 45 minutes, walk up to customer, ask for signature, get back in truck, wait 15 minutes, drive off property.
I have seen this: (from a non union member): arrive at job site, perform task booked for 2hrs in 5 minutes, drive truck accross street to the park, take 1.75hr nap, drive off.
it's the kernel's job to validate its function parameters.
I never said otherwise.
That doesn't mean Safari should be gratuitously throwing ridiculous values at it, but Safari should be able to without anything bad happening.
And I agree with this too. Read the whole thread not just the last response. I said at least TWICE that I completely agreed it was a bug in windows ALSO.
My point here, is that EVEN if windows COULD fullfill this request, Safari should STILL be blocking it. My browser shouldn't open 18million pixel high iframes, simply because some random website asked it to, even if it were technically possible.
There is all sorts of perfectly legal html, css, etc one can write that browers should reject or at least constrain.
p { border-width:15000000000px; }
Perfectly legal and well formed. The CSS spec doesn't say where that I can find what the maximum border width in pixels should be. It doesn't say anywhere I could find what the largest integer should be. So15 billion pixels border width? Within spec.
My browser should still just ignore it.
It shouldn't even get passed onto the drawing APIs to try.
Unless you wrote it yourself, you do not OWN software
I own that copy of it. And copyright doesn't give them any power over what I do with that copy except within a very limited scope relating primarily to distributing additional copies.
If I buy a copy of Lord of the Rings, then I own that copy. I can pee on it. I can cut it into pieces and rearrange the pages. I can white out the word Frodo and put my dogs name in its place. I can cut out the section with tom bomadill and burn it. I can write a sex scene between Gandalf and Sauroman and glue in between chapter 10 and 11. Its my copy. I own it.
I do not need a license to USE or MODIFY the copy I own as described above.
I only need a license to do something copyright restricts. I need a license to sell or even give away copies of what I've done, I need a license before I make a public performances of it or read it out on the radio.
But I don't need a license to do whatever I want to the copy I own within the confines of copyright.
There is nothing special about the PS3. You can do whatever you want with the part you own (hardware), and Sony can do whatever they want with the part they own (software), including not permitting you to run it.
Paraphrase that to a book or a CD., especially that last sentence. Does a book publisher get to tell you you aren't permitted to read it after they've sold you a copy? Does a CD publisher get to tell you that you aren't allowed to play the song after they sold you a copy? Of course not. That would be absurd. You don't need a license to read a purchased book or listen to a purchased CD
Why EXACTLY do you think software is different? Why EXACTLY do you think you need a license to "run software"?
What makes the string of 0s and 1s that make up "Hello World.exe" so fundamentally different from the string of 0s and 1s that make up "Another Brick in the Wall" that you NEED a LICENSE to use the former but not the latter?
So how does Safari know whether Windows can support an 18 million pixel high window without requesting one?
Safari knows what the screen resolution is. A request for a screen element like an iframe 10,000 times the height of of the screen clearly fails any reasonable sanity check you might think of. Its clearly a broken page, and should be rejected at that point.
Just as if I'm Safari for the iPhone and the page tries to allocate a 2 billion cell html table, i don't care even if its "legal and well formed html", don't bother rendering it.
Then they should have had someone else kill the Lord of the Nazgul, then.
Er. In the movie Merry's poke distracts him for a moment. In the novels Merry's poke with the barrow blade breaks the spell that made him nearly invincible.
But in both cases it was Eowyn that actually killed him, and fulfilled the prophecy that "no man" could kill him by being a woman. (with or without the aid of a hobbit) The Witch king was taken aback that he was facing a woman in both the novel and movie as well.
It was enough for the internal consistency of the movie that a woman had to slay the Witch King.
This is Microsoft buggy code causing issue, Safari problem is merely one way to cause rooting of machine, other softwares using this service will undoubtedly provide more cases.
a) Yes, this is a bug in Windows. No question. Windows isn't validating the input, and should just reject it or throw an exeption or whatever. Crashing is not acceptable and represents a bug in windows.
b) This is also a bug in safari. Safari is not validating its input either. Its just blindly passing a request to create an 18million pixel tall iframe down to the Windows API somewhere...
c) Yes, other softwares will likely be found. But so far only safari is known to be in the unique position of using that API, passing it arbitrary remote content while failing to validate its input.
A bit of malicious code that explicitly does use that API actually has to get onto the local system first. Local exploits are much less serious than remote ones.
So yes, this is a windows bug. But it is also a safari bug. Both should be fixed.
If a box for a video game console does not say 'Allows you to develop and play your own games', what reasonable expectation do you have that it will in fact do that?
You are confusing tho meanings of allow.
There is "allow" as in capability. A gun allows you to shoot bullet at people. It gives you that capability.
There is "allow" as in "permission". Just because you bought a gun, you are still not allowed to shoot people for sport. The law forbids it.
The problem we have with digital era products is one of permission, not one of capability.
If I buy an X, I expect to be allowed (permission) to do whatever I want with it, within the law.
If I want to walk my dog or play video games I design myself with a bag of tinkertoys, I am allowed (permission) to do so. Even though the toy doesn't have that capability, I am still allowed (permission) to do it. And if i can find some way of getting a tinkertoy to walk my dog or play video games I design myself, giving it that capability, that is perfectly fine.
If I want to use the PS3 to walk the dog or play games I develop myself. Again, the capability question is really beside the point. If I can figure a way of making it walk the dog, then I should be able to use it that way. But the PS3 doesn't allow (permission) to develop my own games... since when do I need permission from Sony to use a product I purchased the way I want to use it?
I didn't need permission from tinker toys. What makes the PS3 so special that Sony gets to decide what uses they PERMIT (allow)?
In short, it seems to be more about control than security. I'm not sure that up-time is an issue here either, since I can always put my laptop away and switch to the IT-administered PC on my desk if it should die.
The office doesn't let unescorted strangers walk around the office does it?
But it should allow god knows what you have installed on your laptop free roam on the office networks?
Sure if it could join a segrated vlan that can't reach any corporate assets it would be safe enough; but then you'd moan it can't reach the intranet, the file servers, the network printers etc, etc, etc. And if all it can do is reach the internet... what do you need it for anyway? facebook, skype, msn messenger, and pokerstars.net? Leave that at home.
But the good of the many should never be used to outweigh the rights of the few, or the one
Really... so violent criminals should not be imprisoned?
His *right* to liberty should NEVER be curtailed for the good of the many?
Clearly the rights of the one, can be and should be trampled upon under a variety of circumstances.
Ah but the criminal is a guilty of a crime, and the child is innocent you cry out... Should an "innocent" child be given a vaccine?
To me this is the seatbelt laws, and the laws requiring your vehicle have working brakes and headlights, indicator lights etc all over again.
Do you really object to those as well?
And this isn't even a REQUIREMENT that you get the vaccine like the requirement that you wear a seatbelt. Its merely an incentive to get it. You are in an uproar over an INCENTIVE.
and still he is the one that gets screwed with less functionality than we had in the 80s.
Yes because in the 80s he had a computer that could calibrated an HD flat screen display, and 6 channel audio connections to his receiver.
I'm not going to disagree that there are DRM issues that are a PITA. But his setup has issues more from HDMI in general than HDCP and DRM.
He essentially wants to split audio and video off a digital communications signal yet maintain two-way communication to one of the endpoints for DDC/CI.
I'm pretty sure there are number of easy workarounds... like dropping audio off the hdmi entirely, and just using an optical out of the sound card.
That's how I ran my previous system.
HDMI from video card up to the display, optical from the sound card to the receiver.
Frankly, I like the new hdmi passthru setup I have much better. But i don't need to color calibrate my display through DDC/CI like he apparently has to.
You do realize that first the taxes are taken from the family, the only question is how much of THIER OWN MONEY the government decides to hand back...
I'm not sure what your point is?
Those same taxes are also taken from families with no children, and with grown up children, and whose children have died due to not being immunized too....
Everyone pays taxes, that's how government is paid for. Deal with it. Your point is at most a distraction from any rational discussion.
1) My monitor is a professional display (an NEC MultiSync 2690WUXi). Among its other features is hardware calibration. It has internal correction tables to produce extremely accurate output, calibrated to any curves I like. To do that, the video card must be able to communicate with it via DDC/CI which it can't do through the receiver, since the receiver gets those commands, not the monitor. I didn't pay $1200 for a monitor and calibration hardware to not have it work to its optimum potential.
Hmmm.
2) Latency. I am a gamer, and I want as low a latency as I can have to my monitor, particularly since as a professional monitor its scaler already introduces a bit of latency (33ms). If I feed the signal through my receiver, it will introduce additional latency in an effort to perfectly synchronize audio and video. I would rather have less latency and a minor sync problem.
I'm also a gamer, and the receiver introduces no discernible lag, provided everything is set to straight passthru with no extra processing "i.e. game mode" on both the display and receiver.
3) I often operate the computer without sound. Right now, since I'm surfing the web, I don't feel the need to listen to anything. Thus the receiver is off. It puts out about 200 watts at idle since it is a fairly high power, high bias unit (a Denon 3808CI if you are wondering). I'd rather save the power, and more importantly not heat up my room, when it isn't needed. Can't do that if I feed video through it.
My receiver passes hdmi up to the display in standby drawing minimal power just fine.
This loops back around to #1... maybe your hdmi passthru issue with DDC/CI can be resolved via a configuration option on the reciever? Denon makes good kit after all... although i imagine you've already chased that rabbit down into its rabbit hole as far as you could...
Slashdot Mirror
If he wasn't going to get any money from you, then you should not obtain a copy of the work.
Are you saying that simply because you created something that you somehow have some moral standing to take a payment from anyone who ever benefits from it?
I'm hard pressed to imagine what moral principle you are invoking to rationalize that point of view.
- if you attribute no value to the work, then you have no reason to want it. If you obtain a copy of it, you indicate that you either have a want or need of it, and therefore that you attribute a value to it
Of course I attribute "value" to the work. But the "utility function" for selecting it is competing with other free options. I can download a TV series X that I don't receive on cable illegally, buy the DVDs or, buy the episodes on itunes, or watch a different TV series Y that I do get by PVRing it on cable.
I prefer X, and I agree I "attribute value to watching X" but not enough to pay for it. If I can't download it for free, I'm not going to shell out for the itunes episodes or the DVDs, I'm going to watch series Y instead.
But if I can get X for free, then I'll choose it over Y for free.
What moral argument can you give me for not watching X in this scenario?
that just makes you a hypocrite.
I am not a hypocrite.
But I find it amusing being called one by someone defending the industry that uses copyright law to extract rents on intellectual property for corporations that by definition can't actually create anything, while depriving the actual creators any benefits from their work, and continuing to do so long after the original creators are dead.
"Disney Corporation" didn't create mickey mouse. Who ever did is dead. And it should have been in the public domain decades ago.
In this case the copied software was used to design a new product, and it's reasonable to assume that the new product was sold to people some of whom would have otherwise bought the copied product. Therefor, real damage was done to the owners of the copied product.
The product was copied for the purpose of creating a competing product? That's actually pretty interesting morally. Suppose he had paid for his copy... and then created a competing product. In that case the same "real harm" would have been done to the ownsers right?... so that harm, though real, is incidental to the argument, not material to it.
In other cases, acquiring an unauthorized copy of a rare and expensive product may reduce the value of the original, due to reduction of the quality "rarity".
This argument hinges on the assumption that preserving artificial rarity is morally good.
Is there any moral argument for preserving artificial "rarity" ?
Especially Given that rarity is the property by which the fewest people can enjoy something, and the primary reason for enjoying it is that other people can't ? That hardly seems morally defensible.
In the physical realm, if you steal a book from me that I've already read and have no intention of rereading or selling, you've still committed theft and should be treated accordingly. No judge or jury would have the slightest interest about whether I had any use for the book; they'd simply be interested in the questions of ownership and theft.
Although entirely correct, that is a legal argument not a moral one. If I have something that I will never use, never read, never sell, and never enjoy, then there is no reason for me to have it, and to then deprive it from someone who genuinely wants it? What moral argument is there for justifying that decision? There isn't one.
The true crux is the immoral and illegal decision to take something without reimbursing the owner.
What is the moral basis for arguing that it is wrong to make a copy of something you would not have paid for if you couldn't make a copy.
I'm serious. What moral principle are you applying in that situation?
I can't find one.
The idea that the creator should be reimbursed for his work is reasonable, but since we have as a stated premise that I wasn't going to have paid for it then he wasn't going to get any money from me. If I can obtain a copy without causing him any material harm he has lost nothing.
At best there is a slippery slope argument that if we let people who won't pay have a copy, then people who could/would pay will stop paying for their copies too, But that's not a moral argument for depriving people who would never pay a copy, but merely a recognition of the practical difficulty of differentiating between those who would and those who wouldn't.
The kind of calories that exist in McDonald's food.... ...You get fat. That's about as long term storage of calories as you can get.
Aboslutely false. I can spend a couple of hours a week preparing very healthy meals at less than half the cost of a McDonald's value meal.
It was the premise the poster I was responding to put into place. I don't disagree with you, and that's why I had no problem allowing your premise.
You're suggesting that a person's time is better spent collecting enough cans to buy McDonald's than it is in spending that same time at home preparing a meal?
I said no such thing.
Being rational by definition precludes being self-destructive.
No it doesn't. Being rational just means you have reasons for the course of actions you take.
Valuing the instant gratification of a mcdonalds meal over the long term health cumulative health effects is perfectly rational. Especially given you are guaranteed the instant gratification, while the distant future is anything but certain... including whether or not you'll even be there to see it.
To combat this lack of leisure time, said victim will spend more money in order to eat less healthy food, which provides less energy.
No. McDonalds food has more than enough energy (calories). There is a heatlh cost, but not an energy deficit.
The additional cost of the unhealthy food requires more hours of work to compensate.
No. The premise was that the cost of the McDonalds meal was on par with a cooked meal.
But even if we accept your assumption that the meal costs more. The hours worked is relatively inelastic. They have merely allocated a portion of their disposable income to McDonalds, and now it won't buy books, or dental coverage, or a Christmas tree, or whatever.
This you have dubbed "rational self interest".
Yes.
Yes, it is entirely rational to decide to do things for short term enjoyment even if it carries a potential long term self-destructive component.
Lots of things I do are "bad for me". I rationally do them anyway, because I've decided spending my life living it is better than spending it preserving it.
Wow.
So you claim your sister is lazy, has no desire to better herself, doesn't think eating healthy is important, and thus deliberately mal-nourishes her children.
That reeks of bullshit if you ask me.
But lets for a second assume its all true -- how do you propose we solve it? Oh, wait... you don't. In fact you vehemently are opposed to doing anything to solve it, even for your own sister.
And you think her priorities are out of whack?
Cost is not the determining factor when most people like her make food decisions, her reasoning is why waste an hour preparing a meal when a meal the same price takes no time at all.
Most of the working poor don't have a lot of leisure time. They work at either physically demanding jobs, or mind numblingly boring ones and either way get home completely drained. They often have long commutes on crowded busses.
Its not "laziness" to decide not to spend a large fraction of what little leisure time they have each day preparing a meal.
Its rational self interest. She's choosing to give herself a break from the kitchen and increase the time she can relax and get other things done, while providing her kids a treat she can afford that they all enjoy. That's not "laziness"... that's how people derive pleasure out of being alive.
I often see a poor person called out as "lazy" whenever they choose to do anything but work to better themselves. They can work a full day at a menial job, commute for 3-4hrs a day on top of that, and live on 5-6 hrs of sleep... but if they watch a couple hours of TV and go to mcdonalids instead of grocery shopping (which takes a good chunk of time -- and fresh healthy food doesn't keep all that well either increasing the amount of time spent shopping.) and cooking and they sleep in on the weekends instead of collecting cans for deposits and growing a garden then they are "lazy".
Its bullshit. Even if you are on food stamps. Even if you are homeless. There is nothing wrong with taking time out to smell the roses and enjoy the life you have instead of constantly trying to work towards a better life.
That doesn't make you "lazy", that makes you "human".
but it is similar enough that some consumers could be confused as to the creator of the bags
That would only be argument in a trademark lawsuit.
The bag in "The Magic Bag" was not trademarked.
Worst. Lawsuit. Ever. :)
You must only use the GPL not the MIT, BSD, Apache, University of Illinois, etc... licenses.
You can choose whatever license you want if you write the software from scratch.
But if you decide to take GPL software to make your project, then you have release your project under the same license. Those were the conditions you accepted when you took SOMEONE ELSES CODE and used it in your project.
If you don't like those conditions, don't incorporate code that belongs to those people into your project.
I have seen this (from a union member): arrive at job site, sit in trucks for 45 minutes, get out, turn a knob/fiddle with stuff for 5 minutes, get back in truck for 45 minutes, walk up to customer, ask for signature, get back in truck, wait 15 minutes, drive off property.
I have seen this: (from a non union member): arrive at job site, perform task booked for 2hrs in 5 minutes, drive truck accross street to the park, take 1.75hr nap, drive off.
Lazy irresponsible people are everywhere.
Distant and near visual acuity: Must be correctable to 20/20, each eye
It only eliminates people with conditions that PREVENT them from seeing 20/20 WITH correction.
So your coke-bottle glasses are just fine, as long as you can see 20/20 while wearing them.
it's the kernel's job to validate its function parameters.
I never said otherwise.
That doesn't mean Safari should be gratuitously throwing ridiculous values at it, but Safari should be able to without anything bad happening.
And I agree with this too. Read the whole thread not just the last response. I said at least TWICE that I completely agreed it was a bug in windows ALSO.
My point here, is that EVEN if windows COULD fullfill this request, Safari should STILL be blocking it. My browser shouldn't open 18million pixel high iframes, simply because some random website asked it to, even if it were technically possible.
There is all sorts of perfectly legal html, css, etc one can write that browers should reject or at least constrain.
p { border-width:15000000000px; }
Perfectly legal and well formed. The CSS spec doesn't say where that I can find what the maximum border width in pixels should be. It doesn't say anywhere I could find what the largest integer should be. So15 billion pixels border width? Within spec.
My browser should still just ignore it.
It shouldn't even get passed onto the drawing APIs to try.
Unless you wrote it yourself, you do not OWN software
I own that copy of it. And copyright doesn't give them any power over what I do with that copy except within a very limited scope relating primarily to distributing additional copies.
If I buy a copy of Lord of the Rings, then I own that copy. I can pee on it. I can cut it into pieces and rearrange the pages. I can white out the word Frodo and put my dogs name in its place. I can cut out the section with tom bomadill and burn it. I can write a sex scene between Gandalf and Sauroman and glue in between chapter 10 and 11. Its my copy. I own it.
I do not need a license to USE or MODIFY the copy I own as described above.
I only need a license to do something copyright restricts. I need a license to sell or even give away copies of what I've done, I need a license before I make a public performances of it or read it out on the radio.
But I don't need a license to do whatever I want to the copy I own within the confines of copyright.
There is nothing special about the PS3. You can do whatever you want with the part you own (hardware), and Sony can do whatever they want with the part they own (software), including not permitting you to run it.
Paraphrase that to a book or a CD., especially that last sentence. Does a book publisher get to tell you you aren't permitted to read it after they've sold you a copy? Does a CD publisher get to tell you that you aren't allowed to play the song after they sold you a copy? Of course not. That would be absurd. You don't need a license to read a purchased book or listen to a purchased CD
Why EXACTLY do you think software is different?
Why EXACTLY do you think you need a license to "run software"?
What makes the string of 0s and 1s that make up "Hello World.exe" so fundamentally different from the string of 0s and 1s that make up "Another Brick in the Wall" that you NEED a LICENSE to use the former but not the latter?
So how does Safari know whether Windows can support an 18 million pixel high window without requesting one?
Safari knows what the screen resolution is. A request for a screen element like an iframe 10,000 times the height of of the screen clearly fails any reasonable sanity check you might think of. Its clearly a broken page, and should be rejected at that point.
Just as if I'm Safari for the iPhone and the page tries to allocate a 2 billion cell html table, i don't care even if its "legal and well formed html", don't bother rendering it.
Then they should have had someone else kill the Lord of the Nazgul, then.
Er. In the movie Merry's poke distracts him for a moment. In the novels Merry's poke with the barrow blade breaks the spell that made him nearly invincible.
But in both cases it was Eowyn that actually killed him, and fulfilled the prophecy that "no man" could kill him by being a woman. (with or without the aid of a hobbit) The Witch king was taken aback that he was facing a woman in both the novel and movie as well.
It was enough for the internal consistency of the movie that a woman had to slay the Witch King.
This is Microsoft buggy code causing issue, Safari problem is merely one way to cause rooting of machine, other softwares using this service will undoubtedly provide more cases.
a) Yes, this is a bug in Windows. No question. Windows isn't validating the input, and should just reject it or throw an exeption or whatever. Crashing is not acceptable and represents a bug in windows.
b) This is also a bug in safari. Safari is not validating its input either. Its just blindly passing a request to create an 18million pixel tall iframe down to the Windows API somewhere...
c) Yes, other softwares will likely be found. But so far only safari is known to be in the unique position of using that API, passing it arbitrary remote content while failing to validate its input.
A bit of malicious code that explicitly does use that API actually has to get onto the local system first. Local exploits are much less serious than remote ones.
So yes, this is a windows bug. But it is also a safari bug. Both should be fixed.
If a box for a video game console does not say 'Allows you to develop and play your own games', what reasonable expectation do you have that it will in fact do that?
You are confusing tho meanings of allow.
There is "allow" as in capability. A gun allows you to shoot bullet at people. It gives you that capability.
There is "allow" as in "permission". Just because you bought a gun, you are still not allowed to shoot people for sport. The law forbids it.
The problem we have with digital era products is one of permission, not one of capability.
If I buy an X, I expect to be allowed (permission) to do whatever I want with it, within the law.
If I want to walk my dog or play video games I design myself with a bag of tinkertoys, I am allowed (permission) to do so. Even though the toy doesn't have that capability, I am still allowed (permission) to do it. And if i can find some way of getting a tinkertoy to walk my dog or play video games I design myself, giving it that capability, that is perfectly fine.
If I want to use the PS3 to walk the dog or play games I develop myself. Again, the capability question is really beside the point. If I can figure a way of making it walk the dog, then I should be able to use it that way. But the PS3 doesn't allow (permission) to develop my own games... since when do I need permission from Sony to use a product I purchased the way I want to use it?
I didn't need permission from tinker toys. What makes the PS3 so special that Sony gets to decide what uses they PERMIT (allow)?
In short, it seems to be more about control than security. I'm not sure that up-time is an issue here either, since I can always put my laptop away and switch to the IT-administered PC on my desk if it should die.
The office doesn't let unescorted strangers walk around the office does it?
But it should allow god knows what you have installed on your laptop free roam on the office networks?
Sure if it could join a segrated vlan that can't reach any corporate assets it would be safe enough; but then you'd moan it can't reach the intranet, the file servers, the network printers etc, etc, etc. And if all it can do is reach the internet... what do you need it for anyway? facebook, skype, msn messenger, and pokerstars.net? Leave that at home.
This is not a good precedent.
This is not a precedent at all.
Most -tax breaks- have strings attached to them in order to qualify.
Welfare included.
But the good of the many should never be used to outweigh the rights of the few, or the one
Really... so violent criminals should not be imprisoned?
His *right* to liberty should NEVER be curtailed for the good of the many?
Clearly the rights of the one, can be and should be trampled upon under a variety of circumstances.
Ah but the criminal is a guilty of a crime, and the child is innocent you cry out...
Should an "innocent" child be given a vaccine?
To me this is the seatbelt laws, and the laws requiring your vehicle have working brakes and headlights, indicator lights etc all over again.
Do you really object to those as well?
And this isn't even a REQUIREMENT that you get the vaccine like the requirement that you wear a seatbelt. Its merely an incentive to get it. You are in an uproar over an INCENTIVE.
and still he is the one that gets screwed with less functionality than we had in the 80s.
Yes because in the 80s he had a computer that could calibrated an HD flat screen display, and 6 channel audio connections to his receiver.
I'm not going to disagree that there are DRM issues that are a PITA. But his setup has issues more from HDMI in general than HDCP and DRM.
He essentially wants to split audio and video off a digital communications signal yet maintain two-way communication to one of the endpoints for DDC/CI.
I'm pretty sure there are number of easy workarounds... like dropping audio off the hdmi entirely, and just using an optical out of the sound card.
That's how I ran my previous system.
HDMI from video card up to the display, optical from the sound card to the receiver.
Frankly, I like the new hdmi passthru setup I have much better. But i don't need to color calibrate my display through DDC/CI like he apparently has to.
You do realize that first the taxes are taken from the family, the only question is how much of THIER OWN MONEY the government decides to hand back...
I'm not sure what your point is?
Those same taxes are also taken from families with no children, and with grown up children, and whose children have died due to not being immunized too....
Everyone pays taxes, that's how government is paid for. Deal with it. Your point is at most a distraction from any rational discussion.
1) My monitor is a professional display (an NEC MultiSync 2690WUXi). Among its other features is hardware calibration. It has internal correction tables to produce extremely accurate output, calibrated to any curves I like. To do that, the video card must be able to communicate with it via DDC/CI which it can't do through the receiver, since the receiver gets those commands, not the monitor. I didn't pay $1200 for a monitor and calibration hardware to not have it work to its optimum potential.
Hmmm.
2) Latency. I am a gamer, and I want as low a latency as I can have to my monitor, particularly since as a professional monitor its scaler already introduces a bit of latency (33ms). If I feed the signal through my receiver, it will introduce additional latency in an effort to perfectly synchronize audio and video. I would rather have less latency and a minor sync problem.
I'm also a gamer, and the receiver introduces no discernible lag, provided everything is set to straight passthru with no extra processing "i.e. game mode" on both the display and receiver.
3) I often operate the computer without sound. Right now, since I'm surfing the web, I don't feel the need to listen to anything. Thus the receiver is off. It puts out about 200 watts at idle since it is a fairly high power, high bias unit (a Denon 3808CI if you are wondering). I'd rather save the power, and more importantly not heat up my room, when it isn't needed. Can't do that if I feed video through it.
My receiver passes hdmi up to the display in standby drawing minimal power just fine.
This loops back around to #1... maybe your hdmi passthru issue with DDC/CI can be resolved via a configuration option on the reciever? Denon makes good kit after all... although i imagine you've already chased that rabbit down into its rabbit hole as far as you could...
The few still have the right not to immunize their kids.
Society isn't going to pay and reward them to exercise that right.
Right now I have a situation where I can't watch Blu-rays on my PC. I have everything you should need, an ideal setup even
My PC has HDMI out of the video card to the receiver, the receiver has HDMI up to the display. Bluray playback works just fine.
Your setup sounds needlessly convoluted for no good reason.