Unless you don't have at least 512MB of RAM and a DirectX 9 capable GPU, I'm calling bullshit on your claims.
I'm running Vista RC1 on both an AMD Athlon 2500+ 1.8GHz with a GeForce 5900 and an AMD Athlon 64 3500+ 2.2GHz with a GeForce 6800. The former system has 512 MB of RAM and the latter has 1GB. Both systems run smoothly. No, it's not as snappy as Windows XP Pro, but the difference is minimal. Certainly not as grievous as your claims make it out to be.
Vista does offload the graphical effects to the GPU (hence the DirectX 9 GPU requirement), so your statement to the contrary is false.
I can understand that some of the more vocal on Slashdot harbor intense hatred towards anything MS, but at least try to get your facts right before spreading FUD.
I think there is another point to this that needs mention. When using Government equipment, you are made well aware that all of your activities with said equipment will be monitored.
As long as the employee is made aware of the monitoring, the IT department is not guilty of illegal spying. Regardless, the employee could be guilty of misappropriation.
"Being social means getting along with people, and that includes . . . doing what they do."
You were correct with your statement up until that last point. Being a social person does not mean you have to do what other people do. Believing that you must do what other people do because it makes you a social person is a form of self-inflicted peer pressure.
In short, there is a not-so-subtle difference between being anti-social, a social conformist and a social independent.
The last time I checked, most states don't acknowledge this constitutional right.
For example, it is a five minute walk to where I take martial arts classes in California and my car recently broke down. By California state law, it is unlawful for me to transport nunchakus, sais, tonfas, or swords on my person. All of which are used in my martial arts training. It is lawful to transport said items in the trunk of a motor vehicle. So, if I don't want to break the law, I have to wait until I have a working vehicle before continuing with my classes.
Many people aren't looking at the big picture when they try to say that the second amendment is no longer needed. What they either forget or don't realize is that it's the second amendment that helps to guarantee the perpetuity of the first.
"I'd hardly say that's what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad actually said. You can't pick holes in someones arguments based on wording they used, then followup with a deliberate misquote."
First off, unless you see me use quotation marks, I have not quoted anyone. Do not attempt to vilify my comments by stating that I deliberately did anything.
As far as Mahmoud, if you wish to do some research, you are free to start with news articles and the wikipedia entry on him. I try very hard to perform sound research with reputable sources (newspaper articles, internet articles, reference books, etc.) before voicing my opinion on a matter - sometimes I'm correct, sometimes I'm incorrect. But unlike your careless dismissal of the differences between religious sects, I do at least try to keep an open mind.
1. Breakdown of Iran's Religions: Shi'a Muslim 89%, Sunni Muslim 9%, Zoroastrian, Jewish, Christian, and Baha'i 2%
2. Breakdown of USA's Religions: Protestant 52%, Roman Catholic 24%, Mormon 2%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 1%, other 10%, none 10% (2002 est.)
3. I would hardly say that the replacment of Iraq's then-current government and military could be considered wiping the country off the map. In contrast, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's made statements that Israel is a stain in the Islamic world and should be wiped off the map. Mahmoud was also a known torturer during his days with the OSU. The last time I checked, the most torturous thing Bush did was share his bad grammar with the world.
If Jack Thompson and other uneducated politicians where so inclined to attack Operating Systems, that mod could get Microsoft in trouble. For an example, Bethesda Softworks "Oblivion" recently underwent a ratings change for a user created mod that allowed people to play the game with topless female characters.
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted." - U.S.A. Constitution, Section 3.
So... not violently, no. By peaceful petition, yes. And I do state that more than a little tongue-in-cheek.
a reasonable guess would allow someone to determine that if a corporation or group was behind this (likely), then it would be someone with a fear of encrypted, anonymous communications. This could be multiple parties, including the MPAA, RIAA, and others. This would help to kill off file sharing. More interesting is that by the wording of the document, this could potentially extend to make using any software to connect to a service not explicitly permitted by the service provider an illegal activity (and yes, this includes making it illegal to use an unapproved web browser to view a given website)
For the uninformed, and those who think everything revolves around americans: the comment about pork fits only because those who practice the Muslim (as well as Judaism, etc.) religions have a law where they cannot eat any products that come from pigs. There are a lot more laws like that, but it is one of the most well known to those outside of those belief systems.
Actually, if you really want to disappear and not be found unless you want to be found, use only cash where ever you go. Unlike cheques, CCs, wire xfers, etc., cash is not traceable to any useful degree.
Those who endanger free software are those who complain when someone makes modifications to GPLed code and redistributes those modifications along with the code they modified. Last time I checked, this was a requirement of the GPL.
If anyone has such a drastic problem with code modifications, why don't they just go proprietary? The proprietary market is probably were KDE belongs the most, but that is just personal opinion.
I wouldn't worry too much about a PG-13 rating. If Aliens were to be re-released today in theaters, there would be very little keeping it from receiving a PG-13 as well (maybe cut out a bit of the course language, but even that has become normal as of late).
Re:Only X ammendments left in the Bill of Rights
on
That Link Is Illegal
·
· Score: 1
Gore would not have been a saint either. I mean, come on, the guy kept trying to recount the ballots everytime the total did not come up in his favor. Exactly how do you think he would react to someone _protesting_ him?
Or how about the fact that the 1st admendment had been getting nerfed even during the Clinton administration. (ie., try seperation of church and state, where a teacher can be fired for praying during a lunch break, or a student suspended for doing the same)
Or how about the fact that a US citizen can only purchase a firearm of comparable power to the government IF he or she waives their 4th admendment rights. That makes the 2nd admendment impotent, and the 4th admendment at risk in one stroke. That happened long before Bush came into office as well.
No, I am not a right-wing conservative, and no, I don't have a thing for Bush. However, I'm getting sick of left-wing FUD slingers placing all blame upon only one political party, when neither Republicans NOR Democrats are spotless when it comes to revoking our rights as citizens.
Re:If the 60's were like today...
on
That Link Is Illegal
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
What do you mean, "if"? They are like today.
What you are seeing now is exactly what the social revolution of the '60s really was. The people who are now in power, and fought so hard under the banner of peace and love during the '60s, were mostly just arrogant whelps who thought they had the answers to all the world's problems.
That same arrogance shines through today as they make decisions that assume that the american people are not competant enough to think for themselves. Anytime something doesn't go their way, they threaten to sue, and anyone who doesn't agree with them is obviously stupid.
To make it all complete, we now have a brand new generation of 'hippies'. Just like their ancestors, they too shun authority, traditions, or anything else that came before them. They have all the answers, they know exactly how to fix everything, and know exactly where they'd like to tell those in power to shove it.
Yes, today is very much like the days of 30 years ago. Except now we make heroes out of people who spent the good majority of their youth completely stoned.
Maybe not this exact thing, but there has always been something which the status quo has decided will not be allowed in Public Schools. Hate to break this to you, but the United States school system is not the utopia of diversified thoughts that many take it to be. For example, look at how many different ideas about biological science or the study of origins are taught in public schools. Now compare these to how many ideas are shared outside of academia.
NOTE: I refuse to get into the exact subjects, because that is not the point of my post, nor do I want to start a flame war.
Actually, you might be surprised at what I would "suggest". You see, I left the console and PC market behind. So, I really don't have a bias to any particular market as neither has any of my money invested in it. However, I have been a gamer since I was 4 years old, and from that, I would hope I would have at least a small bit of insight.
PCs and consoles won't exist for much longer as we currently know them, and it is not really that important which one "wins". They are both going to become a form of set top if Microsoft, or Sony have their way.
If you think about it, this is really a wise move on either companies' part. Console systems are expensive to design and build, and neither MS nor Sony make any real profit from the hardware. Enter the PC. Cheap and cost effective to build, and there is little to no design cost involved (compared to a traditional console system). By going this route (using PC hardware as the "console" itself), these companies can allow themselves a greater margin for profit in the hardware; yet, at the same time, redirect R&D expenses to first party game development. Expenses which would have normally gone much more exclusively to console design.
Some may point out that the XBox is just a glorified PC. However, MS did make the mistake of including (at that time) the latest, greatest offering from NVIDIA. That made their system at a minimum, ~$300.00 just for the GPU alone. Then, add in the cost of system requirements to meet the OS's overbloated resource usage.
MMORPGs like Everquest are much better served with PC controls, like a full size keyboard, and DSL or cable modem.
As for the bandwidth, that is being covered. In terms of games like Everquest needing a full-sized keyboard... well, that really wouldn't be an issue except Everquest has a very unintuitive control scheme. Did they want to create a chatroom or an RPG?
Neither the PCs or consoles will disappear in the gaming world.
Well, at least not until consoles start coming prepackaged with keyboards and mice. If you haven't noticed, the trend to make consoled more like PCs is continuing with the inclusion of hard drives and Operating Systems. It really will only be a matter of time before the control requirements for FPS, RTS, and other kb/mouse based games come standard on consoles
Remember, people thought that the arcades would not disappear for very much the same reasons given for PCs. Afterall, who would want to play the latest fighting games on an inferior screen, with a gamepad? So.. people bought TVs with better equipment connections, and arcade style controllers if they wanted them.
I wasn't refering to someone merely walking down the street and finding an open network. My argument had to deal with establishments that offered wireless access to customers at a specific point. In other words, my argument was directed towards businesses which provided access to customers in a established area.
To make myself perfectly clear, I was not directly refering to the exact topic at hand (warchalking, and people intentionally searching for wireless networks that are open).
More over, my argument concerned the need for corporations to tighten their own security, or at least properly weigh security concerns before jumping on the latest technological fashion trend. If they cannot secure it, then they should not be providing it to anyone. Think about it this way: would you want to use a WAP that some corporation never properly configured, meanwhile transmitting your personal information across it?
Again, I am not promoting taking advantage of misconfigured networks, nor am I trying to defend warchalking. I am declaring that anyone who is considering running a network, including corporations, make certain they have implemented properly the security levels required, and have weighed all the risks before adopting the new buzzword of the week. If they cannot be bothered to do so, then they should not be implementing that network.
Just like you 'instinctively' know that you're not supposed to just walk into somebody's house if they've left the door open. It's basic human courtesy.
True. However, walking into someone's house is very different than being given access to a network. In one instance, you've entered someone's property uninvited. In the other, you are being actively invited to use the resource.
What this really boils down to is incompetence on the part of the corporation in question, and the lack of desire of said company to spend any money on securing their network.
Let me relate this another way: A certain individual is given a link to a page of a website. Upon clicking the link, the individual is presented with all the resources of that page that the designers included for viewing. This individual browses the site for a while, then disconnects and continues on his marry way. Three days later, this person gets a call from the operators of the site he visited a few days ago. As it turns out, the section of the site he visited was supposed to be for registered users only. Should this person be labeled a thief for what took place? Before you toss out my argument as being BS, remember that during the push for WAP in coffee shops, etc. that these services were often offered gratis as a reason to come back and spend more on the actual product of the shop. So the assumption that it should be 'common sense' that you need to pay for this service is not a valid one.
Bottom line, corporations need to start being accountable for their own shortcomings, instead of passing it off on the consumer. If someone logs into a WAP and isn't asked for authentication in the process, then the person in charge of that network is the one to blame for that. And yes, the people involved with leaving a hole in the network that you mentioned are the ones responsible in that instance as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless you don't have at least 512MB of RAM and a DirectX 9 capable GPU, I'm calling bullshit on your claims.
I'm running Vista RC1 on both an AMD Athlon 2500+ 1.8GHz with a GeForce 5900 and an AMD Athlon 64 3500+ 2.2GHz with a GeForce 6800. The former system has 512 MB of RAM and the latter has 1GB. Both systems run smoothly. No, it's not as snappy as Windows XP Pro, but the difference is minimal. Certainly not as grievous as your claims make it out to be.
Vista does offload the graphical effects to the GPU (hence the DirectX 9 GPU requirement), so your statement to the contrary is false.
I can understand that some of the more vocal on Slashdot harbor intense hatred towards anything MS, but at least try to get your facts right before spreading FUD.
Technically, reselling an item for higher than its established price is called scalping.
Steve, is that you?
Oh, it's probably just that "unparsable" is not even a word. But since it utilizes correct English rules to make the word, we'll give it to you. ;)
I think there is another point to this that needs mention. When using Government equipment, you are made well aware that all of your activities with said equipment will be monitored.
As long as the employee is made aware of the monitoring, the IT department is not guilty of illegal spying. Regardless, the employee could be guilty of misappropriation.
"Being social means getting along with people, and that includes . . . doing what they do."
You were correct with your statement up until that last point. Being a social person does not mean you have to do what other people do. Believing that you must do what other people do because it makes you a social person is a form of self-inflicted peer pressure.
In short, there is a not-so-subtle difference between being anti-social, a social conformist and a social independent.
No, no, no. I don't think you understand what that word means. You see, you make a point and I make a counterpoint and... oh nevermind.
The last time I checked, most states don't acknowledge this constitutional right.
For example, it is a five minute walk to where I take martial arts classes in California and my car recently broke down. By California state law, it is unlawful for me to transport nunchakus, sais, tonfas, or swords on my person. All of which are used in my martial arts training. It is lawful to transport said items in the trunk of a motor vehicle. So, if I don't want to break the law, I have to wait until I have a working vehicle before continuing with my classes.
Many people aren't looking at the big picture when they try to say that the second amendment is no longer needed. What they either forget or don't realize is that it's the second amendment that helps to guarantee the perpetuity of the first.
"I'd hardly say that's what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad actually said. You can't pick holes in someones arguments based on wording they used, then followup with a deliberate misquote."
First off, unless you see me use quotation marks, I have not quoted anyone. Do not attempt to vilify my comments by stating that I deliberately did anything.
As far as Mahmoud, if you wish to do some research, you are free to start with news articles and the wikipedia entry on him. I try very hard to perform sound research with reputable sources (newspaper articles, internet articles, reference books, etc.) before voicing my opinion on a matter - sometimes I'm correct, sometimes I'm incorrect. But unlike your careless dismissal of the differences between religious sects, I do at least try to keep an open mind.
1. Breakdown of Iran's Religions:
Shi'a Muslim 89%, Sunni Muslim 9%, Zoroastrian, Jewish, Christian, and Baha'i 2%
2. Breakdown of USA's Religions:
Protestant 52%, Roman Catholic 24%, Mormon 2%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 1%, other 10%, none 10% (2002 est.)
3. I would hardly say that the replacment of Iraq's then-current government and military could be considered wiping the country off the map. In contrast, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's made statements that Israel is a stain in the Islamic world and should be wiped off the map. Mahmoud was also a known torturer during his days with the OSU. The last time I checked, the most torturous thing Bush did was share his bad grammar with the world.
If Jack Thompson and other uneducated politicians where so inclined to attack Operating Systems, that mod could get Microsoft in trouble. For an example, Bethesda Softworks "Oblivion" recently underwent a ratings change for a user created mod that allowed people to play the game with topless female characters.
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted."
- U.S.A. Constitution, Section 3.
So... not violently, no. By peaceful petition, yes. And I do state that more than a little tongue-in-cheek.
a reasonable guess would allow someone to determine that if a corporation or group was behind this (likely), then it would be someone with a fear of encrypted, anonymous communications. This could be multiple parties, including the MPAA, RIAA, and others. This would help to kill off file sharing. More interesting is that by the wording of the document, this could potentially extend to make using any software to connect to a service not explicitly permitted by the service provider an illegal activity (and yes, this includes making it illegal to use an unapproved web browser to view a given website)
Just my two cents.
For the uninformed, and those who think everything revolves around americans: the comment about pork fits only because those who practice the Muslim (as well as Judaism, etc.) religions have a law where they cannot eat any products that come from pigs. There are a lot more laws like that, but it is one of the most well known to those outside of those belief systems.
Actually, if you really want to disappear and not be found unless you want to be found, use only cash where ever you go. Unlike cheques, CCs, wire xfers, etc., cash is not traceable to any useful degree.
if( profit(apple + x86) >= profit(apple - DRM) )
{
++DRM
}
else
{
--DRM
}
// Not very elegant, but you get the point.
Those who endanger free software are those who complain when someone makes modifications to GPLed code and redistributes those modifications along with the code they modified. Last time I checked, this was a requirement of the GPL.
If anyone has such a drastic problem with code modifications, why don't they just go proprietary? The proprietary market is probably were KDE belongs the most, but that is just personal opinion.
I wouldn't worry too much about a PG-13 rating. If Aliens were to be re-released today in theaters, there would be very little keeping it from receiving a PG-13 as well (maybe cut out a bit of the course language, but even that has become normal as of late).
Or how about the fact that the 1st admendment had been getting nerfed even during the Clinton administration. (ie., try seperation of church and state, where a teacher can be fired for praying during a lunch break, or a student suspended for doing the same)
Or how about the fact that a US citizen can only purchase a firearm of comparable power to the government IF he or she waives their 4th admendment rights. That makes the 2nd admendment impotent, and the 4th admendment at risk in one stroke. That happened long before Bush came into office as well.
No, I am not a right-wing conservative, and no, I don't have a thing for Bush. However, I'm getting sick of left-wing FUD slingers placing all blame upon only one political party, when neither Republicans NOR Democrats are spotless when it comes to revoking our rights as citizens.
What you are seeing now is exactly what the social revolution of the '60s really was. The people who are now in power, and fought so hard under the banner of peace and love during the '60s, were mostly just arrogant whelps who thought they had the answers to all the world's problems.
That same arrogance shines through today as they make decisions that assume that the american people are not competant enough to think for themselves. Anytime something doesn't go their way, they threaten to sue, and anyone who doesn't agree with them is obviously stupid.
To make it all complete, we now have a brand new generation of 'hippies'. Just like their ancestors, they too shun authority, traditions, or anything else that came before them. They have all the answers, they know exactly how to fix everything, and know exactly where they'd like to tell those in power to shove it.
Yes, today is very much like the days of 30 years ago. Except now we make heroes out of people who spent the good majority of their youth completely stoned.
NOTE: I refuse to get into the exact subjects, because that is not the point of my post, nor do I want to start a flame war.
PCs and consoles won't exist for much longer as we currently know them, and it is not really that important which one "wins". They are both going to become a form of set top if Microsoft, or Sony have their way.
If you think about it, this is really a wise move on either companies' part. Console systems are expensive to design and build, and neither MS nor Sony make any real profit from the hardware. Enter the PC. Cheap and cost effective to build, and there is little to no design cost involved (compared to a traditional console system). By going this route (using PC hardware as the "console" itself), these companies can allow themselves a greater margin for profit in the hardware; yet, at the same time, redirect R&D expenses to first party game development. Expenses which would have normally gone much more exclusively to console design.
Some may point out that the XBox is just a glorified PC. However, MS did make the mistake of including (at that time) the latest, greatest offering from NVIDIA. That made their system at a minimum, ~$300.00 just for the GPU alone. Then, add in the cost of system requirements to meet the OS's overbloated resource usage.
As for the bandwidth, that is being covered. In terms of games like Everquest needing a full-sized keyboard... well, that really wouldn't be an issue except Everquest has a very unintuitive control scheme. Did they want to create a chatroom or an RPG?
Neither the PCs or consoles will disappear in the gaming world.
Well, at least not until consoles start coming prepackaged with keyboards and mice. If you haven't noticed, the trend to make consoled more like PCs is continuing with the inclusion of hard drives and Operating Systems. It really will only be a matter of time before the control requirements for FPS, RTS, and other kb/mouse based games come standard on consoles
Remember, people thought that the arcades would not disappear for very much the same reasons given for PCs. Afterall, who would want to play the latest fighting games on an inferior screen, with a gamepad? So.. people bought TVs with better equipment connections, and arcade style controllers if they wanted them.
I wasn't refering to someone merely walking down the street and finding an open network. My argument had to deal with establishments that offered wireless access to customers at a specific point. In other words, my argument was directed towards businesses which provided access to customers in a established area. To make myself perfectly clear, I was not directly refering to the exact topic at hand (warchalking, and people intentionally searching for wireless networks that are open). More over, my argument concerned the need for corporations to tighten their own security, or at least properly weigh security concerns before jumping on the latest technological fashion trend. If they cannot secure it, then they should not be providing it to anyone. Think about it this way: would you want to use a WAP that some corporation never properly configured, meanwhile transmitting your personal information across it? Again, I am not promoting taking advantage of misconfigured networks, nor am I trying to defend warchalking. I am declaring that anyone who is considering running a network, including corporations, make certain they have implemented properly the security levels required, and have weighed all the risks before adopting the new buzzword of the week. If they cannot be bothered to do so, then they should not be implementing that network.
True. However, walking into someone's house is very different than being given access to a network. In one instance, you've entered someone's property uninvited. In the other, you are being actively invited to use the resource.
What this really boils down to is incompetence on the part of the corporation in question, and the lack of desire of said company to spend any money on securing their network.
Let me relate this another way: A certain individual is given a link to a page of a website. Upon clicking the link, the individual is presented with all the resources of that page that the designers included for viewing. This individual browses the site for a while, then disconnects and continues on his marry way. Three days later, this person gets a call from the operators of the site he visited a few days ago. As it turns out, the section of the site he visited was supposed to be for registered users only. Should this person be labeled a thief for what took place? Before you toss out my argument as being BS, remember that during the push for WAP in coffee shops, etc. that these services were often offered gratis as a reason to come back and spend more on the actual product of the shop. So the assumption that it should be 'common sense' that you need to pay for this service is not a valid one.
Bottom line, corporations need to start being accountable for their own shortcomings, instead of passing it off on the consumer. If someone logs into a WAP and isn't asked for authentication in the process, then the person in charge of that network is the one to blame for that. And yes, the people involved with leaving a hole in the network that you mentioned are the ones responsible in that instance as well.