The world is not going to end. Over time though certain parts of the world will become less habitable due to climate change (some places will become more habitable but that's not much comfort for the people whose children die due to an increase in tropical disease). I don't know why you think a 3 degree increase (which is on the lower end of predictions, most seem to be closer to 5 degree) is insignificant. That's actually a fairly substantial increase, especially when the ecosystem doesn't have thousands of year to compensate for the increase.
When I mentioned SUVs I was responding to the comment from the parent regarding SUVs. I felt the implication was we were referring to the crowd that drives SUVs everywhere even when they don't need it. You clearly don't fit into that category but I apologize for any offense caused. I commend you for your hard work as an environmentalist.
You've gotta work for Exxon-Mobil. Biofuels don't create hunger; an economic system that has winners and losers creates hunger. Couldn't demand for biofuels actually eliminate hunger? Farmers could grow crops for sale that previously were useless thereby creating actual wealth. Instead of a few countries that have large oil reserves, any country with even mediocre cropland will be able to participate in the global economy. Also take into account the fact that the effects of global warming will hurt the poorest more than the rich. We can't afford to keep burning fossil fuels and even more importantly the poorest of the poor can afford it even less. Additionally, corn should never be used as a main source of biofuel or food. It's incredibly inefficient spacewise, it destroys your soil quality which to repair requires crop rotation or high priced fertilizers and it doesn't contain all that much energy.
And anyone who thinks driving an SUV with a biofuel makes you an environmentalist is absolutely nuts.
That's the problem with Linux and perhaps open source in general. Very few high quality designers and UI people work on open source software. Say what you will about Microsoft and Apple but they spend a fortune on UI research and design. Look at Office 2007. No not the ribbon (which I like but others do not). Look instead at the Office button on the top left. I don't think the office button is used well but instead of wasting the valuable top left corner with repeated functionality they've replaced it with something useful. Or the movement in Vista to eliminate deep hierarchical menus. Why use a UI where if you move the mouse by a few pixels you can lose all the "work" you've spent searching the hierarchy? I don't think they came up with solutions that are all that much better BUT this is a positive change for usability. I don't see these things coming out of open source which is sad because I really want to.
I think you bring up a good point in saying that assuming everything online should be public is wrong but we need to take it a step further. If people are unable to express themselves online without fear of retribution from an employer or school, then isn't the internet an anti-free speech zone?
A few years ago a couple posted pictures and videos of themselves online. The woman was fired from the hospital she worked at as a nurse because of that. Now did she commit a crime? No, it's totally legal. Does it prevent her from doing her job? Not at all, but she was still fired. You might feel that she should have known better. What about if you protested against the war on your weekends? How about if you were a member of the Democratic Party? What about if you wrote your Congressman to explain why you think the DMCA is bad? You can be fired for each and everyone of those activities.
This didn't happen a lot before (excluding the Communist purges in the 50s) but the internet gives employers an easy way to check up on employees that didn't exist before. The right to free speech is held hostage by employers and the law hasn't caught up to technology unfortunately. The law should protect the right of employees to engage in legal activity not related to their work.
As much as you'd like an absolute, I think there are perfectly legitimate uses for DRM in context of an overall security system for certain records. I believe the DRM for Word documents allows you to prevent printing of a document. Say a doctor sends another doctor notes on a particular patient for review. In this case lets say standard policy is that documents should not be printed but the second doctor accidentally hits print. If he prints this and someone accidentally recycles it, you could have a personal medical record for potential identity thieves right out in the open.
Or think about the case in Britain of the official losing a laptop with private records on it. Ignoring the blatant disregard for security exhibited in this situation, DRM could have mitigated the losses if the records are accessible for only 24 or 48 hours. Right now the simple thief (or whoever he sells it to) will look at these records and find a gold mine of identities to sell or steal. Instead he could have tried to open the files, the system tells him they're not accessible and he just deletes it or ignore it. Could someone get to these files if they really wanted to? Absolutely. But not every criminal is a hacker willing to go through the trouble.
DRM should never be considered as the only form of security but in some cases it might be appropriate in addition to normal security measures. Don't write off a piece of technology for every situation because some people use it in inappropriate ways.
It's not as secure as needed, that is without doubt. But I get tired of trying to figure out the port forwarding needed for various programs. Sometimes you want it to just work and UPnP when implemented accomplishes that goal.
An argument could be made that UPnP is more secure in that it only opens ports while a program uses them (provided the program is coded right), not all the time as most people would have done had they needed to open the ports manually. That doesn't negate the vulnerabilities in the system but its a different way of looking at it.
I know Microsoft is implementing a new standard to supercede UPnP in part due to the lack of security. Whether this new standard acheives that though is another issue entirely.
This is an unfortunate result of exemptions in HIPAA that allow health records to be accessed if there's a belief that the patient could harm themselves or others. My understanding though has always been that the doctor has to initiate the disclosure, not the other way around. Either way this psychologist should lose his license. He ignored professional ethics basically because his boss asked him too.
In Wisconsin we've had proposals to give sex offenders bright red licence plates and allow employers to make employment decisions based upon someone committing a single "violent" sex offence. Currently its illegal to do so for any criminal history unless there is a legitimate connection between the job and the crime. (Banks can refuse to hire convicted embezzlers, schools can refuse to hire child molestors, etc.) Fortunately none of these stupid laws have passed but all they need is a majority leader of each house who feels it necessary to bring them up for consideration. Once brought up they'll pass easily.
What frustrates me is that its clear there are a decent number of people like on Slashdot who feel the way "sex offenders" are treated is immoral, silly and plain offensive but I don't know of any organization who fights for the rights of these people. Does anyone know of any particular organization like this?
Giving people three choices, all three of which would be meaningless to someone who doesn't understand software distribution on Linux, is not "super easy."
Firms get sick for one reason: the managers who are responsible for preparing for the future didn't do so. As ridiculous as it sounds, management is paid to predict the future. Is it unreasonable to hold upper management to a nearly impossible standard? If they're getting paid 7,8 or 9 digits, have the power to create or end thousands of careers and the potential to create or lose billions of dollars of shareholder value then it's totally reasonable to do.
Thank you. I appreciate someone answering my question. While I find the concept of tilt bits incredibly dumb, I don't see how it would slow down your computer by a significant amount in most cases compared to any other OS. Since the various "tilt" sensoring needs to be done on the hardware, wouldn't it just slow down that hardware no matter what OS you use? And wouldn't Vista just check these tilt bits when running "protected" media? I don't know the answers to these questions but I still interpret this as just saying when you try to run DRM'd media, it will be slower than running non-DRM'd media.
I want to make it clear that I don't defend any of the mechanisms Microsoft put into Vista to make DRM more robust (oooh buzzword) but making accusations without evidence doesn't get us any closer to a non-DRM'd world. Whether we like it or not, Microsoft does have a monopoly and we have to figure out a way to beat them at their own game or convince them to change their ways. We don't win when we just say Vista is slow because of DRM.
What DRM processing? You act like every single system call is brute force decoding a message from the NSA or something. You're making this absurd accusation without backing it up.
When Ballmer claimed open-source is Communist, he was rightly criticized for making an absurd accusation with no evidence. Perhaps this should go both ways.
If you really think that, you're insane. It goes to a bunch of shit but unless you're using a restricted media file none of it will be DRM. I should write a better response but I'm lazy so oh well:)
Either they are that dangerous, in which case lock 'em up and throw away the key, or they aren't, in which case, WTF is up with being punished after you get out of prison?
I often use this argument with others. No one was scared of sex offenders until the 80s and there's not much evidence that we're safer now than we were before. In Wisconsin there have been proposals to require lifetime GPS tracking of offenders, give them bright red license plates and allow employers to hire and fire based solely on someone's sex offender status whether its relevant to their job or not. I don't throw around this accusation often but it is scarily similar to actions taken by the Nazis and Taliban in their treatment of minorities. Of course, sex offenders have done things wrong but does it really matter the reasons when you consider someone less than human?
What's funny is that I just installed a new ASUS motherboard (no wireless though here) a few hours ago and was impressed when the driver CD included Linux drivers. I was pretty impressed by that. I don't use Linux but I always appreciate when companies choose to support the open source community.
Combining that with their free product recycling program and I think I may have found my new motherboard vendor of choice.
The advantage with WHS is the ability to add hard drives of arbitrary sizes. All you do is connect the drive using SATA or USB, log on to the Server Connector via your network and click a button to tell it to add the drive to your storage pool. I don't know of a method of doing that on Linux or RAID (not that I've honestly checked) but it is rather user friendly concept. I haven't used it but from all the reviews I've seen it works pretty much as advertised. I do feel that the actual server costs seem a bit on the high end right now but they should go down over time.
I see the reasons why people might want their server accessible online but I think it seems a bit unsafe. I would turn it off if I had one.
While WHS isn't as configurable as Linux of course, there is an API that allows you to make add-ons. I've heard of things like automatically backing up files to an online backup site, making a locally accessible RSS feed to update family members on new files and controls for home automation.
All that said, I'd love to see an open-source alternative to WHS. None of the product features seem particularly revolutionary (although I've never heard of anything like the way the storage pool expands and contracts in such a simple way) but it seems to be the package of it all together that makes it such an impressive product.
Slashdot Mirror
The world is not going to end. Over time though certain parts of the world will become less habitable due to climate change (some places will become more habitable but that's not much comfort for the people whose children die due to an increase in tropical disease). I don't know why you think a 3 degree increase (which is on the lower end of predictions, most seem to be closer to 5 degree) is insignificant. That's actually a fairly substantial increase, especially when the ecosystem doesn't have thousands of year to compensate for the increase.
When I mentioned SUVs I was responding to the comment from the parent regarding SUVs. I felt the implication was we were referring to the crowd that drives SUVs everywhere even when they don't need it. You clearly don't fit into that category but I apologize for any offense caused. I commend you for your hard work as an environmentalist.
You've gotta work for Exxon-Mobil. Biofuels don't create hunger; an economic system that has winners and losers creates hunger. Couldn't demand for biofuels actually eliminate hunger? Farmers could grow crops for sale that previously were useless thereby creating actual wealth. Instead of a few countries that have large oil reserves, any country with even mediocre cropland will be able to participate in the global economy. Also take into account the fact that the effects of global warming will hurt the poorest more than the rich. We can't afford to keep burning fossil fuels and even more importantly the poorest of the poor can afford it even less. Additionally, corn should never be used as a main source of biofuel or food. It's incredibly inefficient spacewise, it destroys your soil quality which to repair requires crop rotation or high priced fertilizers and it doesn't contain all that much energy.
And anyone who thinks driving an SUV with a biofuel makes you an environmentalist is absolutely nuts.
Oh don't worry, 47 million people in the US already know they don't deserve modern healthcare.
That's the problem with Linux and perhaps open source in general. Very few high quality designers and UI people work on open source software. Say what you will about Microsoft and Apple but they spend a fortune on UI research and design. Look at Office 2007. No not the ribbon (which I like but others do not). Look instead at the Office button on the top left. I don't think the office button is used well but instead of wasting the valuable top left corner with repeated functionality they've replaced it with something useful. Or the movement in Vista to eliminate deep hierarchical menus. Why use a UI where if you move the mouse by a few pixels you can lose all the "work" you've spent searching the hierarchy? I don't think they came up with solutions that are all that much better BUT this is a positive change for usability. I don't see these things coming out of open source which is sad because I really want to.
To clarify, the photos and videos were pornographic.
I think you bring up a good point in saying that assuming everything online should be public is wrong but we need to take it a step further. If people are unable to express themselves online without fear of retribution from an employer or school, then isn't the internet an anti-free speech zone?
A few years ago a couple posted pictures and videos of themselves online. The woman was fired from the hospital she worked at as a nurse because of that. Now did she commit a crime? No, it's totally legal. Does it prevent her from doing her job? Not at all, but she was still fired. You might feel that she should have known better. What about if you protested against the war on your weekends? How about if you were a member of the Democratic Party? What about if you wrote your Congressman to explain why you think the DMCA is bad? You can be fired for each and everyone of those activities.
This didn't happen a lot before (excluding the Communist purges in the 50s) but the internet gives employers an easy way to check up on employees that didn't exist before. The right to free speech is held hostage by employers and the law hasn't caught up to technology unfortunately. The law should protect the right of employees to engage in legal activity not related to their work.
Hmmm good point, never thought of that. I retract my snarky comment :)
Um, it IS classified. They don't normally tell people right where they are.
As much as you'd like an absolute, I think there are perfectly legitimate uses for DRM in context of an overall security system for certain records. I believe the DRM for Word documents allows you to prevent printing of a document. Say a doctor sends another doctor notes on a particular patient for review. In this case lets say standard policy is that documents should not be printed but the second doctor accidentally hits print. If he prints this and someone accidentally recycles it, you could have a personal medical record for potential identity thieves right out in the open.
Or think about the case in Britain of the official losing a laptop with private records on it. Ignoring the blatant disregard for security exhibited in this situation, DRM could have mitigated the losses if the records are accessible for only 24 or 48 hours. Right now the simple thief (or whoever he sells it to) will look at these records and find a gold mine of identities to sell or steal. Instead he could have tried to open the files, the system tells him they're not accessible and he just deletes it or ignore it. Could someone get to these files if they really wanted to? Absolutely. But not every criminal is a hacker willing to go through the trouble.
DRM should never be considered as the only form of security but in some cases it might be appropriate in addition to normal security measures. Don't write off a piece of technology for every situation because some people use it in inappropriate ways.
It's not as secure as needed, that is without doubt. But I get tired of trying to figure out the port forwarding needed for various programs. Sometimes you want it to just work and UPnP when implemented accomplishes that goal.
An argument could be made that UPnP is more secure in that it only opens ports while a program uses them (provided the program is coded right), not all the time as most people would have done had they needed to open the ports manually. That doesn't negate the vulnerabilities in the system but its a different way of looking at it.
I know Microsoft is implementing a new standard to supercede UPnP in part due to the lack of security. Whether this new standard acheives that though is another issue entirely.
This is an unfortunate result of exemptions in HIPAA that allow health records to be accessed if there's a belief that the patient could harm themselves or others. My understanding though has always been that the doctor has to initiate the disclosure, not the other way around. Either way this psychologist should lose his license. He ignored professional ethics basically because his boss asked him too.
In Wisconsin we've had proposals to give sex offenders bright red licence plates and allow employers to make employment decisions based upon someone committing a single "violent" sex offence. Currently its illegal to do so for any criminal history unless there is a legitimate connection between the job and the crime. (Banks can refuse to hire convicted embezzlers, schools can refuse to hire child molestors, etc.) Fortunately none of these stupid laws have passed but all they need is a majority leader of each house who feels it necessary to bring them up for consideration. Once brought up they'll pass easily.
What frustrates me is that its clear there are a decent number of people like on Slashdot who feel the way "sex offenders" are treated is immoral, silly and plain offensive but I don't know of any organization who fights for the rights of these people. Does anyone know of any particular organization like this?
Giving people three choices, all three of which would be meaningless to someone who doesn't understand software distribution on Linux, is not "super easy."
Firms get sick for one reason: the managers who are responsible for preparing for the future didn't do so. As ridiculous as it sounds, management is paid to predict the future. Is it unreasonable to hold upper management to a nearly impossible standard? If they're getting paid 7,8 or 9 digits, have the power to create or end thousands of careers and the potential to create or lose billions of dollars of shareholder value then it's totally reasonable to do.
Thank you. I appreciate someone answering my question. While I find the concept of tilt bits incredibly dumb, I don't see how it would slow down your computer by a significant amount in most cases compared to any other OS. Since the various "tilt" sensoring needs to be done on the hardware, wouldn't it just slow down that hardware no matter what OS you use? And wouldn't Vista just check these tilt bits when running "protected" media? I don't know the answers to these questions but I still interpret this as just saying when you try to run DRM'd media, it will be slower than running non-DRM'd media.
I want to make it clear that I don't defend any of the mechanisms Microsoft put into Vista to make DRM more robust (oooh buzzword) but making accusations without evidence doesn't get us any closer to a non-DRM'd world. Whether we like it or not, Microsoft does have a monopoly and we have to figure out a way to beat them at their own game or convince them to change their ways. We don't win when we just say Vista is slow because of DRM.
Enlighten me
What DRM processing? You act like every single system call is brute force decoding a message from the NSA or something. You're making this absurd accusation without backing it up.
When Ballmer claimed open-source is Communist, he was rightly criticized for making an absurd accusation with no evidence. Perhaps this should go both ways.
If you really think that, you're insane. It goes to a bunch of shit but unless you're using a restricted media file none of it will be DRM. I should write a better response but I'm lazy so oh well :)
Either they are that dangerous, in which case lock 'em up and throw away the key, or they aren't, in which case, WTF is up with being punished after you get out of prison? I often use this argument with others. No one was scared of sex offenders until the 80s and there's not much evidence that we're safer now than we were before. In Wisconsin there have been proposals to require lifetime GPS tracking of offenders, give them bright red license plates and allow employers to hire and fire based solely on someone's sex offender status whether its relevant to their job or not. I don't throw around this accusation often but it is scarily similar to actions taken by the Nazis and Taliban in their treatment of minorities. Of course, sex offenders have done things wrong but does it really matter the reasons when you consider someone less than human?
You don't sound like you really care that much about it being fixed.
What's funny is that I just installed a new ASUS motherboard (no wireless though here) a few hours ago and was impressed when the driver CD included Linux drivers. I was pretty impressed by that. I don't use Linux but I always appreciate when companies choose to support the open source community.
Combining that with their free product recycling program and I think I may have found my new motherboard vendor of choice.
The advantage with WHS is the ability to add hard drives of arbitrary sizes. All you do is connect the drive using SATA or USB, log on to the Server Connector via your network and click a button to tell it to add the drive to your storage pool. I don't know of a method of doing that on Linux or RAID (not that I've honestly checked) but it is rather user friendly concept. I haven't used it but from all the reviews I've seen it works pretty much as advertised. I do feel that the actual server costs seem a bit on the high end right now but they should go down over time.
I see the reasons why people might want their server accessible online but I think it seems a bit unsafe. I would turn it off if I had one.
While WHS isn't as configurable as Linux of course, there is an API that allows you to make add-ons. I've heard of things like automatically backing up files to an online backup site, making a locally accessible RSS feed to update family members on new files and controls for home automation.
All that said, I'd love to see an open-source alternative to WHS. None of the product features seem particularly revolutionary (although I've never heard of anything like the way the storage pool expands and contracts in such a simple way) but it seems to be the package of it all together that makes it such an impressive product.
Sorry my note was that "I'm NOT talking about whether Windows necessarily gets all the priorities right, I'm more talking about the concept"