This is not just about OUR computers. This bill is about ALL computers, which basically means it can be used as an end-run around 4th amendment precedent regarding "wiretapping."
Imagine if an IP phone vendor requested logging and archival systems (sniffers and loggers) to be installed on all it's packet switches and transfer grid, protected spyware, because it felt the need to prevent folks from using its equipment to commit crimes using their phone system.
Imagine further when the Justice Department DEMANDS such action because it is now legal and they proceed to diligently pursue any company that does not do everything in its legal powers to prevent fraud.
Finally, realize that access to those logs and stored conversations is no longer protected by a need for a warrant should anyone decide to look at them, for any reason whatsoever, because it is now their hypothetical IP phone company's personal property, legally protected, because you used THEIR systems to make YOUR call.
"This act... shall [not] apply to... Internet... service... to the extent that such monitoring... is for...the detection or prevention of fraudulent activities."
You've misread. He didn't say, "remove their software." He said "remove their SPYWARE." (emph added)
I'm pretty sure removal of the Sony Rootkit would be prohibited by the DMCA's non-circumvention provisions if the rootkit were legal in the first place. Rootkit revealer would be an infringing software as well.
So yeah, the DMCA would make cleaning all this legally protected spyware, on the basis that prevents copyright infringement, a fscking crime.
This bill (H.R. 964, the "Spy Act") needs to be on your agenda. If it passes in its current form, the 4th amendment will no longer exist on our computers until someone sues and it gets to the Supreme Court.
It doesn't make sense to wait for that though.
The bill aims to restrict any spy programs (spyware) on computers, but lists two notable exceptions:
> Exception Relating to Security- Nothing in this Act shall apply to-- > > (1) any monitoring of, or interaction with, a subscriber's Internet or other network >connection or service, or a protected computer, by a telecommunications carrier, cable operator, >computer hardware or software provider, or provider of information service or interactive computer >service, to the extent that such monitoring or interaction is for network or computer security >purposes, diagnostics, technical support, or repair, or for the detection or prevention of >fraudulent activities; or > > (2) a discrete interaction with a protected computer by a provider of computer software >solely to determine whether the user of the computer is authorized to use such software, that >occurs upon -- (A) initialization of the software; or (B) an affirmative request by the owner or >authorized user for an update of, addition to, or technical service for, the software. >
Which is, of course, bad law. My biggest problem is with the monitoring of "Internet... service... to the extent that such monitoring... is for...the detection or prevention of fraudulent activities." This is not because I like fraud, but because as any computer could conceivably be used for fraud, every computer could conceivably and legally be monitored under this poorly worded provision.
It basically states that any company who I do business with can wiretap my computer simply because I do business with them and am using a computer.
I like the Internet, but I like my 4th amendment assurance against unreasonable search and seizure better.
Please take preemptive action against this mess.
-----
I also sent letters to my rep, and am phoning his office, as he is a bloody sponsor of this mess.
We should Slashdot the EFF, and all call our reps, especially if you are represented by an H.R. sponsor of the bill, because the only reason to spy on someone's computer should be: BECAUSE YOU HAVE A WARRANT.
Actually, it's pretty useful for the "wait" cursors, because you can tell if the system has crashed or is stuttering badly. I use it for both the "Working in background" and "Busy" signs. If the hourglass stops moving, and sometimes it does, even if mouse control still works, you know you're waiting for nothing. It was more useful with Windows 95 and 98, but I still use it in XP.
(Actually, I use a set of modified Mac OS 8 icons, including black arrows and the classic "watch" icon, but I use hourglasses here because that's usually what folks use in Windows. There used to be an icon scheme called "animated hourglasses.")
Or perhaps Ms. Rachjel feels that it's better to end this charade quickly, rather than debate about it for ages, all the while allow Microsoft spokesweasels the PR bonus of claiming that they are "working with the International Standards community?"
"Fast track" just means you get a quick answer. It's a signifier of PRIORITY, not quality. You streamline the work process because it is IMPORTANT and can't wait, which this *is*. If Microsoft wants to talk, with their 90%+ market share, it is by definition important, especially with a piece of software as ubiquitous as Office. A lot of developers would like to be able to finally work seamlessly with it, instead of reverse engineering or just guessing. The protests were properly lodged now, because they need to be considered *rapidly* if fast track is to have any hope of doing what can be years of feasibility study in such a short space of time.
But "fast track" is by no means assurance of acceptance, and even acceptance is no guarantee of widespread adoption, and, in the end, if the whole "standard" is really so bad to begin with, even enthusiastic adoption *will* result in a failed implementation, and a resultant mess that will lower Microsoft's standing with their customers for decades. The more enthusiasm, the bigger the mess, in fact.
A successful standard is one that gets adopted and allows software to interoperate. Why is everyone so afraid of this abortion when it is clear that it will fail because MS doesn't recognize the *basis* of standards based design in the first place?
But this time the abortion (if it doesn't shape up) will be on Microsoft's corporate letterhead. There will be no one else they can blame for its failure.
I'd prefer that the standards process work and they fix this broken mess, of course. It's better for MS, and it's better for all developers.
Well, in Dapper at least, the restricted modules included (for my ATi Radeon) were deprecated faster than you can say "boo." Vid card companies find newer and better instabilities in their drivers so quickly, for bleeding edge hardware that's obsolete in 6 months, that it makes no sense whatsoever to include them in a distro. By the time you've downloaded the ISO, there are 3 new versions and a beta available!
If you want maximal stability, you're going to have to suck it up and learn to compile the kernal modules yourself. Not such a bad thing really, and the HOWTO's aren't too hard to find.
What's so difficult about typing "M-A B-I (3dcard)" anyway?;^)
That's why. 3D hardware is *never* going to be a mature stable technology, by its own nature, so there is no such thing as a mature, stable driver that takes advantage of all the features. I think the decision is a trade-off that makes reasonable sense, even to a non-zealot.
>>To paraphrase: A branch of the government, especially a non-elected one, should *never* regulate >>ITSELF. That actually makes a good deal of sense, don't you think?
caitsith01 said:
>...as opposed to the way that Congress sets its own ethical rules, and the President signs a >little memorandum explaining what his version of the laws he signs off on is and purports to >exercise direct legislative power under the guise of the 'war' on terror?
No. Not as opposed to those examples. Those are both excellent examples of the same thing. The biggest problem with any lawmaking body is that they tend to make laws that favor themselves. Human nature. Who watches the watchers? In the executive, it's the same problem with cops. Who enforces the law when the people who control that enforcement mechanism break it?
I believe you may have misunderstood the difference between a governmental body governing how it will operate, and a governmental body having *regulatory authority* over itself. The former is just common sense, the latter is a disaster in the making.
The second example, that of President Bush, is less a case of "checks and balances" and more a case of usurping legislative authority, which, as far as I'm concerned, is an *impeachable offense*, rather than an administrative problem.
Just so we can get our politics straight.;^)
>At some point each arm of government has a degree of autonomy. Separation of powers means that >each arm may not usurp the others, NOT that each arm may not regulate its own activities insofar >as they are within the scope of its power.
Right again. The former is *expressly* forbidden. The latter is a problem dealt with by the tradition of "checks and balances," which is really what I was referring to in the first place. Thompson mentions *both*, BTW.
>Oh, and "especially a non-elected one" - you mean one that actually has an incentive to set up >favourable rules and regulations to ensure re-election..?
No. I don't mean there's any problem with an appointed branch of government, nor that the Judiciary should be elected. Here in Illinois, all judges are subjected to a totally broken judicial retention vote on the general ballot (so many ignorant people vote "YES" that even a man who was universally panned by 10 separate judicial review societies was *retained*). It's a disaster.
Don't mistake me for Tom DeLay on this matter. I think he's an ass.
I just think that a special problem of any appointed body is that it needs an independent oversight committee or things tend to get out of hand. This usually starts as an elite oversight committee, as in the case of the initial Parliament overseeing the King of England, and comprised of tax-paying propertied Lords.
In this case, the oversight committee is a State Bar Association, consisting of highly educated, and thus almost invariably propertied, lawyers. Jack Thompson pointed out that the Florida system is, in fact, quite inbred, that the Florida Supreme Court had too strong an influence in the body that regulated it, and the court paid him $20,000 to keep that secret to himself and not continue his suit.
That is a textbook definition of corruption, and a *problem*.
I think the solution is independent, *representative* judicial review boards (because, as with the Illinois example, public polling *fails* due to voter incompetence). Such a system should be very difficult to engage. Only for the most egregious cases of corruption and/or incompetence.
I welcome any better suggestion, because that too is far from a perfect solution.
Mr. "5, Informative" said: >If I may quote his Wikipedia article
You may... but if you're really going to tell us what Jack Thompson thinks, you should quote *Jack Thompson*, who said:
>"wedding of all three functions of government into the Florida Bar, the 'official arm' of the >Florida Supreme Court, is violative of the bedrock constitutional requirement of the separation >powers and the 'checks and balances' which the separation guarantees."
from the *same article*.
To paraphrase: A branch of the government, especially a non-elected one, should *never* regulate ITSELF. That actually makes a good deal of sense, don't you think?
I dislike Jack Thompson for his smearing, his wild accusations, and his consistent histrionic bullshit, which can be quoted voluminously (so why quote a paraphrase?), but he is still a lawyer, and he is a *competent* lawyer who understands exactly what's gone wrong with the law.
His tragedy is that he uses that information to get his way, instead of as a point of reform. That's not unique amongst lawyers, because the system does not reward ethical behavior, it rewards whatever sticks to the wall. He knows what's wrong with this country's legal system, and I would welcome his disbarment because it might turn his crusade in the right direction: against that corrupted system.
He isn't a nutjob. People IGNORE nutjobs. He's EFFECTIVE and that bothers us because it shows us how easily the legal system can be manipulated to punish unsubstantiated wrongs.
As an example, while I voted in my general election today, I left the entire judicial retention sheet blank, because I had forgotten to download recommendations from the relevant State bar and legal associations. In one judge's case, ten seperate judicial review associations *unanimously* recommended his ouster.
Uninformed voters, in a judicial slate, are likely to vote for retentions across the board, making the ouster of a clearly incompetant justice that much harder. That is what my wife did, as I found out when we talked about it later. Such action in ignorance literally *breaks* the system.
So I believe that if you don't have a reason to vote, you *shouldn't* vote. Partial participation is preferable as well. One should always undervote and refrain from voting in particular races if you have no reason (or clue even) to exercise franchise.
To qualify: I think that party line is sufficient if you are a partisan, but if you truly have no idea and no opinion, leave the matter to people who do.
Additionally, I am appalled that anyone would choose to remain so completely *ignorant* that they would be able to heed this advice for an entire election. Partial participation is fine, but do you live in a cave? Do you care about your rights and freedom at all? There is no graver duty of an American citzen than to participate in his democratic republic. None. For me, this trumps even military service.
If you're not an absolute open software zealot, you're going to want to put on restricted stuff, and the best way to do this with Ubuntu is a little shell script (and user maintained repository list) called Automatix. It is especially important because this will get rid of totem-gstreamer and install totem-xine, which will allow them to play all their media.
Beyond that, generating restricted deb packages for ATi cards (fglrx) can be a trial, but here's a link with idiot-proof step by steps:
That the sentence has two meanings supports my arguments, especially after the qualifier "Under Federal sentencing guidelines," which specifically implies that the context is the *guidelines*, and not *reality*, as the second definition requires. The ambiguity makes the statement inaccurate, because the misinterpretation is *suggested* by the conditional phrase. Take it up with George Lakoff if you don't believe me.
And the phrase "could have," which you claim is clarification, is what muddies the meaning of the sentence in the first place! If he had simply said, "Under Federal sentencing guidelines, Kumar faced life in prison but the judge called that punishment 'unreasonable,'" the reader couldn't reasonably misinterpret, and it would also say *exactly* what we agree was intended.
If I were his editor, I would have deled "could have," and smacked the writer on the nose with a rolled up magazine if he handed it back with a stet mark.
Just a minor comment on the article wording. Kumar did, in fact, "[face] life in prison." He just didn't receive it. As a writer, I'm dismayed by this error. I know what you meant, but the article is technically inaccurate.
My primary concern with the remote shutdown procedure is that there will be code, in exactly the same place, with exactly the same offsets, on every Vista machine in existence which is solely there to cripple a machine. Some rumours say that even Internet Explorer won't work.
In light of this, the challenge is far simpler than cracking Palladium or any of the impossible tasks being presented. All you have to do is activate that code! The payload is already there. All a malicious cracker needs is a valid jump table or a set of exports. He doesn't need to crack the user's registration hashes at all.
I imagine this would even be hard, as I'm sure no user context, not even Administrator, will be cleared to run that code, but even so it is still easier than cracking hashes.
Can anyone address the idea of just directly accessing the library?
If they go ahead with the code to disable the operating system, Vista will be the first ever OS to ship with its very own payload. Virus writers will only have to find a way to trigger it. I say there's about a 25% chance of that happening, and that's too much. WGA is a security nightmare.
Expect Volume License editions that do not have this WGA "payload" built in on the insistence of corporate customers who will rightfully describe the OS shutdown code as an utterly valueless feature and potentially crippling attack vector.
WGA *subtracts* value if there's code for anything beyond nag screens.
And in follow-up, expect that VLK edition to be leaked to the public. The only people getting shut down by the "Vista WGA virus of 2007" will be the legitimate users!
Way to go Steve Ballmer. You're company is now producing a "malicious" OS.
The author of this article is thinking like a second-rate marketer: That there is a product, and that various flavors of that product somehow *dilute* it.
This isn't a competition between IE and Firefox. If we think of it in those terms, IE wins period. The recent Mozilla.com is not trying to *corner* the market, nor win, they are trying to *penetrate* it so that everyone plays on a level field. Ultimately, this is a competition between Open Standards and proprietary standards.
There is only one product that is defined by the proprietary standard: IE. Gecko, on the other hand, is used in a variety of flavors (Netscape, Mozilla, Firefox, Galleon, etc.) and the more products that are produced that DON'T use IE, the better. Mozilla is trying to get the Web to stop using MS proprietary crap, not gain ludicrous browser market share. Netscape or MS, market share in excess of 50% is terrible for the web! Netscape style plugins are not, IMHO, any better than ASP.NET and MS's crap.
By extension, which product establishes Open Standards doesn't matter, so long as there are a bunch of them that drown the single browser hegemony and keep web design on the Open Standards straight and narrow.
To think like a first-rate marketer: Adopt, Adapt, Extend. Firefox can already render with IE's proprietary systems if needed through EXTENSION. The astoundingly cool Netscape 8 even made a product out of it. And every time a new product that bases itself on Open Standards hits the fan, Open Standards win. It doesn't even have to be Gecko. Opera will do fine.
Like ASCII won all those years ago. Did we care how many different editors came out? No. Do we have our favorites? Yes. VI and Emacs come to mind. Sound anything like Mozilla and IE? Personally, I just use gedit at this point because the APPLICATION NO LONGER MATTERS. So too will it be with the browser.
Open Source, and Firefox, is not trying to establish a product, it is trying to establish a standard, one that is public and extensible through public dialogue, so that proprietary extensions will become useless, and web design, and Office Suites for that matter, become a commodity instead of a market to be cornered.
If your looking for Firefox as a product to catch up with IE's market share, don't hold your breath. By the time Gecko and Open Standards are done with MS, no one browser will ever have a majority market share again.
Simply put, the reason MS doesn't want folks running DRM inside a virtual machine is because the VM host OS becomes a "hole" (like the so-called "analog hole") through which you can run recorders and whatnot while Vista goes on blissfully unaware of the fact that its DRM is a joke. What sense is a DRM lockdown when you can run everything Vista produces through your ALSA stack and LAME encode the resultant output to a DRM-free format? This move is *expected* because Vista has been designed from the ground up as a proprietary lockdown for the home computer and all data transfers. But it's hardly an example of fascism.
It's sheer desperation.
Since virtual computing is the biggest advance in microcomputing since the ISA bus, we can clearly see exactly where Vista DRM is going to wind up. Buried under the juggernaut, bitch. This is beyond machine gunning themselves in the foot, Microsoft has shoved a hand grenade up their arse by even drawing attention to the issue.
So all that DRM work (and the tell-tale delay its caused) for nothing, and because of a late release and an unexpected rise in virtual computing technologies, including *hardware* support for virtualization (god bless XEN 3), at least 90% of Vista's promise, for the powers that are *really* driving Vista, is an utter wash. Microsoft is going to have to *accept* virtual computing, and all they can do is try to place an artificial price barrier on it by limiting what you can do with the Home Editions' EULA.
Unless virtualization is actually made illegal in an amendment to the DMCA, or collusion with Intel makes the VT-x feature set a restricted, high-cost feature, the Vista DRM lockdown is officially moot. I don't see either in my scratched up crystal ball, do you?
liking Microsoft products does not equate to 'corrupt'.
But as you also mention, Thurott "[having] good contacts with them" does. Hands down. Microsoft is not in the business of giving exclusive previews of its flagship products without substantial, frequently contractual (as in "YOU CANNOT CRITICIZE Microsoft!" clauses in the NDA), reciprocation.
It doesn't matter that he's logical, nor that he's a good writer, nor does it matter if he's a nice guy. He signs agreements with MS to get his information, and that means what he writes is corrupt. Garbage in, garbage out.
Which is why I hate all these ridiculous speculative articles about MS vaporware. You can't find a single source outside of MS's hurricane-like spin until there is a shipping product, because all info prior to release comes from MS. MS has built an empire out of that fact, by selling vapor, and after all their worthy competition has been driven out by the mere innuendo that MS is going to ship something, at long last providing mediocrity.
MS knows that geek chatter is always inversely proportional to the amount of solid information available. We're as predictable as a bunch trained seals. Our predictability is the bread and butter of charlatans like Thurott. All the truly great products that we don't have are courtesy of this time-honored ritual in the geek community.
So could we please stop arguing about the features of a non-shipping, late-as-all-hell, OS that only MS insiders really have solid info about?
I'll go out on a limb and say that Vista is absolutely the worst OS ever, but that's only because it's in beta and no one can use it for production. It isn't an OS until it ships.
What's so 5, informative about this? Microsoft is big and powerful? All things change? What?
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure this response, and all paraphrases thereof, were just voted down by the U.S. House. You can't flog dead horses into meat paste for human consumption anymore. Read about the legislation here
. That link alone makes this reply more informative than the parent.
This is a comment that sounds like a Vogon about to throw the/. crowd out the ancillary airlock, not something that should appear at a 3+ threshhold. Shame on whoever modded this drivel up!
It gets the users used to encrypting their folders, and how great that is, for when MS introduces a file system that encrypts EVERYTHING at the behest of the MPAA/RIAA content Nazis.
I'm still convinced that Vista hasn't been released because they can't make it palatable to the consumer, not because they can't make it work.
In short, natural selection doesn't prevent the things that are threats to empty nesters. We're going to have to sort geriatrics out without the help of mother nature.
Slashdot Mirror
This is not just about OUR computers. This bill is about ALL computers, which basically means it can be used as an end-run around 4th amendment precedent regarding "wiretapping."
Imagine if an IP phone vendor requested logging and archival systems (sniffers and loggers) to be installed on all it's packet switches and transfer grid, protected spyware, because it felt the need to prevent folks from using its equipment to commit crimes using their phone system.
Imagine further when the Justice Department DEMANDS such action because it is now legal and they proceed to diligently pursue any company that does not do everything in its legal powers to prevent fraud.
Finally, realize that access to those logs and stored conversations is no longer protected by a need for a warrant should anyone decide to look at them, for any reason whatsoever, because it is now their hypothetical IP phone company's personal property, legally protected, because you used THEIR systems to make YOUR call.
"This act... shall [not] apply to... Internet... service... to the extent that such monitoring... is for...the detection or prevention of fraudulent activities."
Poison.
--
Toro
You've misread. He didn't say, "remove their software." He said "remove their SPYWARE." (emph added)
I'm pretty sure removal of the Sony Rootkit would be prohibited by the DMCA's non-circumvention provisions if the rootkit were legal in the first place. Rootkit revealer would be an infringing software as well.
So yeah, the DMCA would make cleaning all this legally protected spyware, on the basis that prevents copyright infringement, a fscking crime.
And in jail, crime fscks YOU.
--
Toro
In Soviet Russia, bad jokes tell YOU
Hmm. You failed all those "Pick the best title for this passage" questions, didn't ya'? ;^P
--
Toro
To Whom It May Concern,
This bill (H.R. 964, the "Spy Act") needs to be on your agenda. If it passes in its current form, the 4th amendment will no longer exist on our computers until someone sues and it gets to the Supreme Court.
It doesn't make sense to wait for that though.
The bill aims to restrict any spy programs (spyware) on computers, but lists two notable exceptions:
> Exception Relating to Security- Nothing in this Act shall apply to--
>
> (1) any monitoring of, or interaction with, a subscriber's Internet or other network
>connection or service, or a protected computer, by a telecommunications carrier, cable operator,
>computer hardware or software provider, or provider of information service or interactive computer
>service, to the extent that such monitoring or interaction is for network or computer security
>purposes, diagnostics, technical support, or repair, or for the detection or prevention of
>fraudulent activities; or
>
> (2) a discrete interaction with a protected computer by a provider of computer software
>solely to determine whether the user of the computer is authorized to use such software, that
>occurs upon -- (A) initialization of the software; or (B) an affirmative request by the owner or
>authorized user for an update of, addition to, or technical service for, the software.
>
Which is, of course, bad law. My biggest problem is with the monitoring of "Internet... service... to the extent that such monitoring... is for...the detection or prevention of fraudulent activities." This is not because I like fraud, but because as any computer could conceivably be used for fraud, every computer could conceivably and legally be monitored under this poorly worded provision.
It basically states that any company who I do business with can wiretap my computer simply because I do business with them and am using a computer.
I like the Internet, but I like my 4th amendment assurance against unreasonable search and seizure better.
Please take preemptive action against this mess.
-----
I also sent letters to my rep, and am phoning his office, as he is a bloody sponsor of this mess.
We should Slashdot the EFF, and all call our reps, especially if you are represented by an H.R. sponsor of the bill, because the only reason to spy on someone's computer should be: BECAUSE YOU HAVE A WARRANT.
Jeez. Did they all *fail* Con Law? (IANAL)
--
Toro
"Do no evil" was replaced by this:
"Publicly traded corporation"
We apologize for the inconvenience.
Actually, it's pretty useful for the "wait" cursors, because you can tell if the system has crashed or is stuttering badly. I use it for both the "Working in background" and "Busy" signs. If the hourglass stops moving, and sometimes it does, even if mouse control still works, you know you're waiting for nothing. It was more useful with Windows 95 and 98, but I still use it in XP.
(Actually, I use a set of modified Mac OS 8 icons, including black arrows and the classic "watch" icon, but I use hourglasses here because that's usually what folks use in Windows. There used to be an icon scheme called "animated hourglasses.")
--
Toro (breathing through my mouth)
Or perhaps Ms. Rachjel feels that it's better to end this charade quickly, rather than debate about it for ages, all the while allow Microsoft spokesweasels the PR bonus of claiming that they are "working with the International Standards community?"
"Fast track" just means you get a quick answer. It's a signifier of PRIORITY, not quality. You streamline the work process because it is IMPORTANT and can't wait, which this *is*. If Microsoft wants to talk, with their 90%+ market share, it is by definition important, especially with a piece of software as ubiquitous as Office. A lot of developers would like to be able to finally work seamlessly with it, instead of reverse engineering or just guessing. The protests were properly lodged now, because they need to be considered *rapidly* if fast track is to have any hope of doing what can be years of feasibility study in such a short space of time.
But "fast track" is by no means assurance of acceptance, and even acceptance is no guarantee of widespread adoption, and, in the end, if the whole "standard" is really so bad to begin with, even enthusiastic adoption *will* result in a failed implementation, and a resultant mess that will lower Microsoft's standing with their customers for decades. The more enthusiasm, the bigger the mess, in fact.
A successful standard is one that gets adopted and allows software to interoperate. Why is everyone so afraid of this abortion when it is clear that it will fail because MS doesn't recognize the *basis* of standards based design in the first place?
But this time the abortion (if it doesn't shape up) will be on Microsoft's corporate letterhead. There will be no one else they can blame for its failure.
I'd prefer that the standards process work and they fix this broken mess, of course. It's better for MS, and it's better for all developers.
--
Toro
Jesus hopping Christ on a rusty pogo stick, are they seriously giving the *hotfixes* codenames?!
Microsoft is in its death throes. Vista isn't an OS, it's a work in progress.
--
Toro
True. But Stallman and his GPL v3 crew, that may be another story. ;^)
--
Toro
Well, in Dapper at least, the restricted modules included (for my ATi Radeon) were deprecated faster than you can say "boo." Vid card companies find newer and better instabilities in their drivers so quickly, for bleeding edge hardware that's obsolete in 6 months, that it makes no sense whatsoever to include them in a distro. By the time you've downloaded the ISO, there are 3 new versions and a beta available!
;^)
If you want maximal stability, you're going to have to suck it up and learn to compile the kernal modules yourself. Not such a bad thing really, and the HOWTO's aren't too hard to find.
What's so difficult about typing "M-A B-I (3dcard)" anyway?
That's why. 3D hardware is *never* going to be a mature stable technology, by its own nature, so there is no such thing as a mature, stable driver that takes advantage of all the features. I think the decision is a trade-off that makes reasonable sense, even to a non-zealot.
--
Toro
Mr "+5 Insightful" said:
;^)
>>To paraphrase: A branch of the government, especially a non-elected one, should *never* regulate
>>ITSELF. That actually makes a good deal of sense, don't you think?
caitsith01 said:
>...as opposed to the way that Congress sets its own ethical rules, and the President signs a
>little memorandum explaining what his version of the laws he signs off on is and purports to
>exercise direct legislative power under the guise of the 'war' on terror?
No. Not as opposed to those examples. Those are both excellent examples of the same thing. The biggest problem with any lawmaking body is that they tend to make laws that favor themselves. Human nature. Who watches the watchers? In the executive, it's the same problem with cops. Who enforces the law when the people who control that enforcement mechanism break it?
I believe you may have misunderstood the difference between a governmental body governing how it will operate, and a governmental body having *regulatory authority* over itself. The former is just common sense, the latter is a disaster in the making.
The second example, that of President Bush, is less a case of "checks and balances" and more a case of usurping legislative authority, which, as far as I'm concerned, is an *impeachable offense*, rather than an administrative problem.
Just so we can get our politics straight.
>At some point each arm of government has a degree of autonomy. Separation of powers means that
>each arm may not usurp the others, NOT that each arm may not regulate its own activities insofar
>as they are within the scope of its power.
Right again. The former is *expressly* forbidden. The latter is a problem dealt with by the tradition of "checks and balances," which is really what I was referring to in the first place. Thompson mentions *both*, BTW.
>Oh, and "especially a non-elected one" - you mean one that actually has an incentive to set up
>favourable rules and regulations to ensure re-election..?
No. I don't mean there's any problem with an appointed branch of government, nor that the Judiciary should be elected. Here in Illinois, all judges are subjected to a totally broken judicial retention vote on the general ballot (so many ignorant people vote "YES" that even a man who was universally panned by 10 separate judicial review societies was *retained*). It's a disaster.
Don't mistake me for Tom DeLay on this matter. I think he's an ass.
I just think that a special problem of any appointed body is that it needs an independent oversight committee or things tend to get out of hand. This usually starts as an elite oversight committee, as in the case of the initial Parliament overseeing the King of England, and comprised of tax-paying propertied Lords.
In this case, the oversight committee is a State Bar Association, consisting of highly educated, and thus almost invariably propertied, lawyers. Jack Thompson pointed out that the Florida system is, in fact, quite inbred, that the Florida Supreme Court had too strong an influence in the body that regulated it, and the court paid him $20,000 to keep that secret to himself and not continue his suit.
That is a textbook definition of corruption, and a *problem*.
I think the solution is independent, *representative* judicial review boards (because, as with the Illinois example, public polling *fails* due to voter incompetence). Such a system should be very difficult to engage. Only for the most egregious cases of corruption and/or incompetence.
I welcome any better suggestion, because that too is far from a perfect solution.
--
Toro
Mr. "5, Informative" said:
>If I may quote his Wikipedia article
You may... but if you're really going to tell us what Jack Thompson thinks, you should quote *Jack Thompson*, who said:
>"wedding of all three functions of government into the Florida Bar, the 'official arm' of the
>Florida Supreme Court, is violative of the bedrock constitutional requirement of the separation
>powers and the 'checks and balances' which the separation guarantees."
from the *same article*.
To paraphrase: A branch of the government, especially a non-elected one, should *never* regulate ITSELF. That actually makes a good deal of sense, don't you think?
I dislike Jack Thompson for his smearing, his wild accusations, and his consistent histrionic bullshit, which can be quoted voluminously (so why quote a paraphrase?), but he is still a lawyer, and he is a *competent* lawyer who understands exactly what's gone wrong with the law.
His tragedy is that he uses that information to get his way, instead of as a point of reform. That's not unique amongst lawyers, because the system does not reward ethical behavior, it rewards whatever sticks to the wall. He knows what's wrong with this country's legal system, and I would welcome his disbarment because it might turn his crusade in the right direction: against that corrupted system.
He isn't a nutjob. People IGNORE nutjobs. He's EFFECTIVE and that bothers us because it shows us how easily the legal system can be manipulated to punish unsubstantiated wrongs.
--
Toro
As an example, while I voted in my general election today, I left the entire judicial retention sheet blank, because I had forgotten to download recommendations from the relevant State bar and legal associations. In one judge's case, ten seperate judicial review associations *unanimously* recommended his ouster.
Uninformed voters, in a judicial slate, are likely to vote for retentions across the board, making the ouster of a clearly incompetant justice that much harder. That is what my wife did, as I found out when we talked about it later. Such action in ignorance literally *breaks* the system.
So I believe that if you don't have a reason to vote, you *shouldn't* vote. Partial participation is preferable as well. One should always undervote and refrain from voting in particular races if you have no reason (or clue even) to exercise franchise.
To qualify: I think that party line is sufficient if you are a partisan, but if you truly have no idea and no opinion, leave the matter to people who do.
Additionally, I am appalled that anyone would choose to remain so completely *ignorant* that they would be able to heed this advice for an entire election. Partial participation is fine, but do you live in a cave? Do you care about your rights and freedom at all? There is no graver duty of an American citzen than to participate in his democratic republic. None. For me, this trumps even military service.
Shame on you.
--
Toro
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=80295
s tallation_Guide
;^)
If you're not an absolute open software zealot, you're going to want to put on restricted stuff, and the best way to do this with Ubuntu is a little shell script (and user maintained repository list) called Automatix. It is especially important because this will get rid of totem-gstreamer and install totem-xine, which will allow them to play all their media.
Beyond that, generating restricted deb packages for ATi cards (fglrx) can be a trial, but here's a link with idiot-proof step by steps:
http://wiki.cchtml.com/index.php/Ubuntu_Dapper_In
You're looking to use method 2, but tell your users they can type "m-a" instead of module-ass[TAB].
Best of luck.
--
Toro
That the sentence has two meanings supports my arguments, especially after the qualifier "Under Federal sentencing guidelines," which specifically implies that the context is the *guidelines*, and not *reality*, as the second definition requires. The ambiguity makes the statement inaccurate, because the misinterpretation is *suggested* by the conditional phrase. Take it up with George Lakoff if you don't believe me.
And the phrase "could have," which you claim is clarification, is what muddies the meaning of the sentence in the first place! If he had simply said, "Under Federal sentencing guidelines, Kumar faced life in prison but the judge called that punishment 'unreasonable,'" the reader couldn't reasonably misinterpret, and it would also say *exactly* what we agree was intended.
If I were his editor, I would have deled "could have," and smacked the writer on the nose with a rolled up magazine if he handed it back with a stet mark.
--
Toro
Just a minor comment on the article wording. Kumar did, in fact, "[face] life in prison." He just didn't receive it. As a writer, I'm dismayed by this error. I know what you meant, but the article is technically inaccurate.
;^)
Feel free to mod this into oblivion.
--
Toro
My primary concern with the remote shutdown procedure is that there will be code, in exactly the same place, with exactly the same offsets, on every Vista machine in existence which is solely there to cripple a machine. Some rumours say that even Internet Explorer won't work.
In light of this, the challenge is far simpler than cracking Palladium or any of the impossible tasks being presented. All you have to do is activate that code! The payload is already there. All a malicious cracker needs is a valid jump table or a set of exports. He doesn't need to crack the user's registration hashes at all.
I imagine this would even be hard, as I'm sure no user context, not even Administrator, will be cleared to run that code, but even so it is still easier than cracking hashes.
Can anyone address the idea of just directly accessing the library?
If they go ahead with the code to disable the operating system, Vista will be the first ever OS to ship with its very own payload. Virus writers will only have to find a way to trigger it. I say there's about a 25% chance of that happening, and that's too much. WGA is a security nightmare.
Expect Volume License editions that do not have this WGA "payload" built in on the insistence of corporate customers who will rightfully describe the OS shutdown code as an utterly valueless feature and potentially crippling attack vector.
WGA *subtracts* value if there's code for anything beyond nag screens.
And in follow-up, expect that VLK edition to be leaked to the public. The only people getting shut down by the "Vista WGA virus of 2007" will be the legitimate users!
Way to go Steve Ballmer. You're company is now producing a "malicious" OS.
--
Toro
The author of this article is thinking like a second-rate marketer: That there is a product, and that various flavors of that product somehow *dilute* it.
This isn't a competition between IE and Firefox. If we think of it in those terms, IE wins period. The recent Mozilla.com is not trying to *corner* the market, nor win, they are trying to *penetrate* it so that everyone plays on a level field. Ultimately, this is a competition between Open Standards and proprietary standards.
There is only one product that is defined by the proprietary standard: IE. Gecko, on the other hand, is used in a variety of flavors (Netscape, Mozilla, Firefox, Galleon, etc.) and the more products that are produced that DON'T use IE, the better. Mozilla is trying to get the Web to stop using MS proprietary crap, not gain ludicrous browser market share. Netscape or MS, market share in excess of 50% is terrible for the web! Netscape style plugins are not, IMHO, any better than ASP.NET and MS's crap.
By extension, which product establishes Open Standards doesn't matter, so long as there are a bunch of them that drown the single browser hegemony and keep web design on the Open Standards straight and narrow.
To think like a first-rate marketer: Adopt, Adapt, Extend. Firefox can already render with IE's proprietary systems if needed through EXTENSION. The astoundingly cool Netscape 8 even made a product out of it. And every time a new product that bases itself on Open Standards hits the fan, Open Standards win. It doesn't even have to be Gecko. Opera will do fine.
Like ASCII won all those years ago. Did we care how many different editors came out? No. Do we have our favorites? Yes. VI and Emacs come to mind. Sound anything like Mozilla and IE? Personally, I just use gedit at this point because the APPLICATION NO LONGER MATTERS. So too will it be with the browser.
Open Source, and Firefox, is not trying to establish a product, it is trying to establish a standard, one that is public and extensible through public dialogue, so that proprietary extensions will become useless, and web design, and Office Suites for that matter, become a commodity instead of a market to be cornered.
If your looking for Firefox as a product to catch up with IE's market share, don't hold your breath. By the time Gecko and Open Standards are done with MS, no one browser will ever have a majority market share again.
And that is how it should be.
-Toro
Simply put, the reason MS doesn't want folks running DRM inside a virtual machine is because the VM host OS becomes a "hole" (like the so-called "analog hole") through which you can run recorders and whatnot while Vista goes on blissfully unaware of the fact that its DRM is a joke. What sense is a DRM lockdown when you can run everything Vista produces through your ALSA stack and LAME encode the resultant output to a DRM-free format? This move is *expected* because Vista has been designed from the ground up as a proprietary lockdown for the home computer and all data transfers. But it's hardly an example of fascism.
It's sheer desperation.
Since virtual computing is the biggest advance in microcomputing since the ISA bus, we can clearly see exactly where Vista DRM is going to wind up. Buried under the juggernaut, bitch. This is beyond machine gunning themselves in the foot, Microsoft has shoved a hand grenade up their arse by even drawing attention to the issue.
So all that DRM work (and the tell-tale delay its caused) for nothing, and because of a late release and an unexpected rise in virtual computing technologies, including *hardware* support for virtualization (god bless XEN 3), at least 90% of Vista's promise, for the powers that are *really* driving Vista, is an utter wash. Microsoft is going to have to *accept* virtual computing, and all they can do is try to place an artificial price barrier on it by limiting what you can do with the Home Editions' EULA.
Unless virtualization is actually made illegal in an amendment to the DMCA, or collusion with Intel makes the VT-x feature set a restricted, high-cost feature, the Vista DRM lockdown is officially moot. I don't see either in my scratched up crystal ball, do you?
-Toro
But as you also mention, Thurott "[having] good contacts with them" does. Hands down. Microsoft is not in the business of giving exclusive previews of its flagship products without substantial, frequently contractual (as in "YOU CANNOT CRITICIZE Microsoft!" clauses in the NDA), reciprocation.
It doesn't matter that he's logical, nor that he's a good writer, nor does it matter if he's a nice guy. He signs agreements with MS to get his information, and that means what he writes is corrupt. Garbage in, garbage out.
Which is why I hate all these ridiculous speculative articles about MS vaporware. You can't find a single source outside of MS's hurricane-like spin until there is a shipping product, because all info prior to release comes from MS. MS has built an empire out of that fact, by selling vapor, and after all their worthy competition has been driven out by the mere innuendo that MS is going to ship something, at long last providing mediocrity.
MS knows that geek chatter is always inversely proportional to the amount of solid information available. We're as predictable as a bunch trained seals. Our predictability is the bread and butter of charlatans like Thurott. All the truly great products that we don't have are courtesy of this time-honored ritual in the geek community.
So could we please stop arguing about the features of a non-shipping, late-as-all-hell, OS that only MS insiders really have solid info about?
I'll go out on a limb and say that Vista is absolutely the worst OS ever, but that's only because it's in beta and no one can use it for production. It isn't an OS until it ships.
--
Toro
What's so 5, informative about this? Microsoft is big and powerful? All things change? What?
/. crowd out the ancillary airlock, not something that should appear at a 3+ threshhold. Shame on whoever modded this drivel up!
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure this response, and all paraphrases thereof, were just voted down by the U.S. House. You can't flog dead horses into meat paste for human consumption anymore. Read about the legislation here . That link alone makes this reply more informative than the parent.
This is a comment that sounds like a Vogon about to throw the
--
Toro
It gets the users used to encrypting their folders, and how great that is, for when MS introduces a file system that encrypts EVERYTHING at the behest of the MPAA/RIAA content Nazis.
I'm still convinced that Vista hasn't been released because they can't make it palatable to the consumer, not because they can't make it work.
Toro!
In short, natural selection doesn't prevent the things that are threats to empty nesters. We're going to have to sort geriatrics out without the help of mother nature.
Yet gives you 16 different forms of cancer that the protein inhibited, all at once.
I'll pass.