I can found a company called 'SN74S181 Expert Bricklayers' and it doesn't make me an expert bricklayer.
Being a crypto expert isn't mutually exclusive to being a security expert. It's not mutually inclusive, either. Too many people make a smooth seamless slide from 'crytpo' to 'security' without making the connection that hacking at some crypto isn't the same thing as an all-levels thorough coverage of security.
(I wonder what exactly you'll have to do to prove that the resources you put the disposal of others will not be used for piracy...)
That's pretty easy. If they're not being used for piracy, they're not being used for piracy.
The issue of proving 'due dilligence', to show that you're not a co-conspirator in providing said resources is an issue, but your comment blurs that distinction. Any competent admin should know what the resources s/he is in charge of are being used for. Otherwise they could be spammers, or engaging in DDoS activites.
This might get some people who 'turn a blind eye' upset because they can't do that any more. Oh well.
Just because the only way you can get people to listen to your drumming is with 'in your face' performance on the street, doesn't mean every performer suffers from that problem.
Lots of us enjoy the Lord of the Ring films in the theatre, and might enjoy the parodies, but not out of spite.
Any deadhead can tell you how the deadhead community feels about commercially-supported network distributing Grateful Dead tapes.
So, you're really saying that you believe there should be NO IP laws, and that commercial entities should be able to strip-mine other people's work and resell it with no return to the people who created the work.
This law gives friends the ability to share the tunes they like. This is what most of us feel is the appropriate level of sharing.
KaZaA and the other 'get-rich-quick' schemes can go out of business. It's a reasonable sacrifice. Get a JOB, Shaun Fanning wannabes.
You just explained that there are forces working to change the existing copyright laws. You did so in response to a 'what is wrong with the existing copyright laws?' question.
Given that both pro and anti-IP forces are attempting to change the copyright laws, perhaps the grandparent post had a point.
You don't have to do that. You can run Progman.exe as your shell instead of explorer. It's still built in and available on new Windows systems. I hadn't tried it until just now on Windows 2000 but I went to the start menu, picked 'run' and typed in 'progman' and sure enough, good(?) old program manager popped up. I don't have any groups or icons in groups, but that would be trivial to change as it always was in the old days.
This wasn't a case of the attackers being hosted by SDF. They were attacked from the outside by some third party, and their provider unplugged them as a result.
This is similar to: if I wanted to shut down a local unpopular political organization's bookstore, so I picketed and made noise and made things unpleasant out in front of the bookstore, and the result was that the bookstore's lease was revoked by the owner of the building.
This is an opportunity for them to establish themselves as a tech. leader and not simply a me-too company.
Frankly, everything that AMD does, all the tailpipe chasing, the marketing gimmicks with model numbers that don't really the megahertz the processor runs at, etc. etc. means that AMD absolutely reeks of the kid brother with the inferiority complex. Add on their fan base of chip-on-shoulder zealots and you're talking death-bad image in the mainstream market.
It will take more than releasing the first x86-oriented 64 bit processor on the market to undo the image they've somehow inflicted on themselves.
If they wanted to foster an image that they're not feeding off Intel's table scraps they should quit using model numbers that requires a footnote with Intel trademarks in it to explain. They should have been brave, like Intel themselves and ditch more of the x86 legacy architecture. As it stands, architecture-wise, they look like someone who stepped onto the x86 ship right as Intel is about to scuttle it.
As it stands, they come off looking as pathetic as Larry Ellison sputtering in his expensive Italian shoes about Bill Gates (in his comfortable Hush Puppies).
You're forgetting how people sucked up the early Intel 32-bit processors like gummi bears at the movie theatre, all the while running a 16 bit OS from Microsoft.
People love the idea that they're buying something expandable. It's what sells expensive cameras. Slap a 'Coming Soon! 64 bit Windows!' sticker on the side of the carton and they'll blow out the door. You think once the whiff of Win64 is in the air that anybody is going to want to buy another 32 bit box?? And look like their neighbor with the Celeron? No way!
No, I think AMD and Intel would be medium-sized chip vendors, continuing to put out fine embedded controller parts and memory and all sorts of things without Microsoft. Just like Motorola wouldn't be dead without *snort* Apple.
This will be a marketing disaster for various sectors of the Desktop PC component business.
Namely, heat sink and cooling fan vendors are bound to see a substantial revenue drop.
Blue LED vendors and tricked-out-case-part vendors will likewise see a slump in the market.
Let's hope they can make it through to the Fall on continued sales of 'Yay! It's overcloxored!' stickers and decals. Word on the street is that the sticky adhesive on the present install base of stickers doesn't hold up to the humidity in a 'dank mom's-basement' environment so second and third sales will probably continue to roll in.
The first OS they came out with (Xenix, the first UNIX clone for the Intel processors) was based in part on code they licensed from AT&T. I have read that the big reason Bill Gates sold off Xenix to what formed into SCO was that he so disliked paying a royalty on each sale to AT&T.
So Microsoft divested themselves from their first OS venture to prevent themselves from becoming a vine.
I suspect you meant MS-DOS in your OS reference, however. Everyone has such a stunted history of Microsoft, and it's always one written by someone who hates Microsoft....
However, now that IBM is just "one of the crowd" selling PCs,
It might surprise you to hear this, but it's gotta be said: there are lots of computers, billions of dollars worth of them, that you can't buy at Best Buy. Many of them that you can't even plug into the wall.
And on the subject of OS/2, IBM and Microsoft wrote OS/2 as partners. Plus, part of what kept the clone vendors from adopting OS/2 is that they didn't want to have to buy an OS from one of their competitors (Microsoft is not a hardware vendor, they weren't giving $$ for each unit sold to one of their competitors in the hardware market, the way they were whenever they sold a machine bundled with OS/2).
Your history really, really needs some work, but then so does most of the rest of what you typed.
Your arguement dithers back and fourth between 'good for them' and 'lose out and disappear'. You dance between 'UNIX unification' and 'their own Linux distro that is pre-loaded.'
Sorry. It's not that simple. Part of the way Linux has succeeeded is by adopting the body of legacy UNIX code from the past. In a sense it's grown like a vine on the old UNIX trees. When the trees collaps, Linux will still be a vine. Just with no trees to grow upon.
That isn't a completely succinct metaphor, but it does hold a certain amount of merit. And Microsoft has it's own grove of trees, and there aren't ANY vines growing on them, cutting off the leaves from light, etc.
As someone pointed out in the article, "IBM has never decommissioned an operating system, and they're not about to start now."
Agreed. If Donald Knuth wanted an IBM 650 to code away in (the machine my father wrote software for, too) he could probably bring one up within a compatability mode in something from IBM. They don't discontinue anything without making something they currently sell capable of running the code from it.
Slashdot Mirror
It's amazing how many people who bleat the 'Security through obscurity ba-aa-aa-aa-d' mantra don't know what they are talking about.
However, it's party-line so it seldom is challanged.
Translation: it's a paranoid rant.
'Nuff said.
I can found a company called 'SN74S181 Expert Bricklayers' and it doesn't make me an expert bricklayer.
Being a crypto expert isn't mutually exclusive to being a security expert. It's not mutually inclusive, either. Too many people make a smooth seamless slide from 'crytpo' to 'security' without making the connection that hacking at some crypto isn't the same thing as an all-levels thorough coverage of security.
Can you show us some examples where harsh penalties have been exacted for casual acts like downloading a few albums?
Otherwise, the 'trend' you seem to be expounding sounds like a paranoid rant.
(I wonder what exactly you'll have to do to prove that the resources you put the disposal of others will not be used for piracy...)
That's pretty easy. If they're not being used for piracy, they're not being used for piracy.
The issue of proving 'due dilligence', to show that you're not a co-conspirator in providing said resources is an issue, but your comment blurs that distinction. Any competent admin should know what the resources s/he is in charge of are being used for. Otherwise they could be spammers, or engaging in DDoS activites.
This might get some people who 'turn a blind eye' upset because they can't do that any more. Oh well.
Just because the only way you can get people to listen to your drumming is with 'in your face' performance on the street, doesn't mean every performer suffers from that problem.
Lots of us enjoy the Lord of the Ring films in the theatre, and might enjoy the parodies, but not out of spite.
Any deadhead can tell you how the deadhead community feels about commercially-supported network distributing Grateful Dead tapes.
So, you're really saying that you believe there should be NO IP laws, and that commercial entities should be able to strip-mine other people's work and resell it with no return to the people who created the work.
This law gives friends the ability to share the tunes they like. This is what most of us feel is the appropriate level of sharing.
KaZaA and the other 'get-rich-quick' schemes can go out of business. It's a reasonable sacrifice. Get a JOB, Shaun Fanning wannabes.
It looks like you're making the dubious claim that child porn and terrorism aren't bad.
You just explained that there are forces working to change the existing copyright laws. You did so in response to a 'what is wrong with the existing copyright laws?' question.
Given that both pro and anti-IP forces are attempting to change the copyright laws, perhaps the grandparent post had a point.
Unfortunately, Schneier is a cryptography expert, not a security expert.
They aren't the same thing.
You don't have to do that. You can run Progman.exe as your shell instead of explorer. It's still built in and available on new Windows systems. I hadn't tried it until just now on Windows 2000 but I went to the start menu, picked 'run' and typed in 'progman' and sure enough, good(?) old program manager popped up. I don't have any groups or icons in groups, but that would be trivial to change as it always was in the old days.
Some people have lowered their eyes in prayer.
Flags are being lowered to half mast.
And you are posting this crap?
The shame of it.
Well, gee. I dunno. Clearly you have started spinning it to push your political agenda.
If Albert Einstein were alive today, he would say a prayer.
If Michaelangelo were alive today, he would say a prayer.
Have some decency. Stifle it.
This wasn't a case of the attackers being hosted by SDF. They were attacked from the outside by some third party, and their provider unplugged them as a result.
This is similar to: if I wanted to shut down a local unpopular political organization's bookstore, so I picketed and made noise and made things unpleasant out in front of the bookstore, and the result was that the bookstore's lease was revoked by the owner of the building.
This is an opportunity for them to establish themselves as a tech. leader and not simply a me-too company.
Frankly, everything that AMD does, all the tailpipe chasing, the marketing gimmicks with model numbers that don't really the megahertz the processor runs at, etc. etc. means that AMD absolutely reeks of the kid brother with the inferiority complex. Add on their fan base of chip-on-shoulder zealots and you're talking death-bad image in the mainstream market.
It will take more than releasing the first x86-oriented 64 bit processor on the market to undo the image they've somehow inflicted on themselves.
If they wanted to foster an image that they're not feeding off Intel's table scraps they should quit using model numbers that requires a footnote with Intel trademarks in it to explain. They should have been brave, like Intel themselves and ditch more of the x86 legacy architecture. As it stands, architecture-wise, they look like someone who stepped onto the x86 ship right as Intel is about to scuttle it.
As it stands, they come off looking as pathetic as Larry Ellison sputtering in his expensive Italian shoes about Bill Gates (in his comfortable Hush Puppies).
You're forgetting how people sucked up the early Intel 32-bit processors like gummi bears at the movie theatre, all the while running a 16 bit OS from Microsoft.
People love the idea that they're buying something expandable. It's what sells expensive cameras. Slap a 'Coming Soon! 64 bit Windows!' sticker on the side of the carton and they'll blow out the door. You think once the whiff of Win64 is in the air that anybody is going to want to buy another 32 bit box?? And look like their neighbor with the Celeron? No way!
No, I think AMD and Intel would be medium-sized chip vendors, continuing to put out fine embedded controller parts and memory and all sorts of things without Microsoft. Just like Motorola wouldn't be dead without *snort* Apple.
This will be a marketing disaster for various sectors of the Desktop PC component business.
Namely, heat sink and cooling fan vendors are bound to see a substantial revenue drop.
Blue LED vendors and tricked-out-case-part vendors will likewise see a slump in the market.
Let's hope they can make it through to the Fall on continued sales of 'Yay! It's overcloxored!' stickers and decals. Word on the street is that the sticky adhesive on the present install base of stickers doesn't hold up to the humidity in a 'dank mom's-basement' environment so second and third sales will probably continue to roll in.
You're probably right about Microsoft.
The first OS they came out with (Xenix, the first UNIX clone for the Intel processors) was based in part on code they licensed from AT&T. I have read that the big reason Bill Gates sold off Xenix to what formed into SCO was that he so disliked paying a royalty on each sale to AT&T.
So Microsoft divested themselves from their first OS venture to prevent themselves from becoming a vine.
I suspect you meant MS-DOS in your OS reference, however. Everyone has such a stunted history of Microsoft, and it's always one written by someone who hates Microsoft....
It might surprise you to hear this, but it's gotta be said: there are lots of computers, billions of dollars worth of them, that you can't buy at Best Buy. Many of them that you can't even plug into the wall.
And on the subject of OS/2, IBM and Microsoft wrote OS/2 as partners. Plus, part of what kept the clone vendors from adopting OS/2 is that they didn't want to have to buy an OS from one of their competitors (Microsoft is not a hardware vendor, they weren't giving $$ for each unit sold to one of their competitors in the hardware market, the way they were whenever they sold a machine bundled with OS/2).
Your history really, really needs some work, but then so does most of the rest of what you typed.
Your arguement dithers back and fourth between 'good for them' and 'lose out and disappear'. You dance between 'UNIX unification' and 'their own Linux distro that is pre-loaded.'
Sorry. It's not that simple. Part of the way Linux has succeeeded is by adopting the body of legacy UNIX code from the past. In a sense it's grown like a vine on the old UNIX trees. When the trees collaps, Linux will still be a vine. Just with no trees to grow upon.
That isn't a completely succinct metaphor, but it does hold a certain amount of merit. And Microsoft has it's own grove of trees, and there aren't ANY vines growing on them, cutting off the leaves from light, etc.
Agreed. If Donald Knuth wanted an IBM 650 to code away in (the machine my father wrote software for, too) he could probably bring one up within a compatability mode in something from IBM. They don't discontinue anything without making something they currently sell capable of running the code from it.
It is my opinion that IBM was one of the smartest companies in existence back in 1965, too.
And the corporate culture hasn't changed much.
'nuff said.