Good points, and being a photographer I do support photography as art obviously, but hitting PrintScreen in a game is not quite as artful as photography. There's so many more things to be considered when taking a real photograph - ISO, exposure length (and thus motion blur or lack thereof, and over- or under-exposure for artful purposes), aperture (influencing depth of field), choice of lens (influencing perspective and framing).
Taking screenshots is akin to walking around with a point-and-shoot camera on Auto. You might come out with some good snaps once in a while, but you're not putting any artful thought into it other than framing the shot.
Exactly. This seems to be the exact discussion we had a few days ago about Chrome. This isn't a big deal. Third party software can be malicious. Whoever installed it had to go through a warning, AND in the case of Firefox, wait 5 seconds to click Install while the warning was in their face.
Because for years, they've been beaten ten-fold by Chrome, Opera, and Safari. Can they really pull a JavaScript engine out of their ass in a few months to beat the best? If not, they have failed to meet their publicly stated goals.
Are you actually running MORE than 4GB of RAM with a 32-bit processor? If so, I'd assume it was an older server, in which case you'd probably be running Windows Server which indeed does support more than 4GB for 32 bit. 64-bit Windows compatibility these days is awesome with everything but old 16-bit applications (and you can just run an emulator or VM for those) - no reason not to use the 64-bit version if you've got 4+ gigs of RAM.
I'd rather have the choice not to use PayPal here in the U.S. than be forced to follow the laws of a government like Australia's. Censorship of media is one thing that comes to mind.
I also use PayPal for hundreds of dollars of transactions each month. I've had no issues - I pay the 3% fee for incoming payments, and I pay the $1.00 ATM fee to get out my money in cash as soon as I can.
That's a good point. AFAIK, Chrome does have some sort of listing of what permissions the extension is requesting at installation - however, it should probably have an extra warning for password stuff.
Ignorant people will probably skim over the initial warning because they see a bunch of stuff they don't understand (or more commonly because they DON'T EVEN BOTHER TRYING TO READ IT) - so the password warning would have to be as blunt as possible.
I can't believe how many people just don't even bother reading dialog boxes before calling me. The answer is right there, the program is telling them, and they won't read it because they assume they won't understand.
If the whole ActiveX fiasco taught us anything, its that users will click on anything if they thing that on the other side of the dialog box is something they want.
Exactly - and this is why Chrome's not at fault for this whole extension thing, and why it's not even a problem. They give a warning, and ignorant people will ignore it.
if some people are gullible enough to download that virus program, they're sucker enough to download malicious plugins too
And that's not the browser's fault in any way. You can't stop idiotic users from downloading malicious shit unless you stop them from downloading ANY program or plugin. They'll ignore every warning they see because they don't feel like reading.
Of course we need more than that for screen resolution. I'm talking about as a video standard. 1080p is barely being adopted right now and YouTube is giving a shit about 4K video? It just doesn't matter.
Good call. I should have thought of that. I suppose I remembered it as one click because I mindlessly click through stuff like that when I know what I'm doing.
My argument stands - Chrome gives you a warning for extension installation, so there's nothing to see here; unless it's suddenly news that installing third-party software and ignoring warnings about the possible consequences can lead to theft of information.
Again, way to take my comment out of context. I was talking about 1080p as a video standard - considering it's barely even seeing adoption now in 2010. Obviously screen resolution and real estate are nice, but this isn't about monitor resolution, it's about the 4K standard.
I could have sworn that it behaves the same on a brand-new install of Windows 7 (and Chrome is usually the very first thing I install). However, I'm too lazy to test it on a VM so you may be right.
The problem with ActiveX was not the possibilities for malicious software, it was that it executed without warning until what, IE6 SP2? Even then there were ways around it if I remember correctly.
Chrome gives you a clear warning for installing extensions. Chrome also runs each process in its own sandbox, unlike the security nightmare that was IE back in the ActiveX glory days.
And of course I'm biased toward clearly better software (in this case, Chrome vs. IE).
I knew someone would come back with the 640K thing. I'm not anti-progress, and of course technology advances at a breakneck pace. I just don't think it's a big deal that YouTube supports it right now, when 99% of people's biggest televisions and monitors don't even come close.
I also know why I can't tell the difference, my point there was supposed to be that I've got what's considered a pretty high-end monitor by today's standards, and this 4000px video standard gives me zero benefit. It is INCREDIBLY niche.
Did you read the subject of TFA? I don't need a lecture on screen resolution, and of course I support more resolution if I've got a 2048x1152 monitor (and that's just one of two monitors on my desk).
My point is that as a video standard, 1080p is far from being widely adopted, yet YouTube is introducing streaming (and thus compressed) 4000-something pixel video. How many years will it be before anyone actually produces real content at these resolutions, and more importantly - before people can consume it on their screens?
I agree with your sentiments. However, note that in IE it does NOT warn you at all - that's not good. There should be one warning.
However, that's beside my point. I was just demonstrating that Chrome has plenty of warning for installing an extension, and that people should not get their panties in a bunch because *gasp* users ignoring a warning about downloading and installing software from third parties can lead to malicious code execution.
What I meant by "does it surprise anyone" is "this is sensationalist BS to the Slashdot crowd". You're correct, but you're also missing my point - that this is about the same as downloading and installing any program, as far as the actions a user has to take to do so.
Clueless people can go install LimeWire just as easily as they can install a bad extension for Chrome. Hell, look at how easy it is to download and install something from IE - try the installer at http://www.google.com/chrome in IE8. It's a single click to get the installer running, and subsequently downloading and installing Chrome on its own. Chrome actually has as much security/warning for an extension as IE8 has for any software download coded like Google's installer!
How is this different than just downloading and installing a program? Chrome (and Firefox for that matter) give you a warning about trusting the source before installing an extension. Does it surprise anyone that allowing malicious code to run on their computer can expose their information?
Man, this is getting ridiculous. As sweet as it sounds, do we really need more than 1920x1080? Granted, I don't have a 4000-pixel-wide monitor, but on my 2048x1152, I can't tell a difference between this and 1080p at all.
Then again, this is on YouTube. I'm sure compression brought the quality below a 1080p Blu-Ray the instant it was uploaded.
This rule is indeed wrong, and I don't agree with it.
However, you'd think professional journalists could afford a ladder (for a good point of view from 65 feet away) and a 200 to 600mm lens - that'd allow them to get any kind of shot they wanted, even if they were much farther than 65 feet..
So you're saying the current generation, late-2009 to 2010 integrated Intel solutions run "general games" very well? Assuming "general games" means anything more than The Sims or Starcraft 1, I say: FINALLY! However, I don't think the GP was referring to the very newest Intel integrated graphics, but rather everything that's out there from them.
Every single Intel integrated graphics solution I've used up through the middle of 2009 blew ass (one I can specifically remember is the HD 4500, as it's in one of my newer laptops). It can only run Half-Life 1 at playable framerates in 800x600 or less (and only in Direct3D, OGL barely runs at all.) That game is TWELVE YEARS OLD. It ran perfectly on my GeForce 2 MX 400 that I bought for $50 nine years ago.
Granted, there have been HL1 engine updates since then (I'm testing the Steam version) but those updates have also updated it to work on modern hardware.
By contrast, all the low-end integrated Radeon and GeForce chipsets I've tried in the past few years have run HL just fine. Face it: Intel's integrated graphics suck. If they've finally gotten their shit together, good for them - doesn't change the fact that 95% of consumer laptops out there have their shitty GPUs in them.
I personally crank it down to 1%, because I usually have at least a 250GB hard drive. I've found the most useful thing in a system restore point is the registry backup, which is only maybe 50MB of it.
Oh, and this whole story is a terrible troll. THERE'S A BUG IN WINDOWS, better post a news story on Slashdot!:-)
Chen is a journalist, as he writes gadget-oriented news stories for Gawker MEDIA for a living. A 2006 ruling in California states that online publications, such as Gizmodo, are protected under the journalism shield laws.
Well, if you weren't boycotting links to "the criminals website" [sic] you could have read it and known why I said it was apparently illegal. Also, the EFF agrees.
IANAL. I guess I should have disclaimed that in my original post, because apparently you are (of course you are, this is Slashdot!)
Slashdot Mirror
Good points, and being a photographer I do support photography as art obviously, but hitting PrintScreen in a game is not quite as artful as photography. There's so many more things to be considered when taking a real photograph - ISO, exposure length (and thus motion blur or lack thereof, and over- or under-exposure for artful purposes), aperture (influencing depth of field), choice of lens (influencing perspective and framing).
Taking screenshots is akin to walking around with a point-and-shoot camera on Auto. You might come out with some good snaps once in a while, but you're not putting any artful thought into it other than framing the shot.
Exactly. This seems to be the exact discussion we had a few days ago about Chrome. This isn't a big deal. Third party software can be malicious. Whoever installed it had to go through a warning, AND in the case of Firefox, wait 5 seconds to click Install while the warning was in their face.
Because for years, they've been beaten ten-fold by Chrome, Opera, and Safari. Can they really pull a JavaScript engine out of their ass in a few months to beat the best? If not, they have failed to meet their publicly stated goals.
Are you actually running MORE than 4GB of RAM with a 32-bit processor? If so, I'd assume it was an older server, in which case you'd probably be running Windows Server which indeed does support more than 4GB for 32 bit. 64-bit Windows compatibility these days is awesome with everything but old 16-bit applications (and you can just run an emulator or VM for those) - no reason not to use the 64-bit version if you've got 4+ gigs of RAM.
I'd rather have the choice not to use PayPal here in the U.S. than be forced to follow the laws of a government like Australia's. Censorship of media is one thing that comes to mind.
I also use PayPal for hundreds of dollars of transactions each month. I've had no issues - I pay the 3% fee for incoming payments, and I pay the $1.00 ATM fee to get out my money in cash as soon as I can.
That's a good point. AFAIK, Chrome does have some sort of listing of what permissions the extension is requesting at installation - however, it should probably have an extra warning for password stuff.
Ignorant people will probably skim over the initial warning because they see a bunch of stuff they don't understand (or more commonly because they DON'T EVEN BOTHER TRYING TO READ IT) - so the password warning would have to be as blunt as possible.
I can't believe how many people just don't even bother reading dialog boxes before calling me. The answer is right there, the program is telling them, and they won't read it because they assume they won't understand.
Exactly - and this is why Chrome's not at fault for this whole extension thing, and why it's not even a problem. They give a warning, and ignorant people will ignore it.
And that's not the browser's fault in any way. You can't stop idiotic users from downloading malicious shit unless you stop them from downloading ANY program or plugin. They'll ignore every warning they see because they don't feel like reading.
Of course we need more than that for screen resolution. I'm talking about as a video standard. 1080p is barely being adopted right now and YouTube is giving a shit about 4K video? It just doesn't matter.
Good call. I should have thought of that. I suppose I remembered it as one click because I mindlessly click through stuff like that when I know what I'm doing.
My argument stands - Chrome gives you a warning for extension installation, so there's nothing to see here; unless it's suddenly news that installing third-party software and ignoring warnings about the possible consequences can lead to theft of information.
Again, way to take my comment out of context. I was talking about 1080p as a video standard - considering it's barely even seeing adoption now in 2010. Obviously screen resolution and real estate are nice, but this isn't about monitor resolution, it's about the 4K standard.
I could have sworn that it behaves the same on a brand-new install of Windows 7 (and Chrome is usually the very first thing I install). However, I'm too lazy to test it on a VM so you may be right.
The problem with ActiveX was not the possibilities for malicious software, it was that it executed without warning until what, IE6 SP2? Even then there were ways around it if I remember correctly.
Chrome gives you a clear warning for installing extensions. Chrome also runs each process in its own sandbox, unlike the security nightmare that was IE back in the ActiveX glory days.
And of course I'm biased toward clearly better software (in this case, Chrome vs. IE).
I knew someone would come back with the 640K thing. I'm not anti-progress, and of course technology advances at a breakneck pace. I just don't think it's a big deal that YouTube supports it right now, when 99% of people's biggest televisions and monitors don't even come close.
:)
I also know why I can't tell the difference, my point there was supposed to be that I've got what's considered a pretty high-end monitor by today's standards, and this 4000px video standard gives me zero benefit. It is INCREDIBLY niche.
It will be sweet when it's the standard though
Did you read the subject of TFA? I don't need a lecture on screen resolution, and of course I support more resolution if I've got a 2048x1152 monitor (and that's just one of two monitors on my desk).
My point is that as a video standard, 1080p is far from being widely adopted, yet YouTube is introducing streaming (and thus compressed) 4000-something pixel video. How many years will it be before anyone actually produces real content at these resolutions, and more importantly - before people can consume it on their screens?
I agree with your sentiments. However, note that in IE it does NOT warn you at all - that's not good. There should be one warning.
However, that's beside my point. I was just demonstrating that Chrome has plenty of warning for installing an extension, and that people should not get their panties in a bunch because *gasp* users ignoring a warning about downloading and installing software from third parties can lead to malicious code execution.
What I meant by "does it surprise anyone" is "this is sensationalist BS to the Slashdot crowd". You're correct, but you're also missing my point - that this is about the same as downloading and installing any program, as far as the actions a user has to take to do so.
Clueless people can go install LimeWire just as easily as they can install a bad extension for Chrome. Hell, look at how easy it is to download and install something from IE - try the installer at http://www.google.com/chrome in IE8. It's a single click to get the installer running, and subsequently downloading and installing Chrome on its own. Chrome actually has as much security/warning for an extension as IE8 has for any software download coded like Google's installer!
How is this different than just downloading and installing a program? Chrome (and Firefox for that matter) give you a warning about trusting the source before installing an extension. Does it surprise anyone that allowing malicious code to run on their computer can expose their information?
Man, this is getting ridiculous. As sweet as it sounds, do we really need more than 1920x1080? Granted, I don't have a 4000-pixel-wide monitor, but on my 2048x1152, I can't tell a difference between this and 1080p at all.
Then again, this is on YouTube. I'm sure compression brought the quality below a 1080p Blu-Ray the instant it was uploaded.
However, you'd think professional journalists could afford a ladder (for a good point of view from 65 feet away) and a 200 to 600mm lens - that'd allow them to get any kind of shot they wanted, even if they were much farther than 65 feet..
Not surprising, considering he's on XP and thus it's off by default.
So you're saying the current generation, late-2009 to 2010 integrated Intel solutions run "general games" very well? Assuming "general games" means anything more than The Sims or Starcraft 1, I say: FINALLY! However, I don't think the GP was referring to the very newest Intel integrated graphics, but rather everything that's out there from them.
Every single Intel integrated graphics solution I've used up through the middle of 2009 blew ass (one I can specifically remember is the HD 4500, as it's in one of my newer laptops). It can only run Half-Life 1 at playable framerates in 800x600 or less (and only in Direct3D, OGL barely runs at all.) That game is TWELVE YEARS OLD. It ran perfectly on my GeForce 2 MX 400 that I bought for $50 nine years ago.
Granted, there have been HL1 engine updates since then (I'm testing the Steam version) but those updates have also updated it to work on modern hardware.
By contrast, all the low-end integrated Radeon and GeForce chipsets I've tried in the past few years have run HL just fine. Face it: Intel's integrated graphics suck. If they've finally gotten their shit together, good for them - doesn't change the fact that 95% of consumer laptops out there have their shitty GPUs in them.
I personally crank it down to 1%, because I usually have at least a 250GB hard drive. I've found the most useful thing in a system restore point is the registry backup, which is only maybe 50MB of it.
:-)
Oh, and this whole story is a terrible troll. THERE'S A BUG IN WINDOWS, better post a news story on Slashdot!
Chen is a journalist, as he writes gadget-oriented news stories for Gawker MEDIA for a living. A 2006 ruling in California states that online publications, such as Gizmodo, are protected under the journalism shield laws.
Well, if you weren't boycotting links to "the criminals website" [sic] you could have read it and known why I said it was apparently illegal. Also, the EFF agrees.
IANAL. I guess I should have disclaimed that in my original post, because apparently you are (of course you are, this is Slashdot!)