Setting aside areas where Microsoft hasn't caught up with Google technologically, what has Google done that Microsoft has refused to do on a moral ground?
If you read the report that says that 85% of those surveyed think the government should control the internet, it says, "This survey was funded by the New York-based Markle Foundation and directed by an
internationally respected research team at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. As required
of all public-opinion polling in China, either the survey or the surveyors must be approved by the government, and some topics that Westerners might have liked to see addressed directly, such
as censorship, were not."
How is any public survey useful if the respondents to the survey had to be filtered by the government?!?
They are magnetic, so they lose 1s and 0s over time. But, I did see Microcenter selling "Gold DVDs" that are guaranteed to last for 100 years. I can't find it online, but IIRC, they were selling one DVDR for around $25 in the store on the rack.
Those connections come together to a few very high bandwidth networks referred to as the "backbone of the Internet". The government already has direct access to the backbone, so one can argue that it is highly inefficient to use the capillaries to get to it, or at least has no benefit in terms of bandwidth.
If there is any benefit it is derived from distributing the payload (horsepower) and points of entry (reliability and immunity to target firewalls); but, as some pointed out, given the government's resources, unlike a hacker in a house, does the government really need this? The bottleneck is primarily bandwidth.
To be sure, the primary benefit I see is the distribution of source IPs. Government owned IPs can be quickly identified as a set of subnets, but a botnet can't be so easily filtered by IP addresses.
Of course, the real question here is the morality of the government invading our computers to use them as weapons. There are serious constitutional issues here. And with all constitutional issues, even if the current issue makes sense, do we want to set a precedent that can bite us later?
It is very hard to do a man-in-the-middle attack if the client user is using an issued certificate with a private key that only they have access to. On the other hand, it is very easy to do if the client is using an anonymous generated client certificate and you've hijacked the DNS for that client. What percent of clients do you think use a certificate that they've personally signed and retained a private key for that was partially created from a long password they chose?
Smart cards are ideal because the private key never leaves the card, preventing theft of it from a virus or other software. This is why the DoD chose to issue them to employees and contractors, while also requiring them for identification and encryption.
I could be mistaken, but couldn't the need for the user to submit the form (request) be sidestepped with AJAX/Web 2.0 scripting, sending the password as soon as the field is populated? Or does the obfuscation of the password field in the browser prevent this?
And the #1 cause of the dreaded "Error 500: Internal Server Error" is... (drum roll).../.
Your post was very useful considering that the integrity of the server posting the article has been compromised.
Excellent and informative post. Thank you.
Can you explain what SPE is, please? Also, can you describe the installation and integration of Linux? I'm curious how someone can brew a home version, on a much smaller scale, of course, perhaps 16 CPUs, but using a similar architecture.
I'm lost on this one. Virtually most Windows users I know use Thunderbird (Mozilla), which works equally well on Linux. Sure, I use Evolution on Linux, but use Thunderbird happily on Windows, and honestly can't decide which one is better. I've often questioned why I don't just use Thunderbird on both OS's. I use SSL IMAP on both, with great filtering, spam control, and equally well multiple-account handling.
I will say this though: the best news reader by far is PAN!
DRM is just a more complex form of copy protection. What upset me is when I bought a new VCR/DVD recorder combo, I wanted to dub my old VCR tapes to DVD so I could throw the oversized plastic magnetic tape boxes away freeing up lots of space. These were VCR tapes I bought and owned.
To my surprise, even a DVD recorder can't copy Hollywood produced tapes. This goes back to the 80s with a technique created by Macrovision.
Ironically, I can record anything on TV today (pre-broadcast flag of course.) Yet, I can't do a backup of a cheap old VCR tape, clearly a fair use right.
Since I and you are primarily interested in purely legal fair uses for copying, it's clear that Hollywood has never and will never respect you or I or our fair use rights. DRM has only one end, and that's the removal of our fair use rights to the farthest extent they can over the course of time. Even if they temporarily roll back their restrictions due to consumer backlash or competition, it's only until they can gradually creep them back.
Accepting DRM is allowing Hollywood to decide what's fair use. To them, it's only fair if they can get more money from you. That's my humble opinion.
I have boycotted the RIAA and its labels for years; then I added Windows Media, iPod and Tivo (due to compromise on commercial skipping.) I'll continue to boycott large companies that choose dollars over people, and continue to encourage anything that threatens the power of companies that undermine people's rights.
The problem is that the.NET "standard" is still going to be maintained by Microsoft. I know that C# has been given to the ECMA; but that's only part of.NET. The APIs are still going to be dictated from Redmond, so any implementation of it, including open source, is supporting Microsoft as a standards setter.
This is how they created a near monopoly in both the desktop operating system and office software markets. Do you want this to continue to development platforms, or do you want open standards based development that isn't controlled by a single company?
I agree 100% with what your saying. If you go back to when the UN was created, it made perfect sense. But honestly, it was created for diplomacy between the superpowers... thus the vetoes. Permitting the other countries to join was just to give it more credibility, permit the rest of the world top feel included, and acknowledge that conflicts between superpowers can originate from non-superpower countries.
I consider the UN essential so long as WW III is possible. But that doesn't meant that WW III would automatically commence if we pulled out for a time to strategically realign it with its original mission; so I don't believe threats to pull out is necessarily contrary to the core purpose and livelihood of the baby.
As for your reply to this quote:
But don't try to use the UN or other International bodies or threats of not trading with us to force us to comply;
where you define sanctions, yeah, I know what they are, LOL. Read the post I was replying to. Then read the stuff about free trade. Then read the line you quoted. The poster was basically saying "if you don't learn to let the majority rule in International bodies, you are going to make enemies that will quit trading with you."
In context, I was saying that threats to not trade with us because we don't accept treaties just because the majority of countries like them doesn't mean much to us, because a lot of Americans view less trading as a good thing, and certainly don't value trade enough to give in to the majority rule on things we disagree with. Despite any possible negative economic consequences, the odds are pretty high that reduced trade would reduce our trade deficit, and some industries would get a boon, offsetting some of the negative effect. I doubt the labor unions would complain, and these days, I doubt many white collar people in IT would complain.
I was simply trying to dispel the myth that our politicians propagate to other countries that Americans hold trade as sacred, and would bend over backwards to ensure that other countries never decrease trade with us (whether through increased tariffs, quotas or sanctions.) Our politicians may hold it sacred, global corporations may hold it sacred, and our economists may hold it sacred, but Americans? Most Americans don't like letting countries like China trade unfairly with us, but certainly don't fret when Europe threatens sanctions. If China or India threatened sanctions, Americans would probably celebrate and egg on a trade war.
I think it would have been easier to understand if the poster of Article VI included the entire text of Clause 2:
Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
This appears to put the treaties not only UNDER the constitution, but also under the laws of the states. I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but that's how I read it.
The bad news is it appears to be true for HDTV output, but that could, and hopefully will change.
Even this the site for this video card says it doesn't support HDTV through cable or satellite on the FAQ. Terrestial signals don't appeal to me because I haven't watched more than 10 hours of "regular" TV a year in years. What's the point of paying $90/month for digital cable if you still have to watch commercials?
If the MPAA companies get their way, and put the decryption in the TVs, we may one day not be able to use a video capture card to receive HDTV signals via cable or satellite, even if it becomes available in the near-term. Combine this with the FCC's vision to phase out analog in favor of HD, and video capture cards may only become useful for home made videos.
But, this is years away. We can still enjoy RCA and coaxial, and HDTV when and if it becomes completely accessible via cable and satellite to video cards, for at least a couple of years. Thanks for the info. I'll definately try MythTV soon.
I love the picture on the front! THAT makes you appreciate the penguin logo.
On the down side, I was hoping it was the first video capture card for digital cable. Unforunately, there's still no hint we'll ever see one.
It doesn't support satellite broadcasts either, the website says. I think this proprietary communication is really starting to hit us. Are you ready to tell your grandchildren about the days when we could capture video in our computers, and didn't have to pay by the minute to use PVR?
I thought Myth TV looked awesome. However, I discovered that it can't support digital cable. But, it's not the project's fault, or even a Linux issue. I read that there are currently no PC video capture cards on the consumer market that can support digital TV.
Is this true? Can we ever expect a card to come out? Are cable and other companies using proprietary protocals? Encryption? Does this fall under the DMCA?
I just can't see using a PVR that doesn't support digital cable, as most of the channels I watch or would want to record are only available on digital. This includes most of the movie channels.
Exactly! I've been doing that with grep since Borland packaged it with their C compiler, which was before Windows 3.1 came out. I haven't read the patent, but since patents apply to the concept, not the copyrighted code itself, I'd say there's a good chance that this is prior art.
Piss them off too much and eventually they'll stop trading with you.
You really don't know us that well, do ya? The American people are not really that gung ho on free trade. Corporations and politicians are, but they are hardly representative of the people today. The only reason the US promotes free trade despite the fact that American's don't love it is because we have a two party system, and now both parties push free trade.
Clinton, from the party that claimed to represent the primary opponents of free trade, labor unions and environmentalists, was probably the biggest promoter of free trade in the history of American presidents, and actually got Congress to permit line item veto so he could ratify trade agreements quickly with less opposition from the people. IIRC, our Supreme Court ruled that line item veto was unconstitutional, proving that all laws are "also subject to the constitution".
The more you try to push your International government ideals down our throats, the more the American people will lobby Congress to oppose the UN and happily quit trading with countries that want to force their "peace and love through poverty" ideals on us. Why do you think we withheld payments for awhile from the UN and became less active not too many years ago? It's because the people got tired of the crap the other nations were doing, trying to use the UN to undermine our values.
Our view is that if you want to ascribe to these or those values, by all means do. But don't try to use the UN or other International bodies or threats of not trading with us to force us to comply; and quit whining when we don't sign one of your treaties. You want an International court, by all means create one. But quit whining because we don't want one.
As for WIPO, I'd like to see us pull out of it. Its interests, as demonstrated by their "progress" and deliberations so far, are not the best for people (including you).
However, it's not our job to force you to do what is right for you. You need to lobby your own government when an International body is creating laws that stifle freedom and innovation, and serve only to transfer wealth away from us common people. If you can't see the potential impact WIPO is going to have on wealth transfer, then we can only try to help you see. In the meantime, don't be surprised if the crazy Americans in their "self interest" try to lobby our representatives to pull out of WIPO.
Plus, treaties have to be ratified to go into effect. This means that each country has to pass laws putting the tenants of the treaty into effect in that country. If the US congress fails to pass a law, or the president vetoes it, then it isn't ratified, and the US is not part of the treaty.
Of course, I don't know when in recent history they started to consider treaties such as the International Court in effect just because a portion of the signers ratified it. I'm fairly certain that's pretty new to history because it wasn't long ago that most treaties were bilateral, or only included a handful of signers. Nevertheless, the US has avoided most of those recent treaties, including the International Court, so I don't think we have had to confront a treaty we signed being presumed to be in effect and including us even though we didn't ratify it, yet.
Still, the treaty is not International law. It is merely an agreement by the countries that ratify it. Countries break treaties. That's may not be good diplomacy, but in thousands of years of history, it was never considered an International law violation. Usually, in bilateral treaties, it simply meant that the treaty was no longer in effect for either country. In other words, a treaty is like a cease fire, and breaking it usually just meant that the cease fire was over or no longer necessary. The US broke a treaty with the former Soviet Union because times changed, and Russia is no longer our primary concern for missile defense.
Give it time. Soon we'll have peace and unity as we all beg together for freedom and the ability to pay to live.
Everyone thinks we're consumers. But, the plan is for us all to be producers. If they can get us to consume things that aren't worth squat (like broadcasts of the public domain), but prevent us from buying things of real value (like land, mansions, luxury cars, and jets), then we'll still have the illusion of being consumers, while we continue to produce for "the man".
Slashdot Mirror
Since in America you are innocent until proven guilty, and they were not proven guilty...
*presumed* innocent until proven guilty. presumptions != truth.
GigsVT, can you post a picture of what you are talking about, please?
Setting aside areas where Microsoft hasn't caught up with Google technologically, what has Google done that Microsoft has refused to do on a moral ground?
If you read the report that says that 85% of those surveyed think the government should control the internet, it says, "This survey was funded by the New York-based Markle Foundation and directed by an internationally respected research team at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. As required of all public-opinion polling in China, either the survey or the surveyors must be approved by the government, and some topics that Westerners might have liked to see addressed directly, such as censorship, were not." How is any public survey useful if the respondents to the survey had to be filtered by the government?!?
They are magnetic, so they lose 1s and 0s over time. But, I did see Microcenter selling "Gold DVDs" that are guaranteed to last for 100 years. I can't find it online, but IIRC, they were selling one DVDR for around $25 in the store on the rack.
"this is a device that connects you to a buddy who wants to keep you safe and help you graduate"... like a big brother?
Those connections come together to a few very high bandwidth networks referred to as the "backbone of the Internet". The government already has direct access to the backbone, so one can argue that it is highly inefficient to use the capillaries to get to it, or at least has no benefit in terms of bandwidth. If there is any benefit it is derived from distributing the payload (horsepower) and points of entry (reliability and immunity to target firewalls); but, as some pointed out, given the government's resources, unlike a hacker in a house, does the government really need this? The bottleneck is primarily bandwidth. To be sure, the primary benefit I see is the distribution of source IPs. Government owned IPs can be quickly identified as a set of subnets, but a botnet can't be so easily filtered by IP addresses. Of course, the real question here is the morality of the government invading our computers to use them as weapons. There are serious constitutional issues here. And with all constitutional issues, even if the current issue makes sense, do we want to set a precedent that can bite us later?
It is very hard to do a man-in-the-middle attack if the client user is using an issued certificate with a private key that only they have access to. On the other hand, it is very easy to do if the client is using an anonymous generated client certificate and you've hijacked the DNS for that client. What percent of clients do you think use a certificate that they've personally signed and retained a private key for that was partially created from a long password they chose?
Smart cards are ideal because the private key never leaves the card, preventing theft of it from a virus or other software. This is why the DoD chose to issue them to employees and contractors, while also requiring them for identification and encryption.
I could be mistaken, but couldn't the need for the user to submit the form (request) be sidestepped with AJAX/Web 2.0 scripting, sending the password as soon as the field is populated? Or does the obfuscation of the password field in the browser prevent this?
And the #1 cause of the dreaded "Error 500: Internal Server Error" is ... (drum roll) ... /.
Your post was very useful considering that the integrity of the server posting the article has been compromised.
Excellent and informative post. Thank you. Can you explain what SPE is, please? Also, can you describe the installation and integration of Linux? I'm curious how someone can brew a home version, on a much smaller scale, of course, perhaps 16 CPUs, but using a similar architecture.
I'm lost on this one. Virtually most Windows users I know use Thunderbird (Mozilla), which works equally well on Linux. Sure, I use Evolution on Linux, but use Thunderbird happily on Windows, and honestly can't decide which one is better. I've often questioned why I don't just use Thunderbird on both OS's. I use SSL IMAP on both, with great filtering, spam control, and equally well multiple-account handling. I will say this though: the best news reader by far is PAN!
To my surprise, even a DVD recorder can't copy Hollywood produced tapes. This goes back to the 80s with a technique created by Macrovision.
Ironically, I can record anything on TV today (pre-broadcast flag of course.) Yet, I can't do a backup of a cheap old VCR tape, clearly a fair use right.
Since I and you are primarily interested in purely legal fair uses for copying, it's clear that Hollywood has never and will never respect you or I or our fair use rights. DRM has only one end, and that's the removal of our fair use rights to the farthest extent they can over the course of time. Even if they temporarily roll back their restrictions due to consumer backlash or competition, it's only until they can gradually creep them back.
Accepting DRM is allowing Hollywood to decide what's fair use. To them, it's only fair if they can get more money from you. That's my humble opinion.
I have boycotted the RIAA and its labels for years; then I added Windows Media, iPod and Tivo (due to compromise on commercial skipping.) I'll continue to boycott large companies that choose dollars over people, and continue to encourage anything that threatens the power of companies that undermine people's rights.
This is how they created a near monopoly in both the desktop operating system and office software markets. Do you want this to continue to development platforms, or do you want open standards based development that isn't controlled by a single company?
Let me konw when someone makes a techno tune out of it, and adds the lyrics "Let there be light!"
I consider the UN essential so long as WW III is possible. But that doesn't meant that WW III would automatically commence if we pulled out for a time to strategically realign it with its original mission; so I don't believe threats to pull out is necessarily contrary to the core purpose and livelihood of the baby.
As for your reply to this quote:
where you define sanctions, yeah, I know what they are, LOL. Read the post I was replying to. Then read the stuff about free trade. Then read the line you quoted. The poster was basically saying "if you don't learn to let the majority rule in International bodies, you are going to make enemies that will quit trading with you."
In context, I was saying that threats to not trade with us because we don't accept treaties just because the majority of countries like them doesn't mean much to us, because a lot of Americans view less trading as a good thing, and certainly don't value trade enough to give in to the majority rule on things we disagree with. Despite any possible negative economic consequences, the odds are pretty high that reduced trade would reduce our trade deficit, and some industries would get a boon, offsetting some of the negative effect. I doubt the labor unions would complain, and these days, I doubt many white collar people in IT would complain.
I was simply trying to dispel the myth that our politicians propagate to other countries that Americans hold trade as sacred, and would bend over backwards to ensure that other countries never decrease trade with us (whether through increased tariffs, quotas or sanctions.) Our politicians may hold it sacred, global corporations may hold it sacred, and our economists may hold it sacred, but Americans? Most Americans don't like letting countries like China trade unfairly with us, but certainly don't fret when Europe threatens sanctions. If China or India threatened sanctions, Americans would probably celebrate and egg on a trade war.
Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
This appears to put the treaties not only UNDER the constitution, but also under the laws of the states. I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but that's how I read it.
The bad news is it appears to be true for HDTV output, but that could, and hopefully will change.
Even this the site for this video card says it doesn't support HDTV through cable or satellite on the FAQ. Terrestial signals don't appeal to me because I haven't watched more than 10 hours of "regular" TV a year in years. What's the point of paying $90/month for digital cable if you still have to watch commercials?
If the MPAA companies get their way, and put the decryption in the TVs, we may one day not be able to use a video capture card to receive HDTV signals via cable or satellite, even if it becomes available in the near-term. Combine this with the FCC's vision to phase out analog in favor of HD, and video capture cards may only become useful for home made videos.
But, this is years away. We can still enjoy RCA and coaxial, and HDTV when and if it becomes completely accessible via cable and satellite to video cards, for at least a couple of years. Thanks for the info. I'll definately try MythTV soon.
On the down side, I was hoping it was the first video capture card for digital cable. Unforunately, there's still no hint we'll ever see one.
It doesn't support satellite broadcasts either, the website says. I think this proprietary communication is really starting to hit us. Are you ready to tell your grandchildren about the days when we could capture video in our computers, and didn't have to pay by the minute to use PVR?
Is this true? Can we ever expect a card to come out? Are cable and other companies using proprietary protocals? Encryption? Does this fall under the DMCA?
I just can't see using a PVR that doesn't support digital cable, as most of the channels I watch or would want to record are only available on digital. This includes most of the movie channels.
Exactly! I've been doing that with grep since Borland packaged it with their C compiler, which was before Windows 3.1 came out. I haven't read the patent, but since patents apply to the concept, not the copyrighted code itself, I'd say there's a good chance that this is prior art.
You really don't know us that well, do ya? The American people are not really that gung ho on free trade. Corporations and politicians are, but they are hardly representative of the people today. The only reason the US promotes free trade despite the fact that American's don't love it is because we have a two party system, and now both parties push free trade.
Clinton, from the party that claimed to represent the primary opponents of free trade, labor unions and environmentalists, was probably the biggest promoter of free trade in the history of American presidents, and actually got Congress to permit line item veto so he could ratify trade agreements quickly with less opposition from the people. IIRC, our Supreme Court ruled that line item veto was unconstitutional, proving that all laws are "also subject to the constitution".
The more you try to push your International government ideals down our throats, the more the American people will lobby Congress to oppose the UN and happily quit trading with countries that want to force their "peace and love through poverty" ideals on us. Why do you think we withheld payments for awhile from the UN and became less active not too many years ago? It's because the people got tired of the crap the other nations were doing, trying to use the UN to undermine our values.
Our view is that if you want to ascribe to these or those values, by all means do. But don't try to use the UN or other International bodies or threats of not trading with us to force us to comply; and quit whining when we don't sign one of your treaties. You want an International court, by all means create one. But quit whining because we don't want one.
As for WIPO, I'd like to see us pull out of it. Its interests, as demonstrated by their "progress" and deliberations so far, are not the best for people (including you).
However, it's not our job to force you to do what is right for you. You need to lobby your own government when an International body is creating laws that stifle freedom and innovation, and serve only to transfer wealth away from us common people. If you can't see the potential impact WIPO is going to have on wealth transfer, then we can only try to help you see. In the meantime, don't be surprised if the crazy Americans in their "self interest" try to lobby our representatives to pull out of WIPO.
Of course, I don't know when in recent history they started to consider treaties such as the International Court in effect just because a portion of the signers ratified it. I'm fairly certain that's pretty new to history because it wasn't long ago that most treaties were bilateral, or only included a handful of signers. Nevertheless, the US has avoided most of those recent treaties, including the International Court, so I don't think we have had to confront a treaty we signed being presumed to be in effect and including us even though we didn't ratify it, yet.
Still, the treaty is not International law. It is merely an agreement by the countries that ratify it. Countries break treaties. That's may not be good diplomacy, but in thousands of years of history, it was never considered an International law violation. Usually, in bilateral treaties, it simply meant that the treaty was no longer in effect for either country. In other words, a treaty is like a cease fire, and breaking it usually just meant that the cease fire was over or no longer necessary. The US broke a treaty with the former Soviet Union because times changed, and Russia is no longer our primary concern for missile defense.
Everyone thinks we're consumers. But, the plan is for us all to be producers. If they can get us to consume things that aren't worth squat (like broadcasts of the public domain), but prevent us from buying things of real value (like land, mansions, luxury cars, and jets), then we'll still have the illusion of being consumers, while we continue to produce for "the man".