- The US, - The UN, - Most of Europe, including the UK, France, and Germany; - Russia; - Some of Iraq's neighbors; - Iraq and Saddam Hussein himself;
believed Iraq to be in possession of significant quantities of WMD.
This is because:
- The US had long tracked Iraq's possession of WMD, considering we provided them with much of that capability (Let's take another brief tangential stroll down the lane of liberal hypocrisy: that the US once supported Saddam against Iran, and provided Iraq with some of its WMD capabilities is something often bandied about. Classically, it removes accountability for any actions in the intermediary, similar to blaming society wholly for the ills of an inner city youth, or a gun manufacturer for the actions of a criminal with a gun. Hypocritically, it ignores the position held by many in this same camp when Madison's own Progressive Magazine published The Secrets of the H-Bomb some 25 years ago, arguing vehemently [with a different agenda, of course] that the secrets of such weapons cannot and should not be kept by the Big Bad Government, because anyone who wanted to figure them out ultimately would anyway. And, indeed, that the blame would rest with the people who used them inappropriately, not the science behind them. Now, apparently, the US is directly to blame for Iraq having WMD. [Even though it didn't have any WMD...] See why it's difficult to keep up?)
- The UN had closely tracked Iraq's WMD capability for over a decade
- As a matter of course, most of Europe had done the same
- When Hussein accused UN weapons inspectors of being US spies in 1998, at which point the UN pulled the inspectors due to lack of effectiveness, Iraq was known by the UN to be in possession of significant quantities of WMD (e.g., amounts in the thousands of tons). Are we to believe that after all UN oversight was gone, that Iraq secretly and silently destroyed ALL of its WMD capability, without the knowledge of Hussein himself - who believed he was INCREASING his investment in WMD - and all without any records or evidence of such destruction? There are over 740 tons of Sarin alone unaccounted for. 740 tons out of a known 920 tons. Eighty percent. Where is it? (Well, it's in the Sudan, Libya, Syria, who knows?)
- This, of course, ignores the fact that Iraq was egregiously in violation, numerous times, of several binding UNSEC resolutions; resolutions which member nations are required, obligated, and compelled to enforce by the UN charter. The type of enforcement, of course, is up for debate; however, it's clear that the previous course of action was not only not working, it had gotten worse, and ultimately utterly failed. While it also, according to the left, was responsible for over half a million Iraqi deaths.
Let's also not forget the *650,000 tons* (yes, you read that right) of non-WMD UN-banned weapons found by coalition forces in Iraq. 650,000 tons, and counting.
Want to follow the money?
Ok, let's follow it.
During sanctions, tens of billions of dollars flowed into, in this order, France, Russia, and Germany for UNOFP contracts administration. TENS OF BILLIONS. Guess when that flow of money stopped? When the US and coalition countries initiated action in March 2003. Guess who didn't want that neverending money spigot turned off...? Thanks to criminal corruption within the UNOFP itself, we may never know the true amount of money that flowed.
Perhaps you should also wake the fuck up and realize that this whole mideast strategy IS NOT ABOUT WMD IN IRAQ. It's about forcibly killing Panislamic radicalism over the next several decades, perhaps in a generation, without letting it run its natural course over the next 2 to 3 centuries. Why have 9/11 and "Iraq" been discussed in the same context? Not because, as some liberals mindlessly drone that Bush and his "cronies" wanted to "fool" the American people into thinking that Iraq
You make jokes in reference to the Soviet Union and what you call "internal passports", and then imply, via the Hiibel case, that somehow this has come to pass in the US too. First, this didn't "just happen". Over 20 states have required that individuals identify themselves to a law enforcement officer when requested to do so, and some have had them for many years (indeed, some while you were apparently joking about the Soviets - the other bit of irony is that it was the resolve of the US and men like Reagan which greatly contributed to the gradual defeat and fall of the Soviet Union). This is not a recent creation. Additionally, Hiibel did not even need to produce identification, only verbally communicate his name. Further, this wasn't some guy innocently standing around. The officer was responding to a 911 call in which the caller informed the dispatcher he saw a man and woman fighting in a pickup truck, and that the man had possibly hit the woman. When the officer arrived at the scene, he found the persons who matched the dispatchers description, and skidmarks on the road and disturbed gravel on the shoulder, indicating the vehicle had been stopped "aggressively". He was then greeted by a person who refused to identify himself. Maybe my definitions of privacy are different, but if this is the best you've got, that's a really, really bad example. Some here will likely say "well, if the cop had reasonable cause, he should have just arrested him - no need for him to identify himself" - identification is a key aspect of investigation. If you always have an inherent distrust of police and authority, like many on slashdot do, then I guess it's no surprise which side you take. Also, it's worth noting that "slopes" have varying degrees of "slipperiness".
If the best you can come up with as "proof" that we're living in a police state is having to show a drivers license at airports, or a guy who goes to terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, uses a Muslim name, and has plans and interest to attempt to detonate a dirty bomb in Chicago (Jose Padilla), or Dudley Hiibel, then you'd better come up with some better examples.
If you want to argue for privacy, please do, but the use of fringe examples, and implications that somehow police/government/Bush/etc have some kind of evil ulterior motives to Rule Us All don't help the argument.
Huge misconceptions seem to abound here. FIRE does not represent the whole of US fusion research. There are dozens of other projects and laboratories around the country, most in academia and the national labs.
$2M/year is just for this ONE project.
The summary is extremely poorly written, and apparently the submitter thinks that the US is "canceling" all of its fusion programs, when in reality, ONE project of many is being canceled. The whole reason FIRE came about is because the US pulled out of ITER. Now we're back in, and FIRE could serve as a backup project potentially, but ITER is the focus in this particular line of research. But there are still many, many federally funded fusion research programs, projects, and laboratories around the US! We've spent $5 billion on projects like the National Ignition Facility (NIF) alone (only to be crucified by the Left...I guess you can't win).
Jeez. Wake the fuck up, or at least learn something.
There are not exclusively political motivations here. (And for fuck's sake, how did this get modded +4 Insightful?)
FIRE is *one* fusion research program of dozens of federally funded fusion research programs of all sorts in the US.
As for point 2, "Huh??" FIRE had a $2M/year annual budget. Again, this is but ONE of many, many, many fusion programs in the US. This isn't going to defray anything.
For point 3, now you're just getting wacko. You're implying that it's some huge trick to make people think we're cooperating internationally, but that secretly, the elitist Bush/Cheney/Rove/Rumsfeld/Illuminati conspiracy believes that fusion will only succeed with US involvement, therefore the motivation is CLEARLY to *prevent* it from succeeded, certainly to line their pockets with money from the oil industry.
To you folks who believe this shit routinely: are you fucking serious?
To review: there are MANY fusion research programs in the US, some larger than FIRE. FIRE was just ONE program. We are NOT "abandoning" fusion research. Sheesh. Take off your fucking tinfoil bodysuit.
Apple (actually then-CEO John Sculley) coined the very term. And while I suppose all this is up for debate, the Tandy 100 and HP 100 aren't exactly what people would consider a "PDA". Even though the Newton was a little too big (or at least that's the prevailing notion), it is generally considered to be the first PDA, not to mention that technically, it really *is* the first PDA, since Apple invented the term "PDA" itself.
I'll agree with the basic premise that there are still ways around any level of security, thus reducing the value of the surveillance for security purposes, and more greatly exposing it as an intrusion into one's privacy (not to mention a waste).
But would you agree that there are indeed some measures that can make an attack significantly more difficult, or perhaps even catch or avert others? I guess the question is: what's a reasonable threshold for such measures?
Also, I'm fine with the answer that it's a "placebo", and is thus unnecessarily intrusive for no substantial beneficial purpose; however, my only problem would be the cries that not enough was done if there were an attack. Not the cries themselves, mind you - but the fact that the some of the cries (no, not all, but a good number) would be from the same group of people who berated the surveillance in the first place.
So when is surveillance acceptable? What level of surveillance is acceptable? Under what conditions? Why is any attempt at surveillance for the clear purpose of the protection of peoples' lives and safety always variously called a violation human rights (!) or an invasion of privacy, while there would inevitably be shrill cries of "not enough was done" if something did happen? Why do the naysayers never have any better alternatives, but just negative comments? I may sound sarcastic, but these are serious questions. I realize there is a balance, and that the debate is valuable, but seriously: do people ever recognize the hypocrisy of criticizing every action taken, while simultaneously saying "not enough was done" when something *does* happen? (And yes, it is very often the very same group of people.)
Even today, the US was criticized for not responding adequately (or publicly, previous to this point) to the threat of terrorists potentially using tourist helicopters as weapons (or for delivery of a weapon), by the same group of people who attacked the recent public release of critical intelligence threat information as purely politically motivated. (Think about this for a second: if the local authorities in New York and DC were simply told secretly about the newly obtained threat information, as they *most certainly* should have been, the information would DEFINITELY have leaked to the press once it hit local authorities and local police agencies, who would then DEMAND that DHS reveal the full nature of the information - a lose/lose situation [and it doesn't matter that the information was "old" - it's well, well known that attacks are planned years in advance, as in the case of 9/11]. So instead, DHS reveals the information, and targets threat information as locally as possible, and they're crucified for releasing it exclusively for political reasons.)
Please, try to give real answers (not in the form of a Ben Franklin quotation).
(Also, "CNN" doesn't say that last quote; it was attributed to six "human rights groups" who wrote a letter of protest to the Greek government.)
When I said "integrate such protection", I didn't mean into Windows. I meant into their product as a whole, possibly as a little hardware firewall device or something similar.
They *are* worried about malicious activities (e.g., worms, breakins, etc.), because that's the whole reason they're talking about patching.
The whole point is that a hardware firewall mitigates the need to patch for those reasons, and leaves the OS in a state that is supported by the vendors for use with the specialized equipment and software.
...do they not just put these devices and systems behind something as simple as a $50 hardware NAT firewall, especially for a device that costs hundreds of thousands - or millions - of dollars? (Or better yet, why does the vendor not integrate such protection if they're relying on network-connected Windows systems for device control/interaction?)
The norm is that these devices may need to connect *out* to something else, but don't necessarily need any inbound connections, so a hardware firewall, or even a host-based software firewall, would work perfectly in most instances; those that do need externally initiated inbound communication can *still* set up the necessary rules to allow such communication to take place. And yes, it is just this simple. (I did RTFA, and noted that some vendors actually recommend this, but that, startlingly, "there have been several instances in which viruses originated from medical instruments straight from the vendors"!)
I didn't say that two fingers are faster or more accurate than ten. I said *I* use 2 fingers (index fingers) for typing the alphanumeric characters; I use a pinky or thumb here and there for things like modifier keys and return. I'm very accurate. Sorry, don't have any percentages, and it's not like I can "prove" anything to you, but it's not "shenanigans".
"Typing", i.e., the act of operating the keyboard effectively, is of course necessary. "Touch typing", as taught, is not. I use 2 fingers (4 if you count the use of keys like shift and return), and can type over 80 words per minute without looking at the keyboard without trouble. There's no need to learn conventional touch typing.
Dvorak keyboards, voice recognition, and future input methods are all another story, however...
If an entity does something good of its own volition for the sake of doing something good, or does that same "something good" to satisfy people to whom that would appeal, really, does the difference really matter? The same good has been done.
Not to mention that your bleak black-and-white view on corporate goodwill is in fact not *that* black-and-white.
I'd say that $2.82/GB, for a well-built, well-designed 14-drive 3U RAID (0, 1, 3, 5, 0+1, 10, 30, 50) hardware cabinet with dual-2Gb/s fibre channel connectivity, dual-100mbit ethernet and serial for monitoring and management, excellent Java setup, management, and montoring software, redundant hot-swappable power supplies and fans, and that works and is qualified for use with Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X, qualifies as "inexpensively". But that's just me.
REALNETWORKS STATEMENT ABOUT HARMONY TECHNOLOGY AND CREATING CONSUMER CHOICE
SEATTLE, July 29, 2004 -- RealNetworks®, Inc. (Nasdaq: RNWK) is delighted by initial consumer and music industry support for Harmony. Compatibility, choice and quality are critically important to consumers and Harmony provides all of these to users of the iPod and over 70 other music devices including those from Creative, Rio, iRiver, and others. RealPlayer Music Store provides the highest sound quality of any download music service. That's why so many consumers have welcomed news of Harmony. Consumers, and not Apple, should be the ones choosing what music goes on their iPod.
Harmony follows in a well-established tradition of fully legal, independently developed paths to achieve compatibility. There is ample and clear precedent for this activity, for instance the first IBM compatible PCs from Compaq. Harmony creates a way to lock content from Real's music store in a way that is compatible with the iPod, Windows Media DRM devices, and Helix DRM devices. Harmony technology does not remove or disable any digital rights management system. Apple has suggested that new laws such as the DMCA are relevant to this dispute. In fact, the DMCA is not designed to prevent the creation of new methods of locking content and explicitly allows the creation of interoperable software.
We remain fully committed to Harmony and to giving millions of consumers who own portable music devices, including the Apple iPod, choice and compatibility.
I didn't say I liked the DMCA, nor Apple using it.
But Apple isn't a government, and the DMCA isn't on par with the the types of oppressive acts I assume you are referring to. Let's keep things in perspective...
First, the full Apple statement, since it's not referenced in the summary:
"We are stunned that RealNetworks has adopted the tactics and ethics of a hacker to break into the iPod, and we are investigating the implications of their actions under the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) and other laws. We strongly caution Real and their customers that when we update our iPod software from time to time it is highly likely that Real's Harmony technology will cease to work with current and future iPods."
- Regarding the DMCA: you can't fault Apple for using a law on the books - passed by Congress (unanimously by the Senate), and signed into law by President Clinton - to protect its own business interests. If you don't like the DMCA, or aspects of copyright law in general, work to change the law(s), but don't fault companies or individuals for conducting themselves within the bounds of those laws while they are in force.
- What Apple says regarding breakage is true. Some might argue that any breakage would be intentional; however, you can certainly also agree that otherwise benign changes to the iPod or its firmware may indeed break Real's reverse engineering. Intentional or no, this would still leave customers who have purchased songs via Real out in the cold, which ultimately, to the average customer, reflects poorly on Apple and the iPod (moreso than on Real). Does Apple, or its customers, really want an environment where any changes to the iPod to add functionality or features can break customers' music that they've ostensibly legitimately purchased?
- The word "hackers" was successfully co-opted long, long, long ago ("a person who illegally gains access to and sometimes tampers with information in a computer system"), so don't fault Apple's (currently correct and appropriate) use of the word, and save us the tiresome lectures.
That said, yes, Apple could sublicense Fairplay, as they have done with Motorola. But still, it means both parties must agree, and doesn't excuse Real.
Others remember the continued arrogance and mistakes regarding OS licensing long ago. "Apple could potentially become the Microsoft of online music," they say. But this could only potentially happen by cannibalizing iPod sales. The iPod would be akin to the "PC"; the iTunes Music Store would be "Windows". (Remember: Microsoft never made computers). But for Apple, the iTunes Music Store is a break even proposition: its sole purpose from a business perspective is to drive iPod sales and adoption, and, to a lesser extent, adoption of other Apple products. Apple's iPod and hardware margins are to-die-for in the computer industry, while the iTunes Music Store, even after having sold 100 million songs, only recently made a "small profit". Additionally, Apple maintaining control over the whole process from end to end is one of the things that makes the iTunes/iPod experience so friendly and pleasing. This may no longer be true with other manufacturer's products.
I'm not arguing against for or against licensing here, only pointing out that it's more of a difficult situation than people make it out to be. The iTunes Music Store and the iPod, for Apple, are inextricably connected, at least currently. Allowing the iPod to work with other online music stores can be argued to hurt Apple's iTunes/iPod strategy, while allowing the iTunes Music Store to work with other players definitely hurts iPod sales. Sure, you can make all sorts of contrary arguments, but there are valid arguments just as contrary to those. All that said, Apple
What the summary and the biased sob story from Adam, otherwise known as "Arcady" leaves out is that he was hosting full length versions of every SG-1 episode for download. This isn't some nebulous copyright infrigement case of him using logos or names improperly. He was unabashedly and blatantly hosting copyrighted content, i.e. the shows themselves, for download. Somehow he neglects to mention that in his little bullshit "summary", and that when he was ordered to stop, he moved the episodes to a server overseas (and of course slashdot swallows the PATRIOT garbage hook, line, and sinker). The charges were felony trafficking of counterfeit goods and misdemeanor copyright infringement.
..."the new ACD", as in "the new 30" Apple Cinema Display", ok.
But if you actually meant ADC, or "Apple Display Connector", that is no longer used. With the new line of displays, Apple has (thankfully) gone back to standard DVI for the displays and for their future OEM video cards.
This includes servers. There are now over 12 million Mac OS X systems in use (source: 23:40 of WWDC keynote). This by far eclipses shipments by all other UNIX/UNIX-like system vendors. Apple is the single largest vendor of UNIX-based systems in the world, bar none.
Slashdot Mirror
...tinfoil bodysuit.
Also:
The intelligence gathering capabilities of:
- The US, - The UN, - Most of Europe, including the UK, France, and Germany; - Russia; - Some of Iraq's neighbors; - Iraq and Saddam Hussein himself;
believed Iraq to be in possession of significant quantities of WMD.
This is because:
- The US had long tracked Iraq's possession of WMD, considering we provided them with much of that capability (Let's take another brief tangential stroll down the lane of liberal hypocrisy: that the US once supported Saddam against Iran, and provided Iraq with some of its WMD capabilities is something often bandied about. Classically, it removes accountability for any actions in the intermediary, similar to blaming society wholly for the ills of an inner city youth, or a gun manufacturer for the actions of a criminal with a gun. Hypocritically, it ignores the position held by many in this same camp when Madison's own Progressive Magazine published The Secrets of the H-Bomb some 25 years ago, arguing vehemently [with a different agenda, of course] that the secrets of such weapons cannot and should not be kept by the Big Bad Government, because anyone who wanted to figure them out ultimately would anyway. And, indeed, that the blame would rest with the people who used them inappropriately, not the science behind them. Now, apparently, the US is directly to blame for Iraq having WMD. [Even though it didn't have any WMD...] See why it's difficult to keep up?)
- The UN had closely tracked Iraq's WMD capability for over a decade
- As a matter of course, most of Europe had done the same
- When Hussein accused UN weapons inspectors of being US spies in 1998, at which point the UN pulled the inspectors due to lack of effectiveness, Iraq was known by the UN to be in possession of significant quantities of WMD (e.g., amounts in the thousands of tons). Are we to believe that after all UN oversight was gone, that Iraq secretly and silently destroyed ALL of its WMD capability, without the knowledge of Hussein himself - who believed he was INCREASING his investment in WMD - and all without any records or evidence of such destruction? There are over 740 tons of Sarin alone unaccounted for. 740 tons out of a known 920 tons. Eighty percent. Where is it? (Well, it's in the Sudan, Libya, Syria, who knows?)
- This, of course, ignores the fact that Iraq was egregiously in violation, numerous times, of several binding UNSEC resolutions; resolutions which member nations are required, obligated, and compelled to enforce by the UN charter. The type of enforcement, of course, is up for debate; however, it's clear that the previous course of action was not only not working, it had gotten worse, and ultimately utterly failed. While it also, according to the left, was responsible for over half a million Iraqi deaths.
Let's also not forget the *650,000 tons* (yes, you read that right) of non-WMD UN-banned weapons found by coalition forces in Iraq. 650,000 tons, and counting.
Want to follow the money?
Ok, let's follow it.
During sanctions, tens of billions of dollars flowed into, in this order, France, Russia, and Germany for UNOFP contracts administration. TENS OF BILLIONS. Guess when that flow of money stopped? When the US and coalition countries initiated action in March 2003. Guess who didn't want that neverending money spigot turned off...? Thanks to criminal corruption within the UNOFP itself, we may never know the true amount of money that flowed.
Perhaps you should also wake the fuck up and realize that this whole mideast strategy IS NOT ABOUT WMD IN IRAQ. It's about forcibly killing Panislamic radicalism over the next several decades, perhaps in a generation, without letting it run its natural course over the next 2 to 3 centuries. Why have 9/11 and "Iraq" been discussed in the same context? Not because, as some liberals mindlessly drone that Bush and his "cronies" wanted to "fool" the American people into thinking that Iraq
...who agrees with, or supports, this in any way, is a fucking hypocrite.
You make jokes in reference to the Soviet Union and what you call "internal passports", and then imply, via the Hiibel case, that somehow this has come to pass in the US too. First, this didn't "just happen". Over 20 states have required that individuals identify themselves to a law enforcement officer when requested to do so, and some have had them for many years (indeed, some while you were apparently joking about the Soviets - the other bit of irony is that it was the resolve of the US and men like Reagan which greatly contributed to the gradual defeat and fall of the Soviet Union). This is not a recent creation. Additionally, Hiibel did not even need to produce identification, only verbally communicate his name. Further, this wasn't some guy innocently standing around. The officer was responding to a 911 call in which the caller informed the dispatcher he saw a man and woman fighting in a pickup truck, and that the man had possibly hit the woman. When the officer arrived at the scene, he found the persons who matched the dispatchers description, and skidmarks on the road and disturbed gravel on the shoulder, indicating the vehicle had been stopped "aggressively". He was then greeted by a person who refused to identify himself. Maybe my definitions of privacy are different, but if this is the best you've got, that's a really, really bad example. Some here will likely say "well, if the cop had reasonable cause, he should have just arrested him - no need for him to identify himself" - identification is a key aspect of investigation. If you always have an inherent distrust of police and authority, like many on slashdot do, then I guess it's no surprise which side you take. Also, it's worth noting that "slopes" have varying degrees of "slipperiness".
If the best you can come up with as "proof" that we're living in a police state is having to show a drivers license at airports, or a guy who goes to terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, uses a Muslim name, and has plans and interest to attempt to detonate a dirty bomb in Chicago (Jose Padilla), or Dudley Hiibel, then you'd better come up with some better examples.
If you want to argue for privacy, please do, but the use of fringe examples, and implications that somehow police/government/Bush/etc have some kind of evil ulterior motives to Rule Us All don't help the argument.
Huge misconceptions seem to abound here. FIRE does not represent the whole of US fusion research. There are dozens of other projects and laboratories around the country, most in academia and the national labs.
$2M/year is just for this ONE project.
The summary is extremely poorly written, and apparently the submitter thinks that the US is "canceling" all of its fusion programs, when in reality, ONE project of many is being canceled. The whole reason FIRE came about is because the US pulled out of ITER. Now we're back in, and FIRE could serve as a backup project potentially, but ITER is the focus in this particular line of research. But there are still many, many federally funded fusion research programs, projects, and laboratories around the US! We've spent $5 billion on projects like the National Ignition Facility (NIF) alone (only to be crucified by the Left...I guess you can't win).
Jeez. Wake the fuck up, or at least learn something.
There are not exclusively political motivations here. (And for fuck's sake, how did this get modded +4 Insightful?)
FIRE is *one* fusion research program of dozens of federally funded fusion research programs of all sorts in the US.
As for point 2, "Huh??" FIRE had a $2M/year annual budget. Again, this is but ONE of many, many, many fusion programs in the US. This isn't going to defray anything.
For point 3, now you're just getting wacko. You're implying that it's some huge trick to make people think we're cooperating internationally, but that secretly, the elitist Bush/Cheney/Rove/Rumsfeld/Illuminati conspiracy believes that fusion will only succeed with US involvement, therefore the motivation is CLEARLY to *prevent* it from succeeded, certainly to line their pockets with money from the oil industry.
To you folks who believe this shit routinely: are you fucking serious?
To review: there are MANY fusion research programs in the US, some larger than FIRE. FIRE was just ONE program. We are NOT "abandoning" fusion research. Sheesh. Take off your fucking tinfoil bodysuit.
Apple (actually then-CEO John Sculley) coined the very term. And while I suppose all this is up for debate, the Tandy 100 and HP 100 aren't exactly what people would consider a "PDA". Even though the Newton was a little too big (or at least that's the prevailing notion), it is generally considered to be the first PDA, not to mention that technically, it really *is* the first PDA, since Apple invented the term "PDA" itself.
I'll agree with the basic premise that there are still ways around any level of security, thus reducing the value of the surveillance for security purposes, and more greatly exposing it as an intrusion into one's privacy (not to mention a waste).
But would you agree that there are indeed some measures that can make an attack significantly more difficult, or perhaps even catch or avert others? I guess the question is: what's a reasonable threshold for such measures?
Also, I'm fine with the answer that it's a "placebo", and is thus unnecessarily intrusive for no substantial beneficial purpose; however, my only problem would be the cries that not enough was done if there were an attack. Not the cries themselves, mind you - but the fact that the some of the cries (no, not all, but a good number) would be from the same group of people who berated the surveillance in the first place.
... half of the 5.3 million tickets are still unsold.
So when is surveillance acceptable? What level of surveillance is acceptable? Under what conditions? Why is any attempt at surveillance for the clear purpose of the protection of peoples' lives and safety always variously called a violation human rights (!) or an invasion of privacy, while there would inevitably be shrill cries of "not enough was done" if something did happen? Why do the naysayers never have any better alternatives, but just negative comments? I may sound sarcastic, but these are serious questions. I realize there is a balance, and that the debate is valuable, but seriously: do people ever recognize the hypocrisy of criticizing every action taken, while simultaneously saying "not enough was done" when something *does* happen? (And yes, it is very often the very same group of people.)
Even today, the US was criticized for not responding adequately (or publicly, previous to this point) to the threat of terrorists potentially using tourist helicopters as weapons (or for delivery of a weapon), by the same group of people who attacked the recent public release of critical intelligence threat information as purely politically motivated. (Think about this for a second: if the local authorities in New York and DC were simply told secretly about the newly obtained threat information, as they *most certainly* should have been, the information would DEFINITELY have leaked to the press once it hit local authorities and local police agencies, who would then DEMAND that DHS reveal the full nature of the information - a lose/lose situation [and it doesn't matter that the information was "old" - it's well, well known that attacks are planned years in advance, as in the case of 9/11]. So instead, DHS reveals the information, and targets threat information as locally as possible, and they're crucified for releasing it exclusively for political reasons.)
Please, try to give real answers (not in the form of a Ben Franklin quotation).
(Also, "CNN" doesn't say that last quote; it was attributed to six "human rights groups" who wrote a letter of protest to the Greek government.)
With Windows?
No. With an external hardware firewall device.
When I said "integrate such protection", I didn't mean into Windows. I meant into their product as a whole, possibly as a little hardware firewall device or something similar.
They *are* worried about malicious activities (e.g., worms, breakins, etc.), because that's the whole reason they're talking about patching.
The whole point is that a hardware firewall mitigates the need to patch for those reasons, and leaves the OS in a state that is supported by the vendors for use with the specialized equipment and software.
...do they not just put these devices and systems behind something as simple as a $50 hardware NAT firewall, especially for a device that costs hundreds of thousands - or millions - of dollars? (Or better yet, why does the vendor not integrate such protection if they're relying on network-connected Windows systems for device control/interaction?)
The norm is that these devices may need to connect *out* to something else, but don't necessarily need any inbound connections, so a hardware firewall, or even a host-based software firewall, would work perfectly in most instances; those that do need externally initiated inbound communication can *still* set up the necessary rules to allow such communication to take place. And yes, it is just this simple. (I did RTFA, and noted that some vendors actually recommend this, but that, startlingly, "there have been several instances in which viruses originated from medical instruments straight from the vendors"!)
...now posted:
0 76b-aaa9-443d-84f0-73cf11fdcdf8/WindowsXP-KB835935 -SP2-ENU.exe
Info: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/winxpsp2
Direct download: http://download.microsoft.com/download/1/6/5/165b
I didn't say that two fingers are faster or more accurate than ten. I said *I* use 2 fingers (index fingers) for typing the alphanumeric characters; I use a pinky or thumb here and there for things like modifier keys and return. I'm very accurate. Sorry, don't have any percentages, and it's not like I can "prove" anything to you, but it's not "shenanigans".
"Typing", i.e., the act of operating the keyboard effectively, is of course necessary. "Touch typing", as taught, is not. I use 2 fingers (4 if you count the use of keys like shift and return), and can type over 80 words per minute without looking at the keyboard without trouble. There's no need to learn conventional touch typing.
Dvorak keyboards, voice recognition, and future input methods are all another story, however...
If an entity does something good of its own volition for the sake of doing something good, or does that same "something good" to satisfy people to whom that would appeal, really, does the difference really matter? The same good has been done.
Not to mention that your bleak black-and-white view on corporate goodwill is in fact not *that* black-and-white.
I'd say that $2.82/GB, for a well-built, well-designed 14-drive 3U RAID (0, 1, 3, 5, 0+1, 10, 30, 50) hardware cabinet with dual-2Gb/s fibre channel connectivity, dual-100mbit ethernet and serial for monitoring and management, excellent Java setup, management, and montoring software, redundant hot-swappable power supplies and fans, and that works and is qualified for use with Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X, qualifies as "inexpensively". But that's just me.
http://www.apple.com/xserve/raid/
Academic prices for:
1.00TB - $5399
1.75TB - $6749
3.50TB - $9899
http://www.realnetworks.com/company/press/releases /2004/harmony_statement.html
REALNETWORKS STATEMENT ABOUT HARMONY TECHNOLOGY AND CREATING CONSUMER CHOICE
SEATTLE, July 29, 2004 -- RealNetworks®, Inc. (Nasdaq: RNWK) is delighted by initial consumer and music industry support for Harmony. Compatibility, choice and quality are critically important to consumers and Harmony provides all of these to users of the iPod and over 70 other music devices including those from Creative, Rio, iRiver, and others. RealPlayer Music Store provides the highest sound quality of any download music service. That's why so many consumers have welcomed news of Harmony. Consumers, and not Apple, should be the ones choosing what music goes on their iPod.
Harmony follows in a well-established tradition of fully legal, independently developed paths to achieve compatibility. There is ample and clear precedent for this activity, for instance the first IBM compatible PCs from Compaq. Harmony creates a way to lock content from Real's music store in a way that is compatible with the iPod, Windows Media DRM devices, and Helix DRM devices. Harmony technology does not remove or disable any digital rights management system. Apple has suggested that new laws such as the DMCA are relevant to this dispute. In fact, the DMCA is not designed to prevent the creation of new methods of locking content and explicitly allows the creation of interoperable software.
We remain fully committed to Harmony and to giving millions of consumers who own portable music devices, including the Apple iPod, choice and compatibility.
I didn't say I liked the DMCA, nor Apple using it.
But Apple isn't a government, and the DMCA isn't on par with the the types of oppressive acts I assume you are referring to. Let's keep things in perspective...
First, the full Apple statement, since it's not referenced in the summary:
"We are stunned that RealNetworks has adopted the tactics and ethics of a hacker to break into the iPod, and we are investigating the implications of their actions under the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) and other laws. We strongly caution Real and their customers that when we update our iPod software from time to time it is highly likely that Real's Harmony technology will cease to work with current and future iPods."
- Regarding the DMCA: you can't fault Apple for using a law on the books - passed by Congress (unanimously by the Senate), and signed into law by President Clinton - to protect its own business interests. If you don't like the DMCA, or aspects of copyright law in general, work to change the law(s), but don't fault companies or individuals for conducting themselves within the bounds of those laws while they are in force.
- What Apple says regarding breakage is true. Some might argue that any breakage would be intentional; however, you can certainly also agree that otherwise benign changes to the iPod or its firmware may indeed break Real's reverse engineering. Intentional or no, this would still leave customers who have purchased songs via Real out in the cold, which ultimately, to the average customer, reflects poorly on Apple and the iPod (moreso than on Real). Does Apple, or its customers, really want an environment where any changes to the iPod to add functionality or features can break customers' music that they've ostensibly legitimately purchased?
- The word "hackers" was successfully co-opted long, long, long ago ("a person who illegally gains access to and sometimes tampers with information in a computer system"), so don't fault Apple's (currently correct and appropriate) use of the word, and save us the tiresome lectures.
That said, yes, Apple could sublicense Fairplay, as they have done with Motorola. But still, it means both parties must agree, and doesn't excuse Real.
Others remember the continued arrogance and mistakes regarding OS licensing long ago. "Apple could potentially become the Microsoft of online music," they say. But this could only potentially happen by cannibalizing iPod sales. The iPod would be akin to the "PC"; the iTunes Music Store would be "Windows". (Remember: Microsoft never made computers). But for Apple, the iTunes Music Store is a break even proposition: its sole purpose from a business perspective is to drive iPod sales and adoption, and, to a lesser extent, adoption of other Apple products. Apple's iPod and hardware margins are to-die-for in the computer industry, while the iTunes Music Store, even after having sold 100 million songs, only recently made a "small profit". Additionally, Apple maintaining control over the whole process from end to end is one of the things that makes the iTunes/iPod experience so friendly and pleasing. This may no longer be true with other manufacturer's products.
I'm not arguing against for or against licensing here, only pointing out that it's more of a difficult situation than people make it out to be. The iTunes Music Store and the iPod, for Apple, are inextricably connected, at least currently. Allowing the iPod to work with other online music stores can be argued to hurt Apple's iTunes/iPod strategy, while allowing the iTunes Music Store to work with other players definitely hurts iPod sales. Sure, you can make all sorts of contrary arguments, but there are valid arguments just as contrary to those. All that said, Apple
What the summary and the biased sob story from Adam, otherwise known as "Arcady" leaves out is that he was hosting full length versions of every SG-1 episode for download . This isn't some nebulous copyright infrigement case of him using logos or names improperly. He was unabashedly and blatantly hosting copyrighted content, i.e. the shows themselves, for download. Somehow he neglects to mention that in his little bullshit "summary", and that when he was ordered to stop, he moved the episodes to a server overseas (and of course slashdot swallows the PATRIOT garbage hook, line, and sinker). The charges were felony trafficking of counterfeit goods and misdemeanor copyright infringement.
H.264 is an international standard from MPEG and ITU, sometimes known as MPEG-4 Part 10 or MPEG AVC (Advanced Video Codec).
And yes, if they're supporting HD DVD, they will be supporting H.264, since it's one of the required codecs for HD DVD, along with VC-9 and MPEG-2.
..."the new ACD", as in "the new 30" Apple Cinema Display", ok.
But if you actually meant ADC, or "Apple Display Connector", that is no longer used. With the new line of displays, Apple has (thankfully) gone back to standard DVI for the displays and for their future OEM video cards.
This includes servers. There are now over 12 million Mac OS X systems in use (source: 23:40 of WWDC keynote). This by far eclipses shipments by all other UNIX/UNIX-like system vendors. Apple is the single largest vendor of UNIX-based systems in the world, bar none.