It's true that whenever I play an RPG with any sort of difficult moral choice, I do feel a bit of emotional weight over the decision. While I play, I lose some of the sense that it is "just a game," because playing it "right" requires so getting into the story. One of the defenses thrown up for GTA3, however, is that it's just a game. My point is, if it's any good, it's not.
BS. There is a difference between a game and reality. If good games cause you to lose your grip on reality and become the character, then indeed, I am glad you refused the chance to play GTA. Most people in the world can distinguish from reality and fiction. GTA is fun because you can do things that are wrong and not get punished for them (like in reality). It is also fun because you have a large world to explore and the freedom to do whatever you want within a game engine that is a huge step forward from other engines.
And also, GTA3, while obviously not a direct cause of murders, *is* yet another example of the slow and steady push of our culture towards violence, which has difficult-to-gauge effects.
Again, BS. I would like to point out to you that before tvs and video games there were wars. Lots of them. What that says to me is that there must me something in human nature that makes us violent. Just because you see more crime and war on tv, does not mean that more crime and war exist now than it did in the past. Religion (yes, even Christianity) has caused so much violence in the past. I guarantee you religion is more responsible for pushing our culture towards violence than GTA or the next game that will make GTA look like Super Mario Bros.
I will tell you the leading cause of all the problems in our world: stupidity. Now I am not trying to say you are stupid, you are very articulate, but your arguments are flawed. Only stupid people are influenced by GTA. The two kids shooting at passing vehicles are stupid. The scenario they were playing out doesn't even exist in GTA. It is just an excuse. I think a far greater problem in our culture is that people do not stand up and take the blame for their own actions. The kids are to blame for shooting the guns and killing people. Also, the parents for not supervising them and not teaching them proper gun safety.
I'll take you up on your offer. Does it have a quest based system, and if so, how are the quests? Are there any major mileposts you can get to, like something that would trigger a CGI in a single player game, e.g. you killed a minor boss? How is the grouping system? Is it necessary to group to progress far? What do you think of the job system? (Hope that wasn't too much).
I think the hacker "culture" is more about infamy than a cause. They want to do the most damange to the most computers and bring down as many networks as possible to show they are 1337. Windows has the most machines out there, so it is an easier target. You don't shoot the baby dear when daddy is standing right next to it. Ok...bad analogy...but I hope you see my point. I do see what you are saying and agree with you to a certain extent. Windows, by design, is more accessible to the common user because there is less configuration issues (an upside) but you have administrative privledges on by default for most non-business users(a down side for security). I think this quality is what makes Windows popular to Joe the user because he doesn't have to know what a su is, he already has full control. Recently, it seems that MS has made more of an effort to put out patches before exploits are released. Our company was hit with Blaster though, because no one trusts the MS patches to be bug free and they wanted to test them first.
The main thing that bothered me about the post I first replied to is that they thought it is ok to fine MS but ignore the fact that you would have to fine Linux too. MS patching is actually easier for a novice user, so does that make Linux more liable for fines? No way, always blame the cause (hackers), don't pass it on to others just because you don't like them (though don't let the OS company off the hook either if they are extremely negligent).
Are you in the beta (or have played it), or is this just something you have read? I am not horribly concerned about featuresets, more on how enjoyable it is to play. Sometimes games go a little overboard with their features and it is more of a chore to play (like SWG). Unfortunately, I haven't played PSO, so I can't really qualify that. I really do think a lot of people immediately jumped all over it just because it was online...I am a big fan of single player, but it's not like this will be the last one in the series.
Not that I am a big fan of MMORPG, but I think I will give them one more shot. Everquest was fine, but really didn't hook me like other people. Star Wars Galaxies was such a huge disappointment to me. I just didn't like the job system and how you increased your skills. I have yet to be disappointed by a Final Fantasy (but there is always a first time). The only real question is: PC or console? I will have to see what the menus are like. They will have to design it very well to work on a console. MMORPG generally are a lot more complex to navigate menus than a single player game, so it makes me nervous to spend all that money to get hardware I probably wouldn't use except for that game and then end up with something that doesn't allow me to experience the world as easy as it would be with my mouse and keyboard. In any case, it will be interesting to see how they do. Even if it ends up to be a mess, I give props to square for trying something new when all the fanboys tell them this is the "worst mistake ever".
A majority of computer users are dumb. When they get OSes like XP, they have absolutely no idea how to secure it.
And these dumb users would have an easier time patching Linux? Come on. Any computer on a network is vulnerable, even ones that are patched and maintained. The problem is not in the OS (though every effort should be put in to security both before and after a product is released), but with the people who are breaking the law: the virus writers and the people who initially unleash them. They should be found, fined, and prosecuted. If the problem lies in the OS, you need to have the guts to stand up in slashdot and realize unpatched Linux boxes are just as open as unpatched XP boxes. I agreed with your first two sentences, though.
Give me a break. What about Microsoft? Any computer on a network is vulnerable, even Linux boxes, why don't we fine Red Hat? Who should we go after when there is a crime? Maybe the criminal who wrote the freaking virus. I guarantee you, any OS that is the most used is going to be hacked...often. You don't fine grandma, nor do you fine the OS company, you find the hackers/script kiddies/etc, and you fine and jail them. Ignorant indeed.
I could see a lot of people saying that. It is very hard to get in to at first because it seems everytime you take a half step you are moved in to CGI. I didn't think that that could be a bad thing, but it really does break up the game play. If you can get past the beginning though, there is a much better balance between the movies and game play. The movies are absolutely incredible, and the story is engaging. I would reccomend it to any RPG fans who enjoy the FF series. You just have to be prepared for a lot of movies.
I don't see how there is a big difference at all. I see hyping as an integral part of something being over-rated. Take the segway for example, it was hyped as the greatest invention in our time and would revolutionize how we travel. People hate that thing not because it was a dumb invention, but because it was hyped so highly and then people found it to be over-rated. If there is no hype, you get the game, it sucks, and you say, oh, that's a bad game. But if it is hyped (by fan boys, game sites, your friend, etc.), you say it is over-rated when it turns out bad. I guess I just see when people rate something highly, whether it is out or not yet (particularly when it is not), that it is hype. You probably just look at it differently than I do. I didn't mean to attack you, it just seemed like you didn't RTFA (which is usually a safe bet).
Good point...sort of. Cloud joins initially for money. But it takes what, 15 minutes? before he is on board with the cause. All it takes is a cute flower girl and he will do anything...but you really can't blame him, who wouldn't go for her? I am just saying I found Squall more complicated and interesting.
Anyway, any FF fan knows that it shoulda been FF7 that got the sequel.
You may be right. I don't know, though. I consider myself a true fan and was one ever since I played the first one late at night when I was a little kid. I think the ending of FF7 wrapped up too much for a sequel. FFX's ending left a lot more open and thus easier to write a sequel. I'll buy it and check it out. I have enjoyed every FF. My only criticism of FFX was that some of the side quests at the end were hard and boring. I really don't want to dodge lightning for a half hour to get one character's best weapon.
I always find this funny. FF8, by most people's accounts, was the worst of them all. FF8 is my personal favorite though. I really enjoyed having a character that wasn't a team player. He was independant and strong, but learned and developed along the way. I just found him to be more interesting than the normal good guy, team player, save the world type character. Ahh, all this talk of FF...makes me want to do the whole series over again...good memories.
What you say makes sense, and I am sure is much more popular of an opinion on here. To paraphrase: "Let's just say the report is crap." Ok, sure, now we can go along in our happy little universe and pretend Linux doesn't get hacked. I don't think so. There is a problem out there, and even if the numbers on this report is iffy, it is a wonderful time to sit down and think of ways to make things better. Your argument takes the easy way out.
If slashdotters are biased against anything, it's bullshit. It just appears that Slashdotters are biased against Microsoft, but that's really because MS is the uberking perveyor of propaganda.
I would say that statement is bs. First off, SCO is the uberking right now (though MS will retake that title when SCO is removed). Second, Slashdot is horribly biased against things other than just bs (and a lot of times there are good reasons for it). Let's say another article said the exact same thing but swapped the percentages. Would you be saying all the things you are saying now? Maybe, but I doubt it. All the highly modded posts would be about how this proves once again the absolute superiority of Linux security over Windows. Anyone who said it was bs would probably be labeled a troll (just like anyone who says they don't like Macs).
It's an old statement, but the best security you can have on your computer is if you unplug it from the network. Maybe Linux is successfully breached less than Windows and the report lies, but the problem still exisits and I don't think we should turn our backs to it.
When a new Microsoft attack comes out, everyone jumps all over how insecure the OS is. When something negative about Linux comes out, all I hear are excuses (market share, uneducated admins, all MS attacks are not reported), or "I need more statistics"...why aren't you saying that about MS articles? Because we are biased, I know. So instead of the excuses that just make us look bad and unobjective, why don't we address this issue seriously. Let's assume the report is correct (like we would with Windows) and talk about how to make it better. It would certainly be a lot easier if all Linux distros had a program that would detect when there is a serious patch out there and notify the user (I know, it sounds like windows update, but its a good idea). Also, the program would automatically detect non-essential things that can be patched and give you that option. In any case, as Linux gains marketshare and serves important information, don't be surprised that it is attacked more (even successfully). When a flaw is discovered, do you think it is the good guys who find out about it first? We have given Linux administrators a false sense of security by saying our OS is secure, Windows is not. An OS is only as secure as how up to date it is patched vs. known vulnerabilities (and a good security plan). So it looks like we have work to do, both in improving how we install and distribute patches, and how we educate Linux administrators. If we don't, pretty soon Linux could have the larger market share, and Windows admins can point to all these reports and say how insecure OUR OS is.
Ok, let's go back to your whole "it isn't stealing" argument. The argument depends on what definition flavor you are looking at. One definition of stealing states:
"To use, appropriate, or preempt the use of another's idea, especially to one's own advantage and without consent by the originator."
Using that definition, it is stealing. But fine, let's say the crimes are different and require different litigation. Well, duh. Even "stealing" is different depending on if you are stealing bread or stealing government secrets. The whole argument that "music sharing is copyright infringement not stealing" is stupid because it is used as a justification to continue doing it because...I am not sure why, the crime isn't that bad? Everyone is doing it? You don't want to give up the perks? They hate the monopolistic RIAA? Sorry Robin Hood, stealing from the evil for yourself doesn't make it good.
As I have stated earlier, people can say it is stealing and be correct by definition. So to state it as stealing just means they have a different interpretation of the word "steal" than you do. I hate the RIAA, but how is this unjust? People break the law and now are having to pay for their actions. I am just glad they are going after the people who are guilty and have failed when going after p2p software.
I would basically agree with the other posters if you don't like the RIAA. Don't buy RIAA affiliated CDs. If you have to buy them, buy them used.
Regardless of what YOU might like to think, it's NOT STEALING.
Oh jeez, haven't we gone over this before. It doesn't matter if it is stealing or copyright infringement. Both are illegal. Your argument has been stated so many times it is beyond me how it could be considered insightful. Actually, at this point, any post to an RIAA article should be automatically modded redundant.
Oh come on, at lease be fair. I can't believe you are modded insightful....I'd say funny. If you think linux patches are all functionality, then you don't work with Linux. The real difference between linux and windows is that you have a 99.9% better chance of getting modded up if you bash Microsoft patches than if you were to say something truly interesting.
My first thought was, "Oh, great, now the 5kr1pt k1dd1e5 will have another instruction manual."
I don't think any script kiddies actually read research papers. They don't understand the mechanisms underneath the attack they are running. They just click on the GUI button with the nuke picture on it and know that it should do something evil. The real threat are the people smart enough to read this, write a simple to use tool that invokes the attack, and then distribute it to the script kiddies. There are plenty of smart people out there who don't have good intentions.
I know what you mean. I have a similar problem. There really are so many great games out there that I want to play. Unfortunately, I am out of college and in the real working world where I just can't enjoy gaming as much (plus dating and soccer suck up most after work time). But at the very least, I have learned how to be cheap about it. I will read reviews on some of the older games, find ones that are rated highly and buy them for $20 (as opposed to $50 when they are first released). Patience really can pay off when it comes to prices dropping.
Re:So the highest bidder get's to spam?
on
P2P Spam?
·
· Score: 2
OK, so some company decides to buy. Wouldn't they now be liable for unauthorized use of the computers. Why would a company take the risk? I think this is a red herring, and that it's just another way for worm/virus writers to justify themselves to the world (and themselves).
So here's the trick. Let's say some company buys in and is then sued to oblivion. Now let's say I am SCO (insert your own hated company). I can then buy the services but advertise for Red Hat (insert your favorite company). So now Red Hat is sued to oblivion. So if any company is taken to court, they will just claim a competitor did it to hurt them. It would be very, very hard to prove the company was responsible unless you were able to follow the money trail. And even then, it could be an inside job.
I shudder whenever I see a topic that has to do with a GUI, because I know it is ineveitable that the Apple lovers on here will compare it to their favorite. I am glad that Apple did such great work, because imitation is the highest form of flattery. The reason I shudder though, is that it is all so redundant. Just look at the screenshots and make an insightful post on what you think of the design based on its own merits. You would at least think they would all be satisfied that MS is learning from others and trying to make their product better, but people on here can't even agree on that. Two highly modded examples:
Butt ugly interface, poor user interface design. Microsoft, you ain't no Apple.
I don't want Zoloft-inspired colors, and yet more areas to shove UI controls and informational boxes. At this rate, I'll probably buy another Mac the next time I upgrade my home computer(s).
I know we've been saying this for years now, but um...
They're not ripping off of Apple at all! [winsupersite.com]
I mean really. The prototype machines look much like an iMac with it's screen pushed down to the desk, and that wallpaper doesn't look ANYTHING like Apple's default.
Okay, so there are only so many form factors to make an LCD/Keyboard desktop-type computer, fine. But the rest is just more innovation taken from Apple. Apologies if any OSS predates anything I've mentioned about Apple in this case.
So is it "innovation taken from Apple" or "butt ugly"?
To me it doesn't look like much of a difference from XP. If you really want a cool looking interface, there are a lot of third party companies out there that can really allow you to customize the way your GUI looks to fit your own personality.
Slashdot Mirror
It's true that whenever I play an RPG with any sort of difficult moral choice, I do feel a bit of emotional weight over the decision. While I play, I lose some of the sense that it is "just a game," because playing it "right" requires so getting into the story. One of the defenses thrown up for GTA3, however, is that it's just a game. My point is, if it's any good, it's not.
BS. There is a difference between a game and reality. If good games cause you to lose your grip on reality and become the character, then indeed, I am glad you refused the chance to play GTA. Most people in the world can distinguish from reality and fiction. GTA is fun because you can do things that are wrong and not get punished for them (like in reality). It is also fun because you have a large world to explore and the freedom to do whatever you want within a game engine that is a huge step forward from other engines.
And also, GTA3, while obviously not a direct cause of murders, *is* yet another example of the slow and steady push of our culture towards violence, which has difficult-to-gauge effects.
Again, BS. I would like to point out to you that before tvs and video games there were wars. Lots of them. What that says to me is that there must me something in human nature that makes us violent. Just because you see more crime and war on tv, does not mean that more crime and war exist now than it did in the past. Religion (yes, even Christianity) has caused so much violence in the past. I guarantee you religion is more responsible for pushing our culture towards violence than GTA or the next game that will make GTA look like Super Mario Bros.
I will tell you the leading cause of all the problems in our world: stupidity. Now I am not trying to say you are stupid, you are very articulate, but your arguments are flawed. Only stupid people are influenced by GTA. The two kids shooting at passing vehicles are stupid. The scenario they were playing out doesn't even exist in GTA. It is just an excuse. I think a far greater problem in our culture is that people do not stand up and take the blame for their own actions. The kids are to blame for shooting the guns and killing people. Also, the parents for not supervising them and not teaching them proper gun safety.
Thanks! It sounds like it will be pretty good unless you are leaving out all the bad parts.
I'll take you up on your offer. Does it have a quest based system, and if so, how are the quests? Are there any major mileposts you can get to, like something that would trigger a CGI in a single player game, e.g. you killed a minor boss? How is the grouping system? Is it necessary to group to progress far? What do you think of the job system? (Hope that wasn't too much).
Awesome, thanks for the post on that. I will be more inclined to try the console version now. Hard to curl up on the couch and play on my PC.
I think the hacker "culture" is more about infamy than a cause. They want to do the most damange to the most computers and bring down as many networks as possible to show they are 1337. Windows has the most machines out there, so it is an easier target. You don't shoot the baby dear when daddy is standing right next to it. Ok...bad analogy...but I hope you see my point. I do see what you are saying and agree with you to a certain extent. Windows, by design, is more accessible to the common user because there is less configuration issues (an upside) but you have administrative privledges on by default for most non-business users(a down side for security). I think this quality is what makes Windows popular to Joe the user because he doesn't have to know what a su is, he already has full control. Recently, it seems that MS has made more of an effort to put out patches before exploits are released. Our company was hit with Blaster though, because no one trusts the MS patches to be bug free and they wanted to test them first.
The main thing that bothered me about the post I first replied to is that they thought it is ok to fine MS but ignore the fact that you would have to fine Linux too. MS patching is actually easier for a novice user, so does that make Linux more liable for fines? No way, always blame the cause (hackers), don't pass it on to others just because you don't like them (though don't let the OS company off the hook either if they are extremely negligent).
Are you in the beta (or have played it), or is this just something you have read? I am not horribly concerned about featuresets, more on how enjoyable it is to play. Sometimes games go a little overboard with their features and it is more of a chore to play (like SWG). Unfortunately, I haven't played PSO, so I can't really qualify that. I really do think a lot of people immediately jumped all over it just because it was online...I am a big fan of single player, but it's not like this will be the last one in the series.
Not that I am a big fan of MMORPG, but I think I will give them one more shot. Everquest was fine, but really didn't hook me like other people. Star Wars Galaxies was such a huge disappointment to me. I just didn't like the job system and how you increased your skills. I have yet to be disappointed by a Final Fantasy (but there is always a first time). The only real question is: PC or console? I will have to see what the menus are like. They will have to design it very well to work on a console. MMORPG generally are a lot more complex to navigate menus than a single player game, so it makes me nervous to spend all that money to get hardware I probably wouldn't use except for that game and then end up with something that doesn't allow me to experience the world as easy as it would be with my mouse and keyboard. In any case, it will be interesting to see how they do. Even if it ends up to be a mess, I give props to square for trying something new when all the fanboys tell them this is the "worst mistake ever".
A majority of computer users are dumb. When they get OSes like XP, they have absolutely no idea how to secure it.
And these dumb users would have an easier time patching Linux? Come on. Any computer on a network is vulnerable, even ones that are patched and maintained. The problem is not in the OS (though every effort should be put in to security both before and after a product is released), but with the people who are breaking the law: the virus writers and the people who initially unleash them. They should be found, fined, and prosecuted. If the problem lies in the OS, you need to have the guts to stand up in slashdot and realize unpatched Linux boxes are just as open as unpatched XP boxes. I agreed with your first two sentences, though.
Give me a break. What about Microsoft? Any computer on a network is vulnerable, even Linux boxes, why don't we fine Red Hat? Who should we go after when there is a crime? Maybe the criminal who wrote the freaking virus. I guarantee you, any OS that is the most used is going to be hacked...often. You don't fine grandma, nor do you fine the OS company, you find the hackers/script kiddies/etc, and you fine and jail them. Ignorant indeed.
Evidently the game sucked
I could see a lot of people saying that. It is very hard to get in to at first because it seems everytime you take a half step you are moved in to CGI. I didn't think that that could be a bad thing, but it really does break up the game play. If you can get past the beginning though, there is a much better balance between the movies and game play. The movies are absolutely incredible, and the story is engaging. I would reccomend it to any RPG fans who enjoy the FF series. You just have to be prepared for a lot of movies.
I don't see how there is a big difference at all. I see hyping as an integral part of something being over-rated. Take the segway for example, it was hyped as the greatest invention in our time and would revolutionize how we travel. People hate that thing not because it was a dumb invention, but because it was hyped so highly and then people found it to be over-rated. If there is no hype, you get the game, it sucks, and you say, oh, that's a bad game. But if it is hyped (by fan boys, game sites, your friend, etc.), you say it is over-rated when it turns out bad. I guess I just see when people rate something highly, whether it is out or not yet (particularly when it is not), that it is hype. You probably just look at it differently than I do. I didn't mean to attack you, it just seemed like you didn't RTFA (which is usually a safe bet).
I know you no one ever RTFAs, but if you did, you will see that overhyped is part of their equation for this top 25.
Good point...sort of. Cloud joins initially for money. But it takes what, 15 minutes? before he is on board with the cause. All it takes is a cute flower girl and he will do anything...but you really can't blame him, who wouldn't go for her? I am just saying I found Squall more complicated and interesting.
I did this, sadly none of the options seem to be working to give me any sound:(
Anyway, any FF fan knows that it shoulda been FF7 that got the sequel.
You may be right. I don't know, though. I consider myself a true fan and was one ever since I played the first one late at night when I was a little kid. I think the ending of FF7 wrapped up too much for a sequel. FFX's ending left a lot more open and thus easier to write a sequel. I'll buy it and check it out. I have enjoyed every FF. My only criticism of FFX was that some of the side quests at the end were hard and boring. I really don't want to dodge lightning for a half hour to get one character's best weapon.
I always find this funny. FF8, by most people's accounts, was the worst of them all. FF8 is my personal favorite though. I really enjoyed having a character that wasn't a team player. He was independant and strong, but learned and developed along the way. I just found him to be more interesting than the normal good guy, team player, save the world type character. Ahh, all this talk of FF...makes me want to do the whole series over again...good memories.
What you say makes sense, and I am sure is much more popular of an opinion on here. To paraphrase: "Let's just say the report is crap." Ok, sure, now we can go along in our happy little universe and pretend Linux doesn't get hacked. I don't think so. There is a problem out there, and even if the numbers on this report is iffy, it is a wonderful time to sit down and think of ways to make things better. Your argument takes the easy way out.
If slashdotters are biased against anything, it's bullshit. It just appears that Slashdotters are biased against Microsoft, but that's really because MS is the uberking perveyor of propaganda.
I would say that statement is bs. First off, SCO is the uberking right now (though MS will retake that title when SCO is removed). Second, Slashdot is horribly biased against things other than just bs (and a lot of times there are good reasons for it). Let's say another article said the exact same thing but swapped the percentages. Would you be saying all the things you are saying now? Maybe, but I doubt it. All the highly modded posts would be about how this proves once again the absolute superiority of Linux security over Windows. Anyone who said it was bs would probably be labeled a troll (just like anyone who says they don't like Macs).
It's an old statement, but the best security you can have on your computer is if you unplug it from the network. Maybe Linux is successfully breached less than Windows and the report lies, but the problem still exisits and I don't think we should turn our backs to it.
When a new Microsoft attack comes out, everyone jumps all over how insecure the OS is. When something negative about Linux comes out, all I hear are excuses (market share, uneducated admins, all MS attacks are not reported), or "I need more statistics"...why aren't you saying that about MS articles? Because we are biased, I know. So instead of the excuses that just make us look bad and unobjective, why don't we address this issue seriously. Let's assume the report is correct (like we would with Windows) and talk about how to make it better. It would certainly be a lot easier if all Linux distros had a program that would detect when there is a serious patch out there and notify the user (I know, it sounds like windows update, but its a good idea). Also, the program would automatically detect non-essential things that can be patched and give you that option. In any case, as Linux gains marketshare and serves important information, don't be surprised that it is attacked more (even successfully). When a flaw is discovered, do you think it is the good guys who find out about it first? We have given Linux administrators a false sense of security by saying our OS is secure, Windows is not. An OS is only as secure as how up to date it is patched vs. known vulnerabilities (and a good security plan). So it looks like we have work to do, both in improving how we install and distribute patches, and how we educate Linux administrators. If we don't, pretty soon Linux could have the larger market share, and Windows admins can point to all these reports and say how insecure OUR OS is.
Ok, let's go back to your whole "it isn't stealing" argument. The argument depends on what definition flavor you are looking at. One definition of stealing states:
"To use, appropriate, or preempt the use of another's idea, especially to one's own advantage and without consent by the originator."
Using that definition, it is stealing. But fine, let's say the crimes are different and require different litigation. Well, duh. Even "stealing" is different depending on if you are stealing bread or stealing government secrets. The whole argument that "music sharing is copyright infringement not stealing" is stupid because it is used as a justification to continue doing it because...I am not sure why, the crime isn't that bad? Everyone is doing it? You don't want to give up the perks? They hate the monopolistic RIAA? Sorry Robin Hood, stealing from the evil for yourself doesn't make it good.
As I have stated earlier, people can say it is stealing and be correct by definition. So to state it as stealing just means they have a different interpretation of the word "steal" than you do. I hate the RIAA, but how is this unjust? People break the law and now are having to pay for their actions. I am just glad they are going after the people who are guilty and have failed when going after p2p software.
I would basically agree with the other posters if you don't like the RIAA. Don't buy RIAA affiliated CDs. If you have to buy them, buy them used.
Regardless of what YOU might like to think, it's NOT STEALING.
Oh jeez, haven't we gone over this before. It doesn't matter if it is stealing or copyright infringement. Both are illegal. Your argument has been stated so many times it is beyond me how it could be considered insightful. Actually, at this point, any post to an RIAA article should be automatically modded redundant.
Oh come on, at lease be fair. I can't believe you are modded insightful....I'd say funny. If you think linux patches are all functionality, then you don't work with Linux. The real difference between linux and windows is that you have a 99.9% better chance of getting modded up if you bash Microsoft patches than if you were to say something truly interesting.
My first thought was, "Oh, great, now the 5kr1pt k1dd1e5 will have another instruction manual."
I don't think any script kiddies actually read research papers. They don't understand the mechanisms underneath the attack they are running. They just click on the GUI button with the nuke picture on it and know that it should do something evil. The real threat are the people smart enough to read this, write a simple to use tool that invokes the attack, and then distribute it to the script kiddies. There are plenty of smart people out there who don't have good intentions.
I know what you mean. I have a similar problem. There really are so many great games out there that I want to play. Unfortunately, I am out of college and in the real working world where I just can't enjoy gaming as much (plus dating and soccer suck up most after work time). But at the very least, I have learned how to be cheap about it. I will read reviews on some of the older games, find ones that are rated highly and buy them for $20 (as opposed to $50 when they are first released). Patience really can pay off when it comes to prices dropping.
OK, so some company decides to buy. Wouldn't they now be liable for unauthorized use of the computers. Why would a company take the risk? I think this is a red herring, and that it's just another way for worm/virus writers to justify themselves to the world (and themselves).
So here's the trick. Let's say some company buys in and is then sued to oblivion. Now let's say I am SCO (insert your own hated company). I can then buy the services but advertise for Red Hat (insert your favorite company). So now Red Hat is sued to oblivion. So if any company is taken to court, they will just claim a competitor did it to hurt them. It would be very, very hard to prove the company was responsible unless you were able to follow the money trail. And even then, it could be an inside job.
I shudder whenever I see a topic that has to do with a GUI, because I know it is ineveitable that the Apple lovers on here will compare it to their favorite. I am glad that Apple did such great work, because imitation is the highest form of flattery. The reason I shudder though, is that it is all so redundant. Just look at the screenshots and make an insightful post on what you think of the design based on its own merits. You would at least think they would all be satisfied that MS is learning from others and trying to make their product better, but people on here can't even agree on that. Two highly modded examples:
Butt ugly interface, poor user interface design. Microsoft, you ain't no Apple. I don't want Zoloft-inspired colors, and yet more areas to shove UI controls and informational boxes. At this rate, I'll probably buy another Mac the next time I upgrade my home computer(s).
I know we've been saying this for years now, but um... They're not ripping off of Apple at all! [winsupersite.com] I mean really. The prototype machines look much like an iMac with it's screen pushed down to the desk, and that wallpaper doesn't look ANYTHING like Apple's default. Okay, so there are only so many form factors to make an LCD/Keyboard desktop-type computer, fine. But the rest is just more innovation taken from Apple. Apologies if any OSS predates anything I've mentioned about Apple in this case.
So is it "innovation taken from Apple" or "butt ugly"?
To me it doesn't look like much of a difference from XP. If you really want a cool looking interface, there are a lot of third party companies out there that can really allow you to customize the way your GUI looks to fit your own personality.