If the HTML is stripped from the body of the message, that means that the content of the message has changed from the context of the digital signature.
Therefore, the digital signature will no longer reflect the "data" portion of the message and will be invalid.
I just set the remote users to use 587 or 465 (depending upon whether you're a Microsoft shop or not) instead of 25.
The only real limitation here is what the client software will accept as a configuration option. Various versions of Outlook (including many of the PDA's and phones) will only allow you to set "must use SSL" which gives you port 587. If you limit those connections to ones that require a username/password, that solves that problem.
So far I haven't found a single ISP that blocks either 465 or 587.
The vast majority of people who use computers have little idea how they work, or the difference between viruses and spyware and adware.
Yes, I can agree with that.
And it is not going to change. Which is why it is necessary for the OS vendors to ship their product so that the default configuration is as locked down as possible. In my opinion, Ubuntu achieves this in an admirable fashion.
Linux may be extremely secure, but the reason it is hardly used as a desktop OS is because the vast majority of people don't know how to easily do what they need to do using it.
Actually, that would be because of Microsoft's monopoly on the desktop. Breaking free of the monopoly takes a LOT of effort.
To meet all users desires, you'll always have to sacrifice some security for ease-of-use. IMHO, Microsoft has done quite a decent job of making this balance in Windows.
Nope. Look at a Mac. Talk to Mac users. They don't need to become experts on their systems to use them more securely than Windows. This is because Apple has implemented a more effective security model than Microsoft.
The fact is that you'll always have a lot people who use the easiest thing available, even if it is insecure.
But it is Microsoft that is using the monopoly to restrict access to more secure systems. Don't blame the users if the monopoly is actively trying to limit the options.
You'll always have the people who turn off the firewall because it makes their IM program not work, you'll always have the people who ignore the 'This file may harm your computer!' dialog. As a result, malware, worms, etc. will always be a problem.
Why do you have to turn off the firewall so you can run your IM program? Would you accept a car that you had to disable the air bag in order to play a CD? Ubuntu is effectively immune to worms because it, by default, does not have any open ports.
Microsoft is skipping the FIRST rule of security: do not run anything that is not absolutely necessary.
The reason that so many Windows machines are infected is NOT because they're running some IM client without a firewall. It's because the default configuration was insecure. Too many services that were not needed were running and vulnerable.
If 100% of the Windows boxes start vulnerable - you need a LOT of extra work to secure them.
If 100% of the boxes start without open ports - you'll need a LOT of extra work just to make them vulnerable.
In the end, it all comes down to how much effort is needed. Start secure and you'll always win that scenario.
One of the problems is that most home ISP's do not design their networks with security in mind.
If I were doing it, I'd setup multiple networks. Different clients have different characteristics so why shouldn't they be on different networks that support those characteristics? And each with its own outbound email servers.
a. The cheapest monthly rate would go to customers who would accept a block on all outbound port 25 traffic. They only route to your email server and that is monitored. Anyone suddenly sending more than X amount of mail (or X times as much mail than their average) is flagged.
b. For $5 or so MORE a month, you can be on a network with metered outbound port 25 access. Metered by message count, not size. And monitor the email sent through your server the same as in "a".
c. Finally, we have the "other" network. This is where machines get placed when the network monitoring indicates a problem with that machine. Remember the 80/20 or 90/10 rule. Most of your "problems" will be caused/reported by a small sub-set of your users. So you move them to their own network. And the email server monitoring the same as in "a".
Example, you have three T-1's coming in. Each network gets its own T-1. The people on "a" see lots of bandwidth because none of them are spewing spam or worms or stuff.
The people on "c" see lots of congestion, even though there are fewer of them and they have the same total bandwidth as "a".
There, now anyone looking to block spam coming from your network should have an easy time. There will be no outbound connections from "a" except from your mail server and that is monitored. The worst that can happen from this would be the targeted phishing attempts. And that's not very likely because they tend towards the free accounts.
Yet anyone can (and should) block crap from your "c" network except from your mail server (which should be subject to increased scrutiny via SpamAssassin and such).
And don't forget that one cracker can find one exploitable hole and make a lot of money off of it. Either in "identity theft" for by creating a zombie army and selling those services.
If s/he went legit and tried to sell anti-virus software, s/he would need to be as good or better than all the other virus/worm/trojan writers out there. The payoff vs effort quickly becomes worthless. A little effort for a big payoff is what crime is all about (and a number of other endeavors).
Some software security vendors suspect that a new Trojan horse program that surfaced last month, dubbed "Rustock.B" by some anti-virus companies, may serve as the template for malware attacks going forward. The program morphs itself slightly each time it installs on a new machine in an effort to evade anti-virus software. In addition, it hides in the deepest recesses of the Windows operating system, creates invisible copies of itself, and refuses to work under common malware analysis tools in an attempt to defy identification and analysis by security researchers.
Yet, with a boot CD on Linux, I can inventory everything on the local hard drive and quarantine any suspect files. Yes, including loadable modules for the kernel.
Why aren't we seeing that for Windows? Running an anti-virus app on the system itself is useless if the system can be compromised at a more privileged level than the app is running at.
Not to mention that the users are notorious for NOT keeping their anti-virus apps updated.
And ISP's really should be looking at blocking or actively monitoring outbound connections to port 25. Come on! It's not that difficult.
If so you need to re-read it because I did not say that being_watched() is some magic function that someone could write but I have no idea how.
Like I said, immortality is easy, just don't die. Maybe you need to re-read that a few times so you understand what I'm saying.
It's not even hard, it's just a matter of computers having the correct inputs.
Again, go back and read the "believe" part again. You seem to have missed it, again.
If I have to be more explicit fine. Put a camera on a computer and program it to recognize faces. Hard? Yes, but this isn't exactly Dr. Who type fantasy technology. It can in fact be done right now, although imperfectly.
Again, you seem to have missed the "believe" part. What you are doing is "if human is within distance X, do Y, else Z". That is not what I'm talking about.
Ok, so once you're computer can recognize faces, you just have it check if it sees any faces looking at it. Is that such an inconceivable task to you?
Here's a human scenario that might explain it to you better.
You're a clerk in a store selling handbags. A girl comes in with her friends. You see them. You turn away. You look back. You see them there, but a handbag is missing and you do not see the girls carrying it.
Now, some people would steal a handbag if they saw you turn away, while other people would not because they would BELIEVE that you would SEE what they were doing.
That's not enough for you? There are more.
Stores buy fake "security cameras" because they give the appearance of the customers being watched and this changes the behaviour of some people. But not all people.
Your example would being either/or. It does not allow for the behaviour to change even though there are no physical cues that observation is taking place nor would it allow the behaviour to change when there is the appearance of observation.
Humans have free will because they can change their behaviour based upon their beliefs of the situation even when that belief is contradicts the apparent situation.
Feel free to, once again, focus on testing for events rather than belief.
Whether free will exists or not, you're not going to be able to demonstrate it with sexual attraction. That gets into the whole "born that way" or "lifestyle choice" argument.
There are better ways to demonstrate free will. Usually by noting behaviour that changes when the person believes someone else is watching them.
#1. Aggressively whitelist - since I have the records of all the email received I can just send my users a list of all the email addresses that have sent mail to them and they can pick out the legitimate addresses.
#2. Block email during SMTP transmission - this is where the whitelists and blacklists come in. Everything else gets greylisted. I also use fake addresses to create my own blacklists.
If something is rejected, my phone number is included on the rejection notice. A person will see it and can call.
#3. Monitor the reject logs to see any names that may be useful (legit and fake). You'd be amazed at how many times the spammer's software trashes an address in a unique enough way that you can use it as a spam trap.
#4. Use anti-virus on anything that makes it this far.
#5. Use SpamAssassin on anything that makes it this far that is not on a whitelist.
These practices won't help so much with a personal account. But they've cut almost eliminated the spam where I work. But we don't sell over the Internet. 90%+ of our email is with the same people at the same mail servers and the same IP addresses every day.
Since Credit Suisse is a new Novell customer, you'd think that Novell would have tried to sell them their own suppport.
You'd think so, wouldn't you?
But suppose Microsoft was offering those licenses on a "free" evaluation basis? Note that no one is talking about how many licenses Credit Suisse activated. Even one person trying one "free" license just to see how it worked would meet the criteria identified in that story.
On the other hand, Novell's marketing efforts in the past have sucked beyond belief. It would be most amusing if a free give-away from Microsoft represented more effort than Novell had previously put into marketing.
The whole system is designed to set you up for failure, presumably so that if they send the BSA around for an audit, they're bound to find something that's not up to scratch.
EXACTLY. And if you'll look at the SCO case, you'll see the exact same thing. SCO sued a couple of its own customers NOT because they were using Linux but because they did not comply 100% with the contract they had signed with SCO.
When Microsoft comes in for an "audit", they're not doing it to help you. They're doing it because they want more money out of you. And the only way to get more money out of you is to "find" that you are not "in compliance" with the agreement you signed.
Which is why it would be smarter for people to avoid Novell products which Novell is paying a ROYALTY to Microsoft for if you're looking to reduce your exposure to Microsoft lawsuits and/or reduce your costs to Microsoft.
It's all hypothetical, but I'm speaking strictly from the vantage point of a non-technical person (I am an IT person, I'm just playing non-tech's advocate.) and that is likely the way they will see things.
I'm not seeing that. If people question Linux, they'll choose Windows instead.
Just like Novell's CEO saw when he tried to go head-to-head with Microsoft... and kept losing the deals.
"Oh... I heard that you shouldn't use RedHat in the server room because it can't run on the latest servers since they didn't go with the Trusted Computing option that Novell did". Or... "Yeah, I could use Debian to run a web server but this review I read said that Novell's Apache based web server has full IIS compatibility and is able to essentially duplicate the previous version of IIS". To those people, Novell is going to seem like the easy choice and the others will be fairly irrelevant.
No, the "easy choice" will be Windows. The "easy choice" in IT is always to go with a single vendor. That way there's no finger-pointing about why something won't work that way the salesperson said it would.
Why would anyone be looking for "full IIS compatibility" from a different vendor when they can have IIS itself? Migrations are expensive and the customers know that deals between IT companies can go sour. It's safest to involve the fewest companies and that means buying from the vendor selling the product itself. Not from someone promising "compatibility" with that product.
Linux has a few advantages over Microsoft products. And licensing is one of the biggest advantages for the end user. Once that is gone (and it is under Novell's deal), there really isn't any reason for the end user to consider "compatibility" with Microsoft's products when they can just go with Microsoft itself.
Particularly when Novell has to maintain its own "forks" of projects such as Samba because Team Samba has gone with GPL v3.
But 8 copies of different and non config controlled bid spec documents?
Oh yeah! Particularly if you're dealing with an outside company. There's no way for your system to control their documents without your user manually copying the new document into your system.
And users will ALWAYS do what is easiest for them at that moment. No matter what it breaks.
Disk space is cheap.
What is needed is a way to setup annual archives and get the 8 year old data out of the current databases... but still have them available for searching and such.
This is what I predicted from the beginning. The goal here was fragmentation of the Linux development community. It looks like they could succeed.
Okay.
It's basic "divide and conquer" because there will be some developers who don't see much wrong with the deal and will support the Novell Microsoft deal and there will be others who will not.
But that does not seem to be happening.
So far it is just Miguel who supports it... and everyone else who opposes it.
The ones who don't MAY start new forks/projects and join other distros, or... they may just move on to other things entirely.
I think you're confusing those items.
If the legendary Jeremy Allison moves to Red Hat or Canonical, he'll probably still be working on Samba. And when the GPL v3 comes out, it will probably be adopted by Team Samba.
So in that specific case, it would be Novell who would have to fork the project and do all the work without the help of Team Samba.
This ensures a two-tiered Linux world with crappy underdeveloped software in non-blessed distros (Gentoo, Debian, etc...) and second-rate (compared to Microsoft Windows solutions) software in the intentionally stunted Novell Suse Linux and anyone else who decides to sign on.
Huh? So Red Hat (where Alan works) is "second-rate"?
Or is it that Ubuntu is "crappy"?
I don't see that happening. Instead I see a company flailing at its declining marketshare and signing an agreement to FUD everything else Linux related.
TFA lists "SQL standard COMPLIANCE" as a category and says about MySQL:
MySQL uses SQL92 as its foundation. Runs on countless platforms....
And what is the next category?
PLATFORMS
Which says:
There are binary distribution for most of the supported plataforms.
Why is "Runs on countless platforms" an item under "SQL standard COMPLIANCE" when "PLATFORMS" is also a category?
It looks as if the "reviewer" was trying to bulk up MySQL's characteristics. Even when it was totally inappropriate. A checklist of features would be more accurate in this case. With some evaluation of how well those features are implemented.
He's referencing his own work (2 of the 5 referenced), and the dates are in 2006 (with a Wired article from 2005).
This seems more like an attempt to get people to buy his newly published book than anything else. And as evidenced in your clip, there's a bit of megalomania there.
The FIRST Commandment of movies is: SHOW me, don't TELL me.
There were very few visual mistakes, but many logical cues it was fake.
The problem is that the "logical cues" make you look for the "visual" cues... but the visual cues aren't there because the logical cues aren't "logical" so their absence is a "mistake".
Movie MUST follow its own "logic". Even when that logic is not the same as the Real World's logic.
And the way you communicate that logic to the viewer is with pictures and sounds. And they failed to communicate that logic. They tossed crap in whenever they felt like it without tying it into the logic of that universe.
Bad why? Bad how? Uhh, they just are, so fear them as the characters do.
And that is what results when the logic is not established and nothing is tied into it. The characters have to keep TELLING you that they're afraid.
So, you can do something with a computer with NO OS on it?
Yes. You can install an OS on it if you want. Or you can use it to test other components.
It might have more common functionality if the OEM installed the OS, but that does not mean that it is useless without the OS pre-installed.
For example, I can purchase rice by the bag. By your "logic", that rice is useless. Or I can buy a frozen rice dish with chicken and curry (sorry, it's getting near dinner time). Both options are valid "products" and both are useful as sold.
Now, HP can claim that they are not in the business of selling "components" or such but rather in the business of selling "ready to use" products. Then his position is valid. Just as you would not demand to be able to purchase the rice separately from the chicken and curry in my example.
If you don't like the peppers in the curried chicken and rice, you can pick them out. You can even add other spices/veggies.
If you don't like the OS on their computers, you can remove it and put on whatever you want.
But by stating that, HP has shown that it is no friend to Linux.
No, that makes no sense when their deal will expire in 5 years. If that was the intent, they'd have signed some form of permanent, non-revocable license (see IBM's licenses with SCO).
That way, no matter who ends up purchasing whom or whomever's patents, the deal is still safe (again, look at IBM's licenses with SCO and how many companies they were passed through).
Slashdot Mirror
If the HTML is stripped from the body of the message, that means that the content of the message has changed from the context of the digital signature.
Therefore, the digital signature will no longer reflect the "data" portion of the message and will be invalid.
If the content of the message is changed, isn't the digital signature invalidated?
Or is the DoD just skipping the concept of digitally signing email?
I just set the remote users to use 587 or 465 (depending upon whether you're a Microsoft shop or not) instead of 25.
The only real limitation here is what the client software will accept as a configuration option. Various versions of Outlook (including many of the PDA's and phones) will only allow you to set "must use SSL" which gives you port 587. If you limit those connections to ones that require a username/password, that solves that problem.
So far I haven't found a single ISP that blocks either 465 or 587.
Yes, I can agree with that.
And it is not going to change. Which is why it is necessary for the OS vendors to ship their product so that the default configuration is as locked down as possible. In my opinion, Ubuntu achieves this in an admirable fashion.
Actually, that would be because of Microsoft's monopoly on the desktop. Breaking free of the monopoly takes a LOT of effort.
Nope. Look at a Mac. Talk to Mac users. They don't need to become experts on their systems to use them more securely than Windows. This is because Apple has implemented a more effective security model than Microsoft.
But it is Microsoft that is using the monopoly to restrict access to more secure systems. Don't blame the users if the monopoly is actively trying to limit the options.
Why do you have to turn off the firewall so you can run your IM program? Would you accept a car that you had to disable the air bag in order to play a CD? Ubuntu is effectively immune to worms because it, by default, does not have any open ports.
Microsoft is skipping the FIRST rule of security: do not run anything that is not absolutely necessary.
The reason that so many Windows machines are infected is NOT because they're running some IM client without a firewall. It's because the default configuration was insecure. Too many services that were not needed were running and vulnerable.
If 100% of the Windows boxes start vulnerable - you need a LOT of extra work to secure them.
If 100% of the boxes start without open ports - you'll need a LOT of extra work just to make them vulnerable.
In the end, it all comes down to how much effort is needed. Start secure and you'll always win that scenario.
One of the problems is that most home ISP's do not design their networks with security in mind.
If I were doing it, I'd setup multiple networks. Different clients have different characteristics so why shouldn't they be on different networks that support those characteristics? And each with its own outbound email servers.
a. The cheapest monthly rate would go to customers who would accept a block on all outbound port 25 traffic. They only route to your email server and that is monitored. Anyone suddenly sending more than X amount of mail (or X times as much mail than their average) is flagged.
b. For $5 or so MORE a month, you can be on a network with metered outbound port 25 access. Metered by message count, not size. And monitor the email sent through your server the same as in "a".
c. Finally, we have the "other" network. This is where machines get placed when the network monitoring indicates a problem with that machine. Remember the 80/20 or 90/10 rule. Most of your "problems" will be caused/reported by a small sub-set of your users. So you move them to their own network. And the email server monitoring the same as in "a".
Example, you have three T-1's coming in. Each network gets its own T-1. The people on "a" see lots of bandwidth because none of them are spewing spam or worms or stuff.
The people on "c" see lots of congestion, even though there are fewer of them and they have the same total bandwidth as "a".
There, now anyone looking to block spam coming from your network should have an easy time. There will be no outbound connections from "a" except from your mail server and that is monitored. The worst that can happen from this would be the targeted phishing attempts. And that's not very likely because they tend towards the free accounts.
Yet anyone can (and should) block crap from your "c" network except from your mail server (which should be subject to increased scrutiny via SpamAssassin and such).
And don't forget that one cracker can find one exploitable hole and make a lot of money off of it. Either in "identity theft" for by creating a zombie army and selling those services.
If s/he went legit and tried to sell anti-virus software, s/he would need to be as good or better than all the other virus/worm/trojan writers out there. The payoff vs effort quickly becomes worthless. A little effort for a big payoff is what crime is all about (and a number of other endeavors).
Yet, with a boot CD on Linux, I can inventory everything on the local hard drive and quarantine any suspect files. Yes, including loadable modules for the kernel.
Why aren't we seeing that for Windows? Running an anti-virus app on the system itself is useless if the system can be compromised at a more privileged level than the app is running at.
Not to mention that the users are notorious for NOT keeping their anti-virus apps updated.
And ISP's really should be looking at blocking or actively monitoring outbound connections to port 25. Come on! It's not that difficult.
YouTube is the new defender of Freedom in the USofA.
Like I said, immortality is easy, just don't die. Maybe you need to re-read that a few times so you understand what I'm saying.
Again, go back and read the "believe" part again. You seem to have missed it, again.
Again, you seem to have missed the "believe" part. What you are doing is "if human is within distance X, do Y, else Z". That is not what I'm talking about.
Here's a human scenario that might explain it to you better.
You're a clerk in a store selling handbags. A girl comes in with her friends. You see them. You turn away. You look back. You see them there, but a handbag is missing and you do not see the girls carrying it.
Now, some people would steal a handbag if they saw you turn away, while other people would not because they would BELIEVE that you would SEE what they were doing.
That's not enough for you? There are more.
Stores buy fake "security cameras" because they give the appearance of the customers being watched and this changes the behaviour of some people. But not all people.
Your example would being either/or. It does not allow for the behaviour to change even though there are no physical cues that observation is taking place nor would it allow the behaviour to change when there is the appearance of observation.
Humans have free will because they can change their behaviour based upon their beliefs of the situation even when that belief is contradicts the apparent situation.
Feel free to, once again, focus on testing for events rather than belief.
And the secret to immortality is to not die. Simple, right?
You've merely restated my position. You haven't shown how to write a program that can believe it is being watched.
Thinking up a name for the program is not the same as writing the program.
You cannot "write a deterministic program that behaves in different ways depending" upon whether it THINKS someone is watching it.
Whether free will exists or not, you're not going to be able to demonstrate it with sexual attraction. That gets into the whole "born that way" or "lifestyle choice" argument.
There are better ways to demonstrate free will. Usually by noting behaviour that changes when the person believes someone else is watching them.
#1. Aggressively whitelist - since I have the records of all the email received I can just send my users a list of all the email addresses that have sent mail to them and they can pick out the legitimate addresses.
#2. Block email during SMTP transmission - this is where the whitelists and blacklists come in. Everything else gets greylisted. I also use fake addresses to create my own blacklists.
If something is rejected, my phone number is included on the rejection notice. A person will see it and can call.
#3. Monitor the reject logs to see any names that may be useful (legit and fake). You'd be amazed at how many times the spammer's software trashes an address in a unique enough way that you can use it as a spam trap.
#4. Use anti-virus on anything that makes it this far.
#5. Use SpamAssassin on anything that makes it this far that is not on a whitelist.
These practices won't help so much with a personal account. But they've cut almost eliminated the spam where I work. But we don't sell over the Internet. 90%+ of our email is with the same people at the same mail servers and the same IP addresses every day.
You'd think so, wouldn't you?
But suppose Microsoft was offering those licenses on a "free" evaluation basis? Note that no one is talking about how many licenses Credit Suisse activated. Even one person trying one "free" license just to see how it worked would meet the criteria identified in that story.
On the other hand, Novell's marketing efforts in the past have sucked beyond belief. It would be most amusing if a free give-away from Microsoft represented more effort than Novell had previously put into marketing.
EXACTLY. And if you'll look at the SCO case, you'll see the exact same thing. SCO sued a couple of its own customers NOT because they were using Linux but because they did not comply 100% with the contract they had signed with SCO.
When Microsoft comes in for an "audit", they're not doing it to help you. They're doing it because they want more money out of you. And the only way to get more money out of you is to "find" that you are not "in compliance" with the agreement you signed.
Which is why it would be smarter for people to avoid Novell products which Novell is paying a ROYALTY to Microsoft for if you're looking to reduce your exposure to Microsoft lawsuits and/or reduce your costs to Microsoft.
I'm not seeing that. If people question Linux, they'll choose Windows instead.
Just like Novell's CEO saw when he tried to go head-to-head with Microsoft
No, the "easy choice" will be Windows. The "easy choice" in IT is always to go with a single vendor. That way there's no finger-pointing about why something won't work that way the salesperson said it would.
Why would anyone be looking for "full IIS compatibility" from a different vendor when they can have IIS itself? Migrations are expensive and the customers know that deals between IT companies can go sour. It's safest to involve the fewest companies and that means buying from the vendor selling the product itself. Not from someone promising "compatibility" with that product.
Linux has a few advantages over Microsoft products. And licensing is one of the biggest advantages for the end user. Once that is gone (and it is under Novell's deal), there really isn't any reason for the end user to consider "compatibility" with Microsoft's products when they can just go with Microsoft itself.
Particularly when Novell has to maintain its own "forks" of projects such as Samba because Team Samba has gone with GPL v3.
Oh yeah! Particularly if you're dealing with an outside company. There's no way for your system to control their documents without your user manually copying the new document into your system.
And users will ALWAYS do what is easiest for them at that moment. No matter what it breaks.
Disk space is cheap.
What is needed is a way to setup annual archives and get the 8 year old data out of the current databases
Okay.
But that does not seem to be happening.
So far it is just Miguel who supports it
I think you're confusing those items.
If the legendary Jeremy Allison moves to Red Hat or Canonical, he'll probably still be working on Samba. And when the GPL v3 comes out, it will probably be adopted by Team Samba.
So in that specific case, it would be Novell who would have to fork the project and do all the work without the help of Team Samba.
Huh? So Red Hat (where Alan works) is "second-rate"?
Or is it that Ubuntu is "crappy"?
I don't see that happening. Instead I see a company flailing at its declining marketshare and signing an agreement to FUD everything else Linux related.
Just like SCO did.
And Novell will die, just like SCO is dying.
And what is the next category?
Which says:
Why is "Runs on countless platforms" an item under "SQL standard COMPLIANCE" when "PLATFORMS" is also a category?
It looks as if the "reviewer" was trying to bulk up MySQL's characteristics. Even when it was totally inappropriate. A checklist of features would be more accurate in this case. With some evaluation of how well those features are implemented.
Does memorizing the names and stats of baseball players make your brain grow?
What about people who memorize every little detail of Star Trek?
Or is it that only people with the additional brain mass CAN memorize all those items?
... aimed at a narcissistic society.
And it will work. This issue will be one of the biggest sellers ever.
Check out his "NOTES AND REFERENCES". :)
He's referencing his own work (2 of the 5 referenced), and the dates are in 2006 (with a Wired article from 2005).
This seems more like an attempt to get people to buy his newly published book than anything else. And as evidenced in your clip, there's a bit of megalomania there.
SHOW me, don't TELL me.
The problem is that the "logical cues" make you look for the "visual" cues
Movie MUST follow its own "logic". Even when that logic is not the same as the Real World's logic.
And the way you communicate that logic to the viewer is with pictures and sounds. And they failed to communicate that logic. They tossed crap in whenever they felt like it without tying it into the logic of that universe.
And that is what results when the logic is not established and nothing is tied into it. The characters have to keep TELLING you that they're afraid.
Yes. You can install an OS on it if you want. Or you can use it to test other components.
It might have more common functionality if the OEM installed the OS, but that does not mean that it is useless without the OS pre-installed.
For example, I can purchase rice by the bag. By your "logic", that rice is useless. Or I can buy a frozen rice dish with chicken and curry (sorry, it's getting near dinner time). Both options are valid "products" and both are useful as sold.
Now, HP can claim that they are not in the business of selling "components" or such but rather in the business of selling "ready to use" products. Then his position is valid. Just as you would not demand to be able to purchase the rice separately from the chicken and curry in my example.
If you don't like the peppers in the curried chicken and rice, you can pick them out. You can even add other spices/veggies.
If you don't like the OS on their computers, you can remove it and put on whatever you want.
But by stating that, HP has shown that it is no friend to Linux.
No, that makes no sense when their deal will expire in 5 years. If that was the intent, they'd have signed some form of permanent, non-revocable license (see IBM's licenses with SCO).
That way, no matter who ends up purchasing whom or whomever's patents, the deal is still safe (again, look at IBM's licenses with SCO and how many companies they were passed through).