How many people would download OpenOffice if Microsoft Office was free?
And there you have identified the real problem that nobody wants to admit.
Linux, Open Office and GIMP are free. And yet, every day, all over the world, millions of people choose pirated copies of Windows, Microsoft Office and Adobe Photoshop instead.
How many people in this list would pirate instead of pay. How many of these downloads represent aborted downloads that are retried (it is a large download). How many of these would have been covered by the home license (I believe you get up to three computers with the normal licensed product -- as opposed to Student edition or other licenses). etc.
You missed the most important question. Out of those 138,928 downloads per day, how many people actually continued to use Open Office and how many used it briefly, discovered that it is crap and downloaded a pirated copy of Microsoft Office.
This would be Step 1 - getting control of the money. Once you have control of the money, then you can worry about moving it to an untraceable, irreversible account or withdrawing it as cash. Step 1 is merely the most difficult to do.
No. you have got it exactly backwards. And that's the main point of the article. Getting control of the money is easy. You steal someone's password and you now have control of the money. Happens millions of times a year.
But then you have to transfer that money somewhere else in such a way that it is not reversable (the bank can't take the money back) and not traceable (they can't identify you and come arrest you). THAT is the hard part.
Little-known fact: "Hard-core" porn (i.e., porn) is actually illegal to distribute in the US. So my question is: is porn actually copyrightable?
I don't think it's entirely "illegal". But based on the old "community standards" ruling by the Supreme Court many years ago it is possible for material to be declared obscene in a particular area. Although you don't seem to hear much about that any more.
But it is an interesting question. Can material that is considered "obscene", and therefore illegal, be copyrighted?
How is the domain automatically his if it is his name? What if the domain was registered by someone else bearing the name "Ron Paul"? Would Politician Ron Paul be able to wrest control of the domain from the not-as-well-known Ron Paul based solely on name recognition? And what if not-as-well-known Ron Paul wanted to sell the domain name? Should he be limited in selling it to someone whose name is "Ron Paul" or can he sell it to anything (for example, a fan of politician Ron Paul).
(Not saying that's what happened here. Just pointing out that having a name isn't the same thing as automatically having rights to a domain name with said name.)
You would be absolutely 100% correct, IF the domain ronpaul.com was being used for some other purpose. Maybe there's a plumber named Ron Paul who wants to put up a website. Or an accountant. Or a guy named Ron Paul wants to sell auto parts on the Internet. Those are all legitimate.
But that's not the case here. The domain is being used exclusively for activities relating to Ron Paul the congressman from Texas. This is exactly the definition of cybersquatting.
This is a very surprising and disappointing action from Paul -- a politician who once rarely (if ever) contradicted himself.
Well you haven't been paying attention.
As a member of congress he has repeatedly added amendments to spending bills giving millions to his home district. Then when the bill comes up for a vote, knowing that the bill is going to pass, he votes against the bill. That way he gets millions in pork for his constituents and at the same time can claim he voted against a wasteful spending bill.
All holidays should be abolished. At least at the federal level anyway. Celebrating a "holiday" simply because it's the first day of a new year? We should have stopped that nonsense long ago.
Wow, so in this thread we have one person who personally blames RMS for Hurd being the way it is, and immediately afterwards a reply saying that RMS doesn't do any real work anyway. Which is it?
It's both.
"Hurd, the GNU micro-kernel project that was founded by Richard Stallman in 1983
Stallman never had in any interest in doing any real work and that is, at least partially,why Hurd is what is it.
WTF is so convenient about having Word being able to display Flash content?
Do a significant/noticeable number of people embed Flash content in their Word documents?
The number of people actually doing this for legitimate reasons is probably very small. The problem is, companies like Microsoft and Adobe must constantly release new versions of their software in order to keep a constant revenue stream. And that means constantly adding new "features" of questionable value.
that is system-wide, that allows administrators to disable the Open Anyway button for the users that can't be trusted with it. (which will be most of them)
Sure. Activate this. 10 seconds to the first call of a user "ordering" you to reactivate it, because he/she need's it, 30 seconds until your boss get's a call from him/her cause you refused it, 60 seconds 'til the department head get's a call from his/her boss, ordering your boss to order you to reenable it.
You're exactly right, and that's because of the real problem: Word cannot tell if something in a document is malicious or not, so it will display the warning message for all content of that particular type, even if it is perfectly legitimate. And so you are left with an all or nothing choice --
(1) Let people open the documents and take your chances or (2) Don't allow users to open ANY document which contains that particular type of content (are you ABSOLUTELY SURE that NOBODY in your company is producing documents with embedded Flash content?)
If you choose number 2 you are guaranteed to experience the scenario described above which will inevitably lead to you right back to number 1.
Stop allowing Flash to be embedded in things like Word documents and PDF files..
This is the correct answer. Yes, Adobe needs to get their shit together and stop producing software with new security flaws being discovered almost daily. But what about Microsoft's responsibility? Flash embedded in a Word document? What.The.Fuck
I know many will rush to disagree with me but Flash cannot die soon enough...
The problem is not Flash. the problem is the absolute incompetence of Adobe. Despite being a large company with lots of resources (programmers, money, etc) they are unable to produce a piece of software that isn't filled with exploitable security flaws. No software is perfect, but this is ridiculous. No, it's beyond ridiculous.
The problem isn't vendor fragmentation. The problem is vendor laziness. If you produce an Android device there is no legitimate why you can't provide regular updates.
HP is a total wreck of a company. Blowing billions on WTF acquisitions and going through CEOs like shit through a goose, not to mention a completely ineffective board of directors.
Exactly right. HP is one of the most screwed up companies around and they really need to STFU when it comes to commenting on other companies.
If you even read the summary, let alone TFA you'll see:
"The search provides larger views of the images with direct links to the full-sized source image."
Yes, I did read TFA. And nowhere does it explain how you can have decreased traffic but increased bandwidth usage. Because it's not possible. Decreased traffic = decreased bandwidth usage.
Here's the real problem (quote from TFA):
When people get the full resolution image, they have no reason to click to go to the URL.
Dear "Webmaster", nobody cares about your shitty website packed full of annoying ads. Get over it already.
Webmasters have expressed concerns about . . . . . an increase in bandwidth usage
Google gets the image from the originating website, or I go there and get it myself. Either way, somebody (me or Google) has to go to the website to get the image. How does this cause increased bandwidth usage?
I'm no economist, but the limited exposure I've had to public companies is that nowadays, it's all about ONLY the next quarterly report.
The way the stock market is pushing things, you can't actually make good long term decisions for your company because the only thing that matters is short term stuff.
This is true, BUT, in this case Dell will be heavily in debt which negates any benefits of going private. Instead of Wall Street demanding an ever increasing stock price, Dell will be under constant pressure from the people who put up $24 Billion and want to see a return on their investment.
Slashdot Mirror
How many people would download OpenOffice if Microsoft Office was free?
And there you have identified the real problem that nobody wants to admit.
Linux, Open Office and GIMP are free. And yet, every day, all over the world, millions of people choose pirated copies of Windows, Microsoft Office and Adobe Photoshop instead.
How many people in this list would pirate instead of pay. How many of these downloads represent aborted downloads that are retried (it is a large download). How many of these would have been covered by the home license (I believe you get up to three computers with the normal licensed product -- as opposed to Student edition or other licenses). etc.
You missed the most important question. Out of those 138,928 downloads per day, how many people actually continued to use Open Office and how many used it briefly, discovered that it is crap and downloaded a pirated copy of Microsoft Office.
This would be Step 1 - getting control of the money. Once you have control of the money, then you can worry about moving it to an untraceable, irreversible account or withdrawing it as cash. Step 1 is merely the most difficult to do.
No. you have got it exactly backwards. And that's the main point of the article. Getting control of the money is easy. You steal someone's password and you now have control of the money. Happens millions of times a year.
But then you have to transfer that money somewhere else in such a way that it is not reversable (the bank can't take the money back) and not traceable (they can't identify you and come arrest you). THAT is the hard part.
Little-known fact: "Hard-core" porn (i.e., porn) is actually illegal to distribute in the US. So my question is: is porn actually copyrightable?
I don't think it's entirely "illegal". But based on the old "community standards" ruling by the Supreme Court many years ago it is possible for material to be declared obscene in a particular area. Although you don't seem to hear much about that any more.
But it is an interesting question. Can material that is considered "obscene", and therefore illegal, be copyrighted?
WTF?
"The Sun Fire server brand was a series of server computers introduced in 2001".
You think something from 2001 is old? What are you? 12?
How is the domain automatically his if it is his name? What if the domain was registered by someone else bearing the name "Ron Paul"? Would Politician Ron Paul be able to wrest control of the domain from the not-as-well-known Ron Paul based solely on name recognition? And what if not-as-well-known Ron Paul wanted to sell the domain name? Should he be limited in selling it to someone whose name is "Ron Paul" or can he sell it to anything (for example, a fan of politician Ron Paul).
(Not saying that's what happened here. Just pointing out that having a name isn't the same thing as automatically having rights to a domain name with said name.)
You would be absolutely 100% correct, IF the domain ronpaul.com was being used for some other purpose. Maybe there's a plumber named Ron Paul who wants to put up a website. Or an accountant. Or a guy named Ron Paul wants to sell auto parts on the Internet. Those are all legitimate.
But that's not the case here. The domain is being used exclusively for activities relating to Ron Paul the congressman from Texas. This is exactly the definition of cybersquatting.
This is a very surprising and disappointing action from Paul -- a politician who once rarely (if ever) contradicted himself.
Well you haven't been paying attention.
As a member of congress he has repeatedly added amendments to spending bills giving millions to his home district. Then when the bill comes up for a vote, knowing that the bill is going to pass, he votes against the bill. That way he gets millions in pork for his constituents and at the same time can claim he voted against a wasteful spending bill.
With friends like that who needs enemies.
This is nothing but a $250,000 shakedown by his alleged "supporters".
All holidays should be abolished. At least at the federal level anyway. Celebrating a "holiday" simply because it's the first day of a new year? We should have stopped that nonsense long ago.
Wow, so in this thread we have one person who personally blames RMS for Hurd being the way it is, and immediately afterwards a reply saying that RMS doesn't do any real work anyway. Which is it?
It's both.
"Hurd, the GNU micro-kernel project that was founded by Richard Stallman in 1983
Stallman never had in any interest in doing any real work and that is, at least partially ,why Hurd is what is it.
This alleged extortion plot happened in 2007
A 'CEO' "payed' "$150,000" to ... shut up the complaint ?
No he didn't. He refused to pay the extortion.
Why does this only affect Samsung computers? Did they do something extra stupid to the UEFI in their computers that other vendors didn't?
WTF is so convenient about having Word being able to display Flash content?
Do a significant/noticeable number of people embed Flash content in their Word documents?
The number of people actually doing this for legitimate reasons is probably very small. The problem is, companies like Microsoft and Adobe must constantly release new versions of their software in order to keep a constant revenue stream. And that means constantly adding new "features" of questionable value.
that is system-wide, that allows administrators to disable the Open Anyway button for the users that can't be trusted with it. (which will be most of them)
Sure. Activate this.
10 seconds to the first call of a user "ordering" you to reactivate it, because he/she need's it,
30 seconds until your boss get's a call from him/her cause you refused it,
60 seconds 'til the department head get's a call from his/her boss, ordering your boss to order you to reenable it.
You're exactly right, and that's because of the real problem: Word cannot tell if something in a document is malicious or not, so it will display the warning message for all content of that particular type, even if it is perfectly legitimate. And so you are left with an all or nothing choice --
(1) Let people open the documents and take your chances
or
(2) Don't allow users to open ANY document which contains that particular type of content (are you ABSOLUTELY SURE that NOBODY in your company is producing documents with embedded Flash content?)
If you choose number 2 you are guaranteed to experience the scenario described above which will inevitably lead to you right back to number 1.
Stop allowing Flash to be embedded in things like Word documents and PDF files. .
This is the correct answer. Yes, Adobe needs to get their shit together and stop producing software with new security flaws being discovered almost daily. But what about Microsoft's responsibility? Flash embedded in a Word document? What.The.Fuck
I know many will rush to disagree with me but Flash cannot die soon enough...
The problem is not Flash. the problem is the absolute incompetence of Adobe. Despite being a large company with lots of resources (programmers, money, etc) they are unable to produce a piece of software that isn't filled with exploitable security flaws. No software is perfect, but this is ridiculous. No, it's beyond ridiculous.
The problem isn't vendor fragmentation. The problem is vendor laziness. If you produce an Android device there is no legitimate why you can't provide regular updates.
Buy a computer that has the specs you want, then wipe the hard drive and install Windows 7. Problem solved.
HP is a total wreck of a company. Blowing billions on WTF acquisitions and going through CEOs like shit through a goose, not to mention a completely ineffective board of directors.
Exactly right. HP is one of the most screwed up companies around and they really need to STFU when it comes to commenting on other companies.
I think it still exists?
It still exists. But, technically, can't your web crawler just ignore it?
Really?
Less people visiting the pages = less traffic
Browsers only pulling images from the pages = Increase in bandwidth
Wrong.
Browsers only pulling images use less bandwidth that browsers pulling the entire page.
If you even read the summary, let alone TFA you'll see:
"The search provides larger views of the images with direct links to the full-sized source image."
Yes, I did read TFA. And nowhere does it explain how you can have decreased traffic but increased bandwidth usage. Because it's not possible. Decreased traffic = decreased bandwidth usage.
Here's the real problem (quote from TFA):
When people get the full resolution image, they have no reason to click to go to the URL.
Dear "Webmaster", nobody cares about your shitty website packed full of annoying ads. Get over it already.
Webmasters have expressed concerns about . . . . . an increase in bandwidth usage
Google gets the image from the originating website, or I go there and get it myself. Either way, somebody (me or Google) has to go to the website to get the image. How does this cause increased bandwidth usage?
This could be the best thing for Dell.
I'm no economist, but the limited exposure I've had to public companies is that nowadays, it's all about ONLY the next quarterly report.
The way the stock market is pushing things, you can't actually make good long term decisions for your company because the only thing that matters is short term stuff.
This is true, BUT, in this case Dell will be heavily in debt which negates any benefits of going private. Instead of Wall Street demanding an ever increasing stock price, Dell will be under constant pressure from the people who put up $24 Billion and want to see a return on their investment.