There is no such thing as copy protection. Any method attempted to stop copying is bound to fail: the hardware sees copying as just another read command, and if done in software, well, what if you don't use that software?
The only way to stop piracy with 'copy protection' is encryption. After all, what good does a copy do you if you don't understand it? (Look at CSS and the details of Cactus: rearrange some or all of the information, and suddenly the old reading methods don't work.) As if we needed another reason to hate anti-encryption legislative proposals! You can be sure that they would exempt copy protection schemes while making sure your 'private' emails remain an open book to law enforcement.
The executives of these companies seem to be completly oblivious to two points. First is, of course, that any encryption will only deter for so long (and if you use not-that-strong stuff like CSS, that isn't long at all.) Second is that (obviously) we aren't buying from them the physical disk, but the information on it.
But when we look carefully at what they are doing, we can see how they do understand these issues. They're using the kiddie-level encryption right now. I've wondered why, and came up with only one answer: they're waiting for SSCA to pull out the big guns. Could you imagine a CDROM encrypted with Rinjael, and 'kept encrypted' by SSCA??? They know that by trying to extra-legally limit the ways or means of access to that information, they would lose customers. Well, first they need to make that limitation legal...
If not for the SSCA gambit the RIAA seems to be playing (more like betting the house on!), I would suggest the proper response to this nonsense would be, like with the BSA raids, to encourage it; the faster access protection schemes are shown to be nonsense by the open market, the better off we will be in the long run. But when you throw proposed SSCA legislation into the mix this idea just gets worse. All I can suggest is to not touch these disks at all. Don't buy them, don't pirate them, and if you're a store owner, don't sell them.
I'm off to write petitions to the big retailers now. I just realized that the only way the RIAA can't raise the cry of piracy when these disks don't sell if if the vendors are the ones who don't buy them!
"This still leaves us with plenty of ways to make Perl behave in a thoroughly unpredictable fashion."
Is it just me, or doesn't "good Perl code" already work that way unless you've spent the past 10 years developing for it? I for one can't make heads or tails of tight Perl coding methods.
But PalmPilots aren't designed for the LCD or case to be removed! (Some models batteries too! V's and Visors have internal batteries; there are others.) So in order to have it survive in an oven, you have to kill it first...
Chalk up one more loss for a tech-dumb soul attempting to do something geeky. I'm sure if this were a/.er we were talking about, the handheld in question would have survived (and maybe even run faster afterwards.)
I don't see why we would want to have a robot that was "just like" a person. Sheesh, as if we had to go and give those Jerry Springer contestants more reasons to have low-self esteem.
No, the big thing AI research gives us is new ways of looking at information theory. These questions that research into making a computer "think" help answer, and whether or not we succeed in writing such a program, the answers we get will affect the way that we use computers forever.
On the other hand, writing better computer controlled opponents for games is always a good thing.;-)
Am I the only one here to realize the bias that would be present amongst the digital video recorder crowd?
VCRs are still the most common way people record
TV shows... the digital crowd would be the early tech adoption geeks,/.ers being a good example. (Digital PVR / satillite decoders combo units aside, I'd bet 90%+ of the TiVos are in the hands of a geek.) And I'm not at all surprised this sliver of a sub-sub-demographic category would genrerally prefer the ads to the game.
This is no less "surprising" that the ad of replay choice.
Yes, they proved a vigin birth was possible... to create by scientific means. Keep in mind, these are (most likely) the same fundamentalist groups who 100 years ago objected to the theory of evolution.
Anyway, this doesn't explain how a virgin-born Christ figure would be male, when this technique can only create females. Did you read the article?
Gee, a whole month of no new code to find bugs.
Hmm, how much code was that they had to go over again?
Assume a programmer can read and perfectly debug 100 lines of code an hour. For every 2 million lines of code, it will take 125 programmers to finish within the one month period (4 40-hour work weeks). Hmm. They might do it, given overtime and plenty of workers, but it assumes they debugging process is perfect.
Of course there's another way this might work- if they have a huge backlog of known bugs. On second thought, that can't be- this is Microsoft, surprised with each new Outlook-enabled virus! </sarcasm>
Okay, so to appease the conservative Christian core, worried about embryos used in cloning, they caused a monkey to have a "virgin birth"? Sure, it's slightly off of fact, but I can't help but wonder what these scientists thinking?
"Eureka! We won't have to worry about those religious-types bothering us about our research anymore!"
"Oh? Why not?"
"Well, first we prove the most cherished tenet of their faith false...."
I don't think there's a name for this, but I call it the "Expert Syndrome"- when faced with an "expert", people who ought to know better often take their opinions as fact (sometimes even ignoring their own personal experiences). This is even encouraged by public schools, who don't teach the proper ways to construct a logical argument any more (just the format of the 5 paragraph essay).
The cure is, of course, to get people to think on their own about things. You say people have problems with tech; well I think that's a load of manure. The problem is people who don't think on their own- because that is the one job that cannot be specialized to a small part of the population. Teach a man to speak, and you have a slave to the ideas of others. Teach a man to think, and you have crafted a free mind.
The problem with tech is just one step removed; when people can't articulate what they think, they are afraid to think at all. (And thus, they feel and act helpless without an expert.)
Correct me if I wrong, but I don't see any good reason why a very big project (Linux kernel) still has one maintainer for active development.
Now I'm no kernel hacker, but I do think the current system could use some improvement. Wouldn't it make sense for the kernel to be split into sections (device drivers, memory/thread manager, etc) with each section having a maintainer and one "integration manager"? (Applicable areas that could be subdivided, like drivers, could divide by type again.) If the system were properly modular, the integration manager would just have to make sure that the interfaces between the systems were well designed, don't change frequently, are thourally examined between changes, and that when they must change they are reimplemented nearly simultaniously in all affected subsystems. (Hopefully, any given subsystem could also undergo rewrites without affecting other subsytem code.) Again, I'm not seriously looked into the kernel code (yet!) so I have no idea how things work right now... but the scale IMHO requires a division of the labor. (Formatting the code to match would serve to further reduce the labor involved in maintainance.)
I'd like to add a different perspective here. Perhaps by outright saying this, you *BSD folks will get off my back about my preference for GNU licencing.
Open source- any open source, whether under BSD or GNU liscence- is about choice. Vi or EMACS? GUI or CLI? *BSD or Linux? Of course, there is no one "right" answer- each person will have a different approach. For this reason, I wouldn't care about Open Source lisences except for one reason only: Microsoft.
Microsoft wants to reduce our choices (to only their products) and allowing Microsoft to "borrow" your code to include in the next version of their product only encourages this philosophy. As you said, "if you need MY code to help you, you have bigger problems"- well I think the two of us would agree Microsoft has some pretty big problems (if only legal). I don't want to encourage them or help support, in any manner, their attitude of world domination (and I boycott Microsoft and do not pirate their software- they truely get zero support from me). Until their attitude changes, I will do everything in my power to ensure my work does not get used to oppose my own philosophy (though I could care less about you, as long as respect for my choice is given). I realize this may be tossing the baby out with the bathwater, but my choice is to do so, rather than risk taking a not-strong-enough stance. And I will not criticize your choice: to do so (IMO) is hypocracy. If I am to have a choice, I ought to respect other people's choices (including the choices of using Microsoft products or to take a different stance than mine).
Tweaking emails to be unreadable in Microsoft's software, to me, is a grand joke. I would find it just as funny if it were aimed at an Open Source reader (or any other viewer) for exactly the same reasons. It exploits a flaw in the code in a novel and insightful manner; I care not what or whose code it is (though the simple nature of the exploit is critical in it being quite so funny). However, this also serves as evidence that Microsoft doesn't care about standards or users (else this level of flaw would have been caught in testing) and only adds fuel to my hatred of Microsoft products.
The really interesting question is _why_.[it is legal to discuss lockpicking]
At the risk of being modded off topic, I'll try to answer your question. Moderators, please remember: these points are on topic, because they (in theory) apply to Aibo hacking, too.
Okay- on to my pitiful attempt at the philosophy of epistemology- for that is what your question is . In the interest of clarity, I will lay the proper foundation first, then end my post by answering your question.
Knowledge itself is like any other tool (excepting the corporeal / incorporeal aspect). A tool can be used many different ways: I can, for instance, use a screwdriver to drive screws, bang nails, open paint cans, and/or stab people. These may not be the intended uses for the screwdriver, but they are nonetheless possible uses. Knowledge and any other tool are without moral value- neither "good" nor "bad"- although such values are applicable to the uses the tool is put to.
So, the quetion becomes how to balance this neutrality of the tool against the clearly valued state of human actions. Should the tool itself become illegal- that is, can we forbid ownership of a screwdriver because it might, on the off chance, be used as a weapon? The answer is no. But why?
Examine the converse question: a tool can clarly be put to many uses, but what tools are applicable to a given purpose? Some (driving a screw) demand a very specific set of requirements in a tool. Others (killing or wounding another human) can be done with many tools, or no tool at all. To return to the example of picking locks: I could instead use a crowbar to jimmy it, or brute force to rip the door from its' jamb: clerly, the unavaiability of a given tool will not deter or forbid a "bad" action, when other tools could be used toward the same purpose. Therefore, simply because a given tool (skill set) meets the requirements to assist in the commission of a crime, forbidding use of that tool (skill set) is not a valid method to forbid the commission of a "bad" action.
The previous argument's conclusion does not address the case of a skill set's most applicable purpose being the commission of "bad" actions; therefore we must examine such a case separately. Such knowlege consists of skills to manipulate a system in a manner other than its' intended purpose, to achive a specific, normally forbidden, result; the (possibly) forbidden result of an application is the defining factor in calling the action "bad". In modern society, most knowledge is handed down from an "expert"- a teacher, book, or paid advertisment; however, this knowledge will carry the bias of the originator and it is neccesary to consult other sources in order to gain a clear understanding of the topic at question. The least biased source is, of course, direct observation (in this case only personal bias will color the data); in the worst case scenario, this observation will require the application of some set of "bad" skills, since knowlege is desired of the full range of system interactions (and since one or more result of the interaction is "bad", such knowledge is not offered by the "experts"). This "forbidden" knowledge, if lawfully gained, could then be applied toward the creation of improved products or disseminated to raise awareness of an unannounced fact (flaw in a product or theory) which in turn helps keep the "experts" accountable for their proclamations. These beneficial uses (firsthand, and thus communal, expansion of knowlege but more importantly accountability of "experts") of almost every potentailly "bad" skill set more than outweigh the possible negative consequences of dissemination (someone using this knowledge to commit a crime).
If you think I missed something or flubbed it, you can take your shot too [at me or the question, but it would be far more interesting if you attack the question].
Read my response to some of the other comments I've gotten today in this discussion!!!
Or if you're too lazy to be bothered, here's the short-to-a-fault version: the price of Free (libre) software is forced education. That's fair, compared to the price of retail software, IMO.
Economics are based on Scarcity, right?
on
EverQuest and the UN
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Correct me (politely, please!) if I'm wrong, but isn't modern economic theory based on the scarcity of goods? If nothing else, the last time this story got posted, we should have realized what a load of bunk this is.
I don't know the numbers, but I'm sure that if I went and crunched them we would see that assuming growth trends remained the same the per-capita of Norrath would soon (5-10 years) be higher than all real countries. That is, assuming their economic model doesn't implode because they're stuck with surplusses.
Wait a minute! Maybe this isn't so irrelevant to real life after all. All I have to do is, while stating the obvious, use the magic words "Gift culture" and "software paralells" in the same sentence as the magic/. oxidant "Eric S Raymond" and poof! Flames.
On second thought, I kindof prefer having a high karma than a real discussion here. Perhaps some AC will do the honors?
I hate these stickers after a really bad experience with a case power supply.
One day, my trusty case power supply just gave up on me. "Oh well," I thought, "Must have blown a fuse." (I was pulling some serious power through the poor thing.) So with gleeful abandon I grabbed the nearest sharp, pointy tool and began to remove screws. I carefully grounded and opened up the power supply to change the fuse- Lo And Behold, the stupid thing was soldered in place!
I hope this short, true satire shows why I distrust any company handing me the black box syndrome. If you don't want me inquiring as to how it works, don't sell/rent/loan it to me; and don't think strange headed screws are a detterent- I just love a challenge >:-). Furthermore, never scream at me (even in legalese) about how I wasn't supposed to look inside- you aren't supposed to sell me junk. (There may be no legal constraint, but doing so is a good way to get boycotted. Just ask Microsoft, Universal Music, or Intel: they top my list.)
I wouldn't normally respond to someone who takes your tone. Usually, I try to only write 95% of the reason- and leave the last 5% as "an exercize for the reader"- but apparently this didn't help you at all. So I will, for I hope is the only time, ennumerate the exact layout of my reasoning.
I want to state clearly before I begin: I am not trying to convince you that I am right. Your tone was offensive- you insinuated I was speaking unfounded falsehoods- that single unspoken point is what I plan to refute. You do not need to agree with me when I finish, just admit that my point of view is as valid as yours.
On with the explanation.
In response to my comments on virii:
Uhh... maybe since it only has 0.24% of the desktop market share, it would make no sense to write a virus for it.... When will you twits realize this and quit comparing everything to Win95?
There are two things I would like to mention in clarification of my statement. First- that quarter of a percent figure is highly dubious- as it was gleamed from brower hits. If you reread that discussion, you will find a great many people disagree with that statistic. I do not claim to know what the real percentage is, but keep your 'damn lies' to yourself ("There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." - Benjamin Disrali). [By that last statement I mean: if you continue to quote that figure, it will only worsen your credibility.]
My second point is that no, I am not basing my arguments upon Win95 or Win98. Look around you: the latest versions of windows (Win2K, XP) were based on the NT codebase and anything I say about them does not carry the 95/98 heritage. And I tell you, for the average user, they are just as virus dangerous as any other version of Windows. Outook still is the premiere virus and worm carrier- the latter do not care about user privledges. Flaws also exist within the default user controls, because XP has its' default user login set to administrative privledges- meaning all users, by default, get root-equivalent privledges unless set otherwise. Even were this not true, the Nimbda and Code Red viruses proved that even Microsoft's server code- which I assume was properly configured with reguard to user access controls- was easily exploited. Until these security issues are resolved, viruses will flourish on Windows as they do on no other platform. And it is my personal belief that the DOS heritage that Microsoft still caries will prevent proper resolution of these issues.
True or false, it is what I believe. I hope you now understand the intent of my first statement.
In response to my comment on crashes:but I've never had an NT crash that brought down the whole box.... Only time you'll EVER encounter a BSOD on NT is if you have serious hardware/driver issues.
I am sorry to burst your bubble. When I have used NT - to be specific, Win2000- I have encountered system-halting errors that brought the box to its' knees. The system flat stopped responding. While it was possible to pull up the task list, the system would not halt the offending process, permit me to begin new processes, nor permit a reboot. It was neccesary to toggle power to get it to return to a normal state of operations.
This was not casued by a driver conflict (reading a CD-RW is not a driver conflict), nor did a BSOD ever appear: the system just "froze" for over 15 minutes (so I assure you this was not a timeout). Even with the worst X processes I have encountered (foolish attempts to make WINE work where keyboard and mouse input are stolen), it was still possible to SSH into the machine from another and kill the offending process(es). That would not have worked in the case I experienced with Windows 2000.
True to most cases or not, these have been my experiences. And as such, it forms the basis of my opinion- stated in my second point.
With reguard to program features: I forgot that Microsoft and Sun developers aren't users either. As far as having to dig into a text file or recompile the code myself to get at these "useful features," no thank you. Also, what "useful features" are you talking about?
Hmm. Perhaps my phrasing of this point was poor. I will begin anew, following the pattern of the first two explanations, and hope I end up with something more appealing to your tastes.
Microsoft's and Sun's developers are users. However, they are not the target audience of the majority of their products (Office, Outlook, Windows). These products are designed for the lowest common denominator- the people with the least computing experience- and not the power users that generally use *BSD or Linux as a workstation. I do not need to explain how the experience of a new user and a frequent user differ, do I? For the power user, the features of these systems are but pale imitations of what is done in Linux and other Free (libre) software- because they are designed to assist the power user, not the new user.
Ah, and you ask me to list features. That I will refrain from doing- it is my opinion that in light of the above paragraph it may very easily become an insult to your intelligence. To hold off a snide retort, I will list only one difference between Windows and Linux that is a very helpful feature and is nearly omnipresent: regular expression pattern matching. [I warned you!]
I hope you now understand that what I said may not have been quite what I meant, and I hope my opinion on this matter is clearer.
With reguards to technical support:Basically the difference between being told to 'RTFM' and live humanoid technical support.
Unpaid volunteers do not have to put up with stupidity; hence stupid questions get a very curt responce. This occurs in the commercial software world too: remember the tech support joke that ends "Pack your computer back up and return it; tell them you're too dumb to own one"? Fielding a stupid question is irritating whether or not you are paid (but being an unpaid volunteer, Linux folks strike back). Freedom is never zero cost; the cost of using free software is that of forced education.
The difference in educational materials is vast. On one hand we have Windows for Dummies (the title alone reveals who that's marketed to) and the Windows help files (which does not help me very frequently: I never can find what I need nor does the information provided answer any of my questions), and on the other hand there are man pages and the Linux Documentation Project- which if you read both of and follow the instructions will help solve 99% of the most common, and several uncommon, problems. And here is where the difference really shows: when you have read the Friendly Manual (and/or HOWTO), if you still have an intelligent question, not only are further references provided, free of charge, but asking about it on the Internet will gardner serious, insightful help from more experienced users. Woe into you, however, if your question is "HELP! HOW DO I TYPE LOWER CASE LETTERS?" for you will be derided as the clueless idiot you are. (If you can't find the shift or capslock keys, what are you doing online?)
The relevant difference in support is not one of quality- for in either case looking in the right places will get you the answer you want- but of attitude. Commercial support is given grudingly and may carry (sometimes hefty) fees; Linux's community support is willingly and freely given (unless you call a distrobution vendor). No question is too great to get an answer (but all the small ones are answered in the Very Friendly Manual. Why are you using our product and not reading the manual?)
With further reguards to support: It's all about money, and not about furthering technology. They're out to get you, those evil bastards. That must explain the transition from NT 3.51 to 4 to 2000 to XP.
I am sorry that you, with your bias, were unable to read beyond my bias and understand what I was attemting to say. Again I apologize: this time I can see where my brevity prevented my true meaning from being clear. Therefore, I hope you will understand the following longer explanation of my views.
Have you seen the demotivational poster for Consulting? The tagline is: "If you aren't part of the solution, there's good money to be made in prolonging the problem." Unfortunatly, the Microsoft anti-trust suit showed how true this statement is. Microsoft wanted to provide the solution to everyone's problem. OS? Windows. Browser? Explorer. Productivity? Office. Server? IIS. ISP? MSN. They don't want a piece of the pie, they want to own the pie (and oven and doughmaker and farm and...). Even were they not to be so flagrant in their behavior, the very nature of capitalism demands that a company be able to show a positive cash flow. This means they must either sell a product that is consumed by use (like razor blades), sell a service (like a doctor), "lease" their product (as cable companies technically do) or continually sell newer, "better" (in quotes solely to indicate a lack of value judgement) products like automobile makers.
I withold stating a judgement of any but the last. I do not plan to continue to pay a company because "this time we got it right"; in any industy but software, when the company does it wrong they swiftly lose customer loyalty. And commercial software, by far and large, has lost my support- because they expect me to pay them when they fix a known mistake.
Upon that argument I base my support of free (gratis) software. If you didn't get it right before, I sure don't trust you to do it right this time. However, since Free (libre) software has shown a far greater reliablilty than software from other vendors, it still has my financial support (and yes, I do buy distro CDs from time to time; the printed manuals make it worth my dollars).
And in response to my comment about protocols:people listened to Hitler too because they thought he was interesting and had something which sounded like a great idea at the time. But we all know how that turned out.
{Spock-like, a single eyebrow lifts} Facinating. Rather than attempt to refute this point, you change the subject and attack me personally. If nothing else you had to say were to go toward my opinion of you, this alone would make me think you a troll. (That is NOT a moderation hint!)
{Sigh} What I meant was that if after all of the previous topics, you still had a receptive audience, then you go ahead and hit them with the double-barreled shotgun blast- a point so strong, even you shirk from denying the implicit charges.
And now, sir, if you wish, we can take this to a more appropriate place- for that promised entry into my journal is up. Anyone is free to respond to any portion of this message in that forum; I will recieve notification of your post and reply with all due speed (and the same respect as is found within this very message).
Never confuse distro X with Linux. Go over to the Linux From Scratch page- Linux can be very small indeed when custom tailored to its' environment. When the distros try to be 'one solution for everyone' they are guaranteed - proven thanks to Microsoft - that bloat will inevitably ensue.
As a counterpoint- I don't want to argue *BSD versus Linux - nor KDE versus GNOME - nor EMACS versus Vi. Can't we realize that these differences empower us- indeed, challenge us- to find the 'most superior' solution? After all, without a struggle, there can be no change.
Exactly the same things as we have done before: Explain, to each person you meet, the reasons you choose Linux as your operating system. Explain
how it frees you from the threat of virii becuase proper security was designed in from the start and has always been a priority.
how nice it is to be free from crash worries: that even when it happens, it never takes down the whole box [unless you like riding the bleeding edge odd-dot-numbered kernels or it was a kernel crash, but you needn't mention those cases].
how the Free (libre) software gives you more useful features, because the developers are also users.
tell them the difference in technical help between people who want to empower you and those who wish to enslave you to their corporate budget.
what it means that one person can't determine when your software is outdated or irrelevant, just to get a few more dollars.
And if they're still listening, explain the difference between proprietary and open protocols and why the proposed Microsoft settlement can only encourage Microsoft to develop more proprietary protocols [full text explaination to hit my journal this evening: short reason is because even though it is an illegal extension of their monopoly it wasn't forbidden to them].
Second, who trusts the removal links?
I do, if and only if the mail comes from someone who doesn't spoof headers and send pr0n... in other words, a respectable business who should know better than sending me mass mailings.
Somehow I feel that optimum security and optimum privacy are not achievable simultaneously? [Please comment -- I might have confused myself]
Hmm. Security and privacy being mutually incompatabile? My, my, I can't help but ask where that places crypto in the equation.
"Perfect" security and privacy measures go hand in hand. And (surprise, surprise) take the same single basic element to implement. Every administarator/user has to care. A Linux or *BSD box can be just as easy to hack as a NT/2K one if the same shoddy security procedures are used on both. Default password? Hacked. Buffer overruns? Hacked. And those are the common ones.
The problem with Windows is the glossy UI and crappy certification system that fail to emphasise the value of a proactive security stance (and outline what comprises such).
I don't know... to me, chain letters are spam. How about just "bulk addressed unsolicited email?" Then it doesn't matter if you're selling anything or not; if you send a message to many people and they didn't ask for it, then it's spam.
I think you've just made my point. Linux is fine, if you can get access to the source code/protocols/documentation and time to rework the system. But the only place where such things are more tightly held than the Business sector is the Goverment.
I too speak from experience. I work for the Air Force. And while we have specialty software even more whacked than yours, I am unable to even mention the name. So how long do you think a rewrite to Linux would take under those circumstances?
All thoughts of their past products aside, who really is going to trust Microsoft? They are a convicted monopolist; we've seen from the evidence how their mental level does not exceed the school yard bully, beating up weaker kids for their lunch money. This attitude locks them into a win/lose philosophy (when we win, you lose).
It doesn't matter what sort of clothes they wear or how pretty they smile, when the bully comes around the next day, the kids run and sream in terror. They know the bully only wants to get them backed into a corner; what makes us treat Microsoft any different?
The big Fortune 500 companies - the ones who can afford "$100M invested into their custom accounting/billing solution" - I would expect to be slow to change, just to maximize their investment. So I wouldn't be surprised at all if they were the second-to-last sector to switch to Linux (government being the one organization I would expect to see running Windows longer; if they buy $400 hammers they'll think.NET is secure).
And if the articles have only pointed to the "standard desktop and backend server apps" so far, it's because those are the ones that need to be talked about. Not everyone will have the same worries about custom code: moving from solaris to Linux is different from moving Windows => Linux which is different from miving OS/2 => Linux. What the managers want to hear is that the Word documents they run the company with will be available after they no longer use Word.
And as far as articles about moving custom code goes, there are two prime reasons we may not have seen them. First is the question of whether the code may be discussed: if it concerns a trade secret, the owners probably do not want to report about it- especially if trade secret code is moving to an Open Source OS! Secondly the port may not be considered newsworthy- if subsumed into a general hardware upgrade, the efforts of porting might be difficult to discern from those of the general transition.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no such thing as copy protection. Any method attempted to stop copying is bound to fail: the hardware sees copying as just another read command, and if done in software, well, what if you don't use that software?
The only way to stop piracy with 'copy protection' is encryption. After all, what good does a copy do you if you don't understand it? (Look at CSS and the details of Cactus: rearrange some or all of the information, and suddenly the old reading methods don't work.) As if we needed another reason to hate anti-encryption legislative proposals! You can be sure that they would exempt copy protection schemes while making sure your 'private' emails remain an open book to law enforcement.
The executives of these companies seem to be completly oblivious to two points. First is, of course, that any encryption will only deter for so long (and if you use not-that-strong stuff like CSS, that isn't long at all.) Second is that (obviously) we aren't buying from them the physical disk, but the information on it.
But when we look carefully at what they are doing, we can see how they do understand these issues. They're using the kiddie-level encryption right now. I've wondered why, and came up with only one answer: they're waiting for SSCA to pull out the big guns. Could you imagine a CDROM encrypted with Rinjael, and 'kept encrypted' by SSCA??? They know that by trying to extra-legally limit the ways or means of access to that information, they would lose customers. Well, first they need to make that limitation legal...
If not for the SSCA gambit the RIAA seems to be playing (more like betting the house on!), I would suggest the proper response to this nonsense would be, like with the BSA raids, to encourage it; the faster access protection schemes are shown to be nonsense by the open market, the better off we will be in the long run. But when you throw proposed SSCA legislation into the mix this idea just gets worse. All I can suggest is to not touch these disks at all. Don't buy them, don't pirate them, and if you're a store owner, don't sell them.
I'm off to write petitions to the big retailers now. I just realized that the only way the RIAA can't raise the cry of piracy when these disks don't sell if if the vendors are the ones who don't buy them!
"This still leaves us with plenty of ways to make Perl behave in a thoroughly unpredictable fashion."
Is it just me, or doesn't "good Perl code" already work that way unless you've spent the past 10 years developing for it? I for one can't make heads or tails of tight Perl coding methods.
But PalmPilots aren't designed for the LCD or case to be removed! (Some models batteries too! V's and Visors have internal batteries; there are others.) So in order to have it survive in an oven, you have to kill it first...
/.er we were talking about, the handheld in question would have survived (and maybe even run faster afterwards.)
Chalk up one more loss for a tech-dumb soul attempting to do something geeky. I'm sure if this were a
I don't see why we would want to have a robot that was "just like" a person. Sheesh, as if we had to go and give those Jerry Springer contestants more reasons to have low-self esteem.
;-)
No, the big thing AI research gives us is new ways of looking at information theory. These questions that research into making a computer "think" help answer, and whether or not we succeed in writing such a program, the answers we get will affect the way that we use computers forever.
On the other hand, writing better computer controlled opponents for games is always a good thing.
Am I the only one here to realize the bias that would be present amongst the digital video recorder crowd?
/.ers being a good example. (Digital PVR / satillite decoders combo units aside, I'd bet 90%+ of the TiVos are in the hands of a geek.) And I'm not at all surprised this sliver of a sub-sub-demographic category would genrerally prefer the ads to the game.
VCRs are still the most common way people record TV shows... the digital crowd would be the early tech adoption geeks,
This is no less "surprising" that the ad of replay choice.
Yes, they proved a vigin birth was possible... to create by scientific means. Keep in mind, these are (most likely) the same fundamentalist groups who 100 years ago objected to the theory of evolution.
Anyway, this doesn't explain how a virgin-born Christ figure would be male, when this technique can only create females. Did you read the article?
Gee, a whole month of no new code to find bugs.
Hmm, how much code was that they had to go over again?
Assume a programmer can read and perfectly debug 100 lines of code an hour. For every 2 million lines of code, it will take 125 programmers to finish within the one month period (4 40-hour work weeks). Hmm. They might do it, given overtime and plenty of workers, but it assumes they debugging process is perfect.
Of course there's another way this might work- if they have a huge backlog of known bugs. On second thought, that can't be- this is Microsoft, surprised with each new Outlook-enabled virus! </sarcasm>
Okay, so to appease the conservative Christian core, worried about embryos used in cloning, they caused a monkey to have a "virgin birth"? Sure, it's slightly off of fact, but I can't help but wonder what these scientists thinking?
"Eureka! We won't have to worry about those religious-types bothering us about our research anymore!"
"Oh? Why not?"
"Well, first we prove the most cherished tenet of their faith false...."
I don't think there's a name for this, but I call it the "Expert Syndrome"- when faced with an "expert", people who ought to know better often take their opinions as fact (sometimes even ignoring their own personal experiences). This is even encouraged by public schools, who don't teach the proper ways to construct a logical argument any more (just the format of the 5 paragraph essay).
The cure is, of course, to get people to think on their own about things. You say people have problems with tech; well I think that's a load of manure. The problem is people who don't think on their own- because that is the one job that cannot be specialized to a small part of the population. Teach a man to speak, and you have a slave to the ideas of others. Teach a man to think, and you have crafted a free mind.
The problem with tech is just one step removed; when people can't articulate what they think, they are afraid to think at all. (And thus, they feel and act helpless without an expert.)
Correct me if I wrong, but I don't see any good reason why a very big project (Linux kernel) still has one maintainer for active development.
Now I'm no kernel hacker, but I do think the current system could use some improvement. Wouldn't it make sense for the kernel to be split into sections (device drivers, memory/thread manager, etc) with each section having a maintainer and one "integration manager"? (Applicable areas that could be subdivided, like drivers, could divide by type again.) If the system were properly modular, the integration manager would just have to make sure that the interfaces between the systems were well designed, don't change frequently, are thourally examined between changes, and that when they must change they are reimplemented nearly simultaniously in all affected subsystems. (Hopefully, any given subsystem could also undergo rewrites without affecting other subsytem code.) Again, I'm not seriously looked into the kernel code (yet!) so I have no idea how things work right now... but the scale IMHO requires a division of the labor. (Formatting the code to match would serve to further reduce the labor involved in maintainance.)
I'd like to add a different perspective here. Perhaps by outright saying this, you *BSD folks will get off my back about my preference for GNU licencing.
Open source- any open source, whether under BSD or GNU liscence- is about choice. Vi or EMACS? GUI or CLI? *BSD or Linux? Of course, there is no one "right" answer- each person will have a different approach. For this reason, I wouldn't care about Open Source lisences except for one reason only: Microsoft.
Microsoft wants to reduce our choices (to only their products) and allowing Microsoft to "borrow" your code to include in the next version of their product only encourages this philosophy. As you said, "if you need MY code to help you, you have bigger problems"- well I think the two of us would agree Microsoft has some pretty big problems (if only legal). I don't want to encourage them or help support, in any manner, their attitude of world domination (and I boycott Microsoft and do not pirate their software- they truely get zero support from me). Until their attitude changes, I will do everything in my power to ensure my work does not get used to oppose my own philosophy (though I could care less about you, as long as respect for my choice is given). I realize this may be tossing the baby out with the bathwater, but my choice is to do so, rather than risk taking a not-strong-enough stance. And I will not criticize your choice: to do so (IMO) is hypocracy. If I am to have a choice, I ought to respect other people's choices (including the choices of using Microsoft products or to take a different stance than mine).
Tweaking emails to be unreadable in Microsoft's software, to me, is a grand joke. I would find it just as funny if it were aimed at an Open Source reader (or any other viewer) for exactly the same reasons. It exploits a flaw in the code in a novel and insightful manner; I care not what or whose code it is (though the simple nature of the exploit is critical in it being quite so funny). However, this also serves as evidence that Microsoft doesn't care about standards or users (else this level of flaw would have been caught in testing) and only adds fuel to my hatred of Microsoft products.
The really interesting question is _why_.[it is legal to discuss lockpicking]
At the risk of being modded off topic, I'll try to answer your question. Moderators, please remember: these points are on topic, because they (in theory) apply to Aibo hacking, too.
Okay- on to my pitiful attempt at the philosophy of epistemology- for that is what your question is . In the interest of clarity, I will lay the proper foundation first, then end my post by answering your question.
Knowledge itself is like any other tool (excepting the corporeal / incorporeal aspect). A tool can be used many different ways: I can, for instance, use a screwdriver to drive screws, bang nails, open paint cans, and/or stab people. These may not be the intended uses for the screwdriver, but they are nonetheless possible uses. Knowledge and any other tool are without moral value- neither "good" nor "bad"- although such values are applicable to the uses the tool is put to.
So, the quetion becomes how to balance this neutrality of the tool against the clearly valued state of human actions. Should the tool itself become illegal- that is, can we forbid ownership of a screwdriver because it might, on the off chance, be used as a weapon? The answer is no. But why?
Examine the converse question: a tool can clarly be put to many uses, but what tools are applicable to a given purpose? Some (driving a screw) demand a very specific set of requirements in a tool. Others (killing or wounding another human) can be done with many tools, or no tool at all. To return to the example of picking locks: I could instead use a crowbar to jimmy it, or brute force to rip the door from its' jamb: clerly, the unavaiability of a given tool will not deter or forbid a "bad" action, when other tools could be used toward the same purpose. Therefore, simply because a given tool (skill set) meets the requirements to assist in the commission of a crime, forbidding use of that tool (skill set) is not a valid method to forbid the commission of a "bad" action.
The previous argument's conclusion does not address the case of a skill set's most applicable purpose being the commission of "bad" actions; therefore we must examine such a case separately. Such knowlege consists of skills to manipulate a system in a manner other than its' intended purpose, to achive a specific, normally forbidden, result; the (possibly) forbidden result of an application is the defining factor in calling the action "bad". In modern society, most knowledge is handed down from an "expert"- a teacher, book, or paid advertisment; however, this knowledge will carry the bias of the originator and it is neccesary to consult other sources in order to gain a clear understanding of the topic at question. The least biased source is, of course, direct observation (in this case only personal bias will color the data); in the worst case scenario, this observation will require the application of some set of "bad" skills, since knowlege is desired of the full range of system interactions (and since one or more result of the interaction is "bad", such knowledge is not offered by the "experts"). This "forbidden" knowledge, if lawfully gained, could then be applied toward the creation of improved products or disseminated to raise awareness of an unannounced fact (flaw in a product or theory) which in turn helps keep the "experts" accountable for their proclamations. These beneficial uses (firsthand, and thus communal, expansion of knowlege but more importantly accountability of "experts") of almost every potentailly "bad" skill set more than outweigh the possible negative consequences of dissemination (someone using this knowledge to commit a crime).
If you think I missed something or flubbed it, you can take your shot too [at me or the question, but it would be far more interesting if you attack the question].
Read my response to some of the other comments I've gotten today in this discussion!!!
Or if you're too lazy to be bothered, here's the short-to-a-fault version: the price of Free (libre) software is forced education. That's fair, compared to the price of retail software, IMO.
Correct me (politely, please!) if I'm wrong, but isn't modern economic theory based on the scarcity of goods? If nothing else, the last time this story got posted, we should have realized what a load of bunk this is.
/. oxidant "Eric S Raymond" and poof! Flames.
I don't know the numbers, but I'm sure that if I went and crunched them we would see that assuming growth trends remained the same the per-capita of Norrath would soon (5-10 years) be higher than all real countries. That is, assuming their economic model doesn't implode because they're stuck with surplusses.
Wait a minute! Maybe this isn't so irrelevant to real life after all. All I have to do is, while stating the obvious, use the magic words "Gift culture" and "software paralells" in the same sentence as the magic
On second thought, I kindof prefer having a high karma than a real discussion here. Perhaps some AC will do the honors?
I hate these stickers after a really bad experience with a case power supply.
One day, my trusty case power supply just gave up on me. "Oh well," I thought, "Must have blown a fuse." (I was pulling some serious power through the poor thing.)
So with gleeful abandon I grabbed the nearest sharp, pointy tool and began to remove screws. I carefully grounded and opened up the power supply to change the fuse- Lo And Behold, the stupid thing was soldered in place!
I hope this short, true satire shows why I distrust any company handing me the black box syndrome. If you don't want me inquiring as to how it works, don't sell/rent/loan it to me; and don't think strange headed screws are a detterent- I just love a challenge >:-). Furthermore, never scream at me (even in legalese) about how I wasn't supposed to look inside- you aren't supposed to sell me junk. (There may be no legal constraint, but doing so is a good way to get boycotted. Just ask Microsoft, Universal Music, or Intel: they top my list.)
I wouldn't normally respond to someone who takes your tone. Usually, I try to only write 95% of the reason- and leave the last 5% as "an exercize for the reader"- but apparently this didn't help you at all. So I will, for I hope is the only time, ennumerate the exact layout of my reasoning.
I want to state clearly before I begin: I am not trying to convince you that I am right. Your tone was offensive- you insinuated I was speaking unfounded falsehoods- that single unspoken point is what I plan to refute. You do not need to agree with me when I finish, just admit that my point of view is as valid as yours.
On with the explanation.
In response to my comments on virii: Uhh... maybe since it only has 0.24% of the desktop market share, it would make no sense to write a virus for it.... When will you twits realize this and quit comparing everything to Win95?
There are two things I would like to mention in clarification of my statement. First- that quarter of a percent figure is highly dubious- as it was gleamed from brower hits. If you reread that discussion, you will find a great many people disagree with that statistic. I do not claim to know what the real percentage is, but keep your 'damn lies' to yourself ("There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." - Benjamin Disrali). [By that last statement I mean: if you continue to quote that figure, it will only worsen your credibility.]
My second point is that no, I am not basing my arguments upon Win95 or Win98. Look around you: the latest versions of windows (Win2K, XP) were based on the NT codebase and anything I say about them does not carry the 95/98 heritage. And I tell you, for the average user, they are just as virus dangerous as any other version of Windows. Outook still is the premiere virus and worm carrier- the latter do not care about user privledges. Flaws also exist within the default user controls, because XP has its' default user login set to administrative privledges- meaning all users, by default, get root-equivalent privledges unless set otherwise. Even were this not true, the Nimbda and Code Red viruses proved that even Microsoft's server code- which I assume was properly configured with reguard to user access controls- was easily exploited. Until these security issues are resolved, viruses will flourish on Windows as they do on no other platform. And it is my personal belief that the DOS heritage that Microsoft still caries will prevent proper resolution of these issues.
True or false, it is what I believe. I hope you now understand the intent of my first statement.
In response to my comment on crashes:but I've never had an NT crash that brought down the whole box.... Only time you'll EVER encounter a BSOD on NT is if you have serious hardware/driver issues.
I am sorry to burst your bubble. When I have used NT - to be specific, Win2000- I have encountered system-halting errors that brought the box to its' knees. The system flat stopped responding. While it was possible to pull up the task list, the system would not halt the offending process, permit me to begin new processes, nor permit a reboot. It was neccesary to toggle power to get it to return to a normal state of operations.
This was not casued by a driver conflict (reading a CD-RW is not a driver conflict), nor did a BSOD ever appear: the system just "froze" for over 15 minutes (so I assure you this was not a timeout). Even with the worst X processes I have encountered (foolish attempts to make WINE work where keyboard and mouse input are stolen), it was still possible to SSH into the machine from another and kill the offending process(es). That would not have worked in the case I experienced with Windows 2000.
True to most cases or not, these have been my experiences. And as such, it forms the basis of my opinion- stated in my second point.
With reguard to program features: I forgot that Microsoft and Sun developers aren't users either. As far as having to dig into a text file or recompile the code myself to get at these "useful features," no thank you. Also, what "useful features" are you talking about?
Hmm. Perhaps my phrasing of this point was poor. I will begin anew, following the pattern of the first two explanations, and hope I end up with something more appealing to your tastes.
Microsoft's and Sun's developers are users. However, they are not the target audience of the majority of their products (Office, Outlook, Windows). These products are designed for the lowest common denominator- the people with the least computing experience- and not the power users that generally use *BSD or Linux as a workstation. I do not need to explain how the experience of a new user and a frequent user differ, do I? For the power user, the features of these systems are but pale imitations of what is done in Linux and other Free (libre) software- because they are designed to assist the power user, not the new user.
Ah, and you ask me to list features. That I will refrain from doing- it is my opinion that in light of the above paragraph it may very easily become an insult to your intelligence. To hold off a snide retort, I will list only one difference between Windows and Linux that is a very helpful feature and is nearly omnipresent: regular expression pattern matching. [I warned you!]
I hope you now understand that what I said may not have been quite what I meant, and I hope my opinion on this matter is clearer.
With reguards to technical support:Basically the difference between being told to 'RTFM' and live humanoid technical support.
Unpaid volunteers do not have to put up with stupidity; hence stupid questions get a very curt responce. This occurs in the commercial software world too: remember the tech support joke that ends "Pack your computer back up and return it; tell them you're too dumb to own one"? Fielding a stupid question is irritating whether or not you are paid (but being an unpaid volunteer, Linux folks strike back). Freedom is never zero cost; the cost of using free software is that of forced education.
The difference in educational materials is vast. On one hand we have Windows for Dummies (the title alone reveals who that's marketed to) and the Windows help files (which does not help me very frequently: I never can find what I need nor does the information provided answer any of my questions), and on the other hand there are man pages and the Linux Documentation Project- which if you read both of and follow the instructions will help solve 99% of the most common, and several uncommon, problems. And here is where the difference really shows: when you have read the Friendly Manual (and/or HOWTO), if you still have an intelligent question, not only are further references provided, free of charge, but asking about it on the Internet will gardner serious, insightful help from more experienced users. Woe into you, however, if your question is "HELP! HOW DO I TYPE LOWER CASE LETTERS?" for you will be derided as the clueless idiot you are. (If you can't find the shift or capslock keys, what are you doing online?)
The relevant difference in support is not one of quality- for in either case looking in the right places will get you the answer you want- but of attitude. Commercial support is given grudingly and may carry (sometimes hefty) fees; Linux's community support is willingly and freely given (unless you call a distrobution vendor). No question is too great to get an answer (but all the small ones are answered in the Very Friendly Manual. Why are you using our product and not reading the manual?)
With further reguards to support: It's all about money, and not about furthering technology. They're out to get you, those evil bastards. That must explain the transition from NT 3.51 to 4 to 2000 to XP.
I am sorry that you, with your bias, were unable to read beyond my bias and understand what I was attemting to say. Again I apologize: this time I can see where my brevity prevented my true meaning from being clear. Therefore, I hope you will understand the following longer explanation of my views.
Have you seen the demotivational poster for Consulting? The tagline is: "If you aren't part of the solution, there's good money to be made in prolonging the problem." Unfortunatly, the Microsoft anti-trust suit showed how true this statement is. Microsoft wanted to provide the solution to everyone's problem. OS? Windows. Browser? Explorer. Productivity? Office. Server? IIS. ISP? MSN. They don't want a piece of the pie, they want to own the pie (and oven and doughmaker and farm and...). Even were they not to be so flagrant in their behavior, the very nature of capitalism demands that a company be able to show a positive cash flow. This means they must either sell a product that is consumed by use (like razor blades), sell a service (like a doctor), "lease" their product (as cable companies technically do) or continually sell newer, "better" (in quotes solely to indicate a lack of value judgement) products like automobile makers.
I withold stating a judgement of any but the last. I do not plan to continue to pay a company because "this time we got it right"; in any industy but software, when the company does it wrong they swiftly lose customer loyalty. And commercial software, by far and large, has lost my support- because they expect me to pay them when they fix a known mistake.
Upon that argument I base my support of free (gratis) software. If you didn't get it right before, I sure don't trust you to do it right this time. However, since Free (libre) software has shown a far greater reliablilty than software from other vendors, it still has my financial support (and yes, I do buy distro CDs from time to time; the printed manuals make it worth my dollars).
And in response to my comment about protocols:people listened to Hitler too because they thought he was interesting and had something which sounded like a great idea at the time. But we all know how that turned out.
{Spock-like, a single eyebrow lifts} Facinating. Rather than attempt to refute this point, you change the subject and attack me personally. If nothing else you had to say were to go toward my opinion of you, this alone would make me think you a troll. (That is NOT a moderation hint!)
{Sigh} What I meant was that if after all of the previous topics, you still had a receptive audience, then you go ahead and hit them with the double-barreled shotgun blast- a point so strong, even you shirk from denying the implicit charges.
And now, sir, if you wish, we can take this to a more appropriate place- for that promised entry into my journal is up. Anyone is free to respond to any portion of this message in that forum; I will recieve notification of your post and reply with all due speed (and the same respect as is found within this very message).
Never confuse distro X with Linux. Go over to the Linux From Scratch page- Linux can be very small indeed when custom tailored to its' environment. When the distros try to be 'one solution for everyone' they are guaranteed - proven thanks to Microsoft - that bloat will inevitably ensue.
As a counterpoint- I don't want to argue *BSD versus Linux - nor KDE versus GNOME - nor EMACS versus Vi. Can't we realize that these differences empower us- indeed, challenge us- to find the 'most superior' solution? After all, without a struggle, there can be no change.
- how it frees you from the threat of virii becuase proper security was designed in from the start and has always been a priority.
- how nice it is to be free from crash worries: that even when it happens, it never takes down the whole box [unless you like riding the bleeding edge odd-dot-numbered kernels or it was a kernel crash, but you needn't mention those cases].
- how the Free (libre) software gives you more useful features, because the developers are also users.
- tell them the difference in technical help between people who want to empower you and those who wish to enslave you to their corporate budget.
- what it means that one person can't determine when your software is outdated or irrelevant, just to get a few more dollars.
And if they're still listening, explain the difference between proprietary and open protocols and why the proposed Microsoft settlement can only encourage Microsoft to develop more proprietary protocols [full text explaination to hit my journal this evening: short reason is because even though it is an illegal extension of their monopoly it wasn't forbidden to them].This is why my "live PVR" is a Linux box. During the ad cycles of the few shows I watch, I can post to Slashdot!
Second, who trusts the removal links?
I do, if and only if the mail comes from someone who doesn't spoof headers and send pr0n... in other words, a respectable business who should know better than sending me mass mailings.
Somehow I feel that optimum security and optimum privacy are not achievable simultaneously? [Please comment -- I might have confused myself]
Hmm. Security and privacy being mutually incompatabile? My, my, I can't help but ask where that places crypto in the equation.
"Perfect" security and privacy measures go hand in hand. And (surprise, surprise) take the same single basic element to implement. Every administarator/user has to care. A Linux or *BSD box can be just as easy to hack as a NT/2K one if the same shoddy security procedures are used on both. Default password? Hacked. Buffer overruns? Hacked. And those are the common ones.
The problem with Windows is the glossy UI and crappy certification system that fail to emphasise the value of a proactive security stance (and outline what comprises such).
I don't know... to me, chain letters are spam. How about just "bulk addressed unsolicited email?" Then it doesn't matter if you're selling anything or not; if you send a message to many people and they didn't ask for it, then it's spam.
I think you've just made my point. Linux is fine, if you can get access to the source code/protocols/documentation and time to rework the system. But the only place where such things are more tightly held than the Business sector is the Goverment.
I too speak from experience. I work for the Air Force. And while we have specialty software even more whacked than yours, I am unable to even mention the name. So how long do you think a rewrite to Linux would take under those circumstances?
All thoughts of their past products aside, who really is going to trust Microsoft? They are a convicted monopolist; we've seen from the evidence how their mental level does not exceed the school yard bully, beating up weaker kids for their lunch money. This attitude locks them into a win/lose philosophy (when we win, you lose).
It doesn't matter what sort of clothes they wear or how pretty they smile, when the bully comes around the next day, the kids run and sream in terror. They know the bully only wants to get them backed into a corner; what makes us treat Microsoft any different?
The big Fortune 500 companies - the ones who can afford "$100M invested into their custom accounting/billing solution" - I would expect to be slow to change, just to maximize their investment. So I wouldn't be surprised at all if they were the second-to-last sector to switch to Linux (government being the one organization I would expect to see running Windows longer; if they buy $400 hammers they'll think .NET is secure).
And if the articles have only pointed to the "standard desktop and backend server apps" so far, it's because those are the ones that need to be talked about. Not everyone will have the same worries about custom code: moving from solaris to Linux is different from moving Windows => Linux which is different from miving OS/2 => Linux. What the managers want to hear is that the Word documents they run the company with will be available after they no longer use Word.
And as far as articles about moving custom code goes, there are two prime reasons we may not have seen them. First is the question of whether the code may be discussed: if it concerns a trade secret, the owners probably do not want to report about it- especially if trade secret code is moving to an Open Source OS! Secondly the port may not be considered newsworthy- if subsumed into a general hardware upgrade, the efforts of porting might be difficult to discern from those of the general transition.