Slashdot Mirror

One of Microsoft's design requirements for Windows Server 2003 was that EVERYTHING can be done from the commandline, that the GUI interfaces would have NO functionality that the commandline interface does not.

Yes, they need this capability due to their intent to transition to a subscription model (see the first step here) and connect with your system over the network to monitor and upgrade.

Perhaps they figure that if they secretly apply security patches for you when you connect to the network they'll be able to hide the frequency at which they occur.

Download this to make OpenOffice match your icon theme. Then use this guide to get your fonts looking good. In Gentoo you can get Microsoft's fonts by emerging corefonts

Here is reference to the register saying that http://www.theregus.com/content/4/25711.html

Potential connection between the advanced file system developed at Be Inc. (BFS) and Apple's new Finder for Panther:
Reference these two URLs for some background:
Tales of a BeOS Refugee
Windows on a Database - Sliced and Diced by BeOS Gurus
I think, in terms of the new Finder, it's time for a paradigm shift. First, note that Apple hired the guys mentioned in the articles above. Second, realize that the demo of "live" searches is most certainly because of the efforts of the BFS people. Third, realize that you could, in theory, never have to look thru another folder again. If you take some of the ideas the BFS people had, everything would be context-based. Having a database back-end to your Finder, with unlimited "meta data" (actually, the start of this, I beleive, was shown, in the form of labels), could provide, as one of the engineers put it, a kind of "google" interface to your data. Just some things to chew on while we watch the new Finder evolve.

Please explain why Windoze is vastly inferior

Don't say you didn't ask for this...

Firstly lets talk about security, I like not having to patch my OS every day with the latest security patch available from my vendor.

I like not having to worry about on single virus for my platform.. not one... how many is it that are available on the Windows platform? Tens of thousands

My OS is also consistent in its GUI and easy to use... I thought the Start menu was supposed to be a clear way of accessing programs on your computer... it was a step in the right direction for MS in 1995, but given eight years they've screwed that one up sideways - have you TRIED to use it in its default condition in XP? It tries to be EVERYTHING to EVERYONE... but ok ok this is subjective... but how about this one:

I presume you are sitting in front of your windows machine with IE open in front of you? Good, now click AND HOLD the file menu at the top up there, now while still holding drag the mouse down the menu, off the bottom of it and onto the page below, and then let go. MENU STAYS OPEN!. Now do exactly the same thing with teh 'Favourites' menu... MENU MAGICALLY CLOSES! Great GUI Microsoft!

Or how about this one... So you've got XP Pro and are all happy about having the latest and greatest OS from MS yeah? Well, lets do a little play-pretend, lets say you work in an accounting office, or somewhere where you need to store lots of files on your computer in a complex hierarchy of folders etc... sure go ahead, create a new folder, name it something like 'Audits from 1997 to 1999 (inclusive)' and then go on and add a folder within that, name it something, and then a folder within that, etc.... nest around 5 or 6 folders with medium sized names and Windows stops you dead in your tracks suddenly... WHY?... becasue Windows STILL does not support longer than 256 character paths... so if you want a complex folder hierarchy... well you can't. Sorry. (Try this is OSX, and you'll be adding folers for a VERY long time).

What else... the windowing system sucks... every Windows user knows what I mean when they double click a folder or something and the frame of the window appears maybe a second or so before the centre is filled leaving the MAGIC TRANSPARENT WINDOW! And coming out of games etc to the desktop, my God have you seen the start bar redraw itself? It stutters along and draws bits here and there... try opening up the Control Panel and WATCH the OS draw the icons in over the course of around 2 seconds. What fun.

What about price? Well I can get a copy of OSX for £79... if I want Windows XP Pro though it'll cost me £197... but don't forget what they say kids! MACs ARE MORE EXPENSIVE!

And of course you have the following software on your Windows PC -

iMovie

iTunes

iPhoto

iDVD

iSync

iCal

Mail (with advanced heuristic mail filtering - it's a godsend)

Safari

What!? You can't get these apps for your platform? And this is just the surface believe me - can your OS go to sleep and wake up from sleep in under 1 second?

I know I have been quite aggressive in this post, but I do think that you needed to have your eyes opened, there are reasons for using Windows (not many mind) but it is by far the perfect platform!

-Nex

Read below, if you use the built in search tool and search the internet (not files), it does send a lot of info back to MS.

Personally, I would not want them logging jack, but since I don't use XP....


"When you search the Internet using the Search Companion, the following information is collected regarding your use of the service: your IP address, the text of your Internet search query, grammatical information about the query, the list of tasks which the Search Companion Web service recommends, and any tasks you select from the recommendation list."


That is *a lot* of tracking they do.

http://www.theregus.com/content/4/24611.html

Bullshit? Read this: http://www.theregus.com/content/4/24611.html

Actually, no joke. There've already been studies which show that this kind of crap is actually more dangerous than talking on a cell phone while driving (itself as dangerous as drunk driving), because a voice interface to a Web page is so awkward.

good thing it's in italy and not in greece. gaming times 1000 counts of conspiracy would be bad ;).

Wouldn't the motherboard be grounded as well through the PCI cards that contact both the MB and the case?

Not necessarily. Have a look at this picture, from an article at The Register, recently featured on Slashdot in the most dangerous server rooms. There's no enclosure for the cards to ground the motherboard to, but that "server" most is running. Therefore the motherboard manufacturers can't rely on grounding the mobos that way, either.

Incidentally, haven't you ever tested a motherboard that was *not* mounted in a case? :) You know, rest it on the foam it ships with, shlop in a video card, a stick of RAM and a CPU, hook up a power supply, keyboard and monitor... :)

didn't this just happen about a week ago?

*cough*

Actually, this is the third article about the subject.

• October 8
• October 18
• October 24

Those of us that have been around the block more than twice know that asynchronous design has been the technology of the future for a long, long time. My personal experience goes back to the mid-seventies, but I'm sure there were asynch he-men doing their thing with vacuum tubes and RTL. :-)

The catch, then as now, is that asynch logic is just plain more difficult for our tiny little human brains to grok. This was true back in the days when humans designed their own logic, and it is even more true now when 99%+ of all logic is designed not by humans, but by logic synthesis software (Synopsys DC and Cadence PKS).

That said, there are always folks out there doing Cool Stuff w/asynch circuits. Hope that Ivan Sutherlands's group at Sun Labs survives Sun's recent massive layoffs.

You could dredge through RFC1001 and 1002 to read lots about the NETBIOS-over-TCP protocols (which use a lot of UDP, and therefore might be spoofable), or read the source code if you're one of those miscreants who snarfed it, or spend a couple of minutes with a sniffer to see what information is passed on the wire in what packets. But you don't really need to, because the way people see the spam is that their system responds to the packet using the default popup application, which displays the sender's NETBIOS name, not their DNS name or IP address, so unless they're running a sniffer, they won't see the IP address (and if they're the type of people who are always running a sniffer in the background, they're probably also the type of people who have port 135 blocked and aren't going to receive the spam...) NETBIOS names are essentially user-settable. That's not always true, if you're on a corporate LAN with Microsoft file/print/wins servers, but if you're not trying to do that, you can set it to whatever you want. Maybe not 127.0.0.1, since that has dots and no alphabetics, but LOCALHOST would work, or you could set it to ADMINISTRATOR if you're trying to social-engineer the recipients, or WORKGROUP if you want a generic built-in Microsoft name.

Not so sure about that. They have had their marketing come back and bite them in the ass before. One I remember is the whole Novell customer targeted marketing when they told many Novell Netware users that Novell was dead. I think they also made some ads a while back where they showed a person painted into a corner (and the paint color was Sun's color)

Anyway, my point is that I don't think they either

1. don't pay attention to their marketing drones
2. get off on causing contoversy (no such thing as bad press?)
3. are so out of touch with reality that making up fictional switch stories sounded like a good plan
4. All of the above

But regarding MCSE, I still consider it to have been very helpful in my technical development (because I only used braindumps on one exam). If you study for it well, you CAN get something out of it (aside from the Network Infrastructure exam, where some of the networks look like they were designed by a 5-year old). In fact I think it is an excelent compliment to the LPIC exams (I am MCSE and LPIC-2 certified).

Okay, here is an article indicating how powerful the Dragon is. Six million transistors, which the article says makes it as powerful as a 486. That may be an underestimate. The original Pentium was about 3.1 million transistors according to sandpile.

6 million transistors is something like a tenth of the a P4, a sixth of the K7, two-sevenths of a VIA cyrix III.

Don't forget about those shoddy Fujitsu harddrives. Apparently a school in BC.CA had an 86% failure rate with those!

Okay everybody, it's me - and I want my money back.

The register (us)'s version of this article says that Simony was the creator of Word and Excel, which were developed to overthrow VisiCalc and Wordstar.

From the article: Richard Brodie's mission under Simony was to "write the world's first wordprocessor with a spreadsheet user-interface. It took five years to repair the damage."

5 years? First rate clean up guys. First rate.

The register (us)'s version of this article says that Simony was the creator of Word and Excel, which were developed to overthrow VisiCalc and Wordstar.

From the article: Richard Brodie's mission under Simony was to "write the world's first wordprocessor with a spreadsheet user-interface. It took five years to repair the damage."

5 years? First rate clean up guys. First rate.

Right here.

* Ok, in fact it's sometimes difficult *not* to upgrade your Windows machine to Linux :-) In particular, it's often easier than upgrading to a newer version of Microsoft Office (I've found recent upgrades of the Windows operating system seem to work pretty well, if your hardware is fast enough, but the real reason for upgrading is usually driven by Office.)

Upgrading a Windows machine to Linux doesn't quite require negative capital expenditure - eliminating bloatware makes the machine a lot faster, but some of the recent window managers get amazingly doggy on less than 64MB RAM, and some of the installers do really stupid things with disk drives smaller than 4GB, and some of the distribution systems really don't netinstall well unless you've got a large spare disk to copy all their CDs into, but desktop machines that don't hav e CDROMs in them are usually too old to bother with. The Register recently reported that many businesses ppear to be moving to a 4-year upgrade cycle for PCs rather than 3-year cycles - Linux makes it easy to do this, and makes it easy to do low-cost bandaid upgrades like adding bigger disk drives and more RAM rather than replacing a whole machine.

http://www.theregus.com/content/4/26153.html

TheRegisterStoryPostedYesterdayAM

has nothing to do with superior technology or 'consumer choice' but a well funded team of corporate lawyers (Msfts chief counsel alone receives over $70 mil/year) and a big FUD machine. I say lawyers because of the question of deals: can Msft now retaliate by NOT selling Windows licenses to HP, effectively crippling their PC sales? I don't think they can even begin to get away with that, altho that's always been the 'club' waved over all the small screwdriver shops, the terms and conditions of being a Msft reseller (and being treated like a vassel tributary state). Such a big chunk of Msft revenues come from OEM, retail and other 'channel partner' sales that they're fighting to keep it, as revealed in this licensing expose' re: the dreaded 'nekkid PC' and volume lics.

Anyway, as we've gone from few households with PC's to almost everyone has one (and enough consumers found the last one sucked so bad they're not going to upgrade ever year, no, they'd rather spend the dough on new shoes, thanks anyway), and that saturated market just can't demand enough to keep prices high in face of all the supply, lets now watch the big, hungry sharks circle and kill each other off.

The Reg had an article last week about this entitled MP3s are good for music biz - Forrester. Worth a read.

Russ

After further research, it appears that Sun will only be offering Solaris x86 as an option on their own line of x86 hardware. Thus, many of my concerns voiced in the previous post are moot.

Just shows that I should have gone to The Register rather than trusting a half-assed Slashdot rumor.

and you say Microsoft is the devil:
http://www.theregus.com/content/4/25911.html

EFF pimps X-Box cracker 'victory'
By Thomas C Greene in Washington
Posted: 08/09/2002 at 03:04 EST

"The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is pleased to announce that former MIT doctoral student Andrew 'Bunnie' Huang will present a paper explaining a security flaw in the Microsoft Xbox (TM) videogame system," a recent press release begins.

Of course the paper has been available from Huang's account at MIT since April, so any danger from his appearance at a conference is largely imaginary. Huang long ago notified MS of his paper with EFF supervision, presumably appealing to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) exclusion for cryprographic research.

MS replied that while it would prefer that Huang not publish his findings, it had no intention of trying to jam him up with the DMCA. If there were an issue here worth reporting, it would have come up some time ago.

This is pure recycled news. Huang's talk is simply an occassion for the EFF to get some publicity mileage for its selfless struggle to liberate us all.

We recall the last non-issue which EFF inflated into gargantuan proportions as Princeton University Computer Science Professor Edward Felten -- who credited himself and his team with cracking the Secure Digital Music Initiative (SDMI) Public Challenge -- claimed his 'speech was being chilled' by a vague nastygram from the Recording Industry Ass. of America (RIAA) which cited potential DMCA complications if he delivered his findings in public.

After coaching Felten to voluntarily withdraw from a talk in which he was scheduled to spill the beans, the EFF trumpeted this as an example of protected speech being chilled by DMCA threats. Once he'd enacted that choreographed media stunt, Felten later gave his talk at a different conference and survived without a scratch.

EFF has apparently taught Huang to parrot its victim rap verbatim, as the gentleman is quoted in an organization press release fretting conspicuously that, "the DMCA clearly had a chilling effect on my work. I was afraid to submit my research for peer review until after the EFF's efforts to clear potential legal restraints."

Another close call with catastrophe narrowly averted by EFF vigilance, we're sure. ®

The story is available on the US site.

I doubt Slashdot can Slashdot the Register, but it might help American readers, especially those who missed the creation of the USA Register. The USA Register is basically the same content as the Register, but it drops some of the UK specific news (as in, UK elections and other events that are unlikely to matter to people who don't live there). As far as I know, there is no US-specific content, but several of their writers turn out to live in the US - so who knows...

The story is available on the US site.

I doubt Slashdot can Slashdot the Register, but it might help American readers, especially those who missed the creation of the USA Register. The USA Register is basically the same content as the Register, but it drops some of the UK specific news (as in, UK elections and other events that are unlikely to matter to people who don't live there). As far as I know, there is no US-specific content, but several of their writers turn out to live in the US - so who knows...

Maybe they are denying this news because in truth SUN AND APPLE ARE MERGING!!!

Wouldn't that make a great little conspiracy story? Come on, think about it. Sun has positioned themselves such that they need desktop software and Apple SHOULD be looking to G4/5 alternatives, particulary 64 bit options if they want to maintain any customers in the movie industry. The sparc wouldn't be a poor choice, since it seems like its roadmap goes farther than the vanilla powerpc chips.

Okay, it would be pretty un-applish to want to port Aqua to solaris rather than darwin, but you never know. Or the apple/sun conglomerate could maintain 3 difference unixes (don't forget that Sun has a linux distro coming out). It should would strengthen both companies pitch to the business sector since the whole office could come from one vendor (server, clients and office software). You can even picture what the new logo would be: a purple apple with sunbeams gracing one side, casting a shadow northward... no, farther north... yeah, past Oregon.. yeah, that far northward.

Come on silicon valley! Mount a RISC offensive against Redmond!

Wildly obnoxious? Alienating people?

Let's take a look at what happened. This "second round-table discussion" started at a 15 to 1 disadvantage against the public. By one reporter's count, it ended up being at least 23 to 1.

What was this panel really about? If you understand American politics, it was about one thing. Providing cover for the asses of US Representatives for votes on pending legislation that was written by, and paid for by the Entertainment Cartel. That's it. Plain and simple.

We tried everything we could to get representatives on the panel. We tried with the panel organizer. We tried with the Commerce Committee contacts. We tried with local legislators. Nothing worked. As the EFF lawyer stated, they were told specifically not to come to the hearing. The public was specifically being shut out of that "round-table"

There was one public representative on the panel, and except for a couple of sentences, he kept his mouth shut for the duration of the hearing.

Let's examine what happened that day, July 17, 2002. Representatives from Disney, Vivendi, Intel, IBM, MPAA, ContentGuard, AOL Time Warner, News Corp, EMI, and others sat around at a table, and patted each other on the back.

But wait. Let's start just a little earlier. Prior to the start of the "public round-table discussion", we were informed that we were not going to be permitted into the room. It was a closed meeting. We had to point out to the Committee reps that it was a PUBLIC meeting, and they couldn't bar us. We even had to find a place to download and print a copy of their announcement to show to them. When they realized that we would have printed proof that it was a public meeting, they relented, and said they would allow us to enter the meeting room.

The meeting started with a statement from the Commerce Sub-Committee Chair, and went around the table, with panel members making their introductions, and then making brief statements. Jack Valenti, who apparently was alerted to our website that listed the event (along with Jack Valenti notable quotables, which included some of his outrageous past statements, such as: "The VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman alone" Jack Valenti, head of the MPAA --
1982"") pre-empted the criticism by saying that he was known for using colorful language in the past in order to get his point across.

We were "informed" of the format of the hearing, that no statements from outside the panelists would be taken. So we could not get a seat at the panel, and we could not comment from the audience.

So Jack enlightened us on how he worked in the Johnson Administration to make the world better. And other things. And so it went. Then we were shown a ridiculously funny screen (probably a power point page) that showed the dozens of groups, and dozens of encrypting/drm/technological schemes to control content. From there, others made their introductions, and made their statements. One of Jack's early statements said something to the effect of (without actually naming the public) the public's view being noise, and a distraction, and that he puts these views, and this noise, out of his mind, as should they all, if they are to get anything done on this issue.

Up to that point, the audience was fairly quiet, but we laughed when the more outrageous statements were made. There were plenty to go around. Even the dude from Phillips, and another tech guy (Intel I believe) got into it with Jack Valenti on a number of occasions. But up to this point, there was really only laughter and occasional gasps from the audience at some of the statements.

About halfway through the proceedings, after having listened to numerous inflammatory statements made by Jack, and by others from the Entertainment Cartel, Jack started to get more intense in his statements. He compared fair use rights and file trading to a burglar using a skeleton key to rob all the houses in the neighborhood. He really said that.

I let that one slide off me. But after an exchange between Jack Valenti and Big IT where it got a little heated, Jack cooled off a bit, and then made a statement saying that the moving industry, and the IT industry needed to get together with legislators to write legislation to stop all the theft. I had enough. I stood up, and in a voice loud enough to be heard from the back of the room, I said "what about the public?" Paraphrasing myself (I don't have the transcripts yet), I said that the public was not being represented on the panel, the public is the true stakeholder on this topic, where are the public voices? I said this in a loud enough voice to be heard from the back of a large room. Was I yelling? I don't know. I know that I was speaking loud enough to be heard. That's it. Ask others.

What was Jack Valenti's reaction? He did something that shows he is a very astute individual when it comes to testifying in Congress. He continued talking. He talked right over me. He had the microphone. His voice, speaking directly into the microphone, not my voice from the back of a large meeting room, was being recorded. But the chair wouldn't have it. He interrupted me, and was telling me to sit down and be quiet. No comments were allowed. But Jack, knowing the press was there, turned an interruption of his speech into a chance to look good. He said that if I allowed him to finish his statement, he would allow me to respond. The chair tried to shut me up, but when I heard Jack say that, I sat down, and he finished his statement. Then, before I could give the chair a chance to shut me down, I stood back up, and gave my two cents. I (paraphrasing myself again, from memory) stated that the panel was not representative of the public, the public were the stakeholders, and there needed to be public representatives on the panel. As I stood up to respond, Ruben Safir, Brett Wyncoop, Seth Johnson (who held up his hand for two hours by the end of the meeting waiting to be called on to make a statement) Jay Sulzburger and others stood up, and I introduced Richard Stallman (who had just been awarded an honor by the United Nations) and we tried to get the panel chairman to recogize him to allow him to make a statement. Richard did not stand up, and said nothing. We, from New Yorkers for Fair Use , NYLXS , and several other groups, made the few statements that we were able to squeeze in.

The chair was having none of that. He said that Brett, who was mistakenly recognized earlier as a panelist (it was standing room only, with people standing, sitting on the floor, kneeling, sitting on laps, etc) when he was kneeling near one of the tables, and when he was called on, he made his statement. So the chair said that since Brett had made his short statement, the public had been heard, we had our chance. "We have a structure here!" was said repeatedly by the chair.

So we were told to shut up and sit down. Richard Stallman never said a word at this point. He wasn't given the chance.

After we sat down, Jack Valenti was clearly flustered. The press was present. They had heard the exchange. It would not be good PR for the MPAA. So he made some more astounding statements. He couldn't understand why I was saying the public was not represented on the panel. He was the public. He indicated the guy across from him (the Intel rep, I believe) and said he was the public. He said the Commerce Sub-Committee reps seated at the head of the table were the public, the public was represented.

After that exchange, the "round-table" discussion continued. More statements were made, calling for legislation. A few of the IT reps were against legislating the unknown. The Phillips rep, the Intel rep, and a couple of others were against legislation putting controls into the hardware, without a specific definition of what the controls were. The rep from Listen.com was against the drm legislation in general. He stated repeatedly that he was competing against free P2P, and his company was making money on it. And the IBM rep, the Phillips rep, and one other IT rep stated several times after my outburst/shouting/statement/activism/disruption/al ienation/obnoxiousness (insert preferred word depending on your agenda) that the public needed to be included in the discussion, and was missing from the current panel.

After some more discussion, the panel was asked by the chair to sum up their positions. This is where it got interesting. And this is where you separate the sheep from those who understand politics in America.

This "second round-table discussion" was a fraud. It was designed with one thing in mind. Provide cover for the legislators. The Commerce Committee, and this sub-committee was charged with one thing. Provide cover. This is an election year. Every House of Representatives seat is up for re-election. The US Reps are going through the motions. They are shaking the trees and raking the leaves. The Entertainment cartel already has bills written up by their lawyers. They want these bills passed. And the legislators want the Entertainment Cartel money so they can get re-elected. There is one week left before the summer break. That's this week. After the summer break, the legislators will not have time for these bills. They will be fighting over War legislation, economic legislation, senior issues, environment, and re-election items. And they will be running for re-election. This year will be a tough election. Control of the House and Senate are both up for grabs.

Getting back to the summations, this is where the horseshit started to fly. Starting with the lobbyist for AOL Time Warner (yeah, they actually sent a lobbyist) and continuing with Jack Valenti of MPAA, and Vivendi, and others, the panelists all looked at each other, or their notes, and lied straight into the microphone. They stated that a consensus had been reached. Talks between IT and Entertainment were not enough. Help from legislators, in the form of legislation was needed. They actually stated that a consensus was reached (none was, the Entertainment and IT industries remained far apart, and they admitted that the public needed to be represented), they stated that the panel was in agreement that legislation was needed, etc. This couldn't be further from the truth. But the truth didn't matter when they were making these statements. These statements were being made for one reason. They were providing sound bites for legislators to use for their justification later in voting for what will be highly anti-consumer, highly anti-fair use, and highly anti-open source legislation. That's it. They are supplying sound bites and cover for legislators.

It was at this point, when Jack Valenti was trying to sound conciliatory to the IT rep (I think it was the Intel guy again) when Jack summed up by stating that the Entertainment Industry and IT had to get together with Congress to find a solution. It had been a long day at this point, very hot outside, not enough air conditioning inside, and this one slipped by me. But luckily, Richard Stallman caught it. He said aloud (paraphrasing from memory again) "so the IT industry and the entertainment industry are conspiring again to the exclusion of the public" He was completely correct on this, and it was an important point to bring up. It repeated what we had been saying all along, and it pointed out that even after we repeatedly tried to get the public to have a voice in what was happening, that Jack Valenti, and Big IT were in agreement to exclude the public. This was an important point, and it is the only statement that Richard Stallmen made inside the committee room. Everything else that Richard Stallman said, and the rest of us said was made on the steps outside the Commerce Committee building, at our impromptu news conference after.

Upset that your electronic school books expire at the end of the semester? (see nyfairuse.org web site on this one, it's true) Too bad. Upset that you can't back up you music CD to protect against scratches? Too bad. Upset that you'll have to pay a second time for the same song if you want to transfer it from your CD to your Rio? Too bad. We held hearings, the public was represented, a consensus was reached. It's right here in the transcript. At least five people stated that a consensus was reached. Where were you? We held hearings. You should have made your voice heard then. You should have contacted my office. I have no record of you ever contacting me. How was I supposed to know this would happen, you should have told me. I was voting to protect musicians, to help keep them off of welfare...

Cover and sound bites. That's what the hearing was all about.

Toward the end of the hearing, Mike Miron, of ContentGuard, made the most outrageous statement of all. And this one slipped under the radar of the journalists. It was made as people were getting restless, as the meeting was winding up, and others on the panel were starting to pack up. In one breath, he associated kids trading files with spies and terrorists such as Wen Ho Lee, Jonathan Pollard, and Robert Hanson. He stated that P2P networks enable spies and terrorists to upload military secrets to the internet, and that in light of September 11, this must be considered. Having been personally affected by September 11, this is the most outrageous statement I have ever heard. Anyone who knows anything about the Robert Hanson case knows that he was a highly knowledgeable person on technology, and used his technical skills far beyond what a mere P2P network can provide. Many tools are available to computer users for uploading files, including ftp, sftp, putty, scp, and many others. Other tools, such as PGP, steganograpy, GnuPG, SSH, and others would accomplish much more, and would better hide the tracks of a would be spy or terrorist. Equating kids with spies and terrorists, and using September 11th to provide a sound bite for a Congressman on the DRM issue is appalling. But the Entertainment Cartel will do what it takes to get their bills through.

So the "round-table" was held on July 17, a Wednesday. I'm sure you all saw the wave of bills on DRM, on allowing the Entertainment industry to hack into your computers and destroy files with civil and criminal protections , and on various other issues regarding DRM and Fair Use attacks. These bills were out the end of the same week, or the beginning of the following week. How many of you believe that the legislators sat around on July 18 to write these bills? Or is it more believable that these bills were already written prior to the round-table meeting?

We have been in contact with the Commerce Dept. We will have representatives present during the next discussion. It naturally will be separate from the industry panel (don't wanna kill the golden goose, and don't wanna give the opposition their own sound bites from the same meeting), but it is a step forward. A step that we did not have before we opened our mouths. A step that we would not have if we would have behaved like lambs to the slaughter, as Al3x would have us do. A forum where we will try to correctly define DRM

Should we have spoke out? Or not? You tell me.

But before you do, check out http://www.nyfairuse.org as they have a more complete account of what happened, and that was written a couple of days after the "round-table", not from my memory as I am doing now. Check it out, then tell me: Should we have kept our mouths shut like Al3x wanted? Or did we do something right by taking on Jack Valenti 's poisonous fud and rhetoric?

Did you speak out? Should you have spoken out? Sent an email? Made a phone call? Sent a fax?

I can't answer for you. I can only answer for myself. And I did what I thought was right.

Vincenzo.

I can be reached through the NYFairUse Discuss mailing list

btw, this is just one member's opinion. For official positions by NYLXS or NYFairUse , go to their web sites.

Wildly obnoxious? Alienating people?

Let's take a look at what happened. This "second round-table discussion" started at a 15 to 1 disadvantage against the public. By one reporter's count, it ended up being at least 23 to 1.

What was this panel really about? If you understand American politics, it was about one thing. Providing cover for the asses of US Representatives for votes on pending legislation that was written by, and paid for by the Entertainment Cartel. That's it. Plain and simple.

We tried everything we could to get representatives on the panel. We tried with the panel organizer. We tried with the Commerce Committee contacts. We tried with local legislators. Nothing worked. As the EFF lawyer stated, they were told specifically not to come to the hearing. The public was specifically being shut out of that "round-table"

There was one public representative on the panel, and except for a couple of sentences, he kept his mouth shut for the duration of the hearing.

Let's examine what happened that day, July 17, 2002. Representatives from Disney, Vivendi, Intel, IBM, MPAA, ContentGuard, AOL Time Warner, News Corp, EMI, and others sat around at a table, and patted each other on the back.

But wait. Let's start just a little earlier. Prior to the start of the "public round-table discussion", we were informed that we were not going to be permitted into the room. It was a closed meeting. We had to point out to the Committee reps that it was a PUBLIC meeting, and they couldn't bar us. We even had to find a place to download and print a copy of their announcement to show to them. When they realized that we would have printed proof that it was a public meeting, they relented, and said they would allow us to enter the meeting room.

The meeting started with a statement from the Commerce Sub-Committee Chair, and went around the table, with panel members making their introductions, and then making brief statements. Jack Valenti, who apparently was alerted to our website that listed the event (along with Jack Valenti notable quotables, which included some of his outrageous past statements, such as: "The VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman alone" Jack Valenti, head of the MPAA --
1982"") pre-empted the criticism by saying that he was known for using colorful language in the past in order to get his point across.

We were "informed" of the format of the hearing, that no statements from outside the panelists would be taken. So we could not get a seat at the panel, and we could not comment from the audience.

So Jack enlightened us on how he worked in the Johnson Administration to make the world better. And other things. And so it went. Then we were shown a ridiculously funny screen (probably a power point page) that showed the dozens of groups, and dozens of encrypting/drm/technological schemes to control content. From there, others made their introductions, and made their statements. One of Jack's early statements said something to the effect of (without actually naming the public) the public's view being noise, and a distraction, and that he puts these views, and this noise, out of his mind, as should they all, if they are to get anything done on this issue.

Up to that point, the audience was fairly quiet, but we laughed when the more outrageous statements were made. There were plenty to go around. Even the dude from Phillips, and another tech guy (Intel I believe) got into it with Jack Valenti on a number of occasions. But up to this point, there was really only laughter and occasional gasps from the audience at some of the statements.

About halfway through the proceedings, after having listened to numerous inflammatory statements made by Jack, and by others from the Entertainment Cartel, Jack started to get more intense in his statements. He compared fair use rights and file trading to a burglar using a skeleton key to rob all the houses in the neighborhood. He really said that.

I let that one slide off me. But after an exchange between Jack Valenti and Big IT where it got a little heated, Jack cooled off a bit, and then made a statement saying that the moving industry, and the IT industry needed to get together with legislators to write legislation to stop all the theft. I had enough. I stood up, and in a voice loud enough to be heard from the back of the room, I said "what about the public?" Paraphrasing myself (I don't have the transcripts yet), I said that the public was not being represented on the panel, the public is the true stakeholder on this topic, where are the public voices? I said this in a loud enough voice to be heard from the back of a large room. Was I yelling? I don't know. I know that I was speaking loud enough to be heard. That's it. Ask others.

What was Jack Valenti's reaction? He did something that shows he is a very astute individual when it comes to testifying in Congress. He continued talking. He talked right over me. He had the microphone. His voice, speaking directly into the microphone, not my voice from the back of a large meeting room, was being recorded. But the chair wouldn't have it. He interrupted me, and was telling me to sit down and be quiet. No comments were allowed. But Jack, knowing the press was there, turned an interruption of his speech into a chance to look good. He said that if I allowed him to finish his statement, he would allow me to respond. The chair tried to shut me up, but when I heard Jack say that, I sat down, and he finished his statement. Then, before I could give the chair a chance to shut me down, I stood back up, and gave my two cents. I (paraphrasing myself again, from memory) stated that the panel was not representative of the public, the public were the stakeholders, and there needed to be public representatives on the panel. As I stood up to respond, Ruben Safir, Brett Wyncoop, Seth Johnson (who held up his hand for two hours by the end of the meeting waiting to be called on to make a statement) Jay Sulzburger and others stood up, and I introduced Richard Stallman (who had just been awarded an honor by the United Nations) and we tried to get the panel chairman to recogize him to allow him to make a statement. Richard did not stand up, and said nothing. We, from New Yorkers for Fair Use , NYLXS , and several other groups, made the few statements that we were able to squeeze in.

The chair was having none of that. He said that Brett, who was mistakenly recognized earlier as a panelist (it was standing room only, with people standing, sitting on the floor, kneeling, sitting on laps, etc) when he was kneeling near one of the tables, and when he was called on, he made his statement. So the chair said that since Brett had made his short statement, the public had been heard, we had our chance. "We have a structure here!" was said repeatedly by the chair.

So we were told to shut up and sit down. Richard Stallman never said a word at this point. He wasn't given the chance.

After we sat down, Jack Valenti was clearly flustered. The press was present. They had heard the exchange. It would not be good PR for the MPAA. So he made some more astounding statements. He couldn't understand why I was saying the public was not represented on the panel. He was the public. He indicated the guy across from him (the Intel rep, I believe) and said he was the public. He said the Commerce Sub-Committee reps seated at the head of the table were the public, the public was represented.

After that exchange, the "round-table" discussion continued. More statements were made, calling for legislation. A few of the IT reps were against legislating the unknown. The Phillips rep, the Intel rep, and a couple of others were against legislation putting controls into the hardware, without a specific definition of what the controls were. The rep from Listen.com was against the drm legislation in general. He stated repeatedly that he was competing against free P2P, and his company was making money on it. And the IBM rep, the Phillips rep, and one other IT rep stated several times after my outburst/shouting/statement/activism/disruption/al ienation/obnoxiousness (insert preferred word depending on your agenda) that the public needed to be included in the discussion, and was missing from the current panel.

After some more discussion, the panel was asked by the chair to sum up their positions. This is where it got interesting. And this is where you separate the sheep from those who understand politics in America.

This "second round-table discussion" was a fraud. It was designed with one thing in mind. Provide cover for the legislators. The Commerce Committee, and this sub-committee was charged with one thing. Provide cover. This is an election year. Every House of Representatives seat is up for re-election. The US Reps are going through the motions. They are shaking the trees and raking the leaves. The Entertainment cartel already has bills written up by their lawyers. They want these bills passed. And the legislators want the Entertainment Cartel money so they can get re-elected. There is one week left before the summer break. That's this week. After the summer break, the legislators will not have time for these bills. They will be fighting over War legislation, economic legislation, senior issues, environment, and re-election items. And they will be running for re-election. This year will be a tough election. Control of the House and Senate are both up for grabs.

Getting back to the summations, this is where the horseshit started to fly. Starting with the lobbyist for AOL Time Warner (yeah, they actually sent a lobbyist) and continuing with Jack Valenti of MPAA, and Vivendi, and others, the panelists all looked at each other, or their notes, and lied straight into the microphone. They stated that a consensus had been reached. Talks between IT and Entertainment were not enough. Help from legislators, in the form of legislation was needed. They actually stated that a consensus was reached (none was, the Entertainment and IT industries remained far apart, and they admitted that the public needed to be represented), they stated that the panel was in agreement that legislation was needed, etc. This couldn't be further from the truth. But the truth didn't matter when they were making these statements. These statements were being made for one reason. They were providing sound bites for legislators to use for their justification later in voting for what will be highly anti-consumer, highly anti-fair use, and highly anti-open source legislation. That's it. They are supplying sound bites and cover for legislators.

It was at this point, when Jack Valenti was trying to sound conciliatory to the IT rep (I think it was the Intel guy again) when Jack summed up by stating that the Entertainment Industry and IT had to get together with Congress to find a solution. It had been a long day at this point, very hot outside, not enough air conditioning inside, and this one slipped by me. But luckily, Richard Stallman caught it. He said aloud (paraphrasing from memory again) "so the IT industry and the entertainment industry are conspiring again to the exclusion of the public" He was completely correct on this, and it was an important point to bring up. It repeated what we had been saying all along, and it pointed out that even after we repeatedly tried to get the public to have a voice in what was happening, that Jack Valenti, and Big IT were in agreement to exclude the public. This was an important point, and it is the only statement that Richard Stallmen made inside the committee room. Everything else that Richard Stallman said, and the rest of us said was made on the steps outside the Commerce Committee building, at our impromptu news conference after.

Upset that your electronic school books expire at the end of the semester? (see nyfairuse.org web site on this one, it's true) Too bad. Upset that you can't back up you music CD to protect against scratches? Too bad. Upset that you'll have to pay a second time for the same song if you want to transfer it from your CD to your Rio? Too bad. We held hearings, the public was represented, a consensus was reached. It's right here in the transcript. At least five people stated that a consensus was reached. Where were you? We held hearings. You should have made your voice heard then. You should have contacted my office. I have no record of you ever contacting me. How was I supposed to know this would happen, you should have told me. I was voting to protect musicians, to help keep them off of welfare...

Cover and sound bites. That's what the hearing was all about.

Toward the end of the hearing, Mike Miron, of ContentGuard, made the most outrageous statement of all. And this one slipped under the radar of the journalists. It was made as people were getting restless, as the meeting was winding up, and others on the panel were starting to pack up. In one breath, he associated kids trading files with spies and terrorists such as Wen Ho Lee, Jonathan Pollard, and Robert Hanson. He stated that P2P networks enable spies and terrorists to upload military secrets to the internet, and that in light of September 11, this must be considered. Having been personally affected by September 11, this is the most outrageous statement I have ever heard. Anyone who knows anything about the Robert Hanson case knows that he was a highly knowledgeable person on technology, and used his technical skills far beyond what a mere P2P network can provide. Many tools are available to computer users for uploading files, including ftp, sftp, putty, scp, and many others. Other tools, such as PGP, steganograpy, GnuPG, SSH, and others would accomplish much more, and would better hide the tracks of a would be spy or terrorist. Equating kids with spies and terrorists, and using September 11th to provide a sound bite for a Congressman on the DRM issue is appalling. But the Entertainment Cartel will do what it takes to get their bills through.

So the "round-table" was held on July 17, a Wednesday. I'm sure you all saw the wave of bills on DRM, on allowing the Entertainment industry to hack into your computers and destroy files with civil and criminal protections , and on various other issues regarding DRM and Fair Use attacks. These bills were out the end of the same week, or the beginning of the following week. How many of you believe that the legislators sat around on July 18 to write these bills? Or is it more believable that these bills were already written prior to the round-table meeting?

We have been in contact with the Commerce Dept. We will have representatives present during the next discussion. It naturally will be separate from the industry panel (don't wanna kill the golden goose, and don't wanna give the opposition their own sound bites from the same meeting), but it is a step forward. A step that we did not have before we opened our mouths. A step that we would not have if we would have behaved like lambs to the slaughter, as Al3x would have us do. A forum where we will try to correctly define DRM

Should we have spoke out? Or not? You tell me.

But before you do, check out http://www.nyfairuse.org as they have a more complete account of what happened, and that was written a couple of days after the "round-table", not from my memory as I am doing now. Check it out, then tell me: Should we have kept our mouths shut like Al3x wanted? Or did we do something right by taking on Jack Valenti 's poisonous fud and rhetoric?

Did you speak out? Should you have spoken out? Sent an email? Made a phone call? Sent a fax?

I can't answer for you. I can only answer for myself. And I did what I thought was right.

Vincenzo.

I can be reached through the NYFairUse Discuss mailing list

btw, this is just one member's opinion. For official positions by NYLXS or NYFairUse , go to their web sites.

Wildly obnoxious? Alienating people?

Let's take a look at what happened. This "second round-table discussion" started at a 15 to 1 disadvantage against the public. By one reporter's count, it ended up being 23 to 1.

What was this panel really about? If you understand American politics, it was about one thing. Providing cover for the asses of US Representatives for votes on pending legislation that was written by, and paid for by the Entertainment Cartel. That's it. Plain and simple.

We tried everything we could to get representatives on the panel. We tried with the panel organizer. We tried with the Commerce Committee contacts. We tried with local legislators. Nothing worked. As the EFF lawyer stated, they were told specifically not to come to the hearing. The public was specifically being shut out of that "round-table"

There was one public representative on the panel, and except for a couple of sentences, he kept his mouth shut for the duration of the hearing.

Let's examine what happened that day, July 17, 2002. Representatives from Disney, Vivendi, Intel, IBM, MPAA, ContentGuard, AOL Time Warner, News Corp, EMI, and others sat around at a table, and patted each other on the back.

But wait. Let's start just a little earlier. Prior to the start of the "public round-table discussion", we were informed that we were not going to be permitted into the room. It was a closed meeting. We had to point out to the Committee reps that it was a PUBLIC meeting, and they couldn't bar us. We even had to find a place to download and print a copy of their announcement to show to them. When they realized that we would have printed proof that it was a public meeting, they relented, and said they would allow us to enter the meeting room.

The meeting started with a statement from the Commerce Sub-Committee Chair, and went around the table, with panel members making their introductions, and then making brief statements. Jack Valenti, who apparently was alerted to our website that listed the event (along with Jack Valenti notable quotables, which included some of his outrageous past statements, such as: "The VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman alone" Jack Valenti, head of the MPAA --
1982"") pre-empted the criticism by saying that he was known for using colorful language in the past in order to get his point across.

We were "informed" of the format of the hearing, that no statements from outside the panelists would be taken. So we could not get a seat at the panel, and we could not comment from the audience.

So Jack enlightened us on how he worked in the Johnson Administration to make the world better. And other things. And so it went. Then we were shown a ridiculously funny screen (probably a power point page) that showed the dozens of groups, and dozens of encrypting/drm/technological schemes to control content. From there, others made their introductions, and made their statements. One of Jack's early statements said something to the effect of (without actually naming the public) the public's view being noise, and a distraction, and that he puts these views, and this noise, out of his mind, as should they all, if they are to get anything done on this issue.

Up to that point, the audience was fairly quiet, but we laughed when the more outrageous statements were made. There were plenty to go around. Even the dude from Phillips, and another tech guy (Intel I believe) got into it with Jack Valenti on a number of occasions. But up to this point, there was really only laughter and occasional gasps from the audience at some of the statements.

About halfway through the proceedings, after having listened to numerous inflammatory statements made by Jack, and by others from the Entertainment Cartel, Jack started to get more intense in his statements. He compared fair use rights and file trading to a burglar using a skeleton key to rob all the houses in the neighborhood. He really said that.

I let that one slide off me. But after an exchange between Jack Valenti and Big IT where it got a little heated, Jack cooled off a bit, and then made a statement saying that the moving industry, and the IT industry needed to get together with legislators to write legislation to stop all the theft. I had enough. I stood up, and in a voice loud enough to be heard from the back of the room, I said "what about the public?" Paraphrasing myself (I don't have the transcripts yet), I said that the public was not being represented on the panel, the public is the true stakeholder on this topic, where are the public voices? I said this in a loud enough voice to be heard from the back of a large room. Was I yelling? I don't know. I know that I was speaking loud enough to be heard. That's it. Ask others.

What was Jack Valenti's reaction? He did something that shows he is a very astute individual when it comes to testifying in Congress. He continued talking. He talked right over me. He had the microphone. His voice, speaking directly into the microphone, not my voice from the back of a large meeting room, was being recorded. But the chair wouldn't have it. He interrupted me, and was telling me to sit down and be quiet. No comments were allowed. But Jack, knowing the press was there, turned an interruption of his speech into a chance to look good. He said that if I allowed him to finish his statement, he would allow me to respond. The chair tried to shut me up, but when I heard Jack say that, I sat down, and he finished his statement. Then, before I could give the chair a chance to shut me down, I stood back up, and gave my two cents. I (paraphrasing myself again, from memory) stated that the panel was not representative of the public, the public were the stakeholders, and there needed to be public representatives on the panel. As I stood up to respond, Ruben Safir, Brett Wyncoop, Seth Johnson (who held up his hand for two hours by the end of the meeting waiting to be called on to make a statement) Jay Sulzburger and others stood up, and I introduced Richard Stallman (who had just been awarded an honor by the United Nations) and we tried to get the panel chairman to recogize him to allow him to make a statement. Richard did not stand up, and said nothing. We, from New Yorkers for Fair Use , NYLXS , and several other groups, made the few statements that we were able to squeeze in.

The chair was having none of that. He said that Brett, who was mistakenly recognized earlier as a panelist (it was standing room only, with people standing, sitting on the floor, kneeling, sitting on laps, etc) when he was kneeling near one of the tables, and when he was called on, he made his statement. So the chair said that since Brett had made his short statement, the public had been heard, we had our chance. "We have a structure here!" was said repeatedly by the chair.

So we were told to shut up and sit down. Richard Stallman never said a word at this point. He wasn't given the chance.

After we sat down, Jack Valenti was clearly flustered. The press was present. They had heard the exchange. It would not be good PR for the MPAA. So he made some more astounding statements. He couldn't understand why I was saying the public was not represented on the panel. He was the public. He indicated the guy across from him (the Intel rep, I believe) and said he was the public. He said the Commerce Sub-Committee reps seated at the head of the table were the public, the public was represented.

After that exchange, the "round-table" discussion continued. More statements were made, calling for legislation. A few of the IT reps were against legislating the unknown. The Phillips rep, the Intel rep, and a couple of others were against legislation putting controls into the hardware, without a specific definition of what the controls were. The rep from Listen.com was against the drm legislation in general. He stated repeatedly that he was competing against free P2P, and his company was making money on it. And the IBM rep, the Phillips rep, and one other IT rep stated several times after my outburst/shouting/statement/activism/disruption/al ienation/obnoxiousness (insert preferred word depending on your agenda) that the public needed to be included in the discussion, and was missing from the current panel.

After some more discussion, the panel was asked by the chair to sum up their positions. This is where it got interesting. And this is where you separate the sheep from those who understand politics in America.

This "second round-table discussion" was a fraud. It was designed with one thing in mind. Provide cover for the legislators. The Commerce Committee, and this sub-committee was charged with one thing. Provide cover. This is an election year. Every House of Representatives seat is up for re-election. The US Reps are going through the motions. They are shaking the trees and raking the leaves. The Entertainment cartel already has bills written up by their lawyers. They want these bills passed. And the legislators want the Entertainment Cartel money so they can get re-elected. There is one week left before the summer break. That's this week. After the summer break, the legislators will not have time for these bills. They will be fighting over War legislation, economic legislation, senior issues, environment, and re-election items. And they will be running for re-election. This year will be a tough election. Control of the House and Senate are both up for grabs.

Getting back to the summations, this is where the horseshit started to fly. Starting with the lobbyist for AOL Time Warner (yeah, they actually sent a lobbyist) and continuing with Jack Valenti of MPAA, and Vivendi, and others, the panelists all looked at each other, or their notes, and lied straight into the microphone. They stated that a consensus had been reached. Talks between IT and Entertainment were not enough. Help from legislators, in the form of legislation was needed. They actually stated that a consensus was reached (none was, the Entertainment and IT industries remained far apart, and they admitted that the public needed to be represented), they stated that the panel was in agreement that legislation was needed, etc. This couldn't be further from the truth. But the truth didn't matter when they were making these statements. These statements were being made for one reason. They were providing sound bites for legislators to use for their justification later in voting for what will be highly anti-consumer, highly anti-fair use, and highly anti-open source legislation. That's it. They are supplying sound bites and cover for legislators.

It was at this point, when Jack Valenti was trying to sound conciliatory to the IT rep (I think it was the Intel guy again) when Jack summed up by stating that the Entertainment Industry and IT had to get together with Congress to find a solution. It had been a long day at this point, very hot outside, not enough air conditioning inside, and this one slipped by me. But luckily, Richard Stallman caught it. He said aloud (paraphrasing from memory again) "so the IT industry and the entertainment industry are conspiring again to the exclusion of the public" He was completely correct on this, and it was an important point to bring up. It repeated what we had been saying all along, and it pointed out that even after we repeatedly tried to get the public to have a voice in what was happening, that Jack Valenti, and Big IT were in agreement to exclude the public. This was an important point, and it is the only statement that Richard Stallmen made inside the committee room. Everything else that Richard Stallman said, and the rest of us said was made on the steps outside the Commerce Committee building, at our impromptu news conference after.

Upset that your electronic school books expire at the end of the semester? (see nyfairuse.org web site on this one, it's true) Too bad. Upset that you can't back up you music CD to protect against scratches? Too bad. Upset that you'll have to pay a second time for the same song if you want to transfer it from your CD to your Rio? Too bad. We held hearings, the public was represented, a consensus was reached. It's right here in the transcript. At least five people stated that a consensus was reached. Where were you? We held hearings. You should have made your voice heard then. You should have contacted my office. I have no record of you ever contacting me. How was I supposed to know this would happen, you should have told me. I was voting to protect musicians, to help keep them off of welfare...

Cover and sound bites. That's what the hearing was all about.

Toward the end of the hearing, Mike Miron, of ContentGuard, made the most outrageous statement of all. And this one slipped under the radar of the journalists. It was made as people were getting restless, as the meeting was winding up, and others on the panel were starting to pack up. In one breath, he associated kids trading files with spies and terrorists such as Wen Ho Lee, Jonathan Pollard, and Robert Hanson. He stated that P2P networks enable spies and terrorists to upload military secrets to the internet, and that in light of September 11, this must be considered. Having been personally affected by September 11, this is the most outrageous statement I have ever heard. Anyone who knows anything about the Robert Hanson case knows that he was a highly knowledgeable person on technology, and used his technical skills far beyond what a mere P2P network can provide. Many tools are available to computer users for uploading files, including ftp, sftp, putty, scp, and many others. Other tools, such as PGP, steganograpy, GnuPG, SSH, and others would accomplish much more, and would better hide the tracks of a would be spy or terrorist. Equating kids with spies and terrorists, and using September 11th to provide a sound bite for a Congressman on the DRM issue is appalling. But the Entertainment Cartel will do what it takes to get their bills through.

So the "round-table" was held on July 17, a Wednesday. I'm sure you all saw the wave of bills on DRM, on allowing the Entertainment industry to hack into your computers and destroy files with civil and criminal protections , and on various other issues regarding DRM and Fair Use attacks. These bills were out the end of the same week, or the beginning of the following week. How many of you believe that the legislators sat around on July 18 to write these bills? Or is it more believable that these bills were already written prior to the round-table meeting?

We have been in contact with the Commerce Dept. We will have representatives present during the next discussion. It naturally will be separate from the industry panel (don't wanna kill the golden goose, and don't wanna give the opposition their own sound bites from the same meeting), but it is a step forward. A step that we did not have before we opened our mouths. A step that we would not have if we would have behaved like lambs to the slaughter, as Al3x would have us do. A forum where we will try to correctly define DRM

Should we have spoke out? Or not? You tell me.

But before you do, check out http://www.nyfairuse.org as they have a more complete account of what happened, and that was written a couple of days after the "round-table", not from my memory as I am doing now. Check it out, then tell me: Should we have kept our mouths shut like Al3x wanted? Or did we do something right by taking on Jack Valenti 's poisonous fud and rhetoric?

Did you speak out? Should you have spoken out? Sent an email? Made a phone call? Sent a fax?

I can't answer for you. I can only answer for myself. And I did what I thought was right.

Vincenzo.

I can be reached through the NYFairUse Discuss mailing list

btw, this is just one member's opinion. For official positions by NYLXS or NYFairUse , go to their web sites.

Wildly obnoxious? Alienating people?

Let's take a look at what happened. This "second round-table discussion" started at a 15 to 1 disadvantage against the public. By one reporter's count, it ended up being 23 to 1.

What was this panel really about? If you understand American politics, it was about one thing. Providing cover for the asses of US Representatives for votes on pending legislation that was written by, and paid for by the Entertainment Cartel. That's it. Plain and simple.

We tried everything we could to get representatives on the panel. We tried with the panel organizer. We tried with the Commerce Committee contacts. We tried with local legislators. Nothing worked. As the EFF lawyer stated, they were told specifically not to come to the hearing. The public was specifically being shut out of that "round-table"

There was one public representative on the panel, and except for a couple of sentences, he kept his mouth shut for the duration of the hearing.

Let's examine what happened that day, July 17, 2002. Representatives from Disney, Vivendi, Intel, IBM, MPAA, ContentGuard, AOL Time Warner, News Corp, EMI, and others sat around at a table, and patted each other on the back.

But wait. Let's start just a little earlier. Prior to the start of the "public round-table discussion", we were informed that we were not going to be permitted into the room. It was a closed meeting. We had to point out to the Committee reps that it was a PUBLIC meeting, and they couldn't bar us. We even had to find a place to download and print a copy of their announcement to show to them. When they realized that we would have printed proof that it was a public meeting, they relented, and said they would allow us to enter the meeting room.

The meeting started with a statement from the Commerce Sub-Committee Chair, and went around the table, with panel members making their introductions, and then making brief statements. Jack Valenti, who apparently was alerted to our website that listed the event (along with Jack Valenti notable quotables, which included some of his outrageous past statements, such as: "The VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman alone" Jack Valenti, head of the MPAA --
1982"") pre-empted the criticism by saying that he was known for using colorful language in the past in order to get his point across.

We were "informed" of the format of the hearing, that no statements from outside the panelists would be taken. So we could not get a seat at the panel, and we could not comment from the audience.

So Jack enlightened us on how he worked in the Johnson Administration to make the world better. And other things. And so it went. Then we were shown a ridiculously funny screen (probably a power point page) that showed the dozens of groups, and dozens of encrypting/drm/technological schemes to control content. From there, others made their introductions, and made their statements. One of Jack's early statements said something to the effect of (without actually naming the public) the public's view being noise, and a distraction, and that he puts these views, and this noise, out of his mind, as should they all, if they are to get anything done on this issue.

Up to that point, the audience was fairly quiet, but we laughed when the more outrageous statements were made. There were plenty to go around. Even the dude from Phillips, and another tech guy (Intel I believe) got into it with Jack Valenti on a number of occasions. But up to this point, there was really only laughter and occasional gasps from the audience at some of the statements.

About halfway through the proceedings, after having listened to numerous inflammatory statements made by Jack, and by others from the Entertainment Cartel, Jack started to get more intense in his statements. He compared fair use rights and file trading to a burglar using a skeleton key to rob all the houses in the neighborhood. He really said that.

I let that one slide off me. But after an exchange between Jack Valenti and Big IT where it got a little heated, Jack cooled off a bit, and then made a statement saying that the moving industry, and the IT industry needed to get together with legislators to write legislation to stop all the theft. I had enough. I stood up, and in a voice loud enough to be heard from the back of the room, I said "what about the public?" Paraphrasing myself (I don't have the transcripts yet), I said that the public was not being represented on the panel, the public is the true stakeholder on this topic, where are the public voices? I said this in a loud enough voice to be heard from the back of a large room. Was I yelling? I don't know. I know that I was speaking loud enough to be heard. That's it. Ask others.

What was Jack Valenti's reaction? He did something that shows he is a very astute individual when it comes to testifying in Congress. He continued talking. He talked right over me. He had the microphone. His voice, speaking directly into the microphone, not my voice from the back of a large meeting room, was being recorded. But the chair wouldn't have it. He interrupted me, and was telling me to sit down and be quiet. No comments were allowed. But Jack, knowing the press was there, turned an interruption of his speech into a chance to look good. He said that if I allowed him to finish his statement, he would allow me to respond. The chair tried to shut me up, but when I heard Jack say that, I sat down, and he finished his statement. Then, before I could give the chair a chance to shut me down, I stood back up, and gave my two cents. I (paraphrasing myself again, from memory) stated that the panel was not representative of the public, the public were the stakeholders, and there needed to be public representatives on the panel. As I stood up to respond, Ruben Safir, Brett Wyncoop, Seth Johnson (who held up his hand for two hours by the end of the meeting waiting to be called on to make a statement) Jay Sulzburger and others stood up, and I introduced Richard Stallman (who had just been awarded an honor by the United Nations) and we tried to get the panel chairman to recogize him to allow him to make a statement. Richard did not stand up, and said nothing. We, from New Yorkers for Fair Use , NYLXS , and several other groups, made the few statements that we were able to squeeze in.

The chair was having none of that. He said that Brett, who was mistakenly recognized earlier as a panelist (it was standing room only, with people standing, sitting on the floor, kneeling, sitting on laps, etc) when he was kneeling near one of the tables, and when he was called on, he made his statement. So the chair said that since Brett had made his short statement, the public had been heard, we had our chance. "We have a structure here!" was said repeatedly by the chair.

So we were told to shut up and sit down. Richard Stallman never said a word at this point. He wasn't given the chance.

After we sat down, Jack Valenti was clearly flustered. The press was present. They had heard the exchange. It would not be good PR for the MPAA. So he made some more astounding statements. He couldn't understand why I was saying the public was not represented on the panel. He was the public. He indicated the guy across from him (the Intel rep, I believe) and said he was the public. He said the Commerce Sub-Committee reps seated at the head of the table were the public, the public was represented.

After that exchange, the "round-table" discussion continued. More statements were made, calling for legislation. A few of the IT reps were against legislating the unknown. The Phillips rep, the Intel rep, and a couple of others were against legislation putting controls into the hardware, without a specific definition of what the controls were. The rep from Listen.com was against the drm legislation in general. He stated repeatedly that he was competing against free P2P, and his company was making money on it. And the IBM rep, the Phillips rep, and one other IT rep stated several times after my outburst/shouting/statement/activism/disruption/al ienation/obnoxiousness (insert preferred word depending on your agenda) that the public needed to be included in the discussion, and was missing from the current panel.

After some more discussion, the panel was asked by the chair to sum up their positions. This is where it got interesting. And this is where you separate the sheep from those who understand politics in America.

This "second round-table discussion" was a fraud. It was designed with one thing in mind. Provide cover for the legislators. The Commerce Committee, and this sub-committee was charged with one thing. Provide cover. This is an election year. Every House of Representatives seat is up for re-election. The US Reps are going through the motions. They are shaking the trees and raking the leaves. The Entertainment cartel already has bills written up by their lawyers. They want these bills passed. And the legislators want the Entertainment Cartel money so they can get re-elected. There is one week left before the summer break. That's this week. After the summer break, the legislators will not have time for these bills. They will be fighting over War legislation, economic legislation, senior issues, environment, and re-election items. And they will be running for re-election. This year will be a tough election. Control of the House and Senate are both up for grabs.

Getting back to the summations, this is where the horseshit started to fly. Starting with the lobbyist for AOL Time Warner (yeah, they actually sent a lobbyist) and continuing with Jack Valenti of MPAA, and Vivendi, and others, the panelists all looked at each other, or their notes, and lied straight into the microphone. They stated that a consensus had been reached. Talks between IT and Entertainment were not enough. Help from legislators, in the form of legislation was needed. They actually stated that a consensus was reached (none was, the Entertainment and IT industries remained far apart, and they admitted that the public needed to be represented), they stated that the panel was in agreement that legislation was needed, etc. This couldn't be further from the truth. But the truth didn't matter when they were making these statements. These statements were being made for one reason. They were providing sound bites for legislators to use for their justification later in voting for what will be highly anti-consumer, highly anti-fair use, and highly anti-open source legislation. That's it. They are supplying sound bites and cover for legislators.

It was at this point, when Jack Valenti was trying to sound conciliatory to the IT rep (I think it was the Intel guy again) when Jack summed up by stating that the Entertainment Industry and IT had to get together with Congress to find a solution. It had been a long day at this point, very hot outside, not enough air conditioning inside, and this one slipped by me. But luckily, Richard Stallman caught it. He said aloud (paraphrasing from memory again) "so the IT industry and the entertainment industry are conspiring again to the exclusion of the public" He was completely correct on this, and it was an important point to bring up. It repeated what we had been saying all along, and it pointed out that even after we repeatedly tried to get the public to have a voice in what was happening, that Jack Valenti, and Big IT were in agreement to exclude the public. This was an important point, and it is the only statement that Richard Stallmen made inside the committee room. Everything else that Richard Stallman said, and the rest of us said was made on the steps outside the Commerce Committee building, at our impromptu news conference after.

Upset that your electronic school books expire at the end of the semester? (see nyfairuse.org web site on this one, it's true) Too bad. Upset that you can't back up you music CD to protect against scratches? Too bad. Upset that you'll have to pay a second time for the same song if you want to transfer it from your CD to your Rio? Too bad. We held hearings, the public was represented, a consensus was reached. It's right here in the transcript. At least five people stated that a consensus was reached. Where were you? We held hearings. You should have made your voice heard then. You should have contacted my office. I have no record of you ever contacting me. How was I supposed to know this would happen, you should have told me. I was voting to protect musicians, to help keep them off of welfare...

Cover and sound bites. That's what the hearing was all about.

Toward the end of the hearing, Mike Miron, of ContentGuard, made the most outrageous statement of all. And this one slipped under the radar of the journalists. It was made as people were getting restless, as the meeting was winding up, and others on the panel were starting to pack up. In one breath, he associated kids trading files with spies and terrorists such as Wen Ho Lee, Jonathan Pollard, and Robert Hanson. He stated that P2P networks enable spies and terrorists to upload military secrets to the internet, and that in light of September 11, this must be considered. Having been personally affected by September 11, this is the most outrageous statement I have ever heard. Anyone who knows anything about the Robert Hanson case knows that he was a highly knowledgeable person on technology, and used his technical skills far beyond what a mere P2P network can provide. Many tools are available to computer users for uploading files, including ftp, sftp, putty, scp, and many others. Other tools, such as PGP, steganograpy, GnuPG, SSH, and others would accomplish much more, and would better hide the tracks of a would be spy or terrorist. Equating kids with spies and terrorists, and using September 11th to provide a sound bite for a Congressman on the DRM issue is appalling. But the Entertainment Cartel will do what it takes to get their bills through.

So the "round-table" was held on July 17, a Wednesday. I'm sure you all saw the wave of bills on DRM, on allowing the Entertainment industry to hack into your computers and destroy files with civil and criminal protections , and on various other issues regarding DRM and Fair Use attacks. These bills were out the end of the same week, or the beginning of the following week. How many of you believe that the legislators sat around on July 18 to write these bills? Or is it more believable that these bills were already written prior to the round-table meeting?

We have been in contact with the Commerce Dept. We will have representatives present during the next discussion. It naturally will be separate from the industry panel (don't wanna kill the golden goose, and don't wanna give the opposition their own sound bites from the same meeting), but it is a step forward. A step that we did not have before we opened our mouths. A step that we would not have if we would have behaved like lambs to the slaughter, as Al3x would have us do. A forum where we will try to correctly define DRM

Should we have spoke out? Or not? You tell me.

But before you do, check out http://www.nyfairuse.org as they have a more complete account of what happened, and that was written a couple of days after the "round-table", not from my memory as I am doing now. Check it out, then tell me: Should we have kept our mouths shut like Al3x wanted? Or did we do something right by taking on Jack Valenti 's poisonous fud and rhetoric?

Did you speak out? Should you have spoken out? Sent an email? Made a phone call? Sent a fax?

I can't answer for you. I can only answer for myself. And I did what I thought was right.

Vincenzo.

I can be reached through the NYFairUse Discuss mailing list

btw, this is just one member's opinion. For official positions by NYLXS or NYFairUse , go to their web sites.

1. Application Layer Gateway Service (Requires server rights.)
2. Fax Service
3. File Signature Verification
4. Generic Host Process for Win32 Services (Requires server rights.)
5. Microsoft Application Error Reporting
6. Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer
7. Microsoft Direct Play Voice Test
8. Microsoft Help and Support Center
9. Microsoft Help Center Hosting Server (Wants server rights.)
10. Microsoft Management Console
11. Microsoft Media Player (tells Microsoft the music you like)
12. Microsoft Network Availability Test
13. Microsoft Volume Shadow Copy Service
14. MS DTC Console program
15. Run DLL as an app
16. Services and Controller app
17. Time Service, sets the time on your computer from Microsoft's computer.
18. Microsoft Office keeps a number in each file you create that identifies your computer. Microsoft has never said why.
19. Microsoft mouse software has reduced functionality until you let it connect to Microsoft computers.

1. Application Layer Gateway Service (Requires server rights.)
2. Fax Service
3. File Signature Verification
4. Generic Host Process for Win32 Services (Requires server rights.)
5. Microsoft Application Error Reporting
6. Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer
7. Microsoft Direct Play Voice Test
8. Microsoft Help and Support Center
9. Microsoft Help Center Hosting Server (Wants server rights.)
10. Microsoft Management Console
11. Microsoft Media Player (tells Microsoft the music you like)
12. Microsoft Network Availability Test
13. Microsoft Volume Shadow Copy Service
14. MS DTC Console program
15. Run DLL as an app
16. Services and Controller app
17. Time Service, sets the time on your computer from Microsoft's computer.
18. Microsoft Office keeps a number in each file you create that identifies your computer. Microsoft has never said why.
19. Microsoft mouse software has reduced functionality until you let it connect to Microsoft computers.

This article over at The Reg gives a satiric slant on that.

Go get yur black hats, podners!

MjM

1. Application Layer Gateway Service (Requires server rights.)
2. Fax Service
3. File Signature Verification
4. Generic Host Process for Win32 Services (Requires server rights.)
5. Microsoft Application Error Reporting
6. Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer
7. Microsoft Direct Play Voice Test
8. Microsoft Help and Support Center
9. Microsoft Help Center Hosting Server (Wants server rights.)
10. Microsoft Management Console
11. Microsoft Media Player (tells Microsoft the music you like)
12. Microsoft Network Availability Test
13. Microsoft Volume Shadow Copy Service
14. MS DTC Console program
15. Run DLL as an app
16. Services and Controller app
17. Time Service, sets the time on your computer from Microsoft's computer.
18. Microsoft Office keeps a number in each file you create that identifies your computer. Microsoft has never said why.
19. Microsoft mouse software has reduced functionality until you let it connect to Microsoft computers.

1. Application Layer Gateway Service (Requires server rights.)
2. Fax Service
3. File Signature Verification
4. Generic Host Process for Win32 Services (Requires server rights.)
5. Microsoft Application Error Reporting
6. Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer
7. Microsoft Direct Play Voice Test
8. Microsoft Help and Support Center
9. Microsoft Help Center Hosting Server (Wants server rights.)
10. Microsoft Management Console
11. Microsoft Media Player (tells Microsoft the music you like)
12. Microsoft Network Availability Test
13. Microsoft Volume Shadow Copy Service
14. MS DTC Console program
15. Run DLL as an app
16. Services and Controller app
17. Time Service, sets the time on your computer from Microsoft's computer.
18. Microsoft Office keeps a number in each file you create that identifies your computer. Microsoft has never said why.
19. Microsoft mouse software has reduced functionality until you let it connect to Microsoft computers.

1. Application Layer Gateway Service (Requires server rights.)
2. Fax Service
3. File Signature Verification
4. Generic Host Process for Win32 Services (Requires server rights.)
5. Microsoft Application Error Reporting
6. Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer
7. Microsoft Direct Play Voice Test
8. Microsoft Help and Support Center
9. Microsoft Help Center Hosting Server (Wants server rights.)
10. Microsoft Management Console
11. Microsoft Media Player (tells Microsoft the music you like)
12. Microsoft Network Availability Test
13. Microsoft Volume Shadow Copy Service
14. MS DTC Console program
15. Run DLL as an app
16. Services and Controller app
17. Time Service, sets the time on your computer from Microsoft's computer.
18. Microsoft Office keeps a number in each file you create that identifies your computer. Microsoft has never said why.
19. Microsoft mouse software has reduced functionality until you let it connect to Microsoft computers.

1. Application Layer Gateway Service (Requires server rights.)
2. Fax Service
3. File Signature Verification
4. Generic Host Process for Win32 Services (Requires server rights.)
5. Microsoft Application Error Reporting
6. Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer
7. Microsoft Direct Play Voice Test
8. Microsoft Help and Support Center
9. Microsoft Help Center Hosting Server (Wants server rights.)
10. Microsoft Management Console
11. Microsoft Media Player (tells Microsoft the music you like)
12. Microsoft Network Availability Test
13. Microsoft Volume Shadow Copy Service
14. MS DTC Console program
15. Run DLL as an app
16. Services and Controller app
17. Time Service, sets the time on your computer from Microsoft's computer.
18. Microsoft Office keeps a number in each file you create that identifies your computer. Microsoft has never said why.
19. Microsoft mouse software has reduced functionality until you let it connect to Microsoft computers.

1. Application Layer Gateway Service (Requires server rights.)
2. Fax Service
3. File Signature Verification
4. Generic Host Process for Win32 Services (Requires server rights.)
5. Microsoft Application Error Reporting
6. Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer
7. Microsoft Direct Play Voice Test
8. Microsoft Help and Support Center
9. Microsoft Help Center Hosting Server (Wants server rights.)
10. Microsoft Management Console
11. Microsoft Media Player (tells Microsoft the music you like)
12. Microsoft Network Availability Test
13. Microsoft Volume Shadow Copy Service
14. MS DTC Console program
15. Run DLL as an app
16. Services and Controller app
17. Time Service, sets the time on your computer from Microsoft's computer.
18. Microsoft Office keeps a number in each file you create that identifies your computer. Microsoft has never said why.
19. Microsoft mouse software has reduced functionality until you let it connect to Microsoft computers.

1. Application Layer Gateway Service (Requires server rights.)
2. Fax Service
3. File Signature Verification
4. Generic Host Process for Win32 Services (Requires server rights.)
5. Microsoft Application Error Reporting
6. Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer
7. Microsoft Direct Play Voice Test
8. Microsoft Help and Support Center
9. Microsoft Help Center Hosting Server (Wants server rights.)
10. Microsoft Management Console
11. Microsoft Media Player (tells Microsoft the music you like)
12. Microsoft Network Availability Test
13. Microsoft Volume Shadow Copy Service
14. MS DTC Console program
15. Run DLL as an app
16. Services and Controller app
17. Time Service, sets the time on your computer from Microsoft's computer.
18. Microsoft Office keeps a number in each file you create that identifies your computer. Microsoft has never said why.
19. Microsoft mouse software has reduced functionality until you let it connect to Microsoft computers.

Thought this was appropriate..

"I've heard WinXP removed the cmd/command prompt."

No, Microsoft didn't remove the CMD.EXE or COMMAND.COM prompt from Windows XP. But Windows XP has reduced functionality, in many ways, not just in the command line. The command line is a big embarrassment because of its limited capabilities, but at least in Win 95 it worked. With every version since then it has worked less well. (There are two kinds of command prompt, and, according to Microsoft employees, the differences between them are not documented.)

The command line prompt sometimes begins to display short file names. Microsoft employees say that Microsoft has no fix, although someone not connected with Microsoft did make a work-around.

Cutting and pasting into a command line program often puts successive extra spaces before each line. Microsoft employees say that there is no plan to fix this.

The fast paste mode that is in Windows 98 is gone in Windows XP. Microsoft employees say there is no plan to fix this.

When using the command line interface, Windows XP doesn't always update the time. After several hours, the time reported to command line programs can be several hours in error.

There is a DOS program called START.EXE that can be used to start other programs. But it does operate the same way as in other versions of Windows. It starts a program, but cannot be made to return control to the command line program as previous versions did. There is no technical reason for this; it is just one of the shortcomings that are allowed to exist.

People often say that DOS has gone away. But Microsoft still calls the command line interface DOS, and in Windows XP Microsoft has added new programs for configuring the OS that work only under DOS.

Sometimes when you press a key while using Windows XP, it is seconds until there is any response. Apparently there is something wrong with the CPU scheduler in XP, because there are a lot of complaints about this in the forums and MS people have said that they are working on it. On one particular fresh installation of XP, on an Intel motherboard with either a Matrox G550 or an ATI Radeon video adapter, it requires 18 seconds to display a directory listing of 94 items. This is apparently related to a bug in the video software, not the adapter drivers.

Something is wrong with the Alt-Tab display of running programs under Windows XP. If there are a lot of programs, not all of them are displayed. The order jumps around in a seemingly random way.

Although articles often say negative things about Microsoft, I've never seen an article that fully documents how bad the situation really is. Microsoft's management is so bad that the company has become self-destructive. For example, Windows XP is spyware. Here is a list of ways Windows XP connects to Microsoft's servers:

1. Application Layer Gateway Service (Requires server rights.)
2. Fax Service
3. File Signature Verification
4. Generic Host Process for Win32 Services (Requires server rights.)
5. Microsoft Application Error Reporting
6. Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer
7. Microsoft Direct Play Voice Test
8. Microsoft Help and Support Center
9. Microsoft Help Center Hosting Server (Wants server rights.)
10. Microsoft Management Console
11. Microsoft Media Player (tells Microsoft the music you like)
12. Microsoft Network Availability Test
13. Microsoft Volume Shadow Copy Service
14. MS DTC Console program
15. Run DLL as an app
16. Services and Controller app
17. Time Service, sets the time on your computer from Microsoft's computer.
18. Microsoft Office keeps a number in each file you create that identifies your computer. Microsoft has never said why.
19. Microsoft mouse software has reduced functionality until you let it connect to Microsoft computers.

These are just the ones I know. There may be others.

So, if you use Windows XP, your computer is dependent on Microsoft computers. That's bad, not only because you lose control over your possession, but because Microsoft produces buggy software and doesn't patch bugs quickly. For example, as of July 7, 2002, there are 18 unpatched security holes in Microsoft Internet Explorer. This is a terrible record for a company that has $40 billion in the bank. Obviously, with that kind of money, Microsoft could fix the bugs if it wanted to fix them. Since the bugs are very public and Microsoft has the money, it seems reasonable to suppose that top management at Microsoft has deliberately decided that the bugs should remain, at least for now.

It seems possible that there is a connection between all the bugs and the U.S. government's friendly treatment of Microsoft's law-breaking . The U.S. government's CIA and FBI and NSA departments spy on the entire world, and unpatched vulnerabilities in Microsoft software help spies.

Windows XP, and all current Windows operating systems, have a file called the registry in which configuration information is written. If this one (large, often fragmented) file becomes corrupted, the only way of recovering may be to re-format the hard drive, re-install the operating system, and then re-install and re-configure all the applications. The registry file is a single, very vulnerable, point of failure. Microsoft apparently designed it this way to provide copy protection. Since most entries in the registry are poorly documented or not documented, the registry effectively prevents control by the user.

Note that Microsoft does not support making functional complete backups under Windows XP. Look at Microsoft's policy about this: Q314828 Microsoft Policy on Disk Duplication of Windows XP Installation . Only those who work with Microsoft software will understand the true meaning of Microsoft's policy. Since almost all programs use the registry operating system file, if you cannot make a functional copy of the operating system you cannot make a functional copy of all your application installations and configurations. There are other software companies that try to fix this, but they don't work well, and Microsoft can, of course, break their implementations, as they have often done with other kinds of competitors.

Because the configuration information for the motherboard and the configuration information for the are mixed together in the registry file, the registry tends to prevent you from moving a hard drive to a computer with a different motherboard. That's another implication of the above Microsoft policy. So, if you have a motherboard failure, and a good complete backup, you may not be able to recover unless you have a spare computer with the same motherboard.

Note that Windows XP Professional can support only ten simultaneous incoming network connections. If you want more than that, you must use Windows 2000 server, and pay much, much more. (There is no Windows XP server yet.) Many businesses have very light network traffic; they just move files from staff member to staff member; they really don't need a dedicated server computer. The staff computers could easily handle the load except for this artificial limitation.

Apparently because the Windows XP GUI comes from Windows 98, Windows XP has the same problem with desktop icons that Windows 98 has. The icons sometimes flicker. Sometimes they move themselves around, particularly after the user switches monitor resolutions. Also, sometimes the taskbar settings un-configure themselves, as they do in Windows 98.

Only technically knowledgeable people know how to avoid signing up for a Microsoft Passport account during initial use of Windows XP. The name Passport gives an indication of Microsoft's thinking. A passport is a document issued by a sovereign nation. Without it, the nation's citizens cannot travel, and, if they leave, won't be allowed back in their own country. In Microsoft's corporate thinking, the company seems to be moving in the direction of believing that they own the user's computer. Most people are both honest and intimidated. Apparently about 95% do whatever they are asked on the screen. They give their personal information to Microsoft. They don't realize that, if they feel forced to get a Passport account, they should enter almost completely fictitious information, since the real question is not "What is your name and address", but "Can we invade your privacy". The honest answer to this is "No, you cannot invade my privacy", and the only effective way to communicate that is to give completely fictitious information. Since it is the educated people who have computers, Microsoft is building a database of the personal lives of educated people. Microsoft knows when they connect and from what IP address (which tends to show the area), what kind of help they ask, and information about what they are doing with their computers, including what music they like. It is not known, and there is no way to know, how much Microsoft or other organizations make use of this information, or their plans for future use.

Not only has Windows XP definitely gone further in the direction of allowing the user less control over his or her own machine, but with Palladium, Microsoft apparently intends to finish the job: Microsoft will have ultimate control over the user's computer and therefore all his or her data. Even now, under Windows XP, a recent security patch requires that the user agree to a contract that gives Microsoft administrator privileges over the user's computer . The contract says that if a user wants to patch his or her system against a bug which would allow an attack over the Internet, he or she must give Microsoft legal control over the computer. See this article also: Microsoft's Digital Rights Management-- A Little Deeper . You may need to be a lawyer to take apart the crucial sentence. "These security related updates may disable your ability to copy and/or play Secure Content and [my emphasis] use other software on your computer" legally includes this meaning: "These updates may disable your ability to use other software on your computer." Note that the term "security related updates" is meaningless to the user because the updates have no relation to user security. So, the sentence effectively means that Microsoft can control the user's computer without notice and whenever it wants. That kind of sentence is known in psychology as "testing the limits". If there is no strong public complaint about this, expect to see more and stronger language like this.

This Register article shows the direction Microsoft is going: MS Palladium protects IT vendors, not you . Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and Microsoft is well down that road. See this ZDNet article, also: MS: Why we can't trust your 'trustworthy' OS .

Microsoft's self-destructiveness does not mean that the user should be self-destructive. There is no need to apologize for using Microsoft software. The correct solution to abuse is persuading the abuser to stop being abusive. Once I posted to a Slashdot story a link to an article on a web site of mine. By far the majority of visitors from the Slashdot story used Microsoft operating systems. Rather than feel embarrassed because Microsoft is abusive, action needs to be taken to prevent the abuse. If you are against Microsoft abuse, you are not against Microsoft; you are more pro-Microsoft than Bill Gates.

These Microsoft policies mean that any government which wants to be independent of the United States government, and any government which represents itself as controlled by the people, cannot use Microsoft operating systems, or other Microsoft proprietary systems.

Thought this was appropriate..

"I've heard WinXP removed the cmd/command prompt."

No, Microsoft didn't remove the CMD.EXE or COMMAND.COM prompt from Windows XP. But Windows XP has reduced functionality, in many ways, not just in the command line. The command line is a big embarrassment because of its limited capabilities, but at least in Win 95 it worked. With every version since then it has worked less well. (There are two kinds of command prompt, and, according to Microsoft employees, the differences between them are not documented.)

The command line prompt sometimes begins to display short file names. Microsoft employees say that Microsoft has no fix, although someone not connected with Microsoft did make a work-around.

Cutting and pasting into a command line program often puts successive extra spaces before each line. Microsoft employees say that there is no plan to fix this.

The fast paste mode that is in Windows 98 is gone in Windows XP. Microsoft employees say there is no plan to fix this.

When using the command line interface, Windows XP doesn't always update the time. After several hours, the time reported to command line programs can be several hours in error.

There is a DOS program called START.EXE that can be used to start other programs. But it does operate the same way as in other versions of Windows. It starts a program, but cannot be made to return control to the command line program as previous versions did. There is no technical reason for this; it is just one of the shortcomings that are allowed to exist.

People often say that DOS has gone away. But Microsoft still calls the command line interface DOS, and in Windows XP Microsoft has added new programs for configuring the OS that work only under DOS.

Sometimes when you press a key while using Windows XP, it is seconds until there is any response. Apparently there is something wrong with the CPU scheduler in XP, because there are a lot of complaints about this in the forums and MS people have said that they are working on it. On one particular fresh installation of XP, on an Intel motherboard with either a Matrox G550 or an ATI Radeon video adapter, it requires 18 seconds to display a directory listing of 94 items. This is apparently related to a bug in the video software, not the adapter drivers.

Something is wrong with the Alt-Tab display of running programs under Windows XP. If there are a lot of programs, not all of them are displayed. The order jumps around in a seemingly random way.

Although articles often say negative things about Microsoft, I've never seen an article that fully documents how bad the situation really is. Microsoft's management is so bad that the company has become self-destructive. For example, Windows XP is spyware. Here is a list of ways Windows XP connects to Microsoft's servers:

1. Application Layer Gateway Service (Requires server rights.)
2. Fax Service
3. File Signature Verification
4. Generic Host Process for Win32 Services (Requires server rights.)
5. Microsoft Application Error Reporting
6. Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer
7. Microsoft Direct Play Voice Test
8. Microsoft Help and Support Center
9. Microsoft Help Center Hosting Server (Wants server rights.)
10. Microsoft Management Console
11. Microsoft Media Player (tells Microsoft the music you like)
12. Microsoft Network Availability Test
13. Microsoft Volume Shadow Copy Service
14. MS DTC Console program
15. Run DLL as an app
16. Services and Controller app
17. Time Service, sets the time on your computer from Microsoft's computer.
18. Microsoft Office keeps a number in each file you create that identifies your computer. Microsoft has never said why.
19. Microsoft mouse software has reduced functionality until you let it connect to Microsoft computers.

These are just the ones I know. There may be others.

So, if you use Windows XP, your computer is dependent on Microsoft computers. That's bad, not only because you lose control over your possession, but because Microsoft produces buggy software and doesn't patch bugs quickly. For example, as of July 7, 2002, there are 18 unpatched security holes in Microsoft Internet Explorer. This is a terrible record for a company that has $40 billion in the bank. Obviously, with that kind of money, Microsoft could fix the bugs if it wanted to fix them. Since the bugs are very public and Microsoft has the money, it seems reasonable to suppose that top management at Microsoft has deliberately decided that the bugs should remain, at least for now.

It seems possible that there is a connection between all the bugs and the U.S. government's friendly treatment of Microsoft's law-breaking . The U.S. government's CIA and FBI and NSA departments spy on the entire world, and unpatched vulnerabilities in Microsoft software help spies.

Windows XP, and all current Windows operating systems, have a file called the registry in which configuration information is written. If this one (large, often fragmented) file becomes corrupted, the only way of recovering may be to re-format the hard drive, re-install the operating system, and then re-install and re-configure all the applications. The registry file is a single, very vulnerable, point of failure. Microsoft apparently designed it this way to provide copy protection. Since most entries in the registry are poorly documented or not documented, the registry effectively prevents control by the user.

Note that Microsoft does not support making functional complete backups under Windows XP. Look at Microsoft's policy about this: Q314828 Microsoft Policy on Disk Duplication of Windows XP Installation . Only those who work with Microsoft software will understand the true meaning of Microsoft's policy. Since almost all programs use the registry operating system file, if you cannot make a functional copy of the operating system you cannot make a functional copy of all your application installations and configurations. There are other software companies that try to fix this, but they don't work well, and Microsoft can, of course, break their implementations, as they have often done with other kinds of competitors.

Because the configuration information for the motherboard and the configuration information for the are mixed together in the registry file, the registry tends to prevent you from moving a hard drive to a computer with a different motherboard. That's another implication of the above Microsoft policy. So, if you have a motherboard failure, and a good complete backup, you may not be able to recover unless you have a spare computer with the same motherboard.

Note that Windows XP Professional can support only ten simultaneous incoming network connections. If you want more than that, you must use Windows 2000 server, and pay much, much more. (There is no Windows XP server yet.) Many businesses have very light network traffic; they just move files from staff member to staff member; they really don't need a dedicated server computer. The staff computers could easily handle the load except for this artificial limitation.

Apparently because the Windows XP GUI comes from Windows 98, Windows XP has the same problem with desktop icons that Windows 98 has. The icons sometimes flicker. Sometimes they move themselves around, particularly after the user switches monitor resolutions. Also, sometimes the taskbar settings un-configure themselves, as they do in Windows 98.

Only technically knowledgeable people know how to avoid signing up for a Microsoft Passport account during initial use of Windows XP. The name Passport gives an indication of Microsoft's thinking. A passport is a document issued by a sovereign nation. Without it, the nation's citizens cannot travel, and, if they leave, won't be allowed back in their own country. In Microsoft's corporate thinking, the company seems to be moving in the direction of believing that they own the user's computer. Most people are both honest and intimidated. Apparently about 95% do whatever they are asked on the screen. They give their personal information to Microsoft. They don't realize that, if they feel forced to get a Passport account, they should enter almost completely fictitious information, since the real question is not "What is your name and address", but "Can we invade your privacy". The honest answer to this is "No, you cannot invade my privacy", and the only effective way to communicate that is to give completely fictitious information. Since it is the educated people who have computers, Microsoft is building a database of the personal lives of educated people. Microsoft knows when they connect and from what IP address (which tends to show the area), what kind of help they ask, and information about what they are doing with their computers, including what music they like. It is not known, and there is no way to know, how much Microsoft or other organizations make use of this information, or their plans for future use.

Not only has Windows XP definitely gone further in the direction of allowing the user less control over his or her own machine, but with Palladium, Microsoft apparently intends to finish the job: Microsoft will have ultimate control over the user's computer and therefore all his or her data. Even now, under Windows XP, a recent security patch requires that the user agree to a contract that gives Microsoft administrator privileges over the user's computer . The contract says that if a user wants to patch his or her system against a bug which would allow an attack over the Internet, he or she must give Microsoft legal control over the computer. See this article also: Microsoft's Digital Rights Management-- A Little Deeper . You may need to be a lawyer to take apart the crucial sentence. "These security related updates may disable your ability to copy and/or play Secure Content and [my emphasis] use other software on your computer" legally includes this meaning: "These updates may disable your ability to use other software on your computer." Note that the term "security related updates" is meaningless to the user because the updates have no relation to user security. So, the sentence effectively means that Microsoft can control the user's computer without notice and whenever it wants. That kind of sentence is known in psychology as "testing the limits". If there is no strong public complaint about this, expect to see more and stronger language like this.

This Register article shows the direction Microsoft is going: MS Palladium protects IT vendors, not you . Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and Microsoft is well down that road. See this ZDNet article, also: MS: Why we can't trust your 'trustworthy' OS .

Microsoft's self-destructiveness does not mean that the user should be self-destructive. There is no need to apologize for using Microsoft software. The correct solution to abuse is persuading the abuser to stop being abusive. Once I posted to a Slashdot story a link to an article on a web site of mine. By far the majority of visitors from the Slashdot story used Microsoft operating systems. Rather than feel embarrassed because Microsoft is abusive, action needs to be taken to prevent the abuse. If you are against Microsoft abuse, you are not against Microsoft; you are more pro-Microsoft than Bill Gates.

These Microsoft policies mean that any government which wants to be independent of the United States government, and any government which represents itself as controlled by the people, cannot use Microsoft operating systems, or other Microsoft proprietary systems.

1. Application Layer Gateway Service (Requires server rights.)
2. Fax Service
3. File Signature Verification
4. Generic Host Process for Win32 Services (Requires server rights.)
5. Microsoft Application Error Reporting
6. Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer
7. Microsoft Direct Play Voice Test
8. Microsoft Help and Support Center
9. Microsoft Help Center Hosting Server (Wants server rights.)
10. Microsoft Management Console
11. Microsoft Media Player (tells Microsoft the music you like)
12. Microsoft Network Availability Test
13. Microsoft Volume Shadow Copy Service
14. MS DTC Console program
15. Run DLL as an app
16. Services and Controller app
17. Time Service, sets the time on your computer from Microsoft's computer.
18. Microsoft Office keeps a number in each file you create that identifies your computer. Microsoft has never said why.
19. Microsoft mouse software has reduced functionality until you let it connect to Microsoft computers.

1. Application Layer Gateway Service (Requires server rights.)
2. Fax Service
3. File Signature Verification
4. Generic Host Process for Win32 Services (Requires server rights.)
5. Microsoft Application Error Reporting
6. Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer
7. Microsoft Direct Play Voice Test
8. Microsoft Help and Support Center
9. Microsoft Help Center Hosting Server (Wants server rights.)
10. Microsoft Management Console
11. Microsoft Media Player (tells Microsoft the music you like)
12. Microsoft Network Availability Test
13. Microsoft Volume Shadow Copy Service
14. MS DTC Console program
15. Run DLL as an app
16. Services and Controller app
17. Time Service, sets the time on your computer from Microsoft's computer.
18. Microsoft Office keeps a number in each file you create that identifies your computer. Microsoft has never said why.
19. Microsoft mouse software has reduced functionality until you let it connect to Microsoft computers.

1. Application Layer Gateway Service (Requires server rights.)
2. Fax Service
3. File Signature Verification
4. Generic Host Process for Win32 Services (Requires server rights.)
5. Microsoft Application Error Reporting
6. Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer
7. Microsoft Direct Play Voice Test
8. Microsoft Help and Support Center
9. Microsoft Help Center Hosting Server (Wants server rights.)
10. Microsoft Management Console
11. Microsoft Media Player (tells Microsoft the music you like)
12. Microsoft Network Availability Test
13. Microsoft Volume Shadow Copy Service
14. MS DTC Console program
15. Run DLL as an app
16. Services and Controller app
17. Time Service, sets the time on your computer from Microsoft's computer.
18. Microsoft Office keeps a number in each file you create that identifies your computer. Microsoft has never said why.
19. Microsoft mouse software has reduced functionality until you let it connect to Microsoft computers.