If Microsoft was smart they would just take every availble dollar they have and BUY Google. Why not.. they've bought up all the competition before. Why innovate when you can just buy everyone else's ideas? LOL Two reasons: The size of Google combined with anti-monopoly / anti-competitive legislation.
1. Even if such a purchase was to go through in the US, it would likely NOT be accepted by the EU (assuming M$ would like non-Americans to use their technology).
2. The financial size of Google would make such a purchase impractical: http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=GOOG Google Market Cap: 195.53B
...download for SP2. I went to Google. Searched the exact same phrase. First like was the download site at microsoft.com There's something to be said about that. If you want a search engine for searching for Microsoft information your best bet would be this: http://www.google.com/microsoft.html
Nobody can reasonably argue that not having the source code makes it easier to create exploits. The point is that if there are exploits, it can be easier to fix them. Of course it doesn't guarantee they will be fixed (as in closed-source software), but the opportunity is there for global assistance and peer review (of the code and the fix) that is not available in closed-source software.
As well, open-source software makes it easier to find built-in vulnerabilities (like the Jap proxy software was found to have a secret back door for the German police by examining it's source).
I guess this benefits open source software since any bug fix is a good thing, but why on earth would the department of homeland security be studying software. shouldn't they be worrying about things like preventing biological attacks or improving how they handle natural disasters? Software is used in important areas that are vital to a country's basic infrastructure and operation, such as power plants (nuclear or otherwise), radio and television stations, cellular phones, the Internet, banking, etc. I think the Internet would be one of the most important as it is a major source of commerce and communication.
Example:
Matthew Kovar, a senior analyst at the market research firm Yankee Group, generated some publicity when he told reporters the attacks caused USD $1.2 billion in global economic damages. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MafiaBoy
The attack was aimed at DNS root servers. Since that time the router's software has been upgraded to prevent such wide-scale damage. I remember that incident because I was literally unable to access any Web site at the time. I had later learned that this was because this one attacked clogged up most of the Internet.
I think your logic is a bit confused. The fact that viruses can be created without reading the source code does not prove that there's no value in keeping the code secret. It's like arguing that there's no point in locking your door because 100,000 houses with locks were broken into. Fact is anybody can dis-assemble a lock. And of course people can dis-assemble code. Not too many people would be interested in breaking into a lock on a door (smashing a Window to get into the house is most generally used by non-government intruders).
The greatest value in keeping code secret is making sure it cannot be easily re-produced, and thus subverting other individuals or companies from using it without authorization. It's much like music and DRM: in the end it is the licenses which are enforced in the court of law, and not so much the code itself (the "locks" if you will), that will be able to protect the intellectual property.
Yes there may be value in keeping code secret, but I would argue that the value is minimal compared to the benefits of keeping it open.
According to McAfee recently (http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/05/0215201) and Microsoft et al, having your code exposed lets the bad guys exploit it's vulnerabilities Yes they said that, but you don't really believe it, do you? If so, just look up "security by obscurity" and read about it. To give you a clue, the unavailability of source has not prevented 100,000 Windows viruses. No I do not believe it. I was just pointing out some (IMHO) rather lame and biased arguments. Openness and transparency (whether it be in software, business models, or just dealing with one's spouse, for example) is generally better than keeping things hidden.
Make the licenses as restrictive as you please, but at least give people the opportunity to know what they are using. Like listing ingredients on processed food, it's good to know that I'm not consuming something that could possibly do me harm (or be beneficial).
There is a level of comfort in dealing with openness. It seems like that's why so many politicians and business leaders are not trusted; because they hide behind PR vetted canned answers (security through obscurity if you will), rather than being articulate and just admitting outright when things aren't working the way they should.
According to McAfee recently (http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/05/0215201) and Microsoft et al, having your code exposed lets the bad guys exploit it's vulnerabilities. Of course if or when a weakness is taken advantage of, it would likely be fixed vary quickly through the FOSS community, instead of on the first Tuesday of every month like as in Microsoft's business model.
Some long range predictions. Take them with a grain of salt if you will.
1. Proprietary Operating systems will become either open source or free as in beer as existing OSS operating systems become more sophisticated, user-friendly, and compatible with proprietary systems. (ReactOS and Wine as examples of the compatibility).
2. DRM will become a none-issue as record labels realize that it is more efficient to phish for users on P2P networks and sue them, rather than to alienate paying customers with DRM issues.
3. The Internet will break up into smaller proprietary pieces much like the former Yugoslavia. Countries and companies alike will seek to gain control over their own Netizens through proprietary protocols, clients and servers, firewalls, etc. And the Geek crowd will seek there own refuge (from the incessant censorship and control of the available "open" Internet) in private IRC servers and channels, and through services such as Freenet and Onion server based services and Web sites.
4. There will always be people who read spam and and open virus filled email attachments, because people will always want larger penises, bigger breasts, and more money. Hope will never die.
5. Small and intelligent home-built "hobby" Robots and self-replicating nano-technology based devices will be the new nuisance of the future.
Bookmark this comment and come back to it in 10 to 20 years and see... It's all just speculation... but I think there is a strong probability of these things coming true based on current trends.
Forensic evidence does not NEED to be presented in court. Yes, yes - and a lawsuit doesn't have to be presented in court either, because the parties could settle. Gathering evidence in NO WAY presumes that there will be a court case, or even that a crime has been committed. And yes, disputes can be settled out of court. So I am, as usual, correct. And you are incorrect as I stated. I am glad you admit this.
You mean definitions like "of, relating to, or used in courts of law", "Of or used in a court of law.", "something for court use", or "relating to the use of science or technology in the investigation and establishment of facts or evidence in a court of law."? Exactly. I am once again glad that you realized your mistake; as you've originally said:
Forensic evidence is by definition [wikipedia.org] presented in court. That's what forensic means. is obviously incorrect. It is "relating to, or used in courts of law", and it is NOT (as you've stated) "by definition... presented in court. That's what forensic evidence means"
When a piece of (proposed) legislation uses a term, it's not the "colloquial" interpretation. I haven't seen the legislation so I cannot comment on what the legislation says. I just read some journalism, and you got your definitions from Wikipedia and not a legal dictionary.
So you're saying that computer geeks should henceforth refer to their PCs "hard drives", that they should call a hard drive "memory", and that we should start referring to their desktop wallpaper as a "screensaver"? Because those are *all* terms that are colloquially mis-used. No. I do not agree that all those terms are misused (that would be an extremist over-exaggeration), and I do not believe that people should "mis-use" anything (whatever it is you mean by "mis-used").
To use the more authoritative Concise Oxford English Dictionary:
[adjective] - Relating to or denoting the application of scientific methods and techniques to the investigation of crime - relating to courts of law [noun:] - forensic tests or techniques At any rate your nit-picking a point that is pointless to nitpick (what some people would call being a grammar-Nazi). And you sounded quite arrogant and self-aggrandizing about it. The grandparent was merely stating the obvious: that ordinary people doing there jobs don't need to worry about getting a PI license. I think everybody seems to understand this. You made obvious mistakes in your original rebuttal, and even more mistakes in your defense. Sometimes it's better just to admit you are wrong than to "show your tonsils" as people colloquially say. Yep, as you said, "I guess it's too much to expect/.'ers..."
Yes. And to correct the article, they aren't really worried about having to release code may "leave... products open to tampering", but rather, people might find blatantly obvious bugs or omissions with how they "protect" your computer. And then profit from it, either by writing rootkits or whatever that bypass their "protection" or by sueing them when they are infected by these rootkits. I would suspect that it would be easier to run automated programs for finding buffer over-runs, etc, rather than phishing through thousands of lines of code looking for a non-obvious vulnerability (anybody who has ever coded knows that ALL coding mistakes are non-obvious... as soon as they press the compile button:P).
By their logic it would be trivial to hack into a Linux computer because it is open-source, and next to impossible to hack into a Microsoft computer.
The article talks more about lawsuits regarding GPL license violations than it does about security issues.
Much security software is already open-source: encryption, firewall, virus scan, etc. The fact is that there is no inherent security problem with GPL software. McAfee just appears to have a problem with the licensing.
Yes it seems like they would like to have their open source cake and eat it too.
*sigh* Forensic evidence is by definition [wikipedia.org] presented in court. Forensic evidence does not NEED to be presented in court. Forensics is merely gathering evidence that MAY be used in court. More specifically the article is talking about computer forensics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_forensics).
More colloquially one could describe forensics as merely data gathering evidence (whether it be used in a formal court of law or not). A parent using forensics software on a child's computer may not be considered forensics to the FBI, but it probably would be to the parent or child. Much the same for internal company forensics. Strict definitions need to keep up with colloquial usage.
Depending on the how they define forensic work, a system administrator could be prosecuted for reading the log files for login information, or tracing back history files to see what led to critical system files being corrupted. From the article:
Computer forensics is more often used as an internal investigatory tool. In other words, probes and evidence collected inside the firewall stay inside the firewall. In these cases, none of the proposed or existing state laws requiring PI licenses apply. Also, as some-one else already said (also from the article), this only applies for evidence gathered for a court case.
In the end, I don't think it should be a criminal matter, but more of a point of being professionally certified so that one can prove competence in both the laws of the state (regarding evidence, etc) and computer forensic competence. (The one thing the US doesn't need is MORE criminals as a result of over-zealous law-makers.)
Relationships are built on trust. Trust requires honesty. If you're hiding things from the people you're trying to have relationships with, your relationships likely suck. Try being open and honest and not having things to hide. It's refreshing. I doubt whether the people who run Google really care. There may be some amount of Trust that is imposed on them through the Law or business economics, otherwise it's just empty rhetoric.
Unfortunately people don't have the choice in choosing their parents or relatives. Much the same with the people you may have to work with. So no, relationships are not built on Trust, as your fantasy world presumes.
If you are concerned that it might change then don't use it. Build your own email server and everything else you want at home and stop whining. That's pretty much what got me interested into programming in the first place, because I want applications to do what I want them to do. Unfortunately most people don't know how to program, don't have the time, or don't have the aptitude. Also, most people are "sheeple" (as they say here)... and naively Trust large corporations to be responsible. People use the services of companies because these companies have some expertise that would be impractical for most people to obtain. And BTW, PRIVACY has been a major issue with the Internet and Internet services for quite some time (for those of us cognizant of the issue)... but often (tech-aware) people like you just call me paranoid before the worst comes to light.
stop whining I didn't hear anybody whining but you.
It's getting harder and harder to evaluate LEGITIMATE issues with google You use the word "LEGITIMATE" as if you understand what it means, but by doing so you sound both arrogant and ignorant (and Trollish as well).
Some points to be made.
You and your article seem to be completely wrong. Incorrect on both counts. a) The US government does have the most amount of people in jail. A simple Google search can point out dozens of Web sites corroborating this b) I do not have a Web site or an article on a Web site. This Web site is the first one that came up so I listed it. If you don't like it then fine. I do know one thing, and that is the quote I have put up is correct.
Taken from a different Web site:
The number of prisoners held in 211 countries is reported. Over 9 million people are incarcerated, with almost 50% held in the U.S., Russia, and China. The U.S. has the highest prison population rate of 714 per 100,000 of its national population, well above Russia with a rate of 532 per 100,000. Rates of 150 per 100,000 or below are experienced by 58% of the countries reviewed. Accession Number: 020631 http://www.nicic.org/Library/020631
Also, if you wish to dispute what the article says at least you could have provided some evidence. Granted your whole rant is off topic in the first place.
As for me being "stupid", that may very well be true, but it is rude to advertise this fact to the world. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words just hurt my feelings:(
Whether doing something wrong is local or international, it is still wrong. I should have been more precise, but I couldn't think of an appropriately general term ("internationally directed" perhaps?). I was referring to the US spying on international calls based out of the US, which is (or was) the basis of the thread.
Under social contract theory, arguments can be made for the formation of laws and governance. I'm not sure it would always be appropriate to apply these externally to others whose social contract may have formed differently, as it seems to me you want to imply should be done. The question is whether spying is wrong. Tapping phones for international calls by US citizens versus tapping phones for local calls by US citizens. I will also elaborate further; when I said "The Government should put it's efforts towards making the world a better place, and not spying on people" I was referring to the marginal benefits such a program brings versus the negative impacts. It never stopped 9/11 from happening for example. The idea being that instead of spying on (as an example) Arab terrorists, they could put their money and efforts into more positive endeavours, like giving money to Palestinians to build their economy and put them to work for themselves (as opposed to just giving military and economic aid to Israel). This would certainly decrease the motivation of many anti-Western terrorists and would hinder recruiting. Or perhaps they could put their resources into stopping genocide, which they have always been reluctant to do. Fixing problems is generally better than monitoring (spying) problems.
It would be wrong to extend all the rights of a US Citizen to foreign citizens not under US authority. Alas many non-US citizens are under US authority. Certainly in Gitmo they are. But I was not talking about extending rights. I was not talking about rights at all, I was talking about wrongs.
Having read Stanly Milgram's Obedience to Authority... The problem is that the wrong types of people tend to be attracted to leadership positions, and people are generally attracted by the "charisma" of these people. The "checks and balances" need to work themselves out. Right now the "checks and balances" seem to be swaying towards authoritarianism. It all seems like a big mind-fuck to me. War is Peace.
I, for one, will assume that is a rhetorical question. And I will turn it around to ask, is there such a thing as a "lessor" evil? I think not. If one believes that murder is evil, then one could assume that a murderer who kills one person as opposed to a mass murderer who kills 100's would be less evil. Both would be 100 percent evil in terms of their inherent quality of being a murderer; the only difference being the quantity. I think the average person would consider a single one-shot murderer less evil, and that tends to be backed up by how laws are enforced.
Of course "evil" is an opinion; a value judgment, so one could decide to classify all "evil" acts as equivalent, despite any quantitative differences (people could give all murderers the same legal punishment despite quantity). And one could delve into intentions and motivations.
For me getting a light tan is less evil than getting a third degree sunburn, or putting one sugar in a coffee is less evil than putting in three (though my taste buds may disagree). It really depends on how a person decides to classify and ascribe qualities to the concept of "evil".
Well, I think there's a huge difference in degree. From the article: "Halliburton Confirms Concentration Camps Already Constructed"
This is particularity astonishing and disturbing considering that the U.S. already incarcerates more orders of magnitude more people than any other nation, about on-par with U.S.S.R. at the height of Stalin's era. http://libertyforlife.com/jail-police/us_concentration_camps.htm
Yes there are differences. But the similarities are more significant.
Correction to above post:
but I could presume that the 40% of US citizens who end up being arrested may think differently (see notes) ... should read one quarter (25%) of US male citizens. My apologies.
Anyone who needs to apply a thick enough brush to cover both of these activities with the same whitewash is doing a disservice. Whether doing something wrong is local or international, it is still wrong. The Government should put it's efforts towards making the world a better place, and not spying on people (most spying is based on economic espionage btw), and not the FUD that comes out of the White House.
On the terrorism side of things; some (and I stress the word some) people just want to kill Americans because of their overbearing authority and influence in (and directed towards) foreign countries (Israel and the "occupied territories", Cuba, Venezuela, Iraq etc ad nauseum). Clearly the likes of the DEA has no business spying on people whether locally or internationally. But the US (government) continues to force it's immorality on other countries and people. One should ask oneself why they like spying on groups dedicated to Peace and that declare themselves to be anti-war.
If there was some oversight (without needing whistle-blowers and lawsuits), checks-and-balances (much like the US government was originally designed to have), and blinders to focus spying on those countries and individuals who pose an actual physical threat to America and Americans then there could be some credibility to spying (eavesdropping on phone calls, for example). Until that day comes, the US will just be looked down upon (by it's own citizens) as a military and police state. I suppose the average middle-class US citizen may not think of their country as being oppressive, but I could presume that the 40% of US citizens who end up being arrested may think differently (see notes), as well as the foreign nationals who get sent off to secret prisons because they happen to have the wrong name (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri).
A quote from the article:
Mike McConnell, director of national intelligence, says industry deserves "thanks, not lawsuits." This type of attitude shows how perverted people in government think.
Notes:
Some nine percent of all American men can now expect to be housed at least temporarily in a state or federal prison during their lifetimes (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1997). When jails and probation are added, the percentage passing through custody rises to one-fourth of the male population (Donziger, 1996). Roots, Roger. "When the Past is a Prison: The hardening Plight of the American Ex-Convict" University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Department of Sociology
If recent incarceration rates remain unchanged, an estimated 1 of every 15 persons (6.6%) will serve time in a prison during their lifetime.
Based on current rates of first incarceration, an estimated 32% of black males will enter State or Federal prison during their lifetime, compared to 17% of Hispanic males and 5.9% of white males. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm
The common fact is that these crimes are more violations of criminalized violations of "Folk Ways, and accepted moral violations. http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/141773/index.php
As to the links you posted above explaining Vista DRM "FUD" (as the author calls it); so for I've read the first few points the author makes. He seems to go out of his way of making Vista DRM completely innocuous while at the same time playing with the truth. For example, he states driver authors don't need Microsoft's approval to write drivers, and that they can create their own digital certificates. But then again he points to a Microsoft link of how to go about this but doesn't elaborate on the details of how this works. The fact is that you DO need a digitally signed certificate to use a kernel mode driver (even M$ says this in the link provided). The Uncertainty and Doubt comes in by the fact that so-called self-signed drivers don't go through the more expensive WHQL (Microsoft's Windows Hardware Quality Labs) process, but rather get signed by Microsoft approved certificate authorities.
Also he states that HD movies can be played on a particular monitor, but fails to state anything about playing DRM'ed movies (like the Blue-Ray DRMed movies for example). I need to read the rest, but so far his arguments don't impress me.
In the long run, it would be easier and cheaper for businesses to invest in open source software with a generous license.
No need to monitor licenses (or have lawyers interpret the licenses for you), no company lock-in, no BSA worries or worries about disgruntled employees, no extra book keeping to keep track of licenses, receipts, or hardware (with licensed software already installed). And of course, it's easily and infinitely customizable because the source code is available.
The sad thing is that your posts are one big Troll-fest, and based on your user-page you were up-modded inappropriately in other posts as well. If you want to be a funny or insightful Troll, then I could listen, but if you are going to be up-modded for Trolling then I have to put you on my Foe list.
So poor fans aren't real fans? Forgive the colloquial nature of the language. By "real" fans I mean people who just don't casually listen to music (like on the radio), but actually enjoy the music enough to go to concerts, buy t-shirts, and actually support the music and the artists by actually buying it.
Poor fans (those lacking in financial resources) can be "real" fans in the sense that they love the music. These are not mutually exclusive concepts, but complementary.
Slashdot Mirror
The size of Google combined with anti-monopoly / anti-competitive legislation.
1. Even if such a purchase was to go through in the US, it would likely NOT be accepted by the EU (assuming M$ would like non-Americans to use their technology).
2. The financial size of Google would make such a purchase impractical:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=GOOG
Google Market Cap: 195.53B
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=msft
M$ Market Cap: 317.80B
...download for SP2. I went to Google. Searched the exact same phrase. First like was the download site at microsoft.com There's something to be said about that. If you want a search engine for searching for Microsoft information your best bet would be this:http://www.google.com/microsoft.html
As well, open-source software makes it easier to find built-in vulnerabilities (like the Jap proxy software was found to have a secret back door for the German police by examining it's source).
Example: Matthew Kovar, a senior analyst at the market research firm Yankee Group, generated some publicity when he told reporters the attacks caused USD $1.2 billion in global economic damages. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MafiaBoy
The attack was aimed at DNS root servers. Since that time the router's software has been upgraded to prevent such wide-scale damage. I remember that incident because I was literally unable to access any Web site at the time. I had later learned that this was because this one attacked clogged up most of the Internet.
Not too many people would be interested in breaking into a lock on a door (smashing a Window to get into the house is most generally used by non-government intruders).
The greatest value in keeping code secret is making sure it cannot be easily re-produced, and thus subverting other individuals or companies from using it without authorization. It's much like music and DRM: in the end it is the licenses which are enforced in the court of law, and not so much the code itself (the "locks" if you will), that will be able to protect the intellectual property.
Yes there may be value in keeping code secret, but I would argue that the value is minimal compared to the benefits of keeping it open.
Make the licenses as restrictive as you please, but at least give people the opportunity to know what they are using. Like listing ingredients on processed food, it's good to know that I'm not consuming something that could possibly do me harm (or be beneficial).
There is a level of comfort in dealing with openness. It seems like that's why so many politicians and business leaders are not trusted; because they hide behind PR vetted canned answers (security through obscurity if you will), rather than being articulate and just admitting outright when things aren't working the way they should.
According to McAfee recently (http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/05/0215201) and Microsoft et al, having your code exposed lets the bad guys exploit it's vulnerabilities. Of course if or when a weakness is taken advantage of, it would likely be fixed vary quickly through the FOSS community, instead of on the first Tuesday of every month like as in Microsoft's business model.
Some long range predictions. Take them with a grain of salt if you will.
1.
Proprietary Operating systems will become either open source or free as in beer as existing OSS operating systems become more sophisticated, user-friendly, and compatible with proprietary systems. (ReactOS and Wine as examples of the compatibility).
2.
DRM will become a none-issue as record labels realize that it is more efficient to phish for users on P2P networks and sue them, rather than to alienate paying customers with DRM issues.
3.
The Internet will break up into smaller proprietary pieces much like the former Yugoslavia. Countries and companies alike will seek to gain control over their own Netizens through proprietary protocols, clients and servers, firewalls, etc. And the Geek crowd will seek there own refuge (from the incessant censorship and control of the available "open" Internet) in private IRC servers and channels, and through services such as Freenet and Onion server based services and Web sites.
4.
There will always be people who read spam and and open virus filled email attachments, because people will always want larger penises, bigger breasts, and more money. Hope will never die.
5.
Small and intelligent home-built "hobby" Robots and self-replicating nano-technology based devices will be the new nuisance of the future.
Bookmark this comment and come back to it in 10 to 20 years and see...
It's all just speculation... but I think there is a strong probability of these things coming true based on current trends.
To use the more authoritative Concise Oxford English Dictionary: [adjective]
- Relating to or denoting the application of scientific methods and techniques to the investigation of crime
- relating to courts of law
[noun:]
- forensic tests or techniques At any rate your nit-picking a point that is pointless to nitpick (what some people would call being a grammar-Nazi). And you sounded quite arrogant and self-aggrandizing about it. The grandparent was merely stating the obvious: that ordinary people doing there jobs don't need to worry about getting a PI license. I think everybody seems to understand this. You made obvious mistakes in your original rebuttal, and even more mistakes in your defense. Sometimes it's better just to admit you are wrong than to "show your tonsils" as people colloquially say. Yep, as you said, "I guess it's too much to expect
By their logic it would be trivial to hack into a Linux computer because it is open-source, and next to impossible to hack into a Microsoft computer.
The article talks more about lawsuits regarding GPL license violations than it does about security issues.
Much security software is already open-source: encryption, firewall, virus scan, etc. The fact is that there is no inherent security problem with GPL software. McAfee just appears to have a problem with the licensing.
Yes it seems like they would like to have their open source cake and eat it too.
Various definitions:
http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Aforensic&submit2=Google
More colloquially one could describe forensics as merely data gathering evidence (whether it be used in a formal court of law or not). A parent using forensics software on a child's computer may not be considered forensics to the FBI, but it probably would be to the parent or child. Much the same for internal company forensics. Strict definitions need to keep up with colloquial usage.
In the end, I don't think it should be a criminal matter, but more of a point of being professionally certified so that one can prove competence in both the laws of the state (regarding evidence, etc) and computer forensic competence. (The one thing the US doesn't need is MORE criminals as a result of over-zealous law-makers.)
Unfortunately people don't have the choice in choosing their parents or relatives. Much the same with the people you may have to work with. So no, relationships are not built on Trust, as your fantasy world presumes.
a) The US government does have the most amount of people in jail. A simple Google search can point out dozens of Web sites corroborating this
b) I do not have a Web site or an article on a Web site. This Web site is the first one that came up so I listed it. If you don't like it then fine. I do know one thing, and that is the quote I have put up is correct.
Taken from a different Web site: The number of prisoners held in 211 countries is reported. Over 9 million people are incarcerated, with almost 50% held in the U.S., Russia, and China. The U.S. has the highest prison population rate of 714 per 100,000 of its national population, well above Russia with a rate of 532 per 100,000. Rates of 150 per 100,000 or below are experienced by 58% of the countries reviewed. Accession Number: 020631 http://www.nicic.org/Library/020631
Also, if you wish to dispute what the article says at least you could have provided some evidence. Granted your whole rant is off topic in the first place.
As for me being "stupid", that may very well be true, but it is rude to advertise this fact to the world. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words just hurt my feelings
Of course "evil" is an opinion; a value judgment, so one could decide to classify all "evil" acts as equivalent, despite any quantitative differences (people could give all murderers the same legal punishment despite quantity). And one could delve into intentions and motivations.
For me getting a light tan is less evil than getting a third degree sunburn, or putting one sugar in a coffee is less evil than putting in three (though my taste buds may disagree). It really depends on how a person decides to classify and ascribe qualities to the concept of "evil".
Yes there are differences. But the similarities are more significant.
On the terrorism side of things; some (and I stress the word some) people just want to kill Americans because of their overbearing authority and influence in (and directed towards) foreign countries (Israel and the "occupied territories", Cuba, Venezuela, Iraq etc ad nauseum). Clearly the likes of the DEA has no business spying on people whether locally or internationally. But the US (government) continues to force it's immorality on other countries and people. One should ask oneself why they like spying on groups dedicated to Peace and that declare themselves to be anti-war.
If there was some oversight (without needing whistle-blowers and lawsuits), checks-and-balances (much like the US government was originally designed to have), and blinders to focus spying on those countries and individuals who pose an actual physical threat to America and Americans then there could be some credibility to spying (eavesdropping on phone calls, for example). Until that day comes, the US will just be looked down upon (by it's own citizens) as a military and police state. I suppose the average middle-class US citizen may not think of their country as being oppressive, but I could presume that the 40% of US citizens who end up being arrested may think differently (see notes), as well as the foreign nationals who get sent off to secret prisons because they happen to have the wrong name (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri).
A quote from the article: Mike McConnell, director of national intelligence, says industry deserves "thanks, not lawsuits." This type of attitude shows how perverted people in government think.
Notes: Some nine percent of all American men can now expect to be housed at least temporarily in a state or federal prison during their lifetimes (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1997). When jails and probation are added, the percentage passing through custody rises to one-fourth of the male population (Donziger, 1996). Roots, Roger. "When the Past is a Prison: The hardening Plight of the American Ex-Convict"
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Department of Sociology If recent incarceration rates remain unchanged, an estimated 1 of every 15 persons (6.6%) will serve time in a prison during their lifetime. Based on current rates of first incarceration, an estimated 32% of black males will enter State or Federal prison during their lifetime, compared to 17% of Hispanic males and 5.9% of white males. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm The common fact is that these crimes are more violations of criminalized violations of "Folk Ways, and accepted moral violations. http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/141773/index.php
As to the links you posted above explaining Vista DRM "FUD" (as the author calls it); so for I've read the first few points the author makes. He seems to go out of his way of making Vista DRM completely innocuous while at the same time playing with the truth. For example, he states driver authors don't need Microsoft's approval to write drivers, and that they can create their own digital certificates. But then again he points to a Microsoft link of how to go about this but doesn't elaborate on the details of how this works. The fact is that you DO need a digitally signed certificate to use a kernel mode driver (even M$ says this in the link provided). The Uncertainty and Doubt comes in by the fact that so-called self-signed drivers don't go through the more expensive WHQL (Microsoft's Windows Hardware Quality Labs) process, but rather get signed by Microsoft approved certificate authorities.
Also he states that HD movies can be played on a particular monitor, but fails to state anything about playing DRM'ed movies (like the Blue-Ray DRMed movies for example). I need to read the rest, but so far his arguments don't impress me.
In the long run, it would be easier and cheaper for businesses to invest in open source software with a generous license.
No need to monitor licenses (or have lawyers interpret the licenses for you), no company lock-in, no BSA worries or worries about disgruntled employees, no extra book keeping to keep track of licenses, receipts, or hardware (with licensed software already installed). And of course, it's easily and infinitely customizable because the source code is available.
The sad thing is that your posts are one big Troll-fest, and based on your user-page you were up-modded inappropriately in other posts as well. If you want to be a funny or insightful Troll, then I could listen, but if you are going to be up-modded for Trolling then I have to put you on my Foe list.
You have to be believable to be "heard".
By "real" fans I mean people who just don't casually listen to music (like on the radio), but actually enjoy the music enough to go to concerts, buy t-shirts, and actually support the music and the artists by actually buying it.
Poor fans (those lacking in financial resources) can be "real" fans in the sense that they love the music. These are not mutually exclusive concepts, but complementary.