Apparently one of the campers called in sick (for two weeks?), and had to postpone his engagement to divert the ring fund to a PlayStation 3, while another guy quit his job altogether.
The problem here is that of biased reporting/editorials. Sure, somebody might have an idea about things just from the media, but it may not be an unbiased source overall.
If a significant amount of people are affected in the same way, this can be a problem (after all, if it's a general media bias, it won't 'cancel out' on average).
In a report commissioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, they state...
I'm not sure how accurate the above line from the summary is, since the article seems to contradict it:
Chancellor Gordon Brown has asked chairman Sir Andrew Gowers to report his findings back ahead of the pre-budget report in November.
The IPPR is hoping to influence this with its report, entitled Public Innovation: Intellectual property in a digital age.
It sounds to me as if this report is independent of the Government-run study, but the IPPR are hoping that it will influence it (as the article states).
DRM'd music and.wma have mediocre sound quality to begin with.
The presence of DRM has absolutely no effect on the audio quality whatsoever - once it's decoded, the audio data is exactly the same as an equivalent file without DRM.
You could say that the most common DRM music suppliers encode in a mediocre format (although many would challenge that), but the fact that they use DRM is irrelevant to the audio quality.
A lot of people seem to be mistaking what this article shows.
It's not showing how weak an unpatched XP machine is, they're instead logging the attacks that are still happening on the Internet daily, and then showing the frequency of them. For instance, they logged 11 attempts in 7 hours from the Blaster worm. If, as some people are suggesting, they were just placing an unpatched machine on the Internet, the machine would have restarted from the very first Blaster attack.
You sure neither of those apply? From the article:
The JavaScript issue appears to be a real vulnerability, Window Snyder, Mozilla's security chief, said after watching a video of the presentation Saturday night. "What they are describing might be a variation on an old attack," she said. "We're going to do some investigating."
Snyder said she isn't happy with the disclosure and release of an exploit during the presentation. "It looks like they had enough information in their slide for an attacker to reproduce it," she said. "I think it is unfortunate because it puts users at risk, but that seems to be their goal."
What's silly is that he's bought other games, and given up on them too due to length.
I've got a life to lead: Books to read, a day job, my infant son to hang out with, other games beckoning. That's why I've collected a shockingly large mausoleum of unfinished games over the years. Kingdom Hearts II? Stopped halfway. Kameo? Three-quarters through. Enchanted Arms? Eh -- I'm this close to bailing out.
Why not just buy a new game only once the current game is finished? If I'm going to go for story-based games, I'd much prefer one completed story than two half-completed ones.
FireFox is constantly adding new features. When you add new features then you open yourself up to bugs.
Opera keeps having new features added too, though. Despite this, according to the article, Opera managed to have a decrease in vulnerabilities - so why not Firefox?
You may feel like you're fighting the good fight and putting up a valiant effort but the last thing I want is people who have bad Linux/OSS experiences out there telling everyone about them.
What's wrong with that? There's absolutely nothing wrong with people telling others of good and bad experiences, be that with Windows, Linux or anything.
The biggest concern should be that somebody had a bad experience, not that they tell other people about it.
However, if a site doesn't have a robots.txt file, should search engines just presume that the site has given permission for the page to be cached?
As a web user, I prefer it like that, but I can understand the point of view that permission should be actually granted, not just assumed (i.e. have a Robots *Inclusion* Protocol instead).
You didn't actually address anything of the issue raised about Slashdot covering IE security issues more than Firefox issues, instead you went off on a wild tangent about how IE is integrated into the system.
Sure, you can talk all you like about Firefox and other browsers being optional, etc., but that's not the issue being raised.
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently one of the campers called in sick (for two weeks?), and had to postpone his engagement to divert the ring fund to a PlayStation 3, while another guy quit his job altogether.
http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/10/ps3-hopefuls-pa rt-ii/
The problem here is that of biased reporting/editorials. Sure, somebody might have an idea about things just from the media, but it may not be an unbiased source overall.
If a significant amount of people are affected in the same way, this can be a problem (after all, if it's a general media bias, it won't 'cancel out' on average).
I love how this is currently modded overall as 'Insightful', rather than 'Funny'.
I'm not sure how accurate the above line from the summary is, since the article seems to contradict it:
It sounds to me as if this report is independent of the Government-run study, but the IPPR are hoping that it will influence it (as the article states).The presence of DRM has absolutely no effect on the audio quality whatsoever - once it's decoded, the audio data is exactly the same as an equivalent file without DRM.
You could say that the most common DRM music suppliers encode in a mediocre format (although many would challenge that), but the fact that they use DRM is irrelevant to the audio quality.
If Apple didn't impose stringent enough checks on their contracted manufacturers, then yes, it is partially their fault.
Bullied? I realise it's an attempt at a pun, but he was just asked a question about it in Prime Minister's Questions, by a member of his own party.
I just wish US presidents were made to answer questions in a similar fashion.
It's not showing how weak an unpatched XP machine is, they're instead logging the attacks that are still happening on the Internet daily, and then showing the frequency of them. For instance, they logged 11 attempts in 7 hours from the Blaster worm. If, as some people are suggesting, they were just placing an unpatched machine on the Internet, the machine would have restarted from the very first Blaster attack.
http://www.opera.com/support/tutorials/opera/spell check/
Fox News: Where more Americans get their news than probably should.
If GPU-assisted code ever gets turned into a 'selling point' for graphics cards, you can be sure it'll be opened up more.
The JavaScript issue appears to be a real vulnerability, Window Snyder, Mozilla's security chief, said after watching a video of the presentation Saturday night. "What they are describing might be a variation on an old attack," she said. "We're going to do some investigating."
Snyder said she isn't happy with the disclosure and release of an exploit during the presentation. "It looks like they had enough information in their slide for an attacker to reproduce it," she said. "I think it is unfortunate because it puts users at risk, but that seems to be their goal."
I can login fine to Yahoo already with Opera's built-in password handling, so I can't imagine it's anything that couldn't be solved in Firefox.
Unfortunately, I think the demand for an AM tuner isn't enough to justify it's inclusion as standard (although it's certainly possible).
Shame though, as that would be the one additional feature I'd love.
Just because others do similar, does that make it OK?
A defence based on 'well, other people do it too!' isn't good enough.
Why not just buy a new game only once the current game is finished? If I'm going to go for story-based games, I'd much prefer one completed story than two half-completed ones.
From what the linked forum thread states, this emulator seems to be based on the code of PCSX and others, breaking the GPL license.
Opera keeps having new features added too, though. Despite this, according to the article, Opera managed to have a decrease in vulnerabilities - so why not Firefox?
Affected By 1 Secunia advisories, Unpatched 0% (0 of 1 Secunia advisories)
What's wrong with that? There's absolutely nothing wrong with people telling others of good and bad experiences, be that with Windows, Linux or anything.
The biggest concern should be that somebody had a bad experience, not that they tell other people about it.
However, if a site doesn't have a robots.txt file, should search engines just presume that the site has given permission for the page to be cached?
As a web user, I prefer it like that, but I can understand the point of view that permission should be actually granted, not just assumed (i.e. have a Robots *Inclusion* Protocol instead).
Considering a great deal of America's news output... yes, things certainly are.
Security companies say that no exploits using the "daxctle" vulnerability have yet been found in the wild
You didn't actually address anything of the issue raised about Slashdot covering IE security issues more than Firefox issues, instead you went off on a wild tangent about how IE is integrated into the system.
Sure, you can talk all you like about Firefox and other browsers being optional, etc., but that's not the issue being raised.
The presence of this news item doesn't show bias.
However, I would suggest that the lack of news items regarding security flaws in Firefox does show bias.