Going by what the article says
The Audio Tracks are encrypted, and only normal CD players would be able to play them.
Well...there's "encrypted" and encrypted. I can wager a guess as to which one this one is. If your audio CD player had no hardware/software to decrypt the music (and all of my audio CD players are old) how can it possibly be encrypted?
Also, it looks like the music on the media can be easily shared anyway:
...and a duplicate set of tracks in the Windows Media format. These can be downloaded from the CD to a computer and then transferred to portable devices or recorded to home CDs.
If I can burn the music onto a CD, it would serve to reason that I could just rip from there...or can you only burn the WMV files to a CD?
See, the problem for writers, and for many other professions, including programmers, is that we have to work inside our heads and we need to focus on our thoughts. Distractions are our enemy, it keeps us from inspiration.
Your example shows exactly what I mean. It's not a fault of the tool that the operator can't exhibit enough discipline to properly use it. Maybe you've got a point -- but in this case, your example isn't very good. I mean, even if writer uses a pencil and paper, he can still shove the pencil up his ass and chew on the paper all day while pondering his navel instead of doing the work in front of them. One could even misuse their tool (the computer) to reply to Slashdot posts all day instead of getting their job done.
It's a technical art...like properly tuning an instrument (scientific or musical).
My point exactly...this is the historical resistance to technology that I was speaking of.
To get t oyour point, this is an old argument...and I'm not going all that far into -- it's a huge can of worms. (However, I can infer from your post that you're probably not a photographer). Fortunately, I belive that the argument is mostlymoot, since most educational institutions now recgonize photography as a fine art.
To make an analogy to photography, the author is compairing Word (and most other word processor programs) to fully automatic cameras. While they might be usefull for the average snapshot photographer, they are of little use to someone like Ansel Adams, whose artwork demands complete control of the camera and freedom from unanted distractions of the tool trying to "fix" a problem that doesn't exist.
It is neither fair nor accurate to broadly label all "creative people" as being resistant to technology. For every person who is perfectly happy using "old" means to create art, someone else is intrigued by new technology and starts to create art using those new tools. (There was a recent article in Wired discussing how David Byrne used Microsoft PowerPoint to create visual art, for example.)
Read the post...I didn't broadly label anyone. I believe that I said something like "a large fraction of creative people"...and in my experience, it's true (well, on a subjective level). Like you said -- it's an old debate. If it wasn't true, photography would have been widely accepted as a fine art 50 years earlier!
I see your point about it not coming down to what is art and what isn't -- but I think it plays a role in this case. I mean -- alot of these "I use a pencil or nothing" folks just seem stubborn. They may have their reasons, but I think that a large part of these people are just jumping on the bandwagon. I'm feeling cynical enough today to say that alot of these people could do just fine with a word procesor, but since some other well-established writers damned it, they'll look a little more professional to just nod their head.
In my experience, the tool really affects the creative output in a hard-to-define way
I absolutely agree with you. My comment, however, was concerning the rate at which new tools are accepted as "OK" by the creative community.
The music scene is a little different, but there are some parallels. Some folks embraced the early analog synthesizers, some didn't...but 25 years later, the sound is now "classic". Companies are starting to remanufacture those old machines -- because they're finally being loked at for what they are -- a tool (so to speak). (And let's face it, you had to be somewhat of an artist to get the right sound out of any of those old Moog's before you even began to play -- presets...pfft).
An electric light does not distract you from writing. Spending an hour setting up a stylesheet does.
Hmm...I can't tell you the last time I spent an hour setting up a stylesheet to write a book/essay/thesis/whatever. I don't do that. All it takes is discipline to just write, then format later...or even send to your publisher to format.
I'm not sure what you took from my comment...are you arguing just for the sake of arguing? All I said was that creative folks, for whatever reason, are slow to accept new technology. Not a commentary on paying Microsoft for a product (where the hell did you get that one?).
Creative people seem to be among the most resistant to new technologies and/or meduims brought about by technology. The word processor is just one example...but how long did it take photography to be accepted as a fine art? (I'm sure that there are photographers out there right now that will argue that it still hasn't).
A large fraction of those same photographers who are shaking their heads right now -- they refuse to accept digital photography as an artistic medium. Furthermore, much of the other digital "art" mediums have yet to be accepted...what about 3D rendering? This is surely an art form, but is not widely accepted. The demo scene is another that is not embraced by the artsy world.
The point is that the artistic types will tend to cling to their ways...who knows why. But it doesn't seem like, as a group, creative folks tend to enbrace new technology (or in this case a pretty damn old one, like a word processor) I wonder if it's alright to use an electric light Vs. a candle to write?
--Turkey
Re:this is great but...you're not reading the resu
on
Athlon 64 Debuts
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
if the OS, AND the Apps run 64bit - i'll buy one...till then, i'll stick with my original thunderbird, 1.4ghz.
If you actually want the industry (and 64-bit computing as a whole) to move forward -- then go out and buy a chip...if nobody buys these because no OS/Software manufacturer writes 64-bit code, then there will be big trouble for little AMD. The idea was to build a chip that runs 32 and 64 bit code very quickly. What it sounds like you're saying is that you're waiting for Intel to release a 64-bit chip so that everyone optimizes their code for that. I, for one would rather back the company who was innovative and was first to market with a pretty cool product than the biggest guy on the block (er...industry...whatever).
From the benchmarks I've seen -- it does a pretty damn good job at both 32 and 64 bit code (especially for a first release without a good 64-bit clean codebase). It manages to beat the existing 3.2 Ghz P4 for cheaper.
I hear what you're saying about waiting on at least one level though -- I can't remember ever spending $400 on a CPU, but I'm confident that in 6 months, those things will be selling for quite a bit less than they are now...they'll be a good bargain.
Finally, I have a 1.4Ghz Thunderbird as my primary desktop. At this point, it should be called a 1.4Ghz Shitbird. I intend to replace it -- the only questions are: when, and replace with what? I know that if I decide to get an Athlon64-ish chip, I won't be making that decision based on whether or not there are 64-bit apps/OS'es for it. For what you pay, it works great...I'll make my decision based on price:performance ratio on what's available now...and from what I can see, it already shines against a much more mature platform.
Actually, it's not clear to me that A should be punished at all. It was B who did the crime and B should be responsible for his own actions. B had the choice to refuse. He chose to kill C. A should not be responsible for B's choice even if A hired B (If A forced B to kill C that would be an other matter. In this case B would be innocent).
This analogy just doesn't work here. In your example, someone is hiring someone else to kill. The killer is an agent of person A, thus they are co-conspirators and share responsibility. By your logic, Adolf Hitler, and Milosovich should not be held responsible for the actions of their military.
Further, your example doesn't apply here, because neither the game nor its publisher paid anyone to kill (they don't even tell anyone to kill). It's a fantasy game...pure entertainment. Do you see the difference between the two?
My 2c worth: Fix the planes - turning off the mobiles just hides the problem. The only defence against this is to harden the plane's electronics so that it can withstand this sort of thing.
I was thinking the same thing. I mean, who designed these critical systems to be so sensitive to EMI (or whatever interference is in question). Is it impossible to properly shield this equipment?
I see this as an opportunity to fix a major weak spot in our transportation safety. The long-term smart decision is not more legislature limiting what airline passengers can and can't do -- but fix the weakness in the system.
I fear that there will be more discussion about this issue than action -- mostly about who will foot the bill (the taxpayer or the commuter).
One way or the other, we (the commuters/taxpayers) will get the shaft for (what I view as) a multi-level failure of aircraft/equipment manufacturers, airlines, and regulating bodies. How many years has this been an issue already? What's happened since then?
Yah, you're right. I don't know where the hell that came from. I must have been reading is as opinion instead of "the way it is". What can I say? My foot's in my mouth.
Like I said, I'm not an LDAP expert (by any stretch of the imagination). I had some setup problems and placed a support call. They were unable to help me get it up and running (they said that thir LDAP developer was no longer with the company, and there was not anyone there to help me with LDAP-specific issues).
Further, because they could not support it, they recommended against using it. In the enterprise, I go by the rule of support. If there is no commercial support available for a package, you need to have a large enough staff to troubleshoot it and fix bugs...otherwise, stay away.
Again, they were really helpful where they could be, and their product(s) are excellent. But LDAP support is somewhat flakey.
1) Replace Gentoo with RedHat. Gentoo is wonderful for a learner and enthusiast trying to squeeze the last drop of performance, but for a production machine, run an OS that is widely used and its problems discussed. You might later want to use other apps on the mail server and RedHat expands your horizon (Ive known all too many proprietary apps that are released for RedHat and SuSE only).
Right on target. I promise -- if you use Gentoo for long enough, you will encounter problems. That's not to say anything particularly bad about Gentoo -- I love it, but it is bleeding edge. It's like having a homebrewed Linux distro...and that's how I'd consider it for a production environment: when I have a large enough team to properly support and test it. For business use, go with the big boys, RH, Debian, or SUSE.
(2) Reconsider using Ms Outlook and contemplate using a webmail solution for virus and worm protection. MS Outlook (or other client side MS-based mail clients) are the only reason to insist on getting an IMAP server I'm assuming.
Most folks don't have this choice. When your EU demands Outlook, you're stuck with Outlook. This is how I ended up running IMAP at my current position. The point is, it's a bad idea to dictate this kind of stuff to your EU's. These are the people who you work for. Alot of admin-types tend to forget this.
I run SqWebmail here for the webmail types, and courier-IMAP for the Outlook/ types. It's an adequate solution for what my users demanded.
...the OpenBSD team don't have a problem with the Postfix license anymore
Woah! Are you basing your comment on how you feel, or how the OpenBSD team feels? Because if your feelings on qmail reflect that of Theo DeRaadt, I'd be pretty quick to dismiss them. DeRaadt and DJB have had a long history of conflicts. In both cases, these are opinionated, adversarial guys -- and I take what they say with a grain of salt. As far as licensing issues with Qmail, some would consider it a strength (central ownership the final distribution from start to finish). Further, one could make very similar coments to yours about the viral GPL (or, for that matter, the BSD license) and be about as right as you -- but that would sound a whole lot like MS and/or SCO -- know what I mean?
Courier-IMAP lets you authenticate by just about any means you see fit. System, userdb, LDAP, PostgreSQL, MySQL, and probably more.
FWIW, Courier-IMAP's (for that matter, all of Inter7's stuff including vpopmail) LDAP support is crappy at best. It didn't help that I am not an LDAP expert...but their support staff wasn't able to help much with it either.
Don't get me wrong, the folks at Inter7 are fine people, who released a suite of fine products...but don't expect miracles from their LDAP stuff -- in fact, they recommend against using it. OTOH, they highly recommend their PostgreSQL/MySQL auth, especially for larger sites.
Corporations have WAY too much control over the legal process and society. They're wielding their greed-drunk power without any thought for anything except their profit.
As yet our actual politicians are doing virtually nothing to stop these criminals. I mean someone who embezzles thousands of dollars from a company is almost always given significant jail time, but a CEO who robs all the shareholders of billions barley gets any punishment. And Martha Stewart is held up as a convienient scapegoat cause everyone hates her anyway.
It just goes to show you who the government really represents, regardless of party.
What are you talking about? You mention Martha Stewart as a scapegoat, but where is the CEO of (I forget the exact details, his name, the pharma company's name) that corporation now? Jail...for a loooooong time. There's much more to that story, and Eliott Spitzer is doing exactly what you're asking for (and most say that it's not his job and he's gone too far). Are you interested in the facts, or did you just want to take some time out to bash corporations? Have you ever heard the term "it's the economy, stupid"? If you regulate the shit out of all companies because there are a few fucks out there who are lawlessly greedy, it will ruin our economy...and doing that will mean that (if you're an American) your lifestyle will not be so sustainable.
Now, back to the SCO discussion, this is not a corporation coming down to screw you over. This is a case of a corporation fucking over other (large) corporations. If you feel the way you do, why should you care at all? Let them all burn, right?
It is true, however, that a properly implemented DRM protocol with appropriate permissions would pretty much negate the possibility of whistle-blowing.
On the other hand, taking out the Microsoft Windows Rights Management server would make a very entertaining target. Hose the machine, you might be able to lock everyone in the corporation out of their documents. Now that could be interesting...
I still doubt that DRM, in and of itself will negate anything. People still have to use the technology. Think of it this way, most people don't use 95% of the features in MS Word. That means that for most people, features like access/revision control will never see the light of day. This is very similar to encryption in the latest revisions of NTFS with builtin encryption. Very few people use it, and most people who use it don't use it effectively (ie, private keys are typically left on the machine -- ready to exploit). Just because a feature exists doesn't mean that it's widely used by anyone and everyone.
Sure, it could negate the possibility of whistleblowing...but come on! It doesn't mean that everyone will use it, and it also doesn't mean that everyone who is "evil" will use this for "evil" purposes.
Finally, if a DRM server is properly backed up, the folks who just lost access to their documents will have them back by the end of the day...regardless of the attack on the server. They'll probably promptly remove any encryption on any essential documents that aren't super-secret.
...any encrypted document they have is "Permanently" gone...
I'm not sure what you're arguing here. How many people actually use that feature? How many people use the access control currently implemented in MS Office? If you are so against encryption to keep "whistleblowers" effective, why do you care about security at all? Stop patching your system, take down your firewall, open up all of your ports, and run public services on ports that you don't need that give access to all files on your hard drive.
Why won't you do this? Because
A. You give a shit about your privacy
B. You're worried about people destroying your documents.
Point is, everyone has a right to protect their privacy. Right? Just because somebody is a corporation doesn't mean that their rights are out the window. In fact, a privately held corporation is allowed to operate in complete secrecy from you. Sure, they still need to produce audited financials for Uncle Sam...but otherwise, they don't have to disclose a damn thing. One last time, you're rehashing an ethical issue for every cryptographer and/or coder who implements cryptographic products...and I don't think that you fully understand the issue. Do some reading and take a class (preferably a seminar) that covers ethics in encryption and then make your argument.
Indeed, a signature does not require encryption of the document, but most implementations of this concept can encrypt documents (ala public key+RSA). GPG/PGP is really what I had in mind with the example given (since they're currently among the most widespread encryption packages). What I was arguing was for the whole package and it's use of public key implementations.
...when those agencies fail. Enron was doing its thing for a number of years, before the whistle was blown on them. Oh, you don't remember that?
Well, tell you what... You go an pick up the recent book written by the two Wall Street Journal reporters that broke the Enron story and subsequently brought most of what we know about Enron's dealings into the light and read about how they found out about what happened... It started with a little whistle that lead to the downfall of one of the most corrupt corporate structures developed in the United States.
There are many hundreds if not thousands of cases where whistleblowers have opened up the rest of the populace to illegal, dangerous and highly immoral behaviors of hundreds upon hundreds of corporations. Go to your public library and ask the librarian to help you locate information regarding such court cases, they will be more then helpful in assisting you.
So, because there are whistleblowers out there who stumble onto leaked documents, we shouldn't have encryption available to us? I think it's time to check your head.
Strong encryption has uses that tend to go beyond sending a document from person A to person B without person C reading it. What if person B wants to verify that the document is original, unaltered, and sent when it claims to be? Can you think of any reliable way to do that without strong encryption?
I understnd the fundamentals of your argument and like I said, it's an ethical obligation of every cryptographer/coder/etc to think about what it is that they're doing, who will benefit, and how it will be used. One way or the other, you're missing alot of points in your argument (it's been made before). Without addressing those or showing any greater understanding of the topic at large, it's clear that you're prematurely judging this.
Now, if we had a culture of doing the right thing, being honest and trusting, then there would be no issue with having such DRM capabilities being built into an office software package... Of course, that kind of feature would never be used in such a world as there wouldn't be any reaon, if people could be trusted.
So you're anti-DRM...but what you wrote seems anti-crypto too. Is crypto OK to use just so long as "evil corporations" stay away from it? Crypto is for everyone...plain-old-folks-like-you-and-me, scientists, inventors, admin assistants, doctors, lawyers, salesfolk, plumbers, students, and yes -- corporate officers. Did you have the same reaction when PGP or GPG was released? It isn't like this is the first crypto to come to the Windows world. "Bad people" could've had their hands on it before just now. If this comes down to your not liking MS' implementation of it, don't use it. Otherwise, everyone who has ever written an encryption scheme for general consumption has had to think about the repercussions of "bad people" using it...and again, it's not like it wasn't available before (and it's been done quite well -- so well, that I do not believe that the NSA is able to break much of it).
In your rationale for keeping DRM away from businesses you point to their general dishonesty. It seems like you're suggesting that every officer at every company is corrupt...and I don't think that you could be any more wrong. Come on...is everyone who tries to sell a product or service (and make a buck in the long run) an evil empire run by an evil genius?
Sorry to vent this off onto you, but I'm getting kinda tired of the contention that every businessperson (and everything associated with it) being "evil". So some guys were (and are) dirty. Some psychiatrists take advantage of their patients to extort money and sex from them. Are they bastards? Sure -- but it does not say a single thing about the lot of them. How many executive officers do you know? How many of these people that you know (not know of, but actually know) are "evil corporate bastards"? Can you actually prove it?
I'm not asking you to go back to work and hug your CFO, but just think about what you're saying.
IANAEO
I Am Not An Executive Officer (or even close!)
I do use, and encourage the use of strong encryption for everyone.
-Turkey
P.S. Wouldn't this be alot easier if strong encryption just didn't work when the evil bit's set?
We have a negotiated package deal that includes special long distance rates as part of our contract. Our voice T1s are what power our business (we do telecom/voice services). So we can either kick in the extra $1200 a month for an entirely seperate T1, or dump the whole package and start over again (aka go out of business).
Looks like it's time to renegotiate your contract. I mean, if your tier 1 provider's business practices are causing some CTO of your customer's ISP to essentially ban you, instead of whining that you're losing customers, maybe you should either renegotiate your contract to make your customers happy, or find another provider, or some other solution. Given the same circumstances -- if your tier-1 ISP was supporting (insert "bad" thing here [does terrorism work?]) and were blacklisted by folks who didn't want their company to have anything to do with that network -- would you be so upset then? You'd do what you had to in order to make your customers happy. They shouldn't have to know about this stuff, that's your job.
Things change from the happy status-quo of the 80's Internet, and blackholes won't go away. Many people really hate having to cover the cost of someone else's advertising (see above paragraph). They're really pissed about this, and they'll do whatever they feel they can -- even if it affects you and your unsuspecting customers. Furthermore, you're in a vast minority of people who are adversely affected by this. Your business and network are specialized...In your situation, it's shitty -- sorry. But bitching and pointing your finger won't help. With the kind of T-age you mention above, I'm sure that you've got vendors up the wazoo who want to sell you service for cheap. (Even with a "channelized DS-3 with 18 voice T1s and two data T1s", you can easily find a vendor who would cream their shorts if you asked them to sell you the same service with no downtime -- maybe even save you enough money to eat the the termination penalties on your contract).
Finally, with bandwidth as cheap as it is, might I suggeset a potential solution for you: Go get a frac-T from a separate provider for $400/mo to use for SMTP only. If you need email to do business -- do what has to be done and get over it -- I'm sure that you've got more important things to do. Especially if you're losing more than that $400/mo in revenue (since you're losing customers over this) it doesn't sound like a tough decision. Now wait until your primary T contract expires and find something else.
The only reason I say all of this is because I hate it when folks blame someone else for all of their problems and sit on their ass and don't do a goddamn thing because they think they were wronged and deserve something. It doesn't work in your personal life, and it definitely doesn't work in business. I'm not trying to be a prick here -- it's not your fault, but it is your problem. That's business -- if you don't like it, quit your ops job and become a cable monkey.
(This should also answer your questions and comments with regards to the following:)
those of us who work in real business and have some idea of contracts and more levels of service than just a single data T1, have no choice but to laugh.
and
WHY should I be forced to change ISPs in order to email people who are "protected" by SPEWS but WANT to receive email from me? If they want to receive the email, how is SPEWS helping them?
I've considered qmail a few times, but Dan is such an abrasive prick that I just couldn't bring myself to use his software (the same can be said of Theo and OpenBSD). Check back through the qmail archives for some of his abusive responses to participants in the various qmail lists.
You show 'em! Maybe those bartards'll think next time they do something that you don't agree with. Ya know, they're not selling commercial products, so they're not taking on any financial losses from your boycott. Chances are that they're not developing software to make friends, or otherwise gain popularity with the Slashdot/Usenet/etc crowd.
Seriously though...that seems like an impractical attitude. Does that mean that because I don't agree with RMS' principles and goals, that I shouldn't use any GNU software?
Also, there's no need to have any contact with DJB, or DeRaadt to use their software. There's a decent support community out there. If one of these guys does write software that you need, and you use something inferior (or inappropriate) because you don't like them -- it's like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I use qmail (and in some cases, OpenBSD) not because of whether or not I like the authors, but because they are practical for some uses. If I choose a product for work because I like the author, and not based on other merits, I'd likely get fired.
However, your point about timely patches was not missed...It just seems like the larger point was that DJB and DeRaadt are pricks, and because of it, you don't want to use their stuff. It may do you good to consider using a "product" based on it's merits next time.
If I loan my car to a friend and he gets drunk and runs someone over, am I at fault? No, the police will want to know where I was for purposes of proving I was not driving the car, but I am not going to be charged with murder.
Umm...obviously, you've never lent your car out to someone who has crashed it. You are not criminally liable...but this is where your indemnification ends.
If your friend Bob borrows your car, runs a light, and kills a father of 6, the deceased's family can sue you for negligence as the owner of the car (you shouldn't have lent the car out to Bob -- he's a reckless drunk and you should have known better). I've seen it happen more than once, and am currently involved in a lawsiut of this nature (on the wrong end...good thing I'm insured). The MPAA can and will go after you in this case.
Slashdot Mirror
Well...there's "encrypted" and encrypted. I can wager a guess as to which one this one is. If your audio CD player had no hardware/software to decrypt the music (and all of my audio CD players are old) how can it possibly be encrypted?
Also, it looks like the music on the media can be easily shared anyway:
If I can burn the music onto a CD, it would serve to reason that I could just rip from there...or can you only burn the WMV files to a CD?Your example shows exactly what I mean. It's not a fault of the tool that the operator can't exhibit enough discipline to properly use it. Maybe you've got a point -- but in this case, your example isn't very good. I mean, even if writer uses a pencil and paper, he can still shove the pencil up his ass and chew on the paper all day while pondering his navel instead of doing the work in front of them. One could even misuse their tool (the computer) to reply to Slashdot posts all day instead of getting their job done.
My point exactly...this is the historical resistance to technology that I was speaking of.
To get t oyour point, this is an old argument...and I'm not going all that far into -- it's a huge can of worms. (However, I can infer from your post that you're probably not a photographer). Fortunately, I belive that the argument is mostlymoot, since most educational institutions now recgonize photography as a fine art.
An excellent analogy. I see your point.
Read the post...I didn't broadly label anyone. I believe that I said something like "a large fraction of creative people"...and in my experience, it's true (well, on a subjective level). Like you said -- it's an old debate. If it wasn't true, photography would have been widely accepted as a fine art 50 years earlier!
I see your point about it not coming down to what is art and what isn't -- but I think it plays a role in this case. I mean -- alot of these "I use a pencil or nothing" folks just seem stubborn. They may have their reasons, but I think that a large part of these people are just jumping on the bandwagon. I'm feeling cynical enough today to say that alot of these people could do just fine with a word procesor, but since some other well-established writers damned it, they'll look a little more professional to just nod their head.
"My bike is made out of lead, and I like it!"
I absolutely agree with you. My comment, however, was concerning the rate at which new tools are accepted as "OK" by the creative community.
The music scene is a little different, but there are some parallels. Some folks embraced the early analog synthesizers, some didn't...but 25 years later, the sound is now "classic". Companies are starting to remanufacture those old machines -- because they're finally being loked at for what they are -- a tool (so to speak). (And let's face it, you had to be somewhat of an artist to get the right sound out of any of those old Moog's before you even began to play -- presets...pfft).
Hmm...I can't tell you the last time I spent an hour setting up a stylesheet to write a book/essay/thesis/whatever. I don't do that. All it takes is discipline to just write, then format later...or even send to your publisher to format.
I'm not sure what you took from my comment...are you arguing just for the sake of arguing? All I said was that creative folks, for whatever reason, are slow to accept new technology. Not a commentary on paying Microsoft for a product (where the hell did you get that one?).
I'm not forcing anything down your throat. Am I?
Creative people seem to be among the most resistant to new technologies and/or meduims brought about by technology. The word processor is just one example...but how long did it take photography to be accepted as a fine art? (I'm sure that there are photographers out there right now that will argue that it still hasn't).
A large fraction of those same photographers who are shaking their heads right now -- they refuse to accept digital photography as an artistic medium. Furthermore, much of the other digital "art" mediums have yet to be accepted...what about 3D rendering? This is surely an art form, but is not widely accepted. The demo scene is another that is not embraced by the artsy world.
The point is that the artistic types will tend to cling to their ways...who knows why. But it doesn't seem like, as a group, creative folks tend to enbrace new technology (or in this case a pretty damn old one, like a word processor) I wonder if it's alright to use an electric light Vs. a candle to write?
If you actually want the industry (and 64-bit computing as a whole) to move forward -- then go out and buy a chip...if nobody buys these because no OS/Software manufacturer writes 64-bit code, then there will be big trouble for little AMD. The idea was to build a chip that runs 32 and 64 bit code very quickly. What it sounds like you're saying is that you're waiting for Intel to release a 64-bit chip so that everyone optimizes their code for that. I, for one would rather back the company who was innovative and was first to market with a pretty cool product than the biggest guy on the block (er...industry...whatever).
From the benchmarks I've seen -- it does a pretty damn good job at both 32 and 64 bit code (especially for a first release without a good 64-bit clean codebase). It manages to beat the existing 3.2 Ghz P4 for cheaper.
I hear what you're saying about waiting on at least one level though -- I can't remember ever spending $400 on a CPU, but I'm confident that in 6 months, those things will be selling for quite a bit less than they are now...they'll be a good bargain.
Finally, I have a 1.4Ghz Thunderbird as my primary desktop. At this point, it should be called a 1.4Ghz Shitbird. I intend to replace it -- the only questions are: when, and replace with what? I know that if I decide to get an Athlon64-ish chip, I won't be making that decision based on whether or not there are 64-bit apps/OS'es for it. For what you pay, it works great...I'll make my decision based on price:performance ratio on what's available now...and from what I can see, it already shines against a much more mature platform.
This analogy just doesn't work here. In your example, someone is hiring someone else to kill. The killer is an agent of person A, thus they are co-conspirators and share responsibility. By your logic, Adolf Hitler, and Milosovich should not be held responsible for the actions of their military.
Further, your example doesn't apply here, because neither the game nor its publisher paid anyone to kill (they don't even tell anyone to kill). It's a fantasy game...pure entertainment. Do you see the difference between the two?
I was thinking the same thing. I mean, who designed these critical systems to be so sensitive to EMI (or whatever interference is in question). Is it impossible to properly shield this equipment?
I see this as an opportunity to fix a major weak spot in our transportation safety. The long-term smart decision is not more legislature limiting what airline passengers can and can't do -- but fix the weakness in the system.
I fear that there will be more discussion about this issue than action -- mostly about who will foot the bill (the taxpayer or the commuter).
One way or the other, we (the commuters/taxpayers) will get the shaft for (what I view as) a multi-level failure of aircraft/equipment manufacturers, airlines, and regulating bodies. How many years has this been an issue already? What's happened since then?
Yah, you're right. I don't know where the hell that came from. I must have been reading is as opinion instead of "the way it is". What can I say? My foot's in my mouth.
--TurkeyLike I said, I'm not an LDAP expert (by any stretch of the imagination). I had some setup problems and placed a support call. They were unable to help me get it up and running (they said that thir LDAP developer was no longer with the company, and there was not anyone there to help me with LDAP-specific issues).
Further, because they could not support it, they recommended against using it. In the enterprise, I go by the rule of support. If there is no commercial support available for a package, you need to have a large enough staff to troubleshoot it and fix bugs...otherwise, stay away.
Again, they were really helpful where they could be, and their product(s) are excellent. But LDAP support is somewhat flakey.
Right on target. I promise -- if you use Gentoo for long enough, you will encounter problems. That's not to say anything particularly bad about Gentoo -- I love it, but it is bleeding edge. It's like having a homebrewed Linux distro...and that's how I'd consider it for a production environment: when I have a large enough team to properly support and test it. For business use, go with the big boys, RH, Debian, or SUSE.
Most folks don't have this choice. When your EU demands Outlook, you're stuck with Outlook. This is how I ended up running IMAP at my current position. The point is, it's a bad idea to dictate this kind of stuff to your EU's. These are the people who you work for. Alot of admin-types tend to forget this.
I run SqWebmail here for the webmail types, and courier-IMAP for the Outlook/ types. It's an adequate solution for what my users demanded.
Woah! Are you basing your comment on how you feel, or how the OpenBSD team feels? Because if your feelings on qmail reflect that of Theo DeRaadt, I'd be pretty quick to dismiss them. DeRaadt and DJB have had a long history of conflicts. In both cases, these are opinionated, adversarial guys -- and I take what they say with a grain of salt. As far as licensing issues with Qmail, some would consider it a strength (central ownership the final distribution from start to finish). Further, one could make very similar coments to yours about the viral GPL (or, for that matter, the BSD license) and be about as right as you -- but that would sound a whole lot like MS and/or SCO -- know what I mean?
FWIW, Courier-IMAP's (for that matter, all of Inter7's stuff including vpopmail) LDAP support is crappy at best. It didn't help that I am not an LDAP expert...but their support staff wasn't able to help much with it either.
Don't get me wrong, the folks at Inter7 are fine people, who released a suite of fine products...but don't expect miracles from their LDAP stuff -- in fact, they recommend against using it. OTOH, they highly recommend their PostgreSQL/MySQL auth, especially for larger sites.
What are you talking about? You mention Martha Stewart as a scapegoat, but where is the CEO of (I forget the exact details, his name, the pharma company's name) that corporation now? Jail...for a loooooong time. There's much more to that story, and Eliott Spitzer is doing exactly what you're asking for (and most say that it's not his job and he's gone too far). Are you interested in the facts, or did you just want to take some time out to bash corporations? Have you ever heard the term "it's the economy, stupid"? If you regulate the shit out of all companies because there are a few fucks out there who are lawlessly greedy, it will ruin our economy...and doing that will mean that (if you're an American) your lifestyle will not be so sustainable.
Now, back to the SCO discussion, this is not a corporation coming down to screw you over. This is a case of a corporation fucking over other (large) corporations. If you feel the way you do, why should you care at all? Let them all burn, right?
--TurkeyI still doubt that DRM, in and of itself will negate anything. People still have to use the technology. Think of it this way, most people don't use 95% of the features in MS Word. That means that for most people, features like access/revision control will never see the light of day. This is very similar to encryption in the latest revisions of NTFS with builtin encryption. Very few people use it, and most people who use it don't use it effectively (ie, private keys are typically left on the machine -- ready to exploit). Just because a feature exists doesn't mean that it's widely used by anyone and everyone.
Sure, it could negate the possibility of whistleblowing...but come on! It doesn't mean that everyone will use it, and it also doesn't mean that everyone who is "evil" will use this for "evil" purposes.
Finally, if a DRM server is properly backed up, the folks who just lost access to their documents will have them back by the end of the day...regardless of the attack on the server. They'll probably promptly remove any encryption on any essential documents that aren't super-secret.
I'm not sure what you're arguing here. How many people actually use that feature? How many people use the access control currently implemented in MS Office? If you are so against encryption to keep "whistleblowers" effective, why do you care about security at all? Stop patching your system, take down your firewall, open up all of your ports, and run public services on ports that you don't need that give access to all files on your hard drive.
Why won't you do this? Because
A. You give a shit about your privacy
B. You're worried about people destroying your documents.
Point is, everyone has a right to protect their privacy. Right? Just because somebody is a corporation doesn't mean that their rights are out the window. In fact, a privately held corporation is allowed to operate in complete secrecy from you. Sure, they still need to produce audited financials for Uncle Sam...but otherwise, they don't have to disclose a damn thing. One last time, you're rehashing an ethical issue for every cryptographer and/or coder who implements cryptographic products...and I don't think that you fully understand the issue. Do some reading and take a class (preferably a seminar) that covers ethics in encryption and then make your argument.
Sheesh!Indeed, a signature does not require encryption of the document, but most implementations of this concept can encrypt documents (ala public key+RSA). GPG/PGP is really what I had in mind with the example given (since they're currently among the most widespread encryption packages). What I was arguing was for the whole package and it's use of public key implementations.
Your correction is noted, however. Thanks!
So, because there are whistleblowers out there who stumble onto leaked documents, we shouldn't have encryption available to us? I think it's time to check your head.
Strong encryption has uses that tend to go beyond sending a document from person A to person B without person C reading it. What if person B wants to verify that the document is original, unaltered, and sent when it claims to be? Can you think of any reliable way to do that without strong encryption?
I understnd the fundamentals of your argument and like I said, it's an ethical obligation of every cryptographer/coder/etc to think about what it is that they're doing, who will benefit, and how it will be used. One way or the other, you're missing alot of points in your argument (it's been made before). Without addressing those or showing any greater understanding of the topic at large, it's clear that you're prematurely judging this.
So you're anti-DRM...but what you wrote seems anti-crypto too. Is crypto OK to use just so long as "evil corporations" stay away from it? Crypto is for everyone...plain-old-folks-like-you-and-me, scientists, inventors, admin assistants, doctors, lawyers, salesfolk, plumbers, students, and yes -- corporate officers. Did you have the same reaction when PGP or GPG was released? It isn't like this is the first crypto to come to the Windows world. "Bad people" could've had their hands on it before just now. If this comes down to your not liking MS' implementation of it, don't use it. Otherwise, everyone who has ever written an encryption scheme for general consumption has had to think about the repercussions of "bad people" using it...and again, it's not like it wasn't available before (and it's been done quite well -- so well, that I do not believe that the NSA is able to break much of it).
In your rationale for keeping DRM away from businesses you point to their general dishonesty. It seems like you're suggesting that every officer at every company is corrupt...and I don't think that you could be any more wrong. Come on...is everyone who tries to sell a product or service (and make a buck in the long run) an evil empire run by an evil genius?
Sorry to vent this off onto you, but I'm getting kinda tired of the contention that every businessperson (and everything associated with it) being "evil". So some guys were (and are) dirty. Some psychiatrists take advantage of their patients to extort money and sex from them. Are they bastards? Sure -- but it does not say a single thing about the lot of them. How many executive officers do you know? How many of these people that you know (not know of, but actually know) are "evil corporate bastards"? Can you actually prove it?
I'm not asking you to go back to work and hug your CFO, but just think about what you're saying.
IANAEO
I Am Not An Executive Officer (or even close!)
I do use, and encourage the use of strong encryption for everyone.
P.S. Wouldn't this be alot easier if strong encryption just didn't work when the evil bit's set?
Looks like it's time to renegotiate your contract. I mean, if your tier 1 provider's business practices are causing some CTO of your customer's ISP to essentially ban you, instead of whining that you're losing customers, maybe you should either renegotiate your contract to make your customers happy, or find another provider, or some other solution. Given the same circumstances -- if your tier-1 ISP was supporting (insert "bad" thing here [does terrorism work?]) and were blacklisted by folks who didn't want their company to have anything to do with that network -- would you be so upset then? You'd do what you had to in order to make your customers happy. They shouldn't have to know about this stuff, that's your job.
Things change from the happy status-quo of the 80's Internet, and blackholes won't go away. Many people really hate having to cover the cost of someone else's advertising (see above paragraph). They're really pissed about this, and they'll do whatever they feel they can -- even if it affects you and your unsuspecting customers. Furthermore, you're in a vast minority of people who are adversely affected by this. Your business and network are specialized...In your situation, it's shitty -- sorry. But bitching and pointing your finger won't help. With the kind of T-age you mention above, I'm sure that you've got vendors up the wazoo who want to sell you service for cheap. (Even with a "channelized DS-3 with 18 voice T1s and two data T1s", you can easily find a vendor who would cream their shorts if you asked them to sell you the same service with no downtime -- maybe even save you enough money to eat the the termination penalties on your contract).
Finally, with bandwidth as cheap as it is, might I suggeset a potential solution for you: Go get a frac-T from a separate provider for $400/mo to use for SMTP only. If you need email to do business -- do what has to be done and get over it -- I'm sure that you've got more important things to do. Especially if you're losing more than that $400/mo in revenue (since you're losing customers over this) it doesn't sound like a tough decision. Now wait until your primary T contract expires and find something else.
The only reason I say all of this is because I hate it when folks blame someone else for all of their problems and sit on their ass and don't do a goddamn thing because they think they were wronged and deserve something. It doesn't work in your personal life, and it definitely doesn't work in business. I'm not trying to be a prick here -- it's not your fault, but it is your problem. That's business -- if you don't like it, quit your ops job and become a cable monkey.
(This should also answer your questions and comments with regards to the following:)
and Anyway, just my 2 cents.You show 'em! Maybe those bartards'll think next time they do something that you don't agree with. Ya know, they're not selling commercial products, so they're not taking on any financial losses from your boycott. Chances are that they're not developing software to make friends, or otherwise gain popularity with the Slashdot/Usenet/etc crowd.
Seriously though...that seems like an impractical attitude. Does that mean that because I don't agree with RMS' principles and goals, that I shouldn't use any GNU software?
Also, there's no need to have any contact with DJB, or DeRaadt to use their software. There's a decent support community out there. If one of these guys does write software that you need, and you use something inferior (or inappropriate) because you don't like them -- it's like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I use qmail (and in some cases, OpenBSD) not because of whether or not I like the authors, but because they are practical for some uses. If I choose a product for work because I like the author, and not based on other merits, I'd likely get fired.
However, your point about timely patches was not missed...It just seems like the larger point was that DJB and DeRaadt are pricks, and because of it, you don't want to use their stuff. It may do you good to consider using a "product" based on it's merits next time.
Just a thought
Umm...obviously, you've never lent your car out to someone who has crashed it. You are not criminally liable...but this is where your indemnification ends.
If your friend Bob borrows your car, runs a light, and kills a father of 6, the deceased's family can sue you for negligence as the owner of the car (you shouldn't have lent the car out to Bob -- he's a reckless drunk and you should have known better). I've seen it happen more than once, and am currently involved in a lawsiut of this nature (on the wrong end...good thing I'm insured). The MPAA can and will go after you in this case.
IANAL