What about games that are released in Japan, but not in the US? The way I see it, if Sony US isn't willing to sell me what I want, I should be able to go to Sony Japan and get it.
That's how it works with just about every other type of product - if one company (or branch thereof) won't sell you what you want, you go to one who will.
With all this new crap - Region Coding, etc... we're being denied our right to choose who to buy from. They basically say "Well, we have this game, but we won't sell it to you - and we won't let you play it, even if you can get a copy of it from someone else".
I don't agree with the piracy-enabling chips - although I'm not exactly sure how to balance that with the fact that making backups should be possible, especially for those with kids who tend to destroy the (rather costly) game discs. I do, however, think that it should be perfectly legal to use an import-enabling chip to play non-US release games.
Easier mail client to walk the "AOL crowd" through
As long as the mail client is standardized (ie: "We support this mail client, if you want to use another one, that's fine, we'll give you the servernames, but we won't help you with settings, etc...") then it's just as easy to walk someone through it. Heck, most tech support places just use a script they read from anyway - half the time the "tech" is as clueless as the user, at least in "front-line" tech support, where these kinds of queries get handled.
Webmail is less vulnerable to viruses designed for Outlook/Outlook Express
If it's being brosed by IE, it's insecure. Until MS decides to put some sane defaults in IE as to what kinds of scripts it will execute "out-of-the-box", and what kinds of system information and file access those scripts will have, it will be possible to exploit a user's system through any webpage.
Since 90% of their users will be coming in through IE, "added security" is most definitely NOT what they're getting. The Windows Addressbook is accessible through IE's scripting engine. Unless they have people ditch their addressbooks (good luck - I tried to get my parents to ditch theirs a while ago, in favor of a local webpage, in part to save them from being a node for addressbook worms, and they would not give it up. They were that attached to it.) it's not going to help.
What it will do is add a layer of indirection. IE can't be told to respond to a mailto: link by opening up a webmail client - so all those users are going to have to be explained to why clicking on an email link no longer allows them to email the address pointed to.
It's copyrights and since you are obviously a racist, you should know that the only Rap song that didn't pay to use the beat [etc] is Ice Ice Baby.
So...if you don't like rap, you're a racist?
But while we are on the subject, most Rap songs don't take beats or lyrics from classic rock songs. They take many of their beats from Funk songs. They also take their beats from other rap songs.
Here's part of the reason I don't like rap music. At the risk of being labelled a "racist" in your eyes, it all seems to sound the same to me. I understand that some people like it, and it's their perogative. I don't begrudge them for liking it. I just don't care for the sound of it myself.
No one ever points out that Country songs take from Classic Rock songs. Just noticed that.
Well, I don't like Country, either - does that mean I'm also racist? Or does it mean that I "even out"? My isagreement with Country is that I have a hard time with "twang" - it just gets on my nerves. (Yes, my musical tastes are rather closed-minded, I guess. Classical, Metal, Rock, Classic Rock, and Jazz)
Look at "Changes" by Tupac. It's a good song if you listen to the lyrics. If you don't like it, I'm sure there are other reasons.
Yep - like not liking rap music in general. =)
Seriously - just because someone makes an overgeneralization towards rap music, it doesn't mean they're racist. They may just not like the sound. They may have obnoxious neighbors that feel it necessary to play rap music at extremely high volumes at 2am during the week. (Hell, that's enough to make you hate any genre of music, if youre someone who has to work during the day, and thus has to be able to sleep at night)
Sure you can - the tracking is just anonymous (assuming you pay with cash). They would know that the person using card A5788GH45 travelled 4 times between Destination A and Destination B, twice in each direction. They couldn't match it up with a name/profile unless you paid by credit/atm card.
Not buying the CD at all doesn't help the problem - they'll just see low sales, and attribute it to "piracy", or blame it on the artist, rather than the public not agreeing with their copy-protection.
Buying it, and returning it as defective at least gets a reason in there. You should, of course, also contact them directly to express your concern over their copy-protection interfering with your right ot listen to the music that you have purchased, and tell them that your experience will influence your future buying decisions.
That way, they'll get it from both you, and from the stores that their CDs are being returned because they are defective. THey will know that the copy-protection is the problem, and they will hear it, not just from a "consumer" (note that they never refer to their customers as "customers" - it's always "consumers"), who they don't generally listen to, but from the stores selling their products, who they just might.
Re:All I want is the connection
on
Broadband Obstacles
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Speakeasy. Sysadmin package. Around $100 a month for 1.5/384 ADSL, 3 static IPs, no filtering, and unlimited dialup (in case the DSL line goes down). They've done right by me, and until they go out of business, they're the way to go, IMHO. They've only been down for any signifigant period of time once in the 8 months we've had them (they were down for 12 hours due to a cable cut in/near DC) - all other downtime was planned, short, and during off-hours. They never had a problem with servers being run, never gave me a hassle about running an alternative OS, and have always had a response time of a couple hours by email, or a couple minutes(!!) by phone. The install itself took less than 2 weeks from my order to the IPs becoming active.
Contrast this with the shoddy service the local cable monopoly (AT&T) has given us - took them 3 months (!!) to even get a cable line to our apartment building, after which the connection suffered random, intermittant packet loss past the 2nd hop to anywhere. Spent over 2 hours on hold on the phone twice before getting to someone who would acknowledge that there was a problem that didn't lie with my network settings. (Let's not mention the fact that if you so much as breathe the word "Linux" they will hang up on you) They refised to send someone to the apartment to diagnose the problem - always claimed it was "maintenance in your area" (basically a copout to get you off the phone) - claimed that they would call me back, and never did. Gave me fake names and useless "Ticket numbers" that were, of course, never in the system. We cancelled our cable modem service with them once we got DSL, yet every month, they try to bill us for it, and every month I have to spend another hour on the phone arguing with them over whether the service was cancelled or not.
The problem also manifests itself in out digital cable as 1/2-1 second "blackouts", which again, they refuse to acknowledge.
If another cable company offered cable service on our area of MA, we would gladly ditch AT&T altogether. As it stands, in order to have cable, we have to go through them. The city won't even entertain the prospect of allowing another company to sell cable - they're that far in AT&T's pocket.
Telcos don't want to provide good service - they want to take your money, and provide you with as little service as possible.
When you purchase a DVD, you are paying for the ability to play it
When I purchase a DVD, I'm paying for a plastic or cardboard clamshell-style box, (with accompanying boxart, liner notes, etc...) containing a DVD disc - a physical object - that contains data which, under the right circumstances, can be converted to a viewable picture and accompanying sound.
If I only wanted to purchase the right to watch the movie, I'd go to a theatre, use Pay-Per-View, or go rent the movie.
Purchasing the DVD allows me to own a physical object, in the same way that purchasing a hammer, book, or notebook computer allows me to own a physical object.
If I want to use that hammer to pound nails, I can. I don't have to buy a specific brand of nails, or buy them from a specific store. I can buy any nails I want, from wherever I want, and pound them with the hammer. I can even forego the nails alltogether, and use the hammer in a manner that doesn't involve pounding anything, if I can find a use for it. I own the object.
If I want to read the book, I can. If I want to photocopy or transcribe parts of it for use in a review, educational work, etc... I can. I can even rip out all the pages of the book and use them as toilet paper if I want. I can burn all the pages of the book (as long as the resultant fire doesn't set the house alight, of course) as kindling to start a fire in the fireplace. I can put the book under a table leg to even out a wobbly table. I can make photocopies of the pages, and plaster my walls with them if I so desire. I can run the pages of the book through OCR software and a text-to-speech program to listen to it (I might be blind) I own the object.
I can disassemble the notebook computer (voiding the warranty, most likely) and put it's parts back together into a completely different machine - or mix and match parts to build a better machine. I can install any software or operating system I want. I own the object.
Yet, the argument with DVDs is that you're ot buying the object, that you're instead licensing the content on the disc. What a load of bullshit. I see no "licensing agreement" plastered on the outside of the clamshell case. Yet, if I legally purchase a notebook computer with a DVD drive (blessed by the DVD-CCA, as it's illegal to sell one that isn't) and legally purchase a DVD, unless I'm also running a blessed PLAYER, I can't play it? Bull.
In addition, if you buy a DVD player, you can (generally) only buy DVDs in the same country as the player. Unlike the hammer, where you could buy your nails in Urugway, China, or England, and still use them, with DVDs, your'e forced to only buy from the country you bought the player in. They do this so they can charge different prices in different areas of the world. This is also called price fixing, and is VERY illegal - yet because the DVD consortium is a giant monied cartel, they are able to simply buy their way around these international laws that would normally prohibit such actions.
Recording artists and movie stars command very high fees for their services. If we were to offer them significantly less, many of the most talented and popular artists would simply go into retirement. In short, no pay, no play.
Geez - that wouldn't be because they get paid a hell of a lot more than they should in the first place, would it? Imagine the money that could be saved if actors got reasonable salaries, rather than multi-million dollar movie deals...
Sure...initially the quality might go down as multi-millionaire actors and actresses who have been spoiled by disgustingly huge salaries decide to start retiring - but with the money you save there, you could hire more/different actors and actresses, and have a more diverse offering.
Sure, the studios make large profits on hit movies and albums. However, there are also our fair share of bombs. At the end of the day, our return on investment is not significantly different from that in other industries.
In other words, because you can't learn from your mistakes, you want to sock it to us. Why am I not impressed by this viewpoint? Again - if you cut the obnoxious salaries, more money could be put into things like writing and development, rather than just producing special effects bombs, or stupid teen flicks.
We realize the consumers' desires to make personal copies, pass programming onto friends, etc. We simply cannot make a profit without sufficient copy protections to ensure that people actually buy our products.
Again, this is because your overhead is far, far too high to begin with. Cut the fat, and your numbers would look a hell of a lot different. Offer your products with good quality at a reasonable price, and people will buy it. Otherwise, they will find other ways. That's the way it is.
Although there are good consumers who would abide by our copyrights...
...which have been extended ad infinitum by Disney/Sonny Bono/etc... such that the "good" "consumers" never get anything back as public domain...
...if we removed all watermarking and other copy-prohibiting technologies. Both you and we know that there are always a few bad apples in the cart, and we must take preventative measures to protect our copyrighted material. Instead of directing your anger at us, why don't you join us in our efforts to track down people engaged in illegal activites?
Join us! Turn in your neighbors for their subversive activities! Be rewarded!
Look - first, stop trying to manage your own financial blunders by taking our rights away. Second, start taking a realistic look at why people are turning to alternative distribution methods. They're turning to them because you're not offering your products with good quality at reasonable prices, you're offering a mediocre product at an inflated price. Third, start taking a realistic look at your budgets, salaries, and other offerings, and see where you can make some cuts to save money, lower your overhead, and make the numbers work out.
The idea that information is free is simply not true.
Hogwash. information is, and should be free. Products, however, should have a reasonable price based on their quality. The overhead involved should be carefully managed such that it doesn't force the price up beyond reasonable levels. But information itself has been, and should always remain, free.
Without a way of paying the producers for their time and effort, the amount of material would evaporate until nearly nothing remains.
The question here is not about payment. Noone will argue that for products of sufficient quality, which have reasonable prices, people will pay. Some people will choose not to, in any case. As you said before, there are always some bad apples. Instead of taking "normal" people's rights away in order to exert control over the bad apples, simply come to grips with the fact that they exist, have always existed, and will always exist. You can't simply throw your billions of dollars at congress and expect them to go away. They won't. But - you can sway more people to the paying side if you embrace what the people want, instead of trying to take away their rights.
Okay...it's far too early to have posted something like this - flame on!
You also assume that all the machines behind my firewall are windows boxes.
It only takes one compromised box on the inside to make an attack. Windows boxes happen to be particularly vulnerable because of Outlook's insane assumption that things attached to an email should be executed automatically.
That's not to say that boxes running other OSs aren't vulnerable. They are. Just some more than others. All boxes on the inside need to be protected, and it's not bad practice to anticipate the worst - that is, an attack from inside your network.
In a perfect environment, it'd never happen - but we all know the world is a less than perfect place. A good security policy takes this into account.
The problem is that it's not just the OS that MS is pushing the upgrade cycle with...it's Office too. By manipulating their file format, they make new versions of Office apps produce documents *supposedly* in the same format (.doc,.xls, etc...), but that will not appear correctly under "old" versions of the same programs.
That's how they push the upgrade of Office. Once you start receiving Word or Excel docs that you can't open (but are expected to be able to open) from people who don't have a clue as to how to save in a format that WILL open correctly under other versions of the software, you're almost forced to go out and get the new version, whether you want to or not.
I don't see where Lindows is going to change that.
Now...if the gov't were to impose on MS to open up their file formats, and *keep them open* through new revisions of their products - then I can see there being viable (legal) alternatives to MS Office and the forced upgrade cycle.
That's the strategy - make the new iMac comparable, but cheaper than the existing desktop line. People buy 'em up. Then, they release the new desktop machines, and we all drool over 'em again. More people buy 'em up.
From a business perspective, it's killer - from a customer's perspective, it's nonsensical.
Personally, for a non-geek household, the new iMac seems like a hell of a deal. Most geeks, of course, will want something with a bit more oomph in the server department or the gaming department - but for the average Joe who needs to type a letter or throw some pics up on the 'net, it's pretty good.
Now...if they'd made it a *bit* more expandable (for example, being able to replace the 15" LCD with a special iMac-ized version of the Cinema display)...
I was expecting updates to the G4 tower and TiBook, but alas, that will have to wait for MWNY (or *possibly* MW Tokyo...)
I'm not kidding - freezeframe the scene whrtr the reporter goes back into the building and "hacks" into the alien feed - that's MAME startup code there =)
Let me get this straight. Links are speech. Code is speech. But e-mail is not speech?
In a matter of speaking...yes (pun intended)
Noone forces you to take code, and pay for it, before you can see what it is, and without you asking for it previously. Not many people shove pages of code in your face out of the blue, without your consent, and then make you pay for the experience (although I'm sure some people would be excited by such a prospect...there are some sick, sick people out there;P )
Noone forces you to follow a link - it's there if you want to follow it - but if you don't, it doesn't do anything. Think about watching a TV broadcast that contains a commercial with a link -- noone forces you to dial up to your ISP (possibly incuring phone charges or by-the-hour ISP charges) and follow that link. You can sit on your couch and ignore it.
The way email works, incoming mail (whatever it is) gets put on a mail spool. That spool is (generally, by pop3) downloaded to the end-user's computer, at their expense and without their prior consent (after all, it's their ISP account and their phone account that are being used - not the spammer's). The spammer foists the cost of their advertizing off on you - in the form of phone/ISP charges, not to mention server space and analysis time (the time it takes you to analyze your mail and decide what is/isn't spam, regardless of whether you do anything further with it.)
So spam costs the recipient money. The right to free speech doesn't extend to forcing others pay for the distribution of that speech. So, while they have a constitutional right to say what they want - they don't have a constitutional right ot make you pay for it.
Actually, I think it may make a difference, but not as drastic a one as those who wrote the law hope for.
Valid return address - allows you to track down someone to be held liable for the spam. This makes complaining to the upstream provider much easier - and while the spammer will probably just hop accounts for the next one, it'll at least be a thorn in their side.
Address removal - This won't really change anything -- they'll remove you from the one-time list they used to generate that particular spam, but add you to 3 other lists that will be sold or used to spam again.
ADV: in subject - This is the one that could change the user experience signifigantly, if mail server admins use it. If spam is required by law to contain ADV: in the subject, than email can be filtered server-side to cull it out. Obviously this requires a little bit of work on the server admin's part - but if done right, this could bring your spamcount to zero (assuming the spammers obey the law)
Now...most likely the spammers won't obey the law. They'll keep going as they are now, until enough of them get fined/jailed over it - then they'll have to figure a way to get around it. Most likely this will involve large "donations" to various congress members, in return for their vote against making there be any real penalty for violating the law.
So yes - you're right on the one hand that the ammount of spam that comes in may not change - but the few spammers who actually abide by this law will make themselves easy targets for good filters. (and most good filters already cull out ADV: subjects;P )
when was the last time SquareSoft released the souse for the FF seires.
Actually, I think it would be hellishly cool if Square released the FF6 engine - it's outdated enough to be useless to their competitors, but cool enough to still have a VERY wide fanbase (plus, releasing under the GPL would make sure that anyone making improvements would have to contribute back - a good thing, IMHO at least). I could see fan-based programming for the SNES emulators skyrocket if they did.
Of course, right now they wouldn't do it, as the GBA would most probably run the FF6 engine just fine -- and they probably have plans to make a couple games for it...
...then again, that's a lot of probably's, and I'm only on my first cup of coffee;P
I think his point was that Word (and its other MS bretheren) are often lauded for "ease of use" -- so that the time spent learning them would be very very small compared to the competition. THe view MS wants you to have is that you are a dumb little monkey and their softawre is so easy to use that you don't have to stop being a dumb little monkey and grow up - that you can stay in your nice ignorant little shell and play with these nice plastic toys...
And in practice, he was able to revise and rewrite his resume in LaTex in less time and with less headaches than his roommate, who only wanted to make minor revisions in Word. THat's saying something =)
Despite all the linux hype, it is still harder to install, maintain, and use than windows is.
I'd disagree.
On the installation front, remember that most users don't ever install Windows. It's installed for them by the OEM. So they never touch the installer. You and me, on the other hand, have been through the installer a few times, I'm sure.
Ease of installation is a tough concept, because it can mean a lot of things. Windows doesn't care what you have on your disk, whether you're already dual-booting, or whether you really want to install all of the crap they want you to. They simply wipe out the files on your disk (whether you want to or not), overwrite your MBR (again, you have no choice in the matter - it's MS's way or the highway), and fills your disk with bunches of useless tools that you won't ever use, but that MS *wants* you to use (ex: all of the damn MSN adware in XP - ick!)
Mandrake, on the other hand, has a damn-near-perfect installer. It asks you what YOU want to do, while suggesting somewhat reasonable defaults. It doesn't do much without asking first, and never assumes that it knows better than you do.
Debian's installer is a bit old-fashioned, but once you know your way around it, it's not as bad as everyone says it is. There's a lot of room for improvement though.
Now, if you're not actually talking about ease of installation, but about hardware recognition - you're right - linux is a bit behind Windows in that area. BUT it is getting better. RedHat 7.2 is able to correctly identify all the hardware in my VAIO F650 laptop - that's a signifigant improvement! Remember that a lot of manufacturers only release drivers for Windows - so linux users generally have to wait until the hardware is reverse-engineered, or the company gets around to releasing potentially buggy drivers. It's not the fault of the OS, although many people place the blame there.
Maintenance is another issue. I've never seen anything on Windows that can even compete with Debian's apt. Want program X? apt-get install program-x, and you're done!
RedHat and Mandrake have similar (but IMHO lesser) tools to deal with their RPM based setups (and yes, I know that apt has been ported to RPM-based distros - it's not in widespread use over there though).
Windows has "Windows Update" for the OS itself, and then various other update channels for other pieces of software. Of course, the actual information that you get through Windows Update is sketchy at best, and often there are undocumented "updates" to programs you might use all the time, that drastically change functionality.
On the security side of maintenance, MS has long been a firm believer in "Security by Obscurity" - basically they don't want people to tell anyone but them about security issues with their software, believeing that if the knowledge of the hole isn't widespread, that it won't be a problem. Yeah, right. When they do release a public patch for a security hole, it's often because a small hole they figured noone would ever exploit has now been exploited on a grand scale by some new email virus. Let's not get into the auto-execution of attachments or ability to masquerade a VBS as another type of file...
Linux users, by and large, are very open about any security flaws found in their software. When they are found, they are generally patched very quickly - often before an exploit reaches the epic proportions of certain exploits on the Windows side. That's not to say there aren't occurances of widespread worms and viruses on the Linux side of things - but they're fewer and further between than Windows ones. Probably at least partially because Linux users tend to be a bit more security concious than your average Windows user...but I won't get into that;)
As for usability - it's all about familiarity. Windows *seems* easier, because people have grown accustomed to it - not because it actually *is* any easier. I'd bet that an avid user of both OS's could sit down with a completely new user (who has never operated Windows or *nix before, but is willing to learn) under either OS and make that person equally proficient. Why? Because they have no ingrown habits to unlearn.
Converts from Windows to *nix-based OS's always say at the outset that *nix is "Hard to use" - when really what they mean is that *nix is "different from what they're used to". I bet the same could be said for a long-time *nix user that touches Windows for the first time.
Your second paragraph is all about drivers. You want more hardware supported under linux? Tell that to the manufacturers of the hardware. Don't blame the OS. Tell the GPL zealots to stop minding proprietary kernel modules quite so much - and at least allow hardware manufacturers to distribute a loadable module for their hardware. Tell the hardware companies that you use Linux and that you would *like* to use their hardware, but can't because they only release drivers for MS and Apple OS's. Tell them that you have friends who are in the same situation. You'd like to buy their stuff and give them money - but you don't want to have to also give money to MS for that ability. If enough of us speak, some of them will listen. If some of them embrace the spirit of OSS and opensource their driver modules, even better - but let's at least let them get the support in there.
Your last paragraph is a quandry - you *can* do all the things you can do under Windows - you just have to go about them in different ways. For example, you can't play most Quicktime movies - as the codec (Sorenson) that is used is proprietary, and the company that owns it will not allow linux-based players to use it without cost. Under Windows, Apple eats that cost, and releases a free player. They don't release that player for Linux, so either you have to eat the cost yourself and develop a player, or you have to go to Apple and tell them to release their player for Linux.
There are lots of other examples that work the same way. Some company has a proprietary widget - one that another company uses. The second company eats the cost of the wiget and releases a free player, but charges for the creation software. If they don't release their free player under your OS of choice, you're SOL. That's not the OS's fault - but that's where the blame is being laid.
I think people need ot be better educated about where the real problems lie - rather than just blaming everything on the OS.
I wouldn't try and blame someone else if I left the keys in my car's ignition and someone stole it.
While true, that it's a bonehead move to leave your keys in the ignition, the presumption that you would solely be to blame for the theft of your car would be wrong. The person stealing the car would still be to blame for the actual stealing, you're just making it hellishly easy for them to do so.
Now, in regards to search engines, it would be similar to leaving your keys in the ignition, and having a search helicopter see your car, land, and put up a big flashing neon sign saying "Hey! Whoever left this car here, your keys are still in the ignition!"
A car is a pretty bad analogy, though, when it comes to Google's cache - because cars don't replicate =)
Re:We've seen this before
on
XBox Released
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist - but there's something bugging me...
When the Dreamcast was released, one of the big points they tried to make (to the point of putting the emblem on the console itself) was that it would run WinCE. Obviously, MS had a part in this, and it was the first time we'd really seen them step into the console market (aside from the sublicensing of some games).
Most developers, however, used Sega's proprietary OS instead of WinCE. There were only a handful of games that used WinCE, and not many were really high-profile.
So MS lost out - their plan to license their OS into the console market failed.
Then Sega makes the announcement - they're out of the console business - the Dreamcast is dead (long live the Dreamcast!).
On top of that, MS announces they are entering the console market, and Sega announces most of their signature games will be on the XBox.
It just seems a little too convenient, how Sega (who had at least some business relations with MS for their console) falls out of the way just before MS comes in.
Now if they would just release a stable set of Perl/Qt bindings, we'd be all set! (Yes, I know there are a set of Perl/Qt bindings available, but they're far from stable, and won't compile on my Debian system =( )
Slashdot Mirror
What about games that are released in Japan, but not in the US? The way I see it, if Sony US isn't willing to sell me what I want, I should be able to go to Sony Japan and get it.
That's how it works with just about every other type of product - if one company (or branch thereof) won't sell you what you want, you go to one who will.
With all this new crap - Region Coding, etc... we're being denied our right to choose who to buy from. They basically say "Well, we have this game, but we won't sell it to you - and we won't let you play it, even if you can get a copy of it from someone else".
I don't agree with the piracy-enabling chips - although I'm not exactly sure how to balance that with the fact that making backups should be possible, especially for those with kids who tend to destroy the (rather costly) game discs. I do, however, think that it should be perfectly legal to use an import-enabling chip to play non-US release games.
Easier mail client to walk the "AOL crowd" through
As long as the mail client is standardized (ie: "We support this mail client, if you want to use another one, that's fine, we'll give you the servernames, but we won't help you with settings, etc...") then it's just as easy to walk someone through it. Heck, most tech support places just use a script they read from anyway - half the time the "tech" is as clueless as the user, at least in "front-line" tech support, where these kinds of queries get handled.
Webmail is less vulnerable to viruses designed for Outlook/Outlook Express
If it's being brosed by IE, it's insecure. Until MS decides to put some sane defaults in IE as to what kinds of scripts it will execute "out-of-the-box", and what kinds of system information and file access those scripts will have, it will be possible to exploit a user's system through any webpage.
Since 90% of their users will be coming in through IE, "added security" is most definitely NOT what they're getting. The Windows Addressbook is accessible through IE's scripting engine. Unless they have people ditch their addressbooks (good luck - I tried to get my parents to ditch theirs a while ago, in favor of a local webpage, in part to save them from being a node for addressbook worms, and they would not give it up. They were that attached to it.) it's not going to help.
What it will do is add a layer of indirection. IE can't be told to respond to a mailto: link by opening up a webmail client - so all those users are going to have to be explained to why clicking on an email link no longer allows them to email the address pointed to.
It's copyrights and since you are obviously a racist, you should know that the only Rap song that didn't pay to use the beat [etc] is Ice Ice Baby.
So...if you don't like rap, you're a racist?
But while we are on the subject, most Rap songs don't take beats or lyrics from classic rock songs. They take many of their beats from Funk songs. They also take their beats from other rap songs.
Here's part of the reason I don't like rap music. At the risk of being labelled a "racist" in your eyes, it all seems to sound the same to me. I understand that some people like it, and it's their perogative. I don't begrudge them for liking it. I just don't care for the sound of it myself.
No one ever points out that Country songs take from Classic Rock songs. Just noticed that.
Well, I don't like Country, either - does that mean I'm also racist? Or does it mean that I "even out"? My isagreement with Country is that I have a hard time with "twang" - it just gets on my nerves. (Yes, my musical tastes are rather closed-minded, I guess. Classical, Metal, Rock, Classic Rock, and Jazz)
Look at "Changes" by Tupac. It's a good song if you listen to the lyrics. If you don't like it, I'm sure there are other reasons.
Yep - like not liking rap music in general. =)
Seriously - just because someone makes an overgeneralization towards rap music, it doesn't mean they're racist. They may just not like the sound. They may have obnoxious neighbors that feel it necessary to play rap music at extremely high volumes at 2am during the week. (Hell, that's enough to make you hate any genre of music, if youre someone who has to work during the day, and thus has to be able to sleep at night)
Sure you can - the tracking is just anonymous (assuming you pay with cash). They would know that the person using card A5788GH45 travelled 4 times between Destination A and Destination B, twice in each direction. They couldn't match it up with a name/profile unless you paid by credit/atm card.
Not buying the CD at all doesn't help the problem - they'll just see low sales, and attribute it to "piracy", or blame it on the artist, rather than the public not agreeing with their copy-protection.
Buying it, and returning it as defective at least gets a reason in there. You should, of course, also contact them directly to express your concern over their copy-protection interfering with your right ot listen to the music that you have purchased, and tell them that your experience will influence your future buying decisions.
That way, they'll get it from both you, and from the stores that their CDs are being returned because they are defective. THey will know that the copy-protection is the problem, and they will hear it, not just from a "consumer" (note that they never refer to their customers as "customers" - it's always "consumers"), who they don't generally listen to, but from the stores selling their products, who they just might.
Speakeasy. Sysadmin package. Around $100 a month for 1.5/384 ADSL, 3 static IPs, no filtering, and unlimited dialup (in case the DSL line goes down). They've done right by me, and until they go out of business, they're the way to go, IMHO. They've only been down for any signifigant period of time once in the 8 months we've had them (they were down for 12 hours due to a cable cut in/near DC) - all other downtime was planned, short, and during off-hours. They never had a problem with servers being run, never gave me a hassle about running an alternative OS, and have always had a response time of a couple hours by email, or a couple minutes(!!) by phone. The install itself took less than 2 weeks from my order to the IPs becoming active.
Contrast this with the shoddy service the local cable monopoly (AT&T) has given us - took them 3 months (!!) to even get a cable line to our apartment building, after which the connection suffered random, intermittant packet loss past the 2nd hop to anywhere. Spent over 2 hours on hold on the phone twice before getting to someone who would acknowledge that there was a problem that didn't lie with my network settings. (Let's not mention the fact that if you so much as breathe the word "Linux" they will hang up on you) They refised to send someone to the apartment to diagnose the problem - always claimed it was "maintenance in your area" (basically a copout to get you off the phone) - claimed that they would call me back, and never did. Gave me fake names and useless "Ticket numbers" that were, of course, never in the system. We cancelled our cable modem service with them once we got DSL, yet every month, they try to bill us for it, and every month I have to spend another hour on the phone arguing with them over whether the service was cancelled or not.
The problem also manifests itself in out digital cable as 1/2-1 second "blackouts", which again, they refuse to acknowledge.
If another cable company offered cable service on our area of MA, we would gladly ditch AT&T altogether. As it stands, in order to have cable, we have to go through them. The city won't even entertain the prospect of allowing another company to sell cable - they're that far in AT&T's pocket.
Telcos don't want to provide good service - they want to take your money, and provide you with as little service as possible.
Especially considering as whenever they're portrayed, they invariably get taken over, malfunction, or otherwise cause mass havoc.
Wasn't that part of the plot behind that horribly bad Robin Williams movie Toys?
When you purchase a DVD, you are paying for the ability to play it
When I purchase a DVD, I'm paying for a plastic or cardboard clamshell-style box, (with accompanying boxart, liner notes, etc...) containing a DVD disc - a physical object - that contains data which, under the right circumstances, can be converted to a viewable picture and accompanying sound.
If I only wanted to purchase the right to watch the movie, I'd go to a theatre, use Pay-Per-View, or go rent the movie.
Purchasing the DVD allows me to own a physical object, in the same way that purchasing a hammer, book, or notebook computer allows me to own a physical object.
If I want to use that hammer to pound nails, I can. I don't have to buy a specific brand of nails, or buy them from a specific store. I can buy any nails I want, from wherever I want, and pound them with the hammer. I can even forego the nails alltogether, and use the hammer in a manner that doesn't involve pounding anything, if I can find a use for it. I own the object.
If I want to read the book, I can. If I want to photocopy or transcribe parts of it for use in a review, educational work, etc... I can. I can even rip out all the pages of the book and use them as toilet paper if I want. I can burn all the pages of the book (as long as the resultant fire doesn't set the house alight, of course) as kindling to start a fire in the fireplace. I can put the book under a table leg to even out a wobbly table. I can make photocopies of the pages, and plaster my walls with them if I so desire. I can run the pages of the book through OCR software and a text-to-speech program to listen to it (I might be blind) I own the object.
I can disassemble the notebook computer (voiding the warranty, most likely) and put it's parts back together into a completely different machine - or mix and match parts to build a better machine. I can install any software or operating system I want. I own the object.
Yet, the argument with DVDs is that you're ot buying the object, that you're instead licensing the content on the disc. What a load of bullshit. I see no "licensing agreement" plastered on the outside of the clamshell case. Yet, if I legally purchase a notebook computer with a DVD drive (blessed by the DVD-CCA, as it's illegal to sell one that isn't) and legally purchase a DVD, unless I'm also running a blessed PLAYER, I can't play it? Bull.
In addition, if you buy a DVD player, you can (generally) only buy DVDs in the same country as the player. Unlike the hammer, where you could buy your nails in Urugway, China, or England, and still use them, with DVDs, your'e forced to only buy from the country you bought the player in. They do this so they can charge different prices in different areas of the world. This is also called price fixing, and is VERY illegal - yet because the DVD consortium is a giant monied cartel, they are able to simply buy their way around these international laws that would normally prohibit such actions.
LOL - this will be fun ;P
/Sonny Bono/etc... such that the "good" "consumers" never get anything back as public domain...
...if we removed all watermarking and other copy-prohibiting technologies. Both you and we know that there are always a few bad apples in the cart, and we must take preventative measures to protect our copyrighted material. Instead of directing your anger at us, why don't you join us in our efforts to track down people engaged in illegal activites?
Recording artists and movie stars command very high fees for their services. If we were to offer them significantly less, many of the most talented and popular artists would simply go into retirement. In short, no pay, no play.
Geez - that wouldn't be because they get paid a hell of a lot more than they should in the first place, would it? Imagine the money that could be saved if actors got reasonable salaries, rather than multi-million dollar movie deals...
Sure...initially the quality might go down as multi-millionaire actors and actresses who have been spoiled by disgustingly huge salaries decide to start retiring - but with the money you save there, you could hire more/different actors and actresses, and have a more diverse offering.
Sure, the studios make large profits on hit movies and albums. However, there are also our fair share of bombs. At the end of the day, our return on investment is not significantly different from that in other industries.
In other words, because you can't learn from your mistakes, you want to sock it to us. Why am I not impressed by this viewpoint? Again - if you cut the obnoxious salaries, more money could be put into things like writing and development, rather than just producing special effects bombs, or stupid teen flicks.
We realize the consumers' desires to make personal copies, pass programming onto friends, etc. We simply cannot make a profit without sufficient copy protections to ensure that people actually buy our products.
Again, this is because your overhead is far, far too high to begin with. Cut the fat, and your numbers would look a hell of a lot different. Offer your products with good quality at a reasonable price, and people will buy it. Otherwise, they will find other ways. That's the way it is.
Although there are good consumers who would abide by our copyrights...
...which have been extended ad infinitum by Disney
Join us! Turn in your neighbors for their subversive activities! Be rewarded!
Look - first, stop trying to manage your own financial blunders by taking our rights away. Second, start taking a realistic look at why people are turning to alternative distribution methods. They're turning to them because you're not offering your products with good quality at reasonable prices, you're offering a mediocre product at an inflated price. Third, start taking a realistic look at your budgets, salaries, and other offerings, and see where you can make some cuts to save money, lower your overhead, and make the numbers work out.
The idea that information is free is simply not true.
Hogwash. information is, and should be free. Products, however, should have a reasonable price based on their quality. The overhead involved should be carefully managed such that it doesn't force the price up beyond reasonable levels. But information itself has been, and should always remain, free.
Without a way of paying the producers for their time and effort, the amount of material would evaporate until nearly nothing remains.
The question here is not about payment. Noone will argue that for products of sufficient quality, which have reasonable prices, people will pay. Some people will choose not to, in any case. As you said before, there are always some bad apples. Instead of taking "normal" people's rights away in order to exert control over the bad apples, simply come to grips with the fact that they exist, have always existed, and will always exist. You can't simply throw your billions of dollars at congress and expect them to go away. They won't. But - you can sway more people to the paying side if you embrace what the people want, instead of trying to take away their rights.
Okay...it's far too early to have posted something like this - flame on!
You also assume that all the machines behind my firewall are windows boxes.
It only takes one compromised box on the inside to make an attack. Windows boxes happen to be particularly vulnerable because of Outlook's insane assumption that things attached to an email should be executed automatically.
That's not to say that boxes running other OSs aren't vulnerable. They are. Just some more than others. All boxes on the inside need to be protected, and it's not bad practice to anticipate the worst - that is, an attack from inside your network.
In a perfect environment, it'd never happen - but we all know the world is a less than perfect place. A good security policy takes this into account.
The problem is that it's not just the OS that MS is pushing the upgrade cycle with...it's Office too. By manipulating their file format, they make new versions of Office apps produce documents *supposedly* in the same format (.doc, .xls, etc...), but that will not appear correctly under "old" versions of the same programs.
That's how they push the upgrade of Office. Once you start receiving Word or Excel docs that you can't open (but are expected to be able to open) from people who don't have a clue as to how to save in a format that WILL open correctly under other versions of the software, you're almost forced to go out and get the new version, whether you want to or not.
I don't see where Lindows is going to change that.
Now...if the gov't were to impose on MS to open up their file formats, and *keep them open* through new revisions of their products - then I can see there being viable (legal) alternatives to MS Office and the forced upgrade cycle.
That's the strategy - make the new iMac comparable, but cheaper than the existing desktop line. People buy 'em up. Then, they release the new desktop machines, and we all drool over 'em again. More people buy 'em up.
From a business perspective, it's killer - from a customer's perspective, it's nonsensical.
Personally, for a non-geek household, the new iMac seems like a hell of a deal. Most geeks, of course, will want something with a bit more oomph in the server department or the gaming department - but for the average Joe who needs to type a letter or throw some pics up on the 'net, it's pretty good.
Now...if they'd made it a *bit* more expandable (for example, being able to replace the 15" LCD with a special iMac-ized version of the Cinema display)...
I was expecting updates to the G4 tower and TiBook, but alas, that will have to wait for MWNY (or *possibly* MW Tokyo...)
Don't forget the *nix mainframes running...MAME!
I'm not kidding - freezeframe the scene whrtr the reporter goes back into the building and "hacks" into the alien feed - that's MAME startup code there =)
Let me get this straight. Links are speech. Code is speech. But e-mail is not speech?
;P )
In a matter of speaking...yes (pun intended)
Noone forces you to take code, and pay for it, before you can see what it is, and without you asking for it previously. Not many people shove pages of code in your face out of the blue, without your consent, and then make you pay for the experience (although I'm sure some people would be excited by such a prospect...there are some sick, sick people out there
Noone forces you to follow a link - it's there if you want to follow it - but if you don't, it doesn't do anything. Think about watching a TV broadcast that contains a commercial with a link -- noone forces you to dial up to your ISP (possibly incuring phone charges or by-the-hour ISP charges) and follow that link. You can sit on your couch and ignore it.
The way email works, incoming mail (whatever it is) gets put on a mail spool. That spool is (generally, by pop3) downloaded to the end-user's computer, at their expense and without their prior consent (after all, it's their ISP account and their phone account that are being used - not the spammer's). The spammer foists the cost of their advertizing off on you - in the form of phone/ISP charges, not to mention server space and analysis time (the time it takes you to analyze your mail and decide what is/isn't spam, regardless of whether you do anything further with it.)
So spam costs the recipient money. The right to free speech doesn't extend to forcing others pay for the distribution of that speech. So, while they have a constitutional right to say what they want - they don't have a constitutional right ot make you pay for it.
Valid return address - allows you to track down someone to be held liable for the spam. This makes complaining to the upstream provider much easier - and while the spammer will probably just hop accounts for the next one, it'll at least be a thorn in their side.
Address removal - This won't really change anything -- they'll remove you from the one-time list they used to generate that particular spam, but add you to 3 other lists that will be sold or used to spam again.
ADV: in subject - This is the one that could change the user experience signifigantly, if mail server admins use it. If spam is required by law to contain ADV: in the subject, than email can be filtered server-side to cull it out. Obviously this requires a little bit of work on the server admin's part - but if done right, this could bring your spamcount to zero (assuming the spammers obey the law)
;P )
Now...most likely the spammers won't obey the law. They'll keep going as they are now, until enough of them get fined/jailed over it - then they'll have to figure a way to get around it. Most likely this will involve large "donations" to various congress members, in return for their vote against making there be any real penalty for violating the law.
So yes - you're right on the one hand that the ammount of spam that comes in may not change - but the few spammers who actually abide by this law will make themselves easy targets for good filters. (and most good filters already cull out ADV: subjects
when was the last time SquareSoft released the souse for the FF seires.
;P
Actually, I think it would be hellishly cool if Square released the FF6 engine - it's outdated enough to be useless to their competitors, but cool enough to still have a VERY wide fanbase (plus, releasing under the GPL would make sure that anyone making improvements would have to contribute back - a good thing, IMHO at least). I could see fan-based programming for the SNES emulators skyrocket if they did.
Of course, right now they wouldn't do it, as the GBA would most probably run the FF6 engine just fine -- and they probably have plans to make a couple games for it...
...then again, that's a lot of probably's, and I'm only on my first cup of coffee
I think his point was that Word (and its other MS bretheren) are often lauded for "ease of use" -- so that the time spent learning them would be very very small compared to the competition. THe view MS wants you to have is that you are a dumb little monkey and their softawre is so easy to use that you don't have to stop being a dumb little monkey and grow up - that you can stay in your nice ignorant little shell and play with these nice plastic toys...
And in practice, he was able to revise and rewrite his resume in LaTex in less time and with less headaches than his roommate, who only wanted to make minor revisions in Word. THat's saying something =)
Forgot to buy an extra (SCSI) controller, huh? ;P
Despite all the linux hype, it is still harder to install, maintain, and use than windows is.
;)
I'd disagree.
On the installation front, remember that most users don't ever install Windows. It's installed for them by the OEM. So they never touch the installer. You and me, on the other hand, have been through the installer a few times, I'm sure.
Ease of installation is a tough concept, because it can mean a lot of things. Windows doesn't care what you have on your disk, whether you're already dual-booting, or whether you really want to install all of the crap they want you to. They simply wipe out the files on your disk (whether you want to or not), overwrite your MBR (again, you have no choice in the matter - it's MS's way or the highway), and fills your disk with bunches of useless tools that you won't ever use, but that MS *wants* you to use (ex: all of the damn MSN adware in XP - ick!)
Mandrake, on the other hand, has a damn-near-perfect installer. It asks you what YOU want to do, while suggesting somewhat reasonable defaults. It doesn't do much without asking first, and never assumes that it knows better than you do.
Debian's installer is a bit old-fashioned, but once you know your way around it, it's not as bad as everyone says it is. There's a lot of room for improvement though.
Now, if you're not actually talking about ease of installation, but about hardware recognition - you're right - linux is a bit behind Windows in that area. BUT it is getting better. RedHat 7.2 is able to correctly identify all the hardware in my VAIO F650 laptop - that's a signifigant improvement! Remember that a lot of manufacturers only release drivers for Windows - so linux users generally have to wait until the hardware is reverse-engineered, or the company gets around to releasing potentially buggy drivers. It's not the fault of the OS, although many people place the blame there.
Maintenance is another issue. I've never seen anything on Windows that can even compete with Debian's apt. Want program X? apt-get install program-x, and you're done!
RedHat and Mandrake have similar (but IMHO lesser) tools to deal with their RPM based setups (and yes, I know that apt has been ported to RPM-based distros - it's not in widespread use over there though).
Windows has "Windows Update" for the OS itself, and then various other update channels for other pieces of software. Of course, the actual information that you get through Windows Update is sketchy at best, and often there are undocumented "updates" to programs you might use all the time, that drastically change functionality.
On the security side of maintenance, MS has long been a firm believer in "Security by Obscurity" - basically they don't want people to tell anyone but them about security issues with their software, believeing that if the knowledge of the hole isn't widespread, that it won't be a problem. Yeah, right. When they do release a public patch for a security hole, it's often because a small hole they figured noone would ever exploit has now been exploited on a grand scale by some new email virus. Let's not get into the auto-execution of attachments or ability to masquerade a VBS as another type of file...
Linux users, by and large, are very open about any security flaws found in their software. When they are found, they are generally patched very quickly - often before an exploit reaches the epic proportions of certain exploits on the Windows side. That's not to say there aren't occurances of widespread worms and viruses on the Linux side of things - but they're fewer and further between than Windows ones. Probably at least partially because Linux users tend to be a bit more security concious than your average Windows user...but I won't get into that
As for usability - it's all about familiarity. Windows *seems* easier, because people have grown accustomed to it - not because it actually *is* any easier. I'd bet that an avid user of both OS's could sit down with a completely new user (who has never operated Windows or *nix before, but is willing to learn) under either OS and make that person equally proficient. Why? Because they have no ingrown habits to unlearn.
Converts from Windows to *nix-based OS's always say at the outset that *nix is "Hard to use" - when really what they mean is that *nix is "different from what they're used to". I bet the same could be said for a long-time *nix user that touches Windows for the first time.
Your second paragraph is all about drivers. You want more hardware supported under linux? Tell that to the manufacturers of the hardware. Don't blame the OS. Tell the GPL zealots to stop minding proprietary kernel modules quite so much - and at least allow hardware manufacturers to distribute a loadable module for their hardware. Tell the hardware companies that you use Linux and that you would *like* to use their hardware, but can't because they only release drivers for MS and Apple OS's. Tell them that you have friends who are in the same situation. You'd like to buy their stuff and give them money - but you don't want to have to also give money to MS for that ability. If enough of us speak, some of them will listen. If some of them embrace the spirit of OSS and opensource their driver modules, even better - but let's at least let them get the support in there.
Your last paragraph is a quandry - you *can* do all the things you can do under Windows - you just have to go about them in different ways. For example, you can't play most Quicktime movies - as the codec (Sorenson) that is used is proprietary, and the company that owns it will not allow linux-based players to use it without cost. Under Windows, Apple eats that cost, and releases a free player. They don't release that player for Linux, so either you have to eat the cost yourself and develop a player, or you have to go to Apple and tell them to release their player for Linux.
There are lots of other examples that work the same way. Some company has a proprietary widget - one that another company uses. The second company eats the cost of the wiget and releases a free player, but charges for the creation software. If they don't release their free player under your OS of choice, you're SOL. That's not the OS's fault - but that's where the blame is being laid.
I think people need ot be better educated about where the real problems lie - rather than just blaming everything on the OS.
That would be Macross Plus - and yes - I was thinking the same thing =)
;P
How long until one of these CGI "Idols" gains sentience and decides to kill it's real-life voice actor/actress?
I wouldn't try and blame someone else if I left the keys in my car's ignition and someone stole it.
While true, that it's a bonehead move to leave your keys in the ignition, the presumption that you would solely be to blame for the theft of your car would be wrong. The person stealing the car would still be to blame for the actual stealing, you're just making it hellishly easy for them to do so.
Now, in regards to search engines, it would be similar to leaving your keys in the ignition, and having a search helicopter see your car, land, and put up a big flashing neon sign saying "Hey! Whoever left this car here, your keys are still in the ignition!"
A car is a pretty bad analogy, though, when it comes to Google's cache - because cars don't replicate =)
I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist - but there's something bugging me...
When the Dreamcast was released, one of the big points they tried to make (to the point of putting the emblem on the console itself) was that it would run WinCE. Obviously, MS had a part in this, and it was the first time we'd really seen them step into the console market (aside from the sublicensing of some games).
Most developers, however, used Sega's proprietary OS instead of WinCE. There were only a handful of games that used WinCE, and not many were really high-profile.
So MS lost out - their plan to license their OS into the console market failed.
Then Sega makes the announcement - they're out of the console business - the Dreamcast is dead (long live the Dreamcast!).
On top of that, MS announces they are entering the console market, and Sega announces most of their signature games will be on the XBox.
It just seems a little too convenient, how Sega (who had at least some business relations with MS for their console) falls out of the way just before MS comes in.
I think too much.
Now if they would just release a stable set of Perl/Qt bindings, we'd be all set! (Yes, I know there are a set of Perl/Qt bindings available, but they're far from stable, and won't compile on my Debian system =( )
sb = Sound Blaster
ai = "artificial intelligence"
tso = ???
text-to-speech output?