I don't expect anyone will get jailed for DoS-ing my broadband connection. So whose computers does it apply to ? Only those belonging to the rich and powerful ?
A flawed conclusion from a flawed reason.
Why wouldn't do you think the law would protect you? If someone did DoS your broadband, then yes, they could be charged as a criminal. I don't know how else it could be.
I'd have to say the REAL damage is in the bandwidth of the site, the potential loss of customers, etc. Besides, the point is not really about the damage, it's about the intent. The law is designed to discourage the intention to do certain things. The DoS attacks show that you are intending to cause harm. The question isn't so much "Why should it be illegal?", so much as "Why shouldn't it?" It isn't a good thing; It's a manifestation of malicious intent.
Defacing a web page just requires some one to reload another copy. no real world harm is done.
I think these types of crimes deserve not more penalties than tagging a wall, or dressing up some ones yard with toilet paper.
The problem with tagging some sites is that they can get millions of hits per day. Down time can cost a helluva lot. It would be more like vandalising voting booths on election day; Lots and lots of people would be inconvenienced.
I hear so many of these little loopholes/inconsistencies/unconstitutional sections/etc, yet I never hear of any of them working out. I hope for all our sakes that you are right about DRM being illegal. However my question is this: do you honestly think anything will come of this? Is it that there isn't enough will or money for a class action suit against companies that use DRM? Does it get overlooked because it's such a common practice? Why do these things never eventuate into the radical change they have the potential to be?
What would stop the EFF, for example, taking a suit against these companies?
Ahh, but that's where a beautiful thing like the Windows Vista EULA comes into play! Disagree with something in the EULA! Anything! Take your pick! It isn't hard. There's so much wrong with it, so it shouldn't be hard. Disagree with the licence, return the OS, demand your money back, take em to court if you have to, and then, no more "windows tax".
I'm sorry, but most of those have a rather large "meh" factor. Custom soundtracks and downloadable games (is this what you meant by Nintendo copycatting?) sound like the best parts about it. It's especially funny that you devoted two points to unified profile/settings. Exactly how many games are you planning to configure?
Not really, since MS would have taken the bundling action before such a market existed.
And if they refused to stop bundling? Would they legally have to cease and desist? If they do, I would call that a victory for the legal system over common sense. A program that is used constantly in windows being forced to become significantly less efficient.
Besides, given the US court system it is a poor investment. It takes most companies half a decade to get their settlement from MS.
That is NOT a defence for the law. The fact that it is possible is enough, and financial disincentives/loopholes/ineffectualness of the law are no reason not to change the law. Quite the opposite in fact.
People aren't going to wise up
Oh no? Certainly not in the near future, granted, but later, when computer illiteracy is all but gone, finding alternative software will be commonplace. My point was basically that Microsoft shouldn't be held responsible for that level of ignorance. I accept that most people aren't currently able to see past IE and WMP, but I think that can and will change.
Your proposal is that a law regarding economics and restricting abuses that damage everyone should have a special case for one technological area. You have not, however, shown any way in which this market is fundamentally different from other markets to warrant such a special case and all you examples have dealt with non-monopolies.
It isn't a special case. It's all about definitions. Is Windows a series of separate products, bundled together? Or is it software broken up, for technical reasons, into separate executables, but still a single product? Would you be prepared to stifle necessary features and/or make the entire OS unworkably inefficient? That's the reason for the special case. Very few would buy Windows if it were any less efficient, or had significantly less features. The law could kill Windows, or any other piece of software fortunate/good enough to have a monopoly. It would therefore be hindering progress in that particular market, more than encouraging it.
It seems that you object more to the monopoly, rather than what it does or what it bundles. That's a subject for a different thread.
And therein lies the failure of democracy. The government is, in some ways, too important for the average person to vote for. That said, democracy is better than the alternative.
On the other hand, intelligence allows you to work well with the information you receive. You can form intelligent opinions, filter out the FUD and the BS, etc. If you are ignorant, you don't have the data in the first place. It's no use shifting the power from the less intelligent and informed to the smart and the ignorant.
Not that I really believe in smart/dumb or informed/ignorant. It all seems so relative these days, and seems largely dependant on who you agree with.
If you disagree with something in the article, if you think it is/isn't FUD, post a reply! That's what the comment section is for. Seriously, if you can't think of anything objective to tag, then don't tag at all. And don't even get me started on mods.
For those new to Slashdot who are wondering what's wrong:
Slashdot is a tough place. We all do our best, but every now and again, someone mentally cracks and posts a long and desperate rant. And to support them, other Slashdotters mod them -1 Flamebait.
Anyone who has the most convincing evidence, the largest support, etc. Their funding source shouldn't really have anything to do with it. Keep it in mind, but don't let it blind you to the other side of the argument. Biased research can find evidence too.
Environmentalism (which this is not an exercise of) is not about combating symptoms of bad environmental practice, but about stopping doing it in the first place! In all our history of stuff-ups, screw-ups, and short-sightedness, one thing seems to ring true about the environment: it works the best if you just leave it alone (as much as feasibly possible). What about other factors, such as the necessary UV radiation that comes from the sun? We need it for our daily vitamin D. What about plants, using the sunlight for photosynthesis? Don't we need photosynthesis to breath, and thus survive?
Please, for the sake of the Earth, no more stopgap cheapskate measures.
People with reasonable sense of life will not trust complete strangers.
People with a reasonable sense of life realise that somewhere along the line, they will have to trust something. This will, in 99%+ of cases results in trusting a stranger. It really can't be helped. If you wanted to verify it, where would you turn? To an encyclopaedia, or textbook? Another "complete stranger" information source?
Any information from complete stranger (on the street, or from the wikipedia, what's the difference?) is just that - a information to consider. Ignore it, or verify if it's true before making some real use of it.
The difference between Wikipedia and some complete stranger on the street is that Wikipedia is monitored by many, many people, and problems are often noticed relatively quickly, if not rectified. I think this earns a little more trust than some stranger on the street.
OTOH dumb people will always get what they deserve...How come, dumb people can expect to be being protected from complete strangers. And by whom? By other stragers?
"Dumb" people, as you define them, can expect protection because that is what society is for. We have laws against people screwing over other people for most cases. Unfortunately, the Internet can be a bit of a lawless medium, and strangers will screw over other strangers. However, the vast majority of people on the Internet don't want to screw over each other, and Wikipedia is designed to take advantage of that general goodwill. I guess if you only listen to the negative feedback about the Internet, you're bound to get that cynical.
A piece of advice: saying "only real [insert any profession/hobby] do [something]" sounds a bit like you feel the need to prove yourself. And believe me, that is not good here on/.
If there were a market for a rendering engine alternative for explorer.exe, that would be against antitrust law, right? Microsoft would no longer legally be able to distribute the whole explorer.exe, and the core window manager suddenly needs to become modular, completely contrary to what is best technically. If there currently isn't a market, I could make it a market by developing my own rendering engine, or by just porting nautilus to windows. Could I then sue MS for millions for stifling me as the competition, and by locking users out of competing window managers? Forgetting the more logical applications for the law, doesn't this kind of strike you as illogical?
You have it backwards.
Maybe, or the entire thing is reversible. Software is designed to do many things. Software packages are designed for the same purpose, just making it easier for the developers and more efficient for the user's system. IMHO the laws should be revised for software. It would be like suing a office machine company for manufacturing and distributing an all-in-one printer/scanner/photocopier/fax/phone. Why the hell didn't they make it modular? Or maybe, they consider the entire thing an individual product. A market unto itself.
Most people who rip CDs, rip them to DRM-encumbered WMF files...It took IE what, 5 years to get tabs after everyone else?
Those are real problems with the abuse of antitrust, which I respect. However, for the sake of consistency, I think the OS should be considered a single, but modular product. If people want tabs or mp3s, they've got to wise up. It isn't that hard to find and download an alternative. I realise that people will be this way until the computer generation take over the Earth, and I realise that MS is taking advantage of this to a certain extent, but I still believe them to be part of the OS. You don't like it, don't use it, or find another OS.
Like I said, I know the reason for antitrust laws. It's obviously a no-brainer in the case of your particularly informative and appropriate analogy. Windows, on the other hand, is primarily a bundle of software designed to run on an x86 machine. It contains several executables and libraries of differing importance to the OS. Unlike bread and electricity, there are real (technical) reasons why these pieces of software work better together. Windows pretty much needs a browser, just like a media player, just like a window manager, just like standard drivers, etc. This gives them two real options: make one themselves, or licence one off some other company, at their potential cost. It is cleaner, smarter, more convenient to include their own browser. Similarly with a media player.
Let's change the scale a little and concentrate on explorer.exe. It renders an image based upon what's in the folder it's trying to display. It also displays the path in a text box up in the tool bar. Could you sue MS since they implemented their own rendering engine into explorer.exe without opportunity for changing it with some other rendering engine? I mean, the program has (at least) two separable parts to it: the renderer and the text box. Would it be against antitrust laws? If so, how can any program with any level of complexity be legal to distribute?
Finally, doesn't the fact that Microsoft doesn't lock you out of alternative media players/web browsers make a difference? They bundle for convenience (competitive measures), but they don't refuse alternatives (anti-competitive measures).
It seems you would rather let the law strangle out features of software, which is not the law's intention.
It's so true! It's all so true! There's nothing we can do!
Or maybe, the world will, slightly later than it would be preferred, actually change. Society has already changed so much, and is now more environmentally conscious than ever, but we still have a long way to go. Are you that depressed enough to believe that we will simply continue this trend until the last human keels over and dies?
Our resources will shift focus to something less depleted. Our number one priority will be efficiency. If people start dying from starvation, all it means is more resources for the rest. We will survive, but times will be hard. Electricity, if it exists in the same form as it does today, will be considerably more expensive, like food and water. Our lifestyle may become completely different, depending on how quickly the world acts.
So while we try to save the world, you can keep sticking mental pins into yourself, agonising about this subject until you go crazy. By the sound of your post, that is in 3...2...1...
And at some point in history, everything the government stands for will be unpopular. We change, the government of the people, by the people, for the people will change to match. Current trends will not matter over that period of time.
Slashdot Mirror
Why wouldn't do you think the law would protect you? If someone did DoS your broadband, then yes, they could be charged as a criminal. I don't know how else it could be.
The problem with tagging some sites is that they can get millions of hits per day. Down time can cost a helluva lot. It would be more like vandalising voting booths on election day; Lots and lots of people would be inconvenienced.
I hear so many of these little loopholes/inconsistencies/unconstitutional sections/etc, yet I never hear of any of them working out. I hope for all our sakes that you are right about DRM being illegal. However my question is this: do you honestly think anything will come of this? Is it that there isn't enough will or money for a class action suit against companies that use DRM? Does it get overlooked because it's such a common practice? Why do these things never eventuate into the radical change they have the potential to be?
What would stop the EFF, for example, taking a suit against these companies?
Ahh, but that's where a beautiful thing like the Windows Vista EULA comes into play! Disagree with something in the EULA! Anything! Take your pick! It isn't hard. There's so much wrong with it, so it shouldn't be hard. Disagree with the licence, return the OS, demand your money back, take em to court if you have to, and then, no more "windows tax".
576 scanlines should be enough for anyone.
I'm sorry, but most of those have a rather large "meh" factor. Custom soundtracks and downloadable games (is this what you meant by Nintendo copycatting?) sound like the best parts about it. It's especially funny that you devoted two points to unified profile/settings. Exactly how many games are you planning to configure?
You clearly don't know anything. Let me break it down for you:
Democracy = Liberals' Paradise
Nothing else.
Notice I didn't use the "==" operator.
Jeez, you started late!
...these kind of people will never need to think more than a year into the future?
That is NOT a defence for the law. The fact that it is possible is enough, and financial disincentives/loopholes/ineffectualness of the law are no reason not to change the law. Quite the opposite in fact.
Oh no? Certainly not in the near future, granted, but later, when computer illiteracy is all but gone, finding alternative software will be commonplace. My point was basically that Microsoft shouldn't be held responsible for that level of ignorance. I accept that most people aren't currently able to see past IE and WMP, but I think that can and will change.
It isn't a special case. It's all about definitions. Is Windows a series of separate products, bundled together? Or is it software broken up, for technical reasons, into separate executables, but still a single product? Would you be prepared to stifle necessary features and/or make the entire OS unworkably inefficient? That's the reason for the special case. Very few would buy Windows if it were any less efficient, or had significantly less features. The law could kill Windows, or any other piece of software fortunate/good enough to have a monopoly. It would therefore be hindering progress in that particular market, more than encouraging it.
It seems that you object more to the monopoly, rather than what it does or what it bundles. That's a subject for a different thread.
And therein lies the failure of democracy. The government is, in some ways, too important for the average person to vote for. That said, democracy is better than the alternative.
Not that I really believe in smart/dumb or informed/ignorant. It all seems so relative these days, and seems largely dependant on who you agree with.
If you disagree with something in the article, if you think it is/isn't FUD, post a reply! That's what the comment section is for. Seriously, if you can't think of anything objective to tag, then don't tag at all. And don't even get me started on mods.
That said, I kinda like the "itsatrap" tag.
For those new to Slashdot who are wondering what's wrong:
Slashdot is a tough place. We all do our best, but every now and again, someone mentally cracks and posts a long and desperate rant. And to support them, other Slashdotters mod them -1 Flamebait.
DISCLAIMER: I am a global warming supporter.
...but not all that surprised.
Environmentalism (which this is not an exercise of) is not about combating symptoms of bad environmental practice, but about stopping doing it in the first place! In all our history of stuff-ups, screw-ups, and short-sightedness, one thing seems to ring true about the environment: it works the best if you just leave it alone (as much as feasibly possible). What about other factors, such as the necessary UV radiation that comes from the sun? We need it for our daily vitamin D. What about plants, using the sunlight for photosynthesis? Don't we need photosynthesis to breath, and thus survive?
Please, for the sake of the Earth, no more stopgap cheapskate measures.
The difference between Wikipedia and some complete stranger on the street is that Wikipedia is monitored by many, many people, and problems are often noticed relatively quickly, if not rectified. I think this earns a little more trust than some stranger on the street.
"Dumb" people, as you define them, can expect protection because that is what society is for. We have laws against people screwing over other people for most cases. Unfortunately, the Internet can be a bit of a lawless medium, and strangers will screw over other strangers. However, the vast majority of people on the Internet don't want to screw over each other, and Wikipedia is designed to take advantage of that general goodwill. I guess if you only listen to the negative feedback about the Internet, you're bound to get that cynical.
"When you steal from one author, it's plagarism. When you steal from many, it's research."
- Wilson Mizner
A piece of advice: saying "only real [insert any profession/hobby] do [something]" sounds a bit like you feel the need to prove yourself. And believe me, that is not good here on /.
Don't post that disclaimer again! If you do, it'll start appearing in 90% of /. posts!
Maybe, or the entire thing is reversible. Software is designed to do many things. Software packages are designed for the same purpose, just making it easier for the developers and more efficient for the user's system. IMHO the laws should be revised for software. It would be like suing a office machine company for manufacturing and distributing an all-in-one printer/scanner/photocopier/fax/phone. Why the hell didn't they make it modular? Or maybe, they consider the entire thing an individual product. A market unto itself.
Those are real problems with the abuse of antitrust, which I respect. However, for the sake of consistency, I think the OS should be considered a single, but modular product. If people want tabs or mp3s, they've got to wise up. It isn't that hard to find and download an alternative. I realise that people will be this way until the computer generation take over the Earth, and I realise that MS is taking advantage of this to a certain extent, but I still believe them to be part of the OS. You don't like it, don't use it, or find another OS.
Like I said, I know the reason for antitrust laws. It's obviously a no-brainer in the case of your particularly informative and appropriate analogy. Windows, on the other hand, is primarily a bundle of software designed to run on an x86 machine. It contains several executables and libraries of differing importance to the OS. Unlike bread and electricity, there are real (technical) reasons why these pieces of software work better together. Windows pretty much needs a browser, just like a media player, just like a window manager, just like standard drivers, etc. This gives them two real options: make one themselves, or licence one off some other company, at their potential cost. It is cleaner, smarter, more convenient to include their own browser. Similarly with a media player.
Let's change the scale a little and concentrate on explorer.exe. It renders an image based upon what's in the folder it's trying to display. It also displays the path in a text box up in the tool bar. Could you sue MS since they implemented their own rendering engine into explorer.exe without opportunity for changing it with some other rendering engine? I mean, the program has (at least) two separable parts to it: the renderer and the text box. Would it be against antitrust laws? If so, how can any program with any level of complexity be legal to distribute?
Finally, doesn't the fact that Microsoft doesn't lock you out of alternative media players/web browsers make a difference? They bundle for convenience (competitive measures), but they don't refuse alternatives (anti-competitive measures).
It seems you would rather let the law strangle out features of software, which is not the law's intention.
It's so true! It's all so true! There's nothing we can do!
Or maybe, the world will, slightly later than it would be preferred, actually change. Society has already changed so much, and is now more environmentally conscious than ever, but we still have a long way to go. Are you that depressed enough to believe that we will simply continue this trend until the last human keels over and dies?
Our resources will shift focus to something less depleted. Our number one priority will be efficiency. If people start dying from starvation, all it means is more resources for the rest. We will survive, but times will be hard. Electricity, if it exists in the same form as it does today, will be considerably more expensive, like food and water. Our lifestyle may become completely different, depending on how quickly the world acts.
So while we try to save the world, you can keep sticking mental pins into yourself, agonising about this subject until you go crazy. By the sound of your post, that is in 3...2...1...
And at some point in history, everything the government stands for will be unpopular. We change, the government of the people, by the people, for the people will change to match. Current trends will not matter over that period of time.