The number of known vulnerabilities isn't an accurate figure of merit for security anyway. So why bother complaining about the way vulnerabilites are counted?
"Interesting comment. Here Apple has iTMS which works on Apple own OS as well as the competing Microsoft and functions exactly the same on either OS.
Will Urge do the same on Apple's OS or is this going to be another anti-trust issue? Hell, they could support Linux like Rhapsody and get out of the hot seat."
MS already licenses WMA. It's Apple that's obstructing compatibility and the one who is creating an antitrust problem
"f it doesn't work on a iPod will it not work on a RIO either? how about a sony walkman? Maybe I should download a copy for free and at a higher bit rate from the internet?"
It doesn't work with iPod because Apple refuses to lince Fairplay and refuses to support WMA. They enjoy their monopoly on the mp3 player market and leverage it for music sales on iTMS. It'll work with all players that support the WMA, which is everyone else in the market.
"Passive solar collection (photovoltaic and otherwise) and wind power are really the only truly "green" power sources."
If you covered a square mile of the desert with solar cells, I think that would disrupt the local ecosystem, so solar is not really "green" in the sense you mean either.
"Brian Krebs is clearly either extremely stupid, or has an axe to grind. If you look at the Cert Cyber Security Bulletin 2005 Summary, you can see that many of the lines in it end in "(Updated)" A simple count of lines gives the results that Brian quotes, however there are far more "(Updated)" entries in the Unix/ Linux Operating Systems section."
The author isn't trying to make a security comparison between the two OS's. Not once does he even imply one OS is better than another based on this list. So why are you trying?
"The real problem is that "terrorism" is getting stretched to mean "anything law enforcement wants to have an easier time checking into". This trivialization of the word "terrorism" means that pretty soon, we're going to need a new word for the real thing..."
No terrorism is the use of violence to instill fear in order to coerce changes in people's behavior. So if you burn down a housing project with the hope that the investor will fear building there again because of further economic losses, you are a terrorist, by definition. Just because you don't like the way a word is used, doesn't mean you can make up a new definition for it. If someone kills a mink farmer with the intent to scare other mink farmers into changing trades, that person is a terrorist.
"Another famous founding father patriot (Benjamin Franklin) claimed (and this is oft-quoted here on/.) "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
If you think you can have liberty without safety, you don't understand what the word liberty means.
"Obviously, most people don't think it's unethical to download music. And when the majority of society disagrees with one of its laws, that law will change. At least it should."
At one time the majority of people believed that slavery was acceptable. Ethics shouldn't be dictated by the whims of the majority, but instead on rational thought. So, if you believe there is nothing wrong with violating copyright in downloading music, justify your opinion with a reasonable explanation. Don't just say it's ok because everyone is doing it.
"Please stop calling copyright infringement theft. It is not theft. Theft deprives someone of something. Copyright infringement is a wholly separate thing. You are stupid. Thank you."
So am I stupid for using the phrase "You stole my idea.". Copyright infringement is theft because distributing copyrighted material at a lower cost than the copyright owner would charge deprives him of revenue, and lowers the value (in monetary terms) of the copyrighted work. That is, if I want to charge $1 for a song I own, but someone else is selling an exact copy for $0.50 under the same conditions, I need to lower my price to $0.50 to sell any songs.
" I have to disagree with this. This is about power. The record companies want to dictate how you use their product. They cannot get over the idea that once you purchase something it no longer belongs to them."
Sort of like GPL. GPL licensers want to give away software but still maintain control of it.
"Like many of us, he is offended by the fact that the record labels and movie studios treat their customers like criminals."
This type of comment irritates me to no end. People have proven they are criminals through using the old Napster, Gnutella, etc., so why are you surprised by DRM?
"Which is precisely why iTunes is such a comparatively elegant solution. Who needs yet another music management program? iTunes will sync your music to your phone (provided it is a ROKR...they need an iTunes RAZR immediately).
No one needs to sync music manually. Why SprinTel expects you to do so is beyond me."
Explain to me how iTMS purchased music will play on a cell phone that doesn't support fairplay.
"They are a monopoly, and monopolies are regulated for JUST THIS REASON. Microsoft is demanding that legal investigations into their anticompetitive actions be halted, or they will cripple South Korea by refusing to sell them product. That is the CLASSIC REASON why monopolies are anti-free market!
NO. THEY DON'T GET TO DECIDE WHERE THERE PRODUCT IS SOLD. THEY ARE AN ABUSIVE MONOPOLY. They've lost the right. That's why we r-e-g-u-l-a-t-e them, even if Bush's government won't touch them because they hate monopoly regulations."
Free market means free trade. When a govt. imposes antitrust regualtions, it is a restriction on the free trade. Hence, a free market no longer exists. In a free market, Microsft has the right to offer their product at any price they choose, and consumers have the right to accept, reject, or bargain for a better price. When a govt. threatens physical force, it disrupts a free market. antitrust legislation is anti-free market.
Because of rising gas prices, SUV popularity has dropped substantially. If companies want to improve the environment, they should invest r&d money into more energy friendly products. I don't really see the incentive to encouraging employees to "be green" for a company, since this costs money, and there's no return on the money, other than marketing your company as environmentally friendly.
Slashdot Mirror
The number of known vulnerabilities isn't an accurate figure of merit for security anyway. So why bother complaining about the way vulnerabilites are counted?
"Interesting comment.
Here Apple has iTMS which works on Apple own OS as well as the competing Microsoft and functions exactly the same on either OS.
Will Urge do the same on Apple's OS or is this going to be another anti-trust issue?
Hell, they could support Linux like Rhapsody and get out of the hot seat."
MS already licenses WMA. It's Apple that's obstructing compatibility and the one who is creating an antitrust problem
"Microsoft doesn't license anything - they developed wmv rather then licensing quicktime and so on."
MS doesn't license mp3 for their software?
"Bullshit. Napster might switch but MSFT will not use any format that they themselves didn't create/enhance/ruin."
mp3? microsoft supports mp3. Don't make stupid absolute statement. It only takes 1 counterexample to prove you wrong.
"f it doesn't work on a iPod will it not work on a RIO either? how about a sony walkman? Maybe I should download a copy for free and at a higher bit rate from the internet?"
It doesn't work with iPod because Apple refuses to lince Fairplay and refuses to support WMA. They enjoy their monopoly on the mp3 player market and leverage it for music sales on iTMS. It'll work with all players that support the WMA, which is everyone else in the market.
USB wristband? Why not just write geek on your forehead while you're at it (and don't forget your pocket protector).
"Passive solar collection (photovoltaic and otherwise) and wind power are really the only truly "green" power sources."
If you covered a square mile of the desert with solar cells, I think that would disrupt the local ecosystem, so solar is not really "green" in the sense you mean either.
"Brian Krebs is clearly either extremely stupid, or has an axe to grind. If you look at the Cert Cyber Security Bulletin 2005 Summary, you can see that many of the lines in it end in "(Updated)" A simple count of lines gives the results that Brian quotes, however there are far more "(Updated)" entries in the Unix/ Linux Operating Systems section."
The author isn't trying to make a security comparison between the two OS's. Not once does he even imply one OS is better than another based on this list. So why are you trying?
"Throwing blood on minks is NOT a "terrorist" activity.
Burning down an empty house is not a "terrorist" activity."
If your intent is to make a person fear you, and hence change their behavior becuae of that fear, you're a terrorist.
"The real problem is that "terrorism" is getting stretched to mean "anything law enforcement wants to have an easier time checking into". This trivialization of the word "terrorism" means that pretty soon, we're going to need a new word for the real thing..."
No terrorism is the use of violence to instill fear in order to coerce changes in people's behavior. So if you burn down a housing project with the hope that the investor will fear building there again because of further economic losses, you are a terrorist, by definition. Just because you don't like the way a word is used, doesn't mean you can make up a new definition for it. If someone kills a mink farmer with the intent to scare other mink farmers into changing trades, that person is a terrorist.
"Another famous founding father patriot (Benjamin Franklin) claimed (and this is oft-quoted here on /.) "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
If you think you can have liberty without safety, you don't understand what the word liberty means.
"Obviously, most people don't think it's unethical to download music. And when the majority of society disagrees with one of its laws, that law will change. At least it should."
At one time the majority of people believed that slavery was acceptable. Ethics shouldn't be dictated by the whims of the majority, but instead on rational thought. So, if you believe there is nothing wrong with violating copyright in downloading music, justify your opinion with a reasonable explanation. Don't just say it's ok because everyone is doing it.
I would prefer an encyclopedia that says Don't Panic on the front page or cover
"With any luck Artists will control their own music, and profit from it by then and the record companies will be dead."
If ignorance is bliss, you must be very happy every time you contemplate the music industry, or economics or business in general.
"Please stop calling copyright infringement theft. It is not theft. Theft deprives someone of something. Copyright infringement is a wholly separate thing. You are stupid. Thank you."
So am I stupid for using the phrase "You stole my idea.". Copyright infringement is theft because distributing copyrighted material at a lower cost than the copyright owner would charge deprives him of revenue, and lowers the value (in monetary terms) of the copyrighted work. That is, if I want to charge $1 for a song I own, but someone else is selling an exact copy for $0.50 under the same conditions, I need to lower my price to $0.50 to sell any songs.
" I have to disagree with this. This is about power. The record companies want to dictate how you use their product. They cannot get over the idea that once you purchase something it no longer belongs to them."
Sort of like GPL. GPL licensers want to give away software but still maintain control of it.
see here. I'm tired of open source zealots who don't even understand that the software they used is not secure.
Why not just build a device that says "Hey you kids, get the hell off of my lawn!"
"The idea of saving money and never having to worry about a blue screen of death is the proverbial win/win scenario"
If you tell people X never crashes, you are going to disappoint a lot of people by making the claim that distros are worry free.
" Or- How To Reboot and Install Linux in 21 Minutes"
and find out your system still isn't secure.
"The question of a future mechanism, the question of oversight, and the paradigm of co-operation amongst all stakeholders."
The word paradigm alone reminds me of the Dilbert pointy haired boss learning manager speak through self help tapes.
"Like many of us, he is offended by the fact that the record labels and movie studios treat their customers like criminals."
This type of comment irritates me to no end. People have proven they are criminals through using the old Napster, Gnutella, etc., so why are you surprised by DRM?
"Which is precisely why iTunes is such a comparatively elegant solution. Who needs yet another music management program? iTunes will sync your music to your phone (provided it is a ROKR...they need an iTunes RAZR immediately).
No one needs to sync music manually. Why SprinTel expects you to do so is beyond me."
Explain to me how iTMS purchased music will play on a cell phone that doesn't support fairplay.
"They are a monopoly, and monopolies are regulated for JUST THIS REASON. Microsoft is demanding that legal investigations into their anticompetitive actions be halted, or they will cripple South Korea by refusing to sell them product. That is the CLASSIC REASON why monopolies are anti-free market!
NO. THEY DON'T GET TO DECIDE WHERE THERE PRODUCT IS SOLD. THEY ARE AN ABUSIVE MONOPOLY. They've lost the right. That's why we r-e-g-u-l-a-t-e them, even if Bush's government won't touch them because they hate monopoly regulations."
Free market means free trade. When a govt. imposes antitrust regualtions, it is a restriction on the free trade. Hence, a free market no longer exists. In a free market, Microsft has the right to offer their product at any price they choose, and consumers have the right to accept, reject, or bargain for a better price. When a govt. threatens physical force, it disrupts a free market. antitrust legislation is anti-free market.
Because of rising gas prices, SUV popularity has dropped substantially. If companies want to improve the environment, they should invest r&d money into more energy friendly products. I don't really see the incentive to encouraging employees to "be green" for a company, since this costs money, and there's no return on the money, other than marketing your company as environmentally friendly.