My cpu monitoring app, norton antivirus, etc... all have to be given permission to run, it really pisses me off.
This is not Microsoft's fault. Your apps need to run in admin mode, which Microsoft told the developers not to do. It is not that hard to make your apps MS security friendly (as a developer), considering I've had to do that on our current product. Basically, Microsoft has been put in a position of being asked to magically know which apps need admin access and which do not. Granted, if MS had enforced security from day 1, it would not be an issue, but the problem is not that they are enforcing security rules now. The problem is that developers go too used to abusing permissions they should not have had./rant
So, if someone started coming to an American company with a claim that they should be filtering all of the things which are illegal in, say, Iran... would the American companies tell them to go fsck themselves, or would they happily comply? (Or, in this case, I guess an Australian company being asked to censor based off what's legal in Indonesia might be more apt.)
If the US would respect an extradition request from Iran for whatever content is being distributed, I would imagine the American comapany would comply (although not happily). What Universal says is, "you are breaking US law, we will sue you in US courts." Because of treaties, Canada would ship him off. If Iran said, "You are breaking Iranian law by listening to Western music," they would laugh because Canada will back them up.
An interesting corallary is downloading encryption software. Iranians cannot download encryption software from US sites, although that is because of the US government.
If I really believed that Comcast/AT&T would increase my bandwidth at other times so that I averaged the X mbps I pay for, and the person sending me data could send it to me in spurts as efficently, I wouldn't mind as much. But I doubt ISPs do, and I'm almost certain servers sending me data cannot.
Instead of a snide remark, if you want to explain why I am wrong, I will listen. However, my point is that I do not understand why my connection should suffer in any way. It seems to me that if you are prioritizing someone else's packets, than they are sent instead of mine which makes my connection slower, at least at those times.
When you apply for a patent, that's the day the prior art becomes effective. So if wikipedia did it after they filed, then that prior art would not count. Not saying it is not a stupid patent, but just wanted to point out, as a general rule, these things can take 5+ years to become live, so sometimes prior art comes around after a company starts using the patent-pending technology and others copy it.
You're never, ever going to realign the definition of the term, not even if you did more than post on slashdot about it (which you won't). Do what you do with every other word in the damn language, and use it the same way everyone else does.
Yes and no. Within the slashdot community, the word hacker has a different meaning. It is stupid to expect that meaning to apply outside slashdot, but inside one expects the word "hacker" not to get thrown around so much. Much like using "weight" at a physicists convention means something different (and more accurate) than in the locker room at your gym.
It may hover in ground effect but I doubt that it can fly out side of it.
I would bet a large sum of money it could not exceed an altitude ceiling of seven feet (granted, I cheated, see my name). Since it only goes that high, and he recognizes it lacks instruments, I think he's safe for now.
For someone trying to point out the scariness of a Microsoft controlled world, you left out the golden idols to Gates and left in a lot of irrelevent negatives or even positives.
You use Windows at work, hear about a cool new show, but can't look up anything about it, because your browser been locked down by the domain administrator to stop you visiting personal websites in office hours.
So the administrator uses his privledges to restrict what sites you can go to. Except for the fact that he is your domain administrator, and thus using MS tools, this is something the admin could do on Linux (I know) or OSX (I imagine.) It may be a stupid IT policy, but to blame Microsoft for allowing administrators to administer is nothing but noise.
You try to schedule the recording via your Windows Mobile smartphone, but there's no cell signal and the battery dies shortly after from the power drain of trying to use it with your work encryption on the wireless.
Do you have any evidence Windows Mobile phones are especially bad at this? The only phones I've heard about totally screwing with wireless have been iPhones.
You come home to your XBox, which has tried to record all of your previous TV shows, but silently stopped working because it couldn't update the guide data, same as MCE. You spend some time trying to force it to download the guide data from your perfectly good home internet connection, but only a reboot fixes it, for no good reason.
Sounds like there is an annoying bug that needs to be fixed. But a reboot is the only way I can fix a ton of electronic products including by Apple, Sony, and RCA. Hell, I've even hard to reboot my TV. So I don't condsider it an MS-only problem. In fact, absent when the code I'm writing crashes it, I reboot MS devices once a week and Apple machines (typically G4's) once a week. So I consider them roughly equivalent in that regard.
You finally manually schedule that cool new show you wanted, and then you find out the broadcaster has flagged it with the do-not-record marker, and your xbox won't even allow you to record it.
As does TiVo, etc...
You decide to try and watch one of your previously recorded shows, only to find the last 5 minutes has been lost because it screwed up the clock.
Does MS have a clock problem I am not familar with?
You'd save it to your Windows Home Server in the closet, but the mofo died from overheating in your poorly ventilated closet,
Sounds like a user error. Heat kills all electronics.
You'd fire up your Windows Media Center computer and watch it from there, but MCE sucks at sharing media with other MCE boxes, and besides, you don't have the codec installed.
But in your hypothetical story, you never downloaded the show. That's why you cannot watch it over your LAN. See how easy these problems are to debug?
besides, you don't have the codec installed.
Again, a problem on every platform...
You try watching it off the Xbox, but it just red-ringed of death from overheating because you left it running all day.
My 360 does not overheat. Maybe because I do not put it in a poorly ventillated spot. I dunno...
You give up on TV, and go to check your email, only to find out you've just had your account cancelled by the only ISP in your area for going over your 1GB a day limit on your unlimited super-amazing mega-expensive account, and you've just been sued by viacom for copyright infringement for downloading a show you could have watched on TV if you didn't have to work 14 hours a day to pay for your bandwidth bill and windows licences
Yay. Microsoft is evil and monopolostic. ISPs are evil and monopolistic. Therefore Microsoft == ISPs. Frankly, you will have a far easier time convincing me that Comcast/ATT/TimeWarnerCable should be beaten into submission by the feds than any other part of your story.
As a result, the airlines have been under continued pressure to reduce costs to stay competitive. This has resulted in charging for meals and in some cases, even pillows.
This will not reduce costs however. In fact, because luggage is queued in a specific order, it will increase costs. It's strictly a way to try to add yet another fee that won't show up on orbitz/travelocity/whatever and seem cheaper.
QoS is legal[1], and it should exist[2]. Prioritizing classes of traffic is OK.
These are two seperate issues. Since there are no net neutrallity laws, legallity is an irrelevent argument. In fact, it is a meaningless argument when debating what the law should be. Your second point is that prioritizing classes of traffic is OK, and therefore QoS should be fine. However, I pay for a X MBPS connection. If I want to send random bits (real random bits, not codeword for copyright infringement), it should not be up to my provider to determine how fast they send depending on the protocol. Since I pay for a certain connection, I should get that connection. Now if I, or the party I am communicating with, opts to limit the speed, that is a different story.
Net Neutrality opponents like to bleat the Anti-QoS line because it's the easiest way to spread FUD, when they really mean "Google, pay us, or we'll make your page take ages to load, while making Windows Live Search load instantly".
Really, what happens when Google has to pay $X to get a key to use httpsf (hyper-text transfer protocal secure & fast) a very highly prioritized in QoS and secure protocol invented by Comcast.
As a condition of an aquisition, usually key people are tied to the company for 1-2 years with golden handcuffs, and then have noncompetes. The key people are going to be the ones with a stake in the aquisition going forward (or are offered one since they can hold up the works.) If MS was to aquire my company for instance, I would be required (by virtue of a large payout at the end) to stay with the company by several years. I would also be required (by virtue of the contract I would sign with MS/my employer as a precondition of the deal) not to work in the same field for some number (5?) of years. In both cases, I could refuse to sign the contract, but then I would turn down a lot money and possibly kill the deal for all my coworkers.
Are there Baccarat-related questions in the job interview?
Other than, what is the house edge (1.24%, 1.04%, and 14.44% depending on the bet), what baccarat questions could there be? It's an entirely deterministic game.
Now maybe the "net neutrality isn't important because we can trust giant corporations not to screw their customers crowd" will shut up. Of course, the people getting paid to lobby or keep those bills out of Congress won't change their mind, but maybe regular people will. And that's a step in the right direction.
This story does make me wish I was not boycotting Comcast already though, so I could boycott it for this.
Microsoft may be many things, but stupid is not one of them. I would bet substaintal sums of money that the staff will have signed non-competes keeping them from working on any non-MS fork (and maybe any other OSS as well). Actually, umpteen gazillion dollars may not be a bad price to take out the various project leaders. Let us be honest, without good managment familiar with the source, large-scale OSS projects are impossible. And a rapid decapitation may take years to recover from.
There is no viable alternative to linguistic precision. Ultimately rules will be interperted in one way as being the "correct" way. Other rules will appeal to those rules as a precident. The system has repeated like that for over two millenia, hence the barrier to entry. However, physics, mathematics, biology and numerous other fields have the same specialization of knowledge. We do not require that mathematicians rework everything from scratch every 20 years to allow newcomers equal access.
In answer to your other question, part of the reason is that "interstate commerce" is a short phrase. If the founders had intended full legal clarity, the constitution would be far, far longer, and unable to be read on a whim or in a civics class. Additionally, unlike laws which are frequently updated, the constitution is meant to be difficult to change, but easy to apply to new situations. Lastly, the entire constitution presumes that the various branches of the government, as well as state vs. federal wrangling, would be what ensured that things would be kept in balance, not a piece of paper. The last two amendments to the Bill of Rights enshrine the idea that the constitution is meant, primarily, as a guideline and framework, more interperted by the spirit than the letter, to run the country rather than an exhaustive codification of the rules.
Lastly, your comment about "activist judges" irks me to no end, primarily because the phrase is used as a codeword by Republicans to indicate judges who take a liberal view, usually by attempting to enforce that pesky first or fourth amendment. It never gets applied to judges who change state/federal law in a way that the Republican party approves. A larger objection would be that judges merely rule on cases that other people (activists) bring before them. They then interpert the laws of this country as best they can.
If I understand correctly, any Senator can stop a bill from coming to a vote by informing his the leadership of his party. Although there is no legal reason why this would be the case, it is a curtesy. In return, senators use holds infrequently. I thought the holds were supposed to be confidental and used primarily for the benefit of large contributors.
Ah, but I discover a way of doing X with a ruler 11.99 or 12.01 inches long. Or a nongraduated 12 inch metal stick. Then I am free to violate it. That's why simple words (Ruler, 12 inches) are replaced by paragraphs covering many possibilities.
Can copyright really be used to limit the conditions under which people can read/view materials that have already been distributed?
IANAL, but no. Copyright allows me to make you sign a contract that states you'll only say nice things about my book as a precondition for getting a copy, but not to give you a copy and then make that claim. I can sell you a CD with the condition that you not use it on vile Windows computers, but not ex post facto.
Slashdot Mirror
They would sure based on where the downloader is, not where the company is located.
IANAL
This is not Microsoft's fault. Your apps need to run in admin mode, which Microsoft told the developers not to do. It is not that hard to make your apps MS security friendly (as a developer), considering I've had to do that on our current product. Basically, Microsoft has been put in a position of being asked to magically know which apps need admin access and which do not. Granted, if MS had enforced security from day 1, it would not be an issue, but the problem is not that they are enforcing security rules now. The problem is that developers go too used to abusing permissions they should not have had. /rant
If the US would respect an extradition request from Iran for whatever content is being distributed, I would imagine the American comapany would comply (although not happily). What Universal says is, "you are breaking US law, we will sue you in US courts." Because of treaties, Canada would ship him off. If Iran said, "You are breaking Iranian law by listening to Western music," they would laugh because Canada will back them up.
An interesting corallary is downloading encryption software. Iranians cannot download encryption software from US sites, although that is because of the US government.
If I really believed that Comcast/AT&T would increase my bandwidth at other times so that I averaged the X mbps I pay for, and the person sending me data could send it to me in spurts as efficently, I wouldn't mind as much. But I doubt ISPs do, and I'm almost certain servers sending me data cannot.
Instead of a snide remark, if you want to explain why I am wrong, I will listen. However, my point is that I do not understand why my connection should suffer in any way. It seems to me that if you are prioritizing someone else's packets, than they are sent instead of mine which makes my connection slower, at least at those times.
When you apply for a patent, that's the day the prior art becomes effective. So if wikipedia did it after they filed, then that prior art would not count. Not saying it is not a stupid patent, but just wanted to point out, as a general rule, these things can take 5+ years to become live, so sometimes prior art comes around after a company starts using the patent-pending technology and others copy it.
Why wouldn't you mind QOS? My traffic gets my speed damnit.
What is the Jargon File?
Yes and no. Within the slashdot community, the word hacker has a different meaning. It is stupid to expect that meaning to apply outside slashdot, but inside one expects the word "hacker" not to get thrown around so much. Much like using "weight" at a physicists convention means something different (and more accurate) than in the locker room at your gym.
I would bet a large sum of money it could not exceed an altitude ceiling of seven feet (granted, I cheated, see my name). Since it only goes that high, and he recognizes it lacks instruments, I think he's safe for now.
Not true, ones have slightly more mass than zeros, so they weight a tad more than zeroing out that section of your drive!
Note, my source is Dilbert. But it was right about smaller font sizes leading to smaller .doc sizes as well.
I'm sure the government would be happy to foot the bill if you waive all your constitutional rights...
For someone trying to point out the scariness of a Microsoft controlled world, you left out the golden idols to Gates and left in a lot of irrelevent negatives or even positives.
So the administrator uses his privledges to restrict what sites you can go to. Except for the fact that he is your domain administrator, and thus using MS tools, this is something the admin could do on Linux (I know) or OSX (I imagine.) It may be a stupid IT policy, but to blame Microsoft for allowing administrators to administer is nothing but noise.
Do you have any evidence Windows Mobile phones are especially bad at this? The only phones I've heard about totally screwing with wireless have been iPhones.
Sounds like there is an annoying bug that needs to be fixed. But a reboot is the only way I can fix a ton of electronic products including by Apple, Sony, and RCA. Hell, I've even hard to reboot my TV. So I don't condsider it an MS-only problem. In fact, absent when the code I'm writing crashes it, I reboot MS devices once a week and Apple machines (typically G4's) once a week. So I consider them roughly equivalent in that regard.
As does TiVo, etc...
Does MS have a clock problem I am not familar with?
Sounds like a user error. Heat kills all electronics.
But in your hypothetical story, you never downloaded the show. That's why you cannot watch it over your LAN. See how easy these problems are to debug?
Again, a problem on every platform...
My 360 does not overheat. Maybe because I do not put it in a poorly ventillated spot. I dunno...
Yay. Microsoft is evil and monopolostic. ISPs are evil and monopolistic. Therefore Microsoft == ISPs. Frankly, you will have a far easier time convincing me that Comcast/ATT/TimeWarnerCable should be beaten into submission by the feds than any other part of your story.
This will not reduce costs however. In fact, because luggage is queued in a specific order, it will increase costs. It's strictly a way to try to add yet another fee that won't show up on orbitz/travelocity/whatever and seem cheaper.
Come on, I love verbing words.
Sir, you are the one confusing my position.
These are two seperate issues. Since there are no net neutrallity laws, legallity is an irrelevent argument. In fact, it is a meaningless argument when debating what the law should be. Your second point is that prioritizing classes of traffic is OK, and therefore QoS should be fine. However, I pay for a X MBPS connection. If I want to send random bits (real random bits, not codeword for copyright infringement), it should not be up to my provider to determine how fast they send depending on the protocol. Since I pay for a certain connection, I should get that connection. Now if I, or the party I am communicating with, opts to limit the speed, that is a different story.
Really, what happens when Google has to pay $X to get a key to use httpsf (hyper-text transfer protocal secure & fast) a very highly prioritized in QoS and secure protocol invented by Comcast.
As a condition of an aquisition, usually key people are tied to the company for 1-2 years with golden handcuffs, and then have noncompetes. The key people are going to be the ones with a stake in the aquisition going forward (or are offered one since they can hold up the works.) If MS was to aquire my company for instance, I would be required (by virtue of a large payout at the end) to stay with the company by several years. I would also be required (by virtue of the contract I would sign with MS/my employer as a precondition of the deal) not to work in the same field for some number (5?) of years. In both cases, I could refuse to sign the contract, but then I would turn down a lot money and possibly kill the deal for all my coworkers.
Other than, what is the house edge (1.24%, 1.04%, and 14.44% depending on the bet), what baccarat questions could there be? It's an entirely deterministic game.
Now maybe the "net neutrality isn't important because we can trust giant corporations not to screw their customers crowd" will shut up. Of course, the people getting paid to lobby or keep those bills out of Congress won't change their mind, but maybe regular people will. And that's a step in the right direction.
This story does make me wish I was not boycotting Comcast already though, so I could boycott it for this.
Microsoft may be many things, but stupid is not one of them. I would bet substaintal sums of money that the staff will have signed non-competes keeping them from working on any non-MS fork (and maybe any other OSS as well). Actually, umpteen gazillion dollars may not be a bad price to take out the various project leaders. Let us be honest, without good managment familiar with the source, large-scale OSS projects are impossible. And a rapid decapitation may take years to recover from.
They scan laptops. Or at least they scan mine. And I don't think I lose any data
There is no viable alternative to linguistic precision. Ultimately rules will be interperted in one way as being the "correct" way. Other rules will appeal to those rules as a precident. The system has repeated like that for over two millenia, hence the barrier to entry. However, physics, mathematics, biology and numerous other fields have the same specialization of knowledge. We do not require that mathematicians rework everything from scratch every 20 years to allow newcomers equal access.
In answer to your other question, part of the reason is that "interstate commerce" is a short phrase. If the founders had intended full legal clarity, the constitution would be far, far longer, and unable to be read on a whim or in a civics class. Additionally, unlike laws which are frequently updated, the constitution is meant to be difficult to change, but easy to apply to new situations. Lastly, the entire constitution presumes that the various branches of the government, as well as state vs. federal wrangling, would be what ensured that things would be kept in balance, not a piece of paper. The last two amendments to the Bill of Rights enshrine the idea that the constitution is meant, primarily, as a guideline and framework, more interperted by the spirit than the letter, to run the country rather than an exhaustive codification of the rules.
Lastly, your comment about "activist judges" irks me to no end, primarily because the phrase is used as a codeword by Republicans to indicate judges who take a liberal view, usually by attempting to enforce that pesky first or fourth amendment. It never gets applied to judges who change state/federal law in a way that the Republican party approves. A larger objection would be that judges merely rule on cases that other people (activists) bring before them. They then interpert the laws of this country as best they can.
If I understand correctly, any Senator can stop a bill from coming to a vote by informing his the leadership of his party. Although there is no legal reason why this would be the case, it is a curtesy. In return, senators use holds infrequently. I thought the holds were supposed to be confidental and used primarily for the benefit of large contributors.
Ah, but I discover a way of doing X with a ruler 11.99 or 12.01 inches long. Or a nongraduated 12 inch metal stick. Then I am free to violate it. That's why simple words (Ruler, 12 inches) are replaced by paragraphs covering many possibilities.
IANAL, but no. Copyright allows me to make you sign a contract that states you'll only say nice things about my book as a precondition for getting a copy, but not to give you a copy and then make that claim. I can sell you a CD with the condition that you not use it on vile Windows computers, but not ex post facto.