I use a Kensington Turbo Mouse Pro (model #64214) for work (graphics). I have a USB model (I don't know if there are others, and I'm too lazy to look it up) and it works on both Mac and PC. The ball is a little stiff at first, but it breaks in nicely. It's got 4 buttons, plus 6 programmable buttons (which I never use) and a scroll wheel. I've never thought to try it for gaming, but now that you mention it, I may have to take it home...
(btw, I think it was about $110 USD from the Mac Zone catalogue)
What's this all about? Someone asks what appears to be a sincere question (since they didn't post as AC...) and gets modded as flamebait? So by modding it down, the people browsing with higher thresholds won't see the question, it won't get answered, and thus continues the cycle of ignorance on slashdot...way to go moderators...
I realize this is pretty much a troll, but I'll bite anyways, since I've seen this comment on a few dozen other posts for this story.
Or at least add an option to ignore the damn Outlook virus updates and other nonsense
We have that option: we call it "using your damn eyes"(tm). I don't want to read weather reports, stock tickers, or other "nonsense" when I visit CNN.com, but they leave it right there for me. There's even a few headline stories I could care less about, so here's what I do: I see the headline, realize it doesn't interest me in the least, and skip it. You can apply this same strategy to slashdot, and many other news sites. And best of all, it requires no extra check boxes for you, and no extra coding for the site admins.
I've been reading through all of the other replies to this parent, and it occured to me that since so many users here would love nothing more than the downfall of windows as the dominant desktop os, and there have been so many good ideas on this thread, and since I'm sure a good number of us are fairly proficient coders, why not release just this virus, with all of the wonderful features here...the slashdot trojan! It would screw with the windows populace and entirely undermine people's faith in MS software all at once.
wow, you want to talk about bias. the comment I'm replying to here is very well informed and accurate, with slashdot supposed to be "news for nerds" and all that, and it's got a score of 2. the comment that 'the rev matt' is responding to is (the unfortunately typical slashdot drivel) about how we shouldn't even discuss MS unless it's directly linux-related, even though this story is clearly "news for nerds", and he's modded at "5 - insightful". something's not quite right with that...
But if they didn't give it the normal "journalistic" skew found here, they'd be defeating their policy of "we'll post any story that mentions linux and/or looks like a conspiracy without reading all of the facts first".
Oh, by the way, feel free to mod me down and/or flame away.
Well then if you're so sick of beowulf cluster jokes, maybe we need a new one. How about some sort of poll on quantum computing, along the lines of this:
How long will it take IBM's new quantum computer to crack the new Advanced Encryption Standard?
$9.95 per month for something that's free?!?!??!? They have GOT to be kidding!
This sort of reaction is so typical. "Why should I pay for something that's free? You're all crazy!!!!!" I agree that it may not be too likely to rake in the big bucks, but you can't blame them for trying. It's not like they're forcing it on you. It's no worse than shareware, or a site that asks for donations. If you like what they provide and want to support it's further development, help them out. If you don't like it, don't bother. But don't cry and bitch because they're trying to make a little cash.
If MS was to institute this sort of plan, the response would not be "can't fault a company for trying to make money"
What do you mean "if"? I'm too lazy to look it up, but I seem to recall a chat here not to long ago about the.NET subscriptions, and everybody here screaming "It should be free!"(mind you, the sub fee for.NET is ridiculous...) And let's not foget about all the pissing and moaning around here about how MS is going to be moving to subscription-based software. Like it or not, it's a business model that makes money. I don't fault Xim for doing it (although I think $10/mo. is a little steep) but let's try to put the hypocracy away. Every company has the right to try to make money, no matter what we think about them. I just hope this doesn't alienate too many of Xim's users, although I'm sure they'd just move to another distro (I can't imagine ever hearing "You know, that leeenucks is just TOO expensive. I'm gonna get me Windows.")
yeah, but AFAIK, you won't get nailed on breaking a license agreement unless the company whose software you're tampering with brings charges against you. And as I stated in the first place, I doubt that a developer is going to sue somebody who's making them extra money on their games. Then again, I could be totally wrong...
The game developers *won't* go after them, because it's not hurting sales. Nobody's going to not buy a game because it's possible to cheat in it. If anything, it may drive sales numbers UP. If a potential buyer sees that with a gameshark, they can do more cool stuff in the game, they may be more likely to buy it. It's a feature.
and a PS2 is required for using the mod chips too...that doesn't make the PS2 illegal. Simply because you *could* use the gameshark to enable something else that's illegal, doesn't make the shark illegal...
Unfortunately for those of us who only like to dabble with 3d artwork, this won't happen. The good folks who make lightwave are already making a mint off of major production houses, and could probably care less about the pirated copies floating around, since they're only used by people who just want a test drive. We're stuck with things like blender (which isn't actually that bad) or ripping a copy off of alt.binaries.warez. Incidentally, if you're not into making huge landscapes, and we're not still supposed to be boycotting Adobe, try out Dimensions - it's pretty nice for making small objects, and simple animations (which can be exported to flash as a movie sequence..)
I'm presently at work (design at a screen printing shop) sitting between a pc (win98se, pii 450, 256mb ram) and a mac (g3 400, 192mb ram, os 8.6 (os9 sucks, osx == unstable for work)). I have photoshop/illustrator/flash/pagemaker installed on both. The only thing the pc ever gets used for, besides surfing slashdot, is driving a vinyl plotter. It just doesn't stack up, plain and simple.
You can check out the buskware license. It's basically shareware, but with no fixed price, and they claim it is "used broadly to include anything that can be stored in digital form, not just programs, so it makes sense to talk about releasing recorded music, text, or videos "
you shouldn't build a whole site in flash. The back button shouldn't be an issue. People who make whole sites in flash should be shot.
see above
for the most part, flash is going to be used to draw attention, which usually means no small text (unless you are one of the afore-mentioned dimwits who makes the whole site in flash
I'm all for accessibility for the disabled (summary tags in tables, etc) but flash is eyecandy. Trying to make it more friendly to the blind is like trying to make quake more usable for the blind.
see first two points
once again, eyecandy. I've seen flash that was done in other languages, totally impossible for me to read - but enjoyable to watch.
the point is, flash isn't 99% bad, unless you're in the 1% of designers trying to use it to replace html.
Your privacy can only be ensured by you. If you want to make sure nobody looks into your windows, put blinds up. If you want to make sure nobody steals your sensitive information off of your website, then for the love of god, don't PUT it on your website. And if you want your corporate intranet to be secure, don't broadcast all of your data over public channels. If your IT department can't handle that, fire them.
but again, you'd either need that 1% of each song be unique to each user to enable tracking by watermark, or go back to my earlier comment about the server watermarking each file as it's requested. It may only be 1% of the song that's tagged, but that's 1% of 1,000,000 tracks, for however many users you have. That 50 gigs of small pieces is only for one copy of each of the one million tracks. Multiply that by, say, 50,000 subscribers. You could probably cut that down by assuming that every person won't download every song, but I know I'd be pissed if I wanted to download a track on a service I'm paying for and I get something like "Server Error: that file is currently unavailable due to a lack of serial numbers". Cutting out that 1% and making the users download it each time they want to listen works well for making sure only subscribers can listen, but it won't help keep track of who downloaded what, which is what the watermarking is for - keeping piracy in check.
Presumably, they can also watermark your files and know who it is that distributes the music online, and then come after you for breach of contract.
Unless they work out a system where they have a server full of non-watermarked files, and each is then tagged with a unique serial as the download is requested, it's totally unfeasible. The server space required to have so many uniquely watermarked files would be enormous. If the server watermarks each as it's requested, they can have it keep a database of the serial assigned to the file and match it up to the user that downloaded it. Mind you, we all know how secure watermarking is...
I'd heard that as well. I have a friend who keeps a notebook by his bed and records everything he can remember as soon as he wakes up, and says it works quite well. I could never get it to work for me, so I moved on to what I said earlier (road signs, et al) and found it worked great. Different tricks for different folks, I suppose...
well, not so much the music companies...but if the monitor complies with FCC regulations then the monitor manufacturer must have paid for the license for their chunk of the spectrum. so by recording / re-transmitting without their consent, are we breaking any laws? 'cause, honestly, this would be the funniest court case EVER...
Slashdot Mirror
I think I know just what you need
I use a Kensington Turbo Mouse Pro (model #64214) for work (graphics). I have a USB model (I don't know if there are others, and I'm too lazy to look it up) and it works on both Mac and PC. The ball is a little stiff at first, but it breaks in nicely. It's got 4 buttons, plus 6 programmable buttons (which I never use) and a scroll wheel. I've never thought to try it for gaming, but now that you mention it, I may have to take it home...
(btw, I think it was about $110 USD from the Mac Zone catalogue)
What's this all about? Someone asks what appears to be a sincere question (since they didn't post as AC...) and gets modded as flamebait? So by modding it down, the people browsing with higher thresholds won't see the question, it won't get answered, and thus continues the cycle of ignorance on slashdot...way to go moderators...
flame away, I've got karma to burn
Name ONE Unix email client stupid enough to auto-execute code. Just one!
;)
Outlook Express under WINE seems to do this just fine
I realize this is pretty much a troll, but I'll bite anyways, since I've seen this comment on a few dozen other posts for this story.
Or at least add an option to ignore the damn Outlook virus updates and other nonsense
We have that option: we call it "using your damn eyes"(tm). I don't want to read weather reports, stock tickers, or other "nonsense" when I visit CNN.com, but they leave it right there for me. There's even a few headline stories I could care less about, so here's what I do: I see the headline, realize it doesn't interest me in the least, and skip it. You can apply this same strategy to slashdot, and many other news sites. And best of all, it requires no extra check boxes for you, and no extra coding for the site admins.
I've been reading through all of the other replies to this parent, and it occured to me that since so many users here would love nothing more than the downfall of windows as the dominant desktop os, and there have been so many good ideas on this thread, and since I'm sure a good number of us are fairly proficient coders, why not release just this virus, with all of the wonderful features here...the slashdot trojan! It would screw with the windows populace and entirely undermine people's faith in MS software all at once.
p.s. - Dear Echelon: I'm only joking.
wow, you want to talk about bias. the comment I'm replying to here is very well informed and accurate, with slashdot supposed to be "news for nerds" and all that, and it's got a score of 2. the comment that 'the rev matt' is responding to is (the unfortunately typical slashdot drivel) about how we shouldn't even discuss MS unless it's directly linux-related, even though this story is clearly "news for nerds", and he's modded at "5 - insightful". something's not quite right with that...
is this the same story that timothy posted not so long ago, or is it just me?
But if they didn't give it the normal "journalistic" skew found here, they'd be defeating their policy of "we'll post any story that mentions linux and/or looks like a conspiracy without reading all of the facts first".
Oh, by the way, feel free to mod me down and/or flame away.
How long will it take IBM's new quantum computer to crack the new Advanced Encryption Standard?
now THAT would be funny!
$9.95 per month for something that's free?!?!??!? They have GOT to be kidding!
This sort of reaction is so typical. "Why should I pay for something that's free? You're all crazy!!!!!" I agree that it may not be too likely to rake in the big bucks, but you can't blame them for trying. It's not like they're forcing it on you. It's no worse than shareware, or a site that asks for donations. If you like what they provide and want to support it's further development, help them out. If you don't like it, don't bother. But don't cry and bitch because they're trying to make a little cash.
If MS was to institute this sort of plan, the response would not be "can't fault a company for trying to make money"
.NET subscriptions, and everybody here screaming "It should be free!"(mind you, the sub fee for .NET is ridiculous...) And let's not foget about all the pissing and moaning around here about how MS is going to be moving to subscription-based software. Like it or not, it's a business model that makes money. I don't fault Xim for doing it (although I think $10/mo. is a little steep) but let's try to put the hypocracy away. Every company has the right to try to make money, no matter what we think about them. I just hope this doesn't alienate too many of Xim's users, although I'm sure they'd just move to another distro (I can't imagine ever hearing "You know, that leeenucks is just TOO expensive. I'm gonna get me Windows.")
What do you mean "if"? I'm too lazy to look it up, but I seem to recall a chat here not to long ago about the
Ok, flame away.
yeah, but AFAIK, you won't get nailed on breaking a license agreement unless the company whose software you're tampering with brings charges against you. And as I stated in the first place, I doubt that a developer is going to sue somebody who's making them extra money on their games. Then again, I could be totally wrong...
The game developers *won't* go after them, because it's not hurting sales. Nobody's going to not buy a game because it's possible to cheat in it. If anything, it may drive sales numbers UP. If a potential buyer sees that with a gameshark, they can do more cool stuff in the game, they may be more likely to buy it. It's a feature.
and a PS2 is required for using the mod chips too...that doesn't make the PS2 illegal. Simply because you *could* use the gameshark to enable something else that's illegal, doesn't make the shark illegal...
Unfortunately for those of us who only like to dabble with 3d artwork, this won't happen. The good folks who make lightwave are already making a mint off of major production houses, and could probably care less about the pirated copies floating around, since they're only used by people who just want a test drive. We're stuck with things like blender (which isn't actually that bad) or ripping a copy off of alt.binaries.warez. Incidentally, if you're not into making huge landscapes, and we're not still supposed to be boycotting Adobe, try out Dimensions - it's pretty nice for making small objects, and simple animations (which can be exported to flash as a movie sequence..)
I'm presently at work (design at a screen printing shop) sitting between a pc (win98se, pii 450, 256mb ram) and a mac (g3 400, 192mb ram, os 8.6 (os9 sucks, osx == unstable for work)). I have photoshop/illustrator/flash/pagemaker installed on both. The only thing the pc ever gets used for, besides surfing slashdot, is driving a vinyl plotter. It just doesn't stack up, plain and simple.
You can check out the buskware license. It's basically shareware, but with no fixed price, and they claim it is "used broadly to include anything that can be stored in digital form, not just programs, so it makes sense to talk about releasing recorded music, text, or videos "
the point is, flash isn't 99% bad, unless you're in the 1% of designers trying to use it to replace html.
Your privacy can only be ensured by you. If you want to make sure nobody looks into your windows, put blinds up. If you want to make sure nobody steals your sensitive information off of your website, then for the love of god, don't PUT it on your website. And if you want your corporate intranet to be secure, don't broadcast all of your data over public channels. If your IT department can't handle that, fire them.
but again, you'd either need that 1% of each song be unique to each user to enable tracking by watermark, or go back to my earlier comment about the server watermarking each file as it's requested. It may only be 1% of the song that's tagged, but that's 1% of 1,000,000 tracks, for however many users you have. That 50 gigs of small pieces is only for one copy of each of the one million tracks. Multiply that by, say, 50,000 subscribers. You could probably cut that down by assuming that every person won't download every song, but I know I'd be pissed if I wanted to download a track on a service I'm paying for and I get something like "Server Error: that file is currently unavailable due to a lack of serial numbers". Cutting out that 1% and making the users download it each time they want to listen works well for making sure only subscribers can listen, but it won't help keep track of who downloaded what, which is what the watermarking is for - keeping piracy in check.
Presumably, they can also watermark your files and know who it is that distributes the music online, and then come after you for breach of contract.
Unless they work out a system where they have a server full of non-watermarked files, and each is then tagged with a unique serial as the download is requested, it's totally unfeasible. The server space required to have so many uniquely watermarked files would be enormous. If the server watermarks each as it's requested, they can have it keep a database of the serial assigned to the file and match it up to the user that downloaded it. Mind you, we all know how secure watermarking is...
if my Microsoft-owned slashdot account had any mod points left, I mod you up. but it doesn't. oh well.
I'd heard that as well. I have a friend who keeps a notebook by his bed and records everything he can remember as soon as he wakes up, and says it works quite well. I could never get it to work for me, so I moved on to what I said earlier (road signs, et al) and found it worked great. Different tricks for different folks, I suppose...
well, not so much the music companies...but if the monitor complies with FCC regulations then the monitor manufacturer must have paid for the license for their chunk of the spectrum. so by recording / re-transmitting without their consent, are we breaking any laws? 'cause, honestly, this would be the funniest court case EVER...