correction: they will replace any hardware that fails, reimage your drive, or instruct you how to reimage your drive. they will not support the software they sold you. that implies fixing problems.
erm, despite our modern cleansing and consumption of shrimp and other crustacians, that wasn't always the case. eating the shit and other bottom-dredged material in such creatures wasn't healthy. argueably, it's still not healthy - particularly because there's so much more shit in our waters from chemicals, etc. - these things just sit within our intestines and fat, and can lead to cancer and other degenerate diseases. one reason why fat people have so many more degenerate health problems.
The NTFS file system has stayed stable since Win2k.
So? NTFS stability has nothing at all to do with MS adding some arbitrary code that will not directly effect the operation in windows, but if not combined with some other critical system component (say, a running process, etc.) it will 'mysteriously' start corrupting any data it writes, or something equally devious.
Additionally, Longhorn probably will have a new FS...
What does Longhorn have anything to do with a wrapper for the existing NTFS, you fucking MS shill? Just ignore the fact that MS themself has essentially claimed that it's just a database abstraction layer - we don't care about facts, after all.
A filesystem is harder to break compatibility with than other things.
Er, no. It's no more difficult to break compatibility in a filesystem than in anything else - particularly if you're actually trying to. You'd only have to change one character in your source. Argueably, that's an easier compatibility fuck than most - unless we're talking hardware. Never underestimate the ability of humans to mess things up dreadfully.
Do not forget, breaking compatibility angers all of their customers.
How ignorant. Don't you realize that that is precisely what MS's business plan is - breaking compatibility repeatedly to milk more income into their coffers? That's why they do it. If they can get away with it, they'll do it. Thus, why they would do it in this situation - if somoene is already using linux, they've got little hope of keeping them as a customer perminantly. If "linux" breaks something, the person is more likely to blame linux instead of the fucked up ntfs driver.
Nothing like companies/industries not wanting their products to be sold.
It makes absolutely no sense why the RIAA would give a damn about DeCSS - it enables people to watch their over-priced DVDs in foreign countries. This requires at least some purchase. What's the deal?
Why is it that everyone that has previously supported the linux community seems to becoming complete asshats, and are trying to "take over" the efforts of a hard-working community for their own profit? Just because something is "free" does not mean that you can steal it and call it your own. Copyright still applies. What rookies.
SCO, now LinuxGazette, and I don't know how many others. What clowns.
Isn't this a "dupe" from like, 3 years or so ago? I distinctly recall intel researchers saying the exact same thing at some point in the past - several times.
Move along, nothing to see here.
Furthermore, why is "Moore's Law" considered a law anyway? Wouldn't it be a postulate, since being a law requires some sort of foundational evidence that's inerrant?This hardly fits that category in my mind.
The biggest problem I see with this trend is that if it does kill traditional advertising, it will likely also kill smaller productions: both TV and film. If companies start to think that buying ads isn't financially profitable, then they won't buy ads, and only the biggest ticket items will get made due to the financial viability and/or the profit margin.
Of course, there will be indie works still, but less so, since many of them have private corporate sponsors as well.
Yes, of course it works. American culture is completely shaped by the movie and TV industries; you think that advertising doesn't seap through? Movies and TV have been successfully 'advertising' lifestyles (and their accompanying trinkets and trends) for years and years - much longer than the current "lifestyle" adverts that we've seen in the last 5 years or so (Mt. Dew being a big "lifestyle" brand). Unlike traditional ads (generally), however, TV and movies get you involved in the plot, characters, and situations, thus increasing your desire all the more - unlike most ads, which we tune out (and thus why advertisers try their damnedest to create witty ads). Someone is much more likely to buy a Desert Eagle handgun if Lara Croft is using it in the movie (sweet! a chick with a gun! I want one just like that! maybe it'll make me just like her/find a girl just like her), than if they were to see a subsequent ad on TV or as a trailer advertising the gun itself.
The most obvious examples that you'll see almost everywhere are: clothing, soda, furniture (if I buy the furniture on The Cosby Show, I'll be witty and have a perfect family), and the like. Some specifics off the top of my head:
Terminator (and others like it): leather jackets and other things 80's.
The Matrix - leather catsuits, trenchcoats, sunglasses, technology appeal, etc.
James Bond - cars, watches, pens, cologne, beer, soda, women (woot!), sex, etc.
Fast and the Furious (I and II): cars, performance parts, soda, clothing, sex
Wayne's World I and II: Pepsi, Doritos, etc. (done ingeniously, I might add)
even LotR: trinkets from the movies, books, soundtracks
Of course, everyone seems ot be ignoring the fact that it's quite likely that, in 20-30 years, there won't be much of any jobs that require such skills in the US - unless you consider punching "Big Mac" a computer literacy skill.
Good god, you're not terribly aware of the other side of the fence, are you?
The problem with fixing (and knowing) a Windows system is many times more complex than fixing a *nix system. It's not because the system itself is inherrently more complex, it's because it's more heavily obscured and much less documented.
But that's besides the point. A windows system -is- more complex, and needlessly so. The people that designed the Windows registry don't even understand it completely, how are windows admins or anyone else?
The problem *nix admins have with windows is because it's -not- as good as a *nix variant in terms of administration. Admin tasks take many, many times longer on a windows system than a *nix system because the fundamental tools and framework for providing those functions isn't there. Simply put, Windows wasn't designed for ease of administration in a professional environment, it wasn't designed for ease of access to system functions, and it wasn't designed to do anything but increase the coffers in Redmond.
And don't think you can refute this saying something like, "But longhorn will..." - it's too little, 10 years too late (and it's still only rumored, at that).
So, the systems are running linux and/or unix variants? I didn't think so. So why use this UNIX/Linux-specific administrator terminology? Windows Administrators aren't sysadmins, they're Windows Administrators.
Hrm. I s'pose you could decelerate without flying off, if the embryo were to tilt backwards (in the direction from which it's coming), so that it's facing the pavement at an angle. This would focus more of the g-force towards the ground, and would help prevent the rider from flying off, I'd think.
piracy comes down to simple economics: if someone can't afford something, they won't buy it. Likewise, if they can get it in another fashion for less (off the street or via download), with a similar enough product to make it worthwhile, they'll do that too.
For instance, if you make a single player game, and sell it in stores for $50, with the CD in a jewel case, no manual or game material (such as the books, maps, etc. that come with Baldur's Gate games), and just a couple pictures on the box, people have absolutely no motivation to purchase the game over pirating it. There's no functional difference, and there's hardly any perceived difference. The cost of finding it online (at most, several hours of searching online and then maybe a couple days downloading it - basically just your time to find it: say, 4 hours), or the cost of getting it from your friend or the guy down the street for a couple dollars, is negligable compared to the 50$ box price.
There are several things that companies can do to increase both revenue and sales. Part of the equation is lowering the price so the investment differential between a pirated copy and a legit copy is less. The other half of the equation is providing game content that doesn't suck.
Let's draw this scenario up in terms of the price of the product. On the 'buying legit' side, I would likely have to download a 200+Mb demo to find out if i like the game, play the demo, (and if I like it) go to the store, buy the game, come home, uninstall the demo, install the game, and (likely) play over the same exact part of the game that was available in the demo - and that's just not cool. I spend $50 of my money and invest (say) 3 hours of my time to get this game. I could also have just gone out and gotten the game and then been disappointed, and returned it, or not gotten the game at all after playing their wretched demo.
On the pirating side of things, I could see an add for a game, read a review or two, and then either ask a friend for the game, or search the web for a little while for the full version - obscenely easy. I might invest a total of 4 hours of active seeking in trying to get the game. I'll install it, and if I like it, I'll keep playing it. At this point, I have no desire to pay for it, since i already have it, and buying it offers me no added benefit (more times than not). If the game sucks (which is much more than likely nowadays) I'll simply remove it and have only lost (say) 5 or so hours of my time. This second approach is the one that seems to be the most common among gamers in my experience: they're a highly social group of folks amongst themselves, and getting an ISO or CD from a friend is much easier and a LOT cheaper than going to the store to buy it, and there's much more benefit.
Neither of these options seem terribly viable for the game producer, in my mind. Here are several options that, too me, seem to be much more viable - either by themselves or in combintion.
1) Sell the games for a lot less money - $15 or $20, or maybe even $10 seems reasonable to me for most of the games out there. I'm much more likely to go to the store and pick out a cheap game for the hell of it on a rainy Saturday than I am ot pick out a $40 or $50 game. I, as well as most gamers aren't diehard gamers, and aren't willing ot spend an arm and a leg for a game unless it warrants it. 2) Provide some sort of positive incentive to purchase the game. Note: the incentive must be positive! This means that throwing in some sort of 'required license key registration' into the installation process would not be a good idea. Instead, go the extra step (it's just a step, when you consider it, compared to the initial mile of actual development) and add some content into the box: maybe a sticker or two, maybe a poster, a nice game manual (whether the game needs it or not, if the game is good, people will read those manuals), and various other "we care about you" gestures. Adding in a license key requirement to get to the more significant part o
I've seen you (or someone else) post this before. Good re-use of karma.
Anyway, this is funny because it's ironic - it's just an exageration of what They want you to think. Personally, I've started calling everyone terrorists, etc. so as to destroy any effect the words are intended to have - smear the smear campeign!
This is a Chinese/communist researcher we're talking about here. What does s/he care if a bunch of capitalists lose money/sleep/etc.? I'd think that would be his goal - to contribute to the fall of the west.
How about, "Just reboot the machine, that will fix the problem"? Or, "It's the user's fault", or maybe "That's the fault of 3rd party vendors"? Etc. etc.
During the first case against Michael Jackson, Jackson benefited some 8-million dollars through secondary means due to publicity, even after the settlement.
Starting nmap 3.45 ( http://www.insecure.org/nmap/ ) at 2003-11-27 01:14 CST Interesting ports on 66.45.42.237: (The 1653 ports scanned but not shown below are in state: filtered) PORT STATE SERVICE 21/tcp open ftp 53/tcp closed domain 80/tcp open http 443/tcp open https No exact OS matches for host (If you know what OS is running on it, see http://www.insecure.org/cgi-bin/nmap-submit.cgi). TCP/IP fingerprint: SInfo(V=3.45%P=i686-pc-linux-gnu%D=1 1/27%Time=3FC5 A5AA%O=21%C=53) TSeq(Class=TR%TS=0) T1(Resp=Y%DF =Y%W=4650%ACK=S++%Flags=AS%Ops=MNWNNT) T2(Resp=N) T3(Resp=N) T4(Resp=N) T5(Resp=Y%DF =N%W=0%ACK=S++%Flags=AR%Ops=) T6(Resp=N) T7(Resp =N) PU(Resp=N)
*snip* SInfo(V=3.45%P=i686-pc-linux-gnu%D=11/27
I wonder if that's an inidcation that they're running linux (it did seem that it took a fair amount of time for them to fall to a slashdotting, didn't it?), or they're making themselves look like they are.
Who knows - maybe ServerMask (the one they're using internally, not the one they sell, wink wink) is just a linux server with squid that stands beteen the server and the internet.
Slashdot Mirror
correction: they will replace any hardware that fails, reimage your drive, or instruct you how to reimage your drive. they will not support the software they sold you. that implies fixing problems.
erm, despite our modern cleansing and consumption of shrimp and other crustacians, that wasn't always the case. eating the shit and other bottom-dredged material in such creatures wasn't healthy. argueably, it's still not healthy - particularly because there's so much more shit in our waters from chemicals, etc. - these things just sit within our intestines and fat, and can lead to cancer and other degenerate diseases. one reason why fat people have so many more degenerate health problems.
excuse me, MPAA. Minor distinction problem, slip of the tongue. :)
The NTFS file system has stayed stable since Win2k.
So? NTFS stability has nothing at all to do with MS adding some arbitrary code that will not directly effect the operation in windows, but if not combined with some other critical system component (say, a running process, etc.) it will 'mysteriously' start corrupting any data it writes, or something equally devious.
Additionally, Longhorn probably will have a new FS...
What does Longhorn have anything to do with a wrapper for the existing NTFS, you fucking MS shill? Just ignore the fact that MS themself has essentially claimed that it's just a database abstraction layer - we don't care about facts, after all.
A filesystem is harder to break compatibility with than other things.
Er, no. It's no more difficult to break compatibility in a filesystem than in anything else - particularly if you're actually trying to. You'd only have to change one character in your source. Argueably, that's an easier compatibility fuck than most - unless we're talking hardware. Never underestimate the ability of humans to mess things up dreadfully.
Do not forget, breaking compatibility angers all of their customers.
How ignorant. Don't you realize that that is precisely what MS's business plan is - breaking compatibility repeatedly to milk more income into their coffers? That's why they do it. If they can get away with it, they'll do it. Thus, why they would do it in this situation - if somoene is already using linux, they've got little hope of keeping them as a customer perminantly. If "linux" breaks something, the person is more likely to blame linux instead of the fucked up ntfs driver.
Nothing like companies/industries not wanting their products to be sold.
It makes absolutely no sense why the RIAA would give a damn about DeCSS - it enables people to watch their over-priced DVDs in foreign countries. This requires at least some purchase. What's the deal?
Why is it that everyone that has previously supported the linux community seems to becoming complete asshats, and are trying to "take over" the efforts of a hard-working community for their own profit? Just because something is "free" does not mean that you can steal it and call it your own. Copyright still applies. What rookies.
SCO, now LinuxGazette, and I don't know how many others. What clowns.
Isn't this a "dupe" from like, 3 years or so ago? I distinctly recall intel researchers saying the exact same thing at some point in the past - several times.
Move along, nothing to see here.
Furthermore, why is "Moore's Law" considered a law anyway? Wouldn't it be a postulate, since being a law requires some sort of foundational evidence that's inerrant?This hardly fits that category in my mind.
*shrug* The only SouthPark episode I've ever seen was a good 8 years ago when it first came out - IIRC, it was Jesus and Santa duking it out.
The biggest problem I see with this trend is that if it does kill traditional advertising, it will likely also kill smaller productions: both TV and film. If companies start to think that buying ads isn't financially profitable, then they won't buy ads, and only the biggest ticket items will get made due to the financial viability and/or the profit margin.
Of course, there will be indie works still, but less so, since many of them have private corporate sponsors as well.
IIRC, Bladerunner had a very large Coke advertisement on one of the buildings within the film. So it is still possible.
That's because the HIV ad likely wasn't portrayed in a positive manner. You'd be considering, though, if it was introduced in this fashion:
Viciously hot babe in a bikini runs/bounces onto an all-white screen in slow motion
Hot babe: Hi, my name's Bambi. I've got HIV. Do you know how I got it?
Bambi pauses
Bambi: I had mad hot animal sex with an ordinary, greasy geek, just like you, and he gave it to me. *giggle*
Bambi bounces off the screen
fade to black
white lettering appears on the screen:
HIV: Find A Hot Model and Let Her Give It To You
Movies and TV have been successfully 'advertising' lifestyles (and their accompanying trinkets and trends) for years and years - much longer than the current "lifestyle" adverts that we've seen in the last 5 years or so (Mt. Dew being a big "lifestyle" brand). Unlike traditional ads (generally), however, TV and movies get you involved in the plot, characters, and situations, thus increasing your desire all the more - unlike most ads, which we tune out (and thus why advertisers try their damnedest to create witty ads). Someone is much more likely to buy a Desert Eagle handgun if Lara Croft is using it in the movie (sweet! a chick with a gun! I want one just like that! maybe it'll make me just like her/find a girl just like her), than if they were to see a subsequent ad on TV or as a trailer advertising the gun itself.
The most obvious examples that you'll see almost everywhere are: clothing, soda, furniture (if I buy the furniture on The Cosby Show, I'll be witty and have a perfect family), and the like. Some specifics off the top of my head:
Terminator (and others like it): leather jackets and other things 80's.
The Matrix - leather catsuits, trenchcoats, sunglasses, technology appeal, etc.
James Bond - cars, watches, pens, cologne, beer, soda, women (woot!), sex, etc.
Fast and the Furious (I and II): cars, performance parts, soda, clothing, sex
Wayne's World I and II: Pepsi, Doritos, etc. (done ingeniously, I might add)
even LotR: trinkets from the movies, books, soundtracks
Of course, everyone seems ot be ignoring the fact that it's quite likely that, in 20-30 years, there won't be much of any jobs that require such skills in the US - unless you consider punching "Big Mac" a computer literacy skill.
Er, no, firing a gun is a dangerous skill like learning how to drive a car properly is a dangerous skill.
Not knowing how to fire a gun and doing so is dangerous. get Clue.
Good god, you're not terribly aware of the other side of the fence, are you?
The problem with fixing (and knowing) a Windows system is many times more complex than fixing a *nix system. It's not because the system itself is inherrently more complex, it's because it's more heavily obscured and much less documented.
But that's besides the point. A windows system -is- more complex, and needlessly so. The people that designed the Windows registry don't even understand it completely, how are windows admins or anyone else?
The problem *nix admins have with windows is because it's -not- as good as a *nix variant in terms of administration. Admin tasks take many, many times longer on a windows system than a *nix system because the fundamental tools and framework for providing those functions isn't there. Simply put, Windows wasn't designed for ease of administration in a professional environment, it wasn't designed for ease of access to system functions, and it wasn't designed to do anything but increase the coffers in Redmond.
And don't think you can refute this saying something like, "But longhorn will..." - it's too little, 10 years too late (and it's still only rumored, at that).
That reminds me of a saying my grandfather has.
Only a craftsman can properly use a dull knife, but he won't.
SysAdmins
So, the systems are running linux and/or unix variants? I didn't think so. So why use this UNIX/Linux-specific administrator terminology? Windows Administrators aren't sysadmins, they're Windows Administrators.
Hrm. I s'pose you could decelerate without flying off, if the embryo were to tilt backwards (in the direction from which it's coming), so that it's facing the pavement at an angle. This would focus more of the g-force towards the ground, and would help prevent the rider from flying off, I'd think.
piracy comes down to simple economics: if someone can't afford something, they won't buy it. Likewise, if they can get it in another fashion for less (off the street or via download), with a similar enough product to make it worthwhile, they'll do that too.
For instance, if you make a single player game, and sell it in stores for $50, with the CD in a jewel case, no manual or game material (such as the books, maps, etc. that come with Baldur's Gate games), and just a couple pictures on the box, people have absolutely no motivation to purchase the game over pirating it. There's no functional difference, and there's hardly any perceived difference. The cost of finding it online (at most, several hours of searching online and then maybe a couple days downloading it - basically just your time to find it: say, 4 hours), or the cost of getting it from your friend or the guy down the street for a couple dollars, is negligable compared to the 50$ box price.
There are several things that companies can do to increase both revenue and sales. Part of the equation is lowering the price so the investment differential between a pirated copy and a legit copy is less. The other half of the equation is providing game content that doesn't suck.
Let's draw this scenario up in terms of the price of the product. On the 'buying legit' side, I would likely have to download a 200+Mb demo to find out if i like the game, play the demo, (and if I like it) go to the store, buy the game, come home, uninstall the demo, install the game, and (likely) play over the same exact part of the game that was available in the demo - and that's just not cool. I spend $50 of my money and invest (say) 3 hours of my time to get this game. I could also have just gone out and gotten the game and then been disappointed, and returned it, or not gotten the game at all after playing their wretched demo.
On the pirating side of things, I could see an add for a game, read a review or two, and then either ask a friend for the game, or search the web for a little while for the full version - obscenely easy. I might invest a total of 4 hours of active seeking in trying to get the game. I'll install it, and if I like it, I'll keep playing it. At this point, I have no desire to pay for it, since i already have it, and buying it offers me no added benefit (more times than not). If the game sucks (which is much more than likely nowadays) I'll simply remove it and have only lost (say) 5 or so hours of my time. This second approach is the one that seems to be the most common among gamers in my experience: they're a highly social group of folks amongst themselves, and getting an ISO or CD from a friend is much easier and a LOT cheaper than going to the store to buy it, and there's much more benefit.
Neither of these options seem terribly viable for the game producer, in my mind. Here are several options that, too me, seem to be much more viable - either by themselves or in combintion.
1) Sell the games for a lot less money - $15 or $20, or maybe even $10 seems reasonable to me for most of the games out there. I'm much more likely to go to the store and pick out a cheap game for the hell of it on a rainy Saturday than I am ot pick out a $40 or $50 game. I, as well as most gamers aren't diehard gamers, and aren't willing ot spend an arm and a leg for a game unless it warrants it.
2) Provide some sort of positive incentive to purchase the game. Note: the incentive must be positive! This means that throwing in some sort of 'required license key registration' into the installation process would not be a good idea. Instead, go the extra step (it's just a step, when you consider it, compared to the initial mile of actual development) and add some content into the box: maybe a sticker or two, maybe a poster, a nice game manual (whether the game needs it or not, if the game is good, people will read those manuals), and various other "we care about you" gestures. Adding in a license key requirement to get to the more significant part o
I've seen you (or someone else) post this before. Good re-use of karma.
Anyway, this is funny because it's ironic - it's just an exageration of what They want you to think. Personally, I've started calling everyone terrorists, etc. so as to destroy any effect the words are intended to have - smear the smear campeign!
This is a Chinese/communist researcher we're talking about here. What does s/he care if a bunch of capitalists lose money/sleep/etc.? I'd think that would be his goal - to contribute to the fall of the west.
False claims?
How about, "Just reboot the machine, that will fix the problem"? Or, "It's the user's fault", or maybe "That's the fault of 3rd party vendors"? Etc. etc.
During the first case against Michael Jackson, Jackson benefited some 8-million dollars through secondary means due to publicity, even after the settlement.
nmap -P0 -O www.port80software.com
1 1/27%Time=3FC5 A5AA%O=21%C=53)F =Y%W=4650%ACK=S++%Flags=AS%Ops=MNWNNT) F =N%W=0%ACK=S++%Flags=AR%Ops=)p =N)
Starting nmap 3.45 ( http://www.insecure.org/nmap/ ) at 2003-11-27 01:14 CST
Interesting ports on 66.45.42.237:
(The 1653 ports scanned but not shown below are in state: filtered)
PORT STATE SERVICE
21/tcp open ftp
53/tcp closed domain
80/tcp open http
443/tcp open https
No exact OS matches for host (If you know what OS is running on it, see http://www.insecure.org/cgi-bin/nmap-submit.cgi).
TCP/IP fingerprint:
SInfo(V=3.45%P=i686-pc-linux-gnu%D=
TSeq(Class=TR%TS=0)
T1(Resp=Y%D
T2(Resp=N)
T3(Resp=N)
T4(Resp=N)
T5(Resp=Y%D
T6(Resp=N)
T7(Res
PU(Resp=N)
*snip*
SInfo(V=3.45%P=i686-pc-linux-gnu%D=11/27
I wonder if that's an inidcation that they're running linux (it did seem that it took a fair amount of time for them to fall to a slashdotting, didn't it?), or they're making themselves look like they are.
Who knows - maybe ServerMask (the one they're using internally, not the one they sell, wink wink) is just a linux server with squid that stands beteen the server and the internet.
Netscape runs on more corporate environments than Apache?
Strange, I didn't notice Netscape gaining such a tremendous market share over all the shops out there that sell systems w/ Apache.