Did anyone really think this wasn't a preplanned action by AOL? They probably thought everyone would think they are cool and they could get recognition from releasing this. Of course, it back fired and everyone hates AOL more than ever.
They haven't released the details to any new great features yet. It's because they don't have any. And all they are doing with allowing dual boot, is migrating mac users to windows.
The fact is they will still get the information for each session, so all the searches you make in a row will still be tied together. So whether you use a proxy or not, they will still be able to link successive searches together. Now in any browser(i assume) just add google to your restricted internet sites and set it to restrict cookies from restricted sites. You can do this for all your search engines if they use cookies. My guess is for their data to make sense they have to ignore the ip addresses, because of dynamic ips. Block the cookie and your done.
None of those analogies work at all. They all require me physically doing something to take your stuff and use it. With wifi, if your connection is unprotected and it's a stronger signal than my router, I could end up on your connection and if I'm not paying attention I might not even notice or if you have the same SSID. The automatic connecting nature of windows with wifi makes using someone else's unprotected wifi legal. This is because everyone knows that if you leave it unprotected other people's computers will autoconnect. At best you could claim microsoft is stealing, but in the end just set a password and you won't even have to deal with it.
Intel is scared and they are just doing this as an attempt to try to gain more consumer support of their graphics junk. Unfortunately this won't save them.
Pirating programs/games/music/movies has never cut down on anyone's revenue. In most cases it probably increases revenue. What is probably happening is that games like WoW are taking all the paying customers away, leaving only the non paying customers behind. Which means there should be more of an effort to turn these people into paying customers. But, the only solutions corporations seem to like is driving these potential customers away by suing them rather than offering deals or incentives to make them to want to buy a game.
It's a smaller company so the computers are basially unrestricted. I have helped them set up an automatic way to change group policies, which will help. But I think all users still have admin priveledges, so they could just change it back if they knew how.
But I am also new at coding and by checking in multiple browsers I have caught a few mistakes that IE rendered correctly.
But its also just a summer job and I am basically getting paid to learn this stuff as I go.
If you place your bike in the back of someone's pickup truck, then you are giving it away. The same applies to internet. If you set up a connection that my wifi card will automatically connect to without any interaction on my part, you are giving it away.
True. But, if microsoft can make more money than what they are making now with some people getting around the ads, it would still make sense.
I think in the end an ad supported OS's success would matter how viral the ads were.
Lets say they throw ads on all inactive spots on windows. Like an ad on the start bar in the extra space between window tabs and the clock, ads in the title bar in the extra space between the title and the minimize button of every window, ads on any extra space in the start menu. If the ads were dynamic and fit themselves into the operating system, rather than making the operating system fit them I wouldn't say this is a horrible thing.
Although odds are an ad version would just save dell money and not the consumer. So your desktop will look like a little league field at no savings to you.
They will probably work out a drm solution. That way anyone can offer a dvd ripping service, but the copy can only play on the player that it's ripped to play on. Stores offering the service would get more business because you would have to pay a ripping fee for each device, rather than one rip for a copy that can play on all devices.
It would be perfect for the uneducated consumer that can't figure out how to do it on her own.
Granted the MPAA will probably just make the huge mistake of just trying to prevent anyone from making copies and force illegal activity by consumers.
If they did this, it would probably end up on every dell with an option to pay more to get an ad free version. Which wouldn't change much considering the amount of spyware and adware dell already loads up on a new computer. My guess is pc manufacturers like the idea more than microsoft. Ad companies would like it because you couldn't go down the list in ad/remove programs and get rid of most of their software. If it makes all the corporations happier, it will most likely happen.
The only way this could be work is if they showed you a real dance routine and had you mimick it. Just jumbling up a random set of posses seems stupid.
It's impossible to steal unprotected wifi. If you leave your connection unprotected, that means you are purposely sharing it. Although flipping the pictures upsidedown is pure genious.
If that's not currently happening, that would be sad. Companies will have no excuse. But in the end I think the biggest problems arise when websites are originally created. People don't bother to test their pages in multiple browsers. I've been making an intranet page for the company I work for this summer and even though some functions require IE and IE is on every computer and the default browser, I still test in firefox and opera. I even tested on the IE7 beta. For the most part I have been able to get everything to look just about the same in all browsers. Overall, IE6, IE7 and firefox will all look really close, but opera will look a little different.
I would hope that if my page looks the same in three different browsers, it should be pretty safe in future browsers.
Just round up all the homeless and other useless people and hook them all to feeding tubes and put search visors on their heads. Their brains can increase the accuracy of googles results and speed up search times.
But you hear that noise no matter what headset or phone you use. This just makes it so no one else can hear the person talking to you, by transferring noise through physical touch, rather than over the air.
I guess the real question is, are normal headsets so loud that the guy next to you can hear the person speaking?
"When Yonah is running at the same clock speed as AMD's Athlon 64 FX-60, we found that it beat it into a corner in just about every situation."
If this is true, it would be the first time intel made anything better than amd. But in the end, all that matters is that AMD's $200 chip outperforms intel's $200 chip.
Slashdot Mirror
Did anyone really think this wasn't a preplanned action by AOL? They probably thought everyone would think they are cool and they could get recognition from releasing this. Of course, it back fired and everyone hates AOL more than ever.
I've never used a matrox card. They are scared of amd + ati.
"standards compliant" LOL. Nothing is completely standards compliant. Some just work better with standards than others.
They haven't released the details to any new great features yet. It's because they don't have any. And all they are doing with allowing dual boot, is migrating mac users to windows.
The fact is they will still get the information for each session, so all the searches you make in a row will still be tied together. So whether you use a proxy or not, they will still be able to link successive searches together. Now in any browser(i assume) just add google to your restricted internet sites and set it to restrict cookies from restricted sites. You can do this for all your search engines if they use cookies. My guess is for their data to make sense they have to ignore the ip addresses, because of dynamic ips. Block the cookie and your done.
None of those analogies work at all. They all require me physically doing something to take your stuff and use it. With wifi, if your connection is unprotected and it's a stronger signal than my router, I could end up on your connection and if I'm not paying attention I might not even notice or if you have the same SSID. The automatic connecting nature of windows with wifi makes using someone else's unprotected wifi legal. This is because everyone knows that if you leave it unprotected other people's computers will autoconnect. At best you could claim microsoft is stealing, but in the end just set a password and you won't even have to deal with it.
If you have a keylogger on your computer, you've got bigger issues. Odds are they got all your info when you signed up for the bank.
Or just run a program that will give you the cd key on a lab computer at such a university. Granted, if your caught you will probably be expelled.
Intel is scared and they are just doing this as an attempt to try to gain more consumer support of their graphics junk. Unfortunately this won't save them.
Pirating programs/games/music/movies has never cut down on anyone's revenue. In most cases it probably increases revenue. What is probably happening is that games like WoW are taking all the paying customers away, leaving only the non paying customers behind. Which means there should be more of an effort to turn these people into paying customers. But, the only solutions corporations seem to like is driving these potential customers away by suing them rather than offering deals or incentives to make them to want to buy a game.
It's a smaller company so the computers are basially unrestricted. I have helped them set up an automatic way to change group policies, which will help. But I think all users still have admin priveledges, so they could just change it back if they knew how. But I am also new at coding and by checking in multiple browsers I have caught a few mistakes that IE rendered correctly. But its also just a summer job and I am basically getting paid to learn this stuff as I go.
If you place your bike in the back of someone's pickup truck, then you are giving it away. The same applies to internet. If you set up a connection that my wifi card will automatically connect to without any interaction on my part, you are giving it away.
True. But, if microsoft can make more money than what they are making now with some people getting around the ads, it would still make sense. I think in the end an ad supported OS's success would matter how viral the ads were. Lets say they throw ads on all inactive spots on windows. Like an ad on the start bar in the extra space between window tabs and the clock, ads in the title bar in the extra space between the title and the minimize button of every window, ads on any extra space in the start menu. If the ads were dynamic and fit themselves into the operating system, rather than making the operating system fit them I wouldn't say this is a horrible thing. Although odds are an ad version would just save dell money and not the consumer. So your desktop will look like a little league field at no savings to you.
They will probably work out a drm solution. That way anyone can offer a dvd ripping service, but the copy can only play on the player that it's ripped to play on. Stores offering the service would get more business because you would have to pay a ripping fee for each device, rather than one rip for a copy that can play on all devices. It would be perfect for the uneducated consumer that can't figure out how to do it on her own. Granted the MPAA will probably just make the huge mistake of just trying to prevent anyone from making copies and force illegal activity by consumers.
If they did this, it would probably end up on every dell with an option to pay more to get an ad free version. Which wouldn't change much considering the amount of spyware and adware dell already loads up on a new computer. My guess is pc manufacturers like the idea more than microsoft. Ad companies would like it because you couldn't go down the list in ad/remove programs and get rid of most of their software. If it makes all the corporations happier, it will most likely happen.
The only way this could be work is if they showed you a real dance routine and had you mimick it. Just jumbling up a random set of posses seems stupid.
Your nuts, the month always goes first and the year is 06 not 6.
It's impossible to steal unprotected wifi. If you leave your connection unprotected, that means you are purposely sharing it. Although flipping the pictures upsidedown is pure genious.
If that's not currently happening, that would be sad. Companies will have no excuse. But in the end I think the biggest problems arise when websites are originally created. People don't bother to test their pages in multiple browsers. I've been making an intranet page for the company I work for this summer and even though some functions require IE and IE is on every computer and the default browser, I still test in firefox and opera. I even tested on the IE7 beta. For the most part I have been able to get everything to look just about the same in all browsers. Overall, IE6, IE7 and firefox will all look really close, but opera will look a little different. I would hope that if my page looks the same in three different browsers, it should be pretty safe in future browsers.
Just round up all the homeless and other useless people and hook them all to feeding tubes and put search visors on their heads. Their brains can increase the accuracy of googles results and speed up search times.
I don't get it, why would a site be IE only? IE has ActiveX and vbscript. These surely aren't needed for anything to be done on the web.
But you hear that noise no matter what headset or phone you use. This just makes it so no one else can hear the person talking to you, by transferring noise through physical touch, rather than over the air. I guess the real question is, are normal headsets so loud that the guy next to you can hear the person speaking?
A philosophy paper can't prove anything.
Thats the biggest reason open source doesn't work.
"When Yonah is running at the same clock speed as AMD's Athlon 64 FX-60, we found that it beat it into a corner in just about every situation." If this is true, it would be the first time intel made anything better than amd. But in the end, all that matters is that AMD's $200 chip outperforms intel's $200 chip.