Slashdot Mirror

Has Google actually done something "Evil" that I missed?

http://www.adrants.com/images/evil_google.jpg
http://dinamehta.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/03-google-73802138_10.jpg
http://geekandpoke.typepad.com/geekandpoke/images/page_1_182.jpg
http://www.adrants.com/images/google-evil.jpg
http://www.ideachampions.com/weblogs/google-dr-evil.jpg
http://www.crackunit.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/01/Picture%203.jpg
http://www.cubanxgiants.com/berry/images/google_extremes.jpg
http://www.masternewmedia.org/images/Google-text-links-evil-460.gif
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/780.gif
http://www.softsailor.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/google-is-evil.jpg
http://culturalpolicyreform.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/evil-google-logo.jpg

'Open Source' (which seems to be hijacked by the OSI as a trademark?)

I think you're referring to this picture: http://www.masternewmedia.org/images/opensource_logo.gif As you se if you look close at it, its the image that is trademarked, not the term (yes, I agree that its at best a little confusing). I belive they tried to trademark the term but was turned down because it was to broad to trademark such a thing.

I know a lot of people think Roland Piquepaille has 'reformed' because hes no longer linking to primidi, but Roland is still whoring Slashdot for ad views and the like - its just that he is now employed by zdnet. The links in the summary all link to his new blog run by zdnet.
Im not saying that its wrong to do this - but dont be fooled into thinking that his new links are somehow 'genuine' and hes not whoring as usual.

Roland_Piquepaille, the submitter of this story, is apparently a publicist. Apparently he is paid to have stories placed in media like Slashdot.

Mr. Piquepaille's affiliations and motivations should be disclosed. Does he pay someone at Slashdot to run his stories?

Also, for me, computing is an important area of continuing interest. Most of Mr. Piquepaille's stories, like this one, have very little real connection to computing, so they waste my time. I'm not the only one annoyed by this, apparently: Here is a script to Hide stories submitted by Roland Piquepaille from Slashdot.org.

Digg.com or Reddit.com are more appropriate media for Mr. Piquepaille. However, I suspect that his stories would seldom be considered interesting enough to be placed on the Digg or Reddit front pages.

--
Most people in the U.S. have no idea how corrupt is the Bush administration. Here's my summary of U.S. gov. corruption. Where's yours?

Three little letters: T.P.M. or Trusted Computing.

Apple put it in all their Intel-based Macs (any new Mac, in other words)... and it allows Apple to shut off anything they choose, at any time they choose.

Form search and services, form tools and backbone, and I'll form the network!

GOOGLEZON, ASSEMBLE!

http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2004/11/29/summ ary_of_the_world_googlezon.htm

A link to them having included TPM would be helpful. I was under the impression that Apple didn't include TPM in the new Intel Mac's.

Apparently, at least some of the shipped Intel Macs contain TPM modules. Unless anyone can find evidence to the contrary, it's probably reasonable to assume they all have them...

Oh, I'm sure they'll soon fall for Apple... since Apple was good enough to include hardware DRM into their new Macs, just to please the RIAA/MPAA.

Essentially, it boils down to this: the PC hardware itself checks whether you are running the right binaries, and if not, the other end (be it across the internet or a Blu-Ray/HD-DVD drive or anything else with a TC chip included) won't trust you and you don't get the content. Basically, you can't fork the code because it won't work anymore, as you don't have the key to sign the binary and make the hardware trust it.

It also, just as a bonus, lets companies like Fluendo take Free software, make deals with content owners to only work with *their* signed binaries of Gstreamer. In other words, taking Free software and making it proprietary. It's the same thing that Sun is doing with its "open source" DRM... that relies on TC hardware to ensure that you haven't just recompiled their "open source" to remove the restrictions and controls. Naturally, Fluendo and Sun are buddies, and Fluendo has signed up to Sun's version of "open source". Amusingly, Christian Schaller (Fluendo) used to be a big critic of people abusing Free software by calling it "open source" and wrote articles imploring others not to use it. But then he started to get corporate money... and now he's quite happy to steal other people's code to make his DRM framework.

what are these apple people, stupid evil morons?

Well... yes. Apple officials are as stupid, greedy and evil as their supporters allow... which is very greedy, stupid and evil indeed. Apple supporters are dumb, compliant sheep who support unequivocally anything their favourite company does, no matter how stupid or evil.

I mean, Apple has put a Big Brother chip into the new Intel-based Apple Macs, for hardware-based DRM and to ensure that you never actually own the hardware that you have paid for and are never given root access to the system. And they are busy architecting OSX around this "treacherous computing" (wonder why Apple released BootCamp? TC is why).

And yet, you will still hear Apple fans claiming that the company is not evil. No. no. no. Not the boy-god Jobs. He would never do anything like that.

Perhaps someone can answer my question regarding boot camp... there's been a lot of speculation about why Apple released it. I can't help wondering if it is related to the inclusion of a Treacherous Computing TPM. Apple is rearchitecting its operating system around the idea of trust. The hardware checks the digital signature of the BIOS, the BIOS checks the bootloader, the bootloader checks the kernel... and so on up the software stack. This allows Apple to enforce the use of certain base software if you wish to run their app software (I'm think of DRM for iTunes)... you can't replace or alter (or even see) any of the bits underneath without the machine suddenly not being "trusted", and either not running iTunes or at the very least refusing to play protected content.

Where does "Boot Camp" come into this? I can't help think that Apple *had* to have an official multiple choice bootloader. Without it, developers (who need that capability) would have to rely on third-party ones -- and a third party one would not be signed by Apple... and hence breaking that chain of trust... their machine would not be "trusted", and would be locked out of things like (in future) Apple's update server, or (as I mentioned earlier) iTunes.

So in that sense, Apple simply had to have "Boot Camp" in order not to really piss off developers, or just customers who want to try out other operating systems.

Just once, I'd like to see a Mac magazine, reveal the fact that Apple sneaked Trusted Computing hardware DRM into the new Intel Apple Macs... one of the first companies to do so. It's really quite pathetic how pliant and dull Apple users are... it comes from Lord Jobs, and so it must be unconditionally good.

Congratulations all you mugs who bought one of these crippled machines. You don't own it... Apple still does. It was designed to hide things from you, and ensure that Apple can hide what it is actually doing on your machine... as well as implementing DRM in hardware.

Not one that relies on draconian hardware chips that prevent you from having control over your computer.

I'm sorry, what? According to wide report, as of the new Intel macs, Apple is in fact using draconian hardware chips that prevent you from having control over your computer, and is reportedly using these specifically to keep you from running OS X on unauthorized hardware. (Though, hilariously enough, that's according to wide report. There is no hard evidence I've seen one way or the other that these chips are or aren't even in the new macs to begin with! All reports of TPM in the Intel macs are based on sort of circumstantial evidence from reports of the developer betas of the Intel macs. Since the actual release of the Intel macs, everyone has gone silent on the subject, and Google doesn't turn up any attempts I can find to take apart the Intel macs and the kernel to see whether TPM is in there. Apparently though the slashdot and tech blogger crowd were angry and opposed to Palladium/TPM for three or five years nonstop since it was announced, they just fell silent once they saw how shiny the new iMacs are.)

You are of course correct that they aren't, of course, using these chips for iTunes or the iPod. Yet. But if the chips are in the machines, they could start using them for such purposes at any time. The iTunes DRM already subtly changes with each iTunes version (the jHymn backup utility still doesn't work with the iTunes 6.0 DRM).

Though all of my computers since I was six years old have been Apples, if it's true that Apple is using TPM in their machines now, it would seem I'm going to be using Linux from now on. I was rather annoyed at the prospect of having to suffer a hardware platform transition (again) to begin with, but I can at least understand the reasoning behind that. But I'm absolutely not willing to pay for a computer if there's this ticking TPM time bomb buried in it that means, if someday the OS vendor changes their mind, a single OS update could sweep through and my computer would no longer be mine.

27 gigapixcels per cubic litroid. Whatever. I bet it can't plagiarise articles as fast as a pencil-necked French twat can.

Speaking of Roland Piquepaille, he's not a part of ZDNet. Here's the story, with a creepy-ass picture where he looks like a cracked-out muppet.

You're way out of date, Apparently, Roland has a new job with ZDNet now. Interesting article, he comments on how he's been slashdotted a few times.

In any case, where on earth did he buy those glasses :-)

Nice link, AC.

Roland got a job blogging for ZDnet. His blog entry today shares its first paragraph with the slashdot post. Since I didn't find any links from this post to his blogs (using a couple of whois(1) and other queries) he might just be a slashdot fan now.

quote from parent's link:

"RG: Well, I was asking this (and I haven't been having any secret about this with you in the past), because I saw you were getting lots and lots of traffic from Slashdot, on a repetitive almost systematic basis.... I don't whether [sic] this played a significant role in getting you to ZDNet but it certainly provided you with lots of prominence and exposure....

Roland Piquepaille: ... in the last two years I have been Slashdotted between two and eight times per month (!!!), and yes, I do acknowledge that this is a good thing... "

Good grief. Roland... nice glasses.

Kev

It won't be _that_ long before you can save the video like you'd save your text chat, search its history, skip over the boring parts, and so on. Complaining about the overhead of video may eventually seem as silly as complaining about the overhead of mobile phones when you could be using a simple telegraph.

-Scot

"Ahhh. A billion dollars of infrastructure so I don't have to yell." -my friend Mitch, on a phone call from 50' away

Actually, they already do, and to be honest, they seem to work a bit better than Google's blog search:

http://masternewmedia.org/RSS_search/RSS_search_to ols/MSN_RSS_search_improves_capabilities_20050831. htm

It's interesting to see MSN get the jump on Google, and do something a bit better, even.

But you're acting against a force of nature here. What's going to happen when people can transfer data wireless ad-hoc, encrypted over long distances? Or through their skin when they brush up against each other in a crowded train? How will the police protect you and your copyright monopoly then?

We are actually developing a training product. I can't say whether it will be like yours or not, because you don't give enough details, but it'll be distributed on CD and sold for £20 or so. This is because the market we are trying to capture (SMEs) still values stuff they can hold and they pay for. If people copy it and share it, you know what, I really don't care. It's a loss leader for us, designed to get us into the SME market which is absolutely the hardest place to be (so many of them, requires massive marketing budgets normally). It's designed to get us lots of small consulting contracts that we can mostly automate.

Sorry, but the world has changed.

Rich.

http://www.masternewmedia.org/2003/11/05/the_futur e_of_web_conferencing_good_interviews_roland_pique paille.htm

Independent, eclectic, multidisciplinary, witty.

Here is Roland Piquepaille, unique scientist, researcher, reporter, opinion maker and journalist who doesn't wait for the approval fo the Queen to speak his mind out loud.

Roland is one of the high priests of the blogosphere, one very qualified writer and attentive spectator to the ongoing phantasmagoric circus offered by new technologies and their new potential interactions with us.

Roland is in many ways what "WIRED" the magazine, used to be for me: a window at the intersection of technology and social issues, with enough RAM and CPU power to critically appreciate, comment and question the infinite new opportunities brought about by new technologies to change and improve the world we inhabit.

Reminds me of the Laurie Anderson bit where she's reading this nauseatingly overwraught and self-involved blurb about her latest show... and then realizes, oh crap, that's the bio from the press release I wrote myself.

..and, DUDE, what's with that "photo?" We like ourselves, don't we, Roland?

Well... fortunately, there is. Leaving aside gizmo there is a newborn app called jajah which supports an impressive number of protocols, among them IAX2 which was designed from scratch to work seamlessly behind NATs.

And it offers five minutes of free calls (yes, that is free calls to any phone, anywhere in the world) to any new registered user, and you don't even have to leave your card number! (hey jajah admins... BEWARE OF THE BOTS :) )

Although it's only available for Windows right now, I think it has a lot of potential to become a truly Skype killer

Anyway, it's always good to know that Skype has this kind of competition (jajah, gizmo, etc). That can only be good for all of us, voip users!

You're joking, right? It's about to replace email for all the things people use email for but shouldn't. See this post for an example. Once someone figures out a way to add security (maybe that's in one of these extensions?), it should grow quickly.

I think you would be interested in Start1 or Start2

Its put out by Microsoft, but you don't sign up for an account. Its beta, so odds are that will change.

It supports uploading OPML files so you can export your existing feeds and upload them to the website.

Heres a good writeup about it.

Since "Internet Explorer Has Now Lost 30% Of The Browser Market" (http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2004/12/31/fre e_fall_internet_explorer_has.htm), I am observing the current Web Browser war with a particuliar interest. How come Internet Explorer has lost so much influence in the web? In which way will Microsoft try to remain the master of the domain?..

I personally use Opera and Mozilla; many useful tools (for example, related to web-development) were developed and I am willing to make use of them browsing with Mozilla rather than sticking to Opera without them.

As the author of the article says, "If one is willing to consider both open and closed source options, than picking one of these browsers over the other will likely come down to issues of convenience, personal preference, or the particular tasks one typically uses his browser for."

It really is a matter of personal preference. There are no "prejudices" against Opera or Mozilla, for many friends of mine use both of them. However, Internet Explorer - with all its holes, numerous patches etc. seems to sink into oblivion.

However, I am quite curious about the losers and the winners of the following Web Browser War.

Has anyone compared the statistical date of drop in malware with drop in usage of Outlook? I haven't ever used Outlook, but I was one of the first Optimum Online (One of the original Cable ISPs) users, and I remember when your Optonline.net account would (with always-online) automatically dump to Outlook, which basically would 'prepare' for your use by opening all your e-mail before you read it.... I haven't used either optonline e-mail or Outlook since.

This article is both dated/mostly off topic, but it was the first I found that supported what I wanted to hear (With none to the contrary)

http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2004/12/31/free _fall_internet_explorer_has.htm

P.S. WOO! ACTIVE PERL OVERFLOW. Thank god for Norton Firewall...

Didn't Microsoft already patent something similar?

Microsoft Patents The Human Body As A Network Bus

Check Videora

To those with existing business models on selling contents, yes. Read the manifesto. There's also a more coherent summary. It's only a problem if you believe the current (or rather recent past) model is the right way to distribute content and sharing is wrong.

There are excellent points in this manifesto. As far as the sharing is concerned, the point is that the days of media companies making money from selling content are just about over. There's a new market in town and if they don't invest in new business models they will die. This doesn't mean content will die, but the monopolies and their business models will die because they thrive only through scarcity, which is gone now. And there are people in line to take their place. Already there are commercial companies jumping into the new markets opened up by P2P.

I think the manifesto is an excellent companion to Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture and the free culture movement it's inspired. The manifesto probably needs to be edited and updated by someone with more eloquent writing skills, but I think that's the point of article and releasing it under a CC license.

http://www.masternewmedia.org/2005/01/17/why_p2p_f ile_sharing_is.htm

According to this, this, and this there are no viruses for OS X at all.

The first link even links to an old /. article. :)

Case in point, Robin Good writes "A yet to approved Senate bill would provide the ability to the US Government to basically put off limits all of the images coming off from research and monitoring satellites." http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2004/09/11/blin ded_skies_government_to_close.htm/

"Nondisclosure of Certain Products of Commercial Satellite Operations," would exempt from the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), unclassified, commercial satellite pictures bought up by the government, as well as "any... other product that is derived from such data.

In simple words: forget public access to satellite data you have been viewing.

So if you want to watch the weather tracking of hurricanes, subscribe to SETI or do independent research using satellite images you may not need to worry about their retention longevity. They just might not make it on the air to begin with.

By the way, here's some sort of a photo of Roland. Now, that's the only picture of RP I could find anywhere on the net, and it's been doctored. Clearly the guy is trying hard to not show his face, I wonder why...