I just bought windows XP. Do you know why? Because if I want to play games with my computer, I have no choice. Some games now refuse to work with Windows 98 and almost none work with Linux. If that's not a sign of a monopoly, I don't know what is.
So your 7 year old OS isn't supported by games creators? Linux isn't supported either?
If I was writing a game, I wouldn't target either platform you mention. Not because Microsoft have a monopoly, but because most systems running Windows 98 probably won't be able to run my game - the hardware isn't up to it - and because most Linux users don't buy software anyway, and the number of Linux users out there is tiny, so I make more money targetting a more popular platform. Like Mac OS X.
But this isn't just about the situation now; it's about the future. By the time IE had started to pull away from Netscape and we could see just what damage a bundled browser could do, it was too late to fix things. Similarly, by the time WMP looks like a serious danger, it'll be too late. I think the EU is right in acting now.
You mean, by the time Netscapes engineers had been cooling their heels for several versions, and IE had chance to catch up and surpass them, surely?
You remember what a piece of crap Netscape 4 was? That's why IE won.
I suppose if you never want to learn how your development tools work and how to be more proficient with them an IDE is a great tool. Sadly most MSVC users I know don't know what makefile is let alone what nmake is.
So manually editing a makefile because you're a masochist makes you a better programmer?
I'm truly impressed. Do you also bake all of your own bread because you can't truly appreciate it unless you make it all yourself? Do you eschew restaurants? Perhaps you have to grow all your own vegetables too.
But the guy is an ass not to put in a retraction that it is not Firefox's fault. If the guy had a properly secured and patched box it would not have happened. If he had not been running Macafee it would not have happened.
Probably nothing at all, oh parochial one. Have you ever considered that people who aren't originally from the U.S. might not have a clue who the hell "DePaul" are?
If I said "UMIST" to you, would you know who they were? Or would you think that I was calling you a bad juggler? (Clue: They're the UK's equivalent of MIT).
Torr's from Australia (IIRC - he may also be Kiwi). So give him a break.
Well gee, I always thought MS recruit the brightest and the smartest.. I guess if he doesn't know about DePaul University then maybe he's not a geek but maybe...... he's not from this country? IIRC, Peter's Australian.
WTF are you talking about? FF tells you clearly when a site is trying to install an XPI file, you just have to click the Allow button on the yellow bar on top of the page to whitelist the site before it will be allowed to prompt you for XPI installation.
This was done as a security measure to prevent malicious attempts to install unwanted (spyware) XPI files on sketchy sites, which started to happen. I wish to god IE would do the same thing with Browser Helper Objects, and any ActiveX objects for that matter.
IE does the same thing. In fact, Firefox copied the UI for their security feature wholesale from the IE version of the same said security feature.
For example, did you know that a person who has ADD can take Ritalin and fall asleep long before the medication's effects begin to wear off? In fact, for a person with ADD, stimulants like Ritalin or even caffeine effectively act as relaxants, rather than stimulants, but still produce the side effect of being able to concentrate more effectively either way.... except, of course, on the rest of the central nervous system, where the caffeine STILL works as a stimulant.
Which means drink enough of it and you get very irritable and tectchy, and your heart rate goes up - but you won't get the jitters and you won't get wired. You will, however, get a caffeine "hangover" when you go through withdrawal in your sleep every night.
Nasty stuff in large enough doses - namely the kind you might hit when self medicating.
98% of all complaints to the FCC came THROUGH one organization. For the first time, an organization provided an easy way for the public to respond to the FCC. Each complaint was a valid complaint from a concerned individual.
Thus, there were truly 240,000+ individual complaints submitted simply because technology allowed people to respond for themselves.
Gotta love this technology that allows people to get involved.
So what's your problem? You sound as if you actually want to CENSOR those people's right to freedom of speech.
No, I don't want to censor their right to freedom of speech. Similarly, I don't want them censoring anyone else's - which is what THEY are trying to do.
However, that's beside the point. The fact of the matter is that all we know is that those 240000 complaints were submitted to the FCC by the Parents Television Council - an activist group. We do NOT know that "each complaint was a valid complaint from a concerned individual". If you would like to provide evidence that this was the case, please do so.
The source you quote is correct, but you're not. Just because 98% of the complaints came from one group DOES NOT mean that the majority wants to see Janet's breast. Your logic is flawed.
My logic is not flawed at all. I've shown that the majority of people do NOT complain to the FCC about indecency - that is all.
The original poster claimed that the majority of people do NOT want to see things like that on television, and the FCC was following their orders. I've proven that this statement is nothing but pure unadulterated bullshit.
And it looks like you're in the minority. The FCC DOES do what the majority of people want and the majority DON'T want Janet's breast on OTA broadcasts. The majority DO want censorship to that degree. Just because you feel the right to something doesn't make your opinion the majority opinion.
That sounds like it's possible, but since Suprnova and such are non-profit.. Why would they need a 'marketing campaign'?
You appear to be under the misguided impression that non-profit companies don't make any money for their owners.
They do.
The revenue, however, that forms the profit cannot be stashed away by the company for a rainy day. They have to pay all that extra money out as salaries to their owners, rather than the owners increasing the value of the company as an investment property.
Filter 'em out like I do with my own software and kwitchyerbellyaching!
If I still have to pay bandwidth fees to download my email (like I did when I logged on from Peru earlier this year, or like I would if I was paying by the megabyte for my internet pipe), then I'm still financially inconvenienced by having to do this.
This is no different than someone sending junk faxes to you - if you pay for the fax paper, then they have no right to abuse your fax machine.
Similarly, I pay for my internet service, my bandwidth and my computer storage space. Therefore the spammers have no right to clog any of those up.
Never mind the fact that filters don't work perfectly.
Put together an inexpensive LCD or DLP projector and a Dolby 5.1 system with a nice sub, and I think you'd prefer a home viewing over a public one.
I've got a Dolby 6.1 system with a nice sub, and an HDTV. The movie theater wins hands down for me, but then again I'm a picture quality nazi. *shrugs*
And the movie industry wonders why movie theaters aren't performing well.
Take the family of four(I live in a cheap area): Tickets: $18 (two adults @$5, two kids @$4) Popcorn&Soda: $20 (easy, for four drinks & two large popcorns). Total: $38
Your ticket pays for the film.
Your popcorn & soda, and the movie theater advertising, pays for the place it's shown in, and the people who work there.
It's the only way they can make money.
Besides, do you really need popcorn? Or a soda?
Also, I'm pretty certain that your sound system and screen for that DVD don't come anywhere close to seeing it in a theater (although on the plus side you don't have to deal with ignorant idiots yapping through it - or cellphones).
No, the other one -- which was brought by the traffic of one of the Win32 worms, that did not let the stations communicate the failure, so the other ones kept failing in cascade
So they had a badly implemented architecture. Big deal. That doesn't change the fact that in most government run mission-critical installations, there is no network connection between their intranet and the internet, eliminating this problem.
The aforementioned case is not a government installation.
It's not about the stuff you install, it's about the stuff that others install for you.
Include links to IE and Outlook exploits here.
In mission critical situations in government installations, they have one machine for their intranet, and one machine with internet access and never the twain shall meet. They've been doing things like this for decades.
And yes, they'd still do the same thing if they were running Linux.
You only see the 1/4 memory space IE uses because the rest of it is incorporated into the OS. If core Firefox components were incorporated into Windows the way IE is, it would show less memory usage than IE does.
No, you don't.
Taskmgr reports the virtual memory space used by IE - including shared DLLs.
To see how much it uses by itself, per instance, you have to add the "Private Bytes" column to Taskmgr (or Perfmon).
If you were talking about startup times, you might have a point (in actual fact you still wouldn't, because if you build Mozilla for yourself and do the appropriate rebasing and binding of DLLs and turn off the splash screen, it loads as fast as IE).
Please, don't just spew out what you've read on the internet. Do tests for yourself.
Forget about what the Senate heard; that's just political nonsense. But this subject does raise an interesting question: Exactly what effect has the increasing availability of porn had on people? I'm not condemning it, or praising it. I'm asking a basic question. What is the effect (good or bad) of this being the first generation of children and young adults for whom porn has been ubiquitious and easily available in the comfort of their own home? In no other generation in history has this been the case, to my knowledge. Yet kids today can access porn any time they want. They are growing up with ready access to any image you can imagine.
So what is the effect? I truly have no idea. I'm not condemning porn. I'm just wondering. Will this have a good effect, making kids more at ease around sex, not viewing it as this mysterious, dirty subject? Will it have a bad effect, conditioning them into thinking of sex in an unrealistic way? Guess we'll find out over the next decade as they grow up and enter society.
Slashdot Mirror
I just bought windows XP. Do you know why? Because if I want to play games with my computer, I have no choice. Some games now refuse to work with Windows 98 and almost none work with Linux. If that's not a sign of a monopoly, I don't know what is.
So your 7 year old OS isn't supported by games creators? Linux isn't supported either?
If I was writing a game, I wouldn't target either platform you mention. Not because Microsoft have a monopoly, but because most systems running Windows 98 probably won't be able to run my game - the hardware isn't up to it - and because most Linux users don't buy software anyway, and the number of Linux users out there is tiny, so I make more money targetting a more popular platform. Like Mac OS X.
But this isn't just about the situation now; it's about the future. By the time IE had started to pull away from Netscape and we could see just what damage a bundled browser could do, it was too late to fix things. Similarly, by the time WMP looks like a serious danger, it'll be too late. I think the EU is right in acting now.
You mean, by the time Netscapes engineers had been cooling their heels for several versions, and IE had chance to catch up and surpass them, surely?
You remember what a piece of crap Netscape 4 was? That's why IE won.
I suppose if you never want to learn how your development tools work and how to be more proficient with them an IDE is a great tool. Sadly most MSVC users I know don't know what makefile is let alone what nmake is.
So manually editing a makefile because you're a masochist makes you a better programmer?
I'm truly impressed. Do you also bake all of your own bread because you can't truly appreciate it unless you make it all yourself? Do you eschew restaurants? Perhaps you have to grow all your own vegetables too.
Convenience is not a bad thing.
The question isnt whether MS can include a media player or not. The issue is whether Dell can include a media player "other" than the one MS includes.
Dell have been doing that since 1998. So the answer is Yes, they can. (Namely MusicMatch, and sometimes RealPlayer)
What "issue" did you have in mind?
But the guy is an ass not to put in a retraction that it is not Firefox's fault. If the guy had a properly secured and patched box it would not have happened. If he had not been running Macafee it would not have happened.
He's not running Macafee. Try not being an ass.
What's this guy have against DePaul University ?
Probably nothing at all, oh parochial one. Have you ever considered that people who aren't originally from the U.S. might not have a clue who the hell "DePaul" are?
If I said "UMIST" to you, would you know who they were? Or would you think that I was calling you a bad juggler? (Clue: They're the UK's equivalent of MIT).
Torr's from Australia (IIRC - he may also be Kiwi). So give him a break.
Well gee, I always thought MS recruit the brightest and the smartest.. I guess if he doesn't know about DePaul University then maybe he's not a geek but maybe... ... he's not from this country? IIRC, Peter's Australian.
WTF are you talking about? FF tells you clearly when a site is trying to install an XPI file, you just have to click the Allow button on the yellow bar on top of the page to whitelist the site before it will be allowed to prompt you for XPI installation.
This was done as a security measure to prevent malicious attempts to install unwanted (spyware) XPI files on sketchy sites, which started to happen. I wish to god IE would do the same thing with Browser Helper Objects, and any ActiveX objects for that matter.
IE does the same thing. In fact, Firefox copied the UI for their security feature wholesale from the IE version of the same said security feature.
For example, did you know that a person who has ADD can take Ritalin and fall asleep long before the medication's effects begin to wear off? In fact, for a person with ADD, stimulants like Ritalin or even caffeine effectively act as relaxants, rather than stimulants, but still produce the side effect of being able to concentrate more effectively either way. ... except, of course, on the rest of the central nervous system, where the caffeine STILL works as a stimulant.
Which means drink enough of it and you get very irritable and tectchy, and your heart rate goes up - but you won't get the jitters and you won't get wired. You will, however, get a caffeine "hangover" when you go through withdrawal in your sleep every night.
Nasty stuff in large enough doses - namely the kind you might hit when self medicating.
No, your wording is incorrect.
98% of all complaints to the FCC came THROUGH one organization. For the first time, an organization provided an easy way for the public to respond to the FCC. Each complaint was a valid complaint from a concerned individual.
Thus, there were truly 240,000+ individual complaints submitted simply because technology allowed people to respond for themselves.
Gotta love this technology that allows people to get involved.
So what's your problem? You sound as if you actually want to CENSOR those people's right to freedom of speech.
No, I don't want to censor their right to freedom of speech. Similarly, I don't want them censoring anyone else's - which is what THEY are trying to do.
However, that's beside the point. The fact of the matter is that all we know is that those 240000 complaints were submitted to the FCC by the Parents Television Council - an activist group. We do NOT know that "each complaint was a valid complaint from a concerned individual". If you would like to provide evidence that this was the case, please do so.
The source you quote is correct, but you're not. Just because 98% of the complaints came from one group DOES NOT mean that the majority wants to see Janet's breast. Your logic is flawed.
My logic is not flawed at all. I've shown that the majority of people do NOT complain to the FCC about indecency - that is all.
The original poster claimed that the majority of people do NOT want to see things like that on television, and the FCC was following their orders. I've proven that this statement is nothing but pure unadulterated bullshit.
And it looks like you're in the minority. The FCC DOES do what the majority of people want and the majority DON'T want Janet's breast on OTA broadcasts. The majority DO want censorship to that degree. Just because you feel the right to something doesn't make your opinion the majority opinion.
Incorrect. 98% of all complaints to the FCC come from ONE single lobbying organization.
That's not the majority. That's a lobbying group with an agenda they want to push.
That sounds like it's possible, but since Suprnova and such are non-profit.. Why would they need a 'marketing campaign'?
You appear to be under the misguided impression that non-profit companies don't make any money for their owners.
They do.
The revenue, however, that forms the profit cannot be stashed away by the company for a rainy day. They have to pay all that extra money out as salaries to their owners, rather than the owners increasing the value of the company as an investment property.
Fine.
Filter 'em out like I do with my own software and kwitchyerbellyaching!
If I still have to pay bandwidth fees to download my email (like I did when I logged on from Peru earlier this year, or like I would if I was paying by the megabyte for my internet pipe), then I'm still financially inconvenienced by having to do this.
This is no different than someone sending junk faxes to you - if you pay for the fax paper, then they have no right to abuse your fax machine.
Similarly, I pay for my internet service, my bandwidth and my computer storage space. Therefore the spammers have no right to clog any of those up.
Never mind the fact that filters don't work perfectly.
Put together an inexpensive LCD or DLP projector and a Dolby 5.1 system with a nice sub, and I think you'd prefer a home viewing over a public one.
I've got a Dolby 6.1 system with a nice sub, and an HDTV. The movie theater wins hands down for me, but then again I'm a picture quality nazi. *shrugs*
And the movie industry wonders why movie theaters aren't performing well.
Take the family of four(I live in a cheap area): Tickets: $18 (two adults @$5, two kids @$4)
Popcorn&Soda: $20 (easy, for four drinks & two large popcorns).
Total: $38
Your ticket pays for the film.
Your popcorn & soda, and the movie theater advertising, pays for the place it's shown in, and the people who work there.
It's the only way they can make money.
Besides, do you really need popcorn? Or a soda?
Also, I'm pretty certain that your sound system and screen for that DVD don't come anywhere close to seeing it in a theater (although on the plus side you don't have to deal with ignorant idiots yapping through it - or cellphones).
but it is for the most part not easily human-readable.
Not easily human readable != cannot be read by a human.
I can read assembly language. What's your excuse?
The button on my TC1000 pen seems to only left-click, even though the pen button is configured for right-click in the "Tablet and Pen Settings" CP.
Then you have a faulty pen, or a faulty digitizer. Contact tech support and get a replacement.
And what's with the guys fighting with the swords and shields on Wednesdays?
It's probably an SCA group borrowing the field - nothing to do with EA.
For simple items such as the start early/end late options you can just use left/right to increment them.
This is differnet to the start early/end late feature in TiVo for the past 4 years or so... how, exactly?
No, the other one -- which was brought by the traffic of one of the Win32 worms, that did not let the stations communicate the failure, so the other ones kept failing in cascade
So they had a badly implemented architecture. Big deal. That doesn't change the fact that in most government run mission-critical installations, there is no network connection between their intranet and the internet, eliminating this problem.
The aforementioned case is not a government installation.
The one caused by one of them internet worms?
You're talking about the one where the HPUX unix SCADA system went down due to a bug in its operating system?
No, I've not forgotten it. You might want to revisit the post-mortem that the DOE did on that incident though.
It's not about the stuff you install, it's about the stuff that others install for you.
Include links to IE and Outlook exploits here.
In mission critical situations in government installations, they have one machine for their intranet, and one machine with internet access and never the twain shall meet. They've been doing things like this for decades.
And yes, they'd still do the same thing if they were running Linux.
You only see the 1/4 memory space IE uses because the rest of it is incorporated into the OS. If core Firefox components were incorporated into Windows the way IE is, it would show less memory usage than IE does.
No, you don't.
Taskmgr reports the virtual memory space used by IE - including shared DLLs.
To see how much it uses by itself, per instance, you have to add the "Private Bytes" column to Taskmgr (or Perfmon).
If you were talking about startup times, you might have a point (in actual fact you still wouldn't, because if you build Mozilla for yourself and do the appropriate rebasing and binding of DLLs and turn off the splash screen, it loads as fast as IE).
Please, don't just spew out what you've read on the internet. Do tests for yourself.
Forget about what the Senate heard; that's just political nonsense. But this subject does raise an interesting question: Exactly what effect has the increasing availability of porn had on people?
I'm not condemning it, or praising it. I'm asking a basic question. What is the effect (good or bad) of this being the first generation of children and young adults for whom porn has been ubiquitious and easily available in the comfort of their own home? In no other generation in history has this been the case, to my knowledge. Yet kids today can access porn any time they want. They are growing up with ready access to any image you can imagine.
So what is the effect? I truly have no idea. I'm not condemning porn. I'm just wondering. Will this have a good effect, making kids more at ease around sex, not viewing it as this mysterious, dirty subject? Will it have a bad effect, conditioning them into thinking of sex in an unrealistic way? Guess we'll find out over the next decade as they grow up and enter society.
Read this link. To find out what it did to Japan.