You are a serious idiot with absolutely no clue about history or this country or any other country.
And being a serious idiot, you'll end up committing a "crime" (by some other idiot's definition - or even your own - or, since you're an idiot, an actual really, really real crime) and then you'll - probably not get the clue intended, because you're an idiot.
I have Federal experience and some county experience (since I was held in a county jail for ten months because the Federal Detention Center was overcrowded.)
Rutger Hauer did a movie like that. He was a prisoner in a prison where there were two neck collars that had to be within the confines of the prison or they would explode - one on one prisoner and one on the other - and no one knew who the other one was. (Yeah, I know, dumb plot - it's a Rutger Hauer movie, guys.)
So he figured out who the other one was somehow (I forget how) and he and this female prisoner (did I mention the prison was co-ed - and allowed "cohabitation" as we say?) escaped.
Of course, they hated each other and needed to find a way to catch up to his ex-partners who could get them unhooked.
When I saw this stupid plot, I immediately said, "Obvious solution - cut off the female's head, take her collar with you. Who cares if she's good-looking?"
Just like Linus vrs Tridge, except in this case Linus hasn't said ANYTHING in this exchange that indicates he won't accept such a patch.
Percival is just blowing smoke up everyone's ass. His only point is that the NSA is concerned about a covert channel - fair enough. Linus is doubting it's a practical method of doing this, and he also doubts that for ordinary users (other than the NSA) it's possible at all to use it for a covert channel.
Even if proven otherwise, it says NOTHING about whether a patch would be accepted by Linus.
This is total bullshit UNTIL Linus refuses such a patch AND his reasons for doing so AT THE TIME HE DOES IT are proven wrong.
And even then, as others have said, any distro can add that patch for people who care such as the NSA.
Then in his responses to comments, he says ethics wasn't mentioned because non-writers don't understand it.
He didn't bother to note (or was too uninformed to check) that LinuxWorld's Turner pointed a journalistic ethics committee to MoG's article and the response clearly stated that it was beyond the pale for journalists.
Dvorak is just trying to get his own little PR from this incident, since he's becoming increasingly irrelevant in the industry.
So you want the ALT+TAB combo to do one thing (switch between WINDOWS) - and then do ANOTHER thing when it hits tabs (switch between TABS).
And you call this not altering user cues.
Sorry - all a matter of perspective and convention.
Has absolutely nothing to do with "intuitive" or even correct design. NONE of this stuff is. It's ALL some programmer's convention born years ago after a night of Jolt Cola...
The Networker Lesson number one: get rid of Microsoft
John Naughton Sunday May 15, 2005 The Observer
Drive past any secondary school in the UK and you'll see an institution that is struggling. No: this is not a column about academic standards, dumbing down, bureaucracy, Ofsted or any of the other obsessions of the Daily Mail.
In fact, many of these struggling schools are academically excellent. What they are having difficulty with is something much more mundane than teaching or learning. They are trying - and failing - to manage their IT systems.
How come? Most British schools are hooked on networks that consist of hundreds of PCs running various flavours of the Windows operating system and Microsoft Office software. Now it is perfectly possible to run an effective Windows-based network, just as it is possible to dig your garden using a teaspoon - provided you employ a hundred gardeners to do the work.
The problem is that keeping such a network up and running requires a great deal of technical support - the equivalent of three full-time trained technicians for an average secondary school. And upgrading the system to keep track of changes in Microsoft's operating systems is expensive. Basically it boils down to throwing out a third of your computers every three years and buying new machines that can run the latest version of Windows.
Nathan Myrhvold, Bill Gates's former technology guru, used to joke that 'software is like a gas - it expands to fill the space available'. The programmer Martin Reiser put it better: 'software gets slower more quickly than hardware gets faster'. (In other words: 'Intel giveth, and Microsoft taketh away.')
Although the corporate world complains about this virtual arms race, it generally pays up because it can afford to. But schools cannot - which is why when you talk to ICT co-ordinators in education you regularly hear phrases like 'running to keep still' and 'struggling to stay on top of it'.
You hear stories about how difficult it is to recruit and retain IT support staff on the salaries schools can afford, about staff spending much of their time rebuilding crashed or vandalised PCs, about teachers who are contemptuous of the level of IT support, about up to a quarter of PCs being unavailable at any given moment, and about dissatisfaction with the Microsoft-supplier compa nies, which enjoy a semi-monopolistic hold on the education market.
And you hear head teachers wondering what will happen when Longhorn - the much-delayed new version of Windows - arrives and renders most of their existing computers obsolete. The state of ICT in UK schools is a public scandal.
In part, this is due to the fact that head teachers are expected to be chief information officers without being given any training or support. As a result they are easy meat for commercial companies touting Microsoft 'solutions' to their ICT problems. They fall for upfront discounts and wind up with systems they can't afford to support or upgrade. Only later do they realise that between 50 and 60 per cent of their annual IT budgets will have to go to keeping their discounted networks running.
This last statistic comes from Becta (British Educational Communications and Technology Agency), which describes itself as 'the government's key partner in the strategic development and delivery of its information and communications technology and e-learning strategy' for schools. Until comparatively recently, Becta seemed to function mainly as a cheerleader for the proprietary status quo, effectively functioning as an agency for negotiating discounts from suppliers. But now, after a major shake-up and the installation of David Hargreaves as its chairman, Becta is finally waking up.
There are plenty of case studies where Linux migration was done with almost NO training, and the end users picked up OpenOffice and the distro with not much trouble. And I don't call a month or so of lessened productivity "much trouble" against the benefits.
I don't recommend migrating without training but it has to be done intelligently.
And the bottom line is STILL - whatever you're paying now, you'll pay FOREVER if you don't STOP!
If he is a "small private university", it's likely he's talking about a 100 to 1,000 students, and a faculty and staff of less than a couple hundred.
This is not a huge migration effort if planned properly.
If you go the usual educational organization route and hire expensive consultants, yes, it will be expensive to hire Linux migration people and Linux support contracts. You don't HAVE to do it that way, however.
There is likely plenty of professional and semi-professional Linux help in his area if he looks for it (I assume he's not in the wilds of Montana with nothing but trees around.) A lot of it can probably be drawn on for little money as long as you don't work people.
Training also does not have to be nearly as expensive as people make it. Just sitting people down for a few hours a week with someone knowledgeable about Linux would be enough in many cases. In fact, "partnering" Windows and Linux people together works well as most people learn from the guy in the next cubicle far more than they do from any "official corporate training".
Ongoing support for an organizational deployment of Linux will be minimal once the initial shakedown period is over. A lot of consultantcies will run remote system overview/management contracts for a few hundred a month.
Mission-critical Windows applications are not a show-stopper either unless they have to literally run on everybody's machine. A server with Terminal Services usually takes care of that.
There are solutions to these issues, but you have to have both imagination and some knowledge of what's out there to discern them.
It's likely his organization pays MUCH more than just the $15,000/year Windows licenses for his IT operation, even if he's a small university. He probably has consultant contracts and other detritus already in the budget. Repurposing some of that stuff probably would cover migration expenses.
The real savings in migration doesn't come from the licenses anyway - it comes from higher uptime, fewer disasters, lower personnel costs, improved productivity and other such hard-to-measure stats that never seem to show up on the Windows-vrs-Linux TCO studies.
I think it was Boing-Boing or somebody who pointed out a case where the guy had a digital camera which was built into one of those steel lighter cases.
He took the camera out and demonstrated to the idiots at the airport that it was in fact a camera.
They let him keep the camera, but he couldn't take the EMPTY lighter case on the plane.
There is no level of stupidity these people will not sink to in the pursuit of "security".
About on a par with forcing penguins to walk through a metal detector...
"Practicing proper gun safety generally means not having a round in the chamber."
Only if you're not entering a dangerous situation - or if you care about accidental discharges.
When I robbed a bank (using a Glock 19), I didn't chamber a round because I didn't want an accidental discharge under the stress of a bank robbery - at the same time, this put me at significant risk, because if I was attacked by an armed individual in the bank, I would have to jack the slide before returning fire - enough to get me killed. If you know you're at risk and there's nobody but enemies around, chamber a round.
But you DO need to practice trigger finger control with a weapon like the Glock which has trigger safeties but no external safety.
"So you have to cock a semiautomatic or automatic weapon. Once."
Not if it's double action - and if you're serious about semiauto handgun combat, you use double-action. (I know, there's a religious war about that, but I think the consensus is double-action is where it's at IF you're trained for the difference in feel between first and subsequent shots - and training is what the real issue in combat handgunning is.)
"And you'd do this well before you entered combat, if you knew it was coming."
See above.
"If you cock your weapon after that, you're ejecting a good round from the chamber - wasting ammunition and making a fool of yourself. If a character walks up to another character and cocks his gun, either the director or the character is a fool."
Not necessarily - depends on the circumstances. If you round a corner and suddenly see an enemy you didn't suspect was there and draw your weapon, and it's not double-action, you'll have to cock it. If you knew he was there, you'd do it earlier.
Besides, most characters in movies aren't particularly trained combat handgunners, anyway. I mean the characters, not the actors - they usually get some decent handgun training. Watch Angelina Jolie in the first "Tomb Raider" background video clips for the training she got - and she got MORE now for "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" - including live-fire team fire-and-movement exercises with Brad Pitt (among other exercises she may have gotten with Brad.):-) Angie could probably kill most cops in a firefight with either semiauto handguns or assault weapons - not a woman to cross!
I always laugh when I see blaxploitation movies with these bozos firing their handguns from a horizontal position (with one hand no less!)
Correct. Glocks have three safeties which means you cannot discharge the firearm by dropping it, but they are all released when you pull the trigger.
This is why Glocks are a favorite of law enforcement whose buffoons tend to drop their weapons (thus injuring their fellow officers) as well as forget to take off external safeties in firefights (thus getting themselves killed.)
However, you DO need to practice trigger finger control with a Glock - keep it OUT of the trigger guard until you need to fire.
SEAL teams - especially Red Cell - do not play, AFAIK. If they said they had C4, they had C4. Now, the IEDs they put on the nuke subs might have been fake, since you can't trust hardware and it would have been irresponsible to actually damage a sub's reactor in an exercise. But that didn't stop them from doing a lot of other stuff that actually damaged military property.
In any event, the real point is the reaction of the Pentagon brass - they bombed Marcinko for being too good at his job and put him in jail.
And the other point is that if you ask for permission - you won't get it. Nobody in a bureacracy is prepared to take the risk that they're wrong. That goes against basic human nature. Which is why Marcinko always went around his command authority to get something done.
A "tiger team" might be able to get permission from one level of bureacracy to pen-test against the tech staff, but if the test exposes flaws in management decision-making, it will be buried.
Look at Abu Ghraib - everybody involved except a few grunts has walked (or worse yet, been given medals and promotions) except the (female) general who gets busted for a phoney shoplifting charge...
"Would you feel so cavalier about this if, instead of say MS files, someone busted into the DoD and got information about Nuclear Weapons. And then if the person said "but i safely destroyed the files" would you still be comfortable about it?"
In fact, this is exactly what Navy SEAL Richard Marcinko's "Red Cell" SEAL Team did to the Navy. His team broke into Navy nuclear weapons lockers, put IEDs next to sub reactors on nuclear subs at Groton, broke into Navy offices and stole classified documents, and got several SEALS with several pounds of C4 within twenty yards of the President's cottage at Camp David.
All with the "permission" of his superiors since his job was to test military security. (I say "permissions" in quotes because he normally operates on the "UNODIR" principle: "UN Otherwise DIRected, I'll do whatever I please.")
In response, they charged him with bogus theft charges, convicted him, sent him to Federal prison (camp) for a year - whereupon he got out and wrote a book about it proving the US military a bunch of morons when it comes to security.
So, yes, sometimes you have to break the law to prove the authorities are incompetent - but you can expect to be punished for it.
Slashdot Mirror
You are a serious idiot with absolutely no clue about history or this country or any other country.
And being a serious idiot, you'll end up committing a "crime" (by some other idiot's definition - or even your own - or, since you're an idiot, an actual really, really real crime) and then you'll - probably not get the clue intended, because you're an idiot.
Have a nice day, moron.
Absolutely true.
And state prisons are not Federal prisons.
I have Federal experience and some county experience (since I was held in a county jail for ten months because the Federal Detention Center was overcrowded.)
Rutger Hauer did a movie like that. He was a prisoner in a prison where there were two neck collars that had to be within the confines of the prison or they would explode - one on one prisoner and one on the other - and no one knew who the other one was. (Yeah, I know, dumb plot - it's a Rutger Hauer movie, guys.)
So he figured out who the other one was somehow (I forget how) and he and this female prisoner (did I mention the prison was co-ed - and allowed "cohabitation" as we say?) escaped.
Of course, they hated each other and needed to find a way to catch up to his ex-partners who could get them unhooked.
When I saw this stupid plot, I immediately said, "Obvious solution - cut off the female's head, take her collar with you. Who cares if she's good-looking?"
Obvious.
Just like Linus vrs Tridge, except in this case Linus hasn't said ANYTHING in this exchange that indicates he won't accept such a patch.
Percival is just blowing smoke up everyone's ass. His only point is that the NSA is concerned about a covert channel - fair enough. Linus is doubting it's a practical method of doing this, and he also doubts that for ordinary users (other than the NSA) it's possible at all to use it for a covert channel.
Even if proven otherwise, it says NOTHING about whether a patch would be accepted by Linus.
This is total bullshit UNTIL Linus refuses such a patch AND his reasons for doing so AT THE TIME HE DOES IT are proven wrong.
And even then, as others have said, any distro can add that patch for people who care such as the NSA.
Then in his responses to comments, he says ethics wasn't mentioned because non-writers don't understand it.
He didn't bother to note (or was too uninformed to check) that LinuxWorld's Turner pointed a journalistic ethics committee to MoG's article and the response clearly stated that it was beyond the pale for journalists.
Dvorak is just trying to get his own little PR from this incident, since he's becoming increasingly irrelevant in the industry.
I think the term is "ambulance chaser"...
You hire me to find spammers and kill them.
I get a bounty for every spammer's computer I bring in that shows he was a spammer.
And I get to keep the computer.
And the mailing lists...
So you want the ALT+TAB combo to do one thing (switch between WINDOWS) - and then do ANOTHER thing when it hits tabs (switch between TABS).
And you call this not altering user cues.
Sorry - all a matter of perspective and convention.
Has absolutely nothing to do with "intuitive" or even correct design. NONE of this stuff is. It's ALL some programmer's convention born years ago after a night of Jolt Cola...
Don't forget the vicious penguin with the fly-swatter that looks evilly at the XP butterfly - or the one with the rocket launcher...
Oooh, scary!
Anybody who's read my stuff here before...
Here:http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story /0,6903,1483969,00.html
.
The Networker
Lesson number one: get rid of Microsoft
John Naughton
Sunday May 15, 2005
The Observer
Drive past any secondary school in the UK and you'll see an institution that is struggling. No: this is not a column about academic standards, dumbing down, bureaucracy, Ofsted or any of the other obsessions of the Daily Mail
In fact, many of these struggling schools are academically excellent. What they are having difficulty with is something much more mundane than teaching or learning. They are trying - and failing - to manage their IT systems.
How come? Most British schools are hooked on networks that consist of hundreds of PCs running various flavours of the Windows operating system and Microsoft Office software. Now it is perfectly possible to run an effective Windows-based network, just as it is possible to dig your garden using a teaspoon - provided you employ a hundred gardeners to do the work.
The problem is that keeping such a network up and running requires a great deal of technical support - the equivalent of three full-time trained technicians for an average secondary school. And upgrading the system to keep track of changes in Microsoft's operating systems is expensive. Basically it boils down to throwing out a third of your computers every three years and buying new machines that can run the latest version of Windows.
Nathan Myrhvold, Bill Gates's former technology guru, used to joke that 'software is like a gas - it expands to fill the space available'. The programmer Martin Reiser put it better: 'software gets slower more quickly than hardware gets faster'. (In other words: 'Intel giveth, and Microsoft taketh away.')
Although the corporate world complains about this virtual arms race, it generally pays up because it can afford to. But schools cannot - which is why when you talk to ICT co-ordinators in education you regularly hear phrases like 'running to keep still' and 'struggling to stay on top of it'.
You hear stories about how difficult it is to recruit and retain IT support staff on the salaries schools can afford, about staff spending much of their time rebuilding crashed or vandalised PCs, about teachers who are contemptuous of the level of IT support, about up to a quarter of PCs being unavailable at any given moment, and about dissatisfaction with the Microsoft-supplier compa nies, which enjoy a semi-monopolistic hold on the education market.
And you hear head teachers wondering what will happen when Longhorn - the much-delayed new version of Windows - arrives and renders most of their existing computers obsolete. The state of ICT in UK schools is a public scandal.
In part, this is due to the fact that head teachers are expected to be chief information officers without being given any training or support. As a result they are easy meat for commercial companies touting Microsoft 'solutions' to their ICT problems. They fall for upfront discounts and wind up with systems they can't afford to support or upgrade. Only later do they realise that between 50 and 60 per cent of their annual IT budgets will have to go to keeping their discounted networks running.
This last statistic comes from Becta (British Educational Communications and Technology Agency), which describes itself as 'the government's key partner in the strategic development and delivery of its information and communications technology and e-learning strategy' for schools. Until comparatively recently, Becta seemed to function mainly as a cheerleader for the proprietary status quo, effectively functioning as an agency for negotiating discounts from suppliers. But now, after a major shake-up and the installation of David Hargreaves as its chairman, Becta is finally waking up.
On Friday, for example, it released the fi
Exactly - training is always done incompetently.
There are plenty of case studies where Linux migration was done with almost NO training, and the end users picked up OpenOffice and the distro with not much trouble. And I don't call a month or so of lessened productivity "much trouble" against the benefits.
I don't recommend migrating without training but it has to be done intelligently.
And the bottom line is STILL - whatever you're paying now, you'll pay FOREVER if you don't STOP!
It's not likely any of this is true.
If he is a "small private university", it's likely he's talking about a 100 to 1,000 students, and a faculty and staff of less than a couple hundred.
This is not a huge migration effort if planned properly.
If you go the usual educational organization route and hire expensive consultants, yes, it will be expensive to hire Linux migration people and Linux support contracts. You don't HAVE to do it that way, however.
There is likely plenty of professional and semi-professional Linux help in his area if he looks for it (I assume he's not in the wilds of Montana with nothing but trees around.) A lot of it can probably be drawn on for little money as long as you don't work people.
Training also does not have to be nearly as expensive as people make it. Just sitting people down for a few hours a week with someone knowledgeable about Linux would be enough in many cases. In fact, "partnering" Windows and Linux people together works well as most people learn from the guy in the next cubicle far more than they do from any "official corporate training".
Ongoing support for an organizational deployment of Linux will be minimal once the initial shakedown period is over. A lot of consultantcies will run remote system overview/management contracts for a few hundred a month.
Mission-critical Windows applications are not a show-stopper either unless they have to literally run on everybody's machine. A server with Terminal Services usually takes care of that.
There are solutions to these issues, but you have to have both imagination and some knowledge of what's out there to discern them.
It's likely his organization pays MUCH more than just the $15,000/year Windows licenses for his IT operation, even if he's a small university. He probably has consultant contracts and other detritus already in the budget. Repurposing some of that stuff probably would cover migration expenses.
The real savings in migration doesn't come from the licenses anyway - it comes from higher uptime, fewer disasters, lower personnel costs, improved productivity and other such hard-to-measure stats that never seem to show up on the Windows-vrs-Linux TCO studies.
Rip and burn is not a good idea for organizations with more than 5 or 10 computers...
And having systems down for a week means you had absolutely no plan (and probably no clue).
I mean, EDS screwed up 80,000 machines in the UK a few months ago and AFAIK they got back in operation in a week or so.
The trained chimp will act as the ITS Director, correct?
And the nice part about Windows Update is the thing will say an install failed, but NEVER WHY. Real helpful...
Computer - Install mod spellchecker.
"Yes, Captain - mod installed"
Computer - Run spellcheck on parent post.
"Running spellcheck..."
"One error found - 'sheilds' should be spelled 'shields'"
Computer, disable parent access to the Net.
"Running...Parent disabled."
Not to intrude on your love fest, but that exact message was given to me at one point.
Don't forget the penguins...
I think it was Boing-Boing or somebody who pointed out a case where the guy had a digital camera which was built into one of those steel lighter cases.
He took the camera out and demonstrated to the idiots at the airport that it was in fact a camera.
They let him keep the camera, but he couldn't take the EMPTY lighter case on the plane.
There is no level of stupidity these people will not sink to in the pursuit of "security".
About on a par with forcing penguins to walk through a metal detector...
"Practicing proper gun safety generally means not having a round in the chamber."
:-) Angie could probably kill most cops in a firefight with either semiauto handguns or assault weapons - not a woman to cross!
Only if you're not entering a dangerous situation - or if you care about accidental discharges.
When I robbed a bank (using a Glock 19), I didn't chamber a round because I didn't want an accidental discharge under the stress of a bank robbery - at the same time, this put me at significant risk, because if I was attacked by an armed individual in the bank, I would have to jack the slide before returning fire - enough to get me killed. If you know you're at risk and there's nobody but enemies around, chamber a round.
But you DO need to practice trigger finger control with a weapon like the Glock which has trigger safeties but no external safety.
"So you have to cock a semiautomatic or automatic weapon. Once."
Not if it's double action - and if you're serious about semiauto handgun combat, you use double-action. (I know, there's a religious war about that, but I think the consensus is double-action is where it's at IF you're trained for the difference in feel between first and subsequent shots - and training is what the real issue in combat handgunning is.)
"And you'd do this well before you entered combat, if you knew it was coming."
See above.
"If you cock your weapon after that, you're ejecting a good round from the chamber - wasting ammunition and making a fool of yourself. If a character walks up to another character and cocks his gun, either the director or the character is a fool."
Not necessarily - depends on the circumstances. If you round a corner and suddenly see an enemy you didn't suspect was there and draw your weapon, and it's not double-action, you'll have to cock it. If you knew he was there, you'd do it earlier.
Besides, most characters in movies aren't particularly trained combat handgunners, anyway. I mean the characters, not the actors - they usually get some decent handgun training. Watch Angelina Jolie in the first "Tomb Raider" background video clips for the training she got - and she got MORE now for "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" - including live-fire team fire-and-movement exercises with Brad Pitt (among other exercises she may have gotten with Brad.)
I always laugh when I see blaxploitation movies with these bozos firing their handguns from a horizontal position (with one hand no less!)
Braindead. Guaranteed misses.
Correct. Glocks have three safeties which means you cannot discharge the firearm by dropping it, but they are all released when you pull the trigger.
This is why Glocks are a favorite of law enforcement whose buffoons tend to drop their weapons (thus injuring their fellow officers) as well as forget to take off external safeties in firefights (thus getting themselves killed.)
However, you DO need to practice trigger finger control with a Glock - keep it OUT of the trigger guard until you need to fire.
And OpenOffice is what?
SEAL teams - especially Red Cell - do not play, AFAIK. If they said they had C4, they had C4. Now, the IEDs they put on the nuke subs might have been fake, since you can't trust hardware and it would have been irresponsible to actually damage a sub's reactor in an exercise. But that didn't stop them from doing a lot of other stuff that actually damaged military property.
In any event, the real point is the reaction of the Pentagon brass - they bombed Marcinko for being too good at his job and put him in jail.
And the other point is that if you ask for permission - you won't get it. Nobody in a bureacracy is prepared to take the risk that they're wrong. That goes against basic human nature. Which is why Marcinko always went around his command authority to get something done.
A "tiger team" might be able to get permission from one level of bureacracy to pen-test against the tech staff, but if the test exposes flaws in management decision-making, it will be buried.
Look at Abu Ghraib - everybody involved except a few grunts has walked (or worse yet, been given medals and promotions) except the (female) general who gets busted for a phoney shoplifting charge...
"Would you feel so cavalier about this if, instead of say MS files, someone busted into the DoD and got information about Nuclear Weapons. And then if the person said "but i safely destroyed the files" would you still be comfortable about it?"
In fact, this is exactly what Navy SEAL Richard Marcinko's "Red Cell" SEAL Team did to the Navy. His team broke into Navy nuclear weapons lockers, put IEDs next to sub reactors on nuclear subs at Groton, broke into Navy offices and stole classified documents, and got several SEALS with several pounds of C4 within twenty yards of the President's cottage at Camp David.
All with the "permission" of his superiors since his job was to test military security. (I say "permissions" in quotes because he normally operates on the "UNODIR" principle: "UN Otherwise DIRected, I'll do whatever I please.")
In response, they charged him with bogus theft charges, convicted him, sent him to Federal prison (camp) for a year - whereupon he got out and wrote a book about it proving the US military a bunch of morons when it comes to security.
So, yes, sometimes you have to break the law to prove the authorities are incompetent - but you can expect to be punished for it.
Civil disobedience at its best.
They need to spend time on their products, not this nonsense.
Time to boycott Macrovision.