OK, I see what you are saying, but the point is NOTHING gets changed on the system - it uses MS code handles to employ the 'rootkit' - there is no subterfuge involved on the system at all!
I think MS built in all this from trying to keep the innards so secret squirrel it is now coming back to bit them. Mark Russinovich, remember, was the one who sussed the secret squirrel stuff on the first Sony attempt at this - he (and Company) was very soon bought by MS to SHUT UP about it.
Because the windows code is DESIGNED to do this - you don't need to back door anything to do it.
Remember the WinNT4 client WinNT4 server difference? It was one registry key that was needed. Much the same is going on here with Sony (which they used for the CD [sic] rootkit]. MS DESIGNED it to work this way to allow stuff to be hidden.
It is not a rootkit. It is a usage of the system abilities allowed to do this.
... which I still do not think should be called 'rootkit' in these instances, as this is what MS code allows for - it is part of the system and designed to be so.
The issue here is the biometric stuff. If your CC number gets stolen, or your password gets hacked, you can simply cancel the old CC/reset your account etc.
Now, what happens when your data 'fingerprint' [retina scan, whatever] gets hacked and compromised? Get new fingers? Get new eyeballs (ala Tom Cruise!)?. I think not. The sooner people learn not ot buy and trust this crap the better - but thinking, perhaps the people that buy this crap deserve a MS designed rootkit anyway.
You will install MS Vista and install tracking software; you will also pay $300.00 licence fee to MS. You will also install MSOffice2007 _and_ also pay the licence fee. Once this is done, you will ALWAYS vote yes for ooxml.
I think you are stupid. You need a licence if the equipment CAN receive a signal - it doesn't matter if it doesn't. CAN is the key word.
"You need a TV Licence to use any television receiving equipment such as a TV set, set-top boxes, video or DVD recorders, computers or mobile phones to watch or record TV programmes as they are being shown on TV.
If you use a set-top box with a hi-fi system or another device that can only be used to produce sounds and can't display TV programmes, and you don't install or use any other TV receiving equipment, you don't need a TV Licence."
If you buy a TV-set that is capable of receiving a signal, you need a licence. Name one TV that isn't capable of displaying a TV signal? (it wouldn't be a TV otherwise, would it?)
Also note the wording... the exemption only names a 'set-top box', not a TV.
Explain how you have a TV but do not receive any signal (or your intent to NOT receive a signal).
If the device CAN you need a licence - it doesn't matter what you say/think it can do, whether it does or not. You are guilty unless _you_ can prove the device DOES NOT or is INCAPABLE of receiving the signal.
"You need a TV Licence to use any television receiving equipment such as a TV set, set-top boxes, video or DVD recorders, computers or mobile phones to watch or record TV programmes as they are being shown on TV.
If you use a set-top box with a hi-fi system or another device that can only be used to produce sounds and can't display TV programmes, and you don't install or use any other TV receiving equipment, you don't need a TV Licence."
I think you will find any TV that 'can't display TV programmes' cannot display anything, whether connected to a DVD games player or whatnot - if it can't display, then it isn't a TV.
Incorrect - there are 'commercials' but not paid for by advertisers. You still get commercials run by the BBC for the BBC - and a 'TV' hour is still 48 minutes.
I pay a licence fee to be 'allowed' to run a TV. Even if I have a TV/receiver that CANNOT receive BBC transmissions, I still HAVE to get a licence (of which all monies go to the BBC). So it isn't a monopoly?
OK, so I have to buy a TV licence, whether or not I receive BBC transmissions. The BBC then use MY MONEY to develop something that deliberately bars me from using it as I do not use MS software (which tself has a similar licence).
Being English, and having to buy a TV licence*, I think what the BBC are doing with licence payers money borders on being illegal. You cannot take money from people then bar them from the purpose of that licence - this is definitely MS driven with the BBC in cahoots with them (remember, the BBC is a very similar monopoly like MS and allowed to be by the Politicians 'in hand').
Nick * Not having a TV licence in the UK is very serious - you will be hounded incessantly and even get visits by the BBC licence people late at night (MIBS). The onslaught of not having a TV licence is very similar to deliberate tax evasion, but worse.
What is forgotten here is an OS really should be an OS - designed to run the computer and what not.
Now, when that OS has deliberate code to track and monitor a users 'usage', it really is no more a tool to run a computer, but rather a tool to watch a user. The main job of that code is absolute control of the computer taken away from the user.
MS have been trying to do this for years, and now it looks like they have succeeded ~ and the sheep follow and buy the crap.
It is pretty scary that this succeeds at all. I mean, nobody in their right mind would buy a car that recorded every single journey and 'phoned home' every time you exceeded a speed limit, or the car stopped at changing traffic lights, even though you didn't need to... the world would be in uproar and the car would most definitely not sell at all.
... is that any Microsoft system is NOT owned by the 'buyer'- it is Microsofts' as they are licensing it to the 'users'. Microsoft can do what they wish as owners of said software.
So I can't see what people get bothered about, really - what do you expect from something you do not and cannot ever, ever own, no matter how much you think you do (or even how much you spend on it too).
I think the crux here is grabbing GPL code untouched and using it *unannounced*in a BSD licence that allows anybody to distribute (i.e. just use it in binary releases).
If the UK was invaded by a foreign power, and the people fought back, we would be called 'the resistance', or 'freedom fighters' or what not - so why do Bliar and Bush and co. call the Iraqi people that fight back 'insurgents' ??
The only reason he likes [compares] PC's and the human immune system is due to the control to make lots of $$$. His money donated goes to drug manufacturing companies to 'aid' the world health. Unfortunately drug companies are cartels anyway (like big Microsofts), and seeing as he and his family have an interest in/and investment in major drug manufacturing companies, where else is there to give away money to get it back straight in the front door.
Gates & co do not care less about human welfare or health. Money and control is the only thing on the agenda.
Lets do some sums.
Suppose the UK Health service has 100,000 PC's (I expect a lot, lot more). Suppose half of those run MSOffice. At £200.00 a licence (a conservative estimate on price), that is £10,000,000 straight away - before any patients even get an aspirin. Now use the same calculation on ALL the worlds health services that run MS products. I bet the bill (pun intended) is BILLIONS of £ to MS before anyone patient gets treated.
...does Microsoft determine if YOU are allowed to code at home/bedroom/cellar/tent/train ~ whatever and decide that what you code is theirs to make a judgement on and assume ownership?
Yeah, sure... two years (nearly) since diagnosis. I didn't think my post was _not_ about laughing? I joke, get by and sometimes my humour flies over the heads of people I am talking to... I just meant that the subject as a whole should not be laughed at, as it is a real issue that will affect a lot of posters on here in the near future - not the jests on here (everything in life has to be laughed at). I mean, it _is_ slashdot, after all;-)
Slashdot Mirror
I think you find the MS EULA states it can change the EULA at anytime (and it does change it) and you have to accept [OK].
At least the GPL is for the user[s], not against them.
OK, I see what you are saying, but the point is NOTHING gets changed on the system - it uses MS code handles to employ the 'rootkit' - there is no subterfuge involved on the system at all!
I think MS built in all this from trying to keep the innards so secret squirrel it is now coming back to bit them. Mark Russinovich, remember, was the one who sussed the secret squirrel stuff on the first Sony attempt at this - he (and Company) was very soon bought by MS to SHUT UP about it.
Because the windows code is DESIGNED to do this - you don't need to back door anything to do it.
Remember the WinNT4 client WinNT4 server difference? It was one registry key that was needed. Much the same is going on here with Sony (which they used for the CD [sic] rootkit]. MS DESIGNED it to work this way to allow stuff to be hidden.
It is not a rootkit. It is a usage of the system abilities allowed to do this.
... which I still do not think should be called 'rootkit' in these instances, as this is what MS code allows for - it is part of the system and designed to be so.
The issue here is the biometric stuff. If your CC number gets stolen, or your password gets hacked, you can simply cancel the old CC/reset your account etc.
Now, what happens when your data 'fingerprint' [retina scan, whatever] gets hacked and compromised? Get new fingers? Get new eyeballs (ala Tom Cruise!)?. I think not. The sooner people learn not ot buy and trust this crap the better - but thinking, perhaps the people that buy this crap deserve a MS designed rootkit anyway.
You will install MS Vista and install tracking software; you will also pay $300.00 licence fee to MS. You will also install MSOffice2007 _and_ also pay the licence fee. Once this is done, you will ALWAYS vote yes for ooxml.
Lag caused it... if he waited a few milliseconds it would have 'reset' back to the ground again.
I think you are stupid. You need a licence if the equipment CAN receive a signal - it doesn't matter if it doesn't. CAN is the key word.
"You need a TV Licence to use any television receiving equipment such as a TV set, set-top boxes, video or DVD recorders, computers or mobile phones to watch or record TV programmes as they are being shown on TV.
If you use a set-top box with a hi-fi system or another device that can only be used to produce sounds and can't display TV programmes, and you don't install or use any other TV receiving equipment, you don't need a TV Licence."
If you buy a TV-set that is capable of receiving a signal, you need a licence. Name one TV that isn't capable of displaying a TV signal? (it wouldn't be a TV otherwise, would it?)
Also note the wording... the exemption only names a 'set-top box', not a TV.
Hit a nerve, I see.
I guess you use Windows and totally agree with this decision by the BBC to use MS only formats that locks everybody into the monopolies.
And I guess from other of your comments, that you do not have a TV licence.
Explain how you have a TV but do not receive any signal (or your intent to NOT receive a signal).
If the device CAN you need a licence - it doesn't matter what you say/think it can do, whether it does or not. You are guilty unless _you_ can prove the device DOES NOT or is INCAPABLE of receiving the signal.
Wrong again...
p
"You need a TV Licence to use any television receiving equipment such as a TV set, set-top boxes, video or DVD recorders, computers or mobile phones to watch or record TV programmes as they are being shown on TV.
If you use a set-top box with a hi-fi system or another device that can only be used to produce sounds and can't display TV programmes, and you don't install or use any other TV receiving equipment, you don't need a TV Licence."
I think you will find any TV that 'can't display TV programmes' cannot display anything, whether connected to a DVD games player or whatnot - if it can't display, then it isn't a TV.
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/index.js
Incorrect - there are 'commercials' but not paid for by advertisers. You still get commercials run by the BBC for the BBC - and a 'TV' hour is still 48 minutes.
I pay a licence fee to be 'allowed' to run a TV. Even if I have a TV/receiver that CANNOT receive BBC transmissions, I still HAVE to get a licence (of which all monies go to the BBC). So it isn't a monopoly?
OK, so I have to buy a TV licence, whether or not I receive BBC transmissions. The BBC then use MY MONEY to develop something that deliberately bars me from using it as I do not use MS software (which tself has a similar licence).
So I am in the wrong?
Bollocks.
Being English, and having to buy a TV licence*, I think what the BBC are doing with licence payers money borders on being illegal. You cannot take money from people then bar them from the purpose of that licence - this is definitely MS driven with the BBC in cahoots with them (remember, the BBC is a very similar monopoly like MS and allowed to be by the Politicians 'in hand').
Nick
* Not having a TV licence in the UK is very serious - you will be hounded incessantly and even get visits by the BBC licence people late at night (MIBS). The onslaught of not having a TV licence is very similar to deliberate tax evasion, but worse.
What is forgotten here is an OS really should be an OS - designed to run the computer and what not.
Now, when that OS has deliberate code to track and monitor a users 'usage', it really is no more a tool to run a computer, but rather a tool to watch a user. The main job of that code is absolute control of the computer taken away from the user.
MS have been trying to do this for years, and now it looks like they have succeeded ~ and the sheep follow and buy the crap.
It is pretty scary that this succeeds at all. I mean, nobody in their right mind would buy a car that recorded every single journey and 'phoned home' every time you exceeded a speed limit, or the car stopped at changing traffic lights, even though you didn't need to... the world would be in uproar and the car would most definitely not sell at all.
Yet the sheep still but this crap...
... is that any Microsoft system is NOT owned by the 'buyer'- it is Microsofts' as they are licensing it to the 'users'. Microsoft can do what they wish as owners of said software. So I can't see what people get bothered about, really - what do you expect from something you do not and cannot ever, ever own, no matter how much you think you do (or even how much you spend on it too).
MS just don't get the security bit anyway - never will. 99% spam comes from MS boxes. Let alone a mouse cursor that lets the crackers do it.
... this was fixed 4 months ago?
http://madwifi.org/changeset/1842
I think the crux here is grabbing GPL code untouched and using it *unannounced*in a BSD licence that allows anybody to distribute (i.e. just use it in binary releases).
"...the damage in IE 7 in Vista is quite limited in its default "protected" mode."
I think if you are running Vista, you are _damaged_ enough anyway.
I have already looked at this from the moon, using the truly quite excellent Celestia.
Eclipse shown from the moon (225Kb)
OURtube. We own it.
If the UK was invaded by a foreign power, and the people fought back, we would be called 'the resistance', or 'freedom fighters' or what not - so why do Bliar and Bush and co. call the Iraqi people that fight back 'insurgents' ??
The only reason he likes [compares] PC's and the human immune system is due to the control to make lots of $$$. His money donated goes to drug manufacturing companies to 'aid' the world health. Unfortunately drug companies are cartels anyway (like big Microsofts), and seeing as he and his family have an interest in/and investment in major drug manufacturing companies, where else is there to give away money to get it back straight in the front door.
Gates & co do not care less about human welfare or health. Money and control is the only thing on the agenda.
Lets do some sums.
Suppose the UK Health service has 100,000 PC's (I expect a lot, lot more). Suppose half of those run MSOffice. At £200.00 a licence (a conservative estimate on price), that is £10,000,000 straight away - before any patients even get an aspirin. Now use the same calculation on ALL the worlds health services that run MS products. I bet the bill (pun intended) is BILLIONS of £ to MS before anyone patient gets treated.
He really cares doesn't he?
...does Microsoft determine if YOU are allowed to code at home/bedroom/cellar/tent/train ~ whatever and decide that what you code is theirs to make a judgement on and assume ownership?
What terrible arrogance.
Yeah, sure... two years (nearly) since diagnosis. I didn't think my post was _not_ about laughing? I joke, get by and sometimes my humour flies over the heads of people I am talking to... I just meant that the subject as a whole should not be laughed at, as it is a real issue that will affect a lot of posters on here in the near future - not the jests on here (everything in life has to be laughed at). I mean, it _is_ slashdot, after all ;-)