Well, there are a lot of Linux fanboys around here. Oh, I won't deny cheering for Linux whenever I can (I'm mostly a BSD guy, but it hasn't the glamour), but when I see a problem, I won't deny it. The GP got modded down after a while, because there are level-headed moderators too.
Ehm, you're confusing "slashdotters with experience" and "normal people". Normal people would most certainly write things like "dinner.com" or "restaurant.com", just to stay a bit more realist. The GP is right, Google changed the market. Domain names aren't as important as they used to be, search ranks are.
I do not know how you interpret this, but a rooted server, Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD or even Windows is also a "harmed" computer. Yes, clients will get infected, but the servers are in deep trouble too.
Goddamnit, I don't remember the joke.... It just illustrates this. Somehow a guy at a bar wants to get laid with the sexy blonde. Somehow she says makes clear that she wouldn't have sex with him for 5 million$. So he replies: we now know what you are, we just need to negociate on price.
Integrity goes away in a function of character and money, not character alone.
I have a coworker. He's a business analyst now. He's been a bigshot. 18h work a day, no private live. Sure he had a chauffeur, the nicest apartments in European Capitals.
He dropped all of it, sure he just make percentages of what he used to make. He's happier.... Guess what counts more.
Of course, you might be a completely different case. Perhaps you enjoy that kind of life
I have to add a fucking tag to say I'm compliant? That's insane.... Those that fuck up compliancy should be punished. Heck, no, if I specify XHTML strict, it should render strict. The doctype does say enough. Those who want to adhere to standards just say "strict" and that's it. We do not need an additional tag. The doctype is not broken as he says in the article. You fuckers broke it!
IE6's rendering behavior was not updated for five years, leading many developers to assume its rendering was both accurate and unlikely to change.
There you have it... It wasn't rendering accurately... Who's at fault, eh?
He's simply not realising that adding another tag will have the same effect as the doctype... And in 5 years will have a 4th rendering mode. Great! Long live standards, those that I can choose!
This is a misguided attempt of someone trying to keep backwards compatibility. The standards are open and published, adhere to them.
it is about the permissions on the use of the document itself.
So, it's not about DRM, but about permissions....
Anyway, the thing is: you want to secure data from an authorized person for a limited time. That is, by definition, not possible. Let's simply take the "Forward" scenario, you mentioned. The system will clearly not allow Copy/Paste because that would already defeat it. This is very well known and exists in Exchange/Outlook, which as you will note are closed proprietary platforms. Now, we're going to imagine that they are open source. Our corporate spy is a bit of a coder and gets the source of Outlook, which he now hacks to allow Copy/Paste (the "Forward" may be enforced by Exchange, but he could use his own mailserver to leak it... anyway, let's not drift off). Now somehow, he manages to install that version on his machine (if physical security is lax, but we could imagine it to be Mission Impossible style if you are inclined to do so) and pronto! Copy/Paste of a non-forwardable message, or alternatively (if he disabled the disallow-forward code) forward to a known mailserver in his control that will allow all forwards.
Anyway, this was a simple scenario. You can implement all this in open source, but it will be trivial to circumvent. DRM depends on closed source. Once data is visible on your computer, there is always a way to copy it. The email is currently visible? Well, a clear-text decryption exists somewhere in the memory of the computer. "Just" find the address.
DRM exists to make it harder, yes, but impossible.... Not on a cold day in hell.
I would include a hospital system where the accounting department can list what tests have been performed for you, but can't see what the actual test results are, as having DRM.
That's not DRM, that's simply proper access right management on a system/database. So, the user is authenticated and only that is checked. However, do realise that the accountant can take all the data he can see out of the database, and infinitely copy it, print it, email it, etc.... That's what digital rights management is about: to restrict more than Read/Write rights.
Access right management exists in open source implementations, but that's because they are basically authentication problems, which is "part of security". However, due to the nature of open source, anyone wanting so could make a postgresql/mysql or GNU/Linux that totally disregards access rights. As far as I know, the NTFS filesystems ACLs simply get ignored when mounted on a Linux machine. However, that doesn't help a potential attacker, because to use his "hacked up" software, he needs physical access to the server.
Heck, an ATM is a DRM system. you put in a card and a PIN, you have the 'right' to view your balances, withdraw some portion of them, etc..
No, this again is authentication. You use a token + password to authenticate yourself. (Security Token. Would you have full access to the computer on the ATM (you do not), you could do all you want with the data. Copy/Paste it, print it out, email it (if the thing is connected to the Internet, which I hope it isn't). So, again, no DRM. ATM security boils down to "secure the machine that it's tamper-proof" (physical security), authentication and finally encryption (connection to the database, and hopefully the database itself)
3"1/2 inch diskettes got their breakthrough with the IBM PS/2. Apple had nothing to do with it.
I give you USB... Apple pushed it hard, but screwed Firewire over by pushing USB too hard.
Diskette drives are still useful and often a pain in PC machines if they are not there.
Writeable CD and writeable DVD had nothing to do with Apple. I wrote CD's in 1995. It cost a lot of money, but everyone wanted one. I was simply an early adopter.
I know I'm playing the devils advocate here.... (being not very religious, I've been baptised Catholic, and I did marry before Church. Mainly because of my wife though and she really didn't have religious things in mind... anyway... offtopic)
I don't know of any religion that accepts "that's the way things are", they all try to say "no it's not! This is the result of our doing something!!"
Actually, they all accept the mantra "that's the way things are". They just accept the view from thousands years ago, where there wasn't a real explanation and someone made up a fairy tale. For them that "is the way things are". Knowledge, doesn't change, nor evolve for them. It just "is". Science on the other hand, evolves, corrects itself, gets better. They are unable to, because of the mantra "that's the way things are". Science works following the mantra "Now, that's odd... Why in the world would it behave like this? I need to look deeper into that".
Well, you're right about that. I never bought a Tanenbaum book until I graduated. (I now have all books, I wanted to have at University, but now I can buy them easily) My Profs all rolled their own. Still, I think that the price in the US is a result of the free market economy. Low demand = High Price. You can't really find that okay, can you? I mean, it would mean that really obscure books would cost 10000$ and never get printed again. What a loss for culture.
Are you sure that textbook prices aren't kept low because of German Laws? I mean, there isn't all that much demand for complicated Tanenbaum books, now is there? No wonder they are so expensive in free market conditions.
Well, American books follow the free market principle. The others don't. Doesn't that at least prove that books & free market are not a good combination?
I can only talk for myself, but I tend to record documentaries. Mainly because, when it becomes late and the documentary isn't finished but I absolutely have to go to bed (getting up early isn't easy for a night-owl like me), I just put in a DVD and hit record. Of course, I don't keep this stuff. It's just for timeshifting.
Arte, for example, has "theme-nights" where one particular theme is used for the whole evening. Could be, for example, about Charlie Chaplin. You get to see "Modern Times" and "The Dictator" and those movies are them complemented with documentaries setting them in their time. Just an example. I saw another one completely dedicated to space probes like Voyager, including "How to Communicate with Aliens, should we find them" (Carl Sagan's ideas, etc...)
So, I do find stuff worth watching. If I had BBC, I'm pretty sure I'd watch their documentaries. However, I have Google Video for that now;-)
And you have not paid attention to your "philosophy of science" classes. While verifying a theory, every time your theory confirms reality it is hardened a bit. That said, you will never be able to prove it 100% because for that you'd require an infinity of confirmations which of course not possible. Only falsification can prove a theory wrong, nothing can prove it right... What can be done it confirm it, which is what I did. Go study some Popper, mmkay?
Luxembourg... The market is not big enough. We always get technology 20 years later at 10x the price. Heck, our broadband was 256kbps/64kbps just a mere 5 years ago. Now it's 2048/192kbps, which is not stellar compared to our neighbours.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, there are a lot of Linux fanboys around here. Oh, I won't deny cheering for Linux whenever I can (I'm mostly a BSD guy, but it hasn't the glamour), but when I see a problem, I won't deny it. The GP got modded down after a while, because there are level-headed moderators too.
Ehm, you're confusing "slashdotters with experience" and "normal people". Normal people would most certainly write things like "dinner.com" or "restaurant.com", just to stay a bit more realist. The GP is right, Google changed the market. Domain names aren't as important as they used to be, search ranks are.
You're excused. Admitting you were wrong absolves you ;-)
I do not know how you interpret this, but a rooted server, Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD or even Windows is also a "harmed" computer. Yes, clients will get infected, but the servers are in deep trouble too.
Give it time.
Look at the title of the original painting. That should clear up things.
Goddamnit, I don't remember the joke.... It just illustrates this. Somehow a guy at a bar wants to get laid with the sexy blonde. Somehow she says makes clear that she wouldn't have sex with him for 5 million$. So he replies: we now know what you are, we just need to negociate on price.
Integrity goes away in a function of character and money, not character alone.
I have a coworker. He's a business analyst now. He's been a bigshot. 18h work a day, no private live. Sure he had a chauffeur, the nicest apartments in European Capitals.
He dropped all of it, sure he just make percentages of what he used to make. He's happier.... Guess what counts more.
Of course, you might be a completely different case. Perhaps you enjoy that kind of life
I have to add a fucking tag to say I'm compliant? That's insane.... Those that fuck up compliancy should be punished. Heck, no, if I specify XHTML strict, it should render strict. The doctype does say enough. Those who want to adhere to standards just say "strict" and that's it. We do not need an additional tag. The doctype is not broken as he says in the article. You fuckers broke it!
There you have it... It wasn't rendering accurately... Who's at fault, eh?
He's simply not realising that adding another tag will have the same effect as the doctype... And in 5 years will have a 4th rendering mode. Great! Long live standards, those that I can choose!
This is a misguided attempt of someone trying to keep backwards compatibility. The standards are open and published, adhere to them.
And that is a Troll, how?
Management... it's the beginning of all evil... They do earn more money, so if you want more $$$, go for it. Just be prepared to sell your integrity.
it is about the permissions on the use of the document itself.
So, it's not about DRM, but about permissions....
Anyway, the thing is: you want to secure data from an authorized person for a limited time. That is, by definition, not possible. Let's simply take the "Forward" scenario, you mentioned. The system will clearly not allow Copy/Paste because that would already defeat it. This is very well known and exists in Exchange/Outlook, which as you will note are closed proprietary platforms. Now, we're going to imagine that they are open source. Our corporate spy is a bit of a coder and gets the source of Outlook, which he now hacks to allow Copy/Paste (the "Forward" may be enforced by Exchange, but he could use his own mailserver to leak it... anyway, let's not drift off). Now somehow, he manages to install that version on his machine (if physical security is lax, but we could imagine it to be Mission Impossible style if you are inclined to do so) and pronto! Copy/Paste of a non-forwardable message, or alternatively (if he disabled the disallow-forward code) forward to a known mailserver in his control that will allow all forwards.
Anyway, this was a simple scenario. You can implement all this in open source, but it will be trivial to circumvent. DRM depends on closed source. Once data is visible on your computer, there is always a way to copy it. The email is currently visible? Well, a clear-text decryption exists somewhere in the memory of the computer. "Just" find the address.
DRM exists to make it harder, yes, but impossible.... Not on a cold day in hell.
That's not DRM, that's simply proper access right management on a system/database. So, the user is authenticated and only that is checked. However, do realise that the accountant can take all the data he can see out of the database, and infinitely copy it, print it, email it, etc.... That's what digital rights management is about: to restrict more than Read/Write rights.
Access right management exists in open source implementations, but that's because they are basically authentication problems, which is "part of security". However, due to the nature of open source, anyone wanting so could make a postgresql/mysql or GNU/Linux that totally disregards access rights. As far as I know, the NTFS filesystems ACLs simply get ignored when mounted on a Linux machine. However, that doesn't help a potential attacker, because to use his "hacked up" software, he needs physical access to the server.
No, this again is authentication. You use a token + password to authenticate yourself. (Security Token. Would you have full access to the computer on the ATM (you do not), you could do all you want with the data. Copy/Paste it, print it out, email it (if the thing is connected to the Internet, which I hope it isn't). So, again, no DRM. ATM security boils down to "secure the machine that it's tamper-proof" (physical security), authentication and finally encryption (connection to the database, and hopefully the database itself)
I know I'm playing the devils advocate here.... (being not very religious, I've been baptised Catholic, and I did marry before Church. Mainly because of my wife though and she really didn't have religious things in mind... anyway... offtopic)
Actually, they all accept the mantra "that's the way things are". They just accept the view from thousands years ago, where there wasn't a real explanation and someone made up a fairy tale. For them that "is the way things are". Knowledge, doesn't change, nor evolve for them. It just "is". Science on the other hand, evolves, corrects itself, gets better. They are unable to, because of the mantra "that's the way things are". Science works following the mantra "Now, that's odd... Why in the world would it behave like this? I need to look deeper into that".
It still is a perversion of how the free market should work...
Well, you're right about that. I never bought a Tanenbaum book until I graduated. (I now have all books, I wanted to have at University, but now I can buy them easily) My Profs all rolled their own. Still, I think that the price in the US is a result of the free market economy. Low demand = High Price. You can't really find that okay, can you? I mean, it would mean that really obscure books would cost 10000$ and never get printed again. What a loss for culture.
Are you sure that textbook prices aren't kept low because of German Laws? I mean, there isn't all that much demand for complicated Tanenbaum books, now is there? No wonder they are so expensive in free market conditions.
Well, American books follow the free market principle. The others don't. Doesn't that at least prove that books & free market are not a good combination?
I have a Philips. It does set the clock from a TV channel. The feature is probably model-dependent.
I can only talk for myself, but I tend to record documentaries. Mainly because, when it becomes late and the documentary isn't finished but I absolutely have to go to bed (getting up early isn't easy for a night-owl like me), I just put in a DVD and hit record. Of course, I don't keep this stuff. It's just for timeshifting.
Arte, for example, has "theme-nights" where one particular theme is used for the whole evening. Could be, for example, about Charlie Chaplin. You get to see "Modern Times" and "The Dictator" and those movies are them complemented with documentaries setting them in their time. Just an example. I saw another one completely dedicated to space probes like Voyager, including "How to Communicate with Aliens, should we find them" (Carl Sagan's ideas, etc...)
So, I do find stuff worth watching. If I had BBC, I'm pretty sure I'd watch their documentaries. However, I have Google Video for that now ;-)
Technogly gives unfair advantage ;-)
See response here. I get my TV over cable. As said, Europe. You're talking dollars, which indicates me a whole other continent.
And you have not paid attention to your "philosophy of science" classes. While verifying a theory, every time your theory confirms reality it is hardened a bit. That said, you will never be able to prove it 100% because for that you'd require an infinity of confirmations which of course not possible. Only falsification can prove a theory wrong, nothing can prove it right... What can be done it confirm it, which is what I did. Go study some Popper, mmkay?
Luxembourg... The market is not big enough. We always get technology 20 years later at 10x the price. Heck, our broadband was 256kbps/64kbps just a mere 5 years ago. Now it's 2048/192kbps, which is not stellar compared to our neighbours.