You're completely missing the point. You can abandon business models much more easier: don't contribute to them. But we, instead, have destroyed the basis of something we enjoyed by not contributing. You can't hack a machine and then wonder why the company isn't supporting it anymore because you didn't purchase the software. It's sort of unethical.
"I know I'd pay a buck to overturn the DMCA, free Dimitri, outlaw spam, protest license problems, protect the GPL etc."
I'd actually pay a buck to turn down some of the political meandering that goes on around here. It takes away from the News for Nerds and gives to the News for Activists. I've turned off every topic I think has to do with annoying political activistism (Your Rights Online, Censorship, any article that CmdrTaco posts) and this makes it way into the Slashdot.org topic.
Just in retrospect, maybe all this Dreamcast hacking wasn't such a good thing. I mean, these companies make money off software license sales, and often lose money on the hardware. Didn't our (infinitely small, but still there) part in hacking the machine and help assist the driving of Dreamcast into the ground. Sort of like a parasite: we fed on it and we accidentally killed the host, now that they aren't making the system anymore.
DirectX includes all of the extensions shown above. OpenGL just does graphics. The author of the post, and the person who posted the story, clearly wanted to make a comparison between OpenGL and ALL of DirectX, which as as mentioned before, is ludicrous because of all the stuff OpenGL is lacking.
"The guidelines mention good-ol-fashioned platform independence (linux included) and emphasis on programmability, time control and memory managemenmt."
Minus DirectSound, DirectInput, and all the other things which make DirectX a "good thing (tm)" for Windows (simple interoperability with hardware using standardized API's, simple driver writeups). For the time being I'll pass.
Besides, I can always teach my upcoming XBox to dual-boot.:) Best of both game-playing worlds.
That's funny, too, because the company I recently went to work for has a majority of Windows-based solutions on the client and server (we're moving most of the machines to Windows 2000 right now, which I recommend). However, the only two machines we run outside our firewall is the mail and www server, which are FreeBSD.
Asking my boss why we didn't use IIS, he smiled and was like "What are you crazy?":) Having Windows 2000 do the domain controlling and file serving is one thing (it actually does a reasonable job) but we've removed IIS (by default, installed) from every server that runs Windows. Too many chances for breaking and entering.
Part of freedom involves testing your rights to freedom against the rights of others. I have the freedom to kill other people, but society has the freedom to condemn me because of this. Your right to perform something is tempered by the rights of others.
How do you justify this in the light of cryptography? Clearly the freedom of a few, in using one of your programs, may have endangered the rights of thousands of others. At what point should the balance tilt the other way?
Actually, I already have a 32-bit gaming system in the palm of my hand: the Game Boy Advance.:) Has no 3-D chip, but the majority of the rest of the hardware is equal or better than the original Playstation.
Hmm. Shouldn't this be under "Quake III"? Two articles about the test demo in a little less than a week? What's next? One when the Mac version comes out?
"Translated: "Windows Millenium will infest your entire network whether you like it or not. Then, it will hunt out the Linux machines and demand that it be installed on those as well.""
And what could prevent a Linux distro from doing the same thing?
How is Mac OS X in anyway "two-tiered"? Apple has hidden a majority of the "expert" functions so deep in the directory tree it's almost impossible to find them from the GUI. At least Windows XP has a couple of different ways to do different tasks: the hand-holding "idiot" way (click on the taskpane to delete a file), and the faster way (delete the file from the command line using tab completion).
"Like the Internet, the system should allow non-hierarchical trust domains with no central authority necessary."
Actually, I think that's a pretty impressive statement coming out of Microsoft.
Re:My view: against encryption, for saving lives
on
Blaming Encryption
·
· Score: 2
I still don't believe you have given me any tangible or credible arguments for encryption. You, once again, have given me Slashdot rhetoric.
"What my statement means is whether or not you personally choose to use encryption is completely irrelevant, since there are millions of others who will continue to do so."
So even if it becomes law to not use encryption, criminals will still use it. Wait, isn't that the purpose? To weed out the criminals?
"It only becomes relevant if all (law-abiding) citizens are deprived of the choice to use encryption. So what you are really advocating is the removal of everyone's freedom, whether or not they agree with you that it is warranted."
It depends on your personal definition of "freedom". I don't agree with yours. To me, freedom is the ability to walk into my office building and not have it be blown away by someone who used encryption to plan their attack. You have the freedom to kill others, if you wish. But in this country, you have to respect others' right not to be killed.
"The second part of my argument is that even if you could magically make non-backdoored (or all) encryption disappear from the face of the earth, it still wouldn't stop criminals and terrorists."
True. But wouldn't it help?
"It is virtually impossible to stop two people from communicating secret messages to each other, even if they use only cleartext. "I have a doctor's appointment tomorrow" can mean "we bomb the hospital tomorrow", and it's easy to be much more clever than that."
Then why use encryption at all? You've defeated your own argument. If I could just speak in plaintext, there's no POINT to encryption.
Personally, I don't care what others say: if you're using encryption there is only one "justifiable" reason: if you're purchasing something. All other communication, as far as I'm concerned, should be on a "no need to hide" basis. Look at the "normal" people who use encryption, who they send it to, and what the contents are. Nine times out of ten, it has to do with something the rest of society considers bad (like child pornography). If you're telling your friend that you want to meet at a restaurant, or that your boss sucks, there's no reason that can't be out in the open, for everyone to hear.
As far as I'm concerned, everyone should always speak as if everyone in the world could hear them. Because guess what: they can.
Slashdot Mirror
Sort of accidently read that as "this machine is optimized to run IE". :) Don't mod me down, I submitted the story. :)
You're completely missing the point. You can abandon business models much more easier: don't contribute to them. But we, instead, have destroyed the basis of something we enjoyed by not contributing. You can't hack a machine and then wonder why the company isn't supporting it anymore because you didn't purchase the software. It's sort of unethical.
Does anyone know if the update can be downloaded for free, or can it only be obtained on CD?
Where do you have evidence of this?
I'd actually pay a buck to turn down some of the political meandering that goes on around here. It takes away from the News for Nerds and gives to the News for Activists. I've turned off every topic I think has to do with annoying political activistism (Your Rights Online, Censorship, any article that CmdrTaco posts) and this makes it way into the Slashdot.org topic.
Just in retrospect, maybe all this Dreamcast hacking wasn't such a good thing. I mean, these companies make money off software license sales, and often lose money on the hardware. Didn't our (infinitely small, but still there) part in hacking the machine and help assist the driving of Dreamcast into the ground. Sort of like a parasite: we fed on it and we accidentally killed the host, now that they aren't making the system anymore.
"3D Labs Proposes OpenGL 2.0 To Kick DirectX"
DirectX includes all of the extensions shown above. OpenGL just does graphics. The author of the post, and the person who posted the story, clearly wanted to make a comparison between OpenGL and ALL of DirectX, which as as mentioned before, is ludicrous because of all the stuff OpenGL is lacking.
Get your facts straight.
Minus DirectSound, DirectInput, and all the other things which make DirectX a "good thing (tm)" for Windows (simple interoperability with hardware using standardized API's, simple driver writeups). For the time being I'll pass.
Besides, I can always teach my upcoming XBox to dual-boot. :) Best of both game-playing worlds.
Asking my boss why we didn't use IIS, he smiled and was like "What are you crazy?" :) Having Windows 2000 do the domain controlling and file serving is one thing (it actually does a reasonable job) but we've removed IIS (by default, installed) from every server that runs Windows. Too many chances for breaking and entering.
Part of freedom involves testing your rights to freedom against the rights of others. I have the freedom to kill other people, but society has the freedom to condemn me because of this. Your right to perform something is tempered by the rights of others.
How do you justify this in the light of cryptography? Clearly the freedom of a few, in using one of your programs, may have endangered the rights of thousands of others. At what point should the balance tilt the other way?
Windows Media Player for Mac OS plays WMA's. Just watch: other players will get the rights to as well.
I agree. Although I have found XP less reliable, the added GUI benefits have more than doubled my speed in using the machine. It's a tradeoff.
Actually, I already have a 32-bit gaming system in the palm of my hand: the Game Boy Advance. :) Has no 3-D chip, but the majority of the rest of the hardware is equal or better than the original Playstation.
I'm sure they didn't call it "peachy keen".
Except knowing that, in your heart, there were 5000+ people buried in those structures.
Hmm. Shouldn't this be under "Quake III"? Two articles about the test demo in a little less than a week? What's next? One when the Mac version comes out?
Gee, imagine that.
Apparently you work in a part of the world I don't. I haven't seen Plan 9 on a single development system, server, or even when I was in college.
And why not? A majority of KDE improvements in the GUI side are directly pulled from Windows.
And what could prevent a Linux distro from doing the same thing?
How is Mac OS X in anyway "two-tiered"? Apple has hidden a majority of the "expert" functions so deep in the directory tree it's almost impossible to find them from the GUI. At least Windows XP has a couple of different ways to do different tasks: the hand-holding "idiot" way (click on the taskpane to delete a file), and the faster way (delete the file from the command line using tab completion).
Doesn't it actually look like an artist's mockup? Plus, those buttons look suspiciously like Visor's...
Actually, I think that's a pretty impressive statement coming out of Microsoft.
"What my statement means is whether or not you personally choose to use encryption is completely irrelevant, since there are millions of others who will continue to do so."
So even if it becomes law to not use encryption, criminals will still use it. Wait, isn't that the purpose? To weed out the criminals?
"It only becomes relevant if all (law-abiding) citizens are deprived of the choice to use encryption. So what you are really advocating is the removal of everyone's freedom, whether or not they agree with you that it is warranted."
It depends on your personal definition of "freedom". I don't agree with yours. To me, freedom is the ability to walk into my office building and not have it be blown away by someone who used encryption to plan their attack. You have the freedom to kill others, if you wish. But in this country, you have to respect others' right not to be killed.
"The second part of my argument is that even if you could magically make non-backdoored (or all) encryption disappear from the face of the earth, it still wouldn't stop criminals and terrorists."
True. But wouldn't it help?
"It is virtually impossible to stop two people from communicating secret messages to each other, even if they use only cleartext. "I have a doctor's appointment tomorrow" can mean "we bomb the hospital tomorrow", and it's easy to be much more clever than that."
Then why use encryption at all? You've defeated your own argument. If I could just speak in plaintext, there's no POINT to encryption.
Personally, I don't care what others say: if you're using encryption there is only one "justifiable" reason: if you're purchasing something. All other communication, as far as I'm concerned, should be on a "no need to hide" basis. Look at the "normal" people who use encryption, who they send it to, and what the contents are. Nine times out of ten, it has to do with something the rest of society considers bad (like child pornography). If you're telling your friend that you want to meet at a restaurant, or that your boss sucks, there's no reason that can't be out in the open, for everyone to hear.
As far as I'm concerned, everyone should always speak as if everyone in the world could hear them. Because guess what: they can.
Error: Unjustified statement. Requires backup evidence.