This isn't just about the "US". No one wants Iran to have this capability (except, of course, Iran). Of course, if anyone ever actually has to do anything about Iran, I'm sure everyone will conveniently forget. I'd say you'd be first in line to forget, but you can't forget something you never knew.
You might want to read this. It's something that will be coming up again. The thing about UN resolutions is that there's only one kind that has teeth, and allows UN members to respond with force in the event of noncompliance. They're called Chapter VII UN Security Council resolutions. This is one of those resolutions. Everyone agreed.
International Official Reaction to IAEA Report on Iran FEA20070223094786 - OSC Feature - International -- OSC Summary 23 Feb 07
IAEA Board of Governors in Vienna (IAEA.org)
On 22 February the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] issued a report to the organization's 35-nation board of governors declaring Iran has failed to suspend its enrichment related activities. Full report
This product compiles official global reaction to the IAEA's report monitored by OSC as of 1630 GMT on 23 February.
IRAN
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinezhad:
"If we show weakness in front of the enemies, their expectations will increase, but if we stand against them, because of our resistance, they will retreat." Full report
"Fairness requires that those who want to conduct talks with us also close their fuel cycle programs" so "we can conduct a dialogue in a fair atmosphere." Full report
Iranian Expediency Council chief Hashemi Rafsanjani:
"They will not reach anywhere through this path . . . the only way is to stop this bullying and stop this preconditioning so that we can all sit at the negotiation table." Full report
MIDDLE EAST
Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal:
It is "too soon to adopt drastic measures. We continue to aspire to a peaceful solution." Full report
RUSSIA
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov:
Lavrov "intends to carefully study the report by the head of the IAEA Muhammad al-Baradi'i on Iran's nuclear dossier." Full report Russian Ambassador to the United Nations Vitaliy Churkin:
The UNSC's goal should not be "to adopt a new resolution on Iran or introduce sanctions against Tehran, but a political regulation of the Iranian nuclear problem." Full report
EUROPE
French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy:
"We think that is now necessary to draft a new resolution, as quickly as possible, the six of us, the three Europeans, in particular, but also the Russians, the Chinese, and the Americans. It is necessary that this resolution go a little further than the one we already voted for unanimously on 23 December. It is only with unity and firmness on the part of the international community that we will create what is just beginning to stir in Iran today, namely a debate about the validity of President Ahmadinezhad's policy." Full report
German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier:
"What was confirmed today was to be expected, that Iran has failed to meet the expectations of the international community." Referring Iran to the UNSC is "one of the options" for handling the situation. Full report
UK Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett:
"Iran has so far failed to take this positive path and comply with Security Council requirements . . . we will therefore work for the adoption of further Security Council measures, which will lead to the further isolation of Iran internationally . . . we remain determined to prevent Iran acquiring the means to develop nuclear weapons." Full report
Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel:
Iran must understand that "the international community is united and firm" on the nuclear issue and that "dialogue must continue . . . diplomacy is never finished." Full report
The US has already done a good job at destabilizing the region. I doubt it could get much worse.
Looks like Iran has done a good job, again shifting the discourse from whether it should be continuing to develop its nuclear program against the will of the UN and most of the international community - no, not just the US; you might want to take a look at what the UN has been doing and stating consistently on Iran lately - to what the US has done (or will do) wrong.
I considered mentioning this in my previous post, but though that most people could distinguish this (alleged) action by Iran from other things. But since the very second response to this article already failed to make the distinction, I guess I was wrong.
It's brilliant on the part of Iran, I'll give it that. Continue aggressively pursuing your nuclear program and posturing with intent to provoke reactions, knowing full well the debate will be shifted to the US.
VMWare Workstation officially supports FreeBSD as a guest. Parallels Workstation for Windows and Linux and Parallels Desktop for Mac OS X officially supports FreeBSD as a guest.
Of course, many other *BSDs will also work fine under VMWare and Parallels products as well, even if officially "unsupported".
...as the from the apple-could-do-this dept. statement opines, but only for the artists and/or labels with direct legal standing to make such a request with Apple. Hint: it's not anywhere near the number people think it is. Even some artists who sell or provide DRM-free music via other channels may not actually have such a (legal) capability with Apple, for example, because their label's contract with Apple (or other stipulations) doesn't currently allow it.
And while we're at it, let's fix the title of this submission:
Puretracks drops DRM from less than 4% of its tracks; even less when you consider well known commercial artists on major labels; changes format and delivery mechanism for such songs
Let's face it: like it or not, that's important.
I do agree that Apple should aggressively work toward this, and they should absolutely drop the "all-or-nothing" mentality with DRM on the iTunes store, because dropping all DRM at once won't work. They definitely need to start somewhere, even if it's with relatively unknown artists and/or labels. Consider, too, that some of Apple's existing contracts may have stipulations that all other music sold on the same store or via the same mechanisms have the same protections.
The article notes:
Essentially Puretracks is relaxing the major-label mandated DRM rules that it had initially applied to all labels, even the indies that wanted no part of DRM.
What if Apple isn't currently in a legal, technical, business, and/or support position to do that? What if it is, in fact, planning to do just that, but can't move quite as quickly as people seem to think it should be able to. This isn't a "2-3 day" operation as some people think it should be. It may be months before any fruits of this are seen on the iTunes Store.
Consider further that Apple may not want to sell, e.g., MP3 format specifically, for a variety of reasons. If a label (like EMI, which is talking to everyone BUT Apple about its possible no-DRM experiment - perhaps some ulterior motives of their own?), specifically wants "unprotected MP3", what if Apple's format of choice is "unprotected AAC"? Should Apple start selling multiple formats as well as multiple protection levels? How much of the years-proven consistency of operation and ease of use should Apple sacrifice on the iTunes Store?
There are a lot of unknowns here that don't automatically mean that Apple "doesn't really want to drop DRM."[1] Yes, actions speak louder than words, but Jobs' landmark statement on DRM, concisely shredding any arguments in favor of DRM, is, in fact, a pretty big action in itself. But Apple has a lot invested in the iTunes Store ecosystem, and they're not going to make rash decisions, screw things up, break support models, confuse customers, or do anything that would cause them to lose one or more large commercial content providers.
So while other fringe and marginally known stores may be able to make moves in this direction, it's a delicate situation for Apple. Hopefully Jobs' strong words, which have already caused a firestorm of circling wagons among some pro-DRM entities, and other stores with the luxury of being able to move more quickly into experimental areas, will push the balance toward "no-DRM". Regardless of what the bloggers and pundits think, who instantly came out with all of these "Apple doesn't really want to get rid of DRM" arguments believing this was a carefully crafted PR play, Jobs' DRM statement is the strongest stance from anyone at such a high level in music and media, and that's exactly what it will take to move the industry forward.
They already store unprotected files on the server that are accessible from certain clients. I'm sure they probably thought of the eventuality that they could sell unprotected music someday, and if they have any sense they already have something designed and implemented. It is definitely a business decision and not technical limitations that are holding them back.
Yes. And the business processes that go into rolling something like this out are probably far more complex than the technical processes. This actually speaks to my point: technically, sure, it may be that "2-3 day" operation people think it should be. From a business and support perspective, it's not. There may even be legal issues in one or more of Apple's other contractual relationships. This is the same as people thinking Apple should have been able to create an iPod battery replacement service in a week or two. In reality, it took the better part of a year. The point is that things are a little more complex and take a little longer than people seem to think.
I never said he was in love with DRM.
You didn't say that, but others making this argument essentially say that.
The simple fact is that Apple does not sell songs without DRM, even though they have the ability
You don't know that they have that ability right now. Just because the songs are stored unprotected on their servers doesn't mean they have the end-to-end business, technical, and logistical processes, today, to do that. I can just see people saying, "Please...how hard can it be?" It may NOT be "that hard". But it's a LOT harder than people seem to think it is. It's not as if they can just flip a switch. There are a lot of things that would have to happen at the back end to support this, not to mention a client update may even be needed.
I'm NOT saying any of this is impossible, or that it would be "hard" for Apple to do, or that they shouldn't do it.
I'm simply saying that using the fact that they're not currently doing it as some sort of "proof" that Apple doesn't really want to be rid of DRM is disingenuous.
and many independent labels have requested to have their music sold unshackled.
But how many of these labels have direct relationships with iTunes (i.e., not another intermediary)? I honestly don't know. Even if there are many, they, in total, comprise a very small portion (much less than "30%") and don't include any major labels. And the major labels - the ones who WANT DRM - are what's at issue here. I know that to some people, the converse situation of applying DRM to these other artists' music who may not want it stands as some sort of "proof" that Apple really isn't serious about ridding iTunes Music Store of DRM.
If Steve was anti-DRM, then why does iTunes not have the ability to sell unrestricted music from those labels that want it?
This is a legitimate question. Even if the number of people with valid rights to request this (i.e., people with direct contractual relationships with Apple) is very small, Apple should still enable this, even if only as a symbol.
The answer is that they can make a whole shitload of money while still appearing to be fighting the good fight. They can strengthen their market share slightly by continuing to sell songs that are locked into the iPod and claim it was the big bad record companies that made them do it.
And here's where your argument breaks down again. No one has to buy from iTunes, for one thing. And for another, if all these great indie artists you speak of are already DRM-free on sites like eMusic, then why would people be buying them from Apple? It makes zero sense. Apple's bread and butter is major labels, and that's what's at issue here. I'm not saying Apple shouldn't maybe go a little bit out of its way, or off the beaten path, to cater to independent labels with direct relationships with Apple who don't want DRM on their music.
But we're still, again, not considering the possibility that other contrac
How many of the labels or artists requesting this have direct, pre-existing contracts with iTunes?
Do the artists that have supposedly asked Apple to remove DRM from their tracks have any current legal standing to do so? (I.e., is their arrangement with CDbaby, which itself has the contract with Apple?)
Might one or more of the major label contracts currently in force with Apple require that all music sold on the same store have the same controls?
How much work would Apple have to do to begin providing different protection levels via iTunes? (Hint: it's not "2-3 days" work, as someone suggested in a previous submission on this topic to slashdot. Anyone who thinks it is is seriously deluding themselves in terms of how much work is required to make reliable and consistent changes to such a large service.)
What if some of the labels (like EMI) explicitly want unprotected MP3 (as opposed to unprotected AAC)? Would Apple's denial be immediately interpreted as "wanting DRM"? Can Apple decide which unprotected formats it sells via its store?
This whole conspiracy theory that Jobs floated this out for PR but he's really in love with DRM is bogus. Jobs, as the CEO of the company that runs the largest online music store and a board member of Disney, concisely shredded DRM and scathingly explained why DRM will never work and will always fail, and soundly trounced any argument in favor of DRM. The fact that people think Apple still secretly wants DRM or only released this statement to deflect complaints in Europe is astounding to me.
In any case, if you answer all of the above questions, it's seriously doubtful that it's anywhere near "30%" (or even 3%) if you consider people who actually have standing to ask Apple to remove DRM. Individual artists can't ask. It would have to be their labels or CDbaby. There might be other prohibitions to doing this in Apple's existing contracts. Another thing to consider is that there is a disconnect between what a CEO says and the actual mechanics of the way something like iTunes works. Steve's statement can be 100% genuine and truthful, and iTunes Music Store standing policy can still be that all media must be processed by the current mechanisms (that include FairPlay). These two states of affairs are not in conflict.
I know people would like Apple to start removing DRM right now, or just think that any artist with no direct relationship with Apple should just be able to have Apple remove DRM (even if it's in violation of other contracts, possibly with their own label), or that just because the same artist is already DRM-free on emusic means that they instantly should be able to be on iTunes, or that retooling contracts to even begin to allow for these things is a piece of cake. People also seem to forget that this isn't about the little indie labels and artists[1]. It's about the major commercial labels with the major commercial music, like it or not. Those are the people who are always fighting for DRM, and those are the people Apple wants/needs to remove it.
The bottom line is that Jobs' statement on DRM is the most massive shot across the bow of DRM in history, from anyone at any level, and some people just can't accept that.
[1] EMI isn't even talking with Apple about unprotected music. They're talking to Apple's competitors. If you think Apple has "ulterior motives" for the DRM statement, consider the same about EMI.
Isn't it about any online music retailer, DRM or not?
Hint: the answer isn't "because iTunes is the most popular store". When Microsoft was targeted for doing things like offering refunds for unused Windows licenses, Microsoft is mentioned explicitly because it is the only one engaged in that behavior.
So why is only "iTunes" mentioned in stories like these when in fact most (if not all - I haven't checked) also likely have similar practices?
FYI, after you've reached the limit for number of times burning the same playlist, you can delete that playlist and simply make another with the exact same songs in the exact same order. The limit is there to prevent iTunes itself from appearing as a tool for mass-producing burned CDs, making it a hassle to use *iTunes* to do such mass-production. As you pointed out, there are numerous other ways to do this, and if you really need more than seven copies of the *same CD*, you can always just make a playlist with the same contents again in iTunes.
Not "ready" or "supported" on Vista != "doesn't work on Vista" or "never will be supported on Vista"
Also, what does "compatible with Vista" mean in this context to most users? If a product works just fine on Vista, what does something being not "compatible with Vista" mean to end users?
That is, all of these pieces of software work fine, except iTunes, for which Apple has released a temporary fix until the next iTunes release, which will officially support Vista. The next QuickTime release will also officially support Vista, though the current release works fine.
Yes, yes, they're not officially supported on Vista and that's a consideration, but this submission acts as if none of Apple's Windows apps even work on Vista, when actually they all do.
Also, that isn't a "new" Apple technical support article. It's been around since at least November 2006, and simply enumerates the versions of Windows officially supported by Apple's various software products for Windows. Considering Apple has already stated that at least two products (iTunes and QuickTime) will officially support Vista in their next versions, and Apple has released a temporary fix for their only Windows product that has identified problems with Vista (iTunes), I fail to see how this is news.
Should all of these applications have been qualified for Vista? Perhaps. But this is Apple we're talking about here, and meanwhile Microsoft has systematically killed off several major products on Mac OS X, even as Mac OS X's marketshare increases (Windows Media Player (Flip4Mac is neat, but is no substitute and also doesn't support Windows Media DRM), Virtual PC, VB in Office, Outlook, and so on).
Apple's new Apple Software Update for Windows (which does work on Vista) will bring down new versions of itself, and every other applicable Apple product, in a seamless and automated fashion when they become available.
Yes, this article is crap, but for what it's worth, the Vista Home Basic and Home Premium license is intended to prohibit use in any kind of virtual machine environment. I had the same line of reasoning you did. Vista Ultimate does come with two licenses, but Home Basic and Home Premium really do intend (apparently) to prohibit use in virtualization. This has been covered repeatedly, and confirmed by Microsoft representatives.
-----
On Oct 23, 2006, at 8:23 AM, Paul Thurrott wrote:
Microsoft told me that the retail EULA forbids the installation of Windows Vista Home Basic or Home Premium in virtual machines. They said that if developers wanted to do this, they should get an MSDN subscription, which has a different license allowing such an install. All that said, there's nothing technical from preventing users from installing any Vista version in a virtual machine.
Paul
-----Original Message----- From: Dave Schroeder [mailto:das@doit.wisc.edu] Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 9:15 AM To: thurrott@windowsitpro.com Subject: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing?
Paul,
In reading about Vista virtualization, it occurred to me that all this may be a result of the incorrect interpretation of the EULA:
Microsoft's Vista EULA says:
"4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed[1] on the licensed device[2] within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system."
This means you can't use the *same* installation of Vista Home inside a virtualization technology on the "licensed device".
This DOES NOT mean you can't use it by itself in a virtualization product on any platform. If that instance of Vista is not installed anywhere else, there is no preexisting "licensed device".
The reason this is included in the EULA is because Vista Business and Ultimate actually include additional licenses specifically so the same license can be used to also run in a virtualization environment on the same device where Vista is already installed.
The higher end versions of Vista actually include more in terms of virtualization licensing than any other commercial OS.
In any case, by my reading, this means all versions of Vista can still be legally used standalone in a virtualized environment, such as Parallels or VMWare.
[1] This means "the software" (i.e., Vista Home Basic or Premium) is already installed on a licensed device.
[2] The "licensed device" is the device that Vista Home is already installed on, and that license may not be reused to also install it in a virtualization environment, which you CAN do with Vista Business and Ultimate, because Microsoft includes additional licenses specifically for virtualization use, which is why there are all these specifics about virtualization use on the lower end Vista versions in the EULA in the first place.
Apple isn't doing this, and Landon Fuller doesn't have anything to do with Apple, other than having worked there. (And no, conspiracy theorists, he's not doing this at Apple's behest or as part of some coordinated fanboy effort to "make Apple look good".)
What Apple should be doing is developing a much more comprehensive and responsive security response group, which is lacking now. Apple needs to be patching issues in a much more timely manner. Hopefully the outcome of MOAB, things like Fuller's proposal, and other related things will be a real discourse on Apple security response and Mac OS X security.
The html tag parsing mangled my reply when I used a less than symbol. Fixed reply:
What was that Hi-Cap driver that I installed to allow access to the 300GB drives I have installed in the boxes then?
Something that bypasses the 128GB limitation of single partition size by doing a little trickery. I trust you noticed that you have to partition the drives into less than 128GB chunks.
There are no "inexpensive" ATA PCI cards that work for a mac. They are starting out at $65+ everywhere I have seen them. Cards for PCs don't work.
Uh, $65 is inexpensive. More inexpensive than the only alternative you implied ("buying newer stuff [from Apple]").
You're wrong that I'm wrong. I have installed large drives on countless boxes. They may require drivemagic or a BIOS update, but I have yet to see a PC that was limited by the hardware.
If they require additional software/drivers, that's the same trickery as Hi-Cap.
In any event, the fact that the ATA controller on early G4's didn't have 48-bit LBA/Large Disk support isn't a "bug". Earlier ATA controllers didn't have such support. (And if you think Apple purposefully did it when disk sizes were commonly less than 40GB with designs on "forcing" people to upgrade when >128GB disks became available, you're deluded.)
What's really amusing is you seem to have no problem doing essentially the exact same solution you're using on the G4 on PCs.
What was that Hi-Cap driver that I installed to allow access to the 300GB drives I have installed in the boxes then?
Something that bypasses the 128GB limitation of single partition size by doing a little trickery. I trust you noticed that you have to partition the drives into There are no "inexpensive" ATA PCI cards that work for a mac. They are starting out at $65+ everywhere I have seen them. Cards for PCs don't work.
Uh, $65 is inexpensive. More inexpensive than the only alternative you implied ("buying newer stuff [from Apple]").
You're wrong that I'm wrong. I have installed large drives on countless boxes. They may require drivemagic or a BIOS update, but I have yet to see a PC that was limited by the hardware.
If they require additional software/drivers, that's the same trickery as Hi-Cap.
In any event, the fact that the ATA controller on early G4's didn't have 48-bit LBA/Large Disk support isn't a "bug". Earlier ATA controllers didn't have such support. (And if you think Apple purposefully did it when disk sizes were commonly less than 40GB with designs on "forcing" people to upgrade when >128GB disks became available, you're deluded.)
What's really amusing is you seem to have no problem doing essentially the exact same solution you're using on the G4 on PCs.
That's an ATA controller than was made before support for Large Disks (e.g., >128GB).
It cannot be fixed with any kind of firmware or software update.
So, not a bug, and not planned obsolescence. Just an ATA controller made before Large Disk support was remotely common. Further, you can just buy an inexpensive ATA PCI card if you really wanted to use disks larger than 128GB. No need to buy "newer stuff" from Apple.
Also, you're wrong that there has "never been any such problem for PCs". Many older ATA controllers didn't have Large Disk support, and when that is the case, it's not something that can be fixed by a firmware or software upgrade on PCs either.
...because when any "DRM" is used on audio CDs, they're technically no longer even "audio CDs"...at least, they don't officially conform to the Red Book Audio specification, and can't even use the familiar "Compact Disc Digital Audio" logo. While certainly they're intended to be purchased and used as audio CDs, and everyone would still refer to them as such, they're at most an "audio disc resembling a conventional audio CD," or "audio that is incidentally stored on CD media".
Intrinsic to a Red Book Audio CD is the ability to extract the audio in its pristine digital form. While content owners may not appreciate that in today's digital marketplace, that's what an audio CD is. If labels want to add DRM or anything else not in the Red Book Audio specification to these discs, they are obligated to make it clear that they're not really audio CDs, and indeed, consumers have found the belated warning that they "may not play in all CD players" only too true, resulting in practical decisions like this one from EMI Netherlands. This is what you get when you screw with established international standards.
Especially humorous is that, any amount of DRM aside, all of this music will always be widely available on file sharing networks, mostly as lossy MP3s. Who is affected most, then, by not being able to extract audio from discs within one's own physical possession, given that the music is invariably already available any number of file sharing networks many times over? The individual consumer who simply wants to enjoy his purchase on another device, such as a computer or portable music player. While DRM is intended to prevent or reduce casual copyright infringement, it never will stop content from being copied, and DRM on "audio CDs" is just one of those wrongheaded ideas, given that it toys with a standard that has already been established for two and a half decades.
Until someone figures out how to alter properties of nature in such a way that physical property of audio or video being able to be in an analog state via sound waves or the electromagnetic spectrum can be eliminated, there will always be mechanisms for those who wish to violate copyright to violate it. In the meantime, DRM will mostly affect and inconvenience legitimate, paying consumers of content.
Nope. Just someone who happens to be a subscriber (which one would think is a good thing if one enjoys slashdot (???)), happened to see an article about to be posted, and wrote the same reply I'd have written regardless.
What's especially humorous is that, as of the time you posted your childish reply, my post hadn't been modded up, down, or changed in any way.
Information Assurance has long been one of NSA's primary missions. NSA ran the Trusted Product Evaluation Program (TPEP) since 1983, which evaluated off-the-shelf commercial products against standardized security criteria, and employed various experts from government, military, academia, and industry. Contributions or recommendations from TPEP often were incorporated into future iterations of vendor products. The expanded Common Criteria programs, which grew in part out of the US Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria (TCSEC, the famous Rainbow Series of security publications), picked up where TPEP left off, now administered by the National Information Assurance Partnership (NAIP) of NSA and NIST.
NSA's Information Assurance Directorate also provides public security configuration guides for many popular applications, operating systems, database servers, routers, and other networking equipment.
Where does it end? At things that are clearly unacceptable.
The problem is that the threshold of freedom vs security in a society based on rule of law is different for everyone. I have no problem at all with showing ID to fly. I might have problems with something else, and so might many other people.
So where does it end? At things that are clearly unacceptable to the majority of people. Good thing we live in a majority-representative democracy.
Just because you have to show an ID to fly (or submit to the standardized "intensive" search in lieu of showing ID) doesn't mean or imply that anything else follows, and isn't automatically a "slippery slope."
No, actually, a lot of people have been saying that - that most, if not all, of the air security changes after 9/11 were unnecessary and meaningless. So instead of claiming my argument is invalid because "no one is saying that", why don't you actually offer suggestions as to what should legitimately have been done after 9/11, keeping in mind that the ID requirement was actually instituted after TWA 800?
I'm saying that we should be focusing on actual security improvements rather than the "Security Theatre" that you're supporting.
Ok, what are the actual improvements, then?
Wait, let me guess: something about cockpit doors or El-Al's security track record?
Please enumerate exact suggestions for improvement, and why you feel the suggestion is not currently being implemented.
But no, it's actually still important to keep weapons, explosives, and so on, off the planes and out of the cargo holds to begin with.
The "security theater" aspect is important to people as unreasonable, emotional creatures. They felt safer with national guardsmen with unloaded weapons walking around the airports. No government could educate people to the point you expect, and make them magically feel like coming back to air travel was a safe, much less pleasant, thing to do.
This isn't about straw men. It might be to you, but there are a lot of people who argue that the security that was already in place before 9/11 was "security theater", too. There are a lot of people who argue that all we really need are strong cockpit doors, and that anything else is an unwarranted invasion of privacy, and that even if there were a bombing every here and again, people should somehow be smart enough to just chalk it up to the price of living in a free society, and not be scared or worried.
We can tolerate dying by accident or by our own choices, as tragic as they may be. What doesn't set well with us, no matter how statistically insignificant overall, is people dying in large numbers. What we don't tolerate, no matter how statistically miniscule, is people intentionally killing other Americans, even still feeling so strongly after having lived in our own society and culture for months or years. Many people want to see defined change they can comprehend that appears to be aimed at preventing such instances. Just like those people won't understand change they can't see, others likely will continue to doubt that there are and have been massive initiatives to improve security, communication, and intelligence at all levels, security "theater" aside.
Living in a secure, stable society of law and order comes with responsibilities and restrictions.
Not everything is a slippery slope.
The Franklin quote everyone likes to trot out usually leaves out a couple critical words:
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
With those bolded words left out, it's the very witty and ominous warning people who quote it usually intend it to be. But with these words, suddenly, things become a bit more subjective. Is not having to show ID at an airport essential to my liberty? No, not remotely, in my own view. Is the safety gained from airport and airline security changes "temporary"? Again, no. Am I, personally, offended by the balance between liberty and security in general? Once again, no.
I can see how people who legitimately believe we are becoming (or already are) a police state are deeply troubled by something like this. I know that many people like to think that it's exclusively about cultivating fear. Of course fear is a tool politicians and governments have used. It's been true for generations and will always continue to be true.
Your mistake is believing that is EXCLUSIVELY what is happening, instead of realizing that there are thousands of dedicated people, some extremely educated and skilled, at all levels of government, who really do value their jobs of safeguarding the country and doing their own little parts to help secure something like an airplane. This all isn't some "who will think of the children" plot.
Who gets to decide? Who draws the line? These are all subjective things, and you can't just categorically say that showing ID or submitting to the standard "intensive" search is unacceptable and represents a "slippery slope", only moments away from devolving into tracking devices being implanted in every citizen and being required to show papers when traveling between states. Showing ID at an airport (which is something almost all people did before 9/11 for years anyway) is nowhere near any of the other presumably mandatory examples you cite. Some security changes really are "reasonable" and nothing more.
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't just about the "US". No one wants Iran to have this capability (except, of course, Iran). Of course, if anyone ever actually has to do anything about Iran, I'm sure everyone will conveniently forget. I'd say you'd be first in line to forget, but you can't forget something you never knew.
You might want to read this. It's something that will be coming up again. The thing about UN resolutions is that there's only one kind that has teeth, and allows UN members to respond with force in the event of noncompliance. They're called Chapter VII UN Security Council resolutions. This is one of those resolutions. Everyone agreed.
International Official Reaction to IAEA Report on Iran
FEA20070223094786 - OSC Feature - International -- OSC Summary 23 Feb 07
IAEA Board of Governors in Vienna (IAEA.org)
On 22 February the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] issued a report to the organization's 35-nation board of governors declaring Iran has failed to suspend its enrichment related activities. Full report
This product compiles official global reaction to the IAEA's report monitored by OSC as of 1630 GMT on 23 February.
IRAN
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinezhad:
"If we show weakness in front of the enemies, their expectations will increase, but if we stand against them, because of our resistance, they will retreat." Full report
"Fairness requires that those who want to conduct talks with us also close their fuel cycle programs" so "we can conduct a dialogue in a fair atmosphere." Full report
Iranian Expediency Council chief Hashemi Rafsanjani:
"They will not reach anywhere through this path . . . the only way is to stop this bullying and stop this preconditioning so that we can all sit at the negotiation table." Full report
MIDDLE EAST
Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal:
It is "too soon to adopt drastic measures. We continue to aspire to a peaceful solution." Full report
RUSSIA
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov:
Lavrov "intends to carefully study the report by the head of the IAEA Muhammad al-Baradi'i on Iran's nuclear dossier." Full report
Russian Ambassador to the United Nations Vitaliy Churkin:
The UNSC's goal should not be "to adopt a new resolution on Iran or introduce sanctions against Tehran, but a political regulation of the Iranian nuclear problem." Full report
EUROPE
French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy:
"We think that is now necessary to draft a new resolution, as quickly as possible, the six of us, the three Europeans, in particular, but also the Russians, the Chinese, and the Americans. It is necessary that this resolution go a little further than the one we already voted for unanimously on 23 December. It is only with unity and firmness on the part of the international community that we will create what is just beginning to stir in Iran today, namely a debate about the validity of President Ahmadinezhad's policy." Full report
German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier:
"What was confirmed today was to be expected, that Iran has failed to meet the expectations of the international community." Referring Iran to the UNSC is "one of the options" for handling the situation. Full report
UK Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett:
"Iran has so far failed to take this positive path and comply with Security Council requirements . . . we will therefore work for the adoption of further Security Council measures, which will lead to the further isolation of Iran internationally . . . we remain determined to prevent Iran acquiring the means to develop nuclear weapons." Full report
Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel:
Iran must understand that "the international community is united and firm" on the nuclear issue and that "dialogue must continue . . . diplomacy is never finished." Full report
ASIA
Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxi
No, I'm not mixing anything up. Earlier this month, Iran claimed it had a cure for AIDS, with no proof (naturally).
But then, so had North Korea.
I'm surprised you haven't noticed this kind of behavior from Iran under Ahmadinejad.
The US has already done a good job at destabilizing the region. I doubt it could get much worse.
Looks like Iran has done a good job, again shifting the discourse from whether it should be continuing to develop its nuclear program against the will of the UN and most of the international community - no, not just the US; you might want to take a look at what the UN has been doing and stating consistently on Iran lately - to what the US has done (or will do) wrong.
I considered mentioning this in my previous post, but though that most people could distinguish this (alleged) action by Iran from other things. But since the very second response to this article already failed to make the distinction, I guess I was wrong.
It's brilliant on the part of Iran, I'll give it that. Continue aggressively pursuing your nuclear program and posturing with intent to provoke reactions, knowing full well the debate will be shifted to the US.
"Iranian media" said this?
No pictures of the reported launch have been shown on Iranian state TV, and no Western countries have confirmed tracking any such test-firing.
While they're at it, where's that cure for AIDS?
Excuse me if I'm not impressed by this posturing.
VMWare Workstation officially supports FreeBSD as a guest. Parallels Workstation for Windows and Linux and Parallels Desktop for Mac OS X officially supports FreeBSD as a guest.
Of course, many other *BSDs will also work fine under VMWare and Parallels products as well, even if officially "unsupported".
...as the from the apple-could-do-this dept. statement opines, but only for the artists and/or labels with direct legal standing to make such a request with Apple. Hint: it's not anywhere near the number people think it is. Even some artists who sell or provide DRM-free music via other channels may not actually have such a (legal) capability with Apple, for example, because their label's contract with Apple (or other stipulations) doesn't currently allow it.
And while we're at it, let's fix the title of this submission:
Puretracks drops DRM from less than 4% of its tracks; even less when you consider well known commercial artists on major labels; changes format and delivery mechanism for such songs
Let's face it: like it or not, that's important.
I do agree that Apple should aggressively work toward this, and they should absolutely drop the "all-or-nothing" mentality with DRM on the iTunes store, because dropping all DRM at once won't work. They definitely need to start somewhere, even if it's with relatively unknown artists and/or labels. Consider, too, that some of Apple's existing contracts may have stipulations that all other music sold on the same store or via the same mechanisms have the same protections.
The article notes:
Essentially Puretracks is relaxing the major-label mandated DRM rules that it had initially applied to all labels, even the indies that wanted no part of DRM.
What if Apple isn't currently in a legal, technical, business, and/or support position to do that? What if it is, in fact, planning to do just that, but can't move quite as quickly as people seem to think it should be able to. This isn't a "2-3 day" operation as some people think it should be. It may be months before any fruits of this are seen on the iTunes Store.
Consider further that Apple may not want to sell, e.g., MP3 format specifically, for a variety of reasons. If a label (like EMI, which is talking to everyone BUT Apple about its possible no-DRM experiment - perhaps some ulterior motives of their own?), specifically wants "unprotected MP3", what if Apple's format of choice is "unprotected AAC"? Should Apple start selling multiple formats as well as multiple protection levels? How much of the years-proven consistency of operation and ease of use should Apple sacrifice on the iTunes Store?
There are a lot of unknowns here that don't automatically mean that Apple "doesn't really want to drop DRM."[1] Yes, actions speak louder than words, but Jobs' landmark statement on DRM, concisely shredding any arguments in favor of DRM, is, in fact, a pretty big action in itself. But Apple has a lot invested in the iTunes Store ecosystem, and they're not going to make rash decisions, screw things up, break support models, confuse customers, or do anything that would cause them to lose one or more large commercial content providers.
So while other fringe and marginally known stores may be able to make moves in this direction, it's a delicate situation for Apple. Hopefully Jobs' strong words, which have already caused a firestorm of circling wagons among some pro-DRM entities, and other stores with the luxury of being able to move more quickly into experimental areas, will push the balance toward "no-DRM". Regardless of what the bloggers and pundits think, who instantly came out with all of these "Apple doesn't really want to get rid of DRM" arguments believing this was a carefully crafted PR play, Jobs' DRM statement is the strongest stance from anyone at such a high level in music and media, and that's exactly what it will take to move the industry forward.
[1] Also, Apple doesn't use "DRM" or trusted computing/TPM on Mac OS X, in any way. The restriction is a manifestly a licensing one, and any technical difficulties of running Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware are incidental (even if intended to make it non-trivial).
They already store unprotected files on the server that are accessible from certain clients. I'm sure they probably thought of the eventuality that they could sell unprotected music someday, and if they have any sense they already have something designed and implemented. It is definitely a business decision and not technical limitations that are holding them back.
Yes. And the business processes that go into rolling something like this out are probably far more complex than the technical processes. This actually speaks to my point: technically, sure, it may be that "2-3 day" operation people think it should be. From a business and support perspective, it's not. There may even be legal issues in one or more of Apple's other contractual relationships. This is the same as people thinking Apple should have been able to create an iPod battery replacement service in a week or two. In reality, it took the better part of a year. The point is that things are a little more complex and take a little longer than people seem to think.
I never said he was in love with DRM.
You didn't say that, but others making this argument essentially say that.
The simple fact is that Apple does not sell songs without DRM, even though they have the ability
You don't know that they have that ability right now. Just because the songs are stored unprotected on their servers doesn't mean they have the end-to-end business, technical, and logistical processes, today, to do that. I can just see people saying, "Please...how hard can it be?" It may NOT be "that hard". But it's a LOT harder than people seem to think it is. It's not as if they can just flip a switch. There are a lot of things that would have to happen at the back end to support this, not to mention a client update may even be needed.
I'm NOT saying any of this is impossible, or that it would be "hard" for Apple to do, or that they shouldn't do it.
I'm simply saying that using the fact that they're not currently doing it as some sort of "proof" that Apple doesn't really want to be rid of DRM is disingenuous.
and many independent labels have requested to have their music sold unshackled.
But how many of these labels have direct relationships with iTunes (i.e., not another intermediary)? I honestly don't know. Even if there are many, they, in total, comprise a very small portion (much less than "30%") and don't include any major labels. And the major labels - the ones who WANT DRM - are what's at issue here. I know that to some people, the converse situation of applying DRM to these other artists' music who may not want it stands as some sort of "proof" that Apple really isn't serious about ridding iTunes Music Store of DRM.
If Steve was anti-DRM, then why does iTunes not have the ability to sell unrestricted music from those labels that want it?
This is a legitimate question. Even if the number of people with valid rights to request this (i.e., people with direct contractual relationships with Apple) is very small, Apple should still enable this, even if only as a symbol.
The answer is that they can make a whole shitload of money while still appearing to be fighting the good fight. They can strengthen their market share slightly by continuing to sell songs that are locked into the iPod and claim it was the big bad record companies that made them do it.
And here's where your argument breaks down again. No one has to buy from iTunes, for one thing. And for another, if all these great indie artists you speak of are already DRM-free on sites like eMusic, then why would people be buying them from Apple? It makes zero sense. Apple's bread and butter is major labels, and that's what's at issue here. I'm not saying Apple shouldn't maybe go a little bit out of its way, or off the beaten path, to cater to independent labels with direct relationships with Apple who don't want DRM on their music.
But we're still, again, not considering the possibility that other contrac
How many of the labels or artists requesting this have direct, pre-existing contracts with iTunes?
Do the artists that have supposedly asked Apple to remove DRM from their tracks have any current legal standing to do so? (I.e., is their arrangement with CDbaby, which itself has the contract with Apple?)
Might one or more of the major label contracts currently in force with Apple require that all music sold on the same store have the same controls?
How much work would Apple have to do to begin providing different protection levels via iTunes? (Hint: it's not "2-3 days" work, as someone suggested in a previous submission on this topic to slashdot. Anyone who thinks it is is seriously deluding themselves in terms of how much work is required to make reliable and consistent changes to such a large service.)
What if some of the labels (like EMI) explicitly want unprotected MP3 (as opposed to unprotected AAC)? Would Apple's denial be immediately interpreted as "wanting DRM"? Can Apple decide which unprotected formats it sells via its store?
This whole conspiracy theory that Jobs floated this out for PR but he's really in love with DRM is bogus. Jobs, as the CEO of the company that runs the largest online music store and a board member of Disney, concisely shredded DRM and scathingly explained why DRM will never work and will always fail, and soundly trounced any argument in favor of DRM. The fact that people think Apple still secretly wants DRM or only released this statement to deflect complaints in Europe is astounding to me.
In any case, if you answer all of the above questions, it's seriously doubtful that it's anywhere near "30%" (or even 3%) if you consider people who actually have standing to ask Apple to remove DRM. Individual artists can't ask. It would have to be their labels or CDbaby. There might be other prohibitions to doing this in Apple's existing contracts. Another thing to consider is that there is a disconnect between what a CEO says and the actual mechanics of the way something like iTunes works. Steve's statement can be 100% genuine and truthful, and iTunes Music Store standing policy can still be that all media must be processed by the current mechanisms (that include FairPlay). These two states of affairs are not in conflict.
I know people would like Apple to start removing DRM right now, or just think that any artist with no direct relationship with Apple should just be able to have Apple remove DRM (even if it's in violation of other contracts, possibly with their own label), or that just because the same artist is already DRM-free on emusic means that they instantly should be able to be on iTunes, or that retooling contracts to even begin to allow for these things is a piece of cake. People also seem to forget that this isn't about the little indie labels and artists[1]. It's about the major commercial labels with the major commercial music, like it or not. Those are the people who are always fighting for DRM, and those are the people Apple wants/needs to remove it.
The bottom line is that Jobs' statement on DRM is the most massive shot across the bow of DRM in history, from anyone at any level, and some people just can't accept that.
[1] EMI isn't even talking with Apple about unprotected music. They're talking to Apple's competitors. If you think Apple has "ulterior motives" for the DRM statement, consider the same about EMI.
Isn't it about any online music retailer, DRM or not?
Hint: the answer isn't "because iTunes is the most popular store". When Microsoft was targeted for doing things like offering refunds for unused Windows licenses, Microsoft is mentioned explicitly because it is the only one engaged in that behavior.
So why is only "iTunes" mentioned in stories like these when in fact most (if not all - I haven't checked) also likely have similar practices?
FYI, after you've reached the limit for number of times burning the same playlist, you can delete that playlist and simply make another with the exact same songs in the exact same order. The limit is there to prevent iTunes itself from appearing as a tool for mass-producing burned CDs, making it a hassle to use *iTunes* to do such mass-production. As you pointed out, there are numerous other ways to do this, and if you really need more than seven copies of the *same CD*, you can always just make a playlist with the same contents again in iTunes.
Not "ready" or "supported" on Vista != "doesn't work on Vista" or "never will be supported on Vista"
Also, what does "compatible with Vista" mean in this context to most users? If a product works just fine on Vista, what does something being not "compatible with Vista" mean to end users?
That is, all of these pieces of software work fine, except iTunes, for which Apple has released a temporary fix until the next iTunes release, which will officially support Vista. The next QuickTime release will also officially support Vista, though the current release works fine.
Yes, yes, they're not officially supported on Vista and that's a consideration, but this submission acts as if none of Apple's Windows apps even work on Vista, when actually they all do.
Also, that isn't a "new" Apple technical support article. It's been around since at least November 2006, and simply enumerates the versions of Windows officially supported by Apple's various software products for Windows. Considering Apple has already stated that at least two products (iTunes and QuickTime) will officially support Vista in their next versions, and Apple has released a temporary fix for their only Windows product that has identified problems with Vista (iTunes), I fail to see how this is news.
Should all of these applications have been qualified for Vista? Perhaps. But this is Apple we're talking about here, and meanwhile Microsoft has systematically killed off several major products on Mac OS X, even as Mac OS X's marketshare increases (Windows Media Player (Flip4Mac is neat, but is no substitute and also doesn't support Windows Media DRM), Virtual PC, VB in Office, Outlook, and so on).
Apple's new Apple Software Update for Windows (which does work on Vista) will bring down new versions of itself, and every other applicable Apple product, in a seamless and automated fashion when they become available.
Next? (Slow news day?)
Yes, this article is crap, but for what it's worth, the Vista Home Basic and Home Premium license is intended to prohibit use in any kind of virtual machine environment. I had the same line of reasoning you did. Vista Ultimate does come with two licenses, but Home Basic and Home Premium really do intend (apparently) to prohibit use in virtualization. This has been covered repeatedly, and confirmed by Microsoft representatives.
-----
On Oct 23, 2006, at 8:23 AM, Paul Thurrott wrote:
Microsoft told me that the retail EULA forbids the installation of Windows Vista Home Basic or Home Premium in virtual machines. They said that if developers wanted to do this, they should get an MSDN subscription, which has a different license allowing such an install. All that said, there's nothing technical from preventing users from installing any Vista version in a virtual machine.
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Schroeder [mailto:das@doit.wisc.edu]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 9:15 AM
To: thurrott@windowsitpro.com
Subject: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing?
Paul,
In reading about Vista virtualization, it occurred to me that all
this may be a result of the incorrect interpretation of the EULA:
Microsoft's Vista EULA says:
"4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the
software installed[1] on the licensed device[2] within a virtual (or
otherwise emulated) hardware system."
This means you can't use the *same* installation of Vista Home inside
a virtualization technology on the "licensed device".
This DOES NOT mean you can't use it by itself in a virtualization
product on any platform. If that instance of Vista is not installed
anywhere else, there is no preexisting "licensed device".
The reason this is included in the EULA is because Vista Business and
Ultimate actually include additional licenses specifically so the
same license can be used to also run in a virtualization environment
on the same device where Vista is already installed.
The higher end versions of Vista actually include more in terms of
virtualization licensing than any other commercial OS.
In any case, by my reading, this means all versions of Vista can
still be legally used standalone in a virtualized environment, such
as Parallels or VMWare.
[1] This means "the software" (i.e., Vista Home Basic or Premium) is
already installed on a licensed device.
[2] The "licensed device" is the device that Vista Home is already
installed on, and that license may not be reused to also install it
in a virtualization environment, which you CAN do with Vista Business
and Ultimate, because Microsoft includes additional licenses
specifically for virtualization use, which is why there are all these
specifics about virtualization use on the lower end Vista versions in
the EULA in the first place.
Thoughts?
Mac OS X does not use TPM or trusted computing in any way to tie Mac OS X to Apple hardware. In fact, Apple doesn't use TPM for any purpose, at all.
Apple isn't doing this, and Landon Fuller doesn't have anything to do with Apple, other than having worked there. (And no, conspiracy theorists, he's not doing this at Apple's behest or as part of some coordinated fanboy effort to "make Apple look good".)
What Apple should be doing is developing a much more comprehensive and responsive security response group, which is lacking now. Apple needs to be patching issues in a much more timely manner. Hopefully the outcome of MOAB, things like Fuller's proposal, and other related things will be a real discourse on Apple security response and Mac OS X security.
The html tag parsing mangled my reply when I used a less than symbol. Fixed reply:
d fo s/sizeGB128.html
What was that Hi-Cap driver that I installed to allow access to the 300GB drives I have installed in the boxes then?
Something that bypasses the 128GB limitation of single partition size by doing a little trickery. I trust you noticed that you have to partition the drives into less than 128GB chunks.
There are no "inexpensive" ATA PCI cards that work for a mac. They are starting out at $65+ everywhere I have seen them. Cards for PCs don't work.
Uh, $65 is inexpensive. More inexpensive than the only alternative you implied ("buying newer stuff [from Apple]").
You're wrong that I'm wrong. I have installed large drives on countless boxes. They may require drivemagic or a BIOS update, but I have yet to see a PC that was limited by the hardware.
If they require additional software/drivers, that's the same trickery as Hi-Cap.
In any event, the fact that the ATA controller on early G4's didn't have 48-bit LBA/Large Disk support isn't a "bug". Earlier ATA controllers didn't have such support. (And if you think Apple purposefully did it when disk sizes were commonly less than 40GB with designs on "forcing" people to upgrade when >128GB disks became available, you're deluded.)
What's really amusing is you seem to have no problem doing essentially the exact same solution you're using on the G4 on PCs.
More info:
http://www.48bitlba.com/
http://www.seagate.com/support/kb/disc/tp/137gb.p
http://www.storagereview.com/guide2000/ref/hdd/bi
What was that Hi-Cap driver that I installed to allow access to the 300GB drives I have installed in the boxes then?
d fo s/sizeGB128.html
Something that bypasses the 128GB limitation of single partition size by doing a little trickery. I trust you noticed that you have to partition the drives into There are no "inexpensive" ATA PCI cards that work for a mac. They are starting out at $65+ everywhere I have seen them. Cards for PCs don't work.
Uh, $65 is inexpensive. More inexpensive than the only alternative you implied ("buying newer stuff [from Apple]").
You're wrong that I'm wrong. I have installed large drives on countless boxes. They may require drivemagic or a BIOS update, but I have yet to see a PC that was limited by the hardware.
If they require additional software/drivers, that's the same trickery as Hi-Cap.
In any event, the fact that the ATA controller on early G4's didn't have 48-bit LBA/Large Disk support isn't a "bug". Earlier ATA controllers didn't have such support. (And if you think Apple purposefully did it when disk sizes were commonly less than 40GB with designs on "forcing" people to upgrade when >128GB disks became available, you're deluded.)
What's really amusing is you seem to have no problem doing essentially the exact same solution you're using on the G4 on PCs.
More info:
http://www.48bitlba.com/
http://www.seagate.com/support/kb/disc/tp/137gb.p
http://www.storagereview.com/guide2000/ref/hdd/bi
Uh, that's not a "bug".
That's an ATA controller than was made before support for Large Disks (e.g., >128GB).
It cannot be fixed with any kind of firmware or software update.
So, not a bug, and not planned obsolescence. Just an ATA controller made before Large Disk support was remotely common. Further, you can just buy an inexpensive ATA PCI card if you really wanted to use disks larger than 128GB. No need to buy "newer stuff" from Apple.
Also, you're wrong that there has "never been any such problem for PCs". Many older ATA controllers didn't have Large Disk support, and when that is the case, it's not something that can be fixed by a firmware or software upgrade on PCs either.
Um, no. Leopard is still on schedule to ship in 1Q2007, as has been stated numerous times by Apple, and no new announcements were made (or "unmade").
...because when any "DRM" is used on audio CDs, they're technically no longer even "audio CDs"...at least, they don't officially conform to the Red Book Audio specification, and can't even use the familiar "Compact Disc Digital Audio" logo. While certainly they're intended to be purchased and used as audio CDs, and everyone would still refer to them as such, they're at most an "audio disc resembling a conventional audio CD," or "audio that is incidentally stored on CD media".
Intrinsic to a Red Book Audio CD is the ability to extract the audio in its pristine digital form. While content owners may not appreciate that in today's digital marketplace, that's what an audio CD is. If labels want to add DRM or anything else not in the Red Book Audio specification to these discs, they are obligated to make it clear that they're not really audio CDs, and indeed, consumers have found the belated warning that they "may not play in all CD players" only too true, resulting in practical decisions like this one from EMI Netherlands. This is what you get when you screw with established international standards.
Especially humorous is that, any amount of DRM aside, all of this music will always be widely available on file sharing networks, mostly as lossy MP3s. Who is affected most, then, by not being able to extract audio from discs within one's own physical possession, given that the music is invariably already available any number of file sharing networks many times over? The individual consumer who simply wants to enjoy his purchase on another device, such as a computer or portable music player. While DRM is intended to prevent or reduce casual copyright infringement, it never will stop content from being copied, and DRM on "audio CDs" is just one of those wrongheaded ideas, given that it toys with a standard that has already been established for two and a half decades.
Until someone figures out how to alter properties of nature in such a way that physical property of audio or video being able to be in an analog state via sound waves or the electromagnetic spectrum can be eliminated, there will always be mechanisms for those who wish to violate copyright to violate it. In the meantime, DRM will mostly affect and inconvenience legitimate, paying consumers of content.
Nope. Just someone who happens to be a subscriber (which one would think is a good thing if one enjoys slashdot (???)), happened to see an article about to be posted, and wrote the same reply I'd have written regardless.
What's especially humorous is that, as of the time you posted your childish reply, my post hadn't been modded up, down, or changed in any way.
Feel better now? Thanks for the troll, though!
Information Assurance has long been one of NSA's primary missions. NSA ran the Trusted Product Evaluation Program (TPEP) since 1983, which evaluated off-the-shelf commercial products against standardized security criteria, and employed various experts from government, military, academia, and industry. Contributions or recommendations from TPEP often were incorporated into future iterations of vendor products. The expanded Common Criteria programs, which grew in part out of the US Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria (TCSEC, the famous Rainbow Series of security publications), picked up where TPEP left off, now administered by the National Information Assurance Partnership (NAIP) of NSA and NIST.
NSA's Information Assurance Directorate also provides public security configuration guides for many popular applications, operating systems, database servers, routers, and other networking equipment.
Also, don't forget to check out NSA's Security-enhanced Linux (SELinux) (FAQ).
When US computing, communications, and networking implementations are more secure, we all benefit, and NSA contributes to this in its overall mission.
Where does it end? At things that are clearly unacceptable.
The problem is that the threshold of freedom vs security in a society based on rule of law is different for everyone. I have no problem at all with showing ID to fly. I might have problems with something else, and so might many other people.
So where does it end? At things that are clearly unacceptable to the majority of people. Good thing we live in a majority-representative democracy.
Just because you have to show an ID to fly (or submit to the standardized "intensive" search in lieu of showing ID) doesn't mean or imply that anything else follows, and isn't automatically a "slippery slope."
No, actually, a lot of people have been saying that - that most, if not all, of the air security changes after 9/11 were unnecessary and meaningless. So instead of claiming my argument is invalid because "no one is saying that", why don't you actually offer suggestions as to what should legitimately have been done after 9/11, keeping in mind that the ID requirement was actually instituted after TWA 800?
I'm saying that we should be focusing on actual security improvements rather than the "Security Theatre" that you're supporting.
Ok, what are the actual improvements, then?
Wait, let me guess: something about cockpit doors or El-Al's security track record?
Please enumerate exact suggestions for improvement, and why you feel the suggestion is not currently being implemented.
But no, it's actually still important to keep weapons, explosives, and so on, off the planes and out of the cargo holds to begin with.
The "security theater" aspect is important to people as unreasonable, emotional creatures. They felt safer with national guardsmen with unloaded weapons walking around the airports. No government could educate people to the point you expect, and make them magically feel like coming back to air travel was a safe, much less pleasant, thing to do.
This isn't about straw men. It might be to you, but there are a lot of people who argue that the security that was already in place before 9/11 was "security theater", too. There are a lot of people who argue that all we really need are strong cockpit doors, and that anything else is an unwarranted invasion of privacy, and that even if there were a bombing every here and again, people should somehow be smart enough to just chalk it up to the price of living in a free society, and not be scared or worried.
We can tolerate dying by accident or by our own choices, as tragic as they may be. What doesn't set well with us, no matter how statistically insignificant overall, is people dying in large numbers. What we don't tolerate, no matter how statistically miniscule, is people intentionally killing other Americans, even still feeling so strongly after having lived in our own society and culture for months or years. Many people want to see defined change they can comprehend that appears to be aimed at preventing such instances. Just like those people won't understand change they can't see, others likely will continue to doubt that there are and have been massive initiatives to improve security, communication, and intelligence at all levels, security "theater" aside.
Living in a secure, stable society of law and order comes with responsibilities and restrictions.
Not everything is a slippery slope.
The Franklin quote everyone likes to trot out usually leaves out a couple critical words:
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
With those bolded words left out, it's the very witty and ominous warning people who quote it usually intend it to be. But with these words, suddenly, things become a bit more subjective. Is not having to show ID at an airport essential to my liberty? No, not remotely, in my own view. Is the safety gained from airport and airline security changes "temporary"? Again, no. Am I, personally, offended by the balance between liberty and security in general? Once again, no.
I can see how people who legitimately believe we are becoming (or already are) a police state are deeply troubled by something like this. I know that many people like to think that it's exclusively about cultivating fear. Of course fear is a tool politicians and governments have used. It's been true for generations and will always continue to be true.
Your mistake is believing that is EXCLUSIVELY what is happening, instead of realizing that there are thousands of dedicated people, some extremely educated and skilled, at all levels of government, who really do value their jobs of safeguarding the country and doing their own little parts to help secure something like an airplane. This all isn't some "who will think of the children" plot.
Who gets to decide? Who draws the line? These are all subjective things, and you can't just categorically say that showing ID or submitting to the standard "intensive" search is unacceptable and represents a "slippery slope", only moments away from devolving into tracking devices being implanted in every citizen and being required to show papers when traveling between states. Showing ID at an airport (which is something almost all people did before 9/11 for years anyway) is nowhere near any of the other presumably mandatory examples you cite. Some security changes really are "reasonable" and nothing more.