You can get a free "personal" SSL cert from StartCom... And their root cert is included in Firefox, so no scary dialogs there.. Unfortunately, it's not in IE yet, though...
Something tells me that if I did the same thing with a billboard - charging customers for me to go out and paste their adverts over the top of paid for adverts at night - Clear Channel would quite quickly be attempting to sue me. What an awesome idea. I'm going to develop glasses and windshields that identify billboards and replace them with ads chosen by the car and glasses manufacturers.. I'll make millions!
The game is released on 4 platforms not 3. I suppose your unlock key will work on the 3 PC platforms (Mac, Linux, Windows), but not on Xbox360? True.. I realized that, but had already submitted my comment. I'll have to contact this guy and have him teach me how to edit...:)
That's a very narrow definition of anti-malware, but even so I think the point is that if MS is allowed to double-dip like that, where's their motivation to produce a stand-alone secure product? Where was their motivation prior to OneCare being around? Whether they're in the anti-malware market or not, I'm not sure they've had such a great track record for security to begin with...
I do have to give them some kudos on the monthly scanner they provide via windowsupdate, though.. Of course, I have no idea what it does, as I don't think I've ever seen it run. But then again, my system is clean, so I don't get much in the way of anti-virus alerts either.. I read somewhere they are considering selling a super-basic windows system which allows the customer to purchase more advanced capabilities through modular add-ons. Purpose-built modules for media center, advanced networking, etc. Something like what Apple does with QT and iLife, I suppose. Except with Apple you never get charged extra for security. Interesting.. I hadn't heard that particular rumor.. Though, I guess it shouldn't surprise me.. They seem to be stripping more and more off the home versions..
Does this mean the stripped down home version will still be like $200 and the ultimate version will end up being in the thousands?
The game had a simultaneous online release for: PC, Mac, Linux, and Xbox 360. Not only that, they also support using the same unlock key on all three platforms, for the same person. THAT is just awesome..
Anti-malware from the same company that created the OS? That would certainly be charging for security updates. I can't see how that wouldn't be a conflict of interest. Anti-Malware is a prevention mechanism, not a fix. A fix would be a direct patch to the OS itself, preventing the problem from occurring to begin with. Then again with all the talk about subscription and per use and modulear development models, maybe they plan to sell one or more future versions of Windows modularly. But how can they even promote the idea of selling extra security with a straight face after all the hype they spewed for years about Vista? Well, it is entertaining at least to watch them (and some of their apologists) sink further into blithering irrationality. How would you sell Windows in a modular manner? You mean de-couple the software from the kernel, leaving just a raw kernel as the OS itself and sell other stuff (IE, Solitare, GUI, etc) as add-ons?
MS should indeed be required to provide any such implementation as part of the sale of the OS. Imagine the uproar if Apple started charging for OS X security fixes, or if Linus decided to put a proprietary license on some security patches and charge for them. Well, I'm certainly confused.. Microsoft is charging for security fixes?
The unfortunate truth of the matter is that this is an operating system, and as such, it is incredibly complex. Any OS is going to have flaws. Granted, there seem to be more of them in the case of Windows. I do, however, think that the majority of the problems with security in Windows stem from the insane coupling of applications Microsoft tends to do.
Regardless, while I believe that all vendors should be responsible for their code, and provide security updates for free, there is a limitation there. First and foremost, there is almost no way to deliver a 100% secure solution, so there will likely be the need to patch the OS at some point. Anti-virus programs help to prevent those weaknesses from being exploited during the period where no patch exists, so they will probably be around forever.
Second, software tends to get outdated pretty quickly, and vendors don't want to support it indefinitely. So, there has to be some sort of expiration date associated with the software. If you use it beyond the expiration date, security is your own problem.
Someone hasn't played any of the Kingdom Hearts series... While Kingdom Hearts had Disney characters in it, I'm not sure I'd call it a Disney game, per se.. I'd probably label it more of a Square Enix game with Disney licensing..
Come on now.. As if producing a patch to remove the DRM on their games would be at the forefront of their minds while they watch their company dwindle to nothing...
All you young kids want these days is a faster, more convenient fsck.. What about the old days where fscking was about the technique, not the speed or the size...
How many critical security bugs has Dell fixed lately? How is it that this comment is 5 minutes old and there's no witty response? Geez.. I thought this one was really open to abuse..:)
Do you have any research (i.e. real numbers) that would support this claim? I doubt it, since in order to know this, you would need to know how much the ISP pays for bandwidth, which tends to be a complex and closely guarded secret. I have worked for several ISPs, and still do. But I don't see what the cost for bandwidth has to do with this. If 5% of the users on a network are the "bandwidth hogs," and the ISP moves to a pay per meg model, then it stands to reason that the "hogs" will begin to use less bandwidth, or move to a friendlier environment. Either way, that's money that the ISP will no longer receive.
Granted, the ISP would probably do all sorts of complex calculations to be relatively sure that they will maintain or exceed current revenue expectations, but in the end, I definitely see users surfing less if they have to pay more for it. Look at the gas market. Gas prices are skyrocketing. I know for a fact that most of the people I work with and live around are driving less and less.
And, for what it's worth, bandwidth pricing isn't much of a secret. Sure, some larger companies can get lower pricing on larger pipes, but that's the whole point of bulk purchasing.
That's different though. The cable company pays essentially the same amount no matter how many channels you have. The internet they can actually save (by delaying capitol improvements) if they lose the bandwidth hogs. if they can lose the 5% of people using 20 times average (or whatever the math is) and charge the remaining people 30% less it could be more profitable.
I don't know the numbers of course, and the distribution of usage may be to even to allow kicking a few percent of users to have such a dramatic impact, but it would not surprise me if it were so. Yes, I completely agree. In a perfect world. However, we don't live in a perfect world.
So, in essence, what happens is that the ISP gains $1 million in revenue every year for ten years. They decide to move to a pay for play model. That year, the revenue drops to $750,000. Well, they have to make up that loss.. It doesn't look good in the eyes of the shareholders. So, they raise prices. And, of course, they switched to this model, resulting in an increase in capital spending, and they have to make it look like it was worth, it, so the prices increase for that as well. So, in year two of the change, they make $1.25 million. Unfortunately, the end result is that the subscriber ends up paying more for less.
In short, negative change is "bad"... Most people will resist it with everything they have. Car analogy time! It's like being able to zip around in that expensive Ferrari for years, and then suddenly it turns into a Yugo.
I personally think internet services are too important to be left to the market, and should be provided by government free of restriction to all people, just like other essential services. Exactly what "essential" services are you talking about here? I find my phone to be essential. The phone company sets the price on that. I find my car to be essential. Gas prices are set by the oil companies, labor by the car shop I go to, and the car itself by the car manufacturer. All pricing by the market. And don't even get me started on medical care, that's just a complete cluster.
Pay per use just disinclines people to expose themselves to culture and knowledge that they might have investigated out of curiosity but will not pay for sight unseen. This hurts society in profound ways.
The entire "pay per use" mechanism needs to go away forever. We're never going to move from a rationed society to a society of plenty while this meme holds. While I can see your point about not exposing yourself to culture because you have to pay for it, I don't agree that pay per use will ever go away. My phone costs me, per use. My car costs me, per use. Hell, even feeding myself is basically a per-use style cost. There are reasons for it to exist, and areas where it does not fit well. Personally, unless the entire ISP market gets together and "forces" the end-user into a per-use contract (not likely to happen, even without govt intervention), then I don't see it gaining much market share unless it's truly "fair" to the end-user.
If you're getting charged because you're using more, you're exactly the kind of person that is overusing current resources. Switch ISPs, go to a hosting company, or find another way. You're making the experience less for the rest of us that only moderately use our connection and raising our rates. The low-use users are subsidizing you. Overusing resources? Wait a minute here.. Last time I checked, Verizon is selling me a DSL connection capable of 3 Mbps down, 1 Mbps up. They advertise it as such, and I am billed for this service. Am I not allowed to use the service I'm paying for? Should I only be using 1 Mbps down and maybe 100 Kbps up? Or, perhaps I should only be using it in bursts, 3-5 seconds per burst with a suitable wait interval in between. Kind of how the typical web browser works.
Unfortunately, I can't seem to come up with a good car analogy for this.. Hrm..
At any rate, my point is this. If you're going to advertise the connection as 3 Mbps, or 10 Mbps, or even "Up to" XX Mbps, then I should be allowed to use it. I am, after all, paying for it.
That said, let's look at the pay for play model. Once upon a time, the industry decides to move to a pay for play model. So, the masses move to this new model and continue using the Internet as they always have. The "normal" users are happy to see their $60-70 per month bill drop to $45-50. The "barely use it" crew drops down to $20 per month, the base fee that covers the first few gigs of transfer per month. And then there's the hard-core crowd. The jump from $60-70 per month to well over $100 a month. And, after realizing it's costing them an arm and a leg, they either find a new provider, or curb their habits.
The problem is, the ISP suddenly realizes, to their horror, that profits have gone down! Well then, time to increase the rates we charge customers. And over the course of the next few months, or even the next year or two, the normal crowd returns to $60-70 per month and the hardcore crowd gets totally screwed and starts to diminish. The only ones really saving here are the "barely use it" crowd that really doesn't need the connection in the first place. And, the normal users end up getting royally shafted when they suddenly get infected, or have to download SP12 for Vista..
So be careful what you ask for. Per-bps payments are great... For the ISP.
It's not impossible after they invent silent, invisible, opt-in, informative advertising. From there we can talk to Satan about putting a day spa in Hell. Are you sure it doesn't have one already? I mean, I was able to find and marry a beautiful woman, as well as help to produce two wonderful children (with that same woman). If hell hasn't frozen over by now, well, then it just doesn't exist.
It's both. When you're lookin' at it it's a particle, when you're not it's a wave. Is this just too hard for you to accept? Does that means it's like those annoying characters that wave at you behind your back?
Slashdot Mirror
Wow.. Utter shock at a slashdot reader having not only a wife, but, presumably, having reproduced...
Wow.. Offtopic I could have handled, maybe even flamebait.. but troll?
:)
Ah well.. Hopefully someone out there found it amusing..
Lesson learned. Next big bang, use protection.
You can get a free "personal" SSL cert from StartCom... And their root cert is included in Firefox, so no scary dialogs there.. Unfortunately, it's not in IE yet, though...
I do have to give them some kudos on the monthly scanner they provide via windowsupdate, though.. Of course, I have no idea what it does, as I don't think I've ever seen it run. But then again, my system is clean, so I don't get much in the way of anti-virus alerts either.. I read somewhere they are considering selling a super-basic windows system which allows the customer to purchase more advanced capabilities through modular add-ons. Purpose-built modules for media center, advanced networking, etc. Something like what Apple does with QT and iLife, I suppose. Except with Apple you never get charged extra for security. Interesting.. I hadn't heard that particular rumor.. Though, I guess it shouldn't surprise me.. They seem to be stripping more and more off the home versions..
Does this mean the stripped down home version will still be like $200 and the ultimate version will end up being in the thousands?
I, for one, welcome our new steampunk, FruitFucker overlords
The unfortunate truth of the matter is that this is an operating system, and as such, it is incredibly complex. Any OS is going to have flaws. Granted, there seem to be more of them in the case of Windows. I do, however, think that the majority of the problems with security in Windows stem from the insane coupling of applications Microsoft tends to do.
Regardless, while I believe that all vendors should be responsible for their code, and provide security updates for free, there is a limitation there. First and foremost, there is almost no way to deliver a 100% secure solution, so there will likely be the need to patch the OS at some point. Anti-virus programs help to prevent those weaknesses from being exploited during the period where no patch exists, so they will probably be around forever.
Second, software tends to get outdated pretty quickly, and vendors don't want to support it indefinitely. So, there has to be some sort of expiration date associated with the software. If you use it beyond the expiration date, security is your own problem.
Come on now.. As if producing a patch to remove the DRM on their games would be at the forefront of their minds while they watch their company dwindle to nothing...
All you young kids want these days is a faster, more convenient fsck.. What about the old days where fscking was about the technique, not the speed or the size...
Granted, the ISP would probably do all sorts of complex calculations to be relatively sure that they will maintain or exceed current revenue expectations, but in the end, I definitely see users surfing less if they have to pay more for it. Look at the gas market. Gas prices are skyrocketing. I know for a fact that most of the people I work with and live around are driving less and less.
And, for what it's worth, bandwidth pricing isn't much of a secret. Sure, some larger companies can get lower pricing on larger pipes, but that's the whole point of bulk purchasing.
I don't know the numbers of course, and the distribution of usage may be to even to allow kicking a few percent of users to have such a dramatic impact, but it would not surprise me if it were so. Yes, I completely agree. In a perfect world. However, we don't live in a perfect world.
So, in essence, what happens is that the ISP gains $1 million in revenue every year for ten years. They decide to move to a pay for play model. That year, the revenue drops to $750,000. Well, they have to make up that loss.. It doesn't look good in the eyes of the shareholders. So, they raise prices. And, of course, they switched to this model, resulting in an increase in capital spending, and they have to make it look like it was worth, it, so the prices increase for that as well. So, in year two of the change, they make $1.25 million. Unfortunately, the end result is that the subscriber ends up paying more for less.
In short, negative change is "bad"
See? More proof that there is no God.
The entire "pay per use" mechanism needs to go away forever. We're never going to move from a rationed society to a society of plenty while this meme holds. While I can see your point about not exposing yourself to culture because you have to pay for it, I don't agree that pay per use will ever go away. My phone costs me, per use. My car costs me, per use. Hell, even feeding myself is basically a per-use style cost. There are reasons for it to exist, and areas where it does not fit well. Personally, unless the entire ISP market gets together and "forces" the end-user into a per-use contract (not likely to happen, even without govt intervention), then I don't see it gaining much market share unless it's truly "fair" to the end-user.
Unfortunately, I can't seem to come up with a good car analogy for this.. Hrm..
At any rate, my point is this. If you're going to advertise the connection as 3 Mbps, or 10 Mbps, or even "Up to" XX Mbps, then I should be allowed to use it. I am, after all, paying for it.
That said, let's look at the pay for play model. Once upon a time, the industry decides to move to a pay for play model. So, the masses move to this new model and continue using the Internet as they always have. The "normal" users are happy to see their $60-70 per month bill drop to $45-50. The "barely use it" crew drops down to $20 per month, the base fee that covers the first few gigs of transfer per month. And then there's the hard-core crowd. The jump from $60-70 per month to well over $100 a month. And, after realizing it's costing them an arm and a leg, they either find a new provider, or curb their habits.
The problem is, the ISP suddenly realizes, to their horror, that profits have gone down! Well then, time to increase the rates we charge customers. And over the course of the next few months, or even the next year or two, the normal crowd returns to $60-70 per month and the hardcore crowd gets totally screwed and starts to diminish. The only ones really saving here are the "barely use it" crowd that really doesn't need the connection in the first place. And, the normal users end up getting royally shafted when they suddenly get infected, or have to download SP12 for Vista..
So be careful what you ask for. Per-bps payments are great... For the ISP.