Personally, I beleive people who don't want to buy Windows should have no right to do so. They should be forced to buy (or obtain legally, for free) something else. But MS doesnt want they either. What they want is for *everyone* to be forced to pay for Windows.
But people foolish enough to WANT to run Windows are probably foolish enough to pay for it.
Re:OT: Metadata on the file system?
on
EXT4 Is Coming
·
· Score: 1
A far simpler solution to the specific problem you mention:
And what I am saying is that instead of a limit 'per month', where if you use it up, you are stuck for the entire month, the limit should be 'per second', where if you use it up, you just wait until the next second. It is also far easier to rate-limit a port/node than it is to count up all the bits transferred over the course of a month, so theres much less overhead in terms of accounting, as well.
Per month, for the first half of the month, they will either need a monster pipe, or network latency would be abysmal, then as customers use up their 'quota', then all that extra pipe would be sitting idle.
Eg, not X GB per month, but instead XMbit per second.
I would *never* pay for bandwidth measured 'per month'.
One quick response - bandwidth is 'per second'. And Id love to have a specific, limited bandwidth. What you are talking about is 'transfer', which harkens to the cell phone carriers wanting to bill 'per minute', or for dialup ISP's to bill 'per hour'. The former is starting to break down, and the latter went away a long time ago. The entire concept of being 'on the meter' is obnoxious. I'd rather have a limited, fixed X Mbps, and be able to use it (or not) as much as I want.
The NH man asserts that he made the police officer aware of the recording. The police don't necessarily agree with that
Should be quite simple to prove that he told them, since him telling the police about the camera would also be recorded too.
And since this was *HIS* property, I feel he has *every* right to use a security camera. And if the police *were* rude and harassing him, then that explains why they are upset about it. That they just assumed that there would be no proof beyond this guy's word that they were, becuase most people *dont* have security cameras, is their problem. And a review of the tape would show that too. So lets get the tape out in public, then everyone can decide who (is/are) telling the truth, and who (is/are) the lying coward(s)
You are not forced to use Paypal to pay for eBay auctions. Each seller, for each item they list, can choose what payment methods they accept. Some accept PayPal, some don't. Some accept only PayPal. Some will accept Money orders. Even for sellers that only accept PayPal, you can usually pay them through PayPal using your CC without creating a PayPal account - in effect just making PayPal their CC processor.
Would be if there was some breakthrough in wireless tech, that greatly increased range (on the order of miles) and bandwidth (at least a couple Mbps), while eliminating the line-of-sight requirement, wtih a built-in relay function (eg A wants to talk to C, but isnt in range. B is somewhere between them, and in range of both). Then, everyone gets one, and the wired Internet (and the megacorp control of it as well) could start to (very) slowly be phased out.
Well, there are two types of people that use MS Office - those that do so out of ignorance, and those that are forced to (usually by an authority usually bearing an MBA that does so out of ignorance or graft.) I'm sure there is a fairly large area of overlap between the two.
I would read that as 'percent of users coming in from IP addresses on MS's corporate network arrived at (the site) with google as the referrer' which would mean that said persons went to google, did a search there for whatever, and then clicked the link on the google results page to get to (the site)
Well I use neither Wincrap nor MacOS, and I wouldnt touch MS-WMP with a ten foot pole. I am able to play WMA, AVI, whatever, if I can get an actual URL directly to the media file itself, rather than have some overblown gee-whiz nonsense trying to run scripts in my browser while at the same time doing their utmost preventing me from finding said URL. Becuase heaven forbid anyone might be able to (GASP!) actually DOWNLOAD the file, instead of sitting there having it spoonfeed to them a little at a time.
I dont suppose anyone has a link to the actual video? Eg something ending in.AVI,.MP[E]G or even.WMA? The link on the NBC page seems to be some sort of IE-only Active-X thingy that is completely unrecognized by Firefox, and does nothing.
Plugins for media are evil. What is wrong with just linking directly to the video file, and letting the browser find the right app, or if it doesnt have one, allow the damn thing to just be saved for standalone playing?
There really isnt any point in arguring with you, since you are either MS astroturf, or you really are completely hypnotized by their shiny junk. The evidence is there, yet you choose to ignore it.
This isnt a new monopoly - its the offshoots of the old AT&T monopoly from way back.
The 'break up' of AT&T was supposedly the cure for its illegal monopoly, and while what they did mostly worked for the so called 'long distance' market, it did diddly squat for the local market. All it did was create a number of smaller markets, where each was still a geographic monopoly. And since then, those companies have been merging back together, and one of them has even now been reborn as 'AT&T' again. "Its happening all over again"
The problem was the way they broke up AT&T, while individual customers could then choose which 'long distance' company to be a customer of, they had no choice or option to change what 'local' company to use, other than the one they were 'assigned' to. Even today, with the few alternative phone providers that you can choose in certain areas, you are still paying the monopoly incumbent for the wires in the ground, and they take their sweet time allocating them for use by your chosen provider. Oh and of course DSL is completely out of the question if you do that.
In order to consider there to be competition in a market requires that individual customers in that market to be able to freely choose from multiple suppliers of all services in that market.
Right now 'broadband' is in the hotseat, and you have at best a duopoly, and in some cases not even that. And with one of the two choices, should you be so lucky, you are forced to also buy other services from that company that you may not need (DSL forcing you to subscribe to ILEC's POTS service), and often with the other choice you pay for other services wether you want to or not (but apparently, only with some - some cableco's force you to pay the equivalent of basic cable with your broadband even if you dont have it)
Real competition for highspeed broadband access will kill every other telecom market, becuase everything else can ride on top of it, and if existing telecom companies arent allowed to strangle it, it will finally enable REAL competition for those services. VOIP is the phone killer, just imagine an equivalent for 'cable' - you sign up with any of dozens of companies, and they ship you a box with an ethernet port and a coax jack to connect to your TV. Or better yet, imagine something like SIP being developed for 'television' broadcast - where the protocol is open and you can replace the little box with software (and I dont mean proprietary Windows-only software, think something like Asterisk)
Wireless is really the only hope, since its the only way you could get broadband, phone service, and (maybe someday) TV, without bending over for at least one of your local monopoly telecom carriers.
By 'todays kids' I refer to many persons who are of legal voting age. I wasnt talking about highschoolers (although they too know that those terms mean)
'Todays kids' know exactly what HDTV and Digital Radio are, and they know that each is set to turn 'old' TV, and 'old' radio into dinosaurs. And they know fully that if you want to record TV in the future, you use not a VCR but a DVR. And they understand the possibility that 'their music collection' will very likely come from 'Digital Radio', in the future.
See, thats where you are wrong. Cryptography can be open becuase you and the person you are communicating with both want to protect the encrypted information from disclosure. But if you give your recipient the key, they can decrypt it and share it with anyone they want. Now perhaps the software/cryptography has an option that says 'display only', but if its truly open they (or other developers) can write software that ignores that option.
The problem with that working with DRM is that the recipient is specifcally the person that the publishers (RIAA/etc) are trying to prevent from having full access. Their ability to do that depends on preventing third parties from writing software that can access the 'content', or that can decrypt it, and preventing the 'recipients' from actually having access to the decryption keys.
Er, 'recording tv shows', and 'making a favorites CD' (also known as a 'mix CD') is exactly what the first two topics were about.
HDTV (actually DTV) is what everyone is talking about migrating to, and the FCC is mandating. Existing analog broadcasts would be gone. And using a DVR is exactly about recording TV shows. VCR's certainly wont be useful, since big media wouldnt let anything digital have an unprotected anlog output.
And while you could certainly make a mix CD from existing current standard CD's, big media would very much like to only offer music in a DRM format, which wouldnt include standard CD's.
Preventing someone else from reading something the government sent me without *my* permission would be fine. The government, preventing *ME* from showing someone else what the government sent me, *IS* abuse of power. If the govt sends me an illegal threat, I have *every* right to show that to my lawyer, the press, or whoever I want.
DRM can never be open, becuase if it were, it would be defeatable.
DRM isnt about protecting rights, its about taking yours away so that big media can prevent you from moving from one platform to another without having to pay them again each time.
'Registering' a media player so that it can track what you listen to and when smacks of invasion of privacy.
Big media would love digital downloads to take off in a form they can keep a tight fist on, if only so that they can start phasing CD's out or start charging more for them, since in their current form (as long as you don't run MS OS's that ignore the audio CD part and run the DRM programs on the data part) they don't trample on fair use rights such as the ability to make backups and to media and format shift.
Remember download speed isnt just about your end of the connection - the driver download site could have been the slow end. Youd need to try transferring from many different sites to get a true picture.
And how long of a contract are you in with your local monopoly telco, for both the DSL and the mandatory local line? What if it starts to suck in a month, and another company started offering a deal that was twice as good? - could you switch to see if it worked better, without paying an expensive termination fee?
In any case, I acknowledge the options suck in both cases. Two choices is the maximum that the average person has for wired broadband. In some cases the telco seems the lesser of two evils, sometimes its the cableco.
But as far as the tech itself is concered, if done right, DSL has a max of 1.5 and cable has a max of 40+. Obviously they are going to rate limit you to whatever you pay for in any case, but thats the tech max.
Fiber-to-the-home, might prove a better option, but even if it ever catches up to where cable and DSL are today, you still wont be able to choose between multiple providers (Eg You arent going to see any of the incumbents competing against each other - in each's monopoly geographic rea you'll have exactly one provider - the monopoly.
Yeah, they are making DSL cost less becuase it has a mas speed of 1.5Mbps (cable could theoretically go to 45+ Mbps), becuase they want to force you to get a phone line from them, and becuase they want to lock you into a year or more contract with a hefty 'termination fee'.
While cable does usually require you to subscribe to at least 'basic cable' (usually $12/mo), but I've never heard of a contract, so you can cancel anytime if it later sucks. And offered speeds of 3 and 6 Mbps aren't uncommon - DSL just cant support that.
Regardless, both industries are monopolies in their own right. It would be nice if there was an open competitive market (as opposed to a duopoly) for wired broadband Internet, sold ala-carte so you could get *just* the broadband, without paying for other crap. Many people are looking into VOIP, and cable really makes more sense there unless you intend to keep a regular line too, and are willing to obligate yourself to a longterm contract.
Slashdot Mirror
would any self-respecting "nerd" who knows crap about anything need 'Network Magic' for, especially if you arent running Windows?
It appears to be software to automate doing things that only a moron wouldnt already know how to do.
Personally, I beleive people who don't want to buy Windows should have no right to do so. They should be forced to buy (or obtain legally, for free) something else. But MS doesnt want they either. What they want is for *everyone* to be forced to pay for Windows.
But people foolish enough to WANT to run Windows are probably foolish enough to pay for it.
A far simpler solution to the specific problem you mention:
[root@flathat example]# ls -l
total 4
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2692 Jul 2 10:03 VP2.pdb
[root@flathat example]# ln -s VP2.pdb ViewPicture2.pdb
[root@flathat example]# ls -l
total 4
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 Jul 2 10:03 ViewPicture2.pdb -> VP2.pdb
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2692 Jul 2 10:03 VP2.pdb
And what I am saying is that instead of a limit 'per month', where if you use it up, you are stuck for the entire month, the limit should be 'per second', where if you use it up, you just wait until the next second. It is also far easier to rate-limit a port/node than it is to count up all the bits transferred over the course of a month, so theres much less overhead in terms of accounting, as well.
Per month, for the first half of the month, they will either need a monster pipe, or network latency would be abysmal, then as customers use up their 'quota', then all that extra pipe would be sitting idle.
Eg, not X GB per month, but instead XMbit per second.
I would *never* pay for bandwidth measured 'per month'.
One quick response - bandwidth is 'per second'. And Id love to have a specific, limited bandwidth. What you are talking about is 'transfer', which harkens to the cell phone carriers wanting to bill 'per minute', or for dialup ISP's to bill 'per hour'. The former is starting to break down, and the latter went away a long time ago. The entire concept of being 'on the meter' is obnoxious. I'd rather have a limited, fixed X Mbps, and be able to use it (or not) as much as I want.
The NH man asserts that he made the police officer aware of the recording. The police don't necessarily agree with that
Should be quite simple to prove that he told them, since him telling the police about the camera would also be recorded too.
And since this was *HIS* property, I feel he has *every* right to use a security camera. And if the police *were* rude and harassing him, then that explains why they are upset about it. That they just assumed that there would be no proof beyond this guy's word that they were, becuase most people *dont* have security cameras, is their problem. And a review of the tape would show that too. So lets get the tape out in public, then everyone can decide who (is/are) telling the truth, and who (is/are) the lying coward(s)
You are not forced to use Paypal to pay for eBay auctions. Each seller, for each item they list, can choose what payment methods they accept. Some accept PayPal, some don't. Some accept only PayPal. Some will accept Money orders. Even for sellers that only accept PayPal, you can usually pay them through PayPal using your CC without creating a PayPal account - in effect just making PayPal their CC processor.
Would be if there was some breakthrough in wireless tech, that greatly increased range (on the order of miles) and bandwidth (at least a couple Mbps), while eliminating the line-of-sight requirement, wtih a built-in relay function (eg A wants to talk to C, but isnt in range. B is somewhere between them, and in range of both). Then, everyone gets one, and the wired Internet (and the megacorp control of it as well) could start to (very) slowly be phased out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_offender_registry
Well, there are two types of people that use MS Office - those that do so out of ignorance, and those that are forced to (usually by an authority usually bearing an MBA that does so out of ignorance or graft.) I'm sure there is a fairly large area of overlap between the two.
You have sources for any of those suppositions? Or are you just maing assumptions?
I would read that as 'percent of users coming in from IP addresses on MS's corporate network arrived at (the site) with google as the referrer' which would mean that said persons went to google, did a search there for whatever, and then clicked the link on the google results page to get to (the site)
Well I use neither Wincrap nor MacOS, and I wouldnt touch MS-WMP with a ten foot pole. I am able to play WMA, AVI, whatever, if I can get an actual URL directly to the media file itself, rather than have some overblown gee-whiz nonsense trying to run scripts in my browser while at the same time doing their utmost preventing me from finding said URL. Becuase heaven forbid anyone might be able to (GASP!) actually DOWNLOAD the file, instead of sitting there having it spoonfeed to them a little at a time.
I dont suppose anyone has a link to the actual video? Eg something ending in .AVI, .MP[E]G or even .WMA? The link on the NBC page seems to be some sort of IE-only Active-X thingy that is completely unrecognized by Firefox, and does nothing.
Plugins for media are evil. What is wrong with just linking directly to the video file, and letting the browser find the right app, or if it doesnt have one, allow the damn thing to just be saved for standalone playing?
There really isnt any point in arguring with you, since you are either MS astroturf, or you really are completely hypnotized by their shiny junk. The evidence is there, yet you choose to ignore it.
Try " ... the number of *published* vulnerabilities ..."
How about we compare the percentage of code available to be audited by outside developers?
The original statement stands. Anyone running IIS is a fool, ignorant, or in someone else's pocket.
This isnt a new monopoly - its the offshoots of the old AT&T monopoly from way back.
The 'break up' of AT&T was supposedly the cure for its illegal monopoly, and while what they did mostly worked for the so called 'long distance' market, it did diddly squat for the local market. All it did was create a number of smaller markets, where each was still a geographic monopoly. And since then, those companies have been merging back together, and one of them has even now been reborn as 'AT&T' again. "Its happening all over again"
The problem was the way they broke up AT&T, while individual customers could then choose which 'long distance' company to be a customer of, they had no choice or option to change what 'local' company to use, other than the one they were 'assigned' to. Even today, with the few alternative phone providers that you can choose in certain areas, you are still paying the monopoly incumbent for the wires in the ground, and they take their sweet time allocating them for use by your chosen provider. Oh and of course DSL is completely out of the question if you do that.
In order to consider there to be competition in a market requires that individual customers in that market to be able to freely choose from multiple suppliers of all services in that market.
Right now 'broadband' is in the hotseat, and you have at best a duopoly, and in some cases not even that. And with one of the two choices, should you be so lucky, you are forced to also buy other services from that company that you may not need (DSL forcing you to subscribe to ILEC's POTS service), and often with the other choice you pay for other services wether you want to or not (but apparently, only with some - some cableco's force you to pay the equivalent of basic cable with your broadband even if you dont have it)
Real competition for highspeed broadband access will kill every other telecom market, becuase everything else can ride on top of it, and if existing telecom companies arent allowed to strangle it, it will finally enable REAL competition for those services. VOIP is the phone killer, just imagine an equivalent for 'cable' - you sign up with any of dozens of companies, and they ship you a box with an ethernet port and a coax jack to connect to your TV. Or better yet, imagine something like SIP being developed for 'television' broadcast - where the protocol is open and you can replace the little box with software (and I dont mean proprietary Windows-only software, think something like Asterisk)
Wireless is really the only hope, since its the only way you could get broadband, phone service, and (maybe someday) TV, without bending over for at least one of your local monopoly telecom carriers.
By 'todays kids' I refer to many persons who are of legal voting age. I wasnt talking about highschoolers (although they too know that those terms mean)
'Todays kids' know exactly what HDTV and Digital Radio are, and they know that each is set to turn 'old' TV, and 'old' radio into dinosaurs. And they know fully that if you want to record TV in the future, you use not a VCR but a DVR. And they understand the possibility that 'their music collection' will very likely come from 'Digital Radio', in the future.
See, thats where you are wrong. Cryptography can be open becuase you and the person you are communicating with both want to protect the encrypted information from disclosure. But if you give your recipient the key, they can decrypt it and share it with anyone they want. Now perhaps the software/cryptography has an option that says 'display only', but if its truly open they (or other developers) can write software that ignores that option.
The problem with that working with DRM is that the recipient is specifcally the person that the publishers (RIAA/etc) are trying to prevent from having full access. Their ability to do that depends on preventing third parties from writing software that can access the 'content', or that can decrypt it, and preventing the 'recipients' from actually having access to the decryption keys.
Er, 'recording tv shows', and 'making a favorites CD' (also known as a 'mix CD') is exactly what the first two topics were about.
HDTV (actually DTV) is what everyone is talking about migrating to, and the FCC is mandating. Existing analog broadcasts would be gone. And using a DVR is exactly about recording TV shows. VCR's certainly wont be useful, since big media wouldnt let anything digital have an unprotected anlog output.
And while you could certainly make a mix CD from existing current standard CD's, big media would very much like to only offer music in a DRM format, which wouldnt include standard CD's.
Earthlink isn't a cable company, afaik.
:P)
As far as Time-Warner, I would rephrase that as 'They charge you $5 extra if you dont pay for cable too'.
Charter charges $10. (Oh and 'basic cable' is $12, so its a no-brainer, really, unless you are so tight that the $2 diff would put you over budget
Preventing someone else from reading something the government sent me without *my* permission would be fine. The government, preventing *ME* from showing someone else what the government sent me, *IS* abuse of power. If the govt sends me an illegal threat, I have *every* right to show that to my lawyer, the press, or whoever I want.
DRM can never be open, becuase if it were, it would be defeatable.
DRM isnt about protecting rights, its about taking yours away so that big media can prevent you from moving from one platform to another without having to pay them again each time.
'Registering' a media player so that it can track what you listen to and when smacks of invasion of privacy.
Big media would love digital downloads to take off in a form they can keep a tight fist on, if only so that they can start phasing CD's out or start charging more for them, since in their current form (as long as you don't run MS OS's that ignore the audio CD part and run the DRM programs on the data part) they don't trample on fair use rights such as the ability to make backups and to media and format shift.
Remember download speed isnt just about your end of the connection - the driver download site could have been the slow end. Youd need to try transferring from many different sites to get a true picture.
And how long of a contract are you in with your local monopoly telco, for both the DSL and the mandatory local line? What if it starts to suck in a month, and another company started offering a deal that was twice as good? - could you switch to see if it worked better, without paying an expensive termination fee?
In any case, I acknowledge the options suck in both cases. Two choices is the maximum that the average person has for wired broadband. In some cases the telco seems the lesser of two evils, sometimes its the cableco.
But as far as the tech itself is concered, if done right, DSL has a max of 1.5 and cable has a max of 40+. Obviously they are going to rate limit you to whatever you pay for in any case, but thats the tech max.
Fiber-to-the-home, might prove a better option, but even if it ever catches up to where cable and DSL are today, you still wont be able to choose between multiple providers (Eg You arent going to see any of the incumbents competing against each other - in each's monopoly geographic rea you'll have exactly one provider - the monopoly.
Yeah, they are making DSL cost less becuase it has a mas speed of 1.5Mbps (cable could theoretically go to 45+ Mbps), becuase they want to force you to get a phone line from them, and becuase they want to lock you into a year or more contract with a hefty 'termination fee'.
While cable does usually require you to subscribe to at least 'basic cable' (usually $12/mo), but I've never heard of a contract, so you can cancel anytime if it later sucks. And offered speeds of 3 and 6 Mbps aren't uncommon - DSL just cant support that.
Regardless, both industries are monopolies in their own right. It would be nice if there was an open competitive market (as opposed to a duopoly) for wired broadband Internet, sold ala-carte so you could get *just* the broadband, without paying for other crap. Many people are looking into VOIP, and cable really makes more sense there unless you intend to keep a regular line too, and are willing to obligate yourself to a longterm contract.