Be careful. Your contrarian position is a fundamental challenge to the idea that it is our role as instruments of fashionable consumption to act like fanboys and whip ourselves up into a frenzied excitement every time a new "must-have" product is introduced. I strongly recommend you read the "reviews" linked to in the story and receive your dose of marketing hype so that you might be persuaded like everyone else that you want this product, and be able to rejoin the community of dutiful prosumers in their enthusastic product discussion.
Indeed, I notice you'd already been modded down twice by the time I previewed my post. So mend your ways!
Increased speed and download quota are not the only reasons people get broadband in Australia. One major benefit of ADSL/cable is the "always-on" nature of the connection, so there's no need dial-up. Apart from the annoyance of having to dial-up and repeatedly reconnect (many dial-up accounts have a automatic "kick-off" after X number of hours online), it's a significant cost issue since phone plans here don't typically offer "unlimited" local calls. Another is the fact that it doesn't tie up the phone line, which eliminates the need to pay connection and rental fees for a second line. In many cases, these are cited as the primary reasons for getting ADSL or cable, though increased speed/quota is probably still the main one for most people.
So while a reduction in copyright-infringing P2P use might make existing users choose plans with lower speeds/quotas, it's unlikely to reduce the uptake of broadband and it certainly won't make any existing broadband users want to switch back to dial-up.
I thought I might throw a little reality into the mix and see if it has any effect.
And you did this by
1) reading a government press release and accepting it at its word, and 2) getting your information about Philip Nitschke from a "pro-life" website that labels him "Dr Death"?
Being Australian, I don't need to cherry pick sites from Google that will paint the picture I'd like to see. The reality is:
1. Nitscke is a "pro-euthanasia" campaigner from the Northern Territory who's been a thorn in the side of the current Federal Government for years. To most of the public here, he's an outspoken doctor promoting a particular point of view, not the "outright monster" you implied.
2. Years ago the Northern Territory Government enacted legislation that legalised voluntary euthanasia--the first state or territory to do so--largely due to Nitscke's campaigning. The Federal Government later overturned it, in what was considered a rather extraordinary intervention into the rights of the Territory.
That's the situation, but personally, I don't have a strong opinion on the issue of euthanasia. Whether or not the bill's passing would put a big grin on the face of the staunchly anti-euthanasia Prime Minister isn't a big issue for me. I am primarily concerned with the freedom of speech issue--the bill being sweeping enough to be used against the types of cases referred to in my earlier post--and with resources being spent on this when the economic and social issues that make people suicidal in the first place are much more significant issues if you're concerned about reducing the rate of suicide and attempted suicide.
I'm sure there are some examples most people would consider obvious, but there is a big grey area as well. Is it promoting suicide to publish information on methods of suicide? Is it promoting suicide to write a review of that book? Would I be inciting someone to commit suicide by holding up a satirical "Save the planet. Kill yourself." banner?
Surely if we're going to ban the "inciting" or "promoting" of suicide, we should also ban the inciting or promoting of violence that is part of every other Hollywood movie. After all, the basis for this proposal is that, while most people aren't going to commit suicide after seeing or reading something that makes suicide more attractive, X amount of vulnerable people will. And if that's true of suicide, it's probably true of violence.
Suicide is a tragic thing, more so for those it leaves behind than the person who takes their own life. But we should be putting our resources into the problems that make people suicidal in the first place, not limiting our freedom of speech by allowing government to determine what macabre subjects people are allowed to have an honest and open discussion about.
This sounds like it has the potential to be a great money spinner for Slashdot users with a litigious streak and zero sympathy for the non-computer/Internet literate.
There are thousands of "mom and pop" businesses out there who paid a webmaster to make them a site as a one-off after being bombarded with the message that their business will go under if they don't join the 21st century and get an Internet presence. Once their contract with the webmaster expires, these sites often sit dormant for years. The owners of these businesses are typically working their asses off on the fundamentals to stay afloat, and it's probable that many barely recall the fact that they have a (rather pointless) Internet presence, let alone know how to update the site, or have the spare cash to hire a webmaster just to update a few details.
So here's what we do. We seek these sites out, send an e-mail to their long since unmonitered account complaining that we were misled because the site's details are not up-to-date, and sue the pants off them when there is no response. And we don't have to feel the least bit bad about our nuisance lawsuits tying up the overburdened court system, because after all, these greedy small businesses maliciously attempted to deceive people, and we're just doing our bit to eliminate this evil from the world.
IMHO, the area in which AMD has really distinguished itself is in the power consumption of its desktop processors. Generally speaking, non-Intel x86 CPUs (from AMD and Cyrix) historically had a reputation for running extremely hot. The situation has been reversed in recent years, with Intel pushing the upper limits of power consumption with its Pentium 4 (especially with Prescott) while AMD was doing the exact opposite with its Athlon 64. This has resulted in a huge difference in power consumption between the two competitors. Consider the following CPUs which are basically direct competitors (roughly the same price):
Power consumption at idle Athlon 64 3500+ (Winchester): 13.4W Pentium IV 640 (Prescott 2M): 35.4W
Power consumption at full utilisation Athlon 64 3500+ (Winchester): 47.5W Pentium IV 640 (Prescott 2M): 129.4W
The often trivial differences in performance look rather insignificant in comparison. Also consider that these results come after Intel's best attempts at reducing the P4's power consumption (enhanced idle states in P4 5XX and SpeedStep in the 6XX) and you can see how inefficient the architecture is in this regard.
This of course applies to desktop CPUs. Intel redeems itself somewhat with its Pentium M in the notebook market.
Here's a question. When will the GPU companies have to start playing tricks when the clock speeds finally give way to things like, oh, trying to cool a damn computer on a card without sounding like a jet plane is in your room becomes an issue. Like, well, now?
Few people (mainly those in libraries/'net cafes, and privacy nuts) use a "clean" browser. Most people will have hundreds, often thousands, of links in their browser history, tens of megabytes in the cache, a big collection of bookmarks, and plugins like Flash and toolbars. In my experience, a browser will be nice and snappy fresh out of the box, but after a few weeks of piling these things on, it may slow significantly, either in its startup time or while browsing. Some browsers may be worse than others in this regard. The author of the linked article has done an outstanding job, but since it appears most of the tests were performed on freshly-installed, "clean" browsers, the results should be considered with caution.
But hardcore criminals are already trying to get around biometrics. At a security conference last week, the director of investigations and forensic services at PricewaterhouseCoopers, Richard Batten, related a gruesome anecdote from a bank official he met recently.
The banker had told Batten that the bank's fingerprint identification had been compromised after a criminal chopped the finger off a wealthy individual. While heat-sensitive devices should have been alert, the criminal had warmed the finger before applying it to access the person's account.
Batten ponders: "How effective is it if villains are prepared to go to such lengths?"
True story? Who knows, but the moral of it is not to put all your faith in technology, and never underestimate criminals. Some may not be very bright, but that's more than made up for by their cunning.
Re:It happens every day
on
Newsy Numbers
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I have read (sorry, cannot cite source) that the claim that 100,000 civilians have been killed in Iraq is based on a statistical survey that says somewhere between 5,000 and 100,000 civilians had been killed.
The reaction to the Lancet study was quite interesting; not the back and forth about the validity of the study, but how it changed the way the other major figure, the Iraq Body Count, was viewed. All of a sudden, those who were previously playing down any figures given for civilian deaths, from pundits to politicians, were countering the Lancet study by quoting figures based on the Iraq Body Count.
My suspicion is that this was an aspect of psychology at work that one well-known social psychologist, Robert Cialdini, refers to as the "contrast principle". The 100,000 figure that was being reported suddenly made the Iraq Body Count's figure seem low. So for those who wished to play down the number of civilian deaths, a figure of 15,000 or so, which would have previously been rejected by such people, was now accepted. Yet nothing fundamental had changed about the IBC's figure--their methodology was the same. The only change was the way it was perceived when contrasted the 100,000 figure.
Software is just a "thing" that people use. The others are real issues that are important to fight and die for. One really sounds like a loser when one tries to elevate software to that level. I know the first thought in *MY* mind is "Why don't you find a REAL cause instead of pretending you have a valid crusade with this free software business"?
Others have addressed your "stuff" characterisation for software, so perhaps I could address the specific point above with a quote from Sam Williams' biography of RMS, Free as in Freedom:
Stallman's unwillingness to seek alliances seems equally perplexing when you consider his political interests outside of the free software movement. Visit Stallman's offices at MIT, and you instantly find a clearinghouse of left-leaning news articles covering civil-rights abuses around the globe. Visit his web site, and you'll find diatribes on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the War on Drugs, and the World Trade Organization.
Given his activist tendencies, I ask, why hasn't Stallman sought a larger voice? Why hasn't he used his visibility in the hacker world as a platform to boost rather than reduce his political voice.
Stallman lets his tangled hair drop and contemplates the question for a moment.
"I hesitate to exaggerate the importance of this little puddle of freedom," he says. "Because the more well-known and conventional areas of working for freedom and a better society are tremendously important. I wouldn't say that free software is as important as they are. It's the responsibility I undertook, because it dropped in my lap and I saw a way I could do something about it. But, for example, to end police brutality, to end the war on drugs, to end the kinds of racism we still have, to help everyone have a comfortable life, to protect the rights of people who do abortions, to protect us from theocracy, these are tremendously important issues, far more important than what I do. I just wish I knew how to do something about them."
Despite the energy he puts into the Free Software movement, you'll probably find that RMS spends a lot more time on those real causes you refer to than your average person.
Dan seems to understand that a million graphs showing you the statistically insignificant difference between the latest mobos / graphic cards / processors / ram sinks don't really make a great site.
On the other hand, cliche-ridden vebiage isn't much help either. Usually it serves as a mere extension of the manufacturer's marketing and product literature; it almost always leaves you feeling like you ought to buy something. And have you ever noticed how few reviews conclude with a score of less than, say, 8/10 or 80%? It's like a school that gives practically every student an "A". That suggests an inherent corruption exists regardless of the intentions of the reviewer.
I find the most useful research tool before purchasing a product is downloading and reading the product manuals. These take about as long to read through as your typical review, and provide a much clearer and more realistic picture of what the product is and does rather than selling you on some UltraHyperWhizzBang technology that becomes irrelevant once you've handed over your hard-earned dollars.
GNU is pronounced with a hard G. If you listen to virtually any RMS speech on software freedom, you'll hear him explain how the name originated and a specific request that people not to call it the "new" operating system, as that may cause the type of confusion that you used in your joke. Part of being a philosopher king like RMS is having thought through pretty much everything, from the seemingly trivial to the profound.
Sorry, we're too preoccupied with renovating our investment properties, building "McMansions" for ourselves, parking 4WDs (aka SUVs) in their supersized driveways and using them to haul home the bigscreen TVs we're purchasing on credit to help fill those nice big houses.
Why should I worry about this "copyright" thing? Is it going to increase interest rates, or something?
One phenomenon I'm frequently struck by when visiting a forum discussing upcoming computer hardware and software products is the number of people who are creating hype and whipping each other up into an excited frenzy. There's much more of it than can be explained by agents/shills (paid or otherwise). For some strange reason, people who have no association with the company making the product volunteer themselves as mindless "fanboys" helping to promote it.
The most remarkable example I've encountered was in the Auran forum back in 2001, prior to the original release of their game "Trainz". The atmosphere that existed there in the runup to the game's release was nothing short of a collective euphoria. It's difficult to convey, but one illustration is one of the supplied forum emoticons, the "drool mop", which each individual posted en masse whenever a new feature or screenshot was revealed. They appeared to be setting themselves up for a letdown when their overinflated expectations were unrealised, or a post-decisional dissonance that would blind them to the product's shortcomings.
Why do so many people join in so enthusiastically? And is there any harm in people spending so much of their time acting like consumers on steriods?
Providing some contrast, if not balance, are those places where the manufacturer or their product is scathingly and repeatedly criticised, with people complaining endlessly about the problems they're experiencing. Usenet groups, and forums whose primary purpose is tech support, such as those at Logitech and iRiver, are typically like this. Then again, many people in those forums seem to be obsessed with the issue(s) they're experiencing, posting about it at length and bringing it to the attention of newcomers over the course of several months while waiting for the company to produce a fix. So perhaps these forums simply play host to a different kind of "fanboy", albiet a disgruntled one.
I found the unintended dual meaning of your post's title quite amusing. It's a pity that people, in the rush to get their post in quickly and stand the best chance of being modded up, fail to read and comprehend the linked article(s) if they visit them at all.
On the issue at hand, there is one thing that's not clear in your argument (which, as you said, still applies to some extent). Is it based on actual abuse, or theoretical vulnerability to it as well? If it's the latter, let's take a look at the impression-based billing model. Theoretically, it is open to abuse. Want to destroy a website? Don't DDoS it. If it's dependent on ad revenue, simply point your zombies at the site's banners, massively inflating the click-through ratio. The advertiser or ad network will instantly assume it's fraud, the banners will be pulled, and payment will be cancelled. Even if they believe you when you plead innocence, it probably won't make any difference, as any ad campaign they run on that site will now have a black cloud hanging over it.
That's the theory. In practice, I've never heard of this type of abuse, which I find kind of surprising. Perhaps kiddies are too stupid to have thought of it yet. But, just like you said about the click-based billing model, the vulnerability is obvious to anyone with a few brain cells. If devious people were to start engaging this type of abuse, would you criticise those who are launching the attacks, or reproach the victims for their lack of foresight?
"If only the users were as enlightened as I am, they'd rail against this horrible system!" That's a remarkably condescending position to take.
This reminds me of the propagandist's standard response to his critics: "it is insulting the people's intelligence to suggest I am deceiving them". It is not condescending per se to suggest to others that they are overlooking something.
It also isn't supported by facts. Of course people realize they are "repeatedly asking permission" to use the software
As an explanation as to why many people view activation as benign, my suggestion was that people don't equate the standard process, whether it's logging in or just clicking "next" to let the software "activate" itself, with asking permission unless they've gone through more concrete experiences, like being refused permission or repeatedly going through phone activation. You've suggested otherwise, which is fair enough, but please don't refer to your opinions as "facts".
But what you apparently don't understand about steam is that the convenience and the change in relationship are the draw
It's not that I don't understand, simply that I didn't raise the other significant explanation: the size of the carrot. But I suspect for most people, the Half-Life 2 game itself, rather than content delivery mechanisms, has much more to do with people being prepared to overlook the activation issue. In any case, a nice carrot does not make the stick any less nasty, just more readily accepted or ignored.
The trouble with product activation is that it's implemented in such a painless and convenient way (in the majority of cases, where it works properly) that people fail to see this process for what it actually is: repeatedly asking permission from the manufacturer to use the product you purchased, after you purchased it. It seems the process is too automatic, too obscure not only for Joe User, but surprisingly, technically literate Slashdot readers who you'd normally expect to understand abstract threats to their freedom.
Perhaps if people had to actually speak to the company and say the words, "could you please activate my software?" and say it a few more times for other software packages, and a few more times after reinstallation, it might hit home. Perhaps if they had to wait on hold for thirty minutes, desperately seeking permission to use the software they purchased, it might sink in. Perhaps if, in a fit of nostalgia they decide to reinstall an old game only to be dismayed they can't play it because the activation system no longer works and no patch is available, they will get the message.
Indeed, whenever I've had to phone Microsoft to activate Windows XP, or Intuit/Reckon to activate Quicken, it's not the annoyance of being put through a five minute exchange of serial codes that sticks in my mind, but the more profound emotion of resentment of being put in that situation in the first place. I resent having to obediently request permission to use something I'd spent hundreds of dollars on. I resent having to repeatedly ask permission during the life of the product, according to criteria set by the company. I resent not knowing if I'll still be able to use the software a few years down the track. I resent that many of my friends, who paid nothing for their pirated/cracked copies, don't have to suffer the same indignities or worry about such things.
The most important issue about activation is not whether it's convenient or inconvient, but the way it fundamentally changes the relationship between the customer and a company selling proprietary software. For the life of the product, the customer is now dependent on the company to repeatedly affirm the most basic right of any software user. Not to peak at the software's source code or modify it, but simply to run the program they purchased legitimately.
I'll bet slashdot is about the only place where us Supermarket Refuseniks are in the majority. I won't use one (even one with fake info) and I won't buy a single item that requires the card to get the real price.
Unfortunately, I suspect the reality for your refusenik majority is they won't use one (even one with fake info) and won't buy a single item that requires the card to get the real price except where the reward is sufficient, but they always omit this latter qualification. Scroll down to the Half Life 2 thread and see how many Slashdotters have been bending over backwards the accomodate another degrading, privacy-invading system they usually rail against: product activation.
A person who rejects a particular practice on principle does so without regard to inducements, the rest adopt a "what's in it for moi?" approach: "principled" when the reward is insufficient, but expedient when the carrot being dangled in front of them is attractive enough. It's not something I necessarily have a major problem with, but people should be upfront when they are taking a compromising, "cost/benefit" approach to a particular issue rather than a principled one.
I found myself nodding my head when he talked about starting small to meet a specific need and letting projects take on a life of their own, as it's the pattern that most of my projects follow. But while this may work well for hobbyists and academics who have a lot of freedom in deciding what to work on, I have trouble seeing how it applies to the business world where there is a specific end goal and a deadline for it. Certainly you can break things down into smaller tasks as a strategy for reaching the goal, but a larger plan still has to be created and followed.
I also think the rosy attitude toward unplanned projects has a bit to do with expectations. If you define no goal, then the end result is never a failure. But if you do define a goal, there will often be times where you don't achieve it and be disappointed. This psychological difference may make the unplanned approach seem more successful than it actually is.
Finally, I find his dismissiveness of a visionary approach and criticism of GNU Hurd as somewhat ironic, given the extraordinary success of what most of the world calls "Linux" owes much to the big picture thinking by the people creating Hurd. But this somewhat narrowminded view is consistent with a primarily technical person whose most philosophical comments are delivered as one-liners:-)
According to the CNET review it get's 16 hours of playback.
You're giving the CNET article too much credit by calling it a "review". To quote the article:
A color screen is always a bonus, especially if it doesn't hamper battery life. The H320 has a rated battery life of up to an impressive 16 hours; it'll be interesting to see the real-world figures.
It will be interesting to see? When a site claims to have reviewed a product yet relies on a manufacturer claim for something they could've easily tested themselves, this should ring alarm bells. At least they sort of admit that they didn't quite do their job.
The reality is that the battery life virtually all iRiver (and many non-iRiver) products has been far below the claimed figure. Until the 16-hour claim is independently verified, we should assume the real-world battery life is significantly below that.
Kudos also to HardOCP for not running scared when faced with legal threats. If more of the "little guys" were able to stand strong against frivolous or iffy strong-armed legal challenges, the world might not be perfect but we'd be headed in a better direction.
While it is a victory for truth, it's a pretty small one, as it is hardly a case of David v. Goliath. Indeed, I suspect the whole matter is primarily an ego thing for HardOCP, having gained some insight into the personality of the owner after an e-mail exchange several years ago. Yes, Infinium was dishonest, but the key factor was that they were weak--as mentioned by others, they didn't even have a storefront--so it wouldn't surprise me if HardOCP saw it as a perfect opportunity to kick some butt and show off. It actaully reminds me a bit of the kind of small-target consumer advocacy that sensationalist current affairs programmes love. They go after individuals and small, shonky businesses that can't fight back, while large companies that screw their customers get more conciliatory treatment.
So we should see it for what it is. If a website goes to court against a major peripheral manufacturer to defend their rights, that will be noteworthy and deserving of our respect and admiration.
Just an obligatory mention of the Free / Open Source alternative: CrossCrypt, and the graphical version, CrossCryptGUI. Actually, I don't think I could've picked a worse time to mention them. The CrossCrypt site is down, and for some reason, the CrossCryptGUI site now displays a black background (so you can't see the text).
Nevertheless, I've used CrossCryptGUI 0.75 for some months now with a 20GB encrypted volume, and haven't had a problem (though backups are essential in case of corruption). As far as I'm aware, it's the only PGPdisk-like program on the Windows platform that is Free / Open Source and in active development.
Actually, on doing a search it appears another program called TrueCrypt, which I'd tested before CrossCrypt, has been resurrected. It had a more polished interface and documentation, and support for USB flash drives, but development was halted after Securstar (the makers of DriveCrypt) made legal threats.
Re:Chess, Islam, and Arab governments
on
Hydra vs. Shredder
·
· Score: 1
I chose not to post a qualifier even though I was on the verge of doing so seconds after I hit Send, but as more AC's may jump all over it if I don't, I was referring in my second analogy to the evangelical Protestants who give the bible belt its name.
Chess, Islam, and Arab governments
on
Hydra vs. Shredder
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
FIDE President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov has just unveiled a plan to build a new "chess city" in the Emirate of Dubai. It's a US $2.6 billion project that is expected to play host to (hold on to your hats) 60 million amateur and professional chess followers annually.
This would be a monumental example of the one of the reasons (brutal repression being another) why the present leadership in Arab countries is so detested by their own Muslim populations and others of that faith around the world. Chess is considered undesirable in Islam, and many consider it Haraam (forbidden under Islamic law). The latter is the view held by the most respected Islamic scholars such as Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.
While I don't condone this aspect of Islam, in the same way I don't condone the Pope's view on condoms, one can't fail to recognise what a massive insult this is to their religion. If you don't, imagine if the American government allowed a $2.6 billion mosque complex to be constructed in the "bible belt", to be visited by 60 million Muslims each year. If that analogy does not suffice, imagine instead the reaction to a 64,000 square meter family-planning/abortion centre to cater for 60 million women from around the world, right in the middle of the Protestant heartland.
Slashdot Mirror
Be careful. Your contrarian position is a fundamental challenge to the idea that it is our role as instruments of fashionable consumption to act like fanboys and whip ourselves up into a frenzied excitement every time a new "must-have" product is introduced. I strongly recommend you read the "reviews" linked to in the story and receive your dose of marketing hype so that you might be persuaded like everyone else that you want this product, and be able to rejoin the community of dutiful prosumers in their enthusastic product discussion.
Indeed, I notice you'd already been modded down twice by the time I previewed my post. So mend your ways!
Increased speed and download quota are not the only reasons people get broadband in Australia. One major benefit of ADSL/cable is the "always-on" nature of the connection, so there's no need dial-up. Apart from the annoyance of having to dial-up and repeatedly reconnect (many dial-up accounts have a automatic "kick-off" after X number of hours online), it's a significant cost issue since phone plans here don't typically offer "unlimited" local calls. Another is the fact that it doesn't tie up the phone line, which eliminates the need to pay connection and rental fees for a second line. In many cases, these are cited as the primary reasons for getting ADSL or cable, though increased speed/quota is probably still the main one for most people.
So while a reduction in copyright-infringing P2P use might make existing users choose plans with lower speeds/quotas, it's unlikely to reduce the uptake of broadband and it certainly won't make any existing broadband users want to switch back to dial-up.
I thought I might throw a little reality into the mix and see if it has any effect.
And you did this by
1) reading a government press release and accepting it at its word, and
2) getting your information about Philip Nitschke from a "pro-life" website that labels him "Dr Death"?
Being Australian, I don't need to cherry pick sites from Google that will paint the picture I'd like to see. The reality is:
1. Nitscke is a "pro-euthanasia" campaigner from the Northern Territory who's been a thorn in the side of the current Federal Government for years. To most of the public here, he's an outspoken doctor promoting a particular point of view, not the "outright monster" you implied.
2. Years ago the Northern Territory Government enacted legislation that legalised voluntary euthanasia--the first state or territory to do so--largely due to Nitscke's campaigning. The Federal Government later overturned it, in what was considered a rather extraordinary intervention into the rights of the Territory.
That's the situation, but personally, I don't have a strong opinion on the issue of euthanasia. Whether or not the bill's passing would put a big grin on the face of the staunchly anti-euthanasia Prime Minister isn't a big issue for me. I am primarily concerned with the freedom of speech issue--the bill being sweeping enough to be used against the types of cases referred to in my earlier post--and with resources being spent on this when the economic and social issues that make people suicidal in the first place are much more significant issues if you're concerned about reducing the rate of suicide and attempted suicide.
Just what is inciting or promoting suicide?
I'm sure there are some examples most people would consider obvious, but there is a big grey area as well. Is it promoting suicide to publish information on methods of suicide? Is it promoting suicide to write a review of that book? Would I be inciting someone to commit suicide by holding up a satirical "Save the planet. Kill yourself." banner?
Surely if we're going to ban the "inciting" or "promoting" of suicide, we should also ban the inciting or promoting of violence that is part of every other Hollywood movie. After all, the basis for this proposal is that, while most people aren't going to commit suicide after seeing or reading something that makes suicide more attractive, X amount of vulnerable people will. And if that's true of suicide, it's probably true of violence.
Suicide is a tragic thing, more so for those it leaves behind than the person who takes their own life. But we should be putting our resources into the problems that make people suicidal in the first place, not limiting our freedom of speech by allowing government to determine what macabre subjects people are allowed to have an honest and open discussion about.
This sounds like it has the potential to be a great money spinner for Slashdot users with a litigious streak and zero sympathy for the non-computer/Internet literate.
There are thousands of "mom and pop" businesses out there who paid a webmaster to make them a site as a one-off after being bombarded with the message that their business will go under if they don't join the 21st century and get an Internet presence. Once their contract with the webmaster expires, these sites often sit dormant for years. The owners of these businesses are typically working their asses off on the fundamentals to stay afloat, and it's probable that many barely recall the fact that they have a (rather pointless) Internet presence, let alone know how to update the site, or have the spare cash to hire a webmaster just to update a few details.
So here's what we do. We seek these sites out, send an e-mail to their long since unmonitered account complaining that we were misled because the site's details are not up-to-date, and sue the pants off them when there is no response. And we don't have to feel the least bit bad about our nuisance lawsuits tying up the overburdened court system, because after all, these greedy small businesses maliciously attempted to deceive people, and we're just doing our bit to eliminate this evil from the world.
IMHO, the area in which AMD has really distinguished itself is in the power consumption of its desktop processors. Generally speaking, non-Intel x86 CPUs (from AMD and Cyrix) historically had a reputation for running extremely hot. The situation has been reversed in recent years, with Intel pushing the upper limits of power consumption with its Pentium 4 (especially with Prescott) while AMD was doing the exact opposite with its Athlon 64. This has resulted in a huge difference in power consumption between the two competitors. Consider the following CPUs which are basically direct competitors (roughly the same price):
Power consumption at idle
Athlon 64 3500+ (Winchester): 13.4W
Pentium IV 640 (Prescott 2M): 35.4W
Power consumption at full utilisation
Athlon 64 3500+ (Winchester): 47.5W
Pentium IV 640 (Prescott 2M): 129.4W
Source: 90nm Processors from AMD and Intel Pentium 4 6XX.
The often trivial differences in performance look rather insignificant in comparison. Also consider that these results come after Intel's best attempts at reducing the P4's power consumption (enhanced idle states in P4 5XX and SpeedStep in the 6XX) and you can see how inefficient the architecture is in this regard.
This of course applies to desktop CPUs. Intel redeems itself somewhat with its Pentium M in the notebook market.
Here's a question. When will the GPU companies have to start playing tricks when the clock speeds finally give way to things like, oh, trying to cool a damn computer on a card without sounding like a jet plane is in your room becomes an issue. Like, well, now?
You might find this video (WMV) amusing.
Few people (mainly those in libraries/'net cafes, and privacy nuts) use a "clean" browser. Most people will have hundreds, often thousands, of links in their browser history, tens of megabytes in the cache, a big collection of bookmarks, and plugins like Flash and toolbars. In my experience, a browser will be nice and snappy fresh out of the box, but after a few weeks of piling these things on, it may slow significantly, either in its startup time or while browsing. Some browsers may be worse than others in this regard. The author of the linked article has done an outstanding job, but since it appears most of the tests were performed on freshly-installed, "clean" browsers, the results should be considered with caution.
From an article (reg req'd) on identity theft:
True story? Who knows, but the moral of it is not to put all your faith in technology, and never underestimate criminals. Some may not be very bright, but that's more than made up for by their cunning.
I have read (sorry, cannot cite source) that the claim that 100,000 civilians have been killed in Iraq is based on a statistical survey that says somewhere between 5,000 and 100,000 civilians had been killed.
The reaction to the Lancet study was quite interesting; not the back and forth about the validity of the study, but how it changed the way the other major figure, the Iraq Body Count, was viewed. All of a sudden, those who were previously playing down any figures given for civilian deaths, from pundits to politicians, were countering the Lancet study by quoting figures based on the Iraq Body Count.
My suspicion is that this was an aspect of psychology at work that one well-known social psychologist, Robert Cialdini, refers to as the "contrast principle". The 100,000 figure that was being reported suddenly made the Iraq Body Count's figure seem low. So for those who wished to play down the number of civilian deaths, a figure of 15,000 or so, which would have previously been rejected by such people, was now accepted. Yet nothing fundamental had changed about the IBC's figure--their methodology was the same. The only change was the way it was perceived when contrasted the 100,000 figure.
Others have addressed your "stuff" characterisation for software, so perhaps I could address the specific point above with a quote from Sam Williams' biography of RMS, Free as in Freedom:
Despite the energy he puts into the Free Software movement, you'll probably find that RMS spends a lot more time on those real causes you refer to than your average person.
Dan seems to understand that a million graphs showing you the statistically insignificant difference between the latest mobos / graphic cards / processors / ram sinks don't really make a great site.
On the other hand, cliche-ridden vebiage isn't much help either. Usually it serves as a mere extension of the manufacturer's marketing and product literature; it almost always leaves you feeling like you ought to buy something. And have you ever noticed how few reviews conclude with a score of less than, say, 8/10 or 80%? It's like a school that gives practically every student an "A". That suggests an inherent corruption exists regardless of the intentions of the reviewer.
I find the most useful research tool before purchasing a product is downloading and reading the product manuals. These take about as long to read through as your typical review, and provide a much clearer and more realistic picture of what the product is and does rather than selling you on some UltraHyperWhizzBang technology that becomes irrelevant once you've handed over your hard-earned dollars.
RMS : That's GNU/Linux!
Me: Yep, brand-spanking new
GNU is pronounced with a hard G. If you listen to virtually any RMS speech on software freedom, you'll hear him explain how the name originated and a specific request that people not to call it the "new" operating system, as that may cause the type of confusion that you used in your joke. Part of being a philosopher king like RMS is having thought through pretty much everything, from the seemingly trivial to the profound.
Dear U.S.
Sorry, we're too preoccupied with renovating our investment properties, building "McMansions" for ourselves, parking 4WDs (aka SUVs) in their supersized driveways and using them to haul home the bigscreen TVs we're purchasing on credit to help fill those nice big houses.
Why should I worry about this "copyright" thing? Is it going to increase interest rates, or something?
Aspirationally yours,
A model Howard-era Australian
One phenomenon I'm frequently struck by when visiting a forum discussing upcoming computer hardware and software products is the number of people who are creating hype and whipping each other up into an excited frenzy. There's much more of it than can be explained by agents/shills (paid or otherwise). For some strange reason, people who have no association with the company making the product volunteer themselves as mindless "fanboys" helping to promote it.
The most remarkable example I've encountered was in the Auran forum back in 2001, prior to the original release of their game "Trainz". The atmosphere that existed there in the runup to the game's release was nothing short of a collective euphoria. It's difficult to convey, but one illustration is one of the supplied forum emoticons, the "drool mop", which each individual posted en masse whenever a new feature or screenshot was revealed. They appeared to be setting themselves up for a letdown when their overinflated expectations were unrealised, or a post-decisional dissonance that would blind them to the product's shortcomings.
Why do so many people join in so enthusiastically? And is there any harm in people spending so much of their time acting like consumers on steriods?
Providing some contrast, if not balance, are those places where the manufacturer or their product is scathingly and repeatedly criticised, with people complaining endlessly about the problems they're experiencing. Usenet groups, and forums whose primary purpose is tech support, such as those at Logitech and iRiver, are typically like this. Then again, many people in those forums seem to be obsessed with the issue(s) they're experiencing, posting about it at length and bringing it to the attention of newcomers over the course of several months while waiting for the company to produce a fix. So perhaps these forums simply play host to a different kind of "fanboy", albiet a disgruntled one.
I found the unintended dual meaning of your post's title quite amusing. It's a pity that people, in the rush to get their post in quickly and stand the best chance of being modded up, fail to read and comprehend the linked article(s) if they visit them at all.
On the issue at hand, there is one thing that's not clear in your argument (which, as you said, still applies to some extent). Is it based on actual abuse, or theoretical vulnerability to it as well? If it's the latter, let's take a look at the impression-based billing model. Theoretically, it is open to abuse. Want to destroy a website? Don't DDoS it. If it's dependent on ad revenue, simply point your zombies at the site's banners, massively inflating the click-through ratio. The advertiser or ad network will instantly assume it's fraud, the banners will be pulled, and payment will be cancelled. Even if they believe you when you plead innocence, it probably won't make any difference, as any ad campaign they run on that site will now have a black cloud hanging over it.
That's the theory. In practice, I've never heard of this type of abuse, which I find kind of surprising. Perhaps kiddies are too stupid to have thought of it yet. But, just like you said about the click-based billing model, the vulnerability is obvious to anyone with a few brain cells. If devious people were to start engaging this type of abuse, would you criticise those who are launching the attacks, or reproach the victims for their lack of foresight?
"If only the users were as enlightened as I am, they'd rail against this horrible system!" That's a remarkably condescending position to take.
This reminds me of the propagandist's standard response to his critics: "it is insulting the people's intelligence to suggest I am deceiving them". It is not condescending per se to suggest to others that they are overlooking something.
It also isn't supported by facts. Of course people realize they are "repeatedly asking permission" to use the software
As an explanation as to why many people view activation as benign, my suggestion was that people don't equate the standard process, whether it's logging in or just clicking "next" to let the software "activate" itself, with asking permission unless they've gone through more concrete experiences, like being refused permission or repeatedly going through phone activation. You've suggested otherwise, which is fair enough, but please don't refer to your opinions as "facts".
But what you apparently don't understand about steam is that the convenience and the change in relationship are the draw
It's not that I don't understand, simply that I didn't raise the other significant explanation: the size of the carrot. But I suspect for most people, the Half-Life 2 game itself, rather than content delivery mechanisms, has much more to do with people being prepared to overlook the activation issue. In any case, a nice carrot does not make the stick any less nasty, just more readily accepted or ignored.
The trouble with product activation is that it's implemented in such a painless and convenient way (in the majority of cases, where it works properly) that people fail to see this process for what it actually is: repeatedly asking permission from the manufacturer to use the product you purchased, after you purchased it. It seems the process is too automatic, too obscure not only for Joe User, but surprisingly, technically literate Slashdot readers who you'd normally expect to understand abstract threats to their freedom.
Perhaps if people had to actually speak to the company and say the words, "could you please activate my software?" and say it a few more times for other software packages, and a few more times after reinstallation, it might hit home. Perhaps if they had to wait on hold for thirty minutes, desperately seeking permission to use the software they purchased, it might sink in. Perhaps if, in a fit of nostalgia they decide to reinstall an old game only to be dismayed they can't play it because the activation system no longer works and no patch is available, they will get the message.
Indeed, whenever I've had to phone Microsoft to activate Windows XP, or Intuit/Reckon to activate Quicken, it's not the annoyance of being put through a five minute exchange of serial codes that sticks in my mind, but the more profound emotion of resentment of being put in that situation in the first place. I resent having to obediently request permission to use something I'd spent hundreds of dollars on. I resent having to repeatedly ask permission during the life of the product, according to criteria set by the company. I resent not knowing if I'll still be able to use the software a few years down the track. I resent that many of my friends, who paid nothing for their pirated/cracked copies, don't have to suffer the same indignities or worry about such things.
The most important issue about activation is not whether it's convenient or inconvient, but the way it fundamentally changes the relationship between the customer and a company selling proprietary software. For the life of the product, the customer is now dependent on the company to repeatedly affirm the most basic right of any software user. Not to peak at the software's source code or modify it, but simply to run the program they purchased legitimately.
I'll bet slashdot is about the only place where us Supermarket Refuseniks are in the majority. I won't use one (even one with fake info) and I won't buy a single item that requires the card to get the real price.
Unfortunately, I suspect the reality for your refusenik majority is they won't use one (even one with fake info) and won't buy a single item that requires the card to get the real price except where the reward is sufficient , but they always omit this latter qualification. Scroll down to the Half Life 2 thread and see how many Slashdotters have been bending over backwards the accomodate another degrading, privacy-invading system they usually rail against: product activation.
A person who rejects a particular practice on principle does so without regard to inducements, the rest adopt a "what's in it for moi?" approach: "principled" when the reward is insufficient, but expedient when the carrot being dangled in front of them is attractive enough. It's not something I necessarily have a major problem with, but people should be upfront when they are taking a compromising, "cost/benefit" approach to a particular issue rather than a principled one.
I found myself nodding my head when he talked about starting small to meet a specific need and letting projects take on a life of their own, as it's the pattern that most of my projects follow. But while this may work well for hobbyists and academics who have a lot of freedom in deciding what to work on, I have trouble seeing how it applies to the business world where there is a specific end goal and a deadline for it. Certainly you can break things down into smaller tasks as a strategy for reaching the goal, but a larger plan still has to be created and followed.
:-)
I also think the rosy attitude toward unplanned projects has a bit to do with expectations. If you define no goal, then the end result is never a failure. But if you do define a goal, there will often be times where you don't achieve it and be disappointed. This psychological difference may make the unplanned approach seem more successful than it actually is.
Finally, I find his dismissiveness of a visionary approach and criticism of GNU Hurd as somewhat ironic, given the extraordinary success of what most of the world calls "Linux" owes much to the big picture thinking by the people creating Hurd. But this somewhat narrowminded view is consistent with a primarily technical person whose most philosophical comments are delivered as one-liners
According to the CNET review it get's 16 hours of playback.
You're giving the CNET article too much credit by calling it a "review". To quote the article:
A color screen is always a bonus, especially if it doesn't hamper battery life. The H320 has a rated battery life of up to an impressive 16 hours; it'll be interesting to see the real-world figures.
It will be interesting to see? When a site claims to have reviewed a product yet relies on a manufacturer claim for something they could've easily tested themselves, this should ring alarm bells. At least they sort of admit that they didn't quite do their job.
The reality is that the battery life virtually all iRiver (and many non-iRiver) products has been far below the claimed figure. Until the 16-hour claim is independently verified, we should assume the real-world battery life is significantly below that.
Kudos also to HardOCP for not running scared when faced with legal threats. If more of the "little guys" were able to stand strong against frivolous or iffy strong-armed legal challenges, the world might not be perfect but we'd be headed in a better direction.
While it is a victory for truth, it's a pretty small one, as it is hardly a case of David v. Goliath. Indeed, I suspect the whole matter is primarily an ego thing for HardOCP, having gained some insight into the personality of the owner after an e-mail exchange several years ago. Yes, Infinium was dishonest, but the key factor was that they were weak--as mentioned by others, they didn't even have a storefront--so it wouldn't surprise me if HardOCP saw it as a perfect opportunity to kick some butt and show off. It actaully reminds me a bit of the kind of small-target consumer advocacy that sensationalist current affairs programmes love. They go after individuals and small, shonky businesses that can't fight back, while large companies that screw their customers get more conciliatory treatment.
So we should see it for what it is. If a website goes to court against a major peripheral manufacturer to defend their rights, that will be noteworthy and deserving of our respect and admiration.
Just an obligatory mention of the Free / Open Source alternative: CrossCrypt, and the graphical version, CrossCryptGUI. Actually, I don't think I could've picked a worse time to mention them. The CrossCrypt site is down, and for some reason, the CrossCryptGUI site now displays a black background (so you can't see the text).
Nevertheless, I've used CrossCryptGUI 0.75 for some months now with a 20GB encrypted volume, and haven't had a problem (though backups are essential in case of corruption). As far as I'm aware, it's the only PGPdisk-like program on the Windows platform that is Free / Open Source and in active development.
Actually, on doing a search it appears another program called TrueCrypt, which I'd tested before CrossCrypt, has been resurrected. It had a more polished interface and documentation, and support for USB flash drives, but development was halted after Securstar (the makers of DriveCrypt) made legal threats.
I chose not to post a qualifier even though I was on the verge of doing so seconds after I hit Send, but as more AC's may jump all over it if I don't, I was referring in my second analogy to the evangelical Protestants who give the bible belt its name.
FIDE President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov has just unveiled a plan to build a new "chess city" in the Emirate of Dubai. It's a US $2.6 billion project that is expected to play host to (hold on to your hats) 60 million amateur and professional chess followers annually.
This would be a monumental example of the one of the reasons (brutal repression being another) why the present leadership in Arab countries is so detested by their own Muslim populations and others of that faith around the world. Chess is considered undesirable in Islam, and many consider it Haraam (forbidden under Islamic law). The latter is the view held by the most respected Islamic scholars such as Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.
While I don't condone this aspect of Islam, in the same way I don't condone the Pope's view on condoms, one can't fail to recognise what a massive insult this is to their religion. If you don't, imagine if the American government allowed a $2.6 billion mosque complex to be constructed in the "bible belt", to be visited by 60 million Muslims each year. If that analogy does not suffice, imagine instead the reaction to a 64,000 square meter family-planning/abortion centre to cater for 60 million women from around the world, right in the middle of the Protestant heartland.