I'd have to second this. Though there are serious issues with the default XP installations (not so bad with sp2 since it's all firewalled away), worrying about arbitrary limits on resource usage are not one of them.
First of all, let's separate the world in to two different type of people: normal users, and power users.
Let's not. I'd rather not place the weekend warrior who will see an error message he doesn't understand and do something irrational to fix it to a guy who maintains a reigonal network.
Arbitrary limits are dangerous. All it takes is one miscalculation or one left out detail and the machine has a problem the user has to try to sort out on his own. When problems like this occur, all it takes is one well meaning user to try something stupid and destroy his machine. the internet is filled with the echos of such handy people.
If the machine is to be protected, it should be protected in a way that uses feedback to limit such things. That would be a difficult piece of code to write, I think, especially considering not all forks are created equally.
to be fair, my gentoo install wasn't an ancient piece of shit when I started installing it, it's just that it so long to compile everything that now I have to upgrade to this new X11 thing!
There are ethical issues with the idea of buying image, but I suppose the fact that the one doing the selling is a charity doesn't make it any less acceptable than if he had bought a big ad campaign.
Remember to buy a quality fabrication plant. Even though you can get one in China for a few dollars, it's always better to go with the fab plant filled with workers who can spell their own name.
Microsoft is not a monopoly. They are the best competitor in a multiplayer competitive business arena: And the arena is *not* the software market, it is the OS market.
No they are not. Linux is not a competitor to Windows in the same way that the local orphanage is not a competitor to the local orphanage. Beyond that, I've used the majority of Microsofts competitors, from DR-DOS to OS/2 Warp to BeOS, and the only thing they all have in common is that they're all dead. The fact that this pathetic volunteer project (no insult meant towards linux users or coders here, try to understand what I mean when I say this) is considered the major competition vs. the mighty Microsoft is indellable proof that the market has failed.
You forget that countries are actually far more powerful than corporations, but the rule of law and political considerations mean that they play softball.
Microsoft and Monsanto may have the dollars, but the government has the guns and tanks, and if push came to shove, the government would exist, and the corps wouldn't.
I'm not advocating such a thing, naturally!!!!! I'm just pointing out that the balance of power has only shifted in terms of the game played by economists, not the real world where some forces cannot be reasoned with.
If you believe there are problems with the EU, you must really hate the US; they have found Microsoft guilty of violations of the law on several occasions and imposed penalties.
Most of the people who advocate trade barriers as a weapon ignore the fact that the economy isn't an abstract thing, it's made up of the transfer of goods and services.
For example, I'm certain that many americans would support Free Trade very quickly in the event of a US/Canada trade war if it cut off power and water trade between the two countries. I can think of a few states which really couldn't go without the resources for long.
Unless you're living in a tax free haven, then you're probably full of shit; you drive on the roads, you take advantage of subsidized or free healthcare, you live in a city protected by policemen and firemen...
I don't have a firm opinion on handguns, but the tobacco industry brought it upon themselves. If you believe that the decietful tactics they used a generation ago isn't worthy of prolonged punishment as that generation dies, then I have to question what IS worthy.
What exactly do you expect to accomplish by attacking "the slashdot groupthink" in such a way, anyway? If you're complaining because it bothers you so horribly, don't read the comments. If you feel that you can effect change, do so in a positive way so you might actually do so -- trying to insult someone is about the least effective way of affecting someone.
Frankly, the post you're replying to shows that you're wrong -- some people read this and thought "is this a good idea?", myself included.
So what is your purpose? Do you just like hearing yourself talk? If not, change your methods to something useful, because your only wasting your time with your current method.
BTW, Microsoft won't fall. If it started to, it would be propped up by the government. It represents a significant portion of the american economy, and like other major corps, is immortal in ways you couldn't imagine. Whether you think that's good or bad depends on where your priorities lie.
Re:Why arent governments proacting agaisnt these n
on
Over a Million Zombie PCs
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Slashdot: The left's answer to Rush Limbaugh...
Don't fall into their trap. The childish cynics and the childish idealists would have you believe that they are part of the left and right wings of the political spectrum; that one is conservative and the other liberal.
This is wrong. For proof, simply look at a dictionary whose definition of either term goes beyond "conservatives believe in right/conservative things" and "liberals believe in left/liberal things" and you'll see that the attempts by the "left" to keep things the same and the attempts by the "right" to do things that have never been done before, along with other actions which run directly contrary to the true meaning of various areas of the political spectrum or the meaning of those two words Conservative and Liberal.
Myself? I'm a conservative in the truest and best sense of the word: a traditionalist who tends to be frugal with expendatures, underestimate income, and prefers to limit government power. Following the lessons of the past, however, leads me to want to continue the best traditions which have made the modern world prosperous and free, rather than become one of the bickering children who would claim that their simplistic worldview, ignorant of the past, present, or future, is anything like the noble philosophies of the true left or right.
He wasn't making an arguement. He was making a joke. This is critical to understand, because an arguement is a very particular subset of conversation, usually designed to be pursuasive in nature. As a result of this, it's structure and the terminology defined with such an element is different than the terminology defined for other conversational constructe, such as jokes.
At any rate, as long as everyone gets their money, legality aside(because the law and morality are not the same, naturally), there's nothing morally wrong with doing it this way, and following the law doesn't help me sleep at night.:)
Really, I COULD buy a TiVO, but I prefer just getting it the next day.;)
Does the law that downloading a copy of something I have the legal rights to watch is illegal?
If I'm authorized to watch this program, how is downloading it illegal distribution? It seems to me that the same "licensing" scheme used to prevent people from downloading something they have no right to gives them full rights to download something they have the right to in another medium.
What's with people who are fundamentally wrong today?
Unless you download shows from the channels you don't have access to, come up with a good reason why it's illegal or immoral. I'm not the only one who pays good money for cable TV, and if I download a show I could have watched on the TV (sans commercials), it's content I have paid for in full, as far as I am concerned.
I was going to point out that it's not the same arguement at all, but then I read the rest of your post, and realized that at no point are you right. Your point of view is wrong on a fundamental level which I cannot begin to correct in a single post.
Start with the idea that we are not serfs whose duty is to solemnly serve the will of companies we buy services from, nor the companies those companies buy services from. When it comes to Cable TV, we are the customers. We're in charge. If you don't like it, rant and rave all you want, because there's jack shit you can do about it.
Personally, I download The Daily Show every morning because I don't want to stay awake until 11:30pm every night to catch it all. I pay extra for the premium channel it airs on. That entitles me, as far as I'm concerned, to watch it. If I don't watch their ads, that's tough shit. I never signed anything that says I must watch them. Oddly enough, you can't pull the copout that I'm stealing anything either, because I'm watching a program I have paid for the right to watch.
Do you fancy yourself a conservative, perhaps? I ask because it's usually people who mistakenly label themselves as conservatives who act as if we don't deserve any rights to things we pay for, ironicaly.
How so? Those two are both examples of massive downloads that are difficult to get from servers nowadays because of bandwidth concerns. To be honest, I got most of those from google.
and legaltorrents is mostly creative commons music. That's the one I thought of right away.
Who is the one living in the bubble here? Personally, I love being able to download popular files quickly. I guess you'd prefer to pay fileplanet for the privilege, hmm?
The whole internets attention span has been getting shorter. I'm sure I'm not the only one to notice that some people will argue against your position without actually knowing what your position is.:/
Slashdot Mirror
I'd have to second this. Though there are serious issues with the default XP installations (not so bad with sp2 since it's all firewalled away), worrying about arbitrary limits on resource usage are not one of them.
First of all, let's separate the world in to two different type of people: normal users, and power users.
Let's not. I'd rather not place the weekend warrior who will see an error message he doesn't understand and do something irrational to fix it to a guy who maintains a reigonal network.
Arbitrary limits are dangerous. All it takes is one miscalculation or one left out detail and the machine has a problem the user has to try to sort out on his own. When problems like this occur, all it takes is one well meaning user to try something stupid and destroy his machine. the internet is filled with the echos of such handy people.
If the machine is to be protected, it should be protected in a way that uses feedback to limit such things. That would be a difficult piece of code to write, I think, especially considering not all forks are created equally.
to be fair, my gentoo install wasn't an ancient piece of shit when I started installing it, it's just that it so long to compile everything that now I have to upgrade to this new X11 thing!
Now, replace those cmds with qbasic.exe
Some things are much more fragile than they let on.
Americans can't comprehend the tinyness of european nations just as europeans can't comprehend the vastness of american nations, in my opinion.
There are ethical issues with the idea of buying image, but I suppose the fact that the one doing the selling is a charity doesn't make it any less acceptable than if he had bought a big ad campaign.
I guess you're right.
ICBMs are the dumbest argument ever. History has shown that.
Of course, who needs history when you have jingostism, right?
Remember to buy a quality fabrication plant. Even though you can get one in China for a few dollars, it's always better to go with the fab plant filled with workers who can spell their own name.
Microsoft is not a monopoly. They are the best competitor in a multiplayer competitive business arena: And the arena is *not* the software market, it is the OS market.
No they are not. Linux is not a competitor to Windows in the same way that the local orphanage is not a competitor to the local orphanage. Beyond that, I've used the majority of Microsofts competitors, from DR-DOS to OS/2 Warp to BeOS, and the only thing they all have in common is that they're all dead. The fact that this pathetic volunteer project (no insult meant towards linux users or coders here, try to understand what I mean when I say this) is considered the major competition vs. the mighty Microsoft is indellable proof that the market has failed.
You forget that countries are actually far more powerful than corporations, but the rule of law and political considerations mean that they play softball.
Microsoft and Monsanto may have the dollars, but the government has the guns and tanks, and if push came to shove, the government would exist, and the corps wouldn't.
I'm not advocating such a thing, naturally!!!!! I'm just pointing out that the balance of power has only shifted in terms of the game played by economists, not the real world where some forces cannot be reasoned with.
If you believe there are problems with the EU, you must really hate the US; they have found Microsoft guilty of violations of the law on several occasions and imposed penalties.
The bastards!!
Most of the people who advocate trade barriers as a weapon ignore the fact that the economy isn't an abstract thing, it's made up of the transfer of goods and services.
For example, I'm certain that many americans would support Free Trade very quickly in the event of a US/Canada trade war if it cut off power and water trade between the two countries. I can think of a few states which really couldn't go without the resources for long.
Unless you're living in a tax free haven, then you're probably full of shit; you drive on the roads, you take advantage of subsidized or free healthcare, you live in a city protected by policemen and firemen...
Slave, free thyself.
I don't have a firm opinion on handguns, but the tobacco industry brought it upon themselves. If you believe that the decietful tactics they used a generation ago isn't worthy of prolonged punishment as that generation dies, then I have to question what IS worthy.
What exactly do you expect to accomplish by attacking "the slashdot groupthink" in such a way, anyway? If you're complaining because it bothers you so horribly, don't read the comments. If you feel that you can effect change, do so in a positive way so you might actually do so -- trying to insult someone is about the least effective way of affecting someone.
Frankly, the post you're replying to shows that you're wrong -- some people read this and thought "is this a good idea?", myself included.
So what is your purpose? Do you just like hearing yourself talk? If not, change your methods to something useful, because your only wasting your time with your current method.
BTW, Microsoft won't fall. If it started to, it would be propped up by the government. It represents a significant portion of the american economy, and like other major corps, is immortal in ways you couldn't imagine. Whether you think that's good or bad depends on where your priorities lie.
Slashdot: The left's answer to Rush Limbaugh...
Don't fall into their trap. The childish cynics and the childish idealists would have you believe that they are part of the left and right wings of the political spectrum; that one is conservative and the other liberal.
This is wrong. For proof, simply look at a dictionary whose definition of either term goes beyond "conservatives believe in right/conservative things" and "liberals believe in left/liberal things" and you'll see that the attempts by the "left" to keep things the same and the attempts by the "right" to do things that have never been done before, along with other actions which run directly contrary to the true meaning of various areas of the political spectrum or the meaning of those two words Conservative and Liberal.
Myself? I'm a conservative in the truest and best sense of the word: a traditionalist who tends to be frugal with expendatures, underestimate income, and prefers to limit government power. Following the lessons of the past, however, leads me to want to continue the best traditions which have made the modern world prosperous and free, rather than become one of the bickering children who would claim that their simplistic worldview, ignorant of the past, present, or future, is anything like the noble philosophies of the true left or right.
He wasn't making an arguement. He was making a joke. This is critical to understand, because an arguement is a very particular subset of conversation, usually designed to be pursuasive in nature. As a result of this, it's structure and the terminology defined with such an element is different than the terminology defined for other conversational constructe, such as jokes.
Then it seems it's illegal.
:)
;)
At any rate, as long as everyone gets their money, legality aside(because the law and morality are not the same, naturally), there's nothing morally wrong with doing it this way, and following the law doesn't help me sleep at night.
Really, I COULD buy a TiVO, but I prefer just getting it the next day.
Does the law that downloading a copy of something I have the legal rights to watch is illegal?
If I'm authorized to watch this program, how is downloading it illegal distribution? It seems to me that the same "licensing" scheme used to prevent people from downloading something they have no right to gives them full rights to download something they have the right to in another medium.
What's with people who are fundamentally wrong today?
Unless you download shows from the channels you don't have access to, come up with a good reason why it's illegal or immoral. I'm not the only one who pays good money for cable TV, and if I download a show I could have watched on the TV (sans commercials), it's content I have paid for in full, as far as I am concerned.
I was going to point out that it's not the same arguement at all, but then I read the rest of your post, and realized that at no point are you right. Your point of view is wrong on a fundamental level which I cannot begin to correct in a single post.
Start with the idea that we are not serfs whose duty is to solemnly serve the will of companies we buy services from, nor the companies those companies buy services from. When it comes to Cable TV, we are the customers. We're in charge. If you don't like it, rant and rave all you want, because there's jack shit you can do about it.
Personally, I download The Daily Show every morning because I don't want to stay awake until 11:30pm every night to catch it all. I pay extra for the premium channel it airs on. That entitles me, as far as I'm concerned, to watch it. If I don't watch their ads, that's tough shit. I never signed anything that says I must watch them. Oddly enough, you can't pull the copout that I'm stealing anything either, because I'm watching a program I have paid for the right to watch.
Do you fancy yourself a conservative, perhaps? I ask because it's usually people who mistakenly label themselves as conservatives who act as if we don't deserve any rights to things we pay for, ironicaly.
How so? Those two are both examples of massive downloads that are difficult to get from servers nowadays because of bandwidth concerns. To be honest, I got most of those from google.
and legaltorrents is mostly creative commons music. That's the one I thought of right away.
http://www.legaltorrents.com/k _oc_download.html/ download.htmlo wnloader.html
http://www.xandros.com/products/home/desktopoc/ds
http://distribution.openoffice.org/p2p/bittorrent
http://www.ferrago.com/
http://syd2.ausgamers.com:6969/
http://www.filerush.com/
http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/info/faq/blizzardd
http://www.slackware.com/torrents/
Who is the one living in the bubble here? Personally, I love being able to download popular files quickly. I guess you'd prefer to pay fileplanet for the privilege, hmm?
The whole internets attention span has been getting shorter. I'm sure I'm not the only one to notice that some people will argue against your position without actually knowing what your position is. :/