I'm sure someone in China does have an inexpensive HEPA air purifier. I am not sure what your US Google search has to do with what people have in China though.
Sure, in 99% of scenarios a local firewall makes sense, is a no-brainer, is defense in depth, etc. But one can absolutely deploy a system without one in the right circumstances.
Of course there is no absolute rule one way or the other, but for a vendor to refuse to permit a firewall on their system is a red flag that they did not weight the options but instead opted for the lazy development approach of assume all ports are fair game. That kind of development laziness is the exact scenario where defense in depth makes more sense than not! If the vendor had made a rational argument it would be a different scenario all together.
But again. What IS the threat of network traffic to a port no one is listening on? None. What your firewall is you protecting from is NOT bad stuff from the outside. It's protecting you from the inside danger that some service suddenly opens a port which is reachable from the outside. (Hate to dig out the old Win vs. *nix, but the usual suspects for this are usually Windows servers you need to lock down first, as they're usually asuming that they're in a friendly network. On *nix machines you usually need to manually add those services one by one, as you would open the ports on your firewall)
The firewall provides defense in depth. Yes, if nothing else goes wrong, the Firewall is unnecessary. On the other hand, if something else does go wrong, the firewall become another obstacle for the attacker.
Not something relatives or acquaintances brag about I suppose.
What are the odds of this happening if I know 400 people and zero out of 35%? Must be at least 6-sigma!
The fact that you know 400 people's finances intimately (possibly even better than them since many people don't know everything on their credit report) is far more impressive than you not knowing anyone who has a debt in collections.
Not saying what you say is false, just impressive.
I can fix any current Mac OS. Just go into the apps folder (flower-shift-a is the shortcut), then into utilities, then run shell application. Enlarge the window to full screen. Bingo, you're in a bash shell where you can talk to a proper unixy command line interface.
Or command-space then type "terminal" and hit enter for faster bash access.
Your snide comment aside: what they discovered is a desire to test the market for circa five dollar legitimate copies of good games with tested and updated DOSBox and/or Wine configurations so that users do not have to Google, tweak and retweak things to get a game to run only to find out three-quarters of the way through the game that it crashes.
I would much rather pay a reasonable amount for that rather than spend my gaming time tinkering; that's good value for me. If I liked tinkering, I wouldn't be their target market though and I might be making snide comments on Slashdot with my time.
If you are tracking a company's performance by its stock price it's kind of laughable
I agree, but the poster to which I replied was bragging about how MSFT is doing so well and his stock portfolio is being counted by him and he is enjoying life. I merely pointed out that MSFT did not even perform better than the index.
Hmmm...they are doing just fine and getting stronger. How can that be - according to this message board Linux rules and is taking over the world! Seems to fly in the face of the SD worldview. Keep dreaming...I'm counting my returns in stock portfolio and enjoying life. Curious how many of you zealots will admit how wrong you are.
They had not in the prior ten years gotten stronger than the S&P 500. If ten years ago you had invested in an index fund tracking the S&P 500, your return to today would be 77% instead of the 57% you would have received by investing in MSFT. Many other companies out-performed the S&P 500 in the same ten-year period.
The subject of a film has little to do with quality. I've seen some spectacular films about boring subjects and completely unwatchable rubbish about stunningly interesting topics.
Interesting how taste works, eh? One man's rubbish is another man's tour de force.
I do, and it has more than 120,000 titles for rent. They also rent equipment if you need it to watch some of the formats less popular in the United States or have a region-locked device. Blockbuster closed because their market share was gobbled up by alternatives. There is not yet a viable alternative to Scarecrow but I don't think they are doing as well as they used to.
Of course everyone should evaluate their value, but not long ago $8 for two movies a month was a very good deal where people were willing to pay that and pay for gas and drive and stand in line and browse a cacophonous store. Today $8 for two movies a month is seen as a bad deal.
That's all I was saying. I wouldn't pay $8 for two movies a month because their selection is limited, but I would if they had movies I liked.
I bet 'Troll Hunter' is a better movie then any of those foreign art films.
You can watch a good B movie _and_ read subtitles.
Obviously film enjoyment is a subjective matter. Claiming one film is better than all other films in a very wide net is a pretty tall order though. On the other hand comparing one film against an entire other genre is probably making a bigger claim about your preference of an entire genre than the one film. I'm unsure whether to check out Troll Hunter now.
Well, then I'm out of competitors! I still rather go to the local video store, which happens to have even more selection than Netflix or Greencine, but they don't deliver.
Yes, they do. They should be paid for their work. There's a market opportunity to stream quality films to people for reasonable rates that's untapped. Having a service that solely catered to that market probably wouldn't support itself due to infrastructure costs but it's an area where on of the existing companies could expand and increase their market share. I wish they would.
You should pray every night that god will smite the rights-holders, for they are the cause of people preferring physical discs. They hug their discs because they have a film that's worth watching on it that's not available for streaming because the rights-holders fear that if they allow streaming then it might be ripped and hosted up on the Pirate Bay and by not offering streaming they are remaining safe in their rights.
There were probably 20-30 movies at this year's Seattle International Film Festival I could see myself watching over the year. Trouble is, they're not available at Netflix, or Hulu. There's plenty out there worth watching but most media companies cater to the lowest-common-denominator customer.
I get one, or at most two, movies from Netflix every month. It's really not a good deal for me. One of these days I'm going to drop it entirely. I don't have any problem with the service (with or without Saturday turnaround), I just don't watch enough movies to justify it.
It's $8 a month for those two movies. That's $4 a movie. How much did blockbuster charge? How much more time was it to go to blockbuster and back home? It seems we keep wanting more and more for our dollar. Most of the time we get it, but then later when we fall a little short of more and more we're annoyed. Goes to show that you give someone a much better value and they adapt and take it for granted, then reduce their value by a little bit and it's the sky falling. (That last comment was more about the OP, not you specifically--it was your invocation of 2 movies a month being a bad deal that got me to comment in the first place.)
So is there a conclusive way on the Amazon website to tell before making a purchase that a file is not DRM protected? From what I've read of the mobi documentation there is a new DRM scheme that requires client-side account verification which does not use device ids encoded in the file by the server, which would imply "unlimited" devices permitted but the book would still be tied to an account. Does Amazon notate the distinction somehow?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I'm sure nobody in all of China already has an inexpensive HEPA air purifier.
I'm sure someone in China does have an inexpensive HEPA air purifier. I am not sure what your US Google search has to do with what people have in China though.
Sure, in 99% of scenarios a local firewall makes sense, is a no-brainer, is defense in depth, etc. But one can absolutely deploy a system without one in the right circumstances.
Of course there is no absolute rule one way or the other, but for a vendor to refuse to permit a firewall on their system is a red flag that they did not weight the options but instead opted for the lazy development approach of assume all ports are fair game. That kind of development laziness is the exact scenario where defense in depth makes more sense than not! If the vendor had made a rational argument it would be a different scenario all together.
But again. What IS the threat of network traffic to a port no one is listening on? None. What your firewall is you protecting from is NOT bad stuff from the outside. It's protecting you from the inside danger that some service suddenly opens a port which is reachable from the outside. (Hate to dig out the old Win vs. *nix, but the usual suspects for this are usually Windows servers you need to lock down first, as they're usually asuming that they're in a friendly network. On *nix machines you usually need to manually add those services one by one, as you would open the ports on your firewall)
The firewall provides defense in depth. Yes, if nothing else goes wrong, the Firewall is unnecessary. On the other hand, if something else does go wrong, the firewall become another obstacle for the attacker.
Not something relatives or acquaintances brag about I suppose.
What are the odds of this happening if I know 400 people and zero out of 35%? Must be at least 6-sigma!
The fact that you know 400 people's finances intimately (possibly even better than them since many people don't know everything on their credit report) is far more impressive than you not knowing anyone who has a debt in collections.
Not saying what you say is false, just impressive.
The 6,400% ROI is in the past and is not an indicator of worthiness of investing in Amazon today.
If you bought AMZN back in 1998, you'd have a greater than 6400% profit now.
Only if you sold the stock now.
I can fix any current Mac OS. Just go into the apps folder (flower-shift-a is the shortcut), then into utilities, then run shell application. Enlarge the window to full screen. Bingo, you're in a bash shell where you can talk to a proper unixy command line interface.
Or command-space then type "terminal" and hit enter for faster bash access.
Your snide comment aside: what they discovered is a desire to test the market for circa five dollar legitimate copies of good games with tested and updated DOSBox and/or Wine configurations so that users do not have to Google, tweak and retweak things to get a game to run only to find out three-quarters of the way through the game that it crashes.
I would much rather pay a reasonable amount for that rather than spend my gaming time tinkering; that's good value for me. If I liked tinkering, I wouldn't be their target market though and I might be making snide comments on Slashdot with my time.
If you are tracking a company's performance by its stock price it's kind of laughable
I agree, but the poster to which I replied was bragging about how MSFT is doing so well and his stock portfolio is being counted by him and he is enjoying life. I merely pointed out that MSFT did not even perform better than the index.
Hmmm...they are doing just fine and getting stronger. How can that be - according to this message board Linux rules and is taking over the world! Seems to fly in the face of the SD worldview. Keep dreaming...I'm counting my returns in stock portfolio and enjoying life. Curious how many of you zealots will admit how wrong you are.
They had not in the prior ten years gotten stronger than the S&P 500. If ten years ago you had invested in an index fund tracking the S&P 500, your return to today would be 77% instead of the 57% you would have received by investing in MSFT. Many other companies out-performed the S&P 500 in the same ten-year period.
The subject of a film has little to do with quality. I've seen some spectacular films about boring subjects and completely unwatchable rubbish about stunningly interesting topics.
Interesting how taste works, eh? One man's rubbish is another man's tour de force.
I do, and it has more than 120,000 titles for rent. They also rent equipment if you need it to watch some of the formats less popular in the United States or have a region-locked device. Blockbuster closed because their market share was gobbled up by alternatives. There is not yet a viable alternative to Scarecrow but I don't think they are doing as well as they used to.
Of course everyone should evaluate their value, but not long ago $8 for two movies a month was a very good deal where people were willing to pay that and pay for gas and drive and stand in line and browse a cacophonous store. Today $8 for two movies a month is seen as a bad deal.
That's all I was saying. I wouldn't pay $8 for two movies a month because their selection is limited, but I would if they had movies I liked.
I bet 'Troll Hunter' is a better movie then any of those foreign art films.
You can watch a good B movie _and_ read subtitles.
Obviously film enjoyment is a subjective matter. Claiming one film is better than all other films in a very wide net is a pretty tall order though. On the other hand comparing one film against an entire other genre is probably making a bigger claim about your preference of an entire genre than the one film. I'm unsure whether to check out Troll Hunter now.
Yes, enlightenment is preferable, I was following Lab Rat Jason's prayer format for I am a neophyte prayer.
Well, then I'm out of competitors! I still rather go to the local video store, which happens to have even more selection than Netflix or Greencine, but they don't deliver.
OMG, people want to get paid for their work
Yes, they do. They should be paid for their work. There's a market opportunity to stream quality films to people for reasonable rates that's untapped. Having a service that solely catered to that market probably wouldn't support itself due to infrastructure costs but it's an area where on of the existing companies could expand and increase their market share. I wish they would.
You should pray every night that god will smite the rights-holders, for they are the cause of people preferring physical discs. They hug their discs because they have a film that's worth watching on it that's not available for streaming because the rights-holders fear that if they allow streaming then it might be ripped and hosted up on the Pirate Bay and by not offering streaming they are remaining safe in their rights.
For mail-delivered DVDs that would be greencine.com, which has a much larger selection (or did back when I watched a lot of films).
There were probably 20-30 movies at this year's Seattle International Film Festival I could see myself watching over the year. Trouble is, they're not available at Netflix, or Hulu. There's plenty out there worth watching but most media companies cater to the lowest-common-denominator customer.
I get one, or at most two, movies from Netflix every month. It's really not a good deal for me. One of these days I'm going to drop it entirely. I don't have any problem with the service (with or without Saturday turnaround), I just don't watch enough movies to justify it.
It's $8 a month for those two movies. That's $4 a movie. How much did blockbuster charge? How much more time was it to go to blockbuster and back home? It seems we keep wanting more and more for our dollar. Most of the time we get it, but then later when we fall a little short of more and more we're annoyed. Goes to show that you give someone a much better value and they adapt and take it for granted, then reduce their value by a little bit and it's the sky falling. (That last comment was more about the OP, not you specifically--it was your invocation of 2 movies a month being a bad deal that got me to comment in the first place.)
He does not have it, because it has been misplaced. If I misplaced my keys, then I would not have them.
That's true of keys, but misplacing optimism is placing it in a faulty idea rather than not having it altogether.
Can we force search engines to remember us? Some of us don't want to be forgotten.
Yes! Do something notable. Most notable people are still findable on the internets, even hundreds of years later.
I share your hope but not your optimism.
Your optimism is misplaced.
He implied he did not have optimism. Not sure how one misplaces what one does not have.
The book is genuinely DRM free.
So is there a conclusive way on the Amazon website to tell before making a purchase that a file is not DRM protected? From what I've read of the mobi documentation there is a new DRM scheme that requires client-side account verification which does not use device ids encoded in the file by the server, which would imply "unlimited" devices permitted but the book would still be tied to an account. Does Amazon notate the distinction somehow?