If microsoft played it like this, then why didn't SCO agreed during the meeting, then payed the license fee straight to it's investors and never say another word about it ?
Because frankly, that's what I would have done in that position.
-> not being able to see what an application is doing -> not being able to access an application's datafiles -> not being able to see what information is sent out over the internet
The problem with windows instability is not that windows is badly written (well, general opinion is that it is, and to a degree, that might be correct, or not). It's an inherent problem in commercial software.
first symptom: Ever notice how every program under windows installs itself in a "marketing oriented" way. (e.g. Paint Shop Pro in a subdir "Jasc" in the start menu). And PSP is a very well-behaved program, yet it clobbers up the start menu uneccesarily.
second symptom: Now let's look at kazaa. It installs hooks in a lot of systems pointing back at itself. It disables a few features, enables some others, to prevent those hooks from being too easily detected. Now obviously, if Kazaa fails, all hooked services (ie most notably) take a hit.
third symptom: Software on windows does not cooperate with eachother(I mean truly different software, ie non-ms soft with non-ms soft from another company). On the contrary, if a certain program does something to another program, it generally could be called sabotage (kazaa, spyware, "helpful" toolbars in ie, disabling anti-virus soft, blocking debuggers, sabotaging the crash handler, taking over the entire screen, changing screen resolution without asking,...). The developers of both programs don't know eachother, and don't care in the slightest.
Compare the situation on linux. You still have the situation that both developers of 2 programs interacting don't know eachoter and (in most cases) don't care. But, since it's open source, they make a patch, and send it in. Those patches are generally accepted, and the software thus learns to cooperate (first with kde/gnome then with other programs in its class, or vertical integration (eg procmail knowing about different mailservers and acting upon that)).
Windows (and macos and ) will continue to suck in this manner, because (I think) there is no economically viable solution for this (except perhaps having all software made by a single software company, in essence creating an open-source culture inside a huge abusive monopoly). Companies will not give out source code freely, and they will not adapt their program to 15 other programs.
But. The data is secured from *you*, the user of the computer, and surely you're not proposing they put that in the papers ? You are prevented from doing a number of things on your computer, and others are being allowed to do stuff on your computer (such as deleting your files for example).
This is not security, this is anti-security.
Remember 99,9% of the data on your computer is not your data, so it will be secured *from* you, even though you paid for it.
This will have two effects : first, ms will be able to break anyone's security (read any and all files on your computer for example, delete files on your computer), but nobody will be able to break ms's security (they even put that in the EULA already). That's it's purpose, that's what it will be used for.
I know for a fact that you can take a copy of Redhat, and only choose the packages you need (that means bash and a kernel), and install it on an embedded device, because I did it.
Although I must say that I switched to debian a few days later.
Linus' "choice" apparently include the choice to take choice away from others.
You can say what you will about this, but it is not acceptable in the long term.
It is in general profitable to take choices away from other people, so (economics) people will take this to it's extreme.
When I'm standing before you I have the choice to attack you for no good reason. It is generally accepted that that is not allowed - not all choice is good.
When I have an influence over you (as your employer, your family, your major) I am by law required to only use that influence in the context in which it is applicable (on the workfloor, at home, on public streets) and only in a very limited fashion.
Nobody is allowed, except under circumstances that make it absolutely necessary to take away the choice to leave that influence. ( and when it is necessary that decision is only made with great deliberation and under multiple levels of scrutiny)
In the digital world DRM is designed to bypass all the safeguards that exist now. There is no scrutiny, and once you're in there is no realistic way out.
And, as Stephen Hawking demonstrated, a singularity will cause Hawking radiation, and thus be leaking energy at a VERY high rate.
Even if you were to create a black hole a meter in diameter (you would need more matter than present in the earth, but let's ignore that one). It would suck up matter at less than one trillionth the rate it releases energy.
For a black hole to be able to sustain it's hunger, and start losing energy at a reasonable rate (that is, not 99% in the first second), it needs to be heavier than our solar system.
To create this black hole you would need to stabilise it during the time you insert matter into it. Only gravity has been able to do that, and only because the gravity required to compress it to a black hole was already in place.
To give you an idea of the amount of energy required to sustain a small black hole, think of the power of the gamma-ray-bursts, which probably is about a millionth of the force needed to stabilise the black hole. Those gamma ray bursts contain more energy than the sun will radiate during it's entire existence.
That means that if you were to capture all the energy the sun will output for it's entire existence (a billion years, give or take an eon), you still wouldn't have enough energy to stabilise a microscopic singularity.
What exactly is the difference between the "Embedded version of linux" and "the version on home computers" ??? The embedded version is simply a normal version of linux (yes, we do mean redhat, debian, even mandrake...) with very few packages installed. There is NO difference between the 2.
DRM is a technology preventing the use of other technology (and that is it's sole purpose). => DRM is bad.
So either I'm making a mistake here or there is no way to make your argument stick ( logics first semester if you can prove something to be right and wrong with a certain set of assumptions, the argument cannot be used (under a "complete" set of assumptions this cannot happen) )
Now, as others pointed out, DRM itself is a logical impossibility under any realistic set of assumptions.
Nerve toxines are a technology. They are developed, researched, and can be used for good or evil.
Now why don't you let me have some ?
IMHO it is never a good thing to try and suppress, a technology just because you are afraid of what someone might decide to use it for. This is exactly the kind of thinking behind the DMCA, which tries to suppress a vast class of technologies because they could theoretically be used to break other laws.
Slashdot Mirror
Which obviously is a very good deal for 99,9% of the people which are employees.
Remember why businesses exist in the first place (subtle hint as you're probably american, it's NOT to make a profit)
If microsoft played it like this, then why didn't SCO agreed during the meeting, then payed the license fee straight to it's investors and never say another word about it ?
Because frankly, that's what I would have done in that position.
Okay ...
take any konqueror (version 3 will certainly do)
go to a porn site index with avi files (any other index will do)
press shift-down
you can adjust the rate of scrolling (obviously) because it's an opensource program.
So what does this mean ? Konqueror is forbidden now ? Or is this prior art ?
Do tell, because I'm very eager to know.
Which concerns would that be ?
-> not being able to see what an application is doing
-> not being able to access an application's datafiles
-> not being able to see what information is sent out over the internet
It doesn't eliminate any of these of course.
Just so you know - there are protocols for this exact purpose (even lots of them). Even GNU.
http://www.gnu.org/software/ccrtp/
OK, now start an application, like ... say minesweeper. Is it themed ?
The problem with windows instability is not that windows is badly written (well, general opinion is that it is, and to a degree, that might be correct, or not). It's an inherent problem in commercial software.
:
...). The developers of both programs don't know eachother, and don't care in the slightest.
first symptom
Ever notice how every program under windows installs itself in a "marketing oriented" way. (e.g. Paint Shop Pro in a subdir "Jasc" in the start menu). And PSP is a very well-behaved program, yet it clobbers up the start menu uneccesarily.
second symptom:
Now let's look at kazaa. It installs hooks in a lot of systems pointing back at itself. It disables a few features, enables some others, to prevent those hooks from being too easily detected. Now obviously, if Kazaa fails, all hooked services (ie most notably) take a hit.
third symptom:
Software on windows does not cooperate with eachother(I mean truly different software, ie non-ms soft with non-ms soft from another company). On the contrary, if a certain program does something to another program, it generally could be called sabotage (kazaa, spyware, "helpful" toolbars in ie, disabling anti-virus soft, blocking debuggers, sabotaging the crash handler, taking over the entire screen, changing screen resolution without asking,
Compare the situation on linux. You still have the situation that both developers of 2 programs interacting don't know eachoter and (in most cases) don't care. But, since it's open source, they make a patch, and send it in. Those patches are generally accepted, and the software thus learns to cooperate (first with kde/gnome then with other programs in its class, or vertical integration (eg procmail knowing about different mailservers and acting upon that)).
Windows (and macos and ) will continue to suck in this manner, because (I think) there is no economically viable solution for this (except perhaps having all software made by a single software company, in essence creating an open-source culture inside a huge abusive monopoly). Companies will not give out source code freely, and they will not adapt their program to 15 other programs.
I wouldn't dismiss them so easily. Finding bugs in formulas is a bitch. Finding bugs in reverse-polish-notation formulas is
But. The data is secured from *you*, the user of the computer, and surely you're not proposing they put that in the papers ? You are prevented from doing a number of things on your computer, and others are being allowed to do stuff on your computer (such as deleting your files for example).
This is not security, this is anti-security.
Remember 99,9% of the data on your computer is not your data, so it will be secured *from* you, even though you paid for it.
This will have two effects : first, ms will be able to break anyone's security (read any and all files on your computer for example, delete files on your computer), but nobody will be able to break ms's security (they even put that in the EULA already). That's it's purpose, that's what it will be used for.
The security problem is not that anyone else might access your data that way. The problem is that *YOU* might access your data that way.
So you (a group of, let's say 50 americans) are going to defeat the american army, police force, civil service etc ?
And somehow you find this reasonable and necessary ?
Get real
I know for a fact that you can take a copy of Redhat, and only choose the packages you need (that means bash and a kernel), and install it on an embedded device, because I did it.
Although I must say that I switched to debian a few days later.
Linus' "choice" apparently include the choice to take choice away from others.
You can say what you will about this, but it is not acceptable in the long term.
It is in general profitable to take choices away from other people, so (economics) people will take this to it's extreme.
When I'm standing before you I have the choice to attack you for no good reason. It is generally accepted that that is not allowed - not all choice is good.
When I have an influence over you (as your employer, your family, your major) I am by law required to only use that influence in the context in which it is applicable (on the workfloor, at home, on public streets) and only in a very limited fashion.
Nobody is allowed, except under circumstances that make it absolutely necessary to take away the choice to leave that influence. ( and when it is necessary that decision is only made with great deliberation and under multiple levels of scrutiny)
In the digital world DRM is designed to bypass all the safeguards that exist now. There is no scrutiny, and once you're in there is no realistic way out.
Do YOU want to live in that extreme ?
Wel very simple, a computer can carry out a number of floating point instructions per second.
Your brain can carries out 10*10000^(the number of brain cells you have) floating point multiplications per second.
Try and match that one with a computer system.
And, as Stephen Hawking demonstrated, a singularity will cause Hawking radiation, and thus be leaking energy at a VERY high rate.
Even if you were to create a black hole a meter in diameter (you would need more matter than present in the earth, but let's ignore that one). It would suck up matter at less than one trillionth the rate it releases energy.
For a black hole to be able to sustain it's hunger, and start losing energy at a reasonable rate (that is, not 99% in the first second), it needs to be heavier than our solar system.
To create this black hole you would need to stabilise it during the time you insert matter into it. Only gravity has been able to do that, and only because the gravity required to compress it to a black hole was already in place.
To give you an idea of the amount of energy required to sustain a small black hole, think of the power of the gamma-ray-bursts, which probably is about a millionth of the force needed to stabilise the black hole. Those gamma ray bursts contain more energy than the sun will radiate during it's entire existence.
That means that if you were to capture all the energy the sun will output for it's entire existence (a billion years, give or take an eon), you still wouldn't have enough energy to stabilise a microscopic singularity.
This is absurd.
That without science, every disease that strikes will kill on average 50% of the population.
...
That the sustainable number of humans alive without science is measured in millions.
That without science, the number of people to hear his arguments would be about 20.
You should also remember from math classes that a circular argument is false.
What exactly is the difference between the "Embedded version of linux" and "the version on home computers" ??? ...) with very few packages installed. There is NO difference between the 2.
The embedded version is simply a normal version of linux (yes, we do mean redhat, debian, even mandrake
Dumb argument.
DRM is a technology people use. It isn't bad.
DRM is a technology preventing the use of other technology (and that is it's sole purpose). => DRM is bad.
So either I'm making a mistake here or there is no way to make your argument stick ( logics first semester if you can prove something to be right and wrong with a certain set of assumptions, the argument cannot be used (under a "complete" set of assumptions this cannot happen) )
Now, as others pointed out, DRM itself is a logical impossibility under any realistic set of assumptions.
Except if you can play the file with this thing you can obviously convert it to regular ogg. (presumably event without ogg itself)
Does this chip support tcpa (and thus palladium) ? I think this is a kind of an important detail on the new cpu.
that's what region coding is for.
You bought the cds cheaper than they determined ? PIRATE !
You know VERY well that this "move" is only about destroying mozilla and openoffice's compatibility with ms's webservers.
... let's take a random example ... a camera ...
Also, I would certainly hope no-one in you office ever heard of
let's all thank Microsoft, tomorrow you need a camera to archive your email.
Now why don't you let me have some ?
So you're saying you would let me have it ?
The original signing agent can be used to decrypt the messages ? Of course.
BUT read the spec.
"The original signing agent" is the KEY OF THE APPLICATION.
so unless ms lets them do this, they won't be able to do it.