I hate to reply to myself, but I gotta add one more thing. Phishing is based on users going to a remote website and voluntarily giving large amounts of highly sensitive personal information, sometimes including PINs and passwords.
one of my favorite virii, and a highly successful one, sent users an encrypted zip file and gave them the password to decrypt it as part of the email text.
If these two techniques work for Windows users, why on earth wouldn't these users be vulnerable to the exact same thing if they were running Linux?
"To run this very cool software, Bob, just click the icon and enter your root password when asked!"
It won't get you or me, but it's already been proven to get thousands on Windows. It would work terrifically on Linux as well.
You can do a whole heck of a lot of stuff without admin privileges. If you disagree, I urge you to do a default Fedora install with all available default software, put it on the internet without a firewall, then publish the default non-administrative username and password on a popular site like Slashdot. Good luck with that.
But that's only half the problem. If you give the users the admin password so they can install and configure their system and software then they will very often run as root all the time to prevent the hassle of SU or logon, logoff. Most home Linux users I actually know run as root all the time because they feel they should be able to do that, best practices be damned.
Note that both OSX, Windows and many consumer-oriented flavors of Linux are set to automatically log on, and usually that autologon is set for an admin or root user. Real life consumers who don't do this forget their admin password very quickly and call for tech support.
Linux and OSX are every bit as vulnerable as Windows simply because they all share the exact same weakness. As long as humans operate them and as long as those humans have choice, a whole lot of them will choose the 'easiest' way, even though that's the path headed for disaster.
Hey, is it possible to dislike Microsoft, but actually like Windows?
Microsoft is a company bent on ruling the world by crushing all competition. It's a monopoly. It's taken dirty tricks to a level raw and cruel, even in their own Monopoly lawsuit.
But I like windows. It rarely crashes, is pretty easy to use and a lot of my favorite software runs on it. Direct-X works pretty well, the registry does what it's supposed to do pretty well, and if I want to share a file on the network, it's not very complicated either to set up or use.
Getting rid of viruses and malware is a problem, but I'm 100% sure it would be just as big a problem for Mac OSX or Red Hat Linux Workstation if those products had the market share that Windows does. It hasn't been a problem for me because I don't click on executable content I don't trust.
Poke holes in Windows all you want. The average person actaully kind of likes it and feels some frustration when faced with using a different platform. That wouldn't be the case if it just plain sucked. Think aout it.
There was a real question in my post. Would anyone chance a real compile using this compiler for code they actually care about?
There's a difference between an open source project that's actually used by real people to do real work (or fun) and one that's just educational code. It's not bitching and moaning to point that out. It's also not bitching and moaning to sugest that open source would be better understood by all if this difference was made more clear.
It probably helps to get free advertising from the slashdot editors.
Worked for me. I had no idea it existed until this article. Now that I've seen the page, I can't wait to try the game.
I know it's a little off topic, but I've been very impressed with some of the independant games I've seen. Another favorite of mine is Tread Marks that was about tanks that race and shoot each other with the futuristic weapons they pick up. It had deformable terrain (picture big craters) that worked very well. I haven't seen that feature in any game since.
Now this one comes along with karate bunnys. Now that's cool. And you can be sure I haven't seen it anywhere else.
I guess I have a point somewhere... Oh yeah, here goes: This is something I haven't seen before. It looks cool. It's something I'd probably never see unless it was on/. A) I'm glad this got attention and B) I wish more independant games would get the same attention.
I do think it's good to bring new life to old code by open-sourcing it, but this one seems a little problematic. Playing Doom or using an old OS for a special purpose can be fun and useful, but why would you want to chance your code on an old and questionably maintained compiler?
If I'm missing something, let me know, but this just looks a bit more useless than the average open source project. I know it's educational, but is there anything real anyone would chance on it?
I think the more important question isn't whether Macs support multiple buttons, but why does everyone thinks Mac users are so fragile that they just... can't... handle... an extra button?
Most Mac fans have somehow managed to go from OS9 to OSX. They've gone through several version of OSX that included significantly different functionality. They learned to not only burn CDs, but DVDs as well. They learned how to sync their calendars. But for some reason the review was hyper focused on the issue of whether the mouse could also behave as a single button and whether Mac user would be confused by a second button.
COME ON FOLKS! They learned the Doc, but they cant learn a second button?!?! Am I the only one who thinks Mac users are actually smart enough to count to two and that they'll somehow manage to be able to differentiate between their right and left?
This is not rocket science. Even Windows users, traditionally thought of as the, how shall I put it, less mentally acute group of computer users, have managed to grasp the concept of this second button. I truely believe that Mac users will survive, even if Apple includes it as a default mouse.
The genetically successful male breeds with as many partners as he can, as often as he can.
Absolutely!... if he's a walrus. Other species, including human, find they get an advantage from staying mostly monogamus.
Evolutionary advantages of monogamy include males that protect and teach offspring as well as allowing one of the sexes to search for food while the other sex watches out for the kids.
BTW, I did use the word 'mostly' up there. The human species has never been strictly monogamus that I can tell. But it also never mated like walruses.
So if age-treatments arise you think we'll no longer be humans?
There are three answers here.
#1 You said "indistinguishable." Age and death are necessary for this.
#2 As I alluded to in another post, growing old together is an important aspect of human pairing and is something I would expect of a mate. On a personal level, I could probably overlook this one flaw if my mate could not grow old. I could also overlook a missing arm, a missing eye or a missing uterus. But if I were creating a robot designed to be as indistinguishable from human as possible, I'd make sure she had all of these things.
#3 Death is necessary for evolution. Evolution is part of the human, and eventually post-human, condition. "age-treatment" is somewhat of an oxymoron because age is not a disease, it's simply a part of life. On a personal level, I'd take the chance to live forever if it were offered, but I wouldn't make the mistake of assuming everyone living forever is an improvement to the species.
I wonder if you'll say the same when robots are indistinguishable from humans...
I was at lunch with a bunch of co-workers who were cutting up and one of them asked the group, "what if you were going out with a woman and you later found out she was born a man and had a sex change operation? What would you do?"
I asked, "'she' is so perfectly female that I absolutely couldn't tell the difference and I never suspected anything until faced with 3rd party proof?" The answer, "yes, perfect."
My response was that I'd consider myself to be going out with a woman and I'd continue going out with her. My response would be the same here. If the robot was so perfect that I couldn't tell, then of course I'd date her.
But bear in mind:
I'd expect laughter I'd expect disagreement I'd expect affection I'd expect children I'd expect love I'd expect free will I'd expect planning for the future I'd expect consiousness I'd expect old age I'd expect death
That's the only way my sweetheart could be indistinguishable from a 'real woman.' And if that was the case, I'm sure I'd be plenty happy with a 'robot.'
Am I, a regular, human woman, about to become yesterday's biotech? I hope a community of "retro-daters" develops so I still have something to do on a Friday night.
Why are women always so worried about this? Trust me, weeding out the kind of guy who would rather go for a robot than a live woman can be nothing but a boon to you. It'd be nothing but a boon to society too. Darwinism is a good thing.
Hacks or browser was a decision (because i already have Wipeout). Hacks or all this is a no brainer. I can certainly save my SNES gaming for my SNES if the trade off is dramatically improved multimedia. I didn't throw down 250 clams because of the PSP's ability to run 10 year old games and i'm not too sure why anyone would.
I'm curious if it stores a history on the memory stick. I've been using th Wipeout Pure browser for a while now and it's extremely frustrating to have to reload pages when you hit the back button.
BTW, except for some quirks that are specific to the WP browser, in general browsing on a PSP is a joy. I also browse extensively on my cell phone and have browsed quite a bit on PDAs and I find the screen size and button layout of the PSP is the best of the three for mobile browsing.
First off, the reason I used the term "Not Invented Here" was because that was the term the original post used. I'm not bashing Open Firmware.
Second off, 'Trusted Computing' can, and likely, will coexist with I-have-control-of-my-own-box computing. The question is, how will that coexistance work?
1. Is it gonna work by the Linux community needing to buy seperate motherboards with seperate firmware and seperate CPUs.
2. Is it gonna work by the Linux community hacking the firmware in ways that aren't technically legal (think Xbox) so the business community won't have anything to do with it.
3. Or is it gonna work by having firmware where 'Trusted Computing' can be turned off and on (or forced off and on) depending on the OS you choose to run?
If the F/OSS doesn't work with major industry groups, you're going to get #1 or #2 and F/OSS operating systems will be marginalized or worse. If they work with the industry groups you'll at least get a shot at #3.
There is a good second reason though. If F/OSS wants to be part of the computing community then they're going to have to come out of their F/OSS burrows occasionally and join industry groups to create industry standards. Yes, it's hard. Yes, lots of these groups don't work. Yes, some of these companies are evil, or mean, or monopolistic. So what?
There's a term for people who don't join in the decision making process and then complain about it afterwords when the decisions go against them. Actually there are several terms, but the one I want to use today is "childish". It's time for F/OSS to grow up and actually play with the big boys.
... or why not have the fine folks who support OpenFirmware join the EFI group and work with them to make a standard that meets everyone's needs? I sure hope they don't have a "Not Invented Here" mentality that will stop them from working to create a real industry standard with a real industry group.
Leaders of OF should send EFI a letter. The worst they can say is "you're not welcome." But then everything will be right out in the open, won't it?
This is the exact reason it was so important to force the guys with the fat pipes to be forced to sublease their pips to other ISPs. If This were Verizon DSL, I could switch to Covad, but if this were Cox cable, (my current provider) I'd just be stuck.
Letting these guys run their businesses this way is tantamount to letting the guys who run the toll roads just not allow vans from their competing companies run on their roads. We'd never allow this on other critical infrastructure, why the heck should we allow it on the internet, THE crictical infrastructure for the 21st century.
The Boston Tea Party is considered a great patriotic event that helped set the stage to free us from oppression.
The police who beat Rodney King represent one of the modern forms of such oppression.
Acknowledging the patriotism of the Tea Party gang is a clear statement that sometimes violence is necessary to stop oppression. But turning around and tear-gassing modern rioters and dismissing them as being just pillagers and hoodlums is the government's way of saying, "we don't acknowledge that there's any oppression going on and we don't intend to do anything to stop it."
Yes, there were big problems with the LA riots, but the riots on a whole were a genuine cry to be freed from the oppression of our overzealous and often racist police forces. Understanding that the Tea Party was necessary should also inform you of why the LA riots were necessary. The government taking their alternate, dismissive actions shows that they just don't get that simple fact.
The reason is that assembling to call the government to task for the wrongs they've done is instantly reclasified as rioting and pillaging.
Boston tea party. A bunch of guys rioted and pillaged to decry the wrongs of the government.
Rodney King verdict riots. A bunch of people rioted and pillaged to decry the wrongs of the government.
What's the difference? Was one violent and the other peaceful? Did one involve property damage while the other did not?
How about the WTO protests in Seattle that were broken up with rubber bullets and tear gas? Were they causing property damage? Were they pillaging?
And then of course there's all the pillaging that was going on in Tiananmen square.
Whenever you have a government force putting down "riots", you better take some time to figure out why so many people are so god damned upset. Calling them a bunch of pillagers is moste definately missing the point.
Because then he couldn't bitch endlessly about the DRM...
Y'all are funny. I see post after post after post of a guy pointing out that DRM is a pain in the ass, then I see you guys comming up with post after post after post of ways to get around it. Then you call him a whiner for not jumping through all the hoops you've lined up for him.
Guess what, you have to do a bunch of extra stuff when you buy DRMed music. It was not whining to point that out. It's not bitching to point out that non-DRMed music is far easier to use on just about any device and that you don't need to worry about special procedures to avoid them imploding on you someday.
This process is called comparing features. When you geniuses wake up and realized that it is possible for Apple products to have some features with a downside, then maybe you can participate in the process. Until them, please continue to inusult and deride the rest of us instead of joining in an honest debate.
I'd love to watch it on HDTV. But I have a few things working against me. As long as these conditions are true, getting it on DVD is a better alternative for me.
A) I don't get BSG in HDTV and I'm unlikely to get it in the near future. In fact, the cable operator I currently use has Scifi as an analog channel with merely decent picture quality. Should I switch? Maybe. But that's what I have right now.
b) I can't currenlty timeshift HD content. I like timeshifting. A lot. And not just to skip commercials. Believe it or not, I sometimes do other things on Friday nights. I'm not going to start blowing off everything else for 20 weeks in a row so I can be home at just the right time to watch my show. I own my TV, not the other way around.
c) DVD is likely in the very near future. Everything falling in place so I can watch the entire first season of BSG on HDTV, whether via blue-ray, Tivo, broadcast at convienient times, etc. is not likely for quite a while. This is the same reson BitTorrents fuled Season one in the US before it every broadcast on Scifi: the show you have in your hands is always better than the show you may be able to see at some time in the distant future.
Keep preaching HDTV. It's great. But I'll have to make some compromises 'til a few more things fall into place.
I'd love to see it in HD, but in the meantime how about a nice DVD set of the first season? Anybody have any news on when it might see the light of day?
Apple is going to push Intel, make demands of Intel, get moody and pout, and bitch, bitch, bitch.
What, exactly, will they have to bitch about? Seriously. Are they going to tell Intel they need to make faster chips while Dell and HP kick back and say, "you're cool, dude, slow chips are just fine"? Will Apple really think they can wrangle faster chips out of intel then their competitors get?
The only real bitch point will be price and Intel is going to be able to show them bar graphs up the wazoo to point out that they get the same pricing as every other company that buys X number of chips.
Apple was able to be a pain in the butt for IBM because they were basically IBMs only customer that sold into the personal computer market and because they were always able to compare IBM chips to Intel. Now that they're in the same boat as everyone else on the planet they're going to find they have no more complaint about the product than anybody else. Since they're much smaller then everyone else, they'll find any complaints they do make will get the same attention as the rest of the peanut gallery.
Intel will simply not care if little Apple bitchs unless everyone else is also bitching. Then it will become an industry issue, not an Apple issue. Apple has to know this. If they don't, they're fools.
Damn, where are the mod points when I need them. Any story that starts "I have a sore coccyx as I write" and clearly shows a tool to use your computer while lying flat on your back surely should beat out a story about a guy who builds a shelf.
Slashdot Mirror
I hate to reply to myself, but I gotta add one more thing. Phishing is based on users going to a remote website and voluntarily giving large amounts of highly sensitive personal information, sometimes including PINs and passwords.
one of my favorite virii, and a highly successful one, sent users an encrypted zip file and gave them the password to decrypt it as part of the email text.
If these two techniques work for Windows users, why on earth wouldn't these users be vulnerable to the exact same thing if they were running Linux?
"To run this very cool software, Bob, just click the icon and enter your root password when asked!"
It won't get you or me, but it's already been proven to get thousands on Windows. It would work terrifically on Linux as well.
TW
You can do a whole heck of a lot of stuff without admin privileges. If you disagree, I urge you to do a default Fedora install with all available default software, put it on the internet without a firewall, then publish the default non-administrative username and password on a popular site like Slashdot. Good luck with that.
But that's only half the problem. If you give the users the admin password so they can install and configure their system and software then they will very often run as root all the time to prevent the hassle of SU or logon, logoff. Most home Linux users I actually know run as root all the time because they feel they should be able to do that, best practices be damned.
Note that both OSX, Windows and many consumer-oriented flavors of Linux are set to automatically log on, and usually that autologon is set for an admin or root user. Real life consumers who don't do this forget their admin password very quickly and call for tech support.
Linux and OSX are every bit as vulnerable as Windows simply because they all share the exact same weakness. As long as humans operate them and as long as those humans have choice, a whole lot of them will choose the 'easiest' way, even though that's the path headed for disaster.
TW
Hey, is it possible to dislike Microsoft, but actually like Windows?
Microsoft is a company bent on ruling the world by crushing all competition. It's a monopoly. It's taken dirty tricks to a level raw and cruel, even in their own Monopoly lawsuit.
But I like windows. It rarely crashes, is pretty easy to use and a lot of my favorite software runs on it. Direct-X works pretty well, the registry does what it's supposed to do pretty well, and if I want to share a file on the network, it's not very complicated either to set up or use.
Getting rid of viruses and malware is a problem, but I'm 100% sure it would be just as big a problem for Mac OSX or Red Hat Linux Workstation if those products had the market share that Windows does. It hasn't been a problem for me because I don't click on executable content I don't trust.
Poke holes in Windows all you want. The average person actaully kind of likes it and feels some frustration when faced with using a different platform. That wouldn't be the case if it just plain sucked. Think aout it.
TW
There was a real question in my post. Would anyone chance a real compile using this compiler for code they actually care about?
There's a difference between an open source project that's actually used by real people to do real work (or fun) and one that's just educational code. It's not bitching and moaning to point that out. It's also not bitching and moaning to sugest that open source would be better understood by all if this difference was made more clear.
It probably helps to get free advertising from the slashdot editors.
/. A) I'm glad this got attention and B) I wish more independant games would get the same attention.
Worked for me. I had no idea it existed until this article. Now that I've seen the page, I can't wait to try the game.
I know it's a little off topic, but I've been very impressed with some of the independant games I've seen. Another favorite of mine is Tread Marks that was about tanks that race and shoot each other with the futuristic weapons they pick up. It had deformable terrain (picture big craters) that worked very well. I haven't seen that feature in any game since.
Now this one comes along with karate bunnys. Now that's cool. And you can be sure I haven't seen it anywhere else.
I guess I have a point somewhere... Oh yeah, here goes: This is something I haven't seen before. It looks cool. It's something I'd probably never see unless it was on
TW
I do think it's good to bring new life to old code by open-sourcing it, but this one seems a little problematic. Playing Doom or using an old OS for a special purpose can be fun and useful, but why would you want to chance your code on an old and questionably maintained compiler?
If I'm missing something, let me know, but this just looks a bit more useless than the average open source project. I know it's educational, but is there anything real anyone would chance on it?
I think the more important question isn't whether Macs support multiple buttons, but why does everyone thinks Mac users are so fragile that they just... can't... handle... an extra button?
Most Mac fans have somehow managed to go from OS9 to OSX. They've gone through several version of OSX that included significantly different functionality. They learned to not only burn CDs, but DVDs as well. They learned how to sync their calendars. But for some reason the review was hyper focused on the issue of whether the mouse could also behave as a single button and whether Mac user would be confused by a second button.
COME ON FOLKS! They learned the Doc, but they cant learn a second button?!?! Am I the only one who thinks Mac users are actually smart enough to count to two and that they'll somehow manage to be able to differentiate between their right and left?
This is not rocket science. Even Windows users, traditionally thought of as the, how shall I put it, less mentally acute group of computer users, have managed to grasp the concept of this second button. I truely believe that Mac users will survive, even if Apple includes it as a default mouse.
TW
The genetically successful male breeds with as many partners as he can, as often as he can.
... if he's a walrus. Other species, including human, find they get an advantage from staying mostly monogamus.
Absolutely!
Evolutionary advantages of monogamy include males that protect and teach offspring as well as allowing one of the sexes to search for food while the other sex watches out for the kids.
BTW, I did use the word 'mostly' up there. The human species has never been strictly monogamus that I can tell. But it also never mated like walruses.
TW
So if age-treatments arise you think we'll no longer be humans?
There are three answers here.
#1 You said "indistinguishable." Age and death are necessary for this.
#2 As I alluded to in another post, growing old together is an important aspect of human pairing and is something I would expect of a mate. On a personal level, I could probably overlook this one flaw if my mate could not grow old. I could also overlook a missing arm, a missing eye or a missing uterus. But if I were creating a robot designed to be as indistinguishable from human as possible, I'd make sure she had all of these things.
#3 Death is necessary for evolution. Evolution is part of the human, and eventually post-human, condition. "age-treatment" is somewhat of an oxymoron because age is not a disease, it's simply a part of life. On a personal level, I'd take the chance to live forever if it were offered, but I wouldn't make the mistake of assuming everyone living forever is an improvement to the species.
TW
I wonder if you'll say the same when robots are indistinguishable from humans...
I was at lunch with a bunch of co-workers who were cutting up and one of them asked the group, "what if you were going out with a woman and you later found out she was born a man and had a sex change operation? What would you do?"
I asked, "'she' is so perfectly female that I absolutely couldn't tell the difference and I never suspected anything until faced with 3rd party proof?" The answer, "yes, perfect."
My response was that I'd consider myself to be going out with a woman and I'd continue going out with her. My response would be the same here. If the robot was so perfect that I couldn't tell, then of course I'd date her.
But bear in mind:
I'd expect laughter
I'd expect disagreement
I'd expect affection
I'd expect children
I'd expect love
I'd expect free will
I'd expect planning for the future
I'd expect consiousness
I'd expect old age
I'd expect death
That's the only way my sweetheart could be indistinguishable from a 'real woman.' And if that was the case, I'm sure I'd be plenty happy with a 'robot.'
TW
Thank you, sir, for demonstrating my point. I hope you and your robot enjoy growing old together.
Am I, a regular, human woman, about to become yesterday's biotech? I hope a community of "retro-daters" develops so I still have something to do on a Friday night.
Why are women always so worried about this? Trust me, weeding out the kind of guy who would rather go for a robot than a live woman can be nothing but a boon to you. It'd be nothing but a boon to society too. Darwinism is a good thing.
TW
Hacks or browser was a decision (because i already have Wipeout). Hacks or all this is a no brainer. I can certainly save my SNES gaming for my SNES if the trade off is dramatically improved multimedia. I didn't throw down 250 clams because of the PSP's ability to run 10 year old games and i'm not too sure why anyone would.
I'm curious if it stores a history on the memory stick. I've been using th Wipeout Pure browser for a while now and it's extremely frustrating to have to reload pages when you hit the back button.
BTW, except for some quirks that are specific to the WP browser, in general browsing on a PSP is a joy. I also browse extensively on my cell phone and have browsed quite a bit on PDAs and I find the screen size and button layout of the PSP is the best of the three for mobile browsing.
TW
TW
First off, the reason I used the term "Not Invented Here" was because that was the term the original post used. I'm not bashing Open Firmware.
Second off, 'Trusted Computing' can, and likely, will coexist with I-have-control-of-my-own-box computing. The question is, how will that coexistance work?
1. Is it gonna work by the Linux community needing to buy seperate motherboards with seperate firmware and seperate CPUs.
2. Is it gonna work by the Linux community hacking the firmware in ways that aren't technically legal (think Xbox) so the business community won't have anything to do with it.
3. Or is it gonna work by having firmware where 'Trusted Computing' can be turned off and on (or forced off and on) depending on the OS you choose to run?
If the F/OSS doesn't work with major industry groups, you're going to get #1 or #2 and F/OSS operating systems will be marginalized or worse. If they work with the industry groups you'll at least get a shot at #3.
There is a good second reason though. If F/OSS wants to be part of the computing community then they're going to have to come out of their F/OSS burrows occasionally and join industry groups to create industry standards. Yes, it's hard. Yes, lots of these groups don't work. Yes, some of these companies are evil, or mean, or monopolistic. So what?
There's a term for people who don't join in the decision making process and then complain about it afterwords when the decisions go against them. Actually there are several terms, but the one I want to use today is "childish". It's time for F/OSS to grow up and actually play with the big boys.
TW
... or why not have the fine folks who support OpenFirmware join the EFI group and work with them to make a standard that meets everyone's needs? I sure hope they don't have a "Not Invented Here" mentality that will stop them from working to create a real industry standard with a real industry group.
Leaders of OF should send EFI a letter. The worst they can say is "you're not welcome." But then everything will be right out in the open, won't it?
TW
This is the exact reason it was so important to force the guys with the fat pipes to be forced to sublease their pips to other ISPs. If This were Verizon DSL, I could switch to Covad, but if this were Cox cable, (my current provider) I'd just be stuck.
Letting these guys run their businesses this way is tantamount to letting the guys who run the toll roads just not allow vans from their competing companies run on their roads. We'd never allow this on other critical infrastructure, why the heck should we allow it on the internet, THE crictical infrastructure for the 21st century.
TW
To explain my point a little more clearly:
The Boston Tea Party is considered a great patriotic event that helped set the stage to free us from oppression.
The police who beat Rodney King represent one of the modern forms of such oppression.
Acknowledging the patriotism of the Tea Party gang is a clear statement that sometimes violence is necessary to stop oppression. But turning around and tear-gassing modern rioters and dismissing them as being just pillagers and hoodlums is the government's way of saying, "we don't acknowledge that there's any oppression going on and we don't intend to do anything to stop it."
Yes, there were big problems with the LA riots, but the riots on a whole were a genuine cry to be freed from the oppression of our overzealous and often racist police forces. Understanding that the Tea Party was necessary should also inform you of why the LA riots were necessary. The government taking their alternate, dismissive actions shows that they just don't get that simple fact.
TW
Yes, it is.
The reason is that assembling to call the government to task for the wrongs they've done is instantly reclasified as rioting and pillaging.
Boston tea party. A bunch of guys rioted and pillaged to decry the wrongs of the government.
Rodney King verdict riots. A bunch of people rioted and pillaged to decry the wrongs of the government.
What's the difference? Was one violent and the other peaceful? Did one involve property damage while the other did not?
How about the WTO protests in Seattle that were broken up with rubber bullets and tear gas? Were they causing property damage? Were they pillaging?
And then of course there's all the pillaging that was going on in Tiananmen square.
Whenever you have a government force putting down "riots", you better take some time to figure out why so many people are so god damned upset. Calling them a bunch of pillagers is moste definately missing the point.
TW
Because then he couldn't bitch endlessly about the DRM...
Y'all are funny. I see post after post after post of a guy pointing out that DRM is a pain in the ass, then I see you guys comming up with post after post after post of ways to get around it. Then you call him a whiner for not jumping through all the hoops you've lined up for him.
Guess what, you have to do a bunch of extra stuff when you buy DRMed music. It was not whining to point that out. It's not bitching to point out that non-DRMed music is far easier to use on just about any device and that you don't need to worry about special procedures to avoid them imploding on you someday.
This process is called comparing features. When you geniuses wake up and realized that it is possible for Apple products to have some features with a downside, then maybe you can participate in the process. Until them, please continue to inusult and deride the rest of us instead of joining in an honest debate.
TW
I'd love to watch it on HDTV. But I have a few things working against me. As long as these conditions are true, getting it on DVD is a better alternative for me.
A) I don't get BSG in HDTV and I'm unlikely to get it in the near future. In fact, the cable operator I currently use has Scifi as an analog channel with merely decent picture quality. Should I switch? Maybe. But that's what I have right now.
b) I can't currenlty timeshift HD content. I like timeshifting. A lot. And not just to skip commercials. Believe it or not, I sometimes do other things on Friday nights. I'm not going to start blowing off everything else for 20 weeks in a row so I can be home at just the right time to watch my show. I own my TV, not the other way around.
c) DVD is likely in the very near future. Everything falling in place so I can watch the entire first season of BSG on HDTV, whether via blue-ray, Tivo, broadcast at convienient times, etc. is not likely for quite a while. This is the same reson BitTorrents fuled Season one in the US before it every broadcast on Scifi: the show you have in your hands is always better than the show you may be able to see at some time in the distant future.
Keep preaching HDTV. It's great. But I'll have to make some compromises 'til a few more things fall into place.
TW
I'd love to see it in HD, but in the meantime how about a nice DVD set of the first season? Anybody have any news on when it might see the light of day?
TW
I think the plan is to get the consumer to actually pass out when shopping for media. Then, the store clerks will just steal their wallets.
I love the fact that this was modded +5 insightful instead of +5 funny. I guess the modders were insightful too.
For extra points you could point out that with the new RFID credit cards, the clerks wont even need to fish in the victims pockets.
TW
Apple is going to push Intel, make demands of Intel, get moody and pout, and bitch, bitch, bitch.
What, exactly, will they have to bitch about? Seriously. Are they going to tell Intel they need to make faster chips while Dell and HP kick back and say, "you're cool, dude, slow chips are just fine"? Will Apple really think they can wrangle faster chips out of intel then their competitors get?
The only real bitch point will be price and Intel is going to be able to show them bar graphs up the wazoo to point out that they get the same pricing as every other company that buys X number of chips.
Apple was able to be a pain in the butt for IBM because they were basically IBMs only customer that sold into the personal computer market and because they were always able to compare IBM chips to Intel. Now that they're in the same boat as everyone else on the planet they're going to find they have no more complaint about the product than anybody else. Since they're much smaller then everyone else, they'll find any complaints they do make will get the same attention as the rest of the peanut gallery.
Intel will simply not care if little Apple bitchs unless everyone else is also bitching. Then it will become an industry issue, not an
Apple issue. Apple has to know this. If they don't, they're fools.
TW
Damn, where are the mod points when I need them. Any story that starts "I have a sore coccyx as I write" and clearly shows a tool to use your computer while lying flat on your back surely should beat out a story about a guy who builds a shelf.
TW