.............no idea what you're talking about. I've used the beta, RC, and RTM and never had that happen, and I'm no wiz when it comes to firewalls. Maybe Steve Ballmer just hates you? Either that or you're either 1) incapable of using a computer without breaking it or 2) full of crap.......
Funny that you say Win 7 is "ugly", since it's identical visually with Vista except for the taskbar and getting rid of the side bar. Also, I've yet to meet anyone who tries to claim that the new taskbar isn't cleaner and easier to use.
But hey, thanks for trolling anyways!
*throws the troll some moldy bread* Yup, I feed trolls! =D
If you computer isn't stable enough to run firefox for 5 seconds when you overclock it, shouldn't you just not overclock it? Or overclock it less?
How much speed are you actually gaining? You're not saving much time if something goes wrong every hour or so.
The system is dead stable and no program has a problem but Firefox. Ergo, the problem is with Firefox, NOT the computer. If there was a problem with the system, other programs would crash - yet none of them do. As for the "you're not saving much time..." comment - I just don't use Firefox any more - problem solved. Shame though, I really like Firefox.
Well, for the time being, why not just write the email in whatever text editor / word processor you want, use something like Winzip, 7-zip, or any other.zip program that does encryption to store it, then attach that and send the email? Is it a hassle? Some. But still less hassle than the way it currently is.
It only sucks because the government didn't force companies to upgrade their networks when they took money from the government to.......upgrade their networks.
All the government had to do was actually enforce the measures they enacted and we wouldn't be having this conversation. So yes, while the companies are definitely in the wrong for essentially embezzling the money, the politicians who gave them the money and then let them just pocket it are even more in the wrong.
**Apologies for any typo's - Firefox doesn't want to run on my system without crashing every 5 seconds since I overclocked it (everything else runs 100% fine, and no system crashes - so the problem is with Firefox) and good ol' Shiternet Explorer doesn't have spellcheck.**
Once you reach the age of 40 it becomes apparent that young drivers are crap and greatly overestimate their skills and their road attentiveness.
Funny that you say that - Car and Driver did a test a couple issues back to compare drunk driving versus texting while driving. They had two people that they recorded, both at low speed and highway speed. One of the subjects was 22 and the other was 37. Here's the thing - the 22 year olds reaction time even while drunk and distracted by texting were better than the 37 year old when he was dead sober and had no distractions.
Am I saying it's safe to drive drunk or text while driving? Hell no. But it does show that even someone as young as 40 has their reaction times slowing down enough that they pose a danger.
As for "those damn kids" - people that drive like idiots drive that way regardless of age. Responsible drivers also drive that way regardless of age.
True. I graduated not too long ago and went into IT because I'm good at it and that's where the job offer came from, even though my degree is in Economics. I've already realized that I don't care for it too much (well, not necessarily IT, but consulting) and am already planning on switching careers and becoming an Actuary. The tests are only done twice a year, so I have to wait for spring to start working on it. However, I'm second guessing doing that now since the US government seems hellbent on running the insurance industry out of business -- doesn't seem like a bright idea to change to a new career in an industry that might not exist in a few years.
You're trying to make people conform to the way you think they should behave by removing some of their options to be responsible.
Killing a baby is never being responsible. But you're such a tough guy that you can only fight someone who can't fight back. I have no problems with killing what so ever, but I'm not a coward and would never kill someone who can't fight back. If you knew anything about me, you'd know that I'm constantly pushing people NOT to conform. However, just because you don't conform doesn't mean you don't have to suffer the consequences of your actions.
Thanks to modern medicine, childbirth is not inherently a "negative consequence" of pregnancy. Your argument is broken.
Actually, people killed babies since the dawn of time. It's only that now people like you somehow think it's acceptable to kill them just because they'd be inconvenient. But you know what, I'll shut up about it if we make it fair - make a law so that instead of just being able to kill a baby that's inconvenient to you, you can kill anyone who inconveniences you. We'll call it a "retroactive abortion". If someone's being a dumbass and wasting my time in the line at the bank / store, jab a needle in their head and suck out their brain - *bam* retroactive abortion. Deal? (Something tells me that you'll be against that).
Feel free to martyr yourself. When you insist others must do the same thing, you cross the line into oppressor.
Society has (up until people like you came about in the last couple of decades) always insisted that people accept responsibility for their actions. That's why we have a legal system - to make people accept the negative consequences of their actions.
People like you who think people can do whatever they want without any consequences are why those of us who do think rationally and realize that actions have consequences (sometimes good, sometimes bad) have little hope for the future.
A world full of absolutist, judgemental, misogynist arseholes. What an awesome idea !
So promoting personal responsibility and thinking before you act is being an asshole? Wow, you just announced yourself as one of the dumbest people on the planet. Good job!
Not nearly as pathetic as trying to oppress people because they're having a good time.
I'm all for having a good time - you want to do drugs? Go for it. Want to get drunk off your ass? Sweet! Want to bang 100 girls? Aweosome! -- HOWEVER, if you're not ready to accept any possible negative consequences, don't do it. And if you try to be a little bitch and avoid having to suffer the consequences of your actions, I will give you massive amounts of shit for it. Hell, I've probably had sex with more girls than anyone else on slashdot - however, if one of them would get pregnant, I wouldn't tell them to kill the kid just so that I wouldn't have to accept the consequences of my actions. Do I want kids? Hell no. But if that would happen, I'm prepared to accept it.
Ah, yes. Like most bumper stickers - short, simple and laughably incorrect.
Really? So your mother had an abortion and you came back from the dead? That can't be true because our Lord and Savior Obama is the only Messiah.
I really don't care if low lifes kill their kids (because it means eventually you'll snuff yourselves out and then we can get on with making the world a better place once all the excuse-making collectivists are gone). However, trying to claim that killing babies is a rational alternative to using your brain before spreading your legs is pathetic. Just remember the bumper sticker - "the people who are for abortion are only alive because their mother was against it".
No, I'm saying that actions have consequences. If you're not prepared to deal with the consequences, then you have no business doing it. It doesn't matter if it's sex, playing the stock market, gambling, racing, skydiving, etc.
Your argument is nothing more than saying that people should not be held responsible for their actions, which is the main reason that the world is such a shitty place today - people like you making excuses for those who do bad / stupid things instead of holding them accountable for their choices.
Nervous systems, heartbeats, lungs -- these things do not make one human.
Absolutely right. However, they do mean that the creature is alive, so the "it's not alive" people lose all ground there. It doesn't matter whether it's a bug, a dog, a fish, or a person, if something has a heartbeat and you cause it to stop, you killed it.
How can you consider a fetus to be fully human when it lacks the one basic characteristic of humanity?
So you follow the view that the doctor has a magic wand that turns a fetus into a human baby? Dogs reproduce as dogs, trees reproduce as trees, humans reproduce as humans. To claim that a baby isn't human just because it hurts your argument that "it's not really a baby" to avoid acknowledging what's really being done is laughable.
I have no problem with killing, don't get me wrong (though I do find killing someone who can't fight back to be cowardly and despicable - regardless of if they're a baby, old, handicapped, sick, etc). Just admit that you are killing and I'll at least respect you for it (I'm using the general "you" here, not attacking you personally). It's quite common for people (such as racists) to claim that those they kill "aren't really human" to try to pretend that they have some justification throughout history. Just look up the justifications made for genocide throughout history.
Does this 'oops' somehow constitute a willing decision to get pregnant, despite the above, based merely on the fact that when people decide to have sex with a 100% contraceptive method they 'accept' that tiny percentage chance that they -do- get (the girl) pregnant?
As you pointed out, no contraceptive is 100%, therefore any time you are having sex (with or without contraceptives) you are risking getting pregnant. If you're not ready to deal with the potential negative outcomes of having sex, you shouldn't be having it. So yes, it IS a willing decision - a willing decision to have sex. An abortion because of "oops" is a matter of not wanting to deal with the consequences of their actions.
You forgot rape... And endangerment of the mother's life. Not every unwanted pregnancy can be prevented nor safely carried to term. I don't think anyone has the moral authority to force a woman to die as a consequence of trying to bring a dangerous pregnancy to term. Nor do I believe that unwanted pregnancies are solely the fault of the mother.
I totally agree with you - however, if you look into the numbers, only a very small percentage of rape victims get pregnant (due to the trauma of the event) and out of those who do, more than half decide to have the baby so that something good can come from it. Also, the number of abortions due to the mother's life being in danger are rather low too. So yes, while I agree that they should have the option of abortion in those cases, using it as a reason for anyone to have an abortion at anytime for any reason is faulty logic.
You'll spend $12 to go see a movie in a sticky theater and obnoxious people. You won't get to save a copy of said movie, and you'll be fine with it.
But paying $10 for a book that will likely provide you with hours more entertainment than the movie, with some possibility that in 30 years Amazon won't exist and your books might not be usable, somehow seems like a crime.
That's because you go to the movie paying to see it one time on the big screen with the awesome sound system AND you pay to see it when it's brand new. That's why after it's been out for awhile it goes to the cheap theaters that don't charge as much - because it's not new anymore.
When you buy a book / movie / game, as long as you take care of it, it should last forever. If a company has the ability to revoke your ability to use the product you purchased at any time (whether through bankruptcy or because they decide to no longer support it), then you do not own it and are merely renting it......and as anyone with even the smallest amount of financial intelligence can tell you, renting is throwing your money down the drain (yes, sometimes it's a necessary evil to rent an apartment until you can afford a house). I buy things that are made to last, which is why I do no buy anything that can be taken away from me randomly and for no reason.
I would LOVE to buy an e-book reader, but there's a few things holding me back:1) DRM 2) the fact that the e-book costs more than the paperback 3) that there's no way for me to pay a small fee and input the ISBN number from books I already own to get e-book version of them - if I want to read them on the reader, I'd have to buy them new at the inflated price of the e-book 4) I want to read news papers on it (particularly the WSJ), but so far Amazon is the only one I know of who offers this AND it does not include charts / graphs with the newspaper (which is rather essential to certain parts of the WSJ).
While the Macs are themselves unaffected, they pass along the infection to windows boxes.
That's usually the point where they are found and removed, but the general lack of av for Mac (few choices and most lack functionality/accuracy) along with the perception of macs as immune means that av is rarely installed on macs.
Quite true. However, Symantic Endpoint Protection now supports OS X as well, so there's at least a decent (for business use, I'd never touch Symantec for personal use) AV program for Mac now. The hard part will be explaining to people why they need it.
I had a user the other day when I went to work on his machine who had removed AV - I mentioned the lack of AV and he goes "Well it's just on a separate workgroup, it's not on the domain". Well that separate workgroup still had internet access (even though technically it wasn't supposed to), which he knew quite well from all the im clients and browsing he'd done on that machine. After I installed AV on it I ran a scan and, surprise!, it had a dozen viruses. I'm actually surprised it wasn't more than that.... But yes, some people just aren't smart enough to realize that you need AV protection.
First, it is perfectly legal for you to say to someone "hey, I'm going to be out of town, can you tape X for me?" and have a person record the show for you and give it to you. This is no different than buying / building a DVR on your own to record shows for you.
Second, you realize that you CAN reuse tapes, right? =) I only ever owned one three pack of blank VHS tapes and simply reused them over and over. As for your "one person with a tv tuner" argument, that's exactly WHY it's not different. Those shows are available, for free, to anyone with an antenna connected to their tv - I specifically said I was talking about the channels that are freely broadcast, not cable channels. Regardless of how you obtain it then, it costs you nothing - which is why it's ridiculous to call one method illegal while every other method of obtaining the same thing for the same price is legal.
Third, they are only the same thing if it's a made for tv movie that broadcasts on a freely available station. Neither deprives the creators of money, since you have two kinds of people - 1) the person who sees a show / movie once and that's it or (so if they saw it when it was broadcast, they'd never buy it) or 2) (the people like me) who like a show / movie and buy it on dvd / blu-ray. I own hundreds of dvd's (yes, purchased ones, not pirated) and getting close to 100 seasons of tv show's on dvd. Why? Because I like having the disc and box and all that, plus you can use it in a blu-ray player and upconvert it, it's easy to loan out, etc.
If you do not think that people downloading Show X cuts into not only Show X's viewership and thus ad revenues but also their merchandise like box sets, then you are horribly and irrevocably biased.
It's rare for someone to buy a season of a tv show without ever watching the show first. Also, most people don't watch scattered episodes of a show, so if they miss some, they'll simply stop watching. NBC got money from me, both ad revenue on tv and for the dvd purchase, of Heroes BECAUSE I went on bittorrent and downloaded episodes. I missed the first few episodes of season 1 due to other things going on, but I wanted to see it so I downloaded a handful of episodes to catch up. Because of that, I started watching the show all the time and bought every season on dvd.
Companies typically MAKE money off of piracy due to the fact that some people pirate because they don't want to pay, but then their friends see the pirated product and like it, so they buy it, then tell other friends how great it is and they buy it, and so on. You are allowed to test out a car, computer, walk through a home, browse a book, etc before you buy it - but with games / tv shows / movies you're supposed to just drop down money without getting a chance to find out for yourself if it's worth the money? That's bullshit. It's the same as with DRM, no other industry is allowed to get away with that crap of taking back what someone fully paid for - why does the entertainment industry get this exception to providing customers a chance to find out if the product is worth buying before they have to pay for it?
I fully understand people saying that it's wrong to download music or movies - but downloading a tv show is no different than your friend recording it on VHS and then giving the tape to you. Especially since most shows (yea, I'm not talking HBO, I'm talking ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox) are free to view to begin with.
No, one thing that I love is the auto-network discovery when using Nautilus (not sure what the KDE version was called). I found no such thing in KDE and since I transfer stuff between my systems quite often, I'm not going to use something that makes that task difficult.
OS X, Windows, and every gnome, xfce, fluxbox, etc version of Linux I've used allows this feature. KDE was the only one that didn't allow it (or if it did, had it so well hidden that I didn't find it).
You're right about the looks - but usability wise, I find gnome to be superior. I ran KDE for about 15 minutes before being so annoyed with not being able to do things I was used to in gnome that I switched back to gnome.
I'm not sure if your post could be any farther from the truth. People pay $400 because they're dumb enough to think that it's worth it. It's the same reason that they stuck with the pre-installed Vista instead of installing something else - because they chose not to. This has nothing to do with capitalism. People will lie, cheat, and steal in any system. The only thing is, when it happens in socialism / communism, people like you say "that person didn't follow the rules". When it happens in capitalism, you lie and claim that it's capitalisms fault that some people lie / cheat / steal.
Capitalism is the only socio-economic policy that allows freedom and gives people a chance to improve their lives dramatically. Just because some people are scum or stupid doesn't make the system flawed. There are stupid assholes in every group of people (just look at the people who are fanboys of any product / company). By your logic, since there are griefers in WoW, WoW is evil. Hold people accountable for their actions - don't blame the system when someone cheats.
I would write more, but I'm doing this on my iPhone and it takes too long to type.
Slashdot Mirror
.............no idea what you're talking about. I've used the beta, RC, and RTM and never had that happen, and I'm no wiz when it comes to firewalls. Maybe Steve Ballmer just hates you? Either that or you're either 1) incapable of using a computer without breaking it or 2) full of crap.......
Funny that you say Win 7 is "ugly", since it's identical visually with Vista except for the taskbar and getting rid of the side bar. Also, I've yet to meet anyone who tries to claim that the new taskbar isn't cleaner and easier to use.
But hey, thanks for trolling anyways!
*throws the troll some moldy bread* Yup, I feed trolls! =D
If you computer isn't stable enough to run firefox for 5 seconds when you overclock it, shouldn't you just not overclock it? Or overclock it less? How much speed are you actually gaining? You're not saving much time if something goes wrong every hour or so.
The system is dead stable and no program has a problem but Firefox. Ergo, the problem is with Firefox, NOT the computer. If there was a problem with the system, other programs would crash - yet none of them do. As for the "you're not saving much time..." comment - I just don't use Firefox any more - problem solved. Shame though, I really like Firefox.
Well, for the time being, why not just write the email in whatever text editor / word processor you want, use something like Winzip, 7-zip, or any other .zip program that does encryption to store it, then attach that and send the email? Is it a hassle? Some. But still less hassle than the way it currently is.
It only sucks because the government didn't force companies to upgrade their networks when they took money from the government to.......upgrade their networks.
All the government had to do was actually enforce the measures they enacted and we wouldn't be having this conversation. So yes, while the companies are definitely in the wrong for essentially embezzling the money, the politicians who gave them the money and then let them just pocket it are even more in the wrong.
**Apologies for any typo's - Firefox doesn't want to run on my system without crashing every 5 seconds since I overclocked it (everything else runs 100% fine, and no system crashes - so the problem is with Firefox) and good ol' Shiternet Explorer doesn't have spellcheck.**
Once you reach the age of 40 it becomes apparent that young drivers are crap and greatly overestimate their skills and their road attentiveness.
Funny that you say that - Car and Driver did a test a couple issues back to compare drunk driving versus texting while driving. They had two people that they recorded, both at low speed and highway speed. One of the subjects was 22 and the other was 37. Here's the thing - the 22 year olds reaction time even while drunk and distracted by texting were better than the 37 year old when he was dead sober and had no distractions.
Am I saying it's safe to drive drunk or text while driving? Hell no. But it does show that even someone as young as 40 has their reaction times slowing down enough that they pose a danger.
As for "those damn kids" - people that drive like idiots drive that way regardless of age. Responsible drivers also drive that way regardless of age.
True. I graduated not too long ago and went into IT because I'm good at it and that's where the job offer came from, even though my degree is in Economics. I've already realized that I don't care for it too much (well, not necessarily IT, but consulting) and am already planning on switching careers and becoming an Actuary. The tests are only done twice a year, so I have to wait for spring to start working on it. However, I'm second guessing doing that now since the US government seems hellbent on running the insurance industry out of business -- doesn't seem like a bright idea to change to a new career in an industry that might not exist in a few years.
I've never met anyone who had a problem with it.....
Wait a minute........Andre the Giant, is that you?!
You're trying to make people conform to the way you think they should behave by removing some of their options to be responsible.
Killing a baby is never being responsible. But you're such a tough guy that you can only fight someone who can't fight back. I have no problems with killing what so ever, but I'm not a coward and would never kill someone who can't fight back. If you knew anything about me, you'd know that I'm constantly pushing people NOT to conform. However, just because you don't conform doesn't mean you don't have to suffer the consequences of your actions.
Thanks to modern medicine, childbirth is not inherently a "negative consequence" of pregnancy. Your argument is broken.
Actually, people killed babies since the dawn of time. It's only that now people like you somehow think it's acceptable to kill them just because they'd be inconvenient. But you know what, I'll shut up about it if we make it fair - make a law so that instead of just being able to kill a baby that's inconvenient to you, you can kill anyone who inconveniences you. We'll call it a "retroactive abortion". If someone's being a dumbass and wasting my time in the line at the bank / store, jab a needle in their head and suck out their brain - *bam* retroactive abortion. Deal? (Something tells me that you'll be against that).
Feel free to martyr yourself. When you insist others must do the same thing, you cross the line into oppressor.
Society has (up until people like you came about in the last couple of decades) always insisted that people accept responsibility for their actions. That's why we have a legal system - to make people accept the negative consequences of their actions.
People like you who think people can do whatever they want without any consequences are why those of us who do think rationally and realize that actions have consequences (sometimes good, sometimes bad) have little hope for the future.
A world full of absolutist, judgemental, misogynist arseholes. What an awesome idea !
So promoting personal responsibility and thinking before you act is being an asshole? Wow, you just announced yourself as one of the dumbest people on the planet. Good job!
Not nearly as pathetic as trying to oppress people because they're having a good time.
I'm all for having a good time - you want to do drugs? Go for it. Want to get drunk off your ass? Sweet! Want to bang 100 girls? Aweosome! -- HOWEVER, if you're not ready to accept any possible negative consequences, don't do it. And if you try to be a little bitch and avoid having to suffer the consequences of your actions, I will give you massive amounts of shit for it. Hell, I've probably had sex with more girls than anyone else on slashdot - however, if one of them would get pregnant, I wouldn't tell them to kill the kid just so that I wouldn't have to accept the consequences of my actions. Do I want kids? Hell no. But if that would happen, I'm prepared to accept it.
Ah, yes. Like most bumper stickers - short, simple and laughably incorrect.
Really? So your mother had an abortion and you came back from the dead? That can't be true because our Lord and Savior Obama is the only Messiah.
I really don't care if low lifes kill their kids (because it means eventually you'll snuff yourselves out and then we can get on with making the world a better place once all the excuse-making collectivists are gone). However, trying to claim that killing babies is a rational alternative to using your brain before spreading your legs is pathetic. Just remember the bumper sticker - "the people who are for abortion are only alive because their mother was against it".
No, I'm saying that actions have consequences. If you're not prepared to deal with the consequences, then you have no business doing it. It doesn't matter if it's sex, playing the stock market, gambling, racing, skydiving, etc.
Your argument is nothing more than saying that people should not be held responsible for their actions, which is the main reason that the world is such a shitty place today - people like you making excuses for those who do bad / stupid things instead of holding them accountable for their choices.
Nervous systems, heartbeats, lungs -- these things do not make one human.
Absolutely right. However, they do mean that the creature is alive, so the "it's not alive" people lose all ground there. It doesn't matter whether it's a bug, a dog, a fish, or a person, if something has a heartbeat and you cause it to stop, you killed it.
How can you consider a fetus to be fully human when it lacks the one basic characteristic of humanity?
So you follow the view that the doctor has a magic wand that turns a fetus into a human baby? Dogs reproduce as dogs, trees reproduce as trees, humans reproduce as humans. To claim that a baby isn't human just because it hurts your argument that "it's not really a baby" to avoid acknowledging what's really being done is laughable.
I have no problem with killing, don't get me wrong (though I do find killing someone who can't fight back to be cowardly and despicable - regardless of if they're a baby, old, handicapped, sick, etc). Just admit that you are killing and I'll at least respect you for it (I'm using the general "you" here, not attacking you personally). It's quite common for people (such as racists) to claim that those they kill "aren't really human" to try to pretend that they have some justification throughout history. Just look up the justifications made for genocide throughout history.
Does this 'oops' somehow constitute a willing decision to get pregnant, despite the above, based merely on the fact that when people decide to have sex with a 100% contraceptive method they 'accept' that tiny percentage chance that they -do- get (the girl) pregnant?
As you pointed out, no contraceptive is 100%, therefore any time you are having sex (with or without contraceptives) you are risking getting pregnant. If you're not ready to deal with the potential negative outcomes of having sex, you shouldn't be having it. So yes, it IS a willing decision - a willing decision to have sex. An abortion because of "oops" is a matter of not wanting to deal with the consequences of their actions.
You forgot rape... And endangerment of the mother's life. Not every unwanted pregnancy can be prevented nor safely carried to term. I don't think anyone has the moral authority to force a woman to die as a consequence of trying to bring a dangerous pregnancy to term. Nor do I believe that unwanted pregnancies are solely the fault of the mother.
I totally agree with you - however, if you look into the numbers, only a very small percentage of rape victims get pregnant (due to the trauma of the event) and out of those who do, more than half decide to have the baby so that something good can come from it. Also, the number of abortions due to the mother's life being in danger are rather low too. So yes, while I agree that they should have the option of abortion in those cases, using it as a reason for anyone to have an abortion at anytime for any reason is faulty logic.
You'll spend $12 to go see a movie in a sticky theater and obnoxious people. You won't get to save a copy of said movie, and you'll be fine with it. But paying $10 for a book that will likely provide you with hours more entertainment than the movie, with some possibility that in 30 years Amazon won't exist and your books might not be usable, somehow seems like a crime.
That's because you go to the movie paying to see it one time on the big screen with the awesome sound system AND you pay to see it when it's brand new. That's why after it's been out for awhile it goes to the cheap theaters that don't charge as much - because it's not new anymore.
When you buy a book / movie / game, as long as you take care of it, it should last forever. If a company has the ability to revoke your ability to use the product you purchased at any time (whether through bankruptcy or because they decide to no longer support it), then you do not own it and are merely renting it......and as anyone with even the smallest amount of financial intelligence can tell you, renting is throwing your money down the drain (yes, sometimes it's a necessary evil to rent an apartment until you can afford a house). I buy things that are made to last, which is why I do no buy anything that can be taken away from me randomly and for no reason.
I would LOVE to buy an e-book reader, but there's a few things holding me back:1) DRM 2) the fact that the e-book costs more than the paperback 3) that there's no way for me to pay a small fee and input the ISBN number from books I already own to get e-book version of them - if I want to read them on the reader, I'd have to buy them new at the inflated price of the e-book 4) I want to read news papers on it (particularly the WSJ), but so far Amazon is the only one I know of who offers this AND it does not include charts / graphs with the newspaper (which is rather essential to certain parts of the WSJ).
While the Macs are themselves unaffected, they pass along the infection to windows boxes. That's usually the point where they are found and removed, but the general lack of av for Mac (few choices and most lack functionality/accuracy) along with the perception of macs as immune means that av is rarely installed on macs.
Quite true. However, Symantic Endpoint Protection now supports OS X as well, so there's at least a decent (for business use, I'd never touch Symantec for personal use) AV program for Mac now. The hard part will be explaining to people why they need it.
I had a user the other day when I went to work on his machine who had removed AV - I mentioned the lack of AV and he goes "Well it's just on a separate workgroup, it's not on the domain". Well that separate workgroup still had internet access (even though technically it wasn't supposed to), which he knew quite well from all the im clients and browsing he'd done on that machine. After I installed AV on it I ran a scan and, surprise!, it had a dozen viruses. I'm actually surprised it wasn't more than that.... But yes, some people just aren't smart enough to realize that you need AV protection.
First, it is perfectly legal for you to say to someone "hey, I'm going to be out of town, can you tape X for me?" and have a person record the show for you and give it to you. This is no different than buying / building a DVR on your own to record shows for you.
Second, you realize that you CAN reuse tapes, right? =) I only ever owned one three pack of blank VHS tapes and simply reused them over and over. As for your "one person with a tv tuner" argument, that's exactly WHY it's not different. Those shows are available, for free, to anyone with an antenna connected to their tv - I specifically said I was talking about the channels that are freely broadcast, not cable channels. Regardless of how you obtain it then, it costs you nothing - which is why it's ridiculous to call one method illegal while every other method of obtaining the same thing for the same price is legal.
Third, they are only the same thing if it's a made for tv movie that broadcasts on a freely available station. Neither deprives the creators of money, since you have two kinds of people - 1) the person who sees a show / movie once and that's it or (so if they saw it when it was broadcast, they'd never buy it) or 2) (the people like me) who like a show / movie and buy it on dvd / blu-ray. I own hundreds of dvd's (yes, purchased ones, not pirated) and getting close to 100 seasons of tv show's on dvd. Why? Because I like having the disc and box and all that, plus you can use it in a blu-ray player and upconvert it, it's easy to loan out, etc.
If you do not think that people downloading Show X cuts into not only Show X's viewership and thus ad revenues but also their merchandise like box sets, then you are horribly and irrevocably biased.
It's rare for someone to buy a season of a tv show without ever watching the show first. Also, most people don't watch scattered episodes of a show, so if they miss some, they'll simply stop watching. NBC got money from me, both ad revenue on tv and for the dvd purchase, of Heroes BECAUSE I went on bittorrent and downloaded episodes. I missed the first few episodes of season 1 due to other things going on, but I wanted to see it so I downloaded a handful of episodes to catch up. Because of that, I started watching the show all the time and bought every season on dvd.
Companies typically MAKE money off of piracy due to the fact that some people pirate because they don't want to pay, but then their friends see the pirated product and like it, so they buy it, then tell other friends how great it is and they buy it, and so on. You are allowed to test out a car, computer, walk through a home, browse a book, etc before you buy it - but with games / tv shows / movies you're supposed to just drop down money without getting a chance to find out for yourself if it's worth the money? That's bullshit. It's the same as with DRM, no other industry is allowed to get away with that crap of taking back what someone fully paid for - why does the entertainment industry get this exception to providing customers a chance to find out if the product is worth buying before they have to pay for it?
Torrents my dear friend, torrents.
I fully understand people saying that it's wrong to download music or movies - but downloading a tv show is no different than your friend recording it on VHS and then giving the tape to you. Especially since most shows (yea, I'm not talking HBO, I'm talking ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox) are free to view to begin with.
You're confusing HBO with Cinemax.
Although, some scenes in True Blood are softcore porn.....
Solution: buy a tv card for your pc and download Mythbuntu. Problem solved.
No, one thing that I love is the auto-network discovery when using Nautilus (not sure what the KDE version was called). I found no such thing in KDE and since I transfer stuff between my systems quite often, I'm not going to use something that makes that task difficult.
OS X, Windows, and every gnome, xfce, fluxbox, etc version of Linux I've used allows this feature. KDE was the only one that didn't allow it (or if it did, had it so well hidden that I didn't find it).
You're right about the looks - but usability wise, I find gnome to be superior. I ran KDE for about 15 minutes before being so annoyed with not being able to do things I was used to in gnome that I switched back to gnome.
I'm not sure if your post could be any farther from the truth. People pay $400 because they're dumb enough to think that it's worth it. It's the same reason that they stuck with the pre-installed Vista instead of installing something else - because they chose not to. This has nothing to do with capitalism. People will lie, cheat, and steal in any system. The only thing is, when it happens in socialism / communism, people like you say "that person didn't follow the rules". When it happens in capitalism, you lie and claim that it's capitalisms fault that some people lie / cheat / steal.
Capitalism is the only socio-economic policy that allows freedom and gives people a chance to improve their lives dramatically. Just because some people are scum or stupid doesn't make the system flawed. There are stupid assholes in every group of people (just look at the people who are fanboys of any product / company). By your logic, since there are griefers in WoW, WoW is evil. Hold people accountable for their actions - don't blame the system when someone cheats.
I would write more, but I'm doing this on my iPhone and it takes too long to type.
No, we focus on everyones freedoms. The collectivists focus on "how can I benefit by taking from others".