That's very far from the truth, and very easy to test.
Take VirtualBox, and disable all inputs and outputs except for the screen, keyboard, and mouse. Run the knoppix disk and set up basic windows binary support (via wine). Go download a virus from those virus testing centers (search for one) and run it with help from Wine. It will then propagate through the windows execs.
I am a linux/windows user, so I dont know about parallels. I can, however confirm virus "support" for Wine. One does need to heed caution in that some viruses cannot run due to usage of special APIs that are in only certain versions of Windows. It's the same picky stuff that also prevents legit programs from running.
All analogies such as these are pointless, as all of them break down when taken to the logical conclusion.
In cases which a client may have remote-execute bugs, one would want a protocol scanner to verify that hacking crashes the program in a safe way. Crashing otherwise can open buffer exploits and other nasties like writing over the data segment so arbitrary code can execute.
In other cases, one would use 2 clients back to back (Google Mail within a browser). The chances one would pass Google mail, and then target an arbitrary browser is highly unlikely.
Now, can we guarantee our computer safety in that we remain the controller of it? In the case of Windows, the answer is a resounding No. Windows assumes that it knows better than you, and can prevent you (administrator) from doing certain tasks. Even if system control is taken via tricks in different parts of the registry and other places, one still cannot approach the power that ROOT has over Unix-based machines.
When it comes to Windows, one can wonder what kind of holes are in the system, intentionally and accidentally. Does your current samba system have any holes? How about Rdesktop via "microsoft" or whomever your computer manufacturer is? Or, is there any holes via third party cram-ware that invariably ends up on every box retailer machine? Or.. Yahoo chat, MSN chat, or many other vectors that end up on default machines?
Do you think a simple file analyzer can catch these? We need stateful malware protocol checkers.. and even then, I dont think they would work.
I'd be pointing my finger at the admin, in that case.
There's no reason why mac networks should NOT be firewalled to Windows networks. They both are chatty in their own right, but on different protocols. Just because a machine can get on the net at large (without a NAT), doesnt mean there shouldn't be a firewall stopping stupid sutff, even internally.
---Let's consider "suspicious" activity of person-vs-person. If I walk down the street normal and non-descript in every way except I was patting the top of my head continously. If addressed by a passer-by I respond "bleek blork bleesums boo" and start hopping. Most people would consider this "suspicious" and more than likely call upon the government to send someone to investigate. This is a reasonable infringement of my privacy for the common good.
That's exactly why I don't support "suspicious" activity. Any activity out of the ordinary (no matter how strange, but non-violent) could be construed as suspicious to somebody. The police should be summoned in cases of breaking the law, not some strange behavior. This example shows this rather well.
---Now a second case of person-vs-collective. Same situation, but now in a work environment where I am employed. More than likely I will be escorted to the personnel department for a evaluation. The business/corporation is assuming the powers of the police, and in fact have far more powers than any reasonable government has. They don't need to accord me a trial. I have very little possibilities to appeal. They can pass judgment immediately and unilaterally. Again my absolute personal rights have been infringed upon, but now for the private good of a limited group.
In an at-will state (as I am in), they can fire you for any reason. However, for the company not to pay unemployment, they must show cause.
I tend to agree with this, because onerous laws that restrict hirings and firings lead to the situations we have in France. However, this leads to whether we should even allow companies, and under what laws and restrictions. A major question concerning corporate charter is if they should be required to uphold US constitutional restrictions: the US government allowed the charter to take place, so they should be bound by the same, should they not?
---Now a third case. Government has its own classification of suspicious activities and wants to collect information on this - say thru a transit card, or the use of credit cards, phone records, email, bank statements. Some would stand up and say "For shame! This invades my privacy, and will not be!" when in reality this give-and-take of privacy takes place on all levels, and by far the government has the *least* powers to intrude on privacy.
From what I see, those are documents. The fourth amendment on the Bill of Rights states that one will be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects. Though argued, I see that "papers" represents private information, and should be secured against the government UNLESS due process is made. Simply put: go get a judge to sign off.
Also, taken from a more modern viewpoint: these papers have your unique information. Copyright can be applied to your unique information, and thus, infringes upon the 5th amendment of the Bill of Rights. If one had copyright "intellectual property" used against you without permission stated in Title 17, it would be in violation of the "deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process" clause.
Time and time again, information has been stated that it is intellectual property. Then, why do we citizens not have the constitutional protections for our data security? The corporations wish it for themselves.
---The irony in this is that in the first case, people are already appealing to the government for protection against an non-threating suspicious activity, and in the second case the government doesn't even have a role (the business *is* a repressive totalitarian government).
To most any question, if the government is the answer, it was probably a bad question. In cases in which certain peoples are demanding help from the government, and ceding power to the government, let them get what they deserve.
---What you are advocating in your answer seems to be mob-justice or mafia enforcement. I'd rather the simple answer "Why not let the government pe
---Um, where did I indicate making suspicious activity illegal?
You did not. However, creating a "suspicious" class effectively makes it illegal. Case in point: job interviews now ask if the candidate is suspected of a crime, not just of guilt or innocence.
---I *did* say check suspicious individuals, but not arresting them. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on why suspicious people should not be investigated.
For one, I'd be a suspicious individual. Why? I can see the holes in our infrastructure that could be easily targeted. Many of these holes are easily fixed, but some others are not. All of these holes have government officials, when criticized, you end up on some special list to "watch closely". They have an aura of "You told the emperor he has no clothes on". Considering that a few choice words can add you to a list, how pray-tell do you get off? I can defend my innocence with a lawyer in a court of law, so how do I get off the DHS no-fly list?
---Oh by the way, interesting thought you have on Roman law - whatever is NOT illegal is expressly allowed. Amazing that you support that idea as it applies to individuals against the government, but not for the government to protect the citizens against large scale threats.
That is true. I'd trust my fellow man, but I see no reason to trust the government. They are the necessary evil that our founders had to create. However, they made our government so that it was slow to react and hard to make law. Part of our contract with our government indicates that they will make only make law that was expressly allowed in the Constitution, and no more. In fact, the Bill of Rights was created because the anti-federalists refused to support a constitution without direct limits on the federal system. In a nutshell, the anti-federalists were right: the federal system would trample over any and all rights it could unless directed not to by law.
Now... Why shouldn't government protect citizens against some XYZ attacks? Good question. They should protect us, but this protection should never cost us any rights what so ever. Our founders saw what happens when we trade "protection" for our freedom, and strived to never accept it. They also acknowledged that for us to be powerful, we all need that power, locally to nationally. Hence, that is also why we mere citizens have the legal freedom to create militias and obtain and use weaponry. I do note that our present word militia does have bad connotations in regards to fringe groups, but militias should be viewed as "citizen military for the protection of our country".
This does lead to an important question: Should we count solely on our government to protect us? And what are the results of those possible answers?
This, by definition, is Liberty. "I may die, by age, or by bullet, but I will die freely doing what I love, in a place that lets me live to MY extent."
Suppose a hunters' cabin had a sign up on it for years that said, "Come on in, just clean up after yourself." Then one day you arrived and it said "No trespassing". Would you expect a judge to rule that the owner had given up the right to control his property because the original sign didn't have a time limit?
That's the rub: Under state law (depends which state), sometimes they are irrevocable, and other times they are revocable at will.
The precedent is undetermined at this time. A good lawyer could argue either and screw a lots of people. I'm thinking of X, KDE, open-LDAP, and many other projects that derive work from either single points of failure, or direct forks from proprietary works.
---"Yes" and "no" are not complete answers to this question, it's more complicated than that, so "yes" and "no" really can both be true for different parts of the question. A better answer is that you have all of the rights of a copyright holder to license your own code differently, but the promises you've already made are still binding on you.
The question is rather seemingly basic, but gets into the nuts and bolts of contract law. Contract law has different interpretations between counties, states and federal districts. Is there a state in which the law would acknowledge the dissolution of one sided software contract (possibly similar to UCC..)?
If there is, software could be un-GPL'ed. I'm not stating this as a tactic I'd do, but as worries to watch out for in the future games of big software companies.
---Don't take other people's GPL modifications to your code and commercial license them! You aren't the copyright holder to that stuff. You have to pay them or otherwise get the rights from them before you can do that.
Obviously. That's why I said the code belonged to a single person, as this eliminates even more convoluted copyright debates. I thought it would be a simpler case to test for.
An interesting case is this article discussing exactly that.
Eben Moglen was contacted (lawyer for FSF) and said that CPhack had that problem, and was never resolved.
The best explanation is that explicit language would be needed to be added in the GPL and other type-like liceses to hold true. As it seems, as long as there is not intertwining copyright interests, redacting the GPL seems legal. Yuck.
If I remember correctly, there was a/. article about a high school in the UK that did that...
The school officials brought in a board of students (13, 3 from each grade, and 1 extra from the top) and they also helped in hiring teachers and making judgments on the teaching. Evidently, when "kids" are treated as adults and expected highly, they act properly as adults would.
I looked for about 2 min. on gogle and could not find it. I'm sure that research on www.kartoo.com while looking at bbc sites could narrow it down. I do know it was a case study.
This is a personal perspective.. I work at Starbucks (usually morning shifts) and I see a lot of local cops and sheriffs. In fact, I now them by name, as they do me.
Not all cops do the "treat you like the scum you are" stuff. One guy I know is a cleanup cop. His job is probably one of the most dangerous I know.. He's one of the guys that cleans up meth houses and other cooking operations. He's the one in the hazmat suits dealing with nasty junk that even the labs sometimes has problems with.
I know a gal who works here too in sex crimes. When we hear stats of child abuse and rapes (we live near a college town), they really aren't far off. Sometimes, she comes through as if she was the one beaten.
Also, the locals have told us that they wont pull people over unless they're driving dangerously (drunk, weaving in and out of traffic, skipping stops) and they still see people going 15 over at a school crossing..
When you have to deal with the public on a daily basis, I can understand why one might think everybody is a criminal... or damn near most. People will do damn near whatever they think they can get away with if they think they might not get caught.
And government authorizes corporate charters (and used to deny them en masse).
Therefore, I see no reason why the government does not force constitutional protection upon all corporations.
I see no reason why the same would be said for sole proprietor or partnership. Our country would be more served if we had tens of thousands of small businesses than the current goliaths.
Linux would allow exactly that kind of granular control.
The runlevels are rather simple to master, and one could make a "gamer" runlevel that only runs essential services. ALmost all your horsepower would be for the games.
Our body of law gives rights to the creators and their protected ability of being the one to approve copies. Regardless of whether we agree or now with this, that is our situation.
Now, we take this to the "digital domain". Those older creators want, no.. need these protections as they see in the non-internet world. The only real way to "guarantee" this is by digital restrictions. The best way I think of this is that of a akin to a capability system and the copyright maintainer has an account on your machine.
However, our machines are ours. The geeks amongst us demand that we are able to control our software and hardware. What was unable to do in WinXP, Vista seems to offer the beginning of that capability system with the media companies at the kill switch. And to top it off, Vista has remotely disabling drivers for "holes" that might appear. For those that own a machine, this OS laughs in their face, as if saying "Bring It On!"
And there are many casualties. Those casualties are the Joe and Jane Publics that don't understand this issue close enough, or think that all needs to be done is burn to DVD... just like the iPod to music. When they find out that they are locked with binary garbage that cannot be used for any fair use purpose (backing up owned DVDs is fair usage).
And where are we now? When the users know they are eventually shafted, those that have the know-how will show others where to download the movies and the music they legitimately bought. Once they know they were taken advantage of, any feeling of "theft" (or whatever you call it) will be gone. The media companies had their chance to do their dealings with the public honestly, but have failed.
I believe he was using a somewhat uncommon tactic of bringing a concept to its absurd extreme.
3 strikes and prison for life. 10 strikes and death. Stuff like that.
However, I'm the kind of person who says that people who do violent crimes that we DO kill them for should not be killed. People who do acts of serial murder or other mass killings are by definition mentally instable, and capitally punishing insanes is unconstitutional.
I'm still for capital punishment for treason though. I've yet to see a reasonable "psychosis" for people who wish to defect and get caught with national secrets.
2 cams at 640x480 res recording on motion, and aimable. We could use 2 webcams and dump the contents to a 32GB flash, while using an ARM for the processing. Id imagine that it needn't cost more than 250$ as a final solution.
However, you came off as the "evul camera overlord". Yeah, that's true, but cameras are cheap. They will be there watching everything.
What's better: All cameras going to a centralized locale (panopticon) or all public cameras in which anybody anywhere can view?
Out of a better of 2 evils, I know which one I'd choose. And with miniaturization, there is no 3rd option (no cameras). There was an essay on Wired(?) about this very 'Faustian choice'. I don't remember the link, and I'm studying for a calc test.
Oh, I doubt it's something that mundane (aside the funniness).
What is apparent to me as an Indiana citizen is that Mitch Daniels (our governor) wanted to do something to make himself look good. Many things, however, have strong pro or con sides in which the Democrats or Republicans will boo at.
Instead, we had our governor make an assumption: the businesses in our state will make more money if we switch to DST. It's complete garbage, but as a politician, making non-changes like this while claiming everything reeks of snake oil.
And what really pissed us IN. citizens off was that Congress decided that next year to play around with the definitions of DST and when they switch. Meh.
Slashdot Mirror
That's very far from the truth, and very easy to test.
Take VirtualBox, and disable all inputs and outputs except for the screen, keyboard, and mouse. Run the knoppix disk and set up basic windows binary support (via wine). Go download a virus from those virus testing centers (search for one) and run it with help from Wine. It will then propagate through the windows execs.
I am a linux/windows user, so I dont know about parallels. I can, however confirm virus "support" for Wine. One does need to heed caution in that some viruses cannot run due to usage of special APIs that are in only certain versions of Windows. It's the same picky stuff that also prevents legit programs from running.
All analogies such as these are pointless, as all of them break down when taken to the logical conclusion.
In cases which a client may have remote-execute bugs, one would want a protocol scanner to verify that hacking crashes the program in a safe way. Crashing otherwise can open buffer exploits and other nasties like writing over the data segment so arbitrary code can execute.
In other cases, one would use 2 clients back to back (Google Mail within a browser). The chances one would pass Google mail, and then target an arbitrary browser is highly unlikely.
Now, can we guarantee our computer safety in that we remain the controller of it? In the case of Windows, the answer is a resounding No. Windows assumes that it knows better than you, and can prevent you (administrator) from doing certain tasks. Even if system control is taken via tricks in different parts of the registry and other places, one still cannot approach the power that ROOT has over Unix-based machines.
When it comes to Windows, one can wonder what kind of holes are in the system, intentionally and accidentally. Does your current samba system have any holes? How about Rdesktop via "microsoft" or whomever your computer manufacturer is? Or, is there any holes via third party cram-ware that invariably ends up on every box retailer machine? Or.. Yahoo chat, MSN chat, or many other vectors that end up on default machines?
Do you think a simple file analyzer can catch these? We need stateful malware protocol checkers.. and even then, I dont think they would work.
I'd be pointing my finger at the admin, in that case.
There's no reason why mac networks should NOT be firewalled to Windows networks. They both are chatty in their own right, but on different protocols. Just because a machine can get on the net at large (without a NAT), doesnt mean there shouldn't be a firewall stopping stupid sutff, even internally.
---Let's consider "suspicious" activity of person-vs-person. If I walk down the street normal and non-descript in every way except I was patting the top of my head continously. If addressed by a passer-by I respond "bleek blork bleesums boo" and start hopping. Most people would consider this "suspicious" and more than likely call upon the government to send someone to investigate. This is a reasonable infringement of my privacy for the common good.
That's exactly why I don't support "suspicious" activity. Any activity out of the ordinary (no matter how strange, but non-violent) could be construed as suspicious to somebody. The police should be summoned in cases of breaking the law, not some strange behavior. This example shows this rather well.
---Now a second case of person-vs-collective. Same situation, but now in a work environment where I am employed. More than likely I will be escorted to the personnel department for a evaluation. The business/corporation is assuming the powers of the police, and in fact have far more powers than any reasonable government has. They don't need to accord me a trial. I have very little possibilities to appeal. They can pass judgment immediately and unilaterally. Again my absolute personal rights have been infringed upon, but now for the private good of a limited group.
In an at-will state (as I am in), they can fire you for any reason. However, for the company not to pay unemployment, they must show cause.
I tend to agree with this, because onerous laws that restrict hirings and firings lead to the situations we have in France. However, this leads to whether we should even allow companies, and under what laws and restrictions. A major question concerning corporate charter is if they should be required to uphold US constitutional restrictions: the US government allowed the charter to take place, so they should be bound by the same, should they not?
---Now a third case. Government has its own classification of suspicious activities and wants to collect information on this - say thru a transit card, or the use of credit cards, phone records, email, bank statements. Some would stand up and say "For shame! This invades my privacy, and will not be!" when in reality this give-and-take of privacy takes place on all levels, and by far the government has the *least* powers to intrude on privacy.
From what I see, those are documents. The fourth amendment on the Bill of Rights states that one will be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects. Though argued, I see that "papers" represents private information, and should be secured against the government UNLESS due process is made. Simply put: go get a judge to sign off.
Also, taken from a more modern viewpoint: these papers have your unique information. Copyright can be applied to your unique information, and thus, infringes upon the 5th amendment of the Bill of Rights. If one had copyright "intellectual property" used against you without permission stated in Title 17, it would be in violation of the "deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process" clause.
Time and time again, information has been stated that it is intellectual property. Then, why do we citizens not have the constitutional protections for our data security? The corporations wish it for themselves.
---The irony in this is that in the first case, people are already appealing to the government for protection against an non-threating suspicious activity, and in the second case the government doesn't even have a role (the business *is* a repressive totalitarian government).
To most any question, if the government is the answer, it was probably a bad question. In cases in which certain peoples are demanding help from the government, and ceding power to the government, let them get what they deserve.
---What you are advocating in your answer seems to be mob-justice or mafia enforcement. I'd rather the simple answer "Why not let the government pe
---Um, where did I indicate making suspicious activity illegal?
You did not. However, creating a "suspicious" class effectively makes it illegal. Case in point: job interviews now ask if the candidate is suspected of a crime, not just of guilt or innocence.
---I *did* say check suspicious individuals, but not arresting them. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on why suspicious people should not be investigated.
For one, I'd be a suspicious individual. Why? I can see the holes in our infrastructure that could be easily targeted. Many of these holes are easily fixed, but some others are not. All of these holes have government officials, when criticized, you end up on some special list to "watch closely". They have an aura of "You told the emperor he has no clothes on". Considering that a few choice words can add you to a list, how pray-tell do you get off? I can defend my innocence with a lawyer in a court of law, so how do I get off the DHS no-fly list?
---Oh by the way, interesting thought you have on Roman law - whatever is NOT illegal is expressly allowed. Amazing that you support that idea as it applies to individuals against the government, but not for the government to protect the citizens against large scale threats.
That is true. I'd trust my fellow man, but I see no reason to trust the government. They are the necessary evil that our founders had to create. However, they made our government so that it was slow to react and hard to make law. Part of our contract with our government indicates that they will make only make law that was expressly allowed in the Constitution, and no more. In fact, the Bill of Rights was created because the anti-federalists refused to support a constitution without direct limits on the federal system. In a nutshell, the anti-federalists were right: the federal system would trample over any and all rights it could unless directed not to by law.
Now... Why shouldn't government protect citizens against some XYZ attacks? Good question. They should protect us, but this protection should never cost us any rights what so ever. Our founders saw what happens when we trade "protection" for our freedom, and strived to never accept it. They also acknowledged that for us to be powerful, we all need that power, locally to nationally. Hence, that is also why we mere citizens have the legal freedom to create militias and obtain and use weaponry. I do note that our present word militia does have bad connotations in regards to fringe groups, but militias should be viewed as "citizen military for the protection of our country".
This does lead to an important question: Should we count solely on our government to protect us? And what are the results of those possible answers?
This, by definition, is Liberty. "I may die, by age, or by bullet, but I will die freely doing what I love, in a place that lets me live to MY extent."
So you wish to make it illegal to "act suspicious"? Interesting. Wonder where that'll take us...
Roman law (the one which ours was build) states that whatever is NOT illegal is expressly allowed. Why should we change this?
In many jurisdictions, it falls under contract law.
So, yes the GPL is a license, but there's a chance the judge wont see it that way.
Suppose a hunters' cabin had a sign up on it for years that said, "Come on in, just clean up after yourself." Then one day you arrived and it said "No trespassing". Would you expect a judge to rule that the owner had given up the right to control his property because the original sign didn't have a time limit?
That's the rub: Under state law (depends which state), sometimes they are irrevocable, and other times they are revocable at will.
The precedent is undetermined at this time. A good lawyer could argue either and screw a lots of people. I'm thinking of X, KDE, open-LDAP, and many other projects that derive work from either single points of failure, or direct forks from proprietary works.
---"Yes" and "no" are not complete answers to this question, it's more complicated than that, so "yes" and "no" really can both be true for different parts of the question. A better answer is that you have all of the rights of a copyright holder to license your own code differently, but the promises you've already made are still binding on you.
The question is rather seemingly basic, but gets into the nuts and bolts of contract law. Contract law has different interpretations between counties, states and federal districts. Is there a state in which the law would acknowledge the dissolution of one sided software contract (possibly similar to UCC..)?
If there is, software could be un-GPL'ed. I'm not stating this as a tactic I'd do, but as worries to watch out for in the future games of big software companies.
---Don't take other people's GPL modifications to your code and commercial license them! You aren't the copyright holder to that stuff. You have to pay them or otherwise get the rights from them before you can do that.
Obviously. That's why I said the code belonged to a single person, as this eliminates even more convoluted copyright debates. I thought it would be a simpler case to test for.
An interesting case is this article discussing exactly that.
Eben Moglen was contacted (lawyer for FSF) and said that CPhack had that problem, and was never resolved.
The best explanation is that explicit language would be needed to be added in the GPL and other type-like liceses to hold true. As it seems, as long as there is not intertwining copyright interests, redacting the GPL seems legal. Yuck.
Is there any legal indication that the GPL is revocable?
When considering the case of a sole developer (for example, me), can I legally revoke the agreement if I wish to do further work proprietary?
I've heard yes and no both.. They both logically cannot both be true.
One could substitute any similar open-source freedom based licenses instead of the GPL.
If I remember correctly, there was a /. article about a high school in the UK that did that...
The school officials brought in a board of students (13, 3 from each grade, and 1 extra from the top) and they also helped in hiring teachers and making judgments on the teaching. Evidently, when "kids" are treated as adults and expected highly, they act properly as adults would.
I looked for about 2 min. on gogle and could not find it. I'm sure that research on www.kartoo.com while looking at bbc sites could narrow it down. I do know it was a case study.
HTH
This is a personal perspective.. I work at Starbucks (usually morning shifts) and I see a lot of local cops and sheriffs. In fact, I now them by name, as they do me.
Not all cops do the "treat you like the scum you are" stuff. One guy I know is a cleanup cop. His job is probably one of the most dangerous I know.. He's one of the guys that cleans up meth houses and other cooking operations. He's the one in the hazmat suits dealing with nasty junk that even the labs sometimes has problems with.
I know a gal who works here too in sex crimes. When we hear stats of child abuse and rapes (we live near a college town), they really aren't far off. Sometimes, she comes through as if she was the one beaten.
Also, the locals have told us that they wont pull people over unless they're driving dangerously (drunk, weaving in and out of traffic, skipping stops) and they still see people going 15 over at a school crossing..
When you have to deal with the public on a daily basis, I can understand why one might think everybody is a criminal... or damn near most. People will do damn near whatever they think they can get away with if they think they might not get caught.
And government authorizes corporate charters (and used to deny them en masse).
Therefore, I see no reason why the government does not force constitutional protection upon all corporations.
I see no reason why the same would be said for sole proprietor or partnership. Our country would be more served if we had tens of thousands of small businesses than the current goliaths.
What's yellow and lives on dead beatles?
Yoko Ono.
Really does apply to this context.
Linux would allow exactly that kind of granular control.
The runlevels are rather simple to master, and one could make a "gamer" runlevel that only runs essential services. ALmost all your horsepower would be for the games.
If my application exceeds 100k users....
:)
Found in source code
char app_name[20] = rand()
What alternatives do we have?
Our body of law gives rights to the creators and their protected ability of being the one to approve copies. Regardless of whether we agree or now with this, that is our situation.
Now, we take this to the "digital domain". Those older creators want, no.. need these protections as they see in the non-internet world. The only real way to "guarantee" this is by digital restrictions. The best way I think of this is that of a akin to a capability system and the copyright maintainer has an account on your machine.
However, our machines are ours. The geeks amongst us demand that we are able to control our software and hardware. What was unable to do in WinXP, Vista seems to offer the beginning of that capability system with the media companies at the kill switch. And to top it off, Vista has remotely disabling drivers for "holes" that might appear. For those that own a machine, this OS laughs in their face, as if saying "Bring It On!"
And there are many casualties. Those casualties are the Joe and Jane Publics that don't understand this issue close enough, or think that all needs to be done is burn to DVD... just like the iPod to music. When they find out that they are locked with binary garbage that cannot be used for any fair use purpose (backing up owned DVDs is fair usage).
And where are we now? When the users know they are eventually shafted, those that have the know-how will show others where to download the movies and the music they legitimately bought. Once they know they were taken advantage of, any feeling of "theft" (or whatever you call it) will be gone. The media companies had their chance to do their dealings with the public honestly, but have failed.
Just like língchí.. Death by a thousand cuts.
posted on kuro5hin.org
I believe he was using a somewhat uncommon tactic of bringing a concept to its absurd extreme.
3 strikes and prison for life. 10 strikes and death. Stuff like that.
However, I'm the kind of person who says that people who do violent crimes that we DO kill them for should not be killed. People who do acts of serial murder or other mass killings are by definition mentally instable, and capitally punishing insanes is unconstitutional.
I'm still for capital punishment for treason though. I've yet to see a reasonable "psychosis" for people who wish to defect and get caught with national secrets.
Then we need to respond in kind.
2 cams at 640x480 res recording on motion, and aimable. We could use 2 webcams and dump the contents to a 32GB flash, while using an ARM for the processing. Id imagine that it needn't cost more than 250$ as a final solution.
Well said.
However, you came off as the "evul camera overlord". Yeah, that's true, but cameras are cheap. They will be there watching everything.
What's better: All cameras going to a centralized locale (panopticon) or all public cameras in which anybody anywhere can view?
Out of a better of 2 evils, I know which one I'd choose. And with miniaturization, there is no 3rd option (no cameras). There was an essay on Wired(?) about this very 'Faustian choice'. I don't remember the link, and I'm studying for a calc test.
Oh, I doubt it's something that mundane (aside the funniness).
What is apparent to me as an Indiana citizen is that Mitch Daniels (our governor) wanted to do something to make himself look good. Many things, however, have strong pro or con sides in which the Democrats or Republicans will boo at.
Instead, we had our governor make an assumption: the businesses in our state will make more money if we switch to DST. It's complete garbage, but as a politician, making non-changes like this while claiming everything reeks of snake oil.
And what really pissed us IN. citizens off was that Congress decided that next year to play around with the definitions of DST and when they switch. Meh.
For the love of /root, use the print link.
We dont want to see a little bit of content over 9 pages!
Oh no.. The research will go on. Instead of patenting, it'll be copyrights, NDA's and trade secrets.
Patents are only 20 years. Copyrights are 100+ years. What do you want your drugs to be under?