"Army lost last year not because of a successful outside attack but from a self-inflicted wound in which an authorized network user accidentally knocked out service for several hours, costing precious points that helped Air Force prevail."
So, as you can see, turning the computers off is actually counter productive.
Also, this is pretty cool:
"The rules this year are designed to make the competition simulate more of a 24-hour operation, despite the reality that "Taps" still sounds at 2330 (11:30 p.m.) and cadets are required to be in bed with lights out by then. Overnight, the enemy can prey upon any network vulnerabilities with impunity."
"Army lost last year not because of a successful outside attack but from a self-inflicted wound in which an authorized network user accidentally knocked out service for several hours, costing precious points that helped Air Force prevail."
"So yes, I agree with Apple's DRM, it gives me many rights of ownership, while preventing my casual disregard of copyright holders."
You may a sound argument (and it will probably get missed by moderators, but that's something else entirely). However, I must argue against this. Apple's DRM doesn't give you ANY rights. It only takes away your rights. Copyright law and Fair Use gives you certain rights. When DRM technology takes this away, even a little bit, it's wrong.
I have seen what limits Apple's DRM has, and yes, for the casual user, they don't notice it. But it still has limits. And then, when do those limits become a problem?
Usually it's not a problem until it's too late, and then you are stuck. What you are talking about is taking the lesser of two evils.
"You no doubt would love to protect your own rights to things you have of value (you do lock up your valuables... right?)."
I no doubt would love to protect my own rights to things I have? Of course! That's the whole point. I have certain rights under Copyright law that allow me to do things Apple's DRM prevents me from doing.
Are you suggesting that if an EULA for a product you use says that you give up your freedom of speech, you will therefore give it up? Hey, if you enjoy handing over your rights, by all means, I now understand where you are coming from.
"In my opinion, it's a mixed bag, and people who are going out of their way to circumvent the MINIMAL DRM on iTunes are simply looking for a way to justify immoral/illegal behavior."
So, let me get this straight. People who are working to uphold their rights guaranteed by US law are being immoral and committing illegal acts?
I look at it simply like this: You are either for DRM technology, or you are against it. I am against it. It's really as simple as that.
So, DRM is either wrong or right. Acceptance of "some" DRM is acceptance of DRM. If you really wish to choose not to accept DRM technology, you must not accept it at all. By accepting Apple's DRM as acceptable, you are in essence accepting DRM technology.
"I became convinced that noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good." - Martin Luther King, Jr
I actually saw this on TV yesterday (on the show "Daily Planet"), and it's clearly apparent you didn't see it at all.
Basically, the idea is not to take away all choices from you, but to limit the choices to a respectable number. This is NOT a new idea. Your choice of Windows or Linux is not a problem. The problem, as was explained, is like when you try to choose a cereal. You have over 200 different brands. It becomes overwhelming the number of choices. It's also like wine. Walk into a SAQ (Canadian alcohol store), and you have many, many choices.
The idea is that when you have so many choices, if you end up picking the wrong type, it's "your fault". However, if you only had, let's say, 10 choices, it would have been the "stores fault". Obviously, blaming yourself constantly is a problem (and that was the point of the story). People that are constantly looking for the best choice in certain areas will more likely be disappointed, whereas people looking for "good enough" are more likely to be satisfied (maximizers and satisficers are what they are called).
It's a good story, and covers what most people are missing. They suggest that obviously, if you remove choices, you will remove choices people may care about.
But the interesting thing is that no one cares about everything. There are some people who don't care about what Oil they use (as long as it says 10W-30), but some people do. If you walked into a store, and they only had one brand, you might not care. But you would care if the only offering for a video card was Windows. Of course, it could also be the other way around for someone else.
So essentially, the report isn't saying that choice is bad, but saying that too much choice isn't necessarily good. And that too much choice can in fact be bad.
Yes, I can. When Microsoft ships product with a virus pre-installed, yes, I can very much so.
I don't care if they are broken into. Same thing with Gnome. However, if in the end, Gnome turns around and releases code that is bugged, or otherwise harmful, I will be just as upset as I was with Microsoft.
I see two sides of it here in my office. I use Linux, as well as a few other staffers here. Other people use Windows. Each uses Linux or Windows by choice.
Why do they use Windows? Because it's default, it's the defacto, it's the "standard" that has been created. They send and receive Word.DOC files..DOC's aren't proprietary as far as they are concerned. They don't care about the licensing issues behind mp3's and other file formats. They don't care because they just don't know.
So I hear reports that Microsoft is patenting it's XML formats (or something along those lines) for the next version of Word. When OpenOffice can't read these files for legal reasons, is that going to be Microsoft's fault, or OpenOffice's fault? We know what the answer is, but these guys don't care. They aren't lawyers, and they just want to do their job without worrying about what license their computer is operating under.
Microsoft abused it's power. It's that simple. The fact that competition is starting to come out is a good thing, but you don't have to be the only one to violate anti-trust laws (or else Microsoft would never have gone to trial in the first place, as other OS's have always existed). However, I don't know the EU anti-trust laws at all, so I can only imagine they broke them there as well.
The point is, by forcing this on Microsoft, it will ensure competition. I don't want to see the end of Microsoft, but rather, I want to see the beginning of a standards based environment where competitors compete on the quality of their product.
Hopefully this decision will allow such an environment to prosper and grow.
Hopefully this will allow for a more competitive marketplace, where standards are adopted across the board. Open source could really do well because of this. Only a small portion of the world lives in the US, and with the EU nations taking a firm hand in putting down Microsoft.
For those not sure if this will help the US adoption of alternate products, it will. Businesses aren't just local, they import products, export products, and deal in Europe all the time. When Europeans move to other products, the US will make the move, or force Microsoft to adopt the standards the EU companies do.
This doesn't spell the end for Microsoft, but rather, it helps to open up a standards based computing environment. One where if your product is closed and completely proprietary, and threatens vendor lock-in, it won't be well appreciated, nor will it really be possible.
You know, this is a common argument. However, one from someone who obviously doesn't have the facts straight.
1. How compatible is it with games? Many games are made for WindowsXP. You expect OS developers to make them compatible? Why not ask the companies that make these games why they don't make a Linux version. Many companies do make Linux versions of games without a problem. It shouldn't be our job to make software built for one OS for another OS.
2. When will Microsoft make Ximian Evolution compatible with Windows? Oh, they won't? And why not? Because Evolution is not developed by them, and they don't care to port it.
3. Running Linux doesn't mean you stop playing games. I play lots of games: Unreal Tournament, Neverwinter Nights, Enemy Territory. But I prefer playing games on my PS2, as I have a bigger monitor, and a couch to sit on.
So continue using Windows, and continue making excuses why you don't want to switch. If you don't want to switch, by all means, don't. But don't pretend that it has something to do with your "games" that you must have, and place blame on those that shouldn't be responsible. Rather than demanding game companies be compatible with Linux, continue to support the lack of choices.
This is interesting, as this is the opposite of Apple's tech support. My girl friend had a problem with bad memory in her new eMac, causing the screen to "snap", or flicker. Replacing the RAM did the trick.
However, she was very happy with the technical support people who she said were very helpful, and rather smart. She's very much into computers, and so knows bad tech support when she hears it (she introduced me to Linux, for example), and was very much pleased with Apple's tech support.
She tells me she almost enjoyed the fact that she got to call tech support, made her feel so much better about getting a Mac.
Okay, but that is an "i" after the "c". You complain that the person saw an "i", you do not contest that it did indeed look like an "i", and you even support the fact that it looked like an "i". So the person asking if it was an "i" was wrong, even though it looked like an "i"? I don't understand your logic? Are you only supposed to go to school if you already know all the material?
Did you go just for the paper? Like all those MCSE training courses out there?
The rest of your rant pretty much tells me the type of person you are: an elitist who, despite claiming to have a "good" job, will never amount to much more because he is an elitist.
"Please give credit where it is due for your sig."
Huh? Maybe you could, in your infinite wisdom, tell me who originally use that line? I have no problem giving credit where credit is due, but I have seen this sig all over the place.
Indeed, by not telling me who to credit, you are just really perpetuating the cycle. Sort of like SCO, saying "Hey, that's our IP" but not saying what that is.
So just because he is older, he should be allowed to do whatever he wants without fear of punishment?
If he did the crime, what's wrong with the punishment? Unless you are all for double standards? I mean, your logic states that if a person is older, and commits a crime against a corporation, nothing should be done to them?
What if it was a smaller company? What if the person was younger, but with cancer or something?
Should they have exceptions as well? I agree, the punishment isn't good for the person, but you have a choice, either an impartial system or not.
I am probably going to be mod'ed as flamer, but still. I see a lot of double standards here (yeah, it's/., I know). These people broke the law. They should be punished.
People are complaining about wording in the article or from quotes (people suggesting they "stole" something). Does it really matter? Does the description of the act to a news reporter change the crime? If I describe a murderer's act as "He hurt the victims...", does that change the fact that the murderer committed the crime?
And for everyone complaining about how the big bad MPAA is going after people for these "littie" crimes. Remember, they are using the same laws that protect the Linux Kernel. When the community goes after a company that doesn't provide the source code they use, and don't follow the GPL, it's basically the same damn thing. We have rights they agreed to, and we expect them to act accordingly.
I mean, seriously, by suggesting that the MPAA shouldn't be going after these guys is tantamount to suggesting that the laws should be different for big companies and small companies.
Regardless of the current state of the laws in the country, that's just wrong. If these guys did commit crimes, nuff said. They should be punished.
Saying that they shouldn't be punished for committing a crime is just wrong.
I suppose you think it would be justice to throw somebody in prison, most likely for the remainder of his life, because he allowed people to see a movie screener? You're a barbarian.
So I take it you support companies taking the Linux kernel, and then using it, and NOT following the GPL? I mean, if you agree with that, then fine. I am sure you are also okay with companies that say they won't sell or distribute your private information, and then do so anyways without fear of punishment.
I am sure you are supportive of those measures...so I guess it's all golden.
No, it's not just about SCO. Basically, businesses that don't spend hours a day reading Groklaw and/. just know that they won't be sued, by SCO or anyone else. Just knowing that makes them feel better.
Indemnification is also there to show how much Novell thinks of SCO's claims. If Novell didn't offer Indemnification, that might be saying something. The fact that they are means they are pretty damn sure of what rights they have.
IBM doesn't necessarily have to do this, because they have the push of being IBM.
Because MiniDisks are better. My girlfriend wanted an MP3 player for her b'day. So she started shopping around. Everyone we started talking to was telling us that the MD was actually better. Indeed, they were surprised when they started using it.
For me, the best thing about the MiniDisk is the battery life. Her MD uses 1 AA battery, and lasts well over 50 hours. MP3's players don't even come close to that. Sure, it might be able to store hours upon hours of songs, but not without putting in new batteries.
Yeah, I didn't think the MiniDisks where going to be better. But after actually using them, they are far superior.
"Reasoning performed its independent analysis using defect density as a prime quality indicator. Defined as the number of defects found per thousand lines of code, MySQL's defect density registered as 0.09 defects per thousand lines of source code. Through its analysis, Reasoning concluded that the commercial average defect density--covering 200 recent projects and totaling 35 million lines of commercial code--came to 0.57 defects per thousand lines of code."
Wow, Lord of the Rings and 2.6 Kernel released on the same day? This just shows the dedication the Linux developers have. To not go see the movie and to work to release the kernel. My hats are off to these guys. They have gone above and beyond the call of duty.
Slashdot Mirror
"Army lost last year not because of a successful outside attack but from a self-inflicted wound in which an authorized network user accidentally knocked out service for several hours, costing precious points that helped Air Force prevail."
So, as you can see, turning the computers off is actually counter productive.
Also, this is pretty cool:
"The rules this year are designed to make the competition simulate more of a 24-hour operation, despite the reality that "Taps" still sounds at 2330 (11:30 p.m.) and cadets are required to be in bed with lights out by then. Overnight, the enemy can prey upon any network vulnerabilities with impunity."
"Army lost last year not because of a successful outside attack but from a self-inflicted wound in which an authorized network user accidentally knocked out service for several hours, costing precious points that helped Air Force prevail."
"So yes, I agree with Apple's DRM, it gives me many rights of ownership, while preventing my casual disregard of copyright holders."
You may a sound argument (and it will probably get missed by moderators, but that's something else entirely). However, I must argue against this. Apple's DRM doesn't give you ANY rights. It only takes away your rights. Copyright law and Fair Use gives you certain rights. When DRM technology takes this away, even a little bit, it's wrong.
I have seen what limits Apple's DRM has, and yes, for the casual user, they don't notice it. But it still has limits. And then, when do those limits become a problem?
Usually it's not a problem until it's too late, and then you are stuck. What you are talking about is taking the lesser of two evils.
It's still evil, though.
"You no doubt would love to protect your own rights to things you have of value (you do lock up your valuables... right?)."
I no doubt would love to protect my own rights to things I have? Of course! That's the whole point. I have certain rights under Copyright law that allow me to do things Apple's DRM prevents me from doing.
Are you suggesting that if an EULA for a product you use says that you give up your freedom of speech, you will therefore give it up? Hey, if you enjoy handing over your rights, by all means, I now understand where you are coming from.
"In my opinion, it's a mixed bag, and people who are going out of their way to circumvent the MINIMAL DRM on iTunes are simply looking for a way to justify immoral/illegal behavior."
So, let me get this straight. People who are working to uphold their rights guaranteed by US law are being immoral and committing illegal acts?
Land of the free, indeed!
I look at it simply like this: You are either for DRM technology, or you are against it. I am against it. It's really as simple as that.
So, DRM is either wrong or right. Acceptance of "some" DRM is acceptance of DRM. If you really wish to choose not to accept DRM technology, you must not accept it at all. By accepting Apple's DRM as acceptable, you are in essence accepting DRM technology.
"I became convinced that noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good." - Martin Luther King, Jr
I actually saw this on TV yesterday (on the show "Daily Planet"), and it's clearly apparent you didn't see it at all.
Basically, the idea is not to take away all choices from you, but to limit the choices to a respectable number. This is NOT a new idea. Your choice of Windows or Linux is not a problem. The problem, as was explained, is like when you try to choose a cereal. You have over 200 different brands. It becomes overwhelming the number of choices. It's also like wine. Walk into a SAQ (Canadian alcohol store), and you have many, many choices.
The idea is that when you have so many choices, if you end up picking the wrong type, it's "your fault". However, if you only had, let's say, 10 choices, it would have been the "stores fault". Obviously, blaming yourself constantly is a problem (and that was the point of the story). People that are constantly looking for the best choice in certain areas will more likely be disappointed, whereas people looking for "good enough" are more likely to be satisfied (maximizers and satisficers are what they are called).
It's a good story, and covers what most people are missing. They suggest that obviously, if you remove choices, you will remove choices people may care about.
But the interesting thing is that no one cares about everything. There are some people who don't care about what Oil they use (as long as it says 10W-30), but some people do. If you walked into a store, and they only had one brand, you might not care. But you would care if the only offering for a video card was Windows. Of course, it could also be the other way around for someone else.
So essentially, the report isn't saying that choice is bad, but saying that too much choice isn't necessarily good. And that too much choice can in fact be bad.
Can you honestly rail on Microsoft?
Yes, I can. When Microsoft ships product with a virus pre-installed, yes, I can very much so.
I don't care if they are broken into. Same thing with Gnome. However, if in the end, Gnome turns around and releases code that is bugged, or otherwise harmful, I will be just as upset as I was with Microsoft.
I see two sides of it here in my office. I use Linux, as well as a few other staffers here. Other people use Windows. Each uses Linux or Windows by choice.
.DOC files. .DOC's aren't proprietary as far as they are concerned. They don't care about the licensing issues behind mp3's and other file formats. They don't care because they just don't know.
Why do they use Windows? Because it's default, it's the defacto, it's the "standard" that has been created. They send and receive Word
So I hear reports that Microsoft is patenting it's XML formats (or something along those lines) for the next version of Word. When OpenOffice can't read these files for legal reasons, is that going to be Microsoft's fault, or OpenOffice's fault? We know what the answer is, but these guys don't care. They aren't lawyers, and they just want to do their job without worrying about what license their computer is operating under.
Microsoft abused it's power. It's that simple. The fact that competition is starting to come out is a good thing, but you don't have to be the only one to violate anti-trust laws (or else Microsoft would never have gone to trial in the first place, as other OS's have always existed). However, I don't know the EU anti-trust laws at all, so I can only imagine they broke them there as well.
The point is, by forcing this on Microsoft, it will ensure competition. I don't want to see the end of Microsoft, but rather, I want to see the beginning of a standards based environment where competitors compete on the quality of their product.
Hopefully this decision will allow such an environment to prosper and grow.
Hopefully this will allow for a more competitive marketplace, where standards are adopted across the board. Open source could really do well because of this. Only a small portion of the world lives in the US, and with the EU nations taking a firm hand in putting down Microsoft.
For those not sure if this will help the US adoption of alternate products, it will. Businesses aren't just local, they import products, export products, and deal in Europe all the time. When Europeans move to other products, the US will make the move, or force Microsoft to adopt the standards the EU companies do.
This doesn't spell the end for Microsoft, but rather, it helps to open up a standards based computing environment. One where if your product is closed and completely proprietary, and threatens vendor lock-in, it won't be well appreciated, nor will it really be possible.
"Saying C will be killed by a runtime architecture is like saying too many busses will eliminate sports cars" ...in the world of mass transportation.
Take the quote in context, and it actually makes sense.
Insightful? Insightful because you didn't read the original quote, which was completely misquoted, and completely taken out of context.
You know, this is a common argument. However, one from someone who obviously doesn't have the facts straight.
1. How compatible is it with games? Many games are made for WindowsXP. You expect OS developers to make them compatible? Why not ask the companies that make these games why they don't make a Linux version. Many companies do make Linux versions of games without a problem. It shouldn't be our job to make software built for one OS for another OS.
2. When will Microsoft make Ximian Evolution compatible with Windows? Oh, they won't? And why not? Because Evolution is not developed by them, and they don't care to port it.
3. Running Linux doesn't mean you stop playing games. I play lots of games: Unreal Tournament, Neverwinter Nights, Enemy Territory. But I prefer playing games on my PS2, as I have a bigger monitor, and a couch to sit on.
So continue using Windows, and continue making excuses why you don't want to switch. If you don't want to switch, by all means, don't. But don't pretend that it has something to do with your "games" that you must have, and place blame on those that shouldn't be responsible. Rather than demanding game companies be compatible with Linux, continue to support the lack of choices.
AC Morons...piss me off.
For sure, no doubt. But that still doesn't change the fact that LotR was honored, and at least IMHO, deservedly so.
With 11 Oscars, RotK ties with Ben Hur, and Titanic as the only movies to have won 11 Oscars. So it was a double victory for PJ and crew.
This is interesting, as this is the opposite of Apple's tech support. My girl friend had a problem with bad memory in her new eMac, causing the screen to "snap", or flicker. Replacing the RAM did the trick.
However, she was very happy with the technical support people who she said were very helpful, and rather smart. She's very much into computers, and so knows bad tech support when she hears it (she introduced me to Linux, for example), and was very much pleased with Apple's tech support.
She tells me she almost enjoyed the fact that she got to call tech support, made her feel so much better about getting a Mac.
ofstream din;
din.open("ci\\data\\datafile.dat");
Okay, but that is an "i" after the "c". You complain that the person saw an "i", you do not contest that it did indeed look like an "i", and you even support the fact that it looked like an "i". So the person asking if it was an "i" was wrong, even though it looked like an "i"? I don't understand your logic? Are you only supposed to go to school if you already know all the material?
Did you go just for the paper? Like all those MCSE training courses out there?
The rest of your rant pretty much tells me the type of person you are: an elitist who, despite claiming to have a "good" job, will never amount to much more because he is an elitist.
Thank you. =)
Now I know, and knowing is half the battle.
As a side note: I have seen the man live, and he is great!
"Please give credit where it is due for your sig."
Huh? Maybe you could, in your infinite wisdom, tell me who originally use that line? I have no problem giving credit where credit is due, but I have seen this sig all over the place.
Indeed, by not telling me who to credit, you are just really perpetuating the cycle. Sort of like SCO, saying "Hey, that's our IP" but not saying what that is.
Oh...I see.
So just because he is older, he should be allowed to do whatever he wants without fear of punishment?
If he did the crime, what's wrong with the punishment? Unless you are all for double standards? I mean, your logic states that if a person is older, and commits a crime against a corporation, nothing should be done to them?
What if it was a smaller company? What if the person was younger, but with cancer or something?
Should they have exceptions as well? I agree, the punishment isn't good for the person, but you have a choice, either an impartial system or not.
I am probably going to be mod'ed as flamer, but still. I see a lot of double standards here (yeah, it's /., I know). These people broke the law. They should be punished.
People are complaining about wording in the article or from quotes (people suggesting they "stole" something). Does it really matter? Does the description of the act to a news reporter change the crime? If I describe a murderer's act as "He hurt the victims...", does that change the fact that the murderer committed the crime?
And for everyone complaining about how the big bad MPAA is going after people for these "littie" crimes. Remember, they are using the same laws that protect the Linux Kernel. When the community goes after a company that doesn't provide the source code they use, and don't follow the GPL, it's basically the same damn thing. We have rights they agreed to, and we expect them to act accordingly.
I mean, seriously, by suggesting that the MPAA shouldn't be going after these guys is tantamount to suggesting that the laws should be different for big companies and small companies.
Regardless of the current state of the laws in the country, that's just wrong. If these guys did commit crimes, nuff said. They should be punished.
Saying that they shouldn't be punished for committing a crime is just wrong.
I suppose you think it would be justice to throw somebody in prison, most likely for the remainder of his life, because he allowed people to see a movie screener? You're a barbarian.
So I take it you support companies taking the Linux kernel, and then using it, and NOT following the GPL? I mean, if you agree with that, then fine. I am sure you are also okay with companies that say they won't sell or distribute your private information, and then do so anyways without fear of punishment.
I am sure you are supportive of those measures...so I guess it's all golden.
No, it's not just about SCO. Basically, businesses that don't spend hours a day reading Groklaw and /. just know that they won't be sued, by SCO or anyone else. Just knowing that makes them feel better.
Indemnification is also there to show how much Novell thinks of SCO's claims. If Novell didn't offer Indemnification, that might be saying something. The fact that they are means they are pretty damn sure of what rights they have.
IBM doesn't necessarily have to do this, because they have the push of being IBM.
Because MiniDisks are better. My girlfriend wanted an MP3 player for her b'day. So she started shopping around. Everyone we started talking to was telling us that the MD was actually better. Indeed, they were surprised when they started using it.
For me, the best thing about the MiniDisk is the battery life. Her MD uses 1 AA battery, and lasts well over 50 hours. MP3's players don't even come close to that. Sure, it might be able to store hours upon hours of songs, but not without putting in new batteries.
Yeah, I didn't think the MiniDisks where going to be better. But after actually using them, they are far superior.
So would this mean police and law enforcement wouldn't be able to use computers in the front seats now?
"Reasoning performed its independent analysis using defect density as a prime quality indicator. Defined as the number of defects found per thousand lines of code, MySQL's defect density registered as 0.09 defects per thousand lines of source code. Through its analysis, Reasoning concluded that the commercial average defect density--covering 200 recent projects and totaling 35 million lines of commercial code--came to 0.57 defects per thousand lines of code."
Wow, Lord of the Rings and 2.6 Kernel released on the same day? This just shows the dedication the Linux developers have. To not go see the movie and to work to release the kernel. My hats are off to these guys. They have gone above and beyond the call of duty.