Why not just give the option of disabling it in the BIOS?:-) Because that is accessible from software and therefore someone will eventually work out a way to turn it on thru some neat coding trick. Possibly without the users knowledge of that going on. Can anybody say "Hardware jumper"? Also, this is akin to the whole "opt-out"-"opt-in" debate. It should be disabled by default (for all the people who don't know about it or are afraid to open their computer), and if someone needs/wants it, they can always just jumper it. "What a day - warm sun, beautiful women.... and the air is just right for drinking!"
I would even go so far as to say that there's a number of productive/.ers (myself not included) who got started with AOL. Aye. I had AOHell for quite awhile back in '92-'94, back in the day of BBSes. I switched for two reasons: First, I grew up (that was when I was in h.s.), got smarter, and realized that AOL severely limited my choices as well as my liberties in using not just the web but the Internet. Second, and most importantly, I realized I was being abused as a client. There is no greater insult, in my opinion, than being abused as a PAYING CLIENT. It's for the same reason that I really hate MS. Another reason to not get too scared just yet: ADSL. Remember gang, there is competition out there in the form of a competing technology. I advised my parents to go for ADSL in their hometown because it was cheaper. AOL will always have the local TelCo's to compete with. The one thing that does scare me is AOL's potential to force Time-Warner subscribers who don't have any choice in cable providers (such as my parents) to also get AOL's cablemodem/webTV service or get no service at all. Sounds very familiar to the browswer/OS packaging that has caused everyone's favorite ongoing antitrust trial to me... and keep in mind AOL has a longer history of client abuse than MS did. ciao.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not just give the option of disabling it in the BIOS? :-) Because that is accessible from software and therefore someone will eventually work out a way to turn it on thru some neat coding trick. Possibly without the users knowledge of that going on. Can anybody say "Hardware jumper"? Also, this is akin to the whole "opt-out"-"opt-in" debate. It should be disabled by default (for all the people who don't know about it or are afraid to open their computer), and if someone needs/wants it, they can always just jumper it. "What a day - warm sun, beautiful women.... and the air is just right for drinking!"
I would even go so far as to say that there's a number of productive /.ers (myself not included) who got started with AOL. Aye. I had AOHell for quite awhile back in '92-'94, back in the day of BBSes. I switched for two reasons: First, I grew up (that was when I was in h.s.), got smarter, and realized that AOL severely limited my choices as well as my liberties in using not just the web but the Internet. Second, and most importantly, I realized I was being abused as a client. There is no greater insult, in my opinion, than being abused as a PAYING CLIENT. It's for the same reason that I really hate MS. Another reason to not get too scared just yet: ADSL. Remember gang, there is competition out there in the form of a competing technology. I advised my parents to go for ADSL in their hometown because it was cheaper. AOL will always have the local TelCo's to compete with. The one thing that does scare me is AOL's potential to force Time-Warner subscribers who don't have any choice in cable providers (such as my parents) to also get AOL's cablemodem/webTV service or get no service at all. Sounds very familiar to the browswer/OS packaging that has caused everyone's favorite ongoing antitrust trial to me... and keep in mind AOL has a longer history of client abuse than MS did. ciao.