Mod parent up... why'd this get a troll rating?? It's about the only post in here that seems to defend the act of copyright prevention...
For all those people complaining because of legitimate file sharing, hey, if you want certain people to have YOUR prerelease video for YOUR movie, *send it to them*, don't share it on a public system. For those of you with legal pre-release videos that you are entitled to pass around, pass it around, but don't share it on a public system! It's not a hard concept!
By simply putting it on your system shared for anyone in the world to see, you ARE violating copyright. Anyone who has a legal copy of something they are entitled to share, usually has a stipulation of how it can be shared.
This isn't about making ANY form of distribution illegal, this is about making access to a movie pre-release publicly and freely accessible to anyone anywhere anytime. And if for some reason you are picked up when you have permission, you can't be charged becaus you have proof - hopefully in writing - that you weren't doing anything illegal. Chances are, that'll only work if it's NOT shared on a completely public open network!
Thanks for your informative reply. First of all, IANAS(cientist), so my terminology may not be accurate, but if you present any argument, I'll do my best to answer to the best of my ability, with whatever research is necessary. If I can't find a defense of my point, then I'll concede it. Anyway...
[disclaimer: This is really, really long. Just a warning:)]
As for hypothesis vs. theory, when it comes to something being true, and something essentially being true, I still find great distinction between the two. Whether creation is a hypothesis and evolution a theory, in my eyes - neither are provable in any form. Both can only be presented as a collection of observations and explanations, which to any degree may help support or disprove its respective stance. The 'scientific world' may consider evolution a theory now because there appears to be so much evidence that supports the position, but science, in any form, cannot say evolution is a fact, and can never, since any research done regarding past unrecorded time periods is purely extrapolation based on mathematical possibilities. It can't take into account unknown factors. As I'm sure you've heard before, no one was there, so no one knows for sure. This goes the same for creationism. There can be no absolute scientific proof one way or the other.
For me - hypothesis = theory. Yes, it's the theory of gravity. Science still doesn't fully understand what gravity is. What I know for a fact is that I'm pulled down towards the earth, being large and highly dense. Why? *shrug* science is still searching for that answer. But I know gravity exists.
I'll guarantee you, and I'm not afraid to, that any point you can find that you believe supports only the theory of evolution, AND therefore disproves the 'hypothesis' of creation, cannot be completely faultless or accurate. That, therefore, leaves only points that supposedly support evolution, but can also be explained by the creation model.
Hypothesis propose testable results. In the case of creationism/ID, there are none. Prove god exist, scientifically - Can't be done. Prove the earth was created 6000 years ago (young earth creationism) - Demonstratably false. Creationism has no tests that cannot be applied to it, so it fails to be even a hypothesis.
Prove the evolutionary chain, in any method - can't be done. And I don't mean prove it as a theory, I mean prove it as the only means of our, and the universe's, existence. Prove the earth evolved over millions and millions of years - Demonstatably false. Evolution has no tests that can be applied to it, so it must fail to be a hypothesis as well. Science can demonstrate tests in our modern physical world, and extrapolate from the results based on the foundation of evolution, finding a way for those results to support evolution. I can say that any observation you come across through science in our modern physical world can also be used to support the creation model. As of now, there is no scientific observation that cannot be used in some way to support the creation model.
Evolution: Theory. Not only does it have results we can test the validity of (example: result from hypothesis: birds should have more genes in common to other birds than bacteria. Test: Found to be true. Therefore, theory holds up)
How does this prove evolution and disprove creation? This isn't evidence that evolution occurred, it's simply evidence that similar animals should have more similar genese with each other than with different species. Even here there are so many variations between species in the gene pool, both by similarities and numbers, that it can't be extrapolated that the number of similar genes indicates its position in the evolutionary scale, as some scientists believe. It's simply a scientific observation.
Even where evolution has 'bugs', it's not in the overarching theory, but in the details. In the large sense, evolution is TRUE.
And as for evolution... Well, the schools are teaching science, so evolution is required. The schools generally do not teach religion, so creation 'science' and CS-a-likes like ID are not to be taught. If the schools do comparitive religion, then that could easily be added to that portion of the cirriculum, of course. But it's not science.
Please explain how evolutionary research is science and creation research is not science? Do both not operate on a hypothesis defining the origins of the world, life, and the universe? Are both not scientific methods used to try to defend these hypotheses?
You may have been subject to a creationist who doesn't use scientific methods to try to defend the creationist stance. Hopefully you don't use that one person's act as the foundation for your belief that creation science is not science.
Neither evolution nor creation can be proven empirically, and neither can be proven as fact as surely as we know molecules exist and the earth spins on an angle. Without being biased, evolution and creation are both theories that are in the process of being proven through scientific method. Both have their 'good' and 'bad' scientists with their methods, but creation is just as viable as a science as evolution.
However, it is UNSCIENTIFIC and unethical to rephrase theories to state that your belief is fact, especially if there are other viable scientific theories that disagree with yours. Evolution, if being taught in schools, MUST be taught as theory, and if being taught as theory, creation has just as much right to be taught as theory. If creation is not allowed as a viable scientific theory, then evolution cannot either. If the government makes laws against bias towards any belief system, evolution cannot be taught, else creation has as much right to be taught, as long as both are taught as theories, with adequate research material. Both are belief systems founded on a hypothesis, whether that includes divine intervention or not. All theories are viable until one is disproven. If two theories are fighting, and neither is disproven, that does not invalidate the science, it just means believers of either theory need to continue to work towards the goal of proving theirs (or disproving the other)
Alas, teaching both would likely cause a very LARGE amount of chaos in the education system. Thus I'm for not teaching evolution in school. And no, this does NOT cut out science as a class. Evolution is one aspect of the strive of science - the pursuit of truth. If science only works on the assumption that evolution is the only possibility, it is not the pursuit of truth. Plenty of science - physics, biology, chemistry - can be taught without touching conflict enducing 'religious' topics such as origins.
Teaching our students 'what we evolved from' when it should be 'what is believed we evolved from' is a crime, if it is a crime to allow voluntary prayer in schools (as has been attested in numerous previous posts in this article).
If one step is to be taken, the first is to fix our schools, and ensure that theory is not taught as fact - whether that be evolution or teachers who take it upon themselves to teach creation as fact.
I'm a Christian, I believe in creation. But that doesn't make me a believer that america should falsely be a forced religious country. People should have choice to believe for themselves what they want to believe. And I believe in fairness, freedom, and rights, if that is what the country is founded on.
Anyway I could go on for pages and pages, so I'll stop now and get back to work:P
from the Enterprise intro? Isn't that shuttle-jet craft we see in the intro going to be built? I mean, it's in Star Trek history, so it must eventually happen, otherwise Star Trek's just a bunch of science fiction!
You could... just send them a file with only the 1 bits through the whole file. They can fill in the rest! That's not illegal is it? You're not sending the 0's.......
The main problem is people not knowing, or not caring about patching or updating the problems. This isn't something that's directly managable by MS. With an OS so widely used, how can updates be ensured to be installed on everyone's machine to stop spreading of viruses and exploits?
Some will say the user should have the choice... ok, so half the people who couldn't care less will still allow the spreading of the problems...
Some will say automatic background updating is the only solution... ok, so the majority of people still using low speed connections will bog down their systems, let alone major networks suddenly pulling huge bandwidth when every machine receives the command to update simultaneously...
And some still complain that even if the update is pushed and you need to say yes or no, it's still infringing on your privacy your own system...
Is there any way to implement a global, trustworthy, reliable patch service that is accepted by everyone? If not, there's no way to stop the virus spreading, work generating underground from having hay-days at the world's expense...
and I'm sure you realize that the field of biology has pretty much accepted evolution as the most probably theory
but in an unbiased article, I wouldn't expect to see a point that didn't need to be made, that is known to presently still be on the debate table. The article is talking about a breakthrough in research which finally explains, in good scientific method, why something works with a creature. What does millions of years have to do with? And why does it only make one appearance in a next to last paragraph?
That's all I'm saying... the article would have been just as good without that comment, no less scientific, no less informed. But now we know that the writer believes in evolution, knowing that there are still other viable answers out there (viable as in not disproven theories) just as evolution is still a theory, though widely accepted as fact (yet still a theory). If he hadn't written that, he wouldn't be viewed as believing in one thing or another... just reporting on the facts at hand.
Everything in the article is believable and factual. But the writer cannot prove that it was millions of years that brought this about. So leave it at the discoveries, and don't dabble in anything beyond his reporting abilities. Leave the 'why's, 'when's, and 'how's to more scientific research...
(sorry, just a little miffed that my last post got a -1 overrated:)
I still remember - and I'm pretty sure this was more than 10 years ago - working on my Amiga 2000 in DPaint, and being so impressed by the 320x200 *256* color pictures that were demonstrated and advertised in computer stores, magazines, all that... it was so amazing seeing an actual photograph in 'full color'... hehe
who woulda thought that we'd now have 1000's x 1000's of pixel images, and 16 million colors still isn't enough for truly full color images...:)...let alone being able to take these pictures in cameras the size of your wallet... sheesh!
There doesn't seem to be any particular bias that I can see.
There's only one problem, that made me twitch at the end. If there's "no bias" there should be any reference to million of years of evolution. Near the end of the article, out of nowehere they state that "over hundreds of millions of years, they have evolved the ability to sense just how much force to apply"...
But really, all MS comments aside, even if I didn't want to use IE or Outlook, I personally don't care if I can't uninstall it. I just won't use it. I've deleted any outlook express icons - who cares if it's still installed - and I use Eudora for ALL my email. If I didn't want to use IE, I'd simply make another browser the most accessible for me to use (I used to be anti-IE, but now I find it is the fastest and most powerful, even if it is because it's an MS product running on an MS product - oh well)
So many people are so picky about 'attached to the OS'... but that doesn't mean you HAVE to use it. Some might say they should have the ability to uninstall it since it takes up so much hard drive space. Well, unless it takes up over 100MB and my 20+GB hard drive is full of MP3's and movies I can't get rid of, I wouldn't notice either. To the mass public, they have no idea what takes up space. Windows is Windows. "What's 200MB?" If half that is Outlook and IE, they wouldn't know the difference. Worst case, they'd call someone and ask why something won't write when they have no hard drive space left. (but I'm sure someone will reply with a wors(er) case)
It's not deadly that something can't be uninstalled. It's being picky, if leaving it there does no harm.
But what if the hoax project page is also a hoax? Would that make the hoax real, or the hoax hoaxed? What if the hoax is part of the hoax? This hoax project could be a part of the overall hoax and we're getting hoaxed beyond our wildest imaginations!
But alas, how do we know MAVAV is the Real Thing and your project page isn't the hoax? If this project you speak of is true, wouldn't this posting of your project description page for MAVAV fit that bill as well (aside from registering a domain name)...
I mean, your project is so believable, what if the project is a hoax?
Your analogy was fine for your purpose, but in order to defend the other side to your argument, I extended the analogy...
I still hold that I believe MS's decision to modify future xbox models is completely legitimate and called for. What really bugs me is people keep complaining like the fact MS is modifying boxes -from this point on- somehow hurts them in some way.
But as so many point out, once you buy it, you can do whatever you want with it. YOUR box is still mod-able, it hasn't changed. People who buy boxes from now on will need to get newer mod chips, when they come out, as they come out, to battle against MS's plans.
Sure, the new bios isn't a security feature for the user. It has nothing to do with that, unless they added some security code to the OS to make online gameplay more secure. So yes, your original point was completely true.
I was replying to the fact that you're complaining about it. Why? It doesn't affect you... Unless you claim that you stand for the freedom of hackers to be able to do what they please with their own hardware because they bought it, and many hackers haven't yet bought a chip for the box, and will now be hindered in doing so easily.
This is where my extension to your analogy came in... now that the hackers know they'll have to pull some more strings to hack the box, they have a choice to buy or not to buy it. If you buy it, don't complain! It's not your 'right' to have a company lessen their product (with the new additions by MS, the new box is now their full product), so that you can bypass their security features against their will. My take: DON'T BUY IT. Buy something else, or wait!
If you purchased the car before the modification was made, you can fill up anywhere you want. You've still got your secure gas flap, and you can fill up anywhere. Suddenly the next model of the car can only fill up at conocco... so? What's it to you? Why are you making such a big point about how that car's claim to be more secure is a bad thing? Their claim is a step towards security, since if they survey all the conoccos to make sure all the nozzles are secure, and only verified users are enabled to use those nozzles for the car, and the previous security features on the flap still exist, then I would say it IS more secure, even if in a very small way... Aside from the fact that they use 'security' where another term would be more fitting, as long as everyone knows they can only fill at conocco before they buy the car, so what?
Perhaps you are just upset that they used the term 'secure' where another term would be more fitting... if that's all, then I apologize and I completely agree. But don't hop on the bandwagon and shun MS (if that's any more possible) because they changed the bios on their product to protect their product in their own eyes.
Finding out that I can only buy gas at connocco before vs. after the sale has ZERO bearing on wether or not it is a security feature.
I wasn't discussing the poster's original point, I was simply giving a better analogy... no where in my post did I even mention security, as that wasn't the point...
his original point may have been correct about how this issue isn't about security... but I was defending WHY ms's decision to do this is a completely legitimate and legal practice... it doesn't increase general user security, just MS's 'security' in knowing that their platform is still secure to only run software they allow.
If Honda sold me the car at a loss, but I could only fill up with a special, patented nozzle, only available at connocco that would not be security
How about, if Honda sells their cars, informing their customers that they may only purchase gas at connocco stations, is that not part of the purchase? Before you buy the car, and you know that you may only buy gas at those stations, why would buy it if you don't like that idea??
They create the Xbox to sell, to play games that are passed through them first. That is their whole business model. Anything beyond that is not part of the purpose of selling the box, and since the consumer KNOWS this (why else is hacking such an endeering practice?) complaining because you can't hack it to do what they don't want you to do, is simply ridiculous!
Now, if you bought the Honda, THEN they told you you can only get gas at connocco, only THEN will you have a legitimate reason to complain. Don't buy the product knowing that the limits with purchasing it will upset you. That's just stupidity. Especially if there's other cars out there that aren't limited to Connocco.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I was disagreeing with him. I was simply carrying on the conversation to the general audience and making my point.
Yes, physical theft and software theft are two different things with obviously quite different rules. Reproduction of software costs next to nothing for material, it's not like duplicating a TV or PS2 and returning the original. So software theft imburses no one with anything. You're not -taking- anything tangible from the creator. The difference is that you're taking the right of the creator to earn profit from its sale by not buying it at the set price. So it depends on what you consider 'theft'.
IMO, when selling a product OR service, you also have a right as a business to earn the price you place on the sale. So whether the thief steals the object (property taken), or a non-tangible entity (profit rights taken), it's theft...
Where should they get compensation? Calculate the full cost of paying the employees and charge the very first buyer the thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars they spent creating it? The main deciding factor for software (generally) is an estimate of expected sales and pricing it (absolutely) no less than enough per unit to make up the cost of producing it (developing and 'duplicating', small cost as it may be). Anything on top of that is profit.
What I fail to see is why people can justify copying something, physical or not, that the owner/creator chose the price for, and say that you deserve to own it without paying the asked price. If I create this software and I put a price on it, I want people to pay for it, not gip me out of my request as the creator because they think they deserve my software.
Now, if I went through a 3rd party and they decided the price for me, and I got a fraction of that, then I might have less of an issue, but I'd still want compensation for what I'm selling.
I wouldn't consider anyone deserving of my product if they don't pay me what I ask for it. That's not up to you to decide. If you don't like the price of the product, then don't purchase it. Make a point. Part of the product is the price. If you don't like the price, then from my point of view as the creator, you don't like my product.
THAT is why software piracy is completely wrong and illegal in my view...
if Hollywood wants to do them, let them... if they flop, they'll learn. There have been plenty of really good one-time movies out, and sequels make up a small percentage of new releases... the only complaints come from the people who didn't necessarily like the sequel, or think that because (applying that reason to other movies) a sequel was disappointing, the new one in question will also. Along with that there have been plenty of decent sequels as well.
There's no Hollywood conspiracy to milk us with sequels... there's no lack of directors with good taste and quality creativity... there's just people with a talent to speak up who happen not to like the idea of a sequel to a movie they either enjoyed or abhored...
To whet your appetite and un-brainwash yourself, go watch Meet Joe Black, Finding Forrester, Saving Private Ryan, Signs, Gladiator... Lord of the Rings (based on a novel, and a trilogy, not a series) plus many more medium to low-release indy films you can see at local smaller theatres... lots more fiction movies as well, if you're not up for well written action/fantasy/sci-fi/romance stories...
You just need patience to find the odd diamond in the rough when they come out.
with infinite mass comes infinite gravity, so basically if you swung a long enough stick fast enough, you'd create a black hole:).
Same kind of things as the argument - what if you took a step forward on a spaceship travelling at light speed? Of course the problem is that you'd have to have a chunk of normal space-time within the ship to do that, or be in some wormhole that breaks standard laws of physics (ala warp bubble?) or else you'd be torn apart by the black hole created by your own ship...
Don't forget Digital Extremes, creators of the Unreal franchise. I wanted to get a job with them because they were so local, but I was too late because when I called, they had moved to their new location because of their humungously rapid growth! There's a success story.
1) You allow a 3rd party organization to determine everything that is secure - one source, one standard (eg 'bad' MS)
2) You allow individuals to determine for themselves what is secure and malicious, and have them handle all the work of protection themselves.
You could argue a 1.5 where we imply a democracy on security, where majority rules what is and isn't secure and employs an organization ruled by that vote on what to do. But, sadly enough, most people just don't care and would rather someone else do all the dirty work. Especially when it's as tedious as software security.
Why do you trust Norton?
Why do you trust your home security company?
Why do you trust the police?
At some point, there must be one source or standard for general security. Replace Microsoft with 'Place a company name here' and still, how many people would complain that they're giving over their rights to someone else to determine what's right and wrong? Some people in the world, like techies and/.'ers may be able to handle their own security. But the world in general cannot. If this is a democracy, majority rules. And the minority has to either put up with it, or live in such a way to circumvent/adapt to/add on to what is legally put in place while not breaking through it (law).
That's one of the reasons linux is so appealing to many people... finding ways to do things your own way.
Slashdot Mirror
Mod parent up... why'd this get a troll rating?? It's about the only post in here that seems to defend the act of copyright prevention...
For all those people complaining because of legitimate file sharing, hey, if you want certain people to have YOUR prerelease video for YOUR movie, *send it to them*, don't share it on a public system. For those of you with legal pre-release videos that you are entitled to pass around, pass it around, but don't share it on a public system! It's not a hard concept!
By simply putting it on your system shared for anyone in the world to see, you ARE violating copyright. Anyone who has a legal copy of something they are entitled to share, usually has a stipulation of how it can be shared.
This isn't about making ANY form of distribution illegal, this is about making access to a movie pre-release publicly and freely accessible to anyone anywhere anytime. And if for some reason you are picked up when you have permission, you can't be charged becaus you have proof - hopefully in writing - that you weren't doing anything illegal. Chances are, that'll only work if it's NOT shared on a completely public open network!
sheesh people...
Spider, yes. Demon, no.
:o
For a moment there, I thought you were talking about the DOOM boss! Imagine seeing that machine thing crawling around the underground lair!
Thanks for your informative reply. First of all, IANAS(cientist), so my terminology may not be accurate, but if you present any argument, I'll do my best to answer to the best of my ability, with whatever research is necessary. If I can't find a defense of my point, then I'll concede it. Anyway...
:)]
[disclaimer: This is really, really long. Just a warning
As for hypothesis vs. theory, when it comes to something being true, and something essentially being true, I still find great distinction between the two. Whether creation is a hypothesis and evolution a theory, in my eyes - neither are provable in any form. Both can only be presented as a collection of observations and explanations, which to any degree may help support or disprove its respective stance. The 'scientific world' may consider evolution a theory now because there appears to be so much evidence that supports the position, but science, in any form, cannot say evolution is a fact, and can never, since any research done regarding past unrecorded time periods is purely extrapolation based on mathematical possibilities. It can't take into account unknown factors. As I'm sure you've heard before, no one was there, so no one knows for sure. This goes the same for creationism. There can be no absolute scientific proof one way or the other.
For me - hypothesis = theory. Yes, it's the theory of gravity. Science still doesn't fully understand what gravity is. What I know for a fact is that I'm pulled down towards the earth, being large and highly dense. Why? *shrug* science is still searching for that answer. But I know gravity exists.
I'll guarantee you, and I'm not afraid to, that any point you can find that you believe supports only the theory of evolution, AND therefore disproves the 'hypothesis' of creation, cannot be completely faultless or accurate. That, therefore, leaves only points that supposedly support evolution, but can also be explained by the creation model.
Hypothesis propose testable results. In the case of creationism/ID, there are none. Prove god exist, scientifically - Can't be done. Prove the earth was created 6000 years ago (young earth creationism) - Demonstratably false. Creationism has no tests that cannot be applied to it, so it fails to be even a hypothesis.
Prove the evolutionary chain, in any method - can't be done. And I don't mean prove it as a theory, I mean prove it as the only means of our, and the universe's, existence. Prove the earth evolved over millions and millions of years - Demonstatably false. Evolution has no tests that can be applied to it, so it must fail to be a hypothesis as well. Science can demonstrate tests in our modern physical world, and extrapolate from the results based on the foundation of evolution, finding a way for those results to support evolution. I can say that any observation you come across through science in our modern physical world can also be used to support the creation model. As of now, there is no scientific observation that cannot be used in some way to support the creation model.
Evolution: Theory. Not only does it have results we can test the validity of (example: result from hypothesis: birds should have more genes in common to other birds than bacteria. Test: Found to be true. Therefore, theory holds up)
How does this prove evolution and disprove creation? This isn't evidence that evolution occurred, it's simply evidence that similar animals should have more similar genese with each other than with different species. Even here there are so many variations between species in the gene pool, both by similarities and numbers, that it can't be extrapolated that the number of similar genes indicates its position in the evolutionary scale, as some scientists believe. It's simply a scientific observation.
Even where evolution has 'bugs', it's not in the overarching theory, but in the details. In the large sense, evolution is TRUE.
Exactly th
And as for evolution... Well, the schools are teaching science, so evolution is required. The schools generally do not teach religion, so creation 'science' and CS-a-likes like ID are not to be taught. If the schools do comparitive religion, then that could easily be added to that portion of the cirriculum, of course. But it's not science.
:P
Please explain how evolutionary research is science and creation research is not science? Do both not operate on a hypothesis defining the origins of the world, life, and the universe? Are both not scientific methods used to try to defend these hypotheses?
You may have been subject to a creationist who doesn't use scientific methods to try to defend the creationist stance. Hopefully you don't use that one person's act as the foundation for your belief that creation science is not science.
Neither evolution nor creation can be proven empirically, and neither can be proven as fact as surely as we know molecules exist and the earth spins on an angle. Without being biased, evolution and creation are both theories that are in the process of being proven through scientific method. Both have their 'good' and 'bad' scientists with their methods, but creation is just as viable as a science as evolution.
However, it is UNSCIENTIFIC and unethical to rephrase theories to state that your belief is fact, especially if there are other viable scientific theories that disagree with yours. Evolution, if being taught in schools, MUST be taught as theory, and if being taught as theory, creation has just as much right to be taught as theory. If creation is not allowed as a viable scientific theory, then evolution cannot either. If the government makes laws against bias towards any belief system, evolution cannot be taught, else creation has as much right to be taught, as long as both are taught as theories, with adequate research material. Both are belief systems founded on a hypothesis, whether that includes divine intervention or not. All theories are viable until one is disproven. If two theories are fighting, and neither is disproven, that does not invalidate the science, it just means believers of either theory need to continue to work towards the goal of proving theirs (or disproving the other)
Alas, teaching both would likely cause a very LARGE amount of chaos in the education system. Thus I'm for not teaching evolution in school. And no, this does NOT cut out science as a class. Evolution is one aspect of the strive of science - the pursuit of truth. If science only works on the assumption that evolution is the only possibility, it is not the pursuit of truth. Plenty of science - physics, biology, chemistry - can be taught without touching conflict enducing 'religious' topics such as origins.
Teaching our students 'what we evolved from' when it should be 'what is believed we evolved from' is a crime, if it is a crime to allow voluntary prayer in schools (as has been attested in numerous previous posts in this article).
If one step is to be taken, the first is to fix our schools, and ensure that theory is not taught as fact - whether that be evolution or teachers who take it upon themselves to teach creation as fact.
I'm a Christian, I believe in creation. But that doesn't make me a believer that america should falsely be a forced religious country. People should have choice to believe for themselves what they want to believe. And I believe in fairness, freedom, and rights, if that is what the country is founded on.
Anyway I could go on for pages and pages, so I'll stop now and get back to work
Matt, I like your replies... I'm only replying here so I have a record of this discussion :) good work hehe
from the Enterprise intro? Isn't that shuttle-jet craft we see in the intro going to be built? I mean, it's in Star Trek history, so it must eventually happen, otherwise Star Trek's just a bunch of science fiction!
You could... just send them a file with only the 1 bits through the whole file. They can fill in the rest! That's not illegal is it? You're not sending the 0's.......
bah, that "virus-spreading, worm-generating underground, from having hay-days at the world's expense" :)
The main problem is people not knowing, or not caring about patching or updating the problems. This isn't something that's directly managable by MS. With an OS so widely used, how can updates be ensured to be installed on everyone's machine to stop spreading of viruses and exploits?
Some will say the user should have the choice... ok, so half the people who couldn't care less will still allow the spreading of the problems...
Some will say automatic background updating is the only solution... ok, so the majority of people still using low speed connections will bog down their systems, let alone major networks suddenly pulling huge bandwidth when every machine receives the command to update simultaneously...
And some still complain that even if the update is pushed and you need to say yes or no, it's still infringing on your privacy your own system...
Is there any way to implement a global, trustworthy, reliable patch service that is accepted by everyone? If not, there's no way to stop the virus spreading, work generating underground from having hay-days at the world's expense...
And this goes for any OS, not just Windows...
and I'm sure you realize that the field of biology has pretty much accepted evolution as the most probably theory
:)
but in an unbiased article, I wouldn't expect to see a point that didn't need to be made, that is known to presently still be on the debate table. The article is talking about a breakthrough in research which finally explains, in good scientific method, why something works with a creature. What does millions of years have to do with? And why does it only make one appearance in a next to last paragraph?
That's all I'm saying... the article would have been just as good without that comment, no less scientific, no less informed. But now we know that the writer believes in evolution, knowing that there are still other viable answers out there (viable as in not disproven theories) just as evolution is still a theory, though widely accepted as fact (yet still a theory). If he hadn't written that, he wouldn't be viewed as believing in one thing or another... just reporting on the facts at hand.
Everything in the article is believable and factual. But the writer cannot prove that it was millions of years that brought this about. So leave it at the discoveries, and don't dabble in anything beyond his reporting abilities. Leave the 'why's, 'when's, and 'how's to more scientific research...
(sorry, just a little miffed that my last post got a -1 overrated
People predicted ridiculous resolutions for video
:) ...let alone being able to take these pictures in cameras the size of your wallet... sheesh!
I still remember - and I'm pretty sure this was more than 10 years ago - working on my Amiga 2000 in DPaint, and being so impressed by the 320x200 *256* color pictures that were demonstrated and advertised in computer stores, magazines, all that... it was so amazing seeing an actual photograph in 'full color'... hehe
who woulda thought that we'd now have 1000's x 1000's of pixel images, and 16 million colors still isn't enough for truly full color images...
There doesn't seem to be any particular bias that I can see.
There's only one problem, that made me twitch at the end. If there's "no bias" there should be any reference to million of years of evolution. Near the end of the article, out of nowehere they state that "over hundreds of millions of years, they have evolved the ability to sense just how much force to apply"...
I don't find that unbiased reporting...
I know what you're talking about, sounds familiar... the game doesn't come to mind either ... grr! :)
But really, all MS comments aside, even if I didn't want to use IE or Outlook, I personally don't care if I can't uninstall it. I just won't use it. I've deleted any outlook express icons - who cares if it's still installed - and I use Eudora for ALL my email. If I didn't want to use IE, I'd simply make another browser the most accessible for me to use (I used to be anti-IE, but now I find it is the fastest and most powerful, even if it is because it's an MS product running on an MS product - oh well)
So many people are so picky about 'attached to the OS'... but that doesn't mean you HAVE to use it. Some might say they should have the ability to uninstall it since it takes up so much hard drive space. Well, unless it takes up over 100MB and my 20+GB hard drive is full of MP3's and movies I can't get rid of, I wouldn't notice either. To the mass public, they have no idea what takes up space. Windows is Windows. "What's 200MB?" If half that is Outlook and IE, they wouldn't know the difference. Worst case, they'd call someone and ask why something won't write when they have no hard drive space left. (but I'm sure someone will reply with a wors(er) case)
It's not deadly that something can't be uninstalled. It's being picky, if leaving it there does no harm.
But that's just IMHO...
But what if the hoax project page is also a hoax? Would that make the hoax real, or the hoax hoaxed? What if the hoax is part of the hoax? This hoax project could be a part of the overall hoax and we're getting hoaxed beyond our wildest imaginations!
But alas, how do we know MAVAV is the Real Thing and your project page isn't the hoax? If this project you speak of is true, wouldn't this posting of your project description page for MAVAV fit that bill as well (aside from registering a domain name)...
I mean, your project is so believable, what if the project is a hoax?
Your analogy was fine for your purpose, but in order to defend the other side to your argument, I extended the analogy...
I still hold that I believe MS's decision to modify future xbox models is completely legitimate and called for. What really bugs me is people keep complaining like the fact MS is modifying boxes -from this point on- somehow hurts them in some way.
But as so many point out, once you buy it, you can do whatever you want with it. YOUR box is still mod-able, it hasn't changed. People who buy boxes from now on will need to get newer mod chips, when they come out, as they come out, to battle against MS's plans.
Sure, the new bios isn't a security feature for the user. It has nothing to do with that, unless they added some security code to the OS to make online gameplay more secure. So yes, your original point was completely true.
I was replying to the fact that you're complaining about it. Why? It doesn't affect you... Unless you claim that you stand for the freedom of hackers to be able to do what they please with their own hardware because they bought it, and many hackers haven't yet bought a chip for the box, and will now be hindered in doing so easily.
This is where my extension to your analogy came in... now that the hackers know they'll have to pull some more strings to hack the box, they have a choice to buy or not to buy it. If you buy it, don't complain! It's not your 'right' to have a company lessen their product (with the new additions by MS, the new box is now their full product), so that you can bypass their security features against their will. My take: DON'T BUY IT. Buy something else, or wait!
If you purchased the car before the modification was made, you can fill up anywhere you want. You've still got your secure gas flap, and you can fill up anywhere. Suddenly the next model of the car can only fill up at conocco... so? What's it to you? Why are you making such a big point about how that car's claim to be more secure is a bad thing? Their claim is a step towards security, since if they survey all the conoccos to make sure all the nozzles are secure, and only verified users are enabled to use those nozzles for the car, and the previous security features on the flap still exist, then I would say it IS more secure, even if in a very small way... Aside from the fact that they use 'security' where another term would be more fitting, as long as everyone knows they can only fill at conocco before they buy the car, so what?
Perhaps you are just upset that they used the term 'secure' where another term would be more fitting... if that's all, then I apologize and I completely agree. But don't hop on the bandwagon and shun MS (if that's any more possible) because they changed the bios on their product to protect their product in their own eyes.
out.
Finding out that I can only buy gas at connocco before vs. after the sale has ZERO bearing on wether or not it is a security feature.
I wasn't discussing the poster's original point, I was simply giving a better analogy... no where in my post did I even mention security, as that wasn't the point...
his original point may have been correct about how this issue isn't about security... but I was defending WHY ms's decision to do this is a completely legitimate and legal practice... it doesn't increase general user security, just MS's 'security' in knowing that their platform is still secure to only run software they allow.
If Honda sold me the car at a loss, but I could only fill up with a special, patented nozzle, only available at connocco that would not be security
How about, if Honda sells their cars, informing their customers that they may only purchase gas at connocco stations, is that not part of the purchase? Before you buy the car, and you know that you may only buy gas at those stations, why would buy it if you don't like that idea??
They create the Xbox to sell, to play games that are passed through them first. That is their whole business model. Anything beyond that is not part of the purpose of selling the box, and since the consumer KNOWS this (why else is hacking such an endeering practice?) complaining because you can't hack it to do what they don't want you to do, is simply ridiculous!
Now, if you bought the Honda, THEN they told you you can only get gas at connocco, only THEN will you have a legitimate reason to complain. Don't buy the product knowing that the limits with purchasing it will upset you. That's just stupidity. Especially if there's other cars out there that aren't limited to Connocco.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I was disagreeing with him. I was simply carrying on the conversation to the general audience and making my point.
:)
Yes, physical theft and software theft are two different things with obviously quite different rules. Reproduction of software costs next to nothing for material, it's not like duplicating a TV or PS2 and returning the original. So software theft imburses no one with anything. You're not -taking- anything tangible from the creator. The difference is that you're taking the right of the creator to earn profit from its sale by not buying it at the set price. So it depends on what you consider 'theft'.
IMO, when selling a product OR service, you also have a right as a business to earn the price you place on the sale. So whether the thief steals the object (property taken), or a non-tangible entity (profit rights taken), it's theft...
Now, IP... well, that's a whole other story
Where should they get compensation? Calculate the full cost of paying the employees and charge the very first buyer the thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars they spent creating it? The main deciding factor for software (generally) is an estimate of expected sales and pricing it (absolutely) no less than enough per unit to make up the cost of producing it (developing and 'duplicating', small cost as it may be). Anything on top of that is profit.
What I fail to see is why people can justify copying something, physical or not, that the owner/creator chose the price for, and say that you deserve to own it without paying the asked price. If I create this software and I put a price on it, I want people to pay for it, not gip me out of my request as the creator because they think they deserve my software.
Now, if I went through a 3rd party and they decided the price for me, and I got a fraction of that, then I might have less of an issue, but I'd still want compensation for what I'm selling.
I wouldn't consider anyone deserving of my product if they don't pay me what I ask for it. That's not up to you to decide. If you don't like the price of the product, then don't purchase it. Make a point. Part of the product is the price. If you don't like the price, then from my point of view as the creator, you don't like my product.
THAT is why software piracy is completely wrong and illegal in my view...
if Hollywood wants to do them, let them... if they flop, they'll learn. There have been plenty of really good one-time movies out, and sequels make up a small percentage of new releases... the only complaints come from the people who didn't necessarily like the sequel, or think that because (applying that reason to other movies) a sequel was disappointing, the new one in question will also. Along with that there have been plenty of decent sequels as well.
There's no Hollywood conspiracy to milk us with sequels... there's no lack of directors with good taste and quality creativity... there's just people with a talent to speak up who happen not to like the idea of a sequel to a movie they either enjoyed or abhored...
To whet your appetite and un-brainwash yourself, go watch Meet Joe Black, Finding Forrester, Saving Private Ryan, Signs, Gladiator... Lord of the Rings (based on a novel, and a trilogy, not a series) plus many more medium to low-release indy films you can see at local smaller theatres... lots more fiction movies as well, if you're not up for well written action/fantasy/sci-fi/romance stories...
You just need patience to find the odd diamond in the rough when they come out.
with infinite mass comes infinite gravity, so basically if you swung a long enough stick fast enough, you'd create a black hole :).
:)
Same kind of things as the argument - what if you took a step forward on a spaceship travelling at light speed? Of course the problem is that you'd have to have a chunk of normal space-time within the ship to do that, or be in some wormhole that breaks standard laws of physics (ala warp bubble?) or else you'd be torn apart by the black hole created by your own ship...
*shrug* food for thought...
Don't forget Digital Extremes, creators of the Unreal franchise. I wanted to get a job with them because they were so local, but I was too late because when I called, they had moved to their new location because of their humungously rapid growth! There's a success story.
Who decides what is and isn't secure?
/.'ers may be able to handle their own security. But the world in general cannot. If this is a democracy, majority rules. And the minority has to either put up with it, or live in such a way to circumvent/adapt to/add on to what is legally put in place while not breaking through it (law).
1) You allow a 3rd party organization to determine everything that is secure - one source, one standard (eg 'bad' MS)
2) You allow individuals to determine for themselves what is secure and malicious, and have them handle all the work of protection themselves.
You could argue a 1.5 where we imply a democracy on security, where majority rules what is and isn't secure and employs an organization ruled by that vote on what to do. But, sadly enough, most people just don't care and would rather someone else do all the dirty work. Especially when it's as tedious as software security.
Why do you trust Norton?
Why do you trust your home security company?
Why do you trust the police?
At some point, there must be one source or standard for general security. Replace Microsoft with 'Place a company name here' and still, how many people would complain that they're giving over their rights to someone else to determine what's right and wrong? Some people in the world, like techies and
That's one of the reasons linux is so appealing to many people... finding ways to do things your own way.