It sounds like a good suggestion at first, but I am divided and will be more inclined to say that cutting people off from the Internet is the really bad idea here.
On one hand, what will happen if the virus is unknown with no information available on how to remove it, it will be a disaster if you're dealing with serious business on your computer and all of a sudden you can't access information on the net, and have to waste all day re-installing the OS before you can continue to pay some bill or such. Companies that are behind NAT would have their entire operation shut down because one user (Possibly a random employee with a virus on his wifi-enabled laptop) has a virus, can't have it that way.
On the other hand, it would force OS companies to seriously re-think the way they handle security, possibly re-write a secure OS from scratch, it would create a demand for more technology experts to administer their systems so they don't end up getting viruses, and it would make the computer a highly technical device that someone without enough knowledge probably shouldn't touch in the first place (But this is really bad for online businesses).
Can we please cut off Microsoft from the Internet for creating an unsecure OS, instead of random old ladies that are just trying to browse after some recipes and don't even know what a virus is, or that there is a support number to ISPs? Thank you.
You also have better control of which software users will be installing when maintaining repositories of software instead of having users go to random and possibly infected sites to download executables.
You're saying that as if computer repairs is all they do with their space and employees. You actually pay for the work of one person and for the time it takes to do the work, you're not funding their entire staff. I don't think insurance has anything to do with this, if you have a disclaimer saying that the user is responsible for any data that is lost after the repair.
It can be a-bit annoying as some sites stuff their pages with js from different sources so you're not sure which you must allow for the video to start playing etc.. But most of the time you end up visiting sites that you've already allowed and the rest of the 90% of the time you don't want to add an allow rule. I've been using it for a long time.
The obnoxious part must be the default setup, maybe people don't know that you're supposed to hide that bar that pops up on each site saying that it has blocked js, and only use the small icon at the corner of the window to allow/disallow, this is just another case of a developer that doesn't give a s***t about fixing annoyances.
"We could always go back to the way things were done in the Middle Ages, because back then, a person's insistence on having lots of children only affected that family. If the family didn't have enough food to go around, some (or all) of them would starve."
This is basically the situation in the poorest countries or Islamic countries that don't have any governmental support. Just look at central Africa where they will make 10 children with only one bread to share.
Software, someone tells them "Just get XXX and click install and it will do what you need.". With Ubuntu it's more like "Well if the program with an ugly interface doesn't exist in the repository, after you've added the extra repositories to/dslkjs/dölskjöslkjf/ldfjdljk.conf then just download the source and...".
Not to mention the problems they will have when they discover that their next door neighbors kid doesn't know how to operate it, install some printer, and such.
Not sure which laws you are refering to, I am against all drugs, and even though I drink alcohol I think it should be banned too, but it can't because the economy might depend on it. We have very good prostitution laws that aren't targeting the prostitutes but instead those that buy sex so the poor women that are prostitutes don't have to suffer in jail etc.
I agree with what you're saying. I live in Sweden and it saddens me to see all the, mostly young, people being manipulated by thepiratebays schemes, they are just trying to hold on to their revenue and they fight for it with claiming that piracy is somehow moral and should be legalized. Most people that supports thepiratebay are those that have never thought about producing anything themselves and just want everything for free. If the pirate party only wanted to make pirating a minor offence with only very little in damage fees then I would be allright with that, but instead they want to make as much damage as possible now during their 15 minutes of fame.
They won't get their servers into the parliament, this is just like all the other stunts they've pulled off with buying some island etc. I bet they have a list of stunts scheduled for every 2 months or so.
If they aren't reporting all the illegal filesharing going on on their site (Such as in your analogy of reporting where the money is), then they are aiding them. You aren't allowed to aid bank robbers in their acts.
Don't forget that thepiratebay is tied to the pirate party, so it is in their interest to generate as much publicity for them as possible by "recruiting as many young people as possible to their team" with these stunts such as "biased judge", and "human rights violations", and all of the other things that their propaganda machine produces.
Slashdot Mirror
"Ergo Ubuntu is more "professional" then Fedora."
I strongly disagree. For instance,Ubuntu's apt-get is very unreliable sometimes and breaks easily, doesn't happen on Fedora.
This is the best idea, if only backbone providers in China or such, would care about doing this.
It sounds like a good suggestion at first, but I am divided and will be more inclined to say that cutting people off from the Internet is the really bad idea here.
On one hand, what will happen if the virus is unknown with no information available on how to remove it, it will be a disaster if you're dealing with serious business on your computer and all of a sudden you can't access information on the net, and have to waste all day re-installing the OS before you can continue to pay some bill or such. Companies that are behind NAT would have their entire operation shut down because one user (Possibly a random employee with a virus on his wifi-enabled laptop) has a virus, can't have it that way.
On the other hand, it would force OS companies to seriously re-think the way they handle security, possibly re-write a secure OS from scratch, it would create a demand for more technology experts to administer their systems so they don't end up getting viruses, and it would make the computer a highly technical device that someone without enough knowledge probably shouldn't touch in the first place (But this is really bad for online businesses).
Well said, sue microsoft and ISPs of people hosting infected sites, not random old women that have no idea.
Can we please cut off Microsoft from the Internet for creating an unsecure OS, instead of random old ladies that are just trying to browse after some recipes and don't even know what a virus is, or that there is a support number to ISPs? Thank you.
You also have better control of which software users will be installing when maintaining repositories of software instead of having users go to random and possibly infected sites to download executables.
You're saying that as if computer repairs is all they do with their space and employees. You actually pay for the work of one person and for the time it takes to do the work, you're not funding their entire staff. I don't think insurance has anything to do with this, if you have a disclaimer saying that the user is responsible for any data that is lost after the repair.
It can be a-bit annoying as some sites stuff their pages with js from different sources so you're not sure which you must allow for the video to start playing etc.. But most of the time you end up visiting sites that you've already allowed and the rest of the 90% of the time you don't want to add an allow rule. I've been using it for a long time.
The obnoxious part must be the default setup, maybe people don't know that you're supposed to hide that bar that pops up on each site saying that it has blocked js, and only use the small icon at the corner of the window to allow/disallow, this is just another case of a developer that doesn't give a s***t about fixing annoyances.
recycle some cans, receive $100, get more RAM
It is more likely that they are already using these benchmarks during development, and release them to the public once they get good scores on them.
Phenom II 965 stock 3.4Ghz, 1333Mhz RAM, Fedora 13 x64 Ultimate Edition (With nice -9)
# # # #
Chrome 7.0.525.0 (59405) 32bit nightly - 14288.0ms +/- 1.1%
Firefox 4.0 beta 6 32bit - 14500.1ms +/- 0.2%
Firefox 3.6.9 32bit - 27864.4ms +/- 0.3%
Opera 10.62 b6438 (release) 64bit - 11304.3ms +/- 0.6%
# # # #
Nice core i7s you people got ther ;) :0
Also, Opera is pretty fast
"We could always go back to the way things were done in the Middle Ages, because back then, a person's insistence on having lots of children only affected that family. If the family didn't have enough food to go around, some (or all) of them would starve."
This is basically the situation in the poorest countries or Islamic countries that don't have any governmental support. Just look at central Africa where they will make 10 children with only one bread to share.
Software, someone tells them "Just get XXX and click install and it will do what you need.". /dslkjs/dölskjöslkjf/ldfjdljk.conf then just download the source and ...".
With Ubuntu it's more like "Well if the program with an ugly interface doesn't exist in the repository, after you've added the extra repositories to
I'm just being realistic here.
Not to mention the problems they will have when they discover that their next door neighbors kid doesn't know how to operate it, install some printer, and such.
Nazis also did some good things, but they were still nazis.
Not sure which laws you are refering to, I am against all drugs, and even though I drink alcohol I think it should be banned too, but it can't because the economy might depend on it. We have very good prostitution laws that aren't targeting the prostitutes but instead those that buy sex so the poor women that are prostitutes don't have to suffer in jail etc.
I agree with what you're saying. I live in Sweden and it saddens me to see all the, mostly young, people being manipulated by thepiratebays schemes, they are just trying to hold on to their revenue and they fight for it with claiming that piracy is somehow moral and should be legalized. Most people that supports thepiratebay are those that have never thought about producing anything themselves and just want everything for free. If the pirate party only wanted to make pirating a minor offence with only very little in damage fees then I would be allright with that, but instead they want to make as much damage as possible now during their 15 minutes of fame.
They won't get their servers into the parliament, this is just like all the other stunts they've pulled off with buying some island etc. I bet they have a list of stunts scheduled for every 2 months or so.
If they aren't reporting all the illegal filesharing going on on their site (Such as in your analogy of reporting where the money is), then they are aiding them. You aren't allowed to aid bank robbers in their acts.
Don't forget that thepiratebay is tied to the pirate party, so it is in their interest to generate as much publicity for them as possible by "recruiting as many young people as possible to their team" with these stunts such as "biased judge", and "human rights violations", and all of the other things that their propaganda machine produces.
I thought it was a good idea to have a judge that is knowledgeable on copyright laws, so that he really understands the trial.