But he's criticising Windows Vista, not Windows 2000. Have you seen Vista's shutdown menu? Have you read the article on Slashdot about how much time and effort went into making it?
He wasn't quoting Windows 2000 and XP for "doing it right" because of...? I know, because he is a zealot who doesn't know SHIT about what he is criticising.
You're forgetting the flip-side of that statement: in a country that allows gun ownership, you're expected to be the police. The United States is a country where people are trying to have their cake and eat it too; they want to own a gun, but they often want it as a penis extender, not to use it to secure public safety and promote domestic tranquility. Most gun owners still want the police to be around to get their hands dirty.
Expectation doesn't mean anything. Personal guns are about self-defense, not public defense.
Seriously, KDE can get it right, Mac OS X can get it right. What's so wrong with: Sleep, Restart, Shutdown (, Logout)
The only thing wrong here is the fact that you bash Windows without never using it, meaning that you don't know SHIT about it. Even Windows 2000 haves these options, and they're named almost the same.
No, there is not "a lot of GPL" in military systems, as most "military systems" are built by contractors and agencies with large budgets and lots of contracts with Sun, IBM and others, meaning that they don't need to copy code from GCC, GNOME, tar or anything like that, because they already have enough manpower to build it or already have contracts giving them access to better products. It's not about the quality of GPL code, but the fact that all GPL'ed products are nothing but trivial (yet time-consuming) software projects.
If you really think that the military needs to copy the source code from things like GCC and GZIP, making their whole source base GPL (enclosed GPL, but still GPL) because of that, it's pretty obvious that you completely forgot that the entire history of Unix and most of computing has passed in the hands and pocket of the military research system. They don't need to copy recent GPL'ed clones of Unix and its utilities, as they financed and licensed it since the beginning.
The military doesn't need GPL'ed code for anything at all.
I wish it were true that teachers were one of the most important people in society. If it WERE true, our paycheques would be a lot better, we'd get more respect from the students and their parents, our schools wouldn't be underfunded, etc.
The first step to achieve that would be to start acting like you're really the most important person in society. Most school teachers are nutjobs who can't control themselves and allow teenagers to control their mood. Almost one hundred percent of school teachers are also ignorant people that failed real life and think that their temporary authority over those kids life's are worth something.
You people should step ahead and open a school with nothing but teachers holding master degrees or even more. Creating competition inside the school system would be a nice experiment, as the "communist-union school system vs. capitalist school system" would be a nice fight to watch. Everything in life needs competition to achieve progress and schools are not exempt from that. Almost everything mankind does has chnaged, from metal casting to religion. Well, almost, because schools are stuck at year 1600.
Without competition our schools would be like... that same old shit that we already know.
I am a member of a union, the cinematographers guild. I work as a motion picutre camera assistant. It is not unheard of to work over 24 hours on a shoot (many television shows in New York shoot over 13 hours every day, 5 days a week. By the end of the week people are working 16 hours, halfway into Saturday, and then begin work monday morning at 6 or 7). It is the job of a producer to work a crew-member as hard as they can, for as long as they can, with as little pay/rest/recompense as possible. It is the job of my union to keep me protected from this, and they are fighting a losing battle, as every contract renegotiation we lose more ground to the producers. Most of the people who administer my union are/were working as cinematographers or camera assitants. If you would consider the people who worked in the field and left ( or even stayed working in the field) to continue on to help their brothers and sisters get a fair deal as "scum and [freeloading]", then please rethink your statement. If you are speaking sarcasticly I couldn't pick that up from your statement.
No, I was not speaking sarcasticly, but statistically. Most unions are about protecting the right of not working properly. This is not 1867 anymore, as people have full access to universities + student loans and it's just a matter of working hard to get it. We're living the revolution of knowledge and a lot of unionized people are just missing it. That's the beauty of the modern world: social mobility. If our little friend Sam managed to build the richest family in the planet after milking cows for food in his childhood, I bet you can at least get a better job.
If you don't like your job, vote with your work force and leave. It's better to do it now than wait 5 to 10 years, where your job and a lot of others will be replaced by robots. Work with your mind and not with your arms.
As I read somewhere else: "Unions suck. If you don't like your job, GO GET AN EDUCATION".
And you know what? Teachers unions should be happy we are doing this. As we weed out the scum and the freeloaders who are negatively impacting our children, we will raise the standards in the teaching profession and hopefully thereby raise the wages of teachers to reflect the fundamental and critical role they play in our society and our future.
Except that all unions are administrated by the "scum and freeloaders" group. That's what unions are all about, defending the right of not working properly.
I work for a University and we recently went to a conference where Microsoft presented some of their new licensing schemes for Vista. We were quite perturbed to say the least. For one, they don't want us to ever use the "Ultimate" version. Here's how the conversation goes with the Microsoft rep: [bla bla bla]
Sorry, the same conversation / logic applies to Windows XP Media Center. Microsoft never did and will never mass-license entertainment editions of Windows, no matter how much are you willing to pay for it. And that did not make Windows XP a failure.
Then why to they need to "edit" my submissions (in addition to merely "reformating" them)? Also they're not just asking for permission to be able to mollest my works, but permission to give other people permission to do whatever they want with it to. I can only think of a few things that aren't covered by the License.
Well, if you submit a message with questionable words, they might replace them with ****. Is someone complains you posted some GPLed code at the forum, they might edit the message to take it out. There are a lot of valid reasons for editing the submitted post.
About giving permission to other people: you're giving them content. They might want to share it with other companies, like when they sign up contracts for joining forums and exporting messages. That's all standard practice.
Not necissarily. IANAL, but I have taken some law and I'm pretty sure if they had a visible notice that submitted content would be hosted on Usenet and other microsoftie websites, that should suffice.
Don't expect them to put notices regarding every single kind of destiny that might be applied to your message. Their wording is generic to avoid that and also to allow future changes, as they might discover, in the future, another place to put your message.
As I said earlier: it's just a damn license regarding content you're already giving out for free. Get over it.
Likewise, forcing everyones' work into public domain will not remove rights either. Microsoft would be reasonable if the only required permission to republish the work on the site (that wouldn't have even required an EULA, it's just common sense) it when way beyond that extending to all Microsoft services and allowed them to do anything they wanted, at their leisure and without your say in the matter. Just about everything short of them actually owning it.
Sorry, but you're just acting trollish. They're not "actually owning it", as you said and YES, they're just asking for permission to republish the work. That's all the agreement says:
Microsoft does not claim ownership of the materials you provide to Microsoft (including feedback and suggestions) or post, upload, input or submit to any Services or its associated services for review by the general public, or by the members of any public or private community, (each a "Submission" and collectively "Submissions"). However, by posting, uploading, inputting, providing or submitting ("Posting") your Submission you are granting Microsoft, its affiliated companies and necessary sublicensees permission to use your Submission in connection with the operation of their Internet businesses (including, without limitation, all Microsoft Services), including, without limitation, the license rights to: copy, distribute, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, reproduce, edit, translate and reformat your Submission; to publish your name in connection with your Submission; and the right to sublicense such rights to any supplier of the Services. No compensation will be paid with respect to the use of your Submission, as provided herein.
The license is pretty simple: it allows Microsoft to republish your message and also edit, translate and reformat it, wich means that they can use web-server scripts to publish your messages inside their website layout instead of only being able to republish it on a.txt file inside a directory. It also says that other Microsoft websites can also republish your messages, as some MS websites share content but republish it using different layouts and formats. If you post a message to a MSDN forum you can expect it to be also hosted inside an NNTP gateway and at other sites like ASP.NET and TechNet-related websites.
And no, common sense is not enough. A lot of people would try to sue (for cash) claming "but I posted the message only at MSDN!" or "they changed my content! all the keywords are now coloured!", yadda yadda yadda. It's a license for a publicy-posted message. Get over it.
You don't 'loose' rights anyway...you 'lose' them. Spelling like a 5th grade child is not something to be proud of.
I was just making fun of the parent poster's ability to spell, boring dude. That's why I quoted "loose" instead of just using it as a normal word. You picked the wrong situation to be a cunt.
By that logic, I would loose the rights to my photos when I upload them into Flickr, including giving them rights to use it commercially...
You don't "loose" rights to your code when you post it inside Microsoft's forums. You just give them permission to copy it (aka distribute your message to other users) and do other things (backup your message, allow message searching, yadda yadda yadda).
You people are all missing the point here. The license does not remove rightsfrom you, it only gives MS the right to publish it as a message on a public forum. Without these rights, they would not be able to even list your message after you pressed the submit button.
So it's pretty simple: if you send a message to their forum, you're giving them legal rights to distribute it (using the forum scripts), backup, sort, search, yadda yadda yadda.
Finally, the lockdown on GSM transceivers is a bit silly. The interface is extremely simple; it's a variation of the old Hayes Modem interface. I kid you not. "ATDT....".
That's just an emulated modem created by the GSM chipset. The GSM network doesn't work like that.
When the switch to "Trusted" computing happens, you aren't going to be able to find any signed drivers for your USB device anyhow, so no output for you.
It already happened (Secure Audio Path exists since Windows Me) and yes, simple USB speakers are supported by it. This kind of DRM scheme is not made to stop the inevitable, but to eliminate the trivial aspect of music sharing.
No DRM scheme in the planet is going to ignore digital speakers, as most loudspeakers in the future will have a 100% be digital interface. But you'll need special hardware to get the precious bits out of these interfaces. Maybe not the most expensive hardware in the planet ($10 will always do it), but you'll have to build it yourself, as "music copying USB dongles" will experience the same litigation faith as videogame modchips.
In the end, DRM is about making it difficult, not making it impossible.
2). Weak antiphishing: there was none before, now he's complaining it's weak. Get lost.
Weak might be better than nothing to you, but for average users that means a false sense of security. Like ActiveX code signing was to Internet Explorer. Once bad people learn how to bypass (code-signed spyware, like gator, anyone?) the weak security system, every bad app will look like it's a legitimate application.
I would not trust this feature to be used by an average user.
5). Memory leak: I often run Firefoxes for a whole week long. Yes, you read that correctly. I often just leave important links open when I leave work, then I login back from home and continue useing it, then again tomorrow from work, and so on. After a week it often eats up around half a gigs of memory, true. But really, how many of you do such things ?
7). Freezes: yes, they occur. But hello, restore session. I don't say it's no problem, I'm saying it's no reason not to switch.
I bet that comes from the same person that spent hours talking about reboots and blue screens at the Win9x era.
All in all, useless site, mostly useless points, definitely useless advice.
Yeah, like most Linux sites that talk about MS Windows.
Umm... it's even simpler to connect the digital out to the digital-in on my current soundcard.
No, it's not, as the new generation of Trusted Computing DRM will force the creation of a "Secure Audio Path". So your current soundcard will not be able to play files with the latest DRM and trusted cards will obviously include some kind of protection on the digital out bitstream.
So if you simply connect out-in on a Trusted Computing Hardware, you'll not be able to record the file.
This is just WRONG. You will still very likely lose some quality due to sampling rate conversion your soundcard automatically does.
No, it's not wrong. The mentioned USB IC will not perform any kind of conversion. That's very computationally expensive for a US$ 3,00 integrated circuit. As another poster said, this kind of resampling strategy is used only by nonsense projects like some SB Live cards. DAC chips doesn't care about the conversion clock and well made digital sound processors can be programmed to accept generic sampling rates, and that's what most cards do these days, instead of wasting processing power with sample interpolation.
And besides that, we're talking about re-encoding to MP3 afterwards, so the D/A and A/D conversion with a decent soundcard will be absolutely insignificant, next to the MP3 re-encoding. Only with lossless audio codecs would this matter at all.
Insignificant or not, it's still worse than a pure-digital electronic solution.
There is also a purely software-based solution that doesn't lose quality: QEMU. Install this emulator, instal Windows inside there, install drivers for the emulated SB PCI sound card (they already have the needed signature), and redirect the emulated sound output to a wav file. You'll get a bit-precise copy of the sound.
Yes, but that won't cover sounds encoded with the latest DRMed files that requires only "Trusted Computing" hardware and drivers. These kind of protections are embedded inside the O.S. and will not allow a "unsafe" sound path.
...build your own USB "converter". Companies like Texas Instruments have lots of devices like PCM2704, that allow access to an unprotected sound bitstream. It's pretty simple to build a fake digital speaker that just redirects the data to a fake digital line in. Some microcontrolled usb sound devices contain both input and output devices on the same IC, so you can software redirect the output (coming from the computer) to the input (going back to it).
So you don't even need an "Analog hole". You can use a digital hole and don't lose any quality at all. And this kind of device is perfectly accepted by any "content protection" driver schemes.
Don't place blind faith in Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" to guide the marketplace.
Absolutely not. We should put faith into RMS's hands, as he is surely The Solution. All communist nutjobs say that the free market is the devil that needs to be eliminated and replaced by his brilliant centralized administration.
Their revenue last year was 6.1 billion dollars. That makes their market cap only about 20x revenue, which is a very resonable number in any book, and simmilar to MSFT and eBay and most other large companies
What matters is their P/E: Google has a ~62 P/E while Microsoft has a ~24 P/E. Income does not matter, it's the earnings that do matter.
Still, if you look only at the earnings, you'll have a ~21 ratio for Google and a ~6.5 ratio for Microsoft. A huge difference.
Nice try AC, but they get paid for this content because with the increased sharing, people are exposed to much more new music than they normally would (think P2P effect on speed), and therefore find more bands they like and want to support.
Sorry, but the music market is not about receiving alms. It's about business. Bands does not want your pity. They want to be paid for what you're receiving from them.
A huge market like the music business will never survive on voluntary payments like you're planning.
So I'm not a parent yet, but having had parents who did a kick ass job raising my sister and myself, what if parents just, you know, talked to their kids once in a while? A parent that genuinely listens and cares about their children is going to be much better received - and far more trusted - by their kids than one who tries to become the FBI and wiretap everything their kids do. It just seems like common sense to me.
Yeah, like it's that simple. Sometimes kids will have all kinds of social problems where friends and other grown ups have much more credibility than their parents. And that's not always the parent's fault but also related to the way kids interact these days. If you're "less rich" or "more poor" than people in their school, if your kids are damn ugly or just spoiled overprotected weirdos with no social skills, they're going to have a crappy social life, and suffer a lot because of it.
Most kid's social problems will lead to situation-changing attempts that will simply nullify most of your authority as the kid is now trying to solve a very important "problem" in his life and that's top priority at the moment. These kinds of attempts include a lot of behaviour changes, like uncontrolled sex, alcohol, etc.
Expecting your kid to tell you "Yeah dad, I'm a real loser at school and now I'm having sex with all the boys, so I can be more popular with the other girls, as that's what I think that will happen" is just stupid. Having secrets is part of being young, mostly because you're freaking ashamed of them.
Believeing that being a "talking parent" is all it takes to give your kids a good future is wishful thinking at best. Teenagers are mostly influenced by other people than you. They want to be "cool" and their social status inside their friendship circle is sometimes more important than avoiding dangers or doing the right thing. That's why most kids end up being mostly like other kids in the neighborhood, no matter how special you think your parenting is. And that's also why people avoid raising kids in places like the Bronx.
That's why IM monitoring is important: being a part of your kids life. Knowing what they're up to. It's much better to be a silent vigilant parent than a boring "let's talk, kids!" parent that think he is a member of the Bill Cosby Show. Kids hate "talking parents" as much as men hate "let's discuss the relationship all the time" women. They just want to be left alone, and expect you to be their friend, not their boring advisor.
In fact, if you keep talking too much with your kids, you'll end up with no authority at all. Abuse the channel and its value will decrease to zero. Parents who are always talking are always being ignored.
To the common man, too much choice can be worse than not enough.
That's not about the common man. It's about specialization. A doctor does not need to know about ice cream quality. He'll just pay some good amount of money for the best kind of ice cream found by people who work at the market. That's why Haagen Daz is sucessful and those small shops aren't.
I bet there are dozens of possible concentrations for the elements of a shampoo product. But I don't give a crap about chemistry, I'll just pay top price for a good one.
Slashdot Mirror
No, there is not "a lot of GPL" in military systems, as most "military systems" are built by contractors and agencies with large budgets and lots of contracts with Sun, IBM and others, meaning that they don't need to copy code from GCC, GNOME, tar or anything like that, because they already have enough manpower to build it or already have contracts giving them access to better products. It's not about the quality of GPL code, but the fact that all GPL'ed products are nothing but trivial (yet time-consuming) software projects.
If you really think that the military needs to copy the source code from things like GCC and GZIP, making their whole source base GPL (enclosed GPL, but still GPL) because of that, it's pretty obvious that you completely forgot that the entire history of Unix and most of computing has passed in the hands and pocket of the military research system. They don't need to copy recent GPL'ed clones of Unix and its utilities, as they financed and licensed it since the beginning.
The military doesn't need GPL'ed code for anything at all.
You people should step ahead and open a school with nothing but teachers holding master degrees or even more. Creating competition inside the school system would be a nice experiment, as the "communist-union school system vs. capitalist school system" would be a nice fight to watch. Everything in life needs competition to achieve progress and schools are not exempt from that. Almost everything mankind does has chnaged, from metal casting to religion. Well, almost, because schools are stuck at year 1600.
Without competition our schools would be like... that same old shit that we already know.
If you don't like your job, vote with your work force and leave. It's better to do it now than wait 5 to 10 years, where your job and a lot of others will be replaced by robots. Work with your mind and not with your arms.
As I read somewhere else: "Unions suck. If you don't like your job, GO GET AN EDUCATION".
About giving permission to other people: you're giving them content. They might want to share it with other companies, like when they sign up contracts for joining forums and exporting messages. That's all standard practice.
Don't expect them to put notices regarding every single kind of destiny that might be applied to your message. Their wording is generic to avoid that and also to allow future changes, as they might discover, in the future, another place to put your message.
As I said earlier: it's just a damn license regarding content you're already giving out for free. Get over it.
The license is pretty simple: it allows Microsoft to republish your message and also edit, translate and reformat it, wich means that they can use web-server scripts to publish your messages inside their website layout instead of only being able to republish it on a
And no, common sense is not enough. A lot of people would try to sue (for cash) claming "but I posted the message only at MSDN!" or "they changed my content! all the keywords are now coloured!", yadda yadda yadda. It's a license for a publicy-posted message. Get over it.
You people are all missing the point here. The license does not remove rightsfrom you, it only gives MS the right to publish it as a message on a public forum. Without these rights, they would not be able to even list your message after you pressed the submit button.
So it's pretty simple: if you send a message to their forum, you're giving them legal rights to distribute it (using the forum scripts), backup, sort, search, yadda yadda yadda.
No DRM scheme in the planet is going to ignore digital speakers, as most loudspeakers in the future will have a 100% be digital interface. But you'll need special hardware to get the precious bits out of these interfaces. Maybe not the most expensive hardware in the planet ($10 will always do it), but you'll have to build it yourself, as "music copying USB dongles" will experience the same litigation faith as videogame modchips.
In the end, DRM is about making it difficult, not making it impossible.
I would not trust this feature to be used by an average user.
I bet that comes from the same person that spent hours talking about reboots and blue screens at the Win9x era.
Yeah, like most Linux sites that talk about MS Windows.
So if you simply connect out-in on a Trusted Computing Hardware, you'll not be able to record the file.
No, it's not wrong. The mentioned USB IC will not perform any kind of conversion. That's very computationally expensive for a US$ 3,00 integrated circuit. As another poster said, this kind of resampling strategy is used only by nonsense projects like some SB Live cards. DAC chips doesn't care about the conversion clock and well made digital sound processors can be programmed to accept generic sampling rates, and that's what most cards do these days, instead of wasting processing power with sample interpolation.
Insignificant or not, it's still worse than a pure-digital electronic solution.
...build your own USB "converter". Companies like Texas Instruments have lots of devices like PCM2704, that allow access to an unprotected sound bitstream. It's pretty simple to build a fake digital speaker that just redirects the data to a fake digital line in. Some microcontrolled usb sound devices contain both input and output devices on the same IC, so you can software redirect the output (coming from the computer) to the input (going back to it).
So you don't even need an "Analog hole". You can use a digital hole and don't lose any quality at all. And this kind of device is perfectly accepted by any "content protection" driver schemes.
It's impossible to protect sound files.
Still, if you look only at the earnings, you'll have a ~21 ratio for Google and a ~6.5 ratio for Microsoft. A huge difference.
A huge market like the music business will never survive on voluntary payments like you're planning.
Most kid's social problems will lead to situation-changing attempts that will simply nullify most of your authority as the kid is now trying to solve a very important "problem" in his life and that's top priority at the moment. These kinds of attempts include a lot of behaviour changes, like uncontrolled sex, alcohol, etc.
Expecting your kid to tell you "Yeah dad, I'm a real loser at school and now I'm having sex with all the boys, so I can be more popular with the other girls, as that's what I think that will happen" is just stupid. Having secrets is part of being young, mostly because you're freaking ashamed of them.
Believeing that being a "talking parent" is all it takes to give your kids a good future is wishful thinking at best. Teenagers are mostly influenced by other people than you. They want to be "cool" and their social status inside their friendship circle is sometimes more important than avoiding dangers or doing the right thing. That's why most kids end up being mostly like other kids in the neighborhood, no matter how special you think your parenting is. And that's also why people avoid raising kids in places like the Bronx.
That's why IM monitoring is important: being a part of your kids life. Knowing what they're up to. It's much better to be a silent vigilant parent than a boring "let's talk, kids!" parent that think he is a member of the Bill Cosby Show. Kids hate "talking parents" as much as men hate "let's discuss the relationship all the time" women. They just want to be left alone, and expect you to be their friend, not their boring advisor.
In fact, if you keep talking too much with your kids, you'll end up with no authority at all. Abuse the channel and its value will decrease to zero. Parents who are always talking are always being ignored.
I bet there are dozens of possible concentrations for the elements of a shampoo product. But I don't give a crap about chemistry, I'll just pay top price for a good one.