Because if the software dosen't work on heritage machines, Corps. won't buy it, and there will be no sales. Thus, copy protected hard drives will never make it. Period... See anything requiring the "secure audio" on windows yet? Neither have I.
But do you have a hard drive that supports any of these standards? Are you sure about that?
All that has to happen for this to work is for hardware manufacturers to quietly insert these features for one generation of PCs -- and we all know how long that is -- and it's done. Everyone upgrades to get the latest and greatest, and it becomes the new "standard." Then content providers and software vendors can enable the copy protection they've been working on all this time.
No, he's trying to share some of his knowledge about IE with the rest of the world.
He's only sharing his knowledge with the parts of the world that already agree with him. The very first line of every page is an attempt to exclude anyone who hasn't already decided that Netscape is not worth using. (Notice he doesn't check for Internet Explorer and exclude everything else -- the check is specifically excluding Netscape.)
And even if he weren't just excluding Netscape, it's stupid to arbitrarily exclude people from seeing what you post. If anything, this site would be better served by allowing people using other browsers to "see what they're missing" so to speak.
The site he has is about IE and ASP devlopment - please give me one good reason as to why should non-IE browsers be supported there?
It isn't just that Netscape isn't supported there. He actually checks if you are using Netscape and prevents you from seeing the content at all. I've gone to plenty of sites that say they will demonstrate things that break in one or more browsers. Hell, there are whole sections of the W3C site specifically designed to break browsers. I don't have a problem with that.
But this guy is preventing -- or trying to, and not doing very well -- Netscape users from even seeing what doesn't work. If he were interested in showing what he can do, or what Netscape can't, he could leave out the redirects and include a warning that Netscape wouldn't display things as intended. As it is, he's just trying to piss people off.
When I apply for a job, I'd rather they hire me at what I claim I'm worth, just because I say I'm worth it. But if I'm hiring someone, I want to know what you've done before to rate that salary.
When I buy a house, I'd like them to trust me to always make payments on time, thus giving me the best possible rate on the loan. But if I'm lending the money, I want to know if you make the payments on your car loan and credit cards.
I could go on like this all day, but they all come down to the same thing: personal interactions always come down to trust. The more I value whatever I'm putting at stake -- my time, my money, my children -- the more carefully I want to check you out to see if I will trust you with it.
We can talk about how "big business" is constantly eroding privacy, but "big business" is a collection of individuals, each of whom is protecting their investment. If you don't want to give them the information, don't. What, they won't do business with you if you don't give up the information? Well then they're not the kind of company you want to do business with anyway, are they? The class warfare routine is starting to get old.
Governments are a different animal. If you disagree with them -- try driving without a license -- you can go to jail. When businesses become powerful enough to unduly influence legislation (ie: they write it themselves for rubber-stamping) they've crossed the line and should be guarded against as jealously and agressively as we would guard against an oppressive government.
While I can sympathize with the discomfort that the system will fire itself, I don't think we are (yet) at the point where we should fear the technology. After all, there are still people deciding where the plane will fly and what the rules of engagement will be for the laser.
This system is far more refined in its targeting capabilities than nuclear weapons. Nukes take out whole cities indiscriminately, this will only -- okay, it's designed to only -- take out missles and aircraft. Missles are obviously not civilian, so that only leaves the possibility of targeting the wrong aircraft. And since anyone flying a plane should know how to use the radio, there shouldn't be cases of civilians accidentally ending up in the path of an autonomous system.
When someone decides to apply an AI to deciding what is a target to begin with, then we'll have gone too far.
Slashdot Mirror
Because if the software dosen't work on heritage machines, Corps. won't buy it, and there will be no sales. Thus, copy protected hard drives will never make it. Period ... See anything requiring the "secure audio" on windows yet? Neither have I.
But do you have a hard drive that supports any of these standards? Are you sure about that?
All that has to happen for this to work is for hardware manufacturers to quietly insert these features for one generation of PCs -- and we all know how long that is -- and it's done. Everyone upgrades to get the latest and greatest, and it becomes the new "standard." Then content providers and software vendors can enable the copy protection they've been working on all this time.
My machine never crashes (and when I say never I mean once a week).
<princess_bride>I don't think that word means what you think it means.</princess_bride>
<clinton>That depends on what your definition of the word "is" is.</clinton>
Gosh, you're absolutely right. How could I not be swayed by such powerful mentation?
No, he's trying to share some of his knowledge about IE with the rest of the world.
He's only sharing his knowledge with the parts of the world that already agree with him. The very first line of every page is an attempt to exclude anyone who hasn't already decided that Netscape is not worth using. (Notice he doesn't check for Internet Explorer and exclude everything else -- the check is specifically excluding Netscape.)
And even if he weren't just excluding Netscape, it's stupid to arbitrarily exclude people from seeing what you post. If anything, this site would be better served by allowing people using other browsers to "see what they're missing" so to speak.
The site he has is about IE and ASP devlopment - please give me one good reason as to why should non-IE browsers be supported there?
It isn't just that Netscape isn't supported there. He actually checks if you are using Netscape and prevents you from seeing the content at all. I've gone to plenty of sites that say they will demonstrate things that break in one or more browsers. Hell, there are whole sections of the W3C site specifically designed to break browsers. I don't have a problem with that.
But this guy is preventing -- or trying to, and not doing very well -- Netscape users from even seeing what doesn't work. If he were interested in showing what he can do, or what Netscape can't, he could leave out the redirects and include a warning that Netscape wouldn't display things as intended. As it is, he's just trying to piss people off.
When I apply for a job, I'd rather they hire me at what I claim I'm worth, just because I say I'm worth it. But if I'm hiring someone, I want to know what you've done before to rate that salary.
When I buy a house, I'd like them to trust me to always make payments on time, thus giving me the best possible rate on the loan. But if I'm lending the money, I want to know if you make the payments on your car loan and credit cards.
I could go on like this all day, but they all come down to the same thing: personal interactions always come down to trust. The more I value whatever I'm putting at stake -- my time, my money, my children -- the more carefully I want to check you out to see if I will trust you with it.
We can talk about how "big business" is constantly eroding privacy, but "big business" is a collection of individuals, each of whom is protecting their investment. If you don't want to give them the information, don't. What, they won't do business with you if you don't give up the information? Well then they're not the kind of company you want to do business with anyway, are they? The class warfare routine is starting to get old.
Governments are a different animal. If you disagree with them -- try driving without a license -- you can go to jail. When businesses become powerful enough to unduly influence legislation (ie: they write it themselves for rubber-stamping) they've crossed the line and should be guarded against as jealously and agressively as we would guard against an oppressive government.
Which of course means, "It's all about the money."
While I can sympathize with the discomfort that the system will fire itself, I don't think we are (yet) at the point where we should fear the technology. After all, there are still people deciding where the plane will fly and what the rules of engagement will be for the laser.
This system is far more refined in its targeting capabilities than nuclear weapons. Nukes take out whole cities indiscriminately, this will only -- okay, it's designed to only -- take out missles and aircraft. Missles are obviously not civilian, so that only leaves the possibility of targeting the wrong aircraft. And since anyone flying a plane should know how to use the radio, there shouldn't be cases of civilians accidentally ending up in the path of an autonomous system.
When someone decides to apply an AI to deciding what is a target to begin with, then we'll have gone too far.