On a side note - thank christ for the reduced on board luggage rules. Why the hell does anyone need more than their book & a passport anyway? I for one am not going to leave my laptop in the luggage. You have no idea what these bastards do to the luggage - the way they throw it arround. After TWO broken trunks on my TWO flights, I am not going to leave it there.
There is no privacy issue here. If there was no privacy issue, nobody would be mad at them for releasing the info.
Even if users names had been used, you don't have a right to privacy of submitted internet form data unless you are using encryption and the server operator has agreed to enforce your privacy. Yes, you have a right to privacy. Spoofing is not too legal, I mean you cannot do whatever you want with the information. Or if someone attaches to your home network and starts distributing the information, that is not wiretaping, is it? You should have encrypted it...
Every major browser informs you of this the first time you submit data, and every time until you acknowledge it. And I will download and use from now on the first browser that declares AOL.com to be a phishing site.
This was not a well thought out move by AOL, but that's about it. Oh, I hope they didn't think about it. I believe that they must stand against the wall and be shot. Who the hell they think they are to distribute the information of their users without their consent?
You use reporters with a political agenda, shared by the editors, it should come as no surprise that this is what you get. The international press does not like Israel. They especially seem offended that the country hasn't just given up and died yet. Oh, really? I mean, does someone from USA or Israel listen to the international opinion? I mean, the War on Oil^H^H^H^HTerror and this yet another international military conflict american style?
This is no way confined to Reuters. Here is an excerpt from yesterdays reliable sources between howard kurtz and Thomas ricks of the washington post.
Reliable sources [cnn.com]
THOMAS RICKS, REPORTER, "THE WASHINGTON POST": I think it will be. But I think civilian casualties are also part of the battlefield play for both sides here. One of the things that is going on, according to some military analysts, is that Israel purposely has left pockets of Hezbollah rockets in Lebanon, because as long as they're being rocketed, they can continue to have a sort of moral equivalency in their operations in Lebanon. KURTZ: Hold on, you're suggesting that Israel has deliberately allowed Hezbollah to retain some of it's fire power, essentially for PR purposes, because having Israeli civilians killed helps them in the public relations war here? RICKS: Yes, that's what military analysts have told me. KURTZ: That's an extraordinary testament to the notion that having people on your own side killed actually works to your benefit in that nobody wants to see your own citizens killed but it works to your benefit in terms of the battle of perceptions here. RICKS: Exactly. It helps you with the moral high ground problem, because you know your operations in Lebanon are going to be killing civilians as well. *cough* Luisitania *cough* PearlHarbour *cough* WTC *cough*cough*, man, I have a very baad flu.
This fellow Ricks is willing to spout crap like the above on national television. The Khmer Rougue could make a convincing case for the moral high ground against Hezbollah. Israel a country that goes to the trouble of trying to get civilians away from targets before they are hit does not. Maybe because without the approval of USA this kind of sh*t would not happen, and the rest of the americans should get involved into it.
Are you going to be happy if Cuba launches missiles at USA because they *know* there are suspected anti-communist elements in USA? Well, if not why are you in support of such butchery of innocent civilians? You know, if the Israel army is so great-and-humane, maybe they should go for every house, and not try to destroy the whole country *including* the infrastructure. Yes, the Home-Of-The-Even-Braver indeed!!! The poor israeli are going to get in so much trouble for this war... like, you know, the thousands americans veterans of the Vietnam war. People NEVER learn anything.
So my question is, how can we claim to see the edges of the universe? If the universe is only 15B years old, that means that from the furthest points of space, light would only have had a chance travel those 15B years. If the Universe started from a singularity, we are and will be seeing the whole universe from the beginning. For example, the most distant galaxies we see from the beginning of time, but: 1) They are veery far 2) The light is so dim an red-shifted that we cannot see them. So, essentially, we "see" them all the time, but we actually cannot see them.
Am I just being retarded here? Is this already known? If so, how? It is far from being known. Nobody understands the Universe, not yet. But some like you DO try.
I don't want to get flamed by saying people are asking dumb questions
That is faaar from a dumb question. You are just a human and AFAIK there is no agreement between the scientists about the beginning of the Universe. If I recall correctly it is widely believed by more than 1 500 000 000 people that the Universe began about 5600 years ago, so why should we listen to you? Show us some calculations, or links to them...
, but everyone just needs to stop relying on simple arithmetic when dealing with the size of space... The concepts involved are far more complicated than that.
Sure. It is an interesting question nevertheless.
One thing people don't seem to be grasping is that with the Big Bang model, the size of the universe isn't measured by the distance between two particles floating on the "edge". It is actually a measure of the width of the "fabric" of the known universe, space-time. Its difficult to grasp this since it is not something easily perceived.
Size IS the distance between two particles floating on the edge. Measure, width and space-time are mathematical consepts that are used to describe stuff, nothing more. It is not something you percieve, either you try understand and use, or you don't. You can make analogies to understand it, but in the end it is a mathematical idea that seems to show how stuff works, not what stuff is.
The real reason for the size of the universe being so much larger is that the laws governing the size of space-time are not the same as the laws of spacial relativaty, and therefore are not constrained to the upper bound of the speed of light.
SpEcial relativity is a theory, the laws you refer are more like principles. Nothing in the universe can travel faster than the light and that is the end of the whole story. If you accept Big Bang and you believe that there is an ultimate speed, then you believe that the Universe is not larger than the time that has passed x light speed x 2. If you think that the speed of light varied, then ok, you will integrate the function of speed over time. Moreover, the time can be different for different observers, so you might need to change the time to a variable. Even then the universe is still bound to the speed of light. That is what we know for now. The laws are the same! If they are not, we don't know anything.
The best analogy that I've heard is the ant on the balloon example. The idea is that you picture an ant sitting on a balloon with a bread crumb an inch away. If you were to blow up the balloon to twice its size, the bread crumb wouldn't necessarily move to a distance of two inches from the ant.
In this example, we are the ants and we are watching the galaxies, represented by the bread crumb, moving away from us. However, the fabric of existence is expanding at a much larger rate.
This analogy shows how difficult is to think of a good one. The analogy shows how it should look from the outside, except there is no outside. The baloon example shows that there is no "center" of the universe, not what you're proposing that it expands in a magical way noone has seen. Well, maybe it is doing just that - if you apply Einstein's cosmological constant lambda, but that is still just hypothesis.
The "what's beyond the edge" question is essentially a pointless question when dealing with space-time. There is no "edge" because nothing can possibly exist outside of the realm of spacetime.
First, you define "exist" as in "it exists in space-time". Then, you say nothing exists outside. Well, duh. That is the whole point of the Universe - that everything is IN it.
If you have a particle that is faster than the speed of light, then essentially it is not in our universe, because we could not feel its presence - it should not emit a gravitational field, because the time between two peaks of the wave should be a little more than infinity, it must in some way travel backwards in time, well... with the theory of relativit
Whether you believe a war is justified or not is up to you, but to make a blanket statement that a Christian president has to be a pacifist is baseless. I beg to differ. Pacifist does not mean - go and die, but do not fight. Pacifist means to try and prevent a war (like in Iraq), to protest against a war (like in Lebanon) and to find other means of doing the job. Being pacifist does not mean you're stupid. Still, you must refrain from war whenever possible. That is why it is not difficult to project the americans in a bad light - because they do stupid things. Whether they are bad is up to a personal vision.
His job is to protect his citizens. I think that was Hitler's job too. The way he does is what matters. Live and let others live?
mytrip writes to tell us ABC News is reporting that a supposed amateur video posted to YouTube.com may have actually been designed and posted by a Republican public relations firm called DCI. Why didn't the poster of this story put a link to the video? How is anyone capable of commenting the issue without seeng the film?
Well, here is how it goes: - Re-pub-licans did lululu - But the democ-rats did uauauau - But the re-pub-lican't dhuhua...
When the coments should be more on the content of the video: It is so american in nature that I barely could hold my breath. It is so poorly made that I hope an amateur did it and THEN the PR firm tried to distribute it.
This little allegedly home-made video is not even suitable for an article in uncyclopedia.com. It is stupid, quite-not-funny and plain insult to thinking people. The idea behind the scene is: nobody is interested in the global warming, only a bunch of nerds (penguins, that is) is going to see that movie (an inconvinient truth). The while thing is like a lame joke from not-another-teen-movie. Even worse.
You know what, maybe we are not the cause of the global warming. Who knows? But WTF is that american denial of the world around them? Insulting Al Gore for being interesed in a significant problem?
From the article: "Public relations firms have long used computer technology to create bogus grassroots campaigns, which are called 'Astroturf.' Now these firms are being hired to push illusions on the Internet to create the false impression of real people blogging, e-mailing and making films." The good thing is that occasions like this reminds us that even when real people post something, we should not trust them lightly. Well, that is not so stylish as follow-the-hurd logic of the masses, but is kinda smart, don't you think?
Au contrair, my friend. It has already started. The worst thing of DRM is not itself, but the DMCA. Now it is illegal to break the DRM, even if you want to get into posession of your own computer.
The point is, it is already taking effect. If software companies want to use GPLv3 code they will have to contribute back, and that is the end of it. That is fair, and IMHO is not that bad for a company. If it was, no company would be supporting OSS. We don't see that much pressure from IBM, Novel, Oracle, etc.
"According to the EFF, 'The treaty requires that the U.S. government help enforce other countries' 'cybercrime' laws--even if the act being prosecuted is not illegal in the United States. That means that countries that have laws limiting free speech on the Net could oblige the F.B.I. to uncover the identities of anonymous U.S. critics, or monitor their communications on behalf of foreign governments. American ISPs would be obliged to obey other jurisdictions' requests to log their users' behavior without due process, or compensation.;" So, basically, this treaty is going to do what the americans have been doing all these years - try to enforce their laws on other country's territory. Remember the script kiddie from UK that is going to be extradicted to USA? The russian guy that wrote the PDF DRM cracking software, what about the perfectly legal swedish Pirate Bay? Why didn't the americans tried to protest then? Now they are going to suffer just like everyone else.
Yes, the treaty is stupid because jurisdiction does matter, and that is because every country has their set of laws that are carefully callibrated. Soon we'll get grossly disproportioned penalties - electric chair for reporters? But if the chinese say so...
The only time jurisdiction does not matter is with crimes against humanity. And that is for a good reason, isn't it?
I don't support click fraud doers, but I think there are two things you should keep in mind: 1) Nobody is oblidged to advertise on the Internet, let alone AdWords. 2) You as an Internet user have not signed anything that prevents you from clicking on ads as long and as hard as you want to.
That said, don't you think that Google has already calculated in the price of the ads the click-fraud money. I mean, if you know that 1% of the money are going to be stolen this way, you just calculate it in the price. If the cost is too high - don't do it!
Moreover, I am sure they have contracts with the sites they can terminate when they feel a click-fraud is being commited.
I really believe these studies and alliances and stuff is just so the advertisers can get a warm fuzzy feeling of being listened to. That is ALL Google can do for them, take it or leave it. Yes, and to terminate a contract or two.
So it is always a better tactic to kill as many enemies today as possible and continue killing the enemies and not negotiating with them. I hope you don't mean that, but... the innocent arabs are the largest threat to Israel... if they go forth and multiply in 10 years they will be the majority. So, you propose to start killing them.
Are you an American? No, I am not. I am from a country that joined fascist Germany in the second world war, and is the only one that did NOT let the germans take our jews to their concentration camps. My grandparents did that and I am very prowd Bulgarian. Our country has fought too many wars just to be reunited, we won all the battles and yet, because we didn't fit in the superpower's way of thinking, we never succeeded. That is why I dislike war - even if you win, you loose. If you ask me, the US is solely for the oil. Maybe eventually Germany will use it, or France, but the country that invaded peaceful Iraq was the USA and the islam world will not like them for a veeery long time.
Terrorists don't care if civilians around them die, in fact they welcome it, because it is such a great publicity stunt. I often see pictures of lowly terrorists behind an arab woman with baby, and the Glorious US or Israel Soldier Protecting His Own People Proud Standing Before The Other Man's Gun!!! I just want to propose a little refit - let's add tanks, artillery and airforce in front of the lucky chap from Uncle Sam, and yes, that will be the picture. The terrorists you claim does not have another protection, so he uses what he can. I don't like it either, but unfortunately... The true sum of this is that: War is a crime. It is bad. Israel and USA want to picture it like it is a good, moral endeavour. The terrorists show it is NOT.
Because noone wants to make sacrifices. - definition of Bull SHIT. Israel has been making sacrifices. They gave up territories, they prepared peace offerings. Bill Clinton was at one of the meetings between (then alive Araffat and the Israeli PM at the time.) Clinton's own words: We were giving them 99% of what they wanted, they still did not accept the offering. Yes, listen to the US president. I am sure he'll not say that his decisions are wrong and he is always the right person. If you want even the smallest fraction of an unbiased opinion just try someone else, OK?
Yesterday I saw a movie on google's video serives: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6162397493 278181614&hl=en I propose you see it. I was just amaized how right their facts are and how blatantly they miss the whole point... For crying out loud, they say: After the 9/11 attacks the western people tried to find out what they did wrong? And then they say: Well, we did nothing wrong. After that they show a clip with Michael Moore saying: "There are no terrorists, there are no terrorists...". The thing is, Moore's speech was all about how the government tries to grab a hold of the privacy from the american people, pretending to be protecting from terrorists. So he said that is not what the US government is all about. And the movie turns it to be that he says something that in fact he does not.
I say the USA did lots of things wrong - from sponsoring Al Queda, helping assasinate the Shah of Iraq and effectively establishing Saddam in power, to all those little things - overthrowing the ELECTED president of Panama. If you think, there are many things dey did wrong. I propose you see some movies of the aforementioned Michael Moore. Might think differently, but they have good educational value anyway.
> They can actually, and do still. Only a month or two ago they took several dlls from vanilla Wine (they, of course, are still licensed under the LGPL, not the regular Cedega license). Yes, my mistake, I meant to say that they cannot modify the code of the dlls and sell them without releasing the source code. That won't be to their advantage.
> Furthermore, Cedega is generally full of hacks to make specific games work, which is good in the short run, but bad in the long run. This is especially showing now, as in many ways, vanilla Wine has better D3D support than Cedega. Expect this gap to continue to widen as time passes. There may be a point where Cedega starts using vanilla Wine's D3D implementation too. Exactly. When that comes everyone will be able to use D3D, the only proprietary things will remain the various CD protections, which can be easily circumvented by simple cracks. Note that in most of the countries it is not illegal to use cracks if you have the original game.
You should not that easily mod the parent troll. Actually, some time ago WINE was under BSD license, that permitted proprietary modifications. After WINE was forked to WineX, then renamed to Cedega and closed their source, the WINE developers changed the license to GPL so future "freeloaders" are not allowed.
Now Cedega are going backwards because they cannot use the new WINE code. While WINE is going forward in the compatibility for things like DX9, the rest of the APIs in Windows, all Cedega developers are doing is trying to make it compatible with the latest and greatest of the protection schemes for CDs like SafeCD and such... Good for games, but for how long?
> "It is impossible to determine from the data presented whether violent video games cause violence, or whether violent individuals are attracted to violent video games." I don't have the data that they have, but statistically it is impossible to distinguish the cause from the effect... all you can say is that they are correlated. Trust me, I am (going to graduate as) a mathematican, we know that stuff.:)
> Minnesota lawmakers hoped their approach - penalizing the minors who got the games, instead of the retailers who sold or rented them - would have fared better in court than overturned state laws that went after retailers in Illinois, California, Michigan and elsewhere. So basically, they are saying that they tried the other way around, it didn't work, and they tried this way. I really don't believe that they expected it to pass... if you think about it, a fine on the child is a fine for the parents. There are things for which you can punish a parent, but I believe that teaching a minor to curse is not one of them, despite the fundamental pluralist's way of thinking.
It is so easy to protest something that is right in your face on TV, isn't it? How about years and years of killing that have been going on in Israel by Hizballah and Hamas terrorist organizations? How about all those rockets that were launched at Israel from Lebanon within the past two decades? Maybe a UN server should be hacked, after all after 2000 UN and Lebanon was responsible for keeping Hizballah from amassing rockets and other weapons. Do these activists care when during the 'peace times' Israeli kids and adults get blown up? Well... maybe they care for their own people - the palestinians, that are getting killed during "peace times". One thing you should know is that violence ALWAYS leads to violence. Truth be told, they are both wrong. But by substituting dead israeli with dead lebanese or dead palestinians is not going to help anyone.
If anything, these protestors should thank Israel for taking action now and preventing more carnage later. One cannot constantly procrastinate in this kind of a situation, because it is only getting worse. Can you seriously say, that killing innocent lebanese is going to help you keep your country peaceful? Do you know why it is getting worse? Because noone wants to make sacrifices. If Israel did not have the americans behind their back the UN would already be there to stop the carnage. Or, at least they would have a chance. Now is is a loose-loose situation, lebanese get killed, the terrorists are going to multiply.
Oh yes, and how about protesting where it actually makes sense: at Hizballah, at Lebanese, Iranian and Syrian governments. Maybe, since the USA is THE greatest supporter of Israel it kind of makes sence to protest in the USA. Maybe the USA should think twice when they actively protect such things.
Protesting against regimes that allow terrorists to do what they do: use civilians AND UN folks as living shields on the battlefield. So what? Now they'll stop doing it?
Not only are civilians used as shields, they are a great propaganda tool. When a terrorist launches a rocket at civilian targets in Israel from a busy market place in Lebanon, and Israeli army answers with fire at that place, is it the responsibility of Israel to make sure that Lebanese civilians do not suffer or is it responsibility of those, who used the civilians for their political gain around the world? When you fire a rocket and kill thousands of innocent people it is YOUR SOLE RESPONSIBILITY!!! Who the hell are you to say - oh, well, maybe there were terrorists. We should kill everyone, just to be sure. There is a certain amount of rules when waging war. Yes, maybe you cannot stand before trial for that, but that does not mean that you are not responsible. War often makes the life equally miserable for the civilians and for the soldiers. Just remember the amount of psychic disorder in the troops that came back from Vietnam, and you'll see my point.
"If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged". - Cardinal Richelieu
The story goes like this: A friend of the cardinal asked him:
- Well how can you hang me if I say: "I believe in God."? He repilied:
- What would be easy. You will burn on a stake because you do not believe in the Son or in the Holy Spirit.
It is not MS bashing. Just stating the facts. > "Linux geeks and Microsoft have similar interests, says Computerworld: They both are interested in seeing open-source software succeed. Ooooh, suuuure. I am very interested in a OSS, but I wouldn't like OSS more if there were more users. After all, Macs have a reputation not because so many people use them. Stability is a good thing. And saying that MS is interested in OSS success is nothing short of blasphemy.
> Linux geeks admit that the open source OS isn't necessarily a better platform for important applications, and Microsoft recognizes that many of its customers are using open-source applications, and doesn't want to alienate them." I would like to point out at least one geek that thinks Windows is a better platform for important apps, like: DB, routing, networking, embedded devices... Don't tell me that Windows is a real-time OS. There are plenty of such, created as open-source projects. Windows is used mainly because of popularity, not because of superiority. By the way, the RTFA says nothing like the submission.
> From the article: "Faced with the allure of inexpensive open-source applications among its core customer base of small to midsize businesses, Microsoft has toned down its rhetoric. Alas, not their interest, but the success of OSS is making MS change their mind.
> 'It's a myth that open-source and Windows can't work together. Customers just aren't religious about these things,' said Ryan Gavin, a director of platform strategy for Microsoft." Ooooh, yeaah... It is a myth that MS is taking every step nesseccary to hinder OSS development where that suits them. Not that I blame them, I would do just the same. But don't underestimate the hard work Samba, Apache and all the others do to interoperate with Windows. The EU did not convict MS for playing too nice, didn't they?
> This is what is called Remote Attestation. The TC system has a chip in it called the TPM. The BIOS and the OS (Linux!) feed into the TPM hashes of the software as it is loaded. The TPM chip has a crypto key in it generated at manufacture time that never leaves the chip. The manufacturer creates a certificate proving that this particular crypto key is in a genuine TPM. Putting all these pieces together, the TPM can send a signed message testifying to the software configuration (i.e. what software is loaded), and the certificate proves that the message came from a genuine TPM. The server which is running on the TC system publishes its source code so clients know exactly what software they are interacting with.
Thanks for the explanation. I still won't trust a packet from the internet (who's to say that TC will not be compromised, or simulated?), but at least TC is a way to protect your system from unsigned executables.
> Do you think it is evil and wicked for clients to be able to get a more accurate picture of how servers will behave? Should the GPL try to prevent tihs capability? That is what I am afraid it does.
Now I think that there is not a GPL conflict after all. I see no problem that you generate a public-private pair and distribute it, so when a client connects to you he'll know that the server is yours (verified by the key). But you want to sign executables... No, I think it is not allowed. Unless you sign everyone:).
I think that you're right, it would be good, but in the same time, if such a thing is allowed, it will be a way to steal GPLed code, by "signing" it so only my client would be able to connect. Sorry, but this scenario will undoubtedly have bad consequences, and the virtues are too small.
First of all, the purpose of GPL is to allow interoperability, not FORCE it. In your citation: For instance, if the work is a DVD player and can play certain DVDs, it must be possible for modified versions to play those DVDs (but no modified version of the program is oblidged to do that). If the work communicates with an online service, it must be possible for modified versions to communicate with the same online service in the same way such that the service cannot distinguish. "Possible" means you decide. If you want to be distinguished, noone can force you to "hide".
> Should it really be fair to restrict some online service to have to treat all clients the same way just because one version was derived from another? Lets say I modify the source code of some browser that is covered by GPLv3. My version has some quirks that make it interpret css differently from the first browser. Would it then be illegal for a website to serve up different css based on my user agent string? You should read more carefully. Nowhere is stated that a website (a program, even when distributed under GPL is not restricted in operation) is restricted in any way? GPL just makes sure you can hide your identity. You changed your idenity (the UserAgent string), so you don't hide. If you hide (as in i-dont-say-my-useragent-option), what can the site do? Moreover, how can a site be held responsible for some guy's license terms with third party?
> Here's a not-so hypothetical. I want to run a server using Trusted Computing technology so that clients can detect what my software configuration is. In that way they can have greater confidence that my server will follow certain rules and greater trust in the service I provide. I voluntarily add this transparency to my server - it publishes its own source code and the TC technology lets people very that this source is what is running there. I won't rely on that. How are you going to make sure the server is not distributing some other source code? I cannot see what you mean.
> Would I be unable to use any GPLv3 software on this server? You can use GPLed software for whatever purposes you want. One of the sections explicitly states that: section 9, Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies.
> Or on any system which revealed what software version was running? What do you mean "revealed"? Every program is free to say: I run the latest and greatest.:) Besides it is NOT a good security practice to trust a system you cannot control.
> It would allow client systems to refuse to interoperate with other versions of the software, if they didn't like what the server would do if it ran those versions. You are always free to refuse to operate with clients, e.g. passwords and other methods of identifications. HOWEVER, you are (practically) not allowed to refuse connections based on the client software in use, for example: sign the binaries you distribute, so only they could be used. If you do that and you distribute GPLv3-ed client software, you MUST transfer the keys, so any client can be signed to interoperate with your server. If that was not restricted, you would transfer the source code, but it would be impossible to compile it into the program. So the keys are PART of the source code.
> And since ultimately TC relies on crypto keys that are buried in hardware and can't be exported, it would be impossible to comply with the requirement to publish any such keys.... and, as stated in the license (section 12, Not Surrender of Other's Freedom), if you cannot comply with the license, for example by technical means, DRM, court order, you are NOT ALLOWED TO CONVEY THE PROGRAM AT ALL. By the way, how am I supposed to check the keys if they are inside YOUR computer? Oh, you mean I will need TC? @#$K O@@!!! (censored)
> I would be very disappointed if the world of GPLv3 software were off limits for such a user friendly application, and it became impossible for servers to offer this level of transparency. This is what I've been looking forward to ever since Trusted Computing was announced. Look, if you mean friendly as in we-sign-things-haha-no-interoperability, no, GPLv3 does not allow this. Either you make your own client, or if you use GPLed code, you must allow essentially any program to interoperate. That is just a way to prevent "stealing" of GPLed code by making it essentially proprietary. Transparency and TC? Get real, please. It's sole purpose is to hide stuff.
I am looking forward to Tristed Computing, so I could hack the keys to sign the apps and change them, so only I can sign what I want to run on MY computer. Linux.
GPLv3 is just a draft, but I doubt that it will change that much.
Slashdot Mirror
On a side note - thank christ for the reduced on board luggage rules. Why the hell does anyone need more than their book & a passport anyway?
I for one am not going to leave my laptop in the luggage. You have no idea what these bastards do to the luggage - the way they throw it arround. After TWO broken trunks on my TWO flights, I am not going to leave it there.
I really cannot understand what is the fun in the internet-as-a-series-of-tubes. Please, will someone explain to me?
In Russia, YOU spy on the keyboard!
There is no privacy issue here.
If there was no privacy issue, nobody would be mad at them for releasing the info.
Even if users names had been used, you don't have a right to privacy of submitted internet form data unless you are using encryption and the server operator has agreed to enforce your privacy.
Yes, you have a right to privacy. Spoofing is not too legal, I mean you cannot do whatever you want with the information. Or if someone attaches to your home network and starts distributing the information, that is not wiretaping, is it? You should have encrypted it...
Every major browser informs you of this the first time you submit data, and every time until you acknowledge it.
And I will download and use from now on the first browser that declares AOL.com to be a phishing site.
This was not a well thought out move by AOL, but that's about it.
Oh, I hope they didn't think about it. I believe that they must stand against the wall and be shot. Who the hell they think they are to distribute the information of their users without their consent?
You use reporters with a political agenda, shared by the editors, it should come as no surprise that this is what you get. The international press does not like Israel. They especially seem offended that the country hasn't just given up and died yet.
Oh, really? I mean, does someone from USA or Israel listen to the international opinion? I mean, the War on Oil^H^H^H^HTerror and this yet another international military conflict american style?
This is no way confined to Reuters. Here is an excerpt from yesterdays reliable sources between howard kurtz and Thomas ricks of the washington post.
Reliable sources [cnn.com]
THOMAS RICKS, REPORTER, "THE WASHINGTON POST": I think it will be. But I think civilian casualties are also part of the battlefield play for both sides here. One of the things that is going on, according to some military analysts, is that Israel purposely has left pockets of Hezbollah rockets in Lebanon, because as long as they're being rocketed, they can continue to have a sort of moral equivalency in their operations in Lebanon. KURTZ: Hold on, you're suggesting that Israel has deliberately allowed Hezbollah to retain some of it's fire power, essentially for PR purposes, because having Israeli civilians killed helps them in the public relations war here? RICKS: Yes, that's what military analysts have told me. KURTZ: That's an extraordinary testament to the notion that having people on your own side killed actually works to your benefit in that nobody wants to see your own citizens killed but it works to your benefit in terms of the battle of perceptions here. RICKS: Exactly. It helps you with the moral high ground problem, because you know your operations in Lebanon are going to be killing civilians as well.
*cough* Luisitania *cough* PearlHarbour *cough* WTC *cough*cough*, man, I have a very baad flu.
This fellow Ricks is willing to spout crap like the above on national television. The Khmer Rougue could make a convincing case for the moral high ground against Hezbollah. Israel a country that goes to the trouble of trying to get civilians away from targets before they are hit does not.
Maybe because without the approval of USA this kind of sh*t would not happen, and the rest of the americans should get involved into it.
Are you going to be happy if Cuba launches missiles at USA because they *know* there are suspected anti-communist elements in USA? Well, if not why are you in support of such butchery of innocent civilians? You know, if the Israel army is so great-and-humane, maybe they should go for every house, and not try to destroy the whole country *including* the infrastructure. Yes, the Home-Of-The-Even-Braver indeed!!! The poor israeli are going to get in so much trouble for this war... like, you know, the thousands americans veterans of the Vietnam war. People NEVER learn anything.
So my question is, how can we claim to see the edges of the universe? If the universe is only 15B years old, that means that from the furthest points of space, light would only have had a chance travel those 15B years.
If the Universe started from a singularity, we are and will be seeing the whole universe from the beginning. For example, the most distant galaxies we see from the beginning of time, but:
1) They are veery far
2) The light is so dim an red-shifted that we cannot see them.
So, essentially, we "see" them all the time, but we actually cannot see them.
Am I just being retarded here? Is this already known? If so, how?
It is far from being known. Nobody understands the Universe, not yet. But some like you DO try.
I don't want to get flamed by saying people are asking dumb questions
... with the theory of relativit
That is faaar from a dumb question. You are just a human and AFAIK there is no agreement between the scientists about the beginning of the Universe. If I recall correctly it is widely believed by more than 1 500 000 000 people that the Universe began about 5600 years ago, so why should we listen to you? Show us some calculations, or links to them...
, but everyone just needs to stop relying on simple arithmetic when dealing with the size of space... The concepts involved are far more complicated than that.
Sure. It is an interesting question nevertheless.
One thing people don't seem to be grasping is that with the Big Bang model, the size of the universe isn't measured by the distance between two particles floating on the "edge". It is actually a measure of the width of the "fabric" of the known universe, space-time. Its difficult to grasp this since it is not something easily perceived.
Size IS the distance between two particles floating on the edge. Measure, width and space-time are mathematical consepts that are used to describe stuff, nothing more. It is not something you percieve, either you try understand and use, or you don't. You can make analogies to understand it, but in the end it is a mathematical idea that seems to show how stuff works, not what stuff is.
The real reason for the size of the universe being so much larger is that the laws governing the size of space-time are not the same as the laws of spacial relativaty, and therefore are not constrained to the upper bound of the speed of light.
SpEcial relativity is a theory, the laws you refer are more like principles. Nothing in the universe can travel faster than the light and that is the end of the whole story. If you accept Big Bang and you believe that there is an ultimate speed, then you believe that the Universe is not larger than the time that has passed x light speed x 2. If you think that the speed of light varied, then ok, you will integrate the function of speed over time. Moreover, the time can be different for different observers, so you might need to change the time to a variable. Even then the universe is still bound to the speed of light. That is what we know for now. The laws are the same! If they are not, we don't know anything.
The best analogy that I've heard is the ant on the balloon example. The idea is that you picture an ant sitting on a balloon with a bread crumb an inch away. If you were to blow up the balloon to twice its size, the bread crumb wouldn't necessarily move to a distance of two inches from the ant.
In this example, we are the ants and we are watching the galaxies, represented by the bread crumb, moving away from us. However, the fabric of existence is expanding at a much larger rate.
This analogy shows how difficult is to think of a good one. The analogy shows how it should look from the outside, except there is no outside. The baloon example shows that there is no "center" of the universe, not what you're proposing that it expands in a magical way noone has seen. Well, maybe it is doing just that - if you apply Einstein's cosmological constant lambda, but that is still just hypothesis.
The "what's beyond the edge" question is essentially a pointless question when dealing with space-time. There is no "edge" because nothing can possibly exist outside of the realm of spacetime.
First, you define "exist" as in "it exists in space-time". Then, you say nothing exists outside. Well, duh. That is the whole point of the Universe - that everything is IN it.
If you have a particle that is faster than the speed of light, then essentially it is not in our universe, because we could not feel its presence - it should not emit a gravitational field, because the time between two peaks of the wave should be a little more than infinity, it must in some way travel backwards in time, well
Whether you believe a war is justified or not is up to you, but to make a blanket statement that a Christian president has to be a pacifist is baseless.
I beg to differ. Pacifist does not mean - go and die, but do not fight. Pacifist means to try and prevent a war (like in Iraq), to protest against a war (like in Lebanon) and to find other means of doing the job. Being pacifist does not mean you're stupid. Still, you must refrain from war whenever possible. That is why it is not difficult to project the americans in a bad light - because they do stupid things. Whether they are bad is up to a personal vision.
His job is to protect his citizens.
I think that was Hitler's job too. The way he does is what matters. Live and let others live?
Mod me offtopic, please.
mytrip writes to tell us ABC News is reporting that a supposed amateur video posted to YouTube.com may have actually been designed and posted by a Republican public relations firm called DCI.
...
Why didn't the poster of this story put a link to the video? How is anyone capable of commenting the issue without seeng the film?
Well, here is how it goes:
- Re-pub-licans did lululu
- But the democ-rats did uauauau
- But the re-pub-lican't dhuhua
When the coments should be more on the content of the video: It is so american in nature that I barely could hold my breath. It is so poorly made that I hope an amateur did it and THEN the PR firm tried to distribute it.
This little allegedly home-made video is not even suitable for an article in uncyclopedia.com. It is stupid, quite-not-funny and plain insult to thinking people. The idea behind the scene is: nobody is interested in the global warming, only a bunch of nerds (penguins, that is) is going to see that movie (an inconvinient truth). The while thing is like a lame joke from not-another-teen-movie. Even worse.
You know what, maybe we are not the cause of the global warming. Who knows? But WTF is that american denial of the world around them? Insulting Al Gore for being interesed in a significant problem?
From the article: "Public relations firms have long used computer technology to create bogus grassroots campaigns, which are called 'Astroturf.' Now these firms are being hired to push illusions on the Internet to create the false impression of real people blogging, e-mailing and making films."
The good thing is that occasions like this reminds us that even when real people post something, we should not trust them lightly. Well, that is not so stylish as follow-the-hurd logic of the masses, but is kinda smart, don't you think?
Au contrair, my friend.
/ 04/177234 and the 1000 slashdot articles on that matter.
It has already started. The worst thing of DRM is not itself, but the DMCA. Now it is illegal to break the DRM, even if you want to get into posession of your own computer.
Remember http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06
The point is, it is already taking effect. If software companies want to use GPLv3 code they will have to contribute back, and that is the end of it. That is fair, and IMHO is not that bad for a company. If it was, no company would be supporting OSS. We don't see that much pressure from IBM, Novel, Oracle, etc.
"According to the EFF, 'The treaty requires that the U.S. government help enforce other countries' 'cybercrime' laws--even if the act being prosecuted is not illegal in the United States. That means that countries that have laws limiting free speech on the Net could oblige the F.B.I. to uncover the identities of anonymous U.S. critics, or monitor their communications on behalf of foreign governments. American ISPs would be obliged to obey other jurisdictions' requests to log their users' behavior without due process, or compensation.;"
So, basically, this treaty is going to do what the americans have been doing all these years - try to enforce their laws on other country's territory. Remember the script kiddie from UK that is going to be extradicted to USA? The russian guy that wrote the PDF DRM cracking software, what about the perfectly legal swedish Pirate Bay? Why didn't the americans tried to protest then? Now they are going to suffer just like everyone else.
Yes, the treaty is stupid because jurisdiction does matter, and that is because every country has their set of laws that are carefully callibrated. Soon we'll get grossly disproportioned penalties - electric chair for reporters? But if the chinese say so...
The only time jurisdiction does not matter is with crimes against humanity. And that is for a good reason, isn't it?
I don't support click fraud doers, but I think there are two things you should keep in mind:
1) Nobody is oblidged to advertise on the Internet, let alone AdWords.
2) You as an Internet user have not signed anything that prevents you from clicking on ads as long and as hard as you want to.
That said, don't you think that Google has already calculated in the price of the ads the click-fraud money. I mean, if you know that 1% of the money are going to be stolen this way, you just calculate it in the price. If the cost is too high - don't do it!
Moreover, I am sure they have contracts with the sites they can terminate when they feel a click-fraud is being commited.
I really believe these studies and alliances and stuff is just so the advertisers can get a warm fuzzy feeling of being listened to. That is ALL Google can do for them, take it or leave it. Yes, and to terminate a contract or two.
So it is always a better tactic to kill as many enemies today as possible and continue killing the enemies and not negotiating with them. ... the innocent arabs are the largest threat to Israel ... if they go forth and multiply in 10 years they will be the majority. So, you propose to start killing them.
... The true sum of this is that: War is a crime. It is bad. Israel and USA want to picture it like it is a good, moral endeavour. The terrorists show it is NOT.
3 278181614&hl=en
I hope you don't mean that, but
Are you an American?
No, I am not. I am from a country that joined fascist Germany in the second world war, and is the only one that did NOT let the germans take our jews to their concentration camps. My grandparents did that and I am very prowd Bulgarian. Our country has fought too many wars just to be reunited, we won all the battles and yet, because we didn't fit in the superpower's way of thinking, we never succeeded. That is why I dislike war - even if you win, you loose.
If you ask me, the US is solely for the oil. Maybe eventually Germany will use it, or France, but the country that invaded peaceful Iraq was the USA and the islam world will not like them for a veeery long time.
Terrorists don't care if civilians around them die, in fact they welcome it, because it is such a great publicity stunt.
I often see pictures of lowly terrorists behind an arab woman with baby, and the Glorious US or Israel Soldier Protecting His Own People Proud Standing Before The Other Man's Gun!!!
I just want to propose a little refit - let's add tanks, artillery and airforce in front of the lucky chap from Uncle Sam, and yes, that will be the picture. The terrorists you claim does not have another protection, so he uses what he can. I don't like it either, but unfortunately
Because noone wants to make sacrifices. - definition of Bull SHIT. Israel has been making sacrifices. They gave up territories, they prepared peace offerings. Bill Clinton was at one of the meetings between (then alive Araffat and the Israeli PM at the time.) Clinton's own words: We were giving them 99% of what they wanted, they still did not accept the offering.
Yes, listen to the US president. I am sure he'll not say that his decisions are wrong and he is always the right person. If you want even the smallest fraction of an unbiased opinion just try someone else, OK?
Yesterday I saw a movie on google's video serives:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=616239749
I propose you see it. I was just amaized how right their facts are and how blatantly they miss the whole point... For crying out loud, they say: After the 9/11 attacks the western people tried to find out what they did wrong? And then they say: Well, we did nothing wrong. After that they show a clip with Michael Moore saying: "There are no terrorists, there are no terrorists...". The thing is, Moore's speech was all about how the government tries to grab a hold of the privacy from the american people, pretending to be protecting from terrorists. So he said that is not what the US government is all about. And the movie turns it to be that he says something that in fact he does not.
I say the USA did lots of things wrong - from sponsoring Al Queda, helping assasinate the Shah of Iraq and effectively establishing Saddam in power, to all those little things - overthrowing the ELECTED president of Panama. If you think, there are many things dey did wrong. I propose you see some movies of the aforementioned Michael Moore. Might think differently, but they have good educational value anyway.
> They can actually, and do still. Only a month or two ago they took several dlls from vanilla Wine (they, of course, are still licensed under the LGPL, not the regular Cedega license).
Yes, my mistake, I meant to say that they cannot modify the code of the dlls and sell them without releasing the source code. That won't be to their advantage.
> Furthermore, Cedega is generally full of hacks to make specific games work, which is good in the short run, but bad in the long run. This is especially showing now, as in many ways, vanilla Wine has better D3D support than Cedega. Expect this gap to continue to widen as time passes. There may be a point where Cedega starts using vanilla Wine's D3D implementation too.
Exactly. When that comes everyone will be able to use D3D, the only proprietary things will remain the various CD protections, which can be easily circumvented by simple cracks. Note that in most of the countries it is not illegal to use cracks if you have the original game.
You should not that easily mod the parent troll.
Actually, some time ago WINE was under BSD license, that permitted proprietary modifications. After WINE was forked to WineX, then renamed to Cedega and closed their source, the WINE developers changed the license to GPL so future "freeloaders" are not allowed.
Now Cedega are going backwards because they cannot use the new WINE code. While WINE is going forward in the compatibility for things like DX9, the rest of the APIs in Windows, all Cedega developers are doing is trying to make it compatible with the latest and greatest of the protection schemes for CDs like SafeCD and such... Good for games, but for how long?
> "It is impossible to determine from the data presented whether violent video games cause violence, or whether violent individuals are attracted to violent video games." :)
... if you think about it, a fine on the child is a fine for the parents. There are things for which you can punish a parent, but I believe that teaching a minor to curse is not one of them, despite the fundamental pluralist's way of thinking.
I don't have the data that they have, but statistically it is impossible to distinguish the cause from the effect... all you can say is that they are correlated. Trust me, I am (going to graduate as) a mathematican, we know that stuff.
> Minnesota lawmakers hoped their approach - penalizing the minors who got the games, instead of the retailers who sold or rented them - would have fared better in court than overturned state laws that went after retailers in Illinois, California, Michigan and elsewhere.
So basically, they are saying that they tried the other way around, it didn't work, and they tried this way. I really don't believe that they expected it to pass
According to http://www.stat.fi/tup/suoluk/suoluk_vaesto_en.htm l the population of Finland is only 5 255 580. That means it is one of the smallest in Europe. Less than half that of Portugal...
I would mod you +5, So So True, but I don't have mod points.
It is so easy to protest something that is right in your face on TV, isn't it? How about years and years of killing that have been going on in Israel by Hizballah and Hamas terrorist organizations? How about all those rockets that were launched at Israel from Lebanon within the past two decades? Maybe a UN server should be hacked, after all after 2000 UN and Lebanon was responsible for keeping Hizballah from amassing rockets and other weapons. Do these activists care when during the 'peace times' Israeli kids and adults get blown up? ... maybe they care for their own people - the palestinians, that are getting killed during "peace times". One thing you should know is that violence ALWAYS leads to violence. Truth be told, they are both wrong. But by substituting dead israeli with dead lebanese or dead palestinians is not going to help anyone.
Well
If anything, these protestors should thank Israel for taking action now and preventing more carnage later. One cannot constantly procrastinate in this kind of a situation, because it is only getting worse.
Can you seriously say, that killing innocent lebanese is going to help you keep your country peaceful? Do you know why it is getting worse? Because noone wants to make sacrifices. If Israel did not have the americans behind their back the UN would already be there to stop the carnage. Or, at least they would have a chance. Now is is a loose-loose situation, lebanese get killed, the terrorists are going to multiply.
Oh yes, and how about protesting where it actually makes sense: at Hizballah, at Lebanese, Iranian and Syrian governments.
Maybe, since the USA is THE greatest supporter of Israel it kind of makes sence to protest in the USA. Maybe the USA should think twice when they actively protect such things.
Protesting against regimes that allow terrorists to do what they do: use civilians AND UN folks as living shields on the battlefield.
So what? Now they'll stop doing it?
Not only are civilians used as shields, they are a great propaganda tool. When a terrorist launches a rocket at civilian targets in Israel from a busy market place in Lebanon, and Israeli army answers with fire at that place, is it the responsibility of Israel to make sure that Lebanese civilians do not suffer or is it responsibility of those, who used the civilians for their political gain around the world?
When you fire a rocket and kill thousands of innocent people it is YOUR SOLE RESPONSIBILITY!!! Who the hell are you to say - oh, well, maybe there were terrorists. We should kill everyone, just to be sure. There is a certain amount of rules when waging war. Yes, maybe you cannot stand before trial for that, but that does not mean that you are not responsible. War often makes the life equally miserable for the civilians and for the soldiers. Just remember the amount of psychic disorder in the troops that came back from Vietnam, and you'll see my point.
Once againt, it IS the place to protest. EOF
"If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged".
- Cardinal Richelieu
The story goes like this:
A friend of the cardinal asked him:
- Well how can you hang me if I say: "I believe in God."?
He repilied:
- What would be easy. You will burn on a stake because you do not believe in the Son or in the Holy Spirit.
I don't want to ruin the impression, but what is the EXACT shape of the amoeba?
I thought it was kind of nonfixed, right?
It is not MS bashing. Just stating the facts.
> "Linux geeks and Microsoft have similar interests, says Computerworld: They both are interested in seeing open-source software succeed.
Ooooh, suuuure. I am very interested in a OSS, but I wouldn't like OSS more if there were more users. After all, Macs have a reputation not because so many people use them. Stability is a good thing.
And saying that MS is interested in OSS success is nothing short of blasphemy.
> Linux geeks admit that the open source OS isn't necessarily a better platform for important applications, and Microsoft recognizes that many of its customers are using open-source applications, and doesn't want to alienate them."
I would like to point out at least one geek that thinks Windows is a better platform for important apps, like: DB, routing, networking, embedded devices... Don't tell me that Windows is a real-time OS. There are plenty of such, created as open-source projects. Windows is used mainly because of popularity, not because of superiority. By the way, the RTFA says nothing like the submission.
> From the article: "Faced with the allure of inexpensive open-source applications among its core customer base of small to midsize businesses, Microsoft has toned down its rhetoric.
Alas, not their interest, but the success of OSS is making MS change their mind.
> 'It's a myth that open-source and Windows can't work together. Customers just aren't religious about these things,' said Ryan Gavin, a director of platform strategy for Microsoft."
Ooooh, yeaah... It is a myth that MS is taking every step nesseccary to hinder OSS development where that suits them. Not that I blame them, I would do just the same. But don't underestimate the hard work Samba, Apache and all the others do to interoperate with Windows. The EU did not convict MS for playing too nice, didn't they?
By the way, LAMP sounds waaay better than WAMP.
I see what you mean now.
... No, I think it is not allowed. Unless you sign everyone :).
> This is what is called Remote Attestation. The TC system has a chip in it called the TPM. The BIOS and the OS (Linux!) feed into the TPM hashes of the software as it is loaded. The TPM chip has a crypto key in it generated at manufacture time that never leaves the chip. The manufacturer creates a certificate proving that this particular crypto key is in a genuine TPM. Putting all these pieces together, the TPM can send a signed message testifying to the software configuration (i.e. what software is loaded), and the certificate proves that the message came from a genuine TPM. The server which is running on the TC system publishes its source code so clients know exactly what software they are interacting with.
Thanks for the explanation. I still won't trust a packet from the internet (who's to say that TC will not be compromised, or simulated?), but at least TC is a way to protect your system from unsigned executables.
> Do you think it is evil and wicked for clients to be able to get a more accurate picture of how servers will behave? Should the GPL try to prevent tihs capability? That is what I am afraid it does.
Now I think that there is not a GPL conflict after all. I see no problem that you generate a public-private pair and distribute it, so when a client connects to you he'll know that the server is yours (verified by the key). But you want to sign executables
I think that you're right, it would be good, but in the same time, if such a thing is allowed, it will be a way to steal GPLed code, by "signing" it so only my client would be able to connect. Sorry, but this scenario will undoubtedly have bad consequences, and the virtues are too small.
First of all, the purpose of GPL is to allow interoperability, not FORCE it. In your citation:
For instance, if the work is a DVD player and can play certain DVDs, it must be possible for modified versions to play those DVDs (but no modified version of the program is oblidged to do that). If the work communicates with an online service, it must be possible for modified versions to communicate with the same online service in the same way such that the service cannot distinguish. "Possible" means you decide. If you want to be distinguished, noone can force you to "hide".
> Should it really be fair to restrict some online service to have to treat all clients the same way just because one version was derived from another? Lets say I modify the source code of some browser that is covered by GPLv3. My version has some quirks that make it interpret css differently from the first browser. Would it then be illegal for a website to serve up different css based on my user agent string?
You should read more carefully. Nowhere is stated that a website (a program, even when distributed under GPL is not restricted in operation) is restricted in any way? GPL just makes sure you can hide your identity. You changed your idenity (the UserAgent string), so you don't hide. If you hide (as in i-dont-say-my-useragent-option), what can the site do? Moreover, how can a site be held responsible for some guy's license terms with third party?
Disclaimer: IANAL
:) Besides it is NOT a good security practice to trust a system you cannot control.
... and, as stated in the license (section 12, Not Surrender of Other's Freedom), if you cannot comply with the license, for example by technical means, DRM, court order, you are NOT ALLOWED TO CONVEY THE PROGRAM AT ALL.
> Here's a not-so hypothetical. I want to run a server using Trusted Computing technology so that clients can detect what my software configuration is. In that way they can have greater confidence that my server will follow certain rules and greater trust in the service I provide. I voluntarily add this transparency to my server - it publishes its own source code and the TC technology lets people very that this source is what is running there.
I won't rely on that. How are you going to make sure the server is not distributing some other source code? I cannot see what you mean.
> Would I be unable to use any GPLv3 software on this server?
You can use GPLed software for whatever purposes you want. One of the sections explicitly states that: section 9, Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies.
> Or on any system which revealed what software version was running?
What do you mean "revealed"? Every program is free to say: I run the latest and greatest.
> It would allow client systems to refuse to interoperate with other versions of the software, if they didn't like what the server would do if it ran those versions.
You are always free to refuse to operate with clients, e.g. passwords and other methods of identifications. HOWEVER, you are (practically) not allowed to refuse connections based on the client software in use, for example: sign the binaries you distribute, so only they could be used. If you do that and you distribute GPLv3-ed client software, you MUST transfer the keys, so any client can be signed to interoperate with your server. If that was not restricted, you would transfer the source code, but it would be impossible to compile it into the program. So the keys are PART of the source code.
> And since ultimately TC relies on crypto keys that are buried in hardware and can't be exported, it would be impossible to comply with the requirement to publish any such keys.
By the way, how am I supposed to check the keys if they are inside YOUR computer? Oh, you mean I will need TC? @#$K O@@!!! (censored)
> I would be very disappointed if the world of GPLv3 software were off limits for such a user friendly application, and it became impossible for servers to offer this level of transparency. This is what I've been looking forward to ever since Trusted Computing was announced.
Look, if you mean friendly as in we-sign-things-haha-no-interoperability, no, GPLv3 does not allow this. Either you make your own client, or if you use GPLed code, you must allow essentially any program to interoperate. That is just a way to prevent "stealing" of GPLed code by making it essentially proprietary.
Transparency and TC? Get real, please. It's sole purpose is to hide stuff.
I am looking forward to Tristed Computing, so I could hack the keys to sign the apps and change them, so only I can sign what I want to run on MY computer. Linux.
GPLv3 is just a draft, but I doubt that it will change that much.