So, I was invited to take part in this particular Beta... But after hearing about the draconian EULA and now this, I'm not sure I have any interest... *sigh* I miss the days where I could Beta test something without having to worry about my privacy...
As with most automated technologies it will make some mistakes, but less than a human on average. The friendly fire rate for most militaries is no where near perfect. Err... It's still firing at humans, and needs to be controlled somehow.. there's always the potential for friendly fire, especially so with automated weaponry. How will the weapon identify friend vs foe?
Ok, so you have some sort of identifier badge or something, but what happens if an enemy is mixed in there? How will the weapon identify "safe" firing situations?
It's been copied around several sites today and it is quite late, as of this posting, so it's entirely possible his site was hammered starting today after his post. I see no reason to conjecture it as fraud. I disagree. The actual domain was registered today. The site was put up today. The site shows archives which supposedly date back to February. However, Google searches show no existence of other pages for that site at all. I find that a tad odd.
As far as I'm concerned, the creation date on the domain itself is enough to make me think something's up...
For what it's worth, this story appears to be fake. The story appears to have originated from this site : http://loonov.com/
If you check the whois info on this site, it was created on October 11, 2007, today. Yet the site shows archives going back to February 2007? Archives which are "disabled' because of high traffic..
Next, if you search for both the name of the spammer, Alexey Tolstokozhev, or the site, loonov.com, you only get links pointing back to loonov.com as the originator of the story.
From her comments, I doubt she even installed XP. It probably came preinstalled, and her complaint is with the complexity of installing any OS. I didn't get that feeling from the article. This was at ITxpo, not Joe's Supermarket. I have to imagine that the majority of attendees are computer literate and work in the IT field.
Ballmer's comment was spot-on - the daughter saw value in Vista's widgets - and the mother's response was fallacious and nonsensical ("She's 13" - so what, her opinion means nothing, while her ignorant, incapable mother's should be taken seriously? Children are our future. Teach them well and let them lead the way.) A 13 year old sees the shiny and wants to have it for their own. While they have opinions, and they should be respected, that doesn't necessarily mean they are right.
From TFA, it sounds like mom installed the OS and then spent two days fighting with inadequate drivers and other problems. She specifically states that "It's safe, it works, all the hardware is fine, and everything is great" when she refers to XP. The fact that she indicates hardware in there makes me think there were hardware issues with Vista.
I'm sure the daughter's friend had a good install of Vista, though it was likely due to purchasing a new computer, not upgrading an old one. Seems Vista sucks on anything not brand new. Contrast that with my Linux box here, running on an old Pentium 4 with an outdated video card. Runs blazingly fast, even with Beryl installed and running. I guarantee I couldn't turn on the flashy effects in Vista if I could get it to install on this same machine.
Patenting protects their investment. That said, just because you hold a patent doesn't obligate you to use it in an evil way. In fact, many people patent things merely to ensure that no one else patents the idea and uses the patent to extort money.
Not everyone is evil. That said, how evil Google themselves are remains to be seen. I'm kind of on the fence at this point...
What shocks me is that this is legal. Why should this shock you? If there's no law against it, it's usually because no one has taken the issue to court. We're talking about a multi-billion dollar corporation, known for using strong-arm tactics, threatening what amounts to a bunch of independent developers who probably have enough trouble ensuring that there's food on the table and a roof over their head.
Think of it this way, the big corporation has money to burn on this issue and can easily wait out the small developer. It's extremely likely that the small developer, who can't afford a high powered lawyer, will run out of legal funds very rapidly and have to give up on the case. Microsoft isn't after money, at least not directly. They're much more interested in halting the development of an OS that, over time, has the potential to crush their business.
The sad part is that they can halt Linux growth just as quickly, and just as effectively, by never actually taking this to court. They're already off to an amazing start with the "IP deals" they've made with various vendors. The fact that some vendors are making deals with Microsoft is enough for all the PHBs throughout the world to sit up and take notice. While Linux may be the better alternative in many cases, PHBs will definitely err on the side of caution and try to "protect" the business by staying out of the murky waters. Better to deploy Windows and have receipts and licenses to prove it, than to deploy Linux and get sued later.
Regardless, I find it in bad taste. Instead of working to make a better OS, Microsoft is resorting to FUD. It's like the bully at school. He's big and mean looking, and you don't know if he can kick your ass or not. You're smarter, dress better, and will go farther in life, but he still scares you. Do you really want to stand up to him and hope you can deal with him? Or do you just hand over your lunch money and hope he goes away?
According to Joystiq, the back compat software emulation may not have been 100% software based. They seem to be removing the hardware that they were using for this, making back compat impossible.
That said, I have no desire to ever own a PS3 without back compat support.. They're killing themselves with this.. Backwards compatibility is one of the primary reasons I purchased a PS2 in the first place. And I have made extensive use of it as well.. Perhaps I'm one of the relative few that does, though..
I don't think I'd mind them dropping backwards compatibility for PS1 games, but definitely not PS2 games...
The folks who scream the most about their "art" being protected by the First Amendment are the first to scream when someone uses that First Amendment to make fun of them. From TFA : " At this year's Games Convention in Leipzig, someone took offence at a poster for 'Grand Theft Scratchy', one of the levels in the game, and asked that it be taken down. "
So it looks like it was a poster that got taken down? I know they say they had to take stuff out of the game as well, but I'd like to see more info on what was removed and who requested it before I jump to conclusions..
Again, from TFA : " "I don't know who specifically at Rockstar", Rizzer said. "I'm guessing probably more than anyone it was a lawyer. The people who work on that product, I doubt they were like, 'Stop that!'". "
So I guess they don't even know who it was that asked for the content to be removed... Odd... He does state that it *was* Rockstar, though... Sounds like a case of someone jumping to conclusions at Rockstar.....
Trolling? No. I'm honestly looking for a visio replacement. First, Visio doesn't run under Linux. I'd like to find something I can use on my OS of choice while still outputting files that Visio users can view. Besides, Visio is expensive, and does much, much more than I need.
Yes.. and no. Unfortunately, it depends on your upper management. I'm used to dealing with layers, having different diagrams based on what I'm working on. However, I've also run into upper management types who want everything in one picture. Which is great, till you see the mess it makes.
Of course, where I work now, network diagrams are this magical thing that don't exist. It's so incredibly difficult to design networks without any visibility.. *sigh*
I definitely agree that a well-designed database can easily create usable network diagrams on the fly..
I read through some of the information on this Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and it seems that the purpose here was to ensure that manufacturers provided the consumer with a document that is both easy to understand, and not ambiguous. However, it does not put any stipulation on that manufacturer to prevent them from invalidating the warranty if you don't use the device correctly.
However, this act falls a little short in the realm of electronics and firmware. Sure, Apple can't go around saying that your warranty will be void if you use a Motorolla bluetooth headset instead of an Apple one. But, can they say that the warranty is void if you use a different firmware? It seems to me that there's a gray area there. Firmware is required to make the device work, but it's provided by the manufacturer. So, can the manufacturer prevent you from using someone else's firmware by invalidating the warranty?
I suppose the underlying question is, what does the warranty cover? If it's merely electronics, then perhaps the manufacturer cannot dictate the firmware used, but, in the event of a failure, they can surely attempt to load the device with "official" firmware in an effort to determine the problem. Of course, if the unit is completely dead, that won't help. In that instance, the question becomes more of a "what caused the failure" type of question.
That's where 3rd party firmware can become a problem. How do you prove that the firmware was the cause and not the hardware? I'm sure it can be done, but to the satisfaction of the customer? And is it really Apple's responsibility to determine if the firmware was the cause? In the end, it may cost Apple quite a lot of money to make that determination, only to turn back to the customer and refuse the warranty claim. It's sort of a lose-lose situation.
Huh.. Excel works fine where I work. They have all sorts of network drawings in Excel...
What? Hey, stop laughing. I'm serious! You should see these things.. Massive diagrams all built using the draw toolbar in Excel...
Personally, I've found Visio to work out nicely for network drawings, but apparently the other engineers like Excel...
Speaking of which.. Anyone know of a decent OSS replacement for Visio? And no, dia doesn't count. It's nowhere near what Visio does. Nor does it save a Visio compatible file.
Folks are willing to argue that the job *is* the problem. I beg to differ. I'm afflicted with kids. Oh, come on.. 1, you're posting on slashdot. 2, you're online. Therefore you don't have, nor have ever had, sex, thus you cannot have children.
Regardless of my employment situation, there is no way in hell I could just disappear into the woods for half a year. Raising these little monkeys is a huge undertaking (which nobody warned me about way back when.) Oh.. Monkeys.. Well, I guess that could be.. I suppose online slashdotters can have pets, right?
E.g., whatever happened to running something in a sandbox, ffs? You can go as far as running something untrusted (e.g., a plugin, ActiveX control, etc) in a virtual box, but even a chroot jail is a good start. It _is_ possible to isolate something to the point where it can't do any harm at all, and can't touch anything except itself. It's also possible to nice it to the point where it only runs when nothing else wants to, so it can't DOS your system that way. It's always possible to "break" that, though, by compromising the container itself. While I agree that, in principle, this is a good idea, there's too much that can go wrong. Having a whitelist of some sort could possibly help a little here in that we could ensure that the container modules are safe.
So why doesn't anyone do just that already? E.g., MS could have fixed their own ActiveX crap that way ages ago. Instead we got this baroque, but fundamentally broken, model where you get to decide (or have decided for you based on zones) whether something can't run at all, or can run with full rights as an executable. Except if a malicious one slipped through the cracks, it's still a full executable running on your machine. Because there will always be that one application that needs access to more than one zone. Take, for instance, a web-based virus scanner. Sure, you can isolate it within a container, but then how does it scan the computer? There's always something that wants to break through the barrier, and usually for good reason.
Heck, even Java is essentially the wrong way about it as a browser plugin. It tried to implement itself some restrictions which belong in the OS or browser itself, and if the JVM itself is compromised (there _have_ been a couple of JVM vulnerabilities), it can do anything. Kudos to Sun for trying that, but it's a workaround essentially. It shouldn't have been the JVM which does that, it should have been the OS and browser. Again, what prevents the OS and/or browser from being compromised? Again we have applications that have to cross boundaries and if that exists, then there is the possibility of someone creating a virus/trojan of some sort that masquerades as a legitimate app and compromises the system.
Whitelisting is just an extra step in that wrong direction, essentially. Instead of making sure that a malicious thing in the browser can't touch anything else, we're one step further in the baroque, fragile and monumentally work-intensive direction of determining which of them should be allowed. Except again, if something slipped through the cracks, you'll still get screwed so hard you'll walk bow-legged for a week.
Am I the only one who finds that dumb? Unfortunately, I don't think there is a complete solution. If we add both whitelist and blacklist capabilities to the scanners, then that may help, but I think there are limitations there as well. Another question is, who determines what is "good" and "bad?" Who gets to choose what's on the whitelist? We already have all sorts of problems with applications being flagged as virii, what's to stop the opposite from happening?
While I agree that it doesn't look like a direct snubbing of Apple, especially since the Zune isn't supported either, I still question this whole thing. Why in the hell do we need DRM on free music? Wanting demographical information by forcing the user to sign up isn't a good reason either.
I would be much more likely to sign up to a service that offered high quality DRM-free music, even if I had to pay for it. Personally, I don't much trust the music I can download from P2P apps. First, I don't feel like dealing with the idiocy that is the RIAA, should I fall into their ever-widening net of evil. And second, whenever I downloaded music in the past from a P2P app, something was wrong with it. Crappy bitrate, incomplete or wrong meta data...
The point is, I would gladly sign up to receive high quality DRM-free files if the service existed. The safety and security of the service itself would be enough draw for me.
They work because they're not MP3 files, and the vast majority of national brand MP3 players other than iPod® are also WMA players. Ah, but WMA support and WMA DRM support are two different beasts. Linux even has WMA support, but can't play WMA DRMed files.. (At least, the last time I checked, anyway)...
From TFA (apologies in advance for actually reading it) : "legal avenue to download some free music"
So, can someone please explain to me why the hell we need to use DRM on *FREE* music? Oh noes! They're going to distribute the *FREE* music!
No it wasn't. That is the entire point of representative democracy, and of the Electoral College. You vote for people to represent you. You are meant to select a small number of people you trust to make decisions regarding government, or choosing a president. And herein lies the problem. The ballot I voted on during the last election had nothing on it detailing who was in the electoral college. It only detailed the candidates and allowed me to choose one. I have no idea who's in the electoral college, and I'm not sure it would matter because I don't know those people. I don't have much trust in the president whom I vote for and they've been out campaigning. How am I supposed to trust these electors? Hell, according to wikipedia, most electors are nominated by the state political party, sometimes at party conventions.. How are they supposed to be unbiased?
While I was taught about the electoral college, voting system, and government while I was in school, it seems that the "real world" is a lot different. (surprise!) If I remember correctly, the electors don't even have to vote for the candidate with the most ballot votes, they can choose to vote another way, becoming faithless electors.. WTF? And I'm supposed to trust these people? I find a lot of problems with the system.. Personally, it seems that if a candidate receives the majority of the votes (citizen votes, not electoral votes), then they should be the elected official. However, as we've seen in the past, that's not necessarily true.
I have no faith at all in our political system. I vote because I want my voice heard. Apparently I'm not in-tune with popular opinion, though, because I have yet to vote for any of these elected officials..
In the work place, most people might enter a fake installation code for example, but won't go as far as to apply a crack. If the software requires you to apply a crack to use it, then I think most people at work will get their company to buy it. If it just installs anyway with just a small nag screen or something, then most people won't buy it. Really? You can get your company to buy the tools you need to do the job? That's amazing.. I've had no luck at all at the companies I've worked for. In fact, one company even suggested I find a crack on the Internet for the software I needed. Other companies just tell me to use the software they provided, even though it doesn't have the features I need. Thank for OSS.. Without that, I wouldn't be able to do my job...
It's amazing that companies will pay thousands for licensed copies of Windows and Office, but won't spend a few bucks on usable software like WSFTP, SecureCRT, etc...
Enough space for all the porn in the internet... at least for now. I disagree.. I don't think the Internet has enough space for porn, it seems to keep spilling over into my browser...
Slashdot Mirror
So, I was invited to take part in this particular Beta... But after hearing about the draconian EULA and now this, I'm not sure I have any interest... *sigh* I miss the days where I could Beta test something without having to worry about my privacy...
Ok, so you have some sort of identifier badge or something, but what happens if an enemy is mixed in there? How will the weapon identify "safe" firing situations?
I for one welcome our Oerlikon GDF-005 overlords.
As far as I'm concerned, the creation date on the domain itself is enough to make me think something's up...
For what it's worth, this story appears to be fake. The story appears to have originated from this site : http://loonov.com/
If you check the whois info on this site, it was created on October 11, 2007, today. Yet the site shows archives going back to February 2007? Archives which are "disabled' because of high traffic..
Next, if you search for both the name of the spammer, Alexey Tolstokozhev, or the site, loonov.com, you only get links pointing back to loonov.com as the originator of the story.
So it appears that this story is a fraud.
From her comments, I doubt she even installed XP. It probably came preinstalled, and her complaint is with the complexity of installing any OS. I didn't get that feeling from the article. This was at ITxpo, not Joe's Supermarket. I have to imagine that the majority of attendees are computer literate and work in the IT field. Ballmer's comment was spot-on - the daughter saw value in Vista's widgets - and the mother's response was fallacious and nonsensical ("She's 13" - so what, her opinion means nothing, while her ignorant, incapable mother's should be taken seriously? Children are our future. Teach them well and let them lead the way.) A 13 year old sees the shiny and wants to have it for their own. While they have opinions, and they should be respected, that doesn't necessarily mean they are right.
From TFA, it sounds like mom installed the OS and then spent two days fighting with inadequate drivers and other problems. She specifically states that "It's safe, it works, all the hardware is fine, and everything is great" when she refers to XP. The fact that she indicates hardware in there makes me think there were hardware issues with Vista.
I'm sure the daughter's friend had a good install of Vista, though it was likely due to purchasing a new computer, not upgrading an old one. Seems Vista sucks on anything not brand new. Contrast that with my Linux box here, running on an old Pentium 4 with an outdated video card. Runs blazingly fast, even with Beryl installed and running. I guarantee I couldn't turn on the flashy effects in Vista if I could get it to install on this same machine.
Patenting protects their investment. That said, just because you hold a patent doesn't obligate you to use it in an evil way. In fact, many people patent things merely to ensure that no one else patents the idea and uses the patent to extort money.
Not everyone is evil. That said, how evil Google themselves are remains to be seen. I'm kind of on the fence at this point...
Think of it this way, the big corporation has money to burn on this issue and can easily wait out the small developer. It's extremely likely that the small developer, who can't afford a high powered lawyer, will run out of legal funds very rapidly and have to give up on the case. Microsoft isn't after money, at least not directly. They're much more interested in halting the development of an OS that, over time, has the potential to crush their business.
The sad part is that they can halt Linux growth just as quickly, and just as effectively, by never actually taking this to court. They're already off to an amazing start with the "IP deals" they've made with various vendors. The fact that some vendors are making deals with Microsoft is enough for all the PHBs throughout the world to sit up and take notice. While Linux may be the better alternative in many cases, PHBs will definitely err on the side of caution and try to "protect" the business by staying out of the murky waters. Better to deploy Windows and have receipts and licenses to prove it, than to deploy Linux and get sued later.
Regardless, I find it in bad taste. Instead of working to make a better OS, Microsoft is resorting to FUD. It's like the bully at school. He's big and mean looking, and you don't know if he can kick your ass or not. You're smarter, dress better, and will go farther in life, but he still scares you. Do you really want to stand up to him and hope you can deal with him? Or do you just hand over your lunch money and hope he goes away?
According to Joystiq, the back compat software emulation may not have been 100% software based. They seem to be removing the hardware that they were using for this, making back compat impossible.
That said, I have no desire to ever own a PS3 without back compat support.. They're killing themselves with this.. Backwards compatibility is one of the primary reasons I purchased a PS2 in the first place. And I have made extensive use of it as well.. Perhaps I'm one of the relative few that does, though..
I don't think I'd mind them dropping backwards compatibility for PS1 games, but definitely not PS2 games...
So it looks like it was a poster that got taken down? I know they say they had to take stuff out of the game as well, but I'd like to see more info on what was removed and who requested it before I jump to conclusions..
Again, from TFA : " "I don't know who specifically at Rockstar", Rizzer said. "I'm guessing probably more than anyone it was a lawyer. The people who work on that product, I doubt they were like, 'Stop that!'". "
So I guess they don't even know who it was that asked for the content to be removed
Trolling? No. I'm honestly looking for a visio replacement. First, Visio doesn't run under Linux. I'd like to find something I can use on my OS of choice while still outputting files that Visio users can view. Besides, Visio is expensive, and does much, much more than I need.
Yes.. and no. Unfortunately, it depends on your upper management. I'm used to dealing with layers, having different diagrams based on what I'm working on. However, I've also run into upper management types who want everything in one picture. Which is great, till you see the mess it makes.
Of course, where I work now, network diagrams are this magical thing that don't exist. It's so incredibly difficult to design networks without any visibility.. *sigh*
I definitely agree that a well-designed database can easily create usable network diagrams on the fly..
I have had great success with an iRiver iHP-140 and the custom RockBox firmware. Works beautifully, and supports a wide variety of formats.
I bet we wouldn't have half the problems we do now if we just stopped having people.
I read through some of the information on this Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and it seems that the purpose here was to ensure that manufacturers provided the consumer with a document that is both easy to understand, and not ambiguous. However, it does not put any stipulation on that manufacturer to prevent them from invalidating the warranty if you don't use the device correctly.
However, this act falls a little short in the realm of electronics and firmware. Sure, Apple can't go around saying that your warranty will be void if you use a Motorolla bluetooth headset instead of an Apple one. But, can they say that the warranty is void if you use a different firmware? It seems to me that there's a gray area there. Firmware is required to make the device work, but it's provided by the manufacturer. So, can the manufacturer prevent you from using someone else's firmware by invalidating the warranty?
I suppose the underlying question is, what does the warranty cover? If it's merely electronics, then perhaps the manufacturer cannot dictate the firmware used, but, in the event of a failure, they can surely attempt to load the device with "official" firmware in an effort to determine the problem. Of course, if the unit is completely dead, that won't help. In that instance, the question becomes more of a "what caused the failure" type of question.
That's where 3rd party firmware can become a problem. How do you prove that the firmware was the cause and not the hardware? I'm sure it can be done, but to the satisfaction of the customer? And is it really Apple's responsibility to determine if the firmware was the cause? In the end, it may cost Apple quite a lot of money to make that determination, only to turn back to the customer and refuse the warranty claim. It's sort of a lose-lose situation.
Huh.. Excel works fine where I work. They have all sorts of network drawings in Excel...
What? Hey, stop laughing. I'm serious! You should see these things.. Massive diagrams all built using the draw toolbar in Excel...
Personally, I've found Visio to work out nicely for network drawings, but apparently the other engineers like Excel...
Speaking of which.. Anyone know of a decent OSS replacement for Visio? And no, dia doesn't count. It's nowhere near what Visio does. Nor does it save a Visio compatible file.
Am I the only one who finds that dumb? Unfortunately, I don't think there is a complete solution. If we add both whitelist and blacklist capabilities to the scanners, then that may help, but I think there are limitations there as well. Another question is, who determines what is "good" and "bad?" Who gets to choose what's on the whitelist? We already have all sorts of problems with applications being flagged as virii, what's to stop the opposite from happening?
While I agree that it doesn't look like a direct snubbing of Apple, especially since the Zune isn't supported either, I still question this whole thing. Why in the hell do we need DRM on free music? Wanting demographical information by forcing the user to sign up isn't a good reason either.
I would be much more likely to sign up to a service that offered high quality DRM-free music, even if I had to pay for it. Personally, I don't much trust the music I can download from P2P apps. First, I don't feel like dealing with the idiocy that is the RIAA, should I fall into their ever-widening net of evil. And second, whenever I downloaded music in the past from a P2P app, something was wrong with it. Crappy bitrate, incomplete or wrong meta data...
The point is, I would gladly sign up to receive high quality DRM-free files if the service existed. The safety and security of the service itself would be enough draw for me.
From TFA (apologies in advance for actually reading it) : "legal avenue to download some free music"
So, can someone please explain to me why the hell we need to use DRM on *FREE* music? Oh noes! They're going to distribute the *FREE* music!
WTF?
Oh how I wish I had mod points...
+1 Funny!
Actually.. I've never, to my knowledge, had mod points.. And if I suddenly gain them, how will I know? Hrm... Something to ponder..
While I was taught about the electoral college, voting system, and government while I was in school, it seems that the "real world" is a lot different. (surprise!) If I remember correctly, the electors don't even have to vote for the candidate with the most ballot votes, they can choose to vote another way, becoming faithless electors.. WTF? And I'm supposed to trust these people? I find a lot of problems with the system.. Personally, it seems that if a candidate receives the majority of the votes (citizen votes, not electoral votes), then they should be the elected official. However, as we've seen in the past, that's not necessarily true.
I have no faith at all in our political system. I vote because I want my voice heard. Apparently I'm not in-tune with popular opinion, though, because I have yet to vote for any of these elected officials..
It's amazing that companies will pay thousands for licensed copies of Windows and Office, but won't spend a few bucks on usable software like WSFTP, SecureCRT, etc...
I apologize. Hey, get out of my sock draw... er.. I mean, what are you talking about?