and it dosen't have DRmware integrated into it( How does this help XP? It just doesn't support certain DRM protected media types as well. That doesn't make these will be playable like "omgitjustworks!" This unsupported media will instead not be playable at all.
Anyway, this isn't a big deal for me, as even if I'm using Vista, I'm not using DRM protected HD videos. As little as I'm supporting iTunes.
And IMHO, that's exactly why it shouldn't be either left or right, because the middle ground is often a very good one. However, media is often aligned with either of the sides, and pushes for ideas I think often are suboptimal.
Hmmm, it would be great to have an OSS widget engine that ran on Windows, OS X, and Linux. I wish I had more time to code these days. Mozilla is kind of there with Prism but not quite. Here's the user interface where most of the UI controls can be disabled/hidden. So I think you could actually get just a plain window left in the end, if you want to. But you'd still have the window frame and things like that, I guess.
Otherwise, it has a lot of what one is looking for: builds on all open source components, platform support, a proven and established renderer (the Gecko engine), and a goal with the project to provide web applications in a desktop environment "outside" the browser.
Slashdot wont be worth coming to tomorrow... see you all on the 2nd... I was actually hoping this would be the story where Slashdot made a roundup post of the jokes, and then be done with it.
But I guess I'm not that lucky this time either. But it would be a good idea.
Yes, we could do all these things, but we won't, because this thread is about Freenet, and therefore it will be heavily modded by people who are fans of Freenet. Ironically enough, Freenet users on Slashdot have shown unlimited willingness to use moderation to silence opposing points of view. How do I know? Because this isn't the first time I've sacrificed karma by trying to make a skeptical post about Freenet in slashdot comments on a Freenet story. It's usually not about what you post, but how you post.
Anyway, yes, obviously there are a number of pedophiles around there. After all, Freenet is a fairly successful anonymizing network. But thanks to this property, it can be immensely useful to other people as well. I'm not sure what can be done about that problem, if anything. Once it starts being monitored to screen the child porn, everything else will be screened too, and those doing the screening will likely only be mere humans that may choose to censor other material as well. And then everything is lost. Anonymizing properly seem to be a bit of an all or nothing deal, just like there is no such thing as a "little" freedom. Either you have it, or you don't.
I guess in the end, it is a fairly simply philosophical matter. A question on whether a person is willing to risk supporting something that's criminal in most parts of the world for other things the person believes in or not.
If they do it like Opera, they will require some sort of account on a web service to synchronize to first. And they also need you to configure which, if any, of these synchronization targets to actually use. If done like this, I don't have too many worries of what you talk of. You'd probably simply not choose to synchronize your browser online. Or just synchronize from one computer to another, but not that other computer at work.
I hope they implement this as plugins Prism do sound like currently intended as a plugin, perhaps something that requires some extra API calls only available in a Firefox 4, but still a plugin.
And Weave is the other feature about stuff like bookmark synchronization. Opera has made that work pretty well and seamlessly in Opera 9.50, and that's something I don't really care much if they'd even integrate it in the browser. It certainly sounds less risky.
That's exactly what gets IE into so much trouble. Mostly what got IE into so much trouble. IE 7 is actually no longer integrated with Windows Explorer, that's the big news. ActiveX also gave some trouble, and that's why IE 7 has that support disabled by default and you have to manually approve everything you want to run. I still think that's too bad though; ActiveX shouldn't be supported at all, because as soon as the user makes a poor decision based on lacking computer skills, s/he'll immediately give the ActiveX plugin full system access once again and nothing is won.
I'm all for space exploration, but a base on the moon just sounds like ISS Deluxe to me, a huge money sink for NASA's strained budget?
What is the enormous science potential for an as far reaching project like that? At least on Mars, we haven't set foot there before and it's still a curious planet with lots of unknowns, but our Moon has already been studied -- from the surface itself as well as from above.
Is it mostly just a stepping stone to Mars? Do we really have to have a Moon station there first? Because building stations on moons are probably not cheap, neither in time nor other costs.
This article felt so worthy of a "slownewsday" tag... We are also waiting a bit with upgrading the few Vista computers we have running over here. It's just common sense, and has nothing to do with Vista, by the way.
The news here has to be those companies that jumps to SP1 without checking up on any risks with that. You'll have a harder time finding stories about those.
I was questioning why it required Safari, the browser. It hasn't always needed that, so why does is it included now? Apple is also providing a separate download for their Windows Safari on their web site; why isn't that link sufficient? Who was asking them to include Safari with iTunes? The answer is probably some department for strategic marketing decisions. However, how many will now be happier users as they may risk setting Safari as their default web browser on Windows? Do I even need to add that last time I tried Safari 3.1 Final, after an hour of usage it used 450 MB RAM on Windows. It blows even IE 7 out of the water.
Sure, if they really need to, just include WebKit.dll or whatever. That doesn't Macify the system at least by requesting new default browsers.
What I'm talking of is of those kind of poor marketing decisions, decisions that piss people off. How are they ever good decisions?
I don't care if this is a "mandatory" component of iTunes, or if Apple is "just" trying to sneak it in... WHY do this?
Has any company ever entered better light from including unrelated junk in their installers?
If iTunes doesn't require Safari (and I pray to god it doesn't because that would be horrible design to require a specific web browser -- they'd enter Microsoft territory in that case), then Safari shouldn't be part of the install. If people want Safari, they'll install Safari. If something doesn't need Safari, fuck that shit.
Please don't look at Microsoft as a good role model, Apple. They aren't.
Consoles are winning and will eventually win. The reason is simple:
Updating your video driver (or other drivers) is not a fun part of gaming. But for PC games, it's usually the first level you have to play. The PC is surviving because people want to do other things than playing games all day long, and then want to save bucks on not having to purchase another box for the games just to play games. These people can often gladly take installing new drivers every few years or so since that's still a free procedure that don't take too long.
People have been saying consoles will "eventually win" for decades now. It's usually due to "rampant piracy" or "gaming complexity" on a PC. Both are being wrong, all the time.
When was the last time your Play station got a virus? To be fair, you're unlikely to get a virus on a "gaming PC" either. A PlayStation not catching viruses is more thanks to its inability to do anything useful but playing games. Yes, a PC can catch viruses if using it for other things, especially if downloading and running software you don't really trust. But this is more eating into an advantage of a PC and doesn't create a disadvantage that overlaps the usage scenario of a PlayStation. So there's no disadvantage here that I can see compared to a PlayStation. Because retail PC games don't use to be sold with viruses, and that's all a PlayStation does.
For an analogy to explain better what I mean -- if you have a toaster and a waffle iron, and compare the two, the toaster can only make toast, and the waffle iron may be of a kind that can both make waffles *and* sandwich toast. Let's say that the waffle iron sometimes has a problem in that it burn the waffles a bit. However, this is of course still no disadvantage if comparing just making toast (= playing games). It's a problem in a different area of use that the toaster doesn't even support. So personally, this is slightly in the apples and oranges territory for me. I can much easier swallow the "disadvantage" in risking viruses on a PC, since that is in an area of use that we aren't even talking about on the PlayStation. It's very rarely about catching viruses from having purchased a game in a retail store, or having viruses sneak onto your computer from an open World of Warcraft game port in your router. I would agree that would be more in conflict and a direct disadvantage of a PC as a gaming system.
How much do you spend on your Play station's anti-virus software every month? There are free-for-home use antivirus tools (AVG, Avast) that have even performed better than common commercial alternatives like Norton Antivirus in tests.
I'm not sure why people think good antivirus tools have to cost money. I guess I blame aggressive marketing from Symantec etc...
They want something they can play fun games on, with other people, in their living area where the television is, on something that isn't the size of a desktop PC. It's simple enough to connect a laptop to your HDTV if you want to though.
And they want those games to work when they plug them in, every time. I'm not sure why a game on a PC should only sometimes work? I can't say this has ever been much of a problem on my PC's since the 90's. Maybe if you make major software changes you can break something, but that would also be breaking the console analogy, because you don't make such changes to a console (this is again not even an option). And you don't have to make such changes on a PC to keep playing games. Yes, you need to make upgrades and those can break things, but the equivalent there is purchasing a new console and often having to forget that your old games will even be compatible with your new one.
Re:"Crack" Has Important Use Unrelated to Ripping
on
Blu-ray BD+ Cracked
·
· Score: 1
The crack allows you to play the media at full quality on systems that do not have a fully HDCP compliant chain. Are you sure? I think what they did was just find out a way to copy BD+ protected discs with the protection intact, not strip BD+ / decrypt the material?
So it would in this case be a crack in the sense that people can now start downloading 1:1 copies from The Pirate Bay, but not a crack in the sense that you can use non-HDCP compliant hardware.
Or rather, how about installing the parts that CAN be installed and skipping anything else? That will give support hell for Microsoft though, and I wouldn't like to be in their shoes if a third party driver (note, this is not about Microsoft hardware) was among those rare exceptions and gave some user some sort of "incomplete Vista SP1".
- What product do you own? - Uhh, well, it installed the components it could... Uh, do we still call this SP1?
No, this sounds like the best option to me.
I think it's even important that the user need to uninstall said driver first manually, because only then will he/she be aware of the problem. If it just silently disables something while updating to SP1, then you can be sure there'll be users confused about that instead and not knowing where to go next or maybe not even what exactly happened.
I'm going to print out that graph and put it on my wall. Then, when my users come to me and ask why our enterprise isn't rolling out IE7 on our systems, I can just point to it. I think using a poster with a graph of security holes would lend you more credibility.
Yes, the IE memory management isn't exactly the best thing invented, but it's far less of a problem than the above.
I would look with a bit of skepticism at a sys admin that uses RAM consumption as an argument against e.g. website interoperability. I would find excessive open security holes much harder to forgive.
... I can't help but pity those poor Vista users. What should be simply the release of a patch has become a major "event" which people actually have to prepare for and which, from what I hear, is even causing something quite similar to mild panic. But then again, you do get great DRM for your troubles. I think you're reading Slashdot a bit too much.;-)
Most people have no trouble with service pack upgrades, as they've been tested a long time before getting released.
Actually, I think Vista SP1 seem to have had a longer testing period than usual.
The DRM comment seems like a a non sequiteur; Vista SP1 includes no "great DRM" extras.
Actually, even Vista RTM makes the DRM thing entirely optional. Those with a brain will just boycott DRM media and avoid it altogether. Like me. Playing pirated HD video on my 50" Plasma. Using Vista.
Slashdot Mirror
But isn't this sort of thing traditionally covered in the fine print of the contract?
Anyway, this isn't a big deal for me, as even if I'm using Vista, I'm not using DRM protected HD videos. As little as I'm supporting iTunes.
And IMHO, that's exactly why it shouldn't be either left or right, because the middle ground is often a very good one. However, media is often aligned with either of the sides, and pushes for ideas I think often are suboptimal.
Otherwise, it has a lot of what one is looking for: builds on all open source components, platform support, a proven and established renderer (the Gecko engine), and a goal with the project to provide web applications in a desktop environment "outside" the browser.
But I guess I'm not that lucky this time either. But it would be a good idea.
Anyway, yes, obviously there are a number of pedophiles around there. After all, Freenet is a fairly successful anonymizing network. But thanks to this property, it can be immensely useful to other people as well. I'm not sure what can be done about that problem, if anything. Once it starts being monitored to screen the child porn, everything else will be screened too, and those doing the screening will likely only be mere humans that may choose to censor other material as well. And then everything is lost. Anonymizing properly seem to be a bit of an all or nothing deal, just like there is no such thing as a "little" freedom. Either you have it, or you don't.
I guess in the end, it is a fairly simply philosophical matter. A question on whether a person is willing to risk supporting something that's criminal in most parts of the world for other things the person believes in or not.
Not to mention you who browse the web, and thus is using it to satisfy your beastiality desires. Utterly horrifying.
This is about Firefox 4 and desktop integration, neither of which is relevant here...
Sorry if I'm being a jerk, but come on...
Are you nuts!?
Surely, for performance reasons, the browser and its required network stack should run in kernel mode.
If they do it like Opera, they will require some sort of account on a web service to synchronize to first. And they also need you to configure which, if any, of these synchronization targets to actually use. If done like this, I don't have too many worries of what you talk of. You'd probably simply not choose to synchronize your browser online. Or just synchronize from one computer to another, but not that other computer at work.
And Weave is the other feature about stuff like bookmark synchronization. Opera has made that work pretty well and seamlessly in Opera 9.50, and that's something I don't really care much if they'd even integrate it in the browser. It certainly sounds less risky.
I'm all for space exploration, but a base on the moon just sounds like ISS Deluxe to me, a huge money sink for NASA's strained budget?
What is the enormous science potential for an as far reaching project like that? At least on Mars, we haven't set foot there before and it's still a curious planet with lots of unknowns, but our Moon has already been studied -- from the surface itself as well as from above.
Is it mostly just a stepping stone to Mars? Do we really have to have a Moon station there first? Because building stations on moons are probably not cheap, neither in time nor other costs.
I'm just waiting for Rule 34 to kick in any minute now.
This article felt so worthy of a "slownewsday" tag... We are also waiting a bit with upgrading the few Vista computers we have running over here. It's just common sense, and has nothing to do with Vista, by the way.
The news here has to be those companies that jumps to SP1 without checking up on any risks with that. You'll have a harder time finding stories about those.
I was questioning why it required Safari, the browser. It hasn't always needed that, so why does is it included now? Apple is also providing a separate download for their Windows Safari on their web site; why isn't that link sufficient? Who was asking them to include Safari with iTunes? The answer is probably some department for strategic marketing decisions. However, how many will now be happier users as they may risk setting Safari as their default web browser on Windows? Do I even need to add that last time I tried Safari 3.1 Final, after an hour of usage it used 450 MB RAM on Windows. It blows even IE 7 out of the water.
Sure, if they really need to, just include WebKit.dll or whatever. That doesn't Macify the system at least by requesting new default browsers.
What I'm talking of is of those kind of poor marketing decisions, decisions that piss people off. How are they ever good decisions?
I don't care if this is a "mandatory" component of iTunes, or if Apple is "just" trying to sneak it in... WHY do this?
Has any company ever entered better light from including unrelated junk in their installers?
If iTunes doesn't require Safari (and I pray to god it doesn't because that would be horrible design to require a specific web browser -- they'd enter Microsoft territory in that case), then Safari shouldn't be part of the install. If people want Safari, they'll install Safari. If something doesn't need Safari, fuck that shit.
Please don't look at Microsoft as a good role model, Apple. They aren't.
Updating your video driver (or other drivers) is not a fun part of gaming. But for PC games, it's usually the first level you have to play. The PC is surviving because people want to do other things than playing games all day long, and then want to save bucks on not having to purchase another box for the games just to play games. These people can often gladly take installing new drivers every few years or so since that's still a free procedure that don't take too long.
People have been saying consoles will "eventually win" for decades now. It's usually due to "rampant piracy" or "gaming complexity" on a PC. Both are being wrong, all the time.
For an analogy to explain better what I mean -- if you have a toaster and a waffle iron, and compare the two, the toaster can only make toast, and the waffle iron may be of a kind that can both make waffles *and* sandwich toast. Let's say that the waffle iron sometimes has a problem in that it burn the waffles a bit. However, this is of course still no disadvantage if comparing just making toast (= playing games). It's a problem in a different area of use that the toaster doesn't even support. So personally, this is slightly in the apples and oranges territory for me. I can much easier swallow the "disadvantage" in risking viruses on a PC, since that is in an area of use that we aren't even talking about on the PlayStation. It's very rarely about catching viruses from having purchased a game in a retail store, or having viruses sneak onto your computer from an open World of Warcraft game port in your router. I would agree that would be more in conflict and a direct disadvantage of a PC as a gaming system. How much do you spend on your Play station's anti-virus software every month? There are free-for-home use antivirus tools (AVG, Avast) that have even performed better than common commercial alternatives like Norton Antivirus in tests.
I'm not sure why people think good antivirus tools have to cost money. I guess I blame aggressive marketing from Symantec etc... They want something they can play fun games on, with other people, in their living area where the television is, on something that isn't the size of a desktop PC. It's simple enough to connect a laptop to your HDTV if you want to though. And they want those games to work when they plug them in, every time. I'm not sure why a game on a PC should only sometimes work? I can't say this has ever been much of a problem on my PC's since the 90's. Maybe if you make major software changes you can break something, but that would also be breaking the console analogy, because you don't make such changes to a console (this is again not even an option). And you don't have to make such changes on a PC to keep playing games. Yes, you need to make upgrades and those can break things, but the equivalent there is purchasing a new console and often having to forget that your old games will even be compatible with your new one.
So it would in this case be a crack in the sense that people can now start downloading 1:1 copies from The Pirate Bay, but not a crack in the sense that you can use non-HDCP compliant hardware.
- What product do you own?
- Uhh, well, it installed the components it could... Uh, do we still call this SP1?
No, this sounds like the best option to me.
I think it's even important that the user need to uninstall said driver first manually, because only then will he/she be aware of the problem. If it just silently disables something while updating to SP1, then you can be sure there'll be users confused about that instead and not knowing where to go next or maybe not even what exactly happened.
Don't get the wrong idea, I'm quite attached to it. LOL, this phrasing and surreal message made me think of Salad Fingers.
Yes, the IE memory management isn't exactly the best thing invented, but it's far less of a problem than the above.
I would look with a bit of skepticism at a sys admin that uses RAM consumption as an argument against e.g. website interoperability. I would find excessive open security holes much harder to forgive.
... I can't help but pity those poor Vista users. What should be simply the release of a patch has become a major "event" which people actually have to prepare for and which, from what I hear, is even causing something quite similar to mild panic. But then again, you do get great DRM for your troubles. I think you're reading Slashdot a bit too much.Most people have no trouble with service pack upgrades, as they've been tested a long time before getting released.
Actually, I think Vista SP1 seem to have had a longer testing period than usual.
The DRM comment seems like a a non sequiteur; Vista SP1 includes no "great DRM" extras.
Actually, even Vista RTM makes the DRM thing entirely optional. Those with a brain will just boycott DRM media and avoid it altogether. Like me. Playing pirated HD video on my 50" Plasma. Using Vista.
Come on now! Obviously there's a risk that an 8 year old boy asking about girl genitalia could in fact be a paedophile!
Think of the children, because you need to think of the children!