Who else would support the wordiest of wordy bills if it clarified and specified everything just right and blocked the hell out of spyware distributors' loopholes...?
The audio CD never goes away, and software is crafted that is better and better at manipulating CD audio into whatever format people desire without hurting sound quality.
Mmm, GooglePedia! Well, okay, let the name remain the same, but it could essentially become "Google presents WikiPedia" or something similar! I'm like the possibilities my mind is considering, here...
I disagree. If you know they have a problem and you want that problem solved, then offer something specifically to solve that problem. This is equivalent to the idea of buying a hungry beggar cash or feeding him. I'd much prefer to feed them than give them handfuls of pocket change.
This is exactly what I want to see: two of the best (and free!) internet services available working together! Google is by far the best internet search engine (for images, news, newsgroups, random web sites, etc.) and also has the best set of language and map tools, among other things. And WikiPedia -- what else can be said? -- it's simply one of the best ideas ever put to action.
I wonder... What if Google and WikiPedia kinda-sorta merge? Imagine the power of Google behind the biggest, baddest, and best encyclopedia ever created -- one freely available to anyone who wishes to browse it or also available on DVD (superversion!) or CD (lite version?). Hell, WikiPedia could do that on their own. Get someone to write program the querying and interface, burn a few prototype discs, find something that works, and ship it! Keep it simple! *ponders the idea*
The Mozilla and Microsoft web browsers are both guilty of noncompliance with web standards. Any time any code works in one browser but not the other, regardless of how simple or complex the code, it's an example of one of the browsers either not supporting it's supposed to or supporting something unnecessary. To some extent, proprietary or extra code support is a good thing, but it also means that people will continue to use it if they use that browser, forcing others to be unable to view content properly.
If Mozilla and Microsoft can just agree to develop their browsers to display the exact same code and let their differences be in interface, options, security, etc... then we would have an effective and worthwhile browser war.
As soon as Mozilla/Firefox hits 50% marketshare, it's rise and IE's decline will be so well established by their respective reputations that it would be all but guaranteed that their respective rise and fall would continue. Therefore, you could expect IE to become more stable while Mozilla/Firefox is exploited more, because we all know that the spyware developers are primarily interested in exposure. They'll stop bothering with IE as soon as they realize this trend, if it ever comes to pass.
Of course, I agree with you. As soon as Firefox is exploited and abused, all the idiot users who switched just because someone told them to will have no idea what to do or where to go to fix it, or even that they need to fix it. Firefox developers have gone to such great lengths to demonstrate their "perfect" browser that it doesn't seem like they have an effective contingency plan for when something does go wrong.
If you just want to improve GTA, here's the best thing I can imagine: options to replay missions.
The developers could decide whether this is available after completing (a) any mission, (b) all missions at any location, (c) all core missions in the game, or (d) every mission in the game up to 100% completion.
Nobody in the FOSS community is advocating software communism, e.g. all software is free and nobody gets paid, that's senseless.
Uhh, senseless or not, the first half of your sentence simply can't be true. My guess is that many in the FOSS community are advocating software communism, just not reasonably enough to be taken seriously.
Since the early days of anticipating GTA Vice City, I have discussed with friends and online gamers various ideas for mixing the Grand Theft Auto visual and gameplay structure with other types of games:
* The similarities of GTA with 007-style shooters that require more stealth are already obvious, so let's move on.
* Applying the physics engine of driving games like Gran Turismo (or insert your favorite here) could make the driving elements a bit more enjoyable.
* At some point I want to drive a vehicle into a stadium or some other live sporting event and start a riot involving hundreds or even thousands of people.
* Take the basketball games in GTA San Andreas to the next level: NBA Jam!
* Take some classic American Gladiator events and throw an obstacle course at your GTA character.
* And if you wanted to take the GTA part of the game less seriously, throw in some supernatural elements from RPGs or horror-style games, or Super Mario-style power-ups!:)
For several weeks I was receiving only a few junk emails per day, or maybe about 50-80 in any given week. This past Sunday, I received a total of 82 junk emails within 24 hours. And I've already received 80 more since clearing my junk mail at midnight Sunday night.
So, yes, I am receiving more. Apparently CAN-SPAM just gave the spammers clearer guidelines.
Just thought I'd pipe in with a pointless math lesson.
If the poster is being consistent and using metric tons (equal to 1 megagram, or 1000 kilograms, in which case perhaps he should have said "569 metric tons"), then he should round up to 1.3 or else add another significant digit for 1.25 million (569 metric tons is roughly 1,254,400 pounds).
But if the measurement was used the American "short" ton (2000 pounds, 907.2 kilograms) instead of the metric ton, then the measure is roughly 569 * 2000 = 1,138,000 pounds.
In either case, 569 tons does not approximate well to 1.2 million pounds. And it's probably most appropriate to use three significant digits anyway (1.25 or 1.14, neither rounds to 1.2), but that's another discussion altogether.
I don't want to put too much emphasis on any of these points, but I think I can finger the point of the article:
* bash M$ (otherwise Slashdot won't post it)
* if possible, be misleading, misinformed, and half wrong (there can be no defense if the offense isn't accurate, but the idiots will still buy it)
Slashdot's anti-MS posturing is old, silly, and badly misguided. Someone who knows what they're doing can easily run a Windows environment using *gasp* IE to surf the web safely and securely. The average Slashdotter is just too high on their own self-proclaimed superiority over corporate success that they refuse to admit anything good about it, especially when it's Microsoft's success.
I have two computers loaded and running the same security software. One is Windows ME and has been running spyware/virus-free for over four years. The other (this one) is Windows XP and has been running spyware/virus-free for almost two. Sure, I get a notification of something new being blocked here and there, but nothing ever infiltrates either of my two primary computers.
From the way you talk about my computer's "insecurity", I'm convinced that you just have no idea how to secure a Windows environment, which requires very little effort and only a little time at the onset.
My final point is this: a secure Windows environment with the right tools is much more useful than any *n*x environment for most everyday uses. For as long as I've used different versions of Linux (since whenever Slackware 3.5 was released), I've never prefered Linux for anything other than comparing its interface and features to Windows'.
My priorities have been inspected repeatedly and are just fine, thank you. Maybe you need to inspect yours and, for instance, not concern yourself with others' browsing habits. For instance, if your priority is to use a browser that you suggest is safer than IE, then I suggest you tell everyone else to keep using IE so attention won't be drawn to exploiting your so-called better web browser. Because when/if it ever becomes #1, it will be dragged down the same undeserved path of destructive criticism and exploitation that IE is currently (and quite successfully) trampling down.
I use Internet Explorer and don't have *any* of the problems the Slashdot community seems to be having with it. But maybe that's just because I know how to secure my PC even while running Windows and surfing with IE, which I guess makes me smarter than most Slashdot users.
I get the feeling sometimes that every Slashdot article that mentions Internet Explorer is anti-IE, but for those users who are stuck using IE or refuse to switch to anything else, here are a few links I feel compelled to share with you.
Lavasoft's Ad-Aware -- the freeware version is all you need for scanning purposes, but the professional version comes with Ad-Watch (popup and spyware blocker).
Spybot Search & Destroy -- another good (and free) spyware scanner that also "immunizes" Internet Explorer from certain well-known spyware and browser hacks.
Javacool Spyware Blaster -- another free spy-fighter that protects Internet Explorer from any malicious ActiveX code. You can also block Flash ads if you choose.
Antivirus app of your choice -- any free anti-virus app should do the trick, but if you already have Norton or McAfee you're in great shape.
If you have XP SP2 -- with SP2 installed, set the popup blocker to its highest blocking setting, and just hold Ctrl any time your surfing requires a popup.
I have Google's toolbar installed with popup-blocking turned off. I have Ad-Aware's Ad-Watch set to tell me any time it blocks something, and it never does anything any more. The combination of SP2's popup blocking, Spybot's immunization, and Spyware Blaster's ActiveX protection make surfing the internet as peaceful as it was before spyware and popups existed.
If nothing else, I'm sure there are ways to force a link to open in a new Internet Explorer window, in which case you just point it to Windows Update, and that takes care of the IE problem. Never use it except when you go to Windows Update if you're that anti-IE. Though I almost always use IE, and I never have a problem.
Then again, it's actually quite easy to keep IE running without being bombarded with spyware if you just pay a little attention and do a little homework. No sweat for me, anyway.
Java is platform independent, so maybe it's the platform that won't run the Java apps.
And I basically agree: IE is the de facto standard and it has earned its way to that position. Slashdot's blatant anti-IE posturing is as annoying and ethically challenged as all the partisan hackery I see on the major news networks.
That said, I laughed when I saw the word "non-compliant" used to describe Firefox, even if in quotation marks.:-P
Slashdot Mirror
Who else would support the wordiest of wordy bills if it clarified and specified everything just right and blocked the hell out of spyware distributors' loopholes...?
More likely scenario:
The audio CD never goes away, and software is crafted that is better and better at manipulating CD audio into whatever format people desire without hurting sound quality.
Mmm, GooglePedia! Well, okay, let the name remain the same, but it could essentially become "Google presents WikiPedia" or something similar! I'm like the possibilities my mind is considering, here...
I disagree. If you know they have a problem and you want that problem solved, then offer something specifically to solve that problem. This is equivalent to the idea of buying a hungry beggar cash or feeding him. I'd much prefer to feed them than give them handfuls of pocket change.
This is exactly what I want to see: two of the best (and free!) internet services available working together! Google is by far the best internet search engine (for images, news, newsgroups, random web sites, etc.) and also has the best set of language and map tools, among other things. And WikiPedia -- what else can be said? -- it's simply one of the best ideas ever put to action.
I wonder... What if Google and WikiPedia kinda-sorta merge? Imagine the power of Google behind the biggest, baddest, and best encyclopedia ever created -- one freely available to anyone who wishes to browse it or also available on DVD (superversion!) or CD (lite version?). Hell, WikiPedia could do that on their own. Get someone to write program the querying and interface, burn a few prototype discs, find something that works, and ship it! Keep it simple! *ponders the idea*
The Mozilla and Microsoft web browsers are both guilty of noncompliance with web standards. Any time any code works in one browser but not the other, regardless of how simple or complex the code, it's an example of one of the browsers either not supporting it's supposed to or supporting something unnecessary. To some extent, proprietary or extra code support is a good thing, but it also means that people will continue to use it if they use that browser, forcing others to be unable to view content properly.
If Mozilla and Microsoft can just agree to develop their browsers to display the exact same code and let their differences be in interface, options, security, etc... then we would have an effective and worthwhile browser war.
As soon as Mozilla/Firefox hits 50% marketshare, it's rise and IE's decline will be so well established by their respective reputations that it would be all but guaranteed that their respective rise and fall would continue. Therefore, you could expect IE to become more stable while Mozilla/Firefox is exploited more, because we all know that the spyware developers are primarily interested in exposure. They'll stop bothering with IE as soon as they realize this trend, if it ever comes to pass.
"...but we all know that no program is perfect."
One word: Notepad.
Of course, I agree with you. As soon as Firefox is exploited and abused, all the idiot users who switched just because someone told them to will have no idea what to do or where to go to fix it, or even that they need to fix it. Firefox developers have gone to such great lengths to demonstrate their "perfect" browser that it doesn't seem like they have an effective contingency plan for when something does go wrong.
If you just want to improve GTA, here's the best thing I can imagine: options to replay missions.
The developers could decide whether this is available after completing (a) any mission, (b) all missions at any location, (c) all core missions in the game, or (d) every mission in the game up to 100% completion.
Uhh, senseless or not, the first half of your sentence simply can't be true. My guess is that many in the FOSS community are advocating software communism, just not reasonably enough to be taken seriously.
Since the early days of anticipating GTA Vice City, I have discussed with friends and online gamers various ideas for mixing the Grand Theft Auto visual and gameplay structure with other types of games:
:)
* The similarities of GTA with 007-style shooters that require more stealth are already obvious, so let's move on.
* Applying the physics engine of driving games like Gran Turismo (or insert your favorite here) could make the driving elements a bit more enjoyable.
* At some point I want to drive a vehicle into a stadium or some other live sporting event and start a riot involving hundreds or even thousands of people.
* Take the basketball games in GTA San Andreas to the next level: NBA Jam!
* Take some classic American Gladiator events and throw an obstacle course at your GTA character.
* And if you wanted to take the GTA part of the game less seriously, throw in some supernatural elements from RPGs or horror-style games, or Super Mario-style power-ups!
Is there a list of nominees anywhere that show what the winners were up against?
...or idiots comparing relevant statistical comparisons to irrelevant statistical comparisons?
Maybe I'm wrong, but the idea I'm trying to suggest (so informed people will at least know to tell me if it's wrong or not) is:
Maybe the new law just gave the spammers clearer guidelines to work around.
For several weeks I was receiving only a few junk emails per day, or maybe about 50-80 in any given week. This past Sunday, I received a total of 82 junk emails within 24 hours. And I've already received 80 more since clearing my junk mail at midnight Sunday night.
So, yes, I am receiving more. Apparently CAN-SPAM just gave the spammers clearer guidelines.
Just thought I'd pipe in with a pointless math lesson.
If the poster is being consistent and using metric tons (equal to 1 megagram, or 1000 kilograms, in which case perhaps he should have said "569 metric tons"), then he should round up to 1.3 or else add another significant digit for 1.25 million (569 metric tons is roughly 1,254,400 pounds).
But if the measurement was used the American "short" ton (2000 pounds, 907.2 kilograms) instead of the metric ton, then the measure is roughly 569 * 2000 = 1,138,000 pounds.
In either case, 569 tons does not approximate well to 1.2 million pounds. And it's probably most appropriate to use three significant digits anyway (1.25 or 1.14, neither rounds to 1.2), but that's another discussion altogether.
Thanks,
Slashdot's anti-MS posturing is old, silly, and badly misguided. Someone who knows what they're doing can easily run a Windows environment using *gasp* IE to surf the web safely and securely. The average Slashdotter is just too high on their own self-proclaimed superiority over corporate success that they refuse to admit anything good about it, especially when it's Microsoft's success.
You're reading Slashdot. Stuff we already know is news here.
This makes the misspelling all the more humiliating. The Google founders thank you. :-P
I have two computers loaded and running the same security software. One is Windows ME and has been running spyware/virus-free for over four years. The other (this one) is Windows XP and has been running spyware/virus-free for almost two. Sure, I get a notification of something new being blocked here and there, but nothing ever infiltrates either of my two primary computers.
From the way you talk about my computer's "insecurity", I'm convinced that you just have no idea how to secure a Windows environment, which requires very little effort and only a little time at the onset.
My final point is this: a secure Windows environment with the right tools is much more useful than any *n*x environment for most everyday uses. For as long as I've used different versions of Linux (since whenever Slackware 3.5 was released), I've never prefered Linux for anything other than comparing its interface and features to Windows'.
My priorities have been inspected repeatedly and are just fine, thank you. Maybe you need to inspect yours and, for instance, not concern yourself with others' browsing habits. For instance, if your priority is to use a browser that you suggest is safer than IE, then I suggest you tell everyone else to keep using IE so attention won't be drawn to exploiting your so-called better web browser. Because when/if it ever becomes #1, it will be dragged down the same undeserved path of destructive criticism and exploitation that IE is currently (and quite successfully) trampling down.
I use Internet Explorer and don't have *any* of the problems the Slashdot community seems to be having with it. But maybe that's just because I know how to secure my PC even while running Windows and surfing with IE, which I guess makes me smarter than most Slashdot users.
I have Google's toolbar installed with popup-blocking turned off. I have Ad-Aware's Ad-Watch set to tell me any time it blocks something, and it never does anything any more. The combination of SP2's popup blocking, Spybot's immunization, and Spyware Blaster's ActiveX protection make surfing the internet as peaceful as it was before spyware and popups existed.
If nothing else, I'm sure there are ways to force a link to open in a new Internet Explorer window, in which case you just point it to Windows Update, and that takes care of the IE problem. Never use it except when you go to Windows Update if you're that anti-IE. Though I almost always use IE, and I never have a problem.
Then again, it's actually quite easy to keep IE running without being bombarded with spyware if you just pay a little attention and do a little homework. No sweat for me, anyway.
Java is platform independent, so maybe it's the platform that won't run the Java apps.
:-P
And I basically agree: IE is the de facto standard and it has earned its way to that position. Slashdot's blatant anti-IE posturing is as annoying and ethically challenged as all the partisan hackery I see on the major news networks.
That said, I laughed when I saw the word "non-compliant" used to describe Firefox, even if in quotation marks.
"Dick takes Virgin into Space" ...or at least it should have made use of the nickname for Richard. :)