ohhh, you mean the one where the President lied under oath
Unprovable. He said something to the effect that "If I understand the courts definition of the term, I did not have 'sexual relations' with that woman." Alright, since one of the definitions of 'sexual relations' is intercourse, and as blow jobs are not intercourse, how do you prove he lied?
was impeached, and disbarred for doing so?
Impeached over something irrelevant to the case? Over something that was not a crime? Basically through we'll-ask-you-enough-personal-questions-about-your -personal-life-till-you-lie entrapment? The jokes on you buddy, and on the hypocritical Republicans who impeached him.
That great Presidency?
Yes, *that* great presidency. You know, the one with the best economy we've ever seen, before we launched a baseless war and started acting as secret police (throw people in jail with no attorney and no trial).
if my system files are wiped out and I have no backup... I have to reinstall the OS from the CD, and maybe spend awhile downloading updates. if my home folder is wiped out and I have no backup... Weeks, months, or years of work are irrevocably lost.
Except that a Windows virus can do both of those. 90% hosed is still better than 100% hosed.
Which, IMHO, is why Linux hasn't taken over the desktop market. People like things simple! If Linux was reengineered to accommodate the average desktop user, would it still be secure? I think not.
Except Apple puts the lie to that argument. Macs have always been renouned for their ease of use, but have never had a fraction of the viruses that Windows has had.
This is because Microsoft is a feature company and Apple is a good feature company. Microsoft crams as many features into a product as possible, but it doens't matter if they are any good. Compare that to Apple, who actually puts a thought or two into the making of their products.
The subject line above pretty much covers all of the article's "social engineering" blah blah. As an IS/IT manager I can assure you that no amount of click boxes, pop-up warnings, etc. will prevent some users from doing "bad things" (tm).
Except that Microsoft makes it easy for a super genius with 300 iq points and 24/7 vigallence to get infected, much less a shmoe user. Contrast that to OS X, where you would have to have some knowledge and do a great deal of work to make it vunerable.
Unfortunately this argument fails to address why Windows is the dominant OS... that being that Microsoft listened to consumers and provided them tools that worked easily.
...but Apple has proven that it is perfectly possible to have an easy to use environment without having security flaws up the wazoo.
Further, due to the strong separation between normal users and the privileged root user, our Linux user would have to be running as root to really do any damage to the system.
But this is obviously not true.
Of course its true. On OS X and Linux you can hose up your own files, but not those belonging to the system or other users. 30% hosed is better than 100% hosed. Again using OS X as an example, you could wipe out the files in your home directory, but it wouldn't mess up applications or change network settings.
But obviously has failed to look at Outlook 2003 to find that it behaves in nearly the exactly same way with regards to external HTML images, and that Outlook 2002 and 2000(with patches) had settings which prevented all scripts, activeX, whatever from executing anyway.
Except that OE does it in a half assed way - unless you want to fine tune settings, its either way to restrictive or way too lenient.
The main impact that running as root as on the spreading of viruses is the cost of having to clean up the local machine, either by running some script or by reinstalling the base OS and applications. This can be a signifigant cost, but it's not related to the spread of viruses.
...except for the viruses that set up a service to propogate on a privleged port. Again, not possible on Mac or Linux w/o root.
Any day he wants to, I invite Mr. Granneman to come over to my house or office and I'd love to see him prove this claim.
And he'll laugh at you when you are as vigilant as can be but get infected because Microsofts half-assed coding, which you have absolutely no control over.
It's unfortunate that we have people such as Mr. Granneman out there in the computer field giving such horribly bad advice.
Even if you dislike his points, the main one is still valid: even if OS X had 100% marketshare, it still wouldn't have a fraction of the exploits, worms and viruses that windows has had.
Microsoft makes that easy to happen. OS X and Linux don't. And there are OE viruses that you don't even have to open attachments - previewing them is enough. But even if an Apple or Linux user did launch an attachment, they aren't going to be doing it as a priveleged user.
Internet games are completely unlike other kinds of client/servers (web, database) because they need to do a great deal of inter-communication with a great deal of trust between the client and the server, and they need to do it at a high rate of speed.
Put it another way, look at all the hacks that were available for Half-Life when the code for that wasn't even available.
That is why you will never see a game that is not from Valve that uses the Half-Life engine.
Actually, at least one James Bond game is based on the Half-Life engine. Its possible that the studio (in this case Gearbox I believe) had some convoluted licensing scheme to pay both Valve and id. However, the Quake 1 engine has been released as GPL, so they probably just published the changes and didn't pay id at all.
Right, thats how acts like Toni Braxton and TLC can win grammys and bring their label's about $150 million apiece and yet be forced to declare bankruptcy.
It doesn't matter -- that's not your decision to make.
Sure it is. Do it every day in fact.
You can't make that call -- not legally, morally, or ethically.
Right, thats why the industry itself is starting to use p2p statistcs to find out what people want to hear.
That's like justifying stealing Star Wars action figures by saying "I saw the movie 25 times, so I've given George Lucas enough money to compensate for it".
Except that's stealing, in which case you suffer an actual, physical loss. Total actual, physical loss to p2p throughout its history and on into the future until the universe implodes: absoloutly zero. Thats why its called copyright infringment.
Bottom line is that you're preventing people from making money the way they are choosing to make it by taking their service but not paying for it. That's wrong, and you know it, no matter how much you choose to justify it.
Blah blah blah. If my friend hadn't borrowed me his Portrait of an American Family cd, I might not have bought every Marylin Manson cd available or gone to his concerts. If that same friend hadn't downloaded a Juno Reactor song from Napster, I never would have heard the band and would not have bought three of their albums. If I hadn't downloaded some Rammstien, I wouldn't have gone to two of their concerts and bought 3 of their cd's. Why don't you go and explain to these guys how getting $400-$500 they otherwise wouldn't have gotten from me is a bad thing.
If p2p is really *so* bad for artists, how come about.000000001% of actual artists complain about it?
And in today's increasingly homogonized radio, p2p is the only way you will be exposed to new music. So unless you are Metallica or Madonna, and 99.999999999% of artists are not, p2p is a good thing because more people will be exposed to your music. If you've never heard it, you're never going to buy it.
Uh, how in the heck did this get modded "Insightful???" What if the answer to "how many downloads" is "100,000?" The kid was just screwed out of a hundred grand
Was he? Since the kid probably gets about 6 cents per cd, that would actually be $6,000, not $100,000 (actually thats being generous, since p2p'ers are basically downloading singles, which musicians get even less money for). However, how much would it cost him for equivilant promotion through his label? Figure $200,000 for a music video, another $300,000 for a Clear Channel station to play his song....hmm, suddenly that $6,000 doesn't look so bad, does it?
And exactly who is going to pay for this "world tour?"
Well the labels sure aren't - not in the long run. The RIAA justifies their high prices and screwing of artists by claiming that they take huge risks on new acts. Except this is pure bull, since all of those risks are pushed back onto the artists themselves in recoupable costs. The artist looking to do a tour would do better to get a good agent and a regular loan from a bank.
What's worse is all you stupid jackasses really make it harder for legitimate uses of P2P technology to shine through. Every time some jackass says "sending the latest [riaa] tune is sharing, information was meant to be free!" gives more fuel for the RIAA fodder.
Did you see the story were radio stations are using p2p statistics to find out what to play? Didja?
My favorite is to see union thugs driving homeless people down to the polls, and then waiting outside w/ cartons of cigarettes and booze to get votes for the democrats. Nice.
Well maybe if they did that enough they'd make up for all road blocks around voting booths in black neighboorhoods, or the many thousands of voters who were mistakenly placed on an illegible list for felons.
Just about every isp sells their packages as "unlimited". Unlimited downloads at 512kps, 1 meg, etc. And unlimited means unlimited. If they mean 20 gigs a month, then they need to advertize it as such.
you patent the engeneering process for whatever you're making. So Masanto (or whatever) could still create their modified seeds but couldn't sue some farmer into the ground for collecting seeds that blew onto his land.
Slashdot Mirror
ohhh, you mean the one where the President lied under oath
r -personal-life-till-you-lie entrapment? The jokes on you buddy, and on the hypocritical Republicans who impeached him.
Unprovable. He said something to the effect that "If I understand the courts definition of the term, I did not have 'sexual relations' with that woman." Alright, since one of the definitions of 'sexual relations' is intercourse, and as blow jobs are not intercourse, how do you prove he lied?
was impeached, and disbarred for doing so?
Impeached over something irrelevant to the case? Over something that was not a crime? Basically through we'll-ask-you-enough-personal-questions-about-you
That great Presidency?
Yes, *that* great presidency. You know, the one with the best economy we've ever seen, before we launched a baseless war and started acting as secret police (throw people in jail with no attorney and no trial).
In the book the ents let him leave his little tower and he comes to the shire. I suggest you read the chapter "the scouring of the shire" in ROTK.
if my system files are wiped out and I have no backup... I have to reinstall the OS from the CD, and maybe spend awhile downloading updates.
if my home folder is wiped out and I have no backup... Weeks, months, or years of work are irrevocably lost.
Except that a Windows virus can do both of those. 90% hosed is still better than 100% hosed.
Which, IMHO, is why Linux hasn't taken over the desktop market. People like things simple! If Linux was reengineered to accommodate the average desktop user, would it still be secure? I think not.
Except Apple puts the lie to that argument. Macs have always been renouned for their ease of use, but have never had a fraction of the viruses that Windows has had.
This is because Microsoft is a feature company and Apple is a good feature company. Microsoft crams as many features into a product as possible, but it doens't matter if they are any good. Compare that to Apple, who actually puts a thought or two into the making of their products.
The subject line above pretty much covers all of the article's "social engineering" blah blah. As an IS/IT manager I can assure you that no amount of click boxes, pop-up warnings, etc. will prevent some users from doing "bad things" (tm).
Except that Microsoft makes it easy for a super genius with 300 iq points and 24/7 vigallence to get infected, much less a shmoe user. Contrast that to OS X, where you would have to have some knowledge and do a great deal of work to make it vunerable.
But thats a pain in the ass and doesn't always work. How hard would it be for Microsoft to add an authentication widgit to conrol panels a la OS X?
...but Apple has proven that it is perfectly possible to have an easy to use environment without having security flaws up the wazoo.
But this is obviously not true.
Of course its true. On OS X and Linux you can hose up your own files, but not those belonging to the system or other users. 30% hosed is better than 100% hosed. Again using OS X as an example, you could wipe out the files in your home directory, but it wouldn't mess up applications or change network settings.
But obviously has failed to look at Outlook 2003 to find that it behaves in nearly the exactly same way with regards to external HTML images, and that Outlook 2002 and 2000(with patches) had settings which prevented all scripts, activeX, whatever from executing anyway.
Except that OE does it in a half assed way - unless you want to fine tune settings, its either way to restrictive or way too lenient.
The main impact that running as root as on the spreading of viruses is the cost of having to clean up the local machine, either by running some script or by reinstalling the base OS and applications. This can be a signifigant cost, but it's not related to the spread of viruses.
...except for the viruses that set up a service to propogate on a privleged port. Again, not possible on Mac or Linux w/o root.
Any day he wants to, I invite Mr. Granneman to come over to my house or office and I'd love to see him prove this claim.
And he'll laugh at you when you are as vigilant as can be but get infected because Microsofts half-assed coding, which you have absolutely no control over.
It's unfortunate that we have people such as Mr. Granneman out there in the computer field giving such horribly bad advice.
Even if you dislike his points, the main one is still valid: even if OS X had 100% marketshare, it still wouldn't have a fraction of the exploits, worms and viruses that windows has had.
Microsoft makes that easy to happen. OS X and Linux don't. And there are OE viruses that you don't even have to open attachments - previewing them is enough. But even if an Apple or Linux user did launch an attachment, they aren't going to be doing it as a priveleged user.
10 * 0 = 0
Sontarans are awsome. The 6 part 'Invasion of Time' was one of my favs.
Internet games are completely unlike other kinds of client/servers (web, database) because they need to do a great deal of inter-communication with a great deal of trust between the client and the server, and they need to do it at a high rate of speed.
Put it another way, look at all the hacks that were available for Half-Life when the code for that wasn't even available.
That is why you will never see a game that is not from Valve that uses the Half-Life engine.
Actually, at least one James Bond game is based on the Half-Life engine. Its possible that the studio (in this case Gearbox I believe) had some convoluted licensing scheme to pay both Valve and id. However, the Quake 1 engine has been released as GPL, so they probably just published the changes and didn't pay id at all.
with 10 channel surround sound for uber directional sound effects....
Dur! If I take something from you, you don't have it anymore. Whereas if I copy it from you, you still have the origonal item.
Right, thats how acts like Toni Braxton and TLC can win grammys and bring their label's about $150 million apiece and yet be forced to declare bankruptcy.
This has been the case for about a year now?
Ever hear of cd singles? No artist, no matter how big, gets $1-$2 for a cd single.
It doesn't matter -- that's not your decision to make.
.000000001% of actual artists complain about it?
Sure it is. Do it every day in fact.
You can't make that call -- not legally, morally, or ethically.
Right, thats why the industry itself is starting to use p2p statistcs to find out what people want to hear.
That's like justifying stealing Star Wars action figures by saying "I saw the movie 25 times, so I've given George Lucas enough money to compensate for it".
Except that's stealing, in which case you suffer an actual, physical loss. Total actual, physical loss to p2p throughout its history and on into the future until the universe implodes: absoloutly zero. Thats why its called copyright infringment.
Bottom line is that you're preventing people from making money the way they are choosing to make it by taking their service but not paying for it. That's wrong, and you know it, no matter how much you choose to justify it.
Blah blah blah. If my friend hadn't borrowed me his Portrait of an American Family cd, I might not have bought every Marylin Manson cd available or gone to his concerts. If that same friend hadn't downloaded a Juno Reactor song from Napster, I never would have heard the band and would not have bought three of their albums. If I hadn't downloaded some Rammstien, I wouldn't have gone to two of their concerts and bought 3 of their cd's. Why don't you go and explain to these guys how getting $400-$500 they otherwise wouldn't have gotten from me is a bad thing.
If p2p is really *so* bad for artists, how come about
And in today's increasingly homogonized radio, p2p is the only way you will be exposed to new music. So unless you are Metallica or Madonna, and 99.999999999% of artists are not, p2p is a good thing because more people will be exposed to your music. If you've never heard it, you're never going to buy it.
Uh, how in the heck did this get modded "Insightful???" What if the answer to "how many downloads" is "100,000?" The kid was just screwed out of a hundred grand
Was he? Since the kid probably gets about 6 cents per cd, that would actually be $6,000, not $100,000 (actually thats being generous, since p2p'ers are basically downloading singles, which musicians get even less money for). However, how much would it cost him for equivilant promotion through his label? Figure $200,000 for a music video, another $300,000 for a Clear Channel station to play his song....hmm, suddenly that $6,000 doesn't look so bad, does it?
And exactly who is going to pay for this "world tour?"
Well the labels sure aren't - not in the long run. The RIAA justifies their high prices and screwing of artists by claiming that they take huge risks on new acts. Except this is pure bull, since all of those risks are pushed back onto the artists themselves in recoupable costs. The artist looking to do a tour would do better to get a good agent and a regular loan from a bank.
What's worse is all you stupid jackasses really make it harder for legitimate uses of P2P technology to shine through. Every time some jackass says "sending the latest [riaa] tune is sharing, information was meant to be free!" gives more fuel for the RIAA fodder.
Did you see the story were radio stations are using p2p statistics to find out what to play? Didja?
My favorite is to see union thugs driving homeless people down to the polls, and then waiting outside w/ cartons of cigarettes and booze to get votes for the democrats. Nice.
Well maybe if they did that enough they'd make up for all road blocks around voting booths in black neighboorhoods, or the many thousands of voters who were mistakenly placed on an illegible list for felons.
moron
Just about every isp sells their packages as "unlimited". Unlimited downloads at 512kps, 1 meg, etc. And unlimited means unlimited. If they mean 20 gigs a month, then they need to advertize it as such.
This an opinion piece, not an article in a research journal.
Yeah, it's a big bang but it's also a heck of a lot of bucks and I'm not yet convinced it's worth it.
For you, maybe its not. But for anyone to whom time is money, that would be a silly question.
If you ssh into your box or use screen, it will go back to the default shell. To make change your default shell you need to edit your user in Netinfo.
you patent the engeneering process for whatever you're making. So Masanto (or whatever) could still create their modified seeds but couldn't sue some farmer into the ground for collecting seeds that blew onto his land.