'suck it up and accept your rebate check like a man.'
How about "Advertise the actual cash price you are willing to sell the merchandise for without requring customers to jump though hoops that you know most *wont* or fuck off and die and I will buy elsewhere", considering that most merchandise sold with rebates isnt usually worth it even if you *could* just directly pay only the price advertised as 'after rebate(s)'.
So many others of us have moved on to an OS that doesnt need special 'tweaks' to prevent it from lemmingly following instructions that we dont want it to.
No, only if you use the crap software included for crap operating systems. If you either use a non crap OS (or some non-crap software on the crap OS, whilst avoiding the CD from being recognized as a data CD and allowing it to install crap drivers that prevent this) to directly access the same tracks that a standard standlone CD player would access, then you do in fact get the same 44.1k digital audio data that a standalone player would get.
I *do* have a problem with the download only being available through proprietary software (which will surely only exist for Winshit systems) as well as any concept of having to view it with proprietary software. But I'm sure they realize that if they let you download the shows in a standard video format with a standard http or ftp download, that anyone with a clue could trivially clip off their commercials and then redistribute via kazaa, donkey, bt, whatever. So they'll never do that in a million years.
So as far as I'm concerned, this doesnt exist. I refuse to install an entirely different, proprietary platform just to be able to run different, proprietary software to perform functions for which perfectly good software already exists (downloading, watching video)
If it is installed by someone other than the owner/primary user of the machine in order to spy on the person that is the owner, yes.
Of course, the the owner/primary user isn't smart enough to not install vulnerable proprietary OS' on their machine in the first place, then they deserve whatever they get. The fact that 'spyware' even exists as a category of software is telling enough.
Note that the 'copy protected variety' are really only copy potected on certain popular consumer OS platforms. As long as its playable in a standalone CD player, other OS's will recognize them as standard CD's and ignore the 'special' driver that the consumer OS loads automatically, which then proceeds to eliminate functionality from the CDrom drive.
For general luser surfing, no. But try comparing downloading a 700M ISO image on your 'insane' bandwidth, and on your Comcast '4M if no one else on your block is using it' connection. Then the advantage becomes quite clear.
I cant think of any reason why the FSF or GNU would prohibit your providing Windows binaries (as long as you also make the full source code used to produce them available). What GNU project, and what makes you think you are prohibited from doing this?
Its NOT about the software. Its about the FILE FORMAT.
MS Word is perfectly acceptable, so long as MS produces a version that reads and writes the standard FILE FORMAT. (It might also be acceptable if they were to *fully* open the MS file format, to the point that *any* software author/developer is free to completely and fully implement it without restriction)
In any case its all about *not* forcing a specific software package on everyone, even if it is the one that has 99% of everyone uses due to MS' illegal monopoly. Using MS format would *force* Word on everyone. Using OpenDocument format does *NOT* force a specific package *ANY* developer, *including MS* is free to provide software that supports that format.
You, sir, are either grossly misled, or are an intentionall MS shill.
It isnt about forcing people to not use MS Word - its about setting a fair, open, and public standard for the file formats used so that *everyone* can decide what tools to use. Making MS secret format the 'standard' *forces* everyone to use Word, unless MS completely and fully opens the specification for it.
People can use MS Word if they really think its the best tool for them - but they must have a way to read and produce the standard format. That can either mean MS adds native support in Word, or they use a third party plugin or convertor.
MS was recently quoted as suggested that 'customer demand' might drive their decision to support OpenDoc. Hello? MS? MA is a customer. They are demanding it.
Once MA stops buying new Word licenses, MS *will* add OpenDoc to Word, and MA can buy Word again. But MS will *only* do that if they are absolutely forced, as it sets a precedent, and once that ball starts rolling it will mean an end to MS lock-in. Word may still be popular, but no one will be forced to use it.
Yes, converting away from single-source vendor lock-in is hard. But the longer you wait, the harder it gets, and people have been blindly waiting for pretty long already. But once you finally get it over with it gets easier and less expensive in the long run, and switching software in the future (for whatever reason) is no longer a huge issue, since any choice has to support the existing standard format.
Try, "I have a monopoly on the 'pipes' in certain geographic areas in the business I run, so I'll charge whatever I have to to prevent any possibility of any competition from ever getting big enough to threaten that monopoly"
True, but it seems like most users that are too stupid to know better, are the same ones that arent even aware of the existence of anything other than windows, let alone actually use something else.
And I take issue with the whole idea that 'clicking on something' can run some arbitary program in the first place. Making the entire file system appear as GUI folders and icons is part of the problem in the first place.
Downloaded it. So now I have a file that appears to be meaningless binary gibberish. (AKA "Application/OCTET-STREAM") How does one 'run' such a file? I can't seem to find a Makefile, or any other way to compile it. I guess I don't quite get what is dangerous about it?
I interpret #3 to mean 'you just have to have half a brain, and not run Windows'. And while this specific worm may not be old news, the concept that Windows is and has always been (and will always continue to be) a fertile breeding ground for the like is *very* old news. Unfortunately, way too many people have their heads in the sand and refuse to open their eyes.
If you are still dumb enough to use MS software for anything remotely related to the Internet, you deserve to be infected and so do all your friends.
*WHY* is "yet another windows vulnerability/exploit/bug found" even *remotely* "news" ? Same Shit, Different Day. Anyone who is remotely surprised by the fact that 'Yes, Windows is still swiss cheese, despite copius and ongoing FUD from MS' is a complete and utter moron.
"The Romney administration wants documents stored in a particular format that would allow the records to be read by a variety of software packages -- except Microsoft Office."
I would state that a little differently - they want documents stored in a format for which *any* developer is free to write software that can fully support, read and write, and for which there already exists software from more than a single developer/vendor which supports it. *Nothing* in the standard prohibits MS Office as an option, so long as MS is willing to supply a version that meets the requirements.
Government standards should absolutely avoid speciying particular brands of products, incluyding software, or specifying that data formats which are not 100% publically documented and free to implement. Then individual providers of software including MS, each have their choice as to wether to supply software that meets the requirements or not.
It is absolutely backwards to specify a particular brand of software, which uses proprietary formats that are both not 100% public, as well as to which patents may apply that would form a financial barrier to a small or startup organizations.
Yes, the ILEC's *do* still have monopolies in most areas of the US, since they still have exlucive control over the buried cables in the ground. Since that *is* a natural monopoly, as long as one company controls that which has incentive to not allow other companies access to it, they always will. CLEC's should not be required to rewire every block in the US when it has already been done, and at taxpayer and captive-customer expense.
A childs *parents* forcing them to shut down a blog is one thing. A principal at a religious school is entirely another. A more appropriate action might have been to advise students against providing too much personally identifiable information on public sites such as blogs (eg, no last names or addresses, at the very least). That is, if they really were worried about predators, and not the fact that the kids having a platform where they can openly discuss the school.
Its called fragmentation - ISP's and/or end-users would have to specifically reconfigure their DNS to look at the alternate root. Anyone using an ISP that simply ignored the 'pretend' root would not be able to find those domains.
Also, its been done before, by various organizations, and is largely a failure (alternic.net used to be one, now its got a domain-parking site on it).
All the various governments that want to fiddle with the net, or anyone that supports them, should have a good and careful reading of the information at:
If TinyURL didnt like this, seems like they could trivially add a check to see if URL's they are given actually exist by accessing them. If they get a 404, dont accept. For those sites that give a redirect instead of a 404, follow the redirects until they get to a page that actually answers, and use its URL instead.
Slashdot Mirror
'suck it up and accept your rebate check like a man.'
How about "Advertise the actual cash price you are willing to sell the merchandise for without requring customers to jump though hoops that you know most *wont* or fuck off and die and I will buy elsewhere", considering that most merchandise sold with rebates isnt usually worth it even if you *could* just directly pay only the price advertised as 'after rebate(s)'.
Yahoo is a pit of spammers and scammers. Anyone who would ever buy anything from something in Yahoo shopping is a complete fool.
So many others of us have moved on to an OS that doesnt need special 'tweaks' to prevent it from lemmingly following instructions that we dont want it to.
No, only if you use the crap software included for crap operating systems. If you either use a non crap OS (or some non-crap software on the crap OS, whilst avoiding the CD from being recognized as a data CD and allowing it to install crap drivers that prevent this) to directly access the same tracks that a standard standlone CD player would access, then you do in fact get the same 44.1k digital audio data that a standalone player would get.
I *do* have a problem with the download only being available through proprietary software (which will surely only exist for Winshit systems) as well as any concept of having to view it with proprietary software. But I'm sure they realize that if they let you download the shows in a standard video format with a standard http or ftp download, that anyone with a clue could trivially clip off their commercials and then redistribute via kazaa, donkey, bt, whatever. So they'll never do that in a million years.
So as far as I'm concerned, this doesnt exist. I refuse to install an entirely different, proprietary platform just to be able to run different, proprietary software to perform functions for which perfectly good software already exists (downloading, watching video)
If it is installed by someone other than the owner/primary user of the machine in order to spy on the person that is the owner, yes.
Of course, the the owner/primary user isn't smart enough to not install vulnerable proprietary OS' on their machine in the first place, then they deserve whatever they get. The fact that 'spyware' even exists as a category of software is telling enough.
You can skip the actual burning, you know. The files/images you have to create to get to burning, can be 'ripped' directly.
Note that the 'copy protected variety' are really only copy potected on certain popular consumer OS platforms. As long as its playable in a standalone CD player, other OS's will recognize them as standard CD's and ignore the 'special' driver that the consumer OS loads automatically, which then proceeds to eliminate functionality from the CDrom drive.
For general luser surfing, no. But try comparing downloading a 700M ISO image on your 'insane' bandwidth, and on your Comcast '4M if no one else on your block is using it' connection. Then the advantage becomes quite clear.
You can be sure they'll modify that to 'manufactured or *imported into* the US' ...
I cant think of any reason why the FSF or GNU would prohibit your providing Windows binaries (as long as you also make the full source code used to produce them available). What GNU project, and what makes you think you are prohibited from doing this?
In fact, it has already existed for quite some time, and is just like "Google for Usenet"
http://groups.google.com/
Its NOT about the software. Its about the FILE FORMAT.
MS Word is perfectly acceptable, so long as MS produces a version that reads and writes the standard FILE FORMAT. (It might also be acceptable if they were to *fully* open the MS file format, to the point that *any* software author/developer is free to completely and fully implement it without restriction)
In any case its all about *not* forcing a specific software package on everyone, even if it is the one that has 99% of everyone uses due to MS' illegal monopoly. Using MS format would *force* Word on everyone. Using OpenDocument format does *NOT* force a specific package *ANY* developer, *including MS* is free to provide software that supports that format.
You, sir, are either grossly misled, or are an intentionall MS shill.
It isnt about forcing people to not use MS Word - its about setting a fair, open, and public standard for the file formats used so that *everyone* can decide what tools to use. Making MS secret format the 'standard' *forces* everyone to use Word, unless MS completely and fully opens the specification for it.
People can use MS Word if they really think its the best tool for them - but they must have a way to read and produce the standard format. That can either mean MS adds native support in Word, or they use a third party plugin or convertor.
MS was recently quoted as suggested that 'customer demand' might drive their decision to support OpenDoc. Hello? MS? MA is a customer. They are demanding it.
Once MA stops buying new Word licenses, MS *will* add OpenDoc to Word, and MA can buy Word again. But MS will *only* do that if they are absolutely forced, as it sets a precedent, and once that ball starts rolling it will mean an end to MS lock-in. Word may still be popular, but no one will be forced to use it.
Yes, converting away from single-source vendor lock-in is hard. But the longer you wait, the harder it gets, and people have been blindly waiting for pretty long already. But once you finally get it over with it gets easier and less expensive in the long run, and switching software in the future (for whatever reason) is no longer a huge issue, since any choice has to support the existing standard format.
Try, "I have a monopoly on the 'pipes' in certain geographic areas in the business I run, so I'll charge whatever I have to to prevent any possibility of any competition from ever getting big enough to threaten that monopoly"
True, but it seems like most users that are too stupid to know better, are the same ones that arent even aware of the existence of anything other than windows, let alone actually use something else.
And I take issue with the whole idea that 'clicking on something' can run some arbitary program in the first place. Making the entire file system appear as GUI folders and icons is part of the problem in the first place.
The windows worm would execute on OpenBSD? Riiiiight..
Downloaded it. So now I have a file that appears to be meaningless binary gibberish. (AKA "Application/OCTET-STREAM") How does one 'run' such a file? I can't seem to find a Makefile, or any other way to compile it. I guess I don't quite get what is dangerous about it?
I interpret #3 to mean 'you just have to have half a brain, and not run Windows'. And while this specific worm may not be old news, the concept that Windows is and has always been (and will always continue to be) a fertile breeding ground for the like is *very* old news. Unfortunately, way too many people have their heads in the sand and refuse to open their eyes.
If you are still dumb enough to use MS software for anything remotely related to the Internet, you deserve to be infected and so do all your friends.
*WHY* is "yet another windows vulnerability/exploit/bug found" even *remotely* "news" ? Same Shit, Different Day. Anyone who is remotely surprised by the fact that 'Yes, Windows is still swiss cheese, despite copius and ongoing FUD from MS' is a complete and utter moron.
"The Romney administration wants documents stored in a particular format that would allow the records to be read by a variety of software packages -- except Microsoft Office."
I would state that a little differently - they want documents stored in a format for which *any* developer is free to write software that can fully support, read and write, and for which there already exists software from more than a single developer/vendor which supports it. *Nothing* in the standard prohibits MS Office as an option, so long as MS is willing to supply a version that meets the requirements.
Government standards should absolutely avoid speciying particular brands of products, incluyding software, or specifying that data formats which are not 100% publically documented and free to implement. Then individual providers of software including MS, each have their choice as to wether to supply software that meets the requirements or not.
It is absolutely backwards to specify a particular brand of software, which uses proprietary formats that are both not 100% public, as well as to which patents may apply that would form a financial barrier to a small or startup organizations.
Yes, the ILEC's *do* still have monopolies in most areas of the US, since they still have exlucive control over the buried cables in the ground. Since that *is* a natural monopoly, as long as one company controls that which has incentive to not allow other companies access to it, they always will. CLEC's should not be required to rewire every block in the US when it has already been done, and at taxpayer and captive-customer expense.
p aration.html
The only solution that will ever work is:
http://isp-planet.com/politics/2002/structural_se
A childs *parents* forcing them to shut down a blog is one thing. A principal at a religious school is entirely another. A more appropriate action might have been to advise students against providing too much personally identifiable information on public sites such as blogs (eg, no last names or addresses, at the very least). That is, if they really were worried about predators, and not the fact that the kids having a platform where they can openly discuss the school.
Its called fragmentation - ISP's and/or end-users would have to specifically reconfigure their DNS to look at the alternate root. Anyone using an ISP that simply ignored the 'pretend' root would not be able to find those domains.
Also, its been done before, by various organizations, and is largely a failure (alternic.net used to be one, now its got a domain-parking site on it).
All the various governments that want to fiddle with the net, or anyone that supports them, should have a good and careful reading of the information at:
http://www.worldofends.com/
If TinyURL didnt like this, seems like they could trivially add a check to see if URL's they are given actually exist by accessing them. If they get a 404, dont accept. For those sites that give a redirect instead of a 404, follow the redirects until they get to a page that actually answers, and use its URL instead.