Risk is in the eye of the beholder. If you've always used Windows and all the apps and peripherals you own are for Windows then moving to a Mac or Linux platform represents risk.
"How will I get my work done?", "how will I play my games?", and "will I be able to use the printer/scanner/etc. I already own?" are all things that go through the mind of the switcher. Sure, you get a lot of bennefit from the switch, but fear can be more powerful in the end.
BTW, I would be delighted to have a 17" powerbook with WinXP. The company I work for is all Windows so it's the only way I could possibly get one in the shop. You should be delighted that I'd consider it, because the more Powerbooks Apple sells, the more money they'll be able to put into R&D for the OS you love.
Do you remember the first 17" Windows notebooks? They were huge, heavy and plastic. The powerbook is thin, light and metal.
I've never met anyone who has seen a 17" powerbook and didn't find it desirable, but the great thing is that if they were selling to Windows users anyone who didn't like their equipment could just shop elswhere. Even if 98% of Windows users did shop elsewhere, it would still be a huge success to Apple to get that 2%.
You been paying attention to laptops recently? There was a wide lead between the 17" powerbook hitting the streets and the PC manufacturers making anything even remotely close.
Have you checked out the G5 cheese-grater desktop? That thing has airflow and layout that I've never, ever seen a PC touch unless it sounded like a hoover.
This is no fanboy talking. This is a guy, like many of my friends, that wish we could have light notebooks with big screens and dual-processor desktops that stay cool without loud fans. These are mainstream power-user desires that the Dell and HP have not been able to fullfil.
Apple doesn't have to hit it big to hit it big either. They have less than 2% share of the personal computer market right now without taking any Windows users into account. If they were able to put out Intel-based equipment that appealed to just 2% of the Windows user base then they have a chance to double their market share. That's a big deal.
Why is everyone so quick to pit this as an OS battle? I think the more likely scenerio is that Apple will end up taking market share away from HP and Dell. I know a lot of PC users that have salivated over Powerbooks (please note that laptops are now outselling desktops) but very few who would risk an OS change. If Apple makes a product you can load WinXP on, even if it comes with OSX out of the box, expect to see significant sales of Macs to Windows users.
Actually, it does mean it's fair. It just doesn't mean it's right. To be fair (there are at least 8 or 9 seperate meanings, but only one for this context) is to be even-handed in the administration of rules. If we're allowing one sector of the copyright industry to have these extensions, there's an obligation (if we want to be fair) to allow the other sectors that same obligation.
Of course it would be just as fair and even-handed to reduce the copyright period for the other sectors.
But it's not really right to say that this is the best use of the word fair for this context. Making one sector's copyright period similar to another is fair when comparing one copyright holder to another. But when you compare the group of copyright holders to society at large, all of a sudden increasing copyright periods is very unfair. I believe this is the true context being discussed.
Lets look at the cycle of copyright. First, civilization, over thousands of years, has perfected language, music and mathmatics to the point that people can learn a great deal of it in their lifetimes. Then many societies (definately the USA and the UK) teach about 12 years of this knowledge at no cost to each individual.
Using this base of knowledge, many of these individuals will produce creative "works", based on thousands of years of open knowledge and at least a dozen years of specific training. Then they'll turn around and try to lock up those works for the entire lifetime of most of the people who've participated in training them.
Society has given possibly 10,000 years to these individuals and they won't give back. I'd like to hear you parse that using the word "fair."
The pivoting part is important, at least to me. I run dual LCDs at work and each of them is on a pivoting base. We have a highly colaborative environment and it's very common for me to want/need to show something on my screen to a coworker. I can actually swivel one of the displays and then hit a hot key so that both the coworker and me are looking at the exact same material, but then reverse the process and have the ability to use both screens as one giant display. If I had a single base that contained both screens, this wouldn't be possible.
Another technology that makes this expecially usefull is USB mice and keyboards. I actually have an extra set on my desk in just the right position so my coworker can do input when they're looking at my swiveled display. Ever have someone try to reach accross you so they can use your mouse to show you something? Ever switch chairs so someone else could "drive" and then realize you have stuff you need to show them too? Dual displays keyboards and mice are amoung the best investments I've ever made to enchance teamwork in our workplace.
You seem pretty knowledgeable about music quality so maybe you can answer this. When I encode a 128kbps MP3 and the source is good quality acoustic music, it's pretty obvious to me where the term "lossy" comes from. The warmness of the guitars tends to leave and, in general, the "edginess" of the original piece is replaced by something I can only describe as "smoothness".
When I listen to a 128kbps audio stream, I get something a little different. The music sound metallic, almost like it was run through the voice box of one of those old-style Cylon warriors (but not so severe)
However, when I listen to relatively low quality analog recordings, like radio on relatively cheap speakers or an audio cassette, even on a relatively good system, I don't get those problems. True, my dynamic range may be off, but the music displays the same liveliness that it did, well, live. I may have significant noise, but I hear the nuances one would expect from an acoustic guitar and standard drum set.
This is the reason I say tapes and MP3s are equivalent. I may get all the bass and treble anyone could hope for from an MP3, but it won't give me the warm sound I'm used to hearing, at least not at a mid to low bit rate. Sure, I won't have any noise, but the MP3 has also cropped out the natural acoustic "noise" of the environment.
To paraphrase what you say, it really depends on the artist and their handling of the material. Dance music, for example, sounds great on 128kbs MP3s. But go get a couple of nice "unplugged" albums, one on CD ripped to 128kbps and one on cassette tape and I'll be the cassette will sound better, regardless of the technical superiority of the digital recording.
Size matters too. I don't use the PSP as an MP3 player very much just because it's too darn big.
It's a great game machine and has a good size screen for watching movies in an airplain or car, but there's just no practical way to carry it around all the time like a PDA for instant access.
Are you really saying we're bound by the technology of the media we bought?
Following that line of thinking, you can't really even rip MP3s from your own CD. You bought CDs because they were easy to use and portable, but you knew you couldn't fit 500 of them into a device the size of a deck of cards.
The music industry has not been crazy about this ripping of CDs, but we ignore them because their arguments are stupid. I'm finding the suggestion that it's immoral to listen to MP3s of the tapes I own just about as stupid.
JV: But you've already got a DVD. It lasts forever. It never wears out. In the digital world, we don't need back-ups, because a digital copy never wears out. It is timeless.
Thank god you pointed me to this gem. I'm marching right in and tell my boss how much money we can save by eliminating our backup servers and libraries.
I sympathize with your thought proccess, but I don't think very many people would consider 128kbps MP3s to be above and beyond the quality of a brand new factory cassette tape. I certainly wouldn't. I'm not looking for an upgrade. I'm just looking for a mechanism to enjoy the music I already paid for.
But I have a question for you. Would you consider it "piracy" to download an e-book because your water-damaged paper book is unreadable? Would you consider it "piracy" to download a "pirate video" filmed with a camcorder to replace a scratched DVD?
In both these cases, there's no qualitative improvement in the replacement copy. If you still would consider this piracy, then maybe you could tell me why it's wrong? Personally I care a lot less about the law than the ethics of the situation. Is it ethical?
And how exactly do you propose to fight them back? In courts? You will be buried instantly under paperwork and litigation costs (see Bruce Almighty for example).
Well, actually I was refering to a fight that's a bit more subtle. I'm normally a pretty good boy. I buy CDs. I avoid p2p. I've even downloaded from iTunes (though it's not my preference because of the aforementioned forced obsolecence and because of the lower music quality). But if my iTunes music goes belly up because I can't get a proper backup then I won't even consider buying another copy. I'll "pirate" it.
Right now I have a few hundred cassettes. Some are in fairly bad shape because cassettes are kind of fragile. I'll be damned if I'm going to rebuy all of U2's and the Talking Heads' early work just because the music industry is going to lable me a "pirate" if I don't. I bought that stuff once and I'll continue to use it, through downloads if neccessary.
It pisses me off because I really do try to do the right thing. I know it's not fair to just download thousands of dollars worth of music that I never paid for so I just don't do it. But I'll be damned if someone is going to tell me I have to re-buy music I already own. Think about it, they're doing this and at the same time labling _me_ the pirate. Just who is robbing who?
But I still don't trust it and even moreso, I don't like my CD's to be crippled in any way, even backups. What if I lose the original, and can't backup my backup. Ugh. My head hurts.
Notice how none of these folks hoisting DRM on us are even trying a little bit to help us with these concerns? They're telling us that they're giving us limited licenses to music, movies or software, but they have very few, if any, provisions to help us get replacement media if ours happens to fail.
The reason for this is very clear to me. They make money off of me buying the same music more than once. Furthermore, by limiting the copying of digital music, they're actaully guaranteeing that I'll need to buy the same music more than once if I should ever have to, or just want to, replace my computer.
They're complaining about casual piracy, but what they're giving us in return is forced obsolecense for something that shouldn't by its nature have any shelf life at all. They won't come out and say it, but they're happy that Vinyl, tapes and CDs were so fragile and they're kind of pissed that the technology exists for us to keep our music forever. Remember that line from Men In Black? "Now I'll have to buy the White Album again." They actually count on us paying multiple times for the exact same product. It's a business model.
Look, if it's just a license, then give me a way to keep that license if my media goes bad. If it's just media, then let me treat it like it's media and stop treating me like a criminal if I want to copy it. If you're going to declare war and force me to upgrade my media every few years, don't be surprised if I take your challenge and find a way to, well, not make that upgrade. You already got my money once so leave me alone.
Why must......SciFi persist in making these dreary, crappy, rehashed programs when there are already ton's of decent programs out there in the SciFi vein? Where is Doctor Who 2005 for example?
You're calling BSG a rehash but you're looking for more Doctor Who? This isn't a crack on Dr. Who, just a warning that if you want to crack on BSG you should at least have a reason that you don't contradict in the very next sentence.
That covers a lot of ground and is open to a bunch of misinterpretations. For example, is spying considered part of the military that's specifically authorized, or is it something else? Are the ATF and FBI involved in regulating comerce, which is specifically authorized, or not?
The congress is specifically authorized, so as long as they're doing their jobs, they have the ability to creat a whole lot of government that isn't specifically authorized, but is nontheless constitutionally correct. Are you suggesting we get rid of all of this?
The breathalyzer at the party was a great idea. I've carried one in my car for some time so I can check myself as I leave bars, parties, etc.
But the deal with teens is that their sense of not wanting to get in trouble far outweighs their sense of risk from driving drunk.
When I was a teen, all the local teens went to this guy's apartment (behind the 7-11 and right across from the liquor store) to get him to buy them beer. I was in this apartment on many occasions when this happened and a very common occurance was that the kids would play a drinking game to down all the beer before leaving his apartment. I didn't understand why they did this, so one time I asked. One of the kids explained to me (treating my like I was a little dense in the process) that they had to drink the beer before driving away or they risked getting in serious trouble for having beer in the car with them.
Yes it's stupid, but from their perspective, they risked less driving drunk. Their perspective was actually correct from the narrow view of "getting in trouble" being the main thing they were trying to avoid. How do you argue with logic like that?
I think it's funny whenever anyone calls for less government. How do you define this? The fact of the matter is that both parties define it exactly the same way: If you cut the pet projects of the other party, you'll end up with "less government" but when you fund the pet projects of my party it doesn't count as "more government" because "we really need those things."
Question: No matter how much we may need it, isn't increasing military and "homeland security" funding actually increasing the size of government? I'll give you a hint: It's not making it smaller.
This is a seriously good argument except for one little point: Have you ever bought a DVD or DVD player? If you say you haven't then I'll leave you alone. If you say you have then please realize all the same areguments you're about to use to explain your buying decision also apply to DRMed software.
so what do you do when your software requires an Intel chipset because of the DRM capabilities?
AMD has been working for years to make people understand that there is no downside to using their chips. I've used many AMD CPUs and have never had a problem that I've been able to trace to using a non-Intel CPU. But what on earth is going to happen when I try to load software and the error message says "this software will not work with AMD systems" because the software maker demands DRM?
One of three things is going to happen.
1)This will never take off. 2)AMD will adopt DRM themselves. 3)AMD will be marginalized as software manufacturers demand DRM.
Macs and Linux are generally safer in many ways and it isn't anything to do with their lack of popularity. Out of the box, Macs don't have admin privileges for instance...
But the temptation is there. Lindows/Linspire, maybe Ubuntu, and definately most of the live installs all have you running as Root on bootup.
I'm impressed that Apple hasn't bowed to temptation in this area, but they went ahead and did that stupid thing with the widgets, primarily because they were looking to make things easier for their users.
As long as the temptation exists for users to have things easier, mass market OSs are going to be at risk of designing bad security into their systems.
Why doesn't firefox have the ability to "jail" itself? I'd be very happy if it locked itself away in some directory.
The problem is people want to be able to do all kinds of things with their "browser" other than just browse. If it at least had a switch to jain/unjail itself and jail was the default it would still be a big improvement.
Are you seriously stating that a three-year-old copy of Linux or OS/X does not need patching before going on the internet or are you just pointing out that WinXP has in-the-wild vulnerabilities that will compramize it in minutes, thus it is riskier?
I doubt you're saying the first because you know there are many vulnerabilities on Linux and OS/X that must be patched. But you also know that they're mostly of the "manual" variety where someone has to be out to get you specifically.
Which leads me to point out Windows being compromised automatically has far more to do with popularity than vulnerability. Don't get me wrong, there is a whole lot of vulnerability in an unpatched copy of WinXP, but that is not demonstrated by the automatic hacks. The fact that automatic hacks are rare for Linux and OS/X, conversly proves nothing about it's vulnerability.
Hacker choose to auto-hack Windows because there are more Windows user so the hacker will get more of what he wants. If he wants bank numbers, he'll get more of them. If he wants zombies, he'll get more of them. If he wants noteriety, he'll get more of it.
Autohacking ther others simply gives less payback. If a single version of Linux ever becomes as popular as WinXP on the desktop, there is nothing so superior about it's security profile that will keep it from getting as many autohacks as Windows.
...at least not one you'd want to use. Sorry people, Linux is not "safe." Mac OS/anything is not "safe." There are a very few OSs that are pretty safe, but the only reason Mac and Linux fans can brag right now is that they're ignoring all the patches, hacks, etc that already exist for their OS of choice.
I think the point you are missing is that in order for any program to function as expected (hoped) in an educational facility, you will need the backing of the instructors.
I know you meant this is the sense that a major group of users supported it, but it also works in the sense that they were actually able to give instruction for its use.
One of the reasons F/OSS has such an uphill battle is because existing software has such huge support in terms of classes on it's use, informal help on its use, and the availability of certifications. The reason this project worked for this school was because they actaully taught classes on how to use OOo and there was also plenty of informal help, both from teachers and other students.
This is one of the few comparisons I've seen of the two platforms that actually comes close to being "apples to apples." Many people who give MS Office the edge are actually counting in this status quo educational edge, either consiously or subconsiously. On the other hand, many proponents of OOo either consiously or subconsiously give it an edge simply because it's open source rather than because it's actually superior. These guys gave classes on it's use and noted at least two areas where OOo was superior, cost and backward compatibility. That's a very good thing for this product.
Slashdot Mirror
Risk is in the eye of the beholder. If you've always used Windows and all the apps and peripherals you own are for Windows then moving to a Mac or Linux platform represents risk.
"How will I get my work done?", "how will I play my games?", and "will I be able to use the printer/scanner/etc. I already own?" are all things that go through the mind of the switcher. Sure, you get a lot of bennefit from the switch, but fear can be more powerful in the end.
BTW, I would be delighted to have a 17" powerbook with WinXP. The company I work for is all Windows so it's the only way I could possibly get one in the shop. You should be delighted that I'd consider it, because the more Powerbooks Apple sells, the more money they'll be able to put into R&D for the OS you love.
TW
Do you remember the first 17" Windows notebooks? They were huge, heavy and plastic. The powerbook is thin, light and metal.
I've never met anyone who has seen a 17" powerbook and didn't find it desirable, but the great thing is that if they were selling to Windows users anyone who didn't like their equipment could just shop elswhere. Even if 98% of Windows users did shop elsewhere, it would still be a huge success to Apple to get that 2%.
TW
You been paying attention to laptops recently? There was a wide lead between the 17" powerbook hitting the streets and the PC manufacturers making anything even remotely close.
Have you checked out the G5 cheese-grater desktop? That thing has airflow and layout that I've never, ever seen a PC touch unless it sounded like a hoover.
This is no fanboy talking. This is a guy, like many of my friends, that wish we could have light notebooks with big screens and dual-processor desktops that stay cool without loud fans. These are mainstream power-user desires that the Dell and HP have not been able to fullfil.
Apple doesn't have to hit it big to hit it big either. They have less than 2% share of the personal computer market right now without taking any Windows users into account. If they were able to put out Intel-based equipment that appealed to just 2% of the Windows user base then they have a chance to double their market share. That's a big deal.
Why is everyone so quick to pit this as an OS battle? I think the more likely scenerio is that Apple will end up taking market share away from HP and Dell. I know a lot of PC users that have salivated over Powerbooks (please note that laptops are now outselling desktops) but very few who would risk an OS change. If Apple makes a product you can load WinXP on, even if it comes with OSX out of the box, expect to see significant sales of Macs to Windows users.
TW
Actually, it does mean it's fair. It just doesn't mean it's right. To be fair (there are at least 8 or 9 seperate meanings, but only one for this context) is to be even-handed in the administration of rules. If we're allowing one sector of the copyright industry to have these extensions, there's an obligation (if we want to be fair) to allow the other sectors that same obligation.
Of course it would be just as fair and even-handed to reduce the copyright period for the other sectors.
But it's not really right to say that this is the best use of the word fair for this context. Making one sector's copyright period similar to another is fair when comparing one copyright holder to another. But when you compare the group of copyright holders to society at large, all of a sudden increasing copyright periods is very unfair. I believe this is the true context being discussed.
Lets look at the cycle of copyright. First, civilization, over thousands of years, has perfected language, music and mathmatics to the point that people can learn a great deal of it in their lifetimes. Then many societies (definately the USA and the UK) teach about 12 years of this knowledge at no cost to each individual.
Using this base of knowledge, many of these individuals will produce creative "works", based on thousands of years of open knowledge and at least a dozen years of specific training. Then they'll turn around and try to lock up those works for the entire lifetime of most of the people who've participated in training them.
Society has given possibly 10,000 years to these individuals and they won't give back. I'd like to hear you parse that using the word "fair."
TW
The pivoting part is important, at least to me. I run dual LCDs at work and each of them is on a pivoting base. We have a highly colaborative environment and it's very common for me to want/need to show something on my screen to a coworker. I can actually swivel one of the displays and then hit a hot key so that both the coworker and me are looking at the exact same material, but then reverse the process and have the ability to use both screens as one giant display. If I had a single base that contained both screens, this wouldn't be possible.
Another technology that makes this expecially usefull is USB mice and keyboards. I actually have an extra set on my desk in just the right position so my coworker can do input when they're looking at my swiveled display. Ever have someone try to reach accross you so they can use your mouse to show you something? Ever switch chairs so someone else could "drive" and then realize you have stuff you need to show them too? Dual displays keyboards and mice are amoung the best investments I've ever made to enchance teamwork in our workplace.
TW
You seem pretty knowledgeable about music quality so maybe you can answer this. When I encode a 128kbps MP3 and the source is good quality acoustic music, it's pretty obvious to me where the term "lossy" comes from. The warmness of the guitars tends to leave and, in general, the "edginess" of the original piece is replaced by something I can only describe as "smoothness".
When I listen to a 128kbps audio stream, I get something a little different. The music sound metallic, almost like it was run through the voice box of one of those old-style Cylon warriors (but not so severe)
However, when I listen to relatively low quality analog recordings, like radio on relatively cheap speakers or an audio cassette, even on a relatively good system, I don't get those problems. True, my dynamic range may be off, but the music displays the same liveliness that it did, well, live. I may have significant noise, but I hear the nuances one would expect from an acoustic guitar and standard drum set.
This is the reason I say tapes and MP3s are equivalent. I may get all the bass and treble anyone could hope for from an MP3, but it won't give me the warm sound I'm used to hearing, at least not at a mid to low bit rate. Sure, I won't have any noise, but the MP3 has also cropped out the natural acoustic "noise" of the environment.
To paraphrase what you say, it really depends on the artist and their handling of the material. Dance music, for example, sounds great on 128kbs MP3s. But go get a couple of nice "unplugged" albums, one on CD ripped to 128kbps and one on cassette tape and I'll be the cassette will sound better, regardless of the technical superiority of the digital recording.
TW
Size matters too. I don't use the PSP as an MP3 player very much just because it's too darn big.
It's a great game machine and has a good size screen for watching movies in an airplain or car, but there's just no practical way to carry it around all the time like a PDA for instant access.
The deal with the "gay gene" being passed on is that the past has litle to do with the future.
In the past, male and female had to mate in order to make a baby.
Now, all it takes is the gay guys filling a turkey baster full of sperm and passing it on to the lesbian couple. Easy, cheap, and highly effective.
I guarentee, if there's a gay gene it'll roam free for the forseeable future. You might even end up seeing growing numbers.
TW
Are you really saying we're bound by the technology of the media we bought?
Following that line of thinking, you can't really even rip MP3s from your own CD. You bought CDs because they were easy to use and portable, but you knew you couldn't fit 500 of them into a device the size of a deck of cards.
The music industry has not been crazy about this ripping of CDs, but we ignore them because their arguments are stupid. I'm finding the suggestion that it's immoral to listen to MP3s of the tapes I own just about as stupid.
TW
Thank god you pointed me to this gem. I'm marching right in and tell my boss how much money we can save by eliminating our backup servers and libraries.
TW
I sympathize with your thought proccess, but I don't think very many people would consider 128kbps MP3s to be above and beyond the quality of a brand new factory cassette tape. I certainly wouldn't. I'm not looking for an upgrade. I'm just looking for a mechanism to enjoy the music I already paid for.
But I have a question for you. Would you consider it "piracy" to download an e-book because your water-damaged paper book is unreadable? Would you consider it "piracy" to download a "pirate video" filmed with a camcorder to replace a scratched DVD?
In both these cases, there's no qualitative improvement in the replacement copy. If you still would consider this piracy, then maybe you could tell me why it's wrong? Personally I care a lot less about the law than the ethics of the situation. Is it ethical?
TW
And how exactly do you propose to fight them back? In courts? You will be buried instantly under paperwork and litigation costs (see Bruce Almighty for example).
Well, actually I was refering to a fight that's a bit more subtle. I'm normally a pretty good boy. I buy CDs. I avoid p2p. I've even downloaded from iTunes (though it's not my preference because of the aforementioned forced obsolecence and because of the lower music quality). But if my iTunes music goes belly up because I can't get a proper backup then I won't even consider buying another copy. I'll "pirate" it.
Right now I have a few hundred cassettes. Some are in fairly bad shape because cassettes are kind of fragile. I'll be damned if I'm going to rebuy all of U2's and the Talking Heads' early work just because the music industry is going to lable me a "pirate" if I don't. I bought that stuff once and I'll continue to use it, through downloads if neccessary.
It pisses me off because I really do try to do the right thing. I know it's not fair to just download thousands of dollars worth of music that I never paid for so I just don't do it. But I'll be damned if someone is going to tell me I have to re-buy music I already own. Think about it, they're doing this and at the same time labling _me_ the pirate. Just who is robbing who?
TW
But I still don't trust it and even moreso, I don't like my CD's to be crippled in any way, even backups. What if I lose the original, and can't backup my backup. Ugh. My head hurts.
Notice how none of these folks hoisting DRM on us are even trying a little bit to help us with these concerns? They're telling us that they're giving us limited licenses to music, movies or software, but they have very few, if any, provisions to help us get replacement media if ours happens to fail.
The reason for this is very clear to me. They make money off of me buying the same music more than once. Furthermore, by limiting the copying of digital music, they're actaully guaranteeing that I'll need to buy the same music more than once if I should ever have to, or just want to, replace my computer.
They're complaining about casual piracy, but what they're giving us in return is forced obsolecense for something that shouldn't by its nature have any shelf life at all. They won't come out and say it, but they're happy that Vinyl, tapes and CDs were so fragile and they're kind of pissed that the technology exists for us to keep our music forever. Remember that line from Men In Black? "Now I'll have to buy the White Album again." They actually count on us paying multiple times for the exact same product. It's a business model.
Look, if it's just a license, then give me a way to keep that license if my media goes bad. If it's just media, then let me treat it like it's media and stop treating me like a criminal if I want to copy it. If you're going to declare war and force me to upgrade my media every few years, don't be surprised if I take your challenge and find a way to, well, not make that upgrade. You already got my money once so leave me alone.
You're calling BSG a rehash but you're looking for more Doctor Who? This isn't a crack on Dr. Who, just a warning that if you want to crack on BSG you should at least have a reason that you don't contradict in the very next sentence.
TW
That covers a lot of ground and is open to a bunch of misinterpretations. For example, is spying considered part of the military that's specifically authorized, or is it something else? Are the ATF and FBI involved in regulating comerce, which is specifically authorized, or not?
The congress is specifically authorized, so as long as they're doing their jobs, they have the ability to creat a whole lot of government that isn't specifically authorized, but is nontheless constitutionally correct. Are you suggesting we get rid of all of this?
The breathalyzer at the party was a great idea. I've carried one in my car for some time so I can check myself as I leave bars, parties, etc.
But the deal with teens is that their sense of not wanting to get in trouble far outweighs their sense of risk from driving drunk.
When I was a teen, all the local teens went to this guy's apartment (behind the 7-11 and right across from the liquor store) to get him to buy them beer. I was in this apartment on many occasions when this happened and a very common occurance was that the kids would play a drinking game to down all the beer before leaving his apartment. I didn't understand why they did this, so one time I asked. One of the kids explained to me (treating my like I was a little dense in the process) that they had to drink the beer before driving away or they risked getting in serious trouble for having beer in the car with them.
Yes it's stupid, but from their perspective, they risked less driving drunk. Their perspective was actually correct from the narrow view of "getting in trouble" being the main thing they were trying to avoid. How do you argue with logic like that?
I think it's funny whenever anyone calls for less government. How do you define this? The fact of the matter is that both parties define it exactly the same way: If you cut the pet projects of the other party, you'll end up with "less government" but when you fund the pet projects of my party it doesn't count as "more government" because "we really need those things."
Question: No matter how much we may need it, isn't increasing military and "homeland security" funding actually increasing the size of government? I'll give you a hint: It's not making it smaller.
TW
This is a seriously good argument except for one little point: Have you ever bought a DVD or DVD player? If you say you haven't then I'll leave you alone. If you say you have then please realize all the same areguments you're about to use to explain your buying decision also apply to DRMed software.
TW
so what do you do when your software requires an Intel chipset because of the DRM capabilities?
AMD has been working for years to make people understand that there is no downside to using their chips. I've used many AMD CPUs and have never had a problem that I've been able to trace to using a non-Intel CPU. But what on earth is going to happen when I try to load software and the error message says "this software will not work with AMD systems" because the software maker demands DRM?
One of three things is going to happen.
1)This will never take off.
2)AMD will adopt DRM themselves.
3)AMD will be marginalized as software manufacturers demand DRM.
Macs and Linux are generally safer in many ways and it isn't anything to do with their lack of popularity. Out of the box, Macs don't have admin privileges for instance...
But the temptation is there. Lindows/Linspire, maybe Ubuntu, and definately most of the live installs all have you running as Root on bootup.
I'm impressed that Apple hasn't bowed to temptation in this area, but they went ahead and did that stupid thing with the widgets, primarily because they were looking to make things easier for their users.
As long as the temptation exists for users to have things easier, mass market OSs are going to be at risk of designing bad security into their systems.
TW
Why doesn't firefox have the ability to "jail" itself? I'd be very happy if it locked itself away in some directory.
The problem is people want to be able to do all kinds of things with their "browser" other than just browse. If it at least had a switch to jain/unjail itself and jail was the default it would still be a big improvement.
TW
Are you seriously stating that a three-year-old copy of Linux or OS/X does not need patching before going on the internet or are you just pointing out that WinXP has in-the-wild vulnerabilities that will compramize it in minutes, thus it is riskier?
I doubt you're saying the first because you know there are many vulnerabilities on Linux and OS/X that must be patched. But you also know that they're mostly of the "manual" variety where someone has to be out to get you specifically.
Which leads me to point out Windows being compromised automatically has far more to do with popularity than vulnerability. Don't get me wrong, there is a whole lot of vulnerability in an unpatched copy of WinXP, but that is not demonstrated by the automatic hacks. The fact that automatic hacks are rare for Linux and OS/X, conversly proves nothing about it's vulnerability.
Hacker choose to auto-hack Windows because there are more Windows user so the hacker will get more of what he wants. If he wants bank numbers, he'll get more of them. If he wants zombies, he'll get more of them. If he wants noteriety, he'll get more of it.
Autohacking ther others simply gives less payback. If a single version of Linux ever becomes as popular as WinXP on the desktop, there is nothing so superior about it's security profile that will keep it from getting as many autohacks as Windows.
TW
...at least not one you'd want to use. Sorry people, Linux is not "safe." Mac OS/anything is not "safe." There are a very few OSs that are pretty safe, but the only reason Mac and Linux fans can brag right now is that they're ignoring all the patches, hacks, etc that already exist for their OS of choice.
TW
I think the point you are missing is that in order for any program to function as expected (hoped) in an educational facility, you will need the backing of the instructors.
I know you meant this is the sense that a major group of users supported it, but it also works in the sense that they were actually able to give instruction for its use.
One of the reasons F/OSS has such an uphill battle is because existing software has such huge support in terms of classes on it's use, informal help on its use, and the availability of certifications. The reason this project worked for this school was because they actaully taught classes on how to use OOo and there was also plenty of informal help, both from teachers and other students.
This is one of the few comparisons I've seen of the two platforms that actually comes close to being "apples to apples." Many people who give MS Office the edge are actually counting in this status quo educational edge, either consiously or subconsiously. On the other hand, many proponents of OOo either consiously or subconsiously give it an edge simply because it's open source rather than because it's actually superior. These guys gave classes on it's use and noted at least two areas where OOo was superior, cost and backward compatibility. That's a very good thing for this product.
TW