That's because no one uses it. Notice something about the targets? They all have enormous install bases.
Sigh. This is one of the excuses that people make when their preferred browser gets hacked first (especially if a Microsoft one wasn't hacked). The order in which targets and teams are scheduled by random draws.
The targets today included Adobe Flash on Microsoft Edge. That attack failed. Tomorrow, two other teams are scheduled to take on MS Edge, so may be they will have more success.
I am consistently modded down for having a conservative viewpoint. I generally don't even log-in anymore because when I do post a conservative viewpoint, my inbox is shortly after filled with "fu republican" type posts.
Then imagine what your inbox would look like if you started modding down some of the trolls that do deserve to be modded. Some people take comments that they don't like very personally to the extent that they send abusive PMs or even harrass you by replying to all your posts in other discussions to continue the fight. But think how much worse would that be if they knew exactly who modded them down to -1.
When you are moderating, you don't want to be so scared of certain, vindictive people that you avoid doing your duty for fear of retaliation.
The ones that have a right to complain are paying customers
And who are you to actually say that? You can't even be bothered creating an account on Slashdot and yet you feel you can tell logged-in users what they can and can't say.
Nobody has to shut up just because you say so. Now whether the kernel developers actually listen to the complaints is up to them, but they can't dictate what their users say. Nowhere in the GPL do we sign away our right to free speech if we don't pay someone money.
Who ever wrote this A) obviously had an agenda and B) was a complete dumb ass that believed in the religion of government whose dogma states "If we pass a law, people will actually obey it:"
Seriously, the OP guessed correctly who it was who wrote that... a comedian! It wasn't some anonymous, angry poster on the Internet with whom you might be more familiar and identifiable.
How is getting a $2 million fine a "free pass"? That guy who got arrested for using a phone jammer had already been caught once before doing the same thing and yet continued the illegal activity, just the same as the hotels. There is no double standard going on (yet).
No, require them to provide free Wifi (without logins or nags) that is not slower than any paid Wifi they offer, and make them advertise it everywhere they mention their paid Wifi.
That goes beyond the remit of the FCC. They only care about whether you have used Wi-Fi blocking technology designed to interfere with legal use of the airways. It is not illegal to charge money for Wi-Fi access.
To be accurate, the GP's statement could be satisfied if he never stayed at a first-class hotel.
Actually, that would not be accurate. He must have stayed in at least one first-class hotel for him to be able to say that he has stayed in one that didn't have free Wi-Fi. If you slightly reword the original phrase "I have rarely stayed at a first class hotel that did not have free guest Wi-Fi" as "I have stayed at a first-class hotel that did not have free guest Wi-Fi, but only on rare occasions".
It is possible to say that he might never have stayed at a first-class hotel that did have free Wi-Fi, because the rarely term could mean that he only rarely stays at first-class hotels at all and he gives no indication how often (if ever) he stays at hotels that do have free Wi-Fi..
In recent years, I have rarely stayed at a first class hotel that did not have free guest w-fi.
I think you intended to say that all of the first class hotels you stayed at had free guest wifi, but your double negative said just the opposite.
That is completely wrong. If you rarely stay at a hotel that does not have free Wi-Fi then it means that you more commonly stay at hotels that do have free Wi-Fi. It certainly does not mean, as you claim, the opposite of what was intended. Nor can you infer that the intention was that all the hotels had free Wi-Fi, as the word rarely indicates that some hotels did not have that feature. If the word used had been never then you could say that all hotels did have it.
So what, exactly, is the evidence that you have that EEE is what they are doing? Apart from a vague claim that Microsoft wants to make money, how does making open source projects ever lead to extinguishing anything? If Microsoft did try to do something underhanded with the project in the future with an extend or extinguish phase, then everyone could just fork the project from the previous version and keep working happily.
You can't go claiming it's like the police investigating criminal cases when you want MS to have police powers, then when it;s pointed out that it has to be the POLICE doing that, not a company or individual, go "But it's not a criminal case!".
The police line was about the bank robbery analogy. The claim was that you wouldn't have a bank being able to get the records for all blue Fords if one was used in a robbery, when that is actually incorrect (although it is the police that would do that). Microsoft do not have police powers. You don't need police powers to instigate a civil court case, which is what this is.
If it's not a criminal case, they can't go fucking fishing.
You are right, they can't go fishing. If that is what Microsoft is doing then the court would reject the request. However, it is not fishing they have evidence that someone at a specific IP address was engaging in copyright infringement.
You keep claiming that Microsoft can't do what they are doing, and yet they are perfectly entitled to do so under the law. The courts are not stupid, and they would not allow a case to continue if Microsoft had no standing in this case. So bleat on about it as much as you like, but you are wrong.
It's likely not to be a botnet at that address, as they would be able to use a larger number of addresses to spread the activations. There have been instances in the past of small computer stores installing pirated copies of Windows and Office on computers which were also discovered by the activity at one IP address. That's what I predict will be the result of this too.
But it's not the police that's trying to get the name of Comcast subscribers, it's Microsoft
That's because copyright infringement is not really a police matter, so it is quIte right for Microsoft to pursue this matter in court. The difference with the police doing it is that they can lookup the registration records without having to get a court order. Microsoft do not have that ability to simply examine the IP records for themselves so they have to go to court to compell Comcast to divulge the information (although the police would have to do that too since they don't have access to Comcast's private information).
Comcast were right in requiring Microsoft to get a court order to get the Customer details, and Microsoft were quite right for asking for them. If they aren't entitled to the details the the court will say no, but that won't be for the bogus reasons that have been stated here on Slashdot. Rather, it would be refused if they failed to show cause as required by the law.
You sound so adamant about this, but the law simply does not work that way. Just because their security isn't foolproof does not mean that it becomes legal to engage in mass piracy. You are wrong to say that it is not the court's job to enforce the license terms. It is exactly their job. Who else is going to do it?
And I for one am grateful that they are more lenient on activations as it means that it is less likely to have a false positive prevent an installation. It does mean that they will let the casual pirate get through, but then can go after the institutional ones (like this one).
If a bank robber used a blue Ford as a getaway car, that doesn't mean that the bank can subpoena the ownership records for every blue Ford so they can stop by their houses and see if that was the car that happened to be used in the robbery.
The bank can't do that, but the police said who investigate robberies can get the list for of blue Fords and compare the owner's names to known criminals. And to be a proper car analogy, they would be after a blue Ford with the license plate ABC123. If it turned out that the car was stolen for the bank job then that would be the same as a botnet that was using that IP address.
Does anyone know why Scumm adds so many brand new games to ScummVM? What is the point?
I suggest you have a look at the ScummVM download page and look at how many different platforms to which it has been ported. If you run Windows then there might not be any real advantage, but if, for example, you want to play a recent release on iOS, Android, Playstation 3, OS/2 or Amiga then this is just the thing for you.
Patch what? There is nothing that needs to be patched. There is no bug or security hole, and everything that the article is a system working as designed. It just says that if there was a security flaw then it could be hacked, but that is no different to any software.
Except that there weren't nearly 2000 linux games available on Steam when Vista released now was there?
That's true, and yet we still don't see the predicted rush away from Windows. In fact, the share of Windows 10 usage on Steam increased by more than the total share of Linux in a month.
If you want to dump Windows and play games on Linux then you don't have to wait. But don't expect a lot of people to join you in the near future.
"Most gamers don't give a hot shit whether their games are running on windows 7, 8, or 10" BOLLOCKS.
Oh, so they do care what their games are running on.
They don't care if it's running on Windows or PS4 or XBone (and therefore Linux/SteamOS either).
Wait, now they don't care what they are running on??? That is the most bizarre logical jump to make! The question of whether to upgrade to Windows 10 is irrelevant to people who don't own a PC. What you have said is like asking people what flavour of ice cream they like, and then telling them they are wrong because they forgot about hamburgers.
If there was tier one games that exclusively used OpenGL then there might be something to compare.
People don't care what development system a game uses on each platform once they are actually playing the game. If there is a difference in performance, they will prefer the fastest, most optimised version. If you can only compare platforms once you have hampered one of them then that is not a fair comparison.
Also browser statistics show that Linux slowly but surely makes gains on the desktop. Windows 10 will drive quite a lot of people to Linux.
Wasn't Vista also supposed to drive people from Windows to Linux in droves? According to the Steam hardware survey, Windows has 95.39% of the market, while Linux is at 0.95% (I'm sure that used to be higher). It seems that the combined forces of Vista, Windows 10, SteamOS and greater number of Linux games still haven't provided that platform with a boost in usage.
Even if Linux managed to double the number of users, the corresponding drop would barely register on the Windows side of things. And given that a third of Steam's users are on Windows 10 (and is just about to surpass Windows 7 64bit as the most used OS on Steam), it seems that once again reality doesn't match the hopeful proclamations of the Linux supporters.
The biggest problem is getting people to move from Windows not with Steam, but with the two largest publishers having their own distribution platform (Uplay and Origin), and neither of those support Linux. The reason why Linux gaming has grown so much on Steam is because Valve foresaw the loss of the AAA market to the publishers' own services and turned it's attention to the small, indie market that used to be at home on the likes of Desura and ShinyLoot. It is much easier to convert the tiny games (often made with cross-platform development systems) to Linux and Mac OS X than it is to do the same with the AAA titles.
And if the AAA games make such a mess of their ports to Windows (eg. Batman: Arkham Knight), how bad do you think the Linux versions of those games would be?
... melting ice from continental blocks pours into the sea... I would imagine such water, having recently changed state from ice, is colder than the sea, not warmer than it, and so the net effect would be to reduce the temperature of the water it hits.
Not saying the seas aren't warming from other factors, but it seems counter-intuitive to assume that adding glacial / ice meltwater would be a factor for sea temperature increase.
The quote doesn't say that the melting ice warms the sea, but points out that there are two factors in why the oceans rise. Most of the ocean is not near the melting ice caps, so the rising temperature of all the water will result in the entire mass expanding. The same physical reaction that warms the ice and causes it to melt also affects the rest of the water on the planet.
The ice that melts into the sea will have a cooling effect on the local area, but it doesn't stay as ice so it too will continue warming and expand.
I guess that was because you are using a very old version that hasn't been updated in three years. The notice only specified X8 and X9.
Even though those were security updates that you uninstalled, the fact that most people will have applied the updates should hopefully mean that malware will not bother to target those security holes providing you with the similar protection that medical vaccinations do when they inoculate a large enough portion of the public to act as a buffer to those who are not protected.
While I still don't think that this was a problem of a bad Microsoft update, it still does show that Windows 10's inability to pick and choose updates is stupid.
No. Most technically illiterate end-users still have enough sense to ask their more knowledgeable kid or neighbor to set up their PC, meaning their default apps were set to something actually good.
So all those people who said that Internet Explorer's market share was only because it came as default with Windows were wrong then?
You are assuming that there was something wrong with the updates rather than something wrong with the way Corel had programmed VideoStudio. The More Information section of at least one of the knowledge base articles mentions VideoStudio (X8 and X9) and suggests that you install the updates from Corel to fix the crashing issues.
I have no idea if that actually fixes the problem or just puts the onus to fix it back onto Corel, but it does indicate that this might not be a mistake on Microsoft's part.
So it only takes two years of savings to make back the one-off increase of the unit price. And I can't imagine that there would be any frantic economic activity required to absorb a couple of dollars.
Slashdot Mirror
That's because no one uses it. Notice something about the targets? They all have enormous install bases.
Sigh. This is one of the excuses that people make when their preferred browser gets hacked first (especially if a Microsoft one wasn't hacked). The order in which targets and teams are scheduled by random draws.
The targets today included Adobe Flash on Microsoft Edge. That attack failed. Tomorrow, two other teams are scheduled to take on MS Edge, so may be they will have more success.
I am consistently modded down for having a conservative viewpoint. I generally don't even log-in anymore because when I do post a conservative viewpoint, my inbox is shortly after filled with "fu republican" type posts.
Then imagine what your inbox would look like if you started modding down some of the trolls that do deserve to be modded. Some people take comments that they don't like very personally to the extent that they send abusive PMs or even harrass you by replying to all your posts in other discussions to continue the fight. But think how much worse would that be if they knew exactly who modded them down to -1.
When you are moderating, you don't want to be so scared of certain, vindictive people that you avoid doing your duty for fear of retaliation.
The ones that have a right to complain are paying customers
And who are you to actually say that? You can't even be bothered creating an account on Slashdot and yet you feel you can tell logged-in users what they can and can't say.
Nobody has to shut up just because you say so. Now whether the kernel developers actually listen to the complaints is up to them, but they can't dictate what their users say. Nowhere in the GPL do we sign away our right to free speech if we don't pay someone money.
Who ever wrote this A) obviously had an agenda and B) was a complete dumb ass that believed in the religion of government whose dogma states "If we pass a law, people will actually obey it:"
Seriously, the OP guessed correctly who it was who wrote that... a comedian! It wasn't some anonymous, angry poster on the Internet with whom you might be more familiar and identifiable.
But wi-fi "blocking" gets a free pass?
How is getting a $2 million fine a "free pass"? That guy who got arrested for using a phone jammer had already been caught once before doing the same thing and yet continued the illegal activity, just the same as the hotels. There is no double standard going on (yet).
No, require them to provide free Wifi (without logins or nags) that is not slower than any paid Wifi they offer, and make them advertise it everywhere they mention their paid Wifi.
That goes beyond the remit of the FCC. They only care about whether you have used Wi-Fi blocking technology designed to interfere with legal use of the airways. It is not illegal to charge money for Wi-Fi access.
To be accurate, the GP's statement could be satisfied if he never stayed at a first-class hotel.
Actually, that would not be accurate. He must have stayed in at least one first-class hotel for him to be able to say that he has stayed in one that didn't have free Wi-Fi. If you slightly reword the original phrase "I have rarely stayed at a first class hotel that did not have free guest Wi-Fi" as "I have stayed at a first-class hotel that did not have free guest Wi-Fi, but only on rare occasions".
It is possible to say that he might never have stayed at a first-class hotel that did have free Wi-Fi, because the rarely term could mean that he only rarely stays at first-class hotels at all and he gives no indication how often (if ever) he stays at hotels that do have free Wi-Fi..
In recent years, I have rarely stayed at a first class hotel that did not have free guest w-fi.
I think you intended to say that all of the first class hotels you stayed at had free guest wifi, but your double negative said just the opposite.
That is completely wrong. If you rarely stay at a hotel that does not have free Wi-Fi then it means that you more commonly stay at hotels that do have free Wi-Fi. It certainly does not mean, as you claim, the opposite of what was intended. Nor can you infer that the intention was that all the hotels had free Wi-Fi, as the word rarely indicates that some hotels did not have that feature. If the word used had been never then you could say that all hotels did have it.
What, exactly, do you think Microsoft is doing?
So what, exactly, is the evidence that you have that EEE is what they are doing? Apart from a vague claim that Microsoft wants to make money, how does making open source projects ever lead to extinguishing anything? If Microsoft did try to do something underhanded with the project in the future with an extend or extinguish phase, then everyone could just fork the project from the previous version and keep working happily.
You can't go claiming it's like the police investigating criminal cases when you want MS to have police powers, then when it;s pointed out that it has to be the POLICE doing that, not a company or individual, go "But it's not a criminal case!".
The police line was about the bank robbery analogy. The claim was that you wouldn't have a bank being able to get the records for all blue Fords if one was used in a robbery, when that is actually incorrect (although it is the police that would do that). Microsoft do not have police powers. You don't need police powers to instigate a civil court case, which is what this is.
If it's not a criminal case, they can't go fucking fishing.
You are right, they can't go fishing. If that is what Microsoft is doing then the court would reject the request. However, it is not fishing they have evidence that someone at a specific IP address was engaging in copyright infringement.
You keep claiming that Microsoft can't do what they are doing, and yet they are perfectly entitled to do so under the law. The courts are not stupid, and they would not allow a case to continue if Microsoft had no standing in this case. So bleat on about it as much as you like, but you are wrong.
And the botnet points to China. Oops, dead end.
It's likely not to be a botnet at that address, as they would be able to use a larger number of addresses to spread the activations. There have been instances in the past of small computer stores installing pirated copies of Windows and Office on computers which were also discovered by the activity at one IP address. That's what I predict will be the result of this too.
But it's not the police that's trying to get the name of Comcast subscribers, it's Microsoft
That's because copyright infringement is not really a police matter, so it is quIte right for Microsoft to pursue this matter in court. The difference with the police doing it is that they can lookup the registration records without having to get a court order. Microsoft do not have that ability to simply examine the IP records for themselves so they have to go to court to compell Comcast to divulge the information (although the police would have to do that too since they don't have access to Comcast's private information).
Comcast were right in requiring Microsoft to get a court order to get the Customer details, and Microsoft were quite right for asking for them. If they aren't entitled to the details the the court will say no, but that won't be for the bogus reasons that have been stated here on Slashdot. Rather, it would be refused if they failed to show cause as required by the law.
You sound so adamant about this, but the law simply does not work that way. Just because their security isn't foolproof does not mean that it becomes legal to engage in mass piracy. You are wrong to say that it is not the court's job to enforce the license terms. It is exactly their job. Who else is going to do it?
And I for one am grateful that they are more lenient on activations as it means that it is less likely to have a false positive prevent an installation. It does mean that they will let the casual pirate get through, but then can go after the institutional ones (like this one).
If a bank robber used a blue Ford as a getaway car, that doesn't mean that the bank can subpoena the ownership records for every blue Ford so they can stop by their houses and see if that was the car that happened to be used in the robbery.
The bank can't do that, but the police said who investigate robberies can get the list for of blue Fords and compare the owner's names to known criminals. And to be a proper car analogy, they would be after a blue Ford with the license plate ABC123. If it turned out that the car was stolen for the bank job then that would be the same as a botnet that was using that IP address.
Does anyone know why Scumm adds so many brand new games to ScummVM? What is the point?
I suggest you have a look at the ScummVM download page and look at how many different platforms to which it has been ported. If you run Windows then there might not be any real advantage, but if, for example, you want to play a recent release on iOS, Android, Playstation 3, OS/2 or Amiga then this is just the thing for you.
Patch what? There is nothing that needs to be patched. There is no bug or security hole, and everything that the article is a system working as designed. It just says that if there was a security flaw then it could be hacked, but that is no different to any software.
Except that there weren't nearly 2000 linux games available on Steam when Vista released now was there?
That's true, and yet we still don't see the predicted rush away from Windows. In fact, the share of Windows 10 usage on Steam increased by more than the total share of Linux in a month.
If you want to dump Windows and play games on Linux then you don't have to wait. But don't expect a lot of people to join you in the near future.
"Most gamers don't give a hot shit whether their games are running on windows 7, 8, or 10" BOLLOCKS.
Oh, so they do care what their games are running on.
They don't care if it's running on Windows or PS4 or XBone (and therefore Linux/SteamOS either).
Wait, now they don't care what they are running on??? That is the most bizarre logical jump to make! The question of whether to upgrade to Windows 10 is irrelevant to people who don't own a PC. What you have said is like asking people what flavour of ice cream they like, and then telling them they are wrong because they forgot about hamburgers.
If there was tier one games that exclusively used OpenGL then there might be something to compare.
People don't care what development system a game uses on each platform once they are actually playing the game. If there is a difference in performance, they will prefer the fastest, most optimised version. If you can only compare platforms once you have hampered one of them then that is not a fair comparison.
Also browser statistics show that Linux slowly but surely makes gains on the desktop. Windows 10 will drive quite a lot of people to Linux.
Wasn't Vista also supposed to drive people from Windows to Linux in droves? According to the Steam hardware survey, Windows has 95.39% of the market, while Linux is at 0.95% (I'm sure that used to be higher). It seems that the combined forces of Vista, Windows 10, SteamOS and greater number of Linux games still haven't provided that platform with a boost in usage.
Even if Linux managed to double the number of users, the corresponding drop would barely register on the Windows side of things. And given that a third of Steam's users are on Windows 10 (and is just about to surpass Windows 7 64bit as the most used OS on Steam), it seems that once again reality doesn't match the hopeful proclamations of the Linux supporters.
The biggest problem is getting people to move from Windows not with Steam, but with the two largest publishers having their own distribution platform (Uplay and Origin), and neither of those support Linux. The reason why Linux gaming has grown so much on Steam is because Valve foresaw the loss of the AAA market to the publishers' own services and turned it's attention to the small, indie market that used to be at home on the likes of Desura and ShinyLoot. It is much easier to convert the tiny games (often made with cross-platform development systems) to Linux and Mac OS X than it is to do the same with the AAA titles.
And if the AAA games make such a mess of their ports to Windows (eg. Batman: Arkham Knight), how bad do you think the Linux versions of those games would be?
In addition, as the sea water warms up it expands
... melting ice from continental blocks pours into the sea... I would imagine such water, having recently changed state from ice, is colder than the sea, not warmer than it, and so the net effect would be to reduce the temperature of the water it hits.
Not saying the seas aren't warming from other factors, but it seems counter-intuitive to assume that adding glacial / ice meltwater would be a factor for sea temperature increase.
The quote doesn't say that the melting ice warms the sea, but points out that there are two factors in why the oceans rise. Most of the ocean is not near the melting ice caps, so the rising temperature of all the water will result in the entire mass expanding. The same physical reaction that warms the ice and causes it to melt also affects the rest of the water on the planet.
The ice that melts into the sea will have a cooling effect on the local area, but it doesn't stay as ice so it too will continue warming and expand.
I guess that was because you are using a very old version that hasn't been updated in three years. The notice only specified X8 and X9.
Even though those were security updates that you uninstalled, the fact that most people will have applied the updates should hopefully mean that malware will not bother to target those security holes providing you with the similar protection that medical vaccinations do when they inoculate a large enough portion of the public to act as a buffer to those who are not protected.
While I still don't think that this was a problem of a bad Microsoft update, it still does show that Windows 10's inability to pick and choose updates is stupid.
No. Most technically illiterate end-users still have enough sense to ask their more knowledgeable kid or neighbor to set up their PC, meaning their default apps were set to something actually good.
So all those people who said that Internet Explorer's market share was only because it came as default with Windows were wrong then?
You are assuming that there was something wrong with the updates rather than something wrong with the way Corel had programmed VideoStudio. The More Information section of at least one of the knowledge base articles mentions VideoStudio (X8 and X9) and suggests that you install the updates from Corel to fix the crashing issues.
I have no idea if that actually fixes the problem or just puts the onus to fix it back onto Corel, but it does indicate that this might not be a mistake on Microsoft's part.
So it only takes two years of savings to make back the one-off increase of the unit price. And I can't imagine that there would be any frantic economic activity required to absorb a couple of dollars.