One of the features they have apparenly added is a 3-D walkthrough as a menu-choosing function (navigate choices by browsing, first-person-like through a hallway in their simulated House O' Skin). Perhaps someone with a functioning DVD player can better comment on this.
This is a gerat feature if you like the idea of walking through down a hallway (replete with crappy texture mapping) in order to get to the, ahem, content. Personally, I think that the main reason to buy DVDs is to avoid cumbersome access times. On the plus side, they do manage to cram a lot of, ahem, content onto those DVDs. Definitely a value.
BTW, this feature works on both my laptop and my DVD player.
By the way, my guess would be that Microsoft looked at all the bad press they were getting re: I LOVE YOU virus, et al, and for Windows XP, they took the WSH 5.1 engine, went through it, and added a full stack walk to every single call that touched a system call, to verify that no malicious code would run.
Those who would trade a little bit of performance for a little bit of security deserve neither.
The problem is that you don't remember how painful the Win2K upgrade was because it happened two years ago.
If that is the case, how painful could it have been?
When your company does the upgrade, go hang out with the user support folks for a couple days. Feel their pain.
Job security is quite a burden, isn't it. I guess the support people at my company are bearing it pretty well, because not one of them resembles the pitiful whiners that you seem to come across. Oh yeah, and our sysadmins are plenty sharp enough to pick up the nuances of an OS upgrade. It's kind of a prerequisite to being a sysadmin, I would hope.
Good point, I forgot about the Nuon (heh, wonder why). However, from what I have seen the Nuon feature adds next to nothing to the price of a DVD player.
Well, we still don't have something like the DMCA here in Europe.
Ha! Cracking CSS can get you arrested in Europe. Still think you are safe from our corporate sponsored legal system?
As with most things (not all, but most), Europe is on the same track as the US, just a few years behind. Sit tight friend, we will bring opression to you!
Wouldn't you be frightened to realize that you a)cou1d recognize assembly code off the top of your head and b) you were the type of person to brag about that fact and c) you did so on slashdot, as if every second visitor couldn't figure it out for themselves, given the inclination?
I don't think this is the case at all. Planes are expensive, lawsuits from families of passengers are expensive, reputational damage is expensive.
But (at least in America) memories are short and denial is rampant.
No, this is just general, federal-grade cluelessness.
In the US, the Feds don't control security in the airports. This is left to the Airlines, who contract it out to the lowest bidder. The Airlines are fighting tooth and nail to avoid stricter regulations and to avoid beefing up security to any meaningful level. Even the Flight Attendents are talking about how lax things are.
What's the point of making people turn these devices on?
Their aim is to squander your valuable time on creating a false sense of security. They know that it would take real money and effort to provide security measures that might actully prevent a person from bringing a weapon on board a plane. So, in order to maximise shareholder value, they gamble on these illusory measures. Terrorism is still quite rare, so they take the chance.
How often do you hear about some local investigative reporter sneaking a gun through security. How often do you hear about an ACTUAL criminal being foiled by these measures. (And what's with the National Guard. Are they afraid that terrorists are going to storm the gates?
More than anything, these are publicity stunts. By harassing the general public, they create the false sense that security is strict.
Re:Suggestion for users about the ads...
on
Slashdot Updates
·
· Score: 1
Take a look at the world around you. On television, you see advertising, unless you're watching a premium service that you pay for, like HBO or pay-per-view. On radio, you see advertising unless you're listening to a station like NPR which is funded through user donations (and during fund drives, fundraising pleas work just like advertisements). Even movies have taken on advertising to supplement the rising costs of making movies people want to see. I'm not sure what made the Internet think it was going to be any different, but that attitude has caught up with its proponents and sites are failing.
Yep, and I ignore them all. I prefer to do my own research when deciding what to buy. The most common influence ads have on me is to steer me away from them because of their obnoxiousness.
However, you are right, the Internet isn't any different. For every person who mutes the TV during ads, fast forwards to the actual start of a rented movie, or changes the TV/radio channel during a broadcast, there are many who don't because they can't be bothered or they actually LIKE the ads. As such, ad filters don't harm anyone. The people who use them aren't clicking the ads anyway. If anything, they HELP companies by not irritating customers who do not like to marketed to directly.
Does this mean that some users get free content? Yeah. So? Like you said, it is no diffrent from TV or radio.
Re:Suggestion for users about the ads...
on
Slashdot Updates
·
· Score: 1
(BTW, ad designers, I'm more likely to glance at an ad if it's not overly cluttered, take a hint).
Either Norton isn't doing as good a job as you say, or you aren't likely to look at ANY ads.
With smart (maybe p2p-like?) wireless networks, FBI sniffers will have to cover the entire US territory, because this kind of communication is not centralized.
Like I said, unless you are talking about small, independent networks. What you are talking about is only possible with relatively tiny, unconnected networks which wouldn't come close to being equivalent to the current wired network. If it were, it would have to rely on similarly vulnerable bottle-necks like satellites or fixed wireless installations.
Simply put, FBI sniffers wouldn't need to cover the entire US territory because wireless networks couldn't cover the entire US territory.
Settle down. There are already laws that make negligence a crime. Moreover, unlike your caricaturesque examples, in this case the punishment is commensurate with the crime. If you use your computer like an idiot, you should expect to screw it up.
That's why I think that wireless tech should be improved and that's why wireless will be the future.
The FBI will LOVE this. Wireless is a snap to sniff. That is, unless you are talking about small, independent networks, which are hardly an alternative to the current net.
All true, for now. However, if M$ continues to show a gross disregard towards the protection of their customers, as are the airlines, they may find themselves in similar dire straits.
total lack of security, and lack of timely response to reported security holes should be regarded as "harboring a terrorist"
This disregard for common sense applies to most of the air travel industry as well. Given that, we should be expecting massive tax-payer funded bail-outs to M$ in response to future acts of "industrial terrorism."
Slashdot Mirror
Luckily, my drives were named without spaces, etc.
Who, other than a Mac user, would use spaces in their drive names?
One of the features they have apparenly added is a 3-D walkthrough as a menu-choosing function (navigate choices by browsing, first-person-like through a hallway in their simulated House O' Skin). Perhaps someone with a functioning DVD player can better comment on this.
This is a gerat feature if you like the idea of walking through down a hallway (replete with crappy texture mapping) in order to get to the, ahem, content. Personally, I think that the main reason to buy DVDs is to avoid cumbersome access times. On the plus side, they do manage to cram a lot of, ahem, content onto those DVDs. Definitely a value.
BTW, this feature works on both my laptop and my DVD player.
To change that, you have to horse around with all sorts of goodies.
I presume this is not the case with Linux because there are no "goodies" available for the OS, and "horsing around" is not supported.
By the way, my guess would be that Microsoft looked at all the bad press they were getting re: I LOVE YOU virus, et al, and for Windows XP, they took the WSH 5.1 engine, went through it, and added a full stack walk to every single call that touched a system call, to verify that no malicious code would run.
Those who would trade a little bit of performance for a little bit of security deserve neither.
The problem is that you don't remember how painful the Win2K upgrade was because it happened two years ago.
If that is the case, how painful could it have been?
When your company does the upgrade, go hang out with the user support folks for a couple days. Feel their pain.
Job security is quite a burden, isn't it. I guess the support people at my company are bearing it pretty well, because not one of them resembles the pitiful whiners that you seem to come across. Oh yeah, and our sysadmins are plenty sharp enough to pick up the nuances of an OS upgrade. It's kind of a prerequisite to being a sysadmin, I would hope.
While you're busy being protectionist and introverted. . .
Those are big words. You must have learned them from your parents, because they haven't been relevant to US policy in over 50 years.
Good point, I forgot about the Nuon (heh, wonder why). However, from what I have seen the Nuon feature adds next to nothing to the price of a DVD player.
Well, we still don't have something like the DMCA here in Europe.
Ha! Cracking CSS can get you arrested in Europe. Still think you are safe from our corporate sponsored legal system?
As with most things (not all, but most), Europe is on the same track as the US, just a few years behind. Sit tight friend, we will bring opression to you!
So, you think that what is the law in the US tomorrow won't be the law in your country the day after, eh?
How quaint.
Anybody know the dimensions of chinese currency?
That's Japanese currency, genius.
. . .this will be useless when digital music is outlawed entirely.
code is for compilers, text is for people.
Speaking of nonesense!
Code is for any reader, compiler of human, who can derive meaning from it. Plain and simple.
Wouldn't you be frightened to realize that you a)cou1d recognize assembly code off the top of your head and b) you were the type of person to brag about that fact and c) you did so on slashdot, as if every second visitor couldn't figure it out for themselves, given the inclination?
I don't think this is the case at all. Planes are expensive, lawsuits from families of passengers are expensive, reputational damage is expensive.
But (at least in America) memories are short and denial is rampant.
No, this is just general, federal-grade cluelessness.
In the US, the Feds don't control security in the airports. This is left to the Airlines, who contract it out to the lowest bidder. The Airlines are fighting tooth and nail to avoid stricter regulations and to avoid beefing up security to any meaningful level. Even the Flight Attendents are talking about how lax things are.
What's the point of making people turn these devices on?
Their aim is to squander your valuable time on creating a false sense of security. They know that it would take real money and effort to provide security measures that might actully prevent a person from bringing a weapon on board a plane. So, in order to maximise shareholder value, they gamble on these illusory measures. Terrorism is still quite rare, so they take the chance.
How often do you hear about some local investigative reporter sneaking a gun through security. How often do you hear about an ACTUAL criminal being foiled by these measures. (And what's with the National Guard. Are they afraid that terrorists are going to storm the gates?
More than anything, these are publicity stunts. By harassing the general public, they create the false sense that security is strict.
Take a look at the world around you. On television, you see advertising, unless you're watching a premium service that you pay for, like HBO or pay-per-view. On radio, you see advertising unless you're listening to a station like NPR which is funded through user donations (and during fund drives, fundraising pleas work just like advertisements). Even movies have taken on advertising to supplement the rising costs of making movies people want to see. I'm not sure what made the Internet think it was going to be any different, but that attitude has caught up with its proponents and sites are failing.
Yep, and I ignore them all. I prefer to do my own research when deciding what to buy. The most common influence ads have on me is to steer me away from them because of their obnoxiousness.
However, you are right, the Internet isn't any different. For every person who mutes the TV during ads, fast forwards to the actual start of a rented movie, or changes the TV/radio channel during a broadcast, there are many who don't because they can't be bothered or they actually LIKE the ads. As such, ad filters don't harm anyone. The people who use them aren't clicking the ads anyway. If anything, they HELP companies by not irritating customers who do not like to marketed to directly.
Does this mean that some users get free content? Yeah. So? Like you said, it is no diffrent from TV or radio.
(BTW, ad designers, I'm more likely to glance at an ad if it's not overly cluttered, take a hint).
Either Norton isn't doing as good a job as you say, or you aren't likely to look at ANY ads.
With smart (maybe p2p-like?) wireless networks, FBI sniffers will have to cover the entire US territory, because this kind of communication is not centralized.
Like I said, unless you are talking about small, independent networks. What you are talking about is only possible with relatively tiny, unconnected networks which wouldn't come close to being equivalent to the current wired network. If it were, it would have to rely on similarly vulnerable bottle-necks like satellites or fixed wireless installations.
Simply put, FBI sniffers wouldn't need to cover the entire US territory because wireless networks couldn't cover the entire US territory.
Settle down. There are already laws that make negligence a crime. Moreover, unlike your caricaturesque examples, in this case the punishment is commensurate with the crime. If you use your computer like an idiot, you should expect to screw it up.
That's why I think that wireless tech should be improved and that's why wireless will be the future.
The FBI will LOVE this. Wireless is a snap to sniff. That is, unless you are talking about small, independent networks, which are hardly an alternative to the current net.
If viruses are terrorism, then Microsoft is guilty by association under this very proposal.
They are the ones writing the easily-exploited software, providing a convenient medium in which the virus-writes can conduct their attack.
If hijackings are terrorism, then American Airlines is guilty by association under this very proposal.
They are the ones employing the easily-exploited security-checks, providing a convenient forum in which the hijackers can conduct their attack.
All true, for now. However, if M$ continues to show a gross disregard towards the protection of their customers, as are the airlines, they may find themselves in similar dire straits.
Congratulations, you have launched SpringCleaning.vbs! Your hard disk now contains 100% free space!
Personally, I think virus writers should face prison time.
And what sould the punishment be for clicking on an unknown, unscanned attachment? Loss of essential data? Sounds good to me!
total lack of security, and lack of timely response to reported security holes should be regarded as "harboring a terrorist"
This disregard for common sense applies to most of the air travel industry as well. Given that, we should be expecting massive tax-payer funded bail-outs to M$ in response to future acts of "industrial terrorism."