MAME even emulates the portions that drew graphics on top of the laserdisc video. I don't know if they have implemented the control system for the Laserdisc player though. In any case, you're right. A DVD player with fast remote control response is sufficient to play Dragon's Lair or Space Ace. It would take a little more for M.A.C.H. 3.
Run a honeypot using Linux on Linux and give the government the keys to that. One could furthermore have the overall system (which is still secure) page the owner when the government key is used. Even better, there will be nice logs of anything nasty they tried to do while they were in there. I love the idea of posting one of their "high tech secret" keysniffers all over USENET. The idea of the goverment wanting secret access to my boxen is ludicrous. If all else fails, I can transparently pass all traffic through a box that logs the hell out of any traffic passing through it. If I want to know when they're messing around with my boxen then I will. I will regard the government the same as a script kiddy: something to be monitored and contained.
I imagine the need for monitored and logged physical access is obvious too. The agents will look GREAT on camera when they suspect all of this and try to lay hands on the machines themselves.
It depends on the player. There are patched BIOS files for the Apex600A that allow RCE disks to work if the player is in Region 0 mode. Also, it isn't too hard to put mulitple BIOSen in many players and switch between them. RCE is ineffective on players that can actually be switched to a target region. I would assume by now that many players other than the Apex have been hacked to deal with this.
Hacker Z can still argue that he was looking for an infringement of his copyright. Sure, Company X can still threaten him with the DMCA but the GPL violation still stands and still can be enforced separately.
Hacker Z doesn't have to tell anybody that he reverse engineered anything until he talks to his lawyer. His lawyer can then hopefully negotiate the legal thickets. Company X will look like they're taking candy from little kids regardless.
If the purpose of reverse engineering is copyright enforcement then reverse engineer away. It may even be settled immediately. I think a case like that would be more of a weapon against the DMCA itself then against Hacker Z. That would be as good a way any to invalidate at least part of the DMCA.
Long ago in my wasted youth 3 or 4 of us would play lots and lots of "Atari". You know back when playing video games at home meant "playing Atari". I could look out the window and see velociraptors on the hunt.
Anyhoo, sometimes one of us would be on a really long streak that the rest of us wanted to end. When someone has racked up 60,000 points at River Raid then he needs to DIE because I wanna play damn it! The rest of us would exchange knowing glances then I would say, "Wow Chris! You're awesome today! I've never seen anybody go this far on one plane......" Blam! Works every time.
There is going to be a period of time after the food is exhausted that the trail is relatively strong. Gradually diminishing numbers of ants will follow the trail until it is extinct. One solution might be for ants that find no food at the end of a trail to release another chemical along the trail marking it as exhausted. Since trails can branch, the effect of invalidation scent should be to reduce enthusiasm to follow a trail not switch it off. There are many tuning possibilites based on the follow/don't follow chemical ratios. Ants can also have differing proclivities to respond to the two cues.
There will still be a non reducible time that non productive scent trails exist but it and the number of ants that follow them can be kept to a minimum.
Sorry, I hate to be disrespectful but that is plain idiotic. While you're at it why don't you drop off copies of your house and car keys at the police station. You can also put cameras in every room of your house too. There is NO difference. You then can bask in a feeling of safety and security as a jumbo jet plows your neighborhood down. You know why? These kneejerk big brother laws won't do a thing to stop it. Those animals were disciplined and coordinated. Crypto surveillance would have done NOTHING to prevent this. NOTHING. So why does this sound good to you?
I for one am NOT handing over the bonafides to my personal boxen. I think it's time the Law Enforcement Honeypot Howto is written.
I haven't used it lately but when XCDRoast used to be a Tk frontend to gcombust it displayed this really ridiculous disclaimer when executed. I'm paraphrasing but it went something like this:
I understand that this software will probably erase my hard drive, kill my pets, make California sink into the Pacific Ocean and the Earth to crash into the sun.
I think a good approach to any bonehead that would sue a Free/Open project is take the ridiculous disclaimer to the ridiculous extreme:
I understand I got this for free and have no expectation that it is fit for any purpose whatsover.
I understand that terrible things are likely to happen if persist in running this software such as permanent damage to system components and loss of data.
I understand that this sequence of prompts is going to look GREAT in court should I be obtuse enough to sue anybody anyway.
I understand that there is no way in hell that I accidentally agreed to this.
If I sue in spite of all of this, then I agree that contents of this dialog are admission that I'm bringing a frivolous lawsuit.
If I'm still obtuse enough to sue then I agree that I'm too stupid to waste a court's time and am a vexatious litigant.
Any version of this software lacking the click through disclaimers is not the responsibility of this Project. For that matter neither is this one.
There should be no option to disable the disclaimers. That's the price of getting to edit video or otherwise operate a computer for free.
I've found that GUI interfaces can be learned very quickly on Mac, Unix, and MS apps. It's easy because most or all of an apps capabilities are exposed to the user with menus, buttons, checkboxes, form etc. Everything is there to see. A very good GUI will even disallow options if they conflict with other options.
The problem is that once a GUI interface is learned, one is locked into that way of working. What if one wants to script actions that are being done all of the time? What if I want something to happen automatically at threee in the morning? It can also be quicker to bang out small command line or script then it is to drill down through several sets of menus. CLIs are excellent for those of us who can do our jobs in our sleep. Like the parent poster said, an expert cashier does not want an obtuse GUI in the way. Punch THIS set of buttons in order (quickly) done...next...done...next..done.
I love bad analogies so here's one: Most GUIs are like a Honda Goldwing with ALL of the options.....and training wheels attached. I'm thinking of the ones that even have air conditioning and six speaker stereos. A good CLI is like a Harley with a couple of saddlebags at most. A Goldwing with training wheels is definitely easy to learn to ride but which one would you want to take on a curvy two-lane mountain road.
I think the best solution is good GUI frontends to command line tools. Everyone can work the way they want to. Good functionality libraries are excellent as well. XMMS and mpg123 use the same code to play MP3s. I love XMMS on my desktop but mpg123 would be better if I'm trying to roll my own MP3 stereo component.
However, companies are amoral. Publically traded companies are the most amoral of all. Corporations have to make short term decisions that maximize profits for their shareholders or they can be sued. If it means buying politicians, offensively using patents, indefinetly extending copyrights, balkanizing scientific disciplines with walls of IP, or polluting the environment as much as legally possible then so be it.
Public relations departments aside, corporations don't have consciences. So yes, it's true. They can employ people and fill needs but it is not pristine good with no downside whatsover. The positive things they do are not an excuse to turn a blind eye to the horrible things they often do. Their actions bear watching and sometimes correcting. And no, "the market" does not automagically bring right and light to the world. The market IS a system with some homeostasis but these mechanisms are themselves amoral with no regard for the welfare of either corporations or individuals.
The head of the X-Box project has claimed that it will not be possible to boot Linux on it. Now everyone here knows that will be taken as a challenge. We can expect at least Linux and NetBSD to boot it within a year of it's introduction. Of course, it would be a much longer road to fully support it's hardware.
This boast that the X-Box will only be capable of running it's pack-in OS seems to mean that steps have been taken lock down the environment as much as possible. It's true that it is being marketed as a console rather than a PC but it seems like a ThinkNIC on steroids to me.
If Microsoft can get out of this with a wristslap then locking down commodity PCs does seem like a plausible step. They've already shown their ability to strongarm OEMs.
I once had to obtain a new battery for P75 laptop and that battery could not be had from anywhere. However, the cells were in Batteries Plus' catalog and they were able to rebuild the battery for me.
I used to work as a technician for a firm that rented environmental instrumentation and we recelled batteries all of the time. It is a common practice for more than just laptops.
There is a one hell of a difference between using unauthorized copies of software and making unauthorized drugs. Oh I get it: "I'm sorry Senor Sanchez but we have no money to pay for these expensive drugs so we'll have to let you die." Yeah right. They're going to watch people die just so they can do the right thing by a multinational conglomerate.
As for paying for software, it doesn't strain the imagination to suppose that feature development could be funded. It not like it would cost more than all of those software licences. "Oh look, it doesn't have the capitilization macro! I just suppose we're going to have to use Office then!" Sheesh!
"Because the output amplifiers are neither fully on nor fully off, they're running in linear mode. All the energy not actually used to drive the yoke during the ramp is simply wasted as heat. But that energy isn't free... won't these things be meant to deal with Energy Star and other certifications? Tighter deflection means more deflection current means more wasted power in the amplifiers... and if the EPA buckles by defining a new guideline for thin monitors like these will purport to be, they'll be in competition with LCD monitors."
Suppose we drive the yoke with the filtered output of a d/a converter? Instead of a big honkin MOSFET being driven in linear mode, we use..let's say...a 16 bit sawtooth generator. Now, I can't think of a DAC IC that would be beefy enough to do the job and amplifying it's output puts us in the boat we are trying to avoid. However, 16 somewhat stout transistors could be used to drive the yoke directly through an appropriate LC network. Now 16 transistors sounds bad but maybe it could be done with 8 or 12. Instead of a big hot power waster being driven in linear mode, we have an array of transistors being snapped on and off in digital mode. I don't design CRTS but I can't image why this hasn't occured to real engineers. There might even be power ics for this purpose.
They're probably bluffing if they say they can detect NAT. I "DROP" packets and reject much ICMP functionality. A simple portscan on this box is a ten minute exercise in frustration. As a bonus nmap thought it was CISCO router (it isn't). I suppose they could get really cute and watch things like browser id strings but even those are spoofed to get around "problem" websites.
Just how are they going to find out anything about black hole looking boxes like mine?
From the appropriate vantage point in space, you have succeeded in doing nothing more than waving a garden hose back and forth really fast. Information about the flashlight's lateral motion won't arrive any faster than it would have if the light was traveling in a straight line.
How about using Big Brother's tools against him? What if Sally the FBI agent got her little picture posted on the net along with a full description of what she did. For that matter, a Distrust index can be maintained for organizations such as ISPs and other businesses as well. I wonder how long it would it would take for all the corporate stooges to run of out spies if they wind up in OUR law enforcement databases. Since Sally probably isn't operating under her own name, we'll use their facial ID technology as well. If there is reason to suspect police statery in a given situation then we can insist the other party supply enough information to compare them to the Web of Distrust. For optimum efficiency, this should part of the overall web of trust.
To control slander, we can assign greater or lesser weight to any particular "indictment". If Sally get four people sent to jail then her name should be black indeed. Oh yeah, there should be major bonus points for the one who gets Sally's e-mail, address, and phone number into the web. The disincentive for Sally or any other police statist to keep up what she is doing is obvious.
They sure can't raise MORAL objections to it; it isn't as though I'm not proposing using their exact methods back on them. Pot, kettle, black you know.
Re:Is Windows security full of holes?
on
Windows in 2020
·
· Score: 2
Add security.debian.org to your apt.sources list.
#apt-get update
#apt-get dist-upgrade
Unless it's the kernel being upgraded, you won't have to reboot either. There will be a few seconds of downtime as individual services restart themselves. Not bad.
Sure, all widely used OSen will have holes but some are easier to keep plugged than others. Oh yeah, and installing or upgrading a service won't roll back the last seven updates that were patched into the system.
Apple must not mind too awful much. I attended an Apple shindig at a school whose purpose was convince everybody that OS X is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Don't get me wrong, I think OS X is GREAT technology but its going to take a little more hammering on it to make it insanely great. Anyhoo, this engineer who was leading the talk mentioned to me that he liked Linux on one of his PPC machines. He especially liked that he could run it with a super stripped down desktop and get lots of "speed".
The only reason I can think of that Apple would mind is that Linux allows one to put off retiring the old machine here and there. We are using a 233Mhz Beige G3 Desktop as an inventory and troubleticket database as well as a file/web server for our tech dept. The machine is running Debian and is fast and "just works" at it's appointed duties. I'm sure Apple would love to sell us a G4 running OS X Server to do the same thing. Since the machine is the Desktop model and not a tower, I run it headless underneath my desk. It stays out of the way too.
ps. We did upgrade the memory and disk in the thing but spent less than 100 to make a spiffy server out of it.
At this VAR I used to work for, we took care of the Apple IIs that a school district abruptly decided to obsolete. We had a pallat with 15 or so of these things that were going to the dumpster. Did we simply unceremoniously chuck them in the dumpster? Of course not! It was time to play Apple II Toss. You see, if you put just the right amount of force and arc on an Apple II tossed underhand it will come down with all the force on it's lower right corner. This sprays slices of Apple everywhere! Just about every keycap flies off and the housing disintegrates into several large scattering pieces. The electronics pretty much look like what was left in the Fax Smashing scene in Offficespace. Okay, so we had to get a pushbroom when we were done and our female manager was exasperated with us. It was WAAAAY more fun then leaving them intact for the dumpster divers.
Open source works fine for the scaffolding that holds games up. Things like SDL, OpenGL, various other APIs, rendering and logic engines are all things that open source can work very well for. The maps on the other hand are pretty much going to have to be developed by paid artists and it will require profit to pay them. For instance, there are all sorts of nifty projects that have been made out of the Doom and Quake source but the maps are not free. You will have to find an old copy of Quake to obtain them legally.
And yes, some fairly innovative things are being done with this old source. prboom.sourceforge.net seems to have merged many of the independent improvments to Doom into one place:
Game engine
* Player bobbing improved, optional (BOOM, MBF)
* Friction effects (BOOM), affecting players and monsters (MBF)
* Wind, current, conveyor effects (BOOM)
* Far more flexible scrolling wall/floor types (BOOM)
* Always run (BOOM)
* Weapon change logic overhauled and improved (BOOM)
* Support for friendly monsters, helper dogs (MBF)
* Monster target finding code improved (MBF)
* AI improvements (MBF)
* Bouncy and touchy things (MBF)
* New code pointers (MBF)
* Per-level and animated skies (MBF)
* Generalised line types system gives complete flexibility (BOOM)
* Elevators (BOOM)
* Translucent sprites, walls (BOOM)
* Independent floor and ceiling lighting (BOOM)
* Silent teleports (BOOM)
* Deep water, true underwater areas (BOOM)
* Icon of Sin telefragging made more consistent (MBF)
* Fix large numbers of game bugs (BOOM, MBF, LxDoom)
* Support arbitrary texture heights (BOOM)
Screen
* High resolution support (PrBoom)
* Optional message console, multiple message lines (BOOM)
* Status bar shows health/armour/ammo in colours (BOOM)
* Heads up display, showing ammo, health, keys overlayed on view (BOOM)
* OpenGL renderer which renders as original to software Doom as possible while greatly
improving the visual quality (PrBoom)
To be sure, most `big' games for Linux will come from porting houses like Loki but Loki has to use most of the same tools everybody else does. Healthy contribution to those `scaffolding' API will make it easier and quicker for those porting houses to get the game to us.
Public domain software contains no disclaimer of liability. If someone uses your software to build a baby threshing machines and gets their arm caught in it then you could be sued. Open and Free software licences disclaim such liability with better legalese then you could probably come up with on your own.
Your door is safe is because the FSF has never been out to bust anybodys nuts. The GPL and other major licences don't place restrictions on use so end users have nothing to worry about. The only obligations are on people who redistribute software. All of these licences basically disclaim liability for the author (it's free so no bitching if burn your face off with it or hold it in your hand when lit) and require acknowledgement of authorship. I don't think anybody here would defend the "right" to plagiarize the work of another. The GPL places the additional requirements that derivative works are also covered by the GPL and that anyone you give a binary to has a right to the source code as well. If the copyright on the GPLed software in question is owned by the FSF then they will enforce it. Contrary to popular belief they aren't out to say force the open sourcing of Windows because a Stallmanite agent provacatuer inserted a GPLed comment line into the source code. They have historically been content with the removal of the GPL component or a revamping of the application so the binary isn't "linked" to a GPL library.
Besides if you find the GPL too onerous there are always the X, BSD, and LGPL licences.
Also, pretty much the only thing that would draw the ire of the FSF is someone trying to make a closed work with their code. Many say that isn't true freedom but they are trying to avoid a contradiction that arises from total and complete freedom. You are not free to infringe the rights of another. If someone puts out a piece of code with the intention that anything made with it always be free then respect that intent. There is plenty of X and BSD code whose authors will be cheerfully indifferent if a derivative is closed.
There is a certain prevalent mentality that assumes the only significant motivation for doing anything is the desire to make money. There are a great many craftsmen (and women, I know) who would not say money is their prime reason to be doing what they are doing. Most of the best art falls in this category. The stuff made primarily for BIG SALES tends to suck. Britney Spears anybody?
Some people write this stuff because it is fun to run their own code. Others do it because the software in ancillary to their true goals. The Apache web server came about this way. Apache wasn't developed to make Webserver Inc a pile of money. Some webadmins needed a httpd daemon that was reliable and featureful. The original Linux kernel that Linus made available to his fellow hackers wasn't going to make anybody mounds of cash: it would barely boot a 386. The additions from volunteers was what made it valuable.
I'll agree that anybody who wants to make money trying to sell something that is free is on a fools errand. However there is nothing wrong in taking something free and using it as part of something larger that is sold. The school district that I work for uses a product called the Firebox. It is not marketed strictly as a Linux box. It is sold as an easily configured firewall and proxy server. The middle school tech guy loves that thing. Oh yeah, and they pay the guy who works on iptables. IBM and SUN are hardware companies and are all for anything that helps them sell hardware. Incidentally, the bulk of RedHat's profit doesn't come from selling the boxed distro. They also sell customization and consulting services.
Open source only fails to make sense to those who sell boxed software. It is a moneymaking or moneysaving opportunity for others with different models. Think about independent music for a monent. With the RIAA gone there wouldn't be many pop music multimillionaires. There would be and ARE a lot of people who earn honest livings writing and performing. The same is true of open source. No one will be a multibillionaire selling it but it will enable many others to earn decent livings.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the Evil Commander Borf!
...with the Infanto Ray!!
MAME even emulates the portions that drew graphics on top of the laserdisc video. I don't know if they have implemented the control system for the Laserdisc player though. In any case, you're right. A DVD player with fast remote control response is sufficient to play Dragon's Lair or Space Ace. It would take a little more for M.A.C.H. 3.
Run a honeypot using Linux on Linux and give the government the keys to that. One could furthermore have the overall system (which is still secure) page the owner when the government key is used. Even better, there will be nice logs of anything nasty they tried to do while they were in there. I love the idea of posting one of their "high tech secret" keysniffers all over USENET. The idea of the goverment wanting secret access to my boxen is ludicrous. If all else fails, I can transparently pass all traffic through a box that logs the hell out of any traffic passing through it. If I want to know when they're messing around with my boxen then I will. I will regard the government the same as a script kiddy: something to be monitored and contained.
I imagine the need for monitored and logged physical access is obvious too. The agents will look GREAT on camera when they suspect all of this and try to lay hands on the machines themselves.
It depends on the player. There are patched BIOS files for the Apex600A that allow RCE disks to work if the player is in Region 0 mode. Also, it isn't too hard to put mulitple BIOSen in many players and switch between them. RCE is ineffective on players that can actually be switched to a target region. I would assume by now that many players other than the Apex have been hacked to deal with this.
Hacker Z can still argue that he was looking for an infringement of his copyright. Sure, Company X can still threaten him with the DMCA but the GPL violation still stands and still can be enforced separately.
Hacker Z doesn't have to tell anybody that he reverse engineered anything until he talks to his lawyer. His lawyer can then hopefully negotiate the legal thickets. Company X will look like they're taking candy from little kids regardless.
If the purpose of reverse engineering is copyright enforcement then reverse engineer away. It may even be settled immediately. I think a case like that would be more of a weapon against the DMCA itself then against Hacker Z. That would be as good a way any to invalidate at least part of the DMCA.
Long ago in my wasted youth 3 or 4 of us would play lots and lots of "Atari". You know back when playing video games at home meant "playing Atari". I could look out the window and see velociraptors on the hunt.
Anyhoo, sometimes one of us would be on a really long streak that the rest of us wanted to end. When someone has racked up 60,000 points at River Raid then he needs to DIE because I wanna play damn it! The rest of us would exchange knowing glances then I would say, "Wow Chris! You're awesome today! I've never seen anybody go this far on one plane......" Blam! Works every time.
There is going to be a period of time after the food is exhausted that the trail is relatively strong. Gradually diminishing numbers of ants will follow the trail until it is extinct. One solution might be for ants that find no food at the end of a trail to release another chemical along the trail marking it as exhausted. Since trails can branch, the effect of invalidation scent should be to reduce enthusiasm to follow a trail not switch it off. There are many tuning possibilites based on the follow/don't follow chemical ratios. Ants can also have differing proclivities to respond to the two cues.
There will still be a non reducible time that non productive scent trails exist but it and the number of ants that follow them can be kept to a minimum.
Sorry, I hate to be disrespectful but that is plain idiotic. While you're at it why don't you drop off copies of your house and car keys at the police station. You can also put cameras in every room of your house too. There is NO difference. You then can bask in a feeling of safety and security as a jumbo jet plows your neighborhood down. You know why? These kneejerk big brother laws won't do a thing to stop it. Those animals were disciplined and coordinated. Crypto surveillance would have done NOTHING to prevent this. NOTHING. So why does this sound good to you?
I for one am NOT handing over the bonafides to my personal boxen. I think it's time the Law Enforcement Honeypot Howto is written.
I haven't used it lately but when XCDRoast used to be a Tk frontend to gcombust it displayed this really ridiculous disclaimer when executed. I'm paraphrasing but it went something like this:
I understand that this software will probably erase my hard drive, kill my pets, make California sink into the Pacific Ocean and the Earth to crash into the sun.
I think a good approach to any bonehead that would sue a Free/Open project is take the ridiculous disclaimer to the ridiculous extreme:
I understand I got this for free and have no expectation that it is fit for any purpose whatsover.
I understand that terrible things are likely to happen if persist in running this software such as permanent damage to system components and loss of data.
I understand that this sequence of prompts is going to look GREAT in court should I be obtuse enough to sue anybody anyway.
I understand that there is no way in hell that I accidentally agreed to this.
If I sue in spite of all of this, then I agree that contents of this dialog are admission that I'm bringing a frivolous lawsuit.
If I'm still obtuse enough to sue then I agree that I'm too stupid to waste a court's time and am a vexatious litigant.
Any version of this software lacking the click through disclaimers is not the responsibility of this Project. For that matter neither is this one.
There should be no option to disable the disclaimers. That's the price of getting to edit video or otherwise operate a computer for free.
I've found that GUI interfaces can be learned very quickly on Mac, Unix, and MS apps. It's easy because most or all of an apps capabilities are exposed to the user with menus, buttons, checkboxes, form etc. Everything is there to see. A very good GUI will even disallow options if they conflict with other options.
The problem is that once a GUI interface is learned, one is locked into that way of working. What if one wants to script actions that are being done all of the time? What if I want something to happen automatically at threee in the morning? It can also be quicker to bang out small command line or script then it is to drill down through several sets of menus. CLIs are excellent for those of us who can do our jobs in our sleep. Like the parent poster said, an expert cashier does not want an obtuse GUI in the way. Punch THIS set of buttons in order (quickly) done...next...done...next..done.
I love bad analogies so here's one: Most GUIs are like a Honda Goldwing with ALL of the options.....and training wheels attached. I'm thinking of the ones that even have air conditioning and six speaker stereos. A good CLI is like a Harley with a couple of saddlebags at most. A Goldwing with training wheels is definitely easy to learn to ride but which one would you want to take on a curvy two-lane mountain road.
I think the best solution is good GUI frontends to command line tools. Everyone can work the way they want to. Good functionality libraries are excellent as well. XMMS and mpg123 use the same code to play MP3s. I love XMMS on my desktop but mpg123 would be better if I'm trying to roll my own MP3 stereo component.
However, companies are amoral. Publically traded companies are the most amoral of all. Corporations have to make short term decisions that maximize profits for their shareholders or they can be sued. If it means buying politicians, offensively using patents, indefinetly extending copyrights, balkanizing scientific disciplines with walls of IP, or polluting the environment as much as legally possible then so be it.
Public relations departments aside, corporations don't have consciences. So yes, it's true. They can employ people and fill needs but it is not pristine good with no downside whatsover. The positive things they do are not an excuse to turn a blind eye to the horrible things they often do. Their actions bear watching and sometimes correcting. And no, "the market" does not automagically bring right and light to the world. The market IS a system with some homeostasis but these mechanisms are themselves amoral with no regard for the welfare of either corporations or individuals.
The head of the X-Box project has claimed that it will not be possible to boot Linux on it. Now everyone here knows that will be taken as a challenge. We can expect at least Linux and NetBSD to boot it within a year of it's introduction. Of course, it would be a much longer road to fully support it's hardware.
This boast that the X-Box will only be capable of running it's pack-in OS seems to mean that steps have been taken lock down the environment as much as possible. It's true that it is being marketed as a console rather than a PC but it seems like a ThinkNIC on steroids to me.
If Microsoft can get out of this with a wristslap then locking down commodity PCs does seem like a plausible step. They've already shown their ability to strongarm OEMs.
I once had to obtain a new battery for P75 laptop and that battery could not be had from anywhere. However, the cells were in Batteries Plus' catalog and they were able to rebuild the battery for me.
I used to work as a technician for a firm that rented environmental instrumentation and we recelled batteries all of the time. It is a common practice for more than just laptops.
There is a one hell of a difference between using unauthorized copies of software and making unauthorized drugs. Oh I get it: "I'm sorry Senor Sanchez but we have no money to pay for these expensive drugs so we'll have to let you die." Yeah right. They're going to watch people die just so they can do the right thing by a multinational conglomerate.
As for paying for software, it doesn't strain the imagination to suppose that feature development could be funded. It not like it would cost more than all of those software licences. "Oh look, it doesn't have the capitilization macro! I just suppose we're going to have to use Office then!" Sheesh!
"Because the output amplifiers are neither fully on nor fully off, they're running in linear mode. All the energy not actually used to drive the yoke during the ramp is simply wasted as heat. But that energy isn't free... won't these things be meant to deal with Energy Star and other certifications? Tighter deflection means more deflection current means more wasted power in the amplifiers... and if the EPA buckles by defining a new guideline for thin monitors like these will purport to be, they'll be in competition with LCD monitors."
Suppose we drive the yoke with the filtered output of a d/a converter? Instead of a big honkin MOSFET being driven in linear mode, we use..let's say...a 16 bit sawtooth generator. Now, I can't think of a DAC IC that would be beefy enough to do the job and amplifying it's output puts us in the boat we are trying to avoid. However, 16 somewhat stout transistors could be used to drive the yoke directly through an appropriate LC network. Now 16 transistors sounds bad but maybe it could be done with 8 or 12. Instead of a big hot power waster being driven in linear mode, we have an array of transistors being snapped on and off in digital mode. I don't design CRTS but I can't image why this hasn't occured to real engineers. There might even be power ics for this purpose.
They're probably bluffing if they say they can detect NAT. I "DROP" packets and reject much ICMP functionality. A simple portscan on this box is a ten minute exercise in frustration. As a bonus nmap thought it was CISCO router (it isn't). I suppose they could get really cute and watch things like browser id strings but even those are spoofed to get around "problem" websites.
Just how are they going to find out anything about black hole looking boxes like mine?
From the appropriate vantage point in space, you have succeeded in doing nothing more than waving a garden hose back and forth really fast. Information about the flashlight's lateral motion won't arrive any faster than it would have if the light was traveling in a straight line.
How about using Big Brother's tools against him? What if Sally the FBI agent got her little picture posted on the net along with a full description of what she did. For that matter, a Distrust index can be maintained for organizations such as ISPs and other businesses as well. I wonder how long it would it would take for all the corporate stooges to run of out spies if they wind up in OUR law enforcement databases. Since Sally probably isn't operating under her own name, we'll use their facial ID technology as well. If there is reason to suspect police statery in a given situation then we can insist the other party supply enough information to compare them to the Web of Distrust. For optimum efficiency, this should part of the overall web of trust.
To control slander, we can assign greater or lesser weight to any particular "indictment". If Sally get four people sent to jail then her name should be black indeed. Oh yeah, there should be major bonus points for the one who gets Sally's e-mail, address, and phone number into the web. The disincentive for Sally or any other police statist to keep up what she is doing is obvious.
They sure can't raise MORAL objections to it; it isn't as though I'm not proposing using their exact methods back on them. Pot, kettle, black you know.
Add security.debian.org to your apt.sources list.
#apt-get update
#apt-get dist-upgrade
Unless it's the kernel being upgraded, you won't have to reboot either. There will be a few seconds of downtime as individual services restart themselves. Not bad.
Sure, all widely used OSen will have holes but some are easier to keep plugged than others. Oh yeah, and installing or upgrading a service won't roll back the last seven updates that were patched into the system.
Apple must not mind too awful much. I attended an Apple shindig at a school whose purpose was convince everybody that OS X is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Don't get me wrong, I think OS X is GREAT technology but its going to take a little more hammering on it to make it insanely great. Anyhoo, this engineer who was leading the talk mentioned to me that he liked Linux on one of his PPC machines. He especially liked that he could run it with a super stripped down desktop and get lots of "speed".
The only reason I can think of that Apple would mind is that Linux allows one to put off retiring the old machine here and there. We are using a 233Mhz Beige G3 Desktop as an inventory and troubleticket database as well as a file/web server for our tech dept. The machine is running Debian and is fast and "just works" at it's appointed duties. I'm sure Apple would love to sell us a G4 running OS X Server to do the same thing. Since the machine is the Desktop model and not a tower, I run it headless underneath my desk. It stays out of the way too.
ps. We did upgrade the memory and disk in the thing but spent less than 100 to make a spiffy server out of it.
At this VAR I used to work for, we took care of the Apple IIs that a school district abruptly decided to obsolete. We had a pallat with 15 or so of these things that were going to the dumpster. Did we simply unceremoniously chuck them in the dumpster? Of course not! It was time to play Apple II Toss. You see, if you put just the right amount of force and arc on an Apple II tossed underhand it will come down with all the force on it's lower right corner. This sprays slices of Apple everywhere! Just about every keycap flies off and the housing disintegrates into several large scattering pieces. The electronics pretty much look like what was left in the Fax Smashing scene in Offficespace. Okay, so we had to get a pushbroom when we were done and our female manager was exasperated with us. It was WAAAAY more fun then leaving them intact for the dumpster divers.
Open source works fine for the scaffolding that holds games up. Things like SDL, OpenGL, various other APIs, rendering and logic engines are all things that open source can work very well for. The maps on the other hand are pretty much going to have to be developed by paid artists and it will require profit to pay them. For instance, there are all sorts of nifty projects that have been made out of the Doom and Quake source but the maps are not free. You will have to find an old copy of Quake to obtain them legally.
And yes, some fairly innovative things are being done with this old source. prboom.sourceforge.net seems to have merged many of the independent improvments to Doom into one place:
Game engine
* Player bobbing improved, optional (BOOM, MBF)
* Friction effects (BOOM), affecting players and monsters (MBF)
* Wind, current, conveyor effects (BOOM)
* Far more flexible scrolling wall/floor types (BOOM)
* Always run (BOOM)
* Weapon change logic overhauled and improved (BOOM)
* Support for friendly monsters, helper dogs (MBF)
* Monster target finding code improved (MBF)
* AI improvements (MBF)
* Bouncy and touchy things (MBF)
* New code pointers (MBF)
* Per-level and animated skies (MBF)
* Generalised line types system gives complete flexibility (BOOM)
* Elevators (BOOM)
* Translucent sprites, walls (BOOM)
* Independent floor and ceiling lighting (BOOM)
* Silent teleports (BOOM)
* Deep water, true underwater areas (BOOM)
* Icon of Sin telefragging made more consistent (MBF)
* Fix large numbers of game bugs (BOOM, MBF, LxDoom)
* Support arbitrary texture heights (BOOM)
Screen
* High resolution support (PrBoom)
* Optional message console, multiple message lines (BOOM)
* Status bar shows health/armour/ammo in colours (BOOM)
* Heads up display, showing ammo, health, keys overlayed on view (BOOM)
* OpenGL renderer which renders as original to software Doom as possible while greatly
improving the visual quality (PrBoom)
To be sure, most `big' games for Linux will come from porting houses like Loki but Loki has to use most of the same tools everybody else does. Healthy contribution to those `scaffolding' API will make it easier and quicker for those porting houses to get the game to us.
I'm running KDE 2.1.2 on Mandrake 8.0. Open up the View menu on the menubar and deselect "Show hidden files" Easy peasy.
Public domain software contains no disclaimer of liability. If someone uses your software to build a baby threshing machines and gets their arm caught in it then you could be sued. Open and Free software licences disclaim such liability with better legalese then you could probably come up with on your own.
Your door is safe is because the FSF has never been out to bust anybodys nuts. The GPL and other major licences don't place restrictions on use so end users have nothing to worry about. The only obligations are on people who redistribute software. All of these licences basically disclaim liability for the author (it's free so no bitching if burn your face off with it or hold it in your hand when lit) and require acknowledgement of authorship. I don't think anybody here would defend the "right" to plagiarize the work of another. The GPL places the additional requirements that derivative works are also covered by the GPL and that anyone you give a binary to has a right to the source code as well. If the copyright on the GPLed software in question is owned by the FSF then they will enforce it. Contrary to popular belief they aren't out to say force the open sourcing of Windows because a Stallmanite agent provacatuer inserted a GPLed comment line into the source code. They have historically been content with the removal of the GPL component or a revamping of the application so the binary isn't "linked" to a GPL library.
Besides if you find the GPL too onerous there are always the X, BSD, and LGPL licences.
Also, pretty much the only thing that would draw the ire of the FSF is someone trying to make a closed work with their code. Many say that isn't true freedom but they are trying to avoid a contradiction that arises from total and complete freedom. You are not free to infringe the rights of another. If someone puts out a piece of code with the intention that anything made with it always be free then respect that intent. There is plenty of X and BSD code whose authors will be cheerfully indifferent if a derivative is closed.
There is a certain prevalent mentality that assumes the only significant motivation for doing anything is the desire to make money. There are a great many craftsmen (and women, I know) who would not say money is their prime reason to be doing what they are doing. Most of the best art falls in this category. The stuff made primarily for BIG SALES tends to suck. Britney Spears anybody?
Some people write this stuff because it is fun to run their own code. Others do it because the software in ancillary to their true goals. The Apache web server came about this way. Apache wasn't developed to make Webserver Inc a pile of money. Some webadmins needed a httpd daemon that was reliable and featureful. The original Linux kernel that Linus made available to his fellow hackers wasn't going to make anybody mounds of cash: it would barely boot a 386. The additions from volunteers was what made it valuable.
I'll agree that anybody who wants to make money trying to sell something that is free is on a fools errand. However there is nothing wrong in taking something free and using it as part of something larger that is sold. The school district that I work for uses a product called the Firebox. It is not marketed strictly as a Linux box. It is sold as an easily configured firewall and proxy server. The middle school tech guy loves that thing. Oh yeah, and they pay the guy who works on iptables. IBM and SUN are hardware companies and are all for anything that helps them sell hardware. Incidentally, the bulk of RedHat's profit doesn't come from selling the boxed distro. They also sell customization and consulting services.
Open source only fails to make sense to those who sell boxed software. It is a moneymaking or moneysaving opportunity for others with different models. Think about independent music for a monent. With the RIAA gone there wouldn't be many pop music multimillionaires. There would be and ARE a lot of people who earn honest livings writing and performing. The same is true of open source. No one will be a multibillionaire selling it but it will enable many others to earn decent livings.