First, that has nothing to do with SP2 being retired, since SP3 was released, is free, and is supported. Second, you don't have to validate Windows to have automatic updates working. As long as updates are enabled, you'll get security patches, licensed or not. You will be forced to install SP3 first, that's the only requirement change now. Third, Windows XP came with a 10 year lifecycle. When people bought XP Microsoft had their product lifecycle spelled out in pretty clear terms, they even extended it due to the popularity of XP. I'm sorry, but you don't get to complain about lack of support after you were told how much support you were getting when you bought the OS.
Yesterday on/. I was a "thief" for blocking iAds, today I'm a "troll" for suggesting that studying object code to create a derived work is creating a derived work.
Welcome to the contradictory world of freetards: where everything's fair game until you start using their stuff.
I called you a cheap fuck and a few people called you an asshole.
You didn't steal anything though, just your run of the mill EULA violation, which I personally don't think is worth much at the end of the day.
Doesn't change the fact that you're still being cheap and an asshole. But that's your right.
I have to say, M$ decides to not support and leave all the sp2 users open to vulnerability because they choose to, not because they have to
I can see why a company would not want to do regression testing on multiple service packs when the fix is to update to SP3 and it's been out since April 2008. There comes a time when you have to stop support, testing is expensive and there's still support for SP3 until 2014.
You can buy a support contract if you want SP2 support.
I create art, in some form or another. I tell people, you can pay me $1 to see the art all you want or you can watch this ad instead. You say, I'm not entitled to ask to people pay $1 to see the art OR watch the ad and see the art. So, you instead find a way to see the art without paying or watching the ad. And this is my fault for creating the art because it's an expression of an idea that just exists.
Conclusion: You're a cheap fuck who will justify his cheapness by rambling on about freedoms and being forced to pay or watch the ad, even though you got something out of it.
You hint at morality in requiring people to pay you, directly or indirectly. Get over your lazy sense of entitlement.
And you outright say you have no problems taking things for free that weren't meant to be free, directly or indirectly. Get over your lazy sense of entitlement.
You know, you could always not use adware and pay upfront for what you use.
You sound like the type of person who would crack shareware.
Furthermore, when you quote me, make sure to add that I think Apple products on par with the average fisher price toy. Oh so shiny and pretty and designed for a preschooler.
Cry me a river, toriver. You may think you have a right to control how people use their eyeballs just because someone's downloaded your frontend to cameraFlashLED.enable(), but most of us have moved on from that sort of society.
Here's my 3 step process to resolve your complaint:
1. Write your own front end to cameraFlashLED.enable() 2. STFU 3. GTFO
Seriously, you want to download ad-ware but you don't want to watch the ads? Can you whine a little louder?
Ok, it's 2010, DNS still stinks for the web, can we replace it with something more open and tell ICANN to take a flying leap?
Why are we still using DNS for the web? Seriously, can anyone come up with a good reason why we need host.domain.tld (or host.domain.country) to represent a web site?
Step 2) Pass law that says, any site with porn must be in.xxx tld
Step 3) Block.xxx domain
Step 4) A working DNS alternative FINALLY shows up.
Seriously, DNS is pretty inefficient for the web, it organizes things into an outdated hierarchy that never really worked right in the first place (site.city.state.us? Really?). The problem is, we can't figure out a good open alternative, so we use the next best thing, search engines.
DNS was good when the Internet was much smaller and people wanted to map physical locations onto host names, but it's time to seriously think about replacing it, at least for the browser.
Criminals gave up their rights when they committed a crime.
Darn right, and I've solved the budget problem as well.
I suggest parking tickets and jaywalking be the threshold for being added. Wait about 5 years, then start doing DNA tests on litter, which will have fines raised up to $250 per item.
Think about it, NYS could mass-fine millions of people a day! Dropped that cigarette butt on the ground? $250! Chewing gum? $250. Drink container that fell out of a garbage can that hasn't been picked up in a week? $250.
Heck, raise the fine to $500 and jail people who don't pay.
Finger is built into Windows 7, which is pretty impressive. Now I'm coming up with some very evil thoughts about underused services and getting around firewalls.
You're not alone. I only have the accounts on Facebook and Twitter as placeholders. I think it's because I pretty much grew up with the BBS back in the 80's and the early web chat sites in the late 90's, I'm social-ed out.
Incidentally, if you run a business that mails purchases to IL, that means you have customers there, ergo, you conduct business in the state. Not a complicated concept.
No, I disagree completely. The law should follow the physical location of the server, not the client.
Using the same test, if I visit a hotel in Colorado, and I live in NY, are they conducting business in NY? I was able to call them from NY, I was able to place my reservation in NY, my credit card bill came to NY. So, are they subject to all the laws of NY now?
If anyone is able to fly over your house and see inside with infrared sensors then you really are not fullfilling you responsibilties to the environment and should invest in much better insulation.
Even the best insulated house would have at least some windows.
Slashdot Mirror
Um yeah, u r 2 c00l.
Go write M$ a few times, it makes you even more l33t.
First, that has nothing to do with SP2 being retired, since SP3 was released, is free, and is supported.
Second, you don't have to validate Windows to have automatic updates working. As long as updates are enabled, you'll get security patches, licensed or not. You will be forced to install SP3 first, that's the only requirement change now.
Third, Windows XP came with a 10 year lifecycle. When people bought XP Microsoft had their product lifecycle spelled out in pretty clear terms, they even extended it due to the popularity of XP. I'm sorry, but you don't get to complain about lack of support after you were told how much support you were getting when you bought the OS.
Well, chimpanzee that... It's monkey news.
Page Karl Pilkington, stat.
Yesterday on /. I was a "thief" for blocking iAds, today I'm a "troll" for suggesting that studying object code to create a derived work is creating a derived work.
Welcome to the contradictory world of freetards: where everything's fair game until you start using their stuff.
I called you a cheap fuck and a few people called you an asshole.
You didn't steal anything though, just your run of the mill EULA violation, which I personally don't think is worth much at the end of the day.
Doesn't change the fact that you're still being cheap and an asshole. But that's your right.
We got it, developers are beggars, you're cheap, piracy is fine, your rights to disable ad-ware, unlimited rice pudding, etcetera, etcetera.
Go sneak into a movie or something.
I have to say, M$ decides to not support and leave all the sp2 users open to vulnerability because they choose to, not because they have to
I can see why a company would not want to do regression testing on multiple service packs when the fix is to update to SP3 and it's been out since April 2008. There comes a time when you have to stop support, testing is expensive and there's still support for SP3 until 2014.
You can buy a support contract if you want SP2 support.
So, let's see the scenario you're playing out:
I create art, in some form or another.
I tell people, you can pay me $1 to see the art all you want or you can watch this ad instead.
You say, I'm not entitled to ask to people pay $1 to see the art OR watch the ad and see the art.
So, you instead find a way to see the art without paying or watching the ad.
And this is my fault for creating the art because it's an expression of an idea that just exists.
Conclusion: You're a cheap fuck who will justify his cheapness by rambling on about freedoms and being forced to pay or watch the ad, even though you got something out of it.
You hint at morality in requiring people to pay you, directly or indirectly. Get over your lazy sense of entitlement.
And you outright say you have no problems taking things for free that weren't meant to be free, directly or indirectly. Get over your lazy sense of entitlement.
You know, you could always not use adware and pay upfront for what you use.
You sound like the type of person who would crack shareware.
Furthermore, when you quote me, make sure to add that I think Apple products on par with the average fisher price toy. Oh so shiny and pretty and designed for a preschooler.
Cry me a river, toriver. You may think you have a right to control how people use their eyeballs just because someone's downloaded your frontend to cameraFlashLED.enable(), but most of us have moved on from that sort of society.
Here's my 3 step process to resolve your complaint:
1. Write your own front end to cameraFlashLED.enable()
2. STFU
3. GTFO
Seriously, you want to download ad-ware but you don't want to watch the ads? Can you whine a little louder?
It could be worse, like "Where do you want to go today?"
You're not a startup at 17, dipshit.
Yes, except for the fact that it's the exact definition of one.
When Bill Gates co-founded Traff-O-Data at 17 you should have told him it wasn't a startup and to go away.
I would have loved to have a spare $2K when I was writing shareware at 17.
The supposed myth is that it had to be part of the OS, and that Microsoft could not make a meaningful distinction between the browser and the OS.
In Windows 98/Me, it did have to be part of the OS. MS built most of the visual part of the OS around the browser control, which was IE.
More like entertainment. Not all is garbage.
It seems to work well for Wikipedia
No, Wikipedia moderation is a crapfest.
Funny, that also seems to be the case with most articles. Garbage in, garbage out.
It's not news, it's Fark.com.
Ok, it's 2010, DNS still stinks for the web, can we replace it with something more open and tell ICANN to take a flying leap?
Why are we still using DNS for the web? Seriously, can anyone come up with a good reason why we need host.domain.tld (or host.domain.country) to represent a web site?
Step 1) Introduce tld .xxx
Step 2) Pass law that says, any site with porn must be in .xxx tld
Step 3) Block .xxx domain
Step 4) A working DNS alternative FINALLY shows up.
Seriously, DNS is pretty inefficient for the web, it organizes things into an outdated hierarchy that never really worked right in the first place (site.city.state.us? Really?). The problem is, we can't figure out a good open alternative, so we use the next best thing, search engines.
DNS was good when the Internet was much smaller and people wanted to map physical locations onto host names, but it's time to seriously think about replacing it, at least for the browser.
Criminals gave up their rights when they committed a crime.
Darn right, and I've solved the budget problem as well.
I suggest parking tickets and jaywalking be the threshold for being added. Wait about 5 years, then start doing DNA tests on litter, which will have fines raised up to $250 per item.
Think about it, NYS could mass-fine millions of people a day! Dropped that cigarette butt on the ground? $250! Chewing gum? $250. Drink container that fell out of a garbage can that hasn't been picked up in a week? $250.
Heck, raise the fine to $500 and jail people who don't pay.
Finger is built into Windows 7, which is pretty impressive. Now I'm coming up with some very evil thoughts about underused services and getting around firewalls.
You're not alone. I only have the accounts on Facebook and Twitter as placeholders. I think it's because I pretty much grew up with the BBS back in the 80's and the early web chat sites in the late 90's, I'm social-ed out.
What you think the law "should" do is a far cry from what it actually does.
Nexus, read about it.
Incidentally, if you run a business that mails purchases to IL, that means you have customers there, ergo, you conduct business in the state. Not a complicated concept.
No, I disagree completely. The law should follow the physical location of the server, not the client.
Using the same test, if I visit a hotel in Colorado, and I live in NY, are they conducting business in NY? I was able to call them from NY, I was able to place my reservation in NY, my credit card bill came to NY. So, are they subject to all the laws of NY now?
If anyone is able to fly over your house and see inside with infrared sensors then you really are not fullfilling you responsibilties to the environment and should invest in much better insulation.
Even the best insulated house would have at least some windows.