Why do you leave the restaurant? If you keep your voice to a normal conversational level, what's wrong with taking the call where you are? (Depending on the exact nature of the situation, eg just the two of you, group of people, etc)
Sure, if you have to yell for some reason, take it outside - but I've never had a phone that was that bad that I had to shout.
The sort of person who'd yell into a phone during a movie is not the sort who'd whisper quietly to the person next to them - they'd be just as noisy talking to them, too.
Not quite. It's now illegal to hold or touch a mobile phone whilst driving. If you have some sort of hands-free kit, then you can take calls (and make them, I assume, if your phone has a compatible voice-recognition system for speed-dialling numbers). Anything that causes you to touch the phone itself is illegal.
People are still recommended to not use the phone while driving, just as you're recommended not to do anything while driving that might distract you (which includes changing the radio/tape/CD, etc).
It's copyright infringement. You can argue all day whether the person making the copy is the one uploading, or the one downloading, but I would say both.
The uploader has a copy on their hard drive. This is then copied into RAM and sent over the network. The downloader receives it into RAM, and copies it to their hard drive.
Even failing that argument, I very much doubt that it's legal to receive copyright infringing works, as the copy you have is infringing. You may not be prosecuted, but at the very least, you'd have to destroy it.
It's a press release. Please supply a list of companies that MS has sued, threatened or otherwise been offensive towards because of their patent on the FAT filesystem.
We geeks like to think we are different, and for the most part we are more intelligent than the average.
A perfect example - *most* people think that they're of above average intelligence.
I don't think that we, as a group, are any more intelligent (on average) than any other group of skilled professionals, be they lawyers, artists, businessmen, or what have you. We're just very good at things that we consider require a high degree of intelligence. That's not necessarily always the case, and certainly doesn't preclude other professions also requiring intelligence.
More than that, IE is configurable - Tools, Internet Options, Advanced, "Do not search from the address bar" (IE 6, similar in other versions). Bingo - no more searching. Also, registry hacks allow you to change the search engine used.
What Verisign is doing is *not* end-user configurable, and as you say messes up a whole lot more than just typoing web site addresses.
even the very name of their vilest. most bug-ridden and insecure product, has not been obtained legally
Yes it was. The trademark is questionable, but there's nothing wrong at all with them calling their operating system "Windows".
You can't blame them for having the trademark, though - they only asked for it, unless you're accusing them of coercing or bribing their way to it. Now that they have it, *of course* they're going to defend it.
In my opinion, the blame lies squarely with whoever awarded them the trademark in the first place, and your ire is seriosuly misdirected.
Which the editor almost certainly chose out of several submissions on the subject. Even failing that, the editor could well have taken the time to *edit* the submission.
He may not have written it, but by actively posting it, he bears at least partial responsibility for it.
If you have the natural talent, it's perfectly possible to miss most if not all of the lectures, copy the notes off a classmate, and cram like mad just before the exam and still get a good mark.
Not the sort of thing that most employers will want, though, apart from the "natural talent" bit. Grades do not tell the whole story.
The next thing is Windows has a problem of bit rot.
Out of interest, what sort of time period are you thinking of when you say this? I ask, because I've had two XP machines installed and running for around a year each, installing and uninstalling software on a whim, and both are just as responsive as the day they were installed. (And that's "very", before anyone gets any funny ideas:-) )
I couldn't have said the same about a Win9x box, of course, but things have moved on a long way since those days (thankfully).
if he had be given a lecture on how the data is sensitive, you can bet that this developer will not mistakenly post that data on the web
Well, I've never been told that any data that I have access to is sensitive, and I'd still never post any of it anywhere.
Why not? Because it's obviously sensitive, commercially at least! Credit card details, names and addresses, medical data, business plans - you name it, I've seen it. It's hard to think of a single datum that noone would consider sensitive.
The bottom line is that you never reveal real data. Hell, in some circumstances, even just the type of the data, or names of tables in a db, could be sensitive. Even data that will be public, such as product details, might be sensitive until after the project is completed. (eg as part of a grand launch of a new ecommerce site, or something)
the developer should never had received this data in the first place
No, he shouldn't, but doubly, he shouldn't have posted it.
Thanks Microsoft for "my photos", and "my documents", and the like. We appreciate it!
To be fair to MS, if there wasn't a "My Photos" dir in my home dir already, I'd have created one called "images" or "photos" myself. Within that, I would then - as I have now - create subfolders, and sub-subfolders, etc.
Having standard folders for music, and photos, and what have you, it enables nice little shortcuts to be set up by default. Any user who just dumps all their pictures in "My Photos" in one huge, uncategorised mess would probably just have dumped them all in their home directory in a similar fashion without it. You can't blame MS for some of the idiots who use their software, other than in that they made it more accessible to said idiots.
You'll be able to share data with other WinFS users, of course. Given that that will eventually approach something like 90%+ of PC users, I don't see that most users will care whether other implementations are possible or not.
(Yes, they should - but they won't even realise that the problem exists)
Are you telling me that you've never listened to a song or album a few times in a row, unable to get enough of it, at least temporarily? That you've never rushed out to buy the latest release from your favourite artist?
If so, then I suspect that you're somewhat in the minority on that one.
No, that's what *you* believe. I've seen *many, many* comments here and elsewhere from people who believe that *all* code should be Free. Hell, I've even read a few comments calling for all "proprietary coders" to lose their jobs, expressing joy at the though of them being out on the streets.
True, there are at least as many people who do believe as you do, but you certainly can't imply that *everyone* does.
But on a single-user system, what difference does it really make?
Whether I run as root/Administrator or not, all the important stuff on my machine (my files) are read/write/delete my user anyway. Running as an unprivileged user means two things:
a) I can't interfere with other users' files b) I can't interfere with system files
If I'm the only user, and my system files are all backed up on the nice, shiny install media, what is the difference, apart from perhaps having to reinstall?
Don't forget the users - most, if not all, of the fastest spreading Windows trojans and viruses of recent years have relied entirely on user-intervention.
As long as a user can run arbitrary code that opens up network ports and sends data to arbitrary destinations, it will be difficult to completely secure a machine. Per-application egress filtering would go a long way to securing this, but I'm not aware of anything available for Linux that allows you to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you leave the restaurant? If you keep your voice to a normal conversational level, what's wrong with taking the call where you are? (Depending on the exact nature of the situation, eg just the two of you, group of people, etc)
Sure, if you have to yell for some reason, take it outside - but I've never had a phone that was that bad that I had to shout.
OOooh, oooh, I know!
Neither is appropriate?
The sort of person who'd yell into a phone during a movie is not the sort who'd whisper quietly to the person next to them - they'd be just as noisy talking to them, too.
Not quite. It's now illegal to hold or touch a mobile phone whilst driving. If you have some sort of hands-free kit, then you can take calls (and make them, I assume, if your phone has a compatible voice-recognition system for speed-dialling numbers). Anything that causes you to touch the phone itself is illegal.
People are still recommended to not use the phone while driving, just as you're recommended not to do anything while driving that might distract you (which includes changing the radio/tape/CD, etc).
It's copyright infringement. You can argue all day whether the person making the copy is the one uploading, or the one downloading, but I would say both.
The uploader has a copy on their hard drive. This is then copied into RAM and sent over the network. The downloader receives it into RAM, and copies it to their hard drive.
Even failing that argument, I very much doubt that it's legal to receive copyright infringing works, as the copy you have is infringing. You may not be prosecuted, but at the very least, you'd have to destroy it.
why not post under your real username instead of an anonymous one
Never mind that, how about posting address & phone number details too? No? Got something to hide then?
It's a press release. Please supply a list of companies that MS has sued, threatened or otherwise been offensive towards because of their patent on the FAT filesystem.
We geeks like to think we are different, and for the most part we are more intelligent than the average.
A perfect example - *most* people think that they're of above average intelligence.
I don't think that we, as a group, are any more intelligent (on average) than any other group of skilled professionals, be they lawyers, artists, businessmen, or what have you. We're just very good at things that we consider require a high degree of intelligence. That's not necessarily always the case, and certainly doesn't preclude other professions also requiring intelligence.
I'll be buying the DVD version myself - my earlier comment was meant to be a joke :-)
;-)
I can't imagine trying to download about 3.5gig from Kazaa; it'd probably be quicker to write the game myself
You are going to buy the game if you like it...right?
;-p
No, at 6 CDs, I thought I'd just download it from Kazaa...
More than that, IE is configurable - Tools, Internet Options, Advanced, "Do not search from the address bar" (IE 6, similar in other versions). Bingo - no more searching. Also, registry hacks allow you to change the search engine used.
What Verisign is doing is *not* end-user configurable, and as you say messes up a whole lot more than just typoing web site addresses.
even the very name of their vilest. most bug-ridden and insecure product, has not been obtained legally
Yes it was. The trademark is questionable, but there's nothing wrong at all with them calling their operating system "Windows".
You can't blame them for having the trademark, though - they only asked for it, unless you're accusing them of coercing or bribing their way to it. Now that they have it, *of course* they're going to defend it.
In my opinion, the blame lies squarely with whoever awarded them the trademark in the first place, and your ire is seriosuly misdirected.
Which the editor almost certainly chose out of several submissions on the subject. Even failing that, the editor could well have taken the time to *edit* the submission.
He may not have written it, but by actively posting it, he bears at least partial responsibility for it.
If you have the natural talent, it's perfectly possible to miss most if not all of the lectures, copy the notes off a classmate, and cram like mad just before the exam and still get a good mark.
Not the sort of thing that most employers will want, though, apart from the "natural talent" bit. Grades do not tell the whole story.
The next thing is Windows has a problem of bit rot.
:-) )
Out of interest, what sort of time period are you thinking of when you say this? I ask, because I've had two XP machines installed and running for around a year each, installing and uninstalling software on a whim, and both are just as responsive as the day they were installed. (And that's "very", before anyone gets any funny ideas
I couldn't have said the same about a Win9x box, of course, but things have moved on a long way since those days (thankfully).
It's configurable, at least in IE. Tools -> Internet Options -> Advanced -> "Do not search from the address bar".
(I use Mozilla, not Firebird, so I can't help with that one)
if he had be given a lecture on how the data is sensitive, you can bet that this developer will not mistakenly post that data on the web
Well, I've never been told that any data that I have access to is sensitive, and I'd still never post any of it anywhere.
Why not? Because it's obviously sensitive, commercially at least! Credit card details, names and addresses, medical data, business plans - you name it, I've seen it. It's hard to think of a single datum that noone would consider sensitive.
The bottom line is that you never reveal real data. Hell, in some circumstances, even just the type of the data, or names of tables in a db, could be sensitive. Even data that will be public, such as product details, might be sensitive until after the project is completed. (eg as part of a grand launch of a new ecommerce site, or something)
the developer should never had received this data in the first place
No, he shouldn't, but doubly, he shouldn't have posted it.
Well, assuming a world population of roughly 6,000,000,000 people, then by your estimate, 6 people will notice.
I think you might want to knock a couple of 9s off that percentage - I used to know more than 6 postgrad astrophysicists myself...
Thanks Microsoft for "my photos", and "my documents", and the like. We appreciate it!
To be fair to MS, if there wasn't a "My Photos" dir in my home dir already, I'd have created one called "images" or "photos" myself. Within that, I would then - as I have now - create subfolders, and sub-subfolders, etc.
Having standard folders for music, and photos, and what have you, it enables nice little shortcuts to be set up by default. Any user who just dumps all their pictures in "My Photos" in one huge, uncategorised mess would probably just have dumped them all in their home directory in a similar fashion without it. You can't blame MS for some of the idiots who use their software, other than in that they made it more accessible to said idiots.
You'll be able to share data with other WinFS users, of course. Given that that will eventually approach something like 90%+ of PC users, I don't see that most users will care whether other implementations are possible or not.
(Yes, they should - but they won't even realise that the problem exists)
Google is your friend: clicky.
Are you telling me that you've never listened to a song or album a few times in a row, unable to get enough of it, at least temporarily? That you've never rushed out to buy the latest release from your favourite artist?
If so, then I suspect that you're somewhat in the minority on that one.
No, that's what *you* believe. I've seen *many, many* comments here and elsewhere from people who believe that *all* code should be Free. Hell, I've even read a few comments calling for all "proprietary coders" to lose their jobs, expressing joy at the though of them being out on the streets.
True, there are at least as many people who do believe as you do, but you certainly can't imply that *everyone* does.
I suspect that they're trying to say "the root account had no password", but typoed it rather spectacularly.
But on a single-user system, what difference does it really make?
Whether I run as root/Administrator or not, all the important stuff on my machine (my files) are read/write/delete my user anyway. Running as an unprivileged user means two things:
a) I can't interfere with other users' files
b) I can't interfere with system files
If I'm the only user, and my system files are all backed up on the nice, shiny install media, what is the difference, apart from perhaps having to reinstall?
Don't forget the users - most, if not all, of the fastest spreading Windows trojans and viruses of recent years have relied entirely on user-intervention.
As long as a user can run arbitrary code that opens up network ports and sends data to arbitrary destinations, it will be difficult to completely secure a machine. Per-application egress filtering would go a long way to securing this, but I'm not aware of anything available for Linux that allows you to do so.