The day they stop calling it Digital Rights Management is the day I will might start considering it a valid option.
I'm just so tired of all this marketing bullshit that tries to make people believe things are the opposite of what they really are. DRM, Genuine Advantage, OPEN licensing (by Microsoft). I have to wonder if that is not because they know they are doing something that will piss off their customers. And that is another thing I don't by. These companies are not ignorant savages. They know what they are doing, and they know they are going to piss people off. That is why they try to con people using all these names.
Want me as a client ? Good. First, please stop calling me stupid. Then we can talk.
You might want to notice this article only mentions "recover (...) from actual damages". You can rest assured, if you are found guilty, you will also have to pay punitive damages.
Re:So who was the more pragmatic CSO?...
on
The Pragmatic CSO
·
· Score: 1
The position of CSO is stated and defined on the ISO 17799 document, which is anything but new. For anyone working information security not to have read that document... well, I don't think it is worth commenting. (Even if you read, but don't agree with it)
This kind of puerile stunt is simply absurd. Apple can and should sue them over this.
This is specially bad coming from a flagship name list FSF, and can cause serious problems for the opensource/freesoftware initiatives. Who will take us seriously ?
Even if this is not carried out, the FSF should make a public apology over this unfortunate incident.
Actually, there is NO absolute proof of the so called "second hand smoking" (passive smoking). Everything said about it is based on a single, very questionable report release way back (70s ? 80s ?).
I would really like to see some more recent studies on this subject. I see a lot of reference, that they always take us to other references and so on. And yes, I know about "WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control" and all that other crap. Yes, exposure to tobacco can cause all that. I don't doubt smoking wreck havoc on the smoker's system, but that is a whole different deal.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that smoking in closed spaces (restaurants etc) should be banned (unless you have separated smoking areas). If nothing else, the smoke and stink of it blowing in one face is enough. Can you imagine having dinner with someone farting in your face ?
Based on my own empirical evidence, I would say the amount of smoking related toxins a non-smoker inhales is less than 1% of the total toxins he inhales during a regular day. Unless, of course, you are closed in a room, with little to no ventilation, with 10 smokers, but I don't think that is what people refer to as "passive smoking".
Identifying and dealing with a problem is all very good. Blowing it our of proportion is not.
Your are basing your assumption that #3 is simpler because it is simpler given your frame of reference. A lot of people will think #2 is simpler. You will even find some wakos that will think #1 is simpler.
What is it called when you try to adapt facts to your (mine, theirs) theory ? There is a word for it, but I forgot.
I find it interesting that you are trying to proof that god doesn't exist to an agnostic. How often have you tried doing that before ? (Trying to prove god doesn't exist to an atheist is much more common).
I also find it odd the way some people treat science like most theists treat religion. It is not necessarily your case, but you reminded me of it.
In any case, can you agree with me that there is no coherent definition of god ? Is your definition of god the same of... lets say, the pope ? If the definition is not the same, how can you prove that god (as defined by the pope) doesn't exist, if your definition is different ?
The thing I admire the most about science is the willingness to admit it might be wrong. We know a lot of theorems, models and such. Even Newton's "laws" are not laws per se, they are theorems (and yes, I believe in them). Even Occam's Razor is a theorem (proved to be right in 99.9999% of the cases, or something like that). Using it is a good idea.
Is there a way to prove Newton's "laws" are the absolute truth ? Everywhere ? We know it doesn't hold true inside a black hole.
Working under the assumption that there is no god, and thus science must strive to explain things is very wise. God's non-existence is a good theorem as any. If science can't explain a fact, you probably got your facts wrong. Or is working under some other wrong assumption. I agree with all that.
What I don't agree is for a person to categorically state the God's non-existance is the absolute truth. I also don't agree with someone saying the oposite. Thus, I'm an agnostic.
You are trying to simplify a claim that is anything but simple. Yes, there is no empirical evidence of god just as there isn't one of your rabbit. If the issue were as simple as that, I would agree with you. I also agree with you that, as a rule of thumb, there is no possible evidence to convince a theist. If you use science to prove that something they believe to be a miracle actually isn't, they will just say that, well, god created everything, so it is still god.
However, it is possible to test for the existence of your rabbit. You can still try to measure energy, field distortions and so on. If you rule out the "randomized universe" (as described on a previous post), and take for valid the basic scientific facts (1+1=2, gravity etc), there are ways to test for its existence. Specially since for something to real, it has to interact with reality (word games aside).
But more important, in your own post you gave a coherent definition of your rabbit. Well, somewhat anyway. Whenever any other person "meets" your rabbit, the definition will still be valid. Of course, we can add more facts to that definition with further tests, up to a point where we will either prove its existence (or the plausibility of such), or prove that, within the realm of reality, it can't exist.
Now take the "god premise". Something that, according to the theists, lack definition (or defies definition, which amounts to the same). It is impossible to test for something that lacks definition. Thus, there is no way to prove either way. Actually, it is more than that, it is pointless to try. For me at least. Other people might thing it is worth, but I doubt it will be for any scientific reason.
I don't see Occam's Razor as being applyable here, which seem to be your point. First of all, your post is far from stupid, which is always a novelty for a reply on this particular subject.
The reason I don't think Occam's applies is because we don't have 2 possible facts. We have to unverifiable facts, my any scientific methodology. We don't even have any empirical evidences, just interpretation of fact (and yes, I understand interpretation is a part of scientific analysis, but it alone doesn't make science).
One particularly interesting type of agnosticism (Ignotiscism) states that "a coherent definition of God must be put forward before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed". And yes, this is somewhat difference than the traditional agnostic point of view.
Your point about "randomness" is entirely correct. Given enough sample data, anything is possible within a randomized universe. Even for our entirely scientific concepts to be wrong. However, for any kind of analysis, we do need a frame of reference. So if you propose a scientific analysis, we have to accept that at least some of the basic scientific facts (1+1=2, gravity etc) are correct. Otherwise, no analysis is possible.
From my point of view, there simply isn't enough data to do an analysis on the existence of god. So making any kind of statement on that existence (true or false) is faulty science (at best).
Even more, there is no coherent definition of god. So you have no data to discuss a subject that lacks a definition, making any kind of argument moot.
There is nothing wrong for a scientist to pursue an answer, as long as he doesn't start from any fixed assumption.
Not collecting stamps gives you time for a real hobby, just like atheism gives you time to do real science.
I find it particularly stupid for a scientist to be an atheist. On the other hand, I also find it stupid for a true scientist to be religious.
From a purely scientific point of view, saying that god exists, or saying god doesn't exist, are both wrong statements. There isn't anything to prove one way or another. Thus, from my point of view, scientist should be agnostics.
I find it interesting how many people can completely miss the point.
Even if what you said is true (and sometimes it is not), it is completely irrelevant.
How much of the tax money is spent just to keep the government running, and not on public services (regardless of their quality) ? Paying salaries, paper clips and all that crap ? Last I checked, the worldwide average for governments is to spend AT LEAST 40% of their income (taxes etc) on payroll. If you add on the "operational" costs, it can easily go over 60% (sometimes more). And yes, I'm pretty sure someone will say THEIR government is much better than that. Hench, the word "average" (look it up if you don't know what that means).
The main problem is how inefficient governments are. Have you ever compared the number of "representatives" you have with the overall legislative production (so to speak) ? How much time do they spend on campaigns instead of working for the people ? What about public services ? How many white collars are there for each blue collar ? How much time is spent on "commissions" ? Lobbying ? You are paying for that.
I'm pretty sure there are several mmorpgs out there that few people (relatively speaking) know about that can run even on VGA cards. My point being: mainstream mmorpgs. Sorry about not making it clear.
There is one of the things that most impressed me about WoW.
I'm an old time NWN fan and player. Played it for 4 or 5 years (don't recall). When NWN2 came out, I was surprised by the hardware requirements (much, MUCH higher than nwn1).
When I decided to try WoW, the first thing I did was check for requirements (which are not easy to find). Later I found I would be able to run it even on my 855GM if I cared to (I have something better than that).
I'm willing to bet a lot of WoW players only have on-board graphic cards. There is a big market segment that ALL other mmorpgs were overlooking. And Blizzard hit the jackpot there.
This is, unfortunately, a fallacy we also hear about software companies: software development always takes longer than planned.
I used to think that was true myself. Until I once met a software company with real professional leading the teams and on management. Not talking about MBA crap. I'm talking "software development management" professionals. During the 3 years I had contact with them, they never missed a deadline (and released earlier either). They were right on the spot every single time. That proved to me that, even if it is rare to meet a professional that can do it, it is possible to estimate total time and cost of development. For me, this thing about "having to remove features to release on the schedule date" screams incompetence.
The project executed by the company I mentioned earlier were not small, by the way. We are talking about 15-30 people for each project, with hundreds of lines of code, usually spanning 8 months of more of development.
I have to agree with our Australian friend here. You have no idea on pay scales.
Even 200k/year is low for a CIO, unless you are talking about a 3-men company.
When someone reaches a CIO position, he would have raised through the management ranks. And even for a medium company, 100k/year is very low for an IT manager.
I do "own" several DRM'ed ebooks. My main problem is that they are locked to a computer/reader (serial number). So if I loose that computer (cellphone etc), I loose access to the ebook.
This is something that really annoys me. If they want to "lock" the ebook, fine. But lock it to ME, not to my computer.
Out of legitimate curiosity, why do many Slashdotters think that Microsoft sees Firefox as a threat?
Because they do, and rightly so.
Remember then they took Netscape down ? That should be enough proof for anyone.
As for the reasons. Lets remember that marketing wars are fought and won on a single battlefield: the mind. Keeping your brand strong is very important. When people start using non-microsoft solutions for something, they are likely to start using non-microsoft solutions for others. Microsoft always made a lot of money pushing the idea they alone can provide solutions. People who start using Firefox are more likely to look toward OpenOffice.org.
The "search engine" issue was pointed by others, and is also relevant.
Yeah. I have one of those (actually, I use my E62 as a "data card"). Unfortunately, it doesn't fit in my pocket. It is not small enough to be non-intrusive when I go to the supermarket.
Also, why would I need to carry something as big as a laptop (even a 12" one) when all I need is ssh ? Carry a laptop and a cell phone, since I have to receive calls.
This little baby here makes my life much easier, but I know I'm the exception to the rule. Most people (98% ? Maybe more ?) get smartphones just for SMS and e-mail (if that!). But I'm glad they do, since it drives the price down quite a bit.
As a side note, I also read books on my smart phone. The screen is very nice for it, even if I don't need the qwerty keyboard for that particular task.
Slashdot Mirror
The day they stop calling it Digital Rights Management is the day I will might start considering it a valid option.
I'm just so tired of all this marketing bullshit that tries to make people believe things are the opposite of what they really are. DRM, Genuine Advantage, OPEN licensing (by Microsoft). I have to wonder if that is not because they know they are doing something that will piss off their customers. And that is another thing I don't by. These companies are not ignorant savages. They know what they are doing, and they know they are going to piss people off. That is why they try to con people using all these names.
Want me as a client ? Good. First, please stop calling me stupid. Then we can talk.
You might want to notice this article only mentions "recover (...) from actual damages". You can rest assured, if you are found guilty, you will also have to pay punitive damages.
The position of CSO is stated and defined on the ISO 17799 document, which is anything but new. ... well, I don't think it is worth commenting. (Even if you read, but don't agree with it)
For anyone working information security not to have read that document
I have to agree with you.
This kind of puerile stunt is simply absurd. Apple can and should sue them over this.
This is specially bad coming from a flagship name list FSF, and can cause serious problems for the opensource/freesoftware initiatives. Who will take us seriously ?
Even if this is not carried out, the FSF should make a public apology over this unfortunate incident.
I have seen several lowend HP desktops with Gigabyte motherboards. Those were all Celeron based boxes.
Actually, there is NO absolute proof of the so called "second hand smoking" (passive smoking). Everything said about it is based on a single, very questionable report release way back (70s ? 80s ?).
I would really like to see some more recent studies on this subject. I see a lot of reference, that they always take us to other references and so on. And yes, I know about "WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control" and all that other crap. Yes, exposure to tobacco can cause all that. I don't doubt smoking wreck havoc on the smoker's system, but that is a whole different deal.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that smoking in closed spaces (restaurants etc) should be banned (unless you have separated smoking areas). If nothing else, the smoke and stink of it blowing in one face is enough. Can you imagine having dinner with someone farting in your face ?
Based on my own empirical evidence, I would say the amount of smoking related toxins a non-smoker inhales is less than 1% of the total toxins he inhales during a regular day. Unless, of course, you are closed in a room, with little to no ventilation, with 10 smokers, but I don't think that is what people refer to as "passive smoking".
Identifying and dealing with a problem is all very good. Blowing it our of proportion is not.
You mean there are people out there running RHEL with non-chrooted bind ? I'm not being sarcastic here. For me, this is simply unbelievable.
I run bind on my notebook for caching purposes (yes, I know about nscd and stuff), and even that one is chrooted.
What is "simpler" ?
Your are basing your assumption that #3 is simpler because it is simpler given your frame of reference. A lot of people will think #2 is simpler. You will even find some wakos that will think #1 is simpler.
What is it called when you try to adapt facts to your (mine, theirs) theory ? There is a word for it, but I forgot.
I find it interesting that you are trying to proof that god doesn't exist to an agnostic. How often have you tried doing that before ? (Trying to prove god doesn't exist to an atheist is much more common).
I also find it odd the way some people treat science like most theists treat religion. It is not necessarily your case, but you reminded me of it.
In any case, can you agree with me that there is no coherent definition of god ? Is your definition of god the same of ... lets say, the pope ? If the definition is not the same, how can you prove that god (as defined by the pope) doesn't exist, if your definition is different ?
The thing I admire the most about science is the willingness to admit it might be wrong. We know a lot of theorems, models and such. Even Newton's "laws" are not laws per se, they are theorems (and yes, I believe in them). Even Occam's Razor is a theorem (proved to be right in 99.9999% of the cases, or something like that). Using it is a good idea.
Is there a way to prove Newton's "laws" are the absolute truth ? Everywhere ? We know it doesn't hold true inside a black hole.
Working under the assumption that there is no god, and thus science must strive to explain things is very wise. God's non-existence is a good theorem as any. If science can't explain a fact, you probably got your facts wrong. Or is working under some other wrong assumption. I agree with all that.
What I don't agree is for a person to categorically state the God's non-existance is the absolute truth. I also don't agree with someone saying the oposite. Thus, I'm an agnostic.
You are trying to simplify a claim that is anything but simple. Yes, there is no empirical evidence of god just as there isn't one of your rabbit. If the issue were as simple as that, I would agree with you.
I also agree with you that, as a rule of thumb, there is no possible evidence to convince a theist. If you use science to prove that something they believe to be a miracle actually isn't, they will just say that, well, god created everything, so it is still god.
However, it is possible to test for the existence of your rabbit. You can still try to measure energy, field distortions and so on. If you rule out the "randomized universe" (as described on a previous post), and take for valid the basic scientific facts (1+1=2, gravity etc), there are ways to test for its existence. Specially since for something to real, it has to interact with reality (word games aside).
But more important, in your own post you gave a coherent definition of your rabbit. Well, somewhat anyway. Whenever any other person "meets" your rabbit, the definition will still be valid. Of course, we can add more facts to that definition with further tests, up to a point where we will either prove its existence (or the plausibility of such), or prove that, within the realm of reality, it can't exist.
Now take the "god premise". Something that, according to the theists, lack definition (or defies definition, which amounts to the same). It is impossible to test for something that lacks definition. Thus, there is no way to prove either way. Actually, it is more than that, it is pointless to try. For me at least. Other people might thing it is worth, but I doubt it will be for any scientific reason.
I don't see Occam's Razor as being applyable here, which seem to be your point. First of all, your post is far from stupid, which is always a novelty for a reply on this particular subject.
The reason I don't think Occam's applies is because we don't have 2 possible facts. We have to unverifiable facts, my any scientific methodology. We don't even have any empirical evidences, just interpretation of fact (and yes, I understand interpretation is a part of scientific analysis, but it alone doesn't make science).
One particularly interesting type of agnosticism (Ignotiscism) states that "a coherent definition of God must be put forward before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed". And yes, this is somewhat difference than the traditional agnostic point of view.
Your point about "randomness" is entirely correct. Given enough sample data, anything is possible within a randomized universe. Even for our entirely scientific concepts to be wrong. However, for any kind of analysis, we do need a frame of reference. So if you propose a scientific analysis, we have to accept that at least some of the basic scientific facts (1+1=2, gravity etc) are correct. Otherwise, no analysis is possible.
From my point of view, there simply isn't enough data to do an analysis on the existence of god. So making any kind of statement on that existence (true or false) is faulty science (at best).
Even more, there is no coherent definition of god. So you have no data to discuss a subject that lacks a definition, making any kind of argument moot.
There is nothing wrong for a scientist to pursue an answer, as long as he doesn't start from any fixed assumption.
I find it particularly stupid for a scientist to be an atheist. On the other hand, I also find it stupid for a true scientist to be religious.
From a purely scientific point of view, saying that god exists, or saying god doesn't exist, are both wrong statements. There isn't anything to prove one way or another. Thus, from my point of view, scientist should be agnostics.
I find it interesting how many people can completely miss the point.
Even if what you said is true (and sometimes it is not), it is completely irrelevant.
How much of the tax money is spent just to keep the government running, and not on public services (regardless of their quality) ? Paying salaries, paper clips and all that crap ? Last I checked, the worldwide average for governments is to spend AT LEAST 40% of their income (taxes etc) on payroll. If you add on the "operational" costs, it can easily go over 60% (sometimes more). And yes, I'm pretty sure someone will say THEIR government is much better than that. Hench, the word "average" (look it up if you don't know what that means).
The main problem is how inefficient governments are. Have you ever compared the number of "representatives" you have with the overall legislative production (so to speak) ? How much time do they spend on campaigns instead of working for the people ? What about public services ? How many white collars are there for each blue collar ? How much time is spent on "commissions" ? Lobbying ?
You are paying for that.
I define it from a media/marketing point of view.
But if you are right, and the top 2 mmorpgs are the "only ones" that support low end video card, that is an even more important information.
Thank you for proving my point.
Never heard about RuneScape before.
I'm pretty sure there are several mmorpgs out there that few people (relatively speaking) know about that can run even on VGA cards. My point being: mainstream mmorpgs. Sorry about not making it clear.
There is one of the things that most impressed me about WoW.
I'm an old time NWN fan and player. Played it for 4 or 5 years (don't recall). When NWN2 came out, I was surprised by the hardware requirements (much, MUCH higher than nwn1).
When I decided to try WoW, the first thing I did was check for requirements (which are not easy to find). Later I found I would be able to run it even on my 855GM if I cared to (I have something better than that).
I'm willing to bet a lot of WoW players only have on-board graphic cards. There is a big market segment that ALL other mmorpgs were overlooking. And Blizzard hit the jackpot there.
This is, unfortunately, a fallacy we also hear about software companies: software development always takes longer than planned.
I used to think that was true myself. Until I once met a software company with real professional leading the teams and on management. Not talking about MBA crap. I'm talking "software development management" professionals. During the 3 years I had contact with them, they never missed a deadline (and released earlier either). They were right on the spot every single time. That proved to me that, even if it is rare to meet a professional that can do it, it is possible to estimate total time and cost of development. For me, this thing about "having to remove features to release on the schedule date" screams incompetence.
The project executed by the company I mentioned earlier were not small, by the way. We are talking about 15-30 people for each project, with hundreds of lines of code, usually spanning 8 months of more of development.
Working (as) flawlessly (as possible) with pidgin 2.1.1 here. Just tried.
What is all this fuss about ? Maybe people are really using old versions and the server is right ?
Oh ? You mean ICQ server are refusing your 5 years old client ? Shocking.
I have to agree with our Australian friend here. You have no idea on pay scales.
Even 200k/year is low for a CIO, unless you are talking about a 3-men company.
When someone reaches a CIO position, he would have raised through the management ranks. And even for a medium company, 100k/year is very low for an IT manager.
No one starts out as a CIO.
I just made a post about my FF hardly ever crashing, and I do use flash.
On the other hand, I keep Java disabled. It might have something to do with it.
Besides the obvious answers ("Laziness" and "Microsoft did it to us"), there is the issue of complexity.
These days, systems are so complex that many times it is simply faster to reinstall.
I don't like this any more than you do. If you don't find the cause, there is a good chance you will have the same problem again.
FF 2.0 would crash for me about once a week, tops.
I've upgraded to FF3 the day it was released, and I'm yet to see it crash.
Running on Linux (CentOS 5).
I usually have at least 2 windows (about 15 tabs) open all the time. Lots of extensions and such.
Maybe there is something wrong with your Linux install/distro ?
I do "own" several DRM'ed ebooks. My main problem is that they are locked to a computer/reader (serial number). So if I loose that computer (cellphone etc), I loose access to the ebook.
This is something that really annoys me. If they want to "lock" the ebook, fine. But lock it to ME, not to my computer.
Because they do, and rightly so.
Remember then they took Netscape down ? That should be enough proof for anyone.
As for the reasons. Lets remember that marketing wars are fought and won on a single battlefield: the mind. Keeping your brand strong is very important. When people start using non-microsoft solutions for something, they are likely to start using non-microsoft solutions for others. Microsoft always made a lot of money pushing the idea they alone can provide solutions. People who start using Firefox are more likely to look toward OpenOffice.org.
The "search engine" issue was pointed by others, and is also relevant.
Yeah. I have one of those (actually, I use my E62 as a "data card"). Unfortunately, it doesn't fit in my pocket. It is not small enough to be non-intrusive when I go to the supermarket.
Also, why would I need to carry something as big as a laptop (even a 12" one) when all I need is ssh ? Carry a laptop and a cell phone, since I have to receive calls.
This little baby here makes my life much easier, but I know I'm the exception to the rule. Most people (98% ? Maybe more ?) get smartphones just for SMS and e-mail (if that!). But I'm glad they do, since it drives the price down quite a bit.
As a side note, I also read books on my smart phone. The screen is very nice for it, even if I don't need the qwerty keyboard for that particular task.
You do realize some people actually use their smartphones for other things than phone calls and SMS ? Like remote computer maintenance (ssh) ?
Trust me, even if you can find a ssh client for a non-qwerty phone (and you can), it is simply impossible to do anything.
I love my Nokia E62. To a point I never even bothered to upgrade to a E61 (I don't need a camera ou Wifi).