"Whether I'm standing on an actual street corner shouting about The Truth, or I'm sitting at a computer typing The Truth for an avatar to shout on a simulated street corner, I'm still an actual person saying the same things to actual people. I have the same free speech rights and social responsibilities. The same rules (whatever the right ones are, that's a separate question) not only should apply to virtual reality... they do!"
Sorry. Wrong answer. If you go to a local mall and create a disturbance, they can throw you out. A "virtual reality" world is owned by someone. Somebody owns the hardware and software running it and they have the right to control it as they see fit. Don't like it? Go elsewhere.
Carly Fiorina spews out a bunch of meaningless bafflegab and everyone just nods their head. Once again we see that nobody learned anything from the story of The Emperor's New Clothes.
"I have baseless theory that the sole purpose of spam is to sell lists to other spammers, who sell lists to other spammers etc. There is no product behind them any more: it is like pyramid marketing."
Here's what I've been thinking about lately: Do spammers actually make any money from spamming? Seriously -- I'm starting to wonder if there's something different at work here.
Because e-mail is so cheap that it costs practically nothing to send a million spam e-mails, are spammers spewing their crap (and ignoring the near zero response rate) in hope that some day the money will start rolling in?
Think about it -- every week millions of people plunk down a few dollars for lottery tickets. And even though they never win anything, they keep buying, week after week, month after month, year after year. Why? Because it's such a small amount of money that they figure it's a small price to pay for the chance to win millions.
I'm beginning to think this is the same mentality that is driving spammers.
The more that Infinium reveals, the more obvious it becomes that they are nothing more than con-men looking to scam some money from investors with a promise of a super-duper game console.
A coax connector labeled "cable modem"? Do these guys even know how a cable modem works? Sure, techinically they could build a cable modem into the unit, but there's a lot of reasons why that would be really stupid.
Their business model makes no sense. If the Phantom actually contains the hardware they claim, they'll be selling it at such a huge loss that every person who buys one would have to subscribe to their service and play a lot of games for quite some time before Infinium even begins to make any money.
There's a reason why these programs are expensive. They are very complex programs that take a lot of time and effort to create. Why exactly do you feel that someone should put out an enormous amount of time and effort to create a progrma of this tyoe and then give it to you for free?
A long time ago, I signed up with a local ISP and they sent me a copy of Netscape Navigator. As a result, it was a few years before I even knew that MSIE existed.
Do your users a favor. A big favor. Strongly insist that they use a modern, good quality web browser, like Mozilla, and make copies easily available.
I can't decide which is more pathetic. A game compnay that bans someone because they write a newspaper about the fictional characters in their game, or the guy who writes the newspaper.
"Now I'm looking to build myself a professional grade editing suite using only open source tools so that I can dump as much money as possible into the hardware."
In other words, you want soneone to write a "professional grade editing suite" and then make it available to you for free.
Why exactly would you expect that? Please explain.
Which is harder? Designing web pages by a common standard or conforming to one application's twisted implementation of said standard? You don't necessarily save money by developing only for IE.
You are familiar with web standards [w3.org]? IE does a half-baked job of implementing them...........
Mozilla doesn't try to make web pages conform to some twisted view of a standard. Rather, Mozilla takes said web standards and attempts to comply with them.
You're right, but you're missing the point. Consider the facts:
1. MSIE is non-compliant with W3C standards. 2. As a result of #1 (and MSIE's 90% market share), many millions of web pages have been created to conform with MSIE features rather than W3C standards. 3. The W3C doesn't follow their own rules. A while back, some guy from Finland decided to do a survey of web sites run by W3C members, and out of 400 sites studied he found that 95% were not fully compliant with W3C standards because they had been designed with various IE-specific features.
So the real question is:
Which is harder: Getting tens of millions of people to re-design their broken, stupidly coded, non-W3C compliant web sites. Or, designing a browser that can display their broken, stupidly coded, non-W3C compliant web sites.
"Tell me - can I not install any vbScript? Can I not install IE or Outlook Express? Can I UNINSTALL IE once it's installed?"
While it's true that you can't uninstall MSIE or Outlook Express, a Knowlegeable user doesn't use these programs in the first place. I've had zero virus infections and I've never had my browser hijaacked by malicious scripts.
"look at it the OTHER way: in the hands of an idiot, Linux is just as dangerous as Windows. In fact, probably more-so because it's faaaaarrrrr more powerful."
Wrong. Linux, in the hands of an idiot, such as my clueless friend mentioned previously, is harmless because they'll never figure out how to get it to work.
One of the things that makes Linux more secure is that you actually have to have a basic understanding of how things work.
Today, I was talking to a friend of mine who bought his first computer about 4 years ago. He wanted to back up every thing on his computer, so he dragged all the icons from the desktop over to his CD burning program. When I tried to explain to him that the only thing he burned onto the CD was a dozen shortcuts, and not the actual programs/data itself, he just looked at me with this totally blank stare and had absolutely no clue what I was talking about.
The point is this: When it comes to programmer-related problems (buffer overflows, etc) Windows and Linux seem about equal. The big problem with Windows is that Microsoft's focus has been entirely on "ease of use" for people who know little or nothing about computers. That's how you sell lots of computers (and lots of copies of Windows). They created all sorts of nifty features (scripting, etc.) and turned them all on by default -- never giving a moments thought to the harmful ways that these features could be used
Windows, in the hands of a knowledgeable person, can be just as secure as Linux. But, "right out of the box" it's a security mightmare -- a disater waiting to happen.
Translation: The director cuts out 43 minutes of crap. Then later puts it back in so they can release a "special edition" and separate a few more suckers from their money.
"...if only I could get the law interested. I have tried to get the attention of CERT, of FBI and of my local police authorities, but nobody seems to be interested."
You can pass all the laws you want, but what good are they if nobody wants to actually ENFORCE them?
Slashdot Mirror
...of half the performance for twice the price.
Carly Fiorina spews out a bunch of meaningless bafflegab and everyone just nods their head. Once again we see that nobody learned anything from the story of The Emperor's New Clothes.
Here's what I've been thinking about lately: Do spammers actually make any money from spamming? Seriously -- I'm starting to wonder if there's something different at work here.
Because e-mail is so cheap that it costs practically nothing to send a million spam e-mails, are spammers spewing their crap (and ignoring the near zero response rate) in hope that some day the money will start rolling in?
Think about it -- every week millions of people plunk down a few dollars for lottery tickets. And even though they never win anything, they keep buying, week after week, month after month, year after year. Why? Because it's such a small amount of money that they figure it's a small price to pay for the chance to win millions.
I'm beginning to think this is the same mentality that is driving spammers.
The more that Infinium reveals, the more obvious it becomes that they are nothing more than con-men looking to scam some money from investors with a promise of a super-duper game console.
A coax connector labeled "cable modem"? Do these guys even know how a cable modem works? Sure, techinically they could build a cable modem into the unit, but there's a lot of reasons why that would be really stupid.
Their business model makes no sense. If the Phantom actually contains the hardware they claim, they'll be selling it at such a huge loss that every person who buys one would have to subscribe to their service and play a lot of games for quite some time before Infinium even begins to make any money.
The official release date is April 23, 2004. I know this is true because I just made it up.
There's a reason why these programs are expensive. They are very complex programs that take a lot of time and effort to create. Why exactly do you feel that someone should put out an enormous amount of time and effort to create a progrma of this tyoe and then give it to you for free?
A long time ago, I signed up with a local ISP and they sent me a copy of Netscape Navigator. As a result, it was a few years before I even knew that MSIE existed.
Do your users a favor. A big favor. Strongly insist that they use a modern, good quality web browser, like Mozilla, and make copies easily available.
"she wants more music, and is willing to pay for it."
Then go to the store and buy some CDs. DUH!!!!
alt.binaries.martian.pr0n
Cool!!
Does anyone make a program to block those annoying Flash ads?
You can't spell fiasco without SCO
According to the website the compiler for Windows is $399
I can't decide which is more pathetic. A game compnay that bans someone because they write a newspaper about the fictional characters in their game, or the guy who writes the newspaper.
Jeez. Get a life.
You can't spell Fiasco without SCO
You're right, but you're missing the point. Consider the facts:
1. MSIE is non-compliant with W3C standards.
2. As a result of #1 (and MSIE's 90% market share), many millions of web pages have been created to conform with MSIE features rather than W3C standards.
3. The W3C doesn't follow their own rules. A while back, some guy from Finland decided to do a survey of web sites run by W3C members, and out of 400 sites studied he found that 95% were not fully compliant with W3C standards because they had been designed with various IE-specific features.
So the real question is:
Which is harder: Getting tens of millions of people to re-design their broken, stupidly coded, non-W3C compliant web sites. Or, designing a browser that can display their broken, stupidly coded, non-W3C compliant web sites.
Why not just create a directory on the hard drive and store information there?
Oh, wait, it's because the Linux retards can't figure out how to write to a NTFS formatted drive.
"somehow they got root" isn't very informative.
While it's true that you can't uninstall MSIE or Outlook Express, a Knowlegeable user doesn't use these programs in the first place. I've had zero virus infections and I've never had my browser hijaacked by malicious scripts.
Wrong. Linux, in the hands of an idiot, such as my clueless friend mentioned previously, is harmless because they'll never figure out how to get it to work.
One of the things that makes Linux more secure is that you actually have to have a basic understanding of how things work.
Today, I was talking to a friend of mine who bought his first computer about 4 years ago. He wanted to back up every thing on his computer, so he dragged all the icons from the desktop over to his CD burning program. When I tried to explain to him that the only thing he burned onto the CD was a dozen shortcuts, and not the actual programs/data itself, he just looked at me with this totally blank stare and had absolutely no clue what I was talking about.
The point is this: When it comes to programmer-related problems (buffer overflows, etc) Windows and Linux seem about equal. The big problem with Windows is that Microsoft's focus has been entirely on "ease of use" for people who know little or nothing about computers. That's how you sell lots of computers (and lots of copies of Windows). They created all sorts of nifty features (scripting, etc.) and turned them all on by default -- never giving a moments thought to the harmful ways that these features could be used
Windows, in the hands of a knowledgeable person, can be just as secure as Linux.
But, "right out of the box" it's a security mightmare -- a disater waiting to happen.
Translation: The director cuts out 43 minutes of crap. Then later puts it back in so they can release a "special edition" and separate a few more suckers from their money.
Right On!!
DOS 5.0 baybeee!!