A question to anyone who sees it... I was once asked this in a college discussion class:
"You are sitting at a console with two buttons. One button will kill every person in Alaska. The other will kill your entire semi-immediate family (parents, siblings, grandparents, children). You must push a button or all of them will die. Both would be quick, clean deaths. Suicide is not an option thereafter (my own addition). Which do you choose?"
This is the way I look at it: If all of the people in Alaska die, their families in other states would be devastated. There would be great suffering -- hundreds of thousands of people - gone. Friends, brothers, husbands (on oil commute, etc.) would all be gone. This, to a degree no less than a few thousand suffering, is guaranteed.
If you kill your family, you and those left in your family and all of your friends would mourn. Then there is the issue that YOU killed them -- not only would there be a horrible sense of guilt, your family and friends might blame you as well.
Comparing the two, if you choose to kill Alaska, you are saying that you value your own guilt complex and your family more than the suffering of thousands.
If you kill your family, you are saying that you would rather live knowing you caused the least suffering possible, which a great deal would be put on you.
Remember, this assumes that you know nothing of Alaskans except they're not a bunch of Nazis and that you love your family. I think you can grasp the philisophical aspects quickly -- this is a general question, don't nit pick. =P
I was personally shocked by the result in my class - 14/16 of the people in the class said they would kill all of Alaska. I choose my family.
It seems like ^Q is the new ^C, and ^Z is similar to an alt+tab in a windowed environment.
So why don't we just make the following standard in a window: ^Q - Quit ^Z ^X ^C for the undo, cut, copy keys, respectively.
And in terminal windows have the old standard ^D ^C ^Z, etc.
I'm using GNOME 1.4 (Ximian GNOME more specifically) and I find that this is generally the case. For me, it's perfectly fine, but that's because I've only been in Linux for two years and prior to that it was Windows.
The one part I don't get is "Any experienced programmer would instantly fear 'an easy-to-use, approachable, English-like language'". Why? Because it's not arcane enough? Because people might actually understand what you're doing?
I think this can largely be attributed to languages that have proven to be failures that have this trait.
Read: Visual Basic
I will vouch for easier to read languages. You cannot make a language very similar to English as English is not an entirely logical language, it has too many oddities that can conflict without proper context. I won't get into that...
What I will say is that I like this aspect of Perl. Although Perl has many shortcuts and ways of making the code look very cryptic and arcane, this is avoidable and personally, I find Perl to be a very refreshing and easy to read language in comparison to C or C++.
...you present evidence based upon what someone (with near-zero credibility, because, let's face it, anonymity on the Internet is a license to lie) I'm not stupid enough to disagree with you. However, there isn't much incentive to post the comment in question. You're right, I probably shouldn't have posted it, but I don't think you can claim that that comment's claim is inconceivable.
Then you proceed to present your personal opinion as someone who is clearly a technical user.
I am a technical user, and although I did list my opinion, that also holds with the opinions of many of my friends, family, people I work with, etc. who say the same thing. Just because I'm a technical user doesn't mean I can't gauge how difficult a system is to use. We were all newbies at some point.
Neither of these is an even remotely persuasive source. You are just spewing your own personal opinion with it's own slanted language (your sarcastic tone in listing companies, for instance) and passing it off as objective information. Not that I can honestly argue, but I find it hardly credible for you to call me on something you did yourself.
In your article: Source: None. Personal opinion: "Linux is such a joke on the desktop." If you can prove this as fact,let me know. Sarcastic tone: "Yes, of course M$ is out to get you, Linux!!"
But I did stoop to that level, you're right.
I did miss the word "desktop" in your post. And I just took off running with the idea that someone thinks Linux isn't a creditable threat. For that, yes, I made an ass of myself. I got what I deserved. One troll for another, eh?
As far as the main thrust of your post, you seem to be pushing to the point that Linux isn't a credible business threat/consideration. If you're refering to the desktop, fine, but that doesn't fit with the entire first half of your post -- you mention nothing of the desktop, but talk about Linux in general on the issue of being a threat.
Your whole point, if in fact regarding Linux in general and not the desktop, can be negated by looking at Microsoft. They are a profitable corporation and have stated over and over again that Linux is a threat.
Maybe I should add that MS is known for offering better deals to countries that look at Linux (See: UK, Peru). That fits with the China thing as well.
If it was in reference to the desktop aspect alone, perhaps you should have structured your argument more clearly, as you suggested that I should do.
You obviously don't know anything about Linux. From GCN: "BALLMER: Linux is not dominant in the market, but we get paid to focus in on competitive threats, and it's a really competitive threat." He goes on about this. There was a recent interview (I think on CNN, I searched quickly and couldn't find it) where he says the same thing -- Linux is a high priority concern for MS.
A poster on/. recently added: "I work for an SI company. A large one. With a huge degree of MS-related work. The MS reps tell *us* that they can commit MS resources (i.e. spend MS money) to help us win projects IF Linux or Apache are involved.
We're talking about people's time at many thousands of dollars per day. However much we need. They won't do it for almost any other project... So I'd say yes, they see it as a threat."
Linux is not a joke on the desktop. You obviously haven't tried it recently. Red Hat Linux 7.x is just as easy to install as Windows, and comes with almost all you need. A quick, guided installation of Ximian GNOME and you're set, IMO. I find it's easier to use than Windows. And don't give me anything about a learning curve -- Windows has a learning curve as well.
" Face it, Linux is such a joke on the desktop that it is hardly important enough to consider when making major business decisions in a profitable corporation."
Well, let's see: Disney isn't profitable? Hollywood graphics rendering companies aren't profitable? Merril Lynch isn't profitable? HP? DELL? IBM?
Why are 27% of servers shipped today shipped with Linux?
Here's a website you might find interesting with a loooong list of companies invested in Linux.
Everyone makes mistakes, but you're just blatantly arrogant and ignorant. Please do some research before posting extremely retarded comments.
Well, nobody made Microsoft sell the XBox for a loss.
I don't think an assumption on MS's part that we'd all buy XBox games like good consumers gives them the right to try and stop us from playing with the hardware we bought at the price they set.
Just a thought.
Re:Devices hostile to 3rd party peripherals
on
Analyzing Palladium
·
· Score: 1
I hear the weather in Peru is quite nice this time of year.
Want to fly down there with me for an extended vacation? I hear you can get cheap companion tickets.
I think the reason we're worried is regarding the TCPA, or at least I am.
This hardware can force authorization compliance for software binaries, effectively killing the GPL.
And Microsoft seems to be looking to capitalize on this.
If this hardware is implanted within the CPU, and this becomes required by law, what can the OSS community do about it besides reverse the process? I see it as possible to box us in.
You make a great point -- you're right, we should watch what we do and say.
B this is just the initial stage of "freaking out." I, for one, never thought that anything short of an *obviously* oppresive gov't law could stop open source or the GPL.
But now that is changing. I'm worried. Here's why:
If the TCPA's ideas becomes law, and old applications are made incompatible, or more likely, obsoleted by new ones, people will be required to upgrade to new hardware/software to get much of anything done, as I see it. Upgrading is a source of revenue for corporations (e.g. MS), I think it's safe to say they would try for this if they could.
If this becomes standard and exclusive, there isn't a whole lot the OS community can do, especially if it is illegal, IMO.
The only thing to stop this is a huge outcry from the tech community and/or the education of government officials. Past that, the Joe Publics will have to become angry. And considering the Joe Publics I know, that isn't likely unless the idea of their computer being run remotely is spread around.
I think Joe Public can handle not stealing music. He might be used to it, but after all, by common definition, he is stealing it.
I think Joe Public won't mind the "extra security" if he thinks it's there. People aren't retarded, but often ignorant.
That is why I worry.
There is no way this could last forever. That would be retarded -- even congress has to learn about technology sometime. But what I can forsee in a possible future is a world where the companies have put their other foot in the door of our computers (and wallets). And it'll take a fight to get them out if they get that far.
To be honest, I'm scared. Fear, uncertainty and doubt are being spread because we (or at least some of us) believe in it. FUD from companies is typically BS with no thought behind it. This FUD is genuine fear, IMO.
There is a difference between a rule that requires kids to say the allegiance, and going out to recess.
I'm not advocating that we try and "protect our little babies," but some things are just rediculous. Forcing someone to say something they don't believe in is unamerican in my book.
I suppose what I should have added (doh!) is that this confused me for about 45 mins while I started at a working open() statement that returned a filehandle that wouldn't spit back data. =P
Somehow I got the idea to check for other documentation on it. =P
About two weeks ago, Perldoc had the description of the open() function backwards when refering to pipes. It was backwards from the following:
From Perldoc, opentut: If the leading character is a pipe symbol, open starts up a new command and open a write-only filehandle leading into that command. If the trailing character is a pipe, you start up a new command and open a read-only filehandle leading out of that command.
I'm having problems finding an analogy, but wouldn't it be at least half way concieveable to hold Microsoft responsible for negligance regarding security holes?
...and I mean this honestly, don't -1 troll me because you automatically assume any comment about MS is retarded.
Putting decoy files denies service to those who are attempting to download real files (even non-copyrighted ones). That, by definition, is a DoS attack.
By common meaning, it probably isn't a DoS, but I'm not an expert on the issue.
However, it does fit the UK bill's "impairment of a function," the function being to download a legit file.
About time for some *sane* international standards.
I doubt this happens since the bill proposed here in the US is a bunch of BS and even congress can realize that (it's letting the law into the hands of the corpers). They're not that dense.
On the other hand, I hope something like this comes to a head soon so gov't will have to agree with each other and someone can make sane international standards.
I'm doing my part by refusing to install pirated copies of MS software when I build computers for people.
Cheers!
how Linux is "too hard"...
I haven't gone past RH 7.1, but a RH 7.1 w/Ximian Gnome system I'd say is in fact easier to use than Windows. Especially for updating and installing programs (Red Carpet). Install, IMO, is very easy as well - even custom isn't difficult. And remember, the slight learning curve with this system matches that of any new windows user, at least IMO.
You mean SMB, which is now called CIFS.
Forgive me, I knew I shouldn't have been smoking crack at the time... =P My brain said SMB but my fingers typed NFS. CIFS was what I couldn't remember, thanks. =)
And regarding what system you use at work: I bring my laptop (w/Linux) to work for my personal use. I have had an office supplied PC in the past, but we're able to install Linux there if we choose. Why not, you're the only one using the computer, right? =)
I don't see this happening. People, although quite dumb in groups, will look at the system and see a large hunk of all transactions in the tech world going through one company. The media will pounce on any flaw they find, and people will feel insecure about their credit card and personal info going through MS.
Everyone (general) knows about crackers. Most folks know MS has gotten bad press. If all of this takes place, and they put two and two together, I think the Joe Publics can figure it out.
Besides -- ever seen The Net?
There are a few parallels here that really scare me.
-More than 90% of folks use Windows for the desktop
-Microsoft is slowly making Windows difficult to interact with open source (See: Samba incompatibility, NFS (forgot new name) patent issues, GPL restrictions [e.g. VS6 license won't let you publish as public source]) right now.
-Longhorn code rewrites and Palladium software "authorization" could possibly extend these incompatibilities, making it harder for other OSs to interact with Windows and even making it harder for OSS to run on Windows, respectively.
Imagine everyone but a small open source community using Windows. Now imagine near-zero compatibility due to MS changes and legal issues (patents). If your boss sends you a Word Doc that you can't open, what can you do?
Use Windows.
Everyone is feeling this crunch. Whether it will get worse than it is now is in question, how that might happen is in question, but MS has been known to do anything to keep people out, and we know we're *the* target.
*ponder* Hmmm... And you could bury that statement deep down in the EULA, where they would most likely not notice, and use the gov't against them.
Bwahahaha.
OR you could just say, "If you are affiliated with the RIAA or are registered as coming from an RIAA IP, your hard drive will be erased." Or perhaps implant spyware in it and sell the emails of RIAA users. Or utilize their computers for distributed projects (mirrors for/.?).
I know this is a bit of a stretch, but the possibilities are truly endless. }:D
Someone below mentioned implementing user IDs and checksums. I'm betting there are ways to implement that securely, and ways to defeat those implementations. It would probably be a hack war with the RIAA, but I would bet it all that the RIAA couldn't come up with jack in comparison to those out there who hate it. (::points to a portion of the/. crowd).
Slashdot Mirror
A question to anyone who sees it... I was once asked this in a college discussion class:
/. has to say.
"You are sitting at a console with two buttons. One button will kill every person in Alaska. The other will kill your entire semi-immediate family (parents, siblings, grandparents, children). You must push a button or all of them will die. Both would be quick, clean deaths. Suicide is not an option thereafter (my own addition). Which do you choose?"
This is the way I look at it:
If all of the people in Alaska die, their families in other states would be devastated. There would be great suffering -- hundreds of thousands of people - gone. Friends, brothers, husbands (on oil commute, etc.) would all be gone. This, to a degree no less than a few thousand suffering, is guaranteed.
If you kill your family, you and those left in your family and all of your friends would mourn. Then there is the issue that YOU killed them -- not only would there be a horrible sense of guilt, your family and friends might blame you as well.
Comparing the two, if you choose to kill Alaska, you are saying that you value your own guilt complex and your family more than the suffering of thousands.
If you kill your family, you are saying that you would rather live knowing you caused the least suffering possible, which a great deal would be put on you.
Remember, this assumes that you know nothing of Alaskans except they're not a bunch of Nazis and that you love your family. I think you can grasp the philisophical aspects quickly -- this is a general question, don't nit pick. =P
I was personally shocked by the result in my class - 14/16 of the people in the class said they would kill all of Alaska. I choose my family.
I would like to hear what
It seems like ^Q is the new ^C, and
^Z is similar to an alt+tab in a windowed environment.
So why don't we just make the following standard in a window:
^Q - Quit
^Z ^X ^C for the undo, cut, copy keys, respectively.
And in terminal windows have the old standard ^D ^C ^Z, etc.
I'm using GNOME 1.4 (Ximian GNOME more specifically) and I find that this is generally the case. For me, it's perfectly fine, but that's because I've only been in Linux for two years and prior to that it was Windows.
Thoughts?
The one part I don't get is "Any experienced programmer would instantly fear 'an easy-to-use, approachable, English-like language'". Why? Because it's not arcane enough? Because people might actually understand what you're doing?
I think this can largely be attributed to languages that have proven to be failures that have this trait.
Read: Visual Basic
I will vouch for easier to read languages. You cannot make a language very similar to English as English is not an entirely logical language, it has too many oddities that can conflict without proper context. I won't get into that...
What I will say is that I like this aspect of Perl. Although Perl has many shortcuts and ways of making the code look very cryptic and arcane, this is avoidable and personally, I find Perl to be a very refreshing and easy to read language in comparison to C or C++.
But that's just my opinion.
...you present evidence based upon what someone (with near-zero credibility, because, let's face it, anonymity on the Internet is a license to lie)
,let me know.
I'm not stupid enough to disagree with you. However, there isn't much incentive to post the comment in question. You're right, I probably shouldn't have posted it, but I don't think you can claim that that comment's claim is inconceivable.
Then you proceed to present your personal opinion as someone who is clearly a technical user.
I am a technical user, and although I did list my opinion, that also holds with the opinions of many of my friends, family, people I work with, etc. who say the same thing.
Just because I'm a technical user doesn't mean I can't gauge how difficult a system is to use. We were all newbies at some point.
Neither of these is an even remotely persuasive source. You are just spewing your own personal opinion with it's own slanted language (your sarcastic tone in listing companies, for instance) and passing it off as objective information.
Not that I can honestly argue, but I find it hardly credible for you to call me on something you did yourself.
In your article:
Source: None.
Personal opinion: "Linux is such a joke on the desktop." If you can prove this as fact
Sarcastic tone: "Yes, of course M$ is out to get you, Linux!!"
But I did stoop to that level, you're right.
I did miss the word "desktop" in your post. And I just took off running with the idea that someone thinks Linux isn't a creditable threat. For that, yes, I made an ass of myself. I got what I deserved. One troll for another, eh?
As far as the main thrust of your post, you seem to be pushing to the point that Linux isn't a credible business threat/consideration. If you're refering to the desktop, fine, but that doesn't fit with the entire first half of your post -- you mention nothing of the desktop, but talk about Linux in general on the issue of being a threat.
Your whole point, if in fact regarding Linux in general and not the desktop, can be negated by looking at Microsoft. They are a profitable corporation and have stated over and over again that Linux is a threat.
Maybe I should add that MS is known for offering better deals to countries that look at Linux (See: UK, Peru). That fits with the China thing as well.
If it was in reference to the desktop aspect alone, perhaps you should have structured your argument more clearly, as you suggested that I should do.
I don't think Bush is in Bill's pocket simply because:
Texans hate MS. *snicker* (Yes, I'm from TX).
I mean, why else would Wal-Mart (Read: Hick Super-Store) think cheap computers with Lindows would sell?
=P
I'll bite.
/. recently added:
You obviously don't know anything about Linux.
From GCN:
"BALLMER: Linux is not dominant in the market, but we get paid to focus in on competitive threats, and it's a really competitive threat."
He goes on about this. There was a recent interview (I think on CNN, I searched quickly and couldn't find it) where he says the same thing -- Linux is a high priority concern for MS.
A poster on
"I work for an SI company. A large one. With a huge degree of MS-related
work. The MS reps tell *us* that they can commit MS resources (i.e.
spend MS money) to help us win projects IF Linux or Apache are involved.
We're talking about people's time at many thousands of dollars per day.
However much we need. They won't do it for almost any other project...
So I'd say yes, they see it as a threat."
Linux is not a joke on the desktop. You obviously haven't tried it recently. Red Hat Linux 7.x is just as easy to install as Windows, and comes with almost all you need. A quick, guided installation of Ximian GNOME and you're set, IMO. I find it's easier to use than Windows. And don't give me anything about a learning curve -- Windows has a learning curve as well.
" Face it, Linux is such a joke on the desktop that it is hardly important enough to consider when making major business decisions in a profitable corporation."
Well, let's see:
Disney isn't profitable?
Hollywood graphics rendering companies aren't profitable?
Merril Lynch isn't profitable?
HP?
DELL?
IBM?
Why are 27% of servers shipped today shipped with Linux?
Here's a website you might find interesting with a loooong list of companies invested in Linux.
Everyone makes mistakes, but you're just blatantly arrogant and ignorant. Please do some research before posting extremely retarded comments.
Well, nobody made Microsoft sell the XBox for a loss.
I don't think an assumption on MS's part that we'd all buy XBox games like good consumers gives them the right to try and stop us from playing with the hardware we bought at the price they set.
Just a thought.
I hear the weather in Peru is quite nice this time of year.
Want to fly down there with me for an extended vacation? I hear you can get cheap companion tickets.
::sigh::
Aye, but can MS win if they, the TCPA people and the gov't all jump on board, that is the question in my mind.
I think the reason we're worried is regarding the TCPA, or at least I am.
This hardware can force authorization compliance for software binaries, effectively killing the GPL.
And Microsoft seems to be looking to capitalize on this.
If this hardware is implanted within the CPU, and this becomes required by law, what can the OSS community do about it besides reverse the process? I see it as possible to box us in.
You make a great point -- you're right, we should watch what we do and say.
B this is just the initial stage of "freaking out." I, for one, never thought that anything short of an *obviously* oppresive gov't law could stop open source or the GPL.
But now that is changing. I'm worried. Here's why:
If the TCPA's ideas becomes law, and old applications are made incompatible, or more likely, obsoleted by new ones, people will be required to upgrade to new hardware/software to get much of anything done, as I see it. Upgrading is a source of revenue for corporations (e.g. MS), I think it's safe to say they would try for this if they could.
If this becomes standard and exclusive, there isn't a whole lot the OS community can do, especially if it is illegal, IMO.
The only thing to stop this is a huge outcry from the tech community and/or the education of government officials. Past that, the Joe Publics will have to become angry. And considering the Joe Publics I know, that isn't likely unless the idea of their computer being run remotely is spread around.
I think Joe Public can handle not stealing music. He might be used to it, but after all, by common definition, he is stealing it.
I think Joe Public won't mind the "extra security" if he thinks it's there. People aren't retarded, but often ignorant.
That is why I worry.
There is no way this could last forever. That would be retarded -- even congress has to learn about technology sometime. But what I can forsee in a possible future is a world where the companies have put their other foot in the door of our computers (and wallets). And it'll take a fight to get them out if they get that far.
To be honest, I'm scared. Fear, uncertainty and doubt are being spread because we (or at least some of us) believe in it. FUD from companies is typically BS with no thought behind it. This FUD is genuine fear, IMO.
There is a difference between a rule that requires kids to say the allegiance, and going out to recess.
I'm not advocating that we try and "protect our little babies," but some things are just rediculous. Forcing someone to say something they don't believe in is unamerican in my book.
I suppose what I should have added (doh!) is that this confused me for about 45 mins while I started at a working open() statement that returned a filehandle that wouldn't spit back data. =P
Somehow I got the idea to check for other documentation on it. =P
About two weeks ago, Perldoc had the description of the open() function backwards when refering to pipes. It was backwards from the following:
From Perldoc, opentut:
If the leading character is a pipe symbol, open starts up a new command and open a write-only filehandle leading into that command.
If the trailing character is a pipe, you start up a new command and open a read-only filehandle leading out of that command.
Note that they fixed it. =)
Posting meaningless drivel complaining about MS bashing doesn't make you any better.
Note, I'm not complaining (I don't care =P), I'm raising an issue that Scott here might kindly take a look at amidst his critisizm of others.
I was going to say...
I'm having problems finding an analogy, but wouldn't it be at least half way concieveable to hold Microsoft responsible for negligance regarding security holes?
...and I mean this honestly, don't -1 troll me because you automatically assume any comment about MS is retarded.
Thanks for sharing your genius with us, ScottKin.
::sigh::
You don't have to be dumb to be an arsehole. Soften up the tone, please?
Putting decoy files denies service to those who are attempting to download real files (even non-copyrighted ones). That, by definition, is a DoS attack.
By common meaning, it probably isn't a DoS, but I'm not an expert on the issue.
However, it does fit the UK bill's "impairment of a function," the function being to download a legit file.
Hey... see a picture developing?
Microsoft leaves holes in Outlook and IIS...
which lead to virii slowing down the UK network...
*drool* Oh the possibilities!
Wheee
About time for some *sane* international standards.
I doubt this happens since the bill proposed here in the US is a bunch of BS and even congress can realize that (it's letting the law into the hands of the corpers). They're not that dense.
On the other hand, I hope something like this comes to a head soon so gov't will have to agree with each other and someone can make sane international standards.
I'm doing my part by refusing to install pirated copies of MS software when I build computers for people.
Cheers!
how Linux is "too hard"...
I haven't gone past RH 7.1, but a RH 7.1 w/Ximian Gnome system I'd say is in fact easier to use than Windows. Especially for updating and installing programs (Red Carpet). Install, IMO, is very easy as well - even custom isn't difficult. And remember, the slight learning curve with this system matches that of any new windows user, at least IMO.
You mean SMB, which is now called CIFS.
Forgive me, I knew I shouldn't have been smoking crack at the time... =P
My brain said SMB but my fingers typed NFS. CIFS was what I couldn't remember, thanks. =)
And regarding what system you use at work: I bring my laptop (w/Linux) to work for my personal use. I have had an office supplied PC in the past, but we're able to install Linux there if we choose. Why not, you're the only one using the computer, right? =)
Disclaimer: these are all my *opinions*.
I don't see this happening. People, although quite dumb in groups, will look at the system and see a large hunk of all transactions in the tech world going through one company. The media will pounce on any flaw they find, and people will feel insecure about their credit card and personal info going through MS.
Everyone (general) knows about crackers. Most folks know MS has gotten bad press. If all of this takes place, and they put two and two together, I think the Joe Publics can figure it out.
Besides -- ever seen The Net?
There are a few parallels here that really scare me.
Maybe this can help:
-More than 90% of folks use Windows for the desktop
-Microsoft is slowly making Windows difficult to interact with open source (See: Samba incompatibility, NFS (forgot new name) patent issues, GPL restrictions [e.g. VS6 license won't let you publish as public source]) right now.
-Longhorn code rewrites and Palladium software "authorization" could possibly extend these incompatibilities, making it harder for other OSs to interact with Windows and even making it harder for OSS to run on Windows, respectively.
Imagine everyone but a small open source community using Windows. Now imagine near-zero compatibility due to MS changes and legal issues (patents). If your boss sends you a Word Doc that you can't open, what can you do?
Use Windows.
Everyone is feeling this crunch. Whether it will get worse than it is now is in question, how that might happen is in question, but MS has been known to do anything to keep people out, and we know we're *the* target.
*ponder* Hmmm...
/.?).
And you could bury that statement deep down in the EULA, where they would most likely not notice, and use the gov't against them.
Bwahahaha.
OR you could just say, "If you are affiliated with the RIAA or are registered as coming from an RIAA IP, your hard drive will be erased."
Or perhaps implant spyware in it and sell the emails of RIAA users. Or utilize their computers for distributed projects (mirrors for
I know this is a bit of a stretch, but the possibilities are truly endless. }:D
Good point. =)
/. crowd).
Someone below mentioned implementing user IDs and checksums. I'm betting there are ways to implement that securely, and ways to defeat those implementations. It would probably be a hack war with the RIAA, but I would bet it all that the RIAA couldn't come up with jack in comparison to those out there who hate it. (::points to a portion of the