You really paint a pretty pictutre. I do agree with you for the most part. However, your view is extremely one-sided. The whole point of copyright is to create incentive to create and after a limited time, move those works into the public domain. It is a deal between the copyright holder and "We The People". "We The People" are holding up our end of the deal. It is the copyright holders that are not. Big copyright holders like the RIAA, MPAA and Disney found out that they can bribe our dirty politicians with campaign "contributions" and get the copyright term extened, creating purpetual copyright. Any work that is created in your life time, will not be part of the public domain for you to enjoy during your life time. It is great to see people making a lot of money off a copyrighted work, however IMO after 18 years or so, the copyright should end and that specific work becomes public domain, then both sides win.
How do you know that? Maybe he wants to see the movie again and doesn't want to have to pay twice? (I am playing devils advocate here)
arrest the parents as well for the obvious abuse and neglect that creates a sixteen year old who doesn't know that theft is wrong.
That is just stupid. My parents told me many things were wrong as a child/teenager, that doesn't me I listed all the time. Like the time my friend and I got caught stealing a $0.99 bag of Twizlers at Clover (a store chain that went out of business, maybe because we stole that bag of twizlers?). We got the scare of our life when the cop came and our parents gave us harsh punishments. I never did anything like that again. Maybe, just maybe, this is a good kid that made a bad choice and you already want to hang him _AND_ his parents. I have an idea. How about an educated judge look into this kids police record. If there is no record, slap him with a small fine and some community service. If he has a big record, THEN you come down harsh on him.
Doesn't fair use give him the right to make one or two backups? Copyright prevents distribution, so if they caught him distributing the copy he had made, then they could charge him. How in the world can they charge him for just making a copy?
Granted, this situation is wierd since he did not purchase a copy of the movie and only paid for a viewing. So maybe fair use does not give him the right to make a copy? IANAL.
I guess Security Focus is just making this stuff up. I am glad the security industry doesn't accept your "good effort" as a means to see if something is an exploit. You sound like an IE apologist.
It is not, that is why SP2 makes that change. On a fresh install of WinXP SP1, it comes up and _asks_ you if you want to auto-downlaod/install etc. That gives many dial-up users the change to say no or notify me first. Which when they see the size off all the downloads needed since even SP1, they probably click no and don't install them.
Why do you say "security holes" as if they are not real? I guess these guys and many others are making them up? Oh, and no, I do not have that email since it was not a real email, but a "feedback" form on thier site. Basically just send a bunch of links to some of the IE security holes and ask them why in they world would they force you to use such an insecure browser. Then send a link to Mozilla/Firefox and ask them to please just to make sure that their site is standards compliant so you can use the browser of your choice on the OS of your choice.
I doubt it. SP2 is between 100MB and 250MB. I just installed in on my one XP desktop to test er out. 100MB was not too bad on my 2Mbs+ cable modem. However, the majority of the USA is still on dial-up. Have you ever tried to download 100MB - 250MB on dial-up? It is very slow. I don't see many "Joe Average users" getting SP2. SP2 has a firewall on by default (a good thing), it looks to see if you have any antivirus software and nags you if you don't (a good thing), and adds a few things to IE (not enough IMO). SP2 may be sucked up by "power-users" on DSL/Cable modems and corporate desktops, though the average Joe User will not get it and things will not be any better for MS or thier average users. Instead of SP2, they should have made it a bunch of smaller updates/upgrades over a few weeks/months to make it much easier on Joe Dial-up, then it may have had a better impact.
So rename Iexplorer.exe to Iexplorer.exe.bak and make a shortcut to firefox.exe. Any app that tries IE will really get Firefox. You can also "uninstall" IE under MS Windows. You don't really get to uninstall the core IE stuff, but you can remove Iexplorer.exe which is just a crappy front-end to a crappy engine. At least this way no app could use Iexplorer.exe directly.
No, it is an issue because windows update is non-standards compliant crap and needs ActiveX. Try and validate this windows update. Yes this is the "latest and gratest" version of windows update that you use with WinXP SP2. It still sucks and is non-standards compliant. It would be much easier for MS to have just had a small executable GUI app that replaces all of that windows update junk. Think how much they spend on server resources for windows update vs. having a simple windows GUI app check the local PC against the most current updates and then just download as needed.
No offence, but I think that is a poor attitude. One opinion can make a difference, though there are no guarantees. For example, about 1 year ago, I was having problems with online banking for my bank. The site sucked and said you need/should use IE. I keep a long list of links to IE/Windows holes, exploits etc. I wrote up a very good technical email with links to all the problems with IE. I basically asked my bank why would they force me to use the most insecure web browsers to do transactions that are so important to me and their business. Not too long after that the site now works great in Mozilla/Firefox. Now I don't know if those changes were because of me or because other users complianed or the bank IT dept figured it out on thier own, but the changes happened. I also put in the email that I would take my money to a competitor that does have a standars compliant site.
And if your bank does not change. Then you change. Take your money to a different bank. It may be a little bit of a pain to have to do that, but that is the only power we have left as consumers, so exercise it.
It's good that you want to be challanged. I want to solve business problems and add value to the companies that pay me a lot of money, and I want to do it in a timely fashion.
And what does VB/VB.Net have to do with it? Are you trying to suggest it somehow takes longer in C# over VB.net? I thought you said the only difference was syntax? C# syntax is shorter where as VB.Net is more verbose and requires more lines of code to do the same task. So by your own argument, coding in C# is faster. This is actually the conclusion I have come to. The only people using VB.Net where I work over C# are the VB/ASP only guys that know _NO OTHER LANGUAGES_. I thought I would never meet a programmer that knows only one language. However, the majority of VB fans I run into fall into that category. Maybe this is why I have some resentment. I am sure there are some (not many) VB-only coders out there with some talent. I just find they give programmers as a whole a bad rap. They seem to be too corporate cookie-cutter type "programmers" for my blood and I think are responsible for dumbing down the industry. I personally don't want to see some brain-dead "language" that lets Marge the secretary "program". And I have worked with enough VB-Only corporate "business programmers" to last the rest of my career. I want to see programmer hold themselves to higher standars I guess.
About the only difference between C# and VB.net is that C# is case sensitive and of course the syntax.
And that is the most important difference. VB/VB.Net is too verbose and too much hand holding.
So what if the language name has the word BASIC in it.
I don't care what they call it. Take out all the extra syntax fluff that adds nothing to the language.
Umm, VB.Net is not C#. VB.Net is not more readable IMO. It is too verbose, almost as bad as Cobol. Reading the code reminds me of reading a letter from an elementary student. C, C++, Java and C# are far easier to read and follow, without having to spell out every step of the language.
How is
If (foo) Then ... End If
Any more "human-readable" then
if (foo) { ... }
Have you ever tried to write _clean_ code that spans a few lines? VB needs stupid _ at the EOL, and last I checked it is limited to 15 lines.
Lets look at the Cache.Add Method of the.NET Framework
[Visual Basic] Public Function Add( _ ByVal key As String, _ ByVal value As Object, _ ByVal dependencies As CacheDependency, _ ByVal absoluteExpiration As DateTime, _ ByVal slidingExpiration As TimeSpan, _ ByVal priority As CacheItemPriority, _ ByVal onRemoveCallback As CacheItemRemovedCallback _ ) As Object
VB is Visual BASIC. One of the first languages you learn in school (you should be progressing in your career). I tell all VB "coders" that it is time to take off the training wheels and learn a real language. Have you tried Java or C#? Much better then VB. VB and VB script really suck as a language. The few times I used it I felt like a toddler (I personally want to be challanged at work). VB is fine if you are doing standard cookie-cutter apps. Connect to a DB, display some fields, update some fields, etc. But the language just sucks for anything else. Is has zero built in support for real data structures. It has nothing like the standard template library, though most VB apps are never complex enough (algorithmically) to need something like that.
It's a great language that can be used to solve 99% of the programing tasks on a Windows platform.
Maybe 99% of the tasks you do. As I said, I would never touch VB again unless for some legacy support. Give me a language I can get my teeth into.
I've written multiple custom data analysis apps for fortune 500 CPG companies using VB.
I have worked for 3 fortune 500 companies and have been at the current one for 4 years. These are nothing more then standard cookie-cutter applications. Connect to a DB with ADO, grab some data, do some calculations, spit out results. VB does make that easy, but so do many other languages such as Java, C++ and C#.
It would have taken me a lot longer to accomplish the same task using C++ or any other widely used language.
It may take YOU longer to do it in C++, but not an experienced C++ programmer. I knock VB because using it made me feel cheap. As if I was not a "real" programmer. I want a _challange_. I will never touch VB again (except for legacy crap) and I curse MS for making it : ). Sit down for a week or two and teach yourself how to do the same things in Java, C++ or C#. I bet you will feel the same way.
This ensures that the MS codebase is managed by MS, thus allowing them to warranty it
Huh? What MS code has a warranty? The EULA removes any of MS's responsibility for their code. If MS warranted their code, millions of users would sue them for all the bugs that have cost billions of dollars in damages from holes, exploits, etc.
I have never seen this and I use Firebird all the time and hit/. several times a day. I also would not call that "choking", the site still works and it is mostly due to bad HTML from/. Trying to validate slashdot.org against the W3C Validation service shows some errors on the part of/.
What is wrong with paying for software? I would love for all the commercial/proprietary apps under MS Windows to be available for Linux as well. That would just offer more choice to me as a Linux user. I could use an Open Source app, or if I felt that a proprietary app offered something extra for the money, then maybe it would be worth it. Choice is a good thing and wide industry support is a great thing IMO.
Why don't you see if Prism will run in CrossOver Office Professional 3.0.1. It can run MS Office, Photoshop 7 and many other MS Windows based apps very well. It just may handle Prism, though I have not tried it yet myself.
Slashdot Mirror
You really paint a pretty pictutre. I do agree with you for the most part. However, your view is extremely one-sided. The whole point of copyright is to create incentive to create and after a limited time, move those works into the public domain. It is a deal between the copyright holder and "We The People". "We The People" are holding up our end of the deal. It is the copyright holders that are not. Big copyright holders like the RIAA, MPAA and Disney found out that they can bribe our dirty politicians with campaign "contributions" and get the copyright term extened, creating purpetual copyright. Any work that is created in your life time, will not be part of the public domain for you to enjoy during your life time. It is great to see people making a lot of money off a copyrighted work, however IMO after 18 years or so, the copyright should end and that specific work becomes public domain, then both sides win.
That is why it is (currently) legal for me to make backup copies of a DVD or music CD.
That is why it is (currently) legal for me to take a copyrighted work I purchased and sell it to someone else, even for a profit.
That is why it is (currently) legal for me to take a copyrighted work I purchased and GIVE it to someone else.
That is why it is (currently) legal for me to take a copyrighted work I purchased and let a friend look/listen at/to it.
Granted, this situation is wierd since he did not purchase a copy of the movie and only paid for a viewing. So maybe fair use does not give him the right to make a copy? IANAL.
I guess Security Focus is just making this stuff up. I am glad the security industry doesn't accept your "good effort" as a means to see if something is an exploit. You sound like an IE apologist.
That is just one of many
See this post
Here are some. Some may be a year or so old, and I don't recall what links I sent as examples. Google should help you find all you need.
Microsoft software "riddled with vulnerabilities", trade body claims
30 unpatched holes in IE, says security researcher
Credit card theft feared in Windows flaw | CNET News.com
Microsoft Issues Five New Security Warnings
Microsoft WinXP Update spies on other PC software
Microsoft issues patch for "serious" XP hole
Microsoft Windows Insecure by Design (TechNews.com)
Server attacks stump Microsoft
Windows flaw threatens PC services
Gartner: Worms Jack Up the Total Cost of Windows
CERT recommends anything but IE
Exploiting design flaws in the Win32 API for privilege escalation
Worm Exploits Multiple Windows Vulnerabilities
Unpatched Internet Explorer Bugs
Nope, I signed as Mickey Mouse!
See this comment. It was an "online feedback form" and not a real email, so I don't have it saved : (
Why do you say "security holes" as if they are not real? I guess these guys and many others are making them up? Oh, and no, I do not have that email since it was not a real email, but a "feedback" form on thier site. Basically just send a bunch of links to some of the IE security holes and ask them why in they world would they force you to use such an insecure browser. Then send a link to Mozilla/Firefox and ask them to please just to make sure that their site is standards compliant so you can use the browser of your choice on the OS of your choice.
So rename Iexplorer.exe to Iexplorer.exe.bak and make a shortcut to firefox.exe. Any app that tries IE will really get Firefox. You can also "uninstall" IE under MS Windows. You don't really get to uninstall the core IE stuff, but you can remove Iexplorer.exe which is just a crappy front-end to a crappy engine. At least this way no app could use Iexplorer.exe directly.
No, it is an issue because windows update is non-standards compliant crap and needs ActiveX. Try and validate this windows update. Yes this is the "latest and gratest" version of windows update that you use with WinXP SP2. It still sucks and is non-standards compliant. It would be much easier for MS to have just had a small executable GUI app that replaces all of that windows update junk. Think how much they spend on server resources for windows update vs. having a simple windows GUI app check the local PC against the most current updates and then just download as needed.
And if your bank does not change. Then you change. Take your money to a different bank. It may be a little bit of a pain to have to do that, but that is the only power we have left as consumers, so exercise it.
How is
Any more "human-readable" thenHave you ever tried to write _clean_ code that spans a few lines? VB needs stupid _ at the EOL, and last I checked it is limited to 15 lines.Lets look at the Cache.Add Method of the .NET Framework
What is with all the ByVal, As and _ crap? Looking at VB and VB.Net code makes me want to pull out my eyes. It is just too verbose.I have never seen this and I use Firebird all the time and hit /. several times a day. I also would not call that "choking", the site still works and it is mostly due to bad HTML from /. Trying to validate slashdot.org against the W3C Validation service shows some errors on the part of /.
Huh? I have never had a problem with Mozilla 1.6, Firefox 0.8 or Firefox 0.9 under Linux or MS Windows. Just where does it "choke"?
What is wrong with paying for software? I would love for all the commercial/proprietary apps under MS Windows to be available for Linux as well. That would just offer more choice to me as a Linux user. I could use an Open Source app, or if I felt that a proprietary app offered something extra for the money, then maybe it would be worth it. Choice is a good thing and wide industry support is a great thing IMO.
Why don't you see if Prism will run in CrossOver Office Professional 3.0.1. It can run MS Office, Photoshop 7 and many other MS Windows based apps very well. It just may handle Prism, though I have not tried it yet myself.