You know, it's not that I think Google is evil for offering this as an opt-in, that's not my problem with it. My issue with it, and the reason I won't use it even though I would actually like to, is that you never know when you might get accused of some bogus crime here (after all, we love making people felons here in the US) and my Google history data could be subpoenaed, taken totally out of context, and used against me. It's not that I don't trust Google not to abuse the data, it's that I don't trust my own government not to.
An immediate scientific investigation should commence to determine why this happens so frequently in the USA, as opposed to other similar countries. the results will of course be vetted by the Brady Campaign(fill in pro/anti group here) before release.
Yes folks, now anyone can troll a gun violence thread with the new, patented, copyrighted, DRM protected/. Gun-Troll 3000. Just fill in the blank with a group who's view you oppose, and presto! Instant troll!
Order today and we will include the/. OS-Troll 3000 and the brand new EURO/US-Troll super-concentrate ABSOLUTELY FREE!! That's right, not one, but two all purpose troll comments for just four hundred easy payments of just $19.95! Don't delay, order now!
So I guess it wasn't until 1996 or so that the UK passed laws banning terrorists? IRA anybody? The law didn't seem to remove their ability to operate and they were able to obtain much more potent weapons that just small arms.
Banning guns is not the solution. We ban lots of stuff and guess what: it does jack to prevent it. We ban drugs yet there is little trouble finding any drug of choice in even medium to small towns in the US. Banning guns will just create a (larger) black market for them, and with that comes the violence and ancillary crime that any black market good brings with it.
The problem is that, somewhere, we have screwed up and our own society is creating this violence. If we don't address that, it won't matter what we ban because it will just continue to happen.
This type of thing comes up a lot when talking about open/concealed carry laws. If you look at gun crimes committed by CCW holders, however, you see that this is an extremely rare occurrence.
It would also violate the 3nd law of thermodynamics.
Re:Because it didn't affect him?
on
Is Vista a Trap?
·
· Score: 1
If he wants to play HD or BluRay DVDs then it's his own fault for choosing to to use a technology with a draconian DRM scheme that requires compliant hardware. Blaming Microsoft for allowing him the choice to do so is BS. Vista does not force DRM on anyone. You have the choice to not use those formats. If Apple or any other OS vendor wants to allow their users to choose to play protected HD or BluRay DVDs then they will have to implement the same DRM schemes to do so.
My cable company charges about $15 a month for HDTV and the Decoder box, on top of the normal cable fees ($49 and up). That's $360 dollars just for the HD for 2 years, and is limited to one TV. It costs $5 or $10 (forget which) per box per TV for more than one. My OTA HD antenna cost me $70 and my tuner was $100. Now, I did install everything myself (no big deal to install).
I use BeyondTV as my PVR (has plenty of guide data for my analog cable, OTA HD, and OTA analog channels). I could have opted for an HDTV TiVo (has guide data for both OTA and cable) or a number of other HTPC solutions (MCE, Sage, etc) again, all with guide data.
Why should I pay? I don't care if FireFox has Windows Logo certification. PetManimal must, since he went to the trouble to submit the article. Logo certification has no bearing at all on an application's ability to run under Vista, so personally I don't care if some app lacks it. So hit PetManimal up for the money since he seems so distraught about it.
...were submitted for "Windows Vista" logo certification? If not, then, uh, what the hell is the point of this article? If you look at the title of the page linked to, it clearly says 'Applications that have earned the "Certified for Windows Vista" logo or the "Works with Windows Vista" logo'. From further down:
"The tables in the "More Information" section list the products that currently have earned the "Certified for Windows Vista" logo or the "Works with Windows Vista" logo. There are many applications that are compatible and work well with Windows Vista but that are not listed in this article. This is because such applications have not yet gone through the Windows Vista logo program or are still going though this program."
So I guess we should blame adobe, firefox, etc. for not being on the ball and submitting their apps? Is that the point of this article? Or just more VistaFud(TM)
I've been using Vista and iTunes since November...
on
Vista - iPod Killer?
·
· Score: 1
...when I received my copy of Vista via MSDN. So far my Nano is far from a brick. Of course I just follow the iPod's prompts on when to not unplug it.
Vista will even do the image for you. In the new backup utility included with the OS there is an option for a full system backup. Vista creates a VHD (Microsoft's Virtual Hard Disk format from their virtualization products) file of the entire disk and saves it where you tell it to. It's easy enough to boot up to restore mode and drop that image back on.
Opening each folder in a new window is not on by default in Vista (though you can turn it on if you feel the need to torture yourself). Just like previous versions of Windows, you can choose which way you want it.
They probably had strike anywhere matches in mind when they did that. Of course, those are almost impossible to find anymore. I really miss them too. Literally fun on a stick.
I think he is refering to SSL to SSL bridging in ISA 2004:
[From MS Site]For Web servers that require authenticated and encrypted client access, ISA Server 2004 provides end-to-end security and application-layer filtering using SSL-to-SSL bridging. Unlike most firewalls, ISA Server 2004 inspects encrypted data before it reaches the Web server. The firewall decrypts the SSL stream, performs stateful inspection, and then re-encrypts the data and forwards it to the published Web server.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/isa/2004/produc tevaluation/features.mspx
It can only do this for servers hosted behind it (you have to provide the certs so it can decrypt the traffic).
That's weird that the Palm version would be locked down more than the WM5. I have a Treo 750w and I can use my SDIO WiFi card no problems. Bluetooth sync and modem are also intact. There are plenty of bluetooth GPS bundles for it as well. I can also use whatever sound file I want as a ringer. Hell, I've even have a bittorrent client that I can run on it.
I'm guessing someone didn't read on Opera's website about how Opera Mini actually works. They do have to use a proxy:
Mini technology
Opera Mini uses a remote server to pre-process Web pages before sending them to your phone. Web content is compressed to reduce the size of data transferred, enabling handling on simpler phones and creating fast browsing at low costs.
http://www.operamini.com/features/
4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.
Note the bold section. If they wanted to ban use on a VM it would not need to be there. The clause clearly bans using the software a second time on a VM. The reason for this clause is that there is another that ALLOWS exactly that, 2 copies running (one physical, one virtual), for Business/Ultimate. It was an attempt to be clear about which versions were allowed to be used that way.
Maybe if you actually take the time to read the EULA, instead of spouting the standard issue anti-MS FUD, you would see that it's you who peddling nonsense.
4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.
See that bolded part, about the software installed on the licensed device? Now, if the intent was to just ban virtualization then it would be unnecessary. It reads exactly as I stated: You cannot run the OS a second time in a VM. An exception to this is granted for Business/Ultimate editions, which can be run both as a host and a guest (running on the host only) at the same time, so they included this wording to be clear that other versions could not.
The only thing real with the Virtualization restriction myth is the inability of people to comprehend what they are reading. It's very clear if you actually take the time to read the EULA what they mean: you cannot install (with a single license) Windows Vista on physical AND virtual hardware at the same time unless you have Business/Ultimate. The article you quote (a rip directly from the guy's very blog is wrong).
As for the rest:
1. "Self-limiting software": Simple, don't pirate it. MS charges for it, it's their prerogative. If you want free, go with OSS. Activation was also part of XP, so again, nothing much new here.
2. "Vanishing functionality through invalidation" Crippleware is nothing new, see #1. Since XP won't even allow you to login without activation this is really no more restrictive.
3. "Removal of media capabilities" So? Don't buy their content if you don't like the terms. There are no restrictions on using other media players and whatever (if any) DRM comes with those.
4. "Problem-solving prohibited" Another gross misreading of the EULA. For one, "the software" refers to Vista, not everything produced by every software company out there.
5. "Limited mobility" Valid point, and fixed by MS in the new EULA
6. "One transfer only" Previous versions (OEM for example) have similar restrictions, and since most software allows ZERO transfers, MS is being a bit generous, from the commercial software perspective.
Actually this was the one really sore spot in the EULA. With this gone, the EULA is actually less restrictive than previous versions of Windows. Allowing Ultimate/Business to run a second copy in a VM, for instance. XP would require a second license to do that.
It is amazing how much FUD there has been about this EULA though. The (very incorrect) bit about not being able to run certain versions on virtual hardware is one that keeps coming up.
Uh, if you actually read the EULA you would see that 1,3, and 4 are total BS. The/. story about it from a few days ago was almost completely wrong (Vista has a EULA was pretty much the only true part).
As for 2, nothing on Vista will stop you from using your own media player to play any format you like. If you don't like DRM, talk to the content publishers who use it.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, it's not that I think Google is evil for offering this as an opt-in, that's not my problem with it. My issue with it, and the reason I won't use it even though I would actually like to, is that you never know when you might get accused of some bogus crime here (after all, we love making people felons here in the US) and my Google history data could be subpoenaed, taken totally out of context, and used against me. It's not that I don't trust Google not to abuse the data, it's that I don't trust my own government not to.
Yes folks, now anyone can troll a gun violence thread with the new, patented, copyrighted, DRM protected
Order today and we will include the
So I guess it wasn't until 1996 or so that the UK passed laws banning terrorists? IRA anybody? The law didn't seem to remove their ability to operate and they were able to obtain much more potent weapons that just small arms. Banning guns is not the solution. We ban lots of stuff and guess what: it does jack to prevent it. We ban drugs yet there is little trouble finding any drug of choice in even medium to small towns in the US. Banning guns will just create a (larger) black market for them, and with that comes the violence and ancillary crime that any black market good brings with it. The problem is that, somewhere, we have screwed up and our own society is creating this violence. If we don't address that, it won't matter what we ban because it will just continue to happen.
This type of thing comes up a lot when talking about open/concealed carry laws. If you look at gun crimes committed by CCW holders, however, you see that this is an extremely rare occurrence.
It would also violate the 3nd law of thermodynamics.
If he wants to play HD or BluRay DVDs then it's his own fault for choosing to to use a technology with a draconian DRM scheme that requires compliant hardware. Blaming Microsoft for allowing him the choice to do so is BS. Vista does not force DRM on anyone. You have the choice to not use those formats. If Apple or any other OS vendor wants to allow their users to choose to play protected HD or BluRay DVDs then they will have to implement the same DRM schemes to do so.
My cable company charges about $15 a month for HDTV and the Decoder box, on top of the normal cable fees ($49 and up). That's $360 dollars just for the HD for 2 years, and is limited to one TV. It costs $5 or $10 (forget which) per box per TV for more than one. My OTA HD antenna cost me $70 and my tuner was $100. Now, I did install everything myself (no big deal to install).
I use BeyondTV as my PVR (has plenty of guide data for my analog cable, OTA HD, and OTA analog channels). I could have opted for an HDTV TiVo (has guide data for both OTA and cable) or a number of other HTPC solutions (MCE, Sage, etc) again, all with guide data.
Why should I pay? I don't care if FireFox has Windows Logo certification. PetManimal must, since he went to the trouble to submit the article. Logo certification has no bearing at all on an application's ability to run under Vista, so personally I don't care if some app lacks it. So hit PetManimal up for the money since he seems so distraught about it.
So?
...were submitted for "Windows Vista" logo certification? If not, then, uh, what the hell is the point of this article? If you look at the title of the page linked to, it clearly says 'Applications that have earned the "Certified for Windows Vista" logo or the "Works with Windows Vista" logo'. From further down:
"The tables in the "More Information" section list the products that currently have earned the "Certified for Windows Vista" logo or the "Works with Windows Vista" logo. There are many applications that are compatible and work well with Windows Vista but that are not listed in this article. This is because such applications have not yet gone through the Windows Vista logo program or are still going though this program."
So I guess we should blame adobe, firefox, etc. for not being on the ball and submitting their apps? Is that the point of this article? Or just more VistaFud(TM)
...when I received my copy of Vista via MSDN. So far my Nano is far from a brick. Of course I just follow the iPod's prompts on when to not unplug it.
Then you boot from your Vista DVD and go to restore mode.
Vista only requires the 3D hardware if you are running the full Aeroglass interface. You can run Vista perfectly well without it.
Vista will even do the image for you. In the new backup utility included with the OS there is an option for a full system backup. Vista creates a VHD (Microsoft's Virtual Hard Disk format from their virtualization products) file of the entire disk and saves it where you tell it to. It's easy enough to boot up to restore mode and drop that image back on.
Verizon also sells the Treo 700w which can do all of that.
Opening each folder in a new window is not on by default in Vista (though you can turn it on if you feel the need to torture yourself). Just like previous versions of Windows, you can choose which way you want it.
They probably had strike anywhere matches in mind when they did that. Of course, those are almost impossible to find anymore. I really miss them too. Literally fun on a stick.
I think he is refering to SSL to SSL bridging in ISA 2004:
c tevaluation/features.mspx
[From MS Site]For Web servers that require authenticated and encrypted client access, ISA Server 2004 provides end-to-end security and application-layer filtering using SSL-to-SSL bridging. Unlike most firewalls, ISA Server 2004 inspects encrypted data before it reaches the Web server. The firewall decrypts the SSL stream, performs stateful inspection, and then re-encrypts the data and forwards it to the published Web server.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/isa/2004/produ
It can only do this for servers hosted behind it (you have to provide the certs so it can decrypt the traffic).
That's weird that the Palm version would be locked down more than the WM5. I have a Treo 750w and I can use my SDIO WiFi card no problems. Bluetooth sync and modem are also intact. There are plenty of bluetooth GPS bundles for it as well. I can also use whatever sound file I want as a ringer. Hell, I've even have a bittorrent client that I can run on it.
I'm guessing someone didn't read on Opera's website about how Opera Mini actually works. They do have to use a proxy:
Mini technology Opera Mini uses a remote server to pre-process Web pages before sending them to your phone. Web content is compressed to reduce the size of data transferred, enabling handling on simpler phones and creating fast browsing at low costs. http://www.operamini.com/features/
I call bullshit on your bullshit.
4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.
Note the bold section. If they wanted to ban use on a VM it would not need to be there. The clause clearly bans using the software a second time on a VM. The reason for this clause is that there is another that ALLOWS exactly that, 2 copies running (one physical, one virtual), for Business/Ultimate. It was an attempt to be clear about which versions were allowed to be used that way.
Maybe if you actually take the time to read the EULA, instead of spouting the standard issue anti-MS FUD, you would see that it's you who peddling nonsense.
4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.
See that bolded part, about the software installed on the licensed device? Now, if the intent was to just ban virtualization then it would be unnecessary. It reads exactly as I stated: You cannot run the OS a second time in a VM. An exception to this is granted for Business/Ultimate editions, which can be run both as a host and a guest (running on the host only) at the same time, so they included this wording to be clear that other versions could not.
The only thing real with the Virtualization restriction myth is the inability of people to comprehend what they are reading. It's very clear if you actually take the time to read the EULA what they mean: you cannot install (with a single license) Windows Vista on physical AND virtual hardware at the same time unless you have Business/Ultimate. The article you quote (a rip directly from the guy's very blog is wrong).
As for the rest:
1. "Self-limiting software": Simple, don't pirate it. MS charges for it, it's their prerogative. If you want free, go with OSS. Activation was also part of XP, so again, nothing much new here.
2. "Vanishing functionality through invalidation" Crippleware is nothing new, see #1. Since XP won't even allow you to login without activation this is really no more restrictive.
3. "Removal of media capabilities" So? Don't buy their content if you don't like the terms. There are no restrictions on using other media players and whatever (if any) DRM comes with those.
4. "Problem-solving prohibited" Another gross misreading of the EULA. For one, "the software" refers to Vista, not everything produced by every software company out there.
5. "Limited mobility" Valid point, and fixed by MS in the new EULA
6. "One transfer only" Previous versions (OEM for example) have similar restrictions, and since most software allows ZERO transfers, MS is being a bit generous, from the commercial software perspective.
Actually this was the one really sore spot in the EULA. With this gone, the EULA is actually less restrictive than previous versions of Windows. Allowing Ultimate/Business to run a second copy in a VM, for instance. XP would require a second license to do that.
It is amazing how much FUD there has been about this EULA though. The (very incorrect) bit about not being able to run certain versions on virtual hardware is one that keeps coming up.
Uh, if you actually read the EULA you would see that 1,3, and 4 are total BS. The /. story about it from a few days ago was almost completely wrong (Vista has a EULA was pretty much the only true part).
As for 2, nothing on Vista will stop you from using your own media player to play any format you like. If you don't like DRM, talk to the content publishers who use it.