I really am curious about Twitter. I refuse to register for anymore 'social' websites...I'd rather actually go out and be social. But my question is, what is the point? Do my friends want to know I took a dump at the office at ~2:14pm today?....do they?
Who cares if they're making a profit. There is a serious lack of options out there for new consumer level systems. I can't walk into Best Buy without being assaulted with Vista desktops. Sure, there are a FEW Linux netbooks but whats wrong with just selling hardware? I'd love a clean system upon purchase.
I can't help but wonder then, just how bad the MS situation is(security) if they're so afraid of an open view in terms of security from the outside world. Imagine upstreaming patches for your Windows XP box, Debian/RHEL style?
Have you seen how much trouble it is to write a Linux virus? There was an article up recently(I may be crazy, could have been a comment) about writing a Linux virus/worm/trojan. It had a number of caveats and required a great deal of luck. HOWEVER, I can imagine the typical Windows user migrating to Linux and as mentioned above, running as root. However, Ubuntu(and others of course) do not allow root access by default...might not be so bad.
You're probably right, I failed to make that clear. From my understanding, Patch Tuesday allows hackers to see the old exploit and target unpatched systems. However, is there anyway for Microsoft to minimize the exposure of these patches?
I wonder, what would un-bundling REALLY mean? Just that its easier to remove or that Microsoft OS' come with no browser? Now that would be a fun one for new users...
So naturally, it begins again. What is it that allows these hackers to reverse Microsofts patches? Is there no format that would protect them? Perhaps a more open security policy? Imagine that mess?
According to the GP its best we just not use any service. I want to use Facebook to keep in touch. I don't want them keeping/using that data. Period. Same as registering for a Slashdot account, they have my email - I COULD use a throw away but I'd rather not - I expect them not to use or abuse it.
This whole thing taught me something; if I want to maintain my privacy I need to stop trusting online communities. That means minimal info associated with my Slashdot account, no identifiable information on my Facebook page, no references to my personal life on my blog/website, etc.
It really becomes a question of what can we do online anymore without having our privacy violated. I want to be able to register with my real name, maybe put up a few photos but then some giant like Facebook goes and oversteps their boundaries...*sigh*
Should we be allowing foreign advertisers to reap the benefits of our audience or should we bolster our own economy with a little targeted advertising/content and help with cultural diversity?
A good example is radio stations. Imagine 100% American content(artists). Doesn't do much for our economy. Now, CRTC says, "We want you to ensure that 1 out of 10 songs is Canadian". Seems reasonable to me. Those American songs still get played but we help out local artists out and still keep the Americans happy.
Whats the problem?
Don't tread on me!
Get over yourself. This is an effort to bolster our economy and give us a playing field within our borders. It has NOTHING to do with tell you what you can and cannot watch. It states that content providers must provide a certain percentage of Canadian content. It's like Google ads, targeted and appropriate.
I think you failed to see my point, I'm agreeing with you. I agree, its frustrating seeing American commercials for goods(referring to American dealerships/products) we cannot purchase here. I prefer my television content oriented towards me. Think Google ads. They're a pain but they're generally appropriate to the subject at hand.
That's exactly the point. Why would we broadcast American commercials when we can substitute local ones in and help boost our economy and help with cultural diversity?
We're not proposing cutting anything but why would we allow American commercials to profit within our borders when we can boost our economy with a little home-grown advertising?
Note: I work for the CRTC.
They are not proposing influencing the content itself but rather the distribution. As mentioned in the article, we do it for radio and television and it ensures that local artists are not over-shadowed by our Southern counterparts.
Frankly, I fail to see the redundancy in my first first post...it quite literally is my first post and my first attempt at a first post. I'd mod that +Original.
Slashdot Mirror
I really am curious about Twitter. I refuse to register for anymore 'social' websites...I'd rather actually go out and be social. But my question is, what is the point? Do my friends want to know I took a dump at the office at ~2:14pm today?....do they?
Go facebook! 'Stealing' my data, 99.9% of the time! (Yes, I do have a facebook account)
Who cares if they're making a profit. There is a serious lack of options out there for new consumer level systems. I can't walk into Best Buy without being assaulted with Vista desktops. Sure, there are a FEW Linux netbooks but whats wrong with just selling hardware? I'd love a clean system upon purchase.
I can't help but wonder then, just how bad the MS situation is(security) if they're so afraid of an open view in terms of security from the outside world. Imagine upstreaming patches for your Windows XP box, Debian/RHEL style?
It charges extra for THAT....
Have you seen how much trouble it is to write a Linux virus? There was an article up recently(I may be crazy, could have been a comment) about writing a Linux virus/worm/trojan. It had a number of caveats and required a great deal of luck. HOWEVER, I can imagine the typical Windows user migrating to Linux and as mentioned above, running as root. However, Ubuntu(and others of course) do not allow root access by default...might not be so bad.
You're probably right, I failed to make that clear. From my understanding, Patch Tuesday allows hackers to see the old exploit and target unpatched systems. However, is there anyway for Microsoft to minimize the exposure of these patches?
I wonder, what would un-bundling REALLY mean? Just that its easier to remove or that Microsoft OS' come with no browser? Now that would be a fun one for new users...
So naturally, it begins again. What is it that allows these hackers to reverse Microsofts patches? Is there no format that would protect them? Perhaps a more open security policy? Imagine that mess?
According to the GP its best we just not use any service. I want to use Facebook to keep in touch. I don't want them keeping/using that data. Period. Same as registering for a Slashdot account, they have my email - I COULD use a throw away but I'd rather not - I expect them not to use or abuse it.
This whole thing taught me something; if I want to maintain my privacy I need to stop trusting online communities. That means minimal info associated with my Slashdot account, no identifiable information on my Facebook page, no references to my personal life on my blog/website, etc. It really becomes a question of what can we do online anymore without having our privacy violated. I want to be able to register with my real name, maybe put up a few photos but then some giant like Facebook goes and oversteps their boundaries...*sigh*
Very annoying and not so easily removed for the average user. Quick trip into Regedit fixes that though...or firefox.com
Should we be allowing foreign advertisers to reap the benefits of our audience or should we bolster our own economy with a little targeted advertising/content and help with cultural diversity? A good example is radio stations. Imagine 100% American content(artists). Doesn't do much for our economy. Now, CRTC says, "We want you to ensure that 1 out of 10 songs is Canadian". Seems reasonable to me. Those American songs still get played but we help out local artists out and still keep the Americans happy. Whats the problem? Don't tread on me!
Get over yourself. This is an effort to bolster our economy and give us a playing field within our borders. It has NOTHING to do with tell you what you can and cannot watch. It states that content providers must provide a certain percentage of Canadian content. It's like Google ads, targeted and appropriate.
I think you failed to see my point, I'm agreeing with you. I agree, its frustrating seeing American commercials for goods(referring to American dealerships/products) we cannot purchase here. I prefer my television content oriented towards me. Think Google ads. They're a pain but they're generally appropriate to the subject at hand.
That's exactly the point. Why would we broadcast American commercials when we can substitute local ones in and help boost our economy and help with cultural diversity?
Tough choice; Money in American hands to buy Chinese goods or money in Canadian hands(my hands) to buy the same goods....
We're not proposing cutting anything but why would we allow American commercials to profit within our borders when we can boost our economy with a little home-grown advertising?
Note: I work for the CRTC. They are not proposing influencing the content itself but rather the distribution. As mentioned in the article, we do it for radio and television and it ensures that local artists are not over-shadowed by our Southern counterparts.
Is it wrong that I did not RTFA but am now happily allowing Firefox to autorefresh every 15 seconds? Seems appropriate...
Frankly, I fail to see the redundancy in my first first post...it quite literally is my first post and my first attempt at a first post. I'd mod that +Original.
First first post and I...crap