"Anyone else a little nervous that they haven't gotten around to writing a privacy policy? That seems a bit disturbing, to say the least."
No. You don't know if they've gotten around to writing it, you only know if they've gotten around to putting it into the code.
If you were a 'glass is half full' type of person, you might think "Oh neat, they're writing a new one. Maybe they'll make it less spooky." Of course, that's not as likely to shoot you up to +5 around here.
"Difference: Laptops don't cause you to be any more annoying than if you were reading a book."
Wrong. Cell phones don't cause annoyance. Laptops don't cause annoyance. Books don't cause annoyance. Somebody with any of those can be annoying, but it isn't inherently the device's fault. Why am I pointing out the difference here? Because that means it's a social problem, not a technical one. Asking 'is it necessary' is not helpful in the slightest. Focusing on cell phone users in particular is not helpful. Don't want to be annoyed? Send the message "Don't make loud noises" not "don't use your cell phone near me!"
That make sense? It's fun to hate cell phones and all, but the current approach isn't going anywhere.
" It's none of your business if this guy doesn't want to give Slashdot his money."
Slashdot is a public forum. He forfeited the 'none of your business' argument when he posted. If he has a right to complain, then I have a right to challenge him on it. Mod points are at stake!!
"Are people these days really so reliant on cell phones that they can't put them down for 5 minutes to fill up their gas tank or order food, or watch a movie, or drive down the freeway, or take a flight? "
Who are you to judge how anybody uses a phone? Yeah, some people out there could learn a bit about etiquette, but a lot more (at least around here on Slashdot) need to grow a thicker skin.
" Makes me wonder how people survived 10 years ago, or even before the widespread growth of cell phone usage. Sad really. "
Survival? Don't you think you're blowing it a bit out of proportion? It's about fun, not survival. Has it occured to you that the times you mentioned (except for the movie) are the most boring times to sit there by yourself and twiddle your thumbs?
Sometimes I wonder if this hostility towards cell phones around here has less to do with annoyance due to bad behaviour and more to do with envy that these people have somebody to talk to.
"How exactly does banning me from making a cell phone call during a flight keep anyone any safer given that I can make the same call on the "AirPhone" on the back of the seat in front of me? "
A.) The antenna for the plane phone, to the best of my understanding, is on the outside of the plane. Assuming I'm right, shielding equipment from that should be possible.
B.) They can fully test the one phone system with the equipment on board. They cannot test every single phone that works on different frequencies based on the particular service they use.
C.) A Britney Spears ring tone won't have the chance to cause a riot.:P
"But so far, the holes have proved to be few, and when present very quickly fixed This point is very important, as it shows that the coders are devoted to security. And the popularity point always has one big, fat, sweating problem - Apache."
Yep, you're right. Except the circumstances right now are a little too ideal.
1.) Linux is small in number, so it's hard to get a 'wave' effect with a self replicating exploit.
2.) Right now, the Open Source Community has a lot of people willing to do it. Is it reasonable to assume that'll be constant?
3.) Again, Linux's small number means fewer apps out there. What happens if the number of people writing OSS apps mulitplies by 10? If security problems become abundant in a lot of those apps, and yes I am reaching a bit, will the OSS Community be spread too thin?
4.) What if a popular proprietary app for Linux becomes a security risk?
I'm not making the point that Linux is as bad as Windows. The point I am making is that it is a false comfort. You really won't know how secure Linux (and the apps running on it) really are until there's a huge number of machines running them.
The big problem is that if you get hit, it doesn't matter how much MORE secure (or less vulnerable, depending on if you see a difference between those two terms like I do) it's all done. 1 or 0. True or false.
"The fact is, Linux seems to make it easier for the technical user to secure his box."
Yes, seem being the operative word. There could be a huge mistake in Linux just waiting to be discovered.
It's all moot anyway, all it really takes, no matter how 'secure' Linux is, is for an inexplicably popular program to have a hole in it. That's why Mozilla exploits are just as scary as OS exploits.
Fear - Ballmer argued that companies should be wary of the lack of indemnity from lawsuits, such as the suit filed by The SCO Group Inc. against DaimlerChrysler AG, IBM, Novell Inc. and others over parts of the Linux operating system that SCO claims infringe on elements of the Unix operating system that it owns.
Uncertainty - "In the Linux world, nobody stands behind patent claims," he said, noting that Microsoft could be forced to swallow a $550 million judgement if it loses its ongoing case with Eolas Technologies Inc., but that its customers would be protected.
Doubt - On the touchy issue of security, Ballmer also dismissed the notion that Linux is more secure than Windows, saying that Linux would be attacked just as frequently as Windows if the open source operating system had as large a share of the operating system market as Windows.
So it's fair to say, then, that whenever there are comments made about MS's patents, lack of security in their OS's, or that Linux doesn't get hit as often as Windows, they're spreading FUD. Right?
"The interesting question would be if it'd also be 0wned just as much."
The mere fact that that question exists tells me that Ballmer has a point. You guys just don't know. That doesn't mean that you should switch to Windows, but it does mean that you should be treating your computer like it could spontaneously explode at any minute. No different than Windowsx.
Re:Balmer: Research it yourselves.
on
Ballmer on Linux
·
· Score: 0, Troll
"Good idea, coming from a company that regularly commissions independant researchers to prove their point of the day."
If this point is so 'interesting' then maybe the/. editors should be more careful about screening MS stories here. Nearly every ms story is followed by a bunch of highly modded RTFA comments.
"What if the answer indicates that you were better off sticking with Windows? (I know, on Slashdot that conclusion isn't possible.)"
For a laptop? Nah. I'm assuming he's not planning on doing a lot of gaming on it. (though the Apple store does have a small shelf of games on it that aren't half bad...) He's likely to do fine on a Mac. Switching to Mac from Windows isn't as hard on people as switching to Linux from Windows. Apple did a fine job of that.
"Is there streaming software I can install on that computer that can handle a live cable TV signal and software to change channels remotely?" "
I can't say for sure about changing channels remotely (though VNC would be the worst case scenario...) but snapstream (www.snapstream.com) is a software based PVR that does streaming over a port. It's not free (last I checked it was $50ish) but I have personally used it and can recommend it. For the sake of being up-front and honest, that was two years ago. I doubt they went to shit since then, though.
Slashdot Mirror
"Anyone else a little nervous that they haven't gotten around to writing a privacy policy? That seems a bit disturbing, to say the least."
No. You don't know if they've gotten around to writing it, you only know if they've gotten around to putting it into the code.
If you were a 'glass is half full' type of person, you might think "Oh neat, they're writing a new one. Maybe they'll make it less spooky." Of course, that's not as likely to shoot you up to +5 around here.
"Difference: Laptops don't cause you to be any more annoying than if you were reading a book."
Wrong. Cell phones don't cause annoyance. Laptops don't cause annoyance. Books don't cause annoyance. Somebody with any of those can be annoying, but it isn't inherently the device's fault. Why am I pointing out the difference here? Because that means it's a social problem, not a technical one. Asking 'is it necessary' is not helpful in the slightest. Focusing on cell phone users in particular is not helpful. Don't want to be annoyed? Send the message "Don't make loud noises" not "don't use your cell phone near me!"
That make sense? It's fun to hate cell phones and all, but the current approach isn't going anywhere.
Hehe.
:)
Actually I'd do the same thing. I'm just pulling your leg, man. Good job on not letting me get to ya.
G'nite.
" I just am not giving them 20-40 USD per year."... and make a loud statement about it on Slashdot!
"If /. didn't have so many dupes that could run more/different articles."
So, yeah, they are providing you the service they promised, but you are mad at them for a service they didn't promise. Heh.
" It's none of your business if this guy doesn't want to give Slashdot his money."
Slashdot is a public forum. He forfeited the 'none of your business' argument when he posted. If he has a right to complain, then I have a right to challenge him on it. Mod points are at stake!!
"I don't care. I give them money and I expect service."
Yeah? And so they don't let you see the stories a few minutes early?
And the 'hah!' bit in their dupe checking policy didn't raise a flag with you?
"No, I will not RESUBSCRIBE because they do not keep their end of the bargin."
Really? Can you point to me where they promise no dupes? The FAQ is pretty clear about that.
"Slashdot provides news articles 24 hours a day 364 days a year, but I won't subscribe because of the occasional dupe. I'm righteous!"
"Obviously you've never been on the freeway with several pre-occupied cell phone jockeys, otherwise known as drivers."
What's that got to do with restaraunts, airplanes, filling up the tank, etc? In any event, I agree, those people are being stupid.
"When I get calls while I'm in the car, I let them know I'm in the car and that I'll call them back. "
I appreciate it. But I don't expect you to stay off your phone at the places I've mentioned. All I prefer is that you don't shout.
"I don't know, is it really that important to stay "in touch" with friends, family, or work over the duration of a flight?"
It's important when you're really really bored on that 3 hour flight. Geez, isn't this the site that wants better laptops for flying?
"Are people these days really so reliant on cell phones that they can't put them down for 5 minutes to fill up their gas tank or order food, or watch a movie, or drive down the freeway, or take a flight? "
Who are you to judge how anybody uses a phone? Yeah, some people out there could learn a bit about etiquette, but a lot more (at least around here on Slashdot) need to grow a thicker skin.
" Makes me wonder how people survived 10 years ago, or even before the widespread growth of cell phone usage. Sad really. "
Survival? Don't you think you're blowing it a bit out of proportion? It's about fun, not survival. Has it occured to you that the times you mentioned (except for the movie) are the most boring times to sit there by yourself and twiddle your thumbs?
Sometimes I wonder if this hostility towards cell phones around here has less to do with annoyance due to bad behaviour and more to do with envy that these people have somebody to talk to.
"How exactly does banning me from making a cell phone call during a flight keep anyone any safer given that I can make the same call on the "AirPhone" on the back of the seat in front of me? "
:P
A.) The antenna for the plane phone, to the best of my understanding, is on the outside of the plane. Assuming I'm right, shielding equipment from that should be possible.
B.) They can fully test the one phone system with the equipment on board. They cannot test every single phone that works on different frequencies based on the particular service they use.
C.) A Britney Spears ring tone won't have the chance to cause a riot.
"But so far, the holes have proved to be few, and when present very quickly fixed This point is very important, as it shows that the coders are devoted to security.
And the popularity point always has one big, fat, sweating problem - Apache."
Yep, you're right. Except the circumstances right now are a little too ideal.
1.) Linux is small in number, so it's hard to get a 'wave' effect with a self replicating exploit.
2.) Right now, the Open Source Community has a lot of people willing to do it. Is it reasonable to assume that'll be constant?
3.) Again, Linux's small number means fewer apps out there. What happens if the number of people writing OSS apps mulitplies by 10? If security problems become abundant in a lot of those apps, and yes I am reaching a bit, will the OSS Community be spread too thin?
4.) What if a popular proprietary app for Linux becomes a security risk?
I'm not making the point that Linux is as bad as Windows. The point I am making is that it is a false comfort. You really won't know how secure Linux (and the apps running on it) really are until there's a huge number of machines running them.
The big problem is that if you get hit, it doesn't matter how much MORE secure (or less vulnerable, depending on if you see a difference between those two terms like I do) it's all done. 1 or 0. True or false.
"The fact is, Linux seems to make it easier for the technical user to secure his box."
Yes, seem being the operative word. There could be a huge mistake in Linux just waiting to be discovered.
It's all moot anyway, all it really takes, no matter how 'secure' Linux is, is for an inexplicably popular program to have a hole in it. That's why Mozilla exploits are just as scary as OS exploits.
So it's fair to say, then, that whenever there are comments made about MS's patents, lack of security in their OS's, or that Linux doesn't get hit as often as Windows, they're spreading FUD. Right?
"The interesting question would be if it'd also be 0wned just as much."
The mere fact that that question exists tells me that Ballmer has a point. You guys just don't know. That doesn't mean that you should switch to Windows, but it does mean that you should be treating your computer like it could spontaneously explode at any minute. No different than Windowsx.
"Good idea, coming from a company that regularly commissions independant researchers to prove their point of the day."
/. editors should be more careful about screening MS stories here. Nearly every ms story is followed by a bunch of highly modded RTFA comments.
If this point is so 'interesting' then maybe the
People in glass houses....
"Active X? Are you serious?"
So? Lighten up.
"But at least the world will know of logical women. "
And if I play my cards right, I could lose my virginity within 7 years!
"What if the answer indicates that you were better off sticking with Windows? (I know, on Slashdot that conclusion isn't possible.)"
For a laptop? Nah. I'm assuming he's not planning on doing a lot of gaming on it. (though the Apple store does have a small shelf of games on it that aren't half bad...) He's likely to do fine on a Mac. Switching to Mac from Windows isn't as hard on people as switching to Linux from Windows. Apple did a fine job of that.
"Is there streaming software I can install on that computer that can handle a live cable TV signal and software to change channels remotely?" "
I can't say for sure about changing channels remotely (though VNC would be the worst case scenario...) but snapstream (www.snapstream.com) is a software based PVR that does streaming over a port. It's not free (last I checked it was $50ish) but I have personally used it and can recommend it. For the sake of being up-front and honest, that was two years ago. I doubt they went to shit since then, though.
"Here is an article that is un-slashdotted as of 0057 Universal Time. "
You foolish humans and your 'universal' time. We from Persei Omicron 8 will smash you for your arrogance!
"Noone is going to confuse these two either."
Trademark law has upheld the 'sounds like it out loud' defense a number of times now. Frankly, that's good for us, the consumer.
" That's basically what parody is about, isn't it?"
Depends. The point of parody is to ridicule what you're parodying. If they're just using a similar style, then no, it's not parody.