Itâ(TM)s been a while since Microsoft pulled the olâ(TM) âoh no, this new version of DirectX couldnâ(TM)t possibly work on earlier versions of Windowsâ(TM) scamgasm, but as the relatively friendly age of Windows 7 is overshadowed by the dawning of the firmâ(TM)s desperate desire to make Windows 8 a cross-platform goliath/software shop, an old habit has returned.
Yes, because one guy running an upload website is exactly like a population of violent, oppressive, religious fanatics.
No, you fool. Because two bad guys fighting each other does not miraculously turn one of them into a good guy. Doesn't matter if it's career criminals vs. copyright mafia or russians vs. taliban.
Is it possible we should think of something similar in representative democracies? What if there were a provision to allow the creation of agents with agendas?
It's called a political party.
Yes, I know the current party system is deeply flawed. But what you describe is the idea of political parties, plain and simple.
There is also a more modern system with a more fine-grained and fluid agency system like this, invented by the Pirate Party, called Liquid Democracy. GIYF.
Point of thought: This system did have the advantage that the voters had the time, interest and education to actually care about what they were voting on.
Wouldn't even be a surprised. He did get turned around by law enforcement back when they busted him the first (or was it second?) time in Germany, and sold out his "partners" before. So it's definitely not beyond him.
Copyright is the right of the creator to his own works of art (words or otherwise). By definition, you own the copyright for your own words. Thus, your Free Speech is protected by, not limited by copyright.
Putting someone elses words through the printing press to distribute them is not Free Speech. Doing it with your own words is legal.
and Kim I'm sure is taking close care to not step over that line (although he's mighty close to it).
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Kim was taken down many, many years back in Germany and in response sold out to law enforcement and worked for them as a snitch for a while.
Are you ready to bet your liberty on that not happening again? I know I will never touch any of his enterprises with a 10-foot pole, but in this case I'll stay away a lot further. It just smells "trap" way too much.
Now/. has degenerated into a paid-for hype-machine for a vaporware product whose sole purpose is to keep a megalomaniac in the news.
Congratulations. I hope you got paid in escort girls or something else worth it. Now how about some actual news, and leaving the verbatim-copying of press releases to the newspapers?
For my part, it's not hate. It's simply two decades of experience showing that every other windows release sucks. Since Vista sucked and 7 was halfway decent, 8 is going to suck. Microsoft isn't one to break with long traditions, is it?
So basically, I don't hate it, I just don't care. My point was about how a specific perspective changes the message.
Almost all of them require user intervention. Ie, malware disguised as installers.
I've given talks on that subject. That is a user-interface design failure, not a technology failure, but it is still a failure.
If you give any trojan (which targets your OS) privileged access, you're likely to get infected.
Why is the installer allowed to mess with system files or install drivers? It's not perfect, but the old OS X way of dragging a self-contained application package to the Applications directory to install avoids that whole installer nonsense.
You give malicious code root
The problem is that the user doesn't intend to give the code full access to the system. A bad system design and a stupid UI make it necessary and hide the true events from the user.
There are other ways to do it. Legacy support and stupidity hold Windows back.
I'm not saying Linux is necessarily much better. While you can theoretically install most software under a user account, the means to do so are hidden, most UIs default to installing stuff as root, and I'm fairly sure a lot of packages will break if you relocate them.
OS X is a mixed bag. Lots of software still is delivered as a self-contained package which gets installed via drag & drop and thus never gets an opportunity to run any code, even if you install it as root. But there's an increasing amount of software coming with installers for no reason.
Do you think the farmers that grow your food are more concerned with feeding your family, or earning money? Just because someone has their own selfish motives doesn't mean their actions can't be beneficial.
The matter of legality is not a minor one in this case. For legal actions, your point holds true. But for criminal activities, someone who is in it for the money is a criminal, plain and simple. Someone who is in it for an ideal might be guilty of civil obedience, but that's mostly a positive thing.
Rosa Park had "selfish" motives, too - you can easily re-define altruism as delayed or indirect selfishness. There's still a difference between Al Capone and Martin Luther King, don't you think?
Regardless of motive, my point remains that those who enable the violation of unjust laws are one of the strongest forces in raising awareness and opposition to those laws.
Nonsense. We defeated ACTA this year without breaking any laws. In my country, unjust laws are regularily taken down by the supreme court, not by criminals. While the abolition of an unjust law by massive civil disobedience makes for a good story, it is not the norm.
The most current version of the OS still is vulnerable to 15% of known threats? That's a pretty damning track record if you ask me. It means that a billion dollar corporation that put security high on its agenda for several years now still can't create something that is secure against well-known attacks, and can't keep up with patches and let's not even talk about pro-active security.
True, there is no such thing as 100% security. Even OpenBSD has had its 0-days. But we're not talking about 0-days here, we are talking about known threats that have been out there for months.
You know you are lying, and you are doing it badly. The/. crowd is too smart to fall for this nonsense, so why are you doing it? The PR agency not having enough money to pay different people for twitter and/.?
Right, because Kim Criminal will surely move to Gabon and set up his business there. Instead of, you know, crazy wild idea, just route the domain name to somewhere in some 1st world country where they have mansions and fast cars.
And that's assuming the whole thing isn't just total vaporware intended for one thing only: Publicity.
I wouldn't give him an e-mail address at my domain if he asked, because he's an egomaniac asshole and a criminal. Same with Gabon, except that they own a TLD and not just a domain.
It's theirs. They can decide to give him a domain within it or not. They've decided not to. Witchhunt? Please. Stop listening to cheap rhetorics. This was a trap from the start, the fucker is just in desperate need of publicity, that's all.
No, it is a sign that the game he's been playing for many years now is finally over. You know, that of moving your operations to a different country each time the one you are currently in finally catches up with your crimes.
The problem is arrogance. Pretty much everyone else uses paper ballots (over here in Europe, too), so the USA just has to use something else to show they are "more advanced". They still haven't noticed the rest of the world alternatively laughing and shaking heads over their 3rd world election system. That problem is called ignorance.
No, we don't. We have more than just 2 sides. Presenting you two choices is an age-old trick of rhetorics and lately marketing and PR. It is also misleading. Usually, the person presenting the "choices" has made sure beforehand that no matter which one you take, she profits in both cases.
You can't be serious in claiming you don't know that there are legal and illegal ways to go about things. Driving a car is legal. Driving across a junction is legal. Driving across a junction when the traffic light shows red is illegal. I'm not sure how to explain the difference to someone with a single-digit IQ, so maybe you should just accept that some things break the law while some things that might seem similar if one doesn't look too closely do not. It's all in those stupid details. Laws, traffic signs, trading rules - it's all very confusing, I know.
Congratulations, you are officially the most stupid person I met on/. this week, and its only Tuesday.
There is one sentence in your reply that is not total bullshit, and that is "Oh no!", because it's so devoid of content that it is impossible to assign it a truth value.
So, I'll make it quick and painless because everyone who reads your nonsense is already putting you on the "fools to avoid" list anyways:
No, I don't hate money. I'm not a multi-millionaire, but I got plenty and I enjoy what it makes possible for me. No, that is not typical. Most of/. is still geeky tech people who make quite a bit. We might dislike the corrupt, egomaniac super-rich at times, but not money per se. No, money didn't pay for my computer. I paid for my computer, using money as a means of payment. You mistake the whig for the actor. No, Kim Schmitz did lots of things wrong, some of them illegal. Plus he got caught, which is probably the worst wrong a criminal can make. Did he piss off Hollywood? Except in their public rhetoric, no. If he goes free, I bet there was a behind-the-scenes deal with them. Why? Because he is the exact kind of criminal they want all file sharing associated with. Obvious profits, criminal past, a sleazebag everyone sane dislikes, a loudmouth who can't shut up. Prosecuting grandmothers for sharing five songs is horrible PR. Nailing a guy with a mansion and a huge criminal enterprise is exactly what the lobby people need to convince more senators and congressmen to push through even more ridiculous laws.
I've donated more of my income and time to fighting absurd copyright laws than Kim has. Don't shit-talk to me.
Slashdot Mirror
The best summary is from Rock, Paper, Shotgun:
Itâ(TM)s been a while since Microsoft pulled the olâ(TM) âoh no, this new version of DirectX couldnâ(TM)t possibly work on earlier versions of Windowsâ(TM) scamgasm, but as the relatively friendly age of Windows 7 is overshadowed by the dawning of the firmâ(TM)s desperate desire to make Windows 8 a cross-platform goliath/software shop, an old habit has returned.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/11/12/old-dog-old-tricks-ms-locks-directx-11-1-to-win-8/
Since that work is long out of copyright, you are putting up a very obvious strawman there.
Yes, because one guy running an upload website is exactly like a population of violent, oppressive, religious fanatics.
No, you fool. Because two bad guys fighting each other does not miraculously turn one of them into a good guy. Doesn't matter if it's career criminals vs. copyright mafia or russians vs. taliban.
Is it possible we should think of something similar in representative democracies? What if there were a provision to allow the creation of agents with agendas?
It's called a political party.
Yes, I know the current party system is deeply flawed. But what you describe is the idea of political parties, plain and simple.
There is also a more modern system with a more fine-grained and fluid agency system like this, invented by the Pirate Party, called Liquid Democracy. GIYF.
Point of thought: This system did have the advantage that the voters had the time, interest and education to actually care about what they were voting on.
Wouldn't even be a surprised. He did get turned around by law enforcement back when they busted him the first (or was it second?) time in Germany, and sold out his "partners" before. So it's definitely not beyond him.
When battling against a cabal of scoundrels (US govt/copyright cartel), another scoundrel is the perfect weapon,
That's what the US thought about the Taliban and Al Qaeda back when they were fighting the russians. Turned out to be not the smartest of ideas.
Copyright is a limitation on free speech.
Idiot.
Copyright is the right of the creator to his own works of art (words or otherwise). By definition, you own the copyright for your own words. Thus, your Free Speech is protected by, not limited by copyright.
Putting someone elses words through the printing press to distribute them is not Free Speech. Doing it with your own words is legal.
If they do know, for example because they are knowingly inviting copyrighted content, as the internal e-mails show they did for Megaupload.
Basically, the same way you can be convicted of murder even if you get rid of the weapon and the body. Circumstancial evidence.
and Kim I'm sure is taking close care to not step over that line (although he's mighty close to it).
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Kim was taken down many, many years back in Germany and in response sold out to law enforcement and worked for them as a snitch for a while.
Are you ready to bet your liberty on that not happening again? I know I will never touch any of his enterprises with a 10-foot pole, but in this case I'll stay away a lot further. It just smells "trap" way too much.
Now /. has degenerated into a paid-for hype-machine for a vaporware product whose sole purpose is to keep a megalomaniac in the news.
Congratulations. I hope you got paid in escort girls or something else worth it. Now how about some actual news, and leaving the verbatim-copying of press releases to the newspapers?
I don't get the Windows Eight Hate.
For my part, it's not hate. It's simply two decades of experience showing that every other windows release sucks. Since Vista sucked and 7 was halfway decent, 8 is going to suck. Microsoft isn't one to break with long traditions, is it?
So basically, I don't hate it, I just don't care. My point was about how a specific perspective changes the message.
Almost all of them require user intervention. Ie, malware disguised as installers.
I've given talks on that subject. That is a user-interface design failure, not a technology failure, but it is still a failure.
If you give any trojan (which targets your OS) privileged access, you're likely to get infected.
Why is the installer allowed to mess with system files or install drivers? It's not perfect, but the old OS X way of dragging a self-contained application package to the Applications directory to install avoids that whole installer nonsense.
You give malicious code root
The problem is that the user doesn't intend to give the code full access to the system. A bad system design and a stupid UI make it necessary and hide the true events from the user.
There are other ways to do it. Legacy support and stupidity hold Windows back.
I'm not saying Linux is necessarily much better. While you can theoretically install most software under a user account, the means to do so are hidden, most UIs default to installing stuff as root, and I'm fairly sure a lot of packages will break if you relocate them.
OS X is a mixed bag. Lots of software still is delivered as a self-contained package which gets installed via drag & drop and thus never gets an opportunity to run any code, even if you install it as root. But there's an increasing amount of software coming with installers for no reason.
Do you think the farmers that grow your food are more concerned with feeding your family, or earning money? Just because someone has their own selfish motives doesn't mean their actions can't be beneficial.
The matter of legality is not a minor one in this case. For legal actions, your point holds true. But for criminal activities, someone who is in it for the money is a criminal, plain and simple. Someone who is in it for an ideal might be guilty of civil obedience, but that's mostly a positive thing.
Rosa Park had "selfish" motives, too - you can easily re-define altruism as delayed or indirect selfishness. There's still a difference between Al Capone and Martin Luther King, don't you think?
Regardless of motive, my point remains that those who enable the violation of unjust laws are one of the strongest forces in raising awareness and opposition to those laws.
Nonsense. We defeated ACTA this year without breaking any laws. In my country, unjust laws are regularily taken down by the supreme court, not by criminals. While the abolition of an unjust law by massive civil disobedience makes for a good story, it is not the norm.
Uh, isn't the actual news the other way around?
The most current version of the OS still is vulnerable to 15% of known threats? That's a pretty damning track record if you ask me.
It means that a billion dollar corporation that put security high on its agenda for several years now still can't create something that is secure against well-known attacks, and can't keep up with patches and let's not even talk about pro-active security.
True, there is no such thing as 100% security. Even OpenBSD has had its 0-days. But we're not talking about 0-days here, we are talking about known threats that have been out there for months.
You know you are lying, and you are doing it badly. The /. crowd is too smart to fall for this nonsense, so why are you doing it? The PR agency not having enough money to pay different people for twitter and /.?
Right, because Kim Criminal will surely move to Gabon and set up his business there. Instead of, you know, crazy wild idea, just route the domain name to somewhere in some 1st world country where they have mansions and fast cars.
And that's assuming the whole thing isn't just total vaporware intended for one thing only: Publicity.
I wouldn't give him an e-mail address at my domain if he asked, because he's an egomaniac asshole and a criminal. Same with Gabon, except that they own a TLD and not just a domain.
It's theirs. They can decide to give him a domain within it or not. They've decided not to. Witchhunt? Please. Stop listening to cheap rhetorics. This was a trap from the start, the fucker is just in desperate need of publicity, that's all.
No, it is a sign that the game he's been playing for many years now is finally over. You know, that of moving your operations to a different country each time the one you are currently in finally catches up with your crimes.
So why are the tax cuts not eliminated?
The problem is arrogance. Pretty much everyone else uses paper ballots (over here in Europe, too), so the USA just has to use something else to show they are "more advanced". They still haven't noticed the rest of the world alternatively laughing and shaking heads over their 3rd world election system. That problem is called ignorance.
So we have 2 sides
No, we don't. We have more than just 2 sides. Presenting you two choices is an age-old trick of rhetorics and lately marketing and PR. It is also misleading. Usually, the person presenting the "choices" has made sure beforehand that no matter which one you take, she profits in both cases.
No he wasn't.
The only question is: Are you stupid, a liar, or a shill?
You can't be serious in claiming you don't know that there are legal and illegal ways to go about things. Driving a car is legal. Driving across a junction is legal. Driving across a junction when the traffic light shows red is illegal. I'm not sure how to explain the difference to someone with a single-digit IQ, so maybe you should just accept that some things break the law while some things that might seem similar if one doesn't look too closely do not.
It's all in those stupid details. Laws, traffic signs, trading rules - it's all very confusing, I know.
Congratulations, you are officially the most stupid person I met on /. this week, and its only Tuesday.
There is one sentence in your reply that is not total bullshit, and that is "Oh no!", because it's so devoid of content that it is impossible to assign it a truth value.
So, I'll make it quick and painless because everyone who reads your nonsense is already putting you on the "fools to avoid" list anyways:
No, I don't hate money. I'm not a multi-millionaire, but I got plenty and I enjoy what it makes possible for me. /. is still geeky tech people who make quite a bit. We might dislike the corrupt, egomaniac super-rich at times, but not money per se.
No, that is not typical. Most of
No, money didn't pay for my computer. I paid for my computer, using money as a means of payment. You mistake the whig for the actor.
No, Kim Schmitz did lots of things wrong, some of them illegal. Plus he got caught, which is probably the worst wrong a criminal can make. Did he piss off Hollywood? Except in their public rhetoric, no. If he goes free, I bet there was a behind-the-scenes deal with them. Why? Because he is the exact kind of criminal they want all file sharing associated with. Obvious profits, criminal past, a sleazebag everyone sane dislikes, a loudmouth who can't shut up. Prosecuting grandmothers for sharing five songs is horrible PR. Nailing a guy with a mansion and a huge criminal enterprise is exactly what the lobby people need to convince more senators and congressmen to push through even more ridiculous laws.
I've donated more of my income and time to fighting absurd copyright laws than Kim has. Don't shit-talk to me.