Socialism: A social system in which the means of producing and distributing goods are owned collectively and political power is exercised by the whole community.
Ahem. That's not what socialism was, that's what some soft-headed intellectuals intended it to be. As to reality...
Socialism: A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a close-knit political elite, total socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of aggressive expansionism.
But now we have to pay hundreds of dollars for some pieces of plastic that do crazy shit when you shine lasers at them. Hrmph
We have to? You mean there is law which says that once in a while you have to buy some plastic? Or does a guy with a gun come by, collects your wallet and leaves some piece of plastic as a token of his appreciation?
If you don't think that this crazy shit is worth it, don't buy it.
Personally I would sooner trust a government than a company. At least governments are supposed to look out for their people, where companies only look out for themselves.
Supposed? By whom? AFAIK, governments are supposed to care about holding onto their power, period.
Look at history, say, XX century European history. Are you sure you want me to trust a government?
I am not saying that corporations are inherently trustworthy, but if push comes to shove I'll take an entity that wants money over an entity that wants power. Besides, I'd much rather be poor than be in jail or hunted for subversive activities.
Linux is an excellent OS for use on PDAs. Linux is an OS, not a GUI
Well, you made a lot of declarations but I've seen very few reasons. Why is Linux an excellent OS for a PDA? Specifically, why is it better than, say, QNX or Plan 9, or some *BSD, or EPOC?
Besides that I'd like to remind you that PDAs have no keyboard. That makes command-line interface not good at all. You admit that current GUIs are not very suitable. So how I am supposed to do work on a Linux-running PDA? I understand the difference between OS and GUI, but a pure kernel is not very useful by itself, is it?
Well, that's not what the rest of your post says. The rest of your post says that Linux will be a good PDA OS when people will write proper software for it. That's an argument I can make for any OS...
Just knowing that I can smash together a Python or Perl/Tk app to do whatever...
Perl runs under Windows perfectly well. I suspect Python does as well. You seem to think that people cannot write their own software to run under Windows.
The difference is, we can build new interfaces on top of Linux much easier than we can on top of WinCE.
You miss the point. It's not hard to implement interfaces. It's very hard to design good ones. And I don't think that anybody claims that interface design is one of Linux's strong points.
Can't make up my mind whether you are a troll or not.
From my point of view this guy's position is quite reasonable. I even tend to agree with it. Of course, that might mean I am a troll as well...;-)
on the planet I live on, virtually everything we do on Linux here is done through the GUI.
You live on a boringly uniform planet. By the way, typing stuff into an xterm (or even into a fancy transparent terminal) is not much of a GUI use.
I think you miss the point. Linux currently has two interface paradigms: the command line, and the standard PARC->Mac->Windows->XWindow->Gnome/KDE/etc. windowing environment. Neither of them is appopriate for handhelds.
Just to make it clear, I'll repeat the point. The standard WIMP (windows - icons - menus - pointer) GUI is not suitable for handhelds. Windows CE is one of examples of this. Linux doesn't have (yet, at least) ways to deal with touch-sensitive screens, and has no interface to deal with small-screen, no-keyboard PDAs. Ergo, Linux is not a good OS to run on a PDA.
One of the staples of Libertarian dogma is that the ownership of private property is a moral absolute. I was hoping to trip you up on it.
Trip me? I'll freely concede to you that ownership is a social construct, having nothing to do with morals. One could argue that ownership is biologically determined -- after all an awful lot of animals are territorial and territoriality can be viewed as proto-ownership -- but in any case, this has nothing to do with morality. I tend to moral relativism, anyway:-)
You may have had in mind an observation that societies which restrict ownership tend to restrict other freedoms as well -- Soviet Union having been a prime example. That happens to be valid historical correlation, but again, it has nothing to do with morals.
No, not at all. Property is a bundle of rights guaranteed by a legal system. To "deserve" something implies that you have no rights to that something, but according to some value system you should have it anyway.
How is that different from "you deserve this because your name is on the deed".
I do not *deserve* it because my name is on the deed -- I *have* it because of this. I may deserve more or less: it has nothing to do with what a legal system agrees I own.
You are confusing legal rights and what some value system believes to be "just".
If you can justify the $5 million per year Liberace was making or the multi-million dollar pile of cash Micheal Jackson has made I might change my mind.
Easy.
People voluntarily paid this money in exchange for something they thought was worth at least that much. Or, I take it, you know better uses for other people's money -- right?
Besides, what do you mean by "justify"? Do you mean that there is some accounting-ledger-in-the-sky thingy into which one can look to find out exactly what one deserves?
"Er... you deserve $113.45, a dented '79 Oldsmobile and a kick in the ass. Now git!"
Sigh. I said "technically" and then I said "legally". I understand the similarity between copyright infringement and theft, thank you very much. But if you look up actual laws and read on what the legal system means by 'theft' and by 'copyright infringment', you'll find out that these two things are different.
I don't know if you're being sarcastuc on the theft front, but...
To leave you with no doubt, I am.
copyright infringement is wrong.
So? Many things are wrong. Speeding is wrong. Littering is wrong. Running with scissors is wrong.
The discussion is about how wrong is copyright infringement. People who are arguing that it is significantly wrong like to make their point by attaching emotionally charged words to it, the prime example being 'theft'. This is mostly demagoguery and not very useful (and technically, that is, legally, copyright infringement is not theft).
Bottom line, there are too many lawyers trained in Intellectual Property law for IP to disappear. It would take the concerted will of government to overturn or ignore IP law, and the bottom line is there's just too much lobbyist money for that to ever happen.
It has been pointed out (by RMS? I'm not sure) that we are now entering the period of War on Copying. Just as the US had Prohibition (War on Alcohol) and is now engaging in just as futile War on Drugs, the next, information-age folly of the US government is going to be War on Copyright Infringement (aka theft, theft, you hear? It's theft, THEFT, THEFT!!!!).
Can someone define "Intellectual Property" for me? I've always been a bit shaky on the definition.
VERY briefly:
Intellectual property is (like any property) a bundle of rights relating to information -- you know, non-physical, intangible stuff. This bundle of rights is different from the rights you have in physical property. An example of difference is copyright's fair use exceptions. The reason for the difference is that "if I give you an apple, I lost an apple, but if I give you an idea, both of us have the idea". In other words, information use is non-exclusionary: you can use information simultaneously with other people.
There are currently three forms of IP:
(1) Patents (which used to cover only devices, but now seem to cover anything at all). A patent gives you an exclusive right to make (and license, sell, etc.) the patented device. Patents expire after a period of time (17 years?) and the information passes into public domain.
(2) Trademarks (which cover names -- words, images, and now even scents -- used to identify business products). "Coca-cola" or the Nike's whoosh logo is a trademark. Trademarks, I think, never expire.
(3) Copyright (which covers any information). This, of course, is the interesting part. Copyright gives the copyright holder a bunch of rights, the most important of which is the right to restrict making copies of the copyrighted information. Copyright originated as the means to protect authors from unscrupulous publishers but since, let us say, changed its character quite a bit. Copyright expires after some ungodly amount of time (in the US thank the Sonny Bono bill for that).
There is one good thing about the UN dealing with this sort of dispute that many people don't know about. The UN is a little too big for most of the influence that smaller courts come under.
You see every government which is a member must pay a prescribed fee into the UN budget. These fees are enough to run the organization so they don't need to go begging for campaign funds or other such rubbish.
This is utter bullshit. UN itself is a big unwieldy beast that needs the muscle of US government to be pushed around. But just because some organization happens to be affiliated with UN does not mean that this organization is honest and incorruptible and always strives to do the right thing.
In fact, since a lot of positions within UN are filled by political appointees (as in "this year the High Commissioner must be from Chad, 'cause it's their turn"), UN is well known for both incompetence and corruption, especially at lower and middle levels.
Remember, it's people who deal with disputes, not the whole UN. And these people are perfectly well influencable. To give an example, remember the Salt Lake City olympic scandal? It turned out that "gifts" were very useful, nay, necessary factor in deciding which city is going to host the Olympics. Isn't the Olympic Committee "a little too big for most of the influence..."?
7. It is recognized that the determinations flowing from the administrative procedure do not, as such, have the weight of binding precedent under national judicial systems.
I don't know anything about international law, but this seems somewhat toothless.
Well, if you think about the meaning of this quote, you'll see that it does not say anything about enforceability. What it says is that in common-law-based legal systems (UK and US, primarily) administrative decisions do NOT set a precedent and thus do not have any impact on any future cases.
Whether you can enforce an administrative decision is a different matter altogether and depends on a lot of factors, jurisdiction being one of them. In general, though, if WIPO says you must give up your domain name and, say, ICANN complies (not because it has to, but because chose to accept WIPO decisions), then you can always sue somebody (ICANN and WIPO and all their personnel and their dogs and cats and goldfish... 8-) ) in your or their legal system. ICANN, being based in US, is probably subject to US laws.
It's all over if a cracker takes my private key! Well, would he/she not still need a passphrase?
(1) Most people "for convenience" would store their passphrase (heh, dream on. It's going to be a password, something like 'secret') on their hard drive, right next to the key itself.
(2) Even if by some stange twist passwords would not be stored on the same hard drive, possession of keys gives you the ability to brute-force passwords off-line. This is highly practical and successful (AFAIK >70% passwords cracked in real-life tests)
Then the government/corporation/slashdot-satan-for-today will know who I am!
That's the wrong objection -- mostly they know who you are anyway (a signature from an unknown party is basically worthless). The point is that in the brave new world a record of your actions would be already digitized and stored on a drive/tape somewhere. This makes it os-so-convenient to cross-index and store this stuff for enternity -- just in case, you know...
My encrypted stuff can be cracked!
And what does this have to do with the validity of electronic signatures?
When I get a signed email from some beautiful celebrity who wants to go out with me, how do I know it's her?
You don't. All a public-key system guarantees is that the entity which signed this particular message has been in possession of a certain private key. There is nothing which associates a number (key) with a person. This, of course, makes the whole thing vastly more complicated than most people imagine. What you call "authentication services" help but a lot of problems still remain.
[Apogee] This one should be a good example, as it gives the company the power to restrain legitimate free speech by banning criticism through an EULA.
It's a bad example.
As has been pointed out numerous times right here on Slashdot, Taco got confused. Apogee was restricting use of their trademarks under trademark law. This has nothing to do with purchases of software, software licensing, EULAs and UCITA.
To put it crudely, Apogee has a trademark to the word 'Prey' as a name of a computer game. You cannot call another computer game Prey even if you never bought any software from Apogee and never entered into any contracts with them.
Kaa
Re:Question: Non OEM machines
on
Copyrant
·
· Score: 2
What if you build up your system from scratch, no OEM involved?
I'm guessing that you have to plunk down the $170-$200 full retail price for the non-OEM, full install, non-upgrade CD, as you have been able to do in the past, but the article doesn't say that.
Well, provided you have (or can borrow) the install disks from at least some version of Windows (AFAIK my Windows 3.1 version floppies work), you can buy the "upgrade" version. All it does is check that you have some media with Windows on it. I installed Win98.2 on a clean non-OEM machine and all I had to do was to insert and take out my Win95 CD.
So all you need in $90 for upgrade version -- no need to pay full retail.
Kaa
Re:don't go flying off the handle just yet
on
Copyrant
·
· Score: 1
The only difference is that it checks to see if the system is a Dell system before it will let you install.
Ahem. And what happens if the motherboard in the Dell system dies or becomes obsolete? Swap in another motherboard -- oh, no! This isn't a Dell system any more! Fuck off, buster, you're a pirate.
any hacker/nerd/cumputer-savy person is automatically a "gamer", and worse, that all they play are FPS.
Hackers tend to like games (not only the computer kind), but not FPS. The stereotypical hackers' type of game is an RPG.
FPS games are played by adolescent males who need to give vent to their aggression because they cannot get laid [ grins, ducks, and runs away trying to pull on his asbestos underwear at the same time:-)
Can't remember though if it will start immediately on installation, or if it needs to wait for a Windows restart (like everything else !)
Well, since you can execute code on the taget machine (that's how you got BackOrfice installed, right?), what's to prevent you from executing BackOrfice immediately after installation?
Slashdot Mirror
but you missed the rest of the idea.
The rest being..?
It sounded to me like bitching about having to pay for software. Did you have something else in mind?
Kaa
Socialism: A social system in which the means of producing and distributing goods are owned collectively and political power is exercised by the whole community.
Ahem. That's not what socialism was, that's what some soft-headed intellectuals intended it to be. As to reality...
Socialism: A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a close-knit political elite, total socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of aggressive expansionism.
Kaa
But now we have to pay hundreds of dollars for some pieces of plastic that do crazy shit when you shine lasers at them. Hrmph
We have to? You mean there is law which says that once in a while you have to buy some plastic? Or does a guy with a gun come by, collects your wallet and leaves some piece of plastic as a token of his appreciation?
If you don't think that this crazy shit is worth it, don't buy it.
Kaa
Personally I would sooner trust a government than a company. At least governments are supposed to look out for their people, where companies only look out for themselves.
Supposed? By whom? AFAIK, governments are supposed to care about holding onto their power, period.
Look at history, say, XX century European history. Are you sure you want me to trust a government?
I am not saying that corporations are inherently trustworthy, but if push comes to shove I'll take an entity that wants money over an entity that wants power. Besides, I'd much rather be poor than be in jail or hunted for subversive activities.
Kaa
Linux is an excellent OS for use on PDAs. Linux is an OS, not a GUI
Well, you made a lot of declarations but I've seen very few reasons. Why is Linux an excellent OS for a PDA? Specifically, why is it better than, say, QNX or Plan 9, or some *BSD, or EPOC?
Besides that I'd like to remind you that PDAs have no keyboard. That makes command-line interface not good at all. You admit that current GUIs are not very suitable. So how I am supposed to do work on a Linux-running PDA? I understand the difference between OS and GUI, but a pure kernel is not very useful by itself, is it?
Kaa
Linux is an excellent OS to run on a PDA.
Well, that's not what the rest of your post says. The rest of your post says that Linux will be a good PDA OS when people will write proper software for it. That's an argument I can make for any OS...
Just knowing that I can smash together a Python or Perl/Tk app to do whatever...
Perl runs under Windows perfectly well. I suspect Python does as well. You seem to think that people cannot write their own software to run under Windows.
The difference is, we can build new interfaces on top of Linux much easier than we can on top of WinCE.
You miss the point. It's not hard to implement interfaces. It's very hard to design good ones. And I don't think that anybody claims that interface design is one of Linux's strong points.
Kaa
Can't make up my mind whether you are a troll or not.
;-)
From my point of view this guy's position is quite reasonable. I even tend to agree with it. Of course, that might mean I am a troll as well...
on the planet I live on, virtually everything we do on Linux here is done through the GUI.
You live on a boringly uniform planet. By the way, typing stuff into an xterm (or even into a fancy transparent terminal) is not much of a GUI use.
I think you miss the point. Linux currently has two interface paradigms: the command line, and the standard PARC->Mac->Windows->XWindow->Gnome/KDE/etc. windowing environment. Neither of them is appopriate for handhelds.
Just to make it clear, I'll repeat the point. The standard WIMP (windows - icons - menus - pointer) GUI is not suitable for handhelds. Windows CE is one of examples of this. Linux doesn't have (yet, at least) ways to deal with touch-sensitive screens, and has no interface to deal with small-screen, no-keyboard PDAs. Ergo, Linux is not a good OS to run on a PDA.
Kaa
One of the staples of Libertarian dogma is that the ownership of private property is a moral absolute. I was hoping to trip you up on it.
:-)
Trip me? I'll freely concede to you that ownership is a social construct, having nothing to do with morals. One could argue that ownership is biologically determined -- after all an awful lot of animals are territorial and territoriality can be viewed as proto-ownership -- but in any case, this has nothing to do with morality. I tend to moral relativism, anyway
You may have had in mind an observation that societies which restrict ownership tend to restrict other freedoms as well -- Soviet Union having been a prime example. That happens to be valid historical correlation, but again, it has nothing to do with morals.
Kaa
Kind of like property in general, huh?
No, not at all. Property is a bundle of rights guaranteed by a legal system. To "deserve" something implies that you have no rights to that something, but according to some value system you should have it anyway.
How is that different from "you deserve this because your name is on the deed".
I do not *deserve* it because my name is on the deed -- I *have* it because of this. I may deserve more or less: it has nothing to do with what a legal system agrees I own.
You are confusing legal rights and what some value system believes to be "just".
Kaa
If you can justify the $5 million per year Liberace was making or the multi-million dollar pile of cash Micheal Jackson has made I might change my mind.
Easy.
People voluntarily paid this money in exchange for something they thought was worth at least that much. Or, I take it, you know better uses for other people's money -- right?
Besides, what do you mean by "justify"? Do you mean that there is some accounting-ledger-in-the-sky thingy into which one can look to find out exactly what one deserves?
"Er... you deserve $113.45, a dented '79 Oldsmobile and a kick in the ass. Now git!"
Kaa
A quick definition of theft...
Sigh. I said "technically" and then I said "legally". I understand the similarity between copyright infringement and theft, thank you very much. But if you look up actual laws and read on what the legal system means by 'theft' and by 'copyright infringment', you'll find out that these two things are different.
Kaa
I don't know if you're being sarcastuc on the theft front, but...
To leave you with no doubt, I am.
copyright infringement is wrong.
So? Many things are wrong. Speeding is wrong. Littering is wrong. Running with scissors is wrong.
The discussion is about how wrong is copyright infringement. People who are arguing that it is significantly wrong like to make their point by attaching emotionally charged words to it, the prime example being 'theft'. This is mostly demagoguery and not very useful (and technically, that is, legally, copyright infringement is not theft).
Kaa
The net is not going to really change anything fundamental long-term, it'll just change the arena that it's done in and the tools that'll be used.
You don't understand. The danger to IP comes from the confluence of two factors:
(1) A great deal of IP is digital and more and more (on a % basis) becomes digital. Computers make copying of information basically costless.
(2) The net makes it very easy to distribute perfect copies of information to anybody and his goldfish.
(1) + (2) = some very frightened copyright holders (see Bronfman's panic speech).
Kaa
A good example of modern patronage is the way corporations tend to buy paintings and sculptures to decorate their offices with.
Judging by what I've seen in corporate offices, patronage by corporations is NOT the way to make good art.
Kaa
Bottom line, there are too many lawyers trained in Intellectual Property law for IP to disappear. It would take the concerted will of government to overturn or ignore IP law, and the bottom line is there's just too much lobbyist money for that to ever happen.
It has been pointed out (by RMS? I'm not sure) that we are now entering the period of War on Copying. Just as the US had Prohibition (War on Alcohol) and is now engaging in just as futile War on Drugs, the next, information-age folly of the US government is going to be War on Copyright Infringement (aka theft, theft, you hear? It's theft, THEFT, THEFT!!!!).
Kaa
Can someone define "Intellectual Property" for me? I've always been a bit shaky on the definition.
VERY briefly:
Intellectual property is (like any property) a bundle of rights relating to information -- you know, non-physical, intangible stuff. This bundle of rights is different from the rights you have in physical property. An example of difference is copyright's fair use exceptions. The reason for the difference is that "if I give you an apple, I lost an apple, but if I give you an idea, both of us have the idea". In other words, information use is non-exclusionary: you can use information simultaneously with other people.
There are currently three forms of IP:
(1) Patents (which used to cover only devices, but now seem to cover anything at all). A patent gives you an exclusive right to make (and license, sell, etc.) the patented device. Patents expire after a period of time (17 years?) and the information passes into public domain.
(2) Trademarks (which cover names -- words, images, and now even scents -- used to identify business products). "Coca-cola" or the Nike's whoosh logo is a trademark. Trademarks, I think, never expire.
(3) Copyright (which covers any information). This, of course, is the interesting part. Copyright gives the copyright holder a bunch of rights, the most important of which is the right to restrict making copies of the copyrighted information. Copyright originated as the means to protect authors from unscrupulous publishers but since, let us say, changed its character quite a bit. Copyright expires after some ungodly amount of time (in the US thank the Sonny Bono bill for that).
HTH
Kaa
There is one good thing about the UN dealing with this sort of dispute that many people don't know about. The UN is a little too big for most of the influence that smaller courts come under.
You see every government which is a member must pay a prescribed fee into the UN budget. These fees are enough to run the organization so they don't need to go begging for campaign funds or other such rubbish.
This is utter bullshit. UN itself is a big unwieldy beast that needs the muscle of US government to be pushed around. But just because some organization happens to be affiliated with UN does not mean that this organization is honest and incorruptible and always strives to do the right thing.
In fact, since a lot of positions within UN are filled by political appointees (as in "this year the High Commissioner must be from Chad, 'cause it's their turn"), UN is well known for both incompetence and corruption, especially at lower and middle levels.
Remember, it's people who deal with disputes, not the whole UN. And these people are perfectly well influencable. To give an example, remember the Salt Lake City olympic scandal? It turned out that "gifts" were very useful, nay, necessary factor in deciding which city is going to host the Olympics. Isn't the Olympic Committee "a little too big for most of the influence..."?
Kaa
7. It is recognized that the determinations flowing from the administrative procedure do not, as such, have the weight of binding precedent under national judicial systems.
I don't know anything about international law, but this seems somewhat toothless.
Well, if you think about the meaning of this quote, you'll see that it does not say anything about enforceability. What it says is that in common-law-based legal systems (UK and US, primarily) administrative decisions do NOT set a precedent and thus do not have any impact on any future cases.
Whether you can enforce an administrative decision is a different matter altogether and depends on a lot of factors, jurisdiction being one of them. In general, though, if WIPO says you must give up your domain name and, say, ICANN complies (not because it has to, but because chose to accept WIPO decisions), then you can always sue somebody (ICANN and WIPO and all their personnel and their dogs and cats and goldfish... 8-) ) in your or their legal system. ICANN, being based in US, is probably subject to US laws.
Kaa
Am I the only one who thinks Microsoft is a misnomer? Perhaps Macrosoft would be a better fit?
Ah, no, but you see, Microsoft was named in reference to a certain body part of Bill's...
Kaa
It's all over if a cracker takes my private key! Well, would he/she not still need a passphrase?
(1) Most people "for convenience" would store their passphrase (heh, dream on. It's going to be a password, something like 'secret') on their hard drive, right next to the key itself.
(2) Even if by some stange twist passwords would not be stored on the same hard drive, possession of keys gives you the ability to brute-force passwords off-line. This is highly practical and successful (AFAIK >70% passwords cracked in real-life tests)
Then the government/corporation/slashdot-satan-for-today will know who I am!
That's the wrong objection -- mostly they know who you are anyway (a signature from an unknown party is basically worthless). The point is that in the brave new world a record of your actions would be already digitized and stored on a drive/tape somewhere. This makes it os-so-convenient to cross-index and store this stuff for enternity -- just in case, you know...
My encrypted stuff can be cracked!
And what does this have to do with the validity of electronic signatures?
When I get a signed email from some beautiful celebrity who wants to go out with me, how do I know it's her?
You don't. All a public-key system guarantees is that the entity which signed this particular message has been in possession of a certain private key. There is nothing which associates a number (key) with a person. This, of course, makes the whole thing vastly more complicated than most people imagine. What you call "authentication services" help but a lot of problems still remain.
Kaa
[Apogee] This one should be a good example, as it gives the company the power to restrain legitimate free speech by banning criticism through an EULA.
It's a bad example.
As has been pointed out numerous times right here on Slashdot, Taco got confused. Apogee was restricting use of their trademarks under trademark law. This has nothing to do with purchases of software, software licensing, EULAs and UCITA.
To put it crudely, Apogee has a trademark to the word 'Prey' as a name of a computer game. You cannot call another computer game Prey even if you never bought any software from Apogee and never entered into any contracts with them.
Kaa
What if you build up your system from scratch, no OEM involved?
I'm guessing that you have to plunk down the $170-$200 full retail price for the non-OEM, full install, non-upgrade CD, as you have been able to do in the past, but the article doesn't say that.
Well, provided you have (or can borrow) the install disks from at least some version of Windows (AFAIK my Windows 3.1 version floppies work), you can buy the "upgrade" version. All it does is check that you have some media with Windows on it. I installed Win98.2 on a clean non-OEM machine and all I had to do was to insert and take out my Win95 CD.
So all you need in $90 for upgrade version -- no need to pay full retail.
Kaa
The only difference is that it checks to see if the system is a Dell system before it will let you install.
Ahem. And what happens if the motherboard in the Dell system dies or becomes obsolete? Swap in another motherboard -- oh, no! This isn't a Dell system any more! Fuck off, buster, you're a pirate.
Kaa
any hacker/nerd/cumputer-savy person is automatically a "gamer", and worse, that all they play are FPS.
:-)
Hackers tend to like games (not only the computer kind), but not FPS. The stereotypical hackers' type of game is an RPG.
FPS games are played by adolescent males who need to give vent to their aggression because they cannot get laid [ grins, ducks, and runs away trying to pull on his asbestos underwear at the same time
Kaa
Can't remember though if it will start immediately on installation, or if it needs to wait for a Windows restart (like everything else !)
Well, since you can execute code on the taget machine (that's how you got BackOrfice installed, right?), what's to prevent you from executing BackOrfice immediately after installation?
Kaa