The problem is that it doesn't work when selling to multiple clients. At first the software doesn't exist and your client needs to pay to make it exist. But then the client can do whatever they want with the product including giving it away or even selling it to bolster their profits a bit, easily undercutting your prices. Yeah a new customer needs to buy from you if it wants custom work done on it, but that doesn't happen for a lot of types of software.
Because frankly, those sites like Pirate Bay and others, they currently are what will save our ecomomy
I can't help but observe that most economists seem to think intervention in the area of 1 trillion dollars is necessary to "save the economy" and even the insane damages claims of the RIAA and MPAA don't come near to that number.
I have absolutely no issue with any employer finding anything I've put on the Internet; I have been careful to protect my reputation.
What good is free speech if you can't use it without getting fired? Why should a company care if some programmer in the trenches is spouting anarchist philosophy in his free time as long as he does his job? Do they own him?
Free speech definitely = anonymity. "You wouldn't want to stay anonymous unless you had something to hide" is twisted.. of course you have something to hide because society doesn't like your speech, but what kind of fear is that this is America it's right there in the first amendment! The problem of anonymity is with the offended masses, not with those with controvertial views. Sensible people either recognize the need for anonymity or encourage the anonymous to identify themselves, promising not to persecute them for their speech.
What? In America we have something called you shouldn't go to jail if you didn't do anything wrong. If you look out your window and someone's being stabbed you can pour a glass of lemonade and set out a lawn chair for all we care, you are not liable. See Duty to rescue. It doesn't go over the reasoning behind it, but this article does. It's pretty dense but I think the issue really boils down to beliefs about our responsibilities to each other. Although we do have welfare tacked on, we're at least supposedly a cold, heartless capitalist regime with no qualms about suppressing and exploiting the poor because that's their place.. unlike more socialist states like the EU. We can hardly feel completely inculpable if a poor person we pass every day starves (that's not to say many people wouldn't intervene) in this dog-eat-dog game of bottom lines without holding these kind of ideas about duty to rescue in more pressing circumstances.
Slashdot was even more heavily anti-MS a few years ago and there used to be withering sarcasm at any mention of "Shared Source"... not so sure about today.
That's because it was a pathetic attempt to Extend to the free software community and gain some brownie points with the snowballing number of people who think they're evil. In this case it's someone legitimitely interested in giving freedom and flexibility to his clients but not giving up his business by just giving his product away.
Why is it that you couldn't just say "as it is currently understood"? Obviously because it's not understood that way anymore. Copyright today bears very little resemblance to old copyright law. IANAL, but I read a book once.
I would hesitate to rely on copyright law. Since you're a developer you (should) know that everything gets copied everywhere a zillion times in the natural execution of the application code. This may be trivial but file formats and proprietary network protocols or APIs greatly complicate the issue. The way I understand it is that the idea of "licensing out" software instead of just selling it under existing contract of sale law is that you're granted a license to do all that copying and to freely copy created files in proprietary (new) formats across networks and on their hard drives.
I don't think rotting is in any sense combustion. Maybe they have some of the same end products, but decomposition is caused by bacteria, fungi, and insects, not energetic chemical reactions.. although individual cells destroy themselves with their own enzymes, that doesn't break down cells like combustion. Maybe you're thinking of rust, which is very slow oxidation (burning)?
For almost all applications you only need one file at a time -documents, source code, etc- and you don't have to "grab all your data" and anyway usually they're like 10k max each..
You're the moron. I don't mean passwording your windows user account. I mean that if you encrypt your data with a large key that you have to keep unencrypted, the key is likely going to be compromised with the encrypted data. The only really secure element of volume encryption is symmetric-encrypting the key itself with a password that is stored separately from the data (in people's brains). But then a cryptographic attack turns from iterating through a 2048-bit key to simply running a dictionary attack on the known encrypted key. In other words, your robust volume encryption solution is a house of cards resting on a simple password, exactly like keeping your sensitive documents on a secure server. (which isn't slow at all; ever heard of web applications like Google apps? You can use them over the internet. Over the local network can be a thousand times faster.) Well, with one important difference; a server can stop accepting passwords after 3 or 4 failures, while attackers could have a room full of computers running for days nonstop on the encrypted data.
Controlling access by hiding data behind intelligent daemons is always better than just encrypting it. As for working copies being compromised, you don't encrypt memory anyway on an encrypted volume so it's no different- just make sure you don't write it to the disk, or make sure you clean it up afterwards. You should never have to have a copy on the hard drive (windows page file is encrypted by a key that's stored only in memory, so it's irretrievable on reboot, right?); network access is ubiquitous, even on the road, and many organizations choose (and thrive on) a server-centric solution which necessitates network access to do any work at all on their data.. a small price for a huge gain in security. Full thin-client solutions are best of course but greedy on bandwidth and have many other drawbacks. But thick-clients can still have some of the benefits by checking out documents into memory and integrating the "save button" to uploading to the network. I know Visual Studio does this and I'm sure Office 2007 must also.
Why would you let even encrypted data be scattered around carelessly when you could just control access to it in the first place? Granted you have to control how clients behave, which is always very iffy, but you're definitely doing that anyway with volume encryption, trusting people not to leave any data around unencrypted (lol right). Of particular interest is that Trusted Computing platform; yes it's evil as applied to your personal computer and DRM, but it's exactly for this corporate-network situation that a way of controlling client software's access to the memory which holds sensitive data was devised. Don't kill me for this slashdot, but utilizing a TPM to restrict access to protected memory to only signed applications, and an OS that can give signed applications a secure operating environment, you can have end-to-end control of every copy of every piece of sensitive data.
Encrypt eveything? You're going to have to use (unencrypted) key pairs to access your data, which can be compromised just as easily as the hard drives they're protecting. You can encrypt your key with a password (I'm sure truecrypt supports this) but then you might as well just have used a password in the first place instead of encryption. I'm not saying that encryption won't make things more secure but it'll be an expensive headache with fewer absolute gains than what you'd think.
What you do is store sensitive material on secure servers and have people check out copies of material that they have access to. I'm sure keeping sensitive data off local hard drives would be easier than actually protecting all those hard drives.
Yeah I don't understand why you need to file for a patent at all. It's a protocol; once everyone agrees how they expect things to behave, what's there to buy or sell? Can protocols even be patented?.. Even if they can (and protecting a particular way for other peoples software to behave is ridiculous) then you don't need to worry about someone else patenting it as long as you've already written it up and dated it.
Of course you could just claim your phone speaker is broken. Most easily done if it actually is broken. The law doesn't prohibit you from sticking a screwdriver in the speakerphone..
The brain is probably better at looking at an image and instantly finding targets' heads, even with modern adaptive algorithms. And it's not like there's any way for the computer to actually move the rifle.
Who cares how you act? It's words; nothing you say is going to make someone's monitor explode in their face. This is the internet, not a town hall where only the person with the baton can speak.
It also encourages people to be able to speak freely without fear of persecution. Without anonymity it would be impossible for whistleblowers to out evil empire corps without losing their jobs and probably never being hired again. Without anonymity we wouldn't have vitriolic bloggers; we wouldn't have this fantastic forum of discourse where we can speak our minds and not worry about being smacked with a lawsuit (well, not including the video professor). It's like the original Forum of Greek polises (polisi? poli?)- no matter how crazy your ideas you can always find someone with whom to discuss them, and it made Greece better for it.
And anyway, non-anonymity is vapid and trite. Plastering your name over everything you do, waving your tiny banner as hard as you can trying to get people's attention and adoration.. it's pretty pathetic. Just toss in your little contribution and disappear into the crowd with the rest of us.
They each had a different color that they were drawing; seems pretty logical to me. And I certainly can't blame Google for showing off their collaborative features. I've never seen multiple people able to work on the same doc/spreadsheet at once.. the different color cursors is a brilliant idea.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that it doesn't work when selling to multiple clients. At first the software doesn't exist and your client needs to pay to make it exist. But then the client can do whatever they want with the product including giving it away or even selling it to bolster their profits a bit, easily undercutting your prices. Yeah a new customer needs to buy from you if it wants custom work done on it, but that doesn't happen for a lot of types of software.
I can't help but observe that most economists seem to think intervention in the area of 1 trillion dollars is necessary to "save the economy" and even the insane damages claims of the RIAA and MPAA don't come near to that number.
What good is free speech if you can't use it without getting fired? Why should a company care if some programmer in the trenches is spouting anarchist philosophy in his free time as long as he does his job? Do they own him?
Free speech definitely = anonymity. "You wouldn't want to stay anonymous unless you had something to hide" is twisted.. of course you have something to hide because society doesn't like your speech, but what kind of fear is that this is America it's right there in the first amendment! The problem of anonymity is with the offended masses, not with those with controvertial views. Sensible people either recognize the need for anonymity or encourage the anonymous to identify themselves, promising not to persecute them for their speech.
What? In America we have something called you shouldn't go to jail if you didn't do anything wrong. If you look out your window and someone's being stabbed you can pour a glass of lemonade and set out a lawn chair for all we care, you are not liable. See Duty to rescue. It doesn't go over the reasoning behind it, but this article does. It's pretty dense but I think the issue really boils down to beliefs about our responsibilities to each other. Although we do have welfare tacked on, we're at least supposedly a cold, heartless capitalist regime with no qualms about suppressing and exploiting the poor because that's their place.. unlike more socialist states like the EU. We can hardly feel completely inculpable if a poor person we pass every day starves (that's not to say many people wouldn't intervene) in this dog-eat-dog game of bottom lines without holding these kind of ideas about duty to rescue in more pressing circumstances.
Actually
Or proffesor
That's preposterous, copyright infringement is illegal but "aiding" people in copyright infringement is not. It's that simple.
Just because it's an exothermic reaction doesn't make it combustion and the actual combustion in that case is incidental.
And cells aren't respiring when they're dead.
allaunjsilverfox2's subject line is an interesting question, and more than just the story poster should listen to his answer.
That's because it was a pathetic attempt to Extend to the free software community and gain some brownie points with the snowballing number of people who think they're evil. In this case it's someone legitimitely interested in giving freedom and flexibility to his clients but not giving up his business by just giving his product away.
Why is it that you couldn't just say "as it is currently understood"? Obviously because it's not understood that way anymore. Copyright today bears very little resemblance to old copyright law. IANAL, but I read a book once.
Plus of course to effect the control that Microsoft etc and (ahem) the GNU project etc want over what people can do with their IP.
I would hesitate to rely on copyright law. Since you're a developer you (should) know that everything gets copied everywhere a zillion times in the natural execution of the application code. This may be trivial but file formats and proprietary network protocols or APIs greatly complicate the issue. The way I understand it is that the idea of "licensing out" software instead of just selling it under existing contract of sale law is that you're granted a license to do all that copying and to freely copy created files in proprietary (new) formats across networks and on their hard drives.
I don't think rotting is in any sense combustion. Maybe they have some of the same end products, but decomposition is caused by bacteria, fungi, and insects, not energetic chemical reactions.. although individual cells destroy themselves with their own enzymes, that doesn't break down cells like combustion. Maybe you're thinking of rust, which is very slow oxidation (burning)?
For almost all applications you only need one file at a time -documents, source code, etc- and you don't have to "grab all your data" and anyway usually they're like 10k max each..
You're the moron. I don't mean passwording your windows user account. I mean that if you encrypt your data with a large key that you have to keep unencrypted, the key is likely going to be compromised with the encrypted data. The only really secure element of volume encryption is symmetric-encrypting the key itself with a password that is stored separately from the data (in people's brains). But then a cryptographic attack turns from iterating through a 2048-bit key to simply running a dictionary attack on the known encrypted key. In other words, your robust volume encryption solution is a house of cards resting on a simple password, exactly like keeping your sensitive documents on a secure server. (which isn't slow at all; ever heard of web applications like Google apps? You can use them over the internet. Over the local network can be a thousand times faster.) Well, with one important difference; a server can stop accepting passwords after 3 or 4 failures, while attackers could have a room full of computers running for days nonstop on the encrypted data.
Controlling access by hiding data behind intelligent daemons is always better than just encrypting it. As for working copies being compromised, you don't encrypt memory anyway on an encrypted volume so it's no different- just make sure you don't write it to the disk, or make sure you clean it up afterwards. You should never have to have a copy on the hard drive (windows page file is encrypted by a key that's stored only in memory, so it's irretrievable on reboot, right?); network access is ubiquitous, even on the road, and many organizations choose (and thrive on) a server-centric solution which necessitates network access to do any work at all on their data.. a small price for a huge gain in security. Full thin-client solutions are best of course but greedy on bandwidth and have many other drawbacks. But thick-clients can still have some of the benefits by checking out documents into memory and integrating the "save button" to uploading to the network. I know Visual Studio does this and I'm sure Office 2007 must also.
Why would you let even encrypted data be scattered around carelessly when you could just control access to it in the first place? Granted you have to control how clients behave, which is always very iffy, but you're definitely doing that anyway with volume encryption, trusting people not to leave any data around unencrypted (lol right). Of particular interest is that Trusted Computing platform; yes it's evil as applied to your personal computer and DRM, but it's exactly for this corporate-network situation that a way of controlling client software's access to the memory which holds sensitive data was devised. Don't kill me for this slashdot, but utilizing a TPM to restrict access to protected memory to only signed applications, and an OS that can give signed applications a secure operating environment, you can have end-to-end control of every copy of every piece of sensitive data.
You can't even register copyright anymore if you want to. It's fully europe-ized.
Encrypt eveything? You're going to have to use (unencrypted) key pairs to access your data, which can be compromised just as easily as the hard drives they're protecting. You can encrypt your key with a password (I'm sure truecrypt supports this) but then you might as well just have used a password in the first place instead of encryption. I'm not saying that encryption won't make things more secure but it'll be an expensive headache with fewer absolute gains than what you'd think.
What you do is store sensitive material on secure servers and have people check out copies of material that they have access to. I'm sure keeping sensitive data off local hard drives would be easier than actually protecting all those hard drives.
Yeah I don't understand why you need to file for a patent at all. It's a protocol; once everyone agrees how they expect things to behave, what's there to buy or sell? Can protocols even be patented?.. Even if they can (and protecting a particular way for other peoples software to behave is ridiculous) then you don't need to worry about someone else patenting it as long as you've already written it up and dated it.
Of course you could just claim your phone speaker is broken. Most easily done if it actually is broken. The law doesn't prohibit you from sticking a screwdriver in the speakerphone..
The brain is probably better at looking at an image and instantly finding targets' heads, even with modern adaptive algorithms. And it's not like there's any way for the computer to actually move the rifle.
Who cares how you act? It's words; nothing you say is going to make someone's monitor explode in their face. This is the internet, not a town hall where only the person with the baton can speak.
It also encourages people to be able to speak freely without fear of persecution. Without anonymity it would be impossible for whistleblowers to out evil empire corps without losing their jobs and probably never being hired again. Without anonymity we wouldn't have vitriolic bloggers; we wouldn't have this fantastic forum of discourse where we can speak our minds and not worry about being smacked with a lawsuit (well, not including the video professor). It's like the original Forum of Greek polises (polisi? poli?)- no matter how crazy your ideas you can always find someone with whom to discuss them, and it made Greece better for it.
And anyway, non-anonymity is vapid and trite. Plastering your name over everything you do, waving your tiny banner as hard as you can trying to get people's attention and adoration.. it's pretty pathetic. Just toss in your little contribution and disappear into the crowd with the rest of us.
Ouch, forgot to check Anonymous Coward eh?
They each had a different color that they were drawing; seems pretty logical to me. And I certainly can't blame Google for showing off their collaborative features. I've never seen multiple people able to work on the same doc/spreadsheet at once.. the different color cursors is a brilliant idea.