we're not getting there. As an example, McAfee has an on-access scan. Any file read or written gets scanned.
A virus can disable that, so the workaround is to have a monitor program ensure the on-access scan is enabled.
That can be stopped, so you make the service un-stoppable.
That can be worked around, so the current solution is to have anther monitor connect to the policy server (for lack of a better term), download what the settings should be, and re-set all of the settings and re-start any stopped services.
See where this is going? Man in the middle attack, or setting up a route over a virtual interface, or whatever you need to in order to send the "disable" policy back. Now McAfee is stopped and you can't do anything about it.
Antivirus is so bloated that Adobe put Reader_SL.exe which opens and closes every Adobe Reader file and then quits. In theory the Antivirus program makes a list of scanned programs so they don't need to be re-scanned unless the file changes.
Not sure if McAfee works that way, which seems like a nice next target for hacking, but more likely the filesystem cache makes the scan seem quicker.
The overhead is disasterous with all of the redundant checks, and now you need a dual core processor to read your e-mail (Using Outlook on Vista I should specify).
The design is all wrong, the implementation is a non-winnable situation. The only thing we can do from software side is to spend time writing secure code, or a framework that ensures code is safe (like Java or.NET or other managed code type things). Even then, there are parts that need to be written at a low level. Mathematically proven security is only as good as the proof, so we're back to square one. You're vulnerable, and should assume so.
On top of that, the only thing that truly matters is what antivirus you put on there. Anything else is overkill.
I uninstalled McAfee yesterday so that I could analyze 1 hour's worth of SP:StatementCompleted logs. Windows is terrible at i/o prioritization. Adobe Reader actually has a speed launcher that opens and closes all of the reader plugins and files, so the antivirus "marks them as safe". I don't buy that, I think the normal windows file caching is what speeds that up.
Anyway, antivirus is going to skew the results, even with 7's improved performance. Don't bother, just get faster hard drives. 10k RPM is the only solution.
Everyone knows about the log off button design team now surely? Overstaffing is the root of many problems. Once someone has a team, they have to keep feeding the team, and grow its responsibilities, or they lose manager status. So you fight with other parts of the company to keep your own job. Not healthy.
No he didn't, it only works in a hypothetical environment. Space particles will absorb some of the energy, especially since finding an area with a different speed of light will probably be VERY far away. The chance of you getting the matter back at that point in anywhere near human timescales is pretty much nothing. By the time you get it back, it will probably be smaller than you expect due to this absorption.
Plus, when the speed of light slows, a laser beam will effectively slow down as well. I'm not sure if it will shed mass or just effectively lose power. If you ignore the absorption loss above, you'll get back exactly what you sent.
There's no way MS would do this so your point is irrelevant. Microsoft makes platforms, Apple makes products. Of course we'd yell and scream because we're used to having platforms from Microsoft.
The biggest products Microsoft offers are:
Windows - a generic platform with plugins called "drivers" to support all kinds of hardware
Office - a generic document creation tool so you can make your own documents, with full automation so you can make apps out of your docs
SQL Server - a generic database so you can create databases
.NET - a framework for web and executable development
Visual Studio - development environment
XBOX - a platform for other game companies to make games
Apple makes hardware.
OSX - BSD with a pretty face
Safari - a browser based on WebKit that KHTML devs had to protest to access changes
iTunes - a fairly locked down way to buy stuff and transfer it to the iPod
Are you kidding? Design would be highly sought after. People with means would pay exorbitant amounts of money for something cool and unique, and go through great lengths inventing a force field to prevent the design from being stolen.
But it wouldn't really matter, because we can duplicate food and apartments and clothing and whatever else. No one would need money, and people would be free to invent or design all kinds of stuff for the good of all people, not for money. Because money can be duplicated too.
I got something from Redbox and my gf went outside for a cigarette - by the time she came back in and asked what I was doing, still sitting in front of the TV, I said I'm starting up.... and I had forgotten what I put in.
That pales in comparison to the 20 minutes of previews I watched before "Anger Management", but that was in the theater (I feel bad admitting that). I don't own the theater, and actually the theater takes orders from the headquarters so they can't really make changes, but I own my DVD player and I have the right to watch my rented DVD (as long as the license to watch is valid).
I regularly copy movies in IFO mode and extract just the movie. It does two things for me. No menu, no previews, no FBI warning, and it usually fits on a single-layer disc after removing the subtitle and alternate language streams. DVD Decrypter, IFO mode, enable stream processing, remove stuff you don't want, then IFOEdit to create a valid IFO with the hacked-up VOBs. I believe that falls under backup for personal use as well as first sale (I can modify a table for my own use after I buy it, why not a movie?)
If it were an article on USA and a Republican wrote it, being a citizen I'd expect his perspective to be biased. On the other hand, if a Democrat wrote it, I'd expect it to be biased. You're correct about assumptions being made, but if I'm a "social studies" major for lack of a better generic term, I'm going to think my objective conclusions are more accurate than some guy who lives there. Especially if he protests.
Countless times I hear how no one likes some politician or pop star, but there are piles of blogs and photos where these people are getting rock star welcomes. Nickelback? No one likes them, except the 90,000 people in Alberta, 2007.
In order to be objective and print all of the facts, not just selected ones, you have to have a detachment that someone passionate and experienced may not have. I have countless arguments with people who switch between valid points and emotional pleas quickly enough that I either ignore the emotional points or say "Too emotional, you're not being objective." And that pisses them off, making them more emotional and it falls apart. Yes there are assumptions involved, but if it went on for pages at least one of them had emotional involvement, if not both.
His Honour Judge Toulmin also said that the software was not up to the tasks that Kingsway needed to use it for, and which Red Sky should have known were part of Kingsway's needs when buying the product.
This isn't bugs, this is the software doesn't have the features claimed. You get a product demo and think it's going to be awesome, install it, and then find out it doesn't do what you need it to do. Think SAP. I'd bet if you have a horribly unusable interface but it is sufficiently documented so you can make it do something, that's no issue. If it simply doesn't have features you were led to believe it had, that's the issue.
The same rule would probably cover defects which prevent the software from functioning, but if it's in the reporting or other rarely used modules you'd still be able to use the product.
I put a link to the article on my FB page. Of course, no one ever replies to my posts, I think they filtered me out a long time ago. If everyone on slashdot with a facebook account did it, we'd reach - *does mental math* 20 people? Maybe 30. But at least we'd be trying.
I really interested in what the reasoning was behind all of this. Most people highlight because of their professor/teacher, not for entertainment. The small subset of reference or self-help books which users are likely to independently highlight give you snippets and keywords which are going to be useless outside of context. Bible study, book clubs - it's all groupthink, and you're going to reinforce the importance of specific parts without users coming to the same conclusion.
You're going to end up with mandated highlights from classes which will overwhelm any valuabe personal opinion, and jargon-infested noise.
I see someone coming up with lesson plans based on the most highlighted passages, which are obviously much more important, and missing the structural foundation of the story. In other words, no good can come of this.
The most interesting data would actually be the *least* highlighted passages. That is, the ones that someone saw as important when no one else did. Especially in reference material or scientific journals - picking out what all but one guy missed and considering its importance. But if that pattern emerged, where people are thought-jacking before someone has completed their reading, people are going to complain.
I don't see any possible way this would be truly useful except in the "what are other people searching for in google" type way.
Plus my notes are copyrighted as soon as I type them, so you would need a clause in the opt-in agreement that specifically grants a copyright waiver for the following etc. and that's an agreement that cannot be retroactively changed. Copyright is serious business.
Philosophically you are correct. Economically you're missing the point. The creators wishing to be compensated does necessitate absurd DRM. Why? Because they see their product as no different from a tangible good. If I sell you a lump of gold, you can't make a copy and sell it to someone else. You can't make a copy and give it away. You can't deprive me of future sales or profits except by buying my gold from me and then underselling me, at a loss to yourself.
Every time someone uses a digital good, the creators wish to be paid. They want to make it impossible for you to copy something while sending you the locked product and the key in the same box, which I think you'll agree is absurd. The difference between philosophic and economic analysis is that wishing for payment in return for use is independent of the economic reality that if you don't protect something, there will be people who abuse the freedom.
So to paraphrase what you said, fair use should be independent of protection method. But it can't be, because protection pretty much guarantees you don't get fair use, they are mutually exclusive. If I protect something so that no one can break it, no one can get fair use.
People wishing to be compensated is the cause of DRM. Philosophically there is nothing inherent to a wish which requires DRM, unless you are the creator, know about DRM, and wish to protect your creation. In that case it is essential.
I'm not defending DRM, but it's hard to argue when people argue from so many different perspectives. You want to counter a current economic reality by suggesting that the cause and the effect have nothing to do with each other. Your last sentence is more accurate than your penultimate one. Economic reality shows that the desire for compensation is related to DRM, just not intrinsically or inherently so.
Payment does not necessitate absurd DRM, that is a concept which most people would agree with, but no one has found an acceptable method of selling a product with zero protection. We do have DRM-free MP3 sales possible, but things like iTunes have their own implicit DRM. You buy through iTunes music store, it sends to your iPod, it's a closed circle for most people. Not every label is going DRM free on all sites.
Your post should have read "You're making a false dichotomoy - there is middle ground between wishing to be compensated and using DRM as a solution." But the problem with that is you're reading the comment literally. Implicit in the second half is the idea "...therefore people should be allowed to protect their content, in contrast to what I just said," which is kinda taken care of by the phrase "on the other hand". No one has solved the problem of selling an easily copyable product without DRM. The funny thing of course is that people sell DVDs with essentially meaningless CSS encryption, but they won't break down and skip the CSS. DVD players will play plaintext content, and just about anyone who buys a DVD drive gets software that can copy or back up DVDs. There is literally no point to the DRM, but they will never let it go. Blu-Ray keeps adding encryption, which breaks older players, making it actually counterproductive in all of the complaints and returns. DRM makes customers frustrated and less likely to buy legit, but it's already in the loop - we can't break out without someone making a workable business model out of plaintext content. Streaming video is popular, and it works by providing little bits at a time and people are happy. I can't use it on 768k DSL, so I let bittorrent buffer the movie before playing. If netflix paid my broadband bill I'd upgrade. There are kinks in the business models, and until they are worked out the only answer for someone wishing to be compensated is DRM, even though lots of other industries get by perfectly fine without DRM making it *apparently* unnecessary.
I have 14 mod points, but I have to open a new tab, enable slashdot and fsdn for noscript, refresh your comment, click and wait for moderation to happen, disable slashdot and fsdn and close the tab. So instead of modding you up I'll just say yeah, noscript lets it run really well.
I noticed that when I accidentally left it enabled, I'd do CTRL+W to close the page and the left hand slider thingie says "Loading..." for several seconds and then the window goes away. I can turn off keyboard navigation, but I'd rather just report it. Oh right so I have to use bugzilla, forget that. I'll just assume slashdot does not test on the most common operating system around, using the most common geek navigation around (keyboard shortcuts). NoScript, don't leave home without it.
I'd allow both sites for scripting, but when I close my window I don't want whatever the W button does to happen, I want CTRL+W. Wnat me to see advertising? Fix your site. I'm not reporting a bug using bugzilla in order to enable you to enable me to see advertising that I won't buy anything from.
I've given up on firefox. I can't even scroll some days with 5-10 tabs open. I have NoScript so it's not JavaScript slowing it down. But just pressing the down arrow doesn't work, I hold it down for a few seconds and it starts to work again. I disabled everything but Firebug - when something isn't working right in firefox I usually tweak the page, and I don't want to have to restart FF. So firebug is indispensible, if it's the cause then I guess I can't use FF. IE's developer toolbar doesn't slow it down, but I know older versions of FF/FB would warn for example that Gmail or similar sites would be slow.
If Chrome has a very quick noscript-like plugin and developer toolbar then I'm switching. Otherwise it might be time for IE8.
They should put it on BitTorrent labeled "Assasin's Creed 3 with Ubisoft's unbreakable DRM -- REAL !!!1! 0-day warez CDC propz to Hippie!!!". It will be fixed in a week.
I bought the slim 90001 shortly after it appeared, I think. I actually expected to mod it and play burned games, but the memory card hacks were fixed and I didn't feel like getting a chip. Anyway, I realized it was faster and cheaper for me to buy games for $3, $5, or $10 and maybe rent from a store or buy/borrow from friends. Compared to buying DVDs and finding and downloading and burning that is.
I'm going through the entire back catalog - I have 30 games I haven't even played yet, and they are really entertaining. Composite video out to 42 inch LCD HDTV is really quite good looking, but I do see the pixels. I'd buy a Wii just for Excite Truck but I don't see other games worth playing much. I watch a roommate play through Zelda and it was pretty interesting, but they kinda lost me from the 8-bit days.
I was going to aim for a PS3, but Sony pretty much proved they will always be dicks, so every time I start up my PS2 I say my PS2 prayer which is "Dear PS2, I know you were made by Sony and therefore would like to throw you into a pit of lava, but you and I have been through some good times. If I can't get past (board/level/scene X) this time, I really am going to go all Portal on you shiny skinny chassis. You're not getting a big brother to play with, and that's your mommy's (Sony) fault. Mommy hates you, I kinda like you, let's just be good to each other. Now play my game."
"Unlimited" is just a holdover from 56k modem times. They offered a number of minutes per month for the basic subscription fee, and over time as AOL and MSN and the occasional third leg battled it out for customers that number increased fairly consistently. Pretty soon it was $20 for unlimited internet. 5k transfer per second, 2592000 seconds, that's 12960000k or 12656m or 12GB. It would be impossible for you to download more data than that (we'll ignore compression since the limit ignores compression, and today's compression is better if not eactly the same).
If you consider your bandwidth as above, there is an upper limit on your current transfer per month, which is the unit by which you're paying. So it's imposible to offer "unlimited" access is there is a bandwidth limit. $20 for 12GB then would be maybe $30 now - for a 12GB limit? 24GB would probably be worth $40, unlimited would be pretty expensive.
So even limited, we're a lot better off. If we understand there's always a limit, that is, and if the ads quit saying "unlimited". The dial-up days are over, we're buying in bulk now.
You're using book learning instead of real world experience to decipher text. Or you're being especially pedantic out of some need to be right or something like that. Either way, welcome to the internet where most people are either not native speakers, or using the vulgar constructions they are used to hearing and reading in their locality. It's a lot less overhead to use some brain cells to understand a person, and maybe ask for clarification as needed. It's common among enlightened people to read a reply like "I'm assuming you mean the hair people are non-profit, since BP is clearly not and I assume you wouldn't be daft enough to make that mistake, but in reply to your comment..."
In other words, your fault tolerance is on maybe the lowest possible setting right now, you should probably put that up to about 10% or so in order to interoperate optimally.
Silly is basing your opinion of someone on whether they swear or hint at swearing. If it was some random self-censored cursing it would be unnecessary, but hardly a basis for dismissing an opinion. In this case, "X is a bitch" is a well known idiom and was fairly appropriate. You're probably going to argue with this sentence, but it's polite to reserve your swearing when you don't know your audience. It's no different from work or church - lots of swearing goes on, but if you're the type to do so you wait until you know the audience.
I personally think the typo is bull$#!7 as well, but you probably don't care because I censored myself. For those who are still interested, this article says a number of stocks were trading at strange prices. "Oxford Industries (OXM) also tanked to $1.34 before soaring back to $19.51 a minute later." And the P&G drop was only on the Nasdaq, with other systems allowed to trade on their own during the anomaly. So based on that I'd say the typo thing is spurious, or if true perhaps simply coincidental.
Also, for the rape and torture of oneself, there is a thing called Masochism in which people inflict pain on themselves and many think it's perfectly normal. Some of course think it's abnormal but can't stop.
As for predicting other soverign nation failures, I think it's a valid opinion and as such does not require backing - it's within the realm of possibility, and as surprised as people seemed about Greece there may be another on the way.
Hopefully my feedback has been helpful to you in your future posts here.
When the "buy gold now" adverts are on the tele, you have a few months to get in on the early second half of the rush. They aren't going to tell you to buy at the bottom when they're busy selling and would rather not have prices spike due to demand. And they aren't going to tell you to *not* to buy when they're selling their stash to you at inflated prices.
Of course it helps if you know a little more than just that, but it's a decent simplification for someone to practice with fake money for a decade before going all in.
I don't trust my own typing. I copy/paste, or type a few letters and let Awesome Bar fill it in, or click a link, or type into the google search with auto-suggest. If it's a new site, I put the URL I think it is into google and evaluate the results to make sure I typed it correctly.
Yep I'm midway OCD and I can't take out the trash without my house keys in my pocket, but these are usually faster than typing - even the google search is, depending on your connection, because it usually auto-fills anything worth visiting. One day it will auto-fill the scam website because people keep searching to see if it's a scam, but that's why you don't just click the first link blindly.
Slashdot Mirror
we're not getting there. As an example, McAfee has an on-access scan. Any file read or written gets scanned.
A virus can disable that, so the workaround is to have a monitor program ensure the on-access scan is enabled.
That can be stopped, so you make the service un-stoppable.
That can be worked around, so the current solution is to have anther monitor connect to the policy server (for lack of a better term), download what the settings should be, and re-set all of the settings and re-start any stopped services.
See where this is going? Man in the middle attack, or setting up a route over a virtual interface, or whatever you need to in order to send the "disable" policy back. Now McAfee is stopped and you can't do anything about it.
Antivirus is so bloated that Adobe put Reader_SL.exe which opens and closes every Adobe Reader file and then quits. In theory the Antivirus program makes a list of scanned programs so they don't need to be re-scanned unless the file changes.
Not sure if McAfee works that way, which seems like a nice next target for hacking, but more likely the filesystem cache makes the scan seem quicker.
The overhead is disasterous with all of the redundant checks, and now you need a dual core processor to read your e-mail (Using Outlook on Vista I should specify).
The design is all wrong, the implementation is a non-winnable situation. The only thing we can do from software side is to spend time writing secure code, or a framework that ensures code is safe (like Java or .NET or other managed code type things). Even then, there are parts that need to be written at a low level. Mathematically proven security is only as good as the proof, so we're back to square one. You're vulnerable, and should assume so.
Care to explain your methodology?
On top of that, the only thing that truly matters is what antivirus you put on there. Anything else is overkill.
I uninstalled McAfee yesterday so that I could analyze 1 hour's worth of SP:StatementCompleted logs. Windows is terrible at i/o prioritization. Adobe Reader actually has a speed launcher that opens and closes all of the reader plugins and files, so the antivirus "marks them as safe". I don't buy that, I think the normal windows file caching is what speeds that up.
Anyway, antivirus is going to skew the results, even with 7's improved performance. Don't bother, just get faster hard drives. 10k RPM is the only solution.
Everyone knows about the log off button design team now surely? Overstaffing is the root of many problems. Once someone has a team, they have to keep feeding the team, and grow its responsibilities, or they lose manager status. So you fight with other parts of the company to keep your own job. Not healthy.
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/11/21.html
http://moishelettvin.blogspot.com/2006/11/windows-shutdown-crapfest.html
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/11/24.html
No he didn't, it only works in a hypothetical environment. Space particles will absorb some of the energy, especially since finding an area with a different speed of light will probably be VERY far away. The chance of you getting the matter back at that point in anywhere near human timescales is pretty much nothing. By the time you get it back, it will probably be smaller than you expect due to this absorption.
Plus, when the speed of light slows, a laser beam will effectively slow down as well. I'm not sure if it will shed mass or just effectively lose power. If you ignore the absorption loss above, you'll get back exactly what you sent.
There's no way MS would do this so your point is irrelevant. Microsoft makes platforms, Apple makes products. Of course we'd yell and scream because we're used to having platforms from Microsoft.
The biggest products Microsoft offers are:
Apple makes hardware.
Are you kidding? Design would be highly sought after. People with means would pay exorbitant amounts of money for something cool and unique, and go through great lengths inventing a force field to prevent the design from being stolen.
But it wouldn't really matter, because we can duplicate food and apartments and clothing and whatever else. No one would need money, and people would be free to invent or design all kinds of stuff for the good of all people, not for money. Because money can be duplicated too.
I got something from Redbox and my gf went outside for a cigarette - by the time she came back in and asked what I was doing, still sitting in front of the TV, I said I'm starting up.... and I had forgotten what I put in.
That pales in comparison to the 20 minutes of previews I watched before "Anger Management", but that was in the theater (I feel bad admitting that). I don't own the theater, and actually the theater takes orders from the headquarters so they can't really make changes, but I own my DVD player and I have the right to watch my rented DVD (as long as the license to watch is valid).
I regularly copy movies in IFO mode and extract just the movie. It does two things for me. No menu, no previews, no FBI warning, and it usually fits on a single-layer disc after removing the subtitle and alternate language streams. DVD Decrypter, IFO mode, enable stream processing, remove stuff you don't want, then IFOEdit to create a valid IFO with the hacked-up VOBs. I believe that falls under backup for personal use as well as first sale (I can modify a table for my own use after I buy it, why not a movie?)
If it were an article on USA and a Republican wrote it, being a citizen I'd expect his perspective to be biased. On the other hand, if a Democrat wrote it, I'd expect it to be biased. You're correct about assumptions being made, but if I'm a "social studies" major for lack of a better generic term, I'm going to think my objective conclusions are more accurate than some guy who lives there. Especially if he protests.
Countless times I hear how no one likes some politician or pop star, but there are piles of blogs and photos where these people are getting rock star welcomes. Nickelback? No one likes them, except the 90,000 people in Alberta, 2007.
In order to be objective and print all of the facts, not just selected ones, you have to have a detachment that someone passionate and experienced may not have. I have countless arguments with people who switch between valid points and emotional pleas quickly enough that I either ignore the emotional points or say "Too emotional, you're not being objective." And that pisses them off, making them more emotional and it falls apart. Yes there are assumptions involved, but if it went on for pages at least one of them had emotional involvement, if not both.
His Honour Judge Toulmin also said that the software was not up to the tasks that Kingsway needed to use it for, and which Red Sky should have known were part of Kingsway's needs when buying the product.
This isn't bugs, this is the software doesn't have the features claimed. You get a product demo and think it's going to be awesome, install it, and then find out it doesn't do what you need it to do. Think SAP. I'd bet if you have a horribly unusable interface but it is sufficiently documented so you can make it do something, that's no issue. If it simply doesn't have features you were led to believe it had, that's the issue.
The same rule would probably cover defects which prevent the software from functioning, but if it's in the reporting or other rarely used modules you'd still be able to use the product.
I put a link to the article on my FB page. Of course, no one ever replies to my posts, I think they filtered me out a long time ago. If everyone on slashdot with a facebook account did it, we'd reach - *does mental math* 20 people? Maybe 30. But at least we'd be trying.
I really interested in what the reasoning was behind all of this. Most people highlight because of their professor/teacher, not for entertainment. The small subset of reference or self-help books which users are likely to independently highlight give you snippets and keywords which are going to be useless outside of context. Bible study, book clubs - it's all groupthink, and you're going to reinforce the importance of specific parts without users coming to the same conclusion.
You're going to end up with mandated highlights from classes which will overwhelm any valuabe personal opinion, and jargon-infested noise.
I see someone coming up with lesson plans based on the most highlighted passages, which are obviously much more important, and missing the structural foundation of the story. In other words, no good can come of this.
The most interesting data would actually be the *least* highlighted passages. That is, the ones that someone saw as important when no one else did. Especially in reference material or scientific journals - picking out what all but one guy missed and considering its importance. But if that pattern emerged, where people are thought-jacking before someone has completed their reading, people are going to complain.
I don't see any possible way this would be truly useful except in the "what are other people searching for in google" type way.
Plus my notes are copyrighted as soon as I type them, so you would need a clause in the opt-in agreement that specifically grants a copyright waiver for the following etc. and that's an agreement that cannot be retroactively changed. Copyright is serious business.
Philosophically you are correct. Economically you're missing the point. The creators wishing to be compensated does necessitate absurd DRM. Why? Because they see their product as no different from a tangible good. If I sell you a lump of gold, you can't make a copy and sell it to someone else. You can't make a copy and give it away. You can't deprive me of future sales or profits except by buying my gold from me and then underselling me, at a loss to yourself.
Every time someone uses a digital good, the creators wish to be paid. They want to make it impossible for you to copy something while sending you the locked product and the key in the same box, which I think you'll agree is absurd. The difference between philosophic and economic analysis is that wishing for payment in return for use is independent of the economic reality that if you don't protect something, there will be people who abuse the freedom.
So to paraphrase what you said, fair use should be independent of protection method. But it can't be, because protection pretty much guarantees you don't get fair use, they are mutually exclusive. If I protect something so that no one can break it, no one can get fair use.
People wishing to be compensated is the cause of DRM. Philosophically there is nothing inherent to a wish which requires DRM, unless you are the creator, know about DRM, and wish to protect your creation. In that case it is essential.
I'm not defending DRM, but it's hard to argue when people argue from so many different perspectives. You want to counter a current economic reality by suggesting that the cause and the effect have nothing to do with each other. Your last sentence is more accurate than your penultimate one. Economic reality shows that the desire for compensation is related to DRM, just not intrinsically or inherently so.
Payment does not necessitate absurd DRM, that is a concept which most people would agree with, but no one has found an acceptable method of selling a product with zero protection. We do have DRM-free MP3 sales possible, but things like iTunes have their own implicit DRM. You buy through iTunes music store, it sends to your iPod, it's a closed circle for most people. Not every label is going DRM free on all sites.
Your post should have read "You're making a false dichotomoy - there is middle ground between wishing to be compensated and using DRM as a solution." But the problem with that is you're reading the comment literally. Implicit in the second half is the idea "...therefore people should be allowed to protect their content, in contrast to what I just said," which is kinda taken care of by the phrase "on the other hand". No one has solved the problem of selling an easily copyable product without DRM. The funny thing of course is that people sell DVDs with essentially meaningless CSS encryption, but they won't break down and skip the CSS. DVD players will play plaintext content, and just about anyone who buys a DVD drive gets software that can copy or back up DVDs. There is literally no point to the DRM, but they will never let it go. Blu-Ray keeps adding encryption, which breaks older players, making it actually counterproductive in all of the complaints and returns. DRM makes customers frustrated and less likely to buy legit, but it's already in the loop - we can't break out without someone making a workable business model out of plaintext content. Streaming video is popular, and it works by providing little bits at a time and people are happy. I can't use it on 768k DSL, so I let bittorrent buffer the movie before playing. If netflix paid my broadband bill I'd upgrade. There are kinks in the business models, and until they are worked out the only answer for someone wishing to be compensated is DRM, even though lots of other industries get by perfectly fine without DRM making it *apparently* unnecessary.
That's one...
I have 14 mod points, but I have to open a new tab, enable slashdot and fsdn for noscript, refresh your comment, click and wait for moderation to happen, disable slashdot and fsdn and close the tab. So instead of modding you up I'll just say yeah, noscript lets it run really well.
I noticed that when I accidentally left it enabled, I'd do CTRL+W to close the page and the left hand slider thingie says "Loading..." for several seconds and then the window goes away. I can turn off keyboard navigation, but I'd rather just report it. Oh right so I have to use bugzilla, forget that. I'll just assume slashdot does not test on the most common operating system around, using the most common geek navigation around (keyboard shortcuts). NoScript, don't leave home without it.
I'd allow both sites for scripting, but when I close my window I don't want whatever the W button does to happen, I want CTRL+W. Wnat me to see advertising? Fix your site. I'm not reporting a bug using bugzilla in order to enable you to enable me to see advertising that I won't buy anything from.
*sigh*
I've given up on firefox. I can't even scroll some days with 5-10 tabs open. I have NoScript so it's not JavaScript slowing it down. But just pressing the down arrow doesn't work, I hold it down for a few seconds and it starts to work again. I disabled everything but Firebug - when something isn't working right in firefox I usually tweak the page, and I don't want to have to restart FF. So firebug is indispensible, if it's the cause then I guess I can't use FF. IE's developer toolbar doesn't slow it down, but I know older versions of FF/FB would warn for example that Gmail or similar sites would be slow.
If Chrome has a very quick noscript-like plugin and developer toolbar then I'm switching. Otherwise it might be time for IE8.
They should put it on BitTorrent labeled "Assasin's Creed 3 with Ubisoft's unbreakable DRM -- REAL !!!1! 0-day warez CDC propz to Hippie!!!". It will be fixed in a week.
I bought the slim 90001 shortly after it appeared, I think. I actually expected to mod it and play burned games, but the memory card hacks were fixed and I didn't feel like getting a chip. Anyway, I realized it was faster and cheaper for me to buy games for $3, $5, or $10 and maybe rent from a store or buy/borrow from friends. Compared to buying DVDs and finding and downloading and burning that is.
I'm going through the entire back catalog - I have 30 games I haven't even played yet, and they are really entertaining. Composite video out to 42 inch LCD HDTV is really quite good looking, but I do see the pixels. I'd buy a Wii just for Excite Truck but I don't see other games worth playing much. I watch a roommate play through Zelda and it was pretty interesting, but they kinda lost me from the 8-bit days.
I was going to aim for a PS3, but Sony pretty much proved they will always be dicks, so every time I start up my PS2 I say my PS2 prayer which is "Dear PS2, I know you were made by Sony and therefore would like to throw you into a pit of lava, but you and I have been through some good times. If I can't get past (board/level/scene X) this time, I really am going to go all Portal on you shiny skinny chassis. You're not getting a big brother to play with, and that's your mommy's (Sony) fault. Mommy hates you, I kinda like you, let's just be good to each other. Now play my game."
"Unlimited" is just a holdover from 56k modem times. They offered a number of minutes per month for the basic subscription fee, and over time as AOL and MSN and the occasional third leg battled it out for customers that number increased fairly consistently. Pretty soon it was $20 for unlimited internet. 5k transfer per second, 2592000 seconds, that's 12960000k or 12656m or 12GB. It would be impossible for you to download more data than that (we'll ignore compression since the limit ignores compression, and today's compression is better if not eactly the same).
If you consider your bandwidth as above, there is an upper limit on your current transfer per month, which is the unit by which you're paying. So it's imposible to offer "unlimited" access is there is a bandwidth limit. $20 for 12GB then would be maybe $30 now - for a 12GB limit? 24GB would probably be worth $40, unlimited would be pretty expensive.
So even limited, we're a lot better off. If we understand there's always a limit, that is, and if the ads quit saying "unlimited". The dial-up days are over, we're buying in bulk now.
You're using book learning instead of real world experience to decipher text. Or you're being especially pedantic out of some need to be right or something like that. Either way, welcome to the internet where most people are either not native speakers, or using the vulgar constructions they are used to hearing and reading in their locality. It's a lot less overhead to use some brain cells to understand a person, and maybe ask for clarification as needed. It's common among enlightened people to read a reply like "I'm assuming you mean the hair people are non-profit, since BP is clearly not and I assume you wouldn't be daft enough to make that mistake, but in reply to your comment..."
In other words, your fault tolerance is on maybe the lowest possible setting right now, you should probably put that up to about 10% or so in order to interoperate optimally.
Silly is basing your opinion of someone on whether they swear or hint at swearing. If it was some random self-censored cursing it would be unnecessary, but hardly a basis for dismissing an opinion. In this case, "X is a bitch" is a well known idiom and was fairly appropriate. You're probably going to argue with this sentence, but it's polite to reserve your swearing when you don't know your audience. It's no different from work or church - lots of swearing goes on, but if you're the type to do so you wait until you know the audience.
I personally think the typo is bull$#!7 as well, but you probably don't care because I censored myself. For those who are still interested, this article says a number of stocks were trading at strange prices. "Oxford Industries (OXM) also tanked to $1.34 before soaring back to $19.51 a minute later." And the P&G drop was only on the Nasdaq, with other systems allowed to trade on their own during the anomaly. So based on that I'd say the typo thing is spurious, or if true perhaps simply coincidental.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/06/markets/procter_and_gamble_stock/index.htm?postversion=2010050619
Also, for the rape and torture of oneself, there is a thing called Masochism in which people inflict pain on themselves and many think it's perfectly normal. Some of course think it's abnormal but can't stop.
As for predicting other soverign nation failures, I think it's a valid opinion and as such does not require backing - it's within the realm of possibility, and as surprised as people seemed about Greece there may be another on the way.
Hopefully my feedback has been helpful to you in your future posts here.
Ah, that's extra high density. Impressive.
When the "buy gold now" adverts are on the tele, you have a few months to get in on the early second half of the rush. They aren't going to tell you to buy at the bottom when they're busy selling and would rather not have prices spike due to demand. And they aren't going to tell you to *not* to buy when they're selling their stash to you at inflated prices.
Of course it helps if you know a little more than just that, but it's a decent simplification for someone to practice with fake money for a decade before going all in.
So... we need to send more hair? That's what I'm reading. Into the mail it goes, I'll grow more.
I don't trust my own typing. I copy/paste, or type a few letters and let Awesome Bar fill it in, or click a link, or type into the google search with auto-suggest. If it's a new site, I put the URL I think it is into google and evaluate the results to make sure I typed it correctly.
Yep I'm midway OCD and I can't take out the trash without my house keys in my pocket, but these are usually faster than typing - even the google search is, depending on your connection, because it usually auto-fills anything worth visiting. One day it will auto-fill the scam website because people keep searching to see if it's a scam, but that's why you don't just click the first link blindly.