As a result, one of the main activities of magistrates courts in the UK is to jail single mothers for not subscribing to the BBC. One conjectures that neither these ladies nor their children have the slightest interest in watching the BBC, but they will pay for it anyway, and if not, go to jail.
That paragraph is laughable, if you own a TV you must pay for a TV license, its a bit like a tax, but only applied to people who can afford a TV and want to make use of that "luxury", you can choose not to have a TV after all. - You pay your council tax and other taxes for services that you may make no use of but that others do - i.e. just because you pay for private insurance you still have to pay your national insurance - the general jist is that it is good or society that the service is provided, and therefore it is good that everyone pays. I'm going to disregard the argument that everyone has a right to choose what they want and therefore what they pay, and shouldn't subsidize the rest, because that generally means that people without the means to access certain services end up going without - whether that is healthcare, dental care, transport or housing, its no different here.
As far as enforcement is concerned, I would love to find where you got your information from. As far as I am aware - firstly if you have a TV and no license, you will be warned to get one - no one can enter your house - or even demand to be let in to see if you have one unless they have notified the police, and have a court order to do so - that will only happen if you have been told that you need a license and still have not bothered to get one. As for jail time - you can only be fined for failure to have a TV license, - you can be jailed however if you are given a fine - sent to court and then defy the court, so on that logic I suppose they could be throwing single mothers into jail, - but I doubt it. Just a note if you are fined - you will only have to pay it if you can - or pay it off over times in amounts you can afford - and if you cant afford to pay the fine then you should really either buy the license, or save some money and don't buy a TV in the first place.
I assume you would like a rebate of your council tax on the amount spent on policing* if you don't make use of them, - same with the fire service? It doesn't work like that.
*(I pay about £400 a year on policing according to the breakdown of my council tax bill)
The BBC is funded by a TV license, and it is about £150 a year. Most people however support that. As far as competition is concerned, the BBC provides public broadcasting content, the kind of content that other providers simply would not provide. The argument in the UK media industry is that the BBC takes up a large market share of the media market, and as such competes directly with private industry and therefore is bad, what isn't mentioned is that (on top of the general support for the license fee) is that the BBC is pushing innovation in both programming and technical fields and feeds that back into the industry, and also the BBC can put on television and radio program that are not commercially viable to commercial stations, which is in turn a service to the British media sector and also to British culture.
What people seem to miss is that the BBC is an asset that is almost unique to the UK, it is a non partisan and independent media organisation *without* corporate OR government pressures to perform its task in any particular way. It provides radio, internet and television services in the UK and also to English speaking people around the world. It is often responsible for finding and investing in programming that no other company will touch and bringing it into the mainstream - often with that programming then ending being taken over by the private broadcasters once the hard work is done. In short it can take risks that private companies cannot. It also provides educational programming (both
Terrorism *isn't* new, even for the US so why all the legislation now? I cant find one example of terrorism actually destroying a society. At present changes in legislation are destroying a society by changing your values.
Islamic states have *not declared war on the US, but the US has declared war on a vague notion... why?
You fight wars to preserve your way of life / protect your population or territory / protect your interests abroad - this is done by people dying (in said war) and killing those who want to change / take stuff. At present the US is fighting wars against people who are and never have been a threat (Iraq + Afghanistan) to the US's way of life and are incapable of taking any territory, and unable to do any real damage to the population (and are consequently losing people in said wars). This leaves the act that the US is fighting a number of wars on a pretext of terrorism (Iraq had nothing at all to do with al-Qa'ida) when really they are *furthering* (not protecting) their national interests.
In short - terrorism is not a threat to society, changing society to prevent terrorism is a threat to society.
thugs busting into your house to make sure you aren't watching an unlicensed TV.
Where does this happen? I suggest you have been misinformed...
..cameras on every street corner..
Those camera's are largely owned by private companies and are used to protect commercial property... the second largest group are speed camera's, used to prevent speeding (or gain revenue depending on your POV) and those actually run by authorities are run by *local" authorities. There is no massive civilian spy network / big brother system - hell the police can access info on all those camera's but only with the co-operation of their owners, or with a warrant.
I fail to see how this equates with the ability to be arrested without charge and detained indefinitely, and then (if you are lucky) tried in a court where you and your legal representation may not have access to the evidence, and the judge is under political pressure to get a result.
I know what I'd rather have.
Realistically the terrorists win when you no longer have the freedoms that they apparently hate, and I guess that would be now.
Its not like this terrorist threat is a new thing, but suddenly the policies and actions of one state are causing problems for people all over the world, and those people have no control over its implementation, look at how many nations are jumping on the "terrorist" bandwagon to suppress their own populations - various *stan states and somalia just to name a few, plus the US and to a lesser degree the UK and Europe (but the have better oversight so it tends to be less severe and legislation tends to include timeouts...). All supported by the US.
Its madness, US policy is a threat to everyone right now, there is a consensus that the war on terror is increasing the number of people willing to carry out acts of terrorism, and many people I speak to now, who used to be fairly pro-US are suddenly saying that the US has gone too far and has to stop. The problem is there is no way of stopping the US, so there is a feeling of dread and despair, I guess its not surprising those that feel most threatened / harmed by it all (not because they are terrorists or whatever but because they end up being caught up in collateral damage) are trying to fight back the only way they can, through demonstrations and through discussion, which by the way is slowly being turned into an offence in itself (i.e. supporting / glorifying etc.. terrorism).
...Wind up in... let's say another communist nation?...
You do realise that Russia isn't communist anymore right?
(by the by the 'west' won the cold war, Germany is united again, the Pole's are in NATO, and those Afgans that were the good guys in the 80's are now the bad guys...)
By the by if you do set up a database with a web front end to track your comic collection make sure you don't tell anyone, it may cause your social standing to be reduced - and next the only things girls will want to talk to you about is when you can come over and fix their PC...
(Its OK you get the last laugh when you employ all your old school mates as cleaners, pool attendants and chauffeurs when you hit the big time..)
Agree completley - but the only people they are trying to convince of this are other content providers and then only ones that are sufficiently large to have any leverage - these are mostly media companies / companies with a large interweb presence and access to many large tubes who employ many tubeologists and imagineers, and therefore really *should* know better.
This would work fine - *if every content provider did it*. (when I say work fine I mean how the content providers would like it to work.
i.e. Lets say The Guardian the Independent charged a royalty for indexing certain articles. and the Times didn't then when a person searches for something that would under normal circumstances return all 3 content providers articles (say you are searching on current news - or better an archived new story - say the search is for "Falklands War Newspaper Headlines" or something. Instead of getting all three papers returning a result you would get just the one from the times.
Now assuming not everyone knows that certain papers charge search engines for permission to index their content, it will simply look like the Guardian and the Independent didn't report the Falklands War - or whatever you searched for.
Repeatedly this may even turn customers against their traditional sales, especially with more and more people using multiple online papers and buying a paper copy. I mean if you start reading the Times on-line everyday as it is the only remaining fully indexed paper, are you more or less likely to buy it when you decide to get a real copy? I guess it would do wonders for international brand recognition too - I mean if you are not indexed for common searches who is going to know who you are enough to trust you for the occasional bit where you have allowed yourself to be indexed.
Really this is all about the fact that search engines generate advertising revenue for themselves using others content, content providers are now looking and saying -
"hey Google makes X million dollars by directing people to my site and advertising for my competitors, it indexes my content (goggle images / news etc..) so people aren't coming directly to me, maybe If i threaten the source of their content they will pay me and I can finally make some money from this inter web thing without having to actually charge people ourselves!"
I guess this is an attempt to get at the revenue they assumed that they would get from selling content to their visitors directly through online subscriptions which didn't work. (unless you were a specialist or exclusive provider - such as companies providing financial information / stock prices / adult material etc..). It didn't work because others didn't charge, why pay for access to ITV news or CNN online (if they charged) when the BBC or some other organisation offered the same stories (with a different editorial slant..) for free?
What they should be saying is how can I get a search engine to get as many people to my site as possible where I can then try and sell whatever services or exclusive content I want! after all the more page hits the more (theoretically at least) conversions.
Anyway - let them try and charge a royalty - or enforce their rights regarding copyright and prevent thee search engines from making money by including their content in their search engines, it will only harm them.
The internet really is a level playing field, anyone with a good site can get listed on a search engine and get hits - hopefully achieving whatever it is they are trying to do, why do some people want to change it so that it benefits them more? all that will happen is that it will break the way the internet works, or is perceived and damage their own web activities. Plus some content providers simply will never do this (probably at least) the BBC in the UK certainly would find it difficult, so too will other public service information providers (I assume) too so I guess there will always be at least one or two news site out there.
I know I have focused on newspapers here (and that does appear to be the gist FTA) but providers of other content such as music, video, software etc. are in the same position. Problem is the internet using public like getting stuf for free, and probably wont pay for something if they cant have access to it for free for at least a while first.
I can get almost exactly the same results on debian if :
1) I add stable & testing & unstable & experimental sources to my sources list and; 2) Add some sources that are listed on "the internet" at random 3) Install everything I can find using apt-get a* b* c* etc... and; ( 3a) apt-get dist-upgrade - maybe ignoring dependencies...) 4) Badly misconfigure my X configuration (but just well enough to work9ish) and; 5) Ensure that I have as much starting on boot as is possible and; 6) use every desktop widget app, with as many random widgets as possible.
Yup, Debian is as unstable as hell if you just put the effort in.
(Not saying that you are wrong or that its your fault - I'm sure its fixable - but I have never had any serious stability issues using Debian / Slackware when I didnt want to have any.):)
Couldn't agree more - I too have a panel and the usual K menu auto hiding across the top of my screens and on my desktop I keep a few superkaramba widgets for date time and system status and news etc.. but no icons. Icons are great for sorting / viewing data files etc.. in folders but I don't see the point in having them clutter the desktop for applications - I never store any files on my desktop anyway... (each to their own I know). The one thing I cant get away from is hitting alt+f2 and launching the application from the run dialog, seems nonsensical in a GUI but it means I know where to find everything, especially with a run history and auto completion!
The problem with any alarm system that calls the police is that it must be triggered by 2 (or is it 3?) sensors - so you have to (in the case of breaking in) smash a window (window sensor is activated and alarm sounds, and then move into the coverage of an additional sensor (like out of the room you broke into and into a corridor).
The reason for that is that the police will only respond if someone is actually breaking in, and they don't want to respond if someone has left a window open or something falls over.
This in turn means that if you have an alarm system hooked up to a control center that reports incidents to the police (alarms are never to my knowledge hooked up direct to police control rooms) the installers must ensure that the reports are only issued once 2 sensors are tripped.
So in short whilst I have never come across an alarm like the one you mention, it is almost certain that the police were not notified. Moreover if they had been it would have been a false alarm, 2/3 of those and the police will cease responding to call outs to your address (and possibly fine you as well I think)
To be fair the vast amount are privately owned so you are not being taxed to pay for their operation - and the majority of the ones owned by local councils / government / police "safety camera partnerships" etc are speed cameras (they request money from you when they send you the picture, bit like on a log flume at an amusement park only you don't get a choice as to whether yo pay or not*). The ones in city centers (if they are there and owned by a public body) you are paying for to do their job (traffic control / crime prevention / etc..) not to give you a free video tape of your day out.
* before someone has a heart attack - you can contest speeding fines issued by cameras, and go to court and there are all sorts of ways to defend yourself including that you thought the speed limit should be higher or that the camera wasn't bright orange and you didn't see it...
If you don't have access to the root password you really shouldn't be modifying the partitions on the system either:).
If you are running a single user system or are administrating a home PC for a small number of users then its likely that you will know the root password. The whole point is that not everyone should be able to carryout these tasks (not everyone with an account should be on the sudo'ers list). If you just want partition info then there are a hosts of KDE and Gnome applications that will give that to you as user, but to modify them you need to be root. makes sense. - i know this is just one example but hey it applies to most things that you need root / escalated privileges for.
The main thing behind switching your user to carry out administrative tasks is that 1) you can limit the number of people with access 2) you are aware when you are carrying out potentially dangerous operations (because you need to know the root / other privileged account password and enter it 3) you are not using the root account routinely and therefore unlikely to break it + some others but its late and I cant think right now.
Its not good to run as root day to day - its not good to give the root password to someone who doesn't know what they are doing (as they might break stuf badly) - not everyone needs to be on the sudo'ers list as not everyone needs to make system wide changes.
Even as a power user you will be able to use 99% / all the applications that you use day to day without recourse to using root credentials.
The exception I suppose is if you are just playing with a *nix to see how it works, building - modifying - nuking and rebuilding, then hey use whatever account you want, but if you are using a stable and well maintained system then you don't!!! - after all how often do you need to use *parted on a daily basis!:)
Im going to make a mild objection to one of your points - and that is your statement of:
Unlike Linux and windows, it is a perfectly pleasant experience for a power user to run as anormal user on a mac. I'd die if I had to have this dual account system on Linux, since not having super user privs is a pain. KDE and GNOME try to help you with some operation, but it's so inconsistent you cant make it work well.
Whilst I understand that in some circumstances it would not be workable to run as a non root user whilst running Linux/bsd/solaris etc.. I would suggest that they are rare, and I can think of no situation where logging in as a non-root user and escalating privileges as required (not necessarily always to root either - but to accounts with just sufficient access to carry out certain tasks).
I find that a correctly configured system will allow you to use it as a non-root user 100% of the time, using su where appropriate at the command line or very occasionally gksu or kdesu within the GUI if you are carrying out certain administrative functions (such as editing a configuration file with a GUI editor...). Moreover KDE request credentials in much the same way as you describe Mac OS doing, i.e. as they are needed and upon application launch or upon making a change that requires them. In short I would suggest that Linux Solaris and the various BSD's are as easy to use as Mac OS as a non root user.
This is presumably due to the fact that these OS's have been designed from the start from a multi user perspective.
I agree though that windows is a little less friendly in this regard, especially if you intend to do anything with regard to administration but even then it is still quite usable. The problem on the windows side is always that it is not really geared up to have a user logged in operating as a different user with higher privileges (even with runas and various mmc snap-ins I found it impossible manage an active directory domain effectively if I was not logged in as an administrator).
What kind of tasks are you performing on a regular basis that you cannot use Linux unless logged in as root?
Note: Im am a Debian user and not too familiar with the default setup of the more popular distro's (ubuntu etc..) and cant remember how in the way of modifications I have made to my system to make myself comfortable (creating specialised users etc..) but I dont think it was a great deal - it may simply be a matter of configuration though... oh and I dont use sudo at all as I said generally su at the console or very occasionally kdesu in the GUI.
Just because this request to ensure a "level playing field" is focused on security makes it no less valid than if it were aimed at other elements integrated into the operating system.
I Agree that i microsoft is integrating security products into its vista operating system that would enable it to enter markets where it has not got a large hold (i.e. Anti virus - where it is the main driver but not the main supplier...) and by virtue of its desktop OS monopoly becoming dominant in that market, then thats wrong. Especially if these integrated products are add ons masquerading as core operating system components.
It would be fine if Microsoft ensured that their Operating system was sufficiently secure not to require any additional software, but not to include a load of features in the operating system that ensures its system security sotware becomes dominant.
If it wants to sell these bits seperatley (reduce the cost of the OS and sell the security bits as additional extras) thats all fine too then those of us who use the OS can choose - but lets make it clear that selling a vista version with them in and one without at the same price is the same as integrating them in the first place....
This becomes an even bigger issue if the Microsoft Security products / components are written to take advantage of elements of the OS that other providers cannot gain access to (either due to lack of documentation or through some other means). That would give rise to the same interoperability issues as we have seen previous law suits attempt to resolve.
In short if MS want to secure their OS thats great, if they want to simply wipe out any external security providers to gain an extra revenue stream in the future (by say later charging for the components initially included for free), or become dominant in that area so as to play down securty vulnerabilities in their products thats not. After all would you buy your antivirus from the same guys who seem incapable of preventing their OS being succeptable in the first place?
Last point - If microsoft are in the business of supplying both the OS and the security software (and additional services such as one care) doesnt that leave a rather nasty potential conflict of interest?
FTA: Only someone with in-depth knowledge and background of the Firefox code could judge the danger of a particular security vulnerability; therefore, I have not included more detailed information of these security vulnerabilities that could lead to the spreading of unfounded rumours of potential exploits. However, for those interested, I've provided more details of the defects below.
Well here come the rumors. All software has issues, some more than others, but firefox is still less vulnerable than IE at present, and will most likley remain so. Moreover, its open source, so we can all find and fix if we have the skills to do so, and the Firefox Dev team can't hide from them.
I assume the IE codebase will be tested next for balance, and then Opera and Safari for interenst..
So how long till this gets blown out of all proportion?
We apparently live in an "information" age, and as such information is power and/or profit depending on your aims.
This article states the obvious, if you pass your data on to a company for the purpose of say making a transaction they are going to try and hold on to that data, because it has additional value.
The fact is that information about people, is worth a lot of money, not so much names, postal and email addresses (although it has some in a certain context) but data that includes demographic information or any other information that can be used to deduce trends or intentions, (like age, sex, income, health information, credit and spending history, even complaints).
Without a rigorous and enforceable framework to regulate the use and transfer of this information it is going to be used in whatever manner ensures maximum profit for the company, be that keeping the data secret and using it in house to "add value" and so that you continue to trade with them or spreading it far and wide to generate some cash quickly.
What is needed are real penalties for intentional and accidental information disclosures, after all if data has a value and its yours then surely you are entitled to be reimbursed if it is compromised, but that will probably never happen, especially given the complexity of identifying the leaks.
In addition the line FTA: "...offering these records to the highest bidder, despite an online privacy policy that explicitly stated the company would never share customer data with any third party" proves the point that regardless of what an online or other privacy policy might state it is just that, a policy, usually subject to change, and more over not a guarantee to the customer (unless it is described as such and you don't see that all that often)
As an example, I recently started getting a huge amount of junk mail (the old kind that comes through the letter box) mainly offering credit cards and other credit facilities, it was badly targeted (offering products aimed at people with bad debt, corporate entities, people with good credit, and people over 60).
I managed to speak to 4 of the more prominent companies (international banks) and a smaller number of the smaller firms to ascertain the original source of the data, it turns out that the finance companies making these offers where inter sharing data massively, leading to a web of sources. My search lasted just over two months of calling and writing (asking people to remove the data as I went along) that ultimately ended with a major credit reference agency (one of the 2 Major UK agencies), who I have never dealt with directly, but who were used for a credit check when I recently purchased a mobile phone through a very large and reputable telecoms provider.
It turns out that the credit reference agency ticked the little box on their computer system that said that I consented to the sharing of my data (something that I make a point of not doing and doubly so as I hadn't dealt with them directly...). They have offered to stop sharing my data, but that is all, and of course the "damage" is already done. All a bit late really as once your data is out there its out there forever, or until you move or your details change enough to make it useless.
So there really is no real way of protecting your data any more, and one mistake by you or someone else and you are stuffed. The only thing I can suggest is changing your name, address, phone number, email address and possibly your gender about every 12 months....
Now I don't use any MS Software any more but it'd be nice if rather than hype, speculation and derision there was some constructive discussion out there in the main stream media so that people could decide what to do when Vista is released, maybe not yet but just before or even after the release.. Oh except it will arrive on 90% of PC's pre installed so it will gain a dominant market share in 2-5 years regardless of reviews, hype, bugs, features, security or anything else..
What's the point. I use Linux, some use BSD, Windows, Mac OS or whatever (please add your own preference here). Regardless of how easy it is to install an OS, most people never will, so most people will stick to what their PC comes with, so all this talk will have a tiny effect on the general populate.
So at the end of the day its not important how stable, secure, feature packed, or "cool" this piece of kit is, is it?
You have never come across someone who has had to upgrade / repair a PC (And I mean take it to a shop, not DIY) and found that their OEM Windows XP installation installs fine but WGA declares it illegal. Thankfully I was able to get MS to issue new Media for a client in that instance (the initial retailer and repair shop (same people) refused to help) but it still took a lot of effort on my part and caused concern for the people affected.
WGA will affect a lot of windows users, and I bet 99% of those with illegal installations will be aware enough / know someone else aware enough to get round it, whilst 99% of those legitimately inconvenienced by it will be frustrated and vilified. There is nothing wrong with MS prosecuting and punishing people who use their software without a valid license, but they need to be 99% certain that they are right when they declare a problem.
Whilst not an ideal solution it is quite possible to generate your own MSI packages - they are not fantastic and in some cases can be considerably larger than an MSI direct from the software shop but it is possible. I believe Microsoft even offer their own tool on the 2k server media to facilitate this (its been a while since I used any MS technology (Over a year and prior to my then employers deployment of XP SP2) at all so sorry for being vague and there are a few reasonable commercial offerings. If your environment is secure and very heavily customised I would suggest looking into this.
I had fairly good results producing MSI packages with closed source software for specific PC images (Our PC's were imaged and deployed via RIS) where we had a decent level of control, and I would assume that with open source applications it should be even easier and more efficient as you have the code. As I said I haven't worked directly with Microsoft Technology for a while (Since moving from being an employee to an employer...) so this may be out of date after XP SP2 or with 2K3 server but its worth looking at if you are deploying lots of software, or even your own code.
Actually not a bad analogy at all for the point I think you were making. And one I may steal in a presentation I have to give in the next month - It fits nicely with the car / steering / abs examples sometimes used to describe software patents.
This is a Very Bad Idea, it sounds OK but its not;
Why? Because if what you describe were to happen then everyone would be playing catch up to Microsoft all of the time. The situation you describe would give IE a huge advantage over every other browser as IE would always be 100% compliant, and all the others would not be. Every change in IE would have to be implemented in other browsers after the IE release. Not to mention that Microsoft could add features that are proprietary or subject to a software patent and therefore not even implementable in other browsers. That is no basis for a 'standard', and why wouldn't Microsoft do this? After all it would give them dominance. It would have the potential to destroy any competition to IE, and give Microsoft carte blanche to dictate the future of the web. This is all bad, even if you love Microsoft.
Lets not even get into the fact that it would also involve Microsoft issuing clear documentation to their competitors as to what they have implemented in the first instance, which is unlikely. Now add to that the fact that some of IE's rendering quirks are as a result of bugs. Some are so well known that people write tutorials and how to's and offer code to cut-and-paste so you can fix issues without even the slightest inkling of what the problem is. More over some of these bugs have been fixed over time... So am I to understand that other browsers and their development teams should actually implement features in their browser that are bugs in another? Ridiculous.
What about issues where responses to certain code open up security vulnerabilities in IE, should they also be implemented in other browsers so that everyone gets a uniform experience? Didn't think so.
The W3C provides a set of standards that should be implementable by everyone, people making browsers should be using them and people coding websites should be using them. That way there are no problems for either party, and new features can be added in due time with due consultation of all the interested parties.
I will add however that if you are producing a web page and your code is 100% W3C compliant you usually only have a few - well documented issues to resolve. The real problems with how pages look in different browsers occurs when the page author is not 100% W3C compliant, and a page may then look great in one browser and terrible in another.
Slashdot Mirror
That paragraph is laughable, if you own a TV you must pay for a TV license, its a bit like a tax, but only applied to people who can afford a TV and want to make use of that "luxury", you can choose not to have a TV after all. - You pay your council tax and other taxes for services that you may make no use of but that others do - i.e. just because you pay for private insurance you still have to pay your national insurance - the general jist is that it is good or society that the service is provided, and therefore it is good that everyone pays. I'm going to disregard the argument that everyone has a right to choose what they want and therefore what they pay, and shouldn't subsidize the rest, because that generally means that people without the means to access certain services end up going without - whether that is healthcare, dental care, transport or housing, its no different here.
As far as enforcement is concerned, I would love to find where you got your information from. As far as I am aware - firstly if you have a TV and no license, you will be warned to get one - no one can enter your house - or even demand to be let in to see if you have one unless they have notified the police, and have a court order to do so - that will only happen if you have been told that you need a license and still have not bothered to get one. As for jail time - you can only be fined for failure to have a TV license, - you can be jailed however if you are given a fine - sent to court and then defy the court, so on that logic I suppose they could be throwing single mothers into jail, - but I doubt it. Just a note if you are fined - you will only have to pay it if you can - or pay it off over times in amounts you can afford - and if you cant afford to pay the fine then you should really either buy the license, or save some money and don't buy a TV in the first place.
I assume you would like a rebate of your council tax on the amount spent on policing* if you don't make use of them, - same with the fire service? It doesn't work like that.
*(I pay about £400 a year on policing according to the breakdown of my council tax bill)
The BBC is funded by a TV license, and it is about £150 a year. Most people however support that. As
far as competition is concerned, the BBC provides public broadcasting content, the kind of content that other providers simply would not provide. The argument in the UK media industry is that the BBC takes up a large market share of the media market, and as such competes directly with private industry and therefore is bad, what isn't mentioned is that (on top of the general support for the license fee) is that the BBC is pushing innovation in both programming and technical fields and feeds that back into the industry, and also the BBC can put on television and radio program that are not commercially viable to commercial stations, which is in turn a service to the British media sector and also to British culture.
What people seem to miss is that the BBC is an asset that is almost unique to the UK, it is a non partisan and independent media organisation *without* corporate OR government pressures to perform its task in any particular way. It provides radio, internet and television services in the UK and also to English speaking people around the world. It is often responsible for finding and investing in programming that no other company will touch and bringing it into the mainstream - often with that programming then ending being taken over by the private broadcasters once the hard work is done. In short it can take risks that private companies cannot. It also provides educational programming (both
I assume that's a joke (unless Microsoft is planning on buying the UK)
Terrorism *isn't* new, even for the US so why all the legislation now? I cant find one example of terrorism actually destroying a society. At present changes in legislation are destroying a society by changing your values.
Islamic states have *not declared war on the US, but the US has declared war on a vague notion... why?
You fight wars to preserve your way of life / protect your population or territory / protect your interests abroad - this is done by people dying (in said war) and killing those who want to change / take stuff. At present the US is fighting wars against people who are and never have been a threat (Iraq + Afghanistan) to the US's way of life and are incapable of taking any territory, and unable to do any real damage to the population (and are consequently losing people in said wars). This leaves the act that the US is fighting a number of wars on a pretext of terrorism (Iraq had nothing at all to do with al-Qa'ida) when really they are *furthering* (not protecting) their national interests.
In short - terrorism is not a threat to society, changing society to prevent terrorism is a threat to society.
Where does this happen? I suggest you have been misinformed...
Those camera's are largely owned by private companies and are used to protect commercial property... the second largest group are speed camera's, used to prevent speeding (or gain revenue depending on your POV) and those actually run by authorities are run by *local" authorities. There is no massive civilian spy network / big brother system - hell the police can access info on all those camera's but only with the co-operation of their owners, or with a warrant.
I fail to see how this equates with the ability to be arrested without charge and detained indefinitely, and then (if you are lucky) tried in a court where you and your legal representation may not have access to the evidence, and the judge is under political pressure to get a result.
I know what I'd rather have.
Realistically the terrorists win when you no longer have the freedoms that they apparently hate, and I guess that would be now.
Its not like this terrorist threat is a new thing, but suddenly the policies and actions of one state are causing problems for people all over the world, and those people have no control over its implementation, look at how many nations are jumping on the "terrorist" bandwagon to suppress their own populations - various *stan states and somalia just to name a few, plus the US and to a lesser degree the UK and Europe (but the have better oversight so it tends to be less severe and legislation tends to include timeouts...). All supported by the US.
Its madness, US policy is a threat to everyone right now, there is a consensus that the war on terror is increasing the number of people willing to carry out acts of terrorism, and many people I speak to now, who used to be fairly pro-US are suddenly saying that the US has gone too far and has to stop. The problem is there is no way of stopping the US, so there is a feeling of dread and despair, I guess its not surprising those that feel most threatened / harmed by it all (not because they are terrorists or whatever but because they end up being caught up in collateral damage) are trying to fight back the only way they can, through demonstrations and through discussion, which by the way is slowly being turned into an offence in itself (i.e. supporting / glorifying etc.. terrorism).
You do realise that Russia isn't communist anymore right?
(by the by the 'west' won the cold war, Germany is united again, the Pole's are in NATO, and those Afgans that were the good guys in the 80's are now the bad guys...)
Sorry - couldnt resist
By the by if you do set up a database with a web front end to track your comic collection make sure you don't tell anyone, it may cause your social standing to be reduced - and next the only things girls will want to talk to you about is when you can come over and fix their PC...
(Its OK you get the last laugh when you employ all your old school mates as cleaners, pool attendants and chauffeurs when you hit the big time..)
Agree completley - but the only people they are trying to convince of this are other content providers and then only ones that are sufficiently large to have any leverage - these are mostly media companies / companies with a large interweb presence and access to many large tubes who employ many tubeologists and imagineers, and therefore really *should* know better.
This would work fine - *if every content provider did it*. (when I say work fine I mean how the content providers would like it to work.
i.e. Lets say The Guardian the Independent charged a royalty for indexing certain articles. and the Times didn't then when a person searches for something that would under normal circumstances return all 3 content providers articles (say you are searching on current news - or better an archived new story - say the search is for "Falklands War Newspaper Headlines" or something. Instead of getting all three papers returning a result you would get just the one from the times.
Now assuming not everyone knows that certain papers charge search engines for permission to index their content, it will simply look like the Guardian and the Independent didn't report the Falklands War - or whatever you searched for.
Repeatedly this may even turn customers against their traditional sales, especially with more and more people using multiple online papers and buying a paper copy. I mean if you start reading the Times on-line everyday as it is the only remaining fully indexed paper, are you more or less likely to buy it when you decide to get a real copy? I guess it would do wonders for international brand recognition too - I mean if you are not indexed for common searches who is going to know who you are enough to trust you for the occasional bit where you have allowed yourself to be indexed.
Really this is all about the fact that search engines generate advertising revenue for themselves using others content, content providers are now looking and saying -
"hey Google makes X million dollars by directing people to my site and advertising for my competitors, it indexes my content (goggle images / news etc..) so people aren't coming directly to me, maybe If i threaten the source of their content they will pay me and I can finally make some money from this inter web thing without having to actually charge people ourselves!"
I guess this is an attempt to get at the revenue they assumed that they would get from selling content to their visitors directly through online subscriptions which didn't work. (unless you were a specialist or exclusive provider - such as companies providing financial information / stock prices / adult material etc..). It didn't work because others didn't charge, why pay for access to ITV news or CNN online (if they charged) when the BBC or some other organisation offered the same stories (with a different editorial slant..) for free?
What they should be saying is how can I get a search engine to get as many people to my site as possible where I can then try and sell whatever services or exclusive content I want! after all the more page hits the more (theoretically at least) conversions.
Anyway - let them try and charge a royalty - or enforce their rights regarding copyright and prevent thee search engines from making money by including their content in their search engines, it will only harm them.
The internet really is a level playing field, anyone with a good site can get listed on a search engine and get hits - hopefully achieving whatever it is they are trying to do, why do some people want to change it so that it benefits them more? all that will happen is that it will break the way the internet works, or is perceived and damage their own web activities. Plus some content providers simply will never do this (probably at least) the BBC in the UK certainly would find it difficult, so too will other public service information providers (I assume) too so I guess there will always be at least one or two news site out there.
I know I have focused on newspapers here (and that does appear to be the gist FTA) but providers of other content such as music, video, software etc. are in the same position. Problem is the internet using public like getting stuf for free, and probably wont pay for something if they cant have access to it for free for at least a while first.
Ah well, (By the way I'm absolutely
I can get almost exactly the same results on debian if :
:)
1) I add stable & testing & unstable & experimental sources to my sources list and;
2) Add some sources that are listed on "the internet" at random
3) Install everything I can find using apt-get a* b* c* etc... and;
( 3a) apt-get dist-upgrade - maybe ignoring dependencies...)
4) Badly misconfigure my X configuration (but just well enough to work9ish) and;
5) Ensure that I have as much starting on boot as is possible and;
6) use every desktop widget app, with as many random widgets as possible.
Yup, Debian is as unstable as hell if you just put the effort in.
(Not saying that you are wrong or that its your fault - I'm sure its fixable - but I have never had any serious stability issues using Debian / Slackware when I didnt want to have any.)
Shell Reviled
What they don't have anything else to do?
:)
Finished everything have we?
or is this a marketing ploy?
Remember folks - make sure any idea you pass on is either patented by you (possibly evil) or that there is a little prior art out there.
- Having a bad day -
Couldn't agree more - I too have a panel and the usual K menu auto hiding across the top of my screens and on my desktop I keep a few superkaramba widgets for date time and system status and news etc.. but no icons. Icons are great for sorting / viewing data files etc.. in folders but I don't see the point in having them clutter the desktop for applications - I never store any files on my desktop anyway... (each to their own I know). The one thing I cant get away from is hitting alt+f2 and launching the application from the run dialog, seems nonsensical in a GUI but it means I know where to find everything, especially with a run history and auto completion!
The problem with any alarm system that calls the police is that it must be triggered by 2 (or is it 3?) sensors - so you have to (in the case of breaking in) smash a window (window sensor is activated and alarm sounds, and then move into the coverage of an additional sensor (like out of the room you broke into and into a corridor).
The reason for that is that the police will only respond if someone is actually breaking in, and they don't want to respond if someone has left a window open or something falls over.
This in turn means that if you have an alarm system hooked up to a control center that reports incidents to the police (alarms are never to my knowledge hooked up direct to police control rooms) the installers must ensure that the reports are only issued once 2 sensors are tripped.
So in short whilst I have never come across an alarm like the one you mention, it is almost certain that the police were not notified. Moreover if they had been it would have been a false alarm, 2/3 of those and the police will cease responding to call outs to your address (and possibly fine you as well I think)
To be fair the vast amount are privately owned so you are not being taxed to pay for their operation - and the majority of the ones owned by local councils / government / police "safety camera partnerships" etc are speed cameras (they request money from you when they send you the picture, bit like on a log flume at an amusement park only you don't get a choice as to whether yo pay or not*). The ones in city centers (if they are there and owned by a public body) you are paying for to do their job (traffic control / crime prevention / etc..) not to give you a free video tape of your day out.
* before someone has a heart attack - you can contest speeding fines issued by cameras, and go to court and there are all sorts of ways to defend yourself including that you thought the speed limit should be higher or that the camera wasn't bright orange and you didn't see it...
If you don't have access to the root password you really shouldn't be modifying the partitions on the system either :).
:)
If you are running a single user system or are administrating a home PC for a small number of users then its likely that you will know the root password. The whole point is that not everyone should be able to carryout these tasks (not everyone with an account should be on the sudo'ers list). If you just want partition info then there are a hosts of KDE and Gnome applications that will give that to you as user, but to modify them you need to be root. makes sense. - i know this is just one example but hey it applies to most things that you need root / escalated privileges for.
The main thing behind switching your user to carry out administrative tasks is that 1) you can limit the number of people with access 2) you are aware when you are carrying out potentially dangerous operations (because you need to know the root / other privileged account password and enter it 3) you are not using the root account routinely and therefore unlikely to break it + some others but its late and I cant think right now.
Its not good to run as root day to day - its not good to give the root password to someone who doesn't know what they are doing (as they might break stuf badly) - not everyone needs to be on the sudo'ers list as not everyone needs to make system wide changes.
Even as a power user you will be able to use 99% / all the applications that you use day to day without recourse to using root credentials.
The exception I suppose is if you are just playing with a *nix to see how it works, building - modifying - nuking and rebuilding, then hey use whatever account you want, but if you are using a stable and well maintained system then you don't!!! - after all how often do you need to use *parted on a daily basis!
Whilst I understand that in some circumstances it would not be workable to run as a non root user whilst running Linux/bsd/solaris etc.. I would suggest that they are rare, and I can think of no situation where logging in as a non-root user and escalating privileges as required (not necessarily always to root either - but to accounts with just sufficient access to carry out certain tasks).
I find that a correctly configured system will allow you to use it as a non-root user 100% of the time, using su where appropriate at the command line or very occasionally gksu or kdesu within the GUI if you are carrying out certain administrative functions (such as editing a configuration file with a GUI editor...). Moreover KDE request credentials in much the same way as you describe Mac OS doing, i.e. as they are needed and upon application launch or upon making a change that requires them. In short I would suggest that Linux Solaris and the various BSD's are as easy to use as Mac OS as a non root user.
This is presumably due to the fact that these OS's have been designed from the start from a multi user perspective.
I agree though that windows is a little less friendly in this regard, especially if you intend to do anything with regard to administration but even then it is still quite usable. The problem on the windows side is always that it is not really geared up to have a user logged in operating as a different user with higher privileges (even with runas and various mmc snap-ins I found it impossible manage an active directory domain effectively if I was not logged in as an administrator).
What kind of tasks are you performing on a regular basis that you cannot use Linux unless logged in as root?
Note: Im am a Debian user and not too familiar with the default setup of the more popular distro's (ubuntu etc..) and cant remember how in the way of modifications I have made to my system to make myself comfortable (creating specialised users etc..) but I dont think it was a great deal - it may simply be a matter of configuration though... oh and I dont use sudo at all as I said generally su at the console or very occasionally kdesu in the GUI.
Just because this request to ensure a "level playing field" is focused on security makes it no less valid than if it were aimed at other elements integrated into the operating system.
I Agree that i microsoft is integrating security products into its vista operating system that would enable it to enter markets where it has not got a large hold (i.e. Anti virus - where it is the main driver but not the main supplier...) and by virtue of its desktop OS monopoly becoming dominant in that market, then thats wrong. Especially if these integrated products are add ons masquerading as core operating system components.
It would be fine if Microsoft ensured that their Operating system was sufficiently secure not to require any additional software, but not to include a load of features in the operating system that ensures its system security sotware becomes dominant.
If it wants to sell these bits seperatley (reduce the cost of the OS and sell the security bits as additional extras) thats all fine too then those of us who use the OS can choose - but lets make it clear that selling a vista version with them in and one without at the same price is the same as integrating them in the first place....
This becomes an even bigger issue if the Microsoft Security products / components are written to take advantage of elements of the OS that other providers cannot gain access to (either due to lack of documentation or through some other means). That would give rise to the same interoperability issues as we have seen previous law suits attempt to resolve.
In short if MS want to secure their OS thats great, if they want to simply wipe out any external security providers to gain an extra revenue stream in the future (by say later charging for the components initially included for free), or become dominant in that area so as to play down securty vulnerabilities in their products thats not. After all would you buy your antivirus from the same guys who seem incapable of preventing their OS being succeptable in the first place?
Last point - If microsoft are in the business of supplying both the OS and the security software (and additional services such as one care) doesnt that leave a rather nasty potential conflict of interest?
Wow.
FTA:
Only someone with in-depth knowledge and background of the Firefox code could judge the danger of a particular security vulnerability; therefore, I have not included more detailed information of these security vulnerabilities that could lead to the spreading of unfounded rumours of potential exploits. However, for those interested, I've provided more details of the defects below.
Well here come the rumors. All software has issues, some more than others, but firefox is still less vulnerable than IE at present, and will most likley remain so. Moreover, its open source, so we can all find and fix if we have the skills to do so, and the Firefox Dev team can't hide from them.
I assume the IE codebase will be tested next for balance, and then Opera and Safari for interenst..
So how long till this gets blown out of all proportion?
We apparently live in an "information" age, and as such information is power and/or profit depending on your aims.
This article states the obvious, if you pass your data on to a company for the purpose of say making a transaction they are going to try and hold on to that data, because it has additional value.
The fact is that information about people, is worth a lot of money, not so much names, postal and email addresses (although it has some in a certain context) but data that includes demographic information or any other information that can be used to deduce trends or intentions, (like age, sex, income, health information, credit and spending history, even complaints).
Without a rigorous and enforceable framework to regulate the use and transfer of this information it is going to be used in whatever manner ensures maximum profit for the company, be that keeping the data secret and using it in house to "add value" and so that you continue to trade with them or spreading it far and wide to generate some cash quickly.
What is needed are real penalties for intentional and accidental information disclosures, after all if data has a value and its yours then surely you are entitled to be reimbursed if it is compromised, but that will probably never happen, especially given the complexity of identifying the leaks.
In addition the line FTA: "...offering these records to the highest bidder, despite an online privacy policy that explicitly stated the company would never share customer data with any third party" proves the point that regardless of what an online or other privacy policy might state it is just that, a policy, usually subject to change, and more over not a guarantee to the customer (unless it is described as such and you don't see that all that often)
As an example, I recently started getting a huge amount of junk mail (the old kind that comes through the letter box) mainly offering credit cards and other credit facilities, it was badly targeted (offering products aimed at people with bad debt, corporate entities, people with good credit, and people over 60).
I managed to speak to 4 of the more prominent companies (international banks) and a smaller number of the smaller firms to ascertain the original source of the data, it turns out that the finance companies making these offers where inter sharing data massively, leading to a web of sources. My search lasted just over two months of calling and writing (asking people to remove the data as I went along) that ultimately ended with a major credit reference agency (one of the 2 Major UK agencies), who I have never dealt with directly, but who were used for a credit check when I recently purchased a mobile phone through a very large and reputable telecoms provider.
It turns out that the credit reference agency ticked the little box on their computer system that said that I consented to the sharing of my data (something that I make a point of not doing and doubly so as I hadn't dealt with them directly...). They have offered to stop sharing my data, but that is all, and of course the "damage" is already done. All a bit late really as once your data is out there its out there forever, or until you move or your details change enough to make it useless.
So there really is no real way of protecting your data any more, and one mistake by you or someone else and you are stuffed. The only thing I can suggest is changing your name, address, phone number, email address and possibly your gender about every 12 months....
"more stable than expected".
Doesn't necessarily say a lot.
Now I don't use any MS Software any more but it'd be nice if rather than hype, speculation and derision there was some constructive discussion out there in the main stream media so that people could decide what to do when Vista is released, maybe not yet but just before or even after the release.. Oh except it will arrive on 90% of PC's pre installed so it will gain a dominant market share in 2-5 years regardless of reviews, hype, bugs, features, security or anything else..
What's the point. I use Linux, some use BSD, Windows, Mac OS or whatever (please add your own preference here). Regardless of how easy it is to install an OS, most people never will, so most people will stick to what their PC comes with, so all this talk will have a tiny effect on the general populate.
So at the end of the day its not important how stable, secure, feature packed, or "cool" this piece of kit is, is it?
The question is how do you change that?
Bah
You have never come across someone who has had to upgrade / repair a PC (And I mean take it to a shop, not DIY) and found that their OEM Windows XP installation installs fine but WGA declares it illegal. Thankfully I was able to get MS to issue new Media for a client in that instance (the initial retailer and repair shop (same people) refused to help) but it still took a lot of effort on my part and caused concern for the people affected.
WGA will affect a lot of windows users, and I bet 99% of those with illegal installations will be aware enough / know someone else aware enough to get round it, whilst 99% of those legitimately inconvenienced by it will be frustrated and vilified. There is nothing wrong with MS prosecuting and punishing people who use their software without a valid license, but they need to be 99% certain that they are right when they declare a problem.
Whilst not an ideal solution it is quite possible to generate your own MSI packages - they are not fantastic and in some cases can be considerably larger than an MSI direct from the software shop but it is possible. I believe Microsoft even offer their own tool on the 2k server media to facilitate this (its been a while since I used any MS technology (Over a year and prior to my then employers deployment of XP SP2) at all so sorry for being vague and there are a few reasonable commercial offerings. If your environment is secure and very heavily customised I would suggest looking into this.
I had fairly good results producing MSI packages with closed source software for specific PC images (Our PC's were imaged and deployed via RIS) where we had a decent level of control, and I would assume that with open source applications it should be even easier and more efficient as you have the code. As I said I haven't worked directly with Microsoft Technology for a while (Since moving from being an employee to an employer...) so this may be out of date after XP SP2 or with 2K3 server but its worth looking at if you are deploying lots of software, or even your own code.
Actually not a bad analogy at all for the point I think you were making. And one I may steal in a presentation I have to give in the next month - It fits nicely with the car / steering / abs examples sometimes used to describe software patents.
:)
I'll remember to credit you obviously...
This is a Very Bad Idea, it sounds OK but its not;
Why? Because if what you describe were to happen then everyone would be playing catch up to Microsoft all of the time. The situation you describe would give IE a huge advantage over every other browser as IE would always be 100% compliant, and all the others would not be. Every change in IE would have to be implemented in other browsers after the IE release. Not to mention that Microsoft could add features that are proprietary or subject to a software patent and therefore not even implementable in other browsers. That is no basis for a 'standard', and why wouldn't Microsoft do this? After all it would give them dominance. It would have the potential to destroy any competition to IE, and give Microsoft carte blanche to dictate the future of the web. This is all bad, even if you love Microsoft.
Lets not even get into the fact that it would also involve Microsoft issuing clear documentation to their competitors as to what they have implemented in the first instance, which is unlikely. Now add to that the fact that some of IE's rendering quirks are as a result of bugs. Some are so well known that people write tutorials and how to's and offer code to cut-and-paste so you can fix issues without even the slightest inkling of what the problem is. More over some of these bugs have been fixed over time... So am I to understand that other browsers and their development teams should actually implement features in their browser that are bugs in another? Ridiculous.
What about issues where responses to certain code open up security vulnerabilities in IE, should they also be implemented in other browsers so that everyone gets a uniform experience? Didn't think so.
The W3C provides a set of standards that should be implementable by everyone, people making browsers should be using them and people coding websites should be using them. That way there are no problems for either party, and new features can be added in due time with due consultation of all the interested parties.
I will add however that if you are producing a web page and your code is 100% W3C compliant you usually only have a few - well documented issues to resolve. The real problems with how pages look in different browsers occurs when the page author is not 100% W3C compliant, and a page may then look great in one browser and terrible in another.