I honestly don't get the big deal with this. Now myself I am religious, but when I'm dead. I'm dead. And unless we figure out how to freeze people then revive them, this doesn't seem like a big deal. You get your grave for people to remember you, and your organs are put to good use. Seems like a fair trade to me.
No. Seeing as if you are most people who don't share more then some music/photos/text online AV software is a waste. Chances are you won't be exchanging binaries with executable programs with these people and it is therefore needless. While some music/photos can have viruses in them, the vast majority doesn't, making it needless unless say you run a server and need to check all the traffic going in/out.
You are forgetting something. And that is Windows. Even the absolute best AV product cannot block every threat, why? Because Windows is closed-source and MS has a monopoly. Whereas Linux distros are hurrying to be the quickest to create a package for the newest flaw that comes out, there is no competition in the commercial OS department so MS can take their time in patching it. Also, you are forgetting about how most AV products are commercial and therefore won't detect some threats such as the Sony Rootkits, government produced malware and might take bribes from the malware authors themselves to not be detected.
I doubt it would be very much larger. Most non-technical Linux users only install software from Ubuntu/Debian/Mandirva/openSUSE/Fedora repositories. Very few of them would take the time to either compile it or install a package outside of Add/Remove Programs. And most technical users would know that it would be a virus either from reading Slashdot or from it not being a necessary program. As for Mac users, there could be a potential but Apple would probably take steps to block the virus.
No the prize system works better for basic science. With it being a product you can sell, most of the time scientists won't even attempt something that won't make a profit unless they can get government agencies to buy into it. Now we can offer prizes to get things that aren't profitable done quicker.
Here is a funny quirk that pissed me off though...on the flight back to the US from HK, I couldn't take a bottle of water with me on the plane that I purchased after the security checkpoints...they confiscated larger bottles of liqid from everyone as we boarded (excluding medicines and baby formula). What's up with that?
The same reasons airports do all kinds of strange things... To make you pay more.
I object to saying that video games are getting more violent. Think of say, Space Invaders, the concept was simple: Shoot Aliens. However with better graphics such as Quake with the same objective the game suddenly becomes violent. Technology has evolved and what people mostly say is they don't object to bad graphics aliens being shot but as soon as we move it to 3-D and add a bit of blood rather then just random colors it now is violent.
To what? Another similar one? Face it, any mainstream candidate that has any chance of being elected falls in the same trap. Republicans, and Democrats both and also some independents. And until we can either get a large Pirate party here in the US or get some tech-savvy senators/representatives who can cut through the FUD that the RIAA has created we won't have a large enough majority to matter. It also doesn't help that I have never, never seen anyone (who was very popular) say much about P2P or other technology except "The US should have more tech jobs!!" which doesn't tell you anything about how they stand, and no writing letters/e-mails doesn't help.
Windows (For being easy to compremize and turn into a bot)
Apache (For hosting some identity theft websites)
Linux (For running Apache)
Unix (For also running Apache)
OS X (For being Unix)
Any text editor/word processor (For giving the criminals the ability to type fradulant websites)
It is too confusing choosing a distro, and a lot of people will just stick with the first or second distro they find, because they don't care about all the variations.
Thats not necessarily a bad thing though.... If someone who has never used the command line on Ubuntu before tried Gentoo.... I think there would be lots of headaches for the developers....
So wait... How does that work? Chances are if someone relies on free software outside of free software projects (such as Debian, Mozilla, Ubuntu, Open Office, etc.) they work as a business and use free software to get the job done. Most of the time that software never leaves the company so the company could say that it will provide the source to anyone who requests it (being nobody) the company is in no way obligated to publish the modifications they made. They just can't prevent someone who has the source from uploading it to a server and having people download it.
Not to mention that if the manufacturer goes out of business, all the equipment stops working.
As if anyone would take -that- risk...
Yet I see people with DRM-ed music bought from online stores such as iTunes that could go out of business and then the songs won't be able to be redownloaded. I see even more people (including me) who buy virtual games on current generation consoles such as the Wii/360/PS3 that if your HD goes bad or you run out of room (in the case of the Wii its rather easy to) Your stuck and can't get your data if the console gets retired or Nintendo/MS/Sony goes out of business. So yes, I can see people taking that risk, now for people having to pay more for this, I don't see how that will work.
Just exactly why would the end user want what is essentally hardware DRM? With "pirated" chips the customer had paid for the chip while when you "pirate" music you usally get it for free. With these "pirated" chips you think you actually have a legit product (and really, if it works and is cheap who cares) that is unlike "pirating" music where most people know that its not 100% legal.
No, dumb people shouldn't use an insecure browser such as IE. Really, just using Firefox takes your threats down by a good 75% even if you are using Windows.
A browser being open source does not induce some form of hand-waving magic where it by virtue of being open source is secure.
No but it sure is much more secure then the proprietary alternatives. Think of all the holes that IE has, a prime example of a proprietary browser with a proprietary technology (Active X) giving most of the flaws it has.
So which works better? Closing a country off from (what was once) the most free country in the world, or flooding the streets with American tourists who will tell the people about life in a free state. I think the latter would work much better, because it would be like if you grew up in say a prison cell you wouldn't know what life was like on the other side, however if you get thrown in prison its much worse and you want to get out of it. Believe it or not I am sure there are more Cubans who could change the government then government officials to keep it the way it is.
So wait.... you shouldn't use a (decently) secure browser such as Safari that is partly open-source, while you should use a browser that is fully proprietary (though with anti-phishing) and has a track record of being insecure? Not to mention how easy it is to keylog most Windows systems have already? Honestly, I think that making sure your browser is secure is much more important then making sure your info isn't going to an incorrect site.
So, why then is Vista so much slower then XP even with all the extra eye-candy and features turned off? Either MS can't program a decent OS which could be true, or there is some hidden thing going on such as DRM or WGA. So there are two logical choices, MS can't program so don't use Vista or MS is using DRM so don't use Vista either way, Vista is a failure of an OS and you must agree with that.
As for lack of support, where else are the media companies going to go if MS says no to DRM? People aren't going to take "No support for PCs" as an answer with Blu-Ray boasting a 50 gig capacity for storage. It isn't like the media companies are going to abandon MS for Apple, as it seems to be the perpetual underdog (and honestly I don't think Apple would be doing too well if it wasn't) and as for Linux it would be cracked in a matter of minutes, so the answer would be little to no DRM. Even if it was a third-party application that was required to view movies, at least MS would support its customers in saying no to it.
It would be faster until some guy arrives 5 minutes later then everyone else and has to go through security and get on the plane, because of the order everyone would have to stop, let him through, reorganize and then go through. In an ideal situation it would be faster but chaos is quicker then order because order can never truly happen.
This prohibits far more than software patents - some types of medical treatments, manufacturing processes, and so on. That might be a good or bad thing, depending on how you look at it.
How would that be a bad thing? It would mean, A) Cheaper medicine (because you can buy the generic ones rather then the patented name-brand ones) B) Cheaper goods (because they could use more effecent manufacturing methods) and of course C) We might (actually) innovate past 2000 in software. I really don't see how that can be a bad thing.
I agree with you. And those that say "software patents help the industry" are totally wrong. If it weren't for SW patents we would have less of a monopoly and stagnation of software because every one would be on equal footing and the community projects (Linux) could use the same things as the commercial projects (Mac and Windows) legally.
Slashdot Mirror
I honestly don't get the big deal with this. Now myself I am religious, but when I'm dead. I'm dead. And unless we figure out how to freeze people then revive them, this doesn't seem like a big deal. You get your grave for people to remember you, and your organs are put to good use. Seems like a fair trade to me.
I thought we were talking about Mac here, not Ubuntu!
I'm assuming your talking about Stallman in which case it would be the GNU not Tux. Rule Number 1 of geek humor: Be accurate.
No. Seeing as if you are most people who don't share more then some music/photos/text online AV software is a waste. Chances are you won't be exchanging binaries with executable programs with these people and it is therefore needless. While some music/photos can have viruses in them, the vast majority doesn't, making it needless unless say you run a server and need to check all the traffic going in/out.
You are forgetting something. And that is Windows. Even the absolute best AV product cannot block every threat, why? Because Windows is closed-source and MS has a monopoly. Whereas Linux distros are hurrying to be the quickest to create a package for the newest flaw that comes out, there is no competition in the commercial OS department so MS can take their time in patching it. Also, you are forgetting about how most AV products are commercial and therefore won't detect some threats such as the Sony Rootkits, government produced malware and might take bribes from the malware authors themselves to not be detected.
I doubt it would be very much larger. Most non-technical Linux users only install software from Ubuntu/Debian/Mandirva/openSUSE/Fedora repositories. Very few of them would take the time to either compile it or install a package outside of Add/Remove Programs. And most technical users would know that it would be a virus either from reading Slashdot or from it not being a necessary program. As for Mac users, there could be a potential but Apple would probably take steps to block the virus.
No the prize system works better for basic science. With it being a product you can sell, most of the time scientists won't even attempt something that won't make a profit unless they can get government agencies to buy into it. Now we can offer prizes to get things that aren't profitable done quicker.
The same reasons airports do all kinds of strange things... To make you pay more.
I object to saying that video games are getting more violent. Think of say, Space Invaders, the concept was simple: Shoot Aliens. However with better graphics such as Quake with the same objective the game suddenly becomes violent. Technology has evolved and what people mostly say is they don't object to bad graphics aliens being shot but as soon as we move it to 3-D and add a bit of blood rather then just random colors it now is violent.
To what? Another similar one? Face it, any mainstream candidate that has any chance of being elected falls in the same trap. Republicans, and Democrats both and also some independents. And until we can either get a large Pirate party here in the US or get some tech-savvy senators/representatives who can cut through the FUD that the RIAA has created we won't have a large enough majority to matter. It also doesn't help that I have never, never seen anyone (who was very popular) say much about P2P or other technology except "The US should have more tech jobs!!" which doesn't tell you anything about how they stand, and no writing letters/e-mails doesn't help.
And lets see what else....
Windows (For being easy to compremize and turn into a bot)
Apache (For hosting some identity theft websites)
Linux (For running Apache)
Unix (For also running Apache)
OS X (For being Unix)
Any text editor/word processor (For giving the criminals the ability to type fradulant websites)
Thats not necessarily a bad thing though.... If someone who has never used the command line on Ubuntu before tried Gentoo.... I think there would be lots of headaches for the developers....
So wait... How does that work? Chances are if someone relies on free software outside of free software projects (such as Debian, Mozilla, Ubuntu, Open Office, etc.) they work as a business and use free software to get the job done. Most of the time that software never leaves the company so the company could say that it will provide the source to anyone who requests it (being nobody) the company is in no way obligated to publish the modifications they made. They just can't prevent someone who has the source from uploading it to a server and having people download it.
Yet I see people with DRM-ed music bought from online stores such as iTunes that could go out of business and then the songs won't be able to be redownloaded. I see even more people (including me) who buy virtual games on current generation consoles such as the Wii/360/PS3 that if your HD goes bad or you run out of room (in the case of the Wii its rather easy to) Your stuck and can't get your data if the console gets retired or Nintendo/MS/Sony goes out of business. So yes, I can see people taking that risk, now for people having to pay more for this, I don't see how that will work.
Just exactly why would the end user want what is essentally hardware DRM? With "pirated" chips the customer had paid for the chip while when you "pirate" music you usally get it for free. With these "pirated" chips you think you actually have a legit product (and really, if it works and is cheap who cares) that is unlike "pirating" music where most people know that its not 100% legal.
No, dumb people shouldn't use an insecure browser such as IE. Really, just using Firefox takes your threats down by a good 75% even if you are using Windows.
But if people want the government to be communist let them, they still need a majority vote. However I don't see them getting it anytime soon.
No but it sure is much more secure then the proprietary alternatives. Think of all the holes that IE has, a prime example of a proprietary browser with a proprietary technology (Active X) giving most of the flaws it has.
So which works better? Closing a country off from (what was once) the most free country in the world, or flooding the streets with American tourists who will tell the people about life in a free state. I think the latter would work much better, because it would be like if you grew up in say a prison cell you wouldn't know what life was like on the other side, however if you get thrown in prison its much worse and you want to get out of it. Believe it or not I am sure there are more Cubans who could change the government then government officials to keep it the way it is.
So wait.... you shouldn't use a (decently) secure browser such as Safari that is partly open-source, while you should use a browser that is fully proprietary (though with anti-phishing) and has a track record of being insecure? Not to mention how easy it is to keylog most Windows systems have already? Honestly, I think that making sure your browser is secure is much more important then making sure your info isn't going to an incorrect site.
So, why then is Vista so much slower then XP even with all the extra eye-candy and features turned off? Either MS can't program a decent OS which could be true, or there is some hidden thing going on such as DRM or WGA. So there are two logical choices, MS can't program so don't use Vista or MS is using DRM so don't use Vista either way, Vista is a failure of an OS and you must agree with that.
As for lack of support, where else are the media companies going to go if MS says no to DRM? People aren't going to take "No support for PCs" as an answer with Blu-Ray boasting a 50 gig capacity for storage. It isn't like the media companies are going to abandon MS for Apple, as it seems to be the perpetual underdog (and honestly I don't think Apple would be doing too well if it wasn't) and as for Linux it would be cracked in a matter of minutes, so the answer would be little to no DRM. Even if it was a third-party application that was required to view movies, at least MS would support its customers in saying no to it.
It would be faster until some guy arrives 5 minutes later then everyone else and has to go through security and get on the plane, because of the order everyone would have to stop, let him through, reorganize and then go through. In an ideal situation it would be faster but chaos is quicker then order because order can never truly happen.
But we could finally use DVD playback, MP3 playback, etc. That would boost Linux's popularity on the desktop.
How would that be a bad thing? It would mean, A) Cheaper medicine (because you can buy the generic ones rather then the patented name-brand ones) B) Cheaper goods (because they could use more effecent manufacturing methods) and of course C) We might (actually) innovate past 2000 in software. I really don't see how that can be a bad thing.
I agree with you. And those that say "software patents help the industry" are totally wrong. If it weren't for SW patents we would have less of a monopoly and stagnation of software because every one would be on equal footing and the community projects (Linux) could use the same things as the commercial projects (Mac and Windows) legally.