Saying that you commit injustice because you were required under law is not a valid defense in the same way that during the Nuremberg trials "I only followed orders" was not recognized as a valid defense. Human beings are always making moral choices, even when following laws and orders, and should thereby not follow anything blindly.
Big difference. The Nuremburg trials dealt with individuals following orders that they knew to be a violation of international law. "I was only following orders" is a far cry from a corporation adhering to the law. Like you said, "corporations have no will and no intent", individuals do.
Regardless, a law cannot simply be ignored because someone (in this case someone in another country) thinks it's a stupid law.
Now, that said, I think the law is stupid. I don't agree with the Chinese government, and I don't like that the reporter in question suffered because of it. I do, however, think that Yahoo! is not to blame. They are there primarily to make money, sure, but they are also providing an inestimable benefit to the people of China by giving them a platform on which to increase the exchange of ideas. In this incident, Yahoo! got caught between a rock and a hard place, and they really had little choice. This won't be the last time, either.
The government will only be able to do so much to curtail this process. They may be able to do it for quite some time, but they cannot stop it without throwing out all internet providers or perpetrating violations that will bring world opinion against them in ways that they never expected. They will avoid the latter at all costs (hopefully) but the former is definitely an option if the providers don't toe the line.
I suggest shareholders start suffering fines and jail time for the actions of corporate officers. Ethics would decend upon the corporate world very, very quickly.
That will do wonders for the Capitalist system. Perhaps we should make these corporations all State owned and have it done with?
Concerning the legality of corporate behavior in other countries: Is not a corporation beholden to honor the laws of the country in which it is incorporated? If not, this is wrong and should be corrected.
Uh, no. If this were the case, then any corporation incorporated in Amsterdam could come to the US and market child pornography and Bestiality without any concern for the US legal system. In the US, Yahoo! must adhere to US law. In France, they must adhere to the applicable French and EU laws.
Definitely not a well thought out solution.
Nobody said the laws in China are right. That doesn't excuse anyone from obeying them, particularly corporations. If I think the legal speed limit on the highway is "wrong", that doesn't make it ok for me to ignore it - I'll get caught eventually and face fines. Ultimately, I may lose my license. Driving without a license because I think the requirement violates my right to travel without papers is only going to land me in jail. If Yahoo! were to ignore Chinese law, the government would simply chuck them out of the country. Nobody's gonna go to war to keep Yahoo! in China either. Yahoo! (and Google and MSN) have to walk a line that allows them to stay "legal" so they can stay there. China will move forward with Yahoo! there and following Chinese law, than it will without Yahoo.
And regardless of anyone's idea of what "legal" is, it's whatever the government says it is. The big problem is that people (particularly in the US) seem to equate the concepts "right" and "legal". These are two very different, and sometimes conflicting ideas.
This is a very lopsided piece of journalism. As has been stated in past posts on compliance with national governments by internet companies, these corporations are required to follow the laws of the countries in which they operate.
In the United States, they are required by certain laws to protect their customers privacy, and therefore required to refuse blatantly opening their records to law enforcement without a specific warrant. Good for Google.
In China, these companies don't have those laws to back them up in refusal to provide whatever information the government or law enforcement requests. Yahoo! is only following the law. As a corporation that is all they can do. It is unfortunate that the individual in question was victimized, but don't forget just who it is victimizing him - the Chinese government, not Yahoo!.
Does this mean Yahoo! should pull out of China? Of course not. Aside from the fact they would be remiss in their duty as a corporation (maximizing shareholder profits), they would be robbing the Chinese people of a valuable tool - communication. Make no mistake, this incident is unfortunate, but do you really think everyone trying to join the dissident parties are getting caught? Don't be ridiculous.
People with a technical bent will always find a way around these barriers, and there will be a good number of these people supporting the dissident movement. The government in China will change, simply because the government can't stop all the cross communication, and nobody rules a country with no support within the population, unless they do so behind an iron curtain. So regardless of these unfortunate events, Yahoo!, Google, and MSN are doing good there whether they like it or not.
Freedom won't come to anyone simply because a corporation pushes for it, it will come when the people demand it and make it happen (hopefully through peaceful means, but by whatever means the people deem reasonable).
Besides, any freedom given by a corporation will necessarily come at an unknown cost - it is a corporations primary responsibility to maximize shareholder profit after all. Personally, I would be very leery of any corporation that attempts to set a precedent by influencing any government in any way. That's the peoples job.
Besides, isn't there enough of that going on in the US?
they'll make the treatments as inexpensive as they possibly can.
This way, they'll have every HIV/Aids patient with two nickels to rub together beating down their doors, and they'll make an up front killing for the record books.
Oh, and everyone will be really happy with them too.
that this might be just more M$ FUD?
This is an article from M$NBC after all.
Maybe not?
FTR, I'm not entirely sure what the market shares are for this particular service, and I'm not sure anymore just who owns who (except of course, Google owns GMail - they do, right?). So maybe I'm off track here.
These companies are simply trying to operate within the bounds of the law, whether they agree with them or not, in each country the operate in.
If they were to behave any differently in the US, those same congressmen would be bitching about their "unAmerican" behavior for not respecting the law.
Now, that said, why do they think operating in China under Chinese law is wrong? Who cares about their profits (other than their shareholders)? They're there, and that itself, regardless of the restriction placed by the Chinese government, will move the Chinese culture out of their current mindset. At least they're able to participate in an increased exchange in ideas. Isn't that better than keeping them shut up by city or village? And as recently reported on slashdot, those restrictions are not foolproof by any means.
Eventually, there will be changes simply because there is a larger exchange in ideas. Trying to move things forward faster by ignoring the Chinese governments restrictions will only get them ejected, keeping the Chinese people in the dark ages. So IMHO, these congressmen should just STFU and worry about the constituencies they were actually elected to represent.
What these congressmen probably don't realize is that by pushing these companies to influence national policies anywhere, they're setting a very dangerous precedent.
Thanks to the tank the economy took, I spent 6 years in a job I hated without a raise for the last 4 years, while gas prices skyrocketed, housing prices went down, and since I made the mistake of buying a multi-family home and rents tanked (because of the drastic exodus of renters from my area and the sudden spike in home sales) I had to sell out after 2 years. Now, after owning my first home, I'm renting again. Thanks Shrubby. I'd have been happier to have just stayed in an apartment than go through having to sell my home.
What's worse, all that time I was counting myself lucky to just have a job.
Seems to me those "record oil profits" went somewhere else. I never saw ANY benefit. In fact, I felt quite thrown over the barrel.
As for the deployment of Linux to military applications, I'm all for using tools that cost less, are more stable, and will help reduce the loss of innocent life.
Before anyone bitches about the loss of life on the other side of that machine, keep in mind that knowing the field in the way this technology should allow won't necessarily increase or decrease the overall loss of life, but if used correctly (not that I trust the current administration to use a wad of toilet paper correctly) it will certainly reduce civilian casualties. What sane person (geek, politician or otherwise) can object to that?
So, yeah, even combat technology can be used for positive ends other than the technological advancement. It's the family with the bad luck to have their home and garden in the middle of the chosen battlefield that this technology should be able to help. If soldiers want to go fight, they know what they're in for. If they don't, they weren't paying attention at some point. I don't revel in their loss by any means, and I respect and appreciate their intentions, even if I disagree with their methods. But given a perfect world, I'd rather their professions were unnecessary. Unfortunately, the human race just isn't ready to quit trying to kill itself off over trivial matters.
The FBI was working under the supposition that people were in fairly immediate danger and that they needed to move to get the information ASAP. They determined that previous case law allowed for this.
Now, that's just foolish of them. "Clear and present danger" explicitly implies an imminent potential danger to life and limb. By the time the Feds got to the library, the threat was no longer immediate. Since they were in fact, in Newton, and the danger was clearly in Waltham, it's quite a stretch to imagine anything like a "present" danger of any kind related to the crime. While Waltham and Newton are neighboring towns, Brandeis is on the other side of Waltham.
Now, I can understand they wanted to get access to the relevant data as quickly as possible, but that's just no excuse for what they were trying to do. Law enforcement is their bloody job, for cryin' out loud, so they should bloody well follow the law.
They knew very well they were operating in an investigative capacity, but they wanted to go in and take the shortcut. If these guys had known their job, they'd have come with warrant in hand, and there would have been no need for a "brief standoff". They would also have gotten access to the data that much sooner.
Well, I actually have a better understanding of the *nix world than I do the Windows world, but I got the impression that this hidden directory feature was different.
You have a basic hidden directory in Windows, but you can still tell your explorer window to show them. If I understand this issue correctly, and it's possible I don't, the problem is that Symantec (and Sony) actually installed a kernel patch that filters the given directory out altogether - meaning you can't even see it as a hidden directory.
I've never been a kernel devleoper (client/server development on Solaris, 8 years, Windows dev 4 months now), but I don't think 'cloaking' a directory is so easy in *nix, and certainly not without root privileges, which even a newbie doesn't use on a regular basis. In Windows, as a previous post pointed out, you can't do anything without admin. My 6 year old daughter is an admin, because XP Pro won't even let you print to a bloody network printer without admin privileges (8 hours on the phone with Sanjii in New Dehli proved that).
Now, there are a couple reasons this isn't as bad with Symantec as it was with Sony.
Sony installed this kernel patch without your knowledge or consent - even if you refused to accept the EULA - wich made no mention of the software's true behavior, it was installed. So, you indicate you don't want anything installed, but you get it anyway.
Symantec included it as part of a software package that the user had to explicitly want installed before the patch would be added to the kernel. I read somewhere (previous post) that Symantec was never secretive about this patch either, whereas Sony tried to outright deny it in the beginning.
So, mistrust Symantec if it pleases you, but IMO, there are much worse fish in cyberspace to focus on. Sony for one. Microsoft mostly just gets a bad rap, sometimes they deserve the abuse, but they did build their reputation back in the day. I'm sure there are plenty more. Symantec is still a small fish, and I'm not sure it's even carnivorous.
And that would be a very good explaination of a rootkit. But that's not how I understood the Symantec hidden directory issue.
Symantec has not changed the locks on your door. The Sony DRM did.
The best you could equate the hidden directory is as follows:
Say I somehow gain access to your house, and instead of changing all the locks, I build a new room, but put it behind a secret door. Now, I don't have access to this room from outside your house, but while I'm in your house, I can hide stuff there. That's what Symantec is doing. Sure it's a potential security flaw if someone else finds out how to get into the room and hides a bomb, but otherwise, it's not a real problem.
Now, I'm not saying this was ok for Symantec to do, but this is certainly not a rootkit. If I install a rootkit, that's all I need to gain access to that machine any time it is online. That's clearly not what Symantec has done.
Why was this such a big fiasco with Sony? Because they were able to gain access to information on your computer, and hid their installation in a cloaked directory. The cloaked directory was clearly the lesser of two bad moves by Sony.
I may have missed something, but I saw nothing whatsoever in the article that sends information or provides external access without the users knowledge.
Isn't that what a rootkit does - allow unauthorized access?
Of course, it's hiding a directory, but as mentioned by other posters, Symantec has never been very secretive about that, they just didn't come out and announce in big flashing red letters that they were creating a hidden directory. Not a lie at all, as was the case with Sony.
Now, apparently there are a few folks here that seem to consider Symantec only a couple notches away from M$ on the slimeball ladder, but the fact is they write software that attempts to protect computers (typically from the gifts M$ has bestowed on the world). Personally, I only use their antivirus SW, since Windows does just fine bogging the one machine I run it on without any unnecessary help. To date, I have had far fewer issues with Windows machines using Norton Antivirus than those without it. In fact, it seems to me Norton AV is as important for Windows machines as a network connection.
Not that this isn't something to be aware of, but at best this is a potential security hole, not a rootkit. While I don't want anyone "hiding" stuff on my system, I know very well there are users out there that can be easily convinced to delete important system files - or doesn't anyone remember the SULFNBK virus?
I am with most of the other posters in wondering why the hell this is an issue at all.
I've been using iTunes for around 4 months, and I'm ALWAYS running through the "Just For You" section to get suggestions. I listen to clips, I check album ratings, and sometimes I buy whole albums or just a few songs. Sometimes I put a note in my iPod's notes section regarding an album I want to buy a hardcopy for (I don't have a clue why, and I'm not going to hurt myself trying to figure it out).
Bottom line, I've spent more on iTunes in the last 4 months than I've spent on music in the 4 years before that point. Why? Because I've found an obscene amount of music I never even knew I liked! How? iTunes' recommendations.
Still, what are they using this for? Are they tracking everything I listen to on my iPod? Do they know all the music in my library? I seriously doubt it. I like it that way too. When iTunes recommends something I already own the hardcopy to (typically already imported in my library), I tell them, and they use that info to recommend others. They don't know about the music I've borrowed (short term - I DON'T keep it if I don't like it, and I BUY it if I do - which has also lead to a lot more spending on my part).
Hell, I think it could only be better if they were to implement a wishlist I could dump to my iPods notes section so I could compare iTunes' prices with Strawberries' or Newbury Comics' used CD section.
So, sure iTunes IS bad, but only for my budget! It's done phenomenal things for my enjoyment of music, and that wouldn't be possible without actually using the information I GIVE it.
That's a valid point, but there are lines that shouldn't be crossed. The kind of behavior demonstrated (yet again) by the US gov't almost always leads to crossing other lines, and in the case of the Bush administration, has obviously been a regular pattern over the last 6 years.
Will you feel the same way when the US gov't nationalizes the internet here by creating the USDNM (US Dept of Network Management) and ALL traffic to, from, or within the US goes through government hands and at the governments discretion?
I don't trust a government that lies as a matter of course (US), nor one who has no track record (Iraq). Why would I want them deciding what I can or can't see, or worse, keeping track of what I do see?
This is nuts. I got a little half gig shuffle for Father's day. Of course, I immediately remembered the fact that I liked listening to music, and had to have more. Enter the 20G iPod about 2 months later (just about 2 weeks before the iPod video - Doh!).
Now, since then (about 3 months), I've spent more money at iTunes than I'd spent on CDs in general (including all the kiddy CDs for the little one) over the last 10 years. Period. Several times, I've gotten the free download, only to realize the artist was awesome, and of course, immediately bought more. Lately, the free downloads have been "not so much", but so what?
On top of that, I've spent more on actual CDs in this time than I spent at iTunes - there are just some albums you want in full, and in hardcopy. Don't ask me why.
So, Napster can bite me. Sony/BMG can bite me. From my POV, it looks like the iPod has drastically increased my music spending.
It is customary to have some explanation for immediately being ousted. Granted, having the two weeks paid vacation is nice, but they should have been responsible enough to at least explain it to you and give you reasonable time to clean out your system - in case any personal content might be there.
Still, some companies have it as a standard policy to immediately relieve anyone in a critical position of their duties upon notice of termination. They should have sat down with you and informed you of this. The best thing you can do is to know the employers policy, and be prepared for them to act inappropriately. Clean out the system beforehand of anything that's not theirs. That usually means cleaning out the browser caches, even if you're a responsible employee that doesn't cruise porn on your break.
Some companies are much different, allowing exiting employees (whether by layoff or self termination) to retain mail accounts, have mail forwarded, or even obtain copies of personal email lists from their systems. Some (like my last employer) will keep you late for the next two weeks, and have you writing code at 4:00 PM on your last day - even though they've taken you out for lunch and gotten you a little buzzed.
Bottom line, hope for the best, but be ready for the worst, which is having the HR person immediately call your supervisor and any IT person that can shut you out before you even get back to your desktop, then having security escort you to your cube/office and watch you like you're a criminal while you collect your belongings and walk you to the door.
Another way to make sure you aren't ejected like last nights rotten fish dinner is to make yourself too critical to be done without. Not easy these days, but certainly a good defense mechanism when your employer goes from one layoff to another like some people change their underwear.
Not necessarily. It was mentioned in one of the previous slashdot threads on this issue that by the time the Sony EULA pops up, it has already installed something (I don't remember what) into your system. Refusint the EULA sets something else up in your system according to some of the stories out there. The only thing that prevents it is turning off autoplay/autoexecute/whatever on your CD/DVD player. I don't know if the shift key affects this - I'm not a windows guru (anymore), so research this yourself before taking that chance.
I don't remember where, but after a little googling last week, I found a post that suggested the DRM actually installs some Mac kernel extensions (PhoenixNub1.kext and PhoenixNub2.kext or something similar).
I haven't yet researched whether these are actually legitimate extensions that are part of the Mac Os though (remember that old "Windows Virus" alert that convinced so many people to delete system files?).
Use with care, even on MacOs X.
BTW, It seems to me that if LGPL infringement can be proven, it would sure be nice to see a settlement for some fixed amount for each DRM'd CD released fed back to the open source projects infringed. Getting a cool $10 Million funding from Sony would certainly add to the quality of all these projects - not that they aren't excellent, but being able to refactor the whole codebase would undoubtedly put them in serious contention with the best players.
Just a thought.
That it may be, but that doesn't mean they'll have it by 2010. I'd be surprised to see them in the dealer lots by 2015. 2020 might even be wishful thinking.
There's too much money to be made in Oil, and no matter what anyone says, the profit potential for Hydrogen - or any alternative fuel type for that matter - is just too big an unknown for any company focused on the bottom line to be bothered. The only exceptions are essentially glorified skunkworks projects or "We're doing that too" soundbyte generators.
GM is basically fighting bankruptcy, but they claim to be shooting for 2010? That's a soundbyte. Everyone who cares about the environment is supposed to hear this and declare undying devotion to their noble goals, and of course, support GM by buying only GM until these wonderful new Panaceas start rolling off the lots.
Don't get me wrong, I'd seriously LOVE to be proven wrong, but I don't see the broader picture centering on alternative fuel sources. That's just distraction from drilling the Arctic and the war in Iraq. It's a classic case of the tail wagging the dog, and GM is only trying to use it to survive the next decade.
According to the article, most manufacturers are still up in the air about this technology. Only Ford is bullish, and believe they will be in the open market by 2010. If they can avoid bankruptcy.
It would certainly be nice, but I do think 2010 is a bit soon.
As a general rule, I generally like to take the tack opposite the majority of responders, but this one is kinda hard. I generally like lightweight, but I don't see anything there that would make me drop my Fvwm2 desktop. I'll probably switch to KDE long before I bother trying this out.
Man, now I think of it, CmdrTaco was probably tossing grenades with this post just to see what happened. Ever see someone throw a long tailed cat into a room full of rockers then step back with an evil grin to wait for the chaos?
No,it won't appeal to them all. It may grow on a good many of them though. I'll have to wait and see if that's the case for myself - it doesn't do much for me just yet - too "shiny orb"-ish for me.
Regardless, I'm not giving up my Beastie Tshirts. Also, I'm still quite fond of many of the she Deamon designs that have come up over the years.
And I'll bet a dollar Beastie is still quite visible 2 or more years down the road.
Slashdot Mirror
Saying that you commit injustice because you were required under law is not a valid defense in the same way that during the Nuremberg trials "I only followed orders" was not recognized as a valid defense. Human beings are always making moral choices, even when following laws and orders, and should thereby not follow anything blindly.
Big difference. The Nuremburg trials dealt with individuals following orders that they knew to be a violation of international law. "I was only following orders" is a far cry from a corporation adhering to the law. Like you said, "corporations have no will and no intent", individuals do.
Regardless, a law cannot simply be ignored because someone (in this case someone in another country) thinks it's a stupid law.
Now, that said, I think the law is stupid. I don't agree with the Chinese government, and I don't like that the reporter in question suffered because of it. I do, however, think that Yahoo! is not to blame. They are there primarily to make money, sure, but they are also providing an inestimable benefit to the people of China by giving them a platform on which to increase the exchange of ideas. In this incident, Yahoo! got caught between a rock and a hard place, and they really had little choice. This won't be the last time, either.
The government will only be able to do so much to curtail this process. They may be able to do it for quite some time, but they cannot stop it without throwing out all internet providers or perpetrating violations that will bring world opinion against them in ways that they never expected. They will avoid the latter at all costs (hopefully) but the former is definitely an option if the providers don't toe the line.
I suggest shareholders start suffering fines and jail time for the actions of corporate officers. Ethics would decend upon the corporate world very, very quickly.
That will do wonders for the Capitalist system. Perhaps we should make these corporations all State owned and have it done with?
Concerning the legality of corporate behavior in other countries: Is not a corporation beholden to honor the laws of the country in which it is incorporated? If not, this is wrong and should be corrected.
Uh, no. If this were the case, then any corporation incorporated in Amsterdam could come to the US and market child pornography and Bestiality without any concern for the US legal system. In the US, Yahoo! must adhere to US law. In France, they must adhere to the applicable French and EU laws.
Definitely not a well thought out solution.
Nobody said the laws in China are right. That doesn't excuse anyone from obeying them, particularly corporations. If I think the legal speed limit on the highway is "wrong", that doesn't make it ok for me to ignore it - I'll get caught eventually and face fines. Ultimately, I may lose my license. Driving without a license because I think the requirement violates my right to travel without papers is only going to land me in jail. If Yahoo! were to ignore Chinese law, the government would simply chuck them out of the country. Nobody's gonna go to war to keep Yahoo! in China either. Yahoo! (and Google and MSN) have to walk a line that allows them to stay "legal" so they can stay there. China will move forward with Yahoo! there and following Chinese law, than it will without Yahoo.
And regardless of anyone's idea of what "legal" is, it's whatever the government says it is. The big problem is that people (particularly in the US) seem to equate the concepts "right" and "legal". These are two very different, and sometimes conflicting ideas.
This is a very lopsided piece of journalism. As has been stated in past posts on compliance with national governments by internet companies, these corporations are required to follow the laws of the countries in which they operate.
In the United States, they are required by certain laws to protect their customers privacy, and therefore required to refuse blatantly opening their records to law enforcement without a specific warrant. Good for Google.
In China, these companies don't have those laws to back them up in refusal to provide whatever information the government or law enforcement requests. Yahoo! is only following the law. As a corporation that is all they can do. It is unfortunate that the individual in question was victimized, but don't forget just who it is victimizing him - the Chinese government, not Yahoo!.
Does this mean Yahoo! should pull out of China? Of course not. Aside from the fact they would be remiss in their duty as a corporation (maximizing shareholder profits), they would be robbing the Chinese people of a valuable tool - communication. Make no mistake, this incident is unfortunate, but do you really think everyone trying to join the dissident parties are getting caught? Don't be ridiculous.
People with a technical bent will always find a way around these barriers, and there will be a good number of these people supporting the dissident movement. The government in China will change, simply because the government can't stop all the cross communication, and nobody rules a country with no support within the population, unless they do so behind an iron curtain. So regardless of these unfortunate events, Yahoo!, Google, and MSN are doing good there whether they like it or not.
Freedom won't come to anyone simply because a corporation pushes for it, it will come when the people demand it and make it happen (hopefully through peaceful means, but by whatever means the people deem reasonable).
Besides, any freedom given by a corporation will necessarily come at an unknown cost - it is a corporations primary responsibility to maximize shareholder profit after all. Personally, I would be very leery of any corporation that attempts to set a precedent by influencing any government in any way. That's the peoples job.
Besides, isn't there enough of that going on in the US?
they'll make the treatments as inexpensive as they possibly can.
...
This way, they'll have every HIV/Aids patient with two nickels to rub together beating down their doors, and they'll make an up front killing for the record books.
Oh, and everyone will be really happy with them too.
Of course, we know what will really happen
that this might be just more M$ FUD? This is an article from M$NBC after all. Maybe not? FTR, I'm not entirely sure what the market shares are for this particular service, and I'm not sure anymore just who owns who (except of course, Google owns GMail - they do, right?). So maybe I'm off track here.
These companies are simply trying to operate within the bounds of the law, whether they agree with them or not, in each country the operate in.
If they were to behave any differently in the US, those same congressmen would be bitching about their "unAmerican" behavior for not respecting the law.
Now, that said, why do they think operating in China under Chinese law is wrong? Who cares about their profits (other than their shareholders)? They're there, and that itself, regardless of the restriction placed by the Chinese government, will move the Chinese culture out of their current mindset. At least they're able to participate in an increased exchange in ideas. Isn't that better than keeping them shut up by city or village? And as recently reported on slashdot, those restrictions are not foolproof by any means.
Eventually, there will be changes simply because there is a larger exchange in ideas. Trying to move things forward faster by ignoring the Chinese governments restrictions will only get them ejected, keeping the Chinese people in the dark ages. So IMHO, these congressmen should just STFU and worry about the constituencies they were actually elected to represent.
What these congressmen probably don't realize is that by pushing these companies to influence national policies anywhere, they're setting a very dangerous precedent.
Oh, I wouldn't say "plenty".
Thanks to the tank the economy took, I spent 6 years in a job I hated without a raise for the last 4 years, while gas prices skyrocketed, housing prices went down, and since I made the mistake of buying a multi-family home and rents tanked (because of the drastic exodus of renters from my area and the sudden spike in home sales) I had to sell out after 2 years. Now, after owning my first home, I'm renting again. Thanks Shrubby. I'd have been happier to have just stayed in an apartment than go through having to sell my home.
What's worse, all that time I was counting myself lucky to just have a job.
Seems to me those "record oil profits" went somewhere else. I never saw ANY benefit. In fact, I felt quite thrown over the barrel.
As for the deployment of Linux to military applications, I'm all for using tools that cost less, are more stable, and will help reduce the loss of innocent life.
Before anyone bitches about the loss of life on the other side of that machine, keep in mind that knowing the field in the way this technology should allow won't necessarily increase or decrease the overall loss of life, but if used correctly (not that I trust the current administration to use a wad of toilet paper correctly) it will certainly reduce civilian casualties. What sane person (geek, politician or otherwise) can object to that?
So, yeah, even combat technology can be used for positive ends other than the technological advancement. It's the family with the bad luck to have their home and garden in the middle of the chosen battlefield that this technology should be able to help. If soldiers want to go fight, they know what they're in for. If they don't, they weren't paying attention at some point. I don't revel in their loss by any means, and I respect and appreciate their intentions, even if I disagree with their methods. But given a perfect world, I'd rather their professions were unnecessary. Unfortunately, the human race just isn't ready to quit trying to kill itself off over trivial matters.
Don't forget his dried frog pills!
The FBI was working under the supposition that people were in fairly immediate danger and that they needed to move to get the information ASAP. They determined that previous case law allowed for this.
Now, that's just foolish of them. "Clear and present danger" explicitly implies an imminent potential danger to life and limb. By the time the Feds got to the library, the threat was no longer immediate. Since they were in fact, in Newton, and the danger was clearly in Waltham, it's quite a stretch to imagine anything like a "present" danger of any kind related to the crime. While Waltham and Newton are neighboring towns, Brandeis is on the other side of Waltham.
Now, I can understand they wanted to get access to the relevant data as quickly as possible, but that's just no excuse for what they were trying to do. Law enforcement is their bloody job, for cryin' out loud, so they should bloody well follow the law.
They knew very well they were operating in an investigative capacity, but they wanted to go in and take the shortcut. If these guys had known their job, they'd have come with warrant in hand, and there would have been no need for a "brief standoff". They would also have gotten access to the data that much sooner.
Well, I actually have a better understanding of the *nix world than I do the Windows world, but I got the impression that this hidden directory feature was different.
You have a basic hidden directory in Windows, but you can still tell your explorer window to show them. If I understand this issue correctly, and it's possible I don't, the problem is that Symantec (and Sony) actually installed a kernel patch that filters the given directory out altogether - meaning you can't even see it as a hidden directory.
I've never been a kernel devleoper (client/server development on Solaris, 8 years, Windows dev 4 months now), but I don't think 'cloaking' a directory is so easy in *nix, and certainly not without root privileges, which even a newbie doesn't use on a regular basis. In Windows, as a previous post pointed out, you can't do anything without admin. My 6 year old daughter is an admin, because XP Pro won't even let you print to a bloody network printer without admin privileges (8 hours on the phone with Sanjii in New Dehli proved that).
Now, there are a couple reasons this isn't as bad with Symantec as it was with Sony.
Sony installed this kernel patch without your knowledge or consent - even if you refused to accept the EULA - wich made no mention of the software's true behavior, it was installed. So, you indicate you don't want anything installed, but you get it anyway.
Symantec included it as part of a software package that the user had to explicitly want installed before the patch would be added to the kernel. I read somewhere (previous post) that Symantec was never secretive about this patch either, whereas Sony tried to outright deny it in the beginning.
So, mistrust Symantec if it pleases you, but IMO, there are much worse fish in cyberspace to focus on.
Sony for one.
Microsoft mostly just gets a bad rap, sometimes they deserve the abuse, but they did build their reputation back in the day.
I'm sure there are plenty more. Symantec is still a small fish, and I'm not sure it's even carnivorous.
And that would be a very good explaination of a rootkit. But that's not how I understood the Symantec hidden directory issue.
Symantec has not changed the locks on your door. The Sony DRM did.
The best you could equate the hidden directory is as follows:
Say I somehow gain access to your house, and instead of changing all the locks, I build a new room, but put it behind a secret door. Now, I don't have access to this room from outside your house, but while I'm in your house, I can hide stuff there. That's what Symantec is doing. Sure it's a potential security flaw if someone else finds out how to get into the room and hides a bomb, but otherwise, it's not a real problem.
Now, I'm not saying this was ok for Symantec to do, but this is certainly not a rootkit. If I install a rootkit, that's all I need to gain access to that machine any time it is online. That's clearly not what Symantec has done.
Why was this such a big fiasco with Sony? Because they were able to gain access to information on your computer, and hid their installation in a cloaked directory. The cloaked directory was clearly the lesser of two bad moves by Sony.
I may have missed something, but I saw nothing whatsoever in the article that sends information or provides external access without the users knowledge.
Isn't that what a rootkit does - allow unauthorized access?
Of course, it's hiding a directory, but as mentioned by other posters, Symantec has never been very secretive about that, they just didn't come out and announce in big flashing red letters that they were creating a hidden directory. Not a lie at all, as was the case with Sony.
Now, apparently there are a few folks here that seem to consider Symantec only a couple notches away from M$ on the slimeball ladder, but the fact is they write software that attempts to protect computers (typically from the gifts M$ has bestowed on the world). Personally, I only use their antivirus SW, since Windows does just fine bogging the one machine I run it on without any unnecessary help. To date, I have had far fewer issues with Windows machines using Norton Antivirus than those without it. In fact, it seems to me Norton AV is as important for Windows machines as a network connection.
Not that this isn't something to be aware of, but at best this is a potential security hole, not a rootkit. While I don't want anyone "hiding" stuff on my system, I know very well there are users out there that can be easily convinced to delete important system files - or doesn't anyone remember the SULFNBK virus?
I am with most of the other posters in wondering why the hell this is an issue at all.
I've been using iTunes for around 4 months, and I'm ALWAYS running through the "Just For You" section to get suggestions. I listen to clips, I check album ratings, and sometimes I buy whole albums or just a few songs. Sometimes I put a note in my iPod's notes section regarding an album I want to buy a hardcopy for (I don't have a clue why, and I'm not going to hurt myself trying to figure it out).
Bottom line, I've spent more on iTunes in the last 4 months than I've spent on music in the 4 years before that point. Why? Because I've found an obscene amount of music I never even knew I liked! How? iTunes' recommendations.
Still, what are they using this for? Are they tracking everything I listen to on my iPod? Do they know all the music in my library? I seriously doubt it. I like it that way too. When iTunes recommends something I already own the hardcopy to (typically already imported in my library), I tell them, and they use that info to recommend others. They don't know about the music I've borrowed (short term - I DON'T keep it if I don't like it, and I BUY it if I do - which has also lead to a lot more spending on my part).
Hell, I think it could only be better if they were to implement a wishlist I could dump to my iPods notes section so I could compare iTunes' prices with Strawberries' or Newbury Comics' used CD section.
So, sure iTunes IS bad, but only for my budget! It's done phenomenal things for my enjoyment of music, and that wouldn't be possible without actually using the information I GIVE it.
Just my $0.02, spend it or save it.
That's a valid point, but there are lines that shouldn't be crossed. The kind of behavior demonstrated (yet again) by the US gov't almost always leads to crossing other lines, and in the case of the Bush administration, has obviously been a regular pattern over the last 6 years.
Will you feel the same way when the US gov't nationalizes the internet here by creating the USDNM (US Dept of Network Management) and ALL traffic to, from, or within the US goes through government hands and at the governments discretion?
I don't trust a government that lies as a matter of course (US), nor one who has no track record (Iraq). Why would I want them deciding what I can or can't see, or worse, keeping track of what I do see?
Wait 'til your everyday biker can get tank mural of a scantily clad chick that will do more than just sit there looking cute ...
Ok, I know I'm gonna take a karma hit for that, but I couldn't resist.
This is nuts. I got a little half gig shuffle for Father's day. Of course, I immediately remembered the fact that I liked listening to music, and had to have more. Enter the 20G iPod about 2 months later (just about 2 weeks before the iPod video - Doh!).
Now, since then (about 3 months), I've spent more money at iTunes than I'd spent on CDs in general (including all the kiddy CDs for the little one) over the last 10 years. Period. Several times, I've gotten the free download, only to realize the artist was awesome, and of course, immediately bought more. Lately, the free downloads have been "not so much", but so what?
On top of that, I've spent more on actual CDs in this time than I spent at iTunes - there are just some albums you want in full, and in hardcopy. Don't ask me why.
So, Napster can bite me. Sony/BMG can bite me. From my POV, it looks like the iPod has drastically increased my music spending.
Am I the only one?
on your employers part that is.
It is customary to have some explanation for immediately being ousted. Granted, having the two weeks paid vacation is nice, but they should have been responsible enough to at least explain it to you and give you reasonable time to clean out your system - in case any personal content might be there.
Still, some companies have it as a standard policy to immediately relieve anyone in a critical position of their duties upon notice of termination. They should have sat down with you and informed you of this. The best thing you can do is to know the employers policy, and be prepared for them to act inappropriately. Clean out the system beforehand of anything that's not theirs. That usually means cleaning out the browser caches, even if you're a responsible employee that doesn't cruise porn on your break.
Some companies are much different, allowing exiting employees (whether by layoff or self termination) to retain mail accounts, have mail forwarded, or even obtain copies of personal email lists from their systems. Some (like my last employer) will keep you late for the next two weeks, and have you writing code at 4:00 PM on your last day - even though they've taken you out for lunch and gotten you a little buzzed.
Bottom line, hope for the best, but be ready for the worst, which is having the HR person immediately call your supervisor and any IT person that can shut you out before you even get back to your desktop, then having security escort you to your cube/office and watch you like you're a criminal while you collect your belongings and walk you to the door.
Another way to make sure you aren't ejected like last nights rotten fish dinner is to make yourself too critical to be done without. Not easy these days, but certainly a good defense mechanism when your employer goes from one layoff to another like some people change their underwear.
Good luck at the new gig.
Not necessarily. It was mentioned in one of the previous slashdot threads on this issue that by the time the Sony EULA pops up, it has already installed something (I don't remember what) into your system. Refusint the EULA sets something else up in your system according to some of the stories out there. The only thing that prevents it is turning off autoplay/autoexecute/whatever on your CD/DVD player. I don't know if the shift key affects this - I'm not a windows guru (anymore), so research this yourself before taking that chance.
I don't remember where, but after a little googling last week, I found a post that suggested the DRM actually installs some Mac kernel extensions (PhoenixNub1.kext and PhoenixNub2.kext or something similar).
I haven't yet researched whether these are actually legitimate extensions that are part of the Mac Os though (remember that old "Windows Virus" alert that convinced so many people to delete system files?).
Use with care, even on MacOs X.
BTW, It seems to me that if LGPL infringement can be proven, it would sure be nice to see a settlement for some fixed amount for each DRM'd CD released fed back to the open source projects infringed. Getting a cool $10 Million funding from Sony would certainly add to the quality of all these projects - not that they aren't excellent, but being able to refactor the whole codebase would undoubtedly put them in serious contention with the best players.
Just a thought.
That it may be, but that doesn't mean they'll have it by 2010. I'd be surprised to see them in the dealer lots by 2015. 2020 might even be wishful thinking.
There's too much money to be made in Oil, and no matter what anyone says, the profit potential for Hydrogen - or any alternative fuel type for that matter - is just too big an unknown for any company focused on the bottom line to be bothered. The only exceptions are essentially glorified skunkworks projects or "We're doing that too" soundbyte generators.
GM is basically fighting bankruptcy, but they claim to be shooting for 2010? That's a soundbyte. Everyone who cares about the environment is supposed to hear this and declare undying devotion to their noble goals, and of course, support GM by buying only GM until these wonderful new Panaceas start rolling off the lots.
Don't get me wrong, I'd seriously LOVE to be proven wrong, but I don't see the broader picture centering on alternative fuel sources. That's just distraction from drilling the Arctic and the war in Iraq. It's a classic case of the tail wagging the dog, and GM is only trying to use it to survive the next decade.
Doh! Ok, post-lunch sleepiness has got me in a public forum. You are right, it does say GM.
According to the article, most manufacturers are still up in the air about this technology. Only Ford is bullish, and believe they will be in the open market by 2010. If they can avoid bankruptcy.
It would certainly be nice, but I do think 2010 is a bit soon.
I'm glad you cleared that up :)
:)
As a general rule, I generally like to take the tack opposite the majority of responders, but this one is kinda hard. I generally like lightweight, but I don't see anything there that would make me drop my Fvwm2 desktop. I'll probably switch to KDE long before I bother trying this out.
Man, now I think of it, CmdrTaco was probably tossing grenades with this post just to see what happened. Ever see someone throw a long tailed cat into a room full of rockers then step back with an evil grin to wait for the chaos?
Man after my own heart.
No,it won't appeal to them all. It may grow on a good many of them though. I'll have to wait and see if that's the case for myself - it doesn't do much for me just yet - too "shiny orb"-ish for me. Regardless, I'm not giving up my Beastie Tshirts. Also, I'm still quite fond of many of the she Deamon designs that have come up over the years. And I'll bet a dollar Beastie is still quite visible 2 or more years down the road.
AAAARRRGGGGHHHH!!!!
Dude, it's NOT a devil! Anyone who knows anything about FreeBSD/Unix knows the significance of the Daemon!
And his name is Beastie, not Chuck.
And yes, I'm fairly sure he'll still be around.