My god did you fall for their lines completely. You bet they have a Linux running on it, if you want, they will even tell you have they have an open source implementation of all the drivers. "It's open source so it has to be good."
But you are missing the point 100%. Why do DRM systems have to be based on closed systems like Windows? Why can they not be open source? Because they have to act against the user, and if they were open, the user to could modify them to act in his interest instead. But the whole point with TCPA is to sidestep this: because the part of the process that acts against the users interest is embedded in the chip, whether you can modify or see the software or not doesn't matter in the slightest.
To flesh up on the Sil part, I don't think it could really be made into a movie. However, imagine the story of the first age done as a high budget mini-series a la Band of Brothers. Cut it into the most significant parts, starting with the exile of Noldor, and having episodes devoted to the important stories (the fall of Fingolfin, Beren and Luthien, Tuor, Turin) all the way until the voyage of Earendil and the final battle. I think that could be great, and the DVD market could probably justify the budget.
Ian McKella is only 64. I think one can count on him pulling through another five years (and more!).
Saruman does not appear in The Hobbit (unless PJ wants to flesh out the storming of Dol Guldur for instance): that would be a greater concern since Christoffer Lee is 82 this year (I thought that George Lucas took a big risk with him actually...)
The problem, as I see it, is that there will be a lot of pressure to make this movie bigger and better than then the previous three. But it shouldn't be: The Hobbit is a smaller story in every sense. Trying to "out do" LOTR with it's story would destroy it completely - it is a really just one small adventure in a very big world.
Don't get me wrong, it is a great story, and if done right it could be a great movie, but if it made along the lines of "Now we have better computers and can have ten times more people at the final battle" then that would destroy it (and the continuity).
In that sense, I think trying to make something out of the stories in The Silmarrilion would be better (those battles really were bigger) - but obviously brining that to the screen would involve basically filling a story around the history told in the book. And I doubt the movie rights were ever sold, or that Christoffer Tolkien would not.
So am I supposed to conclude that the real threat to our liberties is from the liberals? Is this a spin job or have I been confused?
Conservatives (Republicans) hold the majority in the house, the senate, and control the white house. So to stop these bills conservatives have to "come out of the woodwork" whether the Democrats support them or not.
The problem is that they are trying to enforce a law that is being broken by millions people by going after a few with a disproportionate punishment, so as to make an example out of them. Yes, people who break the law have to live with the consequences, but in order to scare people a few unlucky people are being punished in a manner that doesn't at all befit the crime.
Using a P2P app is in every sense a lesser crime then speeding or blowing a stop light, yet the punishment that these people are being subjected to is much worse.
Notice that I wrote data-files. Because that's what they are from the system point of view. Datafiles that are opened with an application.
But with this defenition the discintion is useless. So you wouldn't write a Linux email worm an executable, but rather as a datafile for wine, or perl (or lisp, or/bin/sh, or MAME, etc). You still have absolutely all the power you need to both spread and release a payload. "Melissa" was a data file for microsoft word, and others have been data files for Windows Scripting Host, so this isn't exactly new.
What is relevant is that the email program should never allow data to be sent to a program that runs it as code, unless that code is executed in a very strict sandbox. Having to explicitely state that files are executable is a first step, but it does nothing when so much of the code we execute is sent as data to an interpreter rather than made executable.
What is needed is a "tainted" flag on files, which would need to be explicitely and manually removed. Files carrying the flag would be rejected as data for all interpreters. That would make writing worms a lot more difficult, but Linux doesn't have it, and I have seen no reason to expect it on the horizon (except some of the very slow work around SELinux.)
BTW Palladium was renamed to NGSCB (I believe it's Next Gen Secure Computing Base)
I can just see the marketing department making that call: "Nah, Palladium is too complicated and difficult to sell, lets call it NGSCBHFWCCSNG instead!"
More then any other action, the renaming betrays how underhanded and nasty MS attempt to launch this on consumers is. You give a product a nice sounding, easy to remember name, because you want to increase brand recognition. Why would you go from a good name to a ridiculously unpronouncable acronym?
How about because you realize that the most likely thing people are going to hear about it is that it is bad, and you want as little brand recognition as possible so that you can use your monopoly to force it on people...
If your computer does things you don't want it to, it isn't the Internet's fault, it isn't the advertisers fault, it isn't the guy who wrote the javascript hack in his pages fault, and it isn't the guy who thought of using the window.open() command for adds fault.
In case anybody didn't get it: It's your own fucking fault for running software that does something you don't want it to do.
There is no such thing as popup blocking software. Mozilla doesn't block anything, it just removed a feature in javascript where pages could direct a new browser window to open without user interaction. A feature that should never have been there in the first place.
Saying that it is pop-up blocking puts a spin on it like you are stopping something. Saying that not opening browser windows when a webpage says that you should is "blocking" makes the default, absurdly, that your computer should do anything an untrusted party on the Internet tells it to do (since otherwise it is "blocking").
This is like if you passed a guy every day on your way to work who told you pull your pants down in the middle of the street, and you did it obediently. You don't need a "pants blocker" to stop that from happening, and you aren't blocking anything when you tell him shove it. You shouldn't be doing what random people tell you to do in the first place.
It is so important that this is emphasized. Nobody on the web can ever you do anything to you, make you watch anything, or make your computer act in any way. ONLY THE SOFTWARE YOU ARE RUNNING CAN MAKE THE COMPUTER DO THINGS. If your computer does things you don't want it to, it isn't the Internet's fault, it isn't the advertisers fault, it isn't the guy who wrote the javascript hack in his pages fault, and it isn't the guy who thought of using the window.open() command for adds fault.
THIS ISN'T ABOUT BLOCKING: IT IS ABOUT DEMANDING THAT THE SOFTWARE YOU USE DOES WHAT YOU WANT IT TO. It is about time people started doing that, and not swallow everything that Microsoft feeds them!
Its been a while since I've read this women = maids type thinking, but i guess it shows that the US is after all just like Saudi Arabia.
A joke along the lines of "Why do Xs always generalize?" comes to mind. It would seem a bit unfair to judge all geek men by Roblimo (who is somewhat atypical just by being 50+).
Many of us disagreed with him at the time, more or less respectfully (I guess my response was the latter, since it has been deleted from the story now...)
Well, this is Roblimo writing, so that he overlooks this fact isn't exactly suprising. Read this article to find out more about this condescending, chauvinistic, closet misogynist.
I quote:
A woman just like you wouldn't be there for you when you wanted a hug. She'd be obsessively coding or posting on Slashdot herself, and would brush you off when you needed her. What you really want is a woman who will be there for you when you get tired of staring at your monitor and need some loving, but will leave you alone and not demand your attention when you're busy. You don't want a Geek Girl. You want a woman who is willing and able to meet a geek's needs, which is not the same thing at all.
Men involved in activities that demand long periods of intense concentration (programmers, artists, writers, musicians, etc.) need women who will respect what they do and help them do it well, not women who compete with them.
We need what are now called "old fashioned girls" who don't mind cooking our meals, rubbing our sore shoulders, and running our bath water for us. There are plenty of these women out there.
Apparently being locked up in servitude of me is what many women want, so then the Saudi's are doing them a favor...
Re:Slightly OT, does anyone use iPod with Linux?
on
No WMA for HP iPod
·
· Score: 1
Windows. Mac may work though the FS support is so-so apparently. I hear one can convert them by reformating as well.
One of the legacies of Penn is a love of freedom, and this latest embrace of P2P by Penn State is another in a long string of "Live Free or Die" actions.
Where have you been since 1999? The Napster in question here has nothing to do with embracing P2P, and everything to do with embracing the DRMed, closed, centralized, proprietary, Windows only service launched last fall by the people who bought the Napster trademark after the company was bankrupted by the music industry.
This service has about as much to do with freedom as Josef Stalin and Hillary Rosen's love baby.
So have fun fighting the battle against [DRM] but please do not be surprised when you fail. After all the war has been lost, long live the new world order: proprietary devices, proprietary interfaces, copy protection, limited functionality, and prepare you credit card accounts for all those monthly rental and service charges you will be paying for every "computer controller consumer electronics device" you use.
Every inroad that DRM makes, every time a service like this or the iTMS is lauded here where the only chance toward resistance should reside, the hope for an open future slips further and further away. Every time somebody sits down at a computer and accepts that the software decides how and what he is allowed to communicate, every person that buys the line that is good when he tied down because it helps keep him honest. Every programmer who writes software whose purpose is to betray and control the person who runs it. Every person who reads a UELA that says the software has the right to delete information and other software against the users wishes and shrugs.
Anyone who believes that ubiquitous DRM can coexist with open networks, open communication, and open software is deluding himself. Either these services fail, or everything that this site was created to celebrate does. Our network has only one future.
Slashdot Mirror
My god did you fall for their lines completely. You bet they have a Linux running on it, if you want, they will even tell you have they have an open source implementation of all the drivers. "It's open source so it has to be good."
But you are missing the point 100%. Why do DRM systems have to be based on closed systems like Windows? Why can they not be open source? Because they have to act against the user, and if they were open, the user to could modify them to act in his interest instead. But the whole point with TCPA is to sidestep this: because the part of the process that acts against the users interest is embedded in the chip, whether you can modify or see the software or not doesn't matter in the slightest.
If dogs are flying, then that is not weed you are smoking... Tread carefully, but enjoy.
To flesh up on the Sil part, I don't think it could really be made into a movie. However, imagine the story of the first age done as a high budget mini-series a la Band of Brothers. Cut it into the most significant parts, starting with the exile of Noldor, and having episodes devoted to the important stories (the fall of Fingolfin, Beren and Luthien, Tuor, Turin) all the way until the voyage of Earendil and the final battle. I think that could be great, and the DVD market could probably justify the budget.
Ian McKellen actually. And Christopher Lee. OK, struck and missed. mod me down please...
Ian McKella is only 64. I think one can count on him pulling through another five years (and more!).
Saruman does not appear in The Hobbit (unless PJ wants to flesh out the storming of Dol Guldur for instance): that would be a greater concern since Christoffer Lee is 82 this year (I thought that George Lucas took a big risk with him actually...)
The problem, as I see it, is that there will be a lot of pressure to make this movie bigger and better than then the previous three. But it shouldn't be: The Hobbit is a smaller story in every sense. Trying to "out do" LOTR with it's story would destroy it completely - it is a really just one small adventure in a very big world.
Don't get me wrong, it is a great story, and if done right it could be a great movie, but if it made along the lines of "Now we have better computers and can have ten times more people at the final battle" then that would destroy it (and the continuity).
In that sense, I think trying to make something out of the stories in The Silmarrilion would be better (those battles really were bigger) - but obviously brining that to the screen would involve basically filling a story around the history told in the book. And I doubt the movie rights were ever sold, or that Christoffer Tolkien would not.
Since nobody has noted it yet, 500,000 yen is about $4,500.
Source: http://www.oanda.com/convert/classic
... approaching Pavonis Mons by balloon.
Mine is better. (There is no site there though).
(a) Light saber
(b) Vorpal sword
(c) Batleth
(d) Adamantium claws
(e) Minbari fighting pike
(f) Mica's barstool
(g) Sting
(h) Lock-in-a-sock (if you are cheap...)
So am I supposed to conclude that the real threat to our liberties is from the liberals? Is this a spin job or have I been confused?
Conservatives (Republicans) hold the majority in the house, the senate, and control the white house. So to stop these bills conservatives have to "come out of the woodwork" whether the Democrats support them or not.
I haven't had a FP in several years, so it is a fair reward for the carpal tunnel in my Reload finger!
And I drunk too, so my reflexes are supposed to be down. All the trolls must be sleeping on the button tonight...
Pretty please?
So I was thinking - I like games, she likes to talk, why not combine the two?
How come this guy has a girlfriend and I don't?
The problem is that they are trying to enforce a law that is being broken by millions people by going after a few with a disproportionate punishment, so as to make an example out of them. Yes, people who break the law have to live with the consequences, but in order to scare people a few unlucky people are being punished in a manner that doesn't at all befit the crime.
Using a P2P app is in every sense a lesser crime then speeding or blowing a stop light, yet the punishment that these people are being subjected to is much worse.
Notice that I wrote data-files. Because that's what they are from the system point of view. Datafiles that are opened with an application.
/bin/sh, or MAME, etc). You still have absolutely all the power you need to both spread and release a payload. "Melissa" was a data file for microsoft word, and others have been data files for Windows Scripting Host, so this isn't exactly new.
But with this defenition the discintion is useless. So you wouldn't write a Linux email worm an executable, but rather as a datafile for wine, or perl (or lisp, or
What is relevant is that the email program should never allow data to be sent to a program that runs it as code, unless that code is executed in a very strict sandbox. Having to explicitely state that files are executable is a first step, but it does nothing when so much of the code we execute is sent as data to an interpreter rather than made executable.
What is needed is a "tainted" flag on files, which would need to be explicitely and manually removed. Files carrying the flag would be rejected as data for all interpreters. That would make writing worms a lot more difficult, but Linux doesn't have it, and I have seen no reason to expect it on the horizon (except some of the very slow work around SELinux.)
BTW Palladium was renamed to NGSCB (I believe it's Next Gen Secure Computing Base)
I can just see the marketing department making that call: "Nah, Palladium is too complicated and difficult to sell, lets call it NGSCBHFWCCSNG instead!"
More then any other action, the renaming betrays how underhanded and nasty MS attempt to launch this on consumers is. You give a product a nice sounding, easy to remember name, because you want to increase brand recognition. Why would you go from a good name to a ridiculously unpronouncable acronym?
How about because you realize that the most likely thing people are going to hear about it is that it is bad, and you want as little brand recognition as possible so that you can use your monopoly to force it on people...
If your computer does things you don't want it to, it isn't the Internet's fault, it isn't the advertisers fault, it isn't the guy who wrote the javascript hack in his pages fault, and it isn't the guy who thought of using the window.open() command for adds fault.
In case anybody didn't get it: It's your own fucking fault for running software that does something you don't want it to do.
There is no such thing as popup blocking software. Mozilla doesn't block anything, it just removed a feature in javascript where pages could direct a new browser window to open without user interaction. A feature that should never have been there in the first place.
Saying that it is pop-up blocking puts a spin on it like you are stopping something. Saying that not opening browser windows when a webpage says that you should is "blocking" makes the default, absurdly, that your computer should do anything an untrusted party on the Internet tells it to do (since otherwise it is "blocking").
This is like if you passed a guy every day on your way to work who told you pull your pants down in the middle of the street, and you did it obediently. You don't need a "pants blocker" to stop that from happening, and you aren't blocking anything when you tell him shove it. You shouldn't be doing what random people tell you to do in the first place.
It is so important that this is emphasized. Nobody on the web can ever you do anything to you, make you watch anything, or make your computer act in any way. ONLY THE SOFTWARE YOU ARE RUNNING CAN MAKE THE COMPUTER DO THINGS. If your computer does things you don't want it to, it isn't the Internet's fault, it isn't the advertisers fault, it isn't the guy who wrote the javascript hack in his pages fault, and it isn't the guy who thought of using the window.open() command for adds fault.
THIS ISN'T ABOUT BLOCKING: IT IS ABOUT DEMANDING THAT THE SOFTWARE YOU USE DOES WHAT YOU WANT IT TO. It is about time people started doing that, and not swallow everything that Microsoft feeds them!
Winter into spring
brightly anticipated
like Habeas SWE (tm)
Either this is not a haiku, or "anticipated" now has six syllables and the product is pronounced "Habees swee".
Its been a while since I've read this women = maids type thinking, but i guess it shows that the US is after all just like Saudi Arabia.
A joke along the lines of "Why do Xs always generalize?" comes to mind. It would seem a bit unfair to judge all geek men by Roblimo (who is somewhat atypical just by being 50+).
Many of us disagreed with him at the time, more or less respectfully (I guess my response was the latter, since it has been deleted from the story now...)
Well, this is Roblimo writing, so that he overlooks this fact isn't exactly suprising. Read this article to find out more about this condescending, chauvinistic, closet misogynist.
I quote:
A woman just like you wouldn't be there for you when you wanted a hug. She'd be obsessively coding or posting on Slashdot herself, and would brush you off when you needed her. What you really want is a woman who will be there for you when you get tired of staring at your monitor and need some loving, but will leave you alone and not demand your attention when you're busy. You don't want a Geek Girl. You want a woman who is willing and able to meet a geek's needs, which is not the same thing at all.
Men involved in activities that demand long periods of intense concentration (programmers, artists, writers, musicians, etc.) need women who will respect what they do and help them do it well, not women who compete with them.
We need what are now called "old fashioned girls" who don't mind cooking our meals, rubbing our sore shoulders, and running our bath water for us. There are plenty of these women out there.
Apparently being locked up in servitude of me is what many women want, so then the Saudi's are doing them a favor...
Windows. Mac may work though the FS support is so-so apparently. I hear one can convert them by reformating as well.
One of the legacies of Penn is a love of freedom, and this latest embrace of P2P by Penn State is another in a long string of "Live Free or Die" actions.
Where have you been since 1999? The Napster in question here has nothing to do with embracing P2P, and everything to do with embracing the DRMed, closed, centralized, proprietary, Windows only service launched last fall by the people who bought the Napster trademark after the company was bankrupted by the music industry.
This service has about as much to do with freedom as Josef Stalin and Hillary Rosen's love baby.
Here is a nice prophetic article from more than two years ago.
So have fun fighting the battle against [DRM] but please do not be surprised when you fail. After all the war has been lost, long live the new world order: proprietary devices, proprietary interfaces, copy protection, limited functionality, and prepare you credit card accounts for all those monthly rental and service charges you will be paying for every "computer controller consumer electronics device" you use.
Every inroad that DRM makes, every time a service like this or the iTMS is lauded here where the only chance toward resistance should reside, the hope for an open future slips further and further away. Every time somebody sits down at a computer and accepts that the software decides how and what he is allowed to communicate, every person that buys the line that is good when he tied down because it helps keep him honest. Every programmer who writes software whose purpose is to betray and control the person who runs it. Every person who reads a UELA that says the software has the right to delete information and other software against the users wishes and shrugs.
Anyone who believes that ubiquitous DRM can coexist with open networks, open communication, and open software is deluding himself. Either these services fail, or everything that this site was created to celebrate does. Our network has only one future.