Ha, ive had W2K BS a few times this week, and my XP box *loves* to spontaniously reboot.
That's the 2000/XP BSOD. Miscrosoft was getting upset how BSOD was quickly becomming part of the technology lexicon. Their solution was to automatically reboot after a BSOD. Usually, it reboots faster than the monitor can draw the entire screen. The option can be removed so that the system freezes (req. hard reset) after a BSOD. I can't remember the exact registry setting, but one program I use is X-Setup. It's a freeware app that puts the TweakUI powertoy to shame.
Re:Let's vote for the greatest forgotten...
on
Software Fashion
·
· Score: 1
It's kind of hard to directly relate any Microsoft venture (like.NET) to the fashion industry because of their monopoly on the desktop market. It's like licensing your skin from the fashion industry who, by the way, can later decide what you put over said skin due to the bible of a EULA you probably didn't read but agreed to anyway.
I'm no video buff, but I've got an idea to get around this sort of protection. The first one is called contrast. It's still in the experimental stages, but a small "knob" would allow a person to control the difference between the darkest and lighest elements in a frame. The other one is called brightness. It also comes in "knob" form, but it lets someone control the over all brightenns of a picture.
What would seem to be simple logic isn't always the case. If you will direct your attention here, you will discover that, depending on the task, an early Pentium 4-M could actually be outperformed by the higher end Pentium 3-M of the time.
This is partly due to the fact no benchmark can tell you real world preformance. All a benchmark does is place heavy loads on a system and tell you under what conditions you can expect certain results.
Another reason a P3 can score higher than a P4 is because of hardware changes. For example, the P3s FPU is much beefier than the P4. It's not that people use it less these days, it's that Intel wants people to start using SIMD instructions instead.
...it certainly appears poised to meet or beat anything now out on the Windows side.
Why are the 2 camps always debating Windows vs. Mac. That's like debating high octane gas vs. a sports car. I know that the two are monopolies, and people like to defend their respective masters, but wouldn't it be more logical to debate hardware vs. hardware? I haven't looked at the raw benchmark data, but wouldn't a 4 way P4 xenon box running a version of linux optimized for scientific workstations be able to keep up with a dual G5?
You'll have better search results with gnutella. That is, once you learn the GUI. Seriously, it's awkward, ugly, and just plain sucks. Most all of the "security" is actually useless and can be worked around. I'd say stick with K++ and shareaza.
I think they are implying that hiding your IP in the GUI makes it safe. It's based on the theory that RIAA spies are sitting around with copies of P2P apps and a notepad writing down IPs.
In all honesty I really don't care if there is code that allows remote deletion of a file in ES5. I refused to use it long before this. Ignoring the horribly ugly GUI, there are still many other concerns. Who guarantees the proxies you use are safe and don't keep logs? Can't the RIAA's enforcers set up a bunch of "anonymous" proxies and advertise their presence on IRC, Usenet, and other file sharing circles? How is spouting propaganda about hiding the IPs in the GUI supposed to make me think you know jack about network security? Being based in such an unstable area may help protect the company and/or developers, but that doesn't say anything about the users. With the developers constantly taunting copyright enforcers, how long will it be before they start targeting users? An over inflated sense of security is the worst enemy of P2P users. Encrypted data transfers don't mean anything. The enforcers don't sniff packets anyway. All they do is download a shared file, verify it's copyrighted, and issue a subpoena. If they can't get past the proxy, they will just have it taken down. Just pray that it didn't keep some sort of log. Eventually, the only operating proxies will be so obscure, distant, slow, or overwhelmed that nobody will use them and he network would slow to a crawl. The only decent servers will be RIAA honey pots. All this because some developer got cocky and started running his mouth.
This is definitely a grey area. Most of the rights people cry about are protections from the government and not from schools or corporations. There ay be various laws that limit or regulate these "incursions", but it is not a constitutional matter. Besides, there are legitimate (and good) reasons to scan students' computers. Despite how much you hear about kids and their knowledge of technology these days, the fact remains that the overwhelming majority are limited to games and office apps.
For the longest time, I worked in the University IT Services department, and have seen many horrors. I remember one kid who spilled a drink on his laptop and so decided the thing was oven safe. Another set up an unsecured WAP in his dorm room and then got mad at me for his account being suspended for sending spam. The most common was a result of our school adopting ethernet patch cable in its early days. Instead of using STC patch cable; this school requires a different wiring scheme. I can't remember the name, but conductors 1-3 cross over to 4-6 on the other side, and 7-8 are straight through. Because the network is half duplex 10mb, and the school cuts corners on what they give out, CAT3 used for the free cables in the dorms. This means that the connector on the cable that reads "WALL" must be plugged into the wall. I don't need to tell you that this is the #1 problem beginning each semester.
Sometimes children need to be protected from themselves. In the case of a network serving thousands of people, a proactive solution to worms, viri, security, and so forth sometimes becomes necessary. Especially in the case of people who can't figure out how to click on Windows Update. The P2P scanning is probably just a political tactic to keep the RIAA at bay. The traffic overhead is highly exaggerated, especially if most of the traffic stays inside the local network. In most cases, advertising a bandwidth or data volume cap, and giving students the tools to monitor and warn them would probably work just as well.
What's to keep the LinuxBIOS project (or something similar) from doing the same thing?
I can give you the main difference in a single word: Money. The LinuxBIOS project doesn't have the funding to get away with anything MS can do as a passing thought. It's the same reason that some places have laws requiring the consideration of open source alternatives. With the exception of some distros (like redhat), Linux doesn't have some monopolistic corporation pushing with its marketing team, lobbyists, market share, or lawyers. Without such laws, most places would never consider Linux because it would have only its merits speaking for it. If Windows and Linux went head to head with nothing more than their respective accomplishments and abilities, it wouldn't be such a lock-in.
I must admit that I was rather disappointed in reading your press release regarding the adoption of open source software in Massachusetts. Mostly, I was confused when you called Linux a monopoly while providing no evidence of a corporation using either financial backing or superior market share to extort an advantage over other companies. Firstly, it has doesn't have the market domination of closed source, proprietary Unicies such as AIX or System V in the server/workstation market. Second, it doesn't have the market domination (or financial backing for lobbyists/PAC's) of Microsoft in the desktop market. Any law that forces the consideration or use of open source software is actually leveling the playing field. In the "equality" of yesterday, only products with such corporate backing would have been considered because open source developments didn't have the money for such a loud voice. Since you seem to understand cliche, "money talks"; except in the case of open source, where its' accomplishments do the talking.
I would also like to draw your attention to the statement "Proprietary vendors will be effectively barred from competing for state contracts, limiting competition and raising costs." In a traditional social and business model, reduced competition usually does result in a poorer product, less innovation, and increased costs. You must ask yourself the question "why?" As a company becomes a monopoly, it gains the power to keep better products and services from competing (hence less innovation). It does this to keep control of the market and therefore control the price. If no competitors or alternatives exist, the price can be raised to any amount. Since Linux is neither written by nor backed by a single company, relying on it would not put you in the same position as relying on the truly monopolistic Microsoft and its' Windows. Imagine two scenarios: In the first one, Microsoft is to operating systems as DeBeers is to diamonds. Who gets the money, who sets the price, and who has the control? Now, in the second scenario Linux is to operating systems as DeBeers is to diamonds. In this scenario who gets the money, who sets the price, and who has the control? The title of the press release proclaims "Mass. Taxpayers Hurt by Proposed Software Monopoly". Even if Linux were an assumed monopoly, I feel confident in presuming that you will never recommend Microsoft products for governmental use because it has been legally declared a monopoly.
It was very disheartening to hear your organization issuing such a press release and asking it to be taken seriously with such a lack in logical statements backed by [dis]provable facts and numbers. You talk about total cost of ownership, but offer no numbers or sources to back your opinion. Then you resort to cliche analogies to communism and rhetoric such as "state-imposed monopoly on software". I fail to understand how a state would NOT impose a monopoly on itself, in terms of operating systems. Wouldn't any OS it wholly adopted be considered a "state-imposed monopoly" on itself? Indeed many state controlled monopolies have existed for years. Many cities have only one water, steam, sewage, natural gas, or waste removal body which could be considered a legal monopoly and permitted to operate because they do so under supervision and control of the local government. Wouldn't Linux (adopted by a government) be more accurately compared to a local water co-op than to Standard Oil?
I also am concerned with the quote by Mr. Schatz stating "The old Soviet Union could not have done this any better..." with regards to the adoption of open source software. I am of the belief that anyone who so quickly compares their adversaries position with that of fascists or communists reverts to such name calling because they have weak evidence to back their position (hence the appeal to emotion rather than logic). If anything, I would compare Microsoft to a communist state. They would be the "state" and agreeing to their license would make you one of their subjects. They are
I thought the first line of offense was comparing your adversary's position to Nazis, then the communists when the facts don't completely back your position. I'd not be very interested in hearing their definition of monopoly when Linux has neither a dominant market share, nor has a powerful corporation to head "monopolistic" conspiracies. It would have been nice of them to provide us with a list of operating systems NOT backed by selfish monopolies.
My favorite quote is "Like all procurement decisions, the best policy on the use of software is to place all products on equal footing." By its very nature, Linux is on a lower footing than an OS backed by a corporation. It doesn't have the financial backing of multi-million dollar lobbyists, PAC's, and marketing teams. It is in the position it's in today ONLY because of its own merits and achievements.
Vendor lock-in is extremely low compared to closed source OS's because the source can be easily modified to work with almost any flavor of Unix or BSD. A bit more modification and it could probably be made to work outside of a Unix like environment. Even if your applications are closed source, that is only one vendor to worry about. If you are using a closed source OS, you now have to break free of their hold (contractual or otherwise) before you move to something else. At least an application provider would be relatively easy to convince in porting their application to another OS.
I'm interested in seeing their first couple of SCO's quarterly financial reports after they can't collect money from IBM and SGI. They just need to get sun and a couple other vendors to stop paying, and they will only major source of income may be litigation. I can't imagine too many people adopting their products and services with their legal record. Their only income besides litigation would be vendor lock-in.
That's why taking the 5th is like an NDA. Sometimes an NDA is protecting valuable or sensitive data while other times it's used simply as a bargaining tactic. Since all of this takes place in the game of life it's up to the other players to consider what else is known, examine the situation and context, and make a gut decision. It may not be accurate, just, or ethical, but it's how society has chosen to operate. The people who really know how to play the game are the ones who know the difference between how it's supposed to work, how it really works, and why that's so.
Incomming rant...
The most dangerous man I know is one of my former professors. He holds Ph.D.'s in sociology and psychology, and is working on his doctorate for political science. Not to mention sitting down at the poker table with him was fiscal suicide. It's a shame people have a poor history of electing intellectuals into powerful positions. He couldn't have been more right when he told our class that the qualities that make successful con artists and suave womanizers are the same qualities that can make someone president.
The whole freedom of speech issue is crap. The constitution guarantees the right to speak, not the right to an audience. My right to be left the hell alone supercedes someone else's right to speech.
If I want to find out about charities to donate to, I don't need their one sided sales pitches to educate me. Political calls are even worse because you know that their product will probably screw you. I used to have real fun screwing around with the people on the other end of the line, but no I'm just bored.
I remember back when people used to bother you at the door. The Jehovah's Witness's who never come by any more were the most fun. Nobody would fully understand acting interested over the phone in the nude, but it's the best feeling in the world when you open the door on that warm sunny morning and everything is hanging just right. They don't come around here anymore. It's a shame that it takes do-not-call lists to do the same for telemarketers; I'd rather do it in person.
Take a lesson from poker...
on
The Cult of the NDA
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
It's called a bluff. By denying something, changing the topic, etc. you can make people think you have something. It's comparable to taking the 5th at trial. People KNOW what's going on, but it can't be legally used for or against you.
It's just like UFO's. At first the Govt said experimental aircraft were just aliens. Then it bit them on the ass. It still worked though. People weren't talking about the SR71 or the U2. They were too busy building a better tinfoil hat to protect them from martian rays.
Ehm? Curtails choice of filesytem? Exactly when did you have a choice when using windows? Well okay you got a choice. Between fat32 and ntfs.
Don't forget... Longhorn give you a choice of WinFS and WinFS. If you get the Platinum Server Lock-In Edition they will throw in a third choice of WinFS for free!
Now all we need is crystalline storage so we can record multi-audio track movies. 3.32GB/s of video will lead to high quality, but how is this supposed to be made consumer friendly?
Last time I talked to my parents, I heard Indiana was a work at will state. People can fire you for almost whatever reason. I mean, the right person grabs an ass and the company can fire harasee. They can sue the company, or settle with them, but they remain fired.
The 1st amendment guarantees the right to speak, not the right for an audience. The do-not-call list isn't preventing them from speaking; it is just telling them that they will have to find a new obtrusive way into people's lives. This happens all the time. Protests, rallies, marches, demonstrations, and all the like, are told that they can protest all they want. But they are given specific locations and times so they do not aggressively assert their right to protest over the rights of others to ignore them.
In any public or private venue, I can walk right past anyone exercising their right to free speech without acknowledging their presence or going out of my way to ignore them. When it comes to telemarketing, I have no such luxury. The list is a way for people to opt-out if they believe they will never buy a product or service. By opting out, they are saying "If I need a product or service, as an adult, I am fully capable of finding it myself."
I am on my states do-not-call list, I use an unlisted number, and I have privacy manager. It has taken all three of these to convince me to get another land line telephone. That is what it took for me to get another land line. Before this, constant marketing calls and cheap cellular airtime were the two reasons I had cell only service for 3 years. Now, the only sales/marketing calls I receive are the ones I signed up for. The only reasons I still deal with them are because I called them first, I use their products, and they are non-profit charities. When used properly, telemarketing can be useful to both sides. The people at the local VFW actually know how long a box of trash bags lasts me, and give me a call a few days before I run out.
Most people have called the Recording Industry Association of America's "long standing admiration for the importance of
copyright law" strictly "self-serving."
The Recording Industry Association of America called Sharman's "newfound admiration for the importance of
copyright law" ironic and "self-serving."
A Comcast spokeswoman, Sarah Eder, would not comment, citing customer privacy concerns.
Sounds like a lot of crap. If they really were concerned with customer privacy, they would have made a statement about how they refused to reveal her to the RIAA in the first place.
Before someone quotes the Verizon case, it doesn't mean that these rubber stamp subpoenas can't be challenged. Each and every one could be challenged, if the ISP wanted to. Maybe they figure they will lose more due to litigation with the RIAA than they would due to customer concerns.
Once again I am reminded of why I enjoy living in a country where the ammount of my innocence and freedom are dictated by the size of my bank account.
Let me get this straight... They will not voluntarily take down "site finder" and have added some "independent" researchers, who are dependant on their money, to come up with an impartial report which will back up VeriSign. Isn't it a bit preemptive to announce the results of a report BEFORE it has been started?
The article was about 64k recordings while my question was about 192k+ recordings. Seeing as how I read the article, and it did not answer my question about high encoding rates, I posted a question for the community assuming that some people would be helpful and/or informative.
Slashdot Mirror
Ha, ive had W2K BS a few times this week, and my XP box *loves* to spontaniously reboot.
That's the 2000/XP BSOD. Miscrosoft was getting upset how BSOD was quickly becomming part of the technology lexicon. Their solution was to automatically reboot after a BSOD. Usually, it reboots faster than the monitor can draw the entire screen. The option can be removed so that the system freezes (req. hard reset) after a BSOD. I can't remember the exact registry setting, but one program I use is X-Setup. It's a freeware app that puts the TweakUI powertoy to shame.
It's kind of hard to directly relate any Microsoft venture (like .NET) to the fashion industry because of their monopoly on the desktop market. It's like licensing your skin from the fashion industry who, by the way, can later decide what you put over said skin due to the bible of a EULA you probably didn't read but agreed to anyway.
I'm no video buff, but I've got an idea to get around this sort of protection. The first one is called contrast. It's still in the experimental stages, but a small "knob" would allow a person to control the difference between the darkest and lighest elements in a frame. The other one is called brightness. It also comes in "knob" form, but it lets someone control the over all brightenns of a picture.
What would seem to be simple logic isn't always the case. If you will direct your attention here, you will discover that, depending on the task, an early Pentium 4-M could actually be outperformed by the higher end Pentium 3-M of the time.
This is partly due to the fact no benchmark can tell you real world preformance. All a benchmark does is place heavy loads on a system and tell you under what conditions you can expect certain results.
Another reason a P3 can score higher than a P4 is because of hardware changes. For example, the P3s FPU is much beefier than the P4. It's not that people use it less these days, it's that Intel wants people to start using SIMD instructions instead.
...it certainly appears poised to meet or beat anything now out on the Windows side.
Why are the 2 camps always debating Windows vs. Mac. That's like debating high octane gas vs. a sports car. I know that the two are monopolies, and people like to defend their respective masters, but wouldn't it be more logical to debate hardware vs. hardware? I haven't looked at the raw benchmark data, but wouldn't a 4 way P4 xenon box running a version of linux optimized for scientific workstations be able to keep up with a dual G5?
You'll have better search results with gnutella. That is, once you learn the GUI. Seriously, it's awkward, ugly, and just plain sucks. Most all of the "security" is actually useless and can be worked around. I'd say stick with K++ and shareaza.
I think they are implying that hiding your IP in the GUI makes it safe. It's based on the theory that RIAA spies are sitting around with copies of P2P apps and a notepad writing down IPs.
In all honesty I really don't care if there is code that allows remote deletion of a file in ES5. I refused to use it long before this. Ignoring the horribly ugly GUI, there are still many other concerns. Who guarantees the proxies you use are safe and don't keep logs? Can't the RIAA's enforcers set up a bunch of "anonymous" proxies and advertise their presence on IRC, Usenet, and other file sharing circles? How is spouting propaganda about hiding the IPs in the GUI supposed to make me think you know jack about network security? Being based in such an unstable area may help protect the company and/or developers, but that doesn't say anything about the users. With the developers constantly taunting copyright enforcers, how long will it be before they start targeting users? An over inflated sense of security is the worst enemy of P2P users. Encrypted data transfers don't mean anything. The enforcers don't sniff packets anyway. All they do is download a shared file, verify it's copyrighted, and issue a subpoena. If they can't get past the proxy, they will just have it taken down. Just pray that it didn't keep some sort of log. Eventually, the only operating proxies will be so obscure, distant, slow, or overwhelmed that nobody will use them and he network would slow to a crawl. The only decent servers will be RIAA honey pots. All this because some developer got cocky and started running his mouth.
Exactly what cool image will they project? It's cool like unprotecetd sex, but you won't be stuck with these bugs for life.
This is definitely a grey area. Most of the rights people cry about are protections from the government and not from schools or corporations. There ay be various laws that limit or regulate these "incursions", but it is not a constitutional matter. Besides, there are legitimate (and good) reasons to scan students' computers. Despite how much you hear about kids and their knowledge of technology these days, the fact remains that the overwhelming majority are limited to games and office apps.
For the longest time, I worked in the University IT Services department, and have seen many horrors. I remember one kid who spilled a drink on his laptop and so decided the thing was oven safe. Another set up an unsecured WAP in his dorm room and then got mad at me for his account being suspended for sending spam. The most common was a result of our school adopting ethernet patch cable in its early days. Instead of using STC patch cable; this school requires a different wiring scheme. I can't remember the name, but conductors 1-3 cross over to 4-6 on the other side, and 7-8 are straight through. Because the network is half duplex 10mb, and the school cuts corners on what they give out, CAT3 used for the free cables in the dorms. This means that the connector on the cable that reads "WALL" must be plugged into the wall. I don't need to tell you that this is the #1 problem beginning each semester.
Sometimes children need to be protected from themselves. In the case of a network serving thousands of people, a proactive solution to worms, viri, security, and so forth sometimes becomes necessary. Especially in the case of people who can't figure out how to click on Windows Update. The P2P scanning is probably just a political tactic to keep the RIAA at bay. The traffic overhead is highly exaggerated, especially if most of the traffic stays inside the local network. In most cases, advertising a bandwidth or data volume cap, and giving students the tools to monitor and warn them would probably work just as well.
What's to keep the LinuxBIOS project (or something similar) from doing the same thing?
I can give you the main difference in a single word: Money. The LinuxBIOS project doesn't have the funding to get away with anything MS can do as a passing thought. It's the same reason that some places have laws requiring the consideration of open source alternatives. With the exception of some distros (like redhat), Linux doesn't have some monopolistic corporation pushing with its marketing team, lobbyists, market share, or lawyers. Without such laws, most places would never consider Linux because it would have only its merits speaking for it. If Windows and Linux went head to head with nothing more than their respective accomplishments and abilities, it wouldn't be such a lock-in.
I must admit that I was rather disappointed in reading your press release regarding the adoption of open source software in Massachusetts. Mostly, I was confused when you called Linux a monopoly while providing no evidence of a corporation using either financial backing or superior market share to extort an advantage over other companies. Firstly, it has doesn't have the market domination of closed source, proprietary Unicies such as AIX or System V in the server/workstation market. Second, it doesn't have the market domination (or financial backing for lobbyists/PAC's) of Microsoft in the desktop market. Any law that forces the consideration or use of open source software is actually leveling the playing field. In the "equality" of yesterday, only products with such corporate backing would have been considered because open source developments didn't have the money for such a loud voice. Since you seem to understand cliche, "money talks"; except in the case of open source, where its' accomplishments do the talking.
I would also like to draw your attention to the statement "Proprietary vendors will be effectively barred from competing for state contracts, limiting competition and raising costs." In a traditional social and business model, reduced competition usually does result in a poorer product, less innovation, and increased costs. You must ask yourself the question "why?" As a company becomes a monopoly, it gains the power to keep better products and services from competing (hence less innovation). It does this to keep control of the market and therefore control the price. If no competitors or alternatives exist, the price can be raised to any amount. Since Linux is neither written by nor backed by a single company, relying on it would not put you in the same position as relying on the truly monopolistic Microsoft and its' Windows. Imagine two scenarios: In the first one, Microsoft is to operating systems as DeBeers is to diamonds. Who gets the money, who sets the price, and who has the control? Now, in the second scenario Linux is to operating systems as DeBeers is to diamonds. In this scenario who gets the money, who sets the price, and who has the control? The title of the press release proclaims "Mass. Taxpayers Hurt by Proposed Software Monopoly". Even if Linux were an assumed monopoly, I feel confident in presuming that you will never recommend Microsoft products for governmental use because it has been legally declared a monopoly.
It was very disheartening to hear your organization issuing such a press release and asking it to be taken seriously with such a lack in logical statements backed by [dis]provable facts and numbers. You talk about total cost of ownership, but offer no numbers or sources to back your opinion. Then you resort to cliche analogies to communism and rhetoric such as "state-imposed monopoly on software". I fail to understand how a state would NOT impose a monopoly on itself, in terms of operating systems. Wouldn't any OS it wholly adopted be considered a "state-imposed monopoly" on itself? Indeed many state controlled monopolies have existed for years. Many cities have only one water, steam, sewage, natural gas, or waste removal body which could be considered a legal monopoly and permitted to operate because they do so under supervision and control of the local government. Wouldn't Linux (adopted by a government) be more accurately compared to a local water co-op than to Standard Oil?
I also am concerned with the quote by Mr. Schatz stating "The old Soviet Union could not have done this any better..." with regards to the adoption of open source software. I am of the belief that anyone who so quickly compares their adversaries position with that of fascists or communists reverts to such name calling because they have weak evidence to back their position (hence the appeal to emotion rather than logic). If anything, I would compare Microsoft to a communist state. They would be the "state" and agreeing to their license would make you one of their subjects. They are
I thought the first line of offense was comparing your adversary's position to Nazis, then the communists when the facts don't completely back your position. I'd not be very interested in hearing their definition of monopoly when Linux has neither a dominant market share, nor has a powerful corporation to head "monopolistic" conspiracies. It would have been nice of them to provide us with a list of operating systems NOT backed by selfish monopolies.
My favorite quote is "Like all procurement decisions, the best policy on the use of software is to place all products on equal footing." By its very nature, Linux is on a lower footing than an OS backed by a corporation. It doesn't have the financial backing of multi-million dollar lobbyists, PAC's, and marketing teams. It is in the position it's in today ONLY because of its own merits and achievements.
Vendor lock-in is extremely low compared to closed source OS's because the source can be easily modified to work with almost any flavor of Unix or BSD. A bit more modification and it could probably be made to work outside of a Unix like environment. Even if your applications are closed source, that is only one vendor to worry about. If you are using a closed source OS, you now have to break free of their hold (contractual or otherwise) before you move to something else. At least an application provider would be relatively easy to convince in porting their application to another OS.
I'm interested in seeing their first couple of SCO's quarterly financial reports after they can't collect money from IBM and SGI. They just need to get sun and a couple other vendors to stop paying, and they will only major source of income may be litigation. I can't imagine too many people adopting their products and services with their legal record. Their only income besides litigation would be vendor lock-in.
That's why taking the 5th is like an NDA. Sometimes an NDA is protecting valuable or sensitive data while other times it's used simply as a bargaining tactic. Since all of this takes place in the game of life it's up to the other players to consider what else is known, examine the situation and context, and make a gut decision. It may not be accurate, just, or ethical, but it's how society has chosen to operate. The people who really know how to play the game are the ones who know the difference between how it's supposed to work, how it really works, and why that's so.
Incomming rant...
The most dangerous man I know is one of my former professors. He holds Ph.D.'s in sociology and psychology, and is working on his doctorate for political science. Not to mention sitting down at the poker table with him was fiscal suicide. It's a shame people have a poor history of electing intellectuals into powerful positions. He couldn't have been more right when he told our class that the qualities that make successful con artists and suave womanizers are the same qualities that can make someone president.
The whole freedom of speech issue is crap. The constitution guarantees the right to speak, not the right to an audience. My right to be left the hell alone supercedes someone else's right to speech.
If I want to find out about charities to donate to, I don't need their one sided sales pitches to educate me. Political calls are even worse because you know that their product will probably screw you. I used to have real fun screwing around with the people on the other end of the line, but no I'm just bored.
I remember back when people used to bother you at the door. The Jehovah's Witness's who never come by any more were the most fun. Nobody would fully understand acting interested over the phone in the nude, but it's the best feeling in the world when you open the door on that warm sunny morning and everything is hanging just right. They don't come around here anymore. It's a shame that it takes do-not-call lists to do the same for telemarketers; I'd rather do it in person.
It's called a bluff. By denying something, changing the topic, etc. you can make people think you have something. It's comparable to taking the 5th at trial. People KNOW what's going on, but it can't be legally used for or against you.
It's just like UFO's. At first the Govt said experimental aircraft were just aliens. Then it bit them on the ass. It still worked though. People weren't talking about the SR71 or the U2. They were too busy building a better tinfoil hat to protect them from martian rays.
I thought that was a sanitary blue ice rock dropped from an airplane.
Ehm? Curtails choice of filesytem? Exactly when did you have a choice when using windows? Well okay you got a choice. Between fat32 and ntfs.
Don't forget... Longhorn give you a choice of WinFS and WinFS. If you get the Platinum Server Lock-In Edition they will throw in a third choice of WinFS for free!
Now all we need is crystalline storage so we can record multi-audio track movies. 3.32GB/s of video will lead to high quality, but how is this supposed to be made consumer friendly?
Last time I talked to my parents, I heard Indiana was a work at will state. People can fire you for almost whatever reason. I mean, the right person grabs an ass and the company can fire harasee. They can sue the company, or settle with them, but they remain fired.
The 1st amendment guarantees the right to speak, not the right for an audience. The do-not-call list isn't preventing them from speaking; it is just telling them that they will have to find a new obtrusive way into people's lives. This happens all the time. Protests, rallies, marches, demonstrations, and all the like, are told that they can protest all they want. But they are given specific locations and times so they do not aggressively assert their right to protest over the rights of others to ignore them.
In any public or private venue, I can walk right past anyone exercising their right to free speech without acknowledging their presence or going out of my way to ignore them. When it comes to telemarketing, I have no such luxury. The list is a way for people to opt-out if they believe they will never buy a product or service. By opting out, they are saying "If I need a product or service, as an adult, I am fully capable of finding it myself."
I am on my states do-not-call list, I use an unlisted number, and I have privacy manager. It has taken all three of these to convince me to get another land line telephone. That is what it took for me to get another land line. Before this, constant marketing calls and cheap cellular airtime were the two reasons I had cell only service for 3 years. Now, the only sales/marketing calls I receive are the ones I signed up for. The only reasons I still deal with them are because I called them first, I use their products, and they are non-profit charities. When used properly, telemarketing can be useful to both sides. The people at the local VFW actually know how long a box of trash bags lasts me, and give me a call a few days before I run out.
Most people have called the Recording Industry Association of America's "long standing admiration for the importance of copyright law" strictly "self-serving."
The Recording Industry Association of America called Sharman's "newfound admiration for the importance of copyright law" ironic and "self-serving."
A Comcast spokeswoman, Sarah Eder, would not comment, citing customer privacy concerns.
Sounds like a lot of crap. If they really were concerned with customer privacy, they would have made a statement about how they refused to reveal her to the RIAA in the first place.
Before someone quotes the Verizon case, it doesn't mean that these rubber stamp subpoenas can't be challenged. Each and every one could be challenged, if the ISP wanted to. Maybe they figure they will lose more due to litigation with the RIAA than they would due to customer concerns.
Once again I am reminded of why I enjoy living in a country where the ammount of my innocence and freedom are dictated by the size of my bank account.
Let me get this straight... They will not voluntarily take down "site finder" and have added some "independent" researchers, who are dependant on their money, to come up with an impartial report which will back up VeriSign. Isn't it a bit preemptive to announce the results of a report BEFORE it has been started?
The article was about 64k recordings while my question was about 192k+ recordings. Seeing as how I read the article, and it did not answer my question about high encoding rates, I posted a question for the community assuming that some people would be helpful and/or informative.
Thank You... Come Again.