With that attitude, you would think that the point of textbooks is to pass knowledge on to other people, rather than to make money for textbook publishers...
I suppose that local caching of something as relatively static as a textbook is out of the question?
How do you ensure that the recurring fees are being paid? After all, the point of online textbooks is to bring in money for textbook publishers; making information available to students is just an unfortunate side effect.
Yeah but then how do you enforce copyrights on those textbooks? You know, so that the school does not continue to use textbooks without paying the monthly access fee.
Then disable secure boot.For example, hold down shift while you turn on the computer to enter the UEFI. Select the "Security" section, then uncheck "secure boot enabled". Click OK. Reboot. Boy, that was hard.
Except that you are not allowed to do so on ARM systems that run Windows 8, as per Microsoft's demands.
The fact that this is phrased in terms of "vendors" should indicate that this is an attack on user freedom. A fee to install your signing key creates obstacles for anyone who wants to fork a GNU/Linux distribution (happens all the time), anyone who wants to create their own distribution, and anyone who wants to try "Linux from Scratch" (and I know of a few people who have done so). It also creates an obstacle for anyone who wants to write their own kernel or OS; if Linus Torvalds had to pay $99, the Linux kernel itself may never have been created.
Even if you think that isn't "simple" enough
The fact that money is involved makes it a major barrier, and counts very strongly against the process being "simple" (it requires a payment to be processed, a third party to the new key, etc. -- you cannot even test a system without the fee; compare with TLS, where you can generate a usable test certificate without paying anyone).
the feature can just be disabled on x86 machines.
Only if the motherboard manufacturer allows it, and this is not allowed on ARM machines that will run Windows 8. Considering the inroads ARM has made into personal computing, I do not think it is unfair to say that the decisions made today about ARM computers will shape the reality of personal computing over the next decade. We are already seeing this happening; app stores are the norm, people are talking about trendy apps, etc.
I wonder how long will it take for the government(s) to decide they in fact own every computer (or at least it's processing capabilities) and issue some sort of mandatory backdoor.
What, you think this sort of thing has not already happened? Take a look at telecom equipment some time...
First of all the Secure Boot in UEFI wasn't mandated by Microsoft
Except when it comes to Windows 8 on ARM systems. Then Microsoft does mandate secure boot.
A feature any OS is free to implement, including linux.
Linux is not an operating system, it is a kernel.
What difference does it make if other OSes support secure boot, if you cannot install those OSes as a result of secure boot being used?
Secondly, motherboard manufacturers are able to add (or pre-add) any key (or none at all) if they choose.
This is a cop out; unless there is a simple way for users to install their own keys, this is something that will further restrict how people can use their computers. You can jailbreak your iPad if you want, but the majority of people have trouble doing so.
Thirdly, there is nothing keeping users from being able to install their own key (or additional keys) through the UEFI boot process, assuming the UEFI manufacturer provides one.
...which is something Microsoft pressures them not to do on ARM devices:
What FUD? We said years ago that iPad style lock-down is coming to desktops and laptops; now we have moved a step closer. There is a lot of money to be made from attacking computer users' freedom, and now that Apple has pulled in billions of dollars doing so, everyone else wants to join the party.
That is not true for ARM "Windows 8 Ready" platforms, but seriously who cares about ARM on the desktop?
Maybe you are not creative enough to think of a reason to use ARM on a desktop? I can think of some:
Low power situations -- I have a little ARM desktop that uses only 4W of power; this would be great if I were in a situation where I had to generate my own power, e.g. in a boat, in an RV, in a shack somewhere, etc.
Low cost computers e.g. Raspberry Pi.
There you go, some situations where an ARM desktop might make sense. Really though, this misses the more important point: why should a computer user ever be barred from installing the software they want to install? Allowing people to install new signing keys for their computer is not at all unreasonable; it could be as simple as pressing a button and inserting a thumb drive (enough effort to make social engineering harder, but not so much effort that an untrained person would not be able to handle it).
MDPV and Spice products have only rose in popularity because they produce effects similar to illegal drugs. It is worth noting that both of these drugs were simply declared to be illegal by the DEA, which is the same agency that enforces drug laws. It is also worth noting that if you could buy drugs legally, we could give you legally mandated warnings about those drugs -- like a warning that MDPV may induce psychosis.
So your point is what...that someone who noticed that his life was becoming terrifying as a result of his drug use was able to stop using that drug? Your roommate did not kill anyone, and he certainly did not create a hazard waste site on the side of a busy highway.
Sure, methamphetamine can create paranoid delusions in its users. Do the people who sell it for recreational use take the time to explain that to their customers? If you could buy methamphetamine legally, you could be given a warning about the danger of using it -- just like we warn people about the dangers of using alcohol and tobacco.
Note that the methamphetamine that is sold legally, the kind you need a prescription to buy, comes with warnings. It is also produced in a much safer, and much better controlled, manner. You do not have to worry that pharmaceutical methamphetamine is laced with hazardous residual chemicals, a common and serious problem with illegal methamphetamine. It is unusual for a pharmaceutical production facility to burst into flames; it is common for an illegal production facility to explode.
People are going to use methamphetamine recreationally, and we need to accept that as a fact of life. The issue we need to address is the health and safety of the public, both those who use methamphetamine and those who do not. Banning the drug has increased the risk to public health; we can do better.
I don't think anyone has ever eaten some guy's face after smoking a cigarette
Has someone eaten some guy's face after using marijuana? What kind of non sequitur are you pushing here?
The truth is that plenty of people die because of tobacco. Children get asthma because of tobacco. Second hand tobacco smoke can cause cancer. Tobacco smoke is far more dangerous than marijuana smoke (yes, really -- marijuana smoke does contain carcinogens, but even heavy marijuana smokers do not show an increased risk of cancer).
or filling up their car with gas
Cars kill tens of thousands of people per year, and I can assure you that people's faces have been torn off by cars.
The fact of the matter is that the war on drugs has nothing to do with public safety. Making methamphetamine illegal for recreational use (it is certainly legal by prescription) has actually created a much greater risk to the general public: illegal methamphetamine production. I have never seen a crazed methamphetamine user (I am sure they exist, I have just never seen one), but I have seen a house burn to the ground after the byproducts of methamphetamine production caught fire. Mobile production facilities create major chemical hazards on the sides of highways. I would rather have a legal, regulated chemical plant producing methamphetamine for people to buy over the counter than the system we have today.
...religion hates spiritual experience and even simple pleasure it doesn't ration.
Thus explaining why Jews are required to drink wine every week and are required to drink four glasses (definitely enough for almost anyone to at least get a buzz) on Passover. You also forgot about the numerous religions that use psychedelic mushrooms as part of their ceremonies. Religion is not the problem here.
If you want to know why we have a war on drugs, I can think of the following more plausible explanations:
Racism. Congressmen were told that black men who used cocaine would becoming unstoppable monsters, that Philipino immigrants would bring their horrible opium habits with them, that white women who smoked marijuana would want to have sex with black men, that crack makes black people crazy, that PCP makes black people crazy, etc.
Police militarization. The war on drugs is a great excuse to give police officers assault rifles, body armor, and even military tanks and helicopters (see: 1033 program). The police can also use the proceeds from seized assets from drug arrests in their own budgets.
Expanding executive branch power. The Controlled Substances Act allows the attorney general's office to simply declare drugs to be illegal, without any democratic process.
Corporate profits. Alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, pharmaceutical companies, firearms companies, prison operators, companies that make surveillance equipment, petrochemical companies, and numerous others have all seen expanded profits because of the war on drugs.
Religion is really a minor issue here. There are a few priests who will pound on their pulpits about the evils of drugs, but their power in the drug war is limited at best.
I mean, THC is ranked as having a higher abuse potential and danger than cocaine.
This is not 100% accurate; Schedule II drugs are supposedly drugs with a high potential for abuse, but which have legitimate medical uses; Schedule I are those with a high potential for abuse, but no legitimate medical uses. Cocaine has use as an anesthetic, and amphetamines have use in treating narcolepsy, ADD, and obesity.
The problem with these schedules, of course, is that things become political hotbuttons. Law enforcement officers want to be able to arrest anyone who possesses marijuana, without having to listen to a story about having a prescription; they view placing marijuana in Schedule II as conceding defeat. MDMA was put in Schedule I despite legitimate medical uses as well, because cops wanted to crack down on hippies, punk rockers, and other subcultures. The war on drugs is more about increasing and maintaining police power than about public health.
I think whitelisting allowed recreational mood/thought-altering substances
That is exactly what we have now. How does this help at all?
We should legalize drugs, and then apply truth in advertising laws to drug packaging. The FDA can evaluate the safety and risks of recreational drugs; the packages should include a summary of that assessment, and drugs which have not been assessed should have a big warning on them. Give people accurate information, not a jail cell, when they want to get high.
You mean like alcohol and tobacco? People use caffeine recreationally, despite the danger in doing so. There are a number of ornamental plants that can be used as a drug.
We need to go in the other direction, and stop banning drugs. We also need to stop letting a law enforcement agency dictate the laws it is charged with enforcing (see: emergency drug scheduling). While we are at it, let's stop having paramilitary police, stop attacking civil rights, and stop having the largest prison population on Earth.
Okay, so it was the 60's and 70's and given what was going down in South America it was probably all a lie then.
South America? How about right here in the United States? In the 1960s, the FBI was investigating people who dared to take a stand for their own civil rights, looking for ways to discredit them. It was illegal for two men to dance with each other in some states in the 1960s. In the 1970s, the executive branch of government gained the power to dictate some of the laws it is charged with enforcing. The 1970s saw the rise of paramilitary police across the country -- cops who would easily be mistaken for soldiers if their helmets and body armor was not clearly labeled "POLICE."
How would you US citizens feel if you were on the receiving end of Predator drones, cyber attacks and Shock and Awe?
As opposed to having our homes invaded by men with assault rifles, who shoot our dogs and kill, injure, and terrorize innocent people? I think you need to take another look at what is happening in the United States. We already have the largest prison population on Earth, heavily militarized law enforcement organizations that double as intelligence agencies, and a president who signed into law a bill that allows people to be detained indefinitely without trial, and who has ordered the assassination of US citizens.
So what hypocrisy were you referring to? I think we are doing a fine job of spreading our "democracy."
Why does software developers like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg get to make billions of dollars and be set for life?
Note that Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg did not stop working; both are continuing to contribute to society as a whole. They are not the sort of parasites who demand that other people work for them and maintain their lifestyles while they do nothing productive.
Even in big Hollywood productions most the people are not getting paid millions
...because the A-list actors and the studio executives take all the money. The studios go as far as to lie about how much of a profit a movie turned, just to deny money to those who were unsophisticated enough as to ask for a share of the movie's profit, as opposed to gross revenue. If you are trying to make the case that millionaires who retire early are not parasites, Hollywood is probably the worst example you can find.
I don't understand this argument of "I have to work all my life, so everyone else should as well."
...because the people who do not work their whole lives are being supported by the people who do, usually by a large number of people who work their whole lives. The sports superstar who retires 1/4 of the way through their life and never has to work another day still requires the work of others to maintain their lifestyle. Roads need maintenance, minerals and fuels need to be extracted, food needs to be produced, we need people working in factories etc. How many people die working one of those jobs where it is hard or impossible to retire before age 60?
It is simply not possible for everyone to come up with "something" that 10 million people like. We keep pushing this myth that everyone can be a millionaire if they are just clever or creative enough. You could come up with the most brilliant invention ever, and it would amount to nothing if there were no other people producing your food.
The world is not some Ayn Rand novel. There are millions of people who do the work that millionaire ex-NFL stars need in order to maintain their comfortable lifestyle. A minimum-wage janitor contributes more to society than a millionaire who retired early and does nothing but party for the rest of their life.
I honestly don't get what the fuck this statement is supposed to mean, or why people think it's so god damned "insightful".
In George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, there are only three countries in the world; at any time, Oceania is at war with one of the other two. Which country Oceania is at war with changes, but following the change, citizens are expected to believe that no change actually occurred -- if Oceania is at war with Eastasia, it was always at war with Eastasia; if that changes to being at war with Eurasia, then Oceania was always at war with Eurasia. At one point in the novel, a speaker changes from one country to another mid-sentence, and the public is expected to accept it without question.
The point is that the US media will speak about a nation that is hostile to the US as if there was never any other situation. Sadam Hussein was always our enemy; the fact that he was our ally within most adults' lifetimes is irrelevant and people are expected to simply forget that fact. Now it is Iran's turn to be our enemy; they were always our enemy, if the mainstream media is to be believed. As Gore Vidal put it, "We live in the United States of Amnesia."
I believe the old joke was, "In Russia, you can only choose the communist party. In America, you can choose the capitalist party, or the other capitalist party!"
Slashdot Mirror
With that attitude, you would think that the point of textbooks is to pass knowledge on to other people, rather than to make money for textbook publishers...
100Mbps for textbooks
It's a new DRM system.
I suppose that local caching of something as relatively static as a textbook is out of the question?
How do you ensure that the recurring fees are being paid? After all, the point of online textbooks is to bring in money for textbook publishers; making information available to students is just an unfortunate side effect.
Yeah but then how do you enforce copyrights on those textbooks? You know, so that the school does not continue to use textbooks without paying the monthly access fee.
Then disable secure boot.For example, hold down shift while you turn on the computer to enter the UEFI. Select the "Security" section, then uncheck "secure boot enabled". Click OK. Reboot. Boy, that was hard.
Except that you are not allowed to do so on ARM systems that run Windows 8, as per Microsoft's demands.
the vendor can just pay $99
The fact that this is phrased in terms of "vendors" should indicate that this is an attack on user freedom. A fee to install your signing key creates obstacles for anyone who wants to fork a GNU/Linux distribution (happens all the time), anyone who wants to create their own distribution, and anyone who wants to try "Linux from Scratch" (and I know of a few people who have done so). It also creates an obstacle for anyone who wants to write their own kernel or OS; if Linus Torvalds had to pay $99, the Linux kernel itself may never have been created.
Even if you think that isn't "simple" enough
The fact that money is involved makes it a major barrier, and counts very strongly against the process being "simple" (it requires a payment to be processed, a third party to the new key, etc. -- you cannot even test a system without the fee; compare with TLS, where you can generate a usable test certificate without paying anyone).
the feature can just be disabled on x86 machines.
Only if the motherboard manufacturer allows it, and this is not allowed on ARM machines that will run Windows 8. Considering the inroads ARM has made into personal computing, I do not think it is unfair to say that the decisions made today about ARM computers will shape the reality of personal computing over the next decade. We are already seeing this happening; app stores are the norm, people are talking about trendy apps, etc.
I wonder how long will it take for the government(s) to decide they in fact own every computer (or at least it's processing capabilities) and issue some sort of mandatory backdoor.
What, you think this sort of thing has not already happened? Take a look at telecom equipment some time...
First of all the Secure Boot in UEFI wasn't mandated by Microsoft
Except when it comes to Windows 8 on ARM systems. Then Microsoft does mandate secure boot.
A feature any OS is free to implement, including linux.
Secondly, motherboard manufacturers are able to add (or pre-add) any key (or none at all) if they choose.
This is a cop out; unless there is a simple way for users to install their own keys, this is something that will further restrict how people can use their computers. You can jailbreak your iPad if you want, but the majority of people have trouble doing so.
Thirdly, there is nothing keeping users from being able to install their own key (or additional keys) through the UEFI boot process, assuming the UEFI manufacturer provides one.
https://www.softwarefreedom.org/blog/2012/jan/12/microsoft-confirms-UEFI-fears-locks-down-ARM/
Really, stop spreading your FUD.
What FUD? We said years ago that iPad style lock-down is coming to desktops and laptops; now we have moved a step closer. There is a lot of money to be made from attacking computer users' freedom, and now that Apple has pulled in billions of dollars doing so, everyone else wants to join the party.
That is not true for ARM "Windows 8 Ready" platforms, but seriously who cares about ARM on the desktop?
Maybe you are not creative enough to think of a reason to use ARM on a desktop? I can think of some:
There you go, some situations where an ARM desktop might make sense. Really though, this misses the more important point: why should a computer user ever be barred from installing the software they want to install? Allowing people to install new signing keys for their computer is not at all unreasonable; it could be as simple as pressing a button and inserting a thumb drive (enough effort to make social engineering harder, but not so much effort that an untrained person would not be able to handle it).
Cars are made with iron, steel, aluminum, fiberglass and dozens of other materials. It would be just as idiotic to ban those materials...
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/3/prweb9271990.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Methamphetamine_Epidemic_Act_of_2005
MDPV and Spice products have only rose in popularity because they produce effects similar to illegal drugs. It is worth noting that both of these drugs were simply declared to be illegal by the DEA, which is the same agency that enforces drug laws. It is also worth noting that if you could buy drugs legally, we could give you legally mandated warnings about those drugs -- like a warning that MDPV may induce psychosis.
So your point is what...that someone who noticed that his life was becoming terrifying as a result of his drug use was able to stop using that drug? Your roommate did not kill anyone, and he certainly did not create a hazard waste site on the side of a busy highway.
Sure, methamphetamine can create paranoid delusions in its users. Do the people who sell it for recreational use take the time to explain that to their customers? If you could buy methamphetamine legally, you could be given a warning about the danger of using it -- just like we warn people about the dangers of using alcohol and tobacco.
Note that the methamphetamine that is sold legally, the kind you need a prescription to buy, comes with warnings. It is also produced in a much safer, and much better controlled, manner. You do not have to worry that pharmaceutical methamphetamine is laced with hazardous residual chemicals, a common and serious problem with illegal methamphetamine. It is unusual for a pharmaceutical production facility to burst into flames; it is common for an illegal production facility to explode.
People are going to use methamphetamine recreationally, and we need to accept that as a fact of life. The issue we need to address is the health and safety of the public, both those who use methamphetamine and those who do not. Banning the drug has increased the risk to public health; we can do better.
Without the war on drugs, how would we justify giving the police assault rifles, body armor, grenades, tanks, helicopters, etc?
I don't think anyone has ever eaten some guy's face after smoking a cigarette
Has someone eaten some guy's face after using marijuana? What kind of non sequitur are you pushing here?
The truth is that plenty of people die because of tobacco. Children get asthma because of tobacco. Second hand tobacco smoke can cause cancer. Tobacco smoke is far more dangerous than marijuana smoke (yes, really -- marijuana smoke does contain carcinogens, but even heavy marijuana smokers do not show an increased risk of cancer).
or filling up their car with gas
Cars kill tens of thousands of people per year, and I can assure you that people's faces have been torn off by cars.
The fact of the matter is that the war on drugs has nothing to do with public safety. Making methamphetamine illegal for recreational use (it is certainly legal by prescription) has actually created a much greater risk to the general public: illegal methamphetamine production. I have never seen a crazed methamphetamine user (I am sure they exist, I have just never seen one), but I have seen a house burn to the ground after the byproducts of methamphetamine production caught fire. Mobile production facilities create major chemical hazards on the sides of highways. I would rather have a legal, regulated chemical plant producing methamphetamine for people to buy over the counter than the system we have today.
...religion hates spiritual experience and even simple pleasure it doesn't ration.
Thus explaining why Jews are required to drink wine every week and are required to drink four glasses (definitely enough for almost anyone to at least get a buzz) on Passover. You also forgot about the numerous religions that use psychedelic mushrooms as part of their ceremonies. Religion is not the problem here.
If you want to know why we have a war on drugs, I can think of the following more plausible explanations:
Religion is really a minor issue here. There are a few priests who will pound on their pulpits about the evils of drugs, but their power in the drug war is limited at best.
I mean, THC is ranked as having a higher abuse potential and danger than cocaine.
This is not 100% accurate; Schedule II drugs are supposedly drugs with a high potential for abuse, but which have legitimate medical uses; Schedule I are those with a high potential for abuse, but no legitimate medical uses. Cocaine has use as an anesthetic, and amphetamines have use in treating narcolepsy, ADD, and obesity.
The problem with these schedules, of course, is that things become political hotbuttons. Law enforcement officers want to be able to arrest anyone who possesses marijuana, without having to listen to a story about having a prescription; they view placing marijuana in Schedule II as conceding defeat. MDMA was put in Schedule I despite legitimate medical uses as well, because cops wanted to crack down on hippies, punk rockers, and other subcultures. The war on drugs is more about increasing and maintaining police power than about public health.
I think whitelisting allowed recreational mood/thought-altering substances
That is exactly what we have now. How does this help at all?
We should legalize drugs, and then apply truth in advertising laws to drug packaging. The FDA can evaluate the safety and risks of recreational drugs; the packages should include a summary of that assessment, and drugs which have not been assessed should have a big warning on them. Give people accurate information, not a jail cell, when they want to get high.
You mean like alcohol and tobacco? People use caffeine recreationally, despite the danger in doing so. There are a number of ornamental plants that can be used as a drug.
We need to go in the other direction, and stop banning drugs. We also need to stop letting a law enforcement agency dictate the laws it is charged with enforcing (see: emergency drug scheduling). While we are at it, let's stop having paramilitary police, stop attacking civil rights, and stop having the largest prison population on Earth.
Okay, so it was the 60's and 70's and given what was going down in South America it was probably all a lie then.
South America? How about right here in the United States? In the 1960s, the FBI was investigating people who dared to take a stand for their own civil rights, looking for ways to discredit them. It was illegal for two men to dance with each other in some states in the 1960s. In the 1970s, the executive branch of government gained the power to dictate some of the laws it is charged with enforcing. The 1970s saw the rise of paramilitary police across the country -- cops who would easily be mistaken for soldiers if their helmets and body armor was not clearly labeled "POLICE."
How would you US citizens feel if you were on the receiving end of Predator drones, cyber attacks and Shock and Awe?
As opposed to having our homes invaded by men with assault rifles, who shoot our dogs and kill, injure, and terrorize innocent people? I think you need to take another look at what is happening in the United States. We already have the largest prison population on Earth, heavily militarized law enforcement organizations that double as intelligence agencies, and a president who signed into law a bill that allows people to be detained indefinitely without trial, and who has ordered the assassination of US citizens.
So what hypocrisy were you referring to? I think we are doing a fine job of spreading our "democracy."
Why does software developers like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg get to make billions of dollars and be set for life?
Note that Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg did not stop working; both are continuing to contribute to society as a whole. They are not the sort of parasites who demand that other people work for them and maintain their lifestyles while they do nothing productive.
Even in big Hollywood productions most the people are not getting paid millions
I don't understand this argument of "I have to work all my life, so everyone else should as well."
It is simply not possible for everyone to come up with "something" that 10 million people like. We keep pushing this myth that everyone can be a millionaire if they are just clever or creative enough. You could come up with the most brilliant invention ever, and it would amount to nothing if there were no other people producing your food.
The world is not some Ayn Rand novel. There are millions of people who do the work that millionaire ex-NFL stars need in order to maintain their comfortable lifestyle. A minimum-wage janitor contributes more to society than a millionaire who retired early and does nothing but party for the rest of their life.
I honestly don't get what the fuck this statement is supposed to mean, or why people think it's so god damned "insightful".
In George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, there are only three countries in the world; at any time, Oceania is at war with one of the other two. Which country Oceania is at war with changes, but following the change, citizens are expected to believe that no change actually occurred -- if Oceania is at war with Eastasia, it was always at war with Eastasia; if that changes to being at war with Eurasia, then Oceania was always at war with Eurasia. At one point in the novel, a speaker changes from one country to another mid-sentence, and the public is expected to accept it without question.
The point is that the US media will speak about a nation that is hostile to the US as if there was never any other situation. Sadam Hussein was always our enemy; the fact that he was our ally within most adults' lifetimes is irrelevant and people are expected to simply forget that fact. Now it is Iran's turn to be our enemy; they were always our enemy, if the mainstream media is to be believed. As Gore Vidal put it, "We live in the United States of Amnesia."
America represents all that is good, remember? Any attack on America, no matter how insignificant, is an attack on good and is therefore evil.
We are at war in Iran. We have always been at war with Iran.
I believe the old joke was, "In Russia, you can only choose the communist party. In America, you can choose the capitalist party, or the other capitalist party!"
it's cheaper than any realistic alternative would have been
You mean like including a switch on the motherboard that allows an OS to be installed? Or just letting users install whatever OS they want?