Wrestling with this one for quite a while brought a couple of friends and I to kinda describe it like this: Skill is proportional to knowledge of that subject * talent/affinity for the subject (maybe there should be a k in there...). It always seems that skill is magnified rather than just enhanced by an individual's talent...and learning more about something always seems to magnify your overall skill as well. Then you have overlap from similar situations/areas of experience in your own life that all play a part as well.
Personally, I've managed to create quite a stable network without a great cost...probably due to the fact that I work with networking equipment every day and am decently well off as it is. The problem is that many people out there are not. It's easy to say, "Go buy better stuff", when you have the money. Many people have to pick and choose between what they spend money on. It's not bitching...it's just their way of life. I grew up in that kind of situation, so I feel for them.
Even if Starcraft 2 can P2P LAN games after connecting up on Battle.net, you still run into the issue that a LOT of home routers will can't recognize their own WAN port IP address from the LAN side, so those packets that could, technically, just stay on the local LAN will be routed out the router's WAN port to the first hop, then bounced back since they have the same public IP address. This is where the problem with sharing an internet connection will kill LANs...
If someone else out their has more accurate information on the state of home routers now, please let me know...I've been working with networks for a while and wasn't aware that this was different. I'm perfectly aware that newer routers, some with flashed firmware (open source), and the more expensive routers could handle the situation nicely, but home routers are pretty cheaply made and just plain suck sometimes.
Eh...it depends...my boss can get talent for a little more than $20k a year...for me, I just needed a job to help me pay for the final year of my education and I got lucky as my particular area does not have a slew of tech-industry openings - especially programmers. I don't have any clue how my boss managed to get 5 competent programmers in one building, but he somehow did, and, well, I'm still here despite my low wages...maybe the failing economy helped encouraged me to stay put - at least for now. I think the other thing that keeps us here is the fact that all of us have worked with less-competent people before...*cough*the boss's son*cough* (before we rid ourselves of him)...and we, I think appreciate each other for that, and just enjoy working together...needless to say, I think everyone feels a need to push on for higher wages though...
I work in Lincoln, NE. Fiber is offered - by Time Warner Cable only. However, 10 years ago, before Time Warner Cable even laid fiber line, another company LES (Lincoln's municipal electric company) already had a fiber network over the entire city and was planning to offer it to customers. Time Warner lobbied the state legislature to make the use of said fiber illegal. Now everyone is paying Time Warner's lobbying bill back since Time Warner's internet offers are the only viable options for the area...and their pricing is extremely competitive - $35 a month for 1.5mbps down.../sarcasm.
That's a fantastic idea. It would help to rid this country of the surplus lawyer population and might actually make the lawyers who were left worth the money they were paid.
I wish...
I'm white and I grew up in the South - Texas to be specific. There seem to be quite a few more black people living there than in the places I've lived up North. No one ever told me that I needed to be careful not to be racist, but I really can't see myself as being racist. My black friends just have a different cultural upbringing than I do. That's perfectly ok with us. We just make fun of each other and have a good time.
My grandmother is racist and my father is a little racist (he's pretty good for the most part, but he still has a tendency to point a racial finger at people when something bad happens). My mother could care less if you were purple spotted and were made of jelly. She'd love you anyway. I think that was more influential than anything else. However, I really didn't meet many people that I actually thought were racist down there. Some people were a little skittish, but, for the most part, there wasn't a problem with anyone.
The first time I encountered a whole group of people who collectively were rather racist was when I moved up North. Outwardly, everyone was extremely politically correct, said the right things and were extremely "outraged" that I called people 'black' instead of African Americans (try calling anyone that in the 'hood' of town...I won't come to your funeral). In fact, there was no mixing of white people and black people at all...they were completely separated cultures and groups of people. The black people were extremely defensive and not open to making new relationships - I don't know whether they are just burned really bad or if it is just instilled in them that everyone hates them. Whatever it is. Everyone up North seems to be extremely racist toward everyone else - its kinda sad.
I'm more of the opinion that yes, there are definitely still some racists about, but I think, for the most part, it's turned into perception more than anything. We assume that someone's out to get us, so everything becomes self-prophetic and seems to support the conclusion that we assumed. Personally, I think that's crap.
I do disagree with the cultural "glossing-over" that has happened, but I also think its a bunch of bunk to try and hammer those lessons into the young. They are only going to learn to treat people as their equals if the people around them are doing so. Hammering into the young that they need to avoid the mistakes of the past only sharpens those lines that still exist - it doesn't magically erase them.
Racism is just some form of elitist thinking that's tied to being identified with a race. The same thing happens, for example, when people join gangs - their gang is better than the rest. It's a coping mechanism that exists in society. It's not something you can just educate away. Sometimes you can try to help a single person one at a time, but you can't just change people. It doesn't work. I would know. I'm lucky to have escaped my neighborhood alive - I could be caught up in the gang mentality just as easily as anyone else, but I managed not to. It doesn't make me better than any of my buddies who are still doing drugs, stealing, and killing people. It just means that I escaped the spiral.
I don't think that gangs, racism, or any other elitist thinking is something that can be "fought". being aware is good, I think. But I think that coming to the table thinking that you are going to 'do your part' and fight racism is really bringing a fight into something that's not. Racist persons are more people to feel sorry for than people to hate.
To be honest, as much flak as we give to Windows, the truth is that it's main security flaw is its own success (Windows has no control over whether or not you update. Their provision of patches covers their butts on that one). No matter how secure an Operating System is, there is no way to guarantee foolproof behavior. Any other assumption is just idealized fancy. Recent hacking competitions have shown that Windows is not any more insecure than Mac OSX and possibly even some popular Linux distros. This just raises the question whether the reputation for security flaws stems as much from its popularity as from its previous failures in that area. Social Engineering is the most important piece of any malware attack vector. Too much malware DEPENDS upon some form of social engineering to infect a new host. Consequently, this raises the question whether similar techniques could be used to infect computers belonging to a similar cross-section of society using a different operating system. Obviously, this is not a feasible test, but it does highlight a "reasonable doubt" concerning Windows' fault in the matter
The other important point of reasonable doubt is the most obvious reason behind the sheer amount of malware available for Windows systems. The MOST important aspect of ANY botnet is sustainability. IF the botnet cannot infect hosts faster than it can be removed from them, then a botnet stagnates and dies. It's obvious, then, that Mac OSX and Linux are going to be extremely discouraging of botnets.
Hence, the conclusion that the success of botnets is based upon the security deficiencies of a single OS is not maintainable - it is subject to great suspicion. That suspicion is why liability cannot be placed upon the OS.
Man...some days I just wanna rag on Windows, but...logically...I really can't most of the time
You have some serious analogy issues. computer owners/users are in no way analogous to the airplane passengers. Passengers are inherently passive and don't interact with the airplane in any method that controls the plane. Computer users are in constant control all the time. A better analogy would be something similar to handing the keys of a car over to a 5-year-old...they know what it is, and they've seen someone drive it, but they have no clue what the rules of the road are and can't see where they are going. However, even that analogy is pretty flawed.
The problem with placing the liability upon the OS manufacturer is also a mistaken argument - returning to the vehicle analogy (which has been the only sensible one so far), placing liability on the OS for the actions performed by a user's machine after being infected by malware is analogous to placing liability for hitting that person after a thief stole the wheel off your car.
Even then, you are completely denying any personal responsibility for any of this (others are guilty of this as well, however...). There is no reason why a person can't be responsible for their own equipment. If they are part of a botnet, too bad. Get it fixed, learn how to use your computer, get help, or use someone else's equipment. That being said, there's nothing wrong with granting those who fail to keep their equipment secure a kind of amnesty. But once you grant it, you can't just look at the next entity in the responsibility chain and say, "Hey, you owe me money!"
Along the same lines, you can't exclude yourself from responsibility for something you were a part of just because you weren't expecting something to happen. Try explaining that to your boss when you bring the whole company crashing down - Suddenly, "My bad", just doesn't seem to cut it.
If a driver were to have cut breaks, there would be a certain amount of leniency towards them for the crash that they were involved in - in fact, they would probably be forgiven any responsibility (this is a completely different thing than not HAVING responsibility in the first place). However, the person who cut the breaks is not directly liable for the crash. They are held responsible for their actions against the driver, but then responsibility is commuted from the driver to them because the driver is forgiven.
Perhaps we are just splitting hairs here, but the placement of liability is rather important - it may come back to bite YOU in the butt one day if you aren't careful.
I was helping my fiance and her roommate set up their wireless network in their apartment. Not counting the wireless router that I was configuring, there were 8 different wireless SSIDs being broadcast.
4 of them were completely unauthenticated (with names like: linksys, etc...meaning they probably never bothered to set up their router at all).
2 of them were WEP
1 was secured only with a username/password
(1) only one seemed to be secure
Just a random sampling of wireless networks. Obviously, there is no need to point out that the networks which did NOT broadcast an SSID would not have even shown up in Vista's wireless network list (I was using the roommate's laptop to configure the router).
Just a random sampling of wireless networks available in a single apartment building. It should also be noted that all 8 had strong signals, and the building was located at least 100ft. from any other habitable building, so, it's certainly possible that all of the networks were being broadcast from inside the apartment building.
Bottom line, I bet it's all about money. A small percentage of pirates might be pirates because of their ideologies on DRM and whatnot, but that's just a handful of souls.
Maybe...I know that I've downloaded some games in the past to get a feel for them...Most of them have ended up in purchases after I was impressed - Starcraft, Diablo & II, CS, Civ 4, DemiGod...but there's also a few games that I have not bought because I felt they were horrid.
This being said, now that I actually have a job, I do end up spending money on games more than I have in the past. However, being just a little idealistic, I am leery of paying for DRM. I've been burned myself in recent years and have no desire to experience that again (sorry EA, you can't have my money).
While I can't rationalize much downloading anymore to myself, I certainly understand where a number of those that I do know that download stuff come from and can't condemn them for it. I can't really honestly say that any of them feel that they are screwing the companies out of money. For them, buying twenty copies of UT2004 to play over LAN for one day is ridiculous (and a serious rip-off). But, buying UT3 or CS-Source over steam to play people around the world is 100% ok!
Maybe the real issue IS money - if UT2004 cost $2 (GOG games was about a year too late), maybe the LAN issue wouldn't have been there...seriously... when are more hardcore game publishers gonna realize that unless their game has some serious replay value (think Blizzard or Valve), they can't sell games for full price 10 years after they come out?!? Even EA and Ubisoft (or was it Eidos...didn't Ubisoft purchase the rights to UT recently...?) with titles like Command & Conquer and Unreal Tournament and other somewhat popular hardcore gamer games can't do that...the mainstream games like Guitar Hero at least reduce their prices or have "specials"...
Seems to me that this is all about market placement. On one hand, you have the game publishers trying to fix prices instead of allowing market forces to drive down prices and increase the competition and value of games in general, so on the other hand, piracy comes in to fill in the market void and compete. Of course, the whole gaming industry, after being spoiled in the United States by pro-business legislation, decide that they can just snuff out competition by complaining and trying to eliminate piracy rather than actually providing a better product that actually provides something that piracy can't (No, not everything can be WoW and force users to log in to a server. But I don't get paid to come up with ways to provide a better product. How about those guys with million dollar salaries?). Now, we have "rampant" piracy. Seems to me that those CEO's and everyone else involved in their business are just making stupid business decisions. THAT seems to be the REAL problem - as Stardock has shown.
However, it may take more than Stardock to shift the balance. Since people have been pushed so far as to pirate, they may not want to come back without incentive. That's the actual job of those CEO's and business execs. It's time they actually EARN their pay.
perhaps we should re-cast most of the jobs in the current market and label them "typists"? I'm pretty darned sure that at least half of the programmers out there can't read road signs - I mean, can't read/understand the actual problem in the code in the first place.
I remember being taught that programming was the solving of problems. Shouldn't "programmers" have basic problem solving skills?!? Seems that business people don't understand that in the first place, but then there's those teachers that just feed their students with everything instead of teaching them how to solve the stinking problems with the stuff they learned...maybe that's part of the issue...
I'm sorry if my post was read to mean that I felt gypped that free-market forces weren't at work. Whether I prefer the concept of laissez faire or not should not matter. My point was that commenters had already determined in their heads that one was better than the other.
The history of the economy of the United States is extremely mixed insofar as the reigns of free-market capitalism and socialism are concerned. Any semblance of capitalistic self-governing in the markets have been farcical at best - regulations and government oversight have twisted even the most "free-market" environments that the United States has enjoyed into artificial ones that resemble socialist structures even as we practice "freely" in them.
For this, I trot out the example of China's recent attempts to capitalize within a socialist structure. While an exceptionally different example, it highlights the struggle that any country has between trying to maintain the lifestyle that the inhabitants expect and the amount of control over the inhabitants that the government expects to have. China is attempting to maintain the same level of control while raising the standard of living while the United States is going the opposite direction at the moment - trying to maintain the same standard of living while raising its ability to control the present economic/social conditions. I'm curious as to whether the end goal is actually shared between the two
It's easy to see the differences between the two countries...however, it is often difficult (because of prejudices, differing cultures, etc.) to see similarities and lessons that can be learned from them...it's certainly a big question that deserves its own discussion, another time, another place...
Maybe the real problem is that we have too many politicians that are either dumber than rocks or have no balls at all from Big Businesse stepping all over them while no intelligent, self-respecting politicians or motivated persons are willing to step out into the line of fire to change that. Perhaps THAT is a culture thing - for some reason, I, personally, grew up thinking that politicians were idiots...so I never wanted to be one...anyone else?
I think the point that some commenters have previously tried to make is that government is ALREADY socialistic and is PREVENTING free market forces from acting in the first place. Without those forces existing in the first place, there really is not a valid means of evaluating whether or not a free capitalist environment would serve to improve the current broadband situation or not. Big businesses have benefited for a long time from artificial monopolies created by exclusive contracts with government and other subsidizing situations.
Without the ability to evaluate whether free market forces are working, however, I don't think that we can make a good determination as to whether socialism is a viable alternative or not...certainly we can look at the struggles that France seems to be having with individual rights because of their socialistic structure. I don't, however, think that we have a similar scale example of the free market regulating itself (Yes, socialism is an ECONOMIC paradigm, not a government system...there seems to be some confusion by many on that subject. It is often confused with Communism, which is a government type).
Actually, there is a company out there that is working on real-time ray-tracing...the company is "Caustic Graphics". Right now, they're marketing to the movie industry, but they may become mainstream if they can manage to stick around.
Personally, I'm kinda excited about it (it could just be that this graphics stuff is kind of a hobby thing of mine). I don't think it's "Goodbye Rasterization", but I don't think it's gonna completely die out either...
That probably explains why all the fanboys up above were struggling with BSOD's all the time...too bad the forums they looked at didn't mention that...maybe they should try taking the card out of their pants and placing it in their machine...
agreed..but he is close...the problem is that the companies involved in providing internet access to consumers already have government granted monopolies (I assume we're referring to the United States here since the discussion involves a US company in the first place)...hence, there is no competition to provide impetus in the first place...in some locations, granted, there seems to be a little competition (think top 10 cities in America), however, most places have, at best, 4 options:
Dial-up (does this even count as an internet connection anymore?)
Satellite (bad latency...and terrible service)
Cable provider (Yes, we will rip you off to provide a crappy connection, but you should buy our television package for only $100 more a month! Also, our customer service is based out of India...and our outsourcing provider doesn't hire people who actually know anything about the internet or networking over there because skilled labor like that is expensive - about $.10 an hour instead of $.5 - so you're better off not using our customer service...) - This is for you, TWC
DSL (sorry...you're so far from our hub that we can only GUARANTEE dial-up speeds, but on a good day with the wind against your back, you might get 6Mbps...for the low price of $50 a month! btw...what's customer service?)
Heck, with all these fantastic options, why should the companies provide any competition? O, wait...it's cuz they lobbied the local cities to zone out the already laid fiber lines so that they wouldn't HAVE any competition...darned politicians...
Wow...you're on a DSL threshold (I assume you mean the end of the line...?) and you get 1Mb down?!? I was under the impression that most people who are in that situation are lucky to get a 256kbps DSL connection...I live in a town where everyone on the outskirts is at the "edge" of the DSL service area...they are offered 128kbps...
If you have a router, check out DD-WRT...it's a good open-source router firmware as it is, but it also allows you to watch your network's bandwidth usage through the router...that help at all?
I haven't really seen a good, inexpensive home router with it's own bandwidth monitor...
If you're really savvy, you could also set up a monitor on your router by polling it...
Actually, I was under the impression that courts have also been pretty consistent about declaring EULA's null and void because you can't agree to the EULA before buying anything...usually, the EULA is presented to you when you install something. Since you have no recourse at that point (try returning opened software...it usually is a FAIL), the EULA has been declared non-binding in a number of instances.
I was under the impression that they used the TARP funds to pay for their personal vacations, I mean, retreats where they discussed how they were going to blow the rest of their money...
I'm glad, Binestar, that you have a boss that gives you a large enough budget to do so...or that you make your own budget. It's nice to be in a comfortable situation like that. However, if you hadn't noticed, in today's current economy, the CEO's buy personal jets with the IT department's security budget and the lawyers dictate how everyone spends their money.
Being an IT Professional means trying to do an impossible job with no manpower and no budget in most companies...personally...my boss wastes thousands upon thousands on his own personal pet projects, but is loathe to spend a few thousand to upgrade VITAL servers that are overworked.
Security is important. However, sometimes, you have to work for/with idiots. You also have the infamous managers/bosses and their favorite people who have to have authorization to do EVERYTHING. So, you then have to deal with internal company security, hiding the fact that there is a super-user level account so that the boss CAN'T have access (because he's stupid enough to play around and destroy things).
IT Professionals have a lot of other things to deal with. Idealism rarely has a place in the professional world - despite the fact that we wish it could.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrestling with this one for quite a while brought a couple of friends and I to kinda describe it like this:
Skill is proportional to knowledge of that subject * talent/affinity for the subject (maybe there should be a k in there...). It always seems that skill is magnified rather than just enhanced by an individual's talent...and learning more about something always seems to magnify your overall skill as well. Then you have overlap from similar situations/areas of experience in your own life that all play a part as well.
Personally, I've managed to create quite a stable network without a great cost...probably due to the fact that I work with networking equipment every day and am decently well off as it is. The problem is that many people out there are not. It's easy to say, "Go buy better stuff", when you have the money. Many people have to pick and choose between what they spend money on. It's not bitching...it's just their way of life. I grew up in that kind of situation, so I feel for them.
Even if Starcraft 2 can P2P LAN games after connecting up on Battle.net, you still run into the issue that a LOT of home routers will can't recognize their own WAN port IP address from the LAN side, so those packets that could, technically, just stay on the local LAN will be routed out the router's WAN port to the first hop, then bounced back since they have the same public IP address. This is where the problem with sharing an internet connection will kill LANs...
If someone else out their has more accurate information on the state of home routers now, please let me know...I've been working with networks for a while and wasn't aware that this was different. I'm perfectly aware that newer routers, some with flashed firmware (open source), and the more expensive routers could handle the situation nicely, but home routers are pretty cheaply made and just plain suck sometimes.
Eh...it depends...my boss can get talent for a little more than $20k a year...for me, I just needed a job to help me pay for the final year of my education and I got lucky as my particular area does not have a slew of tech-industry openings - especially programmers. I don't have any clue how my boss managed to get 5 competent programmers in one building, but he somehow did, and, well, I'm still here despite my low wages...maybe the failing economy helped encouraged me to stay put - at least for now. I think the other thing that keeps us here is the fact that all of us have worked with less-competent people before...*cough*the boss's son*cough* (before we rid ourselves of him)...and we, I think appreciate each other for that, and just enjoy working together...needless to say, I think everyone feels a need to push on for higher wages though...
Wait...what? Two pirates plus two ninjas = 1 samurai??!?!?
I work in Lincoln, NE. Fiber is offered - by Time Warner Cable only. However, 10 years ago, before Time Warner Cable even laid fiber line, another company LES (Lincoln's municipal electric company) already had a fiber network over the entire city and was planning to offer it to customers. Time Warner lobbied the state legislature to make the use of said fiber illegal. Now everyone is paying Time Warner's lobbying bill back since Time Warner's internet offers are the only viable options for the area...and their pricing is extremely competitive - $35 a month for 1.5mbps down.../sarcasm.
Dang it...the little technicalities always come back to bite ya...
That's a fantastic idea. It would help to rid this country of the surplus lawyer population and might actually make the lawyers who were left worth the money they were paid. I wish...
My grandmother is racist and my father is a little racist (he's pretty good for the most part, but he still has a tendency to point a racial finger at people when something bad happens). My mother could care less if you were purple spotted and were made of jelly. She'd love you anyway. I think that was more influential than anything else. However, I really didn't meet many people that I actually thought were racist down there. Some people were a little skittish, but, for the most part, there wasn't a problem with anyone.
The first time I encountered a whole group of people who collectively were rather racist was when I moved up North. Outwardly, everyone was extremely politically correct, said the right things and were extremely "outraged" that I called people 'black' instead of African Americans (try calling anyone that in the 'hood' of town...I won't come to your funeral). In fact, there was no mixing of white people and black people at all...they were completely separated cultures and groups of people. The black people were extremely defensive and not open to making new relationships - I don't know whether they are just burned really bad or if it is just instilled in them that everyone hates them. Whatever it is. Everyone up North seems to be extremely racist toward everyone else - its kinda sad.
I'm more of the opinion that yes, there are definitely still some racists about, but I think, for the most part, it's turned into perception more than anything. We assume that someone's out to get us, so everything becomes self-prophetic and seems to support the conclusion that we assumed. Personally, I think that's crap.
I do disagree with the cultural "glossing-over" that has happened, but I also think its a bunch of bunk to try and hammer those lessons into the young. They are only going to learn to treat people as their equals if the people around them are doing so. Hammering into the young that they need to avoid the mistakes of the past only sharpens those lines that still exist - it doesn't magically erase them.
Racism is just some form of elitist thinking that's tied to being identified with a race. The same thing happens, for example, when people join gangs - their gang is better than the rest. It's a coping mechanism that exists in society. It's not something you can just educate away. Sometimes you can try to help a single person one at a time, but you can't just change people. It doesn't work. I would know. I'm lucky to have escaped my neighborhood alive - I could be caught up in the gang mentality just as easily as anyone else, but I managed not to. It doesn't make me better than any of my buddies who are still doing drugs, stealing, and killing people. It just means that I escaped the spiral.
I don't think that gangs, racism, or any other elitist thinking is something that can be "fought". being aware is good, I think. But I think that coming to the table thinking that you are going to 'do your part' and fight racism is really bringing a fight into something that's not. Racist persons are more people to feel sorry for than people to hate.
The other important point of reasonable doubt is the most obvious reason behind the sheer amount of malware available for Windows systems. The MOST important aspect of ANY botnet is sustainability. IF the botnet cannot infect hosts faster than it can be removed from them, then a botnet stagnates and dies. It's obvious, then, that Mac OSX and Linux are going to be extremely discouraging of botnets.
Hence, the conclusion that the success of botnets is based upon the security deficiencies of a single OS is not maintainable - it is subject to great suspicion. That suspicion is why liability cannot be placed upon the OS.
Man...some days I just wanna rag on Windows, but...logically...I really can't most of the time
The problem with placing the liability upon the OS manufacturer is also a mistaken argument - returning to the vehicle analogy (which has been the only sensible one so far), placing liability on the OS for the actions performed by a user's machine after being infected by malware is analogous to placing liability for hitting that person after a thief stole the wheel off your car.
Even then, you are completely denying any personal responsibility for any of this (others are guilty of this as well, however...). There is no reason why a person can't be responsible for their own equipment. If they are part of a botnet, too bad. Get it fixed, learn how to use your computer, get help, or use someone else's equipment. That being said, there's nothing wrong with granting those who fail to keep their equipment secure a kind of amnesty. But once you grant it, you can't just look at the next entity in the responsibility chain and say, "Hey, you owe me money!"
Along the same lines, you can't exclude yourself from responsibility for something you were a part of just because you weren't expecting something to happen. Try explaining that to your boss when you bring the whole company crashing down - Suddenly, "My bad", just doesn't seem to cut it.
If a driver were to have cut breaks, there would be a certain amount of leniency towards them for the crash that they were involved in - in fact, they would probably be forgiven any responsibility (this is a completely different thing than not HAVING responsibility in the first place). However, the person who cut the breaks is not directly liable for the crash. They are held responsible for their actions against the driver, but then responsibility is commuted from the driver to them because the driver is forgiven.
Perhaps we are just splitting hairs here, but the placement of liability is rather important - it may come back to bite YOU in the butt one day if you aren't careful.
Just a random sampling of wireless networks. Obviously, there is no need to point out that the networks which did NOT broadcast an SSID would not have even shown up in Vista's wireless network list (I was using the roommate's laptop to configure the router).
Just a random sampling of wireless networks available in a single apartment building. It should also be noted that all 8 had strong signals, and the building was located at least 100ft. from any other habitable building, so, it's certainly possible that all of the networks were being broadcast from inside the apartment building.
Bottom line, I bet it's all about money. A small percentage of pirates might be pirates because of their ideologies on DRM and whatnot, but that's just a handful of souls.
Maybe...I know that I've downloaded some games in the past to get a feel for them...Most of them have ended up in purchases after I was impressed - Starcraft, Diablo & II, CS, Civ 4, DemiGod...but there's also a few games that I have not bought because I felt they were horrid.
This being said, now that I actually have a job, I do end up spending money on games more than I have in the past. However, being just a little idealistic, I am leery of paying for DRM. I've been burned myself in recent years and have no desire to experience that again (sorry EA, you can't have my money).
While I can't rationalize much downloading anymore to myself, I certainly understand where a number of those that I do know that download stuff come from and can't condemn them for it. I can't really honestly say that any of them feel that they are screwing the companies out of money. For them, buying twenty copies of UT2004 to play over LAN for one day is ridiculous (and a serious rip-off). But, buying UT3 or CS-Source over steam to play people around the world is 100% ok!
Maybe the real issue IS money - if UT2004 cost $2 (GOG games was about a year too late), maybe the LAN issue wouldn't have been there...seriously... when are more hardcore game publishers gonna realize that unless their game has some serious replay value (think Blizzard or Valve), they can't sell games for full price 10 years after they come out?!? Even EA and Ubisoft (or was it Eidos...didn't Ubisoft purchase the rights to UT recently...?) with titles like Command & Conquer and Unreal Tournament and other somewhat popular hardcore gamer games can't do that...the mainstream games like Guitar Hero at least reduce their prices or have "specials"...
Seems to me that this is all about market placement. On one hand, you have the game publishers trying to fix prices instead of allowing market forces to drive down prices and increase the competition and value of games in general, so on the other hand, piracy comes in to fill in the market void and compete. Of course, the whole gaming industry, after being spoiled in the United States by pro-business legislation, decide that they can just snuff out competition by complaining and trying to eliminate piracy rather than actually providing a better product that actually provides something that piracy can't (No, not everything can be WoW and force users to log in to a server. But I don't get paid to come up with ways to provide a better product. How about those guys with million dollar salaries?). Now, we have "rampant" piracy. Seems to me that those CEO's and everyone else involved in their business are just making stupid business decisions. THAT seems to be the REAL problem - as Stardock has shown.
However, it may take more than Stardock to shift the balance. Since people have been pushed so far as to pirate, they may not want to come back without incentive. That's the actual job of those CEO's and business execs. It's time they actually EARN their pay.
I remember being taught that programming was the solving of problems. Shouldn't "programmers" have basic problem solving skills?!? Seems that business people don't understand that in the first place, but then there's those teachers that just feed their students with everything instead of teaching them how to solve the stinking problems with the stuff they learned...maybe that's part of the issue...
I'm sorry if my post was read to mean that I felt gypped that free-market forces weren't at work. Whether I prefer the concept of laissez faire or not should not matter. My point was that commenters had already determined in their heads that one was better than the other.
The history of the economy of the United States is extremely mixed insofar as the reigns of free-market capitalism and socialism are concerned. Any semblance of capitalistic self-governing in the markets have been farcical at best - regulations and government oversight have twisted even the most "free-market" environments that the United States has enjoyed into artificial ones that resemble socialist structures even as we practice "freely" in them.
For this, I trot out the example of China's recent attempts to capitalize within a socialist structure. While an exceptionally different example, it highlights the struggle that any country has between trying to maintain the lifestyle that the inhabitants expect and the amount of control over the inhabitants that the government expects to have. China is attempting to maintain the same level of control while raising the standard of living while the United States is going the opposite direction at the moment - trying to maintain the same standard of living while raising its ability to control the present economic/social conditions. I'm curious as to whether the end goal is actually shared between the two
It's easy to see the differences between the two countries...however, it is often difficult (because of prejudices, differing cultures, etc.) to see similarities and lessons that can be learned from them...it's certainly a big question that deserves its own discussion, another time, another place...
Maybe the real problem is that we have too many politicians that are either dumber than rocks or have no balls at all from Big Businesse stepping all over them while no intelligent, self-respecting politicians or motivated persons are willing to step out into the line of fire to change that. Perhaps THAT is a culture thing - for some reason, I, personally, grew up thinking that politicians were idiots...so I never wanted to be one...anyone else?
Without the ability to evaluate whether free market forces are working, however, I don't think that we can make a good determination as to whether socialism is a viable alternative or not...certainly we can look at the struggles that France seems to be having with individual rights because of their socialistic structure. I don't, however, think that we have a similar scale example of the free market regulating itself (Yes, socialism is an ECONOMIC paradigm, not a government system...there seems to be some confusion by many on that subject. It is often confused with Communism, which is a government type).
No...he accidentally deleted her and she wouldn't talk to him anymore...
Actually, there is a company out there that is working on real-time ray-tracing...the company is "Caustic Graphics". Right now, they're marketing to the movie industry, but they may become mainstream if they can manage to stick around.
Personally, I'm kinda excited about it (it could just be that this graphics stuff is kind of a hobby thing of mine). I don't think it's "Goodbye Rasterization", but I don't think it's gonna completely die out either...
That probably explains why all the fanboys up above were struggling with BSOD's all the time...too bad the forums they looked at didn't mention that...maybe they should try taking the card out of their pants and placing it in their machine...
agreed..but he is close...the problem is that the companies involved in providing internet access to consumers already have government granted monopolies (I assume we're referring to the United States here since the discussion involves a US company in the first place)...hence, there is no competition to provide impetus in the first place...in some locations, granted, there seems to be a little competition (think top 10 cities in America), however, most places have, at best, 4 options:
Heck, with all these fantastic options, why should the companies provide any competition? O, wait...it's cuz they lobbied the local cities to zone out the already laid fiber lines so that they wouldn't HAVE any competition...darned politicians...
Wow...you're on a DSL threshold (I assume you mean the end of the line...?) and you get 1Mb down?!? I was under the impression that most people who are in that situation are lucky to get a 256kbps DSL connection...I live in a town where everyone on the outskirts is at the "edge" of the DSL service area...they are offered 128kbps...
If you have a router, check out DD-WRT...it's a good open-source router firmware as it is, but it also allows you to watch your network's bandwidth usage through the router...that help at all? I haven't really seen a good, inexpensive home router with it's own bandwidth monitor... If you're really savvy, you could also set up a monitor on your router by polling it...
Actually, I was under the impression that courts have also been pretty consistent about declaring EULA's null and void because you can't agree to the EULA before buying anything...usually, the EULA is presented to you when you install something. Since you have no recourse at that point (try returning opened software...it usually is a FAIL), the EULA has been declared non-binding in a number of instances.
I was under the impression that they used the TARP funds to pay for their personal vacations, I mean, retreats where they discussed how they were going to blow the rest of their money...
I'm glad, Binestar, that you have a boss that gives you a large enough budget to do so...or that you make your own budget. It's nice to be in a comfortable situation like that. However, if you hadn't noticed, in today's current economy, the CEO's buy personal jets with the IT department's security budget and the lawyers dictate how everyone spends their money. Being an IT Professional means trying to do an impossible job with no manpower and no budget in most companies...personally...my boss wastes thousands upon thousands on his own personal pet projects, but is loathe to spend a few thousand to upgrade VITAL servers that are overworked. Security is important. However, sometimes, you have to work for/with idiots. You also have the infamous managers/bosses and their favorite people who have to have authorization to do EVERYTHING. So, you then have to deal with internal company security, hiding the fact that there is a super-user level account so that the boss CAN'T have access (because he's stupid enough to play around and destroy things). IT Professionals have a lot of other things to deal with. Idealism rarely has a place in the professional world - despite the fact that we wish it could.