The dickhead who wrote that story obviously read the press blurb, where they basically say, almost word for word, what he is saying.
In the press blurb it says, and I quote:
"MEMS devices are about 1/10mil in size, which makes them smaller than the width of a human hair."
The guy who wrote the story obviously read "1/10" as "one to ten" instead of "one tenth" as it should be.
Moron.
It's kind of hypocritic for PETA to whine about parodies. They are organising an "Unhappy Meals" campaign to tell kids about animal cruelty in McDonalds food etc. Part of that campaign is a series of colourful, McHappy Meal style boxes (featuring none other than the Mc characters) which is nothing other than a pardoy to make a point.
The last comment in the article is very interesting.
"...the question is how well do Athlon motherboards work under Linux?"
So, you're basically comparing how well a motherboard/cpu has been designed for a certain operating system??? That's like all those dodgy stickers on the front of machines saying "Designed for Windows NT" etc.
What next? Boxes with "Designed for RedHat Linux" on them? Instead, why not have "Designed really well, all you OS coders should now get to work taking advantage of this great motherboard/cpu!".
Motherboards/cpus should not be designed for an operating system. They should be designed to be the best it can be (obviously part of that is being compatible with existing hardware etc), but the overriding concern when designing hardware shouldn't be how well it works for software. Software can be changed comparitively easily, hardware design is a lot more expensive.
All you people who are giving the legal owner of the openssh.org domain name a hard time for using it ought to be ashamed of yourselves. How dare you stand up and speak about having a free and open internet with no controls (and bullying) by big companies, then whinge and complain when someone actually uses it.
If you are all as high and morally right as the drivel you so often spout you have an obligation to support Alex de Joode in his legal right to use the domain he registered. Too bad if FreeBSD didn't get there first - they have their chance 2 years from now to beat Alex to the renewal process (if he hasn't succumbed to the pressure by then and given it away).
Don't whine about people who work within the rules. If you don't like the way the domain registration process works, try to get the rules changed!
I also hate to say it but most of the whining seems to come from Linux user wannabes who want to put all their pent up frustration into ridiculous vocal support of any Linux based endeavour. Use your brains people. I think Linux is great, but I don't think everything Linux is great. Be more selective about what you support. Complaining about domain registration just because a Linux company is affected is really lame.
Of course, this comes on the back of the Northwest scandal. I'm excited by the trend this may set, but only from an intellectual, idealistic point of view. If I put my pragmatic hat on I can't help thinking that Ford (and other companies who follow suit) will have an alterior motive. Why would they spend so much money on their employees when a much more cost effective way to make them happy would be to give them a $1000 bonus or pay rise or something traditional?
Anyway, here's hoping that Fords moves are simply a new employee loyalty / morale scheme and not something more nefarious.
Ok, I'm calling you "naive" like you asked. Try doing some research before you come out with this stuff - there is plenty of information on the internet about current theories of the universe. I'm not saying whether they are correct or not and I'm not in a position to do so, either - I'm not an expert physicist. You shouldn't rubbish theories before you understand them!
Of course the universe has an end, and thanks to Hubble (and the space telescope named in his honour) we've seen it! Current theory dictates that the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate - the "dark matter" that makes up at least 90% of the mass of the universe doesn't have enough gravity to hold the universe together, so in about 10 billion years (according to current theory) the "light matter" in the universe will be so much dispersed among the dark matter as to be virtually invisible. No light, no heat.
I don't think you can blame the supplier of the equipment, either. When the product was sold it was presumed to be secure - then when a security flaw is discovered later, or a product comes out that makes it possible to break the security, the manufacturer can't be responsible for chasing everyone up to give them a fix for free. I mean, we don't expect car alarm manufacturers to provide indemnity against a car being stolen!
A lot of people discussing this issue seem to think that arbitrary blaming of those servers that were used for the DoS attacks is a fair and reasonable thing.
Well, I have to say that while I agree in principle that if people are going to run insecure servers then they are responsible for actions on the server if they get hacked, I think that in practice it doesn't really hold up when compared to similar situations.
For example, take the case of a stolen car. The owner of the car drives it into his driveway and locks all the doors before going inside. As far as he is concerned it is as secure as he can make it. However, what he doesn't know is that if he'd spent 2-3 hours each day scanning the security forums he would have found that there was a new LockBuster (tm) available that would make breaking into his car a snap. So, while the driver isn't looking a bunch of thieves sneak up and break into his car using the LockBuster (tm) and take it for a joy ride. At the same time, 10,000 other thieves are using LockBuster (tm) to steal cars and they've all headed out onto the freeway. Consequently the freeway gets jammed - I mean really jammed. No traffic can get on or off the freeway for 4 hours. Once the traffic has cleared the thieves return the stolen cars to the driveway, just in time for the owners of the cars to come out of their houses and drive to work.
In this case, who would consider blaming the owners of the cars for the traffic jam? After all, the owners thought their cars were secure - they locked the doors. They just didn't have the time to spend updating their cars with all the latest security enhancements to stop LockBuster (tm) from allowing people to break in.
Ok, so I know that stealing a car and jamming a freeway isn't really the same thing as using a hacked server for a DoS, but I think people have to recognise that not every company or server owner has the resources to devote to security that they might like. Having said that, I do agree that server owners on the internet do have some obligation to do routine things like filtering packets with snuff source addresses etc. Maybe someone should set up a Server Owners web site where new server operators can do a quick checklist on the really important and neighbourly security features they need to check on their configuration (e.g. here are the important things to check, here is how to check and fix them on your system) and not just for Linux machines, there should be help for lots of platforms / configurations, including NT, Unix derivatives etc. There are lots of sites out there that deal with security issues, but I don't know of any that have a simple checklist that can be run through which has the most common things that need checking on servers.
So, stop putting all the blame on those people that don't have the resources (or the computer savviness) to keep up with security. Be part of the solution by making it easy for them to check their servers and fix them if they are deficient. Don't just point them to bugtraq or something similar - not everyone can scour a multitude of sites each day for possible bugs. Especially if they are setting up a new server and wouldn't know where to start.
The price here has less to do with the actual exchange rate of currency and the varying taxes and levees (read: more taxes) that the government enforces. Manufacturers also have to pay more shipping costs to ship their goods here.
We're also so technology crazy that we seem to be willing to pay these inflated prices! 100 pounds is about $200 here - yuo'd be lucky to pick up a good CD player changer (jukebox style) for your home amp for that much, let alone "new fangled" DVD.
The whole argument by the MPAA seems to be that computer users want to pirate the content of their DVDs by using DeCSS. Umm. Excuse me? If I want to pirate a DVD it's going to cost me a whole lot more to go out, buy a DVD writer, buy a blank DVD, borrow the DVD from the video store and make a copy. Much easier just to wander down to K-Mart or (insert your local bulk store here) and buy a brand new DVD movie off the shelf with all the nice wrapping and free posters etc. and sleep with an easy conscience.
I can see how my argument may fail within a few years, when blank DVDs are being rolled out at $1 each and writers can be picked up for a couple of hundred. But by then this whole argument will be over anyway and there will be some new technology to squabble over.
The only argument for keeping CSS a secret appears to be to make sure that those companies who actually purchased a licence to decrypt CSS in their players aren't seen to have wasted their money. That seems to be a joke, anyway. If I want to go out and buy a reasonable quality DVD player for my home theatre it would set me back about $800 (I'm in Australia, BTW). Ok, so I realise I'm buying hardware and software there (including paying for the licence to have the CSS decryption software in the machine), but that seems fairly pricy for a glorified CD player that I wouldn't pay more than $150 for without the software component. I mean, the physical mechanism hasn't changed that much. CD shaped object still goes into the machine, gets spun up to speed and gets read by a laser on the end of a focussing arm. Big deal. So, let's be generous and say that the added technology above and beyond that of a normal CD player costs about $50 per unit to implement. That means I'm paying about $600 for the added software component that is inside the DVD player, as opposed to a regular CD. Does that seem reasonable to anyone?
On the other hand, if I want to go out and buy a DVD player for my computer, it only costs about $450 for a good quality unit, which usually comes bundled with a Windows DVD player. Ok, so a regular CD-ROM for my PC will set me back about $100 (I'm being generous there!). So, as in the home theatre player mentioned earlier, let's add in $50 towards the modified hardware within the unit, and that leaves me with $300 towards the software that I run on the computer to read the DVD. Err. That's $300 (50%) less than I'm paying for my home theatre DVD player software. Paying that much for software I'm never going to use (if I use an unsupported OS like Linux etc) seems a bit harsh - especially when I'm then told I can't write my own software to do the playing on my OS.
Even without the software issues, though, it's amazing that they have to wonder why people want to watch their DVDs on their computers? Heck, even if I go out and buy a TV out card and pipe the DVD from my PC into my big screen TV for home theatre, I'm still going to come out $200 ahead!
So, to sum up, it seems that the only reason for having CSS licences isn't to protect artistic content, but to protect those companies who are producing DVD players for the home theatre market.
It's interesting to note that the VHS copy protection scheme that is used these days (developed by Disney, I beleive - correct me if I'm wrong) is so insanely easy to bypass it's not funny. However, it never really becomes an issue because computer users aren't involved. I don't recall a big fuss being made about all the VHS copy protection breaker-box schematics that were thrown about when it came out. I even saw some of them in respectable electronics magazines.
I'm not advocating Linux as the be all and end all (even though I think it's nifty), but when talking virii we should consider the reason they are so prolific.
How do most virii work? The big headliner virii always seem to be written to exploit certain flaws or features in software. The reason that these flaws can be taken advantage of seems to be twofold:
Binary distributions (a la anything on Windows) prevent scrutiny from outside sources
Proprietry software vendors don't like to tell people that there software is buggy until someone else discovers the bug (in the form of a virus)
So, I'm not going to argue for or against Linux per se, but I think open source software really does defeat the above points most of the time.
The other point that has been raised by many others in this discussion is the intrinsic multiuser aspect of Linux. The fact that a multiuser environment is all but mandatory with Linux makes people follow rules for access and priveleges on a system, which is great for stopping virii from propogating via priveleged access. Sure, Windows (among others) may provide the ability to function semi-multiuser but it's not nearly as enforced as on Linux, which means people can get lazy and run everything under a priveleged account. So Linux isn't necessarily better at being secure (don't hit me hehehe), but it is better at training people to be more secure. I'm sure if programmers and users of Windows based systems had enforced access/security in a multiuser system then Windows security holes would be patched much quicker, especially in the application layer. Programmers simply wouldn't be able to assume that their programs had complete access to the system - they would have to write checks into their code to make sure of it, and users would have to enable access for programs that required priveleged access. That might take a little bit longer for users to install/run programs, but it's much better than the current "double-click suck it and see" method where you've got NFI how to restrict what a single program can access on your system.
I'm not advocating Linux as the be all and end all (even though I think it's nifty), but when talking virii we should consider the reason they are so prolific.
How do most virii work? The big headliner virii always seem to be written to exploit certain flaws or features in software. The reason that these flaws can be taken advantage of seems to be twofold:
Binary distributions (a la anything on Windows) prevent scrutiny from outside sources
Proprietry software vendors don't like to tell people that there software is buggy until someone else discovers the bug (in the form of a virus)
So, I'm not going to argue for or against Linux per se, but I think open source software really does defeat the above points most of the time.
The other point that has been raised by many others in this discussion is the intrinsic multiuser aspect of Linux. The fact that a multiuser environment is all but mandatory with Linux makes people follow rules for access and priveleges on a system, which is great for stopping virii from propogating via priveleged access. Sure, Windows (among others) may provide the ability to function semi-multiuser but it's not nearly as enforced as on Linux, which means people can get lazy and run everything under a priveleged account. So Linux isn't necessarily better at being secure (don't hit me hehehe), but it is better at training people to be more secure. I'm sure if programmers and users of Windows based systems had enforced access/security in a multiuser system then Windows security holes would be patched much quicker, especially in the applicaiton layer. Programmers simply wouldn't be able to assume that their programs had complete access to the system - they would have to write checks into their code to make sure of it, and users would have to enable access for programs that required priveleged access. That might take a little bit longer for users to install/run programs, but it's much better than the current "double-click suck it and see" method where you've got NFI how to restrict what a single program can access on your system.
There is a lot of hypocrisy evident in the arguments of many of those who agree with censorship of any kind.
I agree that we need to regulate and supervise the information that children have access to. However, I am totally against the idea that we have the right to apply censorship of information. Despite being morally repugnant, it is ridiculous to suppose that we, as individuals, have the ability to hide information from the inherently inquisitive minds of our children. If the government tries to hide information, it's called a coverup - how is hiding information from our children any different? And like all government coverups, the truth will emerge eventually, but chances are we won't be around when our children discover it.
We do have a responsibility to guide our children through their formative years, lending our knowledge and wisdom to the many new discoveries they experience. However, this shouldn't become the completely overwhelming dominance of thought and action that is becoming increasingly prevalent in todays society. I believe that it is important to respond to a child's questioning of the world around them with sincerity and understanding - we were all young once, too, remember - not with the sledgehammer style hard-and-fast censorship of information many children are faced with. We should discuss topics, not make them a social taboo.
Certainly I'm not advocating a hands-off approach to child development. There must be supervision and nurturing of the growing process. Unfortunately our society seems to be focused more on ensuring children stick to the narrow middle path of conformity, rather than encouraging exploration in new avenues of both lifestyle and education. The problem with this is that when children discover something new, which doesn't conform to the view of society presented by their parents they are totally unprepared to deal with it. Thus, children are forced to come to their own conclusions with how to deal with those experiences. Some of those conclusions will ultimately lead to socially unacceptable behaviour.
The solution for the problem of "socially unacceptable" behaviour seems to point towards more freedom, not less. The more freedom we enjoy, the better we are able to seek advice from our peers. The more freedom children enjoy, the better they are able to seek advice from parents and all of those who have experienced the same new discoveries that children encounter every day. Let's bring development out of the closet and really start passing on the knowledge and wisdom we have learnt through the years, rather than imposing oppressive censorship on information. That is the best way we can truly help our children through the wonderful process of growing up.
For many inventions, the boundaries between blatent copy and new innovation are reasonably clear cut. If, for example, I were to register a patent for a fork (you know, you eat with them) and then someone came along and added an extra tine and bent it at a slightly different angle it would still be a fork - they couldn't register a patent for it and would be violating my patent if they didn't own a licence.
The trouble with software is that the boundaries of change are relatively vague compared with other types of innovation. An algorithm or process for doing something can only be patented if it isn't "obvious" (IANAL, so if I'm wrong please correct me). If I want to write a program that adds two numbers together, there are only so many ways I can do that and still be efficient. So I might patent those methods. However, if someone else comes along and wants to add (gasp!) three numbers together, are they violating my patent if they use a similar block of code to my two-number-adder? Tricky question!
Obviously these examples are trivial (and obvious) but when you think about the ways that software can be written to perform a certain task, yes there are lots of options with regards to compilers and languages etc, but when it comes down to it there will probably be only one or two "most efficient" algorithms. For software writers, this poses many unfortunate problems when trying to achieve a result that is acceptable to users.
Of course, you might say that if I want to acheive a certain result that already has a patented method, why not simply use the patented method and pay a licencing fee? This is where we get to the (un)fortunate reality of a "first come, first served" patent system. This is very much a double edged sword. For example, I might invest $100m in designing a new type of car. Person X, who lives half a world away, might also spend $100m designing a car that, purely by coincidence, shares exactly the same patentable principles as my car. Person X might go to the patent office and register his ideas. But does that mean I can't use my idea without paying Person X a licence fee? Yes!
Consider, however, the adjunct to that idea. I might spend $100m designing my new type of car and registering its patentable parts. Person X, who lives half a world away, might see a design for my type of car and start churning out copies, but all he had to spend was $25 to view the design. In this example, damn right I want a patent enforced wherein I can sue Person X's pants off!:)
For the Open Source software community at the moment, the general feeling seems to be that people should be able to use and produce software no matter where they get the ideas from. This is great when everyone participates in these ideas, and I personally feel quite proud to have contributed to it. But, we are seeing a lot of non-technical entrepeneurs starting up companies and making lots of money out of the Open Source community, simply by exploiting its naivety. It seems to be an unfortunate reality that if I ever want to make sure my code / ideas aren't exploited (which is different to being shared) I may have to subscribe to a patent system in which I can patent software. The GPL goes part of the way towards protecting innovation, but there is definately chinks in its armour. The issue of software patents is certainly something that the Open Source community will have to review very closely and approach with, as always, a combined front.
Just to make sure I remain on topic, what the heck is that Trudel guy on about? He seems to be stirring up a mass of anti-everything, pro-nationalist feelings (check out his support groups!) about an issue that the U.S. government is trying to deal with. I think Americans (I'm not, BTW) should be proud of that fact that their government is at least trying to deal with the internationalisation of.. well, everything! Far better that than living in a country which wants to close its doors and pretend that they can remain that way and still survive. To quote: "Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated".
Slashdot Mirror
The dickhead who wrote that story obviously read the press blurb, where they basically say, almost word for word, what he is saying. In the press blurb it says, and I quote: "MEMS devices are about 1/10mil in size, which makes them smaller than the width of a human hair." The guy who wrote the story obviously read "1/10" as "one to ten" instead of "one tenth" as it should be. Moron.
It's kind of hypocritic for PETA to whine about parodies. They are organising an "Unhappy Meals" campaign to tell kids about animal cruelty in McDonalds food etc. Part of that campaign is a series of colourful, McHappy Meal style boxes (featuring none other than the Mc characters) which is nothing other than a pardoy to make a point.
The last comment in the article is very interesting.
"...the question is how well do Athlon motherboards work under Linux?"
So, you're basically comparing how well a motherboard/cpu has been designed for a certain operating system??? That's like all those dodgy stickers on the front of machines saying "Designed for Windows NT" etc.
What next? Boxes with "Designed for RedHat Linux" on them? Instead, why not have "Designed really well, all you OS coders should now get to work taking advantage of this great motherboard/cpu!".
Motherboards/cpus should not be designed for an operating system. They should be designed to be the best it can be (obviously part of that is being compatible with existing hardware etc), but the overriding concern when designing hardware shouldn't be how well it works for software. Software can be changed comparitively easily, hardware design is a lot more expensive.
All you people who are giving the legal owner of the openssh.org domain name a hard time for using it ought to be ashamed of yourselves. How dare you stand up and speak about having a free and open internet with no controls (and bullying) by big companies, then whinge and complain when someone actually uses it.
If you are all as high and morally right as the drivel you so often spout you have an obligation to support Alex de Joode in his legal right to use the domain he registered. Too bad if FreeBSD didn't get there first - they have their chance 2 years from now to beat Alex to the renewal process (if he hasn't succumbed to the pressure by then and given it away).
Don't whine about people who work within the rules. If you don't like the way the domain registration process works, try to get the rules changed!
I also hate to say it but most of the whining seems to come from Linux user wannabes who want to put all their pent up frustration into ridiculous vocal support of any Linux based endeavour. Use your brains people. I think Linux is great, but I don't think everything Linux is great. Be more selective about what you support. Complaining about domain registration just because a Linux company is affected is really lame.
Of course, this comes on the back of the Northwest scandal. I'm excited by the trend this may set, but only from an intellectual, idealistic point of view. If I put my pragmatic hat on I can't help thinking that Ford (and other companies who follow suit) will have an alterior motive. Why would they spend so much money on their employees when a much more cost effective way to make them happy would be to give them a $1000 bonus or pay rise or something traditional?
Anyway, here's hoping that Fords moves are simply a new employee loyalty / morale scheme and not something more nefarious.
email me or not.
Ok, I'm calling you "naive" like you asked. Try doing some research before you come out with this stuff - there is plenty of information on the internet about current theories of the universe. I'm not saying whether they are correct or not and I'm not in a position to do so, either - I'm not an expert physicist. You shouldn't rubbish theories before you understand them!
Of course the universe has an end, and thanks to Hubble (and the space telescope named in his honour) we've seen it! Current theory dictates that the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate - the "dark matter" that makes up at least 90% of the mass of the universe doesn't have enough gravity to hold the universe together, so in about 10 billion years (according to current theory) the "light matter" in the universe will be so much dispersed among the dark matter as to be virtually invisible. No light, no heat.
I don't think you can blame the supplier of the equipment, either. When the product was sold it was presumed to be secure - then when a security flaw is discovered later, or a product comes out that makes it possible to break the security, the manufacturer can't be responsible for chasing everyone up to give them a fix for free. I mean, we don't expect car alarm manufacturers to provide indemnity against a car being stolen!
A lot of people discussing this issue seem to think that arbitrary blaming of those servers that were used for the DoS attacks is a fair and reasonable thing.
Well, I have to say that while I agree in principle that if people are going to run insecure servers then they are responsible for actions on the server if they get hacked, I think that in practice it doesn't really hold up when compared to similar situations.
For example, take the case of a stolen car. The owner of the car drives it into his driveway and locks all the doors before going inside. As far as he is concerned it is as secure as he can make it. However, what he doesn't know is that if he'd spent 2-3 hours each day scanning the security forums he would have found that there was a new LockBuster (tm) available that would make breaking into his car a snap. So, while the driver isn't looking a bunch of thieves sneak up and break into his car using the LockBuster (tm) and take it for a joy ride. At the same time, 10,000 other thieves are using LockBuster (tm) to steal cars and they've all headed out onto the freeway. Consequently the freeway gets jammed - I mean really jammed. No traffic can get on or off the freeway for 4 hours. Once the traffic has cleared the thieves return the stolen cars to the driveway, just in time for the owners of the cars to come out of their houses and drive to work.
In this case, who would consider blaming the owners of the cars for the traffic jam? After all, the owners thought their cars were secure - they locked the doors. They just didn't have the time to spend updating their cars with all the latest security enhancements to stop LockBuster (tm) from allowing people to break in.
Ok, so I know that stealing a car and jamming a freeway isn't really the same thing as using a hacked server for a DoS, but I think people have to recognise that not every company or server owner has the resources to devote to security that they might like. Having said that, I do agree that server owners on the internet do have some obligation to do routine things like filtering packets with snuff source addresses etc. Maybe someone should set up a Server Owners web site where new server operators can do a quick checklist on the really important and neighbourly security features they need to check on their configuration (e.g. here are the important things to check, here is how to check and fix them on your system) and not just for Linux machines, there should be help for lots of platforms / configurations, including NT, Unix derivatives etc. There are lots of sites out there that deal with security issues, but I don't know of any that have a simple checklist that can be run through which has the most common things that need checking on servers.
So, stop putting all the blame on those people that don't have the resources (or the computer savviness) to keep up with security. Be part of the solution by making it easy for them to check their servers and fix them if they are deficient. Don't just point them to bugtraq or something similar - not everyone can scour a multitude of sites each day for possible bugs. Especially if they are setting up a new server and wouldn't know where to start.
email me or not
The price here has less to do with the actual exchange rate of currency and the varying taxes and levees (read: more taxes) that the government enforces. Manufacturers also have to pay more shipping costs to ship their goods here.
We're also so technology crazy that we seem to be willing to pay these inflated prices! 100 pounds is about $200 here - yuo'd be lucky to pick up a good CD player changer (jukebox style) for your home amp for that much, let alone "new fangled" DVD.
The whole argument by the MPAA seems to be that computer users want to pirate the content of their DVDs by using DeCSS. Umm. Excuse me? If I want to pirate a DVD it's going to cost me a whole lot more to go out, buy a DVD writer, buy a blank DVD, borrow the DVD from the video store and make a copy. Much easier just to wander down to K-Mart or (insert your local bulk store here) and buy a brand new DVD movie off the shelf with all the nice wrapping and free posters etc. and sleep with an easy conscience.
I can see how my argument may fail within a few years, when blank DVDs are being rolled out at $1 each and writers can be picked up for a couple of hundred. But by then this whole argument will be over anyway and there will be some new technology to squabble over.
The only argument for keeping CSS a secret appears to be to make sure that those companies who actually purchased a licence to decrypt CSS in their players aren't seen to have wasted their money. That seems to be a joke, anyway. If I want to go out and buy a reasonable quality DVD player for my home theatre it would set me back about $800 (I'm in Australia, BTW). Ok, so I realise I'm buying hardware and software there (including paying for the licence to have the CSS decryption software in the machine), but that seems fairly pricy for a glorified CD player that I wouldn't pay more than $150 for without the software component. I mean, the physical mechanism hasn't changed that much. CD shaped object still goes into the machine, gets spun up to speed and gets read by a laser on the end of a focussing arm. Big deal. So, let's be generous and say that the added technology above and beyond that of a normal CD player costs about $50 per unit to implement. That means I'm paying about $600 for the added software component that is inside the DVD player, as opposed to a regular CD. Does that seem reasonable to anyone?
On the other hand, if I want to go out and buy a DVD player for my computer, it only costs about $450 for a good quality unit, which usually comes bundled with a Windows DVD player. Ok, so a regular CD-ROM for my PC will set me back about $100 (I'm being generous there!). So, as in the home theatre player mentioned earlier, let's add in $50 towards the modified hardware within the unit, and that leaves me with $300 towards the software that I run on the computer to read the DVD. Err. That's $300 (50%) less than I'm paying for my home theatre DVD player software. Paying that much for software I'm never going to use (if I use an unsupported OS like Linux etc) seems a bit harsh - especially when I'm then told I can't write my own software to do the playing on my OS.
Even without the software issues, though, it's amazing that they have to wonder why people want to watch their DVDs on their computers? Heck, even if I go out and buy a TV out card and pipe the DVD from my PC into my big screen TV for home theatre, I'm still going to come out $200 ahead!
So, to sum up, it seems that the only reason for having CSS licences isn't to protect artistic content, but to protect those companies who are producing DVD players for the home theatre market.
It's interesting to note that the VHS copy protection scheme that is used these days (developed by Disney, I beleive - correct me if I'm wrong) is so insanely easy to bypass it's not funny. However, it never really becomes an issue because computer users aren't involved. I don't recall a big fuss being made about all the VHS copy protection breaker-box schematics that were thrown about when it came out. I even saw some of them in respectable electronics magazines.
Email me or not.
How do most virii work? The big headliner virii always seem to be written to exploit certain flaws or features in software. The reason that these flaws can be taken advantage of seems to be twofold:
So, I'm not going to argue for or against Linux per se, but I think open source software really does defeat the above points most of the time.
The other point that has been raised by many others in this discussion is the intrinsic multiuser aspect of Linux. The fact that a multiuser environment is all but mandatory with Linux makes people follow rules for access and priveleges on a system, which is great for stopping virii from propogating via priveleged access. Sure, Windows (among others) may provide the ability to function semi-multiuser but it's not nearly as enforced as on Linux, which means people can get lazy and run everything under a priveleged account. So Linux isn't necessarily better at being secure (don't hit me hehehe), but it is better at training people to be more secure. I'm sure if programmers and users of Windows based systems had enforced access/security in a multiuser system then Windows security holes would be patched much quicker, especially in the application layer. Programmers simply wouldn't be able to assume that their programs had complete access to the system - they would have to write checks into their code to make sure of it, and users would have to enable access for programs that required priveleged access. That might take a little bit longer for users to install/run programs, but it's much better than the current "double-click suck it and see" method where you've got NFI how to restrict what a single program can access on your system.
-------------------------------------------------
email
How do most virii work? The big headliner virii always seem to be written to exploit certain flaws or features in software. The reason that these flaws can be taken advantage of seems to be twofold:
So, I'm not going to argue for or against Linux per se, but I think open source software really does defeat the above points most of the time.
The other point that has been raised by many others in this discussion is the intrinsic multiuser aspect of Linux. The fact that a multiuser environment is all but mandatory with Linux makes people follow rules for access and priveleges on a system, which is great for stopping virii from propogating via priveleged access. Sure, Windows (among others) may provide the ability to function semi-multiuser but it's not nearly as enforced as on Linux, which means people can get lazy and run everything under a priveleged account. So Linux isn't necessarily better at being secure (don't hit me hehehe), but it is better at training people to be more secure. I'm sure if programmers and users of Windows based systems had enforced access/security in a multiuser system then Windows security holes would be patched much quicker, especially in the applicaiton layer. Programmers simply wouldn't be able to assume that their programs had complete access to the system - they would have to write checks into their code to make sure of it, and users would have to enable access for programs that required priveleged access. That might take a little bit longer for users to install/run programs, but it's much better than the current "double-click suck it and see" method where you've got NFI how to restrict what a single program can access on your system.
-------------------------------------------------
email
There is a lot of hypocrisy evident in the arguments of many of those who agree with censorship of any kind.
I agree that we need to regulate and supervise the information that children have access to. However, I am totally against the idea that we have the right to apply censorship of information. Despite being morally repugnant, it is ridiculous to suppose that we, as individuals, have the ability to hide information from the inherently inquisitive minds of our children. If the government tries to hide information, it's called a coverup - how is hiding information from our children any different? And like all government coverups, the truth will emerge eventually, but chances are we won't be around when our children discover it.
We do have a responsibility to guide our children through their formative years, lending our knowledge and wisdom to the many new discoveries they experience. However, this shouldn't become the completely overwhelming dominance of thought and action that is becoming increasingly prevalent in todays society. I believe that it is important to respond to a child's questioning of the world around them with sincerity and understanding - we were all young once, too, remember - not with the sledgehammer style hard-and-fast censorship of information many children are faced with. We should discuss topics, not make them a social taboo.
Certainly I'm not advocating a hands-off approach to child development. There must be supervision and nurturing of the growing process. Unfortunately our society seems to be focused more on ensuring children stick to the narrow middle path of conformity, rather than encouraging exploration in new avenues of both lifestyle and education. The problem with this is that when children discover something new, which doesn't conform to the view of society presented by their parents they are totally unprepared to deal with it. Thus, children are forced to come to their own conclusions with how to deal with those experiences. Some of those conclusions will ultimately lead to socially unacceptable behaviour.
The solution for the problem of "socially unacceptable" behaviour seems to point towards more freedom, not less. The more freedom we enjoy, the better we are able to seek advice from our peers. The more freedom children enjoy, the better they are able to seek advice from parents and all of those who have experienced the same new discoveries that children encounter every day. Let's bring development out of the closet and really start passing on the knowledge and wisdom we have learnt through the years, rather than imposing oppressive censorship on information. That is the best way we can truly help our children through the wonderful process of growing up.
If you think you want to reply, do so here.
For many inventions, the boundaries between blatent copy and new innovation are reasonably clear cut. If, for example, I were to register a patent for a fork (you know, you eat with them) and then someone came along and added an extra tine and bent it at a slightly different angle it would still be a fork - they couldn't register a patent for it and would be violating my patent if they didn't own a licence.
:)
The trouble with software is that the boundaries of change are relatively vague compared with other types of innovation. An algorithm or process for doing something can only be patented if it isn't "obvious" (IANAL, so if I'm wrong please correct me). If I want to write a program that adds two numbers together, there are only so many ways I can do that and still be efficient. So I might patent those methods. However, if someone else comes along and wants to add (gasp!) three numbers together, are they violating my patent if they use a similar block of code to my two-number-adder? Tricky question!
Obviously these examples are trivial (and obvious) but when you think about the ways that software can be written to perform a certain task, yes there are lots of options with regards to compilers and languages etc, but when it comes down to it there will probably be only one or two "most efficient" algorithms. For software writers, this poses many unfortunate problems when trying to achieve a result that is acceptable to users.
Of course, you might say that if I want to acheive a certain result that already has a patented method, why not simply use the patented method and pay a licencing fee? This is where we get to the (un)fortunate reality of a "first come, first served" patent system. This is very much a double edged sword. For example, I might invest $100m in designing a new type of car. Person X, who lives half a world away, might also spend $100m designing a car that, purely by coincidence, shares exactly the same patentable principles as my car. Person X might go to the patent office and register his ideas. But does that mean I can't use my idea without paying Person X a licence fee? Yes!
Consider, however, the adjunct to that idea. I might spend $100m designing my new type of car and registering its patentable parts. Person X, who lives half a world away, might see a design for my type of car and start churning out copies, but all he had to spend was $25 to view the design. In this example, damn right I want a patent enforced wherein I can sue Person X's pants off!
For the Open Source software community at the moment, the general feeling seems to be that people should be able to use and produce software no matter where they get the ideas from. This is great when everyone participates in these ideas, and I personally feel quite proud to have contributed to it. But, we are seeing a lot of non-technical entrepeneurs starting up companies and making lots of money out of the Open Source community, simply by exploiting its naivety. It seems to be an unfortunate reality that if I ever want to make sure my code / ideas aren't exploited (which is different to being shared) I may have to subscribe to a patent system in which I can patent software. The GPL goes part of the way towards protecting innovation, but there is definately chinks in its armour. The issue of software patents is certainly something that the Open Source community will have to review very closely and approach with, as always, a combined front.
Just to make sure I remain on topic, what the heck is that Trudel guy on about? He seems to be stirring up a mass of anti-everything, pro-nationalist feelings (check out his support groups!) about an issue that the U.S. government is trying to deal with. I think Americans (I'm not, BTW) should be proud of that fact that their government is at least trying to deal with the internationalisation of.. well, everything! Far better that than living in a country which wants to close its doors and pretend that they can remain that way and still survive. To quote: "Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated".