Your mileage may vary, but I, for one, had never seen the observation that the chief function of DRM is to "protect the release window" (the short time when content is new and makes most of its money).
And that's the problem. The industry doesn't seem to use that idea.
'Cos if they were all about "when content is new", they wouldn't be DRM-ing "Best Of" albums.
If anything, sometimes it seems like they're wanting to rebel against this idea.
Or at least twist it to their advantage.
Yes, by just protecting the release window they can (potentially) increase sales. But some people will wait until the price drops instead of buying new, and other would just wait until the "release window" has passed, and wait for the rips of the unprotected versions.
However, if you protect beyond the release window, it means that even if people have to wait until the release is cheaper, they still have to buy it to listen. (Because, of course, making cracking the protection illegal will stop the "evil pirates"...)
On top of this, if it is illegal and/or impossible to play media on multiple players, or get aroubnd whatever "licensing" they use, then even when it's cheaper they'll have to buy an extra copy for each of their car/PC/work, or for other family members.
Actually, that kind of twist is what can make new books/films quite interesting.
OK, in a film version of a famous book series, you know that the heroes will be successful.
But people also tend to be conditioned to "know" that the hero is going to be successful in a new story, too.
And having the plot do something quite different is often quite exhillarating.
Plus, as someone in another reply said, even know what is going to happen, when it comes to seeing it on screen it can still be surprising seeing how it happens.
The master slave argument is bound to elicit pretty strong feeling in many subgroups, just because the majority of readers on slashdot are white males, does not mean that everyone shares the same ambivilence or distance from such issues as apartheid and racism.
Speaking as a "Non-white Male"[*], I happen to agree with the idea that the L.A. County thing is just "Political Correctness Run Wild" - and not a Good Thing.
Maybe they aren't the best terms. But they're the current terms, the standard (or "Standard") terms, and they are terms I find totally inoffensive in the context of computer components.
Now if someone called me a Slave because of my skin-colour, I'd be damn well offended. But I don't have a problem with the term being used when referred to the relationship between two hard-drives.
[*]
I'm actually half and half. Not exactly black, not exactly white. But the way I see it, my skin colour is "not exactly relevant". The only people who really make a big deal about it are racists and kids (too young to know better). To everyone else, it doesn't matter. I'm me, and that's all they really care about.
That's my main beef with them, too. The "Load Time" for the battles. And although technically the increase in console processors and/or programming techniques could have reduced/eliminated it, the switch from Carts to CDs (and now DVDs) has had a negative effect on the lag.
Personally, I enjoy the battle Screens. But something that could load in faster would be nice. Like making it part of the "Dungeon" engine, not a seperate one.
At the very least, the current "Battle background" and basic bits, bobs, and animations could be stored in memory. So that it could immediately trigger, and the opening animations/speeches could play whilst the battle engine loads, rather than adding more time after.
Plus displaying "spoils of war", and XP and stuff over the Victory poses instead of after them would be a lot better.
Plus some sort of High Level Parties intimidate Low Level Monsters factor that would reduce the random encounters when you're re-visiting "Single Hit Bunnies" territory.
You raise a very good point here that many people just do not want to accept. Final Fantasy games (and other jRPGs) rely on the "Random Phantom Encounter" concept. It's a big part of how the games/series actually work.
I think a lot of people like the graphics, story, and (some of the...) other Game Mechanics in the FF Games, and are hoping that the random battles will be dropped.
Well this simply isn't going to happen any time soon. They're a part of the staples in the series. They'd no sooner ditch the random encounters than lose the Chocobos and stop having a character (usually technical) named Cid.
Squaresoft (OK, now Square Enix) do have other battle styles. But these are in different series.
The Seiken/Mana series for action-based. Chrono for one type of on-screen baddies, the SaGa games for anotehr. Plus Kingdom Hearts for the "Random, but in same screen so you can try to avoid them" style.
But bitching about the FF Series, saying they'd be great except for one of the staples of the series is just plain dumb, IMO.
Personally I'm not too against random battles, but the writer raises a damn good point.
The final point is the one that I'm most likely to concede, that it's simply annoying to be assaulted by all manner of enemies when you simply want to make it to the next town, save the game, and turn it off.
Many's the time in an FF-Game when I've just wanted to save the game and power down the system. Maybe I was about to go out. Maybe I was tired and wanted to sleep. Occasionally it's 'cos i'm using the main TV downstairs and my parents want to watch whatever lame Soap is about to come on.
But so often I've tried to either reach a known save point, or explore and tried to find one of the damn things. Just so I can actually finish playing for a bit.
There have been a few times when I've just powered it off, and decided to try again later.
A similar point is when you hit what I call "Story Mode".
Or course you're gonna get long story segments in a story-driven game. But so often you finally off a huge Boss character, and then it takes you into story-mode for about 5 or 10 minutes until you're given the option to save.
LA County is infringing no one's rights. You can still call the relationship master/slave if you want, that's OK. Just don't expect them to buy disks from you. That's their right.
And they'll exercise that right, up until the point that all their hard-drives break and they can't get any replacements,
Um, does anyone else think that referring to master and slave as perjorative terms associated with race is MUCH more offensive than using the terms to refer to hard drives?
Yes.
Actually, an odd thought has just occured to me.
People complain when Techie-types use technical jargon to describe things, and that they can't understand. Now a Master/Slave relationship would make it pretty clear that one IDE device is dominant over the other. Yet people are bitching.
Perhaps someone should send all 16 RFCs to L.A. County, along with an explanation of how the RFCs work as a way for keeping things standard.
The idea that one County, that's only a single part of one State, which is only a single part of one Country, should ask for different treatment by manufacturers when ti comes to internationally-used terms is just a little silly-seeming to me.
Anyway, master/slave need not have been used. Something that indicated necessity of the 1st one and the optional nature of the other would have sufficed.
That's as maybe. But there's nothing inherantly offensive about the terms. (Contextually inappropriate in some settings, yes. Inherantly offensive, no) "Master" is in so many contexts in computing. So calling the primary device on a channel the Master just makes sense, and if they needed a term for the secondary device and they needed one that contrasts, then "Slave" would seem a logical choice.
They might not be the best terms, but they do fit. And they are understood. And even if L.A. County does force the manufacturers to ship goods with different labelling/packaging/manuals, you can be pretty sure that the L.A. Techies will still refer to devices a Master and Slave.
Plus I guess it's just another matter of legacy terminology. Regradless of the reasoning behind it, the two devices on an IDE channel are the Master and Slave.
Mandating a change in terminology would just be an excercise in futility, and bring in the potential for confusion.
The only real way to remove the terms from usage is to remove traditional IDE devices from use. It's easier to apply a new term to a new technology (or at least a new iteration of an older technology). So when the next IDE-derivative comes out (or if something replaces the IDE method as the de facto standard) then that would be the time to find better terms.
I can see a potential problem with this. Taken to extremes, it could mean that some places would be purposefully chosing to not create the web-/postmaster addresses for their domain.
And I've got a sneaking suspicion that that goes against the RFCs. And, even if it doesn't, wouldn't that screw with the addresses that people know to try?
Some manufactured groups/songs can be good. I don't dispute that. Hell, I'll even go on record admitting that I like t.A.T.u's music.
However, a lot of manufactured music (not just pop, but manufactured in any musical genre) sounds very same-y. A lot (not all, but a lot) of the boy-bands out there are all but interchangeable. hell, some of them I honestly can't tell which are british and which are American. The styles (visual as well as musical) are just so alike. It's not until you hear an interview that I go "Shit, they're Welsh" or whatever.
And I don't know about America, but vertianly here in the UK a lot of the manufactured boy/girl groups sound identical because they're produced by the same people, and have songs written by the same writers. It doesn't stop the kids (sometimes) having talent, and it doesn't mean the writers can't write good songs. But it does mean that you can get some weeks where a sizeable chunk of the chart sounds like it comes from the same creativity pool.
And when you've already got companies with musical output which sounds all-but-identical, hearing about a computer system that might one day do just that does get a little bit annoying. If for no other reason than style/looks/dancing-ability will become even more overimportant than they already are - as actual singing talent becomes almost irrelevant.
What if this "journalist" stole some music he was planning to buy, and didn't like it? He might never buy it! That's a lost sale.
The thing that worries me at the moment is that I'm pretty certain that the RIAA would complain at such a thing.
Almost like they honestly believe that they have the right to sell music before people can make the choice whether it's worth it or not.
Hell, I have several albums I'd never have bought if I'd known what the rest of the tracks were like.
Conversely, though, I have several albums I'd have never bought had I only heard the singles/radio-releases.
I guess it's like all technological innovations. It has it's definite plus-points, but a fair few scary ones too.
As someone who'd like to be able to write music, but whose actual playing skills aren't up to much, the curernt music tech is great. As someone who likes to sing, but lacks confidence and sounds godawful in front of people, "DIY Backing Vocals" sounds like a godsend.
But also, as someone who thinks that the Music Industry already creates enough atrificial pop "acts", this is more than just a tad worrying.
And that is precisely why people aren't responding to this security compromise as badly as they would an MS one.
Linux doesn't pretend to be 100% unbreakable. Linux Zealots might try to make out that it is, but the creators don't seem to.
Something like this happens, a notice is out within 24 hours from the people themselves, and people from Debian are actually corroborating the story on/. rather than trying to hide it.
Windows has a summer of Blaster, Klez and Swen, and suddenly Microsoft is saying that we should trust their software for security and "Trusted Computing" and stuff.
You're right, up to a point. But you've also got to compare the other factors that tend to crop up...
Windows Box Compromised: Someone exploited a flaw. Linux Box Compromised: Insecure password.
or, if it IS due to a flaw exploit...
Linux: Box compromised because machine wasn't carrying latest patches. Windows: Box compromised even though machine was updated last week.
Linux: Exploit found. Exploit gets fixed. Publically. Usually the same month - with a temp-patch available within the week. Windows: Exploit found. Exploit gets fixed. Eventually. As a part of the next service pack. Newsgroups, Slashdot and third-party sites suggest workaround. MSKB just says "Problem is under investigation"
Oh, and there's always...:
Windows exploited:/. crowd too busy laughing to make sensible posts. Linux exploited:/. crowd too busy downloading, testing, and installing the various patches and workarounds that are flying around. (Or sending "Use a good password" memos around the office, stating that if an organisation like Debian can be compromised by a password, then Joe Average in accounts hasn't got a hope in hell if his password it the cat's name.)
I guess the thing that irritates people the most isn't the nature of the complaint itself, but the nature of the accident that triggered it.
I think when in possession of "all of the facts" then most sane people would agree that the temperature was way too hot, and that spilled coffee should not result in that degree of serious damage.
I also think that, after apparently 700 complaints, McD's should have done something about the temperature of the coffee.
But what really gets people is that it all came to a head when someone was
Holding the coffee cup in their lap.
Trying to take the lid off, whilst said cup was in their lap
Sat in a car at the time.
Even when stationary, a car seat is hardly the smartest place to try and take a lid off anything without spilling it.
And seeing that McD's coffee cups are paper or thin polystyrene, and hardly that thick, it should have been apparent that the coffee inside was hot[*] - and therefore opening it in their lap when sat down would therefore be ill-advised.
[*] The only way to not notice that contents of such a cup are hot are if you're wearing gloves. At which point wrestling with the lid is just plain dumb.
I'm not suggesting that McD's were blameless. Far from it. The consequences of the accident were too damned severe. But the nature of the accident just seems to suggest a lack of common-sense. And even though the consequences were serious, it's still an accident that was down to "User Error". And a lot of people (especially the/. crowd) tend to rebel against rewarding stupidity.
From what i gathered from a thread yesterday, he's doing it on purpose to gain false-Karma, and then Troll at higher-visibility.
If this is indeed true, perhaps anyone with Mod-points who sees a post by this guy(?) should auto-mod him as "Redundant". As he's merely copying existing opinions, yet isn't precisely Trolling, and certinaly isn't off-topic.
Perhaps there should be a "-1 Copy/Paste" mod score available.
But if you run Windows drivers and Windows programs via appropriate emulation layers, why not simply run Windows?
'Cos when a program (inevitably) crashes[*] it'll most likely only take itself (and the currentl emulation-layer session) out of action, leaving the OS and login session intact.
Whereas with Windows apps under Windows it still runs the risk of wiping out your OS session when a program crashes.
[*]
And I'm not slagging off MS/Windows software here. I find software is likely to crash on any OS. But at least when a linux program crashes, it very rarely takes out the underlying OS session.
Money is only lost if that person would have paid money but instead watched it for free.
And even then, I personally woulnd't say it's clear-cut there either.
Though I accept that many people (not just "The Industry") will not share my view.
I saw Matrix Revolutions at the Cinema, will see it again, and will buy the DVD. Chances are had I seen it ripped first, I'd still pay to see it at least once.
My friend downloaded it, thinks it's shite, and won't be seeing it again.
Now on the one hand, he's seen something for free that he will now not pay to see. But on the other, he's saved his money that he'd otherwise have spent on something he wouldn't enjoy.
I'm sure I'm not the only person who'll pay to see cinema-size something they've already seen monitor-sized.
Remember that the goatse guy has done nothing himself to harm you.
My eyeballs would beg to differ...
Seriously, everyone seems to be reacting in a "rules are bad, period" way. And also assuming that rules would be hard, fast, and suddenly released at adulthood.
Having overly-restrictive rules is a bad thing. having rules at all is not bad.
Having a set of rules that relax as you get older is probably the only way to do things.
I hated rules as a kid. I still do. I still obeyed them (mostly...) as a kid. By 26 that's changed a bit. but I'm a damn site more aware of the potential consequences now than I was then.
Perhaps most of the other readers here were fine without rules growing up. Maybe your kids are fine without rules. But I know myself well enough to acknowledge the fact that there are several times when it was only the rules (and my interest in avoiding "Wrath of Parent") that kept me doing the right thing.
I honestly dread to think how I'd have turned out if my parents had blindly trusted me to do what was right when I was younger.
The rules relaxed over time. I still don't always see eye-to-eye with my folks. And I still push the boundaries (as often as I bloody well can, at times).
But at 26 I'd like to beleive that i'm better at weighing up the risks than I would have been at 12.
I see spoiled little shits everywhere that were never taught anything because their parents decided that their little shits were somehow "entitled" more than the rest of the world and, even worse, decided to make their kids believe that shit.
Exactly!
Plus to the whole "Treat them like adults" crowd, you have a point. But that point is not "unrestricted access".
Arbitrary-seeming rules. Restrictions that don't seem necessary. "Acceptable use policies" for the Internet.
Those aren't just things that parents push on their kids. It's what we have to put up with (like it or not...) in the "adult world".
Learning that there are rules, and that breaking them has consequences is treating them like adults. Or, at least, treating them like the adults you hope they'll become.
It's a shame that the world is like this, but at the moment it is.
You've got to be kidding. No matter how well you raise your kids, they'll always do something your disapprove of either from the "testing the boundries" side, or the "being a dumb kid" side.
Exactly. Most people push the boundaries - especially kids.
I help at a Youth Club where the kids are contantly pushing the rules as far as they can go. I've seen "good kids" who will always see just how they can push their parents rules without getting into trouble.
Hell, I was far from a bad kid when I was younger. But I'd still ignore rules that i thought were pointless. In hindsight, I can understand why those rules were there. (Even the ones I'd still push...)
But the simple fact is that, when it comes to the Internet, it's not a children's playground. I'm all for "freedom of choice" and "anti-censorship", but there are still some things out here that even I think that kids need protecting from. (And I'm not even a parent.)
"Cyberspace" is just as dangerous as the "Real World". And last I checked, responsible parents don't just let their kids wander off anywhere and everywhere unsupervised.
Slashdot Mirror
And that's the problem. The industry doesn't seem to use that idea.
'Cos if they were all about "when content is new", they wouldn't be DRM-ing "Best Of" albums.
If anything, sometimes it seems like they're wanting to rebel against this idea.
Or at least twist it to their advantage.
Yes, by just protecting the release window they can (potentially) increase sales. But some people will wait until the price drops instead of buying new, and other would just wait until the "release window" has passed, and wait for the rips of the unprotected versions.
However, if you protect beyond the release window, it means that even if people have to wait until the release is cheaper, they still have to buy it to listen. (Because, of course, making cracking the protection illegal will stop the "evil pirates"...)
TiggsOn top of this, if it is illegal and/or impossible to play media on multiple players, or get aroubnd whatever "licensing" they use, then even when it's cheaper they'll have to buy an extra copy for each of their car/PC/work, or for other family members.
Well, I was told that this is the ideal time to make sure that you (and anyone else watching the film):
- has got a drink
- has been to the toilet
- is sitting comfortably
- has got any sweaters/glasses/etc that they need.
Basically, ignore the warning screens, and do a kind of "pre-flight check"
Tiggs
Actually, that kind of twist is what can make new books/films quite interesting.
OK, in a film version of a famous book series, you know that the heroes will be successful.
But people also tend to be conditioned to "know" that the hero is going to be successful in a new story, too.
And having the plot do something quite different is often quite exhillarating.
Plus, as someone in another reply said, even know what is going to happen, when it comes to seeing it on screen it can still be surprising seeing how it happens.
TiggsSpeaking as a "Non-white Male"[*], I happen to agree with the idea that the L.A. County thing is just "Political Correctness Run Wild" - and not a Good Thing.
Maybe they aren't the best terms. But they're the current terms, the standard (or "Standard") terms, and they are terms I find totally inoffensive in the context of computer components.
Now if someone called me a Slave because of my skin-colour, I'd be damn well offended. But I don't have a problem with the term being used when referred to the relationship between two hard-drives.
[*]
TiggsI'm actually half and half. Not exactly black, not exactly white. But the way I see it, my skin colour is "not exactly relevant". The only people who really make a big deal about it are racists and kids (too young to know better). To everyone else, it doesn't matter. I'm me, and that's all they really care about.
That's my main beef with them, too. The "Load Time" for the battles. And although technically the increase in console processors and/or programming techniques could have reduced/eliminated it, the switch from Carts to CDs (and now DVDs) has had a negative effect on the lag.
Personally, I enjoy the battle Screens. But something that could load in faster would be nice. Like making it part of the "Dungeon" engine, not a seperate one.
At the very least, the current "Battle background" and basic bits, bobs, and animations could be stored in memory. So that it could immediately trigger, and the opening animations/speeches could play whilst the battle engine loads, rather than adding more time after.
Plus displaying "spoils of war", and XP and stuff over the Victory poses instead of after them would be a lot better.
Plus some sort of High Level Parties intimidate Low Level Monsters factor that would reduce the random encounters when you're re-visiting "Single Hit Bunnies" territory.
TiggsYou raise a very good point here that many people just do not want to accept. Final Fantasy games (and other jRPGs) rely on the "Random Phantom Encounter" concept. It's a big part of how the games/series actually work.
I think a lot of people like the graphics, story, and (some of the...) other Game Mechanics in the FF Games, and are hoping that the random battles will be dropped.
Well this simply isn't going to happen any time soon. They're a part of the staples in the series. They'd no sooner ditch the random encounters than lose the Chocobos and stop having a character (usually technical) named Cid.
Squaresoft (OK, now Square Enix) do have other battle styles. But these are in different series.
The Seiken/Mana series for action-based. Chrono for one type of on-screen baddies, the SaGa games for anotehr. Plus Kingdom Hearts for the "Random, but in same screen so you can try to avoid them" style.
But bitching about the FF Series, saying they'd be great except for one of the staples of the series is just plain dumb, IMO.
TiggsMany's the time in an FF-Game when I've just wanted to save the game and power down the system. Maybe I was about to go out. Maybe I was tired and wanted to sleep. Occasionally it's 'cos i'm using the main TV downstairs and my parents want to watch whatever lame Soap is about to come on.
But so often I've tried to either reach a known save point, or explore and tried to find one of the damn things. Just so I can actually finish playing for a bit.
There have been a few times when I've just powered it off, and decided to try again later.
A similar point is when you hit what I call "Story Mode".
Or course you're gonna get long story segments in a story-driven game. But so often you finally off a huge Boss character, and then it takes you into story-mode for about 5 or 10 minutes until you're given the option to save.
And they'll exercise that right, up until the point that all their hard-drives break and they can't get any replacements,
Yes.
Actually, an odd thought has just occured to me.
TiggsPeople complain when Techie-types use technical jargon to describe things, and that they can't understand. Now a Master/Slave relationship would make it pretty clear that one IDE device is dominant over the other. Yet people are bitching.
Perhaps someone should send all 16 RFCs to L.A. County, along with an explanation of how the RFCs work as a way for keeping things standard.
The idea that one County, that's only a single part of one State, which is only a single part of one Country, should ask for different treatment by manufacturers when ti comes to internationally-used terms is just a little silly-seeming to me.
That's as maybe. But there's nothing inherantly offensive about the terms. (Contextually inappropriate in some settings, yes. Inherantly offensive, no) "Master" is in so many contexts in computing. So calling the primary device on a channel the Master just makes sense, and if they needed a term for the secondary device and they needed one that contrasts, then "Slave" would seem a logical choice.
They might not be the best terms, but they do fit. And they are understood. And even if L.A. County does force the manufacturers to ship goods with different labelling/packaging/manuals, you can be pretty sure that the L.A. Techies will still refer to devices a Master and Slave.
Plus I guess it's just another matter of legacy terminology. Regradless of the reasoning behind it, the two devices on an IDE channel are the Master and Slave.
Mandating a change in terminology would just be an excercise in futility, and bring in the potential for confusion.
The only real way to remove the terms from usage is to remove traditional IDE devices from use. It's easier to apply a new term to a new technology (or at least a new iteration of an older technology). So when the next IDE-derivative comes out (or if something replaces the IDE method as the de facto standard) then that would be the time to find better terms.
TiggsI can see a potential problem with this.
Taken to extremes, it could mean that some places would be purposefully chosing to not create the web-/postmaster addresses for their domain.
And I've got a sneaking suspicion that that goes against the RFCs. And, even if it doesn't, wouldn't that screw with the addresses that people know to try?
Some manufactured groups/songs can be good. I don't dispute that.
Hell, I'll even go on record admitting that I like t.A.T.u's music.
However, a lot of manufactured music (not just pop, but manufactured in any musical genre) sounds very same-y.
A lot (not all, but a lot) of the boy-bands out there are all but interchangeable. hell, some of them I honestly can't tell which are british and which are American. The styles (visual as well as musical) are just so alike. It's not until you hear an interview that I go "Shit, they're Welsh" or whatever.
And I don't know about America, but vertianly here in the UK a lot of the manufactured boy/girl groups sound identical because they're produced by the same people, and have songs written by the same writers. It doesn't stop the kids (sometimes) having talent, and it doesn't mean the writers can't write good songs.
But it does mean that you can get some weeks where a sizeable chunk of the chart sounds like it comes from the same creativity pool.
And when you've already got companies with musical output which sounds all-but-identical, hearing about a computer system that might one day do just that does get a little bit annoying.
If for no other reason than style/looks/dancing-ability will become even more overimportant than they already are - as actual singing talent becomes almost irrelevant.
The thing that worries me at the moment is that I'm pretty certain that the RIAA would complain at such a thing.
Almost like they honestly believe that they have the right to sell music before people can make the choice whether it's worth it or not.
Hell, I have several albums I'd never have bought if I'd known what the rest of the tracks were like. Conversely, though, I have several albums I'd have never bought had I only heard the singles/radio-releases.
I guess it's like all technological innovations. It has it's definite plus-points, but a fair few scary ones too.
As someone who'd like to be able to write music, but whose actual playing skills aren't up to much, the curernt music tech is great.
As someone who likes to sing, but lacks confidence and sounds godawful in front of people, "DIY Backing Vocals" sounds like a godsend.
But also, as someone who thinks that the Music Industry already creates enough atrificial pop "acts", this is more than just a tad worrying.
Tiggs
And that is precisely why people aren't responding to this security compromise as badly as they would an MS one.
Linux doesn't pretend to be 100% unbreakable. Linux Zealots might try to make out that it is, but the creators don't seem to. /. rather than trying to hide it.
Something like this happens, a notice is out within 24 hours from the people themselves, and people from Debian are actually corroborating the story on
Windows has a summer of Blaster, Klez and Swen, and suddenly Microsoft is saying that we should trust their software for security and "Trusted Computing" and stuff.
TiggsYou're right, up to a point. But you've also got to compare the other factors that tend to crop up...
/. crowd too busy laughing to make sensible posts. /. crowd too busy downloading, testing, and installing the various patches and workarounds that are flying around.
Windows Box Compromised: Someone exploited a flaw.
Linux Box Compromised: Insecure password.
or, if it IS due to a flaw exploit...
Linux: Box compromised because machine wasn't carrying latest patches.
Windows: Box compromised even though machine was updated last week.
Linux: Exploit found. Exploit gets fixed. Publically. Usually the same month - with a temp-patch available within the week.
Windows: Exploit found. Exploit gets fixed. Eventually. As a part of the next service pack. Newsgroups, Slashdot and third-party sites suggest workaround. MSKB just says "Problem is under investigation"
Oh, and there's always...:
Windows exploited:
Linux exploited:
(Or sending "Use a good password" memos around the office, stating that if an organisation like Debian can be compromised by a password, then Joe Average in accounts hasn't got a hope in hell if his password it the cat's name.)
I guess the thing that irritates people the most isn't the nature of the complaint itself, but the nature of the accident that triggered it.
I think when in possession of "all of the facts" then most sane people would agree that the temperature was way too hot, and that spilled coffee should not result in that degree of serious damage.
I also think that, after apparently 700 complaints, McD's should have done something about the temperature of the coffee.
But what really gets people is that it all came to a head when someone was
- Holding the coffee cup in their lap.
- Trying to take the lid off, whilst said cup was in their lap
- Sat in a car at the time.
Even when stationary, a car seat is hardly the smartest place to try and take a lid off anything without spilling it.And seeing that McD's coffee cups are paper or thin polystyrene, and hardly that thick, it should have been apparent that the coffee inside was hot[*] - and therefore opening it in their lap when sat down would therefore be ill-advised.
[*] The only way to not notice that contents of such a cup are hot are if you're wearing gloves. At which point wrestling with the lid is just plain dumb.
I'm not suggesting that McD's were blameless. Far from it. The consequences of the accident were too damned severe. /. crowd) tend to rebel against rewarding stupidity.
TiggsBut the nature of the accident just seems to suggest a lack of common-sense. And even though the consequences were serious, it's still an accident that was down to "User Error". And a lot of people (especially the
Does anyone else find it rather... odd that after living in the UK for a few years, she then releases a song...
Not exactly doing eith country any favours, is she?
TiggsFrom what i gathered from a thread yesterday, he's doing it on purpose to gain false-Karma, and then Troll at higher-visibility.
If this is indeed true, perhaps anyone with Mod-points who sees a post by this guy(?) should auto-mod him as "Redundant". As he's merely copying existing opinions, yet isn't precisely Trolling, and certinaly isn't off-topic.
Perhaps there should be a "-1 Copy/Paste" mod score available.
'Cos when a program (inevitably) crashes[*] it'll most likely only take itself (and the currentl emulation-layer session) out of action, leaving the OS and login session intact.
Whereas with Windows apps under Windows it still runs the risk of wiping out your OS session when a program crashes.
[*]
TiggsAnd I'm not slagging off MS/Windows software here. I find software is likely to crash on any OS. But at least when a linux program crashes, it very rarely takes out the underlying OS session.
And even then, I personally woulnd't say it's clear-cut there either.
Though I accept that many people (not just "The Industry") will not share my view.
I saw Matrix Revolutions at the Cinema, will see it again, and will buy the DVD. Chances are had I seen it ripped first, I'd still pay to see it at least once.
My friend downloaded it, thinks it's shite, and won't be seeing it again.
Now on the one hand, he's seen something for free that he will now not pay to see. But on the other, he's saved his money that he'd otherwise have spent on something he wouldn't enjoy.
I'm sure I'm not the only person who'll pay to see cinema-size something they've already seen monitor-sized.
My eyeballs would beg to differ...
Seriously, everyone seems to be reacting in a "rules are bad, period" way. And also assuming that rules would be hard, fast, and suddenly released at adulthood.
Having overly-restrictive rules is a bad thing. having rules at all is not bad.
Having a set of rules that relax as you get older is probably the only way to do things.
I hated rules as a kid. I still do. I still obeyed them (mostly...) as a kid. By 26 that's changed a bit. but I'm a damn site more aware of the potential consequences now than I was then.
Perhaps most of the other readers here were fine without rules growing up. Maybe your kids are fine without rules. But I know myself well enough to acknowledge the fact that there are several times when it was only the rules (and my interest in avoiding "Wrath of Parent") that kept me doing the right thing.
I honestly dread to think how I'd have turned out if my parents had blindly trusted me to do what was right when I was younger.
The rules relaxed over time. I still don't always see eye-to-eye with my folks. And I still push the boundaries (as often as I bloody well can, at times).
TiggsBut at 26 I'd like to beleive that i'm better at weighing up the risks than I would have been at 12.
Exactly!
Plus to the whole "Treat them like adults" crowd, you have a point. But that point is not "unrestricted access".
Arbitrary-seeming rules. Restrictions that don't seem necessary. "Acceptable use policies" for the Internet.
Those aren't just things that parents push on their kids. It's what we have to put up with (like it or not...) in the "adult world".
Learning that there are rules, and that breaking them has consequences is treating them like adults. Or, at least, treating them like the adults you hope they'll become.
It's a shame that the world is like this, but at the moment it is.
Exactly. Most people push the boundaries - especially kids.
I help at a Youth Club where the kids are contantly pushing the rules as far as they can go. I've seen "good kids" who will always see just how they can push their parents rules without getting into trouble.
Hell, I was far from a bad kid when I was younger. But I'd still ignore rules that i thought were pointless. In hindsight, I can understand why those rules were there. (Even the ones I'd still push...)
But the simple fact is that, when it comes to the Internet, it's not a children's playground. I'm all for "freedom of choice" and "anti-censorship", but there are still some things out here that even I think that kids need protecting from. (And I'm not even a parent.)
"Cyberspace" is just as dangerous as the "Real World". And last I checked, responsible parents don't just let their kids wander off anywhere and everywhere unsupervised.
Tiggs