Mmmm, yes. Is that supposed to be an experimental control? How do they know that someone in the control group didn't benefit from unathorized prayers evoked by a "pray for little Johnny" chain letter?
This would be an excellent point if there had actually been any difference. However, if there were in fact unauthorized prayers then they still had no apparent effect.
It does raise a semantic point though - what if no one asked to pray knew that this was an experiment? Supposedly these gods doen't answer prayers that are merely requests for proof and not heartfelt. What if the scientists put out a 'Pray for Timmy who has disease X', and watch both Timmy and Jimmy who also has X. If all of the praying people truly believe they are just helping a fellow human, would their gods ignore them since, being omnipotent, they know that answering the prayer would prove one (or more) of their existances?
And when are we going to have a study of whether football players who thank Jesus for a good game would blame him for a bad one? Or if they even truly believe Jesus loves them more than the players on the other team? Seems like there's a sin there somewhere.
If they've done it right (and it took long enough so they probably have), iTunes on Windows will "Just Work". How many other Windows apps can say that? Overall, Apple has simply positioned themselves to take the lead in the growing market of legal music downloads, and even has the code base for video streaming/downloads. Like them or not, RIAA lawsuits may actually help iTunes get accepted.
Further, it will be just one more thing that you can say is the same when someone complains about all of the Windows Vulnerabilities and you mention how few the Mac has. If they continue porting Apps, soon the only thing Windows computers will have to offer will be the headaches.
Many artists are concerned because they want to ensure their works are bought and used as a whole, not as individual tracks, and the iTunes system isn't always optimized terribly well for that scenario.
I don't think that's entirely true - there are quite a few songs that say 'album only', so there probably isn't a technical reason it can't be done. It may be more along the lines of price arguments - Apple wants most of the albums to be $9.99, though there already are quite a few longer/double albums that aren't.
Or it may be that the singles sales will prove that they only put out 2 or 3 good songs per album, and will take in a lot less money even if they appear to be more popular. This is probably also a fear of record executives, but to a lesser extent since they'll break even quicker with a dozen one-hit wonders than any of those wonders will.
The article specifically says 84% of CIOs ignored SCO's licensing plans, not '16% of CIOs took the invoice threat seriously and had checks ready'. The reactions of the other 16% could include 'followed and got a good laugh', 'constantly bugged my IT staff and/or lawyers about what it means to us', or 'hedged our bets and put some projects on hold'.
In other words, saying '84% of Slashdot readers ignored the last Country Music Awards' does NOT mean the other 16% followed it on pins and needles.
Actually, what comes out as the reason that it's favorable is that you can use any compression, not just MP3. The review favors AIFF, but goes on to argue that it allows the user to rip songs at different rates for different uses, and load the iPod based on planned activity - e.g. jogging vs. connecting to the stereo.
For reference, he used the Line Out from the base for his tests. He feels the included earphones are decent, but recommends a $300 pair.
Then you make some little "harmless" change on the network that one os likes and the rest hate, and suddenly your nice and peaceful network is a chaotic mess.
Umm... this can happen on a single computer. What makes it less likely on a 'single os' network? Especially since it's unlikely you'd go with a single os anyway - XP Professional != XP Server != 2000 Server != 2003 Server != 98 != 95 (You know someone still has it) != Me etc. Unless you ghost ever computer exactly the same, everyone has the exact same model/ram/disk, and allow nothing to save to each computer it is impossible to be 100% certain that all the computers have the same settings without verifying it manually.
Once computers are involved, there is no such thing as a "harmless" change.
1) Insert DVD.
2) Use the D-pad to move around the menu and X to make the 'Play' selection.
3) Watch the movie.
If you are just watching a movie, what's the big deal? If you're sitting far enough away that the cord doesn't reach (which would be odd if you play games on it), just wait the 45 seconds to sit down until you've started the movie. What the hell is so complicated that you need an actual remote?
For the record, you don't need the DVD extra. All it provides is a wireless remote; you can play DVDs right away using a standard controller for the buttons. I think you need the extra for XBox (surprise), but not the PS2.
There's a big difference between coming up with a new program that can be argued as illegal reverse engineering or circumvention, and simply telling people about a feature on their computer they could probably find out about on their own with a web search. SunnComm is waving the DMCA as a scare tactic. Ironically, the story probably wasn't covered much before, but now it's much more likely to be picked up of the wire under the 'Idiotic Lawsuits' category, letting even more people know about the shift key.
First it was comic books. Then Rock music. Then D&D. Then Beavis and Butthead (remember when Beavis smoked? Good luck finding it now.) Now violent video games.
I don't know how this bar is set; maybe it's whether the activity is nostalgic or patriotic, or if it's just different enough to scare the generation in charge. Did anyone ever question running around with plastic guns playing 'Cowboys and Indians'*? 'Cops and Robbers'? War? Did plastic Army Men ever have problems? Paintball seems acceptable for teens, and it involves ACTUALLY SHOOTING AT REAL PEOPLE WITH WEAPONS THAT REALLY CAN HURT THEM. (I've had enough paint bruises to know.)
Personally, I think it's more that video games are used instead of family interaction. Whether it's games, books, drugs, TV, or staring at a wall, if there isn't any home interaction then good social skills will come harder. If they aren't nurtured through school activities, then it just gets worse and worse. I've generally found that a naturally outgoing person will find ways to grow socially, it's the naturally introverted that suffer most without a strong family upbringing. (Note - by 'strong' I mean 'open, talkative, compassionate, etc.'. There's no magic formula for that.)
Blaming the current fad instead of poor family life will probably never change. The reasons for it would probably be an interesting socialogical study, but most likely no one who could fund such a study would want a true, balanced answer that 'kids are just kids, and home environment matters most'.
(Offtopic footnote)* - besides the obvious moral problems of whether it was right to subjugate the indigeonous people, I'm simply refering to the fact it idolized violence in general. I'd guess it isn't played very much anymore, though that could also be put to the fact there are fewer westerns nowadays.
If x is the security of a system, and y is a measurement of the security of a users tendencies, then it is definitely true that:
x <= y
However, even if y -> Infinity, it still may be that x = 0. Which it is by definition if attachments can run with full system access without user interference.
Exactly how is it "user-friendly" to allow programs to run with administration access without warning? Would it really be that unfriendly to pop up a dialog saying "Program X wants to do Y. Is that OK?" It seems a bit more unfriendly to just let it run, and let the user discover on their own that the computer will no longer boot. (Or whatever.)
Real world analogy: anthrax mail. Computers have the power to say "This attachment may be hazardous - are you sure you know where it came from?" Outlook chooses not to, to hell with the consequences. It is possible to be friendly and safe, believe it or not.
>And in any case, SGI has already proven how easy it would have been to address the issue if SCO had identified any code they actually had rights to
Removing the guilt is not the same as addressing the issue.
What slashdotters fail to understand is that correcting the violation does not make the problem go away. It is much more complicated than that.
Part of the responsibility of the Complaintent in a Copyright case is to identify the material in question such that changes can be carried out in a timely fashion. If guilty, the Defendant would still be responsible for losses during the time the infringement took place, even if the changes are carried out. SCO has argued that identifying the code in question a) would hurt it's case since it would be removed, and b) would reveal their intellectual property. SGI's actions have shown that the offending code can be removed in a reasonable time, that any intellectual property has already been revealed, and that the record of the infringment won't magically disappear from history to prevent prosecution.
Of course, this would only matter if SCO were interested in pursuing copyright infringement claims against alleged perpetrators. As their actions have continually shown them to be interested only in either setting up a licensing scheme for Linux, or killing it entirely, they clearly have no real interest in following the proper procedures for copyright infringement. This is further illustrated by their constant use of the term 'intellectual property', which implies many conventions that may or may not apply to what they actually have the rights to.
As I followed this, I thought there was always the undercurrent of 'There may be code that looks extremely similar that has ancestors in BSD and has been proven in court to be not part of the System V code and public domain'. Yes, Linux was written from scratch or whatever, but it was possible that in an effort to add some functionality someone refered to a book rather than reinvent the wheel.
The mere fact that code is the same between two sources is useless without being able to prove if either was original. As has been shown repeatedly, either SCO doesn't know or thought no one else would remember about the whole AT&T vs. BSD deally.
And in any case, SGI has already proven how easy it would have been to address the issue if SCO had identified any code they actually had rights to - yet another fact that would hurt SCO in a copyright lawsuit.
The author's comparing reseting a dead Windows computer with penicillin. Isn't penicillin used on unwanted infestations of bacteria? Not that far off, if you ask me.
So in reference to the Challanger incident, exactly how do you write 'If you launch the shuttle in cold weather, the booster rocket will explode' more effectively? The problem was that the managers didn't want to believe them and viewed them as pessimistic. After all, no matter how well that Nigerian email gets rewritten I'm not about to do it.
As for Three Mile Island, I've never seen it described as an engineer vs. management. I've only seen it as a) workers left water valves closed that shouldn't have been, b) the system saw the water level was low and opened other valves, and c) workers in the control room overrode those systems and closed the valves. After that, everything went to hell, as it became a question of how to safely shut it down without water. Oh, and there was only one phone.
I would guess the software upgrade watches for the battery to get below a certain level and then prevents it from running at all. At least that's the simplest solution - and it may be that it was already included, but the setting was too low. For example, on their test courses with experienced riders they could skillfully handle stopping on a low battery level, but Joe Segway-Buyer keeps riding full throttle no matter what.
Press SHIFT when you insert a CD into the CD-ROM drive - Prevent CD from automatically playing.
Search "CD Autoplay" - No Topics Found
Search "Autoplay" - No Topics Found
They don't really want you to stop it, do they? And from the way it's worded I have no idea if it stops code execution, or just music CDs from playing.
{Disclaimer - 2000 Server; XP may be more/less helpful.}
Slashdot Mirror
Mmmm, yes. Is that supposed to be an experimental control? How do they know that someone in the control group didn't benefit from unathorized prayers evoked by a "pray for little Johnny" chain letter?
This would be an excellent point if there had actually been any difference. However, if there were in fact unauthorized prayers then they still had no apparent effect.
It does raise a semantic point though - what if no one asked to pray knew that this was an experiment? Supposedly these gods doen't answer prayers that are merely requests for proof and not heartfelt. What if the scientists put out a 'Pray for Timmy who has disease X', and watch both Timmy and Jimmy who also has X. If all of the praying people truly believe they are just helping a fellow human, would their gods ignore them since, being omnipotent, they know that answering the prayer would prove one (or more) of their existances?
And when are we going to have a study of whether football players who thank Jesus for a good game would blame him for a bad one? Or if they even truly believe Jesus loves them more than the players on the other team? Seems like there's a sin there somewhere.
If they've done it right (and it took long enough so they probably have), iTunes on Windows will "Just Work". How many other Windows apps can say that? Overall, Apple has simply positioned themselves to take the lead in the growing market of legal music downloads, and even has the code base for video streaming/downloads. Like them or not, RIAA lawsuits may actually help iTunes get accepted.
Further, it will be just one more thing that you can say is the same when someone complains about all of the Windows Vulnerabilities and you mention how few the Mac has. If they continue porting Apps, soon the only thing Windows computers will have to offer will be the headaches.
Worst. Simpsons reference. Ever.
Many artists are concerned because they want to ensure their works are bought and used as a whole, not as individual tracks, and the iTunes system isn't always optimized terribly well for that scenario.
I don't think that's entirely true - there are quite a few songs that say 'album only', so there probably isn't a technical reason it can't be done. It may be more along the lines of price arguments - Apple wants most of the albums to be $9.99, though there already are quite a few longer/double albums that aren't.
Or it may be that the singles sales will prove that they only put out 2 or 3 good songs per album, and will take in a lot less money even if they appear to be more popular. This is probably also a fear of record executives, but to a lesser extent since they'll break even quicker with a dozen one-hit wonders than any of those wonders will.
The article specifically says 84% of CIOs ignored SCO's licensing plans, not '16% of CIOs took the invoice threat seriously and had checks ready'. The reactions of the other 16% could include 'followed and got a good laugh', 'constantly bugged my IT staff and/or lawyers about what it means to us', or 'hedged our bets and put some projects on hold'.
In other words, saying '84% of Slashdot readers ignored the last Country Music Awards' does NOT mean the other 16% followed it on pins and needles.
Actually, what comes out as the reason that it's favorable is that you can use any compression, not just MP3. The review favors AIFF, but goes on to argue that it allows the user to rip songs at different rates for different uses, and load the iPod based on planned activity - e.g. jogging vs. connecting to the stereo.
For reference, he used the Line Out from the base for his tests. He feels the included earphones are decent, but recommends a $300 pair.
Then you make some little "harmless" change on the network that one os likes and the rest hate, and suddenly your nice and peaceful network is a chaotic mess.
Umm... this can happen on a single computer. What makes it less likely on a 'single os' network? Especially since it's unlikely you'd go with a single os anyway - XP Professional != XP Server != 2000 Server != 2003 Server != 98 != 95 (You know someone still has it) != Me etc. Unless you ghost ever computer exactly the same, everyone has the exact same model/ram/disk, and allow nothing to save to each computer it is impossible to be 100% certain that all the computers have the same settings without verifying it manually.
Once computers are involved, there is no such thing as a "harmless" change.
Microsoft has yet to reveal their "photorealistic" interface
Really? Given their past 'innovations', a good preview might be here.
*confused look*
1) Insert DVD.
2) Use the D-pad to move around the menu and X to make the 'Play' selection.
3) Watch the movie.
If you are just watching a movie, what's the big deal? If you're sitting far enough away that the cord doesn't reach (which would be odd if you play games on it), just wait the 45 seconds to sit down until you've started the movie. What the hell is so complicated that you need an actual remote?
For the record, you don't need the DVD extra. All it provides is a wireless remote; you can play DVDs right away using a standard controller for the buttons. I think you need the extra for XBox (surprise), but not the PS2.
There's a big difference between coming up with a new program that can be argued as illegal reverse engineering or circumvention, and simply telling people about a feature on their computer they could probably find out about on their own with a web search. SunnComm is waving the DMCA as a scare tactic. Ironically, the story probably wasn't covered much before, but now it's much more likely to be picked up of the wire under the 'Idiotic Lawsuits' category, letting even more people know about the shift key.
First it was comic books. Then Rock music. Then D&D. Then Beavis and Butthead (remember when Beavis smoked? Good luck finding it now.) Now violent video games.
I don't know how this bar is set; maybe it's whether the activity is nostalgic or patriotic, or if it's just different enough to scare the generation in charge. Did anyone ever question running around with plastic guns playing 'Cowboys and Indians'*? 'Cops and Robbers'? War? Did plastic Army Men ever have problems? Paintball seems acceptable for teens, and it involves ACTUALLY SHOOTING AT REAL PEOPLE WITH WEAPONS THAT REALLY CAN HURT THEM. (I've had enough paint bruises to know.)
Personally, I think it's more that video games are used instead of family interaction. Whether it's games, books, drugs, TV, or staring at a wall, if there isn't any home interaction then good social skills will come harder. If they aren't nurtured through school activities, then it just gets worse and worse. I've generally found that a naturally outgoing person will find ways to grow socially, it's the naturally introverted that suffer most without a strong family upbringing. (Note - by 'strong' I mean 'open, talkative, compassionate, etc.'. There's no magic formula for that.)
Blaming the current fad instead of poor family life will probably never change. The reasons for it would probably be an interesting socialogical study, but most likely no one who could fund such a study would want a true, balanced answer that 'kids are just kids, and home environment matters most'.
(Offtopic footnote)* - besides the obvious moral problems of whether it was right to subjugate the indigeonous people, I'm simply refering to the fact it idolized violence in general. I'd guess it isn't played very much anymore, though that could also be put to the fact there are fewer westerns nowadays.
If x is the security of a system, and y is a measurement of the security of a users tendencies, then it is definitely true that:
x <= y
However, even if y -> Infinity, it still may be that x = 0. Which it is by definition if attachments can run with full system access without user interference.
Exactly how is it "user-friendly" to allow programs to run with administration access without warning? Would it really be that unfriendly to pop up a dialog saying "Program X wants to do Y. Is that OK?" It seems a bit more unfriendly to just let it run, and let the user discover on their own that the computer will no longer boot. (Or whatever.)
Real world analogy: anthrax mail. Computers have the power to say "This attachment may be hazardous - are you sure you know where it came from?" Outlook chooses not to, to hell with the consequences. It is possible to be friendly and safe, believe it or not.
MacOS Instructions: Insert disc into CD-ROM drive. Click on "Start."
Maybe it just comes through oddly, but very few things on the Mac have ever required clicking 'Start'.
{Possible Python script, though not in Chinese}
/.: There you go, bringing stocks into it again...
ONOIML8: But that's what it's all about. If only people would listen!
(Sorry. Not that I disagree, I just couldn't resist.)
>And in any case, SGI has already proven how easy it would have been to address the issue if SCO had identified any code they actually had rights to
Removing the guilt is not the same as addressing the issue.
What slashdotters fail to understand is that correcting the violation does not make the problem go away. It is much more complicated than that.
Part of the responsibility of the Complaintent in a Copyright case is to identify the material in question such that changes can be carried out in a timely fashion. If guilty, the Defendant would still be responsible for losses during the time the infringement took place, even if the changes are carried out. SCO has argued that identifying the code in question a) would hurt it's case since it would be removed, and b) would reveal their intellectual property. SGI's actions have shown that the offending code can be removed in a reasonable time, that any intellectual property has already been revealed, and that the record of the infringment won't magically disappear from history to prevent prosecution.
Of course, this would only matter if SCO were interested in pursuing copyright infringement claims against alleged perpetrators. As their actions have continually shown them to be interested only in either setting up a licensing scheme for Linux, or killing it entirely, they clearly have no real interest in following the proper procedures for copyright infringement. This is further illustrated by their constant use of the term 'intellectual property', which implies many conventions that may or may not apply to what they actually have the rights to.
As I followed this, I thought there was always the undercurrent of 'There may be code that looks extremely similar that has ancestors in BSD and has been proven in court to be not part of the System V code and public domain'. Yes, Linux was written from scratch or whatever, but it was possible that in an effort to add some functionality someone refered to a book rather than reinvent the wheel.
The mere fact that code is the same between two sources is useless without being able to prove if either was original. As has been shown repeatedly, either SCO doesn't know or thought no one else would remember about the whole AT&T vs. BSD deally.
And in any case, SGI has already proven how easy it would have been to address the issue if SCO had identified any code they actually had rights to - yet another fact that would hurt SCO in a copyright lawsuit.
Clark is a great man and will be a great President.
Maybe I've watched too much Babylon 5, but I just can't get read the phrase 'President Clark' without looking around for Nightwatch.
The author's comparing reseting a dead Windows computer with penicillin. Isn't penicillin used on unwanted infestations of bacteria? Not that far off, if you ask me.
>MS Bonghorn
Sounds fun. Am i gonna regres abandonig windows after all.
Why is there smoke coming out of your wireless mouse?
So in reference to the Challanger incident, exactly how do you write 'If you launch the shuttle in cold weather, the booster rocket will explode' more effectively? The problem was that the managers didn't want to believe them and viewed them as pessimistic. After all, no matter how well that Nigerian email gets rewritten I'm not about to do it.
As for Three Mile Island, I've never seen it described as an engineer vs. management. I've only seen it as a) workers left water valves closed that shouldn't have been, b) the system saw the water level was low and opened other valves, and c) workers in the control room overrode those systems and closed the valves. After that, everything went to hell, as it became a question of how to safely shut it down without water. Oh, and there was only one phone.
I would guess the software upgrade watches for the battery to get below a certain level and then prevents it from running at all. At least that's the simplest solution - and it may be that it was already included, but the setting was too low. For example, on their test courses with experienced riders they could skillfully handle stopping on a low battery level, but Joe Segway-Buyer keeps riding full throttle no matter what.
That sounds great. Unfortunately, the only setting for DVD-ROM drives is the region code.
Press SHIFT when you insert a CD into the CD-ROM drive - Prevent CD from automatically playing.
Search "CD Autoplay" - No Topics Found
Search "Autoplay" - No Topics Found
They don't really want you to stop it, do they? And from the way it's worded I have no idea if it stops code execution, or just music CDs from playing.
{Disclaimer - 2000 Server; XP may be more/less helpful.}