This is more of a curiosity than any sort of danger. Most of us, when we get a new mp3 file, give it a listen to make sure it's not mislabeled, doesn't cut off in the middle of the song, and sounds okay. We throw out or fix the ones that aren't up to our standards. So the number of people who would let one of these dangerous mp3s just sit there and be scanned is probably pretty small. And as is usually the case when something like this is discovered, they probably deserve what they get for being such idiots.
I don't think so. I know people who download a lot of stuff, and if you have it set up to download 100 MP3s overnight, your system could be compromised by morning. Are you going to listen to those 100 MP3s first thing in the morning?
The kicker is that the odds you get compromised go up greatly if someone seeds Kazaa, or even a web page, with an infected MP3 file. They can see who is downloading it so they know the IP to attack. On a web page, they could get your IP out of the logs. I never thought an MP3 file would leave a system vulnerable, but I guess that is why this is a pretty scary vulnerability - nobody else would either.
I have to say that I was impressed with T2, because they took the story in a new direction. They made an even cooler terminator, innovative effects, and did the ol' switcheroo making Arnold the good guy. It was good, and a worthy sequel.
I know I have just seen a trailer, but it seems like a bandwagon flick. Nothing innovative from what I can see - sorry, making the terminator a chick is just a lame gimmick. This might be a "wait for the rental".
I gotta say though, hearing that booming theme "Duh Duh Dum Da Dum" still sends chills down my spine.
Here are the top responses from the first time this was posted, to save you from having to go check...
While the Sony's have lived in the modern world for awhile, and have gotten it, as well as being on both sides of it, Matsuhita electric is perhaps the most traditional and conservitive of Japanese companies. I have known these people (Matsushita) for much of my life, from some of their board members down. This is an organization so steeped in it's own traditions and dogma (yes, they really do have a "250 year" business plan, and never make fun of the founders light bulb socket:), with engineering departments so conservitivily organized, that for them to support open development of GPL software is really much like the Pope encouraging contraction!
It makes good business sense to use GPL-ed software when you want to devise a new product.
1. Low cost or no cost.
2. If you give geeks a chance to play with it, they can start to tell regular people how it works, why they should get it, etc.
3. Since most "regular" people don't care or don't want to know why it works the way it does, if the people who care why it works (geeks), show others that it just works, others will be inclined to buy that product.
The moral: Most people will buy something if it simply works. Sony and Panasonic are letting us make sure it works before they mass- release.
I'm already cringing at what I *know* is going to happen. They're going to release some stuff - exactly what they're obligated to - under the GPL. But other stuff - say DRM - will certainly NOT be under the GPL. Then there's going to be such a hoopla and whining in forums such as this one even though these companies have done exactly what they're obligated to. "They should give back to the community", etc, ad nauseum, and some people will be wondering why, if the open/free software implies some sort of larger obligation to a community, why these weren't written into the licenses.
I got so carried away with my own rhetoric that I neglected to tie it in to home electronics so here goes:
Thirty years ago anyone who understood electronics theory and vacuum tubes could fix any home electronic device. Simply understanding how electronic circuits worked meant that a tech could move from one device to another. And manufacturers didn't have to design a new theory for each device, they just wired up the vacuum tubes in new ways which were still understandable. All a tech had to do was look at the schematic diagram, apply a few standard tools (oscilloscope, VTVM, signal injector, etc.) and he (or she) could make it work.
So if Sony uses Linux in its latest widget and you understand Linux, you'll understand how your widget works and how to get the most out of your widget. Plus, since Sony didn't have to design a brand new widget-operating-system, you will either be able to buy it cheaper than the Samsung widget or it will do more... or both. And if your widget breaks you won't have to buy a new one, you can just flash the bios and make it just like new.
So putting widely known operating systems into devices saves money for both the manufacturer and the consumer. This makes us all happier and a few of us wealthier. If you learn Linux, and Linux is the OS they put in all these devices, you have a better chance of joining that few.:)
I don't. I care about whether it is open. Do it use free, open standards, protocols, etc.? That's what is important. What I'm talking about is http://sincerechoice.org/ [sincerechoice.org].
Who can companies trust if they're afraid that this kind of thing can happen?
Who can you trust?
Microsoft. Trustworthy computing.
At Microsoft, we make operating systems that administer themselves, so you don't have to hire those untrustworthy and expensive system administrators. Nearly any high-school graduate, or poo-flinging monkey, with the proper brainwa^H^H^H^H^H^H^H training can become a Microsoft-Only Operations Certified Omnipotent Worker. Get your own MOOCOW today, and let us handle your security problems. You shouldn't have to worry about these computer dealies - that's our job.
Nor does it mean the DMCA cannot be used in future cases. Essentially they could not provide that Elcomsoft willfully violated copyright, which is necessary in criminal copyright violation cases. This is not a "huge legal win" by any stretch of the word.
It may not be huge, but consider the alternative - if it was the opposite verdict, it would have greatly strengthened the DMCA's power. Not necessarily the legal power, but the power of intimidation. Will it be used as intimidation again? Most certainly. Are we better off that Elcomsoft was found not guilty? Most certainly. I think this verdict is more of a huge sigh of relief instead of a huge win.
I am a little confused here, if you know the story is a duplicate story, why post it? Why not pull it? People make mistakes, which is fine, but why not correct them? Not trying to tell you how to run the site, just a suggestion...
I got into collecting arcade games for a few years, but eventually whittled away at my collection. I have a Galaga cabaret that I can't bring myself to sell. The game that got me into arcade collecting was a cutesy game. Although this article is about Nintendo and console games, if you look back on the classic arcade games, many of them are simple yet addictive! The game that got me into collecting was Bubble Bobble.
What could be more cute than a pair of big-eyed dragons trapping their enemies in bubbles, and popping them to collect a multitude of prizes (french fries, candy canes, potions). The secret to Bubble Bobble was that it was single or team play, there were 100 levels, and it was chock full of easter eggs. The game was full of them. It is a game that I can still play for hours to this day. I can still fire up the SNES and play Mario World. Galaga will always be fun. I enjoy PC games like Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six, but I don't play them much after I have gotten all the way through them. But I still play Quake Team Fortress. I have created my own maps, can play online with people across the planet, and the gameplay is pretty dynamic. Sure, it is gory, but the gameplay and variety of TF is what has kept it alive this long.
I don't consider myself a gamer in the least. But IMO someone who derides the brains of Nintendo is a short-sighted fool who would probably give their left arm for 1/10th of the talent of Miyamoto.
I hate to say it, but i had DSL installed 2 months ago and had continual headaches with it.... between loosing connectivity due to crappy PPOE software, inability to host web services on the line for the same reason, pain in the ass phone filters all over my house and other various odities i became frustrated.
Now add to that the fact that Cable is Faster and works invisibly to my machine (DHCP) gives me an accesable IP and has no additional hardware (phone filters) yada yada yada.... Why WOULD i want DSL...
I guess there are good and bad experiences with both. I have had Earthlink DSL for about a year, and only had one instance of downtime for about 6 hours (power cycling the modem cured it). I use an old Pentium machine as my firewall and it runs pppoe with a dynamic IP (all under Linux). I have a domain registered with dyndns, and it works like a charm in updating when my IP changes (rarely). The phone filters are unobtrusive. I get great download speeds, can (unofficially) host a web/game server, and haven't had to call tech support once. I was leery of getting DSL because of the horror stories I had heard, but when I signed up, my line was active in 2 days, I had to wait 10 days to get the modem!
I am moving within the next few months, and only hope that where I move is capable of DSL. It is my first choice, but if I can't get it cable will be my second. I had better be able to get one or the other, or I will be pissed. Have a high-speed always-on connection has spoiled me.
Sorry Anonymous troll, you aren't going to get me to divulge any personal info just to prove that I don't live oniline. Nice try though, but the term "get a life" was pretty played out 5 years ago, and it isn't old enough to be cool again. You'll have to live vicariously through someone else.
Different people like different things. Maybe you're just so jaded (for whatever reason) that you refuse to let yourself like such lowly entertainment. I say too bad to you. If you expect every book to be Great Expectations and every movie to be Casa Blanca (sp?), you're gonna be disappointed. Besides, an occasional mindless diversion never hurt anybody.
Actually, I love lowly entertainment. What I absolutely hate is the way things are marketed and sold (at least here in the US). I wish people would wake up and make up their own minds, instead of just believing what the marketing people want them to believe. I think things like movies, music, etc (entertainment) should stand on their own merit. Too many times, they don't. It is either a huge marketing "buzz", or loyal devoted fans who drive something.
I hate seeing commercials for movies where there are all these quotes from paid endorsers, trying to push it as "the best XXXXX movie of the year". Now I didn't see Scooby Doo, but I think it is safe to say that it was a badddd movie. Yet, I hear it being referred to as a "blockbuster hit". Everything is a "hit" nowadays. What the hell is going on?
OK, so I didn't get the troll in the original comments (sue me), but what was said in it was certainly believable. There are people who feel that way. The guy gives an honest review of the movie, and gets slammed as a non-fan.
I don't mean to insult people for their opinions on things, if you REALLY thought Attack of the Clones was a good movie, I don't care. (in my head I will think you are a fool, but I wouldn't say that.) But when people jump from bandwagon to bandwagon, simply because they cannot think for themselves, because they are suckered into all the marketing and hype, it pisses me off. And I don't know why. But it does. The people who don't have a genuine opinion stand out when you try to discuss anything with them. They usually get very defensive and pissy, without being able to back up their opinion. I like discussing things, like movies and music, and I can have heated discussions about things without getting upset. People who blindly follow something can't seem to do that, they can't "turn off" their devotion and objectively look at what they are devoted to. I think that applies to a lot of people in a lot of different scenarios - from movies, to music, to religion, to Operating Systems.
To illustrate my point, why do people line up for hours, if not days, to see a movie on opening night? I honestly do not understand it. Why do people go see a movie 10 or 12 times in the theater? I find it hard to believe that they are seriously that moved by mere entertainment. I simply don't understand it, and nobody I know has been able to explain it to me. I am really looking forward to the new X-Men movie, and the Matrix Reloaded, but I am not about to take off work and go camp outside a theater to see it on opening night. I am a huge Simpsons fan, but I would never go to a Simpsons convention.
Maybe it is just me, I don't know. I feel like it is. I feel like I am so inundated with advertisements that if I don't fall in line I will be shunned by the cool populace who has seen the light. If I don't latch onto what is popular, I will be missing out on the best life has to offer. What sucks is when something is genuine, and it gets all twisted and popular. I honestly fear this will happen to Linux. It happened to geekdom. It happened to Star Wars. It probably happened to Star Trek (I don't know, I have never seen a ST movie, and am not a fan). It seems to happen to everything. Yeah, you were right, I am jaded. I think I became that way when my eyes were opened. Now I can't close them.
I feel I should mention that no one MADE them accept a religious doctrine.
So answer me this - there are plenty of people in the world. Why didn't these Christian missionaries travel to more populous countries, where their message could be heard by so many more "poor souls"? Why not talk to Muslims, Hindus, etc and save them? Because they aren't suckers, that's why.
These missionaries are not there to save or help anyone, they are only there to convert people because they have been told by their religion that is what they should be doing. Christians are the oldest form of self-propagating virus. "You can only get to Heaven if you are saved. The only way to be saved is to convince others that they need to accept the Lord Jesus Christ into their hearts." That is why they prey on people who haven't heard the message before, who are gullible to their fancy magical doo-dads. Was I there in the 50's, do I know this for a fact? No, but I know the way religious zealots operate, I have seen it over and over and over. I go with what I know.
Also, no one made them accept flip flops, t-shirts, ect. They have survived for hundreds of years without Christianity, flip flops and the Simpsons.
How do you know they didn't make them? I am sure a handgun is a pretty scary thing to someone like them. Or maybe you prefer the image of eternal fire if you don't believe what we tell you to believe. And we believe you should cover your bodies. You'll like these shoes, Jesus wore them! I know you are joking about the Simpsons, but imagine them watching the episode where Homer was the missionary. ("I don't know much about God, but I know we built a pretty good cage for him.")
You are right, they had survived hundreds, if not thousands, of years without Christianity - so why not let them be?
You've been trolled by a cut and paste karma whore! Nitwit.
Nitwit, huh? Well, let's see. Considering what I have read about said comments, that they were posted a few days ago on some other website that *I* must not be cool enough to frequent, I suppose in your mind I am a nitwit. But considering the source of the comment came from some anonymous egomaniac, I think I'll survive the shame. For your own sake I hope someday you wake up and realize that there is something outside of the internet and these little worlds that you think you are a part of.
An interesting read I guess, but I never really got the point of the story except that it was a heck of a challenge to get that piano delivered. I found this part of the story to be particularly sad though:
But if any of us had been expecting half-naked, blowpipe-wielding savages, we were disappointed. The American missionaries who converted the tribe in the 1950s taught them Christian modesty, and they now favour shorts and T-shirts, largely supplied by visitors and aid agencies. The footwear of choice is the plastic flip-flop.
A tribe that small, in that remote of a location, and Christians still feel the need to impose their religion on them. Quite sad.
I feel there are some inherent problems with movie criticism. The problem is that most people who review things are the very people who seem to have the most hang ups about that thing. This makes their reviews worthless to the rest of us who simply enjoy watching movies or reading books. So Mr. Moviereviewerman, you think Nemesis had a "derivative, punch-the-keyboard plot." You think it was "crude, but occasionally laugh-out-loud funny, merely for its sheer ridiculousness." You think that a movie like Nemesis is just too far below your standards. Well I bet you twenty bucks you have a painting in your house that you bought because it matched your couch, how pedestrian.
Wow, are you in denial! You sound like one of those "fans" who think just because something has been branded with a franchise name, it can do no wrong.
You probably still defend Star Wars Episode I and II as "pretty good movies" when they were simply AWFUL. The most recent Austin Powers movie was sad and simply un-funny, although I am sure die-hard fans will say they liked it.
I don't get the devotion to things like this. I guess if people live through lives and events that are not their own, they get offended and embarassed when those things turn out to be disappointing.
Yes, they are only movies - but why can't everyone see that? Why cling to the illusion that something is better than it really was, simply because you hope and wish it to be so? Jeez, if you don't care what a reviewer says, and are going to go see a movie anyway, then why take so much stock in the reviewer? In my opinion, reviewers are sometimes nicer than they should be, instead of what you suggest. Every review of AoTC gave some praise to it, but I just didn't see it. I would put it up there with some of the most overhyped movies of all time (including Episode I). Stop clinging to your illusions and come back to reality. Why the hostility towards a reviewer when you haven't even seen the movie yet yourself? All you have on your side of the argument is that the person must have a hang up about Star Trek? Physician, heal thyself.
I imagine there are lots of exciting things going on IN THE MIDDLE OF A FREAKING FOREST that would make these guys 'blogs really intresting.
As opposed to what? All of the really exciting stuff going on in your parent's basement? Since when have weblogs been interesting? Quite hypocritical for someone who probably plays games all day to rip on someone who is trying to help save the environment.
If you read the EULA, every Microsoft product comes with 'downgrade rights'. If you buy a copy of WinXP Pro, you can delete it and install Win2k Pro, or NT4 Workstation legally.
But are you able to get a refund on XP in this situation?
I don't wan't to sound un/.y, but is it really fair to expect a refund for the OS when you buy a computer package? When you buy a computer from some manufacturer you don't come back with just your graphic card and demand a refund because you don't like it. Or when you buy a car, you don't return the rearbumper just because you don't like the brand of it (no auto makers don't make every part themself.) You can't demand a refund for the nVidia GPU on the Gainward card because you want an ATI chip on it. It's a package deal. You bough a package, knowing what's in it and if you're going to get a refund you'll need to return the whole package, except if it's broken. If you don't like the parts in a package you've baught you replace them yourself. You knew exactly what you were getting.
The difference is that a graphics card doesn't come with an EULA that says you can return it for a refund if you don't agree to the ludacrisp (heh) terms.
What many people assume is that you want to install Linux on a laptop. What if I own a copy of Win2k, and don't want XP? I should be able to return XP and install my own copy of Win2k. It isn't all about Linux.
And part of what ticks people off is that they PAY for an OS that they are being forced to purchase. Microsoft has made sure that OEMs include a MS OS in the price by charging them whether they sell you one or not. Sure, you can say "then don't buy from them" but as long as the EULA exists and it says you can return it, people should do it. Not only that, you don't even get a full copy of the OS to do with as you please. If they gave you a full version, instead of those insane recovery disks, you could at least sell it or give it away.
I also have DishPVR. It works, it's easy to use, it's built into your receiver already. You've already paid for it and you won't be getting your money back anytime soon, and if anything goes wrong with the DishPVR, you just have to call them up and they'll replace it or fix it. So why bother spending an extra $500 on an open-source option when what you've already got and paid for works just fine?
Umm, because that is what Hacking is all about?
Yeah, why would a "consumer" buy this? They wouldn't. This story isn't about that. I honestly think you are trolling with this question. You might as well ask "Why would I need an operating system other than Windows? It works, everyone uses it, and Microsoft is the largest software company in existence."
It's about hacking, about learning, about tinkering, about not just sitting on your ass and getting spoon-fed everything. No, it isn't for everyone. I can't afford one of these to hack, but I hope some people can and do, if only for the simple sake of doing it. What is the point, you may ask? Well, what is the point of sitting and watching TV? Think about that one...
The unpleasant fact is that Slashbots make a lot of noise about free-as-in-speech but their behavior indicates that free-as-in-beer is all they really care about. If it cost more to port to Linux than can be made by paying customers, then it would only accelerate a company's demise.
So tell me exactly why they needed to have a proprietary format/player in the first place? See, it is music, there is no need to PORT anything. There are verrrrrry widely accepted formats that work regardless of the OS (MP3). So do they release the stuff in a standard format so everyone can enjoy it? No. They monkey-fuck it so it requires their player, their choice of OS, their choice of browser, their choice of Digital Restriction Management.
So in my vocal opinion, they didn't try very hard at launching a usable music download site, they just tried to fuck their customers in a new way. It didn't work, so screw them.
This actually happened at my last job. We were hiring into our QA group, and our apps ran on Solaris back ends with web/client front ends. We needed someone to test the front end with the potential to help us on the Unix side as well.
When we interviewed one guy, he said he knew Unix well. I asked him what his favorite shell was, and he looked at me with a blank stare. Have you ever done any shell programming? Yes, in C. Needless to say, he didn't get the job.
We had to eventually get someone hired, and hope to teach them basic Unix skills later. When asked if he knew Unix, he said he could learn it if we had a manual. From then on, every time we were at a terminal installing/configuring software, he was there with his notepad and pen, writing down every command. (even ls, pwd, etc) He would constantly be asking questions like "ok, so I type ls -l, and that will...?) It was oh so painful. I am all for teaching people, but this guy (who TAUGHT junior college CS classes) could not pick up the basic commands of Unix.
Then one day the server stopped responding. After investigating, we found out he had typed this command: rm -rf/bin
Fair question. I believe that the God of Christianity can be more closely examined than any other god using intellect, critical thinking, and historical evidence. The fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ is poweful in this regard.
Mohammed is dead, Buddha is dead, Confucious is dead, Nietzche is dead:), Charles Russel, Mary Baker Eddy, Joseph Smith - all of the founders of the major world religions are dead - except Jesus Christ who demonstrated His infinite power by being raised from the dead.
OMG. I cannot believe that you just wrote that.This is EXACTLY the reason why "Christian-scientists" are an oxymoron. You can believe in Christianity and science at the same time, but put the two together, and you get statements like this. You can say this is your philosophy, and it doesn't impact the scientific side, but if you REALLY believe what you have written, then there is no way you can be objective about science.
His followers overturned the most powerful government in the world without use of force - but rather by living lives consistent with the teachings of Christ.
ROTFL. Yeah, Christians are non-violent, always. They are above that. Holy crap, do you actually believe that?
This one man's life has had a more profound impact on world culture, philosophy, and governance than any other person's.
Jesus said: "I am the way, the truth and the life."
I can almost believe this, but I think it has less to do with Jesus, and more to do with the organized religions that have spawned around his name, and their pursuit of power. From my experience, Christianity is one of the religions where the practitioners are the least compliant with what the real message of Christ was about. They twist it, bend it, and mold it to whatever they want it to say.
Man, I was kind of with you up to a certain point, but when I read the above paragraphs, my jaw dropped. What you wrote is a shining example of why I believe organized religion to be a poison to truth.
OK, I agree. I don't really care. So why agree to do the interview? I have read that he is the same way on Letterman and other shows. If he doesn't want to be interviewed, then he shouldn't do interviews. Why do them, and answer half-assed?
I don't follow his life, or his career, I hate Star Trek. But *I* could have given better answers to those questions. Why did I read it then? WEll, cause this is/. and I was bored.:-)
I think he is VERY full of himself. People are blind if they think he is just having fun. How fun is it to give yes/no answers? Is it to rile up the unwashed masses? Come on, if he is a regular guy as is claimed, he doesn't care about that. If he wants to keep people from interviewing him in the future, he wouldn't keep agreeing to be interviewed.
I think he is just an incredibly boring person, a washed up "actor" who was in the right place at the right time for an inexplicably popular TV series. To all you people who pretend to "get him", like you are some kind of uber-fan and therefore something special, I suggest you take your idol's own advice.
The fact that scientific endevours are undertaken by fallible humans means that our pride and prejudice can interfere with our pursuit of pure science. It can also interfere with our study and understanding of philosophy or religion.
I work in Software QA, so I am constantly solving problems. When I run into a particularly tough one, I have learned the following: Ask yourself what the root assumption is, and make sure that it is correct. I have found that this is a great tool for solving all kinds of problems, in work and in life.
The root assumption with "Creation" is that there is a thing doing the creating, and doing it with some plan in mind. Those things are unprovable. If you approach science with that in mind, of course a lot of things will fit into place. Evolutionary science is based on a theory as well, but it is a theory based on observation. You are right that it is based on human obversation, and therefore open to error. But I prefer to believe in the observable and the provable.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think so. I know people who download a lot of stuff, and if you have it set up to download 100 MP3s overnight, your system could be compromised by morning. Are you going to listen to those 100 MP3s first thing in the morning?
The kicker is that the odds you get compromised go up greatly if someone seeds Kazaa, or even a web page, with an infected MP3 file. They can see who is downloading it so they know the IP to attack. On a web page, they could get your IP out of the logs. I never thought an MP3 file would leave a system vulnerable, but I guess that is why this is a pretty scary vulnerability - nobody else would either.
I know I have just seen a trailer, but it seems like a bandwagon flick. Nothing innovative from what I can see - sorry, making the terminator a chick is just a lame gimmick. This might be a "wait for the rental".
I gotta say though, hearing that booming theme "Duh Duh Dum Da Dum" still sends chills down my spine.
While the Sony's have lived in the modern world for awhile, and have gotten it, as well as being on both sides of it, Matsuhita electric is perhaps the most traditional and conservitive of Japanese companies. I have known these people (Matsushita) for much of my life, from some of their board members down. This is an organization so steeped in it's own traditions and dogma (yes, they really do have a "250 year" business plan, and never make fun of the founders light bulb socket :), with engineering departments so conservitivily organized, that for them to support open development of GPL software is really much like the Pope encouraging contraction!
It makes good business sense to use GPL-ed software when you want to devise a new product. 1. Low cost or no cost. 2. If you give geeks a chance to play with it, they can start to tell regular people how it works, why they should get it, etc. 3. Since most "regular" people don't care or don't want to know why it works the way it does, if the people who care why it works (geeks), show others that it just works, others will be inclined to buy that product. The moral: Most people will buy something if it simply works. Sony and Panasonic are letting us make sure it works before they mass- release.
I'm already cringing at what I *know* is going to happen. They're going to release some stuff - exactly what they're obligated to - under the GPL. But other stuff - say DRM - will certainly NOT be under the GPL. Then there's going to be such a hoopla and whining in forums such as this one even though these companies have done exactly what they're obligated to. "They should give back to the community", etc, ad nauseum, and some people will be wondering why, if the open/free software implies some sort of larger obligation to a community, why these weren't written into the licenses.
I got so carried away with my own rhetoric that I neglected to tie it in to home electronics so here goes: Thirty years ago anyone who understood electronics theory and vacuum tubes could fix any home electronic device. Simply understanding how electronic circuits worked meant that a tech could move from one device to another. And manufacturers didn't have to design a new theory for each device, they just wired up the vacuum tubes in new ways which were still understandable. All a tech had to do was look at the schematic diagram, apply a few standard tools (oscilloscope, VTVM, signal injector, etc.) and he (or she) could make it work. So if Sony uses Linux in its latest widget and you understand Linux, you'll understand how your widget works and how to get the most out of your widget. Plus, since Sony didn't have to design a brand new widget-operating-system, you will either be able to buy it cheaper than the Samsung widget or it will do more... or both. And if your widget breaks you won't have to buy a new one, you can just flash the bios and make it just like new. So putting widely known operating systems into devices saves money for both the manufacturer and the consumer. This makes us all happier and a few of us wealthier. If you learn Linux, and Linux is the OS they put in all these devices, you have a better chance of joining that few. :)
I don't. I care about whether it is open. Do it use free, open standards, protocols, etc.? That's what is important. What I'm talking about is http://sincerechoice.org/ [sincerechoice.org].
Who can you trust?
Microsoft. Trustworthy computing.
At Microsoft, we make operating systems that administer themselves, so you don't have to hire those untrustworthy and expensive system administrators. Nearly any high-school graduate, or poo-flinging monkey, with the proper brainwa^H^H^H^H^H^H^H training can become a Microsoft-Only Operations Certified Omnipotent Worker. Get your own MOOCOW today, and let us handle your security problems. You shouldn't have to worry about these computer dealies - that's our job.
Microsoft. Trusted Computing since 2002.
It may not be huge, but consider the alternative - if it was the opposite verdict, it would have greatly strengthened the DMCA's power. Not necessarily the legal power, but the power of intimidation. Will it be used as intimidation again? Most certainly. Are we better off that Elcomsoft was found not guilty? Most certainly. I think this verdict is more of a huge sigh of relief instead of a huge win.
What could be more cute than a pair of big-eyed dragons trapping their enemies in bubbles, and popping them to collect a multitude of prizes (french fries, candy canes, potions). The secret to Bubble Bobble was that it was single or team play, there were 100 levels, and it was chock full of easter eggs. The game was full of them. It is a game that I can still play for hours to this day. I can still fire up the SNES and play Mario World. Galaga will always be fun. I enjoy PC games like Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six, but I don't play them much after I have gotten all the way through them. But I still play Quake Team Fortress. I have created my own maps, can play online with people across the planet, and the gameplay is pretty dynamic. Sure, it is gory, but the gameplay and variety of TF is what has kept it alive this long.
I don't consider myself a gamer in the least. But IMO someone who derides the brains of Nintendo is a short-sighted fool who would probably give their left arm for 1/10th of the talent of Miyamoto.
I guess there are good and bad experiences with both. I have had Earthlink DSL for about a year, and only had one instance of downtime for about 6 hours (power cycling the modem cured it). I use an old Pentium machine as my firewall and it runs pppoe with a dynamic IP (all under Linux). I have a domain registered with dyndns, and it works like a charm in updating when my IP changes (rarely). The phone filters are unobtrusive. I get great download speeds, can (unofficially) host a web/game server, and haven't had to call tech support once. I was leery of getting DSL because of the horror stories I had heard, but when I signed up, my line was active in 2 days, I had to wait 10 days to get the modem!
I am moving within the next few months, and only hope that where I move is capable of DSL. It is my first choice, but if I can't get it cable will be my second. I had better be able to get one or the other, or I will be pissed. Have a high-speed always-on connection has spoiled me.
Sorry Anonymous troll, you aren't going to get me to divulge any personal info just to prove that I don't live oniline. Nice try though, but the term "get a life" was pretty played out 5 years ago, and it isn't old enough to be cool again. You'll have to live vicariously through someone else.
Actually, I love lowly entertainment. What I absolutely hate is the way things are marketed and sold (at least here in the US). I wish people would wake up and make up their own minds, instead of just believing what the marketing people want them to believe. I think things like movies, music, etc (entertainment) should stand on their own merit. Too many times, they don't. It is either a huge marketing "buzz", or loyal devoted fans who drive something.
I hate seeing commercials for movies where there are all these quotes from paid endorsers, trying to push it as "the best XXXXX movie of the year". Now I didn't see Scooby Doo, but I think it is safe to say that it was a badddd movie. Yet, I hear it being referred to as a "blockbuster hit". Everything is a "hit" nowadays. What the hell is going on?
OK, so I didn't get the troll in the original comments (sue me), but what was said in it was certainly believable. There are people who feel that way. The guy gives an honest review of the movie, and gets slammed as a non-fan.
I don't mean to insult people for their opinions on things, if you REALLY thought Attack of the Clones was a good movie, I don't care. (in my head I will think you are a fool, but I wouldn't say that.) But when people jump from bandwagon to bandwagon, simply because they cannot think for themselves, because they are suckered into all the marketing and hype, it pisses me off. And I don't know why. But it does. The people who don't have a genuine opinion stand out when you try to discuss anything with them. They usually get very defensive and pissy, without being able to back up their opinion. I like discussing things, like movies and music, and I can have heated discussions about things without getting upset. People who blindly follow something can't seem to do that, they can't "turn off" their devotion and objectively look at what they are devoted to. I think that applies to a lot of people in a lot of different scenarios - from movies, to music, to religion, to Operating Systems.
To illustrate my point, why do people line up for hours, if not days, to see a movie on opening night? I honestly do not understand it. Why do people go see a movie 10 or 12 times in the theater? I find it hard to believe that they are seriously that moved by mere entertainment. I simply don't understand it, and nobody I know has been able to explain it to me. I am really looking forward to the new X-Men movie, and the Matrix Reloaded, but I am not about to take off work and go camp outside a theater to see it on opening night. I am a huge Simpsons fan, but I would never go to a Simpsons convention.
Maybe it is just me, I don't know. I feel like it is. I feel like I am so inundated with advertisements that if I don't fall in line I will be shunned by the cool populace who has seen the light. If I don't latch onto what is popular, I will be missing out on the best life has to offer. What sucks is when something is genuine, and it gets all twisted and popular. I honestly fear this will happen to Linux. It happened to geekdom. It happened to Star Wars. It probably happened to Star Trek (I don't know, I have never seen a ST movie, and am not a fan). It seems to happen to everything. Yeah, you were right, I am jaded. I think I became that way when my eyes were opened. Now I can't close them.
So answer me this - there are plenty of people in the world. Why didn't these Christian missionaries travel to more populous countries, where their message could be heard by so many more "poor souls"? Why not talk to Muslims, Hindus, etc and save them? Because they aren't suckers, that's why.
These missionaries are not there to save or help anyone, they are only there to convert people because they have been told by their religion that is what they should be doing. Christians are the oldest form of self-propagating virus. "You can only get to Heaven if you are saved. The only way to be saved is to convince others that they need to accept the Lord Jesus Christ into their hearts." That is why they prey on people who haven't heard the message before, who are gullible to their fancy magical doo-dads. Was I there in the 50's, do I know this for a fact? No, but I know the way religious zealots operate, I have seen it over and over and over. I go with what I know.
Also, no one made them accept flip flops, t-shirts, ect. They have survived for hundreds of years without Christianity, flip flops and the Simpsons.
How do you know they didn't make them? I am sure a handgun is a pretty scary thing to someone like them. Or maybe you prefer the image of eternal fire if you don't believe what we tell you to believe. And we believe you should cover your bodies. You'll like these shoes, Jesus wore them! I know you are joking about the Simpsons, but imagine them watching the episode where Homer was the missionary. ("I don't know much about God, but I know we built a pretty good cage for him.")
You are right, they had survived hundreds, if not thousands, of years without Christianity - so why not let them be?
Nitwit, huh? Well, let's see. Considering what I have read about said comments, that they were posted a few days ago on some other website that *I* must not be cool enough to frequent, I suppose in your mind I am a nitwit. But considering the source of the comment came from some anonymous egomaniac, I think I'll survive the shame. For your own sake I hope someday you wake up and realize that there is something outside of the internet and these little worlds that you think you are a part of.
But if any of us had been expecting half-naked, blowpipe-wielding savages, we were disappointed. The American missionaries who converted the tribe in the 1950s taught them Christian modesty, and they now favour shorts and T-shirts, largely supplied by visitors and aid agencies. The footwear of choice is the plastic flip-flop.
A tribe that small, in that remote of a location, and Christians still feel the need to impose their religion on them. Quite sad.
Wow, are you in denial! You sound like one of those "fans" who think just because something has been branded with a franchise name, it can do no wrong.
You probably still defend Star Wars Episode I and II as "pretty good movies" when they were simply AWFUL. The most recent Austin Powers movie was sad and simply un-funny, although I am sure die-hard fans will say they liked it.
I don't get the devotion to things like this. I guess if people live through lives and events that are not their own, they get offended and embarassed when those things turn out to be disappointing.
Yes, they are only movies - but why can't everyone see that? Why cling to the illusion that something is better than it really was, simply because you hope and wish it to be so? Jeez, if you don't care what a reviewer says, and are going to go see a movie anyway, then why take so much stock in the reviewer? In my opinion, reviewers are sometimes nicer than they should be, instead of what you suggest. Every review of AoTC gave some praise to it, but I just didn't see it. I would put it up there with some of the most overhyped movies of all time (including Episode I). Stop clinging to your illusions and come back to reality. Why the hostility towards a reviewer when you haven't even seen the movie yet yourself? All you have on your side of the argument is that the person must have a hang up about Star Trek? Physician, heal thyself.
As opposed to what? All of the really exciting stuff going on in your parent's basement? Since when have weblogs been interesting? Quite hypocritical for someone who probably plays games all day to rip on someone who is trying to help save the environment.
I am quite surprised at this, I would have expected better from them. Unless it is Opera's fault.
But are you able to get a refund on XP in this situation?
Oh, wait...
The difference is that a graphics card doesn't come with an EULA that says you can return it for a refund if you don't agree to the ludacrisp (heh) terms.
What many people assume is that you want to install Linux on a laptop. What if I own a copy of Win2k, and don't want XP? I should be able to return XP and install my own copy of Win2k. It isn't all about Linux.
And part of what ticks people off is that they PAY for an OS that they are being forced to purchase. Microsoft has made sure that OEMs include a MS OS in the price by charging them whether they sell you one or not. Sure, you can say "then don't buy from them" but as long as the EULA exists and it says you can return it, people should do it. Not only that, you don't even get a full copy of the OS to do with as you please. If they gave you a full version, instead of those insane recovery disks, you could at least sell it or give it away.
Umm, because that is what Hacking is all about?
Yeah, why would a "consumer" buy this? They wouldn't. This story isn't about that. I honestly think you are trolling with this question. You might as well ask "Why would I need an operating system other than Windows? It works, everyone uses it, and Microsoft is the largest software company in existence."
It's about hacking, about learning, about tinkering, about not just sitting on your ass and getting spoon-fed everything. No, it isn't for everyone. I can't afford one of these to hack, but I hope some people can and do, if only for the simple sake of doing it. What is the point, you may ask? Well, what is the point of sitting and watching TV? Think about that one...
So tell me exactly why they needed to have a proprietary format/player in the first place? See, it is music, there is no need to PORT anything. There are verrrrrry widely accepted formats that work regardless of the OS (MP3). So do they release the stuff in a standard format so everyone can enjoy it? No. They monkey-fuck it so it requires their player, their choice of OS, their choice of browser, their choice of Digital Restriction Management.
So in my vocal opinion, they didn't try very hard at launching a usable music download site, they just tried to fuck their customers in a new way. It didn't work, so screw them.
When we interviewed one guy, he said he knew Unix well. I asked him what his favorite shell was, and he looked at me with a blank stare. Have you ever done any shell programming? Yes, in C. Needless to say, he didn't get the job.
We had to eventually get someone hired, and hope to teach them basic Unix skills later. When asked if he knew Unix, he said he could learn it if we had a manual. From then on, every time we were at a terminal installing/configuring software, he was there with his notepad and pen, writing down every command. (even ls, pwd, etc) He would constantly be asking questions like "ok, so I type ls -l, and that will...?) It was oh so painful. I am all for teaching people, but this guy (who TAUGHT junior college CS classes) could not pick up the basic commands of Unix.
Then one day the server stopped responding. After investigating, we found out he had typed this command: rm -rf /bin
Mohammed is dead, Buddha is dead, Confucious is dead, Nietzche is dead :), Charles Russel, Mary Baker Eddy, Joseph Smith - all of the founders of the major world religions are dead - except Jesus Christ who demonstrated His infinite power by being raised from the dead.
OMG. I cannot believe that you just wrote that.This is EXACTLY the reason why "Christian-scientists" are an oxymoron. You can believe in Christianity and science at the same time, but put the two together, and you get statements like this. You can say this is your philosophy, and it doesn't impact the scientific side, but if you REALLY believe what you have written, then there is no way you can be objective about science.
His followers overturned the most powerful government in the world without use of force - but rather by living lives consistent with the teachings of Christ.
ROTFL. Yeah, Christians are non-violent, always. They are above that. Holy crap, do you actually believe that?
This one man's life has had a more profound impact on world culture, philosophy, and governance than any other person's. Jesus said: "I am the way, the truth and the life."
I can almost believe this, but I think it has less to do with Jesus, and more to do with the organized religions that have spawned around his name, and their pursuit of power. From my experience, Christianity is one of the religions where the practitioners are the least compliant with what the real message of Christ was about. They twist it, bend it, and mold it to whatever they want it to say.
Man, I was kind of with you up to a certain point, but when I read the above paragraphs, my jaw dropped. What you wrote is a shining example of why I believe organized religion to be a poison to truth.
OK, I agree. I don't really care. So why agree to do the interview? I have read that he is the same way on Letterman and other shows. If he doesn't want to be interviewed, then he shouldn't do interviews. Why do them, and answer half-assed?
I don't follow his life, or his career, I hate Star Trek. But *I* could have given better answers to those questions. Why did I read it then? WEll, cause this is
I think he is VERY full of himself. People are blind if they think he is just having fun. How fun is it to give yes/no answers? Is it to rile up the unwashed masses? Come on, if he is a regular guy as is claimed, he doesn't care about that. If he wants to keep people from interviewing him in the future, he wouldn't keep agreeing to be interviewed.
I think he is just an incredibly boring person, a washed up "actor" who was in the right place at the right time for an inexplicably popular TV series. To all you people who pretend to "get him", like you are some kind of uber-fan and therefore something special, I suggest you take your idol's own advice.
I work in Software QA, so I am constantly solving problems. When I run into a particularly tough one, I have learned the following: Ask yourself what the root assumption is, and make sure that it is correct. I have found that this is a great tool for solving all kinds of problems, in work and in life.
The root assumption with "Creation" is that there is a thing doing the creating, and doing it with some plan in mind. Those things are unprovable. If you approach science with that in mind, of course a lot of things will fit into place. Evolutionary science is based on a theory as well, but it is a theory based on observation. You are right that it is based on human obversation, and therefore open to error. But I prefer to believe in the observable and the provable.