Einstien never used 32 bit Windows on an x86. If he had, that statement would have sounded something like this:
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, unless you're using a Microsoft Operating System. If you are, all bets are off."
Let's see. If this mechanism was put there intentionally, and the real validation code lives in an activeX object within windows somewhere, all they would have to do to flag it is check for that variable, which can be passed back to their back end any number of ways from cookies, to querystrings, to windows update information packets. In fact, if they were smart, they should have been the ones to leak the crack just for that purpose (anonymously of course). Not even an anonymous proxy would do you any good if this is the case. Why? Because if they're smart enough to do this, they've already figured out a dozen other ways to tag your computer that you don't even know about yet. Unfortunately, all of this would take a level of clever maneuvering that Microsoft hasn't shown for years. Then again... maybe China's scared of Windows for a reason.
I wonder if it would make sense to have a social experiment where a video game company actually tries to create extremely vivid games with the aim of bringing down the crime rate.
I bet it would work. The problem is that our society is generally repressive by nature. As a culture, we don't like to admit these things exist. As a result, we end up making them worse by repressing them.
I generally agree with Hillary on the important issues. I think Bill Clinton was the best president since Kennedy. But freedom of speech, and by extension gaming is such a fundamental right as Americans. Take that away and you have nothing.
Also: Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't GTA rated for adults? Why would any responsible parent allow children to play an adult rated game to begin with?
We're not disagreeing. You're also reading an awful lot into what I said.
I like to think it won't happen here. By the same token, one has to wonder about any government that would allow for such a weapon to be created in the first place.
And they will. It's an opening. Think about it this way. Very few people, even the ones who get Windows legitimately actually think about paying for it. It usually comes on the systems they buy. Most people who buy systems with Windows on it usually get it from somewhere that is assumed to be installing windows legally. An OEM, or something.
It's usually fair to assume that just about everyone pays for software. Even people who intentionally pirate software have paid for something. Maybe the latest video game, maybe Norton 2005. Doesn't matter.
The thing is that piracy actually helps the Windows platform, or indirectly... Microsoft.
Think about it this way: Somebody pirates Windows, and then goes about installing software on his system. Without knowing it, this person has just made a commitment to use the Windows operating system. Everything he uses from software, to hardware, to peripherals will now need to be compatible with Windows.
If it's not, He won't be able to use it. In fact, everything he does within the Windows environment will act to ensure that he will continue using it for many years to come.
During this time, he may buy a video game or two, a new printer, maybe a misc piece of box software from Walmart.
Or better yet, this person could be a programmer. Someone who programs for the Windows platform. Someone who works to ensure other registered users will continue using Windows for years to come.
So I wonder... Yes, piracy may be morally wrong. But, when you factor in lock in, does Microsoft loose anything at all?
What about all of the people that are on their last nerve with Microsoft?
Typically, MS has had a policy of accusing as many people as possible of piracy, and sorting it out later. What happens if one of these people who purchased their system legitimately, happens to have an OEM key that's believed to be pirated? How do you think they'll react when Microsoft refuses to let them do anything? Can you say, Mac mini? To this user, Linux might even be a promising looking option. At least it works consistently. At least it will never accuse you of committing a crime when you haven't. It's fast, and powerful, and allows for Windows emulation in most cases.
As a result of implementing this, Microsoft has just alienated a user. Probably a long time user who has had little or no support, poor documentation. This is a user who may have been looking for something else anyway, but would not have seriously considered leaving without direct intervention from MS.
What happens if there are thousands, or hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of users like this out there? What if it's something like 5%?
Or better yet, what if it's the whole 35% that Microsoft projects to be out there? What would happen to Microsoft if 35% of their user base suddenly vanished, just went somewhere else? That's 35% of users who were previously happy using a Microsoft product that they can no longer sell anything to. Before, under the Windows platform, it was at least technically possible. If they all switch, it's not.
I think that's quite a number.
But even if only one percent of the total number made the switch to Linux as a result of this, it would make the same point.
Or better yet, why not have a "call me now" list? Sounds silly, but there is a tiny minority out there that actually buys things from these people. Why not assume all phone numbers are off limits, unless people actually ask to be on the list? They could promote it with tv commercials, make it sound appealing. I think it would work.
But he did have a point about casualties. When tested, people had to remove glasses and eyeware.
It sounds though that this is more likely to see deployment in nuclear facilities than on the streets of America. If it did make it to the streets of america, and one person goes blind from mis-use of this thing, the ACLU would have a field day. In Iraq, nobody cares who gets injured. Deploying it here is a completely different issue.
"Moreover, it would have been subject to frequent
breakdown, so that it could not have been depended upon; for at that
time and long after, complexity and unreliability were synonymous."
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Thing is, if they did release it, they obviously couldn't release the whole thing. It would be more like pieces of OS/2 than the OS itself. The Microsoft code alone is a very large chunk of the OS, and it's not the only one. Over the years, several other vendors have contributed to it as well. Corel was mentioned in the article. It would be interesting to get their take on it, being under new management and all.
So without the whole system, the OSS community would augment it with other pieces of code (some new some not so new), reverse engineering as they go. Depending on how many developers are interested/how much code is released, it could take months, or even years before there is a usable product.
I'm always happy to see companies contribute source code, but I don't think we'll see a functioning OSSOS/2 anytime soon.
If you're going to spend that much time and monkey on it anyway, why not just start a project to run OS/2 applications on Linux or BSD? I don't know much about this type of emulator, but it couldn't be as complicated as something like WINE (or maybe it could). Now would be a great opening for something like that.
I know you were being sarcastic, but what's wrong with ADM? Think about it for a second:
1. When has ADM or it's subsidiaries ever supported terrorists or terrorism directly or indirectly? I don't know about you, but I've never heard of ADM involvement in Palestinian suicide bombings.
2. When has ADM ever arbitrarily raised the cost of their product in the event of, or the wake of a national tragedy? I don't think I've ever heard anything about ADM price fixing. Anyone else remember the gas hike after September 11th?
3. When has ADM done anything morally reprehensible, other than making Decatur IL, smell like an arm pit?
This premise of this study sounds a lot like the ones Microsoft funds to stir fear and doubt about Linux. In fact, I bet if you track the funding of this study, it would probably lead to the big petroleum interests.
Exactly. I think every culture and nation on earth has something they're going to find offensive that few others do. But the Internet has always been about the freedom to say just about anything (within the confines of International law of course). A point, our "friends" at the UN seem to be missing. I say, if they have such trouble with it, let them start their own root servers, and let them have their own domain extensions on those root servers. They can tax those and censor them as much as they like. I'm sure Google would even index them if they knew how. I would pay to see it.
Right. Lord only knows what kind of AUP would be thought up. They're already reeling about pornography! Is it that much of a stretch to think that they would ban it all together? I don't think so. And why stop there? I bet there are a hundred things Syria, China, and Uruguay could think up that would make life difficult, or at least annoying for everyone.
As much as I hate to say it, I hope the Bush Administration comes out on top. The enemy of my enemy and all...
This is a tax scheme, plain and simple. Granted the US could tax domain names just as easily, but they haven't yet. The fact that this is one of the first things that the UN brings up gives me pause.
I say, let's make a graphic interface for Linux designed around Mozilla, the Mozilla toolkit, and XPCOM. It already comes damn close to being able to do it, and developing apps for it would be a breeze. Not to mention all of the software installation problems that would solve. Besides, I think it would be funny to watch all these pretentious Mozilla guys put in their place with a little bit of irony.
And if you're going to point out the Jews, you might as well point to the Africans, and Arabs that use it as well. Come to think of it, you also have the Chinese and the Europians, and the Indians as well. Come to think of it, it's the only thing all of the above parties will ever be willing to agree on.
Slashdot Mirror
Not when I patent the business process of patent hoarding... hah hah haha
Einstien never used 32 bit Windows on an x86.
If he had, that statement would have sounded something like this:
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, unless you're using a Microsoft Operating System. If you are, all bets are off."
Let's see.
If this mechanism was put there intentionally, and the real validation code lives in an activeX object within windows somewhere, all they would have to do to flag it is check for that variable, which can be passed back to their back end any number of ways from cookies, to querystrings, to windows update information packets. In fact, if they were smart, they should have been the ones to leak the crack just for that purpose (anonymously of course). Not even an anonymous proxy would do you any good if this is the case. Why? Because if they're smart enough to do this, they've already figured out a dozen other ways to tag your computer that you don't even know about yet. Unfortunately, all of this would take a level of clever maneuvering that Microsoft hasn't shown for years. Then again... maybe China's scared of Windows for a reason.
Or at the very least proven that secracy is alive and well in America at the turn of the 21st century. It's sad really.
I wonder if it would make sense to have a social experiment where a video game company actually tries to create extremely vivid games with the aim of bringing down the crime rate.
I bet it would work. The problem is that our society is generally repressive by nature. As a culture, we don't like to admit these things exist. As a result, we end up making them worse by repressing them.
I generally agree with Hillary on the important issues. I think Bill Clinton was the best president since Kennedy. But freedom of speech, and by extension gaming is such a fundamental right as Americans. Take that away and you have nothing.
Also: Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't GTA rated for adults? Why would any responsible parent allow children to play an adult rated game to begin with?
We're not disagreeing.
You're also reading an awful lot into what I said.
I like to think it won't happen here. By the same token, one has to wonder about any government that would allow for such a weapon to be created in the first place.
Good point. But the real problem is... Or else what?
And they will. It's an opening.
Think about it this way. Very few people, even the ones who get Windows legitimately actually think about paying for it. It usually comes on the systems they buy. Most people who buy systems with Windows on it usually get it from somewhere that is assumed to be installing windows legally. An OEM, or something.
It's usually fair to assume that just about everyone pays for software. Even people who intentionally pirate software have paid for something. Maybe the latest video game, maybe Norton 2005. Doesn't matter.
The thing is that piracy actually helps the Windows platform, or indirectly... Microsoft.
Think about it this way:
Somebody pirates Windows, and then goes about installing software on his system. Without knowing it, this person has just made a commitment to use the Windows operating system. Everything he uses from software, to hardware, to peripherals will now need to be compatible with Windows.
If it's not,
He won't be able to use it. In fact, everything he does within the Windows environment will act to ensure that he will continue using it for many years to come.
During this time, he may buy a video game or two, a new printer, maybe a misc piece of box software from Walmart.
Or better yet, this person could be a programmer. Someone who programs for the Windows platform. Someone who works to ensure other registered users will continue using Windows for years to come.
So I wonder...
Yes, piracy may be morally wrong. But, when you factor in lock in, does Microsoft loose anything at all?
What about all of the people that are on their last nerve with Microsoft?
Typically, MS has had a policy of accusing as many people as possible of piracy, and sorting it out later. What happens if one of these people who purchased their system legitimately, happens to have an OEM key that's believed to be pirated? How do you think they'll react when Microsoft refuses to let them do anything? Can you say, Mac mini? To this user, Linux might even be a promising looking option. At least it works consistently. At least it will never accuse you of committing a crime when you haven't. It's fast, and powerful, and allows for Windows emulation in most cases.
As a result of implementing this, Microsoft has just alienated a user. Probably a long time user who has had little or no support, poor documentation. This is a user who may have been looking for something else anyway, but would not have seriously considered leaving without direct intervention from MS.
What happens if there are thousands, or hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of users like this out there? What if it's something like 5%?
Or better yet, what if it's the whole 35% that Microsoft projects to be out there? What would happen to Microsoft if 35% of their user base suddenly vanished, just went somewhere else? That's 35% of users who were previously happy using a Microsoft product that they can no longer sell anything to. Before, under the Windows platform, it was at least technically possible. If they all switch, it's not.
I think that's quite a number.
But even if only one percent of the total number made the switch to Linux as a result of this, it would make the same point.
Or better yet, why not have a "call me now" list? Sounds silly, but there is a tiny minority out there that actually buys things from these people. Why not assume all phone numbers are off limits, unless people actually ask to be on the list? They could promote it with tv commercials, make it sound appealing. I think it would work.
But he did have a point about casualties. When tested, people had to remove glasses and eyeware. It sounds though that this is more likely to see deployment in nuclear facilities than on the streets of America. If it did make it to the streets of america, and one person goes blind from mis-use of this thing, the ACLU would have a field day. In Iraq, nobody cares who gets injured. Deploying it here is a completely different issue.
"Moreover, it would have been subject to frequent breakdown, so that it could not have been depended upon; for at that time and long after, complexity and unreliability were synonymous."
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
So let's see if I understand this.
A man named Dvorak thinks Creative Commons is a silly name? You can't make this stuff up.
Thing is, if they did release it, they obviously couldn't release the whole thing. It would be more like pieces of OS/2 than the OS itself. The Microsoft code alone is a very large chunk of the OS, and it's not the only one. Over the years, several other vendors have contributed to it as well. Corel was mentioned in the article. It would be interesting to get their take on it, being under new management and all.
So without the whole system, the OSS community would augment it with other pieces of code (some new some not so new), reverse engineering as they go. Depending on how many developers are interested/how much code is released, it could take months, or even years before there is a usable product.
I'm always happy to see companies contribute source code, but I don't think we'll see a functioning OSSOS/2 anytime soon.
If you're going to spend that much time and monkey on it anyway, why not just start a project to run OS/2 applications on Linux or BSD? I don't know much about this type of emulator, but it couldn't be as complicated as something like WINE (or maybe it could). Now would be a great opening for something like that.
Sounds more like you need a paper hat the way you're talking.
Thanks for the link.
Absolutely right.
I'm big enough to admit when I'm wrong.
The study still has the ring of big petrol to it though. I wonder why so many slashdotters like yourself are such big supporters of the oil companies.
I stand corrected.
Wonder if they're hiring...
I know you were being sarcastic, but what's wrong with ADM? Think about it for a second:
1. When has ADM or it's subsidiaries ever supported terrorists or terrorism directly or indirectly? I don't know about you, but I've never heard of ADM involvement in Palestinian suicide bombings.
2. When has ADM ever arbitrarily raised the cost of their product in the event of, or the wake of a national tragedy? I don't think I've ever heard anything about ADM price fixing. Anyone else remember the gas hike after September 11th?
3. When has ADM done anything morally reprehensible, other than making Decatur IL, smell like an arm pit?
This premise of this study sounds a lot like the ones Microsoft funds to stir fear and doubt about Linux. In fact, I bet if you track the funding of this study, it would probably lead to the big petroleum interests.
Exactly. I think every culture and nation on earth has something they're going to find offensive that few others do. But the Internet has always been about the freedom to say just about anything (within the confines of International law of course). A point, our "friends" at the UN seem to be missing. I say, if they have such trouble with it, let them start their own root servers, and let them have their own domain extensions on those root servers. They can tax those and censor them as much as they like. I'm sure Google would even index them if they knew how. I would pay to see it.
Define live action.
Seems to me that there would need to be so much computer animation in it to make it work that it might as well be a cartoon anyway.
Right.
Lord only knows what kind of AUP would be thought up. They're already reeling about pornography! Is it that much of a stretch to think that they would ban it all together? I don't think so. And why stop there? I bet there are a hundred things Syria, China, and Uruguay could think up that would make life difficult, or at least annoying for everyone.
As much as I hate to say it, I hope the Bush Administration comes out on top. The enemy of my enemy and all...
This is a tax scheme, plain and simple. Granted the US could tax domain names just as easily, but they haven't yet. The fact that this is one of the first things that the UN brings up gives me pause.
So if a third of all studies are overblown, how do we know that this study isn't overblown or inaccurate? Hmmm?
I say, let's make a graphic interface for Linux designed around Mozilla, the Mozilla toolkit, and XPCOM. It already comes damn close to being able to do it, and developing apps for it would be a breeze. Not to mention all of the software installation problems that would solve. Besides, I think it would be funny to watch all these pretentious Mozilla guys put in their place with a little bit of irony.
What the fuck is that supposed to mean?!
And if you're going to point out the Jews, you might as well point to the Africans, and Arabs that use it as well. Come to think of it, you also have the Chinese and the Europians, and the Indians as well. Come to think of it, it's the only thing all of the above parties will ever be willing to agree on.
You're an ass, but you do have a point.