Not running the latest software? Doom 3 running on a Voodoo 2;)
... if someone showed me that game in the 90's and told me it was the sequel to Doom II, I'd be really let down. D3 on a voodoo 2 may still have the technical edge on software rendered Quake, but man was Quake a lot more fun.
Somewhat surprisingly, this criticism has been coming from PHP, Ruby and JavaScript programmers. Many of these people likely don't even know C. Yet they still feel it necessary to belittle the Apache developers for making what is actually a very obscure mistake many years back
Let me ask, is mixing free and non-free software acceptable to you? The FLOSS community promotes using open source above all else, for the sake of more people using open source. If "shut up if you can't program" was their motto, its user base should be a tiny fraction of what it is. Unless you think people like being told to "shut up and use it anyway."
You wouldn't DARE tell me, not-a-programmer, use open source "just because", and do not complain about it, in anything short of suicidal fantasies. UNIX system admins are the reason you exist, so suck my ass.
I stopped recommending open source - just because it was open source - a long time ago, because the reality is, it's run by a whole lot of people with attitudes like this.
I had an eye-opening experience back when i bought my one apple product, an ipod nano (7 years or so ago), the 8GB model. I had it loaded up with music, and after reinstalling, wanted to get my music back by syncing it with the newly installed itunes.
The result was a wiped ipod, as apple does not want me to own my data. Lession leaned.
Seven years ago?! If you plug it in right now it will ask you if you want to copy the songs to your computer. Why be so quick to assume malice, and what the hell does "own my data" precisely mean?
Lacking a feature is not the same thing as actively getting in your way... that sounds pretty simple, but in terms of software, people can't be reminded enough it seems, because what a computer _could_ do is indeterminate.
Good lord, if not enabling you to do something was enough reason to claim you were being repressed.. feel entitled much? This reasoning isn't applied to free software because of what exactly, you _could_ hypothetically modify it? Well, you _could_ do anything you want with a touring complete machine, so have at it. But.. that's not what people want, they feel entitled to more.
He mostly set it in design. But realistically, he took the whole open platforms and devices to really bad direction with the closeness of iOS and maybe upcoming Macs. Would you really want that for computer world?
What a silly question.
Open systems need competition from closed systems just as closed systems need competition from open systems.
A complete lack of direction cannot be the only way forward, and lack of diversity is not healthy. You need both.
The Republican party did not ally itself with the "bible-thumpers". The Republican party is the most logical place for them.
Do small government, fiscal conservative, social conservative, and overtly religious christians all make perfect sense together? You were just talking about the word "liberal", so here we are with "conservative", how neat. I'm clueless, can you explain how the Republican party is the most logical place for overtly religious types? Is there any reason they should be more wary of change than a non-religious person?
I might as well make the claim that people who love liberty most logically fit with the Democratic party because on the topic of civil rights, the other side would rather things just stayed the same.
I have an idea, let's ask the free press of.. or the government accountabilit.. how about some inside.... wow, probably and ironically the only one that can answer that is a blogger tunneling his way across the the great firewall.
How about you fly there for vacation and report back?
That would be called j_o_u_r_n_a_l_i_s_m. How did you live before the Internet??
it booted with 640K, which this particular machine had on-motherboard (which is very rare...). The OEM screen showed right, up without errors. So those self tests don't do much in the first place.
So.. that may have been a valid configuration for this system...
Try having a defective CPU? Won't even boot... Self test? A few beeps if you're lucky.
This is like having a "defective" car. It is not black and white bro. Especially so for server processors like Xeon, SPARC, etc. Most of what sets a Xeon apart from your desktop CPU, and what sets an Itanium apart from Xeon is the RAS functionality, AFAIK.
Maybe you're one of those guys who either thinks CPU/RAM/motherboard components never fail because your desktop has always been fine, or you think swapping out every removable component in a server system until you find the one causing intermittent failures is still a good use of time.
I'm not suggesting servers couldn't boot faster, just that they DO have more things on their plate than a desktop. Intel/AMD systems & software do need more RAS capabilities to compete with SPARC and POWER systems, and they have been evolving it slowly over time. What's the point of having a parity bit on every damned register, channel, whatever if you're not checking it at boot and simply wait until it is needed before failing?
I don't know.. it'd be like your check engine light coming on halfway through a long road trip because some batch of faulty sensors weren't even read until other conditions were met. Why would you trust some sensor that you didn't get a good baseline reading from at the start? That's what startup tests are for - reading all the 'sensors' and narrowing a problem down to a specific CPU or DIMM. Something that most OSs suck badly at reporting on their own.
what is the future of a civilisation whose most capitalised stock is gadget manufacturer?
Could any of the four or so +insightful mods explain what the relationship is or could possibly be between today's most capitalized stock and the future of "civilization"?
Lets circle jerk while pondering the future of civilization based upon critical thinking skills displayed on Slashdot. That would be a hoot.
Lastly here's a good showing for Linux, it's refreshing, after the firefox debacle ruling it out in business, on top of the desktops debacle and Open/Libre Office confusion.
Foolish pride. This could have Windows, Solaris, [insert modern OS], etc. beneath the covers and it wouldn't affect the core functionality of a product like this. They won't have to pay per unit royalties for an OS kernel by using Linux, and that doesn't even mean they won't be paying royalties for whatever else they used to accelerate developing this thing. Hip hip hooray go team or whatever. Give credit where it is actually due.
I'm sorry man, but this Linux pride stuff just kills me. I wonder how much better software we would have today without it. The first iOS device should have made everyone look back on a decade and a half of Linux pride and wonder what it was all for. Free, not free, whatever, we need leaders, innovators, and good old entrepreneurialism, not... an OS kernel with bunch of second rate UNIX software. I don't even know why I use that four letter word, how often do y'all pipe text INTO a program designed in the last decade? Though so. Hell, most of you don't pipe text out of such a thing...
These folks are on the right track, designing software for common people, to meet specific needs. That is what we need more of, free or not. Give credit where it is due.
When you fire your weapon you should mean it. Don't shoot to injure or incapacitate. Shoot to kill.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. You shoot to end the threat. If when all is said and done they are no longer metabolizing oxygen, fine. But if you plant a round center mass and they drop their weapon, turn tail, and run. You better cease fire, the threat has been stopped, cuz the next shot you fire they are the victim. You shoot to end the threat. You shoot to end the threat. You shoot to end the threat. You shoot to end the threat. You shoot to end the threat. You shoot to end the threat.
I think you don't understand.
"if you plant a round center mass" you just shot to kill! Congratulations. Period. Full stop.
You seem to be confusing "shoot to kill" with "shoot until they stop breathing." "Shoot until they stop breathing" is not a policy of any respectable military or police force I know of, but "shoot to kill" rightfully is. It means you are not shooting for anything less, and that's the way it will go down in a courtroom too.
You don't shoot to threaten, warn, maim, incapacitate, hurt, etc.
Want to know why?
What's the difference between those, and MISSING? See, that's why we need laws and policies that are black and white here. A "warning" shot gives an armed opponent every reason to engage you. A thug shouldn't be able to get less than attempted murder because he missed. Police shouldn't attempt to use a firearm to incapacitate suspects because deadly force was not warranted.
It's pretty obvious why "shoot to kill" policies exist if you really stop and think about it guys.
Come at me threateningly with a couple of knives and a broken glass bottle, throwing one of the knives at me when I am telling you to stand down, and I'll shoot yer ass, too, center mass
This.
It's stupid fucktards like you that give responsible gun owners like me a bad rap. You see, if you came at me with a knife, or throwing knives, I would shoot you in the leg. Poblem solved. You get to live, in severe pain likely for hours, then possible suffer permanent mobility issues for life.
See, you'd get to live. To face justice. I'm not a vigilante, nor a murderer. I hope that if you ever do shoot someone "center mass", even in self defense, that the authorities reference your post and take it into consideration that you've always wanted to kill someone.
Your rhetoric turns my stomach just as much as those Limey's saying the Cops should be shooting and beating the impoverished rioters. You are the scum of the Earth.
You are way off base, buddy, and your +whatever moderators too. You never, EVER fire a weapon at someone you don't intend to kill, just as you don't point a weapon at something you don't intend to shoot. THAT is responsible use of a firearm. You're not going to convince the courts you didn't have intent to kill simply because you hit someone in the leg, so you BETTER be sure you are justified in killing when you pull that trigger. A responsible gun owner needs to know the law.
Please, please, don't listen to these fools people. If you own and intend to use a weapon for DEFENSE, instead of HUNTING, then you should seek training for that. If you are in a situation where you need to fire a weapon at another person and are legally justified in doing so, AIM FOR CENTER OF MASS. This is not a game folks. Do it to save your life. Don't die because someone on the Internet told you to be a cowboy.
1) That old saw about Microsoft being vulnerable because of its market share is hog wash. There were over 3 million viruses and Trojans released last year. Were it a simple matter of market share percentages than about 12% of those would be Linux viruses and another 10-15% would be Mac viruses. But, they are not. Well over 99% of them are Windows viruses. Only 19% of Internet web servers are running Windows but they are the source of essentially all malware.
That is horrible logic, there is no reason to assume malware writers would target operating systems in proportion to their market share, all other things being equal because there is evidence all around you that people don't make decisions that way. People don't invest in countries in proportion to their global standing for example, even among countries of similar caliber.
There's more fish by a wide margin in one lake so everybody goes there to fish, it's very simple. You're also assuming malware writer's operations are on a scale that fishing in more than one lake at a time is feasible. Who do you think these vermin are...?
Next up, why do online games that allow team switching always wind up with unbalanced teams?
This is a fantastic example of how Americans take a simple problem and absolutely fuck up the solution.
So these Americans want to partake in some outdoor activity that requires a bit of open grass. Their solution? Buy a 6 acre lawn, pay property taxes on this land, buy a lawnmower, buy fuel for the lawnmower, buy fertilizer for the lawn, and waste hours each week mowing the lawn. Even if they pay somebody to maintain it for them, it's still a huge waste of money, time, and effort.
What do people in sensible countries do? They build parks, and everybody in the vicinity contributes a small amount of money towards its upkeep, without the burden falling directly on their shoulders. They can go use it whenever they want, and such parks are large enough that thousands of people can partake in all sorts of sports or other activities at the same time, from barbecuing, to playing catch, to even playing golf, without interfering with one another.
Oh, wait. Parks are probably too "socialist" at best, or "communist" at worst, for most Americans.
Being "Free app of the day" is a huge advert for your app - and adverts have a cost. Being app of the day is optional - not mandatory - the developers in question could have said no. And the cost is not 101,491 copies of your app - that's RIAA accounting. The majority of downloaders will try your app once and then never use it again. Some may continue to use it, and when they do, if you're smart you'll figure out a way to monetise their usage (e.g. charge for version 2, offer premium feature updates etc.).
Name some other things of value that are advertised this way. Now exclude things people have to keep paying for like food and such.
hmmm...
The advertising cost does't seem fair to me. It should be restricted to first X visitors or time restricted demo, feature limited demo, or tied to the release of a sequel that makes it worthless.
You're giving the full value of your product per person away to advertise to arbitrarily large number of people who will _never_ convert into buying customers, and will use up your support resources. Then you have to hope they have friends with money and similar interests that they don't talk to every day.
I thought businesses were complaining about getting bad deals with groupons, and consumers have to PAY for those.
This sorely undermines the value of software production and development.
Doesn't anyone test the source tarball to ensure you can recreate the binary from it?
It should build just fine with the pre-generated code. There probably wasn't a whole lot of work done to the grammar files and nobody noticed it wasn't part of the build process.
The federal budget has been growing faster than national GDP. End of fucking argument.
An analogy is that you earn $X per year and receive a 5% per year raise. Your wife budgets $Y per year for beauty supplies but increases that spending by 10% per year.
$X is the GDP, $Y is federal spending. No matter where $X and $Y start, eventually $Y overtakes $X. Even if the government were to increase taxes to match spending each year, to balance the budget in the manner you suggest, we are still fucked.
The solution is to let GDP grow at least as fast as spending. Since GDP cannot be controlled, it is spending that must be controlled. Period and end of debate.
Your analogy pertains to budgeting, not debt management. A balanced budget would only pay interest on your debts, right?
If your wife started running a beauty salon, she would need to incur some level of debt for some period of time to run the place while growing her business. What the level is, and for what time all depends on the interest rate and how much credit people want to offer you. Comes down to you and your creditors understanding the possible risks and benifits of your business.
I'm not convinced that the problems in the US are on the interest and credit side. Seems like a distraction to me, from the real problem of growing our fucking business!
This is so backwards from Slashdot norm. A summary with a tidbit of "news" in it and intelligently written opinion, no FA to read.
Am I missing something, did Microsoft not really coin this term or is there some biased, slanderous opinion that was unintentionally left out of the summary?
More properly, he hurt a few banks which insist on a system with virtually no security whatsoever. They then passed the hurt on to up to 675,000 people rather than fixing the problem.
That certainly doesn't make him less guilty, it just makes him the only one who's going to pay for it.
I don't think enough people fully appreciate both sides of the security/convenience scale on this one. They need to keep credit cards about as easy to use as cash.
The banks are not ignorant of the risks. If you don't like it use cash and throw away your debit cards for credit cards & ATM cards. Or walk into your bank, make cash withdrawals and go that route. Hell, just keep cash under your mattress if you really hate the economy.
She's lost her Google account, her Facebook account, and had requests to use a 'real' name by multiple employers and banks through her life - some of whom attempt to force the use of her more regular middle name in place of her first.
That does't make sense, banks and employers would ask her for identification just like anyone else. Especially the using middle name part, which would not match her ID. That is bogus. If her ID doesn't have her legal first name, that's her problem. All they care about is acceptable form of ID and you not showing up on OFAC or criminal background check. If they do not care about that, then they wouldn't exactly care what name you give or ID.
Google however, is in the business of knowing about us, and the information you have on what we prefer to be known as, the identities *WE* wish to use, is important. Why bother collecting this shit if you'd prefer us to use identities we don't identify with? Sounds self defeating, no?
The moderators here are fucking morons. +5 Up Modded a Troll
Re:i posted a story about this a few months ago
on
3D Hurts Your Eyes
·
· Score: 0
simulated 2D does not in anyway ask our eyes to behave as they haven't behaved in tens of millions of years of evolution
Right, because humans frequently stared for two or more hours at a lit, flickering wall a short distance away in a dark room.
Thank the FSM we've evolved this way because I work in IT and the eyestrain of staring at bright flickering things short distances away for hours on end would really be a bitch.
Some people get sick focusing on a piece of paper while the periphery is moving around them.
You have to be pretty fucking stupid to make the claim that 3D (cinema?) is abusing ours eyes while whatever your definition of "2D" is matches conditions we've evolved under for millions of years. I'll even go out on a limb and suggest that the real world you live in... is 3D, and not composed of flat, lit, flickering images.
Reading your comment here, it is clear that you haven't wasted the time to research the philosophy / structure of the anonymous group. Which is a perfectly fine way to go about your life. You haven't missed out on much.
But to clarify the expected result of this raid, I thought it might be valuable for those unfamiliar with Anonymous to know that the group is entirely anonymous, even among members. The people who were captured would probably love to roll on others in order to avoid jail time. That is not a choice for them, however. This makes it an attractive mob to manipulate.
The feds will relish a day or two capturing headlines, pretending that "something" has been done to curtail these nefarious hackers. It's exactly as theatrical as the war on terror. At most they'll charge these individuals with possession of child pornography, as their browser cache is undoubtedly filled with thumbnails of illegal content inadvertently picked up while trawling 4chan. It's quite doubtful the FBI has captured anyone of significance.
So either you're completely daft thinking the real perpetrators of these crimes cannot be pinned down _even while they brag about their exploits to the whole world_, or there really does need to be some new legislation written and powers granted to police the networks our economy pretty well depends on.
What I don't get is the proportion of posters here that think _neither_ is likely...
A terrorist is a freedom fighter that lost the battle.
This is disgusting. You're only contributing the the misconception that "terrorist" is "someone we dislike". Thanks for furthering things in that direction, you moron.
Slashdot Mirror
Not running the latest software? Doom 3 running on a Voodoo 2 ;)
... if someone showed me that game in the 90's and told me it was the sequel to Doom II, I'd be really let down. D3 on a voodoo 2 may still have the technical edge on software rendered Quake, but man was Quake a lot more fun.
Somewhat surprisingly, this criticism has been coming from PHP, Ruby and JavaScript programmers. Many of these people likely don't even know C. Yet they still feel it necessary to belittle the Apache developers for making what is actually a very obscure mistake many years back
Let me ask, is mixing free and non-free software acceptable to you? The FLOSS community promotes using open source above all else, for the sake of more people using open source. If "shut up if you can't program" was their motto, its user base should be a tiny fraction of what it is. Unless you think people like being told to "shut up and use it anyway."
You wouldn't DARE tell me, not-a-programmer, use open source "just because", and do not complain about it, in anything short of suicidal fantasies. UNIX system admins are the reason you exist, so suck my ass.
I stopped recommending open source - just because it was open source - a long time ago, because the reality is, it's run by a whole lot of people with attitudes like this.
Grow up folks, buy software when it works.
I had an eye-opening experience back when i bought my one apple product, an ipod nano (7 years or so ago), the 8GB model.
I had it loaded up with music, and after reinstalling, wanted to get my music back by syncing it with the newly installed itunes.
The result was a wiped ipod, as apple does not want me to own my data. Lession leaned.
Seven years ago?! If you plug it in right now it will ask you if you want to copy the songs to your computer. Why be so quick to assume malice, and what the hell does "own my data" precisely mean?
Lacking a feature is not the same thing as actively getting in your way... that sounds pretty simple, but in terms of software, people can't be reminded enough it seems, because what a computer _could_ do is indeterminate.
Good lord, if not enabling you to do something was enough reason to claim you were being repressed.. feel entitled much? This reasoning isn't applied to free software because of what exactly, you _could_ hypothetically modify it? Well, you _could_ do anything you want with a touring complete machine, so have at it. But.. that's not what people want, they feel entitled to more.
He mostly set it in design. But realistically, he took the whole open platforms and devices to really bad direction with the closeness of iOS and maybe upcoming Macs. Would you really want that for computer world?
What a silly question.
Open systems need competition from closed systems just as closed systems need competition from open systems.
A complete lack of direction cannot be the only way forward, and lack of diversity is not healthy. You need both.
The Republican party did not ally itself with the "bible-thumpers". The Republican party is the most logical place for them.
Do small government, fiscal conservative, social conservative, and overtly religious christians all make perfect sense together? You were just talking about the word "liberal", so here we are with "conservative", how neat. I'm clueless, can you explain how the Republican party is the most logical place for overtly religious types? Is there any reason they should be more wary of change than a non-religious person?
I might as well make the claim that people who love liberty most logically fit with the Democratic party because on the topic of civil rights, the other side would rather things just stayed the same.
I have an idea, let's ask the free press of.. or the government accountabilit.. how about some inside.... wow, probably and ironically the only one that can answer that is a blogger tunneling his way across the the great firewall.
How about you fly there for vacation and report back?
That would be called j_o_u_r_n_a_l_i_s_m. How did you live before the Internet??
it booted with 640K, which this particular machine had on-motherboard (which is very rare...). The OEM screen showed right, up without errors. So those self tests don't do much in the first place.
So.. that may have been a valid configuration for this system...
Try having a defective CPU? Won't even boot... Self test? A few beeps if you're lucky.
This is like having a "defective" car. It is not black and white bro. Especially so for server processors like Xeon, SPARC, etc. Most of what sets a Xeon apart from your desktop CPU, and what sets an Itanium apart from Xeon is the RAS functionality, AFAIK.
Maybe you're one of those guys who either thinks CPU/RAM/motherboard components never fail because your desktop has always been fine, or you think swapping out every removable component in a server system until you find the one causing intermittent failures is still a good use of time.
I'm not suggesting servers couldn't boot faster, just that they DO have more things on their plate than a desktop. Intel/AMD systems & software do need more RAS capabilities to compete with SPARC and POWER systems, and they have been evolving it slowly over time. What's the point of having a parity bit on every damned register, channel, whatever if you're not checking it at boot and simply wait until it is needed before failing?
I don't know.. it'd be like your check engine light coming on halfway through a long road trip because some batch of faulty sensors weren't even read until other conditions were met. Why would you trust some sensor that you didn't get a good baseline reading from at the start? That's what startup tests are for - reading all the 'sensors' and narrowing a problem down to a specific CPU or DIMM. Something that most OSs suck badly at reporting on their own.
what is the future of a civilisation whose most capitalised stock is gadget manufacturer?
Could any of the four or so +insightful mods explain what the relationship is or could possibly be between today's most capitalized stock and the future of "civilization"?
Lets circle jerk while pondering the future of civilization based upon critical thinking skills displayed on Slashdot. That would be a hoot.
Lastly here's a good showing for Linux, it's refreshing, after the firefox debacle ruling it out in business, on top of the desktops debacle and Open/Libre Office confusion.
Foolish pride. This could have Windows, Solaris, [insert modern OS], etc. beneath the covers and it wouldn't affect the core functionality of a product like this. They won't have to pay per unit royalties for an OS kernel by using Linux, and that doesn't even mean they won't be paying royalties for whatever else they used to accelerate developing this thing. Hip hip hooray go team or whatever. Give credit where it is actually due.
I'm sorry man, but this Linux pride stuff just kills me. I wonder how much better software we would have today without it. The first iOS device should have made everyone look back on a decade and a half of Linux pride and wonder what it was all for. Free, not free, whatever, we need leaders, innovators, and good old entrepreneurialism, not... an OS kernel with bunch of second rate UNIX software. I don't even know why I use that four letter word, how often do y'all pipe text INTO a program designed in the last decade? Though so. Hell, most of you don't pipe text out of such a thing...
These folks are on the right track, designing software for common people, to meet specific needs. That is what we need more of, free or not. Give credit where it is due.
When you fire your weapon you should mean it. Don't shoot to injure or incapacitate. Shoot to kill.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
You shoot to end the threat.
If when all is said and done they are no longer metabolizing oxygen, fine. But if you plant a round center mass and they drop their weapon, turn tail, and run. You better cease fire, the threat has been stopped, cuz the next shot you fire they are the victim.
You shoot to end the threat.
You shoot to end the threat.
You shoot to end the threat.
You shoot to end the threat.
You shoot to end the threat.
You shoot to end the threat.
I think you don't understand.
"if you plant a round center mass" you just shot to kill! Congratulations. Period. Full stop.
You seem to be confusing "shoot to kill" with "shoot until they stop breathing." "Shoot until they stop breathing" is not a policy of any respectable military or police force I know of, but "shoot to kill" rightfully is. It means you are not shooting for anything less, and that's the way it will go down in a courtroom too.
You don't shoot to threaten, warn, maim, incapacitate, hurt, etc.
Want to know why?
What's the difference between those, and MISSING? See, that's why we need laws and policies that are black and white here.
A "warning" shot gives an armed opponent every reason to engage you. A thug shouldn't be able to get less than attempted murder because he missed. Police shouldn't attempt to use a firearm to incapacitate suspects because deadly force was not warranted.
It's pretty obvious why "shoot to kill" policies exist if you really stop and think about it guys.
Come at me threateningly with a couple of knives and a broken glass bottle, throwing one of the knives at me when I am telling you to stand down, and I'll shoot yer ass, too, center mass
This.
It's stupid fucktards like you that give responsible gun owners like me a bad rap. You see, if you came at me with a knife, or throwing knives, I would shoot you in the leg. Poblem solved. You get to live, in severe pain likely for hours, then possible suffer permanent mobility issues for life.
See, you'd get to live. To face justice. I'm not a vigilante, nor a murderer. I hope that if you ever do shoot someone "center mass", even in self defense, that the authorities reference your post and take it into consideration that you've always wanted to kill someone.
Your rhetoric turns my stomach just as much as those Limey's saying the Cops should be shooting and beating the impoverished rioters. You are the scum of the Earth.
You are way off base, buddy, and your +whatever moderators too. You never, EVER fire a weapon at someone you don't intend to kill, just as you don't point a weapon at something you don't intend to shoot. THAT is responsible use of a firearm. You're not going to convince the courts you didn't have intent to kill simply because you hit someone in the leg, so you BETTER be sure you are justified in killing when you pull that trigger. A responsible gun owner needs to know the law.
Please, please, don't listen to these fools people. If you own and intend to use a weapon for DEFENSE, instead of HUNTING, then you should seek training for that. If you are in a situation where you need to fire a weapon at another person and are legally justified in doing so, AIM FOR CENTER OF MASS. This is not a game folks. Do it to save your life. Don't die because someone on the Internet told you to be a cowboy.
1) That old saw about Microsoft being vulnerable because of its market share is hog wash. There were over 3 million viruses and Trojans released last year. Were it a simple matter of market share percentages than about 12% of those would be Linux viruses and another 10-15% would be Mac viruses. But, they are not. Well over 99% of them are Windows viruses. Only 19% of Internet web servers are running Windows but they are the source of essentially all malware.
That is horrible logic, there is no reason to assume malware writers would target operating systems in proportion to their market share, all other things being equal because there is evidence all around you that people don't make decisions that way. People don't invest in countries in proportion to their global standing for example, even among countries of similar caliber.
There's more fish by a wide margin in one lake so everybody goes there to fish, it's very simple.
You're also assuming malware writer's operations are on a scale that fishing in more than one lake at a time is feasible. Who do you think these vermin are...?
Next up, why do online games that allow team switching always wind up with unbalanced teams?
This is a fantastic example of how Americans take a simple problem and absolutely fuck up the solution.
So these Americans want to partake in some outdoor activity that requires a bit of open grass. Their solution? Buy a 6 acre lawn, pay property taxes on this land, buy a lawnmower, buy fuel for the lawnmower, buy fertilizer for the lawn, and waste hours each week mowing the lawn. Even if they pay somebody to maintain it for them, it's still a huge waste of money, time, and effort.
What do people in sensible countries do? They build parks, and everybody in the vicinity contributes a small amount of money towards its upkeep, without the burden falling directly on their shoulders. They can go use it whenever they want, and such parks are large enough that thousands of people can partake in all sorts of sports or other activities at the same time, from barbecuing, to playing catch, to even playing golf, without interfering with one another.
Oh, wait. Parks are probably too "socialist" at best, or "communist" at worst, for most Americans.
^ jealous of our cheap land
Life is short, why spend it maintaining a large property.
There is something about the way people always use that phrase with a sense of urgency that bothers me. Maybe you can help me figure it out.
It's possible that mowing his own lawn appeals to this man in the same way paying someone else to mow it appeals to others.
It's not a race, just enjoy it.
Being "Free app of the day" is a huge advert for your app - and adverts have a cost. Being app of the day is optional - not mandatory - the developers in question could have said no. And the cost is not 101,491 copies of your app - that's RIAA accounting. The majority of downloaders will try your app once and then never use it again. Some may continue to use it, and when they do, if you're smart you'll figure out a way to monetise their usage (e.g. charge for version 2, offer premium feature updates etc.).
Name some other things of value that are advertised this way. Now exclude things people have to keep paying for like food and such.
hmmm...
The advertising cost does't seem fair to me. It should be restricted to first X visitors or time restricted demo, feature limited demo, or tied to the release of a sequel that makes it worthless.
You're giving the full value of your product per person away to advertise to arbitrarily large number of people who will _never_ convert into buying customers, and will use up your support resources. Then you have to hope they have friends with money and similar interests that they don't talk to every day.
I thought businesses were complaining about getting bad deals with groupons, and consumers have to PAY for those.
This sorely undermines the value of software production and development.
Doesn't anyone test the source tarball to ensure you can recreate the binary from it?
It should build just fine with the pre-generated code. There probably wasn't a whole lot of work done to the grammar files and nobody noticed it wasn't part of the build process.
The federal budget has been growing faster than national GDP. End of fucking argument.
An analogy is that you earn $X per year and receive a 5% per year raise. Your wife budgets $Y per year for beauty supplies but increases that spending by 10% per year.
$X is the GDP, $Y is federal spending. No matter where $X and $Y start, eventually $Y overtakes $X. Even if the government were to increase taxes to match spending each year, to balance the budget in the manner you suggest, we are still fucked.
The solution is to let GDP grow at least as fast as spending. Since GDP cannot be controlled, it is spending that must be controlled. Period and end of debate.
Your analogy pertains to budgeting, not debt management. A balanced budget would only pay interest on your debts, right?
If your wife started running a beauty salon, she would need to incur some level of debt for some period of time to run the place while growing her business. What the level is, and for what time all depends on the interest rate and how much credit people want to offer you. Comes down to you and your creditors understanding the possible risks and benifits of your business.
I'm not convinced that the problems in the US are on the interest and credit side. Seems like a distraction to me, from the real problem of growing our fucking business!
This is so backwards from Slashdot norm. A summary with a tidbit of "news" in it and intelligently written opinion, no FA to read.
Am I missing something, did Microsoft not really coin this term or is there some biased, slanderous opinion that was unintentionally left out of the summary?
More properly, he hurt a few banks which insist on a system with virtually no security whatsoever. They then passed the hurt on to up to 675,000 people rather than fixing the problem.
That certainly doesn't make him less guilty, it just makes him the only one who's going to pay for it.
I don't think enough people fully appreciate both sides of the security/convenience scale on this one.
They need to keep credit cards about as easy to use as cash.
The banks are not ignorant of the risks. If you don't like it use cash and throw away your debit cards for credit cards & ATM cards. Or walk into your bank, make cash withdrawals and go that route. Hell, just keep cash under your mattress if you really hate the economy.
She's lost her Google account, her Facebook account, and had requests to use a 'real' name by multiple employers and banks through her life - some of whom attempt to force the use of her more regular middle name in place of her first.
That does't make sense, banks and employers would ask her for identification just like anyone else. Especially the using middle name part, which would not match her ID. That is bogus. If her ID doesn't have her legal first name, that's her problem. All they care about is acceptable form of ID and you not showing up on OFAC or criminal background check. If they do not care about that, then they wouldn't exactly care what name you give or ID.
Google however, is in the business of knowing about us, and the information you have on what we prefer to be known as, the identities *WE* wish to use, is important. Why bother collecting this shit if you'd prefer us to use identities we don't identify with? Sounds self defeating, no?
The moderators here are fucking morons. +5 Up Modded a Troll
simulated 2D does not in anyway ask our eyes to behave as they haven't behaved in tens of millions of years of evolution
Right, because humans frequently stared for two or more hours at a lit, flickering wall a short distance away in a dark room.
Thank the FSM we've evolved this way because I work in IT and the eyestrain of staring at bright flickering things short distances away for hours on end would really be a bitch.
Some people get sick focusing on a piece of paper while the periphery is moving around them.
You have to be pretty fucking stupid to make the claim that 3D (cinema?) is abusing ours eyes while whatever your definition of "2D" is matches conditions we've evolved under for millions of years. I'll even go out on a limb and suggest that the real world you live in... is 3D, and not composed of flat, lit, flickering images.
Eyestrain, have you heard of it?
I know it's mainly become a tech site, but
No... listen to some morning radio call in talk shows, and study their format. Then you will perfectly understand what Slashdot is.
Reading your comment here, it is clear that you haven't wasted the time to research the philosophy / structure of the anonymous group. Which is a perfectly fine way to go about your life. You haven't missed out on much.
But to clarify the expected result of this raid, I thought it might be valuable for those unfamiliar with Anonymous to know that the group is entirely anonymous, even among members. The people who were captured would probably love to roll on others in order to avoid jail time. That is not a choice for them, however. This makes it an attractive mob to manipulate.
The feds will relish a day or two capturing headlines, pretending that "something" has been done to curtail these nefarious hackers. It's exactly as theatrical as the war on terror. At most they'll charge these individuals with possession of child pornography, as their browser cache is undoubtedly filled with thumbnails of illegal content inadvertently picked up while trawling 4chan. It's quite doubtful the FBI has captured anyone of significance.
So either you're completely daft thinking the real perpetrators of these crimes cannot be pinned down _even while they brag about their exploits to the whole world_, or there really does need to be some new legislation written and powers granted to police the networks our economy pretty well depends on.
What I don't get is the proportion of posters here that think _neither_ is likely...
A terrorist is a freedom fighter that lost the battle.
This is disgusting. You're only contributing the the misconception that "terrorist" is "someone we dislike".
Thanks for furthering things in that direction, you moron.
"I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"
Mission Accomplished. (Especially the "against domestic enemies" of the Constitution part.)
You are clearly not saying this with sincerity because "enemy" goes both ways. The "other side" is completely justified in treating you as such.
Just... grow up. I know I'm probably talking to a child.. I hate the Internet.