Why worry about US piracy.. Go worry about china and their CD houses.
Stamping out piracy in developing countries doesn't mean that people there will now shell out US$100 for a copy of Windows. The simple reason why people pirate is because legal copies of software are out of their reach -- the same reason why many of us pirated software in high school: it's just too expensive relative to our income then, and their income there.
Stamping out piracy won't increase sales magically -- and you can't stamp out piracy as long as the need for it exists.
Get over it, people. This is a bad joke. The guy is an ordinary teacher, and did not prepare the page himself. Still it is a fascinating example of how the Internet has changed the world.
Blah blah blah.
It matters, because it's funny. Incredibly funny. Really really funny. Unlike 99.99999% of the internet and your stuffy post.
So is it then illegal to access public shares on a PC? You do not have the owner's explicit consent to do so, but by making the share public and/or advertising the share, the owner grants implicit permission for the general public to access it.
Yes, if the intent of the owner was not to grant you permission to access his computer. e.g. Someone may have accidently turned on file sharing on his windows machine.
An 'MP3' share with a password of 'mp3' is, in my book, implicit permission
Implicit, but not explicit, as required by the CMU policy.
The point I was trying to make was that CMU's posted policy has NO legal weight in this matter at all.
Yes it does. The students affected would be in good position to take civil action against CMU. A case could even be made for criminal action.
All I'm trying to say is that *legally, I can't see any way that they broke a law.
Perhaps, but I don't see most posters here claiming that CMU broke the law. The ethical/moral side of this is as or more interesting than the legal side of the debate, and subjective discussion is what Slashdot is all about.
Since when is it considered 'breaking in' when you 'try' to turn the doorknob?
It is. Try trying the doorknob for a few classified military sites and see what happens. A hacking attempt does not have to be succesful to be one.
And as I pointed out earlier, even if a computer is left unprotected, attempting to access a computer without the consent of the owner is still an intrusion.
and every place you can think of with announcements saying, "Come visit our web site, enter the password 'money4you' on the correct page and get $50 off your next purchase!", are each of those people "breaking in" to the web site? They have to try ("guess") the password in order to see if it lets them in.
This isn't analogous to the situation with CMU at all. In this case, viewers are explicitly invited to enter a particular password at a particular site.
Although a password like 'mp3' may be commonplace, it is not on the level of an explicit invitation.
CMU's computing policy is nothing more than a POLICY for its *STUDENTS*.
No. Go read the computing policy:
"Every member of Carnegie Mellon has two basic rights: privacy and a fair share of resources. It is unethical for any other person to violate these rights."
What people seem to be objecting to is the *legal* ramifications of CMU's efforts
No. It is a violation of their own computing policy, because the policy applies to all members of the CMU community. It's also probably in violation of a couple of state laws -- the students would be in a good position to sue.
Purely legal ramifications aside, it's completely unacceptable conduct for an academic institution with CMU's reputation.
But how would they know that the password was mp3? By attempting to guess the password i.e. breaking into the computer! I can similarly argue that by using an obvious password like 'password', you're actually making your computer public -- this wouldn't hold up anywhere I know.
If you read CMU's computing policy, it says very clearly that one may not attempt to access a computing resource unless it is made *explicitly* public, or that the the owner gives *express* permission. *Explicit* and *Express* permission -- these are the actual words used, and impose very stringent conditions that were not met here.
My own University's computing code of conduct goes so far as to say that even if a computer is left unprotected (analogous to an unlocked door), it would still be a violation to attempt to access the computer. Clearly CMU's policy should be read in this spirit.
Well so if someone protects his server with a password of 'passowrd', does that mean that I can legally access his computer? The law is clear on this -- the difficulty of guessing a password has no bearing on the legality of hacking into someone else's computer.
I've no doubt you're right about Sun being a fragmented schizo, but at the same time, I don't see any evidence for the anti-Linux/pro-Solaris conspiracy.
Sun's treatment of the Linux port seems no different from its treatment of other ports, namely: outsource the ports to parties with a vested interest in the particular OS. So IBM does the AIX port, HP does the HP/UX port, etc. Things get tricky with Linux, but letting an informal group of Linux developers do the port seems about right. I'm not saying Sun couldn't do more of course -- I'd love to see Java 2 much much more widely available than it is now, but I don't see any evidence for special discrimination against Linux.
Don't forget that Sun think that they're in a difficult position because of the Linux vs Solaris issue, so inevitably there will be internal pressure from some of their divisions *not* to help out the Linux scene too much. In contrast, adding value to little ol' Be holds no danger for them.
This is an absurd argument.
Firstly, having Java on Linux will not make or break Solaris. It may however, make or break Java (since the value of Java depends on greatly on its cross platform capabilities). So it makes sense for them to support ports to Linux, and to as many other platforms as possible -- including rival Unix platforms, which they do (like AIX which is presents much more serious competition to Solaris as a high end server OS than Linux).
Secondly, if Sun thought that supporting Java on Linux would be a detriment to them, they would not allow or support a port. So either they support the port, or they don't. Half measures don't make sense either way.
Their treatment of the Linux port is no different from their treatment of other ports (other than the key Windows and Solaris versions) i.e. outsource the ports to 3rd parties, simply because Sun doesn't have the resources to make so many ports directly.
Read the thread again, and tell me what does this have to do with the original topic? I was merely pointing out to the original poster that IE does support roaming profiles.
Swing takes out the native components and replaces them with components with a look and feel that is standardized across platforms.
I don't think this is necessarily a good thing: Windows users want applications with a Windows look and feel, Mac users want applications with a Mac look and feel, etc. Using Swing makes the application look odd and out of place -- something users are very sensitive to.
Re:Wasnt Tesla wrong about a lot of things
on
Lightning On Demand
·
· Score: 1
(newton believed in alchemy and other strange things near the end of his life).
Newton had always believed in alchemy, and not just towards the end of his life. I don't think this is counts against him (like many people do), but rather, is a sign of his greatness - he was willing to explore areas that other people thought were absurd.
Netscape created the JavaScript standard, so maybe it's IE mucking about it. CSS works great in Mozilla. Try for yourself.
This may surprise you, but IE actually supports some of the standards that NS created better than NS itself does. I've been developing an app that uses the NS invented Liveconnect API (which lets Java communicate with Javascript), and amazingly enough, IE5 works much better with than Netscape (and I'm following the documentation on the NS site religously).
It's actually an NT feature (I'm not sure whether 9x can do this). Basically each user's profile, which can contain stuff like the desktop configuration (desktop icons, wallpaper,etc) and software configuration (including IE), is stored on a server, and when you log on to a machine, your profile is downloaded -- it works very well, almost like having your own computer in a public lab.
It sounds like they want to control who can use it
They aren't controlling who can use it. By putting the code under GPL, they're just making sure no one else can take away someone else's right to use and modify it (by making modifications, then selling it in binary only format).
If the commercial entities were willing to redistribute the source for any changes they made, there would be no problem.
One of the main reasons IE works so well with the windows operating system is because both systems are made by the same company.
1. Most apps on windows aren't as horribly buggy as Netscape. Most companies can, even without access to the Windows source code, write programs that aren't horribly broken.
According to your logic, Mozilla will never be as good as IE since the Mozilla team doesn't have access to the windows source code?
2. Netscape is buggy on all platforms, even on platforms like Linux where NS has access to the source code, and can presumably make use of this to hunt down bugs.
I don't understand these posts which say that Mozilla, in its current state, is better than IE. Everytime I try Mozilla, there are pages which work fine in both IE and NS, but which Mozilla doesn't render correctly. And Mozilla inevitably crashes after I spend any time using it.
Are you sure Mozilla is really better than IE? I assume you're using windows (since you claim that it 'kicks that pants off IE'), so our user experience can't be that different..
What if they were indifferent towards the issue of copyrights, but broke the security simply to show that it could be done? Would this be legal or illegal then?
I can't imagine breaking a cryptographic scheme could be illegal. Cryptographers do that all the time.
You need to address the issue - ie: why did I kill you? instead of passing a law saying it's wrong. The latter will not stop me. Education will. Which one is the cheap solution, and which one is the best solution? I'll let you be the judge
Both are important parts of the solution. The fact that you're punished for breaking the law has an important deterrent effect. Education alone won't do -- there'll always be people so lacking in moral virtue, willing to steal and kill if there were no penalties (even with penalties, there are *still* people who break the law).
Slashdot Mirror
Why worry about US piracy.. Go worry about china and their CD houses.
Stamping out piracy in developing countries doesn't mean that people there will now shell out US$100 for a copy of Windows. The simple reason why people pirate is because legal copies of software are out of their reach -- the same reason why many of us pirated software in high school: it's just too expensive relative to our income then, and their income there.
Stamping out piracy won't increase sales magically -- and you can't stamp out piracy as long as the need for it exists.
"Big downloads do get cut off, and with a cgi script I can't use nice programs like getright."
I thought newer versions of getright detect and intercept downloads in browsers, and this works even when a cgi and not a direct url is used.
Moderate this up too.
I just found it very very funny. The funniest page I've ever seen on the net. The writing, his expressions and poses were priceless.
Not everyone takes to it. If you don't get it, just move on.
Get over it, people. This is a bad joke. The guy is an ordinary teacher, and did not prepare the page himself. Still it is a fascinating example of how the Internet has changed the world.
Blah blah blah.
It matters, because it's funny. Incredibly funny. Really really funny. Unlike 99.99999% of the internet and your stuffy post.
So is it then illegal to access public shares on a PC? You do not have the owner's explicit consent to do so, but by making the share public and/or advertising the share, the owner grants implicit permission for the general public to access it.
Yes, if the intent of the owner was not to grant you permission to access his computer. e.g. Someone may have accidently turned on file sharing on his windows machine.
An 'MP3' share with a password of 'mp3' is, in my book, implicit permission
Implicit, but not explicit, as required by the CMU policy.
The point I was trying to make was that CMU's posted policy has NO legal weight in this matter at all.
Yes it does. The students affected would be in good position to take civil action against CMU. A case could even be made for criminal action.
All I'm trying to say is that *legally, I can't see any way that they broke a law.
Perhaps, but I don't see most posters here claiming that CMU broke the law. The ethical/moral side of this is as or more interesting than the legal side of the debate, and subjective discussion is what Slashdot is all about.
Since when is it considered 'breaking in' when you 'try' to turn the doorknob?
It is. Try trying the doorknob for a few classified military sites and see what happens. A hacking attempt does not have to be succesful to be one.
And as I pointed out earlier, even if a computer is left unprotected, attempting to access a computer without the consent of the owner is still an intrusion.
and every place you can think of with announcements saying, "Come visit our web site, enter the password 'money4you' on the correct page and get $50 off your next purchase!", are each of those people "breaking in" to the web site? They have to try ("guess") the password in order to see if it lets them in.
This isn't analogous to the situation with CMU at all. In this case, viewers are explicitly invited to enter a particular password at a particular site.
Although a password like 'mp3' may be commonplace, it is not on the level of an explicit invitation.
CMU's computing policy is nothing more than a POLICY for its *STUDENTS*.
No. Go read the computing policy:
"Every member of Carnegie Mellon has two basic rights: privacy and a fair share of resources. It is unethical for any other person to violate these rights."
What people seem to be objecting to is the *legal* ramifications of CMU's efforts
No. It is a violation of their own computing policy, because the policy applies to all members of the CMU community. It's also probably in violation of a couple of state laws -- the students would be in a good position to sue.
Purely legal ramifications aside, it's completely unacceptable conduct for an academic institution with CMU's reputation.
But how would they know that the password was mp3? By attempting to guess the password i.e. breaking into the computer! I can similarly argue that by using an obvious password like 'password', you're actually making your computer public -- this wouldn't hold up anywhere I know.
If you read CMU's computing policy, it says very clearly that one may not attempt to access a computing resource unless it is made *explicitly* public, or that the the owner gives *express* permission. *Explicit* and *Express* permission -- these are the actual words used, and impose very stringent conditions that were not met here.
My own University's computing code of conduct goes so far as to say that even if a computer is left unprotected (analogous to an unlocked door), it would still be a violation to attempt to access the computer. Clearly CMU's policy should be read in this spirit.
Well so if someone protects his server with a password of 'passowrd', does that mean that I can legally access his computer?
The law is clear on this -- the difficulty of guessing a password has no bearing on the legality of hacking into someone else's computer.
I've no doubt you're right about Sun being a fragmented schizo, but at the same time, I don't see any evidence for the anti-Linux/pro-Solaris conspiracy.
Sun's treatment of the Linux port seems no different from its treatment of other ports, namely: outsource the ports to parties with a vested interest in the particular OS. So IBM does the AIX port, HP does the HP/UX port, etc. Things get tricky with Linux, but letting an informal group of Linux developers do the port seems about right. I'm not saying Sun couldn't do more of course -- I'd love to see Java 2 much much more widely available than it is now, but I don't see any evidence for special discrimination against Linux.
Don't forget that Sun think that they're in a difficult position because of the Linux vs Solaris issue, so inevitably there will be internal pressure from some of their divisions *not* to help out the Linux scene too much. In contrast, adding value to little ol' Be holds no danger for them.
This is an absurd argument.
Firstly, having Java on Linux will not make or break Solaris. It may however, make or break Java (since the value of Java depends on greatly on its cross platform capabilities). So it makes sense for them to support ports to Linux, and to as many other platforms as possible -- including rival Unix platforms, which they do (like AIX which is presents much more serious competition to Solaris as a high end server OS than Linux).
Secondly, if Sun thought that supporting Java on Linux would be a detriment to them, they would not allow or support a port. So either they support the port, or they don't. Half measures don't make sense either way.
Their treatment of the Linux port is no different from their treatment of other ports (other than the key Windows and Solaris versions) i.e. outsource the ports to 3rd parties, simply because Sun doesn't have the resources to make so many ports directly.
Fine, it's different and more limited than Netscape's roaming profiles.
Nonetheless, it is incorrect to say that IE does not support roaming profiles.
Read the thread again, and tell me what does this have to do with the original topic? I was merely pointing out to the original poster that IE does support roaming profiles.
Swing takes out the native components and replaces them with components with a look and feel that is standardized across platforms.
I don't think this is necessarily a good thing: Windows users want applications with a Windows look and feel, Mac users want applications with a Mac look and feel, etc. Using Swing makes the application look odd and out of place -- something users are very sensitive to.
(newton believed in alchemy and other strange things near the end of his life).
Newton had always believed in alchemy, and not just towards the end of his life. I don't think this is counts against him (like many people do), but rather, is a sign of his greatness - he was willing to explore areas that other people thought were absurd.
Netscape created the JavaScript standard, so maybe it's IE mucking about it. CSS works great in Mozilla. Try for yourself.
This may surprise you, but IE actually supports some of the standards that NS created better than NS itself does. I've been developing an app that uses the NS invented Liveconnect API (which lets Java communicate with Javascript), and amazingly enough, IE5 works much better with than Netscape (and I'm following the documentation on the NS site religously).
It's actually an NT feature (I'm not sure whether 9x can do this). Basically each user's profile, which can contain stuff like the desktop configuration (desktop icons, wallpaper,etc) and software configuration (including IE), is stored on a server, and when you log on to a machine, your profile is downloaded -- it works very well, almost like having your own computer in a public lab.
How does not being comfortable with women make one sexy?
P.S You sound like a great girl! Dump your boyfriend and go out with me instead!
You're asking the wrong people buddy. If any of us here had a clue, we wouldn't be posting on Slashdot on a Saturday night would we :(
It sounds like they want to control who can use it
They aren't controlling who can use it. By putting the code under GPL, they're just making sure no one else can take away someone else's right to use and modify it (by making modifications, then selling it in binary only format).
If the commercial entities were willing to redistribute the source for any changes they made, there would be no problem.
One of the main reasons IE works so well with the windows operating system is because both systems are made by the same company.
1. Most apps on windows aren't as horribly buggy as Netscape. Most companies can, even without access to the Windows source code, write programs that aren't horribly broken.
According to your logic, Mozilla will never be as good as IE since the Mozilla team doesn't have access to the windows source code?
2. Netscape is buggy on all platforms, even on platforms like Linux where NS has access to the source code, and can presumably make use of this to hunt down bugs.
I don't understand these posts which say that Mozilla, in its current state, is better than IE. Everytime I try Mozilla, there are pages which work fine in both IE and NS, but which Mozilla doesn't render correctly. And Mozilla inevitably crashes after I spend any time using it.
Are you sure Mozilla is really better than IE? I assume you're using windows (since you claim that it 'kicks that pants off IE'), so our user experience can't be that different..
Roaming profiles work just fine on IE. My university computer lab uses this.
What if they were indifferent towards the issue of copyrights, but broke the security simply to show that it could be done? Would this be legal or illegal then?
I can't imagine breaking a cryptographic scheme could be illegal. Cryptographers do that all the time.
You need to address the issue - ie: why did I kill you? instead of passing a law saying it's wrong. The latter will not stop me. Education will. Which one is the cheap solution, and which one is the best solution? I'll let you be the judge
Both are important parts of the solution. The fact that you're punished for breaking the law has an important deterrent effect. Education alone won't do -- there'll always be people so lacking in moral virtue, willing to steal and kill if there were no penalties (even with penalties, there are *still* people who break the law).