Maybe. But then comes the point that if they do that, and everyone has to either go out and buy new equipment, or listen to ripped, D-A A-D'd music, then I'm sure many many will find the quality enough. The more they fight it and the more crap like this they try to push on the consumer, the more they'll loose in the end.
Even if the device was actually tamperproof, and noone could emulate it, they would lose it all, because there is no way to copy protect something tamperproof without making sure the listener never hears the music.
And, then what would radio stations do? They'd have to get special equipment right, to be able to transmit the signal decoded out... well, ummm... how long do you think it'd take before such equipment was either used to create a near same amount of illegal copies that exist today, or, was recreated and sold illegally. Like.. 5 minutes?
Not really. If I'd said that that was the way it was, then it would have been paranoia. A simple answer to the difference between the cases, and an explanation of how it could be interpreted is not paranoia.
The posting -> pulling procedure could mean they posted it, then big papa internet.com saw it and told them to pull it cause it could hurt their wallet. Thats the difference.
Whoever moderated that as offtopic has to be a total dumbass... This post may be a bit paranoid in looking for unjustice, but so is the article, and I'd think that's what he was trying to show. If not, that's still not offtopic, since it deals with the subject at hand.
Now that'd be pretty trivial, compared to the complexity of the rest of the browser. As someone already mentioned, junkbuster and the likes are good soloutions to this too.
Yeah... of course it aint gonna help... of course you know better than all these scientists... lets just bash the entire procedure instead of waiting a few weeks to find out how well it works. Yeah. Great.
I saw some report about these chips a while back, obviously the resoloution is very bad, and its only B/W... it's to be used for patients that cant see at all, so for them it'll defenitely be an improvement anyway... plus the fact that it'll probably be improved on since it's only in an experimental statge.
Here's how it goes: 1. Sony is selling playstation units at a loss, to earn money from selling the games. 2. Connectix starts selling an emulator. This has two effects: a) Sony gets to sell less playstation units (lose less money) and b) Sony gets to sell more games (earn more money).
The question was simply: why are they pulling a law suit against something that they could earn alot of money from?
I tried FreeBSD... slim? I gave it a 1 gig partition to just try it out... hey there was an auto-function for partitioning, so I picked that one. Cool... now I went on to do the install... and what happens if not "No space left on device" or whatever...
Now of course I could've done it by hand and all that... but it just got me tired. Sure, call it easy and so, but unless the auto functions work, why have them at all? I havent tried it again after that, I probably will when I get some more time over this summer.
Uh, I hope that was even less serious than it seemed.
If your reasons were the ones actually used, there could only be one term app for KDE? imagine the same thing for Windows? WExplorer and WBrowser... hey netscape are automaticly out of the picture because the name is already taken!
If I make an application with three versions, must I name them KMyApp and WMyApp and MMyApp? Why not "MyApp For [KDE|Windows|MacOS]"? And hey the names are suddenly readable too!
That kind of thing can't really happen with windows, yeah you can get back orifice but norton antivirus takes care of that. For someone moving from windows to linux (say like my dad) if he hears that he has to check some web page and subscribe to mailing lists to keep on top of latest exploits that will root his box, it's a good reason to stay with windows.
And the reason for your dad (a workstation) to run bind is? Windows is just as bad if you install unneeded insecure network daemons on it. This is the reason Red Hat and all the other distros shouldn't install apache and all sorts of crap on desktop/workstation machines.
The only reason windows is secure is because it lacks functionallity. Like running windows 95 for a server. Yes it's not that easy to get "root access" but that's because you can't have any type of remote access.
Oh and don't come talking about defaults, NT 4 installs and activates IIS and lots of crap by default.
I am now your new biggest fan. Thank you. I love you. That was the best post I've read on slashdot ever.
Only time I ever wrote a page that I had to change was when IE wouldnt accept a background element in a TR, which made me have to rewrite the page and double its size. That sucked. All the people out there can sing halleluiah about IE's great scripting (security holes) and speed (integration, memory loss) and what not, but I want a secure browser that displays HTML the way it's supposed to be displayed.
Heh... i wouldnt say 95%... very many clueless idiots get up each day, start up their computer, that boots Windows 9x with mIRC in the startup group, and spend all their time wasting it on IRC. Trust me, just check around on IRC... almost noone uses the web, and most don't even know how to handle a web browser. I'm glad MS chat didn't get more popular than it did.
Hehe... notepad.exe yepp. I have a friend that can't run notepad or winhelp because his 128 MB RAM machine with Win98 claims no memory left. Right after the first boot, right after install. That's certainly the user "not knowing his way around the OS". I'll have to agree with you that there are countless proof for this.
The entire point was that you'd get to choose if you wanted it or not. Like IE isn't bloatware? You think it really does start that quickly? No it's loaded all the time of course.
The entire point of the releasing of APIs would be your ability to choose what you want, not what realplayer, or netscape, or microsoft, wants.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, it's not as if Metallica is going to be around this time next year to bitch about their album being pirated.
Yeah, I sure would buy a disc or whatever just so I could play it in my little portable thingie and nowhere else. That seems like a great idea.
Even if the device was actually tamperproof, and noone could emulate it, they would lose it all, because there is no way to copy protect something tamperproof without making sure the listener never hears the music.
And, then what would radio stations do? They'd have to get special equipment right, to be able to transmit the signal decoded out... well, ummm... how long do you think it'd take before such equipment was either used to create a near same amount of illegal copies that exist today, or, was recreated and sold illegally. Like.. 5 minutes?
Not really. If I'd said that that was the way it was, then it would have been paranoia. A simple answer to the difference between the cases, and an explanation of how it could be interpreted is not paranoia.
The posting -> pulling procedure could mean they posted it, then big papa internet.com saw it and told them to pull it cause it could hurt their wallet. Thats the difference.
Whoever moderated that as offtopic has to be a total dumbass... This post may be a bit paranoid in looking for unjustice, but so is the article, and I'd think that's what he was trying to show. If not, that's still not offtopic, since it deals with the subject at hand.
Name: 12yroldkid
Age: 25
Comment: Yeah Im 12, so sue me!
Yeah, kinda like an extra life. If you've collected enough dollars during the course of the game, you can buy a second attempt if the first one fails.
Now that'd be pretty trivial, compared to the complexity of the rest of the browser. As someone already mentioned, junkbuster and the likes are good soloutions to this too.
Yeah... of course it aint gonna help... of course you know better than all these scientists... lets just bash the entire procedure instead of waiting a few weeks to find out how well it works. Yeah. Great.
I saw some report about these chips a while back, obviously the resoloution is very bad, and its only B/W... it's to be used for patients that cant see at all, so for them it'll defenitely be an improvement anyway... plus the fact that it'll probably be improved on since it's only in an experimental statge.
Here's how it goes:
1. Sony is selling playstation units at a loss, to earn money from selling the games.
2. Connectix starts selling an emulator. This has two effects:
a) Sony gets to sell less playstation units (lose less money) and
b) Sony gets to sell more games (earn more money).
The question was simply: why are they pulling a law suit against something that they could earn alot of money from?
Now of course I could've done it by hand and all that... but it just got me tired. Sure, call it easy and so, but unless the auto functions work, why have them at all? I havent tried it again after that, I probably will when I get some more time over this summer.
And that couldn't be easily coded around?
a) dumb as dirt and
b) playing smart and goofing up his case and
c) really losing his braincells to advancing decrepitude
Now that's the most funny thing I've seen this year so far...
If your reasons were the ones actually used, there could only be one term app for KDE? imagine the same thing for Windows? WExplorer and WBrowser... hey netscape are automaticly out of the picture because the name is already taken!
If I make an application with three versions, must I name them KMyApp and WMyApp and MMyApp? Why not "MyApp For [KDE|Windows|MacOS]"? And hey the names are suddenly readable too!
That kind of thing can't really happen with windows, yeah you can get back orifice but norton antivirus takes care of that. For someone moving from windows to linux (say like my dad) if he hears that he has to check some web page and subscribe to mailing lists to keep on top of latest exploits that will root his box, it's a good reason to stay with windows.
And the reason for your dad (a workstation) to run bind is? Windows is just as bad if you install unneeded insecure network daemons on it. This is the reason Red Hat and all the other distros shouldn't install apache and all sorts of crap on desktop/workstation machines.
The only reason windows is secure is because it lacks functionallity. Like running windows 95 for a server. Yes it's not that easy to get "root access" but that's because you can't have any type of remote access.
Oh and don't come talking about defaults, NT 4 installs and activates IIS and lots of crap by default.
Yupp, now we just have to wait for the iNose too, made in sickening puke green and transparent plastics! Yay!
Only time I ever wrote a page that I had to change was when IE wouldnt accept a background element in a TR, which made me have to rewrite the page and double its size. That sucked. All the people out there can sing halleluiah about IE's great scripting (security holes) and speed (integration, memory loss) and what not, but I want a secure browser that displays HTML the way it's supposed to be displayed.
Heh... i wouldnt say 95%... very many clueless idiots get up each day, start up their computer, that boots Windows 9x with mIRC in the startup group, and spend all their time wasting it on IRC. Trust me, just check around on IRC... almost noone uses the web, and most don't even know how to handle a web browser. I'm glad MS chat didn't get more popular than it did.
Hehe... notepad.exe yepp. I have a friend that can't run notepad or winhelp because his 128 MB RAM machine with Win98 claims no memory left. Right after the first boot, right after install. That's certainly the user "not knowing his way around the OS". I'll have to agree with you that there are countless proof for this.
The entire point of the releasing of APIs would be your ability to choose what you want, not what realplayer, or netscape, or microsoft, wants.
Yupp... a little more like the owner the apartment you rent taking a fee for every time you open the lock, or not giving you a fully functional key.