What is inherent is the ability to _not_ run as root, and still run all your applications
That's not inherent in the operating system. That's a problem with applications. One could write software for linux that requires you to be root, just like they can for windows. They tend not to, but this isn't an inherent part of the design of windows, it's poor programming on the part of application writers.
Linux isn't inherently secure, it's inherently _more_ secure (than Windows anyway). Not running as root helps.
It would seem you don't know what "inherent" means, as choosing to run as root is not an "inherent" part of the operating system. In fact, it's just as easy to do this on linux as on windows. I don't think there are many companies (other than small ones) that allow most of their employees to be Admin on their Windows machine, or even to know the Admin password.
It is very apparent that using Windows is like living in a high-crime, blighted neighborhood... Why people continue to choose Windows is beyond me
For the same reason that many of us choose to live in the city where the other people are and where there are things to do, rather than in a bunker in the middle of the desert many, many miles from civilization, where we could feel secure because we are far away from everyone else (and thus the crime).
They are very different kinds of movies, so it is understandble that you could like the first one better. But calling the second "weak" is just ridiculous. This is one of the great action/ war movies of all time (for those who haven't seen it, it is essentially a Vietnam War movie set in space).
That sounds steep to me as well, although I think the price is comparable to pay-per-view movies on cable, to which getting a movie online is more quite similar.
These problems also exist with pay-per-click. For example, the point of a taco bell banner ad as the same as a tv ad or print ad-- to make you more likely to buy their food. The point is not (or not mainly) to make you visit the taco bell website. So you would also be getting "ripped off" today if you had a taco bell pay-per-click ad hosted on your site and people weren't clicking on it, but were still seeing it and buying more taco bell.
Just like people can bookmark a page after clicking on it and come back later to buy things (foiling pay-per-buy), they could see it and make a note to visit later, but not click on it (foiling pay-per-click). I might do this if I see an ad while on my computer at work and decide I'll go check it out when I get home.
Also, it shares the same problem as pay-per-click, which is that the hoster rather than the advertiser suffers if the advertiser creates a lousy ad that no one clicks on.
since there would be no automated way to detect the difference between a human who's actaully interested and a human who'd just hired to look interested.
How about the fact that the uninterested folks never buy things? If they just switch to using pay-per-sale (or whatever it's called) rather than pay-per-click or pay-per-view, they won't get scammed
it's for downloading something that the plaintiff has created and put up for distribution, entrapment anyone?
Ooh, it's conspiracy theory time. Yay. But can you at least give some sort of reason for us to believe your cliam that the plaintiff put the movie online? That seems pretty unlikely, and you simply state it as fact (disregarding the fact that even if they had, it wouldn't be entrapment).
Also, plastic lets users with enough karma vote on stories in the submission queue. Although the editors decide what to run anyway, so the votes are just a factor they can take into account rather than the final word on what gets run.
Not sure if you're joking or trolling or what. Regardless, I think you'd have more luck with "The US Courts are all knowing on matter of technology; disagreeing with any court ruling makes you anti-american and an anarchist" on one of the threads about the dmca, or about patents or about piracy then you will in the games section.
Ok, I'll explain. I was just referring to the fact that a lot of open source/ linux software starts at a version number way well below 1 and doesn't hit 1.0 until quite a few revisions. So the second edition of a book that worked analogously could be below 1.0 (the actual value 3/8 wasn't meant to be significant).
Ok. I don't want to debate this as it's been done many times and is very offtopic. Suffice it to say that not all of us agree with your premise that there is a "monopoly" here, and without that none of the rest of your claims hold up.
Longhorn's interface pisses people off too much, and they crave a more traditional interface
Do you really think there's any chance that longhorn won't give you the option of using the traditional interface? XP not only has the "classic" theme to look like older versions of windows, but still has progman.exe (the program manager from win 3.1).
You're not in the minority, you're in the vast majority. It's just that most people in your position don't have any reason to discuss it. They just happily go about using their computer and having it work.
I am not trying to rail C# or Java, as my point is that maybe we should be thinking about how to code properly. Maybe the language is not THAT big of an issue....
Eh? What does language have to do with anything? Mono is trying to mimic the.Net framework, not a language.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not inherent in the operating system. That's a problem with applications. One could write software for linux that requires you to be root, just like they can for windows. They tend not to, but this isn't an inherent part of the design of windows, it's poor programming on the part of application writers.
It would seem you don't know what "inherent" means, as choosing to run as root is not an "inherent" part of the operating system. In fact, it's just as easy to do this on linux as on windows. I don't think there are many companies (other than small ones) that allow most of their employees to be Admin on their Windows machine, or even to know the Admin password.
For the same reason that many of us choose to live in the city where the other people are and where there are things to do, rather than in a bunker in the middle of the desert many, many miles from civilization, where we could feel secure because we are far away from everyone else (and thus the crime).
They are very different kinds of movies, so it is understandble that you could like the first one better. But calling the second "weak" is just ridiculous. This is one of the great action/ war movies of all time (for those who haven't seen it, it is essentially a Vietnam War movie set in space).
They have an interest in forcing you to cryptographically sign it so that they know whom to hold accountable if the page contains illegal material.
That sounds steep to me as well, although I think the price is comparable to pay-per-view movies on cable, to which getting a movie online is more quite similar.
These problems also exist with pay-per-click. For example, the point of a taco bell banner ad as the same as a tv ad or print ad-- to make you more likely to buy their food. The point is not (or not mainly) to make you visit the taco bell website. So you would also be getting "ripped off" today if you had a taco bell pay-per-click ad hosted on your site and people weren't clicking on it, but were still seeing it and buying more taco bell.
Just like people can bookmark a page after clicking on it and come back later to buy things (foiling pay-per-buy), they could see it and make a note to visit later, but not click on it (foiling pay-per-click). I might do this if I see an ad while on my computer at work and decide I'll go check it out when I get home.
Also, it shares the same problem as pay-per-click, which is that the hoster rather than the advertiser suffers if the advertiser creates a lousy ad that no one clicks on.
Yes, we've all seen the seinfeld episode.
How about the fact that the uninterested folks never buy things? If they just switch to using pay-per-sale (or whatever it's called) rather than pay-per-click or pay-per-view, they won't get scammed
That's an interesting theory. However, I believe you are incorrect.
Including the United States.
Ooh, it's conspiracy theory time. Yay. But can you at least give some sort of reason for us to believe your cliam that the plaintiff put the movie online? That seems pretty unlikely, and you simply state it as fact (disregarding the fact that even if they had, it wouldn't be entrapment).
Also, plastic lets users with enough karma vote on stories in the submission queue. Although the editors decide what to run anyway, so the votes are just a factor they can take into account rather than the final word on what gets run.
Not sure if you're joking or trolling or what. Regardless, I think you'd have more luck with "The US Courts are all knowing on matter of technology; disagreeing with any court ruling makes you anti-american and an anarchist" on one of the threads about the dmca, or about patents or about piracy then you will in the games section.
What are you basing this on? I think that lots of people hate the massive amounts of checkboxes
How will the tag in my jeans let them know which car is mine?
Ok, I'll explain. I was just referring to the fact that a lot of open source/ linux software starts at a version number way well below 1 and doesn't hit 1.0 until quite a few revisions. So the second edition of a book that worked analogously could be below 1.0 (the actual value 3/8 wasn't meant to be significant).
Ok. I don't want to debate this as it's been done many times and is very offtopic. Suffice it to say that not all of us agree with your premise that there is a "monopoly" here, and without that none of the rest of your claims hold up.
Do you really think there's any chance that longhorn won't give you the option of using the traditional interface? XP not only has the "classic" theme to look like older versions of windows, but still has progman.exe (the program manager from win 3.1).
How did slashdot mess up? That AC post is still there.
You're not in the minority, you're in the vast majority. It's just that most people in your position don't have any reason to discuss it. They just happily go about using their computer and having it work.
I also always trust the unbiased, non-financially-motivated information on www-1.ibm.com/linux.
Eh? What does language have to do with anything? Mono is trying to mimic the
Unless this has a large focus on Linux programming, in which case it would probably be something like the 0.011th edition.
Are you sure this is worse?