"Just"? You make that sound trivial, when it certainly was not.
Having been there, I can attest to the fact that IBM's PC did indeed legitimize the personal computer for not only businesses, but later for home users who, having used IBM PCs at work, wanted a familiar computer at home as well.
Back then, the mantra in business was "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM", and that "magical pixie dust" settled onto the IBM PC as well... and later, with the advent of Compaq, and its "clean room" reverse engineering of the IBM PC BIOS, opened the door for all of the IBM PC compatible clones that came later, with BIOS' made by AMI, Phoenix and Award, and together they not only legitimized the PC market for business, but standardized it and the home personal computer market as well, while driving down prices as third-party manufacturers created computers based around them.
Hell, I was running a home LAN with IBM XT and AT clones, some booting from diskette [1], with an AT clone server running NetWare v2.0a (with a Seagate ST-4096 80MB MFM HD [2]), using ARCNET[3], back in 1988. Being able to centralized my programs, data, and share a printer was a HUGE thing for me, and for my customers as well.
Later, I upgraded my server to an 80386 clone, running NetWare v3, but still kept the 80 MB HD, and it was rock-solid, and the most reliable server I've ever had at home.
Now, you could say that it was all crude, and certainly it was, by today's standards... but I installed hundreds of LANs for small/medium-sized businesses back then, and the benefit they all gained was very real.
NONE of the latter would have been possible without IBM's PC: It not only standardized the hardware and bus, but standardized the client OS as well, which resulted in an explosion of development of not only business applications, but games, and software in general as well.
So, yeah, IBM didn't invent the "PC", and there's more than a little historical revisionism going on... but, to dismiss their effect on personal computing as "just" making it mainstream for business does them disservice as well.
Regards,
dj
[1] Hard drives were very expensive back then, so it was cheaper to use one large, expensive HD in a file server, and boot the workstations from diskette... and keep a box of backup boot diskettes on hand, just in case *grin*
[2] Seagate's ST-4096 was a state-of-the-art HD then: With 28ms average access speeds, capable of running at 1 to 1 interleave, it was blisteringly fast, and very reliable. Not to mention the fact that 80MB was "Huge tracts of storage"... when I installed one a customer, long before I could afford one myself, I asked him "So, what are you going to do with so much storage?" His answer? "Anything I want" *grin*.
[3] We used ARCNET for our customers, because the NICs were FAR less expensive than Ethernet NICs. We used SMC's NICs, until Thomas-Conrad came along, and beat them not only in price, but performance - T-C's ARCNET NICs used less upper memory in enhanced mode (4K vs. 16K or 32K as I recall), and their drivers were a LOT more efficient/faster.. later, they sold a "Universal Turbo" ARCNET NIC driver that worked with any ARCNET NIC, but made their NICs a LOT faster, and that was HUGE, too, from a management perspective: We only had to use one driver, regardless of NIC manufacturer.
Back in the pre-Ethernet switch days, ARCNET also performed a lot better under load than Ethernet with the same node count per network segment, despite "only" running at 2.5Mbps vs. Ethernet's theoretical 10Mbps...and it scaled deterministically as well. In addition, ARCNET over RG-62/U coax could be run 3000 feet, active port to active port, which helped minimize the number of active hubs needed, and offered FAR more flexibility in the real world.
[4] This footnote has no referral - but I suppose that this is where I should say "You damn kids get off my lawn!" *grin*
hes free to do with his program as he pleases, but not free to use the skype protocol as he pleases. skype own the protocol and the network that app connects too and its their protocol and network to do with as they wish. if they want to keep it closed, that is their own choice.
1. So long as he reverse-engineered Skype's protocol cleanly (i.e. he didn't have access to Skype source code directly, nor was given it by third parties), then he is, in the US at least, free to do with his implementation as he wishes.
In the US, this has historical precedent, going back to Compaq's original "clean room" reverse-engineering of IBM's BIOS for the original IBM PC, which was, for those that don't remember, what made IBM-compatible computers possible in the first place.
2. Skype is, of course, free to alter their protocol, so as to prevent his implementation from working in the future.
3. Skype's "network" isn't theirs: It leverages the Internet, after all, and so there's *no* way that they could possibly claim it to be a discrete network. In order for it to be so, they'd have to implement a completely separate world-spanning network that was physically isolated from the Internet.
Since we all know that such isn't the case now, your point in that regard is completely invalid.
Certainly, they own their servers, but those are also connected to the Internet at large. However, given the fact that they also leverage users' computers in a "P2P way", this reinforces my point that it isn't "their" network.
Yes, they are free to try keep their protocol closed, but in light of this, their best approach in my opinion is to open it: They have sufficient presence on the Internet now that doing so would only benefit them, I think.
They could become a permanent standard by doing so and have a permanent presence/place on the Internet, now and in the future and probably would, if they chose to do so.
Listening to a guy talking and taking notes is a terrible way of learning in of itself.
For you.
It is much more efficient sitting with a book on the subject and practicing.
For you.
Over the years I also have found most topic forums to be way more helpful than every professor I had
For you.
This is going to come as a *huge* shock to you, I'm sure, but what works/worked for you may not for others There's a whole planet out there, with billions of people, and few, if any, are identical to you.
Now, I know that that is difficult to believe, but it is true nonetheless.
Wait, let me see if I understand your rationalizations:
I have a blu-ray player, but I run Linux. Playing Blu-ray in linux is difficult and error prone.
So, you bought the hardware, but your OS of choice doesn't suffice, which leads to:
So I download the movies instead
Because you believe you're entitled to be entertained?
I would happily buy them legally if I could pop them in and just play them in linux.
And, believe that you're entitled to be entertained on the OS platform of your choice?
And the fact that the bluray rips are available with little to no effort on all the pirate sites would suggest to me that the copy protection isn't working anyway
Which makes it all OK, right?
I'm actually saddened by the fact that your post has been modded "+4 Insightful" at this point, and here's why:
I actually remember when Slashdot was about nerdy things. You know, things like actually doing cool stuff with computers, networks, etc.,and then talking about them here, and not about pissing and moaning about how "The Man" was preventing us from being entertained by things that that others had created to which we felt we were entitled to, simply because we couldn't entertain ourselves, nor create anything nerdy.
It saddens me that Slashdot has devolved to this: A place where so many, incapable of creating anything themselves, yet capable of installing Linux (because the efforts of others better than us have made it more accessible) believe that the mere fact that they can install and use Linux entitles them to use it as a platform by which to be entertained, and then rationalize pirating the creations of others as a result. The sense of entitlement I see here these days makes me sad: People such as you aren't nerds, you're users. The only reason you use Linux is because others made it easy for you to do so, but not easy enough, apparently.
You're pathetic. But, you needn't be ashamed: You got modded +4 Insightful, so apparently there's at least 4 others on Slashdot that feel the way you do.
Welcome to Slashdot, in the 21st century, where being a nerd isn't about using computers to do cool things from our own knowledge, skill,intelligence and desire - it's about using computers (and Linux) as a platform by which others' creations entertain us, we get grumpy when such is denied, pirate it, and then rationalize such here.
Clicked submit, by mistake. Here's the rest: "I refuse to let social networks replace real life communication with my friends, as it appears to me that is the "cheap" way out: All one has to do is post a Facebook update, for example, and that replaces any need to really talk to your friends, even when that's what you need."
Fortunately, for me, I've never bought into the whole idea of "social networks", and here's why: I don't view them as anything useful to me, as they exist now. Facebook, MySpace, etc.? Just an attempt to monetize the 'net, in the guise of making interpersonal communications "easy". And that's OK, for those of my friends that deem it useful, etc. But, I'm not buying into it, ever. Me? I'm an "old fart" - when a friend asks me to join them on such, my reply is this: "You have my personal email address, which I only give to friends. You have, in addition, my home phone number, my personal cell phone number as well. These suffice for you to contact me, whenever you wish, knowing that I WILL respond to them, because you are my friend. I have no need, nor desire, to publish the details of my life on sites that will only abuse such, nor do I wish to follow your life in excruciating detail on such beyond our interactions. It's not that I don't care, mind you, it's only that, as a friend of yours, I think I'm entitled to learn things affecting your life, your real life, in something more than posts, etc., but, I refuse to let social networks replace real life communication with my friends, as it appears to me that is
My cats do all my shell scripting (bash mainly, some tcsh).
My cat grinds out some pretty good Perl just by walking back and forth over the keyboard... and he refuses to comment it, so anyone that looks at it later can't even tell that I didn't write it. Sadly for me, his grasp of syntax is better than mine, though I like to think that I'm much better at programming logic. *grin*
All of which might make a cynic question what was really important to Microsoft — public education, or a $2B state income tax-free payday for its CEO?"
Why be so cynical? Can't it be both? I know that so many here are incapable of anything other than binary reasoning, and want their moral conundrums to be perfectly black or white, right or wrong, good or evil, and that is pretty much what drives the "wannabe nerd" moral outrage 'round about these parts, these days... but the real world isn't binary, you know.
Hell, the real world isn't even digital - it's analog. And let's face it: Analog is messy, at best.
And, I think I just created my new sig *grin*
"Life isn't binary... Hell, it's not even digital. Life is analog, and analog is messy, at best".
Now I previously tried to run as a limited user, but my work involves a lot of stopping and starting services and switching to 'Admin' is just too much hassle in windows.
Why not keep a command line that has been started with an Administrator-equivalent user account open, and create scripts to stop and start the services using NET STOP and NET START?
As long as people keep comparing piracy to theft of goods, it will fall on deaf ears because they are NOT the same thing.
Absolutely correct. However, how many times have you seen someone on Slashdot rationalize copyright infringement by saying something along the lines of "It costs next to nothing to to duplicate a digital (song, video, book, program, etc.), and so they shouldn't charge as much as they do."?
The people that take such a position are guilty of the same comparison that you correctly criticize, only in reverse: They're using the comparison to cost of the production of a physical good to that of a non-physical good to justify copyright infringement of copyrighted digital materials. They are, in effect, applying their perception of what is "fair" [1], when considering the price of producing physical goods, to the production of non-physical goods. Such a comparison will always fail, of course, and so the person doing so feels justified, because in their mind they believe that they are being cheated, despite the fact that their basis for comparison is flawed at the outset.
And ironically, there is typically a higher cost/punishment for piracy, even though it often resulted in $0 actual loss.
There's nothing ironic about it: The punishments currently in effect, however wrong one thinks them [2], apply to copyrighted materials and are, by definition, dealt with completely differently under the law (You know - the whole "copyright infringement isn't theft" mantra that so many here spout, while completely ignoring the fact that copyright infringement is illegal, too). If you look at copyrighted materials, available digitally, separately from physical goods, strictly as they're treated under the law, the net loss for piracy is one-to-one (at least). Assume that a person infringed the copyright of one item only, and gained the benefit of it for themselves only thereby. The real loss to the copyright owner is, by definition, whatever the copyright holder should have gained if the infringer had obtained it under the terms offered, regardless of whether or not such is "fair" [1]. Then the statutory punishments are added... [2]
As long as that is the case, then many more are going to take the side of the pirate, purely for sake of fairness.
The real problem, I think, is simple human greed, on the part of all parties involved. Cynically, I don't see any way to easily fix that.
Regards,
dj
Notes:
[1] I've never seen any definition of "fair" in a copyright-related discussion on Slashdot that boils down to anything other than "what I think benefits me most". YMMV, of course: I'm sure to have missed some enlightened post that contradicts me. For myself, "fair", for what I offer for sale to others is: "Would I accept the terms if they were offered to me, exactly the same?" With regards to others' offerings, "fair" is: Do I believe that I will derive sufficient benefit so as to justify the asking price?" If yes, I buy it. If not, then I don't. Never, in the latter case, do I believe that I'm justified in obtaining it illegally, simply because it costs "too much" for me, or that the seller is greedy and charging an "unfair" price.
During my life thus far, I've done computer-related service, spanning the entire range of hardware and software, from single computers to very large networks, working for companies, and for myself. When doing so for an employer, I've been content to let them charge customers as they deem fit: Such decisions aren't mine to make. My employer decides what is "fair", when it comes to billing, and that's not mine to criticize. When working for myself, I've occasionally given service away for free, for reasons that sufficed for me (though they pissed off my ex-wife on more than one occasion). I've also raised my rates, because I knew that the customer was going to be "high maintenance", based upon the work that they wanted done, ti
Granted M$ made it easier by not requiring one to actually type in any actual password to elevate privileges.
And, knowing this, the solution is simple: Create a separate, non-privileged account for daily use. When UAC prompts for rights escalation, the user is then forced to enter the username and password of a privileged account.
Sure, it takes a little longer to set up initially, and is slightly more cumbersome in use, but it works.
In a Windows Active Directory (AD) environment, I prefer to set things up as follows: Each user computer has a local Administrator-equivalent account for MIS - this account only exists on local computers and has no domain privileges. The primary user's AD account is a standard, non-privileged user on their local computer. In addition, there's a local-only account for the user that has Administrator rights, but has no domain rights - we use the convention of "'username'.local" for this - Joe User's AD account name is juser, his local Administrator-equivalent account is "juser.local". Users needing to install software, etc., escalate privileges via UAC using this account when logged in with their AD account.
The end result is a complete separation of privileges between local and domain accounts: None of the local Administrator-equivalent users have domain privileges and none of the domain users have local Administrator privileges. [1]
When a user, logged into their computer with their AD account, needs to install software, they escalate to their.local Administrator account via UAC and install it, and run it once to ensure that any post installation changes (to the Registry, for example) that require rights are done. Then they can exit the software, and run it as "themselves", using their AD account - since it has read-only rights to the software by inheritance, and user data is stored in their local profile directories (to which they already have full rights), nothing else needs to be done.
One handy trick: You can use ".\'username'" to force Windows to look for the user account on the local computer when logged in as a domain user, so for a user logged in with their AD account, using the example above, UAC escalation would be done using ".\juser.local".
It takes a little getting used to, but isn't all that cumbersome.
Astute readers will note that such a scheme cannot stop a user from willfully typing their local Administrator username and password, and so won't stop them from running an executable attached to a mail message... to which I reply: "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him do the backstroke". *grin*
Regards,
dj
Notes:
[1] The one exception to this is a domain administrator account, which has full Administrator rights to both the domain and the local computers. We handle this by issuing separate domain admin accounts to MIS personnel, and insist that 1) The passwords be different from the person's daily-use domain account and 2) Strongly discouraging anyone from logging into users computers using domain admin accounts to do service - we prefer that people in MIS login locally using either the MIS account (for work that requires local admin rights but no domain access), or into the domain using their daily use domain account and then escalating privileges as needed. One of the nice things about this, for me at least, is this: It acts as a self-enforcing check and reminder - I find that it creates a constant awareness of how I'm logged in, wherever that may be, which leads to me keeping security in mind as I work.
Actually, the French like their copy. It's been there for years.
Hey, thanks for keeping track of that and letting the rest of us know!
I, personally, could not have slept tonight without knowing that you are monitoring the French copy of it, and the fact that you are not only doing so, but also ensuring their happiness with it, AND keeping all of us on Slashdot posted with regards to such, makes me VERY happy that I am not you, and I am fairly confident that many others here on Slashdot will agree with me.
Really? Your command of written English is so poor that you actually thought that this was correct and then posted it here?
Taking a quote from your posting history (for which you got modded up as +4 Insightful, for reasons I simply cannot understand, just because it is a gross over-simplification): http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1733202&cid=33040180>: "There is education and then there is training figure out which one you want and get it. Most everything these days is geared towards training."
I think what saddens me the most about this statement is the implication that "training" - i.e. education to learn a specific skill or set of skills, and ignoring anything else during such, by design, is somehow better in general than "education", which I always thought meant "learning, in general, and also (hopefully) learning HOW to learn in the future", and so was a superset of training, and in fact, created the framework that permitted one to be trained in specific skills in the future as needed/desired, or learn other things as well.
"Up to" doesn't mean "median" or "mean". "Up to" means "up to", as in "maximum".
Yes, thanks for pointing out the obvious, for those with modpoints who don't understand such terms. They've already modded you up for stating the obvious: Good for you!.
That being said, it is rather sneaky to advertise a product by focusing on a theoretical maximum that you may (or may not) experience on the rarest of occasions.
Yeah, 'cause "up to", as plainly stated, is apparently so difficult to comprehend, and so misleading, for so many of you, when stated so in plain English.
It's almost like saying "up to", you know?
It's kind of like selling a limited service as "unlimited". But no one would ever do that, right?
Yeah, kind of like nobody would put limited, and "unlimited", in the same sentence, without defining either, to invoke and cultivate the prejudices of their audience while doing so?
Every dollar not spent on bad movies and pop music is one more dollar that can be spent on productive industry.
Yeah, 'cause you have an exact knowledge of what comprises a "bad movie", and have control over how money is spent on such... as well as "pop music"... AND can perfectly define what "productive industry" is...
Seriously? He gets "+4 Insightful", for spouting such nonsense in one sentence?
Pardon me for just speaking up here, but, you're an idiot, IMHO.
And, what saddens the rest of us on Slashdot (or at least me)? You never mention that person's name, nor anything save to use their death to create what is basically a completely selfish, Karma-whoring post.
"Hey, some person that I didn't give a shit about died, and it drove me to think about myself, and to submit an article to Slashdot. The editors accepted it, because they not only didn't give a shit about my motivation, but also didn't care about the person that died as well."
Hey - here's a thought: Why not try NOT using your work account(s) for personal matters, and, later, figure out what works best for you, with regards to your personal "presence" on the 'net such as it is, based upon your own awareness? You know - actually taking RESPONSIBILITY for your own affairs? Once you've actually done so, you'll be in a MUCH better position to dictate what should happen, after you die.
I have personal stuff in Outlook folders that I would not want someone in IT to see if I suddenly dropped dead: emails to the wife, photos of the kids, that kind of thing.
So, given this statement, why would you choose to continue to do this? Why would you use a work account for personal matters, since you claim to be concerned about privacy?
Seriously: This isn't rocket science, If you have personal stuff in your corporate Outlook folders, they are there because you CHOSE to put them there.
You can also choose to remove them, you know.
You can ALSO choose to NOT do this, in the future.
No, the person who was home for the installation is a noob. I was upset when I came home and found out.
Then you're to blame threefold: 1) By your own admission, you let a noob stand in for you: If you'd cared to have it done correctly, you should have scheduled the installation around your availability so as to ensure that it met your requirements. 2) You apparently didn't do anything to correct matters afterwards, despite the fact that it wasn't to your satisfaction, and 3) Now you're whining about it on Slashdot.
Fourfold, if you expected anything other than what happened... and fivefold, if you expect to get any sympathy here for it.
I know it's harsh, but Timothy should never have accepted your submission. IMO, he threw you under the bus, and I am sorry for that.
My advice? First, change the password on your router, ASAP. Secondly, call Verizon, and inquire about changing from coax to Ethernet. Worst case they can't/won't, but you'll at least know.
OMG! So, you tried the new password, and it worked? Why didn't you change it then? More importantly: Why didn't you change it the first time?
I am upset about this because Verizon should not have any way to get into my router and change the settings, especially because I own the router, not them!
No, you're upset because you are clueless, though you think you are not, just discovered it and are pissed off because your router had the same password for 3 years as a result, and Verizon was forced to change it because you were too ignorant to do so yourself earlier.
I looked in the router's settings and I see port 4567 goes to the router and is labeled 'Verizon FIOS Service.' Is this port for anything useful other than Verizon changing settings on my router? What security measures does Verizon have to protect that port from unauthorized access?"
I imagine they at least understand the importance of password security, where you apparently did not.
You're not a nerd, this isn't news that matters... slow day, Timothy?
It's fascinating how some people are so predisposed to just doing the unimaginative, annoying, cliche, tried, tired, brain-dead thing. I have great difficult understanding the first post thing. Nobody thinks it is funny, clever, or any kind of accomplishment - yet the trend persists./boggle
It's fascinating how some people are so predisposed to just replying to the unimaginative, annoying, cliche, tried, tired brain-dead thing without being able to contribute anything else. I have great difficult [sic] understanding such replies to the first post thing. Nobody thinks it is funny, clever, or any kind of accomplishment - yet the trend persists./boggle.
Thanks for not contributing: We look forward to you doing the same again in the future!
Whose idea was it to centralize a location where college kids could keep in touch with one another? I don't know. We were doing it on VAX/VMS back in the early 90s before it was migrated to an OSF2 system. Long before that it was probably the direct successors to ARPANET. Zuckerberg is a newbie.
I hereby nominate the parent post for the soon to be announced "First Yearly Most Irrelevant Slashdot Posts Awards", under the category of "Gosh, We Did Something Similar First Back In The Day And I Thought I'd Mention It Though It Has No Bearing At All On The Topic At Hand" category (Subtitle: "Sour Grapes". Sub-subtitle: "Sweet Jesus, Why Didn't *I* Think To Do That On The Internet?!?").
I'm kidding: There'll never be such on Slashdot, especially with that category - there would be 'way too many entries, and I'd be posting my own irrelevancies to every discussion, so as to be able to later flood the award nomination submission queue myself!:)
Slashdot Mirror
"Just"? You make that sound trivial, when it certainly was not.
Having been there, I can attest to the fact that IBM's PC did indeed legitimize the personal computer for not only businesses, but later for home users who, having used IBM PCs at work, wanted a familiar computer at home as well.
Back then, the mantra in business was "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM", and that "magical pixie dust" settled onto the IBM PC as well... and later, with the advent of Compaq, and its "clean room" reverse engineering of the IBM PC BIOS, opened the door for all of the IBM PC compatible clones that came later, with BIOS' made by AMI, Phoenix and Award, and together they not only legitimized the PC market for business, but standardized it and the home personal computer market as well, while driving down prices as third-party manufacturers created computers based around them.
Hell, I was running a home LAN with IBM XT and AT clones, some booting from diskette [1], with an AT clone server running NetWare v2.0a (with a Seagate ST-4096 80MB MFM HD [2]), using ARCNET[3], back in 1988. Being able to centralized my programs, data, and share a printer was a HUGE thing for me, and for my customers as well.
Later, I upgraded my server to an 80386 clone, running NetWare v3, but still kept the 80 MB HD, and it was rock-solid, and the most reliable server I've ever had at home.
Now, you could say that it was all crude, and certainly it was, by today's standards... but I installed hundreds of LANs for small/medium-sized businesses back then, and the benefit they all gained was very real.
NONE of the latter would have been possible without IBM's PC: It not only standardized the hardware and bus, but standardized the client OS as well, which resulted in an explosion of development of not only business applications, but games, and software in general as well.
So, yeah, IBM didn't invent the "PC", and there's more than a little historical revisionism going on... but, to dismiss their effect on personal computing as "just" making it mainstream for business does them disservice as well.
Regards,
dj
[1] Hard drives were very expensive back then, so it was cheaper to use one large, expensive HD in a file server, and boot the workstations from diskette... and keep a box of backup boot diskettes on hand, just in case *grin*
[2] Seagate's ST-4096 was a state-of-the-art HD then: With 28ms average access speeds, capable of running at 1 to 1 interleave, it was blisteringly fast, and very reliable. Not to mention the fact that 80MB was "Huge tracts of storage"... when I installed one a customer, long before I could afford one myself, I asked him "So, what are you going to do with so much storage?" His answer? "Anything I want" *grin*.
[3] We used ARCNET for our customers, because the NICs were FAR less expensive than Ethernet NICs. We used SMC's NICs, until Thomas-Conrad came along, and beat them not only in price, but performance - T-C's ARCNET NICs used less upper memory in enhanced mode (4K vs. 16K or 32K as I recall), and their drivers were a LOT more efficient/faster.. later, they sold a "Universal Turbo" ARCNET NIC driver that worked with any ARCNET NIC, but made their NICs a LOT faster, and that was HUGE, too, from a management perspective: We only had to use one driver, regardless of NIC manufacturer.
Back in the pre-Ethernet switch days, ARCNET also performed a lot better under load than Ethernet with the same node count per network segment, despite "only" running at 2.5Mbps vs. Ethernet's theoretical 10Mbps...and it scaled deterministically as well. In addition, ARCNET over RG-62/U coax could be run 3000 feet, active port to active port, which helped minimize the number of active hubs needed, and offered FAR more flexibility in the real world.
[4] This footnote has no referral - but I suppose that this is where I should say "You damn kids get off my lawn!" *grin*
Nostalgically,
dj
And discovers there's nothing there!
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Regards,
dj
Answer: I care. Personally, and professionally.
End of discussion.
Regards,
dj
1. So long as he reverse-engineered Skype's protocol cleanly (i.e. he didn't have access to Skype source code directly, nor was given it by third parties), then he is, in the US at least, free to do with his implementation as he wishes.
In the US, this has historical precedent, going back to Compaq's original "clean room" reverse-engineering of IBM's BIOS for the original IBM PC, which was, for those that don't remember, what made IBM-compatible computers possible in the first place.
2. Skype is, of course, free to alter their protocol, so as to prevent his implementation from working in the future.
3. Skype's "network" isn't theirs: It leverages the Internet, after all, and so there's *no* way that they could possibly claim it to be a discrete network. In order for it to be so, they'd have to implement a completely separate world-spanning network that was physically isolated from the Internet.
Since we all know that such isn't the case now, your point in that regard is completely invalid.
Certainly, they own their servers, but those are also connected to the Internet at large. However, given the fact that they also leverage users' computers in a "P2P way", this reinforces my point that it isn't "their" network.
Yes, they are free to try keep their protocol closed, but in light of this, their best approach in my opinion is to open it: They have sufficient presence on the Internet now that doing so would only benefit them, I think.
They could become a permanent standard by doing so and have a permanent presence/place on the Internet, now and in the future and probably would, if they chose to do so.
Regards,
dj
For you.
For you.
For you.
This is going to come as a *huge* shock to you, I'm sure, but what works/worked for you may not for others There's a whole planet out there, with billions of people, and few, if any, are identical to you.
Now, I know that that is difficult to believe, but it is true nonetheless.
Regards,
dj
So, you bought the hardware, but your OS of choice doesn't suffice, which leads to:
Because you believe you're entitled to be entertained?
And, believe that you're entitled to be entertained on the OS platform of your choice?
Which makes it all OK, right?
I'm actually saddened by the fact that your post has been modded "+4 Insightful" at this point, and here's why:
I actually remember when Slashdot was about nerdy things. You know, things like actually doing cool stuff with computers, networks, etc.,and then talking about them here, and not about pissing and moaning about how "The Man" was preventing us from being entertained by things that that others had created to which we felt we were entitled to, simply because we couldn't entertain ourselves, nor create anything nerdy.
It saddens me that Slashdot has devolved to this: A place where so many, incapable of creating anything themselves, yet capable of installing Linux (because the efforts of others better than us have made it more accessible) believe that the mere fact that they can install and use Linux entitles them to use it as a platform by which to be entertained, and then rationalize pirating the creations of others as a result. The sense of entitlement I see here these days makes me sad: People such as you aren't nerds, you're users. The only reason you use Linux is because others made it easy for you to do so, but not easy enough, apparently.
You're pathetic. But, you needn't be ashamed: You got modded +4 Insightful, so apparently there's at least 4 others on Slashdot that feel the way you do.
Welcome to Slashdot, in the 21st century, where being a nerd isn't about using computers to do cool things from our own knowledge, skill,intelligence and desire - it's about using computers (and Linux) as a platform by which others' creations entertain us, we get grumpy when such is denied, pirate it, and then rationalize such here.
Sad, but true.
Regards,
dj
Clicked submit, by mistake. Here's the rest: "I refuse to let social networks replace real life communication with my friends, as it appears to me that is the "cheap" way out: All one has to do is post a Facebook update, for example, and that replaces any need to really talk to your friends, even when that's what you need."
Fortunately, for me, I've never bought into the whole idea of "social networks", and here's why: I don't view them as anything useful to me, as they exist now. Facebook, MySpace, etc.? Just an attempt to monetize the 'net, in the guise of making interpersonal communications "easy". And that's OK, for those of my friends that deem it useful, etc. But, I'm not buying into it, ever. Me? I'm an "old fart" - when a friend asks me to join them on such, my reply is this: "You have my personal email address, which I only give to friends. You have, in addition, my home phone number, my personal cell phone number as well. These suffice for you to contact me, whenever you wish, knowing that I WILL respond to them, because you are my friend. I have no need, nor desire, to publish the details of my life on sites that will only abuse such, nor do I wish to follow your life in excruciating detail on such beyond our interactions. It's not that I don't care, mind you, it's only that, as a friend of yours, I think I'm entitled to learn things affecting your life, your real life, in something more than posts, etc., but, I refuse to let social networks replace real life communication with my friends, as it appears to me that is
My cat grinds out some pretty good Perl just by walking back and forth over the keyboard... and he refuses to comment it, so anyone that looks at it later can't even tell that I didn't write it. Sadly for me, his grasp of syntax is better than mine, though I like to think that I'm much better at programming logic. *grin*
Why be so cynical? Can't it be both? I know that so many here are incapable of anything other than binary reasoning, and want their moral conundrums to be perfectly black or white, right or wrong, good or evil, and that is pretty much what drives the "wannabe nerd" moral outrage 'round about these parts, these days... but the real world isn't binary, you know.
Hell, the real world isn't even digital - it's analog. And let's face it: Analog is messy, at best.
And, I think I just created my new sig *grin*
"Life isn't binary... Hell, it's not even digital. Life is analog, and analog is messy, at best".
Regards,
dj
Why not keep a command line that has been started with an Administrator-equivalent user account open, and create scripts to stop and start the services using NET STOP and NET START?
Absolutely correct. However, how many times have you seen someone on Slashdot rationalize copyright infringement by saying something along the lines of "It costs next to nothing to to duplicate a digital (song, video, book, program, etc.), and so they shouldn't charge as much as they do."?
The people that take such a position are guilty of the same comparison that you correctly criticize, only in reverse: They're using the comparison to cost of the production of a physical good to that of a non-physical good to justify copyright infringement of copyrighted digital materials. They are, in effect, applying their perception of what is "fair" [1], when considering the price of producing physical goods, to the production of non-physical goods. Such a comparison will always fail, of course, and so the person doing so feels justified, because in their mind they believe that they are being cheated, despite the fact that their basis for comparison is flawed at the outset.
There's nothing ironic about it: The punishments currently in effect, however wrong one thinks them [2], apply to copyrighted materials and are, by definition, dealt with completely differently under the law (You know - the whole "copyright infringement isn't theft" mantra that so many here spout, while completely ignoring the fact that copyright infringement is illegal, too). If you look at copyrighted materials, available digitally, separately from physical goods, strictly as they're treated under the law, the net loss for piracy is one-to-one (at least). Assume that a person infringed the copyright of one item only, and gained the benefit of it for themselves only thereby. The real loss to the copyright owner is, by definition, whatever the copyright holder should have gained if the infringer had obtained it under the terms offered, regardless of whether or not such is "fair" [1]. Then the statutory punishments are added... [2]
The real problem, I think, is simple human greed, on the part of all parties involved. Cynically, I don't see any way to easily fix that.
Regards,
dj
Notes:
[1] I've never seen any definition of "fair" in a copyright-related discussion on Slashdot that boils down to anything other than "what I think benefits me most". YMMV, of course: I'm sure to have missed some enlightened post that contradicts me. For myself, "fair", for what I offer for sale to others is: "Would I accept the terms if they were offered to me, exactly the same?" With regards to others' offerings, "fair" is: Do I believe that I will derive sufficient benefit so as to justify the asking price?" If yes, I buy it. If not, then I don't. Never, in the latter case, do I believe that I'm justified in obtaining it illegally, simply because it costs "too much" for me, or that the seller is greedy and charging an "unfair" price.
During my life thus far, I've done computer-related service, spanning the entire range of hardware and software, from single computers to very large networks, working for companies, and for myself. When doing so for an employer, I've been content to let them charge customers as they deem fit: Such decisions aren't mine to make. My employer decides what is "fair", when it comes to billing, and that's not mine to criticize. When working for myself, I've occasionally given service away for free, for reasons that sufficed for me (though they pissed off my ex-wife on more than one occasion). I've also raised my rates, because I knew that the customer was going to be "high maintenance", based upon the work that they wanted done, ti
And, knowing this, the solution is simple: Create a separate, non-privileged account for daily use. When UAC prompts for rights escalation, the user is then forced to enter the username and password of a privileged account.
Sure, it takes a little longer to set up initially, and is slightly more cumbersome in use, but it works.
In a Windows Active Directory (AD) environment, I prefer to set things up as follows: Each user computer has a local Administrator-equivalent account for MIS - this account only exists on local computers and has no domain privileges. The primary user's AD account is a standard, non-privileged user on their local computer. In addition, there's a local-only account for the user that has Administrator rights, but has no domain rights - we use the convention of "'username'.local" for this - Joe User's AD account name is juser, his local Administrator-equivalent account is "juser.local". Users needing to install software, etc., escalate privileges via UAC using this account when logged in with their AD account.
The end result is a complete separation of privileges between local and domain accounts: None of the local Administrator-equivalent users have domain privileges and none of the domain users have local Administrator privileges. [1]
When a user, logged into their computer with their AD account, needs to install software, they escalate to their .local Administrator account via UAC and install it, and run it once to ensure that any post installation changes (to the Registry, for example) that require rights are done. Then they can exit the software, and run it as "themselves", using their AD account - since it has read-only rights to the software by inheritance, and user data is stored in their local profile directories (to which they already have full rights), nothing else needs to be done.
One handy trick: You can use ".\'username'" to force Windows to look for the user account on the local computer when logged in as a domain user, so for a user logged in with their AD account, using the example above, UAC escalation would be done using ".\juser.local".
It takes a little getting used to, but isn't all that cumbersome.
Astute readers will note that such a scheme cannot stop a user from willfully typing their local Administrator username and password, and so won't stop them from running an executable attached to a mail message... to which I reply: "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him do the backstroke". *grin*
Regards,
dj
Notes:
[1] The one exception to this is a domain administrator account, which has full Administrator rights to both the domain and the local computers. We handle this by issuing separate domain admin accounts to MIS personnel, and insist that 1) The passwords be different from the person's daily-use domain account and 2) Strongly discouraging anyone from logging into users computers using domain admin accounts to do service - we prefer that people in MIS login locally using either the MIS account (for work that requires local admin rights but no domain access), or into the domain using their daily use domain account and then escalating privileges as needed. One of the nice things about this, for me at least, is this: It acts as a self-enforcing check and reminder - I find that it creates a constant awareness of how I'm logged in, wherever that may be, which leads to me keeping security in mind as I work.
Hey, thanks for keeping track of that and letting the rest of us know!
I, personally, could not have slept tonight without knowing that you are monitoring the French copy of it, and the fact that you are not only doing so, but also ensuring their happiness with it, AND keeping all of us on Slashdot posted with regards to such, makes me VERY happy that I am not you, and I am fairly confident that many others here on Slashdot will agree with me.
Regards,
dj
Really? Your command of written English is so poor that you actually thought that this was correct and then posted it here?
Taking a quote from your posting history (for which you got modded up as +4 Insightful, for reasons I simply cannot understand, just because it is a gross over-simplification): http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1733202&cid=33040180>: "There is education and then there is training figure out which one you want and get it. Most everything these days is geared towards training."
I think what saddens me the most about this statement is the implication that "training" - i.e. education to learn a specific skill or set of skills, and ignoring anything else during such, by design, is somehow better in general than "education", which I always thought meant "learning, in general, and also (hopefully) learning HOW to learn in the future", and so was a superset of training, and in fact, created the framework that permitted one to be trained in specific skills in the future as needed/desired, or learn other things as well.
Who would of knew [sic] that I could be so wrong?
Regards,
dj
Yes, thanks for pointing out the obvious, for those with modpoints who don't understand such terms. They've already modded you up for stating the obvious: Good for you!.
Yeah, 'cause "up to", as plainly stated, is apparently so difficult to comprehend, and so misleading, for so many of you, when stated so in plain English.
It's almost like saying "up to", you know?
Yeah, kind of like nobody would put limited, and "unlimited", in the same sentence, without defining either, to invoke and cultivate the prejudices of their audience while doing so?
:)
Nice Karma whoring
Regards,
dj
Yeah, 'cause you have an exact knowledge of what comprises a "bad movie", and have control over how money is spent on such... as well as "pop music"... AND can perfectly define what "productive industry" is...
Seriously? He gets "+4 Insightful", for spouting such nonsense in one sentence?
Pardon me for just speaking up here, but, you're an idiot, IMHO.
Regards,
dj
Good for you! My advice? Ignore the assholes here (myself included!): Contribute from your own understanding, first :)
I look forward to such.
Best regards,
dj
...
And, what saddens the rest of us on Slashdot (or at least me)? You never mention that person's name, nor anything save to use their death to create what is basically a completely selfish, Karma-whoring post.
"Hey, some person that I didn't give a shit about died, and it drove me to think about myself, and to submit an article to Slashdot. The editors accepted it, because they not only didn't give a shit about my motivation, but also didn't care about the person that died as well."
NICE.
You're a prince, you are.
Hey - here's a thought: Why not try NOT using your work account(s) for personal matters, and, later, figure out what works best for you, with regards to your personal "presence" on the 'net such as it is, based upon your own awareness? You know - actually taking RESPONSIBILITY for your own affairs? Once you've actually done so, you'll be in a MUCH better position to dictate what should happen, after you die.
So, given this statement, why would you choose to continue to do this? Why would you use a work account for personal matters, since you claim to be concerned about privacy?
Seriously: This isn't rocket science, If you have personal stuff in your corporate Outlook folders, they are there because you CHOSE to put them there.
You can also choose to remove them, you know.
You can ALSO choose to NOT do this, in the future.
Am I missing something?
Regards,
dj
Then you're to blame threefold: 1) By your own admission, you let a noob stand in for you: If you'd cared to have it done correctly, you should have scheduled the installation around your availability so as to ensure that it met your requirements. 2) You apparently didn't do anything to correct matters afterwards, despite the fact that it wasn't to your satisfaction, and 3) Now you're whining about it on Slashdot.
Fourfold, if you expected anything other than what happened... and fivefold, if you expect to get any sympathy here for it.
I know it's harsh, but Timothy should never have accepted your submission. IMO, he threw you under the bus, and I am sorry for that.
My advice? First, change the password on your router, ASAP. Secondly, call Verizon, and inquire about changing from coax to Ethernet. Worst case they can't/won't, but you'll at least know.
Regards,
dj
OMG! So, you tried the new password, and it worked? Why didn't you change it then? More importantly: Why didn't you change it the first time?
No, you're upset because you are clueless, though you think you are not, just discovered it and are pissed off because your router had the same password for 3 years as a result, and Verizon was forced to change it because you were too ignorant to do so yourself earlier.
I imagine they at least understand the importance of password security, where you apparently did not.
You're not a nerd, this isn't news that matters... slow day, Timothy?
Regards,
dj
It's fascinating how some people are so predisposed to just replying to the unimaginative, annoying, cliche, tried, tired brain-dead thing without being able to contribute anything else. I have great difficult [sic] understanding such replies to the first post thing. Nobody thinks it is funny, clever, or any kind of accomplishment - yet the trend persists. /boggle.
Thanks for not contributing: We look forward to you doing the same again in the future!
I hereby nominate the parent post for the soon to be announced "First Yearly Most Irrelevant Slashdot Posts Awards", under the category of "Gosh, We Did Something Similar First Back In The Day And I Thought I'd Mention It Though It Has No Bearing At All On The Topic At Hand" category (Subtitle: "Sour Grapes". Sub-subtitle: "Sweet Jesus, Why Didn't *I* Think To Do That On The Internet?!?").
:)
I'm kidding: There'll never be such on Slashdot, especially with that category - there would be 'way too many entries, and I'd be posting my own irrelevancies to every discussion, so as to be able to later flood the award nomination submission queue myself!
Regards,
dj