Did anyone read the article before coming up with the post title? They say right in the middle of the article that it's not a rootkit, and "It is our belief that the MicroVault software hides this folder to somehow protect the fingerprint authentication from tampering and bypass.
The intent is irrelevant w.r.t. the fact whether or not it uses rootkit-like behavior to implement it.
It is obvious that user fingerprints cannot be in a world writable file on the disk when we are talking about secure authentication.
This is why file access permissions/restrictions where invented in the 1970's.
This is also nothing new in terms of USB drives. I have a USB flash drive, which I can't remember the name of, that essentially keeps a secure partition hidden from Windows unless you run a special app to put in a password to make it visible to Windows.
That is a completely different technique at about 10 different levels. Of course the driver of some USB device may chose to reserve parts of the storage on said USB device for internal usage such that it cannot be (easily) accessed by normal means (i.e. the API offered by said driver). However, "cloaking" parts of the driver itself using rootkit-like mechanisms has, well, about nothing in common with such techniques.
It seems to me that our personal computers are becoming more and more like kiosks where "vendors" install software they want and the "end users", i.e. us, have less and less control over our own PCs. Think about it- DRM, (truly) hidden folders, subscriptino software, product activation,..vista?
It seems to me that you are making the classic mistake of saying "personal computers" when you really mean "computers running Microsoft Windows".
Doing this makes most popular music sound much "better" at low-fi audio equipment such as portable cd players, mp3 players, $100 home "mini" stereo sets and cheap surround sets.
When I say "better", I mean that these devices cannot play the full dynamic range that an expensive HiFi set could, which means you'd miss part of the music if a CD is mastered the "old" way, as compared to a CD that is mastered using dynamic range compression.
Now you may guess how many people these days spend $3000 (or even $1000 for that matter) to buy just an amplifier, a CD player and 2 speakers, as compared to the amount of people who listen several hours a day to MP3 players, cheap (portable) sets etc.
I see this sort of comment [Vista using more resources due to DRM] flying around on here, unchallenged. As much as I love MS bashing, does anybody have any links to articles that verify this?
Sure, see below. You can also easily verify most of this yourself.
Doesn't the DRM only come in to play when you want to watch HD-DVD or Blu Ray movies (or some Windows Media format)?
Unfortunately, no.
How can it be sitting there chewing cycles at any other time?
Far be it from me to pretend to be able to answer that question. You'll have to ask Microsoft ("what where you thinking!?"). However, here are some pointers that may be of use:
In order to prevent active attacks, device drivers are required to poll the underlying hardware every 30ms for digital outputs and every 150 ms for analog ones to ensure that everything appears kosher. This means that even with nothing else happening in the system, a mass of assorted drivers has to wake up thirty times a second
This seems to be regardless of whether any *DRM'ed* content is currently playing. Think of what this means for (laptop) power consumption. Apparently this kind of stuff is active when any kind of content is playing, at least through Windows Media Player. Also see this article for example:
For those of you running Windows Vista, start Windows Media Player and play a random [unprotected, obviously] MP3 audio file. Go into Task Manager and look for a process called "mfpmp.exe" with description "Media Foundation Protected Pipeline EXE." Notice how much CPU it uses. On my machine it fluctuates between 10% and 20% CPU time.
You can test this easily enough for yourself (well, if you are unfortunate enough to own a machine running Vista, of course).
So now the question is, do you still call it "bashing" when it's actually true?
The dutch equivalent of "the consumerist" (de consumentenbond) recently started a program where consumers can send in their Vista-related problems, which they are going to urge Microsoft to fix or ask for money back (or perhaps, to give free copies of XP instead). To quote de consumentenbond (article in dutch, relevant part translated here):
"A power user will be able to solve most of the problems that Vista confronts him with, however the average consumer will run into serious trouble. The [operating] system contains so many mistakes that we want to investigate this in detail."
Furthermore, the article notes that "The consumentenbond dislikes the fact that new computers are delivered with the Vista operating system by default".
Because even my grandmother can tell the difference between a 128kbps AAC and a lossless stream!
Depends, although I'm admittedly not your grandma, I don't hear a difference on $50 computer speakers, but when I had a change to compare mp3 to CD on a $3000 HiFi set (not my own unfortunately), I cannot imagine anyone to *not* hear the difference. If I'm paying for music, I like to at least have the possibility to enjoy it in a high-quality setting as well...
Seriously though. 16-bit, stereo audio sampled at 44.1KHz is 1378 kilobits. A 128kbps AAC is nearly 11:1 compression, while most FLACs are lucky to reach 2:1. That makes AACs at least five times cheaper to distribute (assuming the only cost involved is bandwidth, and that costs rise proportionally to bandwidth) than FLACs.
The bandwidth needed for audio is relatively minor compared to video. Also see: youtube (where you don't even pay..).
In addition, most FLAC's I compress myself reach between 3:1 and 2:1 compression. It's certainly almost never below 2:1. Your assumption about the cost being mainly bandwidth is probably wrong anyway: for iTunes the cost of distribution (i.e. servers + bandwidth) is like $0.01-$0.02 per song. Most of the price you pay are royalties that go to the record companies, then there's a profit margin for Apple ($0.10 or so?) and you have the costs for running the store itself (costs for hiring people to write/maintain the software, designing it, iTunes integration, making deals with record companies, etc. etc.)
Also, a $100 harddisk these days can hold at the very least 1000 albums in FLAC format. I doubt most people even own 100, so their entire music collection in FLAC format would use only 10-20% of available space on any recently bought harddisk/computer.
You mean the part where Microsoft replied to this article with the usual corporate/marketing-speak and then got utterly slaughtered (in the comments and in other media subsequently reporting about that), not just in some random blog, but on their own Vista blog (which they fully control)?
Has anyone noticed that when you use a Mac for a while, Windows fonts suddenly feel really pixelated with Cleartype?
Then if you use a PC for a while, when you come back to a Mac the fonts feel really blury?
Yes. This article explains exactly why this is the case.
The "too long; didn't read" summary: Microsoft optimizes font display for on-screen readability, whereas Apple optimizes for getting the same results (page coverage or "grayness %") on screen as you would obtain in print.
Re:It doesn't solve the problem
on
Zune DRM Cracked
·
· Score: 1
it doesn't solve Six pack Joe's DRM problems. He will get a Zune, won't bother or know how to crack it
Wait, what?
Surely you meant he'd get an iPod. If he'd gotten a Zune, Joe Sixpack likely wouldn't even be able to succesfully install the software..., never mind get to the point of actually downloading any songs.
Simple: Ubuntu has a charismatic millionaire behind it. That's really all there is to it. Marketing is everything.
So does Lindows^H^H^H^Hspire. Someone please explain to me why this troll is rated +4 insightful?
The reason why Ubuntu is popular, unlike many Linux distributions for many years (I've tried and used quite a few since 1997), is because It Just Works (TM). That's why people like to use Ubuntu, or Mac OS X for that matter.
Assuming that the context isn't GPL'd as well, then this is an example of a provision that would be unlawful (and hence invalidate the license), so things like this won't be included in the license.
I would like to add that (AFAIK, IANAL etc.) if the license is found to be invalid, the normal copyright laws should apply instead, which means you're not allowed to distribute the code at all, except if you have obtained explicit permission from the copyright holder.
Except the hardware won't work. Most Dell other than their Linux machines use ATI and Broadcom, which are a HORRIBLE combination.
I'm typing this on a Dell laptop using an ATI card and sending these very bits through a Broadcom adapter right now. They where all autodetected correctly and worked right out of the box using Ubuntu.
What are these HORRIBLE problems you are referring to exactly?
You sacrifice all cell phone functionality of course
I don't see at all how this would be "of course". Why can't you simply install a different SIM card? I can see how you would "of course" lose the AT&T-specific subscription services but not "all cell phone functionality".
That just makes no sense whatsoever (except in the USA perhaps?)
Because I'd bet that you'll still have the great benefit of paying the hugely inflated prices for Windows Vista (especially the ultimate version) rather than what the XP license used to cost.
Look at this article, posted yesterday, for example. Especially the last sentence:
I was shocked that Apple was even on the list as I believed all those Mac commercials!
This part has "PR shill" written all over it. No tech would write this.
The slashdot editors might want to pay a little more attention to the stories they accept. I'll admit that this one is hardly the worst, but it's less visible than normal, which makes the story almost believable (instead of the guerilla marketing campaign it in fact is)
The onus is on Reiser to come up with evidence - where is the chair? explain the blood, why was the car washed?
I believe in fact the police will have to prove beyond reasonable doubt (a) that Nina was even murdered, (b) that Hans Reiser murdered her. He doesn't have to prove his innocence. There will have to be a convincing story that explains all the weird circumstances somehow.
I have no doubt that Reiser is a genius,
Yes, so if he's such a genius, why would he be so stupid as to remove a seat of his car, wash it out as if blood has been removed, leave a book about how to get away with homicide in the back seat, etc. etc. It just sounds a bit...too much.
Crime passionel, perhaps. But to me, this hardly looks like a straightforward murder case. (it's still not even clear whether it is in fact a murder case AFAIK..)
The story about Hans Reiser gets weirder every time I read about it. It's like you're reading some surrealistic novel, or maybe a plot by Grisham.
For one, there is the question whether he is being framed (by a former friend, russian mafia,... ?) Also there is the problem of (suspected) murder, but no body has been found. So, all evidence will be circumstantial and therefore open to lots of discussion/interpretation. "The brothers Karamazov" by Dostojevski has some very nice examples of how wide apart such interpretations can be (without the reader being able to tell which interpretation is true). Probably someone could write an interesting novel based on this story as well. It's getting so weird, you just can't make such stuff up.
It could become an interesting case to follow, so I'm hoping groklaw might pay some attention to it (if such hearings are even public - I don't have much clue about the US judicial system, but it seems unlikely).
I fully agree though, I use this to compress ripped CD's (that I own) to 35-50% the size of the WAV files. This means a full album will be between 200-300 MB in size. This way you can store ca. 1000 full albums, without any loss, on a 250 GB harddisk (which are like $100 or so?). I don't know about you, but I don't own 1000 full albums, and if I did, I could likely afford the extra $100 for a second HD as well;)
Now all we need is hardware players that support the format too. (some do, but most don't)
You will not hear the difference on a set of $50 computer speakers or on a portable player. I'm pretty convinced everyone will notice the difference on a $2500 HiFi set though.
Of course it's a good idea to think about technology and how it changes our lives (and it's not all good, obviously). But a lot of the stuff I read in the review is hardly related to technology itself. It seems to be a lot of unrelated, unsubstantiated claims and a lot of fuzzy hippy talk. That's too bad, because there exist authors that have substantiated these claims much better.
Let's just have a look at a few of the statements:
Perhaps even more important, [children/students] must master its "techniques" as the sine qua non tool to be successful in life. This is not a voyage of self-discovery; it is a demand by "the system" that the individual accept a way of viewing the world that invades, conquers, and ultimately controls his life.
Please explain to me, exactly how does "mastering the techniques of using a computer" equal "being forced to accept a [particular] way of viewing the world"?
By the time this child makes the transition from high school to college, he will be required to accept a curriculum that too often lacks meaning and content, that fails to allow him to satisfy his own curiosity about the challenges facing humanity
So you're saying, the educational system (in your country) apparently sucks. What does this have to do with technology?
and is, moreover, expensive and will likely lead to indebtedness.
Wait, so now we're suddenly discussing the state of the educational system in particular countries (which, apparently, do not have [good] government-subsidized colleges)? What does this have to do with technology, again?
Education is only the first stage in the numbing of our consciousness. What follows is built upon this edifice. Our acceptance of machines -- ubiquitous in our everyday lives -- provides our food, transportation, entertainment, information, and prestige -- in sum, everything we need to function in modern society.
Including, might I add, our survival (of the current amount of people sustained by earth, anyway). Fine with me if you strive for an earth which will have, in time, only 1 billion people living on it (just pulling this number out of my ass, but without technology earth can sustain only a fraction of the 6+ billion that are currently alive), but please be aware of the consequences of having no technology at all. The point is of course, using any 'tools' can be considered technology, so where do you draw the line? Some nuance would really help here. It's impossible to say "so technology is bad, lets just not use it altogether".
The next stage in the individual's life is integration into the mature world of the computerized economy, i.e., when he becomes a "stakeholder." He accepts a world that does away with human values and subordinates him to "market values."
This has nothing to do with technology, but with a world-view where everything is measured by its value (economical or otherwise). Just because we have models to do so, does not mean it is what *I* consider the thing that makes my live valueable, is it? Nor is this necessarily connected to technology. It could be, but please substantiate this claim.
Furthermore, he is bound to lose his sense of privacy.
Why?
Anyway this is where I stopped reading, you can go on like this for the rest of the review basically. If the book is anything like the review suggests, I won't bother reading it.
Lastly, it is odd that he does not cite the pioneering work of a well-known predecessor, Jacques Ellul, in The Technological Society.
Ahhh. Jacques Ellul, the anarchist. Günther Anders also comes to mind. I think you'd be much better of reading one of their books instead of the one that's reviewed here.
Slashdot Mirror
The intent is irrelevant w.r.t. the fact whether or not it uses rootkit-like behavior to implement it.
It is obvious that user fingerprints cannot be in a world writable file on the disk when we are talking about secure authentication.
This is why file access permissions/restrictions where invented in the 1970's.
That is a completely different technique at about 10 different levels. Of course the driver of some USB device may chose to reserve parts of the storage on said USB device for internal usage such that it cannot be (easily) accessed by normal means (i.e. the API offered by said driver). However, "cloaking" parts of the driver itself using rootkit-like mechanisms has, well, about nothing in common with such techniques.
It seems to me that you are making the classic mistake of saying "personal computers" when you really mean "computers running Microsoft Windows".
Doing this makes most popular music sound much "better" at low-fi audio equipment such as portable cd players, mp3 players, $100 home "mini" stereo sets and cheap surround sets.
When I say "better", I mean that these devices cannot play the full dynamic range that an expensive HiFi set could, which means you'd miss part of the music if a CD is mastered the "old" way, as compared to a CD that is mastered using dynamic range compression.
Now you may guess how many people these days spend $3000 (or even $1000 for that matter) to buy just an amplifier, a CD player and 2 speakers, as compared to the amount of people who listen several hours a day to MP3 players, cheap (portable) sets etc.
That's why "they" are doing this.
Sure, see below. You can also easily verify most of this yourself.
Unfortunately, no.
Far be it from me to pretend to be able to answer that question. You'll have to ask Microsoft ("what where you thinking!?"). However, here are some pointers that may be of use:
A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection, the article has references to the relevant specs/documents (by Microsoft) used to implement Vista DRM. Specifically about CPU resource consumption see here:
This seems to be regardless of whether any *DRM'ed* content is currently playing. Think of what this means for (laptop) power consumption. Apparently this kind of stuff is active when any kind of content is playing, at least through Windows Media Player. Also see this article for example:
You can test this easily enough for yourself (well, if you are unfortunate enough to own a machine running Vista, of course).
So now the question is, do you still call it "bashing" when it's actually true?
The OS being a resource hog is (at least in part) caused by the DRM.
The dutch equivalent of "the consumerist" (de consumentenbond) recently started a program where consumers can send in their Vista-related problems, which they are going to urge Microsoft to fix or ask for money back (or perhaps, to give free copies of XP instead). To quote de consumentenbond (article in dutch, relevant part translated here):
"A power user will be able to solve most of the problems that Vista confronts him with, however the average consumer will run into serious trouble. The [operating] system contains so many mistakes that we want to investigate this in detail."
Furthermore, the article notes that "The consumentenbond dislikes the fact that new computers are delivered with the Vista operating system by default".
Yup, Vista seems to be doing great...
Depends, although I'm admittedly not your grandma, I don't hear a difference on $50 computer speakers, but when I had a change to compare mp3 to CD on a $3000 HiFi set (not my own unfortunately), I cannot imagine anyone to *not* hear the difference. If I'm paying for music, I like to at least have the possibility to enjoy it in a high-quality setting as well...
The bandwidth needed for audio is relatively minor compared to video. Also see: youtube (where you don't even pay..).
In addition, most FLAC's I compress myself reach between 3:1 and 2:1 compression. It's certainly almost never below 2:1. Your assumption about the cost being mainly bandwidth is probably wrong anyway: for iTunes the cost of distribution (i.e. servers + bandwidth) is like $0.01-$0.02 per song. Most of the price you pay are royalties that go to the record companies, then there's a profit margin for Apple ($0.10 or so?) and you have the costs for running the store itself (costs for hiring people to write/maintain the software, designing it, iTunes integration, making deals with record companies, etc. etc.)
Also, a $100 harddisk these days can hold at the very least 1000 albums in FLAC format. I doubt most people even own 100, so their entire music collection in FLAC format would use only 10-20% of available space on any recently bought harddisk/computer.
You mean the part where Microsoft replied to this article with the usual corporate/marketing-speak and then got utterly slaughtered (in the comments and in other media subsequently reporting about that), not just in some random blog, but on their own Vista blog (which they fully control)?
Yes. This article explains exactly why this is the case.
The "too long; didn't read" summary: Microsoft optimizes font display for on-screen readability, whereas Apple optimizes for getting the same results (page coverage or "grayness %") on screen as you would obtain in print.
Wait, what?
Surely you meant he'd get an iPod. If he'd gotten a Zune, Joe Sixpack likely wouldn't even be able to succesfully install the software..., never mind get to the point of actually downloading any songs.
Me fail english? That's unpossible!
Anyway. A typo? On teh internets!? Stop the presses!
First rule of spelling nazi's: every post complaining about spelling, will contain at least one spelling error itself.
P.S. "an Ubuntu future (feature?)" is actually correct.
So does Lindows^H^H^H^Hspire. Someone please explain to me why this troll is rated +4 insightful?
The reason why Ubuntu is popular, unlike many Linux distributions for many years (I've tried and used quite a few since 1997), is because It Just Works (TM). That's why people like to use Ubuntu, or Mac OS X for that matter.
I would like to add that (AFAIK, IANAL etc.) if the license is found to be invalid, the normal copyright laws should apply instead, which means you're not allowed to distribute the code at all, except if you have obtained explicit permission from the copyright holder.
Is EUR 37 which is (at this moment) over $50. And then I'll have to install it myself.
Besides, I've had it for over 2 years and the battery is still fine.
So unless iPhone batteries tend to wear out much faster, I'd say:
Nothing to see here, please move along..
I'm typing this on a Dell laptop using an ATI card and sending these very bits through a Broadcom adapter right now. They where all autodetected correctly and worked right out of the box using Ubuntu.
What are these HORRIBLE problems you are referring to exactly?
I don't see at all how this would be "of course". Why can't you simply install a different SIM card? I can see how you would "of course" lose the AT&T-specific subscription services but not "all cell phone functionality".
That just makes no sense whatsoever (except in the USA perhaps?)
Well, it runs OS X, so BSD. Many embedded devices (e.g. wireless access points, routers, modems, etc.) run Linux, so naturally have root accounts too.
Indeed I don't find it odd at all.
Because I'd bet that you'll still have the great benefit of paying the hugely inflated prices for Windows Vista (especially the ultimate version) rather than what the XP license used to cost.
Oh, the joys of working with Microsoft software.
Wake me up when Theo has kind words to say about basically anything at all, now *that* would be news!
Unfortunately he's likely also right on most accounts though
This part has "PR shill" written all over it. No tech would write this.
The slashdot editors might want to pay a little more attention to the stories they accept. I'll admit that this one is hardly the worst, but it's less visible than normal, which makes the story almost believable (instead of the guerilla marketing campaign it in fact is)
I believe in fact the police will have to prove beyond reasonable doubt (a) that Nina was even murdered, (b) that Hans Reiser murdered her. He doesn't have to prove his innocence. There will have to be a convincing story that explains all the weird circumstances somehow.
Yes, so if he's such a genius, why would he be so stupid as to remove a seat of his car, wash it out as if blood has been removed, leave a book about how to get away with homicide in the back seat, etc. etc. It just sounds a bit...too much.
Crime passionel, perhaps. But to me, this hardly looks like a straightforward murder case. (it's still not even clear whether it is in fact a murder case AFAIK..)
The story about Hans Reiser gets weirder every time I read about it. It's like you're reading some surrealistic novel, or maybe a plot by Grisham.
... ?)
For one, there is the question whether he is being framed (by a former friend, russian mafia,
Also there is the problem of (suspected) murder, but no body has been found. So, all evidence will be circumstantial and therefore open to lots of discussion/interpretation. "The brothers Karamazov" by Dostojevski has some very nice examples of how wide apart such interpretations can be (without the reader being able to tell which interpretation is true). Probably someone could write an interesting novel based on this story as well. It's getting so weird, you just can't make such stuff up.
It could become an interesting case to follow, so I'm hoping groklaw might pay some attention to it (if such hearings are even public - I don't have much clue about the US judicial system, but it seems unlikely).
This part has "PR shill" written all over it. No techie would ever write this.
Probably Microsoft has hired some more people to work on "guerilla marketing" techniques, just like they did with the People Ready campaign.
It's called the Free Lossless Audio Codec.
I fully agree though, I use this to compress ripped CD's (that I own) to 35-50% the size of the WAV files. This means a full album will be between 200-300 MB in size. This way you can store ca. 1000 full albums, without any loss, on a 250 GB harddisk (which are like $100 or so?). I don't know about you, but I don't own 1000 full albums, and if I did, I could likely afford the extra $100 for a second HD as well
Now all we need is hardware players that support the format too. (some do, but most don't)
You will not hear the difference on a set of $50 computer speakers or on a portable player. I'm pretty convinced everyone will notice the difference on a $2500 HiFi set though.
Of course it's a good idea to think about technology and how it changes our lives (and it's not all good, obviously). But a lot of the stuff I read in the review is hardly related to technology itself. It seems to be a lot of unrelated, unsubstantiated claims and a lot of fuzzy hippy talk. That's too bad, because there exist authors that have substantiated these claims much better.
Let's just have a look at a few of the statements:
Please explain to me, exactly how does "mastering the techniques of using a computer" equal "being forced to accept a [particular] way of viewing the world"?
So you're saying, the educational system (in your country) apparently sucks. What does this have to do with technology?
Wait, so now we're suddenly discussing the state of the educational system in particular countries (which, apparently, do not have [good] government-subsidized colleges)? What does this have to do with technology, again?
Including, might I add, our survival (of the current amount of people sustained by earth, anyway). Fine with me if you strive for an earth which will have, in time, only 1 billion people living on it (just pulling this number out of my ass, but without technology earth can sustain only a fraction of the 6+ billion that are currently alive), but please be aware of the consequences of having no technology at all. The point is of course, using any 'tools' can be considered technology, so where do you draw the line? Some nuance would really help here. It's impossible to say "so technology is bad, lets just not use it altogether".
This has nothing to do with technology, but with a world-view where everything is measured by its value (economical or otherwise). Just because we have models to do so, does not mean it is what *I* consider the thing that makes my live valueable, is it? Nor is this necessarily connected to technology. It could be, but please substantiate this claim.
Why?
Anyway this is where I stopped reading, you can go on like this for the rest of the review basically. If the book is anything like the review suggests, I won't bother reading it.
Ahhh. Jacques Ellul, the anarchist. Günther Anders also comes to mind. I think you'd be much better of reading one of their books instead of the one that's reviewed here.