Come on... that's really "I wanna download X-Box games from P2P on the Internet and be able to run them on my PC."
If you really wanted to wedge X-Box onto a Windows or even a Linux PC... there's a nice open front door to do it through. Just get a PCI-TV card from one of several vendors, and install it. Then, buy a real XBox and plug it into the S-Video and RCA audio inputs on that on that TV card. There you go...
It was never a Microsoft product, but it was a work that Microsoft owned because one of their writers started the project as part of a "how-to" article, and then in follow-up editions modified it to the point that it started to become something useful.
Therefore, this was code that Microsoft had that they weren't quite sure what to do with... it wasn't viable as a money-making project, but it did have some value in promoting the use of Windows.
Oh, it's worse than that. Most of our root water sources are open-air lakes.
We're basically operating on the theory that public water supplies are safe even from the intentional attempt to poison them because of the theory of dilution. Since the average person's drinking water comes from more than one source, and any one source would take a huge-huge megadose of the toxin (that'd most likely be noticed) in order to survive being diluted. It's highly unlikely a fatal dose would make it into anybody's single glass of water before the alert got out.
The government rarely thinks for itself. Special Interests on both sides of the asile are using terrorism as an excuse to pass laws that they always wanted to pass... not because it prevents terror, but because it secures their interest's goals.
Everybody's doing it. If you're a lobbiest and you can't explain how 9-11-01 is a reason why your bill-of-the-moment is needed, then you're in the wrong industry.
Not usually... but when they publish information that can be used against the current far-right interest in not pubishing various government data in the name of security, that's a far right group going against the present further-to-the-right position. Kinda indicates where the balance point on this issue seems to be....
Less than one percent of 629 is still 6. Granted, six isn't a large number when one considers it's relative relation, but it's still a number greater than zero.
(I'm not being paranoid, right?)
No, but you forgot to computer and discount for the number of reports in the 629 that if published could aid various anti-terror intersts in preventing attacks. If the number of attacks prevented by publication outnumbers the number aided by publication, we the people come out ahead in the long run.
Information is power... and the terrorists are of course trying to overpower existing governments that they don't like. It's a natural connection that they're going to try to use information along with any other tools available.
Which puts us in a messy situation... just how do we keep information away from them in a culture based on the free flow of information?
The big problem with terrorists is that they cause terror.
In this case, we're falling for it. We're having an unrational fear of the unknown. We're worried that in everything we publish, there's a terrorist reading it and trying to use it to their advantage.
On 9-11-01, they did something we didn't expect. They hijacked planes and brought their on minimally trained pilots to fly them into buildings. We didn't think that was likely to happen... at that time, standard policy during a hijacking was to let the hijacker into the cockpit. We're never going to make that mistake again.
But think about that, in all of our past dealings with hijackers, we assumed the hijackers wanted to live, and therefore would not crash the plane, nevermind know how to crash the plane into something else. In every case prior to 9-11-01, that was a correct decision. In most cases, we were able to get a majority of the passengers and crew members off the plane alive.
If a hijacker were to take over a plane today, there'd be much more opposition given to them by the passengers and flight crews. However, if a hijacking team were ever to succeed... now the default response would not be to attempt to reason with them but instead shoot the plane down. 100% of the innocent passengers would be lost, but we would be relieved that the plane didn't crash into a building.
Hey, wait a second... we're playing the game not to get the maximum lives returned, but instead to avoid the worst-case senario that has only struck once. That's somewhat a broken logic.
And that's really the culture that's taking over the nation. We've gotten so risk-adverse at doing things that when there's a possiblity of information being used negatively, we're ignoring all of the more-likely probablities that the infromation could also be used for good causes that we'd want to support. It's easier to point at the fear of what could go wrong than the dream of what could go right.
When a player is at a casino, the lure of the possibilty of a big jackpot convinces them to play games where the probabity of coming out positive just isn't there. Again, it's a case of possibility of an positve extreme case causing the ignorance of a probablity of a negative result.
Somehow, the concept of multiplying odds by result values is something average people just can't comprehend because emotions get in the way of cold logic... we act based on the possible emotional outcome rather than more likely outcome that logic would lead us to look for.
TechTV had problems that most of their on-air computers (which they're sure they paid for Windows on) ended up on the banned-number list when SP1 came out. See, it's kinda hard to do computer how-to segments and not accidently let the license key slip over the air a few times by mistake...
Yes, it had undesirable consequences of running an un-trusted application, but Trojan?
Any application that comes in wrappings saying it'll do X and then the contents inside do Y (or even X+Y) is a Trojan Horse for doing something (usually bad) it didn't warn that it was going to do.
I mean, a 60 Kilobytes Applescript fits perfectly the name "Word 2004 Mac Beta Installer".
Actually, that's very possible these days. The 60k file being the executable that goes and downloads the payload data from the Internet, then decompresses and installs. Microsoft's been known to use that style of installer for a long time.
However... why would anybody put a 60k free file on Limewire?
Microsoft gives out free (lower case) software all of the time. Internet Explorer, Outlook Express, Windows Media Player...
They even have released full versions of products that'd later become retail. Microsoft gave Outlook 98 away free for a while because Outlook 97 was just plain so bad the product needed its image rehabilitated.
Because everyone knows the icon is the best way to ascertain the security and authenticity of any piece of software. It's very secure and hard to change, uh huh.
Yep. On absolutely all platforms, the icon from one program is very easy to grab and apply to another. This is about as far away from a certificate or a signature as you can get. Only the trademark lawyer can protect against icon theft.
'I downloaded the file in the hope that perhaps Microsoft had released some sort of public beta'
That's a likely story...
Come on people. The only trustworthy source of any public beta software from Microsoft would be a website in the form of "http://*.microsoft.com/*" and there'd likely still be pretenders claiming to be that package floating on Limewire. Don't trust that it's Microsoft software unless you've seen Microsoft make an say that the distributor is legit.
Whatever this `plan' may cost, I'm sure there are comprable conventional mobile phone plans that are nearly as limitless as wi-fi.
Vonage offers unlimited residential service for $34.99 per month. $35 to a cell provider will get you roughly 500 peak-time minutes per month with nights and weekends unlimited.
For somebody who makes a lot of peak-time calls, 500 minutes per month simply isn't going to do it. Sure there's a rate plan out there big enough to get all the minutes a user can stand, but it costs a whole lot more than it does on VoIP...
I have the feeling that unless it's tied into a service that still charges you a per minute charge on the call, the Cellphone cartels ^H^H^H^H^H.. companies going to make sure it dies out real quick.
Oh, this one will be. In order for a seamless jump from WiFi to Cellular to even be possible, the VoIP part of the call already had to be passing through the cell provider's network, since you can't exactly change "local loop"/"last mile" providers in the middle of a phone call.
Whatever happened to the Motorola that had a Talkabout integrated into it so that you technically don't need to use your minutes if the person you want to talk to is within range?? I saw today a 900 Mhz multi-handset networked system that if seperated from it's home base but local to another handset configured to the same set could make a peer-to-peer call, which is useful for IT people doing a client visit... the team can split up yet have walkie-talkie mode access to each other.
Well, the point would be that since T-Mobile controls most of the bookstore WiFi systems, phones that would use T-Mobile for celluar mode could make use of the bookstore WiFi points. I know that my T-Mobile's cell phone signal gets weak inside my local Barnes and Noble store, and if T-Mobile's already there why don't they do something about eliminating that dead spot...
Hopefully this would finally be a way to escape the "at-home dead zone" when I try and use my mobile down in the basement and I can get rid of that silly land-line once and for all!
Cell providers already have "mini tower" equipment they can set up in their stores to assure that they never have an embarassing dead spot at their own retail location. They even set those up at business sites to assure an otherwise uncoverable corperate campus gets hit with signal.
I guess it was only a matter of time until they converted such units to a home game model...
I'd assume the conversation would be encrypted at the cell provider only to be decrypted by the phone itself.
In order for such a seamless-changeover call to be even possible, it'd have to from the start be passing through the cell provider on the way to the VoIP last mile while it's being used...
Slashdot Mirror
I wanna play XBOX games on my PC... :)
Come on... that's really "I wanna download X-Box games from P2P on the Internet and be able to run them on my PC."
If you really wanted to wedge X-Box onto a Windows or even a Linux PC... there's a nice open front door to do it through. Just get a PCI-TV card from one of several vendors, and install it. Then, buy a real XBox and plug it into the S-Video and RCA audio inputs on that on that TV card. There you go...
So if they paid the publisher for the documentation, why is this even a story?
/. summary.
Because the were stealing, and like... not respecting the inviolable rights of someone else to not have their stuff pinched.
If they paid, then in exchange for the money they got a non-public license to redistribute the content.
If they didn't pay and get a proper deal, then they stole.
That's a huge difference that isn't clear in the
It was never a Microsoft product, but it was a work that Microsoft owned because one of their writers started the project as part of a "how-to" article, and then in follow-up editions modified it to the point that it started to become something useful.
Therefore, this was code that Microsoft had that they weren't quite sure what to do with... it wasn't viable as a money-making project, but it did have some value in promoting the use of Windows.
Oh, it's worse than that. Most of our root water sources are open-air lakes.
We're basically operating on the theory that public water supplies are safe even from the intentional attempt to poison them because of the theory of dilution. Since the average person's drinking water comes from more than one source, and any one source would take a huge-huge megadose of the toxin (that'd most likely be noticed) in order to survive being diluted. It's highly unlikely a fatal dose would make it into anybody's single glass of water before the alert got out.
The government just uses terrorism as an excuse.
The government rarely thinks for itself. Special Interests on both sides of the asile are using terrorism as an excuse to pass laws that they always wanted to pass... not because it prevents terror, but because it secures their interest's goals.
Everybody's doing it. If you're a lobbiest and you can't explain how 9-11-01 is a reason why your bill-of-the-moment is needed, then you're in the wrong industry.
Not usually... but when they publish information that can be used against the current far-right interest in not pubishing various government data in the name of security, that's a far right group going against the present further-to-the-right position. Kinda indicates where the balance point on this issue seems to be....
Less than one percent of 629 is still 6. Granted, six isn't a large number when one considers it's relative relation, but it's still a number greater than zero.
(I'm not being paranoid, right?)
No, but you forgot to computer and discount for the number of reports in the 629 that if published could aid various anti-terror intersts in preventing attacks. If the number of attacks prevented by publication outnumbers the number aided by publication, we the people come out ahead in the long run.
Information is power... and the terrorists are of course trying to overpower existing governments that they don't like. It's a natural connection that they're going to try to use information along with any other tools available.
Which puts us in a messy situation... just how do we keep information away from them in a culture based on the free flow of information?
The big problem with terrorists is that they cause terror.
In this case, we're falling for it. We're having an unrational fear of the unknown. We're worried that in everything we publish, there's a terrorist reading it and trying to use it to their advantage.
On 9-11-01, they did something we didn't expect. They hijacked planes and brought their on minimally trained pilots to fly them into buildings. We didn't think that was likely to happen... at that time, standard policy during a hijacking was to let the hijacker into the cockpit. We're never going to make that mistake again.
But think about that, in all of our past dealings with hijackers, we assumed the hijackers wanted to live, and therefore would not crash the plane, nevermind know how to crash the plane into something else. In every case prior to 9-11-01, that was a correct decision. In most cases, we were able to get a majority of the passengers and crew members off the plane alive.
If a hijacker were to take over a plane today, there'd be much more opposition given to them by the passengers and flight crews. However, if a hijacking team were ever to succeed... now the default response would not be to attempt to reason with them but instead shoot the plane down. 100% of the innocent passengers would be lost, but we would be relieved that the plane didn't crash into a building.
Hey, wait a second... we're playing the game not to get the maximum lives returned, but instead to avoid the worst-case senario that has only struck once. That's somewhat a broken logic.
And that's really the culture that's taking over the nation. We've gotten so risk-adverse at doing things that when there's a possiblity of information being used negatively, we're ignoring all of the more-likely probablities that the infromation could also be used for good causes that we'd want to support. It's easier to point at the fear of what could go wrong than the dream of what could go right.
When a player is at a casino, the lure of the possibilty of a big jackpot convinces them to play games where the probabity of coming out positive just isn't there. Again, it's a case of possibility of an positve extreme case causing the ignorance of a probablity of a negative result.
Somehow, the concept of multiplying odds by result values is something average people just can't comprehend because emotions get in the way of cold logic... we act based on the possible emotional outcome rather than more likely outcome that logic would lead us to look for.
Interesting though, it's incompatible simply because it requires that the software licensor GIVE more rights than the GPL does.
The specific area of conflict is patent licenses... the GPL says nothing about them, the CPL grants them.
Microsoft denounces OS yet they contribute... Odd.
If they can't kill it, then they have to resort to "embrace and extend"...
TechTV had problems that most of their on-air computers (which they're sure they paid for Windows on) ended up on the banned-number list when SP1 came out. See, it's kinda hard to do computer how-to segments and not accidently let the license key slip over the air a few times by mistake...
Imagine a beowolf cluster of researches that well equiped...
Why was this under the "Apple" topic? Do we not have a "Darwin awards" topic?
I thought Mac users had been running Darwin ever since OSX came in...
Yes, it had undesirable consequences of running an un-trusted application, but Trojan?
Any application that comes in wrappings saying it'll do X and then the contents inside do Y (or even X+Y) is a Trojan Horse for doing something (usually bad) it didn't warn that it was going to do.
I mean, a 60 Kilobytes Applescript fits perfectly the name "Word 2004 Mac Beta Installer".
Actually, that's very possible these days. The 60k file being the executable that goes and downloads the payload data from the Internet, then decompresses and installs. Microsoft's been known to use that style of installer for a long time.
However... why would anybody put a 60k free file on Limewire?
I thought we had already named such people "lusers".
Microsoft gives out free (lower case) software all of the time. Internet Explorer, Outlook Express, Windows Media Player...
They even have released full versions of products that'd later become retail. Microsoft gave Outlook 98 away free for a while because Outlook 97 was just plain so bad the product needed its image rehabilitated.
Because everyone knows the icon is the best way to ascertain the security and authenticity of any piece of software. It's very secure and hard to change, uh huh.
Yep. On absolutely all platforms, the icon from one program is very easy to grab and apply to another. This is about as far away from a certificate or a signature as you can get. Only the trademark lawyer can protect against icon theft.
'I downloaded the file in the hope that perhaps Microsoft had released some sort of public beta'
That's a likely story...
Come on people. The only trustworthy source of any public beta software from Microsoft would be a website in the form of "http://*.microsoft.com/*" and there'd likely still be pretenders claiming to be that package floating on Limewire. Don't trust that it's Microsoft software unless you've seen Microsoft make an say that the distributor is legit.
Whatever this `plan' may cost, I'm sure there are comprable conventional mobile phone plans that are nearly as limitless as wi-fi.
Vonage offers unlimited residential service for $34.99 per month. $35 to a cell provider will get you roughly 500 peak-time minutes per month with nights and weekends unlimited.
For somebody who makes a lot of peak-time calls, 500 minutes per month simply isn't going to do it. Sure there's a rate plan out there big enough to get all the minutes a user can stand, but it costs a whole lot more than it does on VoIP...
I have the feeling that unless it's tied into a service that still charges you a per minute charge on the call, the Cellphone cartels ^H^H^H^H^H.. companies going to make sure it dies out real quick.
Oh, this one will be. In order for a seamless jump from WiFi to Cellular to even be possible, the VoIP part of the call already had to be passing through the cell provider's network, since you can't exactly change "local loop"/"last mile" providers in the middle of a phone call.
Whatever happened to the Motorola that had a Talkabout integrated into it so that you technically don't need to use your minutes if the person you want to talk to is within range??
I saw today a 900 Mhz multi-handset networked system that if seperated from it's home base but local to another handset configured to the same set could make a peer-to-peer call, which is useful for IT people doing a client visit... the team can split up yet have walkie-talkie mode access to each other.
Well, the point would be that since T-Mobile controls most of the bookstore WiFi systems, phones that would use T-Mobile for celluar mode could make use of the bookstore WiFi points. I know that my T-Mobile's cell phone signal gets weak inside my local Barnes and Noble store, and if T-Mobile's already there why don't they do something about eliminating that dead spot...
Hopefully this would finally be a way to escape the "at-home dead zone" when I try and use my mobile down in the basement and I can get rid of that silly land-line once and for all!
Cell providers already have "mini tower" equipment they can set up in their stores to assure that they never have an embarassing dead spot at their own retail location. They even set those up at business sites to assure an otherwise uncoverable corperate campus gets hit with signal.
I guess it was only a matter of time until they converted such units to a home game model...
I'd assume the conversation would be encrypted at the cell provider only to be decrypted by the phone itself.
In order for such a seamless-changeover call to be even possible, it'd have to from the start be passing through the cell provider on the way to the VoIP last mile while it's being used...