You say that Palladium "could be used to significantly reduce user's rights to access digital media," but I highly doubt this is true. In my opinion the system will most likely have holes, and it only takes a single hole to create a copy. Those who create crippled media will quickly find that they are losing sales in droves to the illegal markets.
On top of that, I'm not so sure it's a bad thing for mainstream artists to be inaccessible to the general public. If artists want to lock up their works and not allow me to access them the way I want to, then I'll start buying products from other artists. You might say that not enough others feel the same way, or that there is some global conspiracy among artists, and to some extent you're right, that conspiracy is called the RIAA (or the MPAA, or whatever). But I'm not convinced that those coalitions are strong enough to coerce me into buying their crap. I haven't bought a CD by an RIAA artist in years. I watch MPAA movies, and even buy DVDs, but ultimately I think it's worth the money I pay for the product I receive.
As for "viable options available to the community," I think you need to be more specific. Palladium merely enables artists to release their works in ways that technically enforces the laws that we already have. It doesn't force artists to take options away from the user. In fact, my guess is that it will enable artists to offer more options to the user. With DRM artists can offer time-limited free trials, for instance. This could be a great opportunity for independent musicians to get their music out there without giving it away for free. It could re-establish shareware as a viable alternative to corporate products. The important thing is not to stop the technology, it is to put mechanisms in place to ensure that the technology will be used properly.
Just had to get this in: in fact, yes, most murderers are Msft users. Yes, it's a completely misleading statement, but is no different than lots of political and "war on drug" propaganda.
Absolutely. But it still saddens me that Slashdot has sunk to that level.
Sure it does, it explains why the headline calls this a "closed source" voting machine, which it is.
I wasn't complaining about the accuracy of the headline. Yes, the headline is accurate, but it is also biased and sensationalistic. Did you even see my example headline - "Microsoft User Commits Murder"?
Following the same line of reasoning, if you want to preserve you rights, digital or otherwise, you should prevent others from taking them away rather than trying to reclaim after the fact.
How exactly does bitching on slashdot about hypothetical situations do that?
Unless Bill Gates had registered as a write-in candidate, all those votes would be thrown out anyway.
One reason you have to register in order to be a valid write-in candidate is otherwise there would be no way to know for sure which "Bill Gates" people were voting for.
What's wrong with the system that works so well and reliably in other places: using a pen, put a big cross in the box next to the person/answer being voted for. Any other marks invalidates the ballot slip.
One thing that's wrong with that is it makes it ridiculously simple to invalidate ballots after they are cast.
You need to read the link to the older slashdot story about these voting machines in order to understand the closed vs open source part of the headline.
No, I need to read the older slashdot story to see why voting machines should be open sourced as opposed to closed source.
Would any of these problems be solved with an open source solution? Do these problems have anything at all to do with the fact that the solution is closed source? Is the fact that these systems are closed source ironic, or telling in any way?
Your headline is about as biased as "Microsoft User Commits Murder"
Ummm. You're rapidly running out of choices there. If Intel and AMD lock ya out, what's left? PowerPC? That's fine and all, but you better start recompiling.
Well, there's always Intel and AMD chips which were created prior to the switchover.
Oversimplify all you want, your lack of worry means you're vurnerable to a major... well it'd probably be more polite if I didn't paint you a picture.
If I don't want people to know something, I don't put it out there on the internet. That's not a lack of worry at all.
If you use.net Passport to log in to your phone account, it means your phone account is linked to the Passport, and so all sorts of interesting data mining could be possible between your phone calls, your passport account and your use of other Passport sites.
Well, your phone account is only linked to Passport if Microsoft is committing outright fraud. Personally I trust Microsoft as much as Verizon, in that I doubt either would do this data mining, but if they did, it wouldn't be that big of a deal.
Frankly, it feels more than a little creepy to me. They will, of course, SAY they don't do anything like this, but just the fact that it's technically possible makes my skin crawl.
It's always been technically possible..NET doesn't change any of that.
If it ever happened the credibility that Microsoft lost would far outweigh any gains. It's simply not in Microsoft's best interests to gather this data when they come right out and say they aren't.
Finally, SFW. I don't care if the whole world knows everything I do on VZW.
Managers are the ones who make the purchase decisions. They tend to buy from large name companies with big marketing budgets regardless of the quality or cost of the solution.
Why don't you sell these systems?
I don't have enough money to market them.
How do you even strap 50 TB together? Is it one huge array, or arrays of arrays?
As with all your questions, depends on the needs of the customer. If you're interested in buying a solution from me, let me know, and we'll talk further.
There are so many questions that you leave unanswered, that you might spend $19 mil to answer before you spend $1 mil on hardware.
No, I won't spend $19 million answering a few simple questions.
Why is it that 90% of "Ask Slashdot" pieces seem to boil down to "I have no real world experience, and I'm just wondering how I can solve problem X for Y dollars when twenty different vendors all sell solutions for 100 * Y dollars?"?
It makes readers feel superior, and keeps them coming back.
Put simply, for an ID service that is expected to be used as an umbrella authentication for a lot of web services, Passport's security seems rather lax. Which is exactly what you do not want when it comes to privacy on the web.
So don't use VZW for things that need to be secure. You shouldn't be anyway.
Especially considering that Verizon already had a system in place for their wireless customers.
They were using Infospace, who was charging them money. Most likely much more money than Microsoft.
Well, when you put it that way, it makes me wonder why you'd use a GPL'ed web browser when you can just use Internet Explorer.
I find mozilla to be a better browser, overall, than IE.
You limit the sites that you can visit by picking anything else.
No I don't. I still use IE for those two or three sites that I can't view in mozilla.
I hope you now see the flaw in your logic.
No, I certainly don't. When the differences between IE and mozilla were significant, last year, I used IE. Now that the browsers are roughly the same, I use mozilla. It's not about the principle of the matter, it's about using the best product.
Slashdot Mirror
You say that Palladium "could be used to significantly reduce user's rights to access digital media," but I highly doubt this is true. In my opinion the system will most likely have holes, and it only takes a single hole to create a copy. Those who create crippled media will quickly find that they are losing sales in droves to the illegal markets.
On top of that, I'm not so sure it's a bad thing for mainstream artists to be inaccessible to the general public. If artists want to lock up their works and not allow me to access them the way I want to, then I'll start buying products from other artists. You might say that not enough others feel the same way, or that there is some global conspiracy among artists, and to some extent you're right, that conspiracy is called the RIAA (or the MPAA, or whatever). But I'm not convinced that those coalitions are strong enough to coerce me into buying their crap. I haven't bought a CD by an RIAA artist in years. I watch MPAA movies, and even buy DVDs, but ultimately I think it's worth the money I pay for the product I receive.
As for "viable options available to the community," I think you need to be more specific. Palladium merely enables artists to release their works in ways that technically enforces the laws that we already have. It doesn't force artists to take options away from the user. In fact, my guess is that it will enable artists to offer more options to the user. With DRM artists can offer time-limited free trials, for instance. This could be a great opportunity for independent musicians to get their music out there without giving it away for free. It could re-establish shareware as a viable alternative to corporate products. The important thing is not to stop the technology, it is to put mechanisms in place to ensure that the technology will be used properly.
Just had to get this in: in fact, yes, most murderers are Msft users. Yes, it's a completely misleading statement, but is no different than lots of political and "war on drug" propaganda.
Absolutely. But it still saddens me that Slashdot has sunk to that level.
Sure it does, it explains why the headline calls this a "closed source" voting machine, which it is.
I wasn't complaining about the accuracy of the headline. Yes, the headline is accurate, but it is also biased and sensationalistic. Did you even see my example headline - "Microsoft User Commits Murder"?
Following the same line of reasoning, if you want to preserve you rights, digital or otherwise, you should prevent others from taking them away rather than trying to reclaim after the fact.
How exactly does bitching on slashdot about hypothetical situations do that?
Unless Bill Gates had registered as a write-in candidate, all those votes would be thrown out anyway.
One reason you have to register in order to be a valid write-in candidate is otherwise there would be no way to know for sure which "Bill Gates" people were voting for.
What's wrong with the system that works so well and reliably in other places: using a pen, put a big cross in the box next to the person/answer being voted for. Any other marks invalidates the ballot slip.
One thing that's wrong with that is it makes it ridiculously simple to invalidate ballots after they are cast.
You need to read the link to the older slashdot story about these voting machines in order to understand the closed vs open source part of the headline.
No, I need to read the older slashdot story to see why voting machines should be open sourced as opposed to closed source.
But that issue has nothing to do with this story.
Cuz by then, you're already fucked.
Yeah, so, I'll be dead one day, but that doesn't mean I should worry about it today.
Would any of these problems be solved with an open source solution? Do these problems have anything at all to do with the fact that the solution is closed source? Is the fact that these systems are closed source ironic, or telling in any way?
Your headline is about as biased as "Microsoft User Commits Murder"
Try clicking the link that says "privacy implications" in the story. Then, read!
I did that.
It's not our job to fucking predigest every news story for your feeble mind.
I've read the link. I still contend that there are no privacy implications. And no one has yet proven me wrong.
At the risk of being overdramatic, Remember the quote?
Yeah, but right now they're not coming after anyone.
You should care now, because you *will* care eventually.
Frankly I don't think I *will* care eventually.
Fix it now, while the problem is still small. It's easier that way.
What exactly is the fix? Yes, I'd like to move to a fully open architecture, but there isn't one out there which meets my needs.
Ummm. You're rapidly running out of choices there. If Intel and AMD lock ya out, what's left? PowerPC? That's fine and all, but you better start recompiling.
Well, there's always Intel and AMD chips which were created prior to the switchover.
Oversimplify all you want, your lack of worry means you're vurnerable to a major... well it'd probably be more polite if I didn't paint you a picture.
If I don't want people to know something, I don't put it out there on the internet. That's not a lack of worry at all.
If you use .net Passport to log in to your phone account, it means your phone account is linked to the Passport, and so all sorts of interesting data mining could be possible between your phone calls, your passport account and your use of other Passport sites.
Well, your phone account is only linked to Passport if Microsoft is committing outright fraud. Personally I trust Microsoft as much as Verizon, in that I doubt either would do this data mining, but if they did, it wouldn't be that big of a deal.
Frankly, it feels more than a little creepy to me. They will, of course, SAY they don't do anything like this, but just the fact that it's technically possible makes my skin crawl.
It's always been technically possible. .NET doesn't change any of that.
If it ever happened the credibility that Microsoft lost would far outweigh any gains. It's simply not in Microsoft's best interests to gather this data when they come right out and say they aren't.
Finally, SFW. I don't care if the whole world knows everything I do on VZW.
Anyone care to explain?
Besides, eventually Linux will not be 'allowed' to run on this processor.
At which point I use another processor.
So you *better* care.
Why? Can't I wait until this actually happens to care about it?
Actually, I don't use Linux, so I guess I don't even care about that. Though by the time they implement this I will hopefully have switched.
What's this have to do with managers?
Managers are the ones who make the purchase decisions. They tend to buy from large name companies with big marketing budgets regardless of the quality or cost of the solution.
Why don't you sell these systems?
I don't have enough money to market them.
How do you even strap 50 TB together? Is it one huge array, or arrays of arrays?
As with all your questions, depends on the needs of the customer. If you're interested in buying a solution from me, let me know, and we'll talk further.
There are so many questions that you leave unanswered, that you might spend $19 mil to answer before you spend $1 mil on hardware.
No, I won't spend $19 million answering a few simple questions.
Why is it that 90% of "Ask Slashdot" pieces seem to boil down to "I have no real world experience, and I'm just wondering how I can solve problem X for Y dollars when twenty different vendors all sell solutions for 100 * Y dollars?"?
It makes readers feel superior, and keeps them coming back.
OK smarty pants. Why aren't you out there selling these systems?
Because of managers who think like you.
Put simply, for an ID service that is expected to be used as an umbrella authentication for a lot of web services, Passport's security seems rather lax. Which is exactly what you do not want when it comes to privacy on the web.
So don't use VZW for things that need to be secure. You shouldn't be anyway.
Especially considering that Verizon already had a system in place for their wireless customers.
They were using Infospace, who was charging them money. Most likely much more money than Microsoft.
Well, when you put it that way, it makes me wonder why you'd use a GPL'ed web browser when you can just use Internet Explorer.
I find mozilla to be a better browser, overall, than IE.
You limit the sites that you can visit by picking anything else.
No I don't. I still use IE for those two or three sites that I can't view in mozilla.
I hope you now see the flaw in your logic.
No, I certainly don't. When the differences between IE and mozilla were significant, last year, I used IE. Now that the browsers are roughly the same, I use mozilla. It's not about the principle of the matter, it's about using the best product.
So basically the poster is cutting off his nose to spite his face?
with .NET Passport?
Trust me, you pay for access at college.
Trust me, you pay for access in Egypt as well.
There is free dial-up but you have to pay for phone usage.
I don't get it. If you have to pay, then it's not free.
If it wasn't for the 25 cents an hour, phone line installation charges, and monthly phone line charges, so would the egyptian deal.
As are the college students.