It looks like the market is going to get weak this afternoon. No one is going to want to hold stocks over the weekend. It could be a good buying opportunity. Though, my pair isn't big enough to do it.
Hey man, either you are STUPID, either you are IDIOT. The only think you like is to listen yourself talking. Perhaps when you witting your posts your recite them lauder, right?
SInce now you are on my IGNORE list.
Gifs - simple misunderstanding. I apologize.
To clarify -
I actually typed..
"..if it were Micro$oft people like 'gifs' and the rest of his merry men (sorry) would be all over them instead.."
I left out an em dash.
It should have read..
"...if it were Micro$oft - people like 'gifs' and the rest of his merry men (sorry) would be all over them instead..." (Meaning if it were Micro$oft and not Adobe)
I would never call anyone a Micro$oft person -that's just plain rude.
Again - sorry for the confusion.
back to lurking...
"Adobe is just the first company to try and protect their intellectual property under the law.."
Not quite accurate but I'll simply say: Adobe wielded this law, an unconstitutional law, to protect its profits, to "protect" the security of its ISV schemes. But look at the options: One publisher used ROT-13, while another used an algorythm requiring high-power CPUs days to crack. If customers can have real security, why is there a need for ROT-13? There is none. It's security through obscurity. Not even that, it's security through stupidity, and people have a right to know. People also have rights historically to certain uses of owned content, but under this new, an unconstitutional law, these rights have been transferred to publishers. This makes Adobe Press Release authors have a little parade and say it's good and normal. The loss of fair use in law as a right of the people is news to me.
"if it were Micro$oft people like 'gifs' and the rest of his merry men"
It's quite strange to me that you call me a Micro$oft person. I really don't get it. Where does this come from? The concept that the only critic must have some commercial motive? How shallow and sad is that? I've described my motivations and there's just no such conspiracy. I'd attack Microsoft just as readily for this same attack. Would you call me 'Adobe Joe' then? It just doesn't make sense. In fact, most people speaking up for Sklyarov are more aligned with open source and mostly aligned against Microsoft. Do you really think mine is part of a grand Microsoft-allied conspiracy?
"I am not trying to get into the debate or argument over who is right and who is wrong."
That's fine but it is strange to me that you mis-attribute a great many of my motives and beliefs. Are you also not trying to even understand?
"I just don't understand the hate behind it all."
The loss of freedom brings free men to hate. 'All free men, whereever they are, are citizens of Berlin.' 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.' 'That's why I say it's the ballot or the bullet. IT's liberty, or it's death. It's freedom for everybody, or freedom for nobody.' The DMCA and the SSSCA(its bitch deformed stepchild) are overt attacks on freedom. That makes me hate. I hope to help you understand.
"Your civil liberties are being attacked in so many other ways right now. Is it worth it to focus your hate on an great U.S. company like Adobe?"
I'm up against the rest. Crypto is under attack, and I consider it among my civil liberties. Congress has thankfully challenged both the necessity and feasability of Bush's War on Crypto. Insofar as I am aware of injustice, I make a concerted effort to understand and act. But if you put your sentence in your mouth and taste it, it tastes very sour, almost metallic. "We're losing on all fronts; who cares about this one?" Me, apparently. You're welcome to join where you can be of most use in this life.
"I do know that there are people behind the company that don't deserve your hate and slander."
I know that too. I've described a few in this message. The world is filled both with cruelty and with 'cruel' justice. If there is principle, it must be the righteousness of informed, judicial action versus the wrongness of unilateral, wanton destruction. Insofar as Adobe acted to imprison this man, Sklyarov, for crimes which are not crimes to any sane man, Adobe lost its legitimacy, lost its innocence, and became a combatant in a much wider war of freedom versus tyranny. ONCE THE RULES THEMSELVES ARE UNJUST, you can't abide by the rules anymore. That's why tyranny is so destructive to the human spirit.
You keep whistling and collecting the pay. I'm sure it'll all blow over.
"...and whomever dares follow them down the slippery slope of corporate tyranny."
- easy there William Wallace.
Sorry. I just had to comment. Sounds like a line from a Brave Heart spoof.
They can take away our e-books.......but they will never take our Freeeedoooommm!!!!!
The way I see it is this...
Adobe is just the first company to try and protect their intellectual property under the law.. if it were Micro$oft people like 'gifs' and the rest of his merry men (sorry) would be all over them instead. They don't really hate Adobe Systems Inc. (and it's tyrannical army of software engineers...)(sorry)
I am not trying to get into the debate or argument over who is right and who is wrong.
I just don't understand the hate behind it all.
Your civil liberties are being attacked in so many other ways right now. Is it worth it to focus your hate on an great U.S. company like Adobe?
Take that hate and focus it on something which might deserve it.
Is there such a thing?
I don't know.
I do know that there are people behind the company that don't deserve your hate and slander.
"Gee, do you like talking to yourself you wannabe hacker freak? I just love you you use your many different profiles to justify re-posting the same link 50 times."
These are among my favorite attacks. If you see similar posts from other names, I guarantee it ain't me. But this concept--that ideas you don't agree with are the work of a tiny cadre' of miscreants, or even one terribly busy one--always makes me laugh. And let's me know we're getting somewhere!
"What a looser you are pushing your agenda on a stock board. Get a life, get out from behind your computer once in awhile."
Looser and looser! My "agenda" pertains to Adobe Systems, Inc. and whomever dares follow them down the slippery slope of corporate tyranny.
And you know what? Had they not called for Dmitri's release, I promise I'd be ten times tougher. But the fact is you can't invoke an unjust law, and then wash your hands of consequences. My agenda won't stand for it!
New Rule: every post contains a URL, soas to build public knowledge:
"so Adobe provided an SDK to that company to implement the security thingie and this other company implemented it the wrong way? Wait, how is this different from MS providing a C-compiler and somebody using it to write a virus?"
Well the metaphors are imperfect, but let me take a stab: Adobe did provide an SDK and API for their eBook architecture. NPRG did provide ROT-13 as a security architecture on this API. Nothing wrong with any of this so far. If NPRG customers want to pay a few thousand dollars for a worthless architecture, that's their choice.
Where I come in is later: Adobe complained to the FBI that Dmitri Sklyarov had explained how the NPRG architecture works. He also produced a device which "defeated" this clearly meek security. His employers offered this work for sale. Through some third party, this device became available in the U.S. for purchase, for a short time.
All of these details (and others) are quite important to the situation. NPRG can implement any security they want. Adobe can implement any API they want. No case so far. The case begins when the FBI chooses to act on Adobe's complaint.
The details of the case are quite disturbing: First, understand the new law. It is unlawful for me to even tell you, in any context, that NPRG uses Caesar's shifting-letter ceipher. I face substantial fines and court-ordered censorship if I do so. Is this a joke? No.
Sklyarov wrote this application in Russia, for his employer. According to Russian law, media is not operating within the copyright law if you can't make a backup of it. This accurately reflects the purpose of copyright, but in the United States, this purpose is largely dead: To encourage the useful arts and sciences, Congress offers publishers certain legal protections. But publishers, in turn, must make their content available in certain ways, allowing media consumers to apply and benefit from the knowledge, even re-sell it, back it up, use it in education, or cite passages for almost any purpose. Under the DMCA, these rights have been taken from the people, and given to corporations like Adobe.
So Mr. Sklyarov wrote this device, the Advanced eBook Reader. It legalized eBooks in his own country. It also certified that the media it acted on was legally owned by the user. Whether it can be sold in America is a legitimate debate. The fact that speaking the ideas it embodies--"ROT-13 as a security device used," for example--is subject to legal sanction, is troubling. The fact that I can be censored legally for telling you this is quite troubling. The fact that Mr. Sklyarov faces five years in prison for discussing and applying this obvious knowledge troubles me most of all.
Is anything more clear for you? Copyright law has taken me years to understand, and I feel at times I'm barely getting it. Again, Adobe committed no crime, nor did NPRG, and based on the facts of the case, I believe Dmitri Sklyarov did nothing wrong, as well. Certainly not in this example, which I illustrate to underscore the wrecklessness of Adobe's claim.
New article about new book:
"'Copyrights and Copywrongs: The Rise of Intellectual Property and How It Threatens Creativity', presents a clear and historically based argument against the push to transform American intellectual property law into a new zone of zero tolerance. "
"It's very clear that reckless copyright enforcement can chill speech," he said. "The message of my book is that we've gone too far. There are ways in which the copyright system becomes an engine for democratic culture. But once you increase the protection to an absurd level, you end up having a negative effect on this process."
-- This case constitutes reckless enforcement. Hope any of this helps flesh out the context.
"Sorry, I had thought you were baiting me with a non-argument. No, Adobe did not construct ROT-13 and call it legitimate security for media. A partner of theirs, New Paradigm Research Group, implemented the ROT-13 algorythm and called it security. "
Hmmm - so Adobe provided an SDK to that company to implement the security thingie and this other company implemented it the wrong way?
Wait, how is this different from MS providing a C-compiler and somebody using it to write a virus?
I don't get it. What am I missing?
Gee, do you like talking to yourself you wannabe hacker freak? I just love you you use your many different profiles to justify re-posting the same link 50 times.
What a looser you are pushing your agenda on a stock board. Get a life, get out from behind your computer once in awhile.
"So you actually confirm that Adobe didn't use ROT-13 in their encryption code? Yes or no? I'm just so damned confused about this whole story and I need to get some things sorted out before I build an opinion."
Sorry, I had thought you were baiting me with a non-argument. No, Adobe did not construct ROT-13 and call it legitimate security for media. A partner of theirs, New Paradigm Research Group, implemented the ROT-13 algorythm and called it security. Sklyarov faces five years in prison for saying so. Adobe has no position on whether that's OK with them, or not. If you want to know just what his "crimes" are, I recommend:
Security through obscurity is not security. I am happy I could answer your question.
"Your lil' stars tell your own story: The ROT-13 was used by a company "securing" eBook content. Sklyarov faces five years from Adobe's complaint that he pointed out ROT-13. It doesn't matter to me if Adobe is smart enough to know better than to use ROT-13, if they aren't ethical enough to know that nobody deserves five years' prison time for pointing out a 2000 year old ceipher method."
I see stars all over the place these days, no wonder I used them in the message.
So you actually confirm that Adobe didn't use ROT-13 in their encryption code?
Yes or no? I'm just so damned confused about this whole story and I need to get some things sorted out before I build an opinion.