Luckily for Sony, you (the generic you) are not allowed to insert things like music cd's into secure computers; hell some don't even have cd-rom drives no less cd-r. In fact, last time I worked in a secure environemt I was not even allowed to bring CD's into the room / building. "Back in the day" that seemed to make little sense to me because it wasn't like classfied info was going to make its way onto a pressed CD and out the door, so what was the harm (vs inserting a CD-R or a thumb drive).
I quickly realized it was as much about preventing installation of malware as it was about preventing the exodus of classified data. The Sony-Fiasco only hammers home that fact.
What is more, is that unclassfied system users are also forbidden from installing software on their computers and in most cases are prevented from doing so via user priveledges. so they should have been clicking "no" at any mention of software install regardless of what it did or did not say it was for.
Of course in the early years MS wasn't very good about limiting user access while actually providing a usable computer. Wait, what am I saying, they still barely do. As it is no user is ever supposed to have admin privs except on the occasional laptop that travels a lot. Even then those laptops are barred from the network unless entering via an secured external gateway that limits access to the rest of the network. But the point is user systems are not even supposed to allow "us" to install software.
So in theory the Sony root-kit should not have even been able to install itself. But we also still have many gov computers running win98 / 2000 but "they" are quickly being upgraded for security reasons of course.
What will be interesting is to see how fast the government mandates updates to Vista given what I have been reading about how they plan to handle user rights / force software vendors to install at the lowest level unless absolutely required (AV, Firewall, Drivers, etc). so far our admins and security folks are reasonably happy with how XP handles things, but they still don't like how much has to happen above the user level and would like to close down that gaping hole in the dam.
Anyway the point is, I am sure someone got fired if a classified system ended up with a sony rootkit on it, and all the uncless computers that were infected have some very unhappy users.
Like any other contract, it can stipulate anything it wants (so long as it is legal). So if the contract says you can have my info but you have to tell me what you are doing with it (which is different than your second statement which implies control over what they do with it) then that is what the contract says.
If "they" don't like it they don't have to enter into that contract. For that matter if I DID want to dictate what they do with it I can put that in the contract and, again, they do have to follow it if they agree.
Your statement, beyond the inconsistency of knowing vs dictating, implies a misunderstanding of contract law. Put simply, if the record companies can tell me what I can and can't do with my music once I buy it (technically license it), I can tell the marketing droids what they can and can't do with my personal information once they buy (technically license) it. It is up to them if they want to be bound by that agreement.
That being said, you are right that the more restrictions there are on the use of the data the less valuable it will be. And the more options we have for what uses we allow/disallow the more complex the system is for the buyers which makes the whole system less valuable and more costly to ensure compliance.
On another note: certainly one option that should be considered is the ability to provide the data with no personally identifiable data and to MAKE SURE it can't be abused to find that data. I have to believe there is some system that exists to provide send the data and get credit for it w/out actually tieing it to an account with the person's personal data. The Swiss / Caymen bankers have to have something like that:)
Well then you haven't used the new version of SS.. or should I say the version that has been out for several months. It now has a function that "catches" those occurences where the browser is continually crashing, or being abnormally shut down by the user via "end process", and tells you that it noticed a problem and are you sure you want to restore the session. I've never had the problem again and I did experience the very problem you described several times both before and after the new feature.
Check it out.
As for the memory problem [shrug] I dont notice a problem. I use SS for exactly what it is meant to do: restore my tabs if I have a crash, accidently shut down FF, have to reboot, or just decide to shut down the browser. [shrug]
Well actually they are the same in market speak. Now if there is some LEGAL specification as to the definitions of those words (kinda like the use of the word SHALL in contracts has a very specific meaning) than I might be convinced.
Even if there is some specific LEGAL difference all that means is they don't use the word Deisgned for but use the word compatible; iirc Apple wants a royalty even for that, and any use of the word iPod.
Besides, "Designed for" is still 100% accurate and not misleading. On the other hand if they said "Designed By", "Approved By" or any other language that makes it sound like the company either IS Apple or is somehow affiliated with or sanctioned by Apple... well now that IS a different story. Not the difference in the use of the word "for" vs. "by"
But as mentioned by another poster, it is common to add the disclaimer stating that no such affiliations exist and that words like iPod etc are registered tradmarks etc etc etc.
Exactly. by the logic of the previous poster, and Apple, that means FRAM should have to pay [instert name of EVERY car manufacturer] for the right to sell an oil filter that says "fits..." And yes I know the filter box doesn't say that but their fitment guide does.
Or Energizer comcorder batteries that say they fit so and so's camcorder. Should they have to pay a fee to say "Fits Panasonic" Cell phone batteries, vacume cleaner bags, air filter replacments, car stereo adaptor kits, car stereo speakers, etc
There is no argument, legal or economic, that justifies the concept that a company should have to pay a royalty for making a product and marketing it as "compatibale with..." any other product unless it required the use of some protected IP or Trademark.
I am ignoring the situations, like the inkjet and garage door opening folks, who create just such scenarios specifically to prevent the aftermarket in an effort to prevent competition.
So unless the company needed to utilize some Apple owned IP to produce their product Apple has no business asking or demanding royalty fees just because someone made a protective case cover that fits the iPod.
And those companies who signed up 1) should have a very pissed off share holders and 2) have royally screwed themselves and all other companies by setting a dangerous precedent.
All this talk about ink jets blah blah blah and no one has really discussed the other technology that is being used in many of the new generation (though I have a sony udp10 from 5+years ago) printers: Dye Sublination.
What I would like to hear is any info any experts have on longevity of dye-sub printers, as well as some discussion of the various printers' quality. My old sony was seriously state-of-the-art when I bought it. No inkjet could touch it in quality or price even at 75c per print back then. they are 29c now.
But now it is either showing its age, it obsolesence, or both because I'm just not as in love with it like I used to be.
So what do the "experts" think of the new consumer dye-subs.
My guess... because they wanted to avoid the overhead cost of processing the rebate once the cartridge is returned.
With the prebate all they had to do was print pu some different labels. When the cart is returned all they hvae to do is refill and repeat.
Using a "core charge" scheme means they have to collect the extra money (seems like a chance to earn interest on the float [shrug]), do some extra accounting for it (or the SEC will get mad) then when the cartridge is recieved they have to collect the name and address of the returnee, cut a check, and mail it (postage costs money).
Then of course we all know just how much people LUUUV rebate programs. We all complain how slow they are, how they try to screw you, etc. My guess: they were also trying to avoid any ill will concerning the devil's word "rebate". Instead people get their money right away and people love that.
Of course just how stupid were they to not realize this would happen. Then they would have to sue (read spend money on lawyers), and chances are their program would then end up failing.
I understand their reasoning, I just don't understand their short sightedness [shrug]. Then again you are talking about a company that obviously holds their customers in contempt...
Has nothing to do with a high horse and everything to do with facts. This is not a surpise that there was a flaw; anyone who thinks flaws don't exist just because no one has said anything about it is kidding themselves.
So, given that a flaw exists, what next. Well he didn't divulge how to actually do it. so all those folks with quesitonable morals still have no more ammunition.
On the other hand, now everyone knows there is a flaw and what it will look like when it happens. so the "white hats" can keep an eye out for it.
And most important, it lets everyone know that they need to start patching now, and that the bug is more critical than Cisco made it out to be and THAT is the most important thing. Because if no one knows, no one can protect themselves and no one can put pressure on the company to fix it.
Yeah whatever you do, if you know there is an open and exploitable flaw that you feel a company is intentionally under-rating its criticality for reasons that are likely self-serving, DO NOT tell anyone about it.
The problem with your anaylsis is that he did NOt publish info about how to break into anything as stated plainly in the article. He only showed what could be done.
Nor did he focus any more attention than was likely there before. If you don't think people have been trying to hack those routers your nuts. Cause they had every reason to believe there was already a flaw and they were looking. all this guy did was show everyone something we already know.
Further, you are wrong that he had to break the law to do what he did. Just because the FBI is investigating doesn't mean a criminal law was actually broken. As for a civil law being broken that is debatable since the lawsuit was settled which has nothing to with his actually being liable (since you are never guilty in a civil trial iirc).
And finally the difference between this and publicly outtin NORAD is that there is little question that he would, in fact, have had to break several very serious laws to obtain that information as would the person or persons that helped him get it. So there is NO comparison between this and the disclosure of classified government information.
Wel I can't sak you if you even RTFM'ed since I haven't either (damn/.) but I can ask if you even RTFS (read the f%ck1ng submission)?
They are mention the use of peltiers. Those are SOLID STATE heat pumps (for simplicity sake). that means no regrigerant (since Freon is a brand name) and no moving parts other than the fans on the hot and cold sides and the extra large alternator to power it.
Just because it isn't easily doable doesn't mean someone didn't suggest it. It just means they were laughed out of the room by the guys who DID know better and then they sat down to see if there was a way to do it (know the computers location) another way.
I mean we are talking about a group of people out of touch with technology and I can tell you for sure there are well employed people I know who are so clueless about gps they would never consider that you needed pretty good line of sight to the sky for it to work.
DOH... the SAME thing happened to me in my optimization class. Well someone else showed it was unsolvable, but at least our instructor manned-up to the situation and gave us the points.
Perhaps your instructor just figured since it was unsolvable, no one solved it, so it isn't like anyone got an advantage [shrug].
You are kidding right? Where do you think cell phones get the signal from? You know the voice you hear talking to you when you put the phone to your ear? Where do you think that signal comes from? Could it be the tower perhaps? Or is it pulling the signal out of the ether?
" the Times now has more online readers than print readers. "
While I'm sure subscriptions have probably declined I would still contend that the reason for this statement has more to do with the larger audience that is conveniently reached than it does with the decline in subscriptions. And yes I know you can subscribe to the NYT even if you don't live anywhere near NY, but it isn't the same thing as having it available right in your office.
So this statement is a little misleading without some real numbers. In fact having more online readers than print readers means more eyeballs for selling ads.
That is a very interesting point from one side of the topic.
However what about the side of the CUSTOMER. That is to say: the ISP should not be able to limit MY ability to use the bandwidth service I paid for to send and recieve any data I want... even if that data constitutes a service that competes with them.
Here is a good way to look at it: Do you think Comcast should be allowed to block access to DSL provider web sites?
I know I know there is a whole host of technical differences and apples/oranges/grapes comparisons... but it still points directly to my argument: The customer is having their ability to choose service impeded simply because someone has the power to do it.
I subscribe to netflix to get all the movies I , and my GF, like to watch easy and convenient. Better than any video store because my mail box is right outside my door and there are NO LATE FEES. Blockbuster is changing their policy but it still sounds stupid and will cost me $$$. Hollywood is too far away and out of the way right now to be worth using. But no matter what a single late fee paid is not worth the cost in both real dollars and personal annoyance to justify anything but netflix now.
And a single late fee busts the argument about needing 7 movies to make netflix cheaper. And really, 7 movies a month... if you aren't watching that many movies a month you are watching too much Reality TV
HOWEVER, to answer the why download when you can netflix: Because there are a lot of things I can't get from netflix that I simply want without waiting. Sounds selfish but when it is things that may never be put out on DVD in a reasonable time, or something that is currently playing in another country (like Battlestar Galactica or Coupling) I just download it and watch it.
But for sure I would never waste my time downloading something that I know will be in the netflix cue in a month or two. Hell movies are pretty much right out and I only download TV shows.
Only problem I have found with that option is that ebay uses javascript to change the pictures in their listings. Not sure if there is a workaround to that but it gets annoying turning it on and off. Looks like there needs to be an exceptions / allowed sites option for the advanced javascript options.
I want to run the best choice for each application. Contrary to what some people seem to think in this world (beyond the internat and computers I mean) just because someone can make one thing really well does NOT mean they can do everything well.
Or like all-season tires: In trying to do two things it does neither well.
Also, and this is the EXACT reason I stopped using netscape mail back in the day: when ever I want to change one application (ie the browser) it had detrimentla effects on other applications (ie my mail). I got tired of having to jump through hoops t ochange my browser to protect my mail.
I settled on Pegasus (which is not the point) and now ahve been able to change around browsers and update browsers at will with no worries about losing mail.
In short 6 separate applications is EXACTLY what I DO WANT and I want each of them to ONLY do that and nothing else. Because anything else is 1) bloat and 2) wastes time better spent perfecting the main application focus
Sadly you are wrong. At least in the case of several sports cars I know of. There are documented cases of dealers hanging out at drag race grudge nights (at the legal track), and sanctioned SCCA Solo II events, etc for the sole purpose of collecting plate numbers to later void warranties.
Bring a car into a dealer with aftermarket suspension and they will say you were racing it and your blown engine is no longer covered. Sure they are supposed to prove that the non-oem suspension was the direct cause per the Magnuson-Moss act but they will try it anyway and many people will just accept it. Or they will not even say it was the suspension that did it, but the fact that it means you raced it and THAT is what voids the warranty.
No... if you think dealers and manufaturers aren't looking for ANY chance to void a warranty you are woefully mistaken:(
Slashdot Mirror
Luckily for Sony, you (the generic you) are not allowed to insert things like music cd's into secure computers; hell some don't even have cd-rom drives no less cd-r. In fact, last time I worked in a secure environemt I was not even allowed to bring CD's into the room / building. "Back in the day" that seemed to make little sense to me because it wasn't like classfied info was going to make its way onto a pressed CD and out the door, so what was the harm (vs inserting a CD-R or a thumb drive).
I quickly realized it was as much about preventing installation of malware as it was about preventing the exodus of classified data. The Sony-Fiasco only hammers home that fact.
What is more, is that unclassfied system users are also forbidden from installing software on their computers and in most cases are prevented from doing so via user priveledges. so they should have been clicking "no" at any mention of software install regardless of what it did or did not say it was for.
Of course in the early years MS wasn't very good about limiting user access while actually providing a usable computer. Wait, what am I saying, they still barely do. As it is no user is ever supposed to have admin privs except on the occasional laptop that travels a lot. Even then those laptops are barred from the network unless entering via an secured external gateway that limits access to the rest of the network. But the point is user systems are not even supposed to allow "us" to install software.
So in theory the Sony root-kit should not have even been able to install itself. But we also still have many gov computers running win98 / 2000 but "they" are quickly being upgraded for security reasons of course.
What will be interesting is to see how fast the government mandates updates to Vista given what I have been reading about how they plan to handle user rights / force software vendors to install at the lowest level unless absolutely required (AV, Firewall, Drivers, etc). so far our admins and security folks are reasonably happy with how XP handles things, but they still don't like how much has to happen above the user level and would like to close down that gaping hole in the dam.
Anyway the point is, I am sure someone got fired if a classified system ended up with a sony rootkit on it, and all the uncless computers that were infected have some very unhappy users.
Too bad you have this only half right ... the COMPLETE statement is:
Democracies do not start wars WITH EACH OTHER. And so far history has born that out.
And that is not just the US government saying it, it is pretty much the opinion of every political science expert.
Like any other contract, it can stipulate anything it wants (so long as it is legal). So if the contract says you can have my info but you have to tell me what you are doing with it (which is different than your second statement which implies control over what they do with it) then that is what the contract says.
:)
If "they" don't like it they don't have to enter into that contract. For that matter if I DID want to dictate what they do with it I can put that in the contract and, again, they do have to follow it if they agree.
Your statement, beyond the inconsistency of knowing vs dictating, implies a misunderstanding of contract law. Put simply, if the record companies can tell me what I can and can't do with my music once I buy it (technically license it), I can tell the marketing droids what they can and can't do with my personal information once they buy (technically license) it. It is up to them if they want to be bound by that agreement.
That being said, you are right that the more restrictions there are on the use of the data the less valuable it will be. And the more options we have for what uses we allow/disallow the more complex the system is for the buyers which makes the whole system less valuable and more costly to ensure compliance.
On another note: certainly one option that should be considered is the ability to provide the data with no personally identifiable data and to MAKE SURE it can't be abused to find that data. I have to believe there is some system that exists to provide send the data and get credit for it w/out actually tieing it to an account with the person's personal data. The Swiss / Caymen bankers have to have something like that
Well then you haven't used the new version of SS .. or should I say the version that has been out for several months. It now has a function that "catches" those occurences where the browser is continually crashing, or being abnormally shut down by the user via "end process", and tells you that it noticed a problem and are you sure you want to restore the session. I've never had the problem again and I did experience the very problem you described several times both before and after the new feature.
Check it out.
As for the memory problem [shrug] I dont notice a problem. I use SS for exactly what it is meant to do: restore my tabs if I have a crash, accidently shut down FF, have to reboot, or just decide to shut down the browser. [shrug]
Well actually they are the same in market speak. Now if there is some LEGAL specification as to the definitions of those words (kinda like the use of the word SHALL in contracts has a very specific meaning) than I might be convinced.
... well now that IS a different story. Not the difference in the use of the word "for" vs. "by"
Even if there is some specific LEGAL difference all that means is they don't use the word Deisgned for but use the word compatible; iirc Apple wants a royalty even for that, and any use of the word iPod.
Besides, "Designed for" is still 100% accurate and not misleading. On the other hand if they said "Designed By", "Approved By" or any other language that makes it sound like the company either IS Apple or is somehow affiliated with or sanctioned by Apple
But as mentioned by another poster, it is common to add the disclaimer stating that no such affiliations exist and that words like iPod etc are registered tradmarks etc etc etc.
Exactly. by the logic of the previous poster, and Apple, that means FRAM should have to pay [instert name of EVERY car manufacturer] for the right to sell an oil filter that says "fits ..." And yes I know the filter box doesn't say that but their fitment guide does.
..." any other product unless it required the use of some protected IP or Trademark.
Or Energizer comcorder batteries that say they fit so and so's camcorder. Should they have to pay a fee to say "Fits Panasonic" Cell phone batteries, vacume cleaner bags, air filter replacments, car stereo adaptor kits, car stereo speakers, etc
There is no argument, legal or economic, that justifies the concept that a company should have to pay a royalty for making a product and marketing it as "compatibale with
I am ignoring the situations, like the inkjet and garage door opening folks, who create just such scenarios specifically to prevent the aftermarket in an effort to prevent competition.
So unless the company needed to utilize some Apple owned IP to produce their product Apple has no business asking or demanding royalty fees just because someone made a protective case cover that fits the iPod.
And those companies who signed up 1) should have a very pissed off share holders and 2) have royally screwed themselves and all other companies by setting a dangerous precedent.
All this talk about ink jets blah blah blah and no one has really discussed the other technology that is being used in many of the new generation (though I have a sony udp10 from 5+years ago) printers: Dye Sublination.
What I would like to hear is any info any experts have on longevity of dye-sub printers, as well as some discussion of the various printers' quality. My old sony was seriously state-of-the-art when I bought it. No inkjet could touch it in quality or price even at 75c per print back then. they are 29c now.
But now it is either showing its age, it obsolesence, or both because I'm just not as in love with it like I used to be.
So what do the "experts" think of the new consumer dye-subs.
My guess ... because they wanted to avoid the overhead cost of processing the rebate once the cartridge is returned.
...
With the prebate all they had to do was print pu some different labels. When the cart is returned all they hvae to do is refill and repeat.
Using a "core charge" scheme means they have to collect the extra money (seems like a chance to earn interest on the float [shrug]), do some extra accounting for it (or the SEC will get mad) then when the cartridge is recieved they have to collect the name and address of the returnee, cut a check, and mail it (postage costs money).
Then of course we all know just how much people LUUUV rebate programs. We all complain how slow they are, how they try to screw you, etc. My guess: they were also trying to avoid any ill will concerning the devil's word "rebate". Instead people get their money right away and people love that.
Of course just how stupid were they to not realize this would happen. Then they would have to sue (read spend money on lawyers), and chances are their program would then end up failing.
I understand their reasoning, I just don't understand their short sightedness [shrug]. Then again you are talking about a company that obviously holds their customers in contempt
Has nothing to do with a high horse and everything to do with facts. This is not a surpise that there was a flaw; anyone who thinks flaws don't exist just because no one has said anything about it is kidding themselves.
So, given that a flaw exists, what next. Well he didn't divulge how to actually do it. so all those folks with quesitonable morals still have no more ammunition.
On the other hand, now everyone knows there is a flaw and what it will look like when it happens. so the "white hats" can keep an eye out for it.
And most important, it lets everyone know that they need to start patching now, and that the bug is more critical than Cisco made it out to be and THAT is the most important thing. Because if no one knows, no one can protect themselves and no one can put pressure on the company to fix it.
PS and let me add:
Yeah whatever you do, if you know there is an open and exploitable flaw that you feel a company is intentionally under-rating its criticality for reasons that are likely self-serving, DO NOT tell anyone about it.
Because security through obscurity works!
The problem with your anaylsis is that he did NOt publish info about how to break into anything as stated plainly in the article. He only showed what could be done.
Nor did he focus any more attention than was likely there before. If you don't think people have been trying to hack those routers your nuts. Cause they had every reason to believe there was already a flaw and they were looking. all this guy did was show everyone something we already know.
Further, you are wrong that he had to break the law to do what he did. Just because the FBI is investigating doesn't mean a criminal law was actually broken. As for a civil law being broken that is debatable since the lawsuit was settled which has nothing to with his actually being liable (since you are never guilty in a civil trial iirc).
And finally the difference between this and publicly outtin NORAD is that there is little question that he would, in fact, have had to break several very serious laws to obtain that information as would the person or persons that helped him get it. So there is NO comparison between this and the disclosure of classified government information.
Wel I can't sak you if you even RTFM'ed since I haven't either (damn /.) but I can ask if you even RTFS (read the f%ck1ng submission)?
They are mention the use of peltiers. Those are SOLID STATE heat pumps (for simplicity sake). that means no regrigerant (since Freon is a brand name) and no moving parts other than the fans on the hot and cold sides and the extra large alternator to power it.
Yes he did and he did it better. Everyone needs to read it, and reread it once a year.
Just because it isn't easily doable doesn't mean someone didn't suggest it. It just means they were laughed out of the room by the guys who DID know better and then they sat down to see if there was a way to do it (know the computers location) another way.
I mean we are talking about a group of people out of touch with technology and I can tell you for sure there are well employed people I know who are so clueless about gps they would never consider that you needed pretty good line of sight to the sky for it to work.
DOH ... the SAME thing happened to me in my optimization class. Well someone else showed it was unsolvable, but at least our instructor manned-up to the situation and gave us the points.
Perhaps your instructor just figured since it was unsolvable, no one solved it, so it isn't like anyone got an advantage [shrug].
You are kidding right? Where do you think cell phones get the signal from? You know the voice you hear talking to you when you put the phone to your ear? Where do you think that signal comes from? Could it be the tower perhaps? Or is it pulling the signal out of the ether?
" the Times now has more online readers than print readers. "
While I'm sure subscriptions have probably declined I would still contend that the reason for this statement has more to do with the larger audience that is conveniently reached than it does with the decline in subscriptions. And yes I know you can subscribe to the NYT even if you don't live anywhere near NY, but it isn't the same thing as having it available right in your office.
So this statement is a little misleading without some real numbers. In fact having more online readers than print readers means more eyeballs for selling ads.
That is a very interesting point from one side of the topic.
... even if that data constitutes a service that competes with them.
... but it still points directly to my argument: The customer is having their ability to choose service impeded simply because someone has the power to do it.
However what about the side of the CUSTOMER. That is to say: the ISP should not be able to limit MY ability to use the bandwidth service I paid for to send and recieve any data I want
Here is a good way to look at it: Do you think Comcast should be allowed to block access to DSL provider web sites?
I know I know there is a whole host of technical differences and apples/oranges/grapes comparisons
REALLY? wow I hadn't noticed. Maybe that is my problem this quarter in my masters program. Thanks for pointing that out to me.
.. how is that working out for you anyway?
... being clever.
Perhaps it was less obvious that it said 2002 and a simple matter of looking at the wrong link first (out of the two).
So
You know
Ah you are correct. I made the mistake too. However it is the article that opened when I clicked on the link.
From the article:
.. this thing WAS rather big. Perhaps there needs to be a little more editorial review before we go poasting articles
"The object, now named 2002 EM7, was probably between 40 and 80 meters (130-260 feet) in diameter, "
So um
A lot of replies already here is mine:
... if you aren't watching that many movies a month you are watching too much Reality TV
I do both.
I subscribe to netflix to get all the movies I , and my GF, like to watch easy and convenient. Better than any video store because my mail box is right outside my door and there are NO LATE FEES. Blockbuster is changing their policy but it still sounds stupid and will cost me $$$. Hollywood is too far away and out of the way right now to be worth using. But no matter what a single late fee paid is not worth the cost in both real dollars and personal annoyance to justify anything but netflix now.
And a single late fee busts the argument about needing 7 movies to make netflix cheaper. And really, 7 movies a month
HOWEVER, to answer the why download when you can netflix: Because there are a lot of things I can't get from netflix that I simply want without waiting. Sounds selfish but when it is things that may never be put out on DVD in a reasonable time, or something that is currently playing in another country (like Battlestar Galactica or Coupling) I just download it and watch it.
But for sure I would never waste my time downloading something that I know will be in the netflix cue in a month or two. Hell movies are pretty much right out and I only download TV shows.
Only problem I have found with that option is that ebay uses javascript to change the pictures in their listings. Not sure if there is a workaround to that but it gets annoying turning it on and off. Looks like there needs to be an exceptions / allowed sites option for the advanced javascript options.
I want to run the best choice for each application. Contrary to what some people seem to think in this world (beyond the internat and computers I mean) just because someone can make one thing really well does NOT mean they can do everything well.
Or like all-season tires: In trying to do two things it does neither well.
Also, and this is the EXACT reason I stopped using netscape mail back in the day: when ever I want to change one application (ie the browser) it had detrimentla effects on other applications (ie my mail). I got tired of having to jump through hoops t ochange my browser to protect my mail.
I settled on Pegasus (which is not the point) and now ahve been able to change around browsers and update browsers at will with no worries about losing mail.
In short 6 separate applications is EXACTLY what I DO WANT and I want each of them to ONLY do that and nothing else. Because anything else is 1) bloat and 2) wastes time better spent perfecting the main application focus
Bring a car into a dealer with aftermarket suspension and they will say you were racing it and your blown engine is no longer covered. Sure they are supposed to prove that the non-oem suspension was the direct cause per the Magnuson-Moss act but they will try it anyway and many people will just accept it. Or they will not even say it was the suspension that did it, but the fact that it means you raced it and THAT is what voids the warranty.
No ... if you think dealers and manufaturers aren't looking for ANY chance to void a warranty you are woefully mistaken :(