Think about it this way, if you had to explain to someone to "go to website, navigate through the page (which may change), find correct exe, install/configure (yes, even windows needs configuring from time to time)." vs go to the terminal, type "sudo apt-get install..." or better yet, use a search in synaptec, which one sounds easier?
Please explain to me how a system where a user must be given access to content, but at the same time denied access to content, would function as anything more than a speed bump. Technologists can't deliver the impossible, even if we wanted to.
To add insult to injury, media organizations come in and demand things like "trusted computing" (which sounds like a remote execution hole waiting to happen) that I don't want on the computers running my bank software, or government computers with my SIN/SSN on them. Consider if you were a doctor, and you knew that poison was being prescribed as a cure, isn't it your ethical duty to step in and try you're best to stop it? Fortunately in this case, we aren't talking about people dying, but they may have their identities stolen (and credit ruined) because some media organization wanted to protect a few album sales of Britney Spears.
And again, trusted computing should be a speed bump to those in the know. But there will always be an admin who has risen to his level of incompetence and will deploy sensitive information on a "trusted computer".
This is why we can't promote the "safeguarding of IP," it is doomed to failure, and the attempt may hurt innocent people.
It's all about spin. Take it the other way, say that this gives the intelligence community a new opportunity to spy on terrorist recruitment and activities.
The parent is actually quite insightful. I once worked for a small company ( 10 employees) that developed security software based on LGPL code (GUI/IO were proprietary).
I came to realize that much of the IO portion of the software would eventually be developed by MS (probably with Vista) and our work would be unnecessary.
The trick with the remaining components was that some were really hard to configure properly (due to the problem's complexity and not just our software). And we could sell our expertise and GUI with the software.
Look at Apple, it has an open source kernel, but also a proprietary GUI that makes it easy to configure and use.
Now, the person with the question might not have the luxuries that we did, but there are ways to make software behave more like a service. Plus, our software was partially created so that clients would come to and trust us.
I should place a disclaimer that I was just a programmer on this project, and I deduced this by a few random comments made by the higher ups (though in such a small company they weren't that much higher up) and by working with Windows in ways I never wish to repeat.
I just finished watching the documentary. They were so focused on saying "fraud could happen" that they ignored that incompetence already seems to have occurred.
Source code was only up for a few seconds, but it used ASP to connect to an MS Access database! Now, seeing as I'm biased because I hate both of those products, I don't have a very high set of expectations for the developer's abilities.
From what I can gather from the short technical descriptions, it appears that Diebold doesn't understand that security encompasses every step of the process. And from what little security they demonstrated, it appeared to be snake oil at best. They are obviously a company whose product is controlled by business people, not scientists/engineers.
I don't think I would trust Diebold to count pebbles, let alone run a democracy.
How are they forcing you to buy anything? Are you going to die if you don't get the next Britney Spears album?
If you don't like or agree with DRMs, then don't buy the CD/mp3. I don't use iTunes for that very reason. I didn't buy (or download) an album I wanted because a PREVIOUS generation had a rootkit in it. I recently helped someone convert to Linux because of the WGA (they had been given their key and software directly by Microsoft). These are just a few examples of my experiences with DRM.
The interesting way to look at the situation is that DRM'd (or even closed source) material may make it impossible to legally place copyright-expired content into the public domain (such as source code).
I think that the government has virtually* no business in a contract between two parties over a luxury good or service. If an ignorant customer agrees to a stupid contract (the terms of the contract must be clear)* then they only have themselves to blame.
CDs that predate this issue should be placed under the contract made at the time (copyright law). The only issue the government should look at is copyrights which define what constitutes theft of a creation.
This doesn't mean that I am opposed to populism, but the power of democracy and government shouldn't be (ab)used over the use of luxury items. The difference in our opinions is that I see this issue as contract and copyright law, not just the later.
Then again, I'm kind of a hypocrite because I don't define computers as a luxury item and wish to see consumer protection against "trusted computing" occur*.
*The government has business if there are valid safety concerns surrounding the product/service, transaction, or if details of the transaction were not properly disclosed/met.
Enacting the draconian "War Measures Act" (not the Riot Act*) is considered former Prime Minister Trudeau's greatest mistake.
The next government that was in power for a substanial amount of time (Mulroney, not Clark) repealed the Act and created the "Emergencies Act" in 1988.
*The Riot Act is in the Criminal Code and only covers limited circumstances.
That depends on the constitution of the nation. What if the constitution states that all power rests in an irreplacable dictator and that they can punish you with or without reason? I wouldn't want to live under that constitution. Furthermore, I'll bet that there are laws (constitional or otherwise) in every nation that you disagree with. Just because a bad law exists doesn't mean that all laws are bad, likewise just because a good law exists doesn't mean that all laws are good.
Of course this is an over simplification. But what isn't? I could over simpilfy the two-clause BSD license to state that you can do wahtever you want (freedom of action & speech) but you can't sue the developers (no accountability). That sounds like a constitution to me. Albeit a limited one.
"Often times, I got a canned response of something crazy like, "John Kerry is for abortion. Bush is against it. If my mother had had me aborted, I wouldn't be here and that's why I'm voting for Bush."
That is the best arguement yet in favour of Kerry.
Exactly, If Sony's still dominant, it doesn't have to convince us of anything.
As a side note, how would one evaluate Sony's success? Do we compare it's adoptation to the other consoles or the PS2? If the answer is "both" then Sony's has a difficult struggle ahead of it.
I've always wondered about how patents work beyond their own borders (I don't understand patent law very well).
For example, if patent office A says that something is obvious, but patent office B in another nation claims that it isn't (and subsequently grants the patent, potentially to another company) what are the possible ramifications and remedies? Or is a company expected to request patents by all offices? Or once a patent is declared invalid in one jurisdiction is anyone else (in another nation) allowed to apply for it?
What I just asked could be complete non-sense, but it is something that I am curious about.
The sad thing that you have to ask yourself is whether or not people care about being lied to. Or that they care at all for that matter.
People don't care until a problem directly involves them. And the kicker is, even if you can explain why they are impacted, they will still give precedence to the short-term benefits.
And the worst thing of all, if anyone truly cares about an issue, how can they be certain that any data or conclusion given is valid. I have a limited amount of time, and a limited skull, I'm lucky to be an expert in any subject at all, and have a partial understanding of a couple auxiliary subjects.
I wish I knew how to make this critism of modern life and potics constructive, but I don't.
Even if they didn't develop it for IE but kept the content accessable to IE users they still aren't hypocrites. I can't recall many people complaining that a port doesn't have as shiny a UI, even though I wouldn't put it past some. I find most complaints about not having access to some format or program at all.
I'm more worried about the "fast computers" part. As the post shows, they are mindful of the issue and will probably [hopefully] make it simple for users to turn off any new [slow] features. I don't want to have to login to select a crippled version (I have an old laptop).
Agreed, I was going to argue something similar and then read your entry and decided not to re-invent the wheel. (Ironic, given your argument). When it comes to the GCC, a need was filled long before the OSI existed. Thus, not as much interest in re-inventing the wheel.
If the GP really believes that a player who is first to market, is dedicated/committed, and creates/exploits network effects is in the right, then viva the closed source revolutionaries!
Yes, they can be granted the title of being in the right place at the right time. And if they do something positive in that place should be praised for it, but to be considered universally in the right for achievements that mainly took place in the past isn't a good thing.
In my mind, the FSF has burned a lot of good will that they have earned through their work on GNU. Yet I will not ignore either "contribution".
I believe that if RMS is right, then he, and the rest of us have to acknowledge that someone else would have done the same thing... eventually.
It's kind of like math, we say that people either prove or discover something. The proper answer has always been there, but somebody had to get it right.
For example, I was using free software long before I believed in it. It was when I had to learn the true ugliness of closed software that I began to believe in alternatives. Thus, my path to freedom was a bit different than RMS', I don't think I would be brave enough to go as far as he did, but I still would have recognized the problems, if not the solution.
Upon re-reading this, I sound like an RMS shill, and I don't even like the GPL.
I believe QDOS means, quick+dirty OS, and the background story justifies the name. Add about a quarter-century worth of "just add this feature and get it working 100% later" while trying to maximize backwards-compatibility. (I believe that they added the DOS line of compatibility with NT 5.x (w2k, xp, etc.)
I wouldn't want to have to program that mess.
Engineering wise, I think a reboot + emulator would be a good idea. But the problem is, if they make a clean and easy to maintain, split-up system, then it will be emulated easier on other OSes [Linux]. So, the best technical solution would probably result in a mess of a different [monitary] kind. And who does ms really care about, the user or their bottom-line?
For starters, I am 22, and probably just about to finish up my post-secondary education (barring a higher degree).
That being said, people can have all the hope in the world, and it is worthless. So what if people are hopeful that the ills of life don't plague them? How does that make them any different than their ancestors? You're perfectly right, things DON'T change, unless there are enough people to change them. And let me explain something I've noticed, my generation (on average) is too used to things being handed to them. I am including myself in this. I think this generation will succeed on an industrial scale, but I have little hope for it on a personal one.
There are some benefits to being in this generation, but overall, we're no different. I predict the divorce rate is going to skyrocket under my selfish generation.
As for wanting no responsibility and being carefree... That is what alcohol is for. If only for a few hours.
The current linux kernel is version 2.6.x. IIRC, the 2.5 branch was a development branch. Why would anybody want to use a linux distro based on an old developers version of the kernel?
They seem to have a bizarre interest in odd numbered kernels.
Slashdot Mirror
Think about it this way, if you had to explain to someone to "go to website, navigate through the page (which may change), find correct exe, install/configure (yes, even windows needs configuring from time to time)." vs go to the terminal, type "sudo apt-get install ..." or better yet, use a search in synaptec, which one sounds easier?
Terminal-phobia is one of my pet peeves though.
Please explain to me how a system where a user must be given access to content, but at the same time denied access to content, would function as anything more than a speed bump. Technologists can't deliver the impossible, even if we wanted to.
To add insult to injury, media organizations come in and demand things like "trusted computing" (which sounds like a remote execution hole waiting to happen) that I don't want on the computers running my bank software, or government computers with my SIN/SSN on them. Consider if you were a doctor, and you knew that poison was being prescribed as a cure, isn't it your ethical duty to step in and try you're best to stop it? Fortunately in this case, we aren't talking about people dying, but they may have their identities stolen (and credit ruined) because some media organization wanted to protect a few album sales of Britney Spears.
And again, trusted computing should be a speed bump to those in the know. But there will always be an admin who has risen to his level of incompetence and will deploy sensitive information on a "trusted computer".
This is why we can't promote the "safeguarding of IP," it is doomed to failure, and the attempt may hurt innocent people.
It's all about spin. Take it the other way, say that this gives the intelligence community a new opportunity to spy on terrorist recruitment and activities.
= 2040066&page=1
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/AmericanFamily/story?id
Of course people can't quote a source to back up their opinion, it hasn't been posted on Wikipedia yet!
"Allard works on an Apple G5 computer, next to an obviously less frequently used pc."
So, Microsoft's new hope uses a Mac... That caught me off guard.
Considering that the web is only 1% porn, I'd say we barely have Web 2.0!
That it isn't being called GNU/Java!
The parent is actually quite insightful. I once worked for a small company ( 10 employees) that developed security software based on LGPL code (GUI/IO were proprietary).
I came to realize that much of the IO portion of the software would eventually be developed by MS (probably with Vista) and our work would be unnecessary.
The trick with the remaining components was that some were really hard to configure properly (due to the problem's complexity and not just our software). And we could sell our expertise and GUI with the software.
Look at Apple, it has an open source kernel, but also a proprietary GUI that makes it easy to configure and use.
Now, the person with the question might not have the luxuries that we did, but there are ways to make software behave more like a service. Plus, our software was partially created so that clients would come to and trust us.
I should place a disclaimer that I was just a programmer on this project, and I deduced this by a few random comments made by the higher ups (though in such a small company they weren't that much higher up) and by working with Windows in ways I never wish to repeat.
I just finished watching the documentary. They were so focused on saying "fraud could happen" that they ignored that incompetence already seems to have occurred.
Source code was only up for a few seconds, but it used ASP to connect to an MS Access database! Now, seeing as I'm biased because I hate both of those products, I don't have a very high set of expectations for the developer's abilities.
From what I can gather from the short technical descriptions, it appears that Diebold doesn't understand that security encompasses every step of the process. And from what little security they demonstrated, it appeared to be snake oil at best. They are obviously a company whose product is controlled by business people, not scientists/engineers.
I don't think I would trust Diebold to count pebbles, let alone run a democracy.
How are they forcing you to buy anything? Are you going to die if you don't get the next Britney Spears album?
If you don't like or agree with DRMs, then don't buy the CD/mp3. I don't use iTunes for that very reason. I didn't buy (or download) an album I wanted because a PREVIOUS generation had a rootkit in it. I recently helped someone convert to Linux because of the WGA (they had been given their key and software directly by Microsoft). These are just a few examples of my experiences with DRM.
The interesting way to look at the situation is that DRM'd (or even closed source) material may make it impossible to legally place copyright-expired content into the public domain (such as source code).
I think that the government has virtually* no business in a contract between two parties over a luxury good or service. If an ignorant customer agrees to a stupid contract (the terms of the contract must be clear)* then they only have themselves to blame.
CDs that predate this issue should be placed under the contract made at the time (copyright law). The only issue the government should look at is copyrights which define what constitutes theft of a creation.
This doesn't mean that I am opposed to populism, but the power of democracy and government shouldn't be (ab)used over the use of luxury items. The difference in our opinions is that I see this issue as contract and copyright law, not just the later.
Then again, I'm kind of a hypocrite because I don't define computers as a luxury item and wish to see consumer protection against "trusted computing" occur*.
*The government has business if there are valid safety concerns surrounding the product/service, transaction, or if details of the transaction were not properly disclosed/met.
Enacting the draconian "War Measures Act" (not the Riot Act*) is considered former Prime Minister Trudeau's greatest mistake.
The next government that was in power for a substanial amount of time (Mulroney, not Clark) repealed the Act and created the "Emergencies Act" in 1988.
*The Riot Act is in the Criminal Code and only covers limited circumstances.
That depends on the constitution of the nation. What if the constitution states that all power rests in an irreplacable dictator and that they can punish you with or without reason? I wouldn't want to live under that constitution. Furthermore, I'll bet that there are laws (constitional or otherwise) in every nation that you disagree with. Just because a bad law exists doesn't mean that all laws are bad, likewise just because a good law exists doesn't mean that all laws are good.
Of course this is an over simplification. But what isn't? I could over simpilfy the two-clause BSD license to state that you can do wahtever you want (freedom of action & speech) but you can't sue the developers (no accountability). That sounds like a constitution to me. Albeit a limited one.
"Often times, I got a canned response of something crazy like, "John Kerry is for abortion. Bush is against it. If my mother had had me aborted, I wouldn't be here and that's why I'm voting for Bush."
That is the best arguement yet in favour of Kerry.
Exactly, If Sony's still dominant, it doesn't have to convince us of anything.
As a side note, how would one evaluate Sony's success? Do we compare it's adoptation to the other consoles or the PS2? If the answer is "both" then Sony's has a difficult struggle ahead of it.
I've always wondered about how patents work beyond their own borders (I don't understand patent law very well).
For example, if patent office A says that something is obvious, but patent office B in another nation claims that it isn't (and subsequently grants the patent, potentially to another company) what are the possible ramifications and remedies? Or is a company expected to request patents by all offices? Or once a patent is declared invalid in one jurisdiction is anyone else (in another nation) allowed to apply for it?
What I just asked could be complete non-sense, but it is something that I am curious about.
The sad thing that you have to ask yourself is whether or not people care about being lied to. Or that they care at all for that matter.
People don't care until a problem directly involves them. And the kicker is, even if you can explain why they are impacted, they will still give precedence to the short-term benefits.
And the worst thing of all, if anyone truly cares about an issue, how can they be certain that any data or conclusion given is valid. I have a limited amount of time, and a limited skull, I'm lucky to be an expert in any subject at all, and have a partial understanding of a couple auxiliary subjects.
I wish I knew how to make this critism of modern life and potics constructive, but I don't.
Even if they didn't develop it for IE but kept the content accessable to IE users they still aren't hypocrites. I can't recall many people complaining that a port doesn't have as shiny a UI, even though I wouldn't put it past some. I find most complaints about not having access to some format or program at all.
I'm more worried about the "fast computers" part. As the post shows, they are mindful of the issue and will probably [hopefully] make it simple for users to turn off any new [slow] features. I don't want to have to login to select a crippled version (I have an old laptop).
Agreed, I was going to argue something similar and then read your entry and decided not to re-invent the wheel. (Ironic, given your argument).
When it comes to the GCC, a need was filled long before the OSI existed. Thus, not as much interest in re-inventing the wheel.
If the GP really believes that a player who is first to market, is dedicated/committed, and creates/exploits network effects is in the right, then viva the closed source revolutionaries!
Yes, they can be granted the title of being in the right place at the right time. And if they do something positive in that place should be praised for it, but to be considered universally in the right for achievements that mainly took place in the past isn't a good thing.
In my mind, the FSF has burned a lot of good will that they have earned through their work on GNU. Yet I will not ignore either "contribution".
I believe that if RMS is right, then he, and the rest of us have to acknowledge that someone else would have done the same thing... eventually.
It's kind of like math, we say that people either prove or discover something. The proper answer has always been there, but somebody had to get it right.
For example, I was using free software long before I believed in it. It was when I had to learn the true ugliness of closed software that I began to believe in alternatives. Thus, my path to freedom was a bit different than RMS', I don't think I would be brave enough to go as far as he did, but I still would have recognized the problems, if not the solution.
Upon re-reading this, I sound like an RMS shill, and I don't even like the GPL.
See the entry for more details on how we butcher verbal communication. I think about it in a similar way to perl.
While I agree with everything you said, I give no pity to the "suckers" of which you speak.
If the situation was reversed, they'd be laughing all the way to the bank.
I believe QDOS means, quick+dirty OS, and the background story justifies the name. Add about a quarter-century worth of "just add this feature and get it working 100% later" while trying to maximize backwards-compatibility. (I believe that they added the DOS line of compatibility with NT 5.x (w2k, xp, etc.)
I wouldn't want to have to program that mess.
Engineering wise, I think a reboot + emulator would be a good idea. But the problem is, if they make a clean and easy to maintain, split-up system, then it will be emulated easier on other OSes [Linux]. So, the best technical solution would probably result in a mess of a different [monitary] kind. And who does ms really care about, the user or their bottom-line?
For starters, I am 22, and probably just about to finish up my post-secondary education (barring a higher degree).
That being said, people can have all the hope in the world, and it is worthless. So what if people are hopeful that the ills of life don't plague them? How does that make them any different than their ancestors? You're perfectly right, things DON'T change, unless there are enough people to change them. And let me explain something I've noticed, my generation (on average) is too used to things being handed to them. I am including myself in this. I think this generation will succeed on an industrial scale, but I have little hope for it on a personal one.
There are some benefits to being in this generation, but overall, we're no different. I predict the divorce rate is going to skyrocket under my selfish generation.
As for wanting no responsibility and being carefree... That is what alcohol is for. If only for a few hours.
They seem to have a bizarre interest in odd numbered kernels.