Those screenshots are faked. He just created some nice looking screens and fed them into Audrey. Slashdot needs to be a little more careful before boasting about hacks. This loser's gonna have wood for the next three weeks because he made Slashdot.
...the only answer is cargo pants. Maybe they're out of fashion at the moment, but they live up to their name. I even used to be able to carry small textbooks to class in mine.
Well, I must say.. I'm impressed. You have demonstrated a complete and consistent disconnection from reality.
Oh, yeah? Well, you're ugly.
You will understand the error that is your argument in the coming months, when you catch wind that the DMCA, in some form or another, has been repealed. It will happen, because corruption is corruptable. And when it does, read this thread from top to bottom.
My arguments are offered for the sake of others; take from them what you will.
Your arguments are not for the sake of others. They are for the sake of justifying your opinions to yourself.
You would do well reading up on the various consumer and employee protection laws which currently exist. While they are skirted wherever possible by companies run by the unethical, they do exist.
Not one of those laws says "It's okay to violate laws if it's convenient for you."
But, for the record, while I do consider freedom of expression to be an unconditional, unrevokable, and inalienable right, and will fight to the death to protect it for others (and I mean that), I would of course not willingly put someone else on the martyr block.
Breaking copyright restrictions is no more "freedom of expression" than is nun-raping.
I guess we're just different people, doing different things. Your arrogance if overwhelming. I can't believe that you would presume to tell me what I use circumvention technology for.
Your arrogance is overwhelming if you think I actually believe that you would use it for anything other than theft.
Some people will use ElcomSoft's utility for cracking illegally copied content. The relevance is lost to me. I'm sorry; it really is. I disagree with your statement. Making cracking software does not preclude teaching or aiding in the fight against copyright perversion, even if it can be used to break the law.
While I'm sure Sklyarov's story has changed after a while in jail, I doubt that his original rhetoric involved anything other than "Hey, look! I made software for cracking so you don't have to pay Adobe for their products!"
Not in North America.
Actually, it applies in North America more than anywhere else in the world. Companies are here to serve their own interests, not yours. They have no obligation whatsoever to please you. If they choose to do that, which seems like good business sense, then bully for them. If not, then don't buy their products.
No, I have circumvention technology.
And so that you could have it, a man rots in jail. Are eBooks (which I doubt you even read) worth that much to you?
One can only hope.:)
That's the sort of rubbish that leads to these inane debates. "Hope" is worthless. You have to do something to change the world, not have silly online arguments about the virtues of various criminals.
An Internet driven by business, for business, would hardly have the appeal of the net as it exists today. It would be nothing but banners, keywords, affiliate programs, and all the other garbage that already makes the web so annoying.
I say, let the businesses have their internet, and watch it crash and burn. If they haven't learned yet, maybe this will teach them.
I transfer property (money) to content providers every day. When one of their "copyright protection devices" fails, I will circumvent it. This is a given. I am vehemently against anyone who supports criminalization of circumvention activities.
Circumvention activities are not, and never have been, for use when copyright protection devices fail. You know it, I know it, and everyone here knows it. That's the party line, but let's be honest: The sole purpose of copyright circumvention is the acquisition of free content. Anything else is a perk that can be used to rationalize illegal activity.
Also, I might add, that the heartless way in which people suggest that Sklyarov should rot in jail for the "crime" of teaching or aiding in the fight against copyright perversion affects me at an emotional level. Before condemning someone to jail, serve some time yourself!
Sklyarov was not "teaching or aiding in the fight against copyright perversion", he was making cracking software so people didn't have to pay for content.
Adobe (and any other company) has an absolute right to do whatever they want with their products. If you buy an eBook from them and then "lose" your client software, tough crap for you. Don't buy from Adobe again. If they choose not to offer your desired level of customer service, don't buy from them.
It is my personal belief that anyone involved in law creation and enforcement should be required to attend a federal prison for 2 weeks every year. Perhaps armed with the understanding of what prosecution and incarceration truly represent, they will be better suited to arrive at just conclusions in the courtroom, in congress, and in uniform.
Well that's a very cute personal belief. The real world doesn't work like that, though.
If your bank decided to hold all of your deposited money, and not allow you to withdrawl it, how much would you appreciate plans for robbing this bank?
You're a troll. Adobe doesn't have your money. The RIAA doesn't have your money. The artists who create the music you download don't have your money. The companies who create the software you download from warez sites don't have your money. The comparison is absurd.
A friend of mine once came into the possession of an ancient and discarded cyclotron. This was a particle accelerator of the old variety, unreliable and weak by todays standards, but relatively inexpensive. It was a hunk of odd parts about two feet in diameter, and would have looked like a Doctor Who prop to anyone who didn't know better.
He purchased it for just a few hundred dollars from the lab which had been clearing out their parts warehouse. It took him a few months to get it working again, but a few weeks ago I was present when he performed his first successful "atom smashing" in his upstate New York backyard.
Here's an interesting and controversial question that nobody has yet asked:
Should we really be trying to get him released?
The principle behind the DMCA is sound and reasonable: People ought not to spend their time finding ways to steal. Instead, they ought to be developing their own products and getting them out into the market for whatever price they feel is fair.
Napster was popular for the sole reason that it allowed people to steal. DeCSS is a somewhat more gray area, but it still basically allowed people to steal. Sklyarov did nothing beneficial for society, he merely found yet another way to steal and publicized it.
This is absurd. We would not so glorify those who would publish plans for robbing bank vaults, and yet we take men like Sklyarov who delight in playing a sort of twisted Robin Hood and turn them into our heroes. We rationalize the crimes ("Free speech", "Information wants to be free", blah blah blah) and then laugh ourselves giddy because we get what we want without having to pay for it.
People, the capitalism that it seems the majority of people here are trying to undermine is the same system which produced all this high-quality content in the first place. Get rid of that, and we'll have the same cutting-edge community-based free music as you find in your typical Mongolian village.
I've heard the arguments on Slashdot and other sites. I know the points of view. I know why people love MP3s, DeCSS, Sklyarov and all this other rubbish. But none of the reasons outweigh the simple fact that people like to get good stuff for free, but if things were to change such that it were always free, it would stop being good.
Don't believe me? When was the last time someone actually practiced what they preached and downloaded some songs by the independent artists on MP3.com? Those few who have actually done it know that independent artists generally produce crap, and go back to trying to find their Eminem and Metallica mp3s.
So, those who build their own PC's and use pirated software/friend's software pay nothing.
I believe that the debate should be kept within the realm of things that are legal. To do otherwise would pretty much invalidate any argument either for or against free software because it could simply be said that "All software is free when you steal it!"
Linux *can* be free, if you're willing to take it the old-fashioned way, instead of in a shrink-wrapped box with a glossy manual. You can download just about any distribution for free, install it for free, use "Linux tech support" (Usenet, chat rooms, man, etc.) for free, and so on.
Windows *can* be free, but only if you steal it. Assuming that this is not an option (especially in a commercial environment), there's no way to acquire, implement, and support a Windows system for free.
Yeah, I just got hit with that one too. I wasn't aware that JavaScript could wreak so much havoc to my favorites and settings. Shows what I get for using IE, I suppose.
This doesn't sound *too* bad, but it won't stop there. It won't be long until some script kiddie figures out a way to change all the URLs on people's favorites to theirs. And by the time that people find out, it's too late -- They don't even know where the popup was (or that it even was a popup! I had no idea until just now...)
The Avalon framework consists of interfaces that define relationships between commonly used application components, best-of-practice pattern enforcements, and several lightweight convenience implementations of the generic components.
I'm sorry, could someone translate that into English?
Slashdot Mirror
All you have to do is look at them. Look at the bar across the top, the way the text is rendered, etc. That's not native Audrey, it's a fake.
Those screenshots are faked. He just created some nice looking screens and fed them into Audrey. Slashdot needs to be a little more careful before boasting about hacks. This loser's gonna have wood for the next three weeks because he made Slashdot.
Oh come on...it was funny :P
Progresso Black Beans, eh? Yeah, someone's gonna get owned unless he takes some Pepto.
I'll host them at Slant-Six. Just send me an e-mail.
...the only answer is cargo pants. Maybe they're out of fashion at the moment, but they live up to their name. I even used to be able to carry small textbooks to class in mine.
Oh, yeah? Well, you're ugly.
You will understand the error that is your argument in the coming months, when you catch wind that the DMCA, in some form or another, has been repealed. It will happen, because corruption is corruptable. And when it does, read this thread from top to bottom.
And your mama wears combat boots.
Ah, the ultimate argument of troubled youth.
My arguments are offered for the sake of others; take from them what you will.
Your arguments are not for the sake of others. They are for the sake of justifying your opinions to yourself.
You would do well reading up on the various consumer and employee protection laws which currently exist. While they are skirted wherever possible by companies run by the unethical, they do exist.
Not one of those laws says "It's okay to violate laws if it's convenient for you."
But, for the record, while I do consider freedom of expression to be an unconditional, unrevokable, and inalienable right, and will fight to the death to protect it for others (and I mean that), I would of course not willingly put someone else on the martyr block.
Breaking copyright restrictions is no more "freedom of expression" than is nun-raping.
Yes. Yes I do. :P
Your arrogance is overwhelming if you think I actually believe that you would use it for anything other than theft.
Some people will use ElcomSoft's utility for cracking illegally copied content. The relevance is lost to me. I'm sorry; it really is. I disagree with your statement. Making cracking software does not preclude teaching or aiding in the fight against copyright perversion, even if it can be used to break the law.
While I'm sure Sklyarov's story has changed after a while in jail, I doubt that his original rhetoric involved anything other than "Hey, look! I made software for cracking so you don't have to pay Adobe for their products!"
Not in North America.
Actually, it applies in North America more than anywhere else in the world. Companies are here to serve their own interests, not yours. They have no obligation whatsoever to please you. If they choose to do that, which seems like good business sense, then bully for them. If not, then don't buy their products.
No, I have circumvention technology.
And so that you could have it, a man rots in jail. Are eBooks (which I doubt you even read) worth that much to you?
One can only hope. :)
That's the sort of rubbish that leads to these inane debates. "Hope" is worthless. You have to do something to change the world, not have silly online arguments about the virtues of various criminals.
I say, let the businesses have their internet, and watch it crash and burn. If they haven't learned yet, maybe this will teach them.
Circumvention activities are not, and never have been, for use when copyright protection devices fail. You know it, I know it, and everyone here knows it. That's the party line, but let's be honest: The sole purpose of copyright circumvention is the acquisition of free content. Anything else is a perk that can be used to rationalize illegal activity.
Also, I might add, that the heartless way in which people suggest that Sklyarov should rot in jail for the "crime" of teaching or aiding in the fight against copyright perversion affects me at an emotional level. Before condemning someone to jail, serve some time yourself!
Sklyarov was not "teaching or aiding in the fight against copyright perversion", he was making cracking software so people didn't have to pay for content.
Adobe (and any other company) has an absolute right to do whatever they want with their products. If you buy an eBook from them and then "lose" your client software, tough crap for you. Don't buy from Adobe again. If they choose not to offer your desired level of customer service, don't buy from them.
It is my personal belief that anyone involved in law creation and enforcement should be required to attend a federal prison for 2 weeks every year. Perhaps armed with the understanding of what prosecution and incarceration truly represent, they will be better suited to arrive at just conclusions in the courtroom, in congress, and in uniform.
Well that's a very cute personal belief. The real world doesn't work like that, though.
You're a troll. Adobe doesn't have your money. The RIAA doesn't have your money. The artists who create the music you download don't have your money. The companies who create the software you download from warez sites don't have your money. The comparison is absurd.
He purchased it for just a few hundred dollars from the lab which had been clearing out their parts warehouse. It took him a few months to get it working again, but a few weeks ago I was present when he performed his first successful "atom smashing" in his upstate New York backyard.
A glorious experience, to say the least.
Should we really be trying to get him released?
The principle behind the DMCA is sound and reasonable: People ought not to spend their time finding ways to steal. Instead, they ought to be developing their own products and getting them out into the market for whatever price they feel is fair.
Napster was popular for the sole reason that it allowed people to steal. DeCSS is a somewhat more gray area, but it still basically allowed people to steal. Sklyarov did nothing beneficial for society, he merely found yet another way to steal and publicized it.
This is absurd. We would not so glorify those who would publish plans for robbing bank vaults, and yet we take men like Sklyarov who delight in playing a sort of twisted Robin Hood and turn them into our heroes. We rationalize the crimes ("Free speech", "Information wants to be free", blah blah blah) and then laugh ourselves giddy because we get what we want without having to pay for it.
People, the capitalism that it seems the majority of people here are trying to undermine is the same system which produced all this high-quality content in the first place. Get rid of that, and we'll have the same cutting-edge community-based free music as you find in your typical Mongolian village.
I've heard the arguments on Slashdot and other sites. I know the points of view. I know why people love MP3s, DeCSS, Sklyarov and all this other rubbish. But none of the reasons outweigh the simple fact that people like to get good stuff for free, but if things were to change such that it were always free, it would stop being good.
Don't believe me? When was the last time someone actually practiced what they preached and downloaded some songs by the independent artists on MP3.com? Those few who have actually done it know that independent artists generally produce crap, and go back to trying to find their Eminem and Metallica mp3s.
I believe that the debate should be kept within the realm of things that are legal. To do otherwise would pretty much invalidate any argument either for or against free software because it could simply be said that "All software is free when you steal it!"
When you purchase a pre-OSed system, you're still paying for the OS!
Sorry, someone had to say it.
Windows *can* be free, but only if you steal it. Assuming that this is not an option (especially in a commercial environment), there's no way to acquire, implement, and support a Windows system for free.
This doesn't sound *too* bad, but it won't stop there. It won't be long until some script kiddie figures out a way to change all the URLs on people's favorites to theirs. And by the time that people find out, it's too late -- They don't even know where the popup was (or that it even was a popup! I had no idea until just now...)
DirecTV were pursuing "Ahoy, matey!" pirates. I'd pay to watch that over the 500-some channels of rubbish they now offer.
Damn, I thought it was with Aki.
I think that all PDAs, from the earliest to the latest, are really just attempts to satisfy our innate human desire for Tricorders.
I'm sorry, could someone translate that into English?