Even if private information is stolen by these worms, we're still talking about economic damage, not death. A better comparison would be whether your bank is required to notify you if your private information is stolen from their offices--it you want to convince me that there is some sort of discrepancy between internet security and offline security, then point to some law mandating that a bank or businessmust disclose real world breakins.
I think the focus on Ject's infection of web browsers visiting the IIS servers is incorrect--if having an infected IIS server is a crime and must be acknowledged publically, then having possessing infected normal desktop should also have a mandatory public acknowledgement--I want to see a list of every American who had a Blaster infected computer. If you want biology analogies, this is equivalent to insisting on mandatory publications of the names of HIV positive individuals.
No, on the internet everyone is responsible for making themselves secure--if people without malicious intent are imprisoned for secuirty violations, we would never have enough room in all the prisons in our country.
But if a security break in reveals information that I have entrusted on the remote cite--there should DEFINITELY be required publication of that, at least privately to the victimized individuals. This is something the marketplace cannot selfregulate--how can I choose a secure business to cooperate with when I don't when the security of my information is being violated?
Re:v6 could help solve some net problems
on
IPv6 is Here
·
· Score: 1
Good netizens who want to be anonymous do not use IP spoofing to achieve that end. They could use tools like freenet, or anonymous proxies, or lots of things I'm not thinking of. Heck, even freeloading from some business's insecured wireless internet seems less unscrupulous than IP spoofing.
That is pretty interesting. Still, why wasn't this done before Xbox (the first) was released? And more importantly, why the emphasis on parallel paths of development, rather than actually making games that work on both platforms? They both have x86 processors, they're both directx based--it shouldn't be hard to set up some kind of virtual machine (I don't mean bytecode, but abstracted devices and APIs) so that sufficiently advanced future PCs could play games targetted to XBox Next?
Wow, it's like you're posting this to show why Microsoft is pushing gaming away from the PC, and therefore I'm right, except for some strange reason it's opposite day and therefore you have to say that I was wrong?
In many cases the same game sells cheaper on PC. So the "lower quality" is in the form of additional complexities and annoyances required to play PC games, or so one could infer.
It certainly should. If you want to buy your own ads for Kerry or Bush, fine, but giving money or coordinating those ads with the campaign--that needs to be tightly regulated.
Also note that there's a difference between finding and criminalizing. One certainly has the right to call for the death of all Canadians, but I hope you'll forgive me if I find fault with that.
So, in summary, large financial contributions and lobbying to decision makers needs to be seen as the corruption that they are, and using your rights to call for the end of other people's rights is immoral. So they shouldn't be allowed to bribe, and even if they are allowed to bribe, what they are bribing for is wicked. They are at fault and blameworthy in every possible way. So long.
The problem is that the average home system may get beaten by an XBox--especially when it comes to video cards. There's a lot of (shaderless) Geforce 4 MX's out there...
The cost of an item like a video game or dvd with gigantic fixed costs but nearly zero marginal cost (burning DVDs) is entirely based on the demand curve. Not only do the games have a smaller audience, but think about what the REAL cost of a video game is. The fifty bucks you lay on the retailer's counter? No--the hours of time you invest in playing it. If I give up 20 hours of my life to play a game, whether the game costs 50 bucks or 20 bucks or 0 bucks doesn't really matter as much.
Actually Microsoft is trying to standardize the PC as a gaming platform.
They are? Do you have specific actions by MS in mind? If PC's and XBoxes were capable of playing the same games, I might agree with you--but MS seems to have done everything possible to make that really hard. Given how similar the hardware is, and the fact that MS actually makes money when a PC with Win XP is sold as opposed to when an XBox is sold, why wouldn't they release some sort of XBox player software for the PC, (following the same lines as cxbx or xeon emulators) unless they were interested in pushing gaming away from the PC?
I'm going off in a new random direction here, but I think gaming in general is going to go into a slump, or at least de-commercialization, unless awesome new input/output devices are realeased. A video game can only become so much more awesome if it's just me using a keyboard/mouse/controller while looking at a video screen, possibly connected to the net. Voice chat in console games is a start. Maybe we'll see an EyeToy like device that determines facial expressions and pastes those onto your character in multiplayer games. Maybe arcades will be reborn with VR goggles and and haptic interfaces that are too pricey for home usage.
You rarely see games on the same scale as commercial efforts done just for the love of it, but think about all the flash/java/web games, or all the mods for commercial games.
This is an interesting point the focus on sales might be missing--a lot of the gaming going on in the PC world might be happening with no money changing hands. This could be free games, pirated games, or emulated classics. Even if commercial PC gaming dies, console games will still face competition the complete library of games already written, and from developers with nothing better to do.
On the other hand, perhaps at some point in the future, if commercial PC gaming truly dies, Nvidia and ATI will stop selling consumer-level PC graphics cards. Which would mean the end of all those mods. Which would mean less competition for the consoles. Which could very well happen, since one of the biggest factors in PC gaming, Microsoft, seems determined at all cost to make sure that the living room is the only place that video games will be played.
I don't think retroactive extension is inhenrently at odds with encouraging innovation.
Look, you can argue for longer or even infinite terms, but how could RETROACTIVE extension encourage innovation unless I invent time travel and tell people about it in the past?
Since it has no possible way of encourage innovation in the past, and many possible ways of discouraging innovation of derivative works, retroactive extension is, indeed, INHERENTLY at odds with encouraging innovation.
At it's heart, copyright is about property rights. Strong protection of property rights encourages investment, which is a good thing for the economy.
But property rights also mean we have to MANAGE property rights. Sometimes the costs of such management are such that they overshadow the encouraged investment. If I have to call a lawyer and accountant everytime I write a line in my play or book or computer program, there's very little chance I'll get anything done. Worse, I have to know in advance if I'll make enough money from my derivative work to justify paying for it . Which means that stronger property rights encourage more of the same sort predictable, bland, innovationless hackwork that every decent person is sick of.
Copyrights are actually the one form of property that you can reasonably claim: "Nobody would ever have this if I didn't create it." It's a very pure creation that doesn't depend on any prior property of any kind.
Second sentence is totally wrong. Any creator is going to be influenced by all previous creators, by their education, by their interactions with other human beings--in short, for every work of art, there is a million people who can say "this would never have been created if it were not for my actions." But only one of those people gets the copyright. Reasonable people can make that argument--but they would be both factually and logically incorrect.
Infinite copyright is building a damn on the river of human thought.
And all this makes the "X years plus life of author" make sense, I suppose
"Plus life of author" makes no sense, whatsoever. Why should a young man get longer copyright protection than an old man? Just state number X, and let that be it. If Utilitarianism is our only concern, we need to view this ONLY from the perspective of current authors--what length of term actually has an effect on a current author's desire to write a book? I find it hard to believe that any author is actually seriously concerned about any opportunities for the profitability of their book or music or computer program more than 20 years from the time they are making it. Therefore, the maximum time I would think reasonable is 20 years, from completion of work.
May I suggest that if you MUST extend copyrights, you should grant them back to the original authors or heirs, and not to the companies owning the current copyrights. Why should you give the companies more copyright then they paid for? They only paid for fifty years, fifty years is all they should get.
In the mean time, I have a suggestion for anyone who believes creative works should be preserved for all time. Corporations aren't going to bother keeping backup copies of works only a few people wants, so if you see something you don't think will see much mass demand in the future STEAL IT AND MAKE AS MANY ILLEGAL COPIES AS YOU CAN!!!! Future historians and archaelogists may thank you.
And for some reason, I find GTA much easier to play with a controller than the mouse/keyboard combo, even though I first played it on a PC. The analog buttons on the standard PS-2 controller help out a lot, as does having two analog control sticks. Those dual analog sticks make even FPS reasonable to play on consoles, if not perfect. Let's just say that Quake and Unreal Tournament on the Dreamcast (one analog stick) was a total waste of everyone's time.
Is there something wrong with my Vice City on PS2? When I tried to aim in that game, it became apparent very quickly that the analog controls...weren't really analog at all. There was no way to aim slowly--pushing the stick at all produced a radical change in where I was aiming, and I would just keep firing shots to either side of my intended target. And of course after you die you have to drive to the mission all over again, so I'd waste five minutes of driving around to get to twenty seconds of poorly controled action.I lost patience with that game very quickly. Perhaps I should try it on PC.
I became convinced at that point that all the GTA series on PS2 succeeds at is the ten-minute test. It's phenomenally fun for ten minutes to just start stealing cars and hurting people randomly until cops start to chase you and then you start killing cops and its awesome and ten minutes later completely boring. That's fun to do...once a month or so.
People working in the recording industry have as much of a right to lobby for rights as you have to lobby against them.
Except they are lobbying AGAINST fair-use and public domain rights to create new restrictions. They are lobbying to steal our rights. Nor is lobbying in right--SPEAKING is an right, giving money to government officials or their campaigns is NOT a right, and is therefore well regullated by any reasonable government.
So there--it is fair to fault them from stealing my rights by buying elected officials. You're welcome.
Then, once the DNC is over, they don't want to just throw everything away.
Why not just sell them to whoever is guarding the RNC a month or so later? I have ambivalent feelings on cameras (I think government transparency is a lot more important than personal privacy, which is basically gone anyway). But what would really piss me off, if I were a Bostonian, is the matter of fact attitude the police have regarding these cameras. "We're certainly not going to put them in a closet." Who are these piges supposed to be working for? Wouldn't it make sense to at least ASK people if they'd like to live in a city with a crap load more cameras? "Boston police and federal officials concede that the additional cameras and new technology represent another chapter in Boston." Right, so maybe you should, I dunno, ask Boston if this is a good idea for permanent reform?
People need to take to the streets for this--not because the cameras are so bad, but police are starting to go off the deep end.
No, really. This is entirely relative to cultural perspective. One man's judgmental imperialism is another man's liberation from dictatorship. There have even been papers writen on such seemingly "basic" things such as whether national sovereignty apply in the face of certain human rights abuses. I don't think they do, of course, but certainly there's enough room for mistakes in a relativist's conception of humanity in general that we should be very wary of judgmentalism.
Look, I'm pretty far to the left. I don't care about capitalism at all. But how is a country supposed to express it's cultural differences if there are no elections or right of dissent? The DPRK represents the cultural will of only two people--Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il.
My Jesus reference was to a specific parable. The plank and the splinter? Contrast Jesus's line with mine. Get it?
Who's to say America shouldn't invade? Relativism goes both ways, my friend. "current cultural perspective"--nice euphemism for "whoever has the most guns and power and murderous will to use them properly".
Let them be, and then they'll know no one wants to destroy them. When they know that, they won't have to spend half of their budget on weapons just to defend themselves from those westerners who "know better".
There's little evidence that dictators magically fall once outside pressure is removed, (outside pressure is easy to fake if you feel you need it) but even accepting that there's the small issue of nuclear technology sales to various shady countries and people. A hands off approach is a lot easier to argue for with countries that look like they will have a revolution any day now--like Iran.
Were I in charge, that's exactly what I'd do--declare war if NK keeps selling weapons and nukes for cash, but other than that let them do whatever they want. It's the only reasonable policy--if the current situation in Iraq is too much for Americans to stomach, surely invading North Korea would be many, many times worse.
But in general, although Jesus was silent on the issue, I am very much in favor of removing the plank from my neighbors eye before the splinter from my own.
The current administration keeps talking like it wants to pull troops out of Korea, anyway. The troops there don't serve an actual military purpose--they only number 20,000 or so--their only purpose is to send a message that America will defend South Korea in any renewed conflict.
I'm not saying that America's actions toward either Korea have always been snow white innocent (support for South Korean dictators in the name of stability comes to mind), or that America's policies towards North Korea make complete sense, but to suggest that America wants the conflict to continue so that we might maintain troops there--that's silly. The American troops stationed in Korea are sitting ducks. Sacrificial lambs. A human tripwire. An intentional Pearl Harbor/Alamo-style vulnerability.
Okinawa's a different story--if Korea united tomorrow, I doubt America would feel a need to pull out of Japan.
I think Comp Sci folks have forgotton Godel, Church and the other folks who have basically said AI is impossable and proved it!
Those guys proved that there are limits on the abilities of formal systems (can't be both consistent and complete, can't prove whether program halts or not, etc.) but no one has found any example of a physical process with a proven ability to surpass those abilities. Specifically, no one has proven that human brains can do anyting a properly programmed Turing Machine cannot do.
Vastly more interesting to me would be if a major vendor started shipping all their computers with Mozilla based browser and e-mail, and OpenOffice as an alternative to the very expensive Microsoft Office. Get people used to using the open tools, then the next time you sell a computer you can sell an open OS.
This is definitely true. I'm really shocked that something like this hasn't already happened in Europe or Asia yet--come on guys, our president is hard at work doing everything possible to make you guys hate us, but you STILL insist on importing the one American product I want you to stop importing, Microsoft!
You're right about hardware compatibility, but Joe Sixpack runs Photoshop?! Joe Sixpack is running whatever stupid ass image editing program came with their digital camera/scanner/printer whatever. Gimp would definitely be an improvement.
BTW mplayer definitely works way the hell better than Windows Media Player--there's a huge chunk of files I download from the Internet that have problems playing in WMP that I've never been able to solve, but mplayer just views with no problem at all. I was surprised to discover this, I never felt linux video playing would work as well in Linux as it does in windows, but in fact now I find myself rebooting to Linux all the time to play movies! It seems to play more movies, it's more configurable, and X11 doesn't offer me as many headaches for playing a movie on my television while listening to music on my computer upstairs.
Linux still has its share of usability problems, but my Gentoo really ownz the crap out of my XP for playing movies. Strange but true.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the focus on Ject's infection of web browsers visiting the IIS servers is incorrect--if having an infected IIS server is a crime and must be acknowledged publically, then having possessing infected normal desktop should also have a mandatory public acknowledgement--I want to see a list of every American who had a Blaster infected computer. If you want biology analogies, this is equivalent to insisting on mandatory publications of the names of HIV positive individuals.
No, on the internet everyone is responsible for making themselves secure--if people without malicious intent are imprisoned for secuirty violations, we would never have enough room in all the prisons in our country.
But if a security break in reveals information that I have entrusted on the remote cite--there should DEFINITELY be required publication of that, at least privately to the victimized individuals. This is something the marketplace cannot selfregulate--how can I choose a secure business to cooperate with when I don't when the security of my information is being violated?
Good netizens who want to be anonymous do not use IP spoofing to achieve that end. They could use tools like freenet, or anonymous proxies, or lots of things I'm not thinking of. Heck, even freeloading from some business's insecured wireless internet seems less unscrupulous than IP spoofing.
The candidate could already simply agree with the large contributor, but do you really believe that this is usually the case?
That is pretty interesting. Still, why wasn't this done before Xbox (the first) was released? And more importantly, why the emphasis on parallel paths of development, rather than actually making games that work on both platforms? They both have x86 processors, they're both directx based--it shouldn't be hard to set up some kind of virtual machine (I don't mean bytecode, but abstracted devices and APIs) so that sufficiently advanced future PCs could play games targetted to XBox Next?
Wow, it's like you're posting this to show why Microsoft is pushing gaming away from the PC, and therefore I'm right, except for some strange reason it's opposite day and therefore you have to say that I was wrong?
In many cases the same game sells cheaper on PC. So the "lower quality" is in the form of additional complexities and annoyances required to play PC games, or so one could infer.
Also note that there's a difference between finding and criminalizing. One certainly has the right to call for the death of all Canadians, but I hope you'll forgive me if I find fault with that.
So, in summary, large financial contributions and lobbying to decision makers needs to be seen as the corruption that they are, and using your rights to call for the end of other people's rights is immoral. So they shouldn't be allowed to bribe, and even if they are allowed to bribe, what they are bribing for is wicked. They are at fault and blameworthy in every possible way. So long.
The problem is that the average home system may get beaten by an XBox--especially when it comes to video cards. There's a lot of (shaderless) Geforce 4 MX's out there...
The cost of an item like a video game or dvd with gigantic fixed costs but nearly zero marginal cost (burning DVDs) is entirely based on the demand curve. Not only do the games have a smaller audience, but think about what the REAL cost of a video game is. The fifty bucks you lay on the retailer's counter? No--the hours of time you invest in playing it. If I give up 20 hours of my life to play a game, whether the game costs 50 bucks or 20 bucks or 0 bucks doesn't really matter as much.
They are? Do you have specific actions by MS in mind? If PC's and XBoxes were capable of playing the same games, I might agree with you--but MS seems to have done everything possible to make that really hard. Given how similar the hardware is, and the fact that MS actually makes money when a PC with Win XP is sold as opposed to when an XBox is sold, why wouldn't they release some sort of XBox player software for the PC, (following the same lines as cxbx or xeon emulators) unless they were interested in pushing gaming away from the PC?
I'm going off in a new random direction here, but I think gaming in general is going to go into a slump, or at least de-commercialization, unless awesome new input/output devices are realeased. A video game can only become so much more awesome if it's just me using a keyboard/mouse/controller while looking at a video screen, possibly connected to the net. Voice chat in console games is a start. Maybe we'll see an EyeToy like device that determines facial expressions and pastes those onto your character in multiplayer games. Maybe arcades will be reborn with VR goggles and and haptic interfaces that are too pricey for home usage.
No, bribery is not a right. You're welcome.
This is an interesting point the focus on sales might be missing--a lot of the gaming going on in the PC world might be happening with no money changing hands. This could be free games, pirated games, or emulated classics. Even if commercial PC gaming dies, console games will still face competition the complete library of games already written, and from developers with nothing better to do.
On the other hand, perhaps at some point in the future, if commercial PC gaming truly dies, Nvidia and ATI will stop selling consumer-level PC graphics cards. Which would mean the end of all those mods. Which would mean less competition for the consoles. Which could very well happen, since one of the biggest factors in PC gaming, Microsoft, seems determined at all cost to make sure that the living room is the only place that video games will be played.
Look, you can argue for longer or even infinite terms, but how could RETROACTIVE extension encourage innovation unless I invent time travel and tell people about it in the past?
Since it has no possible way of encourage innovation in the past, and many possible ways of discouraging innovation of derivative works, retroactive extension is, indeed, INHERENTLY at odds with encouraging innovation.
At it's heart, copyright is about property rights. Strong protection of property rights encourages investment, which is a good thing for the economy.
But property rights also mean we have to MANAGE property rights. Sometimes the costs of such management are such that they overshadow the encouraged investment. If I have to call a lawyer and accountant everytime I write a line in my play or book or computer program, there's very little chance I'll get anything done. Worse, I have to know in advance if I'll make enough money from my derivative work to justify paying for it . Which means that stronger property rights encourage more of the same sort predictable, bland, innovationless hackwork that every decent person is sick of.
Copyrights are actually the one form of property that you can reasonably claim: "Nobody would ever have this if I didn't create it." It's a very pure creation that doesn't depend on any prior property of any kind.
Second sentence is totally wrong. Any creator is going to be influenced by all previous creators, by their education, by their interactions with other human beings--in short, for every work of art, there is a million people who can say "this would never have been created if it were not for my actions." But only one of those people gets the copyright. Reasonable people can make that argument--but they would be both factually and logically incorrect.
Infinite copyright is building a damn on the river of human thought.
And all this makes the "X years plus life of author" make sense, I suppose
"Plus life of author" makes no sense, whatsoever. Why should a young man get longer copyright protection than an old man? Just state number X, and let that be it. If Utilitarianism is our only concern, we need to view this ONLY from the perspective of current authors--what length of term actually has an effect on a current author's desire to write a book? I find it hard to believe that any author is actually seriously concerned about any opportunities for the profitability of their book or music or computer program more than 20 years from the time they are making it. Therefore, the maximum time I would think reasonable is 20 years, from completion of work.
May I suggest that if you MUST extend copyrights, you should grant them back to the original authors or heirs, and not to the companies owning the current copyrights. Why should you give the companies more copyright then they paid for? They only paid for fifty years, fifty years is all they should get.
In the mean time, I have a suggestion for anyone who believes creative works should be preserved for all time. Corporations aren't going to bother keeping backup copies of works only a few people wants, so if you see something you don't think will see much mass demand in the future STEAL IT AND MAKE AS MANY ILLEGAL COPIES AS YOU CAN!!!! Future historians and archaelogists may thank you.
Is there something wrong with my Vice City on PS2? When I tried to aim in that game, it became apparent very quickly that the analog controls...weren't really analog at all. There was no way to aim slowly--pushing the stick at all produced a radical change in where I was aiming, and I would just keep firing shots to either side of my intended target. And of course after you die you have to drive to the mission all over again, so I'd waste five minutes of driving around to get to twenty seconds of poorly controled action.I lost patience with that game very quickly. Perhaps I should try it on PC.
I became convinced at that point that all the GTA series on PS2 succeeds at is the ten-minute test. It's phenomenally fun for ten minutes to just start stealing cars and hurting people randomly until cops start to chase you and then you start killing cops and its awesome and ten minutes later completely boring. That's fun to do...once a month or so.
Except they are lobbying AGAINST fair-use and public domain rights to create new restrictions. They are lobbying to steal our rights. Nor is lobbying in right--SPEAKING is an right, giving money to government officials or their campaigns is NOT a right, and is therefore well regullated by any reasonable government.
So there--it is fair to fault them from stealing my rights by buying elected officials. You're welcome.
Why not just sell them to whoever is guarding the RNC a month or so later? I have ambivalent feelings on cameras (I think government transparency is a lot more important than personal privacy, which is basically gone anyway). But what would really piss me off, if I were a Bostonian, is the matter of fact attitude the police have regarding these cameras. "We're certainly not going to put them in a closet." Who are these piges supposed to be working for? Wouldn't it make sense to at least ASK people if they'd like to live in a city with a crap load more cameras? "Boston police and federal officials concede that the additional cameras and new technology represent another chapter in Boston." Right, so maybe you should, I dunno, ask Boston if this is a good idea for permanent reform?
People need to take to the streets for this--not because the cameras are so bad, but police are starting to go off the deep end.
Look, I'm pretty far to the left. I don't care about capitalism at all. But how is a country supposed to express it's cultural differences if there are no elections or right of dissent? The DPRK represents the cultural will of only two people--Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il.
Who's to say America shouldn't invade? Relativism goes both ways, my friend. "current cultural perspective"--nice euphemism for "whoever has the most guns and power and murderous will to use them properly".
Let them be, and then they'll know no one wants to destroy them. When they know that, they won't have to spend half of their budget on weapons just to defend themselves from those westerners who "know better". There's little evidence that dictators magically fall once outside pressure is removed, (outside pressure is easy to fake if you feel you need it) but even accepting that there's the small issue of nuclear technology sales to various shady countries and people. A hands off approach is a lot easier to argue for with countries that look like they will have a revolution any day now--like Iran. Were I in charge, that's exactly what I'd do--declare war if NK keeps selling weapons and nukes for cash, but other than that let them do whatever they want. It's the only reasonable policy--if the current situation in Iraq is too much for Americans to stomach, surely invading North Korea would be many, many times worse. But in general, although Jesus was silent on the issue, I am very much in favor of removing the plank from my neighbors eye before the splinter from my own.
I'm not saying that America's actions toward either Korea have always been snow white innocent (support for South Korean dictators in the name of stability comes to mind), or that America's policies towards North Korea make complete sense, but to suggest that America wants the conflict to continue so that we might maintain troops there--that's silly. The American troops stationed in Korea are sitting ducks. Sacrificial lambs. A human tripwire. An intentional Pearl Harbor/Alamo-style vulnerability. Okinawa's a different story--if Korea united tomorrow, I doubt America would feel a need to pull out of Japan.
Sometimes you can get away with having a really annoying handle instead of a sig.
Those guys proved that there are limits on the abilities of formal systems (can't be both consistent and complete, can't prove whether program halts or not, etc.) but no one has found any example of a physical process with a proven ability to surpass those abilities. Specifically, no one has proven that human brains can do anyting a properly programmed Turing Machine cannot do.
Vastly more interesting to me would be if a major vendor started shipping all their computers with Mozilla based browser and e-mail, and OpenOffice as an alternative to the very expensive Microsoft Office. Get people used to using the open tools, then the next time you sell a computer you can sell an open OS.
This is definitely true. I'm really shocked that something like this hasn't already happened in Europe or Asia yet--come on guys, our president is hard at work doing everything possible to make you guys hate us, but you STILL insist on importing the one American product I want you to stop importing, Microsoft!
BTW mplayer definitely works way the hell better than Windows Media Player--there's a huge chunk of files I download from the Internet that have problems playing in WMP that I've never been able to solve, but mplayer just views with no problem at all. I was surprised to discover this, I never felt linux video playing would work as well in Linux as it does in windows, but in fact now I find myself rebooting to Linux all the time to play movies! It seems to play more movies, it's more configurable, and X11 doesn't offer me as many headaches for playing a movie on my television while listening to music on my computer upstairs.
Linux still has its share of usability problems, but my Gentoo really ownz the crap out of my XP for playing movies. Strange but true.