Agreed, but this misses the point. Anyone wanting secure communication will use direct VOIP, with open source software with encryption of their own choosing.
The FBI has in the past been used for political purposes, so having the FBI able to hear everything can be political repression.
A recent "60 Minutes" program said that about 40% of the people in U.S. prisons are very low-level drug dealers, too poor even to hire a lawyer. The U.S. government has the highest percentage of its people in prison of any country, ever, more than 6 times that of European nations. This makes some people say that the U.S. government is preparing for a repressive regime.
Listening to VOIP conversations is equivalent to not allowing encryption and to allowing listening to all internet traffic.
VOIP can connect directly from one IP to another. There is no need for anyone in between. VOIP can use open source software and be encrypted, so that anyone listening cannot know the method of encryption, or the encryption key.
Not about computers, but: While working for a Physics research lab, I made a laser water jacket without a bulge at the end of the inlet pipe. The water pressure rose at night, the tubing slipped off, and the 2nd floor and part of the first was flooded, including expensive test gear like oscilloscopes.
That's an interesting question. Part of the shift in opinion may be due to the efforts of Lou Gerstner.
Why must big corporations be enemies of the public? There is no reason for it, except bad management.
The hostility toward Microsoft in entirely due to management failure, in my opinion. Microsoft's anti-customer, anti-community behavior is entirely due to the psychological shortcomings of Microsoft managers.
Eventually, this law will be used for political benefit. That's what
caused the problem in the beginning. In the 1940's, the U.S. Congress passed a
law forming a secret police agency, that has now become the CIA, NSA, and
others. Basically, the original law was passed to protect the overseas
financial interests of U.S. and British companies by allowing dirty tricks and
secret violence and other secret efforts. Since then, the U.S. government has
had the enormous corrupting influence of money and power combined with secret
purposes.
History surrounding the U.S. war with Iraq: Four short stories, an article
I wrote, shows a little about how that original law has been used to cause
violence throughout the world. Remember, if you work for the CIA, violence
gets you pay raises and job security; there is conflict of interest in any
secret organization.
As you could have seen on the Charlie Rose show last night, and on other
nights, the biggest complaint of the Arabs and Arab terrorists has been the
U.S. government's support for Jewish violence against Arabs. This support is
not known to most Americans, but it has adversely affected their quality of
life. When you see on TV Israeli helicopters shooting at Arab Palestinians,
remember that U.S. taxpayers paid for the helicopters so that U.S. weapons
manufacturers could make more profit.
There is a pattern here: Put in passwords, call it "protection", and allow users to believe they have security, when then don't. For example, Bart's PE Builder allows access to Windows XP systems, and changing the passwords, even when the password to the recovery console is not known.
Recovery Manager changes passwords.
pvt_medic (715692), I'm guessing you have found a way to game the Slashdot system. Your sig hints this, and there is no other way that comment could get a Troll rating.
"I've been thinking about throwing an extension together for Thunderbird with that feature... I really should do that."
Great idea.
And, to all those who are ignoring the political implications of having a government that does world-wide surveillance in secret and without controls or accountability, or even financial accountability, I suggest you consider the issue more carefully.
If Microsoft really believed what's in the ad, they wouldn't be running
the ad. The existence of the ad says, "Linux is a strong competitor for
Microsoft products. We are willing to pay millions to try to prevent that
perception." The ads don't sell Microsoft, they sell Linux and BSD and Open
Source, by showing that the 800-pound gorilla takes them seriously.
Remember this about Windows XP and Windows Server 2003: The file
system is crippled. You cannot make a working backup of your OS installation
using Microsoft tools. (This has been verified many times by Microsoft
technical support. Don't tell me about Sysprep; it is not a backup tool. Yes,
I know about third-party tools; they are all buggy, not supported by
Microsoft, and may cause problems that remain hidden for a while. See Experiences w/
Drive Imaging Software? No, NTBackup does not back up the operating
system. See the comment, There are many
limitations to Sysprep, for Microsoft's notification of hidden
problems.)
That's all you need to know. If you can't make operational backups,
it isn't sensible to use the software. By crippling its file system, Microsoft
has made it imperative that you choose some other operating system.
Also, any government that allows the use of proprietary file formats
owned by someone else is not really an independent government, is it? You
can't reliably work with your intellectual property created with Microsoft
products unless you pay Microsoft money! Microsoft's international government
customers are under the control of a foreign company controlled in part by a
foreign government that runs the biggest spy organizations that have ever
existed.
Who was using the more than 60 serious security vulnerabilities found
in the last two years in Microsoft products before they were fixed?!!! Foreign
governments? Your competitors? Hackers?
Microsoft can change the license terms to which you are bound after
you have made your purchase and agreed to the terms!
I'm definitely not anti-Microsoft. I want Microsoft's top management
to take these limitations and problems seriously and fix them. Until then,
Microsoft products must always lose, unless a feature at present available
only with Microsoft products is needed.
Microsoft has a policy of assisted suicide for its products: Windows Desktop Product Life Cycle Support and Availability Policies for
Businesses. This enforced software death is different from the support
schedules of Linux companies. Microsoft's software death involves being
forceably pushed to an entirely new operating system, with new hardware
requirements and many, many new bugs and training problems. This has certainly
been true of the switch from Windows 98 to Windows XP. It certainly appears
likely to be true of a switch from Windows XP to Windows Longhorn. In
contrast, a Linux upgrade is to something very similar. It is likely that no
hardware upgrade and little or no new training will be necessary. And, since
you have the source code, there are many companies who will be glad to support
old products, and even update them where necessary.
Do you want Microsoft as a business partner? Here are three articles about
Microsoft:
(PDF file): The
Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) urges the Department
of Homeland Security to stop using insecure
(Microsoft) products. The computer industry attempts to educate those
in government about the insecurity of Microsoft software.
Pascal wasn't just any language. It was the most taught computer language in the world at one time. It died within a few years. No one seems to be mourning it. So, how many languages do we really need, if one can die without causing problems?
My vote: Put all the good stuff into one language.
I couldn't read the reference manual in one hour. I couldn't learn the quirks
of co-routines in one hour.
I think there is a big, big misunderstanding about computer languages. The
"quick and dirty" ones are incomplete and limited. The complete languages are
necessarily complex. At one time, Perl was like Lua. Then it needed this and
that until now it is beginning to be as complex as C++. The same will happen
with Lua, I'm guessing, if it remains popular.
It seems that every self-motivated serious programmer writes at least one
editor or one language or one compiler. Even I wrote a language and compiler
-- for Hewlett-Packard data acquisition equipment.
I think Larry Wall didn't foresee the future when he started Perl. Did he begin Perl with the idea that it would eventually be object-oriented?
Did he expect that he would spend his entire life developing his "report
language"?
I'm tired of learning new languages. I don't see the point in it. I'll bet
there are hundreds of thousands who learned Pascal in college who wish they
had not wasted their time; except for Delphi, Pascal is dead.
For those who want an embedded scripting language, how about a C interpreter?
Try Cint or Ch.
"Have you ever called microsoft anyway? and if so, did ever make the same mistake (of calling) again?"
LOL. Yes. See Huge cultural differences, not just accent. I'm experienced with Microsoft people thinking that they are gods and I am inferior, but this guy was worse than even that.
What you said about Sysprep fits with my experience.
Selling an operating system that is crippled so users cannot make backups should be against the law: #7879376
Sysprep: Be sure you have the latest version Windows 2003 of Sysprep. Earlier versions are buggy. There are many limitations to Sysprep. This is copied from official Microsoft info:
- Sysprep must be installed on drive C.
- Multiboot configurations are not supported when you create a Sysprep
image.
- You cannot run Sysprep on a computer that is a domain controller, or a
computer that has the Certificate Services service started or the Cluster
service started.
- Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) installations do not support
Sysprep. You must use Volume media to build images from because OEM media
may have problems with product activation.
- Sysprep should not be run on a system that has been running for a long
time.
- It is best not to run Sysprep on a computer that has been upgraded. Use a
new installation as a starting point for Sysprep images.
The following lists Sysprep operations that are not supported by Microsoft:
- When you use Sysprep to create a Windows 2000 image, and then
upgrading the image to Windows XP, then re-imaging with Sysprep
- When you use Sysprep to create an image on a computer where a
in-place upgrade of the operating system was previously performed
- When you use Sysprep to create an image on a computer that has been
running for extended period of time
- When you use Sysprep to create an image on any computer where the
default user account has been overwritten by the Administrator account
- When you use a Sysprep to image a computer that has a different
Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL) than the source computer. For example,
when you use a Sysprep image that was taken from a computer with a PIC
HAL and then attempt to image a computer that contains a APIC HAL
- Using Sysprep to create an image from a source computer that has had
a custom OEM installation.
If all the above rules are ok for you, you may go ahead to check the
following article again.
302577 HOW TO: Use Sysprep.exe Tool to Automate Successful Deployment of
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=302577
For more information about how to use Sysprep.inf for multilingual support
see the online help.
For a more detailed explanation about answer files and their valid
parameter values, please refer to the Ref.chm file in the
\Support\Tools\Deploy.cab folder on the Windows XP Professional CD-ROM.
I think an OS that does not come with full backup tools does not observe the ethics of Fitness for Merchantability. Windows XP, as it is sold now, should literally be against the law.
Slashdot Mirror
Skype uses port 80, if there is a firewall. VOIP cannot be identified in any reliable way.
Agreed, but this misses the point. Anyone wanting secure communication will use direct VOIP, with open source software with encryption of their own choosing.
The FBI has in the past been used for political purposes, so having the FBI able to hear everything can be political repression.
A recent "60 Minutes" program said that about 40% of the people in U.S. prisons are very low-level drug dealers, too poor even to hire a lawyer. The U.S. government has the highest percentage of its people in prison of any country, ever, more than 6 times that of European nations. This makes some people say that the U.S. government is preparing for a repressive regime.
Listening to VOIP conversations is equivalent to not allowing encryption and to allowing listening to all internet traffic.
VOIP can connect directly from one IP to another. There is no need for anyone in between. VOIP can use open source software and be encrypted, so that anyone listening cannot know the method of encryption, or the encryption key.
Do you realize that, if a government feels free to lie, it is corrupt?
More U.S. government corruption.
Not about computers, but: While working for a Physics research lab, I made a laser water jacket without a bulge at the end of the inlet pipe. The water pressure rose at night, the tubing slipped off, and the 2nd floor and part of the first was flooded, including expensive test gear like oscilloscopes.
That's an interesting question. Part of the shift in opinion may be due to the efforts of Lou Gerstner.
Why must big corporations be enemies of the public? There is no reason for it, except bad management.
The hostility toward Microsoft in entirely due to management failure, in my opinion. Microsoft's anti-customer, anti-community behavior is entirely due to the psychological shortcomings of Microsoft managers.
Eventually, this law will be used for political benefit. That's what caused the problem in the beginning. In the 1940's, the U.S. Congress passed a law forming a secret police agency, that has now become the CIA, NSA, and others. Basically, the original law was passed to protect the overseas financial interests of U.S. and British companies by allowing dirty tricks and secret violence and other secret efforts. Since then, the U.S. government has had the enormous corrupting influence of money and power combined with secret purposes.
History surrounding the U.S. war with Iraq: Four short stories, an article I wrote, shows a little about how that original law has been used to cause violence throughout the world. Remember, if you work for the CIA, violence gets you pay raises and job security; there is conflict of interest in any secret organization.
As you could have seen on the Charlie Rose show last night, and on other nights, the biggest complaint of the Arabs and Arab terrorists has been the U.S. government's support for Jewish violence against Arabs. This support is not known to most Americans, but it has adversely affected their quality of life. When you see on TV Israeli helicopters shooting at Arab Palestinians, remember that U.S. taxpayers paid for the helicopters so that U.S. weapons manufacturers could make more profit.
There is a pattern here: Put in passwords, call it "protection", and allow users to believe they have security, when then don't. For example, Bart's PE Builder allows access to Windows XP systems, and changing the passwords, even when the password to the recovery console is not known. Recovery Manager changes passwords.
It takes great ability to put stuff into a language, and do it right. I'm not talking about doing it wrong.
pvt_medic (715692), I'm guessing you have found a way to game the Slashdot system. Your sig hints this, and there is no other way that comment could get a Troll rating.
I agree. So, how could those features be sensibly added to C++?
Why do we have to abandon a language and invent new ones, with new quirkinesses?
"I've been thinking about throwing an extension together for Thunderbird with that feature... I really should do that."
Great idea.
And, to all those who are ignoring the political implications of having a government that does world-wide surveillance in secret and without controls or accountability, or even financial accountability, I suggest you consider the issue more carefully.
The U.S. government does more world-wide surveillance than any government ever has.
In case you didn't see the photos, they are of dirt and rocks.
I agree, but I've already had a lot of fun and brain exercise doing programming. I'm looking for a permanent relationship. I want to get married.
If Microsoft really believed what's in the ad, they wouldn't be running the ad. The existence of the ad says, "Linux is a strong competitor for Microsoft products. We are willing to pay millions to try to prevent that perception." The ads don't sell Microsoft, they sell Linux and BSD and Open Source, by showing that the 800-pound gorilla takes them seriously.
Remember this about Windows XP and Windows Server 2003: The file system is crippled. You cannot make a working backup of your OS installation using Microsoft tools. (This has been verified many times by Microsoft technical support. Don't tell me about Sysprep; it is not a backup tool. Yes, I know about third-party tools; they are all buggy, not supported by Microsoft, and may cause problems that remain hidden for a while. See Experiences w/ Drive Imaging Software? No, NTBackup does not back up the operating system. See the comment, There are many limitations to Sysprep, for Microsoft's notification of hidden problems.)
That's all you need to know. If you can't make operational backups, it isn't sensible to use the software. By crippling its file system, Microsoft has made it imperative that you choose some other operating system.
Also, any government that allows the use of proprietary file formats owned by someone else is not really an independent government, is it? You can't reliably work with your intellectual property created with Microsoft products unless you pay Microsoft money! Microsoft's international government customers are under the control of a foreign company controlled in part by a foreign government that runs the biggest spy organizations that have ever existed.
Who was using the more than 60 serious security vulnerabilities found in the last two years in Microsoft products before they were fixed?!!! Foreign governments? Your competitors? Hackers?
Microsoft can change the license terms to which you are bound after you have made your purchase and agreed to the terms!
I'm definitely not anti-Microsoft. I want Microsoft's top management to take these limitations and problems seriously and fix them. Until then, Microsoft products must always lose, unless a feature at present available only with Microsoft products is needed.
Microsoft has a policy of assisted suicide for its products: Windows Desktop Product Life Cycle Support and Availability Policies for Businesses. This enforced software death is different from the support schedules of Linux companies. Microsoft's software death involves being forceably pushed to an entirely new operating system, with new hardware requirements and many, many new bugs and training problems. This has certainly been true of the switch from Windows 98 to Windows XP. It certainly appears likely to be true of a switch from Windows XP to Windows Longhorn. In contrast, a Linux upgrade is to something very similar. It is likely that no hardware upgrade and little or no new training will be necessary. And, since you have the source code, there are many companies who will be glad to support old products, and even update them where necessary.
Do you want Microsoft as a business partner? Here are three articles about Microsoft:
Pascal wasn't just any language. It was the most taught computer language in the world at one time. It died within a few years. No one seems to be mourning it. So, how many languages do we really need, if one can die without causing problems?
My vote: Put all the good stuff into one language.
Or, how about EiC, now hosted at Sourceforge. "EiC is pointer safe."
"...learning LUA takes exactly 1 hour."
I couldn't read the reference manual in one hour. I couldn't learn the quirks of co-routines in one hour.
I think there is a big, big misunderstanding about computer languages. The "quick and dirty" ones are incomplete and limited. The complete languages are necessarily complex. At one time, Perl was like Lua. Then it needed this and that until now it is beginning to be as complex as C++. The same will happen with Lua, I'm guessing, if it remains popular.
It seems that every self-motivated serious programmer writes at least one editor or one language or one compiler. Even I wrote a language and compiler -- for Hewlett-Packard data acquisition equipment.
I think Larry Wall didn't foresee the future when he started Perl. Did he begin Perl with the idea that it would eventually be object-oriented? Did he expect that he would spend his entire life developing his "report language"?
I'm tired of learning new languages. I don't see the point in it. I'll bet there are hundreds of thousands who learned Pascal in college who wish they had not wasted their time; except for Delphi, Pascal is dead.
For those who want an embedded scripting language, how about a C interpreter? Try Cint or Ch.
Security fixes are bug fixes!
"Have you ever called microsoft anyway? and if so, did ever make the same mistake (of calling) again?"
LOL. Yes. See Huge cultural differences, not just accent. I'm experienced with Microsoft people thinking that they are gods and I am inferior, but this guy was worse than even that.
What you said about Sysprep fits with my experience.
Yes, but it is not good to combine bug fixes with new features! Also, we need those bug fixes now! There are hundreds of them.
Selling an operating system that is crippled so users cannot make backups should be against the law: #7879376
Sysprep: Be sure you have the latest version Windows 2003 of Sysprep. Earlier versions are buggy. There are many limitations to Sysprep. This is copied from official Microsoft info:
- Sysprep must be installed on drive C.
- Multiboot configurations are not supported when you create a Sysprep
image.
- You cannot run Sysprep on a computer that is a domain controller, or a
computer that has the Certificate Services service started or the Cluster
service started.
- Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) installations do not support
Sysprep. You must use Volume media to build images from because OEM media
may have problems with product activation.
- Sysprep should not be run on a system that has been running for a long
time.
- It is best not to run Sysprep on a computer that has been upgraded. Use a
new installation as a starting point for Sysprep images.
The following lists Sysprep operations that are not supported by Microsoft:
- When you use Sysprep to create a Windows 2000 image, and then
upgrading the image to Windows XP, then re-imaging with Sysprep
- When you use Sysprep to create an image on a computer where a
in-place upgrade of the operating system was previously performed
- When you use Sysprep to create an image on a computer that has been
running for extended period of time
- When you use Sysprep to create an image on any computer where the
default user account has been overwritten by the Administrator account
- When you use a Sysprep to image a computer that has a different
Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL) than the source computer. For example,
when you use a Sysprep image that was taken from a computer with a PIC
HAL and then attempt to image a computer that contains a APIC HAL
- Using Sysprep to create an image from a source computer that has had
a custom OEM installation.
If all the above rules are ok for you, you may go ahead to check the
following article again.
302577 HOW TO: Use Sysprep.exe Tool to Automate Successful Deployment of
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=302577
For more information about how to use Sysprep.inf for multilingual support
see the online help.
For a more detailed explanation about answer files and their valid
parameter values, please refer to the Ref.chm file in the
\Support\Tools\Deploy.cab folder on the Windows XP Professional CD-ROM.
"I think it's atrocious that Windows doesn't even come with a workable backup mechanism. Their backup tool doesn't even back up the OS!"
Here is a Slashdot story about drive imaging Windows, and what a huge hassle it is: Experiences w/ Drive Imaging Software?.
I think an OS that does not come with full backup tools does not observe the ethics of Fitness for Merchantability. Windows XP, as it is sold now, should literally be against the law.