No, seriously. Linux will be able to play these DRM videos, whereas Windows won't.
This is already case with DeCSS. Why would the next thing be any different? Windows will refuse to do what people want it to, whereas Linux will continue to obey its users.
Just in case someone was browsing at score:0, and might think this comment has valid points, keep in mind that the U.S. put all the research into the internet (via the D.O.D., those big evil people). So it's not so much a God-given right as it is a purchased, sweated-for right.
You're so right.
Could you please take your ball and go home? And not come out to play again? Please? Pretty please!
Of course us people living in the real world know that the cause of the Oil for Food scandal was that the American and British governments and ships (which patrolled the waters where the "smuggling" vessels passed) were either incompetent or corrupt... most likely both, actually.
Maybe next time you can elect leadership who are not a bloody embarrassment the world over!
Can't you just imagine the U N collecting a domain tax on behalf of the poor?
This is another reason for the US to cut U N funding. Why are we paying dues to this group?
You're right. We should do what the US does. Give economy-crippling loans while pretending it's "foreign aid" in exchange of permission for US companies to buy up anything worthwhile in the country.
Only in America can people be found who are educated enough to realise you can be bigotted against governments but love their countries and peoples with all your fluffy little American heart, so long as they STAY IN THEIR DAMN PLACE: the gutter, and SHUT UP.
The monitoring was done by American and British ships. So either the respective governments were allowing illegal activity, or their militaries' representatives were corrupt or incompetent. (Or, the most likely: all three at once.)
There's a saying: "It's better to be thought a fool, then to open your mouth and remove all doubt." Well, don't worry, there's always next time for you.
Of course, the point (quite obvious from the summary as well as from the most basic aspects of common sense) is: it doesn't matter what the US thinks or what random American crackpots want to be the status quo with the internet infrastructure.
The Internet is global. The infrastructure is fully "internationalisable". If the will is there, it will be done.
At that point, I suggest Americans rip themselves off from the global internet so as to retain control "their property".
Really, it's okay... we won't cry a river.
Buh-bye!
I think you got your example wrong. Vendors like intel cooperate just the same with windows as they do with Linux, they release compiled drivers. Why someone who runs linux feels they should get more than that confounds me.
Really, its as long as open source zealots are not willing to coexist with closed source(even though most closed source is willing to go the other way) many Linux distributions will have a steeper learning curve.
Having different aims and higher standards is not "unwillingness to co-exist". You are either clueless beyond hope, or just not that bright.
And Open Source and Free software does not *need* vendor cooperation. It would be nice to have. It would be helpful. However we're getting by alright without it know and will continue to do so.
If companies choose not to cater to highly technically proficient users, those users will, over time, make said companies irrelevant. The process, of course, is already well underway.
So please stop posting FUDish blather designed to offend. If you have nothing worthwhile to say, why waste bandwidth at all?
I was under the impression that seizures were life threatening, as someone in the throwes has the potential to do things like swallow their tongue, etc. How does this help me when I have to stop working to go and help someone through such a bout? Why is so much of that my fault, that I end up paying for it in terms of time and money? This doesn't make sense to me...
Yes, like tripping and falling is life threatening. A lot of people with epilepsy are no more like to die from epilepsy than you were likely to die riding your bike.
I've known people who were regularly fired (under various pretexts) because of their semi-regular (once a month or once a few months) seizures from every job they had so far.
In a very practical sense, you're talking about a worker who cannot perform their job for a few minutes - few hours every once in a while. If the person is diligent, your company might get more value out of them then they do out of you or would out of me (Slashdot postings and all considered).
Why should you pay for it? Hmmm... well, if you pay taxes you'd have no choice. And letting people starve to death is not an option.
People who have nothing to lose are not pleasant to have around anyways. They have far fewer qualms about a wide range of illegal and immoral acts.
How about letting them work and have meaning to their lives (even if some people would rather pretend they did not exist), and taking the occasional half-day they miss due to seizures out of their paycheque?
actually I am NORTH American - United States. We could go back and forth all day, I bet.
You can guess my nationality because people are struggling to live good lives in this country because of race - or is it really economics?
Whatever the case is, I just want people to care about each other. You can't legislate caring, but it's just something I try to promote.
Language is a powerful tool. When you use racial or gender metaphores like "maiden voyage", you put people down. But you can always use language to improve people's lives. Strive for it!
While you're stated motivations are admirable. You're proposed method is questionable at best.
And, to be clear, I can guess you're nationality not because "people are struggling to live good lives in this country because of race - or is it really economics" (wtf?), but because your words make it seem that you are oblivious and/or apathetic to the world outside of NORTH America. (And, like it or not, the term "American" refers to YOUR PEOPLE [US citizens] specifically in most of the world, despite understandable Latin American sensitives.)
You did conveniently fail to address the actual point of my post. Saying, "the whole matter is black and white" is not offensive to either blacks or whites (and if it were, it would be equally offensive to both groups) than calling someone ignorantly a "white man" with all the implied subtext about racial prejudice, ignorance, hatred, and ancestral slavery connections that go along with that statement.
You do realise that not all white men's ancestors were involved in slave-trade or slave-ownership. You do realise the great majority of white people's ancestors were peasants who toiled for their "betters'" gain in conditions often little different from slavery both during and for thousands of years before US and European slavery.
You do realise that a lot of European countries had no colonies, and also did not have racial diversity *at all* until the last 10-20 years (i.e.: no white men oppressing the countries' non-existent african and asian populations).
So why pray tell is it okay for you to insinuate that white men are ignorant and don't care if they offend others? (This is the mildest interpretation I can make. And the arrogance in question, ironically enough, is rather a stereotypical American trait.)
At any rate, this whole matter really is black and white... and it's odd that you don't see it, because obviously you are not colour-blind. But then again, maybe it's not so odd you being American and all. I guess for you it's racist to bash minorities (or to utter sentences that sound like they might have something to do with minorities, even though they don't), and stylish to bash American whites while forgetting (as a good American generally does) that most of the world is composed of people very different than you are, regardless of skin-colour).
So yeah, peace and togetherness... just be aware that your mentality isn't leading in that direction.
I cannot imagine another nationality who'd think there is something wrong with describing a situation as "black and white", but think it's okay to call someone a "white male".
After all, the first term has nothing to do with race whatsoever. Whereas the second one paints dozens of disparate cultures, nationalities, ethnicies, and linguistic communities with a single brush.
After all, any two White and Black Americans have by FAR more in common, then most randomly chosen two whites (or two blacks, or two asians, etc). Think Bulgarians, Germans, French, Hungarians, Romanians, Poles, Ukrainians, Swedish, Belarussians, Bretons, Maltans, Catalans, Greeks, etc, etc, etc. All have white men. Can you really generalise anything beyond skin-color, err *race*?
Not necessarily true. I was pronouncing it you-bun-too, but it's actually uh-bun-too.
I'm sure this will mistify all English speakers... but guess what?
The word "Ubuntu" only has a single vowel used in it (hint: it's "u"), albeit three times. Believe it or not, it represents the same sound all three times. That's right: the same letter stands for the same sound.
In IPA: ùbúntú
The accents refer to tone (in the case of the above: low, high, high). In other words: the same letter stands for the same sound (sometimes a crazy side-effect of using an alphabet for writing your language). And it so happens, that that sound is a shorter version of the sound "oo" in "boot".
So it's pronounced: oo-boon-too (except the vowel sounds are all short, not long)
You must read pretty short books, or you have lots of time. I can't see it done unless you spend 5-8 hours a day (at least I enjoy reading so I don't try to rush through it as if I have to take a test on it tomorrow).
Has it occured to you that it is not his reading skills that are "fantasticalistic", but rather yours that may be subpar?
Thank you, hkmwbz. You really are a regular clown in any vaguely Opera related article's discussion, aren't you?
For the info about who reported the vulnerability--thanks. That does make the conspiracy theory seem less likely.
For totally missing the bigger point--also thanks, I would have expected no less from you based on your past posts.
The behavior described is not a bug. As countless others also pointed out, it is at best a design flaw. So calling it a bug, or a vulnerability, or anything else along those lines is just really really mind-numbingly dumb.
But I guess to an Opera zealot it's all the same so long as Opera "fixed" the "bug" first.
Bizzarely, this is the most sensible explanation I've read so far. I just can't believe that there is anyone who knows how to report a browser bug that would be so dumb to call this... well, a browser bug.
"Grossman links them together with obvious affection and in interesting and mysterious ways."
I totally know what the submitter means... it's like when I put the grocery bags on our kitchen counter at home--with obvious affection.
Sorry... couldn't resist. The phrase "with obvious affection" just makes it abundantly clear that the submitter was intending to write a book review and is blessed with obvious affection for the concept of book reviews.
Sounds like a good, if somewhat bad book though! %)
Debian is a linux distribution that consists of tweaked and patched software fitted together into a coherent system. Their standard practice is to make slight changes (bug fixes, security fixes, et al) to software to make it fit their system and their quality expectations.
Mozilla Firefox's trademark clause does not allow *any* changes (no bug fixes, no security patches, can't fix a single misspelled menu item and still call the result Firefox afterwards).
Accordingly, Debian can then either:
a) not include Firefox
b) call it something else (that users will not be familiar with)
c) submit code to Mozilla Foundation even for utterly trivial things, even for wholly Debian specific things of no interest to anyone else... and *WAIT* until someone at MoFo incorporates their change (or doesn't)
d) accept that on a whim Debian is *for now* granted ad-hoc exception to the rules (which may later be revoked... did BitKeeper teach people anything about revokable rights?)
e) find some way of getting MoFo to change policies
Instead of making dumb comparisons that only a Slashdot moderator could dub insightful; they decided to have a serious discussion on the issue.
e) b) and d) are the favoured solutions thus far in that order or in this order: e) d) and b) depending on who you ask.
Mind you Debian actually has somewhat flexible and clearly document rules regarding their logo (which is "trademark stuff"--is it not?) as opposed to MoFo's "you can use it if we feel like excepting you from our trademark clause" approach:
http://www.debian.org/logos/
Good summary. Now, it isn't that we don't understand MoFo's side of this. Obviously they want to maintain some level of control over what kinds of products their trademark is attached to. Otherwise $DISTRO will release a version with a bug that they added, and the headlines will just say "Horrific Flaw in Firefox Kills Users on Load!"
I think the only decent, long-term solution is to name apps at the outset in a way that allows them to be prominently associated with a distributer that might have changecd it. Firefox is actually named very well for this purpose, it just hasn't been used that way to date. The official name is Mozilla Firefox, and the distro name could be Debian Firefox, RedHat Firefox, etc.
If such a naming convention were used across the free software world, then security flaws wouldn't be misreported nearly as easily.
That is actually a really great idea! I hope you'll pitch it to the right people in both Debian and MoFo.
I'd also be curious to find out how other software deals with the issue of quality/brand control. Anyone knows?
Slashdot Mirror
Will this affect 500+ GB *ripped and _reencoded_* .avi Video Libraries? I mean, I hear some people have them...
Not I, of course. Just sayin'...
No, seriously. Linux will be able to play these DRM videos, whereas Windows won't.
This is already case with DeCSS. Why would the next thing be any different? Windows will refuse to do what people want it to, whereas Linux will continue to obey its users.
Could you please take your ball and go home? And not come out to play again? Please? Pretty please!
Of course us people living in the real world know that the cause of the Oil for Food scandal was that the American and British governments and ships (which patrolled the waters where the "smuggling" vessels passed) were either incompetent or corrupt... most likely both, actually.
Maybe next time you can elect leadership who are not a bloody embarrassment the world over!
Now you can go back to your high and mighty American ivory tower to work out the next scandel (sic) that threatens mighty America.
That's what the poor need!! Lazy gits!
Are you writing from a mental hospital?
The monitoring was done by American and British ships. So either the respective governments were allowing illegal activity, or their militaries' representatives were corrupt or incompetent. (Or, the most likely: all three at once.)
There's a saying: "It's better to be thought a fool, then to open your mouth and remove all doubt." Well, don't worry, there's always next time for you.
Of course, the point (quite obvious from the summary as well as from the most basic aspects of common sense) is: it doesn't matter what the US thinks or what random American crackpots want to be the status quo with the internet infrastructure.
The Internet is global. The infrastructure is fully "internationalisable". If the will is there, it will be done.
At that point, I suggest Americans rip themselves off from the global internet so as to retain control "their property".
Really, it's okay... we won't cry a river.
Buh-bye!
And Open Source and Free software does not *need* vendor cooperation. It would be nice to have. It would be helpful. However we're getting by alright without it know and will continue to do so.
If companies choose not to cater to highly technically proficient users, those users will, over time, make said companies irrelevant. The process, of course, is already well underway.
So please stop posting FUDish blather designed to offend. If you have nothing worthwhile to say, why waste bandwidth at all?
I've known people who were regularly fired (under various pretexts) because of their semi-regular (once a month or once a few months) seizures from every job they had so far.
In a very practical sense, you're talking about a worker who cannot perform their job for a few minutes - few hours every once in a while. If the person is diligent, your company might get more value out of them then they do out of you or would out of me (Slashdot postings and all considered).
Why should you pay for it? Hmmm... well, if you pay taxes you'd have no choice. And letting people starve to death is not an option.
People who have nothing to lose are not pleasant to have around anyways. They have far fewer qualms about a wide range of illegal and immoral acts.
How about letting them work and have meaning to their lives (even if some people would rather pretend they did not exist), and taking the occasional half-day they miss due to seizures out of their paycheque?
And, to be clear, I can guess you're nationality not because "people are struggling to live good lives in this country because of race - or is it really economics" (wtf?), but because your words make it seem that you are oblivious and/or apathetic to the world outside of NORTH America. (And, like it or not, the term "American" refers to YOUR PEOPLE [US citizens] specifically in most of the world, despite understandable Latin American sensitives.)
You did conveniently fail to address the actual point of my post. Saying, "the whole matter is black and white" is not offensive to either blacks or whites (and if it were, it would be equally offensive to both groups) than calling someone ignorantly a "white man" with all the implied subtext about racial prejudice, ignorance, hatred, and ancestral slavery connections that go along with that statement.
You do realise that not all white men's ancestors were involved in slave-trade or slave-ownership. You do realise the great majority of white people's ancestors were peasants who toiled for their "betters'" gain in conditions often little different from slavery both during and for thousands of years before US and European slavery.
You do realise that a lot of European countries had no colonies, and also did not have racial diversity *at all* until the last 10-20 years (i.e.: no white men oppressing the countries' non-existent african and asian populations).
So why pray tell is it okay for you to insinuate that white men are ignorant and don't care if they offend others? (This is the mildest interpretation I can make. And the arrogance in question, ironically enough, is rather a stereotypical American trait.)
At any rate, this whole matter really is black and white... and it's odd that you don't see it, because obviously you are not colour-blind. But then again, maybe it's not so odd you being American and all. I guess for you it's racist to bash minorities (or to utter sentences that sound like they might have something to do with minorities, even though they don't), and stylish to bash American whites while forgetting (as a good American generally does) that most of the world is composed of people very different than you are, regardless of skin-colour).
So yeah, peace and togetherness... just be aware that your mentality isn't leading in that direction.
Who may well be equally discriminated against by actual Americans of all backgrounds due to accent, differing cultural norms, etc.
So because someone may have a non-life-threatening seizure every few months, they should not be allowed to work alongside normal people?
I hope you're ready to start paying a lot more into various social security funds.
Let me guess: you're an American.
I cannot imagine another nationality who'd think there is something wrong with describing a situation as "black and white", but think it's okay to call someone a "white male".
After all, the first term has nothing to do with race whatsoever. Whereas the second one paints dozens of disparate cultures, nationalities, ethnicies, and linguistic communities with a single brush.
After all, any two White and Black Americans have by FAR more in common, then most randomly chosen two whites (or two blacks, or two asians, etc). Think Bulgarians, Germans, French, Hungarians, Romanians, Poles, Ukrainians, Swedish, Belarussians, Bretons, Maltans, Catalans, Greeks, etc, etc, etc. All have white men. Can you really generalise anything beyond skin-color, err *race*?
The word "Ubuntu" only has a single vowel used in it (hint: it's "u"), albeit three times. Believe it or not, it represents the same sound all three times. That's right: the same letter stands for the same sound.
In IPA: ùbúntú
The accents refer to tone (in the case of the above: low, high, high). In other words: the same letter stands for the same sound (sometimes a crazy side-effect of using an alphabet for writing your language). And it so happens, that that sound is a shorter version of the sound "oo" in "boot".
So it's pronounced: oo-boon-too (except the vowel sounds are all short, not long)
Funniest explanation ever!!
Kudos!
The original poster reads at the same speed I do.
Ta ta!
Thank you, hkmwbz. You really are a regular clown in any vaguely Opera related article's discussion, aren't you?
For the info about who reported the vulnerability--thanks. That does make the conspiracy theory seem less likely.
For totally missing the bigger point--also thanks, I would have expected no less from you based on your past posts.
The behavior described is not a bug. As countless others also pointed out, it is at best a design flaw. So calling it a bug, or a vulnerability, or anything else along those lines is just really really mind-numbingly dumb.
But I guess to an Opera zealot it's all the same so long as Opera "fixed" the "bug" first.
Bizzarely, this is the most sensible explanation I've read so far. I just can't believe that there is anyone who knows how to report a browser bug that would be so dumb to call this... well, a browser bug.
Sorry... couldn't resist. The phrase "with obvious affection" just makes it abundantly clear that the submitter was intending to write a book review and is blessed with obvious affection for the concept of book reviews.
Sounds like a good, if somewhat bad book though! %)
Debian is a linux distribution that consists of tweaked and patched software fitted together into a coherent system. Their standard practice is to make slight changes (bug fixes, security fixes, et al) to software to make it fit their system and their quality expectations.
Mozilla Firefox's trademark clause does not allow *any* changes (no bug fixes, no security patches, can't fix a single misspelled menu item and still call the result Firefox afterwards).
Accordingly, Debian can then either:
a) not include Firefox
b) call it something else (that users will not be familiar with)
c) submit code to Mozilla Foundation even for utterly trivial things, even for wholly Debian specific things of no interest to anyone else... and *WAIT* until someone at MoFo incorporates their change (or doesn't)
d) accept that on a whim Debian is *for now* granted ad-hoc exception to the rules (which may later be revoked... did BitKeeper teach people anything about revokable rights?)
e) find some way of getting MoFo to change policies
Instead of making dumb comparisons that only a Slashdot moderator could dub insightful; they decided to have a serious discussion on the issue.
e) b) and d) are the favoured solutions thus far in that order or in this order: e) d) and b) depending on who you ask.
Mind you Debian actually has somewhat flexible and clearly document rules regarding their logo (which is "trademark stuff"--is it not?) as opposed to MoFo's "you can use it if we feel like excepting you from our trademark clause" approach: http://www.debian.org/logos/
I'd also be curious to find out how other software deals with the issue of quality/brand control. Anyone knows?