I have friends who download songs they hear on the radio.. then get a few more the radio would never play so they get a idea if the cd is worth buying.. then they usually go out and buy the CD.
Actually, this is the real reason the RIAA is scared of P2P. What your friends REALLY do, is listen to some of the other songs on the album, which are never played on the radio. When they figure out there's only one good song on the CD, then they don't buy it.
The RIAA survives by tricking people into buying 15 songs, of which only one is worth having.
It's hypocritical because the only result of the action is to force vendors to no longer offer OEM versions of Windows. It will not lower prices one iota, therefore it is the same type of political game that Microsoft plays.
It's hypocritical. If Microsoft used pressure tactics and legal action to penalize people who don't use their software, then we'd be all over them (sounds familiar). Can't criticise someone's actions and then do the very same thing.
What I'm trying to say is, ultimately the point of this excercise is to penalize computer vendors for shipping discounted Microsoft operating systems. It will not save anyone significant amounts of money.
In fact, if computer vendors eventually are forced not to include OEM software, then people may have to buy their OS directly from Microsoft at the full retail value. Who benefits?
Not Linux, they're "the guys who made me have to pay $200 for an OS Grandma knows how to use."
And the absence of the "Microsoft Tax" will equate to a whopping $10 in savings. It makes absolutely no difference at all to the cost of your system. You aren't going to see OS-less laptop prices drop $199.
They can throw XP on there, I don't care. I might or might not use it. A massive assault on OEM-included OSes ultimately has no price impact, and it becomes obvious what it really is: a geek jihad.
I am all about new and varied technology. I enjoy using different types of software and hardware. Linux is an excellent platform for everything from hardware tinkering to large-scale database work. But I don't approve of trying to stomp out the other guys. Microsoft is big, and has been stomping out other guys forever, I know. But Linux was supposed to built on higher ideals and such. The truth comes out: once we got a little more powerful, we're out there stomping for all we're worth.
Millions of airplane flights take place, yet people concentrate on only the crashes. Millions of patents exist, yet people only concentrate on the ones they have a problem with.
Nice, spend half of your life designing an incredibly complex piece of machinery only to have the details leak out, someone with lots of resources builds it first, and you die penniless and unremembered.
That's great, but never ever consider doing this with lithium-ion cells. Their recharge cycle must be precisely controlled, or they turn into pretty decent torches. Lithium-ion devices are heavily tested and regulated.
NiMH cells are great, they always last me around 3x longer than the best alkalines I can buy. So if I charged them once, used them, and threw them away, I'd be breaking even. Every additional charge is just icing on the cake.
I guess it would work just like the scanner at the store, where it continously searches for a barcode. They'll just rotate the can until they find the code. It's only a second's worth of work, and doesn't require somebody to stand there and recite all the particulars.
Developed by some people I know (well, only Anna actually) who graduated one year after me. It doesn't give you an environmental lecture about the product you're scanning, but I guess it very well could. Aimed at the blind to help them with shopping. Actually, make it remotely possible...not easy to tell 200 different soups apart, or cereal boxes, when you're blind.
A couple years ago, some guys I knew in school were testing voting machines as their senior project. Basically they did every possible thing they could think of, to see how idiot-proof the machines were. Card in backwards, different speeds, bumps, button-mashing, etc.
Actually I think they were only allowed to test machines from two out of four companies. The companies were quite rude about the idea of some external group testing their machines. They would not provide a machine for testing, and actually forbade them from finding one of their machines elsewhere and testing it. They were threatened with legal trouble if they performed an "unauthorized" test and released the results.
They probably had good reason to be so wary. On one of the other machines at least, I believe you could vote twice by zipping the card through quickly or something. I don't recall exactly what you had to do, but it apparently wasn't difficult to learn or accidentally come across.
Fifty years ago, they thought we would have this now. Flying cars etc.
I don't think it will ever happen. I won't say the capability will never be there, but it will be a conscious decision. We're made to survive in this environment on next to nothing, and it's nice to not depend on a workforce that evaporates with a few well-placed EMP weapons.
So at half the expected crack time, there is a 50% chance of that happening. At 75% crack time, it's 75%, at 25% it's 25%, etc. So it does scale linearly; the more often you change your password, the more likely it is that the brute force attack will still reach your new password.
A funny point, but does this scale linearly.... If you change your password more frequently than the expected average brute-force crack time, are you more vulnerable? I suppose it means that in a given time period the cracker could find any one of several passwords instead of just one.
Actually I've seen a commercial setup that looks very similar to what you are describing. Except they used an inkjet printer, and left the head on. It can burn and label a stack of CDs unattended.
It actually looks kind of similar to this guy's wooden changer. Maybe he should add a small plotter that uses a Sharpie....
If you really, really want to run Windows and Linux on your new laptop, just tack on the cash for actual XP disks. I mean, you just bought a new laptop. It's not that much more, assuming Windows XP is essential to what you have to do. And don't wince at "paying twice" for Windows XP, Microsoft basically gives away its OS to dealers.
Slashdot Mirror
I have friends who download songs they hear on the radio.. then get a few more the radio would never play so they get a idea if the cd is worth buying.. then they usually go out and buy the CD.
Actually, this is the real reason the RIAA is scared of P2P. What your friends REALLY do, is listen to some of the other songs on the album, which are never played on the radio. When they figure out there's only one good song on the CD, then they don't buy it.
The RIAA survives by tricking people into buying 15 songs, of which only one is worth having.
It's hypocritical because the only result of the action is to force vendors to no longer offer OEM versions of Windows. It will not lower prices one iota, therefore it is the same type of political game that Microsoft plays.
It's hypocritical. If Microsoft used pressure tactics and legal action to penalize people who don't use their software, then we'd be all over them (sounds familiar). Can't criticise someone's actions and then do the very same thing.
And again, the point that it will NOT, in fact, save you significant amounts of money, if any.
Also, getting Windows basically for free equates, in my mind, with the freedom to use or not use it.
What I'm trying to say is, ultimately the point of this excercise is to penalize computer vendors for shipping discounted Microsoft operating systems. It will not save anyone significant amounts of money.
In fact, if computer vendors eventually are forced not to include OEM software, then people may have to buy their OS directly from Microsoft at the full retail value. Who benefits?
Not Linux, they're "the guys who made me have to pay $200 for an OS Grandma knows how to use."
And the absence of the "Microsoft Tax" will equate to a whopping $10 in savings. It makes absolutely no difference at all to the cost of your system. You aren't going to see OS-less laptop prices drop $199.
They can throw XP on there, I don't care. I might or might not use it. A massive assault on OEM-included OSes ultimately has no price impact, and it becomes obvious what it really is: a geek jihad.
I am all about new and varied technology. I enjoy using different types of software and hardware. Linux is an excellent platform for everything from hardware tinkering to large-scale database work. But I don't approve of trying to stomp out the other guys. Microsoft is big, and has been stomping out other guys forever, I know. But Linux was supposed to built on higher ideals and such. The truth comes out: once we got a little more powerful, we're out there stomping for all we're worth.
Sad.
Millions of airplane flights take place, yet people concentrate on only the crashes. Millions of patents exist, yet people only concentrate on the ones they have a problem with.
I'm not sure where you get the "for sure" part.
Your argument is useless. The number of pointless patents you could cite is astronomically less than the number of total patents.
Give me data showing a significant percentage of patents are redundant or obvious, or shut up. How well do you do your job? 99% perfect?
Take a few years and browse through about 1% of the patents on uspto.gov. Keep stats on how much you find to be blatantly obvious and simple.
Nice, spend half of your life designing an incredibly complex piece of machinery only to have the details leak out, someone with lots of resources builds it first, and you die penniless and unremembered.
Great. Idea.
That's great, but never ever consider doing this with lithium-ion cells. Their recharge cycle must be precisely controlled, or they turn into pretty decent torches. Lithium-ion devices are heavily tested and regulated.
NiMH cells are great, they always last me around 3x longer than the best alkalines I can buy. So if I charged them once, used them, and threw them away, I'd be breaking even. Every additional charge is just icing on the cake.
I'd jump in there if it weren't for two minor details: 2,000 miles away and the need to eat.
I guess it would work just like the scanner at the store, where it continously searches for a barcode. They'll just rotate the can until they find the code. It's only a second's worth of work, and doesn't require somebody to stand there and recite all the particulars.
The article did say the researchers "tagged along" taking measurements. I guess you could get creative with your interpretation of "chase."
I try to plug it whenever possible. Hopefully it will get recognition to the point where I'll be able to land a job.
It all depends, however, on whether it really was on purpose....
You mean kinda like this?
Developed by some people I know (well, only Anna actually) who graduated one year after me. It doesn't give you an environmental lecture about the product you're scanning, but I guess it very well could. Aimed at the blind to help them with shopping. Actually, make it remotely possible...not easy to tell 200 different soups apart, or cereal boxes, when you're blind.
Not a bad idea. Call it "insourcing" or "upsourcing" to create a new buzzword for management consultants to slobber all over, and you're golden.
A couple years ago, some guys I knew in school were testing voting machines as their senior project. Basically they did every possible thing they could think of, to see how idiot-proof the machines were. Card in backwards, different speeds, bumps, button-mashing, etc.
Actually I think they were only allowed to test machines from two out of four companies. The companies were quite rude about the idea of some external group testing their machines. They would not provide a machine for testing, and actually forbade them from finding one of their machines elsewhere and testing it. They were threatened with legal trouble if they performed an "unauthorized" test and released the results.
They probably had good reason to be so wary. On one of the other machines at least, I believe you could vote twice by zipping the card through quickly or something. I don't recall exactly what you had to do, but it apparently wasn't difficult to learn or accidentally come across.
Fifty years ago, they thought we would have this now. Flying cars etc.
I don't think it will ever happen. I won't say the capability will never be there, but it will be a conscious decision. We're made to survive in this environment on next to nothing, and it's nice to not depend on a workforce that evaporates with a few well-placed EMP weapons.
So at half the expected crack time, there is a 50% chance of that happening. At 75% crack time, it's 75%, at 25% it's 25%, etc. So it does scale linearly; the more often you change your password, the more likely it is that the brute force attack will still reach your new password.
A funny point, but does this scale linearly.... If you change your password more frequently than the expected average brute-force crack time, are you more vulnerable? I suppose it means that in a given time period the cracker could find any one of several passwords instead of just one.
Actually I've seen a commercial setup that looks very similar to what you are describing. Except they used an inkjet printer, and left the head on. It can burn and label a stack of CDs unattended.
It actually looks kind of similar to this guy's wooden changer. Maybe he should add a small plotter that uses a Sharpie....
If you really, really want to run Windows and Linux on your new laptop, just tack on the cash for actual XP disks. I mean, you just bought a new laptop. It's not that much more, assuming Windows XP is essential to what you have to do. And don't wince at "paying twice" for Windows XP, Microsoft basically gives away its OS to dealers.
That said, nobody buy Toshiba laptops.