If cracking a DVD is still illegal, then does is this kinda like the right for a man to bear children. We can't actually do it, but we now have the right:) ?
Senate to propose new law, legalising childbirth. News at 11.
...that the DMCA anti-circumvention laws only apply to copyrighted content, not public domain works. Still, it is illegal to distribute circumvention technology. Will we have to wait for the DVD to go the way of the projector before we can distribute libcss?
I know practically nothing on this subject, but I was under the impression that heat was ambient vibrations (i.e. kinetic energy) in matter, and the unfocussed nature of this energy made it hard to convert into electricity.
I'm also under the impression that, if this invention is efficient to reduce the net heat in the surrounds, it will cut inefficiencies to insignificant levels. Would I be correct in assuming this, and if not, why not?
If you have surrendered your capacity to take decisions, to think for yourself, and to control your own destiny, then you are oppressed (according to Marx and others).
Do you seriously think that society has surrendered control over their life, and their ability to think for themselves? I can think of several places over time that are much, much worse in these respects than the US (which I'm assuming you are referring to). Don't you think that the US deserves at least some credit for the liberties that it protects, rather than its numerous restrictions? I certainly consider US citizens relatively un-oppressed, but that's just me.
It's ignorant to think that, by teaching to a very narrow test, we are preparing students for the real world.
That brings up an important question. Would you really want the school to teach your children and to test your children on how to operate in the real world? Should that be something parents should be responsible for, teaching values and the like?
I find that much of the anti-global-warming opinion (in everyday people, not Big Oil lackeys) stems from the view that it's better to be the cynic who was wrong than the sucker who was wrong, that they don't want to be part of the herd.
Unfortunately, this isn't just their planet. It is selfish to not take (or support other people when they take) action just because there is no conclusive proof yet. If you are that worried about being a sheep, keep in mind that most of the official opposition are funded directly or indirectly by Big Oil, and that scientists who promote global warming stand to gain nothing but a better environment.
Why have the police lost the implicit moral authority they used to have?
Police lost their moral authority when we said they lost their moral authority. When we started disagreeing with the government and police, starting properly more or less at the Vietnam war. When we started attacking their jobs and ideals. When our culture started to portray police as "the bad guys". After that, a mutual distrust formed. Now, Britain has cameras surveying police and citizens, rather than each cutting each other some slack.
My opinion is that if it takes Joe three years to invent product X, but it takes Leroy 1 week to reverse-engineer product X, then Joe has been out-competed by the simple fact that his time is worth a lot less by direct market value, since Leroy's time can produce the same product in 1 week. Joe, therefore, is not entitled to out-compete Leroy in the marketplace, unless he can do it with downstream mechanisms (customer service, add ons, games, etc.) Even though Joe invested three years.
Interesting. I'm interpreting that as "trivial intellectual property doesn't need to be protected", and trivial is defined by the amount of time it takes to reverse engineer. Since when has intellectual property been measured by the amount of time taken to reproduce? Since when has any legal issue been based on such an arbitrary value, like the time it takes some random guy to reproduce an invention?
Taking your example of Joe and Leroy, how would that apply to music and the copyright system? If Leroy takes weeks/months/years to produce an album, and Joe could make a one-to-one copy instantly, does that morally justify Leroy's loss of the competitive edge? In fact, it's more than just competitive edge. With the Internet, pretty much all its value is lost, due to the unlimited supply of copies. Any value of initial investments are instantly gone with the abundance of free supply. Do you really think that any creative/design industries would survive?
I'm guessing you are opposed to legal intellectual property, especially with the emphasis on the free market principles, and the aversion to lawyers. If I'm guessing, assuming, and interpreting correctly, let me just say that I disagree. Intellectual property needs to be protected. It can be so easily reproduced, and it has extremely fragile, but still very valid value. People are willing to pay for it, people spend their time and their money on it. If you do not protect it legally, the value will all but disappear, and you will discourage invention, stagnate technology, and severely disadvantage society. To stop intellectual property laws because it benefits the rich at the expense of the poor is to cut off your nose despite your face.
Nintendo was affected only in the sense that the window of opportunity they tried to create was closed. I don't have a problem with this.
The example wasn't about the purpose of the technology, it was about how the technology can fail dismally if it simply stays as a trade secret. Regardless of what Nintendo intended, they developed a technology that proved useless very soon after release. If it weren't for the DMCA (or whatever covers hardware DRM), they would stand to lose significant profits. It probably took a long time to develop, and probably took very little time to undo. Does this make it trivial?
I guess what bugs me most about your system is how easy it could be to become obsolete in the market you created. There seems to be no recognition for those who worked hard to come up with an original thought, but lost the baton to someone who is even more rich and who is pouring resources into outclassing the inventor. In that respect, your system is more geared to the rich. For that reason, I can't see people and companies alike participating.
Re:The article title was pretty accurate.
on
The Wii Disassembled
·
· Score: 2, Funny
If seeing the Wii disassembled isn't news to you, then why on earth would you click the link, let alone post in the discussion?
I have no doubt that trade secrets have served you well. However, I don't think that it will suit every invention, for everyone. Some inventions can take years, and the inventor certainly doesn't want someone to reverse engineer it as soon as it's sold. If it is, there is no legal backlash. Society has no problem with leeching ideas of other people. I believe that society needs to pay at least lip service to intellectual property, to show that they endorse it. Otherwise, creating anything major could become almost valueless.
Take, for example, the Nintendo DS. It has protection built in to prevent unlicensed code from being run on its hardware. However, soon after it's release, devices that allow people to bypass this protection and run unsigned code appeared on the market. Nintendo spent a lot of time developing the DS, and the main revenue stream is through licences. I know it would be a blatant lie to tell you that it destroyed them, but it did damage them. Fat lot of good the trade secret did there.
Inventing is a nearly cost-free process.
What about things that take time? To use the old saying, time is money. And if inventing is cost-free, it at least takes time. Why should we rest our society's innovations on people's spare time? Companies aren't going to touch them; it isn't nearly worth their time. Besides, there would be a lot of redundant time spent on inventions that exist or are about to exist. That's one thing that patents can also help.
My point is that patents are too much protection...It has been perverted to do so, one of its many problems
I agree with you there. What we need is real prior art protection. Protection that allows people to overturn patent infringement lawsuits with evidence of prior art, even if the patent has already been granted. We also need to do away with submarine patents, patents without a working prototype, restrict patent infringement cases to commercial uses only, and make exceptions for the government.
I hope you realise that your entire post is one big cliché. I personally don't hold much stock in this "corporations and rich folks trying to keep us down" crap. What are the rich supposed to do? Stop inventing and taking advantage of the law? The only reason why it looks like a rich vs poor matter is that mainly the rich can afford to invent. That's a great way of encouraging invention: to discourage the rich to invent, and to rely on the average person, with a full-time job, generally without qualification, to invent and to innovate in the absence of the rich.
The fact that this suppresses creative thought is a side-effect
The fact that it suppresses creative thought* is balanced by the fact that it's the one thing that is keeping the business of invention and innovation alive. Would you prefer it dead, or sick?
it is called "trade secret."
What kind of protection is that? It's not legally enforced, meaning that society has no problem with people completely nullifying the value of the inventor's initial investment. It's not secure, since it's simply security through obscurity. It would be like, for example, if MS were to say that Windows is more secure than Linux due to the fact that hackers can see Linux's code. Surely, as a/.er, you can see the sense in that.
[patents] (a) only injures the general public and so (b) is not of concern to either the government, the corporations or the rich.
Rubbish. They only injure the general public if you completely ignore what they have done for society. They have done some pretty terrible things too, but I, for one, don't think that they should be judged by their shortfalls. Sort of like how the car is ruining the global climate, dimming the globe, sucking up our oil reserves, and costing many people their lives, but they have done something wonderful for our culture. That's how we appreciate cars.
The problems inherent in patents are a concern to the government. It affects their electorate and themselves on a personal level. I vaguely recall some/. stories about the government having some troubles with some patented technology that they wanted to use. I don't see how it doesn't apply to them.
* I'm not sure that the term "creative thought" is fair. Patents do have an effect on the "creative thought" process, but it isn't one of stifling, but one of inspiration. There's nothing illegal about mentally developing on an idea that someone patented.
On the flip side though, it may spell doom for small businesses trying to find a fair playing field against the giant almost monopolistic corporations out there.
I much prefer it to the "They made it but I want it so I'm entitled to it" theory so pervasive on Slashdot.
I hear ya. Just an innocent question though, anyone out there with a "They made it, but I want it, so screw moral justification, I'll just pirate it" attitude?
It just seems that people are getting so tied up in consistent moral policy that they're missing the good stuff in life.
I disagree with the implication that the record industry is simply buying legal support. I don't think they need to financially support lawmakers to get what they want; I think they can be persuasive enough without throwing lots of semi-legit funding at them.
Think about it. Most people don't use or need their fair trade rights. Most simply put the CD in the player, or download and play the music on the PC. They don't know how to rip music, to back up CDs or other music files, format shift, etc. God knows, the record industry has made it hard enough. All they need to do is whisper in the appropriate ear, tell it that most decent people don't use these rights, and that only H4XXX0RZ format shift. They just whisper that it will prevent more injustices than it will cause, that the music is rightfully theirs, that the industry will suffer if there is no intervention.
Think the law as more ignorant than corrupt. But hey, most people are ignorant, and the law simply reflects that.
As if Vista won't fail on its own merits. Doesn't need new DRM to do that.
Umm, no. It'll be hard enough for Vista to fail with DRM. After all, Windows is the standard, and there is plenty to like about the new OS. It'll be more secure (I know, I know, I'm not saying much), it'll be prettier (it's important), and it has "features" that are only available in Vista (such as sandboxed IE7, DirectX 10, etc). It'd be a fine OS, if it weren't so damn crippled. The reason why many of us here on/. want Vista to fail, is because we don't want this DRM to become standard.
Slashdot Mirror
Could you please elaborate or link to somewhere with more info?
...that the DMCA anti-circumvention laws only apply to copyrighted content, not public domain works. Still, it is illegal to distribute circumvention technology. Will we have to wait for the DVD to go the way of the projector before we can distribute libcss?
Theoretically, the device should get colder with use, as you draw heat from the surroundings, and convert it to electrical energy.
I'm also under the impression that, if this invention is efficient to reduce the net heat in the surrounds, it will cut inefficiencies to insignificant levels. Would I be correct in assuming this, and if not, why not?
Seriously, what's your point? Since when should an ideology be judged by the unrelated, hypocritical actions of isolated cases?
I find that much of the anti-global-warming opinion (in everyday people, not Big Oil lackeys) stems from the view that it's better to be the cynic who was wrong than the sucker who was wrong, that they don't want to be part of the herd.
Unfortunately, this isn't just their planet. It is selfish to not take (or support other people when they take) action just because there is no conclusive proof yet. If you are that worried about being a sheep, keep in mind that most of the official opposition are funded directly or indirectly by Big Oil, and that scientists who promote global warming stand to gain nothing but a better environment.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there something in the Vista EULA forbidding the use of virtualisation software with Vista?
I realise you probably don't care, but for those who do, this may not be a good solution.
Taking your example of Joe and Leroy, how would that apply to music and the copyright system? If Leroy takes weeks/months/years to produce an album, and Joe could make a one-to-one copy instantly, does that morally justify Leroy's loss of the competitive edge? In fact, it's more than just competitive edge. With the Internet, pretty much all its value is lost, due to the unlimited supply of copies. Any value of initial investments are instantly gone with the abundance of free supply. Do you really think that any creative/design industries would survive?
I'm guessing you are opposed to legal intellectual property, especially with the emphasis on the free market principles, and the aversion to lawyers. If I'm guessing, assuming, and interpreting correctly, let me just say that I disagree. Intellectual property needs to be protected. It can be so easily reproduced, and it has extremely fragile, but still very valid value. People are willing to pay for it, people spend their time and their money on it. If you do not protect it legally, the value will all but disappear, and you will discourage invention, stagnate technology, and severely disadvantage society. To stop intellectual property laws because it benefits the rich at the expense of the poor is to cut off your nose despite your face.
The example wasn't about the purpose of the technology, it was about how the technology can fail dismally if it simply stays as a trade secret. Regardless of what Nintendo intended, they developed a technology that proved useless very soon after release. If it weren't for the DMCA (or whatever covers hardware DRM), they would stand to lose significant profits. It probably took a long time to develop, and probably took very little time to undo. Does this make it trivial?
I guess what bugs me most about your system is how easy it could be to become obsolete in the market you created. There seems to be no recognition for those who worked hard to come up with an original thought, but lost the baton to someone who is even more rich and who is pouring resources into outclassing the inventor. In that respect, your system is more geared to the rich. For that reason, I can't see people and companies alike participating.
He obviously hates it.
Take, for example, the Nintendo DS. It has protection built in to prevent unlicensed code from being run on its hardware. However, soon after it's release, devices that allow people to bypass this protection and run unsigned code appeared on the market. Nintendo spent a lot of time developing the DS, and the main revenue stream is through licences. I know it would be a blatant lie to tell you that it destroyed them, but it did damage them. Fat lot of good the trade secret did there.
What about things that take time? To use the old saying, time is money. And if inventing is cost-free, it at least takes time. Why should we rest our society's innovations on people's spare time? Companies aren't going to touch them; it isn't nearly worth their time. Besides, there would be a lot of redundant time spent on inventions that exist or are about to exist. That's one thing that patents can also help.
I agree with you there. What we need is real prior art protection. Protection that allows people to overturn patent infringement lawsuits with evidence of prior art, even if the patent has already been granted. We also need to do away with submarine patents, patents without a working prototype, restrict patent infringement cases to commercial uses only, and make exceptions for the government.
The fact that it suppresses creative thought* is balanced by the fact that it's the one thing that is keeping the business of invention and innovation alive. Would you prefer it dead, or sick?
What kind of protection is that? It's not legally enforced, meaning that society has no problem with people completely nullifying the value of the inventor's initial investment. It's not secure, since it's simply security through obscurity. It would be like, for example, if MS were to say that Windows is more secure than Linux due to the fact that hackers can see Linux's code. Surely, as a
Rubbish. They only injure the general public if you completely ignore what they have done for society. They have done some pretty terrible things too, but I, for one, don't think that they should be judged by their shortfalls. Sort of like how the car is ruining the global climate, dimming the globe, sucking up our oil reserves, and costing many people their lives, but they have done something wonderful for our culture. That's how we appreciate cars.
The problems inherent in patents are a concern to the government. It affects their electorate and themselves on a personal level. I vaguely recall some
* I'm not sure that the term "creative thought" is fair. Patents do have an effect on the "creative thought" process, but it isn't one of stifling, but one of inspiration. There's nothing illegal about mentally developing on an idea that someone patented.
Umm.....ahhh.....err...Can you....no....errm....can you provide...ahh...ummm....a link....please?
Maybe that will be incentive enough for those lazy-ass /. editors to change the Bill Gates icon.
It just seems that people are getting so tied up in consistent moral policy that they're missing the good stuff in life.
I disagree with the implication that the record industry is simply buying legal support. I don't think they need to financially support lawmakers to get what they want; I think they can be persuasive enough without throwing lots of semi-legit funding at them.
Think about it. Most people don't use or need their fair trade rights. Most simply put the CD in the player, or download and play the music on the PC. They don't know how to rip music, to back up CDs or other music files, format shift, etc. God knows, the record industry has made it hard enough. All they need to do is whisper in the appropriate ear, tell it that most decent people don't use these rights, and that only H4XXX0RZ format shift. They just whisper that it will prevent more injustices than it will cause, that the music is rightfully theirs, that the industry will suffer if there is no intervention.
Think the law as more ignorant than corrupt. But hey, most people are ignorant, and the law simply reflects that.
Nah, that can't be right. I'm sure society has patents simply to suppress creative thought.