Open Source failed Hollywood, and all media creators, by claiming those creators could no longer sell there product for $20, one that costs a quarter to make, and must now give it away for free.
Remember all the horrid stories about Metallica and Napster here on slashdot? And most everyone saying it was unfair to sell those CDs at such a huge markup? After all, they've been doing it for twenty years now.
There are a lot of very rich people staying rich, with elegant homes on prime real estate, with bowls of cocaine on the tables and teenage girlies all around the pool. And you think a bunch of programmers can take that lifestyle away? Get real.
The government? Five percent of America controls the government, as long as unemployment stays under 10%. Did someone say McDonalds? Or was that WalMart?
The new laws on the way say three important things:
1) The NSF shall be funded by the dotGOV to create a workable DRM infrastucture. This will allow people with the right-to-use to actually use the binary object in question.
2) If the NSF cannot perform the task in a reasonable amount of time, a corporation will be given the green light, and will be exempt from anti-trust laws (who could that be?)
3) It will be illegal to sell or transfer a device (hw or sw) that does not protect the IP rights holder.
Never mind that all the people who once stole on Napster are now stealing on BearShare. Never mind that nearly all the people, in either case, were/are running Microsoft products.
So, someone has convinced the powers-that-be that middleware, with a certified OS (no Root access/no binary tools) is the holy grail. That way, you can validate the object chain -- guaranteed.
I think that is a bunch of crap. We need to focus on doing the right thing--reasonable protection for IP, reasonable non-interference with personal behavior--if a musician wants to give something away, or an author wants to give away a book, they should be able to "mark it" free.
Just like we do with books, we should be able to trade IP -- give it away, loan it out, buy or sell it.
All that is needed is some type of client-server infrastucture, complete with (I imagine) a one-time decryption key process. The client-server infrastucture would keep track of the current rights holder for the objects, aloowing the current holders to decypt and use the binary object.
There would be horrific penalties for cracking the rights infrastructure, or distributing the tools to do so.
Society operates this way right now. There is no need to have two policeman ride along with me to insure I am not bad--it's just a matter of my realizing that crime or violence is not a acceptable solution to life's struggles. The penalty exceeds the payoff.
Applying a similar concept to the IP situation--harsh prosecution for using cracked s/w, distributing cracking s/w, etc.--should be more than enough to satisy Hollywood and the Government, plus it's the reasonable thing to do.
1) they destroyed America's free market for software;
2) there is no source code available so people could fix the driver.
I'd be suprised if this wasn't fixed pretty fast. That's the great thing about Linux...one of the things that always pissed me off about dealing with MS was various NT bugs that would just sit for years at a time.
i have been crying to our sysadmin to install a locl im service...i think it's ideal for getting programmers to communicate.
i also know a lot of prgrammers communicate via chatrooms.
so, i think it's a little tough to get a handle on this "problem: because even though there might be a fe problems with people "outside" of the core team getting their influence into a project, i think the people in the core team are communicating/collaborating quite a bit.
IP is the problem. It exists, and it must be dealt with. DivX is not the solution; it is too narrow in scope, and too extreme in its limits,
While the various IP merchants are pushing for a "pay-per-view/rental" scenario, this doesn't match current standards of IP control at all.
It's outrageous to expect the population to accept an outright ban on "non digital rights certified devices"(posted on slashdot recently) -- as outrageous as a population expecting to be able to use BearShare to aquire copyrighted materials for free.
The industry is pushing for a world where all transferred objects are guaranteed legit, and unreplicatable. The hardcore few claim there has been a technology shift, and all information must be free.
Both sides are wrong, and any company that thinks MS is going to be their savior is a fool. Microsoft will toss out the IP middlemen as sure as they have destroyed netscape and countless other quality companies -- the IP merchants are just next in line.
It's been said by reasonable people on slashdot over and over again : Just make it hard enough, and the penalties distasteful enough, and people won't steal. Our whole society works on this premise...and it is effective. Sure, I could steal at the market, but the potential downside far outweighs the benefits. Sure, the NSA could mount a camera (a small one) on my dick to make sure I'm not a child molester, but that's going a little overboard with regards to a presumption of innocence and my personal privacy.
What can I do with a CD? I can loan it out, I can make copies for myself, I can play it (potentially) an infinite number of times, I can sell it, I can give it away to a friend, family or library. Similar situations exist with other IP -- dvds, books, etc.
What can't I do? Replicate and distribute the IP for free or profit. I can only transfer the copy I own, a single copy.
So there needs to be an infrastructure that makes it impossible for the current object holder to use an IP object unless they hold the rights -- via direct or indirect sale, loan, gift, etc. Perhaps some type of key system gets examined and allows decryption of the IP, with severe penalties for "crackers" who post IP protection bypass software.
This is not rocket science; banks allow activities over the web and we are comfortable with that, The IRS and Social Security keep regularly updated records on individuals and their status.
The IP situation can be dealt with without either side freaking out -- this should not be treated as a big "Win-Lose" situation where the public, Microsoft or the IP merchants and up in a "winner take all" scenario. Extreme outcomes are unneccesary.
But let's face it, the real issue is societal turbulence.
There have been middlemen between IP producers and IP cosumers, and they have done quite well over the years. Indeed, they have done so well that they have near infinite resources with which to lobby the government.
IP producers and middlemen do not want to lose out in the information age, any more than a Linux programmer wants an all-microsoft world.
But how to accomodate both sides, when both sides demand extremes? One side wants every copy paid for, the other wants everything to be free. It has not been a black and white issue in the past, and should not be one in the future.
Some type of reasonable freedom to share needs to exist, while preventing widespread piracy and copying.
If such a system can be developed, all the arguments about IP and licensing will be moot -- things will remain roughly the same. I can transfer my right to utilize IP content 'A' to another person, but I can't make unlimited copies of IP 'A'.
The first time I used Java, I was thinking "Middleware. Someone is trying to lock down the core OS." (the core OS being where the rights management layer exists).
Now MS is going to VM's running C#.
All I can say is, it's all so transparent, it's ludicrous. Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get me.
So, I have to ask, when is someone going to write a "alternative" set of compilers/binutils from scratch, so he (and the rest of the GNU/bashers) can finally be "free"?
Whilst looking through the winner's personal info, I came across this page which has quite a photo of... something bloody attached to his arm... and a god of vampires link.
It's often said that genius and eccentricity often go hand-in-hand, I'm just not sure what's in the photo. Dare I say it's a vampire bat feeding off the 2001 ICFP Contest Winner's arm? Anyone else know?
Someone has got to get an interview with this guy for slashdot!
Just three years ago a Microsoft exec told my (then) manager:
"We are going to eliminate all non-microsoft programming by 2003"
I think they might pull it off.
Between embedded XP and the favoritism shown to MS by governments and corporations, I don't see how they can be stopped. Ethics doesn't work, the law doesn't work, the slow speed of government is ineffective in dealing with the information economy.
I've just about had it, too...I've got two other possible careers in the works, neither of which is "tech heavy" (little or no computer use required) so I'm thankful for that!
Hopefully, after some time off FT programming and just enjoying life for a bit, I'll be able to devote some time to improving Linux.
I'd love to work on a decent "Security Control Panel" -- things like PortSentry, Nmap, Satan, Tripwire all controlled and configured by one GUI. That would be a fun project.
that's the first thing i thought when i read about this -- "what a horrendous waste of money" -- TCP/IP will always be faster that anything flying through the air.
as the article says, banks (and other partners) have the option of popping up their own authentication, to make sure Joe Blow is really who he says he is.
kinda blows the whole single point of authentication out of the picture.
i'm really frustrated with the way the web is going.
sometimes i think the federal government should just take it over and say "fuck it, it's a free national infrastructure for everyone -- register here, put your content here, the hell with it".
for example, the large city libraries could become information nodes, a server farm on one end, access at the other, and high bandwidth to the local cable or telco infrastructure.
i hate to put it this way, but the riaa and mpaa are abberations that steal our freedoms. we, as primates, are natually inquisitive and expressive, in both an auditory and visual sense. for industries to claim they have an inherent right to profit from either side is simply a localized abberation in time against human rights.
visual and auditory products are so easily replicated, and it's such a fine line between parody and duplication, that individual rights (or perhaps individual activites) will, at some point, destroy the visual and auditory monopolies. i firmly beleive stardom, famous actors, and guitar gods will become a thing of the past at some point.
if you have a tangible, physical product, you make money on markup. if you have audio or visual entertainment, you make money on advertising. the powers-that-be may not like it, but they are so screwed, i don't see how they can win in the long run.
simply put, i buy three or four magazine subscriptions. they cost me about $120 a year. i'm not going to "subscribe" to web sites. not gonna happen...at least not yet. the closest thing i've seen to something i'd pay for is yahoo. they have pretty good news, quality personals, lots of informative links. if they had audio and visual, and said they need subscribers to stay alive, i'd pay for them.
same for google. i'd be pretty adamant about a "one-stop" portal, maybe $36 a year, with access to a wide variety of services.
after 25 years of modems you have to question whether the private sector is (in any way) up to the task. federal control of bandwidth and storage could go a long way toward moving the web forward.
If you had bothered reading the link, you would know a few things.
1) It is not a single person within Microsoft "mis-interpreting" their orders. It is several PR companies, doing exactly the same thing, along with Microsoft.
2) After the PR company calls the target, and confirms they are supportive of Microsoft, The letterheads, return addresses, and envelopes arrive at the house pre-printed and ready to go, complete with paragraphs moved around and paper colr/font changes to make them appear to be from "individuals".
3) There's a lot of money flowing. How can be be from a Linux company?
The "facts" were there, had you bothered to go read a little. But as this story shows, Microsoft supporters have a few issues when it comes to writing. It's not too much of a stretch to imagine they have issues following links and reading the articles as well.
It's a research paper that exposes a vulnerability and the fixes to deal with it.
Don't get upset, get used to it. Expect to see of these in the coming millenium.
BTW, keystroke timing is a pretty old attack. In the past, it's been used for two basic operations: One, who is it? and two, what are they typing.
Everyone has a distinct typing style that can be used as a fingerprint to identify them. If you have an audio recording of someone typing, and a database of recordings of typists with access to the machine, you can figure out which person was at the keyboard.
The more difficult problem is discovering what was typed, but with a little thought and analysis, you can probably get a good idea.
This vulnerability decreases the time for a dictionary search by about a factor of fifty. Congrats to the researchers for exposing this weakness.
No one asked, and I didn't. But I hope you will admit that the article, the UD quotes and the mjority of the responses have been overwhelming negative towards RMS.
I don't see anything wrong with trying to restore a little objectivity when things start to go crazy.
This article is extremely one-sided. I think I'll wait until some impatial third party looks at what actually happened, or did not happen, before casting judgement on either side.
Ha, this person has never been charged, so he has never gone to court -- let alone had a "not guilty" verdict.
It's pretty hard to have any jeopardy of any kind until those three things happen -- charged, court, not guilty.
The prosecutor is standing in front of a mic, and talking out of his cake hole.
The prosecutor knows two things :
One, computer crime gets in the news. That means he gets his picture in the paper -- great for that DA job he'd like to settle into after a few more years. Bragging rights for his offspring, if nothing else.
Two, they have a weak case, and anything they can do to get the kid to cop a plea lets them mark it down in the books as "solved". Every "solved" case increases funding and gets him a better shot at juicy DA position.
This is all so predictable. Please see my other posts about when to cooperate with law enforcement, and when to stop and shut your mouth!
Quick recap :
1) In America, we have free speech. The police, the detectives, yourself. There are things any of you can say, within bounds, at different points in the process. Without charges, the police can play pretty fast and loose with their statements.
2) One you have been read your rights NEVER speak to anyone about the case without your attorney present!
3) Once charged, you have a right to have an attorney present during questioning, representing you. If you cannot afford one, one will be provided. It's the law.
Help the police, they catch the bad guys. But once they start looking at you, shut up and stay cool -- you are up against trained pros.
Remember, when a lawyer gets charged with a crime, they shut up and get a lawyer! When a police officer gets charged with a crime, same thing! That should tell you volumes about how the system works.
My gut feeling? Our boy here is not being totally honest about his activities. He has an attorney, but he has not been charged. I wonder why? He could be sniffing at a defamation lawsuit, his attorney may be asking questions, requesting records. The FBI, newspaper, and DAs office might be mounting a counterstrike to scare them off.
The more I think about it, I keep wondering : why has this guy hired an attorney, when he hasn't been charged with a crime?
IANAL either, but I believe it's actually protected free speech.
The detective was pushy with me, insistent. Remember, I was not charged, arrested or mirandized. More or less, it's consenual communication. I had little experience with the law prior to this incident, other than things like tickets.
It's been decided by the supreme court that the police are not bound to tell you the truth during an interview. There are bounds, but they can say odd things like "What if I tell you I have an eyewitness? Will that help you make the right decision?" (BTW, the detective used this exact line on me!) Note that he did not claim to actually have an eyewitness.
Now that I look back on the whole thing, I have to say these people are pros. They have guidelines, and they know exactly what they are saying and doing. They have years of experience and training in getting convictions, in any way possible.
Another tactic was telling me that "The truth, your guilt or innocence, does not pay my salary. Convictions do. I can convict you -- I've been convicting people for 15 years, and I've never lost sleep over it. I'm one of the best. I hate to see you make a decision to go to trial and ruin your life. Do the right thing and take the lessor charge."
Probably the thing that hurt me most, and I know now it was all an act, was when he recounted a horrible murder that occurred some years earlier. Everyone in the city knew the details, the rape and murder. This detective claimed to have busted the guy, and he gave me a horrible look and said "You're just like him, aren't you? I know criminals, and when I look at you I see a monster. I'm going to keep coming after you, and I won't stop -- ever". Well, for someone like me, I almost started crying, as ashamed as I am now to say that. The bright lights, the investigation room, the two of us alone, eye-to-eye across the table. The big police banner above his head on the wall -- everything made him look correct and invincible.
Another reason it's not harrassment is that he did not call again once I asked him to stop. My dad's lawyer made that clear -- that I should not be asked any more questions or called again until charged.
Hope this helps people understand what they might have to face someday -- always help the law, but don't hurt yourself in the process. When you sense that the line has been crossed -- that they are considering you a suspect -- stop talking!
I hate to think how many "people of lessor mental capabilities" have taken the fall for things because they simply believed the detectives about all this nonsense.
I expect that whatever oxygenator they are using on the exhaust may be extremely expensive to implement on POVs.
It could be a catalyst, for example, that costs big $$ to make, and could be toxic and expensive to displose of when finished.
There's no magic here. In the past I've been a huge fan of EVs, but am disolusioned by the slow rate at which battery energy density has improved, especially considering the toxicity and expense of the new materials -- even compared to lead.
Slowly, I'm warming up to the hybrids. Something must be done to cut down on fossil fuel usage.
Slashdot Mirror
during the election, i didn't like either choice, viewing both as products of nepotism.
the bush and gore families are powerful political engines...not as powerful as the kennedy machine, but still powerful.
to claim that President Bush is an "unelected president" takes away from what i view as a sacred document--the US Constitution.
the man is legally the president of the united states, so show some respect, and do not use that wording.
otherwise, i agree fully with the paper. the dotGOV will use this incident, and the emotional aftermath, to erode our freedoms.
Open Source failed Hollywood, and all media creators, by claiming those creators could no longer sell there product for $20, one that costs a quarter to make, and must now give it away for free.
Remember all the horrid stories about Metallica and Napster here on slashdot? And most everyone saying it was unfair to sell those CDs at such a huge markup? After all, they've been doing it for twenty years now.
There are a lot of very rich people staying rich, with elegant homes on prime real estate, with bowls of cocaine on the tables and teenage girlies all around the pool. And you think a bunch of programmers can take that lifestyle away? Get real.
The government? Five percent of America controls the government, as long as unemployment stays under 10%. Did someone say McDonalds? Or was that WalMart?
The new laws on the way say three important things:
1) The NSF shall be funded by the dotGOV to create a workable DRM infrastucture. This will allow people with the right-to-use to actually use the binary object in question.
2) If the NSF cannot perform the task in a reasonable amount of time, a corporation will be given the green light, and will be exempt from anti-trust laws (who could that be?)
3) It will be illegal to sell or transfer a device (hw or sw) that does not protect the IP rights holder.
Never mind that all the people who once stole on Napster are now stealing on BearShare. Never mind that nearly all the people, in either case, were/are running Microsoft products.
So, someone has convinced the powers-that-be that middleware, with a certified OS (no Root access/no binary tools) is the holy grail. That way, you can validate the object chain -- guaranteed.
I think that is a bunch of crap. We need to focus on doing the right thing--reasonable protection for IP, reasonable non-interference with personal behavior--if a musician wants to give something away, or an author wants to give away a book, they should be able to "mark it" free.
Just like we do with books, we should be able to trade IP -- give it away, loan it out, buy or sell it.
All that is needed is some type of client-server infrastucture, complete with (I imagine) a one-time decryption key process. The client-server infrastucture would keep track of the current rights holder for the objects, aloowing the current holders to decypt and use the binary object.
There would be horrific penalties for cracking the rights infrastructure, or distributing the tools to do so.
Society operates this way right now. There is no need to have two policeman ride along with me to insure I am not bad--it's just a matter of my realizing that crime or violence is not a acceptable solution to life's struggles. The penalty exceeds the payoff.
Applying a similar concept to the IP situation--harsh prosecution for using cracked s/w, distributing cracking s/w, etc.--should be more than enough to satisy Hollywood and the Government, plus it's the reasonable thing to do.
or maybe MS would get slammed because:
1) they destroyed America's free market for software;
2) there is no source code available so people could fix the driver.
I'd be suprised if this wasn't fixed pretty fast. That's the great thing about Linux...one of the things that always pissed me off about dealing with MS was various NT bugs that would just sit for years at a time.
i have been crying to our sysadmin to install a locl im service...i think it's ideal for getting programmers to communicate.
i also know a lot of prgrammers communicate via chatrooms.
so, i think it's a little tough to get a handle on this "problem: because even though there might be a fe problems with people "outside" of the core team getting their influence into a project, i think the people in the core team are communicating/collaborating quite a bit.
In the future, there will be middleware.
I don't know how else to put it. The laws, the technology...everything is going to middleware.
Java, C#, this product...a better question is : how will i find apps that don't run off the internet?
Answer: a computer museum. I'm totally serious.
Yodaiken's Patent on running the kernel as a RT process
IP is the problem. It exists, and it must be dealt with. DivX is not the solution; it is too narrow in scope, and too extreme in its limits,
While the various IP merchants are pushing for a "pay-per-view/rental" scenario, this doesn't match current standards of IP control at all.
It's outrageous to expect the population to accept an outright ban on "non digital rights certified devices"(posted on slashdot recently) -- as outrageous as a population expecting to be able to use BearShare to aquire copyrighted materials for free.
The industry is pushing for a world where all transferred objects are guaranteed legit, and unreplicatable. The hardcore few claim there has been a technology shift, and all information must be free.
Both sides are wrong, and any company that thinks MS is going to be their savior is a fool. Microsoft will toss out the IP middlemen as sure as they have destroyed netscape and countless other quality companies -- the IP merchants are just next in line.
It's been said by reasonable people on slashdot over and over again : Just make it hard enough, and the penalties distasteful enough, and people won't steal. Our whole society works on this premise...and it is effective. Sure, I could steal at the market, but the potential downside far outweighs the benefits. Sure, the NSA could mount a camera (a small one) on my dick to make sure I'm not a child molester, but that's going a little overboard with regards to a presumption of innocence and my personal privacy.
What can I do with a CD? I can loan it out, I can make copies for myself, I can play it (potentially) an infinite number of times, I can sell it, I can give it away to a friend, family or library. Similar situations exist with other IP -- dvds, books, etc.
What can't I do? Replicate and distribute the IP for free or profit. I can only transfer the copy I own, a single copy.
So there needs to be an infrastructure that makes it impossible for the current object holder to use an IP object unless they hold the rights -- via direct or indirect sale, loan, gift, etc. Perhaps some type of key system gets examined and allows decryption of the IP, with severe penalties for "crackers" who post IP protection bypass software.
This is not rocket science; banks allow activities over the web and we are comfortable with that, The IRS and Social Security keep regularly updated records on individuals and their status.
The IP situation can be dealt with without either side freaking out -- this should not be treated as a big "Win-Lose" situation where the public, Microsoft or the IP merchants and up in a "winner take all" scenario. Extreme outcomes are unneccesary.
But let's face it, the real issue is societal turbulence.
There have been middlemen between IP producers and IP cosumers, and they have done quite well over the years. Indeed, they have done so well that they have near infinite resources with which to lobby the government.
IP producers and middlemen do not want to lose out in the information age, any more than a Linux programmer wants an all-microsoft world.
But how to accomodate both sides, when both sides demand extremes? One side wants every copy paid for, the other wants everything to be free. It has not been a black and white issue in the past, and should not be one in the future.
Some type of reasonable freedom to share needs to exist, while preventing widespread piracy and copying.
If such a system can be developed, all the arguments about IP and licensing will be moot -- things will remain roughly the same. I can transfer my right to utilize IP content 'A' to another person, but I can't make unlimited copies of IP 'A'.
"participating corporations will be exempt from antitrust prosecution"
The first time I used Java, I was thinking "Middleware. Someone is trying to lock down the core OS." (the core OS being where the rights management layer exists).
Now MS is going to VM's running C#.
All I can say is, it's all so transparent, it's ludicrous. Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get me.
...I noticed he uses gcc and the GNU binutils.
So, I have to ask, when is someone going to write a "alternative" set of compilers/binutils from scratch, so he (and the rest of the GNU/bashers) can finally be "free"?
Something tells me TCU is not going to make the "Top Ten Party Schools" list anytime soon.
Whilst looking through the winner's personal info, I came across this page which has quite a photo of ... something bloody attached to his arm ... and a god of vampires link.
It's often said that genius and eccentricity often go hand-in-hand, I'm just not sure what's in the photo. Dare I say it's a vampire bat feeding off the 2001 ICFP Contest Winner's arm? Anyone else know?
Someone has got to get an interview with this guy for slashdot!
Just three years ago a Microsoft exec told my (then) manager:
"We are going to eliminate all non-microsoft programming by 2003"
I think they might pull it off.
Between embedded XP and the favoritism shown to MS by governments and corporations, I don't see how they can be stopped. Ethics doesn't work, the law doesn't work, the slow speed of government is ineffective in dealing with the information economy.
I've just about had it, too...I've got two other possible careers in the works, neither of which is "tech heavy" (little or no computer use required) so I'm thankful for that!
Hopefully, after some time off FT programming and just enjoying life for a bit, I'll be able to devote some time to improving Linux.
I'd love to work on a decent "Security Control Panel" -- things like PortSentry, Nmap, Satan, Tripwire all controlled and configured by one GUI. That would be a fun project.
that's the first thing i thought when i read about this -- "what a horrendous waste of money" -- TCP/IP will always be faster that anything flying through the air.
as the article says, banks (and other partners) have the option of popping up their own authentication, to make sure Joe Blow is really who he says he is.
kinda blows the whole single point of authentication out of the picture.
i'm really frustrated with the way the web is going.
sometimes i think the federal government should just take it over and say "fuck it, it's a free national infrastructure for everyone -- register here, put your content here, the hell with it".
for example, the large city libraries could become information nodes, a server farm on one end, access at the other, and high bandwidth to the local cable or telco infrastructure.
i hate to put it this way, but the riaa and mpaa are abberations that steal our freedoms. we, as primates, are natually inquisitive and expressive, in both an auditory and visual sense. for industries to claim they have an inherent right to profit from either side is simply a localized abberation in time against human rights.
visual and auditory products are so easily replicated, and it's such a fine line between parody and duplication, that individual rights (or perhaps individual activites) will, at some point, destroy the visual and auditory monopolies. i firmly beleive stardom, famous actors, and guitar gods will become a thing of the past at some point.
if you have a tangible, physical product, you make money on markup. if you have audio or visual entertainment, you make money on advertising. the powers-that-be may not like it, but they are so screwed, i don't see how they can win in the long run.
simply put, i buy three or four magazine subscriptions. they cost me about $120 a year. i'm not going to "subscribe" to web sites. not gonna happen...at least not yet. the closest thing i've seen to something i'd pay for is yahoo. they have pretty good news, quality personals, lots of informative links. if they had audio and visual, and said they need subscribers to stay alive, i'd pay for them.
same for google. i'd be pretty adamant about a "one-stop" portal, maybe $36 a year, with access to a wide variety of services.
after 25 years of modems you have to question whether the private sector is (in any way) up to the task. federal control of bandwidth and storage could go a long way toward moving the web forward.
my favorite area of mp3.com is :
comedy and satire
...some of the music areas are cool, but a lot of it is real crap.
My keyboard is made of atoms and molecules, and I bought it two years ago.
If you had bothered reading the link, you would know a few things.
1) It is not a single person within Microsoft "mis-interpreting" their orders. It is several PR companies, doing exactly the same thing, along with Microsoft.
2) After the PR company calls the target, and confirms they are supportive of Microsoft, The letterheads, return addresses, and envelopes arrive at the house pre-printed and ready to go, complete with paragraphs moved around and paper colr/font changes to make them appear to be from "individuals".
3) There's a lot of money flowing. How can be be from a Linux company?
The "facts" were there, had you bothered to go read a little. But as this story shows, Microsoft supporters have a few issues when it comes to writing. It's not too much of a stretch to imagine they have issues following links and reading the articles as well.
It's a research paper that exposes a vulnerability and the fixes to deal with it.
Don't get upset, get used to it. Expect to see of these in the coming millenium.
BTW, keystroke timing is a pretty old attack. In the past, it's been used for two basic operations: One, who is it? and two, what are they typing.
Everyone has a distinct typing style that can be used as a fingerprint to identify them. If you have an audio recording of someone typing, and a database of recordings of typists with access to the machine, you can figure out which person was at the keyboard.
The more difficult problem is discovering what was typed, but with a little thought and analysis, you can probably get a good idea.
This vulnerability decreases the time for a dictionary search by about a factor of fifty. Congrats to the researchers for exposing this weakness.
No one asked, and I didn't. But I hope you will admit that the article, the UD quotes and the mjority of the responses have been overwhelming negative towards RMS.
I don't see anything wrong with trying to restore a little objectivity when things start to go crazy.
This article is extremely one-sided. I think I'll wait until some impatial third party looks at what actually happened, or did not happen, before casting judgement on either side.
Ha, this person has never been charged, so he has never gone to court -- let alone had a "not guilty" verdict.
It's pretty hard to have any jeopardy of any kind until those three things happen -- charged, court, not guilty.
The prosecutor is standing in front of a mic, and talking out of his cake hole.
The prosecutor knows two things :
One, computer crime gets in the news. That means he gets his picture in the paper -- great for that DA job he'd like to settle into after a few more years. Bragging rights for his offspring, if nothing else.
Two, they have a weak case, and anything they can do to get the kid to cop a plea lets them mark it down in the books as "solved". Every "solved" case increases funding and gets him a better shot at juicy DA position.
This is all so predictable. Please see my other posts about when to cooperate with law enforcement, and when to stop and shut your mouth!
Quick recap :
1) In America, we have free speech. The police, the detectives, yourself. There are things any of you can say, within bounds, at different points in the process. Without charges, the police can play pretty fast and loose with their statements.
2) One you have been read your rights NEVER speak to anyone about the case without your attorney present!
3) Once charged, you have a right to have an attorney present during questioning, representing you. If you cannot afford one, one will be provided. It's the law.
Help the police, they catch the bad guys. But once they start looking at you, shut up and stay cool -- you are up against trained pros.
Remember, when a lawyer gets charged with a crime, they shut up and get a lawyer! When a police officer gets charged with a crime, same thing! That should tell you volumes about how the system works.
My gut feeling? Our boy here is not being totally honest about his activities. He has an attorney, but he has not been charged. I wonder why? He could be sniffing at a defamation lawsuit, his attorney may be asking questions, requesting records. The FBI, newspaper, and DAs office might be mounting a counterstrike to scare them off.
The more I think about it, I keep wondering : why has this guy hired an attorney, when he hasn't been charged with a crime?
IANAL either, but I believe it's actually protected free speech.
The detective was pushy with me, insistent. Remember, I was not charged, arrested or mirandized. More or less, it's consenual communication. I had little experience with the law prior to this incident, other than things like tickets.
It's been decided by the supreme court that the police are not bound to tell you the truth during an interview. There are bounds, but they can say odd things like "What if I tell you I have an eyewitness? Will that help you make the right decision?" (BTW, the detective used this exact line on me!) Note that he did not claim to actually have an eyewitness.
Now that I look back on the whole thing, I have to say these people are pros. They have guidelines, and they know exactly what they are saying and doing. They have years of experience and training in getting convictions, in any way possible.
Another tactic was telling me that "The truth, your guilt or innocence, does not pay my salary. Convictions do. I can convict you -- I've been convicting people for 15 years, and I've never lost sleep over it. I'm one of the best. I hate to see you make a decision to go to trial and ruin your life. Do the right thing and take the lessor charge."
Probably the thing that hurt me most, and I know now it was all an act, was when he recounted a horrible murder that occurred some years earlier. Everyone in the city knew the details, the rape and murder. This detective claimed to have busted the guy, and he gave me a horrible look and said "You're just like him, aren't you? I know criminals, and when I look at you I see a monster. I'm going to keep coming after you, and I won't stop -- ever". Well, for someone like me, I almost started crying, as ashamed as I am now to say that. The bright lights, the investigation room, the two of us alone, eye-to-eye across the table. The big police banner above his head on the wall -- everything made him look correct and invincible.
Another reason it's not harrassment is that he did not call again once I asked him to stop. My dad's lawyer made that clear -- that I should not be asked any more questions or called again until charged.
Hope this helps people understand what they might have to face someday -- always help the law, but don't hurt yourself in the process. When you sense that the line has been crossed -- that they are considering you a suspect -- stop talking!
I hate to think how many "people of lessor mental capabilities" have taken the fall for things because they simply believed the detectives about all this nonsense.
I expect that whatever oxygenator they are using on the exhaust may be extremely expensive to implement on POVs.
It could be a catalyst, for example, that costs big $$ to make, and could be toxic and expensive to displose of when finished.
There's no magic here. In the past I've been a huge fan of EVs, but am disolusioned by the slow rate at which battery energy density has improved, especially considering the toxicity and expense of the new materials -- even compared to lead.
Slowly, I'm warming up to the hybrids. Something must be done to cut down on fossil fuel usage.