Tweak the header? Why not just do like they did in the old days and add another [yourgrouporsite].nfo file into the archive and change the md5sum of the rar/zip/arj/lzh that way?
But I can get a potato at the store for a few cents! Damn those farmers for not taking reasonable precautions to prevent thier crops for being used for evil!
While I'm being horribly sarcastic, that's about the intelligence of the article.
Maybe it's supply and demand. You paid $N for it 4 years ago, and say, 2 years ago it was $N-x, a lower price because everyone wanted it, and therefor the prices were lower (marginally lower I'd gather, as ram doesn't move around that much from what I've seen).
Then over the next two years DDR became more popular and your ram price went UP from $N-x back to $N, because it was more expensive now that it was in less demand. Case in point, see how much a 32 or 64mb stick of the old 72pin ram costs, I'd bet that proportionally it's 10x the cost of pc133 or DDR (that's just a guess though). Even though I have about 10 sticks of 1 and 4mb sitting in my parts bin.
OH dea, I hope this doesn't mean the end of random, attention seeking girls showing their boobs off to their LJ friends to get comments! Say it ain't so!
I grabbed it the cache someone posted here and figured I'd give it a shock. The first thing it tells me after installing that I have to reboot my computer? For a fscking paint program????? I think not. Maybe that's the part that they got help from MS on?
Yes, I'm sure that it's just part of the installer and you don't really need to reboot, but still, something to think about for version 1.1.
This is of course assuming that the program lets itself be uninstalled. Because it's installed as a "normal" program, it controls it's own uninstall behaviour, and as we all know spyware always lets you uninstall it (note for the sarcasm impared... it doesn't).
Firefox's extensions however seem to be controlled totally from the browser itself, which means that the browser controlls what's installed and uninstalled, and therefor is theoretically safer. Of course anytime that you allow third party sites to install software there's always a danger that someone'll write something nasty, it just seems a little safer with Firefox.
I've never had any of these problems. The only thing I can think of is he's running his windows in ultra-secure mode (which you'd want to if you run IE:) which is screwing with it. I run in the traditional "I'm admin" way, and see nothing like this.
The sad thing is that this is the same argument that Microsoft uses against Linux. They say "but can I run outlook on it? can I run office on it, can I run halo 2 on it?" (interestingly enough, all but the last answer is yes). Basically you can argue against MS the same way, saying "will pan/nautilus/evolution/gimp run on it?". Now MS is saying "hey, will this new thing we just invented that you have to pay for [if I was a conspiracy theorist I'd say that they'd profit from verisign certs through some back alley deal], does your $newproduct suppor it? No, you suck!"
Personally knowing the source makes me feel more comfortable than having something with a signed cert.
I did the same thing, but recently have been ripping to lossless (aac lossless, as that's how the others who are doing it are, as they are macheads and don't have the support for FLAC that I do:). The plan is to have a lossless master for the music so that I can easily convert to mp3/ogg/whatever less painfully than having to re-rip everything again.
On one hand, if you had a fire and lost several hundreds of dollars worth of CDs, you have the same issues. You're not going to be given them again because you purchased them once. Of course, a CD is a physical object, and an mp3/aac/ogg/flac/etc is a bunch of 1s and 0s, something that the music industry both tries to make us remember (pirating is bad! bad! bad!) and forget (you can download music for a cost but if you delete the file it's just like you have a physical CD you lost).
Personally I think that there needs to be a shift in how online music industry works, maybe a central DB of all the songs that you have legally purchased and the ability to get them from there at any time, anywhere, in any format, for any reason (ie: giving the consumer the right to the music they've purchased). Of course, bandwidth and labor costs would prevent something like this, and again I'm sure the RIAA wouldn't want you to be able to not have to buy something a second time.
True, true. "They" always find ways to force you to look at advertising, whether you want to or not. Example: I bought spiderman 2 the other day and lo and behold I can't fast foward through the ads at the start of the disk. WTF? I didn't spend $25 to watch an ad for 'hitch', I spent it to watch spiderman 2 dammit!
I can see the advertisers finding ways to integrate things like this into the net experience (ie: to continue to an article you put in a code that you get at the end of a flash presentation). Course, when that happens I'm going to buy a cave somewhere and give up on technology.
Same reason you have to go through effort to get your drivers license so you can drive a car... because if anyone could do it it would be mayham and having a car would be useless.
Well, if you bought HL several years ago you'd have gotten it on CD (ie: before steam), and indicating that steam was the cause meant to me you plugged the key into steam and got the HL installed via steam, right?
If this is correct, nothing should have prevented you from re-installing the game via the original CD. You weren't prevented from playing the game you bought, you were prevented from playing the game you bought USING THEIR NETWORK, which was obviously down for some reason. This sucks, but definately shouldn't have prevented you from playing completely. Of course I don't know the details but based on your post this is what I'm guessing.
However, with HL2 this is actually a problem, because now you HAVE to authenticate with steam to play the game (though I think I've seen posts saying it's ok to play in offline mode). If this is the case then suddenly you can be prevented from playing something you bought because the steam servers are DOSsed or rebooted or whatever.
I've always found a combination of Ad-Aware and HijackThis do an excellent job of keeping all things spyware under control.
I've always found a combination of not running IE and not running outlook do an excellent job of keeping all things spyware under control.:)
Seriously though, I've had only two cases of spyware trying to get onto my windows xp system with Firefox. One was a random.xpi (firefox extension install request for those who don't know) that popped up out of the blue and the other was a random java 'this applet is unsigned do you want to run it anyway' message. Of course, I also run squid as an ad-blocker so chances are a fair number of the nasty ads are never let through the proxy.
Slashdot Mirror
Tweak the header? Why not just do like they did in the old days and add another [yourgrouporsite].nfo file into the archive and change the md5sum of the rar/zip/arj/lzh that way?
But I can get a potato at the store for a few cents! Damn those farmers for not taking reasonable precautions to prevent thier crops for being used for evil!
While I'm being horribly sarcastic, that's about the intelligence of the article.
But of course, someone using a paranoid mailer but still wanting to see porn might.
Not released yet, sneak peak. They are on 2.9.4 developer release last I saw, you still have a bit before you're behind :)
I thought they were communists?
Website slashdotted and no mirror in sight :( Anyone got a copy for us west-coast folks who just got up?
Maybe it's supply and demand. You paid $N for it 4 years ago, and say, 2 years ago it was $N-x, a lower price because everyone wanted it, and therefor the prices were lower (marginally lower I'd gather, as ram doesn't move around that much from what I've seen).
:)
Then over the next two years DDR became more popular and your ram price went UP from $N-x back to $N, because it was more expensive now that it was in less demand. Case in point, see how much a 32 or 64mb stick of the old 72pin ram costs, I'd bet that proportionally it's 10x the cost of pc133 or DDR (that's just a guess though). Even though I have about 10 sticks of 1 and 4mb sitting in my parts bin.
Or, it's price fixed of course
Now that's just crazy talk! .... yea yea, mod me down ya bastards, do your worst!
OH dea, I hope this doesn't mean the end of random, attention seeking girls showing their boobs off to their LJ friends to get comments! Say it ain't so!
*pssst* Don't feed the trolls!
Doesn't *require* a reboot, but tells me that I may need to reboot. I ran it fine without doing anything. And yes, I'm running xpsp2 fully updated.
I grabbed it the cache someone posted here and figured I'd give it a shock. The first thing it tells me after installing that I have to reboot my computer? For a fscking paint program????? I think not. Maybe that's the part that they got help from MS on?
Yes, I'm sure that it's just part of the installer and you don't really need to reboot, but still, something to think about for version 1.1.
+1 for download link. Thanks!
I think what he's trying to say is "I am scared to bring my hax0red version of photoshop to work" :)
This is of course assuming that the program lets itself be uninstalled. Because it's installed as a "normal" program, it controls it's own uninstall behaviour, and as we all know spyware always lets you uninstall it (note for the sarcasm impared... it doesn't).
Firefox's extensions however seem to be controlled totally from the browser itself, which means that the browser controlls what's installed and uninstalled, and therefor is theoretically safer. Of course anytime that you allow third party sites to install software there's always a danger that someone'll write something nasty, it just seems a little safer with Firefox.
I've never had any of these problems. The only thing I can think of is he's running his windows in ultra-secure mode (which you'd want to if you run IE :) which is screwing with it. I run in the traditional "I'm admin" way, and see nothing like this.
The sad thing is that this is the same argument that Microsoft uses against Linux. They say "but can I run outlook on it? can I run office on it, can I run halo 2 on it?" (interestingly enough, all but the last answer is yes). Basically you can argue against MS the same way, saying "will pan/nautilus/evolution/gimp run on it?". Now MS is saying "hey, will this new thing we just invented that you have to pay for [if I was a conspiracy theorist I'd say that they'd profit from verisign certs through some back alley deal], does your $newproduct suppor it? No, you suck!"
Personally knowing the source makes me feel more comfortable than having something with a signed cert.
Link for the lazy.
I did the same thing, but recently have been ripping to lossless (aac lossless, as that's how the others who are doing it are, as they are macheads and don't have the support for FLAC that I do :). The plan is to have a lossless master for the music so that I can easily convert to mp3/ogg/whatever less painfully than having to re-rip everything again.
On one hand, if you had a fire and lost several hundreds of dollars worth of CDs, you have the same issues. You're not going to be given them again because you purchased them once. Of course, a CD is a physical object, and an mp3/aac/ogg/flac/etc is a bunch of 1s and 0s, something that the music industry both tries to make us remember (pirating is bad! bad! bad!) and forget (you can download music for a cost but if you delete the file it's just like you have a physical CD you lost).
Personally I think that there needs to be a shift in how online music industry works, maybe a central DB of all the songs that you have legally purchased and the ability to get them from there at any time, anywhere, in any format, for any reason (ie: giving the consumer the right to the music they've purchased). Of course, bandwidth and labor costs would prevent something like this, and again I'm sure the RIAA wouldn't want you to be able to not have to buy something a second time.
True, true. "They" always find ways to force you to look at advertising, whether you want to or not. Example: I bought spiderman 2 the other day and lo and behold I can't fast foward through the ads at the start of the disk. WTF? I didn't spend $25 to watch an ad for 'hitch', I spent it to watch spiderman 2 dammit!
I can see the advertisers finding ways to integrate things like this into the net experience (ie: to continue to an article you put in a code that you get at the end of a flash presentation). Course, when that happens I'm going to buy a cave somewhere and give up on technology.
Same reason you have to go through effort to get your drivers license so you can drive a car... because if anyone could do it it would be mayham and having a car would be useless.
Uhmm.... don't forget Indiana Jones please, another great trilogy.
Well, if you bought HL several years ago you'd have gotten it on CD (ie: before steam), and indicating that steam was the cause meant to me you plugged the key into steam and got the HL installed via steam, right?
If this is correct, nothing should have prevented you from re-installing the game via the original CD. You weren't prevented from playing the game you bought, you were prevented from playing the game you bought USING THEIR NETWORK, which was obviously down for some reason. This sucks, but definately shouldn't have prevented you from playing completely. Of course I don't know the details but based on your post this is what I'm guessing.
However, with HL2 this is actually a problem, because now you HAVE to authenticate with steam to play the game (though I think I've seen posts saying it's ok to play in offline mode). If this is the case then suddenly you can be prevented from playing something you bought because the steam servers are DOSsed or rebooted or whatever.
I've always found a combination of Ad-Aware and HijackThis do an excellent job of keeping all things spyware under control.
:)
.xpi (firefox extension install request for those who don't know) that popped up out of the blue and the other was a random java 'this applet is unsigned do you want to run it anyway' message. Of course, I also run squid as an ad-blocker so chances are a fair number of the nasty ads are never let through the proxy.
I've always found a combination of not running IE and not running outlook do an excellent job of keeping all things spyware under control.
Seriously though, I've had only two cases of spyware trying to get onto my windows xp system with Firefox. One was a random