I agree. Because in the long run Microsoft pursuing a course of world-domination in the software/internet market means that the consumer looses. If Microsoft wanted to crush Google on a moral and ethical level, then it would provide superior products that customers want at a reasonable price. That is the essence of capitalism. Merely engaging in a smear campaign and usuing illegal methods, well prevelant, doesn't provide anyone any benefit. In my field of work, there is a lot of smear campaign and attacks on the competition. Frankly, the campaigns only work for so long, and my customer base recognizes the value that my company offers. Time and time again, I have been told that people will not go to XXXXX because they don't know what there doing, or that the product they bought doesn't solve the problem. By offering a superior product at a reasonable price, the company I work for has gained a reputation for knowing about the things it talks about and standing behind the products that we sell. We even compete with a national chain, and our customers are willing to pay about 15-20% more because they know that we have the knowlegde and the products to support their needs. Another thing that Microsoft could do if it really wanted to take Google down, would be to be the employer that everyone wants to work for. Instead of people leaving Microsoft for Google, they could win by lurring people from Google to Microsoft.
A more interesting question, is how many power-users that own a laptop rely on the battery life of the laptop? Everyone that I know that uses a laptop, and some of these people are music majors are chronically tied to the wall -- and some of these people have the Mobile Centrino chips. My laptop is merely a portable computer that can go with me, but I don't rely on the battery at all. I think that there is a big difference between the users of laptops, with the vast majority of them using the laptop as a space-saving computer. So while lower power computing platforms are nice, I am not sure that it is exactly what most consumers are looking for. Us Slashdot geeks talk about battery life, but how many of us actually use our batteries all that much?
Agreed. However, if you read their account on the website, some of the students that had been charged attempted to turn their laptops in, but the school gave it back and told them they had to use the laptops -- they even told the administration that the laptops were a temptation to misbehave, and asked that the administration take the laptops. Requiring the children to have a laptop, which the children admitted posed a temptation is tantamount to encouraging the progression of a problem. In any other element of society, if you attempt to surrender something because it posses a danger to you or to someone else, the organization will take it. If I go to the DMV or the Sherifs office and state that I feel that my driving is a danger, they will gladly take my license away. Or if I go to the doctor and tell him that a medicane I am taking I am gettting adicted to, then he will change it. The main thing that I see is that the students are being punished after attempting to give up the temptation, when the administration forced them to have the temptation. The way I see this is that some of the students were responsable enough to admit the problem, seek help, but were turned away -- that, in my mind, is an endorsement of failure. The students parents might be able to make a claim of criminal neglegence. If the students had said that they were going to commit another criminal activity, and did, then the school would hold liability for failing to take preventative steps if the school indeed failed to take such steps.
Do the student's bear some of the responsability. Yes. It would assinine to say that they didn't. However, the school system should have taken the computer's security more seriously, and should have used stronger passwords, and should not have put them on the computers. When the problem was discovered, the school should have taken steps to provide new passwords, which are stronger and not publicly known. For students that had been disciplined for misbehaving on the computers, a more proactive steps should have been taken to make sure that future violations would be adverted.
The other question that I have, is what education about the use of computers was implemented? Was there an AUP? And did the students understand what the implications of using the computers in that manner would mean. Second question, did the student's parents know that they were being interrogated under the threat of prosecution? If the parents of the children were not present or given the opportunity to be present and if the children were not given their rights, then any evidence collected would be inadmissable in court. The third question, is what point would prosecuting these children accomplish?
but wouldn't anti-trust get involved real quick? If the Intel Silcon is exclusive for the TNC protocols, I can guarentee that a competing scheme will come up or the government will force it out to other people. And if it is on the Intel CPU, then AMD is really going to scream. So while it is a nice theory, I think that have a protocol which identifies the computer via a chip and then forces it to use the TNC scheme is doomed to failure.
Does anybody else find it ironic that Microsoft that stole a kernel is touting that Linux isn't clean? The best part is that VMS and NT are so simular that even some of the terminology is the same. Maybe Darl took lessons from Microsoft, except SCO is claiming to be the victem.
Here is the interesting thing about demonstrations: the people that are really interested are going to go and check out the competition. At work, one of my responsabilities is that of a buyer. I go to trade shows am charged with product selection. While I do take into account what I am told by the vendor, I actually have to see the difference. But one thing that I will do, if I am really interested in a product is to check out what the competition has to offer. I don't just make a major decision based on what a vendor has to show me. In fact, one decision that translated to nearly $20K was made over a series of months before I committed my company. Further, another decision to drop one product line for another, which is a $50K decision has been made over the course of a year. So while Microsoft may be moving around telling people about how Windows is better, it will only work for the causual shopper. For example, when I need something that I really could careless about, I am more apt to buy the big name brand. But the serious shopper for a server solution, and is not under any restraints that would keep them from adopting another solution will be more inclined to actually check out what the competiton has to offer. Maybe I am a cynnic, but every time a vendor has an example of the competition, I have learned that vendors rarely, if ever, compare their best to the competitions best. If Microsoft was really doing a best-to-best, and then even a worst-to-worst comparision, I would be really impressed. But the goal is to sell more Windows. There is going to be a bias no matter what. Anyway, the point is that most buyers know that when making a major purchasing decision, you have to verify the claims. Those who need to feel good about their Windows purchases will like the demonstrations, and those who want to make it look like they researched the options will like it. But the person that is serious about finding their best solution will be more apt to look past the demonstration, and find what they really want and really need -- whether it is Windows or Linux or BSD or Solaris or MacOS.
Well Web file access is nice, as my University uses it, I would be a whole lot more happy if I had VPN access. With the number of people that have laptops in class (heck I am writing this well in class), and the number of people that haul a laptop around campus, and even those that have a computer at home, VPN access to a home directory would be heaven sent. Instead of having to transfer files via web-base application, transfering the files like it was a local drive would be so much more convient. The, other thing that VPN access would provide is shared files which are needed could be made avialable. For example, my school uses the "J" drive for IS majors -- we use this for submitting projects, getting information, etc. Having the J drive available from home would be great.
So the point is, if you are going to offer a web based service, for transfering files, offer a complete package that will be convient and easy to use. If you are going to offer a home directory, then allow them to have access to thing that they would have if they were on campus. Nothing is more frustrating that having the look of being able to get to information and data, but you can't because of some arbitrary restriction.
The problem with taking it to a logical extension is that it removes the moral basis for which the issue of child pornography runs from. While the logical extension may some sense, logic does not dictate the reason why such an act is illegal. There is some tendancy to look at things that are moral on a logical basis, and while logic should be taken into account, the moral and ethical basis of things should not be ignored. There ought to be balance between the three. Logic should not be weighed more than the moral or the ethical. While logically viewing child pornography is not the same as producing it, morally it might actually be the same. So the real issue is not a logical issue, but more moral or ethical.
If we were to evaluate things on a logical basis only, then our society would be far different. We are not Vulcan, and never will be. As long as we are an emotional species, ethics and morals will have to be taken into account.
I had mod points and was going to mod you up -- but I decided to post instead.
While Apple may make their money on hardware, one of the struggles that Mac has is a lack of a software base. The emulators have been nice and all, but they are slow. If Apple partners with a couple of vendars, like Dell and HP, then people may start to look at Mac OS X as a viable computing option and then more programs may start to be developed for the Macintel. What I can see happening is that the lower end Mac OS X systems would be sold by Dell, while the real neat toy computers would be sold by Apple. The other thing that would be rather wild would be for Dell to offer a dual boot system, or a bridge system that would use virtualization technology to run both OSX and WinXP at the same time.
Something that might be an interesting approach would be to use virtualization as a means of controlling and containing virii. A while back there was the warning of virii and spyware which would alter or replace the kernel. Using this sort of model, the host could watch the kernel of the virtualized machine and then kill it if the kernel changed, effectively preventing changes to the host. With a virtualization system, I could see a method of sandboxing everything that is run so that potentially malicious code can't really do anything. Then instead of watching to make sure some program doesn't do something evil and misbehave, if some virtual machine started trying to do something malicous the whole kernel for that virtual machine could be stopped. I would be willing to argue that this is really part of their anti-virus and anti-spyware strategy. So yes, I think that you might be dead on in terms of having multiple applications running. But imagine the potential for the home owner -- the ability to have a solid, stable, mainstream operating system that is unaffected by some malicious program. Instead of Windows crashing, then it is the programs that crash, as far as the user is concerned. I am sure that someone would and will figure out how to compromise the host, but it would have to be clever, especially if the set up would be such that the virtual machine could not see the host, and as far as the virtual machine was concerned it was the only machine. But the quesiton of how to deal with having a common filesystem would be an issue -- you could corrupt the userland files, but not affect the OS. You might have to reinstall everything but Windows, but hey, Windows didn't crash.
There might not be any value in being binary compatable with old DOS junk per se, but if Apple wanted to make a shift from hardware to software, and then make a stab at launching an OS war, it would make sense. How many people would drop Windows for OS X on their Intel/AMD hardware? I know that I would gladly fork out the $400 for OSX to run it on my laptop. Also, with their emulation software, if I could run Windows XP under OSX I would do so in a heart beat. I know that it would be a major paradigm shift, but enough people are upset with Microsoft that it might work.
Well an even greater issue is for people who own a.com domain name -- do they have first stap at a.xxx domain name first? This is a subject that I see really having problems with. Besides, what about legit sites that are non-pornographic that don't want their name associated with pornography? Do they have a first shot to buy their name in the.xxx to protect trademarks and identity?
You know, the conclusion of the article also goes to prove that the Linux community isn't a mafia-like organization. Afterall, since there isn't strong leadership then it really doesn't have the organization that would define it as organized crime. If the strong leadership existed, then the article would go to say that it mimics organized crime instead of software development and evangelism. The premise was based on a community gaining power and the ability to make waves. Public opinion is no longer being shaped by the media, rather the media is being shaped by public opinion. Now that a group of techno-advocates have the interest, the knowledge and the ability to be able to point out falacious articles and to proof read, some people are complaining. I think that articles like this are really showing a cultural difference, if not a certain "class-struggle" between the media elite and the average citizen -- the reliance on the media is dwindling as people are now apt to get their own news, if not write it, and people have a way to share their opinions. Slashdot, for example, has considerable power in exposing unpopular and popular opinions alike. Instead of fighting and antagonizing the Linux world, how about supporting it and being useful. The reason that Linux and those that work with Linux are so "powerful" is that what makes up Linux is not one person, group or even a company. The Linux community is of a larger scope than what one organization can encompass. So to argue that there needs to be strong leadership would actually cripple one of its strengths, being diversity, and would define Linux or FOSS for that matter as another Microsoft. (Of course, this is overlooking the fact that Torvald is the final stop for what goes in the Linux kernel, or Stallman leading the GNU)
Actual damages from bittorrent have to be very small. Most people simply don't even know what bittorrent is.
Better yet, how many people that have the means and the ability to download it are going to want to download it? I just got back from seeing it, and frankly you could have handed me a copy and I wouldn't have watched it. I would be willing to argue that many people that are fans would be unwilling to watch it in the home when home theater technology is no where near the theater experience. While I ran down to the kleptoplex to watch it, it was worth it. Besides, the last thing that I want while viewing the final installment of Star Wars would be to have the phone ring or a friend stop by. That would have destroyed the movie.
I guess this is the big difference between music and movies. Very rarely will a movie's quality match the music quality aviable via download. When it comes to enjoying a movie verse music, it is harder to deciece the eyes into thinking that there is quality as the ears. The MPAA may be crying and moaning and saying they are going to loose money, but until technology allows DVD quality to be released, I think people will still buy and pay for movies in the theater and on DVD. The people that are going to watch it at home on a downloaded copy could quite arguably been a sector of the population that may not have gone to seen it in the theater. Theft, yes. But lost money, hardly not.
You know what I would like to see come out of this is a Constitutional Amendment making such attempts illegal -- make it so a spending bill can only be that, a spending bill. Something along the lines of: "All appropriation bills passed by Congress shall be void of new programs, laws, or regulations. New laws which require appropriation may be passed, provided that the scope of the bill is limited to the law, program or regulation therein." This would have a chilling effect on Congress and their attempts to pass laws which otherwise wouldn't be passed. The argument against this would be that Congress wouldn't be able to pass things as efficently as they do now and that immediate needs could not be met quite as fast. I think if there was even talk of such a move it would really chill people using riders. Of course Congress would have to really flub up in order to get people ticked off enough to want to do something like an amendment. It would send a strong message that federalism needs to stay federalism and the concentration of central power needs to stop.
We all laugh, but an interesting move would be to have a version of Linux that would run Win32 binaries. Or at least a package that would allow Win32 packages to run. Honestly, how many of us/.er's would run that? All of the sudden you have the flexability of OSS with the freedom of being able to run whatever you want. I wouldn't be suprised if Microsoft was developing such a thing. Of course they wouldn't want to release such a beast unless it was nessasary -- when it looked like more and more were abandoning Windows for Linux.
Wow...that is interesting. Using a BSOD as a screensaver is scary. It might keep people from using your computer, but the fear it might envoke while working on a paper might not be good. But it might be a good one to install on a co-workers computer. That could be a good laugh.
Yeah, until the Department of Homeland Security wants to know why you're power consumption has jumped and why you have a 96 node machine running. Could you imagine having to justify one of these things for a personal use to a federal agent? Some how explaining that you want to compile KDE really fast, or play Tux Racer at full-frame rate might not fly.
You have to understand the entire system of the United States is to protect the citizenry from a violation of rights. If you're rights are violated in the gathering of evidence, then that evidence is moot, and is inadmisable in court. If the government is going to get you thrown in jail or put you at a disadvantage (in this case ruling in favor of RIAA) then they have the duty of due process. Just because some one took something that wasn't their's doesn't mean that the person doing the taking forfiets their rights. That is part of liberty and freedom. And the right to privacy is a protected right under the Ten Amendment as affirmed by the courts. If you do are doing something illegal, and the right to privacy shields the view of that act, then you can not be forced to reveal your identity if unless that act committed in private has public consquences (for example, the unenforceable sex laws that legislate what is legal or illegal in the bed room have been ruled illegal on the grounds that they violate the right to privacy and the acts committed do not have a public consquence. This principle is how a meth lab can be shut down or a child pornographer is stopped.) Anyhow, I would love to read the issues and how the issues of privacy came into play. I would be willing to bet that the reason the judge ruled in favor of the students was because of some agreement between the students and the school. However, the AUP of UNC reads, "Users have no Constitutional expectation of privacy in any information on the UNCP technology infrastructure. " With such an explicit statment I would be willing to argue that there are larger issues than what appears on face value.
Yeah, but that is more of a DOS. If you want to do malicious sniffing, then put out a dish of beer. The snails will be drawn to the beer, as opposed to being repelled by the salt. Then they get into the dish and drink themselves to death. This is a Garden Center trick which works very, very well.
Worse yet, how many of those people that can truly benefit from the power that the Extreme Edition can offer, don't because of stigmas on the name? I recently was told a story about a guy that had a job offer but refused becuase he didn't fit the culture of the company: apparently every workstation had the latest, greatest gadget from the fancy fadish mice, to modded computer cases with the flashing neon lights. While those things looked cool, he didn't feel that he would fit in with a company that spent money on the cool stuff as opposed to spending money on development. I have to say that I feel the same way. When I am in the market for computing power, I am not interested in the fadish stuff -- I am interested in the raw numbers and if the computer can do what I need it to do. With names like "Extreme" your marketing to the gamers and not nessarily to the programing professional. The marketing departments should at least market a simular chip with simular abilities as a "Developer Edition." But I guess people that would be interested in them are the guys buying the Xeons and the Opertons.
Wow...as a Virginian that is down right offensive. The internet is the only medium where the small guy can have his voice heard, and the only place that the average joe can afford to publish his voice and then change it whenever he wants. I would like to see it challeneged in court on the ideas of free speech issues. Are newspapers required to have a "sponsored by:" and be registered? No. They are free to endorse candidates and slam the others. Out of any attempt to regulate free speech, trying to regulate political speech is the worst, and the most tyrannical. The founders of this country wanted free speech. And if you happen to say something unpopular with a politician on a website, and you are fined for not registering, then that is a form of censorship and a regulation on free speech. I think that these laws, when challenged will be struck down as gross affronts to the Constitution. Period.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. Because in the long run Microsoft pursuing a course of world-domination in the software/internet market means that the consumer looses. If Microsoft wanted to crush Google on a moral and ethical level, then it would provide superior products that customers want at a reasonable price. That is the essence of capitalism. Merely engaging in a smear campaign and usuing illegal methods, well prevelant, doesn't provide anyone any benefit. In my field of work, there is a lot of smear campaign and attacks on the competition. Frankly, the campaigns only work for so long, and my customer base recognizes the value that my company offers. Time and time again, I have been told that people will not go to XXXXX because they don't know what there doing, or that the product they bought doesn't solve the problem. By offering a superior product at a reasonable price, the company I work for has gained a reputation for knowing about the things it talks about and standing behind the products that we sell. We even compete with a national chain, and our customers are willing to pay about 15-20% more because they know that we have the knowlegde and the products to support their needs. Another thing that Microsoft could do if it really wanted to take Google down, would be to be the employer that everyone wants to work for. Instead of people leaving Microsoft for Google, they could win by lurring people from Google to Microsoft.
Complete with Motherboards, and 4gb of DDR, and the hottest graphics card on the market too. Cases are optional.
A more interesting question, is how many power-users that own a laptop rely on the battery life of the laptop? Everyone that I know that uses a laptop, and some of these people are music majors are chronically tied to the wall -- and some of these people have the Mobile Centrino chips. My laptop is merely a portable computer that can go with me, but I don't rely on the battery at all. I think that there is a big difference between the users of laptops, with the vast majority of them using the laptop as a space-saving computer. So while lower power computing platforms are nice, I am not sure that it is exactly what most consumers are looking for. Us Slashdot geeks talk about battery life, but how many of us actually use our batteries all that much?
Agreed. However, if you read their account on the website, some of the students that had been charged attempted to turn their laptops in, but the school gave it back and told them they had to use the laptops -- they even told the administration that the laptops were a temptation to misbehave, and asked that the administration take the laptops. Requiring the children to have a laptop, which the children admitted posed a temptation is tantamount to encouraging the progression of a problem. In any other element of society, if you attempt to surrender something because it posses a danger to you or to someone else, the organization will take it. If I go to the DMV or the Sherifs office and state that I feel that my driving is a danger, they will gladly take my license away. Or if I go to the doctor and tell him that a medicane I am taking I am gettting adicted to, then he will change it. The main thing that I see is that the students are being punished after attempting to give up the temptation, when the administration forced them to have the temptation. The way I see this is that some of the students were responsable enough to admit the problem, seek help, but were turned away -- that, in my mind, is an endorsement of failure. The students parents might be able to make a claim of criminal neglegence. If the students had said that they were going to commit another criminal activity, and did, then the school would hold liability for failing to take preventative steps if the school indeed failed to take such steps.
Do the student's bear some of the responsability. Yes. It would assinine to say that they didn't. However, the school system should have taken the computer's security more seriously, and should have used stronger passwords, and should not have put them on the computers. When the problem was discovered, the school should have taken steps to provide new passwords, which are stronger and not publicly known. For students that had been disciplined for misbehaving on the computers, a more proactive steps should have been taken to make sure that future violations would be adverted.
The other question that I have, is what education about the use of computers was implemented? Was there an AUP? And did the students understand what the implications of using the computers in that manner would mean. Second question, did the student's parents know that they were being interrogated under the threat of prosecution? If the parents of the children were not present or given the opportunity to be present and if the children were not given their rights, then any evidence collected would be inadmissable in court. The third question, is what point would prosecuting these children accomplish?
but wouldn't anti-trust get involved real quick? If the Intel Silcon is exclusive for the TNC protocols, I can guarentee that a competing scheme will come up or the government will force it out to other people. And if it is on the Intel CPU, then AMD is really going to scream. So while it is a nice theory, I think that have a protocol which identifies the computer via a chip and then forces it to use the TNC scheme is doomed to failure.
Your right. The following link is a story about how Microsoft stole the NT kernel from Digital. http://www.windowsitpro.com/Articles/Print.cfm?Art icleID=4494
Does anybody else find it ironic that Microsoft that stole a kernel is touting that Linux isn't clean? The best part is that VMS and NT are so simular that even some of the terminology is the same. Maybe Darl took lessons from Microsoft, except SCO is claiming to be the victem.
Here is the interesting thing about demonstrations: the people that are really interested are going to go and check out the competition. At work, one of my responsabilities is that of a buyer. I go to trade shows am charged with product selection. While I do take into account what I am told by the vendor, I actually have to see the difference. But one thing that I will do, if I am really interested in a product is to check out what the competition has to offer. I don't just make a major decision based on what a vendor has to show me. In fact, one decision that translated to nearly $20K was made over a series of months before I committed my company. Further, another decision to drop one product line for another, which is a $50K decision has been made over the course of a year. So while Microsoft may be moving around telling people about how Windows is better, it will only work for the causual shopper. For example, when I need something that I really could careless about, I am more apt to buy the big name brand. But the serious shopper for a server solution, and is not under any restraints that would keep them from adopting another solution will be more inclined to actually check out what the competiton has to offer. Maybe I am a cynnic, but every time a vendor has an example of the competition, I have learned that vendors rarely, if ever, compare their best to the competitions best. If Microsoft was really doing a best-to-best, and then even a worst-to-worst comparision, I would be really impressed. But the goal is to sell more Windows. There is going to be a bias no matter what. Anyway, the point is that most buyers know that when making a major purchasing decision, you have to verify the claims. Those who need to feel good about their Windows purchases will like the demonstrations, and those who want to make it look like they researched the options will like it. But the person that is serious about finding their best solution will be more apt to look past the demonstration, and find what they really want and really need -- whether it is Windows or Linux or BSD or Solaris or MacOS.
Well Web file access is nice, as my University uses it, I would be a whole lot more happy if I had VPN access. With the number of people that have laptops in class (heck I am writing this well in class), and the number of people that haul a laptop around campus, and even those that have a computer at home, VPN access to a home directory would be heaven sent. Instead of having to transfer files via web-base application, transfering the files like it was a local drive would be so much more convient. The, other thing that VPN access would provide is shared files which are needed could be made avialable. For example, my school uses the "J" drive for IS majors -- we use this for submitting projects, getting information, etc. Having the J drive available from home would be great.
So the point is, if you are going to offer a web based service, for transfering files, offer a complete package that will be convient and easy to use. If you are going to offer a home directory, then allow them to have access to thing that they would have if they were on campus. Nothing is more frustrating that having the look of being able to get to information and data, but you can't because of some arbitrary restriction.
Well, it isn't installing Linux on Legos, per se, but it using Legos on Linux. http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Lego/intro.html
The problem with taking it to a logical extension is that it removes the moral basis for which the issue of child pornography runs from. While the logical extension may some sense, logic does not dictate the reason why such an act is illegal. There is some tendancy to look at things that are moral on a logical basis, and while logic should be taken into account, the moral and ethical basis of things should not be ignored. There ought to be balance between the three. Logic should not be weighed more than the moral or the ethical. While logically viewing child pornography is not the same as producing it, morally it might actually be the same. So the real issue is not a logical issue, but more moral or ethical.
If we were to evaluate things on a logical basis only, then our society would be far different. We are not Vulcan, and never will be. As long as we are an emotional species, ethics and morals will have to be taken into account.
Logically: Looking != Producing
Morally: Looking == Producing && Sponsering
I had mod points and was going to mod you up -- but I decided to post instead.
While Apple may make their money on hardware, one of the struggles that Mac has is a lack of a software base. The emulators have been nice and all, but they are slow. If Apple partners with a couple of vendars, like Dell and HP, then people may start to look at Mac OS X as a viable computing option and then more programs may start to be developed for the Macintel. What I can see happening is that the lower end Mac OS X systems would be sold by Dell, while the real neat toy computers would be sold by Apple. The other thing that would be rather wild would be for Dell to offer a dual boot system, or a bridge system that would use virtualization technology to run both OSX and WinXP at the same time.
Something that might be an interesting approach would be to use virtualization as a means of controlling and containing virii. A while back there was the warning of virii and spyware which would alter or replace the kernel. Using this sort of model, the host could watch the kernel of the virtualized machine and then kill it if the kernel changed, effectively preventing changes to the host. With a virtualization system, I could see a method of sandboxing everything that is run so that potentially malicious code can't really do anything. Then instead of watching to make sure some program doesn't do something evil and misbehave, if some virtual machine started trying to do something malicous the whole kernel for that virtual machine could be stopped. I would be willing to argue that this is really part of their anti-virus and anti-spyware strategy. So yes, I think that you might be dead on in terms of having multiple applications running. But imagine the potential for the home owner -- the ability to have a solid, stable, mainstream operating system that is unaffected by some malicious program. Instead of Windows crashing, then it is the programs that crash, as far as the user is concerned. I am sure that someone would and will figure out how to compromise the host, but it would have to be clever, especially if the set up would be such that the virtual machine could not see the host, and as far as the virtual machine was concerned it was the only machine. But the quesiton of how to deal with having a common filesystem would be an issue -- you could corrupt the userland files, but not affect the OS. You might have to reinstall everything but Windows, but hey, Windows didn't crash.
There might not be any value in being binary compatable with old DOS junk per se, but if Apple wanted to make a shift from hardware to software, and then make a stab at launching an OS war, it would make sense. How many people would drop Windows for OS X on their Intel/AMD hardware? I know that I would gladly fork out the $400 for OSX to run it on my laptop. Also, with their emulation software, if I could run Windows XP under OSX I would do so in a heart beat. I know that it would be a major paradigm shift, but enough people are upset with Microsoft that it might work.
Well an even greater issue is for people who own a .com domain name -- do they have first stap at a .xxx domain name first? This is a subject that I see really having problems with. Besides, what about legit sites that are non-pornographic that don't want their name associated with pornography? Do they have a first shot to buy their name in the .xxx to protect trademarks and identity?
You know, the conclusion of the article also goes to prove that the Linux community isn't a mafia-like organization. Afterall, since there isn't strong leadership then it really doesn't have the organization that would define it as organized crime. If the strong leadership existed, then the article would go to say that it mimics organized crime instead of software development and evangelism. The premise was based on a community gaining power and the ability to make waves. Public opinion is no longer being shaped by the media, rather the media is being shaped by public opinion. Now that a group of techno-advocates have the interest, the knowledge and the ability to be able to point out falacious articles and to proof read, some people are complaining. I think that articles like this are really showing a cultural difference, if not a certain "class-struggle" between the media elite and the average citizen -- the reliance on the media is dwindling as people are now apt to get their own news, if not write it, and people have a way to share their opinions. Slashdot, for example, has considerable power in exposing unpopular and popular opinions alike. Instead of fighting and antagonizing the Linux world, how about supporting it and being useful. The reason that Linux and those that work with Linux are so "powerful" is that what makes up Linux is not one person, group or even a company. The Linux community is of a larger scope than what one organization can encompass. So to argue that there needs to be strong leadership would actually cripple one of its strengths, being diversity, and would define Linux or FOSS for that matter as another Microsoft. (Of course, this is overlooking the fact that Torvald is the final stop for what goes in the Linux kernel, or Stallman leading the GNU)
Better yet, how many people that have the means and the ability to download it are going to want to download it? I just got back from seeing it, and frankly you could have handed me a copy and I wouldn't have watched it. I would be willing to argue that many people that are fans would be unwilling to watch it in the home when home theater technology is no where near the theater experience. While I ran down to the kleptoplex to watch it, it was worth it. Besides, the last thing that I want while viewing the final installment of Star Wars would be to have the phone ring or a friend stop by. That would have destroyed the movie.
I guess this is the big difference between music and movies. Very rarely will a movie's quality match the music quality aviable via download. When it comes to enjoying a movie verse music, it is harder to deciece the eyes into thinking that there is quality as the ears. The MPAA may be crying and moaning and saying they are going to loose money, but until technology allows DVD quality to be released, I think people will still buy and pay for movies in the theater and on DVD. The people that are going to watch it at home on a downloaded copy could quite arguably been a sector of the population that may not have gone to seen it in the theater. Theft, yes. But lost money, hardly not.
My two credits...
You know what I would like to see come out of this is a Constitutional Amendment making such attempts illegal -- make it so a spending bill can only be that, a spending bill. Something along the lines of: "All appropriation bills passed by Congress shall be void of new programs, laws, or regulations. New laws which require appropriation may be passed, provided that the scope of the bill is limited to the law, program or regulation therein." This would have a chilling effect on Congress and their attempts to pass laws which otherwise wouldn't be passed. The argument against this would be that Congress wouldn't be able to pass things as efficently as they do now and that immediate needs could not be met quite as fast. I think if there was even talk of such a move it would really chill people using riders. Of course Congress would have to really flub up in order to get people ticked off enough to want to do something like an amendment. It would send a strong message that federalism needs to stay federalism and the concentration of central power needs to stop.
We all laugh, but an interesting move would be to have a version of Linux that would run Win32 binaries. Or at least a package that would allow Win32 packages to run. Honestly, how many of us /.er's would run that? All of the sudden you have the flexability of OSS with the freedom of being able to run whatever you want. I wouldn't be suprised if Microsoft was developing such a thing. Of course they wouldn't want to release such a beast unless it was nessasary -- when it looked like more and more were abandoning Windows for Linux.
Wow...that is interesting. Using a BSOD as a screensaver is scary. It might keep people from using your computer, but the fear it might envoke while working on a paper might not be good. But it might be a good one to install on a co-workers computer. That could be a good laugh.
Yeah, until the Department of Homeland Security wants to know why you're power consumption has jumped and why you have a 96 node machine running. Could you imagine having to justify one of these things for a personal use to a federal agent? Some how explaining that you want to compile KDE really fast, or play Tux Racer at full-frame rate might not fly.
You have to understand the entire system of the United States is to protect the citizenry from a violation of rights. If you're rights are violated in the gathering of evidence, then that evidence is moot, and is inadmisable in court. If the government is going to get you thrown in jail or put you at a disadvantage (in this case ruling in favor of RIAA) then they have the duty of due process. Just because some one took something that wasn't their's doesn't mean that the person doing the taking forfiets their rights. That is part of liberty and freedom. And the right to privacy is a protected right under the Ten Amendment as affirmed by the courts. If you do are doing something illegal, and the right to privacy shields the view of that act, then you can not be forced to reveal your identity if unless that act committed in private has public consquences (for example, the unenforceable sex laws that legislate what is legal or illegal in the bed room have been ruled illegal on the grounds that they violate the right to privacy and the acts committed do not have a public consquence. This principle is how a meth lab can be shut down or a child pornographer is stopped.) Anyhow, I would love to read the issues and how the issues of privacy came into play. I would be willing to bet that the reason the judge ruled in favor of the students was because of some agreement between the students and the school. However, the AUP of UNC reads, "Users have no Constitutional expectation of privacy in any information on the UNCP technology infrastructure. " With such an explicit statment I would be willing to argue that there are larger issues than what appears on face value.
Yeah, but that is more of a DOS. If you want to do malicious sniffing, then put out a dish of beer. The snails will be drawn to the beer, as opposed to being repelled by the salt. Then they get into the dish and drink themselves to death. This is a Garden Center trick which works very, very well.
Gee I would love to see it run on an AMD64 4000+ (or whatever the top of the line is now) and couple gigs of RAM. Sure would be entertaining.
Worse yet, how many of those people that can truly benefit from the power that the Extreme Edition can offer, don't because of stigmas on the name? I recently was told a story about a guy that had a job offer but refused becuase he didn't fit the culture of the company: apparently every workstation had the latest, greatest gadget from the fancy fadish mice, to modded computer cases with the flashing neon lights. While those things looked cool, he didn't feel that he would fit in with a company that spent money on the cool stuff as opposed to spending money on development. I have to say that I feel the same way. When I am in the market for computing power, I am not interested in the fadish stuff -- I am interested in the raw numbers and if the computer can do what I need it to do. With names like "Extreme" your marketing to the gamers and not nessarily to the programing professional. The marketing departments should at least market a simular chip with simular abilities as a "Developer Edition." But I guess people that would be interested in them are the guys buying the Xeons and the Opertons.
Wow...as a Virginian that is down right offensive. The internet is the only medium where the small guy can have his voice heard, and the only place that the average joe can afford to publish his voice and then change it whenever he wants. I would like to see it challeneged in court on the ideas of free speech issues. Are newspapers required to have a "sponsored by:" and be registered? No. They are free to endorse candidates and slam the others. Out of any attempt to regulate free speech, trying to regulate political speech is the worst, and the most tyrannical. The founders of this country wanted free speech. And if you happen to say something unpopular with a politician on a website, and you are fined for not registering, then that is a form of censorship and a regulation on free speech. I think that these laws, when challenged will be struck down as gross affronts to the Constitution. Period.