Kernel:There are some notable features that distinguish the SkyOS kernel from others. These include: - Kernel-mode VESA support, allowing for graphical display immediately upon power-up - Architecture abstraction layer, allowing SkyOS to be easily ported to other architectures - Advanced CPU support, including Multi-Core/SMP/HyperThreading and all the major x86 extensions - Full DMA, ATAPI, and ATA/SATA support (with SATA drivers for several major chipsets) - Support for popular buses
Desktop: The design of the SkyGI API is loosely based around the concepts of the Qt and Swing windowing toolkits. A core principle of SkyGI is the "view." Every GUI object is derived from the base "view" object, and, as such, all have similar properties and behave in similar ways.[4]
SkyGI has built in support for internationalization and localization, allowing third party developers to easily create multilingual applications that are based around easy to write 'translation' files. The framework also facilitates accessibility by building in support for advanced keyboard navigation.
File system:SkyFS is a fork of the OpenBFS filesystem. It supports the following notable features:
- 64-bit data structures
- Journaling
- Metadata support, allowing for, among other things, ACLs
- Metadata indexing and querying
- POSIX file permissions
Fast searching: With the help of the SQL-based Index Feeder, SkyFS supports fast metadata and full-text searching similar in concept to WinFS and Spotlight.[6] This allows for instantaneous system-wide searches as well as "search as you type" file browsing.
So it looks interesting, especially considering it was developed by one person. But given the lack of source I agree with most people here; it's a dead project.
I suppose Szeleney's hope is that by making it free but not open source he will bring it to the attention of some manufacturer who has need of an embedded OS (for their phone, tablet, whatever) and feels SkyOS may fit their needs. He then will either sell the code to them or offer to modify it to their needs. But, seeing as a) it's x86-only and b) he couldn't attract commercial attention to his OS four years ago when the project was still active, this seems a last-ditch attempt to cash in on his work. So while I wish him success, I also think he would have been better off just offering the project to the community.
Whatever happened to the concept of unalienable rights? That is, we aren't granted "rights" by the government; rather, we allow the government to infringe upon those rights for the purpose of maintaining a working society. I know it's an American notion and this is a story about workers in Great Britain, but it distresses me to see an increasing belief that it is a government that determines whether or not we are allowed certain rights. It's an attitude that grants them too much power because any rights not specifically codified are then assumed not to exist. If the laws don't specifically say I do/not/ have a right to privacy or a right not to be fingerprinted, then dammit, I do have those rights!
Remember, between government and citizen, who works for whom!
It's no longer, " 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help you", which was laughable even amongst its supporters.
Now it's the slightly more terrifying 'I'm from the government* and I am the ONLY one who is allowed help you".
An idea which they enforce with far more efficiency. After all, an independent, self-sufficient populace might get ideas otherwise. Why, they might even come up with the notion that the government is beholden to its people rather than the other way around!
I suppose the idea of working with these guys never occurred to FEMA? It sounds like they were providing useful data.
The shift in policy is an intentional, if unwritten, strategy intended to keep America a competitive force in the world's economy.
In the past, America's power was based on its vast, untapped resources; steel, oil, cotton, grain, whatever - we had it and could rip it out of the ground cheaply. We sold these resources to the world and became rich. But these days other developing nations are willing to sell their resources far beyond what we can afford, and we can no longer depend on those resources as the primary engine of our economy.
Later, America's strength came from its industry; our factories produced high-quality goods in vast quantities. And we became rich again (well, even richer). But today, we've sold the technology to poorer nations, and their citizens are willing to work for wages that would starve our own people. So America can no longer depend on its industry to sustain it.
So instead, we've turned to our ingenuity and inventiveness as a way to ensure our dominance; our patents, our copyrights, our trademarks. We've hitched our wagon to the idea that our "intellectual property" will keep us a prominent force on the world stage. Of course, an idea is worthless unless somebody is willing to put it to use (the greatest movie in the world won't bring in a cent unless you get people to pay you to watch it). So we make all our ideas available to the world... for a price. And we have greatly bolstered our laws - and made clear our willingness to use force to defend those laws - to ensure that OUR ideas are not used without our receiving adequate recompense.
Except great ideas - the ones that bring in great wads of cash - are difficult to come by (Sturgeon's Law applies with ideas too) and while inspiration can be encouraged, it cannot be forced. So rather than depend on those rare strokes of genius, we ensure that even our less-stellar conceptions are protected the same way as the truly inspired ideas. Patents are increasingly granted on the most insignificant, inconsequential and mundane ideas because it brings in the money.
This is not to say there is some overreaching planned conspiracy; there was never a shadowy group of power-brokers chortling in some dark room as they moved the nation onto this new path. But America has always followed the path of money, and right now the big money is in intellectual property. Keeping its businesses strong makes strategic sense. Thus, we see an increased strengthening of certain laws (or weakening of others) to protect the interests of those businesses.
That's why there is little incentive to revamp the patent system, or bring copyright back down to sensible terms. It's why the American government is pushing so hard to enforce its copyright laws in other countries. It's why there is such a concern about copyright violations and why the Internet scares the people in power so much. American hegemony, they believe, is directly tied to how much intellectual property it owns, and how well it is protected.
I would guess his objection is that it probably was not the KVM Switch which "allowed data and contents of the desktop to be downloaded over the network", but the per-existing network infrastructure that did that. Unless they used some sort of custom device, it is unlikely that it created its own route (wirelessly?) out of the network or did anything to breach the network security. The KVM switch merely allowed the "hackers" to surreptitiously access the data and send it on its way to whatever nefarious data-haven the criminals had set up (probably Dropbox).
A subtle and admittedly pedantic difference, but an important one. Seeing as the purpose of the news industry is to - nominally - provide accurate and timely information, it is an unfortunate mistake. Whether it is an important distinction to the common reader is another question entirely. However, since they make it a point of actually mentioning the type of device, it would have been nice if they had taken the time to accurately describe its capabilities.
Else on Monday some hapless tech somewhere is going to be argue with a clueless CEO who fears that every KVM switch attached to the servers will allow hackers to remotely steal their data because the executive got the wrong message from the media.
She has a duty to the shareholders of Yahoo to do what is best for them.
And as an American, she also has a duty to her nation and her fellow citizens. A nation founded on ideals expressed in its written Constitution, over which the NSA secret courts trample. Her association with a corporation does not excuse her from that responsibility.
Nobody should ever be excused of working against the citizenry of this country simply because the profits of a corporation and its select shareholders were at risk.
Now, in this particular case, Ms Mayer seems to indicate that she is opposed to the orders and - through her organization - has fought these orders in court. Unfortunately, the courts ruled against her and Yahoo decided to obey the court orders. And despite her poor choice of words regarding the reasoning for her actions following the court's decision (e.g., "treason"), I'd even be willing to believe that she - and Yahoo - will continue to "fight the good fight", for whatever reason. So it seems that this is not just a case of protecting Yahoo shareholders and that's a good thing..
But the idea that the sole responsibility CEOs have is to their corporate masters needs to die.
- There is more than one person living in my household. They sometimes like to play games as well (Ridge Racer Unbound is a favorite, for reasons not entirely clear to me). Currently we have to schedule gaming sessions to allow the other access to the games (I suppose the new Family Sharing" might work but then I'd have to create additional accounts and that all seems unnecessary)
- Friends drop by. They sometimes enjoy kicking back with a game on one PC while I play on another.
- I have left games paused on one computer and gone to play another on the other PC. Yes, I actually do this (for instance, I often single-play on the computer hooked up to the big-screen TV but multiplay on the PC on the desk; when a friend calls and suggests a game online, I just jump to the other computer).
- I want to purchase or download something with Steam sale on one PC while somebody is playing a game on the other computer
- I want to install a Steam game on one PC while continuing to play a game on the other.
These are all situations and frustrations I personally have experienced. There is little reason users should have to work around these problems when it is within the software's capabilities to offer an easier solution. It's time that Valve updates it's stone-age client to offer more modern features*. The "family sharing" is a small step in that direction but it doesn't solve all the problems. Steam's claim to fame (aside from its admittedly awesome sales) is that it's DRM is the least intrusive; above are issues where non-DRMd games (or even games using other methods of DRM than Steam) would not interfere with my gameplay as much as the restrictions forced on me by Valve's client. I'd think this is one area they might want to work on, especially as there are no technical or licensing issues to hinder their improvement in this area.
* of course, it took them until 2013 to offer throttled download speeds (and even now it doesn't work that well) so I guess I shouldn't expect too much from them
I'd just be happy if I could run Steam with the/same/ account on two (or more) different computers simultaneously. Not to play the same game, but having the ability to play one game on one PC and a completely different game on another seems like something those geniuses at Valve should have figured out how to do by now.
Unless that's what this update does. They say it allows you to "authorize another device" but that does not necessarily indicate the same account can be used at the same time.
Sadly, this is the state of the country that I was once taught was supposed to stand for freedom in the world.
Fortunately, it actually isn't.
That is not to say that there are not some decidedly concerning excesses being committed by the government and its partners. From overreach by the executive branch, to undisciplined agencies like the NSA running havoc across our Constitutionally-protected (but not granted, important difference!) rights, down to the increasing aggressiveness of our police force, there are undoubtedly serious problems we as a nation need to face up to and rectify. These symptoms are indicative of a very worrying trend and it is right for Americans - and, indeed, citizens across the world - to take note of and speak against.
But even cynical as I am, the despairing belief that the United States of America is currently little more than a well-disguised police-state is so blatantly false to anyone who lives here as to be laughable. I'll not deny that we might one day end in such a place and we must fight against it. But America still remains a bastion of freedom and while it may no longer be a beacon guiding others, it still shines brightly enough. That we can have this conversation without fear of retribution at all is testament to that fact. That (barring a further slide into tyranny) I expect to go through my life without worrying about ending up in a gulag for my particular beliefs is a testament to that fact. That I have an opportunity - however slight it may be - to help change the direction of this country should I chose to do so is testament to this fact.
I still believe - contrary even to my expectations - that most Americans hold true to the ideals of this nation and would, given the chance, work to correct this nation onto a more favorable path. This even includes many of those we've granted positions of authority over ourselves. But between the vast bureaucracy of the government, the confusing melange of messages we get from the media and the self machinations of corporations, it is easy for these same Americans to feel powerless and so they do nothing. It's less apathy than a lack of a clear direction; they want to keep this country true to its ideals but do not know how - and worse, do not believe they can effect a change.
So rather than despair I encourage people to remember what makes this nation great and fight against those who would destroy it for their own short-term gains. Don't just accept the status quo or through excess cynicism allow justice to slip through our fingers. Speak out against these illegal actions, both to fellow citizens and to your representatives in both the state and federal governments. More to the point, do not through inaction be an accomplice to such un-American activities such as the NSA has been enacting; take a stand against them. You don't have to directly oppose them, just don't be their agent; if there are those who wish to subvert the ideals of this nation, make them do their own dirty work. Even if your tiny resistance barely slows down the behemoth, combined we can force a new and better direction for this country. It's also why people in authority fear the Internet and strive to suborn its intent; it allows a collectivism amongst citizenry that has never before been possible. Use this great tool to encourage others - with words and ideas - to strive towards the great dream of America rather than merely accept an "inevitable boot to the face forever".
This nation is at a critical juncture and our leaders are either unwilling or feel unable to enforce a change. It's time to remind them who truly wields the power in America - its citizenry. Don't mourn the passing of our freedoms before we even lose them; instead, stand up for those freedoms and warn those who would take them away that's not where we want this country to go.
So don't use what they recommend, and don't use what they don't recommend. Makes the choice easy, doesn't it?
There's always the gripping hand...
NSA: Don't use ROT-13! User 1: Ah, good advice. That's not secure. NSA: Use elliptic curve encryption! User 1: Ha! I know your tricks; you've already compromised that encryption, haven't you? I won't use it! User 2: What about symetric-key encryption? NSA: Shhhhh!
The NSA is interested in people using encryption/it/ can break but others cannot. This helps maintain its monopoly on secrets, which is the source of its power (that it may also be useful in protecting American businesses and interests from foreign penetration is a bonus). Therefore it will point you towards stronger tools if it can, so its advice is not totally without merit.
Whether its advice can be discounted totally because any suggestions they make are to direct people towards NSA-compromised ciphers is debatable but even if this is true, there are still options for users interested in securing their data; use the strong ciphers that the NSA specifically is not mentioning. If there are two encryption methods known to be equally strong and the NSA is pointing people towards one, use the other. Unless their on to us and it's all an elaborate double-cross designed to trick us in that direction. Then we're doomed.
But ultimately, the lesson to take from the revelations of the last few months is that if the NSA wants in, they are getting in. It might be through broken keys, compromised providers, massive super-computer complexes brute-forcing the cipher, or even the $5 wrench, but they are getting that information. There will be no simple technical solution that delivers us from this problem; it will require a systemic change - through legal, economic and behavorial - to mitigate these vulnerabilities.
Today the government, under the Freedom of Information Act, released further evidence to its illegal spying on American citizens. However, it still adamantly refuses to actually stop the agencies from continuing in these actions. "I don't think it's our place", a Senator - insisting on anonymity - said.
"Yeah", one NSA agent was overheard saying. "It's no big thing that this information is out there. It's not as if we care what the people think anymore."
In response, the FBI announced it intends to one-up the NSA by revealing they shot Kennedy. "The NSA are just a bunch of Johnny-come-lately amateurs when it comes to screwing over the citizens of America. We've been doing illegal wiretaps for decades. And don't get me started on the fun stuff we did back under Hoover's administration; it's about time we got recognition for all that work!"
Asked if he worried that these relevations might have unexpected consequences, he said "Nah; it's obvious that the average citizen is so apathetic that we might as well flaunt our villainy. Anyway, what can they do? We have the power, the guns, the money. Let them whine on YouTube; we'll get to them soon enough."
A nearby CIA agent refused any comment as he drove off in what appeared to be an Area-51 flying saucer.
While data-brokers have my name, address, etc., what they DO NOT have is a 1-to-1 correlation between that data and my PC.
By using that tool, you are telling them that user Jon Doe can be definitively associated with IP: xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx, Network MAC: DE-AD-BE-EF, cookie RANDOM.TXT, email address:user@gullible.com and a specific browser footprint. Essentially, they can tie together all the data HUMANS use to identify one another with all the ways COMPUTERS on the internet identify each other. Without this, data-brokers can make some assumptions but providing the information on aboutthedata.com solidly confirms that connection
Just because they have some of the pieces is no reason to give them the rest.
Fortunately, there are free alternatives such as Eternal September, so long as you are willing to stick with the text-only groups (which are the best part of Usenet anyway). Completely free access; just register, download and configure your Usenet client and subscribe to your favorite groups. Not all the groups are dead, and more traffic from intelligent posters is always welcome;-)
Usenet has had its problems with trolls and spam (the latter having been the far worse problem since trolls were easily recognized and ignored) but it's main problem these days is a lack of traffic. Well, the text-only groups that is; the binary groups are, of course, saturated. But on the other hand, that lack of traffic does have a certain blessing; the few Usenet loyalists who remain are actually interested in the topics of their subscribed groups. They tend to stay largely on topic, avoid the rare troll and have a decent grasp of Usenet netiquette. It's actually rather pleasant. Plus, since there is so little traffic, you can check a day's worth of conversation in 15 minutes;-)
Still, I wouldn't mind if there were a/bit/ of a resurgence in Usenet. I'm willing to spend a full thirty minutes per day if I have to!
I've always thought that Eternal September should offer a fully-configured Usenet client with server settings and most popular newsgroups pre-subscribed for one-click installation. I've always felt it was the initial steps to get onto Usenet, and not the problems with the content itself, that were the major problem behind Usenet's decline...
There's a difference between selling advertising and selling user information.
And until around the turn of the century companies were able to get along quite well doing just the former (yes, some companies made a business of collecting and reselling information about people - "business intelligence" - but these were uncommon and spent their own money collecting that data, rather than tricking their users into giving it away for free).
The world - and the Internet - can get along quite well without the business tactics practiced by Facebook, Google, the NSA and other such privacy-invading agencies. Marketing and advertising was/not/ a cost-center prior to 2000. It doesn't/need/ these tactics to remain profitable. They saw how easy the Internet made things for them and got greedy.
And while I know I'm in the minority, I would be/quite/ willing to go back to the web of 1995 where advertising was not only exceedingly uncommon, but also not welcome on the net. The services is has "bought" us have not changed the Internet for the better. Even without advertising, companies would still put content on the web (the content itself would be the product, or their webpage would be a consumer portal) and hobbyists would still share the efforts with the world. Or at the very least, let's go back to 1999 when there were obnoxious banner adverts but no organized attempt to track everything a user did on every website into one giant marketing database.
And maybe those god-damn kids FINALLY get off my lawn too!
Furthermore, according to the article, this device is intended for the 4-6 crowd (whereas the 3DS is aimed at the 7 years plus gamers). It's larger shape may make it - somewhat non-intuitively - easier to hold (more area to grip) and the lack of a hinge adds some robustness to the design. The kid won't be carrying it around in their pockets; Mom and Dad will have it in their bag.
I don't know if this is what Nintendo was thinking (or if I would agree with that logic) but it may explain the change.
Plus, the unibody design is probably much cheaper to produce than the hinged clamshell of the original.
Try living through a blackout when your home is on the upper floors of a TALL (30+ stories) apartment building. Walking up those stairs after a long work day (and an even longer commute) on a hot summer day was/not/ a fun experience. In the dark, no less. Emergency generators for the elevators were, apparently, too much of an expense. And those batteries in the emergency lighting fixtures only last a few hours...
And I couldn't even get online to bitch about it once I got home! I mean, really; it was like living in the 20th century!
He's saying that the Judge smacked down Oracle's claim that they can copyright an API. Copyright weakened.
Meanwhile, another judge ruled that Xio, although using none of Tetris's code, still violates copyright because it infringes on the core concept or rules of the games. Copyright strengthened.
For example, if the IRS came out with a statement that said "We looked at a sample of 10,000 registered 501c3's, and found that 53 of them had not filed a return in the last 2 years. We revoked the 501c3 status on 51 of them, and are looking into assertions by 2 of them that they did file and we [the IRS] must have lost them." I'd look upon this action a lot more favorably.
This isn't some mustache-twirling conspiracy. X.org failed to file the paperwork and it caught up with them. The IRS does this to any organization "for failing to file an annual information return or notice with the IRS for three consecutive years". It wasn't as if IRS was turning a blind-eye to X.org until they were politically motivated to crack down on open source projects; three years is the default leeway granted. X.org screwed up their paperwork and it caught up with them, end of story.
In 50 years: * We will have returned to the moon. Or we won't. Definitely one or the other. * We will have self-driving cars, but they may not be in common use. * New drugs will have been invented. * Computers will be even faster and more capable than those of today! * There will be robots. Of some sort. * Rich people will continue to have power over the poorer members of society * Numerous wars will have been fought, altering the political spheres and influence of various nations * Music of the future will suck compared to what we grew up with, although the kids of that generation will love it.
It is also news because it indicates how the People In Power are thinking. And it is disturbing.
So what Lord Blair is saying is, paraphrased: "Oy, the government's actions are so sleazy that normal people no longer can sit aside and do nothing; they are ethically driven to release this information in hopes of forcing, through an informed populace, change in policy. Obviously then, the problem is people's principles and not the government actions that drove them to that extreme in the first place! We must put laws in place so people can not act on those principles!"
As opposed to:
"Increasingly the citizens of democratically-elected nations are showing their dissatisfaction with government policy through non-violent methods such as releasing classified documents revealing the government's wrong-doing. We should crack down on the government agents who are abusing the trust of those citizens and hold true to the laws and ideals of the nation, which will also cure the symptom of 'principled leaks'."
(which is idealistically what we want them to say)
It is news because people in authority are increasingly willing and vocal about how they want to abuse their authority to hide the fact that they have been abusing the authority. Not only does it indicate a shift in the attitudes of government towards its role in our society but also - by the total lack of diplomatic idiom - their total disregard for what their own citizens think about the situation.
I mean, at least call Snowden or Greenwald traitors so it looks as if they are the bad guys and the government is just fighting the good fight!
I always imagine the webserver as having an internal conversation that goes sort of like this...
Hey, a new visitor to the website? I wonder who he is? Well, I'll just drop a cookie on there to keep track of him... and, hmm, it seems he's blocking cookies. Oh well, let me just insert this bit of Javascript; that'll work just as well. Dear oh dear, it seems Javascript isn't working. No worries, I'll just insert a little 0-byte web-bug graphic and... wait? That's prevented as well? Damn it, Flash-cookie! That'll get him! WHAT?!?!? Disabled as well? E-Tag! That has to work, right? ARGH!!!!!
Gee... I wonder if he's trying to tell me something like, oh I don't know, "I don't like being tracked".
Nah, who doesn't like being pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered? I wonder if there's some other way I can use...
You might think at this point that companies and advertisers start getting the message. Instead, they just keep finding more and sleazier ways. All these technologies have valid uses but have been so abused by corporations and marketing that people increasingly don't trust it anywhere. It just further antagonizes the very people they are trying to connect with. And then they wonder why they lose the respect and trust of their customers, resulting in an ever-more aggressive relationship between the two.
Some days I dream about what the Internet might have been like had Canter and Siegel been definitively smacked down back in '94, setting an inviolable precedent that the 'Net was not a platform welcoming/any/ advertising. What repercussions might that have had on the world as a whole?
Slashdot Mirror
Sayeth the Wiki...
So it looks interesting, especially considering it was developed by one person. But given the lack of source I agree with most people here; it's a dead project.
I suppose Szeleney's hope is that by making it free but not open source he will bring it to the attention of some manufacturer who has need of an embedded OS (for their phone, tablet, whatever) and feels SkyOS may fit their needs. He then will either sell the code to them or offer to modify it to their needs. But, seeing as a) it's x86-only and b) he couldn't attract commercial attention to his OS four years ago when the project was still active, this seems a last-ditch attempt to cash in on his work. So while I wish him success, I also think he would have been better off just offering the project to the community.
Whatever happened to the concept of unalienable rights? That is, we aren't granted "rights" by the government; rather, we allow the government to infringe upon those rights for the purpose of maintaining a working society. I know it's an American notion and this is a story about workers in Great Britain, but it distresses me to see an increasing belief that it is a government that determines whether or not we are allowed certain rights. It's an attitude that grants them too much power because any rights not specifically codified are then assumed not to exist. If the laws don't specifically say I do /not/ have a right to privacy or a right not to be fingerprinted, then dammit, I do have those rights!
Remember, between government and citizen, who works for whom!
It's no longer, " 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help you", which was laughable even amongst its supporters.
Now it's the slightly more terrifying 'I'm from the government* and I am the ONLY one who is allowed help you".
An idea which they enforce with far more efficiency. After all, an independent, self-sufficient populace might get ideas otherwise. Why, they might even come up with the notion that the government is beholden to its people rather than the other way around!
I suppose the idea of working with these guys never occurred to FEMA? It sounds like they were providing useful data.
* (or one of its overpaid contractors)
The shift in policy is an intentional, if unwritten, strategy intended to keep America a competitive force in the world's economy.
In the past, America's power was based on its vast, untapped resources; steel, oil, cotton, grain, whatever - we had it and could rip it out of the ground cheaply. We sold these resources to the world and became rich. But these days other developing nations are willing to sell their resources far beyond what we can afford, and we can no longer depend on those resources as the primary engine of our economy.
Later, America's strength came from its industry; our factories produced high-quality goods in vast quantities. And we became rich again (well, even richer). But today, we've sold the technology to poorer nations, and their citizens are willing to work for wages that would starve our own people. So America can no longer depend on its industry to sustain it.
So instead, we've turned to our ingenuity and inventiveness as a way to ensure our dominance; our patents, our copyrights, our trademarks. We've hitched our wagon to the idea that our "intellectual property" will keep us a prominent force on the world stage. Of course, an idea is worthless unless somebody is willing to put it to use (the greatest movie in the world won't bring in a cent unless you get people to pay you to watch it). So we make all our ideas available to the world... for a price. And we have greatly bolstered our laws - and made clear our willingness to use force to defend those laws - to ensure that OUR ideas are not used without our receiving adequate recompense.
Except great ideas - the ones that bring in great wads of cash - are difficult to come by (Sturgeon's Law applies with ideas too) and while inspiration can be encouraged, it cannot be forced. So rather than depend on those rare strokes of genius, we ensure that even our less-stellar conceptions are protected the same way as the truly inspired ideas. Patents are increasingly granted on the most insignificant, inconsequential and mundane ideas because it brings in the money.
This is not to say there is some overreaching planned conspiracy; there was never a shadowy group of power-brokers chortling in some dark room as they moved the nation onto this new path. But America has always followed the path of money, and right now the big money is in intellectual property. Keeping its businesses strong makes strategic sense. Thus, we see an increased strengthening of certain laws (or weakening of others) to protect the interests of those businesses.
That's why there is little incentive to revamp the patent system, or bring copyright back down to sensible terms. It's why the American government is pushing so hard to enforce its copyright laws in other countries. It's why there is such a concern about copyright violations and why the Internet scares the people in power so much. American hegemony, they believe, is directly tied to how much intellectual property it owns, and how well it is protected.
I would guess his objection is that it probably was not the KVM Switch which "allowed data and contents of the desktop to be downloaded over the network", but the per-existing network infrastructure that did that. Unless they used some sort of custom device, it is unlikely that it created its own route (wirelessly?) out of the network or did anything to breach the network security. The KVM switch merely allowed the "hackers" to surreptitiously access the data and send it on its way to whatever nefarious data-haven the criminals had set up (probably Dropbox).
A subtle and admittedly pedantic difference, but an important one. Seeing as the purpose of the news industry is to - nominally - provide accurate and timely information, it is an unfortunate mistake. Whether it is an important distinction to the common reader is another question entirely. However, since they make it a point of actually mentioning the type of device, it would have been nice if they had taken the time to accurately describe its capabilities.
Else on Monday some hapless tech somewhere is going to be argue with a clueless CEO who fears that every KVM switch attached to the servers will allow hackers to remotely steal their data because the executive got the wrong message from the media.
She has a duty to the shareholders of Yahoo to do what is best for them.
And as an American, she also has a duty to her nation and her fellow citizens.
A nation founded on ideals expressed in its written Constitution, over which the NSA secret courts trample.
Her association with a corporation does not excuse her from that responsibility.
Nobody should ever be excused of working against the citizenry of this country simply because the profits of a corporation and its select shareholders were at risk.
Now, in this particular case, Ms Mayer seems to indicate that she is opposed to the orders and - through her organization - has fought these orders in court. Unfortunately, the courts ruled against her and Yahoo decided to obey the court orders. And despite her poor choice of words regarding the reasoning for her actions following the court's decision (e.g., "treason"), I'd even be willing to believe that she - and Yahoo - will continue to "fight the good fight", for whatever reason. So it seems that this is not just a case of protecting Yahoo shareholders and that's a good thing..
But the idea that the sole responsibility CEOs have is to their corporate masters needs to die.
Well, off the top of my head:
- There is more than one person living in my household. They sometimes like to play games as well (Ridge Racer Unbound is a favorite, for reasons not entirely clear to me). Currently we have to schedule gaming sessions to allow the other access to the games (I suppose the new Family Sharing" might work but then I'd have to create additional accounts and that all seems unnecessary)
- Friends drop by. They sometimes enjoy kicking back with a game on one PC while I play on another.
- I have left games paused on one computer and gone to play another on the other PC. Yes, I actually do this (for instance, I often single-play on the computer hooked up to the big-screen TV but multiplay on the PC on the desk; when a friend calls and suggests a game online, I just jump to the other computer).
- I want to purchase or download something with Steam sale on one PC while somebody is playing a game on the other computer
- I want to install a Steam game on one PC while continuing to play a game on the other.
These are all situations and frustrations I personally have experienced. There is little reason users should have to work around these problems when it is within the software's capabilities to offer an easier solution. It's time that Valve updates it's stone-age client to offer more modern features*. The "family sharing" is a small step in that direction but it doesn't solve all the problems. Steam's claim to fame (aside from its admittedly awesome sales) is that it's DRM is the least intrusive; above are issues where non-DRMd games (or even games using other methods of DRM than Steam) would not interfere with my gameplay as much as the restrictions forced on me by Valve's client. I'd think this is one area they might want to work on, especially as there are no technical or licensing issues to hinder their improvement in this area.
* of course, it took them until 2013 to offer throttled download speeds (and even now it doesn't work that well) so I guess I shouldn't expect too much from them
I'd just be happy if I could run Steam with the /same/ account on two (or more) different computers simultaneously. Not to play the same game, but having the ability to play one game on one PC and a completely different game on another seems like something those geniuses at Valve should have figured out how to do by now.
Unless that's what this update does. They say it allows you to "authorize another device" but that does not necessarily indicate the same account can be used at the same time.
Sadly, this is the state of the country that I was once taught was supposed to stand for freedom in the world.
Fortunately, it actually isn't.
That is not to say that there are not some decidedly concerning excesses being committed by the government and its partners. From overreach by the executive branch, to undisciplined agencies like the NSA running havoc across our Constitutionally-protected (but not granted, important difference!) rights, down to the increasing aggressiveness of our police force, there are undoubtedly serious problems we as a nation need to face up to and rectify. These symptoms are indicative of a very worrying trend and it is right for Americans - and, indeed, citizens across the world - to take note of and speak against.
But even cynical as I am, the despairing belief that the United States of America is currently little more than a well-disguised police-state is so blatantly false to anyone who lives here as to be laughable. I'll not deny that we might one day end in such a place and we must fight against it. But America still remains a bastion of freedom and while it may no longer be a beacon guiding others, it still shines brightly enough. That we can have this conversation without fear of retribution at all is testament to that fact. That (barring a further slide into tyranny) I expect to go through my life without worrying about ending up in a gulag for my particular beliefs is a testament to that fact. That I have an opportunity - however slight it may be - to help change the direction of this country should I chose to do so is testament to this fact.
I still believe - contrary even to my expectations - that most Americans hold true to the ideals of this nation and would, given the chance, work to correct this nation onto a more favorable path. This even includes many of those we've granted positions of authority over ourselves. But between the vast bureaucracy of the government, the confusing melange of messages we get from the media and the self machinations of corporations, it is easy for these same Americans to feel powerless and so they do nothing. It's less apathy than a lack of a clear direction; they want to keep this country true to its ideals but do not know how - and worse, do not believe they can effect a change.
So rather than despair I encourage people to remember what makes this nation great and fight against those who would destroy it for their own short-term gains. Don't just accept the status quo or through excess cynicism allow justice to slip through our fingers. Speak out against these illegal actions, both to fellow citizens and to your representatives in both the state and federal governments. More to the point, do not through inaction be an accomplice to such un-American activities such as the NSA has been enacting; take a stand against them. You don't have to directly oppose them, just don't be their agent; if there are those who wish to subvert the ideals of this nation, make them do their own dirty work. Even if your tiny resistance barely slows down the behemoth, combined we can force a new and better direction for this country. It's also why people in authority fear the Internet and strive to suborn its intent; it allows a collectivism amongst citizenry that has never before been possible. Use this great tool to encourage others - with words and ideas - to strive towards the great dream of America rather than merely accept an "inevitable boot to the face forever".
This nation is at a critical juncture and our leaders are either unwilling or feel unable to enforce a change. It's time to remind them who truly wields the power in America - its citizenry. Don't mourn the passing of our freedoms before we even lose them; instead, stand up for those freedoms and warn those who would take them away that's not where we want this country to go.
So don't use what they recommend, and don't use what they don't recommend. Makes the choice easy, doesn't it?
There's always the gripping hand...
NSA: Don't use ROT-13!
User 1: Ah, good advice. That's not secure.
NSA: Use elliptic curve encryption!
User 1: Ha! I know your tricks; you've already compromised that encryption, haven't you? I won't use it!
User 2: What about symetric-key encryption?
NSA: Shhhhh!
The NSA is interested in people using encryption /it/ can break but others cannot. This helps maintain its monopoly on secrets, which is the source of its power (that it may also be useful in protecting American businesses and interests from foreign penetration is a bonus). Therefore it will point you towards stronger tools if it can, so its advice is not totally without merit.
Whether its advice can be discounted totally because any suggestions they make are to direct people towards NSA-compromised ciphers is debatable but even if this is true, there are still options for users interested in securing their data; use the strong ciphers that the NSA specifically is not mentioning. If there are two encryption methods known to be equally strong and the NSA is pointing people towards one, use the other. Unless their on to us and it's all an elaborate double-cross designed to trick us in that direction. Then we're doomed.
But ultimately, the lesson to take from the revelations of the last few months is that if the NSA wants in, they are getting in. It might be through broken keys, compromised providers, massive super-computer complexes brute-forcing the cipher, or even the $5 wrench, but they are getting that information. There will be no simple technical solution that delivers us from this problem; it will require a systemic change - through legal, economic and behavorial - to mitigate these vulnerabilities.
Today the government, under the Freedom of Information Act, released further evidence to its illegal spying on American citizens. However, it still adamantly refuses to actually stop the agencies from continuing in these actions. "I don't think it's our place", a Senator - insisting on anonymity - said.
"Yeah", one NSA agent was overheard saying. "It's no big thing that this information is out there. It's not as if we care what the people think anymore."
In response, the FBI announced it intends to one-up the NSA by revealing they shot Kennedy. "The NSA are just a bunch of Johnny-come-lately amateurs when it comes to screwing over the citizens of America. We've been doing illegal wiretaps for decades. And don't get me started on the fun stuff we did back under Hoover's administration; it's about time we got recognition for all that work!"
Asked if he worried that these relevations might have unexpected consequences, he said "Nah; it's obvious that the average citizen is so apathetic that we might as well flaunt our villainy. Anyway, what can they do? We have the power, the guns, the money. Let them whine on YouTube; we'll get to them soon enough."
A nearby CIA agent refused any comment as he drove off in what appeared to be an Area-51 flying saucer.
While data-brokers have my name, address, etc., what they DO NOT have is a 1-to-1 correlation between that data and my PC.
By using that tool, you are telling them that user Jon Doe can be definitively associated with IP: xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx, Network MAC: DE-AD-BE-EF, cookie RANDOM.TXT, email address:user@gullible.com and a specific browser footprint. Essentially, they can tie together all the data HUMANS use to identify one another with all the ways COMPUTERS on the internet identify each other. Without this, data-brokers can make some assumptions but providing the information on aboutthedata.com solidly confirms that connection
Just because they have some of the pieces is no reason to give them the rest.
Fortunately, there are free alternatives such as Eternal September, so long as you are willing to stick with the text-only groups (which are the best part of Usenet anyway). Completely free access; just register, download and configure your Usenet client and subscribe to your favorite groups. Not all the groups are dead, and more traffic from intelligent posters is always welcome ;-)
Usenet has had its problems with trolls and spam (the latter having been the far worse problem since trolls were easily recognized and ignored) but it's main problem these days is a lack of traffic. Well, the text-only groups that is; the binary groups are, of course, saturated. But on the other hand, that lack of traffic does have a certain blessing; the few Usenet loyalists who remain are actually interested in the topics of their subscribed groups. They tend to stay largely on topic, avoid the rare troll and have a decent grasp of Usenet netiquette. It's actually rather pleasant. Plus, since there is so little traffic, you can check a day's worth of conversation in 15 minutes ;-)
Still, I wouldn't mind if there were a /bit/ of a resurgence in Usenet. I'm willing to spend a full thirty minutes per day if I have to!
I've always thought that Eternal September should offer a fully-configured Usenet client with server settings and most popular newsgroups pre-subscribed for one-click installation. I've always felt it was the initial steps to get onto Usenet, and not the problems with the content itself, that were the major problem behind Usenet's decline...
Wheels are turning, China; wheels are turning.
There's a difference between selling advertising and selling user information.
And until around the turn of the century companies were able to get along quite well doing just the former (yes, some companies made a business of collecting and reselling information about people - "business intelligence" - but these were uncommon and spent their own money collecting that data, rather than tricking their users into giving it away for free).
The world - and the Internet - can get along quite well without the business tactics practiced by Facebook, Google, the NSA and other such privacy-invading agencies. Marketing and advertising was /not/ a cost-center prior to 2000. It doesn't /need/ these tactics to remain profitable. They saw how easy the Internet made things for them and got greedy.
And while I know I'm in the minority, I would be /quite/ willing to go back to the web of 1995 where advertising was not only exceedingly uncommon, but also not welcome on the net. The services is has "bought" us have not changed the Internet for the better. Even without advertising, companies would still put content on the web (the content itself would be the product, or their webpage would be a consumer portal) and hobbyists would still share the efforts with the world. Or at the very least, let's go back to 1999 when there were obnoxious banner adverts but no organized attempt to track everything a user did on every website into one giant marketing database.
And maybe those god-damn kids FINALLY get off my lawn too!
I want this domain:
DotDashDash-Dash-DotDotDashDot.Dot
(yes, it's basically the Slashdot domain joke on steroids)
Plus you have the added advantage of, you know, a death ray ;-)
Fear my flimsy sails of light-reflecting doom!
Furthermore, according to the article, this device is intended for the 4-6 crowd (whereas the 3DS is aimed at the 7 years plus gamers). It's larger shape may make it - somewhat non-intuitively - easier to hold (more area to grip) and the lack of a hinge adds some robustness to the design. The kid won't be carrying it around in their pockets; Mom and Dad will have it in their bag.
I don't know if this is what Nintendo was thinking (or if I would agree with that logic) but it may explain the change.
Plus, the unibody design is probably much cheaper to produce than the hinged clamshell of the original.
Try living through a blackout when your home is on the upper floors of a TALL (30+ stories) apartment building. Walking up those stairs after a long work day (and an even longer commute) on a hot summer day was /not/ a fun experience. In the dark, no less. Emergency generators for the elevators were, apparently, too much of an expense. And those batteries in the emergency lighting fixtures only last a few hours...
And I couldn't even get online to bitch about it once I got home! I mean, really; it was like living in the 20th century!
He's saying that the Judge smacked down Oracle's claim that they can copyright an API. Copyright weakened.
Meanwhile, another judge ruled that Xio, although using none of Tetris's code, still violates copyright because it infringes on the core concept or rules of the games. Copyright strengthened.
For example, if the IRS came out with a statement that said "We looked at a sample of 10,000 registered 501c3's, and found that 53 of them had not filed a return in the last 2 years. We revoked the 501c3 status on 51 of them, and are looking into assertions by 2 of them that they did file and we [the IRS] must have lost them." I'd look upon this action a lot more favorably.
They have
This isn't some mustache-twirling conspiracy. X.org failed to file the paperwork and it caught up with them. The IRS does this to any organization "for failing to file an annual information return or notice with the IRS for three consecutive years". It wasn't as if IRS was turning a blind-eye to X.org until they were politically motivated to crack down on open source projects; three years is the default leeway granted. X.org screwed up their paperwork and it caught up with them, end of story.
I can reliably predict the future!
In 50 years:
* We will have returned to the moon. Or we won't. Definitely one or the other.
* We will have self-driving cars, but they may not be in common use.
* New drugs will have been invented.
* Computers will be even faster and more capable than those of today!
* There will be robots. Of some sort.
* Rich people will continue to have power over the poorer members of society
* Numerous wars will have been fought, altering the political spheres and influence of various nations
* Music of the future will suck compared to what we grew up with, although the kids of that generation will love it.
It is also news because it indicates how the People In Power are thinking. And it is disturbing.
So what Lord Blair is saying is, paraphrased:
"Oy, the government's actions are so sleazy that normal people no longer can sit aside and do nothing; they are ethically driven to release this information in hopes of forcing, through an informed populace, change in policy. Obviously then, the problem is people's principles and not the government actions that drove them to that extreme in the first place! We must put laws in place so people can not act on those principles!"
As opposed to:
"Increasingly the citizens of democratically-elected nations are showing their dissatisfaction with government policy through non-violent methods such as releasing classified documents revealing the government's wrong-doing. We should crack down on the government agents who are abusing the trust of those citizens and hold true to the laws and ideals of the nation, which will also cure the symptom of 'principled leaks'."
(which is idealistically what we want them to say)
It is news because people in authority are increasingly willing and vocal about how they want to abuse their authority to hide the fact that they have been abusing the authority. Not only does it indicate a shift in the attitudes of government towards its role in our society but also - by the total lack of diplomatic idiom - their total disregard for what their own citizens think about the situation.
I mean, at least call Snowden or Greenwald traitors so it looks as if they are the bad guys and the government is just fighting the good fight!
I always imagine the webserver as having an internal conversation that goes sort of like this...
You might think at this point that companies and advertisers start getting the message. Instead, they just keep finding more and sleazier ways. All these technologies have valid uses but have been so abused by corporations and marketing that people increasingly don't trust it anywhere. It just further antagonizes the very people they are trying to connect with. And then they wonder why they lose the respect and trust of their customers, resulting in an ever-more aggressive relationship between the two.
Some days I dream about what the Internet might have been like had Canter and Siegel been definitively smacked down back in '94, setting an inviolable precedent that the 'Net was not a platform welcoming /any/ advertising. What repercussions might that have had on the world as a whole?