Dont give the execute permissions on any folder they have write access too. Simple as that, No more running things from their desktops. Just lock the thing down tight, dont let the execute anything anywhere and try to do whatever it is they need to.
But newsflash: that sucks. If a person doesn't have their own computer (I know I know, but some don't), they WANT to be able to download stuff and run it! Why should they only be able to run the crap (read: microsoft office 2000/xp) prescribed to them by the system admin?
Once families are prevented from copying or "pirating" copies of ms os/applications through product activation and other methods, everyone will be running Gnu/Linux, and therefore, everyone will not be able to legally view DVDs on their Gnu/Linux systems, or something will change. Care to guess which?
Actually, I beg to differ on your first point. I don't think the fact that they have to pay for 2 copies of Windows instead of 1 (actually many families only have 1 computer so nothing will change, and Windows/Office usually comes pre-installed on a 'joe sixpack' computer) will cause people to suddenly 'jump ship' to GNU/Linux. Most people don't even know what Linux is!!! They'll grumble but pay up, and MS knows that. I really don't think they'd be dumb enough to do something which would lose them their OS monopoly.
Not surprising. Cops in America don't seem to prosecute ANY drivers. If you're in a car, you're virtually immune from the law. Hell, when I went over there, half the cars didn't even have numberplates!!! If you didn't have numberplates at the front and rear of the car here (UK), you'd be stopped by the police in 5 seconds.
Seriously though, the last thing any of us need to see is more of this junk. the worst is when you're on an IE machine and along come the unclosable popups... yeuch!
It's funny, but i've never once encountered an uncloseable popup without a 'Close this window' button... dunno if I'm just lucky or what.
Hate to totally disagree, but I'm from the UK, radio advertising just pisses me off, it's always for the same 2 or 3 companies, sometimes I DO even switch stations/switch radio off when the ads come on, and I've never once bought anything because of a radio ad.:-)
On a side note, I have gigs of downloaded mp3's but will not pretend that I have a good reason for breaking the law.
What a joke you've just made of your post then! I suggest you immediately either delete them all, or go to your nearest police station and turn yourself in.:-)
It only makes sense that the difference is being made up by the honest folks who actually pay for the software.
I think everyone realises this, and it's not the question being asked. The question is, who is more unreasonable? The RIAA/record labels who refuse to lower prices and offer better distribution of their bands' music, or the pirates who are not willing to pay the fatcats' wages? Personally, I think the RIAA and record labels are.
Yes, they do. And you've answered as though I've said something I didn't. I didn't say not watching ads on TV was stealing, I said that you should be GREATFUL for them because they reduce YOUR TV viswing costs.
The average consumer pays for the cost of television production by buying products shown in the ads.
Yes, which reduces YOUR subscription fee.
By contrast, I didn't pay any significant amount of the cost of most television even when I watched ads, because I don't buy most of the products that are advertised, and because I'm never swayed to buy products I don't need. Thus, the ads are costing the advertisers money for no reason.
You see, this is the attitude that I have a problem with. 99% of people would probably say that they are 'not swayed' by ads and that ads are 'annoying'. They WOULD and DO block them if they have the technology to (Tivo). You can't just ask people whether ads ever affect them, and if they say no, serve no ads to them. That's stupid. It would be GUARENTEED to make advertising lose some of its potential customers, and I don't care how sure you say you are that you are never influenced by ads, even if YOU'RE right, there's millions who would say that wrongly.
Huh? What's that? Yeah. The primary purpose of advertisement is to encourage people to impuse buy.
Big deal. It's not illegal.
For people who make it a point to darn near never impulse buy, advertisements are a waste, even if they are for products you might buy.
Yeah, but as I say, some people don't have the time to spend researching every damn product and WANT stuff to be advertised to them. In fact, most people probably qualify as that to some extent.
The people who say that skipping commercials is "stealing"
Not what I said.
However, by skipping the ads, the viewer will enjoy the program more, and will be more likely to tell others about the show -- others who might be more likely to be influenced by ads. In short, as long as most of the PVRs are owned by geeks, commercial skipping is of a net benefit to advertisers and the TV industry.
Heh. This is a *really* shaky argument. I think it would be much more likely that the people you referred the show to would skip the ads AS WELL. You see, PVRs aren't just owned by 'geeks', are they? Millions of people have Tivo and the like, they're marketed to 'average people'. And that's exactly who advertisers want viewing their ads.
I think your arguments are very weak, and clearly designed to give an excuse for people to skip ads 'because they know they never buy anything that they see in ads'. Well that's not a good enough argument for me, as I know full well that many people who would say that WOULD in fact be influenced by ads.
But what many people, who complain about commercials, forget is that these commercials are funding *a lot* of what they watch on TV. If asked to pay the increased fee for channels with NO commercials, most people wouldn't. And many channels would die. And whilst many are filled with crap, some aren't, and there's always gonna be some people who are interested in the shows that would die as a result.
Ads are effectively big business *paying for the TV you watch*! Maybe you should think about that before you moan about them. Even if you do 'tune out', don't tell everyone!!! These ads are vastly reducing your TV viewing costs!!!
But surely it would be better for them to give their money to Microsoft... after all, Bill Gates is such a generous man, giving money to India and his charitable foundation, he could probably spend it better than The Samaritans....:-)
But that's no good. Users want ONE application to handle everything, haven't you heard? Far simpler.
Re:You Americans are funny sometimes...
on
239 MPG Car
·
· Score: 2
commuting 30 miles to and from work each day is *so* much more fun when you get to do the clear stretches at 80mph and still turn in 55-60mpg:)
Except that, if you live in the UK, the chances of getting a 'clear stretch' on any road is virtually non-existant, and even if you did get one, 80mph is over any speed limit and you'd be caught by several of the thousands of speed cameras, fined, and lose your license quicker than you can say 'diesel'.
Re:And there will be one Master Ring
on
More on Longhorn
·
· Score: 2
Until the day comes when Microsoft makes all the hardware, this is an impossibility.
I'm not so sure. You see, all MS need is enough power in the software market to make hardware manufacturers *need* to comply to keep making a profit. MS don't need direct control, just indirect control. How many prebuilt PCs, especially laptops, have you seen which do NOT bear a 'designed for windows 98/ME/2k/XP' sticker on them?
As long as people are interested in spending money for something which doesn't involve microsoft, this is not going to become a realistic scenario.
Exactly. Except that this statement isn't 100% true, more accurately: As long as enough people are interested in spending money for something which doesn't involve microsoft, this is not going to become a realistic scenario.
My worry is that if the demand for non-MS products drops low enough, there won't be ENOUGH of this demand to warrant non-Palladium hardware, and that's exactly what Microsoft wants. We've seen designed-for-Microsoft hardware with Laptops, and all manner of plug+play devices. The very lack of drivers for another OS is bad enough, but if the hardware manufacturer fails to even release any kind of interface information (Canon?) for their hardware, that seems like a company positively in league with Microsoft.
I know, I'm a pessamist.:-)
Re:And there will be one Master Ring
on
More on Longhorn
·
· Score: 1
We don't want special-purpose devices, that leads to proprietary, closed systems and a lack of interoperability. We want systems which are as flexible and open as possible.
And what sucks is that Microsoft seem closer to taking away that flexibility than ever. The machines in use a few years ago may have been less powerful in raw terms, but in terms of software/hardware flexibility, we could find ourselves looking back in a few years time and thinking "we can't do now what we could do then; program a widely-needed solution, and distribute it, maybe even making some money in the process, without Microsoft's approval."
There's intellectual property management, then there's control freakery.
However, with rather a lot of governments and organisations already switching to *nix operating systems, or already switched, there can't fail to be a demand for non-Palladium hardware, can there? And if that is still being produced, we can still use a non-MS operating system. What might happen is that we aren't able to run the latest and greatest games on the OS, but games are being relegated to the realm of console-only these days, anyway.
Re:code signing != panacea
on
More on Longhorn
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Surely, 2) should be "Code that is from a verified source that I cannot look at".
You clearly are very young, and I don't mean that in a disparaging or mean way. But you seem to have a very idealistic idea of justice.
I'm 19. You don't have to be very young to have an idealistic idea of how justice SHOULD be:-)
Surely, after winning the case, the prosecuting company should be forced to pay you back your legal fees in full PLUS inconvenience payments. That would discourage this kind of legal challenge. Again, I agree that's how it SHOULD be. That's not how it is. Win or lose, you're responsible for paying your lawyers, and 20K sounds cheap to me.
Interesting comment. I think this may be a serious flaw of the American legal system, because I believe that over here (Britain), the losing party IS required to pay the other side's costs, which obviously include legal fees and most likely inconvenience. This is the best way to do things, as it discourages someone from falsely defending something, or launching a frivoulous lawsuit.
'Windows', 'Apple', 'Gateway', 'Monopoly' and 'Sorry' should not be trademarkable. I really don't think those companies couldn't have slightly changed the words or added other words to them to make the much more unique.
As for The Beatles, 'beatle' isn't actually a word, I believe 'beetle' is the correct spelling; it's an example of a group of artists slightly changing a word to make it unique to them, which is what I'd like to see companies having to do.
'The Rolling Stones' is unique enough because it's an uncommon phrase. Ditto for 'Duke Power'.
I seriously doubt 'Duke University' have trademarked their name.
'General Electric' and 'General Motors' shouldn't be trademarkable, as they're far too generic and made up of English nouns.
You see, nearly everything falls into a category of whether or not it should be allowed to be trademarked. You shouldn't take such a blaze attitude, and just let anyone trademark anything, as you get these stupid lawsuits arising.
The only one of those examples which is a grey area is 'Dell' as, whilst it is an English noun, it's also a Surname. All surnames which are nouns are a difficult area; I guess you'd have to eventually say no to that also, otherwise anyone could change their surname to a noun and trademark it.
Slashdot Mirror
Dont give the execute permissions on any folder they have write access too. Simple as that, No more running things from their desktops. Just lock the thing down tight, dont let the execute anything anywhere and try to do whatever it is they need to.
But newsflash: that sucks. If a person doesn't have their own computer (I know I know, but some don't), they WANT to be able to download stuff and run it! Why should they only be able to run the crap (read: microsoft office 2000/xp) prescribed to them by the system admin?
Sounds like you could have built your own BBC with less effort.
>And ghost is not a BP solution either dumbass. Ghost will "ghost" errors on the drive along with everything else.
And why are you using a used workstation to update your ghost image from?
Any why are YOU using a used workstation to update your xcopy image from??
Once families are prevented from copying or "pirating" copies of ms os/applications through product activation and other methods, everyone will be running Gnu/Linux, and therefore, everyone will not be able to legally view DVDs on their Gnu/Linux systems, or something will change. Care to guess which?
Actually, I beg to differ on your first point. I don't think the fact that they have to pay for 2 copies of Windows instead of 1 (actually many families only have 1 computer so nothing will change, and Windows/Office usually comes pre-installed on a 'joe sixpack' computer) will cause people to suddenly 'jump ship' to GNU/Linux. Most people don't even know what Linux is!!! They'll grumble but pay up, and MS knows that. I really don't think they'd be dumb enough to do something which would lose them their OS monopoly.
Not surprising. Cops in America don't seem to prosecute ANY drivers. If you're in a car, you're virtually immune from the law. Hell, when I went over there, half the cars didn't even have numberplates!!! If you didn't have numberplates at the front and rear of the car here (UK), you'd be stopped by the police in 5 seconds.
Yeah, but it's very unlikely that you will be able to *legally* view DVD content using Linux.
The median IS a form of average.
If the only women he gets are ones drooling over $100,000 a year, I'm glad I'm not him.
New tungsten steel CD-RW 800x disc?
Seriously though, the last thing any of us need to see is more of this junk. the worst is when you're on an IE machine and along come the unclosable popups... yeuch!
It's funny, but i've never once encountered an uncloseable popup without a 'Close this window' button... dunno if I'm just lucky or what.
Hate to totally disagree, but I'm from the UK, radio advertising just pisses me off, it's always for the same 2 or 3 companies, sometimes I DO even switch stations/switch radio off when the ads come on, and I've never once bought anything because of a radio ad. :-)
On a side note, I have gigs of downloaded mp3's but will not pretend that I have a good reason for breaking the law.
:-)
What a joke you've just made of your post then! I suggest you immediately either delete them all, or go to your nearest police station and turn yourself in.
It only makes sense that the difference is being made up by the honest folks who actually pay for the software.
I think everyone realises this, and it's not the question being asked. The question is, who is more unreasonable? The RIAA/record labels who refuse to lower prices and offer better distribution of their bands' music, or the pirates who are not willing to pay the fatcats' wages? Personally, I think the RIAA and record labels are.
Mod the parent up. The RIAA only choose to prosecute what it suits them to classify as 'illegal'.
The ads don't reduce your TV viewing costs.
Yes, they do. And you've answered as though I've said something I didn't. I didn't say not watching ads on TV was stealing, I said that you should be GREATFUL for them because they reduce YOUR TV viswing costs.
The average consumer pays for the cost of television production by buying products shown in the ads.
Yes, which reduces YOUR subscription fee.
By contrast, I didn't pay any significant amount of the cost of most television even when I watched ads, because I don't buy most of the products that are advertised, and because I'm never swayed to buy products I don't need. Thus, the ads are costing the advertisers money for no reason.
You see, this is the attitude that I have a problem with. 99% of people would probably say that they are 'not swayed' by ads and that ads are 'annoying'. They WOULD and DO block them if they have the technology to (Tivo). You can't just ask people whether ads ever affect them, and if they say no, serve no ads to them. That's stupid. It would be GUARENTEED to make advertising lose some of its potential customers, and I don't care how sure you say you are that you are never influenced by ads, even if YOU'RE right, there's millions who would say that wrongly.
Huh? What's that? Yeah. The primary purpose of advertisement is to encourage people to impuse buy.
Big deal. It's not illegal.
For people who make it a point to darn near never impulse buy, advertisements are a waste, even if they are for products you might buy.
Yeah, but as I say, some people don't have the time to spend researching every damn product and WANT stuff to be advertised to them. In fact, most people probably qualify as that to some extent.
The people who say that skipping commercials is "stealing"
Not what I said.
However, by skipping the ads, the viewer will enjoy the program more, and will be more likely to tell others about the show -- others who might be more likely to be influenced by ads. In short, as long as most of the PVRs are owned by geeks, commercial skipping is of a net benefit to advertisers and the TV industry.
Heh. This is a *really* shaky argument. I think it would be much more likely that the people you referred the show to would skip the ads AS WELL. You see, PVRs aren't just owned by 'geeks', are they? Millions of people have Tivo and the like, they're marketed to 'average people'. And that's exactly who advertisers want viewing their ads.
I think your arguments are very weak, and clearly designed to give an excuse for people to skip ads 'because they know they never buy anything that they see in ads'. Well that's not a good enough argument for me, as I know full well that many people who would say that WOULD in fact be influenced by ads.
But what many people, who complain about commercials, forget is that these commercials are funding *a lot* of what they watch on TV. If asked to pay the increased fee for channels with NO commercials, most people wouldn't. And many channels would die. And whilst many are filled with crap, some aren't, and there's always gonna be some people who are interested in the shows that would die as a result.
Ads are effectively big business *paying for the TV you watch*! Maybe you should think about that before you moan about them. Even if you do 'tune out', don't tell everyone!!! These ads are vastly reducing your TV viewing costs!!!
But surely it would be better for them to give their money to Microsoft... after all, Bill Gates is such a generous man, giving money to India and his charitable foundation, he could probably spend it better than The Samaritans.... :-)
But that's no good. Users want ONE application to handle everything, haven't you heard? Far simpler.
commuting 30 miles to and from work each day is *so* much more fun when you get to do the clear stretches at 80mph and still turn in 55-60mpg :)
Except that, if you live in the UK, the chances of getting a 'clear stretch' on any road is virtually non-existant, and even if you did get one, 80mph is over any speed limit and you'd be caught by several of the thousands of speed cameras, fined, and lose your license quicker than you can say 'diesel'.
Until the day comes when Microsoft makes all the hardware, this is an impossibility.
:-)
I'm not so sure. You see, all MS need is enough power in the software market to make hardware manufacturers *need* to comply to keep making a profit. MS don't need direct control, just indirect control. How many prebuilt PCs, especially laptops, have you seen which do NOT bear a 'designed for windows 98/ME/2k/XP' sticker on them?
As long as people are interested in spending money for something which doesn't involve microsoft, this is not going to become a realistic scenario.
Exactly. Except that this statement isn't 100% true, more accurately: As long as enough people are interested in spending money for something which doesn't involve microsoft, this is not going to become a realistic scenario.
My worry is that if the demand for non-MS products drops low enough, there won't be ENOUGH of this demand to warrant non-Palladium hardware, and that's exactly what Microsoft wants. We've seen designed-for-Microsoft hardware with Laptops, and all manner of plug+play devices. The very lack of drivers for another OS is bad enough, but if the hardware manufacturer fails to even release any kind of interface information (Canon?) for their hardware, that seems like a company positively in league with Microsoft.
I know, I'm a pessamist.
We don't want special-purpose devices, that leads to proprietary, closed systems and a lack of interoperability. We want systems which are as flexible and open as possible.
And what sucks is that Microsoft seem closer to taking away that flexibility than ever. The machines in use a few years ago may have been less powerful in raw terms, but in terms of software/hardware flexibility, we could find ourselves looking back in a few years time and thinking "we can't do now what we could do then; program a widely-needed solution, and distribute it, maybe even making some money in the process, without Microsoft's approval."
There's intellectual property management, then there's control freakery.
However, with rather a lot of governments and organisations already switching to *nix operating systems, or already switched, there can't fail to be a demand for non-Palladium hardware, can there? And if that is still being produced, we can still use a non-MS operating system. What might happen is that we aren't able to run the latest and greatest games on the OS, but games are being relegated to the realm of console-only these days, anyway.
Surely, 2) should be "Code that is from a verified source that I cannot look at".
You clearly are very young, and I don't mean that in a disparaging or mean way. But you seem to have a very idealistic idea of justice.
:-)
I'm 19. You don't have to be very young to have an idealistic idea of how justice SHOULD be
Surely, after winning the case, the prosecuting company should be forced to pay you back your legal fees in full PLUS inconvenience payments. That would discourage this kind of legal challenge.
Again, I agree that's how it SHOULD be. That's not how it is. Win or lose, you're responsible for paying your lawyers, and 20K sounds cheap to me.
Interesting comment. I think this may be a serious flaw of the American legal system, because I believe that over here (Britain), the losing party IS required to pay the other side's costs, which obviously include legal fees and most likely inconvenience. This is the best way to do things, as it discourages someone from falsely defending something, or launching a frivoulous lawsuit.
'Windows', 'Apple', 'Gateway', 'Monopoly' and 'Sorry' should not be trademarkable. I really don't think those companies couldn't have slightly changed the words or added other words to them to make the much more unique.
As for The Beatles, 'beatle' isn't actually a word, I believe 'beetle' is the correct spelling; it's an example of a group of artists slightly changing a word to make it unique to them, which is what I'd like to see companies having to do.
'The Rolling Stones' is unique enough because it's an uncommon phrase. Ditto for 'Duke Power'.
I seriously doubt 'Duke University' have trademarked their name.
'General Electric' and 'General Motors' shouldn't be trademarkable, as they're far too generic and made up of English nouns.
You see, nearly everything falls into a category of whether or not it should be allowed to be trademarked. You shouldn't take such a blaze attitude, and just let anyone trademark anything, as you get these stupid lawsuits arising.
The only one of those examples which is a grey area is 'Dell' as, whilst it is an English noun, it's also a Surname. All surnames which are nouns are a difficult area; I guess you'd have to eventually say no to that also, otherwise anyone could change their surname to a noun and trademark it.