This is silly. During times of war there are no "Rules". The rules of war (like the "Geneva Circlejerk") are simply rules that the nations of the world apply to punish the country that lost the war, after the fact.
Has there ever once been a warcrimes trial against a country that WON a war? I have never seen any.
My personal feeling is that troops should NEVER EVER be sent to a foregin land, unless the country sending them is committed to TOTAL warfare.
When I think of how war should be fought, I think of Sherman's "March to the Sea" and burning Atlanta to the ground - of course...I also think war should be used only as a last resort, and only as a reaction to a direct threat (which of course means I would have been against the US-Confederate War of 1861 inb the first place)
Hell.... Im 21, a colledge dropout... working in an entry level sysadmin/programming job... I am make $13k/year more than my high school paid its teachers!
I. I don't understand how this scheme works? (or was suposed to). If I have a DVD...I make a binary copy of it...throw it on another DVD (or if im on a real OS...connect it to a loopback device)...what stops me from using this copy in my DVD player...afterall...ALL of the data should be identical. Decrypting an exact duplicate of original data should work just like the original.
II. There really is no way this could have been secure. Copy protection can't work. It shouldn't be hard to do a copy by reading and capturing directly from video memory. Then a nice un-encrypted copy.
III. I have to wonder what algorythm they used. Was it something that could be easily attacked? a simple capture from memory could get the unencrypted movie...and lead to a known-plaintext attack.
The simple problem is this...they want their data to be safe...only "Authorized" (ie people who paid for it) people see it. However, its possible for those people to control the hardware that does the encoding. (and the software to some extent)
Basically...copying would happen one way or another. Its not stoppable. encryption is really good for transport of data from "end to end" to and to keep out unauthorized people in between.
Ok I have 2 notes here as more than a couple of people have said that "Dissassembly isn't illegal"
A) The Crackers were NOT in the US. Therefore they are not under US law. This argument thus means nothing.
B) Sony is not a US company (they are Japanese) thus only their offices in the US are under US law. Again...this statement means nothing.
C) The statment itself is also useless, since the Crackers were not in Japan. So even if it is illegal under Japanese law, it may not be illegal where they are.
D) The statment was probably written by someone in some PR department. Regardless of legality, they want to make these actions SOUND illegal and "Bad"
E) People in PR departments may not be experts in copyright law...international or not.
1) True but...US law has a way of becomming the law in other countries. Remember, we are the last Super Bully
2) Unconstitutional? when has that stopped them before? Hell there is legislation being considered (its passed the house and in the senate) to make a certain drug illegal. Technically...it would make the posession or sale of Red Meat illegal in the US (since it contains it in small quantity)
(yea I know they wont enforce it in that manner but...its just to illistrate the silliness of it.. technically...your brain is already illegal to posess due to other chemicals it makes)
I would suspect you are a large top level suplier or importer then.
Certainly a good buisness tho...I doubt it you were REALLY a a cannabis suplier who had enough money to need to use offshore acounts, you would post on/. (even anyously) and say so... maybe you would...but I doubt it
Though if you are... your service is greatly apreciated by those of us who love the product (course any marijuana I would get tends to be the more quality stuff so is probably grown local in a small garden...so I doubt I would see any of your suposed stuff)
A very small number (Read: The vocal Minority) seem to be nationalistic, but somehow I doubt the vast majority is. They have money and basically free income...why should they care?
How many people outside of congress and a few right wing public "Congressional Wannabee" nuts really care about flag burning and Clinton's blow jobs?
$1000 seems like alot... you can build a nice XTerminal with a thrown away PC. I have seen it work well with something as "Slow" as a SUN IPC and as "Fast" as a medium way Pentium (not II not III more like a Pentium 120)
I wrote up some Docs (which are sorely in need of update if I ever find a spare PC and some time to work on it) at http://people.delphi.com/sjc/linux/poor.html
The problem is not individual drivers but the system as a whole.
If I write code myself, thus am the sole copyright holder, I can make it available under ANY licence I choose.
I could put it under a Microsoft-Style EULA, the GPL, BSD, and the QPL and distribute them all at once.
Why? The licence is one I am offering...I, as the author, am not restricted by the licence (unless we had a contract stating that I was issuing it under such a licence and agree not to release it under any other licence ever)
In any case...the main problems are this: I The BSD people and Linux developers will never agree on 1 licence. Many BSD dislike the GPL and will never agree to their code being distributed under it, and vica versa
II Any author who did not agree to any needed relicencing, their code could not be used. Thus the code base shrinks (this includes people who can't be reached)
III BSD and Linux use very differnt development models. Which model (or what hybrid model) would the new FreeLSD (love the name BTW) use?
IV somehow I think a project of this size would amount to herding cats.
If you think "The Hub" coul dbe updated to "The Switch" yhen you must not drive in Boston.... I think "The Hub" is quite apropriate.
Afterall...there are quite a few places (esp in Boston Proper and that horrible Pit of a shithole Cambridge) where the Star Topology is evident.
In cambridge, all roads lead to Harvard Square or Central Square (depending on which end your at) Then from there there is one central Road (mass ave) which connects them to Downtown Boston.
Then of course, once you get just south of Boston all roads lead to Downtown.
Thus all of these areas are really overcrowded and a pain to drive through. Of course I supose there are side routes that bypass the central hubs... but you have to know how to route through them. (Not that routing through certain places like Harvard square are easy...even when there is little traffic and no colisions)
Of course the "Big Dig" Hopes to help...but its kinda like laying down a larger backbone that goes in and through...once your inside the network the bandwidth is no different (just more sceneic while you sit there in traffic on acount of no more raised artery)
Geeks: if youre trying to attract a person of the opposite sex, but find yourself surrounded by shallow egotistical cluebies, you can improve your life just by making some simple changes!
Thats the word here. You know the kind I mean, the ones whose idea of a "Magic Evening" is spending way too much for diner and talking about social events and how ugly other people are.
So if you have your heart set on Albert Einstein but find yourself buried in valentines by one of the Backstreet Boys, maybe its time you started acting differntly.
- Know what to say
Don't ease in soft. Don't waste your time looking for a date! Go right for the brain and ask "So how is your PERL?". Shallow cluebies will make it no farther.
- Avoid Holy Wars
Really... is it that important that they use vi? accept emacs or pico for now, convert them to vi later.
-- Don't adjust your clothing at all
If they even notice how you dress, then they really aren't even worth the time to worry about. Changing too often could lead them to think you care about your apearence and might be as shallow as they are.
There is *NO* reverse engineering law (yet) Theoretically it goes like this: Reverse engineering software is covered under "Fair Use" (copyright law)
However if you reverse engineer, then write your own version...they can claim you just copeid them or that YOUR code is a derivitive work based on theirs.
So the idea is that YOU reverse engineer and just document the general concepts and flow (no actual code)
Then you hand your document to person B who has never seen the code just your document (this is the clean room...he has not been "Soiled" by seeing the code) so since he never saw the original code...he can't be making a derivitive work based on it.
Yes...until such time as the law is changed (which probably will never happen but, if it does...) it *IS* murder.
However...was he saying that right now couples should kill unfit babies? or was he arguing that they SHOULD be able to. Saying that they should have the choice is not advocating killing, but advocating changing the law and the general society itself to where it is acceptable (and thus no longer legal murder).
There is a difference between saying "It should be legal, its not morally wrong in my book" and "Damn the law, lets just do it".
> If there was absolute freedom, there would be chaos - Aristotle
I never did understand why chaos gets such a bum rap. I kind of like chaos...its much better than artifically imposed order.
I agree... The Mayor has every right to NOT fund the art museam. In fact...I would argue that the government shouldn't be funding art anyway.
My problem is with WHY he wants to pull the funding. The Government and its officals MUST strive to remain neutral in matters of Art, Religion, and all other forms of expression. If they fund art like this, then they must fund it all, they MUST NOT pick and choose.
Remember... the first ammendment was NOT drafted to protect the speach we want to hear, it was drafted specifically to protect the most vile speach. The speach we WANT censored.
If he wants to fund art, well I supose its ok (I have other issues wrt that) but, if he wants to use government funds to sponsor speach...then he MUST accept all speach as equal. As a man he may pass judgement, he may dislike it, he may not wish to fund it. As a government offical he has no right to do that, He must be arbitrary.
>Bottom line: You rights stop where my nose starts.
Very true....but we are talking about speach not violence. I can speak from now until doomsday and none of my words can ever infringe upon your nose. And the quote is "Your right to flail your arms, ends where my nose begins". Speaking is not arm flailing.
>"Freedom" is a term regarding government vs citizens
I wholeheartedly disagree. If I steal from you, is your right to property not infringed upon? If I hold a gun to your head and tell you to shut up...are you still free? (beyond the most metaphysical interpretations of free)
Censorship can come from many places. It does not have to be government imposed to be such. It is litterally attempting to stop a person from expressing their ideas, or to stop an idea from spreading.
Murder is by definition a moral judgment. Killing is synonomous with ending life. Murder is ending life unlawfully or unjustly.
Killing a baby that has little chance of survival is only murder if it is unlawful or unjust. The argument that the professor was espousing is that it is NOT unjust and should be lawful.
The distinction is important. Calling him an advocate of murder is serves only to pass moral judgement and cloud the issue, in effect to stiffle discussion rather than foster it.
If YOU believe that infantacide is wrong, even in these cases, then that is fine. You are free to make your case for that, but calling him an "advocate of murder" is not stating your case... it serves only to turn the discussion away from the topic and onto the person proposing the topic.
I agree with this professor. In fact I go as far as to agree with what someone else was saying about eating dead babies and people (recyling).
perhaps its just me? I do not put so high a value on human life in general. Am I selfish? yes I am. I just find myself completely incapable of feeling emotion for people I do not have a personal relationship with.
A baby i just come into this world, no real relationship with anyone...fine kill it. I don't care.
Its alot like eating veal. Yea, an animal suffered in a cage. Big deal, it tastes good. No matter how I think about it, I just can not feel sorry for it. Luckly the fact that I am unable to feel this sort of empathy does not bother me one bit.
I also realize that this is a society thing. Our society frowns on infantacide. There are many examples of cultures where infantacide is perfectly acceptable, even for so small a "defect" as being female.
On the same token, we have a problem with "Child Molestation". Again, in some cultures (no off the top of my head I can't remember...my memory fails me) what we call incest or child molestation is perfectly acceptable behaviour.
Now am I advocating either of these things? No. I have no children, nor any desire to have sexual relations with children. I am simply making a point about morality.
If you believe that every life is special, and given by Some mystical God (which I do not), then it follows quite naturally that infantacide is wrong.
Again, maybe its just me. I see very little real value in our societies rules beyond that some people seem to NEED rules to be imposed externally, unfortunatly, to keep their illusion of order, they feel the need to impose their rules on others...thus is the nature of government I supose.
Slashdot Mirror
This is silly. During times of war there are
no "Rules". The rules of war (like the "Geneva
Circlejerk") are simply rules that the nations of
the world apply to punish the country that lost the war, after the fact.
Has there ever once been a warcrimes trial against
a country that WON a war? I have never seen any.
My personal feeling is that troops should NEVER
EVER be sent to a foregin land, unless the country
sending them is committed to TOTAL warfare.
When I think of how war should be fought, I think
of Sherman's "March to the Sea" and burning
Atlanta to the ground - of course...I also think
war should be used only as a last resort, and
only as a reaction to a direct threat (which of
course means I would have been against the
US-Confederate War of 1861 inb the first place)
The concept of "Bad Gramar", like "Bad Spelling"
is nothing more than a concept of fools who feel
a need to have a rule for everything.
IMHO As long as the point gets acrosss...then
it is correct.
Hell.... /year more than my high school paid
Im 21, a colledge dropout...
working in an entry level sysadmin/programming
job...
I am make $13k
its teachers!
My thoughts on this...
I. I don't understand how this scheme works?
(or was suposed to). If I have a DVD...I make
a binary copy of it...throw it on another DVD
(or if im on a real OS...connect it to a loopback
device)...what stops me from using this copy in
my DVD player...afterall...ALL of the data should
be identical.
Decrypting an exact duplicate of original data
should work just like the original.
II. There really is no way this could have been
secure. Copy protection can't work. It shouldn't be hard to do a copy by reading and capturing
directly from video memory. Then a nice un-encrypted copy.
III. I have to wonder what algorythm they used.
Was it something that could be easily attacked?
a simple capture from memory could get the
unencrypted movie...and lead to a known-plaintext
attack.
The simple problem is this...they want their
data to be safe...only "Authorized" (ie people
who paid for it) people see it. However, its
possible for those people to control the hardware
that does the encoding. (and the software to some
extent)
Basically...copying would happen one way or
another. Its not stoppable. encryption is really
good for transport of data from "end to end"
to and to keep out unauthorized people in between.
Ok I have 2 notes here as more than a couple
of people have said that "Dissassembly isn't
illegal"
A) The Crackers were NOT in the US. Therefore
they are not under US law. This argument thus
means nothing.
B) Sony is not a US company (they are Japanese)
thus only their offices in the US are under US
law. Again...this statement means nothing.
C) The statment itself is also useless, since
the Crackers were not in Japan. So even if it is
illegal under Japanese law, it may not be illegal
where they are.
D) The statment was probably written by someone in
some PR department. Regardless of legality, they
want to make these actions SOUND illegal and "Bad"
E) People in PR departments may not be experts in
copyright law...international or not.
1) True but...US law has a way of becomming
the law in other countries. Remember, we are
the last Super Bully
2) Unconstitutional? when has that stopped them
before?
Hell there is legislation being considered (its
passed the house and in the senate) to make
a certain drug illegal. Technically...it would
make the posession or sale of Red Meat illegal
in the US (since it contains it in small quantity)
(yea I know they wont enforce it in that manner
but...its just to illistrate the silliness of it..
technically...your brain is already illegal
to posess due to other chemicals it makes)
Well you know...
these companies just have to learn
"When you point your finger, 3 more point back
at you"
Its silly, its simple...god damnit...its right.
Funny...I don't think the 80's were so great.
I want to bring back the 60's or the 70's
Back when people were willing to get out there and
make big vocal protests about stuff like military
spending.
Hell...I suport getting rid of the standing army
and cutting ALL defesne spending to the bone.
I would suspect you are a large top level suplier
/. (even anyously) and say so...
or importer then.
Certainly a good buisness tho...I doubt it you
were REALLY a a cannabis suplier who had enough
money to need to use offshore acounts, you would
post on
maybe you would...but I doubt it
Though if you are...
your service is greatly apreciated by those
of us who love the product
(course any marijuana I would get tends to
be the more quality stuff so is probably grown
local in a small garden...so I doubt I would
see any of your suposed stuff)
Do they really?
A very small number (Read: The vocal Minority)
seem to be nationalistic, but somehow I doubt the
vast majority is. They have money and basically
free income...why should they care?
How many people outside of congress and a few
right wing public "Congressional Wannabee" nuts
really care about flag burning and Clinton's
blow jobs?
Fine then....
get rid of the standing army.
No war - no army
Problem solved.
$1000 seems like alot...
:)
you can build a nice XTerminal with a thrown
away PC. I have seen it work well with something
as "Slow" as a SUN IPC and as "Fast" as a medium
way Pentium (not II not III more like a Pentium
120)
I wrote up some Docs (which are sorely in need
of update if I ever find a spare PC and some time
to work on it) at
http://people.delphi.com/sjc/linux/poor.html
hmmm perhaps soon
-Steve
The problem is not individual drivers but the
system as a whole.
If I write code myself, thus am the sole copyright
holder, I can make it available under ANY licence
I choose.
I could put it under a Microsoft-Style EULA,
the GPL, BSD, and the QPL and distribute them all
at once.
Why? The licence is one I am offering...I, as the
author, am not restricted by the licence (unless
we had a contract stating that I was issuing it
under such a licence and agree not to release it
under any other licence ever)
In any case...the main problems are this:
I The BSD people and Linux developers will
never agree on 1 licence. Many BSD dislike the
GPL and will never agree to their code being
distributed under it, and vica versa
II Any author who did not agree to any needed
relicencing, their code could not be used. Thus
the code base shrinks (this includes people who
can't be reached)
III BSD and Linux use very differnt development
models. Which model (or what hybrid model) would
the new FreeLSD (love the name BTW) use?
IV somehow I think a project of this size would
amount to herding cats.
If you think "The Hub" coul dbe updated
to "The Switch" yhen you must not drive in
Boston....
I think "The Hub" is quite apropriate.
Afterall...there are quite a few places (esp in
Boston Proper and that horrible Pit of a shithole
Cambridge) where the Star Topology is evident.
In cambridge, all roads lead to Harvard Square
or Central Square (depending on which end your at)
Then from there there is one central Road (mass
ave) which connects them to Downtown Boston.
Then of course, once you get just south of Boston
all roads lead to Downtown.
Thus all of these areas are really overcrowded and
a pain to drive through. Of course I supose there
are side routes that bypass the central hubs...
but you have to know how to route through them.
(Not that routing through certain places like
Harvard square are easy...even when there is
little traffic and no colisions)
Of course the "Big Dig" Hopes to help...but its
kinda like laying down a larger backbone that
goes in and through...once your inside the network
the bandwidth is no different (just more sceneic
while you sit there in traffic on acount of no
more raised artery)
-Steve
A Chelsea Resident
Geeks: if youre trying to attract a person of the
opposite sex, but find yourself surrounded by
shallow egotistical cluebies, you can improve your life just by making some simple changes!
Thats the word here. You know the kind I mean, the
ones whose idea of a "Magic Evening" is spending
way too much for diner and talking about social
events and how ugly other people are.
So if you have your heart set on Albert Einstein
but find yourself buried in valentines by one of
the Backstreet Boys, maybe its time you started
acting differntly.
- Know what to say
Don't ease in soft. Don't waste your time looking
for a date! Go right for the brain and ask "So
how is your PERL?". Shallow cluebies will make
it no farther.
- Avoid Holy Wars
Really... is it that important that they use vi?
accept emacs or pico for now, convert them to vi
later.
-- Don't adjust your clothing at all
If they even notice how you dress, then they
really aren't even worth the time to worry about.
Changing too often could lead them to think you
care about your apearence and might be as
shallow as they are.
There is *NO* reverse engineering law (yet)
Theoretically it goes like this:
Reverse engineering software is covered under
"Fair Use" (copyright law)
However if you reverse engineer, then write
your own version...they can claim you just copeid
them or that YOUR code is a derivitive work
based on theirs.
So the idea is that YOU reverse engineer and just
document the general concepts and flow (no actual
code)
Then you hand your document to person B who
has never seen the code just your document
(this is the clean room...he has not been
"Soiled" by seeing the code) so since he
never saw the original code...he can't be
making a derivitive work based on it.
It all rests on copyright law.
Yes...until such time as the law is changed
(which probably will never happen but, if it
does...) it *IS* murder.
However...was he saying that right now couples
should kill unfit babies? or was he arguing that
they SHOULD be able to. Saying that they should
have the choice is not advocating killing, but
advocating changing the law and the general
society itself to where it is acceptable
(and thus no longer legal murder).
There is a difference between saying "It should
be legal, its not morally wrong in my book" and
"Damn the law, lets just do it".
> If there was absolute freedom, there would be chaos - Aristotle
I never did understand why chaos gets such a bum
rap. I kind of like chaos...its much better than
artifically imposed order.
I agree... The Mayor has every right to NOT fund
the art museam. In fact...I would argue that
the government shouldn't be funding art anyway.
My problem is with WHY he wants to pull the
funding. The Government and its officals MUST
strive to remain neutral in matters of Art, Religion, and all other forms of expression. If
they fund art like this, then they must fund it
all, they MUST NOT pick and choose.
Remember... the first ammendment was NOT drafted
to protect the speach we want to hear, it was
drafted specifically to protect the most vile
speach. The speach we WANT censored.
If he wants to fund art, well I supose its ok
(I have other issues wrt that) but, if he wants
to use government funds to sponsor speach...then
he MUST accept all speach as equal. As a
man he may pass judgement, he may dislike it, he
may not wish to fund it. As a government offical
he has no right to do that, He must be arbitrary.
>Bottom line: You rights stop where my nose starts.
Very true....but we are talking about speach not
violence. I can speak from now until doomsday
and none of my words can ever infringe upon your
nose. And the quote is "Your right to flail your
arms, ends where my nose begins". Speaking is not
arm flailing.
>"Freedom" is a term regarding government vs citizens
I wholeheartedly disagree. If I steal from you,
is your right to property not infringed upon?
If I hold a gun to your head and tell you to shut
up...are you still free? (beyond the most metaphysical
interpretations of free)
Censorship can come from many places. It does not
have to be government imposed to be such. It is
litterally attempting to stop a person from
expressing their ideas, or to stop an idea
from spreading.
Murder is by definition a moral judgment. Killing
is synonomous with ending life. Murder is ending
life unlawfully or unjustly.
Killing a baby that has little chance of survival
is only murder if it is unlawful or unjust. The
argument that the professor was espousing is that
it is NOT unjust and should be lawful.
The distinction is important. Calling him an
advocate of murder is serves only to pass moral
judgement and cloud the issue, in effect to
stiffle discussion rather than foster it.
If YOU believe that infantacide is wrong, even
in these cases, then that is fine. You are free to
make your case for that, but calling him an
"advocate of murder" is not stating your case...
it serves only to turn the discussion away from
the topic and onto the person proposing the topic.
I agree with this professor. In fact I go
as far as to agree with what someone else
was saying about eating dead babies and
people (recyling).
perhaps its just me? I do not put so high a value
on human life in general. Am I selfish? yes I am.
I just find myself completely incapable of feeling
emotion for people I do not have a personal
relationship with.
A baby i just come into this world, no real
relationship with anyone...fine kill it. I don't
care.
Its alot like eating veal. Yea, an animal
suffered in a cage. Big deal, it tastes good.
No matter how I think about it, I just can not
feel sorry for it. Luckly the fact that I am
unable to feel this sort of empathy does not
bother me one bit.
I also realize that this is a society thing.
Our society frowns on infantacide. There are
many examples of cultures where infantacide is
perfectly acceptable, even for so small a "defect"
as being female.
On the same token, we have a problem with "Child
Molestation". Again, in some cultures (no off the
top of my head I can't remember...my memory fails
me) what we call incest or child molestation is
perfectly acceptable behaviour.
Now am I advocating either of these things? No.
I have no children, nor any desire to have
sexual relations with children. I am simply
making a point about morality.
If you believe that every life is special, and
given by Some mystical God (which I do not), then
it follows quite naturally that infantacide is
wrong.
Again, maybe its just me. I see very little
real value in our societies rules beyond that
some people seem to NEED rules to be imposed
externally, unfortunatly, to keep their illusion
of order, they feel the need to impose their
rules on others...thus is the nature of government
I supose.