At another point, I had a set-top DVD player, and was trying to use it with an old TV player which had only a coaxial RF input. So at first I passed the signal through a VCR, which of course made Macrovision wreck the signal (image fading in and out, just like in the previous example).
Dammit! This happened to me once too, but I didn't know what caused it. Stupid dumb macrovision crap!
You were trying to push an agenda on people. You claimed that major religions used brainwashing. Of course, that isn't relevant to Debian, but I just thought it odd that you were so up in arms about Debian pushing an agenda while you pushed your own.
You're right, that statement was asking for trouble. I happen to have met someone recently who was Mormon, which is probably the why that came to mind so quickly. It's definatly true that the more popular religions are not necessarily illogical.
Expressing one's self accuratly online can be quite challenging at times.
Sure, of course, I use that for many computers. And I do have correct information in the whois thing for my TLD.
I just didn't like the parent posters attitude of "I don't give a flying fuck about your privacy". Privacy is a *really* important issue in today's world and it deserves a lot more than ignorant comments as the parent made.
So in other words, I was messing with him. In reality, they do have the privacy option for extra $$ I guess, although I did not know about it until I read about it in a comment.
At any rate, TLD are increasingly being pushed for personal sites (the.name) so this whois privacy buisness really should be addressed. Especailly when registars like verisign use this information to nearly scam you into switching to them.
That's too bad because the DNS is a PUBLIC database. The Internet is PUBLIC. You don't make the rules; ICANN does. If you don't like it -- tell your friends to set up their own DNS servers with pointers to your IP.
Yeah, so are the streets and "street addresses" public. Yet I can have a convenient "street address" for my house without having it published in some online published address book. The gov. has my address sure, but they don't go around making conveniet spam harvesting directories of addresses!
then why don't you try writing your IP down and keeping it in your wallet.
As soon as you refer to your home address with lat. long. coordinates.
Otherwise, stop whining, and play by the rules.
Surprise fucktard. I DO have correct address information in WHOIS. It still doesn't make it right, nor does give you permission to go shooting off your primitive ape iq ideas with such a holy rightous attitude.
And ICANN can make all the rules they want, that doesn't mean people will follow them or circumvent them. It's called civil dissobiedience.
I couldn't give two flying fucks about your "privacy" issues. If you're so paranoid you won't put your info into the WHOIS, then just DON'T BUY A DOMAIN NAME.
Well, I don't give two flying fucks about your "valid WHOIS" issues. I have a private site. It's not for you, it's not for others, it's for me. It recieves MY mail, and provides services to select friends. That's all it does.
I should not need to give out all my contact information to the world just so I can locate my damn server on the internet easily.
Gun control, sure, stupid. Gun bans? Maybe not. I can see hunters being able to buy hunting rifles maybe, but there is NO reason for people to buy uzi's or even pistols.
Unless you are from Texas, where it's legal to shoot people who come on your property, and probably people on the street if they look at you funny.
I don't think the parent wasn't arguing that the FOSS movement wouldn't be possible without GPL defenders, just that if people now didn't defend the GPL, it would get trampled on.
Well, the parent could have said exactly that then. But he/she didn't, and I didn't read it that way.
Somehow, people of all sorts of faith are thought of as being less "logical" than those without faith, and then it becomes assumed that those who do not believe an anything unscientific are a bit more "open minded" and able to see the world with a bit more pragmatism and reason. If you give it more than a passing thought, you'll see how myopic that line of thinking truly is.
Huh? Are you suggesting that abandoning reason will somehow make one *more* logical? Not having a faith cannot make one "less open minded". This is getting quite off topic at any rate.
By publicly calling the people inside the {church,mosque,synagogue,*} brainwashed, and therein implying that life outside is somehow free of this brainwashing, you've pushed your own views equally dogmatically, with even less to back yourself up than the {bible,torah,koran,*}-thumpers.
Well, the point of this thread is not to debate whether the major religions use brainwashing, so I didn't elaborate. But it's not from a lack of evidence I assure you.
Instead of whining on Slashdot, I suggest that you get together a group of people and go "door to door" and show people your own point of view--it's equally as valid.
HUH?!?! I'm not trying to push an agenda on people, I'm only complaining about others trying to push theirs on the world. This is the whole point! I don't want to be harassed about someone's pernsonal version of morality. I want a functional system. Hence debian would do far better without the attitude. Thanks for proving my point.
You, as an end-user, don't get to choose how we, the developers, license our code.
Ahh, but I, as a developer, DO get to choose the licensing for my own code. I don't waste my time making GPL libraries that only GPL users will use.
And I can flip your argument right around. Linux wouldn't be anywhere without BSD/MIT licensed software such as say XFree86, And I'd even be so bold as to say the internet would not be where it is today if the original TCP/IP stack was not released under the BSD license. This allowed all the corporations to easily pick up a standardized stack (originaly) so that the internet could take shape. It also provided a reference implementation to do regression testing of rewrites on.
Exactly why you're criticizing Debian for following the law and relicensing code as permitted by the many upstream authors is a bit of a mystery.
I'm not really, but I find the whole "holier than thou" attitude many debian supporters have highly distastfull.
Criticizing the more strident Debian enthusiasts might be called for, but do you really think it's going to have any effect?
Alas no, but at least others who are not GPL crazed will see that they are not alone.
I get a little bit tired of people criticizing this point. Without the religious fervor, without defending the GPL, none of these things would be able to maintain an Open-and-useful state.
Then why are the BSDs in an open and useful state? You have the typical myopia associated with religion, or since people like to point out no god is invovled here, cult.
You wouldn't tell your local preacher to shut-up for being a {bible,torah,koran,*}-thumper, would you?
If they stay in their church on preach only to the brainwashed, no. But if they go door to door and send messages to governments trying to convice them to officially follow the religion, then hell yeah I'll tell them to shut up!
This is just asking for problems. I tried this, and before long my box had incompatabilities up the wazzu. Finnaly, it really borked itself and I went to a pure testing install, which borks itself considerbly less, but also makes me wary of running internet servers on it. Even small ones.
Does anyone know if these attacks can be made on bluetooth keyboards?
I was considering getting a bluetooth keyboard since bluetooth is encyrpted unlike RF keyboards, but I'm a bit paranoid given all this bluesnarfing stuff.
We're going to have to agree to disagree here. It's clear that neither one of us is going to convince the other, because the arguments reflect differing points of view.
The easy way to make that a non-issue is to make the JVM GPL'd.
This has nothing to do with it. As I already pointed out, people can go build a GPL'd JVM *now*. You pointed out that the JVM would not ever be "official". For a GPL JVM to be official, you need an open published standard. As it is now, Sun can turn to Microsoft and go "You are infringing on our ip with your incompatible JVM, we never gave you permission to make that." If it's an open standard then it becomes much harder to pull that kind of power on MS. Having a GPL JVM exist makes absolutely no difference to anyone except a small group of Linux users.
Sun doesn't have to throw it all away. Look at the Linux kernel. You don't see a dozen incompatible (at an application level) versions of the kernel runnng around.
But there ARE incompatlbe kernels around with respect to drivers. And besides, a kernel and a JVM are to very different things. MS can't go installing incompatible Linux kernels on top of Windows XP. It would have to be *instead* of Windows XP, not something they want to do.
Sun could retain control of the Java brand while allowing the Java core to be co-developed by Sun, IBM, BEA, Oracle, and whoever else wants to help. Those developers would then use the common core in their own JVMs and would have more resources to spend on adding features.
Sun can allow Java to be co-developed *now* if they wish, it doesn't have to be open source for this. And why would we want all sorts of different JVMs? And what "features" would you want to add? This is a *language* not some application. You don't want to be changing features all the time.It's not that Sun doesn't have resourced to put in new features,but rather that it's unclear on what new featurs are worth putting in. Every new feature can break compatability in some way.
But they dont' keep failing. They achieve modest goals and obtain new information that we didn't have before. That new information often leads to new lines of thinking or design changes and so on and so forth.
It's the way science is done. If we can spend this kind of money entertaining ourselves, and making our children into big round fat blobs (from too much fast food), surely this is worth the money too.
c) Having a GPL'd JDK is different than having a certified, GPL'd JDK. As they did with Tomcat, Sun should release the RI as open source.
What you actually want then, is for Java to be accepted by some standards body such as the ECMA. This allows you to have a *certified* JDK. Just implement the standard and you are gold.
Regardless of what select open source proponents may think, Java is doing fine now as it always has, and will continue to do fine. There is no point for Sun to tottie up to the open source community by giving away free IP. It is theirs to control how they see fit.
Besides, as soon as there is an "open source java standard" as you want, Microsoft will be back at it with their incompatible JVM. Sun fought hard against that and they are not about to throw it all away so that some people who will never give them money will like them.
Not to mention that this person obviously doesn't now what slashdot is... so duh.. yeah.. she's new here. And somehow that guy got modded funny for pointing out the obvious.
Java may be trivially installed, but unless a developer is guaranteed that a compatible version of Java is there, it won't have the money to do so
HUH? What are you talking about. Java isn't distributed with Windows either, but it seems to be doing fine there. Very easy to install a JRE, so no problem. Why should Linux be any different?
Linux doesn't even have the large base of "mom and pop" users to worry about, so it should be even less of an issue.
There are many developers who won't touch Java unless the licensing situation is addressed. The JRE cannot legally be bundled into the core distribution unless it is licensed in a GPL-compatible fashion..
Again, so what about bundling. Read my above comments. And Linux users are free to go make their own GPL JDK implementation anyways if they really want. Java seems to have no problems on Windows and Mac and it's not bundles there.
Besides, Linux developers hardly constitute the majority of developers. If anything, they are a minority, and most of them work with server stuff. Administrators are more than capable of installing the JDK.
I think Linux users just like to whine about anything that isn't GPL. This really is a non issue for Sun. Linux users should get off their high horses and come back down to earth where the air isn't so thin.
It needs to be free (as in speech) so that it can ship in the default installs for all the Linux distributions.
So that Sun can capitalize on... what exactly? Linux has a small percentage of the market to start with, and the most important area for Linux is servers. Server people can trivially install Java after install so it doesn't matter.
Linux on the desktop is still nowhere, so you can't seriously be suggesting that is important to Sun.
Ever since the fiaSCO, Linux distro providers have become even more vigilant about making sure software meets GPL compatibility requirements.
GPL compatibilty is totally irrelavant unless it's a core component such as X that many existing GPL applications need. If ditros wont' ship GPL incompatible licensed software, then it's the distros who are shooting themselves in the foot.
Finally, Sun want' to keep control of the Java standard, and that's fine. If the OSS people desperatly want to for Java, they can do that now. No one is preventing you from going and making an open source JDK and then added new features to the language and calling it something else.
I could have moderated you as overrated, but that would not do justice to this terrible and completely unsightfull post.
So, basically, my understanding is that if I put together a solid DDoS exploit for Windows using XNA, it will affect XBOX and Windows Mobile devices?
So are you advocating building a new and different set of API's and libraries for every platform? Clearly you are not a developer of anything as you would know that "code reuse is good". As for exploits, sure, one exploit may effect multiple platfroms, but also one bugfix can fix mulitple platforms. Or even better, if the code is good, you have secure code across multiple platforms.
Moreover, this sounds like.NET for games..NET has yet to establish itself anywhere useful except as an architecture for Web Development. That's all back-end.
Ouch, this sort of ignorance about.NET is just painful. Since another poster already talked about this, I won't.
It reads interesting. I see it as vaporware. I can't imagine anything useful coming of this. How could something exploit the power of the next gen X-Box (which appears to be using a non-Intel chip in the future), and still run awesome on Windows?
Because API's have little relevance on platform. How can Quake 3 run awsome on windows and Mac? How about the other cross platform games?
The only interesting part is that you see people out in the game development sector (Gabe Newell of Valve, for example) excited about the technology. These are the type of people you'd expect to know better.
Hmm... maybe this should tell you something. Could it be that these people who know infinitaly more about developing games than you, ACTUALLY know better than you? Given the quality of your previous statements I don't most readers will have to ponder over the puzzle of how come "people who know better" have a different opinion than you.
The only solution whether you p2p or not, is to NOT buy RIAA products or spend money at Clear Channel venues or listen to their stations.
Yes. This is insightful. I've not been purchasing music for the last 2 years. I've not been copying it either. Online radio is sufficient for now. Mind you there are tons of albums I'd like to buy, but I refuse to
A) buy encrypted crap that may or may not work on whatever device I wish to use it with. I've ripped all my old music to really high quality mp3s at home so I don't have to put up with switching discs and the whir of my CD drive.
B) Pay the outrageous prices the RIAA have fixed. And those online stores like itunes are even worse! A full CD bought online is almost the SAME as a real CD. Except, you don't get a real CD, and you lose around 400MB of data thanks to lossy encryption. Talk about a rippoff! Oh, not to mention more DRM crap making it even MORE useless. To make me even consider buying online music, a single track would have to be 10-20 cents CAD, not a $1.
If they dropped all CDs to 1/2 price and stopped penalizing imports, I'm sure their sales would skyrocket. Ohh..and don't get me started on imports. It seems only the "non-RIAA approved" music get's labelled with *import* and has the price hiked 50-100%. Here in Canada, I was looking at a *Canadian founded group* and it was labelled as an import! Their more mainstream album however, was not. Talk about corrupt.
Neither do I, but I find it hard to believe that you don't know anyone who does. If not you really need to get out more.
I know a few people who uses hotmail, but never do I talk about hotmail with them. We have better things to talk about.;)
And I wasn't commenting on the reliability of Windows Server, but rather on your comment that:
Well, I admittedly dont' visit Microsoft's homepage all that often, but if they were seriously being hacked so often the I'm *sure* it would hit the news. Hell, the *possibility* of a worm making www.microsoft.com unavaliable due to DOS attack makes the news. They can only cover up so much, news agencies LOVE that stuff it seems.
Slashdot Mirror
At another point, I had a set-top DVD player, and was trying to use it with an old TV player which had only a coaxial RF input. So at first I passed the signal through a VCR, which of course made Macrovision wreck the signal (image fading in and out, just like in the previous example).
Dammit! This happened to me once too, but I didn't know what caused it. Stupid dumb macrovision crap!
You were trying to push an agenda on people. You claimed that major religions used brainwashing. Of course, that isn't relevant to Debian, but I just thought it odd that you were so up in arms about Debian pushing an agenda while you pushed your own.
You're right, that statement was asking for trouble. I happen to have met someone recently who was Mormon, which is probably the why that came to mind so quickly. It's definatly true that the more popular religions are not necessarily illogical.
Expressing one's self accuratly online can be quite challenging at times.
Sure, of course, I use that for many computers. And I do have correct information in the whois thing for my TLD.
.name) so this whois privacy buisness really should be addressed. Especailly when registars like verisign use this information to nearly scam you into switching to them.
I just didn't like the parent posters attitude of "I don't give a flying fuck about your privacy". Privacy is a *really* important issue in today's world and it deserves a lot more than ignorant comments as the parent made.
So in other words, I was messing with him. In reality, they do have the privacy option for extra $$ I guess, although I did not know about it until I read about it in a comment.
At any rate, TLD are increasingly being pushed for personal sites (the
That's too bad because the DNS is a PUBLIC database. The Internet is PUBLIC. You don't make the rules; ICANN does. If you don't like it -- tell your friends to set up their own DNS servers with pointers to your IP.
Yeah, so are the streets and "street addresses" public. Yet I can have a convenient "street address" for my house without having it published in some online published address book. The gov. has my address sure, but they don't go around making conveniet spam harvesting directories of addresses!
then why don't you try writing your IP down and keeping it in your wallet.
As soon as you refer to your home address with lat. long. coordinates.
Otherwise, stop whining, and play by the rules.
Surprise fucktard. I DO have correct address information in WHOIS. It still doesn't make it right, nor does give you permission to go shooting off your primitive ape iq ideas with such a holy rightous attitude.
And ICANN can make all the rules they want, that doesn't mean people will follow them or circumvent them. It's called civil dissobiedience.
I couldn't give two flying fucks about your "privacy" issues. If you're so paranoid you won't put your info into the WHOIS, then just DON'T BUY A DOMAIN NAME.
Well, I don't give two flying fucks about your "valid WHOIS" issues. I have a private site. It's not for you, it's not for others, it's for me. It recieves MY mail, and provides services to select friends. That's all it does.
I should not need to give out all my contact information to the world just so I can locate my damn server on the internet easily.
Gun control, sure, stupid. Gun bans? Maybe not. I can see hunters being able to buy hunting rifles maybe, but there is NO reason for people to buy uzi's or even pistols.
Unless you are from Texas, where it's legal to shoot people who come on your property, and probably people on the street if they look at you funny.
Joke... joke... don't shoot me.
I don't think the parent wasn't arguing that the FOSS movement wouldn't be possible without GPL defenders, just that if people now didn't defend the GPL, it would get trampled on.
Well, the parent could have said exactly that then. But he/she didn't, and I didn't read it that way.
Somehow, people of all sorts of faith are thought of as being less "logical" than those without faith, and then it becomes assumed that those who do not believe an anything unscientific are a bit more "open minded" and able to see the world with a bit more pragmatism and reason. If you give it more than a passing thought, you'll see how myopic that line of thinking truly is.
Huh? Are you suggesting that abandoning reason will somehow make one *more* logical? Not having a faith cannot make one "less open minded". This is getting quite off topic at any rate.
By publicly calling the people inside the {church,mosque,synagogue,*} brainwashed, and therein implying that life outside is somehow free of this brainwashing, you've pushed your own views equally dogmatically, with even less to back yourself up than the {bible,torah,koran,*}-thumpers.
Well, the point of this thread is not to debate whether the major religions use brainwashing, so I didn't elaborate. But it's not from a lack of evidence I assure you.
Instead of whining on Slashdot, I suggest that you get together a group of people and go "door to door" and show people your own point of view--it's equally as valid.
HUH?!?! I'm not trying to push an agenda on people, I'm only complaining about others trying to push theirs on the world. This is the whole point! I don't want to be harassed about someone's pernsonal version of morality. I want a functional system. Hence debian would do far better without the attitude. Thanks for proving my point.
You, as an end-user, don't get to choose how we, the developers, license our code.
Ahh, but I, as a developer, DO get to choose the licensing for my own code. I don't waste my time making GPL libraries that only GPL users will use.
And I can flip your argument right around. Linux wouldn't be anywhere without BSD/MIT licensed software such as say XFree86, And I'd even be so bold as to say the internet would not be where it is today if the original TCP/IP stack was not released under the BSD license. This allowed all the corporations to easily pick up a standardized stack (originaly) so that the internet could take shape. It also provided a reference implementation to do regression testing of rewrites on.
Exactly why you're criticizing Debian for following the law and relicensing code as permitted by the many upstream authors is a bit of a mystery.
I'm not really, but I find the whole "holier than thou" attitude many debian supporters have highly distastfull.
Criticizing the more strident Debian enthusiasts might be called for, but do you really think it's going to have any effect?
Alas no, but at least others who are not GPL crazed will see that they are not alone.
I get a little bit tired of people criticizing this point. Without the religious fervor, without defending the GPL, none of these things would be able to maintain an Open-and-useful state.
Then why are the BSDs in an open and useful state? You have the typical myopia associated with religion, or since people like to point out no god is invovled here, cult.
You wouldn't tell your local preacher to shut-up for being a {bible,torah,koran,*}-thumper, would you?
If they stay in their church on preach only to the brainwashed, no. But if they go door to door and send messages to governments trying to convice them to officially follow the religion, then hell yeah I'll tell them to shut up!
This is just asking for problems. I tried this, and before long my box had incompatabilities up the wazzu. Finnaly, it really borked itself and I went to a pure testing install, which borks itself considerbly less, but also makes me wary of running internet servers on it. Even small ones.
Good point. I forgot about that dumb ad. Mind you that's for MSN, and the evil stupid satan paper clip is for office.
;)
Windows itself has the completely indifferent four colour paneled window thingy icon.
The BSD mascot beats all hands down though.
Isn't it about time we ditched Microsoft Windows for something better?
Linux
This is more of a side-grade than an upgrade. Trade one set of problems for another. Plus, you get mascot that is on par with barny for lamenes!
Isn't it about time we ditched SCO Unix for something better?
Linux... we think.
But SCO Unix has never been the defacto Unix. Who exactly is using this that it needs to be "ditched"??
Does anyone know if these attacks can be made on bluetooth keyboards?
I was considering getting a bluetooth keyboard since bluetooth is encyrpted unlike RF keyboards, but I'm a bit paranoid given all this bluesnarfing stuff.
We're going to have to agree to disagree here. It's clear that neither one of us is going to convince the other, because the arguments reflect differing points of view.
;)
He he, I agree.
The easy way to make that a non-issue is to make the JVM GPL'd.
This has nothing to do with it. As I already pointed out, people can go build a GPL'd JVM *now*. You pointed out that the JVM would not ever be "official". For a GPL JVM to be official, you need an open published standard. As it is now, Sun can turn to Microsoft and go "You are infringing on our ip with your incompatible JVM, we never gave you permission to make that." If it's an open standard then it becomes much harder to pull that kind of power on MS. Having a GPL JVM exist makes absolutely no difference to anyone except a small group of Linux users.
Sun doesn't have to throw it all away. Look at the Linux kernel. You don't see a dozen incompatible (at an application level) versions of the kernel runnng around.
But there ARE incompatlbe kernels around with respect to drivers. And besides, a kernel and a JVM are to very different things. MS can't go installing incompatible Linux kernels on top of Windows XP. It would have to be *instead* of Windows XP, not something they want to do.
Sun could retain control of the Java brand while allowing the Java core to be co-developed by Sun, IBM, BEA, Oracle, and whoever else wants to help. Those developers would then use the common core in their own JVMs and would have more resources to spend on adding features.
Sun can allow Java to be co-developed *now* if they wish, it doesn't have to be open source for this. And why would we want all sorts of different JVMs? And what "features" would you want to add? This is a *language* not some application. You don't want to be changing features all the time.It's not that Sun doesn't have resourced to put in new features,but rather that it's unclear on what new featurs are worth putting in. Every new feature can break compatability in some way.
But they dont' keep failing. They achieve modest goals and obtain new information that we didn't have before. That new information often leads to new lines of thinking or design changes and so on and so forth.
It's the way science is done. If we can spend this kind of money entertaining ourselves, and making our children into big round fat blobs (from too much fast food), surely this is worth the money too.
c) Having a GPL'd JDK is different than having a certified, GPL'd JDK. As they did with Tomcat, Sun should release the RI as open source.
What you actually want then, is for Java to be accepted by some standards body such as the ECMA. This allows you to have a *certified* JDK. Just implement the standard and you are gold.
Regardless of what select open source proponents may think, Java is doing fine now as it always has, and will continue to do fine. There is no point for Sun to tottie up to the open source community by giving away free IP. It is theirs to control how they see fit.
Besides, as soon as there is an "open source java standard" as you want, Microsoft will be back at it with their incompatible JVM. Sun fought hard against that and they are not about to throw it all away so that some people who will never give them money will like them.
uh... yeah... me too... I was referring to the original poster :)
Not to mention that this person obviously doesn't now what slashdot is... so duh.. yeah.. she's new here. And somehow that guy got modded funny for pointing out the obvious.
Sky is up.
Mod me funny now too.
Java may be trivially installed, but unless a developer is guaranteed that a compatible version of Java is there, it won't have the money to do so
HUH? What are you talking about. Java isn't distributed with Windows either, but it seems to be doing fine there. Very easy to install a JRE, so no problem. Why should Linux be any different?
Linux doesn't even have the large base of "mom and pop" users to worry about, so it should be even less of an issue.
There are many developers who won't touch Java unless the licensing situation is addressed. The JRE cannot legally be bundled into the core distribution unless it is licensed in a GPL-compatible fashion..
Again, so what about bundling. Read my above comments. And Linux users are free to go make their own GPL JDK implementation anyways if they really want. Java seems to have no problems on Windows and Mac and it's not bundles there.
Besides, Linux developers hardly constitute the majority of developers. If anything, they are a minority, and most of them work with server stuff. Administrators are more than capable of installing the JDK.
I think Linux users just like to whine about anything that isn't GPL. This really is a non issue for Sun. Linux users should get off their high horses and come back down to earth where the air isn't so thin.
I did not suggest this so I don't know what you are talking about.
We are talking about open sourcing the *standard* and possibly the JDK.
It needs to be free (as in speech) so that it can ship in the default installs for all the Linux distributions.
So that Sun can capitalize on... what exactly? Linux has a small percentage of the market to start with, and the most important area for Linux is servers. Server people can trivially install Java after install so it doesn't matter.
Linux on the desktop is still nowhere, so you can't seriously be suggesting that is important to Sun.
Ever since the fiaSCO, Linux distro providers have become even more vigilant about making sure software meets GPL compatibility requirements.
GPL compatibilty is totally irrelavant unless it's a core component such as X that many existing GPL applications need. If ditros wont' ship GPL incompatible licensed software, then it's the distros who are shooting themselves in the foot.
Finally, Sun want' to keep control of the Java standard, and that's fine. If the OSS people desperatly want to for Java, they can do that now. No one is preventing you from going and making an open source JDK and then added new features to the language and calling it something else.
I could have moderated you as overrated, but that would not do justice to this terrible and completely unsightfull post.
.NET for games. .NET has yet to establish itself anywhere useful except as an architecture for Web Development. That's all back-end.
.NET is just painful. Since another poster already talked about this, I won't.
So, basically, my understanding is that if I put together a solid DDoS exploit for Windows using XNA, it will affect XBOX and Windows Mobile devices?
So are you advocating building a new and different set of API's and libraries for every platform? Clearly you are not a developer of anything as you would know that "code reuse is good". As for exploits, sure, one exploit may effect multiple platfroms, but also one bugfix can fix mulitple platforms. Or even better, if the code is good, you have secure code across multiple platforms.
Moreover, this sounds like
Ouch, this sort of ignorance about
It reads interesting. I see it as vaporware. I can't imagine anything useful coming of this. How could something exploit the power of the next gen X-Box (which appears to be using a non-Intel chip in the future), and still run awesome on Windows?
Because API's have little relevance on platform. How can Quake 3 run awsome on windows and Mac? How about the other cross platform games?
The only interesting part is that you see people out in the game development sector (Gabe Newell of Valve, for example) excited about the technology. These are the type of people you'd expect to know better.
Hmm... maybe this should tell you something. Could it be that these people who know infinitaly more about developing games than you, ACTUALLY know better than you? Given the quality of your previous statements I don't most readers will have to ponder over the puzzle of how come "people who know better" have a different opinion than you.
The only solution whether you p2p or not, is to NOT buy RIAA products or spend money at Clear Channel venues or listen to their stations.
Yes. This is insightful. I've not been purchasing music for the last 2 years. I've not been copying it either. Online radio is sufficient for now. Mind you there are tons of albums I'd like to buy, but I refuse to
A) buy encrypted crap that may or may not work on whatever device I wish to use it with. I've ripped all my old music to really high quality mp3s at home so I don't have to put up with switching discs and the whir of my CD drive.
B) Pay the outrageous prices the RIAA have fixed. And those online stores like itunes are even worse! A full CD bought online is almost the SAME as a real CD. Except, you don't get a real CD, and you lose around 400MB of data thanks to lossy encryption. Talk about a rippoff! Oh, not to mention more DRM crap making it even MORE useless. To make me even consider buying online music, a single track would have to be 10-20 cents CAD, not a $1.
If they dropped all CDs to 1/2 price and stopped penalizing imports, I'm sure their sales would skyrocket. Ohh..and don't get me started on imports. It seems only the "non-RIAA approved" music get's labelled with *import* and has the price hiked 50-100%. Here in Canada, I was looking at a *Canadian founded group* and it was labelled as an import! Their more mainstream album however, was not. Talk about corrupt.
DON'T BUY FROM THE RIAA OR AFFILIATES!
Neither do I, but I find it hard to believe that you don't know anyone who does. If not you really need to get out more.
;)
I know a few people who uses hotmail, but never do I talk about hotmail with them. We have better things to talk about.
And I wasn't commenting on the reliability of Windows Server, but rather on your comment that:
Well, I admittedly dont' visit Microsoft's homepage all that often, but if they were seriously being hacked so often the I'm *sure* it would hit the news. Hell, the *possibility* of a worm making www.microsoft.com unavaliable due to DOS attack makes the news. They can only cover up so much, news agencies LOVE that stuff it seems.