Damnit! If I had mod points today (it's the one day of the week I *don't* have them, apparently), I'd rescue your comment from down-mod hell. sry. Tooo funny.
May I recommend http://www.neooffice.org/? It integrates OOo into Mac OS X via Java, and the latest version is the best so far. It's a little slow to load, but that could be my iBook. On the whole, I've been pleased with it. I've used MSOffice, Abiword, Mellel, BBEdit, ZWrite, and a few others editors/word processors (all for text editing, no programming), and NeoOfficeJ is the best I've found so far.
I've seen many posts asking who would buy such a camera. IMHO, that's not the right question. Rather, who would buy the remote to activate the blur? HP doesn't even have to produce and sell a camera with this feature. They just have to say they're going to, and then offer the remote to blur the pictures for $19.99. I might not buy this kind of camera, but my neighbor might. And I don't want my neighbor snapping headshots of me to paste to his blow-up doll, so I'm sure as hell going to buy a camera-jammer so that doesn't happen. It doesn't matter that it won't work; it doesn't matter that the camera might not even exist. All that matters is 1) it might exist; 2) your neighbor might have one; and 3) this little gadget will keep you safe for only $19.99.
You have it backwards. Real is NOT trying to control what plays on the iPod, Apple is trying to prevent people from using the device they sold to those people with content not sold by Apple. That is illegal. Anti-trust action.
Wow. You must be referring to one of those special-edition iPods that only play Fairplay DRM'ed AAC files from iTMS and nothing else. If you can get one (or have one already) I'd hold onto it if I were you. Might be worth some money to a collector one day.
I, however, purchased a plain-jane iPod that plays mp3, wav, and AAC files. It currently has ~8GB of music on it. Of that, perhaps 100MB of music is from iTMS. The rest I 1) ripped from cd's I owned, 2) downloaded from various legal sources, and 3) copied from friends. Moreover, the few albums/songs I purchased from iTMS were immediately burned to a CD. If I choose, I can rip those tracks back to mp3. Voila! No DRM! It's magic! Given I have these options, how is Apple's "monopoly" preventing me from having a choice?
Oh yeah. I forgot -- because Apple has a monopoly and opposed the altruistic efforts of Real to offer a choice to those benighted iPod owners who are "locked in" to a proprietary format. Perhaps you're only speaking for those who purchased the aforementioned special-edition iPod.
For the rest of us, lack of a single option among many does not negate the presence of a choice. Thus, not being able to play Real songs on my iPod does not remove my choice of other formats to play.
Furthermore, the exercise of choice comes at various stages. The first, and most important, choice is the music player. If one is uncomfortable with the restrictions Apple has placed on iTMS songs/albums or the limited selection of formats supported on the iPod, the one should not purchase an iPod to begin with. Exercise your freedom of choice and buy a Sony player, a Dell Jukebox, or an iRiver instead. What you fail to mention in your ill-conceived tirade is that when I, and everyone else, purchased an iPod, we all bought into the restrictions. We chose to purchase that player with those limitations. For those who didn't realize those limitations were extant when they made their purchase, they have the choice of 1) living with them, 2) returning the iPod for a refund, or 3) selling the iPod.
Apple does not have a monopoly on music players; Apple does not have a monopoly on legally downloadable music. Until such time as the iPod/iTMS combo is the only way to play music, Apple will not have a monopoly.
Re:It's not just the shady companies
on
The Spyware Inferno
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Disabling the systray icon doesn't disable qttask.exe.
Hrm. I'm unwilling to put anything related to RealNetworks on any of my machines, so I can't/won't test this myself. However, I submit the following:
1) If Real only releases their tracks in.rm/.ram format, then Real is the one preventing me from playing any tracks I might buy from their store on my iPod. If I choose not install RealPlayer on my machine, then I can't play those songs I've purchased. Thus I'm locked into Real's format. My iPod plays the formats I use the most --.mp3 and.aac. However, if Real releases their songs in.mp3 with a DRM which iTunes can't play, then Apple is, indeed, doing what you stated.
2) Songs I purchase from iTunes have weak DRM -- I burn them to a CD then import them again as mp3s. Boom. No DRM. No restrictions on the number of machines i can play them on. If Real's music files are the same, then there's no issue. Import them as mp3s, add them to iTunes, sync iPod. If they're not, then their DRM is much stronger and much more restrictive than Apple's.
Personally, I abhor any company wielding the DCMA bat, but only slightly more than I abhor RealNetworks. Reverse engineer Real's DRM so those files can be played anywhere by anyone with any player, then sell that product, and Real will be all over you like stink on shit. And maybe I'm out of the loop, and perhaps the analogy doesn't hold, but I've yet to find a RealMedia file that will play in Quicktime. Or, for that matter, a Quicktime file that will play in RealPlayer (note: I haven't used any version of Realplayer since 1999, so I could be wrong about this.)
I'm disappointed that Apple would so quickly reach for the DMCA to whack folks around, whether Real did anything wrong by reverse engineering Fairplay or not.
I have another question: At what point can a company, any company, stop interoperability? By that I mean how far is Apple obligated to go to make its competitors products work on its equipment? How far is Real obligated to go to make sure files in its media format play on competitors media players?
Is Apple wrong to resort to the DMCA to stop Real of doing this? I'd say yes, if only because each time it is used and upheld, it becomes that much more entrenched. Is Apple wrong to want to prevent Real's format to play on its hardware? I'd say not at all.
No, actually I'm one of the "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" types.
Sweet! The problem with providing specific examples of individuals whose "rights" have been violated is the very nature of the Patriot Act. The FBI can issue an NSL (National Security Letter) and conduct searches or gather information from ISPs and libraries, and anyone who receives an NSL is bound, by law, not to discuss it. The ACLU is challenging this, but they, too, are hampered by the gag-rule. The provision in the Patriot Act has been used; however, the total number of times it's been used and upon whom is classified. The only example I could find was at the ACLU website. Take it for what it's worth.
I put "rights" in quotes earlier because, while the Constitution guarantees many rights and implies others, the Patriot Act essentially removes those rights. Thus, once an NSL has been issued for you, you no longer have the rights you previously had. In this case, no one's rights have been violated because they lost those rights when the NSL was issued. Rather scary, actually.
How about the right to be secure in one's possessions, documents, etc.? The Patriot Act gives the FBI authority to search your home without presenting a warrant, without notifying you, either before or after the search, and without providing recourse or rebuttal for anything found. That's a fairly significant loss, in my book. Perhaps, though, you're one of the "if it makes us safer then it's justified" folks, in which case, you may safely disregard this because "rights" are only "conveniences" which sacrifice our security from evil-doers.
For those who can't be bothered to read the article or click the link in the article, there is a website where these documents are collected. In addition to being available on the website, the documents are available via P2P.
um....damnit! Point granted. I completely ignored this fact, and I apologize.
Given that, I'm still curious about how to deal with what I perceive as a contradiction between the rights granted by one part of copyright law (fair use) and the rights denied by another part of copyright law (DMCA). If I purchase a CD/DVD and make a copy for personal use, I'm exercising a right granted by copyright law. If, in order to exercise this right, I must break another part of copyright law (DMCA), then something is wrong with copyright law in general, and it should be changed. Either remove all fair use rights or remove the restrictions imposed by the DMCA. In this case, I know which one I would prefer.
I purchase quite a bit of music from ITMS, and to this point, I've not run afoul of the DRM. I listen to music on my iPod and my Mac, and that's about it. In this case the DRM is not so restrictive as to prevent me exercising my right of fair use. If, however, I purchase a CD (an actual disk, with liner notes, cover art, jewel box, etc.) which incorporates DRM preventing me from playing it on my computer, then I'm screwed -- I don't own a dedicated CD player anymore. In this case, I've not only lost any fair use rights I might claim but any ability to play the CD at all. Is this acceptable? Is this the intent of copyright law as a whole? Or have I, through no fault of my own, become, in military parlance, a victim of collateral damage, an acceptable loss for the greater good?
Nobody's asking for copyright law to be changed!! All anyone's asking here is for the rights guaranteed and protected by copyright law. DRM is not about copyright -- it's a means for its proponents to get around copyright law. Copyright law says it's perfectly legal for this mother to make copies of her DVDs -- for private use, not for resale. DRM/DMCA says she cannot do this -- she must purchase a new DVD for each one that is destroyed if she wants her son to continue to watch them. In this case, copyright law favors the mother, not the DVD makers. So the DVD makers put DRM on the DVD then use the the DMCA to make it illegal for this person to do what copyright law says is legal for her to do.
Your framing of this issue as a question of changing copyright law for the benefit of a few "rare exceptional cases" is a red herring. Copyright law is not the issue here because the DRM/DMCA combo has trumped it.
Actually, according to my nephew who just returned from 10 months of fighting in Iraq, that's pretty much exactly what they do. Shoot first, worry about the consequences later, when, hopefully, they'll still be alive to worry about them. Out of touch with reality, indeed.
Address it on the backside of the envelope (the side with the flap) and place the postage over the flap once it's sealed. When the post office postmarks it, the stamp will cross the flap onto the envelope. The intact postage and postmark serves to show the envelope hasn't been opened since it was posted.
I do this with my own writing (that is, I post it to myself) so I have the means to prove creation date should it ever become an issue.
Re:Ha, ha. You joke. Is good.
on
BSA IDC FUD
·
· Score: 1
Does this apply to OSS only or to any company which uses computers, running any OS? If a company decides it has a need for computers, for whatever reason, those computers will have to purchased and set up, the software installed and maintained, networked, etc. Whether the company chooses OSS or closed source, this work still has to get done. Are you implying anyone in this company, regardless of IT experience, could do this with, say, WinXP Pro, and adequately maintain the hardware/software/network to ensure maximum productivity from the IT resources? If only one person set it all up, regardless of prior experience, wouldn't that person become something of a guru? Wouldn't losing that person result in time/effort/money spent replacing him while still maintaining the systems?
Your points are valid, but they're valid for all systems, regardless of the software running on them. Not everyone in any given company is savvy enough to handle the IT duties -- and not everyone has to be. If all employees spent their time maintaining the IT resources, when would they find time to do their jobs? People specialize in areas because it saves time and money for the company as a whole. If the company is large enough to need the equipment, the equipment is important enough to be maintained by someone with the knowledge to do so, and that's true regardless of the software they use. As they say, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
From an Addendum to the linked article:
"ADDENDUM III (4/20/2002): Another reader (it has been busy today!) has informed me of another link between Apple and the forces of darkness that my initial research missed. Apparently the Darwin OS is not the original creation of Apple Computers but is instead based off of an older, obsolete OS called "BSD Unix". The child-indoctrinatingly-cute cartoon mascot of this OS is a devil holding a pitchfork (pictured right). This OS -- and its Darwin offspring -- extensively use what are called "daemons" (which is how Pagans write "demon" -- they are notoriously poor spellers: magick, vampyre, etc.) which is a program that hides in the background, doing things without the user's notice. If you are using a new Macintosh running OS X then you probably have these "daemons" on your computer, hardly something a good Christian would want! This clearly illustrates that not only is Macintosh based on Darwinism, but Darwinism is based on Satanism."
"You don't prove negatives." You're absolutely correct. So, why, pray tell, are you so insistent the advocates of freenet prove it is NOT being used for illegal activities? If you're framing your objection in the context of a simple study of what it is actually being used for, then, I agee: such a study might be academically interesting. However, I don't get the sense this is the intent of such a study. Rather, you claim it is being used primarily to distribute child pornography and host discussions on how to be a terrorist, therefore, based on your claim, the entire system should be transparent so these activities can be monitored and punished accordingly.
I'm speaking more from the standpoint of defending privacy rather than advocating freenet per se. If privacy is an important value, then it must be defended. Defending the right to privacy requires *everyones'* right to privacy be defended, no matter what they are doing in private. If evidence comes to light that illegal activities are taking place, then those activities should be investigated. In the absence of evidence, however, forcing an exposure of all activity, and thereby removing the element of privacy from communication on freenet (and not just for the users but also for the content), assumes guilt first, and demands its advocates prove their innocence; again, prove they are NOT doing what your gut feeling is telling you they are doing.
My question is: If the goal is not to punish/imprison the users of freenet, then why is it so important to know exactly what kind of activity is taking place? Again, while knowing this may be academically interesting, that, in itself, is not a compelling reason to remove the privacy which encryption seeks to protect.
"Since when is general knowledge threatening?" Put this question in this context: Since when is general knowledge of what I have in my bedroom threatening? Unless I have something to hide, why should I feel threatened? I mean, as long as I'm not doing anything wrong, I shouldn't have any objection to anyone and their dog going through my bedroom, should I? Wrong -- my bedroom is private. I choose who has access to my bedroom, and I choose what is in there for them to see. And just because I don't grant everyone access to my bedroom doesn't necessarily mean I have illegal substances or items or am performing illegal activities.
I'm less concerned about freenet and what it's being used for than I am about the idea that privacy is not important enough to protect. Personally, I'm not will to give up my right to privacy -- whether in real life or on the 'net (when I have a reasonable expectation of privacy) -- to foster a false sense of security.
"So let me turn the tables. PROVE that most of the people who benefit from due process are not criminals. And if you can't, be coherent and say you'll support the abolition of due process. I'm impatient."
You're demanding the proponents of freenet prove it is not being used primarily for illegal activities. Niom's challenge to you is to prove it is not. This speaks to the very heart (ideally speaking, of course) of the US justice system which espouses the notion of "innocent until proven guilty"; conversely, you are stating users of freenet are guilty of illegal activities and demanding PROOF that they are, in fact, innocent because your "gut feeling" tells you the majority of activity on freenet is the trading of child pornography and terrorist plans.
What does your "gut feeling" tell you about your neighbor? Is he a terrorist? Is he a child pornographer? He must be because your gut tells you so, so lock him up and throw away the key until he can PROVE he is neither.
This is the worst sort of tyranny. Read up on the Salem witch trials or the Inquisition -- folks were put to death on the basis of accusations which, more often than not, were based on petty personal grievances cloaked in the self-righteous "defense of the innocent". How long before you begin screaming for the heads of anyone who uses freenet or any other encrypted communications because they *might* be using it for illegal activities? More frightening still: How long before the government listens to your screams and grants your wish?
I'm no lover of telemarketers, but I would mention that if this does adversely affect telemarketing companies (and there's no reason to think it won't hit them hard), those companies will no longer be able to employ the folks that make the calls. As much as everyone despises telemarketers, understand that those are people making the calls because it's their *job* -- they're being paid to make them, and they depend on those wages to provide for themselves and their families.
This is not to say I disagree with the law. Rather, I'm just pointing out a significant number of folks are going to be dumped into the ranks of the unemployed. Yes, the law will be good, but the law will adversely affect *people*, not just companies, and, regardless of what one thinks of telemarketers (those actually manning the phones), they are employed, they pay taxes, and they go home to kids and bills and families.
I'm not sure what my point is, really, as I like the intent of the law and despise unsolicited phone calls. However, I get queasy reading the posts celebrating the demise of companies with no regard for the people who will be affected by that demise. It smacks of, if not outright malignance, then unnecessary insensitivity for the plight of fellow humans.
Slashdot Mirror
Even HE got tired of them.
Damnit! If I had mod points today (it's the one day of the week I *don't* have them, apparently), I'd rescue your comment from down-mod hell. sry. Tooo funny.
May I recommend http://www.neooffice.org/? It integrates OOo into Mac OS X via Java, and the latest version is the best so far. It's a little slow to load, but that could be my iBook. On the whole, I've been pleased with it. I've used MSOffice, Abiword, Mellel, BBEdit, ZWrite, and a few others editors/word processors (all for text editing, no programming), and NeoOfficeJ is the best I've found so far.
I've seen many posts asking who would buy such a camera. IMHO, that's not the right question. Rather, who would buy the remote to activate the blur? HP doesn't even have to produce and sell a camera with this feature. They just have to say they're going to, and then offer the remote to blur the pictures for $19.99. I might not buy this kind of camera, but my neighbor might. And I don't want my neighbor snapping headshots of me to paste to his blow-up doll, so I'm sure as hell going to buy a camera-jammer so that doesn't happen. It doesn't matter that it won't work; it doesn't matter that the camera might not even exist. All that matters is 1) it might exist; 2) your neighbor might have one; and 3) this little gadget will keep you safe for only $19.99.
Yeah, but you'd be doing those things on a Dell. Ewww.
Ya damn skippy.
You have it backwards. Real is NOT trying to control what plays on the iPod, Apple is trying to prevent people from using the device they sold to those people with content not sold by Apple. That is illegal. Anti-trust action.
Wow. You must be referring to one of those special-edition iPods that only play Fairplay DRM'ed AAC files from iTMS and nothing else. If you can get one (or have one already) I'd hold onto it if I were you. Might be worth some money to a collector one day.
I, however, purchased a plain-jane iPod that plays mp3, wav, and AAC files. It currently has ~8GB of music on it. Of that, perhaps 100MB of music is from iTMS. The rest I 1) ripped from cd's I owned, 2) downloaded from various legal sources, and 3) copied from friends. Moreover, the few albums/songs I purchased from iTMS were immediately burned to a CD. If I choose, I can rip those tracks back to mp3. Voila! No DRM! It's magic! Given I have these options, how is Apple's "monopoly" preventing me from having a choice?
Oh yeah. I forgot -- because Apple has a monopoly and opposed the altruistic efforts of Real to offer a choice to those benighted iPod owners who are "locked in" to a proprietary format. Perhaps you're only speaking for those who purchased the aforementioned special-edition iPod.
For the rest of us, lack of a single option among many does not negate the presence of a choice. Thus, not being able to play Real songs on my iPod does not remove my choice of other formats to play.
Furthermore, the exercise of choice comes at various stages. The first, and most important, choice is the music player. If one is uncomfortable with the restrictions Apple has placed on iTMS songs/albums or the limited selection of formats supported on the iPod, the one should not purchase an iPod to begin with. Exercise your freedom of choice and buy a Sony player, a Dell Jukebox, or an iRiver instead. What you fail to mention in your ill-conceived tirade is that when I, and everyone else, purchased an iPod, we all bought into the restrictions. We chose to purchase that player with those limitations. For those who didn't realize those limitations were extant when they made their purchase, they have the choice of 1) living with them, 2) returning the iPod for a refund, or 3) selling the iPod.
Apple does not have a monopoly on music players; Apple does not have a monopoly on legally downloadable music. Until such time as the iPod/iTMS combo is the only way to play music, Apple will not have a monopoly.
Disabling the systray icon doesn't disable qttask.exe.
Hrm. I'm unwilling to put anything related to RealNetworks on any of my machines, so I can't/won't test this myself. However, I submit the following:
.rm/.ram format, then Real is the one preventing me from playing any tracks I might buy from their store on my iPod. If I choose not install RealPlayer on my machine, then I can't play those songs I've purchased. Thus I'm locked into Real's format. My iPod plays the formats I use the most -- .mp3 and .aac. However, if Real releases their songs in .mp3 with a DRM which iTunes can't play, then Apple is, indeed, doing what you stated.
1) If Real only releases their tracks in
2) Songs I purchase from iTunes have weak DRM -- I burn them to a CD then import them again as mp3s. Boom. No DRM. No restrictions on the number of machines i can play them on. If Real's music files are the same, then there's no issue. Import them as mp3s, add them to iTunes, sync iPod. If they're not, then their DRM is much stronger and much more restrictive than Apple's.
Personally, I abhor any company wielding the DCMA bat, but only slightly more than I abhor RealNetworks. Reverse engineer Real's DRM so those files can be played anywhere by anyone with any player, then sell that product, and Real will be all over you like stink on shit. And maybe I'm out of the loop, and perhaps the analogy doesn't hold, but I've yet to find a RealMedia file that will play in Quicktime. Or, for that matter, a Quicktime file that will play in RealPlayer (note: I haven't used any version of Realplayer since 1999, so I could be wrong about this.)
I'm disappointed that Apple would so quickly reach for the DMCA to whack folks around, whether Real did anything wrong by reverse engineering Fairplay or not.
I have another question: At what point can a company, any company, stop interoperability? By that I mean how far is Apple obligated to go to make its competitors products work on its equipment? How far is Real obligated to go to make sure files in its media format play on competitors media players?
Is Apple wrong to resort to the DMCA to stop Real of doing this? I'd say yes, if only because each time it is used and upheld, it becomes that much more entrenched. Is Apple wrong to want to prevent Real's format to play on its hardware? I'd say not at all.
Just out of curiousity, how, exactly, is Apple restricting the choices of iPod users?
milquetoast ;-)
No, actually I'm one of the "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" types.
Sweet! The problem with providing specific examples of individuals whose "rights" have been violated is the very nature of the Patriot Act. The FBI can issue an NSL (National Security Letter) and conduct searches or gather information from ISPs and libraries, and anyone who receives an NSL is bound, by law, not to discuss it. The ACLU is challenging this, but they, too, are hampered by the gag-rule. The provision in the Patriot Act has been used; however, the total number of times it's been used and upon whom is classified. The only example I could find was at the ACLU website. Take it for what it's worth.
I put "rights" in quotes earlier because, while the Constitution guarantees many rights and implies others, the Patriot Act essentially removes those rights. Thus, once an NSL has been issued for you, you no longer have the rights you previously had. In this case, no one's rights have been violated because they lost those rights when the NSL was issued. Rather scary, actually.
How about the right to be secure in one's possessions, documents, etc.? The Patriot Act gives the FBI authority to search your home without presenting a warrant, without notifying you, either before or after the search, and without providing recourse or rebuttal for anything found. That's a fairly significant loss, in my book. Perhaps, though, you're one of the "if it makes us safer then it's justified" folks, in which case, you may safely disregard this because "rights" are only "conveniences" which sacrifice our security from evil-doers.
For those who can't be bothered to read the article or click the link in the article, there is a website where these documents are collected. In addition to being available on the website, the documents are available via P2P.
http://www.outragedmoderates.org/
um....damnit! Point granted. I completely ignored this fact, and I apologize.
Given that, I'm still curious about how to deal with what I perceive as a contradiction between the rights granted by one part of copyright law (fair use) and the rights denied by another part of copyright law (DMCA). If I purchase a CD/DVD and make a copy for personal use, I'm exercising a right granted by copyright law. If, in order to exercise this right, I must break another part of copyright law (DMCA), then something is wrong with copyright law in general, and it should be changed. Either remove all fair use rights or remove the restrictions imposed by the DMCA. In this case, I know which one I would prefer.
I purchase quite a bit of music from ITMS, and to this point, I've not run afoul of the DRM. I listen to music on my iPod and my Mac, and that's about it. In this case the DRM is not so restrictive as to prevent me exercising my right of fair use. If, however, I purchase a CD (an actual disk, with liner notes, cover art, jewel box, etc.) which incorporates DRM preventing me from playing it on my computer, then I'm screwed -- I don't own a dedicated CD player anymore. In this case, I've not only lost any fair use rights I might claim but any ability to play the CD at all. Is this acceptable? Is this the intent of copyright law as a whole? Or have I, through no fault of my own, become, in military parlance, a victim of collateral damage, an acceptable loss for the greater good?
Nobody's asking for copyright law to be changed!! All anyone's asking here is for the rights guaranteed and protected by copyright law. DRM is not about copyright -- it's a means for its proponents to get around copyright law. Copyright law says it's perfectly legal for this mother to make copies of her DVDs -- for private use, not for resale. DRM/DMCA says she cannot do this -- she must purchase a new DVD for each one that is destroyed if she wants her son to continue to watch them. In this case, copyright law favors the mother, not the DVD makers. So the DVD makers put DRM on the DVD then use the the DMCA to make it illegal for this person to do what copyright law says is legal for her to do.
Your framing of this issue as a question of changing copyright law for the benefit of a few "rare exceptional cases" is a red herring. Copyright law is not the issue here because the DRM/DMCA combo has trumped it.
Actually, according to my nephew who just returned from 10 months of fighting in Iraq, that's pretty much exactly what they do. Shoot first, worry about the consequences later, when, hopefully, they'll still be alive to worry about them. Out of touch with reality, indeed.
Address it on the backside of the envelope (the side with the flap) and place the postage over the flap once it's sealed. When the post office postmarks it, the stamp will cross the flap onto the envelope. The intact postage and postmark serves to show the envelope hasn't been opened since it was posted.
I do this with my own writing (that is, I post it to myself) so I have the means to prove creation date should it ever become an issue.
are there Nvidia drivers for the BSDs?
Yes. For one of them, at least.
Does this apply to OSS only or to any company which uses computers, running any OS? If a company decides it has a need for computers, for whatever reason, those computers will have to purchased and set up, the software installed and maintained, networked, etc. Whether the company chooses OSS or closed source, this work still has to get done. Are you implying anyone in this company, regardless of IT experience, could do this with, say, WinXP Pro, and adequately maintain the hardware/software/network to ensure maximum productivity from the IT resources? If only one person set it all up, regardless of prior experience, wouldn't that person become something of a guru? Wouldn't losing that person result in time/effort/money spent replacing him while still maintaining the systems?
Your points are valid, but they're valid for all systems, regardless of the software running on them. Not everyone in any given company is savvy enough to handle the IT duties -- and not everyone has to be. If all employees spent their time maintaining the IT resources, when would they find time to do their jobs? People specialize in areas because it saves time and money for the company as a whole. If the company is large enough to need the equipment, the equipment is important enough to be maintained by someone with the knowledge to do so, and that's true regardless of the software they use. As they say, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
From an Addendum to the linked article:
"ADDENDUM III (4/20/2002): Another reader (it has been busy today!) has informed me of another link between Apple and the forces of darkness that my initial research missed. Apparently the Darwin OS is not the original creation of Apple Computers but is instead based off of an older, obsolete OS called "BSD Unix". The child-indoctrinatingly-cute cartoon mascot of this OS is a devil holding a pitchfork (pictured right). This OS -- and its Darwin offspring -- extensively use what are called "daemons" (which is how Pagans write "demon" -- they are notoriously poor spellers: magick, vampyre, etc.) which is a program that hides in the background, doing things without the user's notice. If you are using a new Macintosh running OS X then you probably have these "daemons" on your computer, hardly something a good Christian would want! This clearly illustrates that not only is Macintosh based on Darwinism, but Darwinism is based on Satanism."
heh...this site is almost as good as Landover Baptist
"You don't prove negatives."
You're absolutely correct. So, why, pray tell, are you so insistent the advocates of freenet prove it is NOT being used for illegal activities? If you're framing your objection in the context of a simple study of what it is actually being used for, then, I agee: such a study might be academically interesting. However, I don't get the sense this is the intent of such a study. Rather, you claim it is being used primarily to distribute child pornography and host discussions on how to be a terrorist, therefore, based on your claim, the entire system should be transparent so these activities can be monitored and punished accordingly.
I'm speaking more from the standpoint of defending privacy rather than advocating freenet per se. If privacy is an important value, then it must be defended. Defending the right to privacy requires *everyones'* right to privacy be defended, no matter what they are doing in private. If evidence comes to light that illegal activities are taking place, then those activities should be investigated. In the absence of evidence, however, forcing an exposure of all activity, and thereby removing the element of privacy from communication on freenet (and not just for the users but also for the content), assumes guilt first, and demands its advocates prove their innocence; again, prove they are NOT doing what your gut feeling is telling you they are doing.
My question is: If the goal is not to punish/imprison the users of freenet, then why is it so important to know exactly what kind of activity is taking place? Again, while knowing this may be academically interesting, that, in itself, is not a compelling reason to remove the privacy which encryption seeks to protect.
"Since when is general knowledge threatening?"
Put this question in this context: Since when is general knowledge of what I have in my bedroom threatening? Unless I have something to hide, why should I feel threatened? I mean, as long as I'm not doing anything wrong, I shouldn't have any objection to anyone and their dog going through my bedroom, should I? Wrong -- my bedroom is private. I choose who has access to my bedroom, and I choose what is in there for them to see. And just because I don't grant everyone access to my bedroom doesn't necessarily mean I have illegal substances or items or am performing illegal activities.
I'm less concerned about freenet and what it's being used for than I am about the idea that privacy is not important enough to protect. Personally, I'm not will to give up my right to privacy -- whether in real life or on the 'net (when I have a reasonable expectation of privacy) -- to foster a false sense of security.
You failed to answer Niom's challenge:
"So let me turn the tables. PROVE that most of the people who benefit from due process are not criminals. And if you can't, be coherent and say you'll support the abolition of due process. I'm impatient."
You're demanding the proponents of freenet prove it is not being used primarily for illegal activities. Niom's challenge to you is to prove it is not. This speaks to the very heart (ideally speaking, of course) of the US justice system which espouses the notion of "innocent until proven guilty"; conversely, you are stating users of freenet are guilty of illegal activities and demanding PROOF that they are, in fact, innocent because your "gut feeling" tells you the majority of activity on freenet is the trading of child pornography and terrorist plans.
What does your "gut feeling" tell you about your neighbor? Is he a terrorist? Is he a child pornographer? He must be because your gut tells you so, so lock him up and throw away the key until he can PROVE he is neither.
This is the worst sort of tyranny. Read up on the Salem witch trials or the Inquisition -- folks were put to death on the basis of accusations which, more often than not, were based on petty personal grievances cloaked in the self-righteous "defense of the innocent". How long before you begin screaming for the heads of anyone who uses freenet or any other encrypted communications because they *might* be using it for illegal activities? More frightening still: How long before the government listens to your screams and grants your wish?
I'm no lover of telemarketers, but I would mention that if this does adversely affect telemarketing companies (and there's no reason to think it won't hit them hard), those companies will no longer be able to employ the folks that make the calls. As much as everyone despises telemarketers, understand that those are people making the calls because it's their *job* -- they're being paid to make them, and they depend on those wages to provide for themselves and their families.
This is not to say I disagree with the law. Rather, I'm just pointing out a significant number of folks are going to be dumped into the ranks of the unemployed. Yes, the law will be good, but the law will adversely affect *people*, not just companies, and, regardless of what one thinks of telemarketers (those actually manning the phones), they are employed, they pay taxes, and they go home to kids and bills and families.
I'm not sure what my point is, really, as I like the intent of the law and despise unsolicited phone calls. However, I get queasy reading the posts celebrating the demise of companies with no regard for the people who will be affected by that demise. It smacks of, if not outright malignance, then unnecessary insensitivity for the plight of fellow humans.
aha... I missed that entirely. color me chagrined.