I don't like movie pirates either. But this kid - what crime did he commit?
I'm not 100% sure, but don't you usually need to ask for permission before shooting footage in property someone else owns? 'Cos I thought that was the reason amateur film-makers use the term "Guerilla Shooting" when filming footage in a place they don't have permission for.
I'm not sure what law this would fall under, or even if it's an actual "crime". Though I'm sure other people would.
It is a different rule being broken here, but it's still breaking a rule. I think it would make it hard to plead an alternative "legitimate" reason for using the camcorder, as they'd know if you'd already asked.
I still think that they're going too far in punishing people making cam-copies of films. We all know that they aren't the real source of the more popular bootlegs. But the MPAA and their geographical cousins have decided that they're going to pursue people with camcorders, and it is difficult to plead a legitimate reason for using one in the cinema.
And everyone complains about Microsoft's future security ideas. Well, what do people really want? Security? Or no security?
Depends who you ask. Developers, sysadmins, and geeks want security.
Average users would like security, but want easy to use stuff (Often meaning "not secure"). They don't always realise that what they're using isn't secure. Granted we geek-types don't always educate them, but when we do the alternatives aren't always what they want. (Either not-easy, or not-cheap.
Companies (well Managers, especially of the PHB persuasion) want cheap. OK, they want secure too, but when alternatives are suggested they often go for the option that is "secure enough" (which sometimes isn't), as it's the less costly.
What people really want is secure without having to pay for it. (Whether in money, in time/speed, or in learning-curve)
Sadly this isn't possible, as there's always a trade-off somewhere.
It seems that sysadmins and developers alike forget that ordinary people have to remember things far more important than the dozen or so username/password combinations that it takes to live in today's society...
Yeah, and an additional problem is that many people (and I fully include myself in this group) are a little lacking in the "memory for details" department. People are used to either reducing things to the easily remembered/guessed, or writing things down. (Although not for passwords, I try to always write things down when they really matter, because I know I won't remember them otherwise.)
Passwords shouldn't be easy or written down because they're important. But that is counter to the usual attitude you need to take to important things when you're prone to forgetting things - in that nromally the more important something is the more important it is to have a memory-aid knocking about somewhere.
I think that any kind of challenge-response authentication system is going to run into problems simply because of this. I don't know what the answer is, if indeed there is one. I think we're always going to have the conflict in that the more that something has to be harder for the wrong people to get at, the more the right people are going to want to get to it easily. And it's hard to know where to draw the line. ("Err on the side of caution" is all well and good, but make the User jump through too many hoops and he'll either abandon your product, or write the passwords on the Post-It on his monitor)
I definitely agree. The firewalling commands are too complicated for me to figure out on my own. Especially seeing that a decent firewall with all the required options tends to be rather long. Trying to write your first ruleset without leaving your box wide open to attack is just too hard.
Heck, the reason my Linux box (sits between Windows and the 'Net) is only running a 2.2-kernel Mandrake distro is 'cos I've not (yet) found anything that suits me better than PMFirewall - and that still hadn't been updated to iptables last I checked. (Though I am considering giving FreeBSD a try at some point. I've been told its firewalling is configured at install-time and is good)
What I'd like in a firewalling interface is something somewhat akin to Samba's Swat tool. A tool that would provide all of the most common basic options, and advanced options. Creating a clearly structured standard file would be useful - as those of us who are still lacking in the firewalling skills can then go through and see exactly what's doing what. Dropping in comments would be nice, too, at the least adding in the section notes from the interface. (i.e. "Ports blocked by default" or "Protocols allowed by default")
One feature that just occured to me (no idea if it'd be trivial or impossible to implement though) would be to take in a pre-existing ruleset, list what is allowed and disallowed, and also scan for screw-ups.
The ability to edit generated rulesets, or create my own frmo scratch, and then run it through to see what I got right/wrong would be so useful. I like having the choice to set it up myself, but lack the confidence to give it a try. I'd hate to get my box rooted due to a trivial mistake.
It's like cellphone networks, only worse.
People use different networks for whatever reasons. Maybe the price suits them best, maybe they have better coverage in their area, maybe it's what most of their family/friends use and they trust the brand. With cross-network call-prices being so high at times I always got annoyed. I can understand why it would be cheaper to field calls in-network. And by advertising that they have cheap/free calls to other users on the network they can hopefully attract people. But it gets irritating when you know a lot of people on the other networks. It costs a lot, but you know full well that there's no reason for you or them to switch.
At least with cellphones, however, it's still possible to call cross-network.
Now enter the IM companies. They want you to use their system, no-one else's. They make them non-interoperable They also clutter the screen with either over-bubbly UI (MSN), or ad-boxes (all). It's just about bearable when you have one client open, but when you have friends across all networks the screen starts to get too cluttered. It's why I switched to Trillian, and why I stuck with it. It might be lacking (Trill basic, anyway) in some features that are nice, but I can chat to people on AIM ICQ and MSN all from one interface. 'Cos the simple reason is that some of the users on each network either won't or can't change.
Plus when in Linux I use GAIM. (GTK under Windows still looks odd, but under Linux it's fine. And I love tabbed chat-windows)
Under Linux the official clients either don't exist, or don't work under all distros. (Or are simply Godawful).
Tiggs
Re:Do people even understand what they're asking?
on
Reverse Graffiti
·
· Score: 1
It's obvious in the write-up and again in the article that in fact the only clean bit of the wall is the graffiti, so how does the City Council propose that it be cleaned-up?
Aah, but this is Leeds City Council we're talking about. logic and common sense aren't really their strong suits, and those in charge dont know much about cleaning things - at least not when Council money is involved.
Tiggs - at work in a Leeds Council-owned community centre
Re:For those of you about to defend this...
on
Reverse Graffiti
·
· Score: 1
I'd prefer these to normal billboard posters. Same as I'd favour "Clean grafitti" over regular grafitti.
I don't like the idea of either, but the one that's easier to shift is the lesser of the evils.
Taking regular grafitti and illegal fly-posters as an example, they're probably tricky to shift. Spray paint is gonna be hard to move, and paper has to be physically removed. You're not going to shift either with mere soap and water.
At least with this "clean" grafitti you can move it easier. If more people used this method than the older ones it wouldn't be any less illegal, but it's be a lot easier (and cheaper) for local authorities to clean up.
It's not their place to be placing these messages. It's not a matter of betterment of public spaces, that's just a distraction from the fact that these are unwanted commercial messages placed where the advertiser wants them.
True. But the ones that will wash off, or fade in time, are a lot preferable to those that won't.
No more legal, and still not desirable. But preferable than stuff that won't clean off.
Well, you'd be right to be angry. However if they write it in the dirt at least you can shift it easily. If they use paint or a marker then you're stuffed.
Interesting. In all seriousness, has anyone ever tried writing to Macrovision (and other software-DRM makers) and pointing this out to them?
I'd be interested to see how they'd respond, especially when confronted with the fact that however you try to bluff it, these discs definitely display trojan bahaviour. They may be (mostly) benign as opposed to the more malicious ones out there, but benign or not a trojan is a trojan.
As usual we have the vocal comments from the "Record it eslewhere" crew and from the "But it's illegal, so why are you whining" collective. Both sides, as usual, seem to be missing the point.
Some people have touched on the real issues, but neither side (especially the "it's illegal!" side) seem to even notice the points.
1 - It's overkill
I think that in-cinema recording is wrong (though the over-the-top messages before movies make me want to do so out of spite, I admit). You bring in a camcorder to use in a film and there are very few things other than bootlegging that you can be doing. So I'm not disagreeing that it's illegal.
But come on here. This is walnut-with-a-sledgehammer territory. It's not a criminal offence - or shouldn't be. Hefty fine. Confiscation of equipment. Barred from cinemas. These would be acceptable - and actually stop repeat attempts. But prison-time? Yeah, great. Obligatory "bubba" gags aside, prison is usually a good place to pick up real skills and contacts.
2 - It's not the cause of the problem
As people keep saying, it's not camjobs that are doing the rounds and eating into postential ticket-sales. If anything is, it's be the high-quality Telesyncs that people keep on referring to here. It ain't punters-with-a-cam, it's cinema-workers with some "slightly better" kit.
Adding the two together, they're basically giving a vastly OTT punishment to the people who aren't even the main cause of bootlegging. And the cost of which will be passed onto the US taxpayer, and probably reflected in box-office prices too.
Honestly, they're probably losing more money (and customers) to trying to stamp out bootlegs than they do to the actual bootlegs.
It amuses me that you can't search MS's knowledge base to fix IE if IE is dead. On the other hand, Windows is probably dead if IE won't run.
So what precisely is someone meant to do if their Windows box goes down, or is too unstable to get IE up. It does seem contrary to Microsoft's best interests if their customers can't check the knowledgebase to fix their dead system.
If you have access to a machine running linux or something, and you can't reach the Knowledgebase, what's going to stop you considering switching fully away from Windows?
Some banks aren't IE-dependent. Here in the UK I bank with the Halifax, and I've had no problems with using their online service via Mozilla. And I've been using it for well over a year now.
It's one of the drawbacks of the legal system. Certainly the American system, but I'm not sure that the British system is any better.
They had to find a side as being wrong. I've read some reports on the whole case. From what I could see both sides had goofed.
McDonald's really shouldn't have been selling coffee at that temperature. It was quite simply dangerous. However, even at allowable temperatures I would say that anyone who puts a cup of coffee in their lap in a car is simply asking for trouble.
It doesn't put McD's in the right, but it doesn't negate the woman's lapse in judgement.
Common Sense (or it's lack) has to count for something. But litigation has been seen to be more important. People are taking, and winning, court cases for events that owed mroe than a little to stupidity. If you're doing something you shouldn't then you shouldn't be awarded for it just 'cos it went wrong.
I think there should be some sort of clause for things like this. Yes, if companies use shady practices they shoudl be penalised. But if the injury is caused by error on the victim's part then there shouldn't be compensation. Take money from the guilty party, but don't give it to the person - or at least no more than a (very) small token amount.
Both sides should have to accept responsibility. It really is damaging modern societies, because people are being conditioned to believe that there's only ever one wrong side, and there's always someone in the right. It's about time the message was sent that in come circumstances both sides are in the wrong.
When someone stands on a soapbox and starts some political diatribe on a street corner, the constitution gives him the right to do so. Where is my right to cover my ears and walk the other way?
When someone stands on a soapbox and starts some political diatribe on a street corner, you do have that right. Sure, it's still bloody irritating to have to either walk away of tune-out, but you do have that choice.
Where Spam and Malware differs is that by exercising their "right to free speech" they do so by trying to override your "freedom to not listen". Spam is like setting someone on every single street corner, all with similar spiel. Or like changing the CDs in your local shops to sound like what you want to hear, and adding garbled attempts at their message.
And Spyware is worse as it hijacks your browser. (I can't think of an analogy, but we all know what it does anyway)
I don't think the intention was ever to give people the right to force others to listen to their speech...it's there to stop third parties from preventing a speaker from conveying information to a willing recipient.
This is where it gets fuzzy. Sometimes you don't know you'd be a willing recipient until you'd already heard the message. Unsolicited information itself isn't inherantly evil, although many applications of it are - especially with mail (both internet and postal).
The real problem is that every law that tries to deal with what people don't want to hear what others have to say have to be very careful as they have to work within the laws which protect the rights of those others to say things.
Restricting what people can say isn't an option, as even with the best of intentions it starts a slippery slope.
This trend of having normal user running with administrator privileges to shield them from the annoyance of understanding the reasonning behind privileges level is pathetic. If you are not part of the solution, I can only conclude you are taking part in perpetuating the problem.
This is one of the things I (personally) prefer about Linux over Windows.
In Windows a combination of the way account privileges work and the way many (games) programs are written/packaged means that often you are going to run into severe problems running as a non-privileged account. It's worse with average users, as they don't understand why these thigns happen and they're less likely than geek-types to want to switch accounts merely to install some software.
I've seen programs (again, the most problematic ones are games) that refuse to install without administration priveleges. For a non-technical family with games-mad kids this can be a real problem. having dad (or mum) have admin rights on their accounts to install stuff that the kids can't is just about bearable. Having to use another one wouldn't work - however many times you told them it was essential.
Me, I run my Win2K box with an admin-level account. Then again, I know full well what the risks are. I try to minimise them, and if it all goes wrong then it's nothing I've not brought down on myself with full knowledge. But the way I run my computer, I need to be able to do stuff at higher privs regularly.
Before I go onto why I prefer Linux I will say a few things about where Windows is getting it right. At least in XP.
The "Switch User" thing is useful. It means that you aren't forced to shut down all of your programs before doing something that require escalated privileges.
Similarly the "Run As" is a much-welcomed addition. Maybe not quite as powerful as su, but so useful if needing to run programs at a higher (or lower, for testing...) privilege level. Meaning you only need to change/switch users when needing to access an admin-only directory. ("Oh look, it's linked to the Game in the admin-rights Start Menu but no-one else's")
Might still have a bit of a way to go, but I have to acknowled those steps that XP has taken in the right direction.
Now what I prefer about Linux is that you don't hit these administrative "walls" so often, and when you do it's easier to switch privs (certainly in Win2K where it lacks XP's above-listed improvements) to get something done.
I like that some programs in Linux do not need a system-wide installation to run. This means that it's a lot easier for lower-privilege accounts to perform a local installation.
If you do need to get to higher privs in Linux I do swear by su. No need to run as root all the time. If you hit something you need root privs for, just su, do what needs doing, and quit back down to user-level. Plus you can do several admin-level tasks after logging in once. I know that there are X-based programs to also allow a grace period for running several GUI apps at root level on just one password entry. I don't think that XP's "Run As" allows you to do this.
I guess I prefer the Linux way of doing things because I don't need to run as root, or even grant my account admin-rights. I can run as an unprevileged user for most things, and it's trivial for me to temporarily gain root privs when needed. In Windows I need to grant my account admin-rights as it's harder to simply escalate my rights for a few minutes to fix things.
I think it's just a difference in the way the systems work. Especailyl seeing that the more secure NT-based incarnations of Windows weren't originally designed for home use like gaming. OK, neither were *nix systems, but they had plenty of hackers willing to tweak stuff to get things working, as well as a classically console-based infrastructure that allows easier methods of instant temporary rights-escalation.
As Linux inherited it's methods from Unix it didn't inh
I'm not sure I could ever switch away form a GUI, but there are things where console is an advantage, and a few uses where the console is better.
I've certainly yet to find a GUI method of searching for a runnign process that's faster than the combo of ps and grep. Also in most shells you can easily chain together some actions far faster than any mouse-clicking can accomplish.
My Linux box these days mainly acts as fileserver and gateway, and console email checking. Yes I can switch on the monitor for a graphical session if I really need to, but it's far faster for my to merely fire up an SSH client from my Windows box.
Also don't forget the remote-access aspect. Thanks to SSH I can connect to my home box from work. It requires leaving less ports open than any graphical solution, and (more practically, but not more importantly) actually works at a comfortable speed over our centre's crappy slow ISDN connection.
Need to download a file for home that's too big to carry? wget + screen. And the other advantage of screen is that I can start tasks at home, and monitor them from work.
I have to say that'd be rather nice.
It's a pain to be on-hold, unable to listen to music, put the TV up loud, or even go to the toilet.
Certainly for 0800 (UK freephone - customer doesn't pay) numbers, where I can only assume that it's the company who has to pay for 100+ people stuck on the other end. They'd be bound to save money, and possibly piss the customers off less.
The licensing issue can be a real pain at times.
I'm not talking from a money-saving business point of view. I'm talking from the PoV of the poor sod suck the other side of the hold-music when it's some royalty-free (but Godawful) music.
I don't care about copyright and licensing. If I'm stuck on the other end of the phone (and often the few times I do phone places it's for tech-support during a mass-outage - hence long waiting periods) then if I'm forced to hear something pumped into my ear, I'd rather it was something halfway decent.
I dunno. I just find it wrong that the music companies try to profit from when an ISP's main servers go tits-up.
Even after reading the article, I'm still not sure this is a good step to take. Unless there is a stated reason for doing so, I can't see why someone should be forced to identify themselves prior to being arrested.
I also have to say that I don't think it's particularly smart to withold your name from the police. It's not really going to show you in a good light.
However, just because I think it's inadvasable to withold your name doesn't mean I think it should be made compulsary to reveal it.
Myself, I'd probably choose to identify myself. However I still wish to choose to identify myself. Just because it's what I'd do anyway doesn't mean I don't want to lose the alternative option.
I can think of two things that might stop you keeping an old system when the new one comes out.
1) Space.
When I got my PS2, I was glad to be able to save space, ditch the PS1, and still be able to play the games. And that's with the small space of the first-model first-gen Playstation. The XBox is about the size of a VCR. Unless its successor is the size of a new model PS1, I can't see someone wanting to waste the space on keeping both by the TV. Sure, there will be people who will - but even they'd probably prefer something smaller.
2) Hardware failure.
You've got a bit of spare cash, the new XBox comes out (with a small selection of release-time games), but your old XBox packs in (or looks like it's on the way to doing so). If you've got a huge colleciton of games you're playing, what are you going to spend the money on?
A year or so after release isn't quite as big an issue, as there may well be many new games by then that you want.
Basically to those with either limited space, or limited funds and/or a failing old console, the new console with the ability to play your old games is a Godsend. 'Cos like it or not (and often "not" when it's down to equipment failure) sometimes using your old hardware simply isn't an option.
I think it boils down down to whether you're looking at console-owners as Customers or as Gamers. Companies often (understandably) use the former view.
Treating owners as customers means that you want them to buy the latest and greatest. You dont care about your (or their...) back-catalogue of older games.
This can also lead to format lock-in as you (obviously) want them to play certain games on your platform and not your competitor's.
Treating owners as gamers means you know that they want to play games. They're not quite as bothered about what format. Being able to buy the latest console, but use it to play older games is great. You free up a space (especially with a console the size of the XBOX) or cable at your TV, and don't have to play "hunt the cable" (or "why is the switchbox cable so short that it is stuck in a tricky corner behind the TV") just 'cos you feel like playing FFVII after a round of FFX-2.
Again, this is probably why some games publishers release stuff multi-console. You just want people to buy games, and you know that there are many people who will shell out for a new game but not for a new console as well if they already have one or more.
I think the main error here was using shrinkwrapped software "as is" on a machine you were trying to connect to the Internet. These days whenever I'm dsue to reinstall Win2K I make sure I know where my copy of the latest Service pack is, and pull down a fresh copy if I have to.
Seeing that you work with other computers, I assume it's possible to download other software first. These days, I'd say that's essential.
My personal recommendations would be to firstly use a hardware firewall if possible. I know sometimes this isn't always possible, but it's a good idea to have something between the Internet and your newly-installed machine.
Secondly pull down the full installation package for the Service Pack first, and burn to CD. (Either that or slipstream it) Then get the SP on before connecting. This means that any vulnerabilities that were closed in teh latest Service Pack will be closed before you even go online.
On a similar tactic to the second point, download (if possible) the latest signature file for your anti-virus software. The problem with store-bought software here is that the virus definitions will be woefully out of date. So download the latest definitions and get them installed first.
With whatever your firewall-of-choice is, start off by closing off anything you don't need yet. Similarly go through Services and deactivate anything you don't need. (Same theory as in Linux, really. Don't leave any services running that you don't use)
Putting it all togther, make sure that your system is as up-to-date as it can be, with an active firewall, recent anti-virus, and no unnecessary services running. Now connect it to the Internet.
Firstly, it looks like he was using a Firewall. The Norton one. He didn't conncect until that one was up and running.
Secondly he says that the recommendations from MS were that firewalling software was turned off during updating.
Now to me that's not a good idea. And MS have got to have their head in the clouds to suggest it. Oh, that and sometimes ignoring Microsoft's recommendations is the best way to go...
...but having said MS updates don't always play well with other things.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not 100% sure, but don't you usually need to ask for permission before shooting footage in property someone else owns? 'Cos I thought that was the reason amateur film-makers use the term "Guerilla Shooting" when filming footage in a place they don't have permission for.
I'm not sure what law this would fall under, or even if it's an actual "crime". Though I'm sure other people would.
It is a different rule being broken here, but it's still breaking a rule. I think it would make it hard to plead an alternative "legitimate" reason for using the camcorder, as they'd know if you'd already asked.
I still think that they're going too far in punishing people making cam-copies of films. We all know that they aren't the real source of the more popular bootlegs. But the MPAA and their geographical cousins have decided that they're going to pursue people with camcorders, and it is difficult to plead a legitimate reason for using one in the cinema.
Sounds line he was reprising his role from the first movie.
Depends who you ask. Developers, sysadmins, and geeks want security.
Average users would like security, but want easy to use stuff (Often meaning "not secure"). They don't always realise that what they're using isn't secure. Granted we geek-types don't always educate them, but when we do the alternatives aren't always what they want. (Either not-easy, or not-cheap.
Companies (well Managers, especially of the PHB persuasion) want cheap. OK, they want secure too, but when alternatives are suggested they often go for the option that is "secure enough" (which sometimes isn't), as it's the less costly.
What people really want is secure without having to pay for it. (Whether in money, in time/speed, or in learning-curve)
TiggsSadly this isn't possible, as there's always a trade-off somewhere.
Yeah, and an additional problem is that many people (and I fully include myself in this group) are a little lacking in the "memory for details" department. People are used to either reducing things to the easily remembered/guessed, or writing things down. (Although not for passwords, I try to always write things down when they really matter, because I know I won't remember them otherwise.)
Passwords shouldn't be easy or written down because they're important. But that is counter to the usual attitude you need to take to important things when you're prone to forgetting things - in that nromally the more important something is the more important it is to have a memory-aid knocking about somewhere.
I think that any kind of challenge-response authentication system is going to run into problems simply because of this. I don't know what the answer is, if indeed there is one. I think we're always going to have the conflict in that the more that something has to be harder for the wrong people to get at, the more the right people are going to want to get to it easily. And it's hard to know where to draw the line. ("Err on the side of caution" is all well and good, but make the User jump through too many hoops and he'll either abandon your product, or write the passwords on the Post-It on his monitor)
TiggsI definitely agree. The firewalling commands are too complicated for me to figure out on my own. Especially seeing that a decent firewall with all the required options tends to be rather long. Trying to write your first ruleset without leaving your box wide open to attack is just too hard.
Heck, the reason my Linux box (sits between Windows and the 'Net) is only running a 2.2-kernel Mandrake distro is 'cos I've not (yet) found anything that suits me better than PMFirewall - and that still hadn't been updated to iptables last I checked. (Though I am considering giving FreeBSD a try at some point. I've been told its firewalling is configured at install-time and is good)
What I'd like in a firewalling interface is something somewhat akin to Samba's Swat tool. A tool that would provide all of the most common basic options, and advanced options. Creating a clearly structured standard file would be useful - as those of us who are still lacking in the firewalling skills can then go through and see exactly what's doing what. Dropping in comments would be nice, too, at the least adding in the section notes from the interface. (i.e. "Ports blocked by default" or "Protocols allowed by default")
One feature that just occured to me (no idea if it'd be trivial or impossible to implement though) would be to take in a pre-existing ruleset, list what is allowed and disallowed, and also scan for screw-ups.
TiggsThe ability to edit generated rulesets, or create my own frmo scratch, and then run it through to see what I got right/wrong would be so useful. I like having the choice to set it up myself, but lack the confidence to give it a try. I'd hate to get my box rooted due to a trivial mistake.
To be honest, I wouldn't.
The official clients are often bloated, ugly, and unskinnable.
TiggsIt's like cellphone networks, only worse.
People use different networks for whatever reasons. Maybe the price suits them best, maybe they have better coverage in their area, maybe it's what most of their family/friends use and they trust the brand. With cross-network call-prices being so high at times I always got annoyed. I can understand why it would be cheaper to field calls in-network. And by advertising that they have cheap/free calls to other users on the network they can hopefully attract people. But it gets irritating when you know a lot of people on the other networks. It costs a lot, but you know full well that there's no reason for you or them to switch.
At least with cellphones, however, it's still possible to call cross-network.
Now enter the IM companies. They want you to use their system, no-one else's. They make them non-interoperable They also clutter the screen with either over-bubbly UI (MSN), or ad-boxes (all). It's just about bearable when you have one client open, but when you have friends across all networks the screen starts to get too cluttered. It's why I switched to Trillian, and why I stuck with it. It might be lacking (Trill basic, anyway) in some features that are nice, but I can chat to people on AIM ICQ and MSN all from one interface. 'Cos the simple reason is that some of the users on each network either won't or can't change.
Plus when in Linux I use GAIM. (GTK under Windows still looks odd, but under Linux it's fine. And I love tabbed chat-windows)
TiggsUnder Linux the official clients either don't exist, or don't work under all distros. (Or are simply Godawful).
Aah, but this is Leeds City Council we're talking about. logic and common sense aren't really their strong suits, and those in charge dont know much about cleaning things - at least not when Council money is involved.
Tiggs - at work in a Leeds Council-owned community centre
I'd prefer these to normal billboard posters. Same as I'd favour "Clean grafitti" over regular grafitti.
I don't like the idea of either, but the one that's easier to shift is the lesser of the evils.
Taking regular grafitti and illegal fly-posters as an example, they're probably tricky to shift. Spray paint is gonna be hard to move, and paper has to be physically removed. You're not going to shift either with mere soap and water.
At least with this "clean" grafitti you can move it easier. If more people used this method than the older ones it wouldn't be any less illegal, but it's be a lot easier (and cheaper) for local authorities to clean up.
True. But the ones that will wash off, or fade in time, are a lot preferable to those that won't.
TiggsNo more legal, and still not desirable. But preferable than stuff that won't clean off.
Well, you'd be right to be angry. However if they write it in the dirt at least you can shift it easily. If they use paint or a marker then you're stuffed.
TiggsInteresting. In all seriousness, has anyone ever tried writing to Macrovision (and other software-DRM makers) and pointing this out to them?
I'd be interested to see how they'd respond, especially when confronted with the fact that however you try to bluff it, these discs definitely display trojan bahaviour. They may be (mostly) benign as opposed to the more malicious ones out there, but benign or not a trojan is a trojan.
TiggsAs usual we have the vocal comments from the "Record it eslewhere" crew and from the "But it's illegal, so why are you whining" collective. Both sides, as usual, seem to be missing the point.
Some people have touched on the real issues, but neither side (especially the "it's illegal!" side) seem to even notice the points.
1 - It's overkill
I think that in-cinema recording is wrong (though the over-the-top messages before movies make me want to do so out of spite, I admit). You bring in a camcorder to use in a film and there are very few things other than bootlegging that you can be doing. So I'm not disagreeing that it's illegal.
But come on here. This is walnut-with-a-sledgehammer territory. It's not a criminal offence - or shouldn't be. Hefty fine. Confiscation of equipment. Barred from cinemas. These would be acceptable - and actually stop repeat attempts. But prison-time? Yeah, great. Obligatory "bubba" gags aside, prison is usually a good place to pick up real skills and contacts.
2 - It's not the cause of the problem
As people keep saying, it's not camjobs that are doing the rounds and eating into postential ticket-sales. If anything is, it's be the high-quality Telesyncs that people keep on referring to here. It ain't punters-with-a-cam, it's cinema-workers with some "slightly better" kit.
Adding the two together, they're basically giving a vastly OTT punishment to the people who aren't even the main cause of bootlegging. And the cost of which will be passed onto the US taxpayer, and probably reflected in box-office prices too.
Honestly, they're probably losing more money (and customers) to trying to stamp out bootlegs than they do to the actual bootlegs.
TiggsSo what precisely is someone meant to do if their Windows box goes down, or is too unstable to get IE up. It does seem contrary to Microsoft's best interests if their customers can't check the knowledgebase to fix their dead system.
TiggsIf you have access to a machine running linux or something, and you can't reach the Knowledgebase, what's going to stop you considering switching fully away from Windows?
Some banks aren't IE-dependent. Here in the UK I bank with the Halifax, and I've had no problems with using their online service via Mozilla. And I've been using it for well over a year now.
TiggsIt's one of the drawbacks of the legal system. Certainly the American system, but I'm not sure that the British system is any better.
They had to find a side as being wrong. I've read some reports on the whole case. From what I could see both sides had goofed.
McDonald's really shouldn't have been selling coffee at that temperature. It was quite simply dangerous. However, even at allowable temperatures I would say that anyone who puts a cup of coffee in their lap in a car is simply asking for trouble.
It doesn't put McD's in the right, but it doesn't negate the woman's lapse in judgement.
Common Sense (or it's lack) has to count for something. But litigation has been seen to be more important. People are taking, and winning, court cases for events that owed mroe than a little to stupidity. If you're doing something you shouldn't then you shouldn't be awarded for it just 'cos it went wrong.
I think there should be some sort of clause for things like this. Yes, if companies use shady practices they shoudl be penalised. But if the injury is caused by error on the victim's part then there shouldn't be compensation. Take money from the guilty party, but don't give it to the person - or at least no more than a (very) small token amount.
TiggsBoth sides should have to accept responsibility. It really is damaging modern societies, because people are being conditioned to believe that there's only ever one wrong side, and there's always someone in the right. It's about time the message was sent that in come circumstances both sides are in the wrong.
When someone stands on a soapbox and starts some political diatribe on a street corner, you do have that right. Sure, it's still bloody irritating to have to either walk away of tune-out, but you do have that choice.
Where Spam and Malware differs is that by exercising their "right to free speech" they do so by trying to override your "freedom to not listen". Spam is like setting someone on every single street corner, all with similar spiel. Or like changing the CDs in your local shops to sound like what you want to hear, and adding garbled attempts at their message.
And Spyware is worse as it hijacks your browser. (I can't think of an analogy, but we all know what it does anyway)
This is where it gets fuzzy. Sometimes you don't know you'd be a willing recipient until you'd already heard the message. Unsolicited information itself isn't inherantly evil, although many applications of it are - especially with mail (both internet and postal).
The real problem is that every law that tries to deal with what people don't want to hear what others have to say have to be very careful as they have to work within the laws which protect the rights of those others to say things.
TiggsRestricting what people can say isn't an option, as even with the best of intentions it starts a slippery slope.
This is one of the things I (personally) prefer about Linux over Windows.
In Windows a combination of the way account privileges work and the way many (games) programs are written/packaged means that often you are going to run into severe problems running as a non-privileged account. It's worse with average users, as they don't understand why these thigns happen and they're less likely than geek-types to want to switch accounts merely to install some software.
I've seen programs (again, the most problematic ones are games) that refuse to install without administration priveleges. For a non-technical family with games-mad kids this can be a real problem. having dad (or mum) have admin rights on their accounts to install stuff that the kids can't is just about bearable. Having to use another one wouldn't work - however many times you told them it was essential.
Me, I run my Win2K box with an admin-level account. Then again, I know full well what the risks are. I try to minimise them, and if it all goes wrong then it's nothing I've not brought down on myself with full knowledge. But the way I run my computer, I need to be able to do stuff at higher privs regularly.
Before I go onto why I prefer Linux I will say a few things about where Windows is getting it right. At least in XP.
The "Switch User" thing is useful. It means that you aren't forced to shut down all of your programs before doing something that require escalated privileges.
Similarly the "Run As" is a much-welcomed addition. Maybe not quite as powerful as su, but so useful if needing to run programs at a higher (or lower, for testing...) privilege level. Meaning you only need to change/switch users when needing to access an admin-only directory. ("Oh look, it's linked to the Game in the admin-rights Start Menu but no-one else's")
Might still have a bit of a way to go, but I have to acknowled those steps that XP has taken in the right direction.
Now what I prefer about Linux is that you don't hit these administrative "walls" so often, and when you do it's easier to switch privs (certainly in Win2K where it lacks XP's above-listed improvements) to get something done.
I like that some programs in Linux do not need a system-wide installation to run. This means that it's a lot easier for lower-privilege accounts to perform a local installation.
If you do need to get to higher privs in Linux I do swear by su. No need to run as root all the time. If you hit something you need root privs for, just su, do what needs doing, and quit back down to user-level. Plus you can do several admin-level tasks after logging in once. I know that there are X-based programs to also allow a grace period for running several GUI apps at root level on just one password entry. I don't think that XP's "Run As" allows you to do this.
I guess I prefer the Linux way of doing things because I don't need to run as root, or even grant my account admin-rights. I can run as an unprevileged user for most things, and it's trivial for me to temporarily gain root privs when needed. In Windows I need to grant my account admin-rights as it's harder to simply escalate my rights for a few minutes to fix things.
I think it's just a difference in the way the systems work. Especailyl seeing that the more secure NT-based incarnations of Windows weren't originally designed for home use like gaming. OK, neither were *nix systems, but they had plenty of hackers willing to tweak stuff to get things working, as well as a classically console-based infrastructure that allows easier methods of instant temporary rights-escalation.
As Linux inherited it's methods from Unix it didn't inh
I'm not sure I could ever switch away form a GUI, but there are things where console is an advantage, and a few uses where the console is better.
I've certainly yet to find a GUI method of searching for a runnign process that's faster than the combo of ps and grep. Also in most shells you can easily chain together some actions far faster than any mouse-clicking can accomplish.
My Linux box these days mainly acts as fileserver and gateway, and console email checking. Yes I can switch on the monitor for a graphical session if I really need to, but it's far faster for my to merely fire up an SSH client from my Windows box.
Also don't forget the remote-access aspect. Thanks to SSH I can connect to my home box from work. It requires leaving less ports open than any graphical solution, and (more practically, but not more importantly) actually works at a comfortable speed over our centre's crappy slow ISDN connection.
Need to download a file for home that's too big to carry? wget + screen. And the other advantage of screen is that I can start tasks at home, and monitor them from work.
I have to say that'd be rather nice.
It's a pain to be on-hold, unable to listen to music, put the TV up loud, or even go to the toilet.
Certainly for 0800 (UK freephone - customer doesn't pay) numbers, where I can only assume that it's the company who has to pay for 100+ people stuck on the other end. They'd be bound to save money, and possibly piss the customers off less.
TiggsThe licensing issue can be a real pain at times.
I'm not talking from a money-saving business point of view. I'm talking from the PoV of the poor sod suck the other side of the hold-music when it's some royalty-free (but Godawful) music.
I don't care about copyright and licensing. If I'm stuck on the other end of the phone (and often the few times I do phone places it's for tech-support during a mass-outage - hence long waiting periods) then if I'm forced to hear something pumped into my ear, I'd rather it was something halfway decent.
I dunno. I just find it wrong that the music companies try to profit from when an ISP's main servers go tits-up.
TiggsEven after reading the article, I'm still not sure this is a good step to take. Unless there is a stated reason for doing so, I can't see why someone should be forced to identify themselves prior to being arrested.
I also have to say that I don't think it's particularly smart to withold your name from the police. It's not really going to show you in a good light.
However, just because I think it's inadvasable to withold your name doesn't mean I think it should be made compulsary to reveal it.
Myself, I'd probably choose to identify myself. However I still wish to choose to identify myself. Just because it's what I'd do anyway doesn't mean I don't want to lose the alternative option.
TiggsI can think of two things that might stop you keeping an old system when the new one comes out.
1) Space.
When I got my PS2, I was glad to be able to save space, ditch the PS1, and still be able to play the games. And that's with the small space of the first-model first-gen Playstation. The XBox is about the size of a VCR. Unless its successor is the size of a new model PS1, I can't see someone wanting to waste the space on keeping both by the TV. Sure, there will be people who will - but even they'd probably prefer something smaller.
2) Hardware failure. You've got a bit of spare cash, the new XBox comes out (with a small selection of release-time games), but your old XBox packs in (or looks like it's on the way to doing so). If you've got a huge colleciton of games you're playing, what are you going to spend the money on?
A year or so after release isn't quite as big an issue, as there may well be many new games by then that you want.
Basically to those with either limited space, or limited funds and/or a failing old console, the new console with the ability to play your old games is a Godsend. 'Cos like it or not (and often "not" when it's down to equipment failure) sometimes using your old hardware simply isn't an option.
TiggsI think it boils down down to whether you're looking at console-owners as Customers or as Gamers. Companies often (understandably) use the former view.
Treating owners as customers means that you want them to buy the latest and greatest. You dont care about your (or their...) back-catalogue of older games.
This can also lead to format lock-in as you (obviously) want them to play certain games on your platform and not your competitor's.
Treating owners as gamers means you know that they want to play games. They're not quite as bothered about what format. Being able to buy the latest console, but use it to play older games is great. You free up a space (especially with a console the size of the XBOX) or cable at your TV, and don't have to play "hunt the cable" (or "why is the switchbox cable so short that it is stuck in a tricky corner behind the TV") just 'cos you feel like playing FFVII after a round of FFX-2.
TiggsAgain, this is probably why some games publishers release stuff multi-console. You just want people to buy games, and you know that there are many people who will shell out for a new game but not for a new console as well if they already have one or more.
I think the main error here was using shrinkwrapped software "as is" on a machine you were trying to connect to the Internet. These days whenever I'm dsue to reinstall Win2K I make sure I know where my copy of the latest Service pack is, and pull down a fresh copy if I have to.
Seeing that you work with other computers, I assume it's possible to download other software first. These days, I'd say that's essential.
My personal recommendations would be to firstly use a hardware firewall if possible. I know sometimes this isn't always possible, but it's a good idea to have something between the Internet and your newly-installed machine.
Secondly pull down the full installation package for the Service Pack first, and burn to CD. (Either that or slipstream it) Then get the SP on before connecting. This means that any vulnerabilities that were closed in teh latest Service Pack will be closed before you even go online.
On a similar tactic to the second point, download (if possible) the latest signature file for your anti-virus software. The problem with store-bought software here is that the virus definitions will be woefully out of date. So download the latest definitions and get them installed first.
With whatever your firewall-of-choice is, start off by closing off anything you don't need yet. Similarly go through Services and deactivate anything you don't need. (Same theory as in Linux, really. Don't leave any services running that you don't use)
Putting it all togther, make sure that your system is as up-to-date as it can be, with an active firewall, recent anti-virus, and no unnecessary services running.
TiggsNow connect it to the Internet.
Firstly, it looks like he was using a Firewall. The Norton one. He didn't conncect until that one was up and running.
Secondly he says that the recommendations from MS were that firewalling software was turned off during updating.
Now to me that's not a good idea. And MS have got to have their head in the clouds to suggest it. Oh, that and sometimes ignoring Microsoft's recommendations is the best way to go...
...but having said MS updates don't always play well with other things.
Tiggs