As more and more DRM "solutions" are deployed, and the DRM systems themselves get larger, more complex, and more expensive, I think you'll find it not far from the truth that: "Process killing" IS the Software Industry.
Why not just make the games single player stand alone and ADD the networking stuff on as another mode. That way, the games don't require PSN for people to play them. Or use your own 3rd party server which would probably be even worse.
In most competitive games there is no bank of dedicated servers -- one of the player's machines is the "server". Why not simply allow unranked matches between peers?
For example, "Unranked Matches > Custom Match > Join Server > Enter the IP of the game server to join."
Thus, when PSN or XBL is unavailable (which has happened for maintenance, it did piss me off) the players will still be able to play.
In PSN's case, since it's already free, WHY NOT? It's not like they'll be losing money by doing so.
The secret joke of the "online" is that it's just a DRM mechanism designed to keep people from playing games -- Eg: I can't play Halo2 online in a custom match, even though all of my friends have started the game, and our XBoxes are talking to eachother (party chat) and all of our consoles know that the others' have loaded the game -- we can verify this by looking at the Halo2 icon next to our names on the friends list...
So, then we fire up OpenVPN and join a system link game over the Internet, and we're all playing Halo2 online -- XBL was not even needed for this -- We're just using it to coordinate our play-times and for the voice chat feature.
If you've ever seen "Selecting New Host" or other similar message, you'll realize that the XBL and PNS is actually just made up of the machines everyone purchased (Host == Server). Only a small number of "matchmaking" and/or media / score tracking & DRM servers exist in comparison to control how the masses play their games. In the case of Halo2 (and all original Xbox games) they've artificially obsoleted the games' Internet play features -- They want you to play the new games, not enjoy the older games.
Personally, I won't buy a game that doesn't support system link (LAN play) -- VPN stands for Virtual Player Network to me.
Can anyone remind me why we're putting EVERYTHING in a web browser anyway?
Simple. Because we really don't give a fuck about web browsers.
All we really want / need is a cross platform widely distributed standardized* text & graphics display environment that can be manipulated via client side scripting, and can communicate with server side processes; And for "applications" or "services" created with such a system to be easily discoverable by our users.
* Yes, we need across the board standards conformance for stability and to reduce development costs, too bad we don't really have it yet.
We couldn't really give two shits if that's HTML in a browser with JavaScript, or a any other technology -- it just so happens that Browsers are ubiquitous. Ergo, the success of: Software Repositories on *nix, App Stores for mobile devices, the Internet + HTML/Scripting & search.
IMHO, we should ditch JS for Lua -- it can be compiled or interpreted, and has a much simpler design which takes less code (and is easier to secure as a result) It's easier to optimize and its language constructs can be used to provide any feature that JS language has. Other VM and scripting languages come to mind as well... actually, It's hard NOT to find a language that's better than JS*. (Hence Chrome <script type="python"> and other native client features -- though this is the wrong way to go, we need a broadly supported language with a standardized feature-set that isn't slow as frozen molasses.)
( ) This is my first time using a computer/the internet and you're asking me to give an answer on something I consider a reasonably complex technical question which might, based on my uninformed answer, then go on to affect all my future experiences (example, by blanket banning cookies and having a poorer user experience or by blanket allowing them and suffering loss of privacy)
The reason we have a mechanism like cookies that silently writes this information in the first place is because sufficient users can't or don't want to understand what they are or how they work. We've had the ability to disable them almost since year dot and yet we're still having to implement laws because people can't or don't want to figure out what they are and how to turn them off. Badly thought out legislation will have huge development costs to business and confuse the hell out of users.
Perhaps you missed this option: ( ) Use the recommended action of your chosen privacy advisor service: allow for 1 session only
This could be made default...
To be perfectly fair: IMO, Computer illiterate people should not be using things they do not understand.
They may make bad decisions about their privacy and or fall for Trojans or Scare-Ware -- which happen to be the majority of the installed malware I encounter.
I work on my own cars; I recently rebuilt my manual transmission. I will not tamper with my GF's car's transmission -- It's automatic, I don't have the interest, time or money to learn about these more complex parts, ergo: I will not fiddle with them (in fact, I will not even buy them, but I will drive them because I have taken the time to learn how to operate them), I will higher other more capable individuals to perform tasks on my behalf that I do not fully understand -- To do otherwise is very risky!
For whatever reason, people fail to apply the common sense wisdom of "If you don't understand it, don't mess with it" to computers. If you can't be bothered to learn how to operate them, then stay off of our information superhighway.
Also note: I have taught several seniors computer literacy, and they would not be confused by a prompt such as this. Typically when one come across something that one needs help understanding, one should seek education, if not, who cares if they proceed blindly? (They aren't going to learn any way) -- I would hate to apply your logic to drivers' licenses, BTW.
Lastly, for many people firing up their browser for the first time is not firing up A browser for the first time -- They could be computer literate individuals who have just installed a new browser or OS, or purchased a new computer.
Note: The shit programming is there because they wanted to attract a broader audience -- Hence them dropping the "nerd's only" Science Fiction abbreviation and adopting some syphilis sounding name... SyFy
Even the SciFi shows themselves have been dumbed down (little to no hard sci-fi; It's mostly just fantasy-fi in my book), romantic interludes and who's mating with who drama are inserted for no apparent reason other than to attract the "wider" audience (those with narrower minds who can't pay attention unless erotica is involved -- hence "wrestling" shows for those wrestling with their latent sexual tendencies...).
Shows that get dropped are dropped because SyFy doesn't care about SciFi, they care about viewer-ship. Let's face it, there just isn't enough interest from intellectuals to generate the numbers needed to convince the Nealson hypnotized execs that SciFi is worth anything, esp. not at this late stage in the game.
Perhaps if they transitioned to support media consumption technologies that the geeks get excited about (instead of TV), they could re-claim their niche. As it stands, they see the niche dwindling and say: "Add More Tard TV, the geeks have left the building"
I hate any system where you can buy "points" but have no way of changing points back to money. Thye know that they are on to a good thing - either you spend it, which often means adding more, or you leave it as a zero-interest loan to them (which also falls outside any financial regulations or compensation schemes should they go bust).
Point taken -- However, MS does (or at least they did when I did it) let you link your credit card to your XBL account. Thus, you can complain to your credit card company about undelivered product, and have the charges removed -- I wonder if digital goods are covered under the purchase insurance?
I'd like to offer another POV: It's nice to allow kids without bank accounts or credit cards to spend their allowance on MS points & XBL subscriptions so they are not excluded from the online world (which is increasingly a more important part of games).
It's also nice that when your servers are infiltrated, everyone who has been only using the MS points is protected from having their credit card numbers exposed.
(Note: the same applies to Sony's equivalent of MS points -- sorry, I can't force myself to care enough to even Google info about mfg's I boycott)
"wondering what it would mean for Linux users" - It means you're fucked! Sadly.
No, it only means that those who traded convenience for freedom get fucked, even on (especially on) Linux.
Fortunately, I only use free software with my GNU/Linux distribution, thus when proprietary software makes its round of fucking people, to me seems like air-humping -- I point and laugh.
The definition of a computer file, from wiktionary: "An aggregation of data on a storage device, identified by a name."
That definition was what I was taught when I studied CS in the 80's too, it goes back to the 60's.
That definition clashes with the Unix philosophy of "Everything is a file" which allows us to abstract from different peripheral devices and treat them all uniformly.
Is/dev/disk0 a file? I'd say no, because it is the storage device, not just the data on it. (E.g. you can use it to query the SMART status of the storage device which I would not count as the data stored on it.)
Is/dev/kmem a file? It's data, but it's not on storage, but in volatile memory.
Most files below/proc are not even data at all, but state. (I.e. their informational value depends on the time they are queried.)
Also, a database file is usually not a text-file, because it contains data that is not human-readable.
Have you written any code to access those? Guess what, you use a FILE DESCRIPTOR. The goal is that everything in Unix be accessible as a file... If it looks like a turd; Smells, feels and tastes like a turd -- It's a pedant.
Considering how cookies are important, like session-ID storing, the question should better be asked once only, by the browser.
People answering "no" will suffer from the many "this site requires cookies" messages, and other unexpected behaviors.
Pretty quickly, it will appear obvious that the law cannot apply to cookies.
::Sigh::
The website you are visiting has requested to store a cookie on your computer.
(o) Do not accept the cookie for this site. ( ) Do not accept cookies for any site. ( ) Allow only this cookie for just this session. ( ) Allow all cookies from the domain example.com for just this session. ( ) Allow all cookies from the domain example.com until they expire or you clear them. ( ) Use the recommended action of your chosen privacy advisor service: allow for 1 session only
[x] Remember my decision and do not ask me again.
(This setting can be changed later in the privacy tab of your profile options)
(Advanced: click here to see the content of the cookie and to set per cookie acceptance / expiration policies )
The cookie-monster plugin for Firefox gives you per site options, but I haven't used it in a while, basically, just the above dialog would suffice for all of my cookie related needs.
The current version of Firefox4 supports this header, as well as NoScript for previous versions of FF. MS has stated that IE9 will support this header option too. Google (and the MPAA) have expressed concerns with allowing users to automatically opt out of every tracking service by simply stating their wishes to not be tracked... Therefore, Chrome will not support the feature, (I created a patch for Chromium -- IMHO, No one should use Chrome since there is a clean open source version available as Chromium).
An advertiser needs to get opt-in consent before sending a cookie as it is unfeasible to obtain permission as you go.
Enable DNT:1 header. The FIRST thing the advertiser sees in your request for a resource they host (which normally allows them to set a cookie if your browser has them enabled) is the DNT:1 header -- This allows you to inform them ahead of time that you do not want to be tracked.
I agree that the proposed Cookie Guidelines are not the needed legislation. I don't think that sites need my permission before they send "SET-COOKIE: somekey=somevalue" to me -- We all can use cookie blocking software (and/or the browser itself) to disable the acceptance of these cookies. I do agree that sites should tell me what they will track about me, and exactly which companies they will share such info with if I agree to allow them to track me. Use the "we can update these policies at any time" mumbo-jumbo in order to provide an up to date list of who's got access to privacy related data...
Basically this can be done in a simple way: [...]
Indeed, it's already been done, now we just need the Advertisers to respect our pre-opt-out wishes... Legislation will be required, unfortunately, this law is not it.
Don't set cookies without permission, if you really need a cookie then tell them they must have one to use the site. If they have previously allowed you to set one then there will be one there, or they'll have login details or whatever.
I don't get why there's more of a problem than this.
maybe I'm not getting it. Can you describe a situation in which this technical problem manifests itself?
It's easier than that... Use No-Script or the current version of Firefox4 (or a future version of IE9), and enable the "DNT: 1" (Do Not Track: [enabled] ) HTTP Header. This header will be sent with every HTTP request informing the websites that you have pre-opted out, you do not wish to be tracked.
Obviously if you need to log-in you must agree to let them store some data about you (your login credentials & profile). The information they collect should be clearly stated on their privacy policy, and since most such TOS agreements state that they can change the policy at will, they should update the policy with the list of the companies that they are sharing your privacy data with... (Derp, It arn't that hard -- Spaghetti Monster forbid they should use their open ended license terms to help support transparency of their privacy policy)
Indeed, the technical problem has already been solved, and is being adopted by major browser distributors... Except Google (Chrome does not support DNT: 1 -- I hacked together a patch for Chromium...)
You know, when I was demoing Chrome as a possible browser for my tablet, I went looking for a script blocking extension. To my consternation, I was met with the near worthless alternative of either running all scripts or none on a page, [...]
So, *cough* tell me why Chrome doesn't need a NoScript-like extension again? @the marketing drones: Because, I'm so sure the cocksure poseur-charisma will scare the crime-ware away, really. The elephant in the room doesn't exist so long as the people that bring it up are shouted down, right?
I'll tell you why: Because Google's JavaScript engine compiles any script it sees into machine code for your platform, then runs that... That's why you don't need a better option for security's sake than all or none... Machine code can't escape the sand box! (Realize the truth: There is no spoon^H^H^H^H^H sandbox.)
The problem is that modern JS engines from all the major browsers do it this way -- The design of the JS language makes it hard to make a fast interpretor for it. Even if you pre-compile to byte-code and run it in a VM it's too slow.
So instead, we take arbitrary data, compile that to machine code, then EXECUTE the compiled DATA (Data Execution Prevention, eh? Well, if it's flagging itself as executable, and it's accepting arbitrary code, I'd say that JS == Arbitrary remote code execution == one tiny step away from being an exploit anyway. I've always wondered why everyone disses ActiveX while enabling JS...
PS. I've written scripting languages. They can be slow as hell, that's the point, so long as stuff you do a lot of is formalized and written in native code, it's all good and can be run in a pretty safe interpretor or byte-code VM.
JS != general purpose compiled language.
Therefore, when you do DUMB things like complain that JS can't keep up when you try to use JS + HTML5 Canvas as your "rendering engine" for a "web application" (or even worse, games) then browser devs must meet the dumb demands by doing the dumbest thing they can against their better judgment -- Just in Time compile a virtual EXE, then run that.
The answer is to stop sacrificing security for speed, go back to software VM solutions with SIMPLE compiled languages like Lua, (I think, Lisp / Scheme too, not sure haven't checked how complex the sources are) and add standardized functions for commonly used features so we can get rid of the if(IE){...} cruft. Hint: Dynamic is the enemy of fast.
The vast majority of this data isn't stored. The vast majority of it is streaming porn and Netflix. Why did we pay some "scientist" for 3 years (read the summary, it says "three years ago") to calculate this, so we can all be amused by it on/. for 10 minutes? Part of the reason nobody's working in science anymore is that most of our government- and university-backed science is fluff like this to get your soundbite, rather than stuff that makes a difference in our world. Figure out how to GET to Neptune, not how to stack virtual books that high with 30-second free trials of every porn site in Russia.
Who cares? I'll tell you who cares -- Copyright holders. I may have a website, but I did not authorize you or all the intermediary routers to copy my workmultiple times per view! Just because I put my HTML e-book on my web-server doesn't give you or your ISP the right to make so many duplications!
I'm positive if you further analyzed the data that was transmitted you would realize that there are Billions and Billions of illegal reproductions in that dataset!
iTunes doesn't license AT&T's routers to make duplications of the songs you download -- And yet there they are! 9 Zetabytes worth of illegal downloads!
(Seriously folk -- Destroy Copyright laws or reform them, they do not apply anymore, this is the Information age.)
Why the hell would they measure the data in Zetabytes? That comes out to an unwieldy 9.57 ZB.
Books between planets? Common folk don't comprehend global scales, much less interplanetary scales... Want proof? Did anyone ask at what time of year the measurement was taken? An exact date would be required, and even then, most common folk don't know if we are closer or nearer to the planets mentioned at that date -- It's a ridiculously obtuse measure since the unit (planetary distance) wildly varies by date.
Besides: What size book? How many pages per book? Lines per page / Font size? Vellum or Parchment? Standard 20Lb copier paper? Every example in the whole article is totally inaccurate. Additionally, Libraries of Congress (as some commenter's have inquired about) is an antiquated measurement that also varies.
I prefer using the already firmly established measure, thus, TFS should read: "Three years ago, the world's 27 million business servers processed exactly 1 Internet of information..."
How much data is a 2008 Internet worth in today's Internets? Exactly 1 TL;DR.
(On a more serious note, are we sure they don't mean Zebbibytes?)
Doc said that pain in my hands and occasional numbness could be early onset of RSI.
I switched to Dvorak 2 years ago. It took 3 weeks to get back to full speed (70+wpm coding w/ symbols), but only about 1.5 weeks to regain full touch typing ability...
Inflammation lessened after the first few days (slower typing), but hasn't returned. YMMV.
In this instance I contact support, and if no resolution can be reached -- a source or binary for my chosen OS will not be made available -- I will simply return the device to the store or manufacturer for a full refund.
Returning an incompatible product works fine when you are buying new hardware on which to run your chosen OS. It doesn't necessarily work so well if you are repurposing existing hardware, which is past its return window, from a previous chosen OS to your current chosen OS.
Thank you for illustrating my point -- This is the precise conclusion that we should all arrive at. Either insist open source drivers for the hardware you purchase, or risk artificial obsolescence of your hardware. (Note: The same can be said of software obsolescence -- 1065 days 'til XP EOL).
The software drivers are not the hardware. The software driver source code used to be provided with nearly all hardware, so that we could support the hardware ourselves without expending any resources of the hardware vendor.
Hardware vendors stopped providing source code when they found that vendor lock-in was acceptable to the unsuspecting masses -- Unsuspect no-longer. Insist on driver source code, even if you don't use a FLOSS OS.
You're splitting hairs. If it has no driver support, or the driver support is flaky, incomplete, or fiddly, then from a user's point of view it doesn't work, or works incompletely or flaky. From the point of view my statement was made from (user/system administrator/high level programmer), it was completely accurate.
No, I'm not splitting hairs... I've identified a statement that I take issue with, as I see it is absolutely incorrect, and then further explain my position. This is in no way splitting hairs.
but rarely do you find a piece of hardware that doesn't work at all
I have clearly argued my point -- The hardware that "doesn't work at all" on GNU/Linux will also not work at all on any other software platform because it is by definition, broken. However, if the hardware does work on any OS, including MS/Windows, then it fundamentally must be working hardware.
The issue have objection to is that you present the possibility that hardware working on a machine that is running MS/Windows software and has software drivers that work with MS/Windows, can be found to not work at all when Linux or Unix software is installed as OS for such a system.
The specific example that you site I especially take issue with, since you have stated that the Linux OS, was functional, and that the hardware worked with Windows, but that the hardware did not work with Linux... I put it to you that this was not the case -- In fact, it was only a matter of an incomplete software implementation that is the source of your stated problem -- Not a hardware issue at all.
Let me spell it out for you so that you can see the objection for what it is: You have confused Hardware support with Software support, the two are not mutually exclusive, but I do take issue with and point out such confusions.
I'll grant that people who do not know the difference between hardware and software may think their hardware is incompatible with Linux software -- I do not count you as a member of this group; It is my intention to illustrate that your issue should be with the hardware vendor, which designed the hardware and driver API for that hardware, and Windows compatible software, drivers for that hardware, and intentionally did not support your ability to choose an OS other than Windows -- Otherwise they might have provided a binary for the latest Linux and Unix versions, or source code which others may use to create such binaries (at no cost to the hardware manufacturer).
Consider that when you purchase hardware, you are not buying it for the driver -- you should be free to use the hardware as you wish, and thus the driver sources really should be provided so that you may support your hardware on new OSs even after the hardware manufacturer stops supporting the hardware.
To accept otherwise is to agree to let the hardware manufacturer limit your OS choices to the current version of whatever OSs they support (Note: some printers don't work with Vista/7 that do work with XP) -- Unless you take issue with this incompatibility, especially this artificial obsolescence (which, honestly, pales in comparison to the lack of Linux driver support -- 1065 days left for XP, BTW), the OS incompatibility should not be limited to FLOSS OSes...
To further illustrate my point: s/Linux/Windows7/ and s/Windows/XP/ in your original post; I can claim that the resulting argument is equally true.
You've never found hardware that didn't work, except it didn't work? Or does coming to POST and that your DVD drive will open and close count as "working"?
To a device driver coder like myself, yes, opening and closing and responding without malfunction to properly formatted binary signals is all that is required for me to verify if the hardware is "working" as intended.
Having the IO API published, and/or publishing the source code for ANY driver (including the MS/Windows driver) is enough for me to interface that hardware with my OS and software. Additionally, allowing me to code and distribute a working driver for Linux on my own dime for their hardware will allow the manufacturer to take advantage of additional market share...
Alternatively, if a binary for my chosen OS is made available for the hardware, I will continue to use the hardware with my OS.
In this instance I contact support, and if no resolution can be reached -- a source or binary for my chosen OS will not be made available -- I will simply return the device to the store or manufacturer for a full refund. (...) Unless we actively make it less profitable for such incompatible manufacturers to ignore us and not provide cross platform drivers for their hardware, your OS choices will remain limited.
So your solution to them not finding your market segment profitable is to make it appear like a market of bothersome, high return, "can't read the system requirements" buffoons who'll kill off all profit? That's not encouragement, that's teaching them to not touch that market with a ten foot pole.
First off -- I've never found a manufacturer that could not understand that if they refused to release drivers for my OS, I would be unable to use their hardware... A return to the retail outlet, or to the manufacturer seemed like an acceptable solution rather than keeping the unusable hardware.
When I first started using Sansa MP3 players there was no system requirement that listed its compatibility with GNU/Linux or BSD/Unix; However, the hardware did work just fine on these free OSs. Today, there's a Tux (penguin) icon on many of the Sandisk products, from MP3 players to USB storage drives. You must (incorrectly) assume that customer communications with a manufacturer never results in their products being actively supported on my OS...
So, simply because my chosen OS is not listed as supported does not mean it will not work -- Many times the manufacturer did not initially provide support for my OS, and later models ended up having support...
For instance: I installed Linux on my Toshiba laptop. I had problems getting the built in fingerprint reader to work -- a feature that was important in my purchasing decision. I called support and they told me that the Linux driver was in the process of being released. A week later, I received an e-mail with a link to the open source code for my fingerprint reader.
My fingerprint reader now works with my chosen OS -- Not in small part because I didn't give up immediately when it did not work out of the box, and also not in small part because many users make inquiries to Toshiba about the state of their Linux hardware support.
(Additionally, prior to me calling Toshiba, I was able to verify, by way of my own C code, that the fingerprint reader was actually "working" under Linux and Unix, and not defective or broken -- It just needed a driver.)
A lot more people work on an OS level than the BIOS level, meaning that a lot more people will be aware of possible ways to exploit weaknesses in the used Linux kernel and its related packages.
Correct. In fact, many people will likely discover or have knowledge of such weaknesses -- Rarely is anything ever invented that is not re-invented, likely simultaneously (see: Telephones).
Depending on the motives of a given individual with knowledge of an exploit the bug will either be fixed or exploited, or both, simultaneously. Considering that once the details of a bug are known it typically takes less effort to fix the bug than to create a usable exploit, it doesn't bode well for malware writers... In addition to the race against time before the bug is patched, you must also realize that as soon as the exploit is released it has a limited life expectancy -- It will elevate the desire to fix the bug it exploits.
With proprietary systems malware writers can take comfort in the fact that only a limited number of people can actually fix a bug, and that the "responsible disclosure" practice works in the malware author's favor. The limited ability for users to update and/or fix a proprietary system also gives the malware writer a larger window of active exploitation.
In short -- Using a free/open BIOS or OS is more secure by nature, for the same reason that my car is more reliable with an unlocked hood than if it is only serviceable by the dealer (I can check and change my own oil, esp. on long drives away from any dealer approved maintenance facility).
Now, of course, nearly everything works with little or no effort. It's not *quite* as plug and play easy as Windows in some cases (though in many cases it is), but rarely do you find a piece of hardware that doesn't work at all or is severely degraded in Linux. Hopefully as time and development proceeds, this will improve as well (but I'm not using it till it does).
I've never found a piece of hardware that didn't work at all once when the machine was booted as GNU/Linux instead of MS/Windows.
Typically at the very least the device works exactly the same under either environment. I have, however, discovered that a device's driver software was not portable to Linux, and that the manufacturer only provided support for Windows. In this instance I contact support, and if no resolution can be reached -- a source or binary for my chosen OS will not be made available -- I will simply return the device to the store or manufacturer for a full refund.
I've designed hardware & the drivers that interface with them -- Typically getting my driver to run on another OS is as simple as re-compiling the driver on the new OS, and resolving any OS dependent features. The better you are at this process, the less OS dependent features you build into your hardware/drivers... unless, of course, you don't care if you miss out on a segment of market share.
If you don't let the hardware vendor know that you want to use it with a given OS -- They won't spend the money to support it. Unless we actively make it less profitable for such incompatible manufacturers to ignore us and not provide cross platform drivers for their hardware, your OS choices will remain limited.
Slashdot Mirror
As more and more DRM "solutions" are deployed, and the DRM systems themselves get larger, more complex, and more expensive, I think you'll find it not far from the truth that: "Process killing" IS the Software Industry.
Why not just make the games single player stand alone and ADD the networking stuff on as another mode. That way, the games don't require PSN for people to play them. Or use your own 3rd party server which would probably be even worse.
In most competitive games there is no bank of dedicated servers -- one of the player's machines is the "server". Why not simply allow unranked matches between peers?
For example, "Unranked Matches > Custom Match > Join Server > Enter the IP of the game server to join."
Thus, when PSN or XBL is unavailable (which has happened for maintenance, it did piss me off) the players will still be able to play. In PSN's case, since it's already free, WHY NOT? It's not like they'll be losing money by doing so.
The secret joke of the "online" is that it's just a DRM mechanism designed to keep people from playing games -- Eg: I can't play Halo2 online in a custom match, even though all of my friends have started the game, and our XBoxes are talking to eachother (party chat) and all of our consoles know that the others' have loaded the game -- we can verify this by looking at the Halo2 icon next to our names on the friends list...
So, then we fire up OpenVPN and join a system link game over the Internet, and we're all playing Halo2 online -- XBL was not even needed for this -- We're just using it to coordinate our play-times and for the voice chat feature.
If you've ever seen "Selecting New Host" or other similar message, you'll realize that the XBL and PNS is actually just made up of the machines everyone purchased (Host == Server). Only a small number of "matchmaking" and/or media / score tracking & DRM servers exist in comparison to control how the masses play their games. In the case of Halo2 (and all original Xbox games) they've artificially obsoleted the games' Internet play features -- They want you to play the new games, not enjoy the older games.
Personally, I won't buy a game that doesn't support system link (LAN play) -- VPN stands for Virtual Player Network to me.
Can anyone remind me why we're putting EVERYTHING in a web browser anyway?
Simple. Because we really don't give a fuck about web browsers.
All we really want / need is a cross platform widely distributed standardized* text & graphics display environment that can be manipulated via client side scripting, and can communicate with server side processes; And for "applications" or "services" created with such a system to be easily discoverable by our users.
* Yes, we need across the board standards conformance for stability and to reduce development costs, too bad we don't really have it yet.
We couldn't really give two shits if that's HTML in a browser with JavaScript, or a any other technology -- it just so happens that Browsers are ubiquitous. Ergo, the success of: Software Repositories on *nix, App Stores for mobile devices, the Internet + HTML/Scripting & search.
IMHO, we should ditch JS for Lua -- it can be compiled or interpreted, and has a much simpler design which takes less code (and is easier to secure as a result) It's easier to optimize and its language constructs can be used to provide any feature that JS language has. Other VM and scripting languages come to mind as well... actually, It's hard NOT to find a language that's better than JS*. (Hence Chrome <script type="python"> and other native client features -- though this is the wrong way to go, we need a broadly supported language with a standardized feature-set that isn't slow as frozen molasses.)
*inb4 brainfuck, et al.
( ) This is my first time using a computer/the internet and you're asking me to give an answer on something I consider a reasonably complex technical question which might, based on my uninformed answer, then go on to affect all my future experiences (example, by blanket banning cookies and having a poorer user experience or by blanket allowing them and suffering loss of privacy)
The reason we have a mechanism like cookies that silently writes this information in the first place is because sufficient users can't or don't want to understand what they are or how they work. We've had the ability to disable them almost since year dot and yet we're still having to implement laws because people can't or don't want to figure out what they are and how to turn them off. Badly thought out legislation will have huge development costs to business and confuse the hell out of users.
Perhaps you missed this option:
( ) Use the recommended action of your chosen privacy advisor service: allow for 1 session only
This could be made default...
To be perfectly fair: IMO, Computer illiterate people should not be using things they do not understand.
They may make bad decisions about their privacy and or fall for Trojans or Scare-Ware -- which happen to be the majority of the installed malware I encounter.
I work on my own cars; I recently rebuilt my manual transmission. I will not tamper with my GF's car's transmission -- It's automatic, I don't have the interest, time or money to learn about these more complex parts, ergo: I will not fiddle with them (in fact, I will not even buy them, but I will drive them because I have taken the time to learn how to operate them), I will higher other more capable individuals to perform tasks on my behalf that I do not fully understand -- To do otherwise is very risky!
For whatever reason, people fail to apply the common sense wisdom of "If you don't understand it, don't mess with it" to computers. If you can't be bothered to learn how to operate them, then stay off of our information superhighway.
Also note: I have taught several seniors computer literacy, and they would not be confused by a prompt such as this. Typically when one come across something that one needs help understanding, one should seek education, if not, who cares if they proceed blindly? (They aren't going to learn any way) -- I would hate to apply your logic to drivers' licenses, BTW.
Lastly, for many people firing up their browser for the first time is not firing up A browser for the first time -- They could be computer literate individuals who have just installed a new browser or OS, or purchased a new computer.
So... a carnie wearing stilts will look down at you and laugh?
I've had a sticky touch screen after viewing porn many times.
I see... Seems like you were clearly holding it wrong.
Note: The shit programming is there because they wanted to attract a broader audience -- Hence them dropping the "nerd's only" Science Fiction abbreviation and adopting some syphilis sounding name... SyFy
Even the SciFi shows themselves have been dumbed down (little to no hard sci-fi; It's mostly just fantasy-fi in my book), romantic interludes and who's mating with who drama are inserted for no apparent reason other than to attract the "wider" audience (those with narrower minds who can't pay attention unless erotica is involved -- hence "wrestling" shows for those wrestling with their latent sexual tendencies...).
Shows that get dropped are dropped because SyFy doesn't care about SciFi, they care about viewer-ship. Let's face it, there just isn't enough interest from intellectuals to generate the numbers needed to convince the Nealson hypnotized execs that SciFi is worth anything, esp. not at this late stage in the game.
Perhaps if they transitioned to support media consumption technologies that the geeks get excited about (instead of TV), they could re-claim their niche. As it stands, they see the niche dwindling and say: "Add More Tard TV, the geeks have left the building"
I hate any system where you can buy "points" but have no way of changing points back to money. Thye know that they are on to a good thing - either you spend it, which often means adding more, or you leave it as a zero-interest loan to them (which also falls outside any financial regulations or compensation schemes should they go bust).
Point taken -- However, MS does (or at least they did when I did it) let you link your credit card to your XBL account. Thus, you can complain to your credit card company about undelivered product, and have the charges removed -- I wonder if digital goods are covered under the purchase insurance?
I'd like to offer another POV: It's nice to allow kids without bank accounts or credit cards to spend their allowance on MS points & XBL subscriptions so they are not excluded from the online world (which is increasingly a more important part of games).
It's also nice that when your servers are infiltrated, everyone who has been only using the MS points is protected from having their credit card numbers exposed.
(Note: the same applies to Sony's equivalent of MS points -- sorry, I can't force myself to care enough to even Google info about mfg's I boycott)
"wondering what it would mean for Linux users" - It means you're fucked! Sadly.
No, it only means that those who traded convenience for freedom get fucked, even on (especially on) Linux.
Fortunately, I only use free software with my GNU/Linux distribution, thus when proprietary software makes its round of fucking people, to me seems like air-humping -- I point and laugh.
The definition of a computer file, from wiktionary: "An aggregation of data on a storage device, identified by a name." That definition was what I was taught when I studied CS in the 80's too, it goes back to the 60's.
That definition clashes with the Unix philosophy of "Everything is a file" which allows us to abstract from different peripheral devices and treat them all uniformly.
Is /dev/disk0 a file? I'd say no, because it is the storage device, not just the data on it. (E.g. you can use it to query the SMART status of the storage device which I would not count as the data stored on it.)
Is /dev/kmem a file? It's data, but it's not on storage, but in volatile memory.
Most files below /proc are not even data at all, but state. (I.e. their informational value depends on the time they are queried.)
Also, a database file is usually not a text-file, because it contains data that is not human-readable.
Have you written any code to access those? Guess what, you use a FILE DESCRIPTOR. The goal is that everything in Unix be accessible as a file... If it looks like a turd; Smells, feels and tastes like a turd -- It's a pedant.
Considering how cookies are important, like session-ID storing, the question should better be asked once only, by the browser. People answering "no" will suffer from the many "this site requires cookies" messages, and other unexpected behaviors. Pretty quickly, it will appear obvious that the law cannot apply to cookies.
The website you are visiting has requested to store a cookie on your computer.
(o) Do not accept the cookie for this site.
( ) Do not accept cookies for any site.
( ) Allow only this cookie for just this session.
( ) Allow all cookies from the domain example.com for just this session.
( ) Allow all cookies from the domain example.com until they expire or you clear them.
( ) Use the recommended action of your chosen privacy advisor service: allow for 1 session only
[x] Remember my decision and do not ask me again.
(This setting can be changed later in the privacy tab of your profile options)
(Advanced: click here to see the content of the cookie and to set per cookie acceptance / expiration policies )
The cookie-monster plugin for Firefox gives you per site options, but I haven't used it in a while, basically, just the above dialog would suffice for all of my cookie related needs.
It's just next to impossible to use the law as it is.
To me however it is very simple: A website can trivially obtain permission from the user for the site's own cookies.
Or, you can pre-opt out of ever website on the planet by sending the DNT: 1 (do not track: enabled) HTTP Header in every request for web resources.
The current version of Firefox4 supports this header, as well as NoScript for previous versions of FF. MS has stated that IE9 will support this header option too. Google (and the MPAA) have expressed concerns with allowing users to automatically opt out of every tracking service by simply stating their wishes to not be tracked... Therefore, Chrome will not support the feature, (I created a patch for Chromium -- IMHO, No one should use Chrome since there is a clean open source version available as Chromium).
An advertiser needs to get opt-in consent before sending a cookie as it is unfeasible to obtain permission as you go.
Enable DNT:1 header. The FIRST thing the advertiser sees in your request for a resource they host (which normally allows them to set a cookie if your browser has them enabled) is the DNT:1 header -- This allows you to inform them ahead of time that you do not want to be tracked.
I agree that the proposed Cookie Guidelines are not the needed legislation. I don't think that sites need my permission before they send "SET-COOKIE: somekey=somevalue" to me -- We all can use cookie blocking software (and/or the browser itself) to disable the acceptance of these cookies. I do agree that sites should tell me what they will track about me, and exactly which companies they will share such info with if I agree to allow them to track me. Use the "we can update these policies at any time" mumbo-jumbo in order to provide an up to date list of who's got access to privacy related data...
Basically this can be done in a simple way: [...]
Indeed, it's already been done, now we just need the Advertisers to respect our pre-opt-out wishes... Legislation will be required, unfortunately, this law is not it.
What's not an answer to the technical problem?
Don't set cookies without permission, if you really need a cookie then tell them they must have one to use the site. If they have previously allowed you to set one then there will be one there, or they'll have login details or whatever.
I don't get why there's more of a problem than this.
maybe I'm not getting it. Can you describe a situation in which this technical problem manifests itself?
It's easier than that... Use No-Script or the current version of Firefox4 (or a future version of IE9), and enable the "DNT: 1" (Do Not Track: [enabled] ) HTTP Header. This header will be sent with every HTTP request informing the websites that you have pre-opted out, you do not wish to be tracked.
Obviously if you need to log-in you must agree to let them store some data about you (your login credentials & profile). The information they collect should be clearly stated on their privacy policy, and since most such TOS agreements state that they can change the policy at will, they should update the policy with the list of the companies that they are sharing your privacy data with... (Derp, It arn't that hard -- Spaghetti Monster forbid they should use their open ended license terms to help support transparency of their privacy policy)
Indeed, the technical problem has already been solved, and is being adopted by major browser distributors... Except Google (Chrome does not support DNT: 1 -- I hacked together a patch for Chromium...)
You know, when I was demoing Chrome as a possible browser for my tablet, I went looking for a script blocking extension. To my consternation, I was met with the near worthless alternative of either running all scripts or none on a page, [...]
So, *cough* tell me why Chrome doesn't need a NoScript-like extension again? @the marketing drones: Because, I'm so sure the cocksure poseur-charisma will scare the crime-ware away, really. The elephant in the room doesn't exist so long as the people that bring it up are shouted down, right?
I'll tell you why: Because Google's JavaScript engine compiles any script it sees into machine code for your platform, then runs that... That's why you don't need a better option for security's sake than all or none... Machine code can't escape the sand box! (Realize the truth: There is no spoon^H^H^H^H^H sandbox.)
The problem is that modern JS engines from all the major browsers do it this way -- The design of the JS language makes it hard to make a fast interpretor for it. Even if you pre-compile to byte-code and run it in a VM it's too slow.
So instead, we take arbitrary data, compile that to machine code, then EXECUTE the compiled DATA (Data Execution Prevention, eh? Well, if it's flagging itself as executable, and it's accepting arbitrary code, I'd say that JS == Arbitrary remote code execution == one tiny step away from being an exploit anyway. I've always wondered why everyone disses ActiveX while enabling JS...
PS. I've written scripting languages. They can be slow as hell, that's the point, so long as stuff you do a lot of is formalized and written in native code, it's all good and can be run in a pretty safe interpretor or byte-code VM.
JS != general purpose compiled language.
Therefore, when you do DUMB things like complain that JS can't keep up when you try to use JS + HTML5 Canvas as your "rendering engine" for a "web application" (or even worse, games) then browser devs must meet the dumb demands by doing the dumbest thing they can against their better judgment -- Just in Time compile a virtual EXE, then run that.
The answer is to stop sacrificing security for speed, go back to software VM solutions with SIMPLE compiled languages like Lua, (I think, Lisp / Scheme too, not sure haven't checked how complex the sources are) and add standardized functions for commonly used features so we can get rid of the if(IE){...} cruft. Hint: Dynamic is the enemy of fast.
I'd just create a GUI Interface using Visual Basic; See if I can track the commenters' IP address.
The vast majority of this data isn't stored. The vast majority of it is streaming porn and Netflix. Why did we pay some "scientist" for 3 years (read the summary, it says "three years ago") to calculate this, so we can all be amused by it on /. for 10 minutes? Part of the reason nobody's working in science anymore is that most of our government- and university-backed science is fluff like this to get your soundbite, rather than stuff that makes a difference in our world. Figure out how to GET to Neptune, not how to stack virtual books that high with 30-second free trials of every porn site in Russia.
Who cares? I'll tell you who cares -- Copyright holders. I may have a website, but I did not authorize you or all the intermediary routers to copy my work multiple times per view! Just because I put my HTML e-book on my web-server doesn't give you or your ISP the right to make so many duplications!
I'm positive if you further analyzed the data that was transmitted you would realize that there are Billions and Billions of illegal reproductions in that dataset!
iTunes doesn't license AT&T's routers to make duplications of the songs you download -- And yet there they are! 9 Zetabytes worth of illegal downloads!
(Seriously folk -- Destroy Copyright laws or reform them, they do not apply anymore, this is the Information age.)
Why the hell would they measure the data in Zetabytes? That comes out to an unwieldy 9.57 ZB.
Books between planets? Common folk don't comprehend global scales, much less interplanetary scales... Want proof? Did anyone ask at what time of year the measurement was taken? An exact date would be required, and even then, most common folk don't know if we are closer or nearer to the planets mentioned at that date -- It's a ridiculously obtuse measure since the unit (planetary distance) wildly varies by date.
Besides: What size book? How many pages per book? Lines per page / Font size? Vellum or Parchment? Standard 20Lb copier paper? Every example in the whole article is totally inaccurate. Additionally, Libraries of Congress (as some commenter's have inquired about) is an antiquated measurement that also varies.
I prefer using the already firmly established measure, thus, TFS should read: "Three years ago, the world's 27 million business servers processed exactly 1 Internet of information..."
How much data is a 2008 Internet worth in today's Internets? Exactly 1 TL;DR.
(On a more serious note, are we sure they don't mean Zebbibytes?)
I type a lot... Code for profit & fun.
Doc said that pain in my hands and occasional numbness could be early onset of RSI.
I switched to Dvorak 2 years ago. It took 3 weeks to get back to full speed (70+wpm coding w/ symbols), but only about 1.5 weeks to regain full touch typing ability...
Inflammation lessened after the first few days (slower typing), but hasn't returned. YMMV.
Omnominous?
WRT GPL'd Webkit source code in use by Apple: They're holding it, so wrong...
In this instance I contact support, and if no resolution can be reached -- a source or binary for my chosen OS will not be made available -- I will simply return the device to the store or manufacturer for a full refund.
Returning an incompatible product works fine when you are buying new hardware on which to run your chosen OS. It doesn't necessarily work so well if you are repurposing existing hardware, which is past its return window, from a previous chosen OS to your current chosen OS.
Thank you for illustrating my point -- This is the precise conclusion that we should all arrive at. Either insist open source drivers for the hardware you purchase, or risk artificial obsolescence of your hardware. (Note: The same can be said of software obsolescence -- 1065 days 'til XP EOL).
The software drivers are not the hardware. The software driver source code used to be provided with nearly all hardware, so that we could support the hardware ourselves without expending any resources of the hardware vendor.
Hardware vendors stopped providing source code when they found that vendor lock-in was acceptable to the unsuspecting masses -- Unsuspect no-longer. Insist on driver source code, even if you don't use a FLOSS OS.
You're splitting hairs. If it has no driver support, or the driver support is flaky, incomplete, or fiddly, then from a user's point of view it doesn't work, or works incompletely or flaky. From the point of view my statement was made from (user/system administrator/high level programmer), it was completely accurate.
No, I'm not splitting hairs... I've identified a statement that I take issue with, as I see it is absolutely incorrect, and then further explain my position. This is in no way splitting hairs.
but rarely do you find a piece of hardware that doesn't work at all
I have clearly argued my point -- The hardware that "doesn't work at all" on GNU/Linux will also not work at all on any other software platform because it is by definition, broken. However, if the hardware does work on any OS, including MS/Windows, then it fundamentally must be working hardware.
The issue have objection to is that you present the possibility that hardware working on a machine that is running MS/Windows software and has software drivers that work with MS/Windows, can be found to not work at all when Linux or Unix software is installed as OS for such a system.
The specific example that you site I especially take issue with, since you have stated that the Linux OS, was functional, and that the hardware worked with Windows, but that the hardware did not work with Linux... I put it to you that this was not the case -- In fact, it was only a matter of an incomplete software implementation that is the source of your stated problem -- Not a hardware issue at all.
Let me spell it out for you so that you can see the objection for what it is: You have confused Hardware support with Software support, the two are not mutually exclusive, but I do take issue with and point out such confusions.
I'll grant that people who do not know the difference between hardware and software may think their hardware is incompatible with Linux software -- I do not count you as a member of this group; It is my intention to illustrate that your issue should be with the hardware vendor, which designed the hardware and driver API for that hardware, and Windows compatible software, drivers for that hardware, and intentionally did not support your ability to choose an OS other than Windows -- Otherwise they might have provided a binary for the latest Linux and Unix versions, or source code which others may use to create such binaries (at no cost to the hardware manufacturer).
Consider that when you purchase hardware, you are not buying it for the driver -- you should be free to use the hardware as you wish, and thus the driver sources really should be provided so that you may support your hardware on new OSs even after the hardware manufacturer stops supporting the hardware.
To accept otherwise is to agree to let the hardware manufacturer limit your OS choices to the current version of whatever OSs they support (Note: some printers don't work with Vista/7 that do work with XP) -- Unless you take issue with this incompatibility, especially this artificial obsolescence (which, honestly, pales in comparison to the lack of Linux driver support -- 1065 days left for XP, BTW), the OS incompatibility should not be limited to FLOSS OSes...
To further illustrate my point: s/Linux/Windows7/ and s/Windows/XP/ in your original post; I can claim that the resulting argument is equally true.
You've never found hardware that didn't work, except it didn't work? Or does coming to POST and that your DVD drive will open and close count as "working"?
To a device driver coder like myself, yes, opening and closing and responding without malfunction to properly formatted binary signals is all that is required for me to verify if the hardware is "working" as intended.
Having the IO API published, and/or publishing the source code for ANY driver (including the MS/Windows driver) is enough for me to interface that hardware with my OS and software. Additionally, allowing me to code and distribute a working driver for Linux on my own dime for their hardware will allow the manufacturer to take advantage of additional market share...
Alternatively, if a binary for my chosen OS is made available for the hardware, I will continue to use the hardware with my OS.
In this instance I contact support, and if no resolution can be reached -- a source or binary for my chosen OS will not be made available -- I will simply return the device to the store or manufacturer for a full refund. (...) Unless we actively make it less profitable for such incompatible manufacturers to ignore us and not provide cross platform drivers for their hardware, your OS choices will remain limited.
So your solution to them not finding your market segment profitable is to make it appear like a market of bothersome, high return, "can't read the system requirements" buffoons who'll kill off all profit? That's not encouragement, that's teaching them to not touch that market with a ten foot pole.
First off -- I've never found a manufacturer that could not understand that if they refused to release drivers for my OS, I would be unable to use their hardware... A return to the retail outlet, or to the manufacturer seemed like an acceptable solution rather than keeping the unusable hardware.
When I first started using Sansa MP3 players there was no system requirement that listed its compatibility with GNU/Linux or BSD/Unix; However, the hardware did work just fine on these free OSs. Today, there's a Tux (penguin) icon on many of the Sandisk products, from MP3 players to USB storage drives. You must (incorrectly) assume that customer communications with a manufacturer never results in their products being actively supported on my OS...
So, simply because my chosen OS is not listed as supported does not mean it will not work -- Many times the manufacturer did not initially provide support for my OS, and later models ended up having support...
For instance: I installed Linux on my Toshiba laptop. I had problems getting the built in fingerprint reader to work -- a feature that was important in my purchasing decision. I called support and they told me that the Linux driver was in the process of being released. A week later, I received an e-mail with a link to the open source code for my fingerprint reader.
My fingerprint reader now works with my chosen OS -- Not in small part because I didn't give up immediately when it did not work out of the box, and also not in small part because many users make inquiries to Toshiba about the state of their Linux hardware support.
(Additionally, prior to me calling Toshiba, I was able to verify, by way of my own C code, that the fingerprint reader was actually "working" under Linux and Unix, and not defective or broken -- It just needed a driver.)
A lot more people work on an OS level than the BIOS level, meaning that a lot more people will be aware of possible ways to exploit weaknesses in the used Linux kernel and its related packages.
Correct. In fact, many people will likely discover or have knowledge of such weaknesses -- Rarely is anything ever invented that is not re-invented, likely simultaneously (see: Telephones).
Depending on the motives of a given individual with knowledge of an exploit the bug will either be fixed or exploited, or both, simultaneously. Considering that once the details of a bug are known it typically takes less effort to fix the bug than to create a usable exploit, it doesn't bode well for malware writers... In addition to the race against time before the bug is patched, you must also realize that as soon as the exploit is released it has a limited life expectancy -- It will elevate the desire to fix the bug it exploits.
With proprietary systems malware writers can take comfort in the fact that only a limited number of people can actually fix a bug, and that the "responsible disclosure" practice works in the malware author's favor. The limited ability for users to update and/or fix a proprietary system also gives the malware writer a larger window of active exploitation.
In short -- Using a free/open BIOS or OS is more secure by nature, for the same reason that my car is more reliable with an unlocked hood than if it is only serviceable by the dealer (I can check and change my own oil, esp. on long drives away from any dealer approved maintenance facility).
I take issue with this:
Now, of course, nearly everything works with little or no effort. It's not *quite* as plug and play easy as Windows in some cases (though in many cases it is), but rarely do you find a piece of hardware that doesn't work at all or is severely degraded in Linux. Hopefully as time and development proceeds, this will improve as well (but I'm not using it till it does).
I've never found a piece of hardware that didn't work at all once when the machine was booted as GNU/Linux instead of MS/Windows.
Typically at the very least the device works exactly the same under either environment. I have, however, discovered that a device's driver software was not portable to Linux, and that the manufacturer only provided support for Windows. In this instance I contact support, and if no resolution can be reached -- a source or binary for my chosen OS will not be made available -- I will simply return the device to the store or manufacturer for a full refund.
I've designed hardware & the drivers that interface with them -- Typically getting my driver to run on another OS is as simple as re-compiling the driver on the new OS, and resolving any OS dependent features. The better you are at this process, the less OS dependent features you build into your hardware/drivers... unless, of course, you don't care if you miss out on a segment of market share.
If you don't let the hardware vendor know that you want to use it with a given OS -- They won't spend the money to support it. Unless we actively make it less profitable for such incompatible manufacturers to ignore us and not provide cross platform drivers for their hardware, your OS choices will remain limited.