Of course, software patents are a plague. There's no denying it. But let's be realistic. The world is as it is, and that means dominated by big corps holding huge patent portfolios. If IBM wishes to share some of their patents with OSS, that's GREAT. Remember: they are not forced to do this; they could even use them to kill some OSS projects that collide with their own products.
Again, if it were buried in the price, I'm sure we'd gladly pay but since it's obvious, it helps keep government spending down.
That's a good point! However, it would still be much more consumer-friendly to advertize BOTH pre-tax and final prices so that it becomes clear even before you buy something.
In some EU countries a while ago, some gasoline stations protested against horrendous taxe rates (80% is common there) by displaying both the final price (as they always do) AND (that was new) the pre-tax price. The uproar among customers was very noticeable. Unfortunately, they didn't generate enough pressure on their governments to cut back gasoline prices, so it's not always working.
For everyday use, Linux or *BSD are more than capable. They are excellent operating systems. I use FreeBSD all the time (didn't touch Windows since Windows 3.11 for Workgroups, and never missed it!). BUT there are specialized apps without FOSS counterpart. If your business, research etc. depend on those apps, you have no choice but biting the bullet and using whatever OS that they run on. Most users of such apps are no programmers who could recode the whole thing from scratch. Even the few of those who could do it, won't have the time and patience to really bother and will stick to binaries that JUST WORK. That's the real problem of FOSS: if there are not enough people calling for some types of (specialized) applications, and if there is no programmer(s) to code that thing for Unix, that's it. You're struck.
Now, if Linux came with a WORKING Win32s ABI layer (similarly to the BSDs which can run most native Linux binaries by providing the necessary ABI hooks), not just WINE, then people could run all their legacy binaries (be they from MSFT or third party suppliers) on that platform. If the application runs on dosemu (with freeDOS) or WINE: fine, great! But esp. WINE is not there yet, so there's a lot of work ahead. If developers could concentrate more on providing a full-fledged Win32s ABI instead of adding more and more bloatware-like eye-candy, it would be much more useful to a broader range of users. Please don't get me wrong here: everyone is free to code whatever they damn like; and YAWM (Yet Another Window Manager) are always a welcome choice here. It's just not enough (yet) in our real ugly software world.
Unfortunately, we don't pay for quality or bug-free software. Those who pay for commercial software do so, because 1. they are not aware of FOSS alternatives or 2. there is no FOSS equivalent. Just an example: is there any FOSS counterpart to MAPLE or Mathematica out there yet (I'm not meaning their Linux port; that's still commercial, right?)? Sure, there are some rudiments that do computer algebra out there, but they don't come near what those two are doing superbly. And this is just a small example. What about all those FPS games without FOSS alternatives? People go for commercial software, because they must, not because they are seeking bug-free programs (they hope to get them, but they know better by now!). Regarding Windows (the OS) itself, there's no reason to buy it, if all you need to do you could do with Linux or *BSD as well. But in many cases, users are forced to buy it anyway, if their favorite apps have not been ported to Linux or Mac. So we have the same scenario here: people are forced to pay for commercial software, not because of quality but out of necessity.
Even commercial software is still written by humans, and there is still no single program that can catch (all) errors in other programs. So, yes, they make mistakes just like FOSS coders. FOSS benefits from peer reviews all over the world and yet there are still uncaught mistakes lurking around. Commercial software benefits from paid reviewers all over the world, and yet there are still MANY uncaught mistakes lurking around.
Re:spam needn't be a problem anyhow...
on
FTC Defines Spam
·
· Score: 1
but C/R has worked with astonishing ease in my case.
/me too/
I'd highly recommend (well implemented) C/R systems to anyone out there. Even in the case of unwanted challenges, there's often a work-around: most challanges do carry very specific X-*** headers that let the receiving system know to filter accordingly (if they so wished).
Because (headers of) challenges are easily recognizable (an RFC regarding this would be a nice thing to have!), one can configure their e-mail servers or inboxes in such a way as to ignore unwanted challenges completely, and only let those challenges through from addresses that the user already sent a message to (where a challenge would be expected within a specific time frame)
There's IMHO no good reason to scorn C/R systems besides laziness.
"Some experts feel a card + PIN provides the same assurance level as a card + biometric"
Why a card then? With the card + PIN scheme, you had to prove that you owned something that others are not supposed to own, and a secret number, just in case the card was stolen. But your biometric is (supposed to be) unique, it can't be stolen. So why would you need a card then?
If you worry about having your biometric stolen (having your finger cut off or so), then you need a biometric + PIN scheme (just in case you were strong enough to get yourself killed and mutilated, but not telling the correct PIN.
3 Get ignored by *AA "infringment" engines which are no doubt searching for "*.mp3" and "*.wma" etc. etc.
Better yet:
3a. DDoS and overload "infrigement" engines by putting fake *.mp3 and *.wma files everywhere.
They will soon revert to some kind of SHA or MD5 fingerprinting to identify "their own" files. Of course, toggling a single random bit every now and them within the stream would be all it takes to obfuscate once again...
Ideally, I think we need a whole new *physical* layer Internet, separate from the existing Internet or Internet2 and devoid of participation by any and all governmental agents and anybody else who is significantly on the government payroll (defense contractors, etc.). Something like a wireless (or perhaps wired, where suitable), fully privately-owned mesh network on which only community-approved (based on the agreement of a certain number of surrounding and already-participating node-owners, much like with WASTE, except in meatspace) private nodes may communicate, over which all traffic is encrypted, possibly multiple times, possibly in hardware...
Yeah. First of all, wireless would be extremely bad, because it makes eavesdropping a snap. Even with encryption, it MAY be possible to conduct traffic analysis under certain preconditions. Second: the RF spectrum is the property of the state, which licenses its use to private parties. If you want to sidestep governments with wireless technology, it will always be illegal.
Having said this, you're right too: Not that long ago, we didn't rely on commercial internet service providers to connect our computers. We used UUCP or other custom made solutions that ran on the good ole POTS.
Imagine some kind of "UUCP Reloaded", using wireless spectrum! That would be great.
There's also MANET, which seeks to provide mobile ad hoc networking (a.k.a. mobile routing). That is also a good step in the right direction.
I think the 10what vesion should be good enough to play mp3s.
It is! I've used to play mp3s (with mpg123) on an old Pentium 200 MHz running FreeBSD (with X and all), and the load average didn't even exceed 0.20 or so. Even while running 'make buildworld' did mpg123 perform very well! Considering that my Soekris net4801 runs at 266 MHz and uses approx. 5 Watts, I'm pretty sure that the 10 Watt version will do just fine.
If you're going to have biometric scanners, why not lookup the information in a networked database to determine who the person is, regardless of what piece of paper they are carrying?
Absolutely! It's far easier to forge documents that people are required to show, than that networked (hopefully heavily secured) database.
Of course, this won't stop a determined attacker from compromizing the database using classic techniques of wetware hacking, corruption etc... It's always possible (given enough resources) to modify entries in government databases. That's how intelligence agencies work, when issuing fake IDs to their spies.
If the CIA were to use a robot developed by a research institute, this will be a well-behaved bot. As soon as it detects a robots.txt nick in some IRC channel, it will quietly stop spying and go away.
Okay, this would force "them" to act openly (no more hidden/passive eavesdropping), but that would not really help. All "they" need to do, is to impersonate some "harmless" individual, right? Or do you think that they'll use aliases like CIAbot?
A thirteen year old could write something to do this.
Well, yes, but government agencies are not working that way. They are supposed to budget those things, and how would they justify a few dollars for a working 2-liner, when they can throw big bucks at companies or other agencies to buy a buggy, overinflated "product"?
How much time do you need to regenerate? We often dive into hacking mode for some weeks (typically around 2 to 8 weeks) but it also takes time to refill our depleted emotional energy tanks when the job is done.
Slashdot Mirror
Even ones that work for YOU.
Of course, software patents are a plague. There's no denying it. But let's be realistic. The world is as it is, and that means dominated by big corps holding huge patent portfolios. If IBM wishes to share some of their patents with OSS, that's GREAT. Remember: they are not forced to do this; they could even use them to kill some OSS projects that collide with their own products.
Again, if it were buried in the price, I'm sure we'd gladly pay but since it's obvious, it helps keep government spending down.
That's a good point! However, it would still be much more consumer-friendly to advertize BOTH pre-tax and final prices so that it becomes clear even before you buy something.
In some EU countries a while ago, some gasoline stations protested against horrendous taxe rates (80% is common there) by displaying both the final price (as they always do) AND (that was new) the pre-tax price. The uproar among customers was very noticeable. Unfortunately, they didn't generate enough pressure on their governments to cut back gasoline prices, so it's not always working.
You can try to import stuff from outside the EU, but beware of customs. They are getting excessively aggressive nowadays...
For everyday use, Linux or *BSD are more than capable. They are excellent operating systems. I use FreeBSD all the time (didn't touch Windows since Windows 3.11 for Workgroups, and never missed it!). BUT there are specialized apps without FOSS counterpart. If your business, research etc. depend on those apps, you have no choice but biting the bullet and using whatever OS that they run on. Most users of such apps are no programmers who could recode the whole thing from scratch. Even the few of those who could do it, won't have the time and patience to really bother and will stick to binaries that JUST WORK. That's the real problem of FOSS: if there are not enough people calling for some types of (specialized) applications, and if there is no programmer(s) to code that thing for Unix, that's it. You're struck.
Now, if Linux came with a WORKING Win32s ABI layer (similarly to the BSDs which can run most native Linux binaries by providing the necessary ABI hooks), not just WINE, then people could run all their legacy binaries (be they from MSFT or third party suppliers) on that platform. If the application runs on dosemu (with freeDOS) or WINE: fine, great! But esp. WINE is not there yet, so there's a lot of work ahead. If developers could concentrate more on providing a full-fledged Win32s ABI instead of adding more and more bloatware-like eye-candy, it would be much more useful to a broader range of users. Please don't get me wrong here: everyone is free to code whatever they damn like; and YAWM (Yet Another Window Manager) are always a welcome choice here. It's just not enough (yet) in our real ugly software world.
Unfortunately, we don't pay for quality or bug-free software. Those who pay for commercial software do so, because 1. they are not aware of FOSS alternatives or 2. there is no FOSS equivalent. Just an example: is there any FOSS counterpart to MAPLE or Mathematica out there yet (I'm not meaning their Linux port; that's still commercial, right?)? Sure, there are some rudiments that do computer algebra out there, but they don't come near what those two are doing superbly. And this is just a small example. What about all those FPS games without FOSS alternatives? People go for commercial software, because they must, not because they are seeking bug-free programs (they hope to get them, but they know better by now!). Regarding Windows (the OS) itself, there's no reason to buy it, if all you need to do you could do with Linux or *BSD as well. But in many cases, users are forced to buy it anyway, if their favorite apps have not been ported to Linux or Mac. So we have the same scenario here: people are forced to pay for commercial software, not because of quality but out of necessity.
Even commercial software is still written by humans, and there is still no single program that can catch (all) errors in other programs. So, yes, they make mistakes just like FOSS coders. FOSS benefits from peer reviews all over the world and yet there are still uncaught mistakes lurking around. Commercial software benefits from paid reviewers all over the world, and yet there are still MANY uncaught mistakes lurking around.
Not that I'm suggesting linux users should put dog-shit in their air-conditioning
Why bother? Would they notice any difference?
When you die, you stop sending e-mail.
Unless you use Eliza to send replies...
but C/R has worked with astonishing ease in my case.
/me too/
I'd highly recommend (well implemented) C/R systems to anyone out there. Even in the case of unwanted challenges, there's often a work-around: most challanges do carry very specific X-*** headers that let the receiving system know to filter accordingly (if they so wished).
Because (headers of) challenges are easily recognizable (an RFC regarding this would be a nice thing to have!), one can configure their e-mail servers or inboxes in such a way as to ignore unwanted challenges completely, and only let those challenges through from addresses that the user already sent a message to (where a challenge would be expected within a specific time frame)
There's IMHO no good reason to scorn C/R systems besides laziness.
here are a lot of good features to "steal" for Firefox 1.2.
Unless they are patented!
In our days we used smoke signal .....
But only with a pure ALOHA protocol!
"Some experts feel a card + PIN provides the same assurance level as a card + biometric"
Why a card then? With the card + PIN scheme, you had to prove that you owned something that others are not supposed to own, and a secret number, just in case the card was stolen. But your biometric is (supposed to be) unique, it can't be stolen. So why would you need a card then?
If you worry about having your biometric stolen (having your finger cut off or so), then you need a biometric + PIN scheme (just in case you were strong enough to get yourself killed and mutilated, but not telling the correct PIN.
Big Brother is watching you (using standard protocols!).
3 Get ignored by *AA "infringment" engines which are no doubt searching for "*.mp3" and "*.wma" etc. etc.
Better yet:
3a. DDoS and overload "infrigement" engines by putting fake *.mp3 and *.wma files everywhere.
They will soon revert to some kind of SHA or MD5 fingerprinting to identify "their own" files. Of course, toggling a single random bit every now and them within the stream would be all it takes to obfuscate once again...
Ideally, I think we need a whole new *physical* layer Internet, separate from the existing Internet or Internet2 and devoid of participation by any and all governmental agents and anybody else who is significantly on the government payroll (defense contractors, etc.). Something like a wireless (or perhaps wired, where suitable), fully privately-owned mesh network on which only community-approved (based on the agreement of a certain number of surrounding and already-participating node-owners, much like with WASTE, except in meatspace) private nodes may communicate, over which all traffic is encrypted, possibly multiple times, possibly in hardware...
Yeah. First of all, wireless would be extremely bad, because it makes eavesdropping a snap. Even with encryption, it MAY be possible to conduct traffic analysis under certain preconditions. Second: the RF spectrum is the property of the state, which licenses its use to private parties. If you want to sidestep governments with wireless technology, it will always be illegal.
Having said this, you're right too: Not that long ago, we didn't rely on commercial internet service providers to connect our computers. We used UUCP or other custom made solutions that ran on the good ole POTS.
Imagine some kind of "UUCP Reloaded", using wireless spectrum! That would be great.
There's also MANET, which seeks to provide mobile ad hoc networking (a.k.a. mobile routing). That is also a good step in the right direction.
I think the 10what vesion should be good enough to play mp3s.
It is! I've used to play mp3s (with mpg123) on an old Pentium 200 MHz running FreeBSD (with X and all), and the load average didn't even exceed 0.20 or so. Even while running 'make buildworld' did mpg123 perform very well! Considering that my Soekris net4801 runs at 266 MHz and uses approx. 5 Watts, I'm pretty sure that the 10 Watt version will do just fine.
If you're going to have biometric scanners, why not lookup the information in a networked database to determine who the person is, regardless of what piece of paper they are carrying?
Absolutely! It's far easier to forge documents that people are required to show, than that networked (hopefully heavily secured) database.
Of course, this won't stop a determined attacker from compromizing the database using classic techniques of wetware hacking, corruption etc... It's always possible (given enough resources) to modify entries in government databases. That's how intelligence agencies work, when issuing fake IDs to their spies.
Or imagine a new crippled version of Windows to punish Intel users? Oh, wait...
If the CIA were to use a robot developed by a research institute, this will be a well-behaved bot. As soon as it detects a robots.txt nick in some IRC channel, it will quietly stop spying and go away.
Okay, this would force "them" to act openly (no more hidden/passive eavesdropping), but that would not really help. All "they" need to do, is to impersonate some "harmless" individual, right? Or do you think that they'll use aliases like CIAbot?
A thirteen year old could write something to do this.
Well, yes, but government agencies are not working that way. They are supposed to budget those things, and how would they justify a few dollars for a working 2-liner, when they can throw big bucks at companies or other agencies to buy a buggy, overinflated "product"?
How much time do you need to regenerate? We often dive into hacking mode for some weeks (typically around 2 to 8 weeks) but it also takes time to refill our depleted emotional energy tanks when the job is done.
Isn't electronic eavesdropping (ELint) NSA's job? This looks again like internal competition within the intelligence community!
4.) Print Cash in one of their demo printers.
4a.) Hack into their video system, and remove every evidence that you used the demo printer.
I would pick something like Qnx or NetBSD for any critical app
Okay, let's turn NetBSD into a real-time OS. Add some "hardening" features like watchdogs etc. Hmm... what should we call it? Perhaps: SpaceBSD?