Buying out SCO was speculated early on but it never happened as it would have likely shown that the Linux supporters believed that there were enough violations to need to do that.
SCO likely wanted to be bought out so that they could bail from their rapidly sinking ship.
The big buzz these days is online music for under a buck. If they can deliver on that the money will just slide under the door in unmarked envelopes from slaphappy investors hoping that it will start the next DotCom Bubble Burst.
Before anyone goes into the online music distribution business they better seriously consider how they are going to topple iTunes. iTunes is already entrenched and is basically a buzz-word in itself. Just about everyone I know (whether they know what Spyware is or not) knows about iTunes. What they don't know is that the selection blows, hard, outside of standard bullshit.
Zeppelin and Radiohead aren't exactly fringe bands that don't deserve even a single album!
So when these new stores hit the market expecting to steal away from iTMS with the same boring bullshit they might want to think twice before doing it without twice as much boring bullshit.
No, you authorized it when you decided not to run a firewall on your computer or your network. While people expect to not have people walking in and out of their house while they aren't watching it isn't exactly as if it won't happen if there are no locked doors -- nevermind no doors at all.
However, AIM users would have to click on the URL to trigger the vulnerability, which will make it harder for malicious hackers or virus writers to use it in automated attacks, Weinstein said.
The vulnerability reinforces the importance of using caution when clicking on links in IM messages, especially when they are from unknown correspondents, he said.
This probably would cause some harm but not as much as a worm/virus that would automatically send the malicious URL to all users that are away on your list.
I know that most of my less knowledgeable friends that use AOL would instantly click a URL from someone on their buddy list. I am not so sure they would do it from a random IM.
When your upstream isn't very high as it is I don't see how manually setting it to something more acceptable than "FULL BLAST" could be considered bad.
When I read about this story when it broke on Friday I found nothing that mentioned that Goglia had signed an NDA *but* he had been working there for seventeen years and was the executive director of the Recording Head Division.
Now, if Seagate hadn't had the man sign some sort of NDA that specifically stated he wouldn't work for a competitor for two years then I really don't think that they have too much to stand on until WD comes out with a strikingly similar product (which inevitably they will).
I'm a troll? pfff. At least my post had substance based on established fact. Yours was pure conjecture based on guesswork, FUD and hearsay. I have SP2 RTM installed -- you clearly do not -- and it does not constantly annoy you about AV and FW software.
Yet you continue to troll...
Wow, you're wrong, but that's not surprising. I have been running XP SP2 since the story first broke several weeks ago. In fact, I believe I mentioned under that thread that it will not install if you have a key that is not sanctioned by MS. I could have only found that out by running the installer.
You can inform it that you want to handle the monitoring of av/fw s/w manually and it will no longer _inform_ you of this lack.
You sure can with an additional mouse click in a little box (unless they changed it from the version I am running it is the same). People don't like clicking anything other than YES/NO/CANCEL. Other checkboxes scare them.
Secondly, I believe we are trying to talk about the merits of SP2, not the idiocy/laziness of the general computer using populace.
The merits of SP2 can only be discussed while making the point that it still takes a human behind the monitor to make it work correctly. The easier you make it for people to use the more likely it is that they will use it, thus raising the "merit level" of the update. Slashdotters have a lot more faith in the general public than I do (even going so far as to believe that people running Linux will be better protected) but what they fail to understand is the direct link between human failure and OS failure. Thus it is very important to discuss both.
Some of these people that you talk of probably think they have AV software installed, or perhaps it's not up to date. Anything that will make ppl take a second look and perhaps learn something is GOOD in my book.
Again you are giving the end users too much credit. I have already mentioned that these users are the same ones that blindly click YES to move through annoying boxes that show up on their screen. Do you really think that they are going to give it a second look especially when it is nothing more than an annoyance?
Thank you for pointless rebuttal, and good luck with the idle conjectures.
It doesn't "yell" at you for not having antivirus software, it announces, and quite rightly too.
Announcing is telling me once and going away (possibly once a boot would be acceptable w/o having to click something else). "Yelling" at me is telling me quite frequently that I don't have it installed.
Another ridiculous thing to say. The popup blocker was the most requested feature, and anytime anyone dissed IE in the past, it included that particular lack. Where do you get these ideas from?
I got them from running the Google toolbar pop-up blocker. It is much easier for me to understand. I can only imagine that it would be easier for someone else as well.
Another ridiculously empty statement: yes, it may be hassle for some people, but they have to learn somewhere. How hard can it be to click "next", "next", "finish"? For every person that goes through installing it, it means _less_ hassle for the rest of us, not more. At this point, it is clear to all that you are just engaging in pointless FUD, either for the sheer fun of trolling or perhaps regrettably, you are as dumb as you sound.
You are such a troll. First off, it's not difficult to download and install, as that wasn't what I was talking about. It is, however, an annoyance that most users will not care to deal with (these are the same people that get trojans, viruses, and spyware because they click YES through everything and fail to read what they are doing). You think that they want firewall and anti-virus notifications to pop-up? You think that they want to have their popups on valid sites not show because they have the pop-up blocker installed by default? I don't.
So will just about everyone else who has auto-updates disabled. Many people will never install this patch. Even if they do spend the time to install it they will likely have issues out the ass.
It yells at you if you don't have virus protection enabled. It asks if you want to run your own Firewall but its is enabled by default. If you have both running it could cause you problems.
I don't particularly care for the pop-up blocker and I can't imagine that most users will care for it either.
This is going to be a big hassle for people who don't know what they are doing and it's likely going to be a big hassle for everyone else too.
*WE* can't trust them but the rest of the population does with little or no questioning. All in the name of protection from terrorists, communists, or whatever.
BAMFORD: It's something that people cherish. I think it's something that we do need to safeguard. I think it's important to recognise that privacy, rather like trust and confidence - once you've lost it, it's very, very difficult, if not possible, ever to regain. It's something we need to work hard not to lose in the first place.
CAIRNCROSS: One of the most powerful symbols of intrusion into privacy has been the ability of the authorities to watch over us. In that sense, George Orwell's Big Brother is alive and well, and gleefully acquiring all the latest gadgetry. There are close-circuit television cameras on almost every street corner, speed cameras, and cameras that monitor people entering London's congestion charging zone. Caoilfhionn Gallagher is a lawyer with Liberty, a campaigning group on civil liberties, and follows the latest monitoring technologies. What are her current concerns?
They talk as if most people care. Most people ignore the traffic cameras, the red-light cameras, the bank cameras, the whatever cameras... They openly hand over their address and telephone number to anyone who asks (in person, on the telephone, or over the Internet). These are the people that tell you that you are paranoid when you suggest to them that they might want to keep that information more private than they already are.
HARKIN: In Scandinavia and in Japan, you have services whereby young people can pass along street corners and they can be automatically hooked up via location based tracking to someone who meets their personal profile for the purposes of dating or finding a friend.
And people want this? Can't people make up their mind for themselves?
CRAWFORD: We can track a mobile phone even if it's not in use. As long as the phone is on, we can track it every minute of the day - in rural countryside, in cities. And, for example, in London we can track it right down to if somebody was in, for example, Earl's Court Exhibition Centre, we can know they're in that building. In rural countryside, it's a little bit wide - I mean we'd know what hill they're on.
CAIRNCROSS: Now that's wonderful if you're a parent worrying about your child. But another usage is for companies to track their employees. And I think you suggest it is a way of making sure that your employee is secure if they are late returning to the office, but you and I know that what employers really want to know is is the guy in the pub or is he doing what he's supposed to be doing.
Back to the "save the children" thing. Let's stop appealing to the paranoid, careless parent who wants everyone else to know where his kid is and let's pay attention to the fact that it is intrusive and basically unnecessary.
CRAWFORD: Well what we're doing is we're actually sending messages on a regular basis to phones to make sure they continue to consent. The employee would then receive messages saying that that phone is being tracked. He needs to know that that phone would have to be the company's property, so really you know another way of looking at it is saying the company has a right to know where their property is. Obviously this is tracking which is during office hours, and it's all been approved by the Information Commissioner who's studied it very closely.
And when you say no? They fire you, right? In this day and age people can't just say, "oh well, I don't need a job w/a company that tracks me, I can find one in a single day somewhere else." Unfortunately for most it doesn't seem to work that way.
This is the same stuff rehashed as always. We need to better educate the public to remind them that this sort of intrusion is not a necessary part of their lives no matter how much the government and third parties want to make it be.
No no. Free has nothing to do with media coverage of an event. A free market causes control of the event by a single entity because they were willing to pay for it.
Free means that you can leave this country at your own will to watch them live in Athens.
Actually, you're 100% right about it not being Bush's fault. He's not fucking smart enough to think that we need to play perestroika with the Olympics. His asshole cronies, OTOH, are smart enough. Why do you think that they instituted "Free Speech Zones"? They don't want Bush's feelings to be hurt when he sees signs that read "Bush is a coke snorting, beer pissing, cock sucker that kills people for money."
get over it, no one has liked the US for about 55 years. time to accept that a move on.
And yet, a good majority of the population isn't even aware of it. Yeah, we live in a free world my ass. We are under just as much spin as ever.
the numerous cases of doping discovered recently (in cycling, athletics, soccer,...).
Doping has been big news in swimming. The Germans in the 1980s, the Chinese women in the 1990s, and then various random samplings of high-level atheletes that gained there status through the use of designer steroids and whiskey in their piss.
On top of that, U.S. viewers must verify their identity using a credit card from Visa - an NBC advertiser - though they will not be charged.
Not a Visa cardholder? You're out of luck.
Interesting but not surprising. I'm surprised you don't have to prove you were one of the 8% of the population that ate at McDonalds that day...
Some European broadcasters are limiting video to high-speed, broadband customers only, seeking to keep foreigners from connecting via international phone calls.
Oh fuck you, give me a break, no one is going to download Olympics video over dialup via an international call. It's just not worth it. Perhaps AmEx would love for you to pay for that call on their card?
"Of course you get frustrated you can't do everything you want, but compared to four years ago, this is incredibly much better," said Kristian Elster, who works on the Web site for Norwegian broadcaster NRK.
Maybe in Norway you can't see the shit on TV. NBC comes over the air here and you see a ton of stuff. Most of the really boring shit is on during the day and they play the important races at prime time (live or not). Watching video via the net doesn't impress me.
Fans are the ultimate winners, Joerg said. Even with some 12,000 hours of total TV coverage across Europe, "you cannot cover all," he said. "Broadband and mobile technology can complement the traditional television coverage."
No you can't and most of it sucks anyway. What's shown is generally the important/good stuff. At least in my experience. 1250 hours of coverage is a lot.
I guess the idea is that these "technological wonders" will prevent the chaos that surrounded the Floria polls in 2000 from re-occuring.
Most of the problems associated with the 2000 election in Florida came as a result of "techological wonders" enacted well before any voting actually occured.
Slashdot Mirror
Buying out SCO was speculated early on but it never happened as it would have likely shown that the Linux supporters believed that there were enough violations to need to do that.
SCO likely wanted to be bought out so that they could bail from their rapidly sinking ship.
You mean to make money for the local, state, and federal government they will.
The big buzz these days is online music for under a buck. If they can deliver on that the money will just slide under the door in unmarked envelopes from slaphappy investors hoping that it will start the next DotCom Bubble Burst.
Before anyone goes into the online music distribution business they better seriously consider how they are going to topple iTunes. iTunes is already entrenched and is basically a buzz-word in itself. Just about everyone I know (whether they know what Spyware is or not) knows about iTunes. What they don't know is that the selection blows, hard, outside of standard bullshit.
Zeppelin and Radiohead aren't exactly fringe bands that don't deserve even a single album!
So when these new stores hit the market expecting to steal away from iTMS with the same boring bullshit they might want to think twice before doing it without twice as much boring bullshit.
No, you authorized it when you decided not to run a firewall on your computer or your network. While people expect to not have people walking in and out of their house while they aren't watching it isn't exactly as if it won't happen if there are no locked doors -- nevermind no doors at all.
What we need is more everything, less politics.
I think the more appropriate statement would have been: Don't underestimate the power of greed, my friend.
Money talks.
However, AIM users would have to click on the URL to trigger the vulnerability, which will make it harder for malicious hackers or virus writers to use it in automated attacks, Weinstein said.
The vulnerability reinforces the importance of using caution when clicking on links in IM messages, especially when they are from unknown correspondents, he said.
This probably would cause some harm but not as much as a worm/virus that would automatically send the malicious URL to all users that are away on your list.
I know that most of my less knowledgeable friends that use AOL would instantly click a URL from someone on their buddy list. I am not so sure they would do it from a random IM.
When your upstream isn't very high as it is I don't see how manually setting it to something more acceptable than "FULL BLAST" could be considered bad.
Not everyone has a 45mbit DS3 at their disposal.
When I read about this story when it broke on Friday I found nothing that mentioned that Goglia had signed an NDA *but* he had been working there for seventeen years and was the executive director of the Recording Head Division.
Now, if Seagate hadn't had the man sign some sort of NDA that specifically stated he wouldn't work for a competitor for two years then I really don't think that they have too much to stand on until WD comes out with a strikingly similar product (which inevitably they will).
No, I am not using Linux, "just because", I am using Linux because I don't want to use my Windows machine remotely.
Opening a simple SSH session to start the download at home while I am at work is the easiest solution.
I don't use my Windows machine for BitTorrent. I prefer the console client that comes with Linux.
btdownloadcurses --url "$URL" --max_upload_rate 5
That way I can start the download to my home machine at work and still have it done by the time I get there.
Well we do have the FCC deciding what's decent and what's indecent. Something that should be left up to the courts.
Why would this surprise you?
I'm a troll? pfff. At least my post had substance based on established fact. Yours was pure conjecture based on guesswork, FUD and hearsay. I have SP2 RTM installed -- you clearly do not -- and it does not constantly annoy you about AV and FW software.
Yet you continue to troll...
Wow, you're wrong, but that's not surprising. I have been running XP SP2 since the story first broke several weeks ago. In fact, I believe I mentioned under that thread that it will not install if you have a key that is not sanctioned by MS. I could have only found that out by running the installer.
You can inform it that you want to handle the monitoring of av/fw s/w manually and it will no longer _inform_ you of this lack.
You sure can with an additional mouse click in a little box (unless they changed it from the version I am running it is the same). People don't like clicking anything other than YES/NO/CANCEL. Other checkboxes scare them.
Secondly, I believe we are trying to talk about the merits of SP2, not the idiocy/laziness of the general computer using populace.
The merits of SP2 can only be discussed while making the point that it still takes a human behind the monitor to make it work correctly. The easier you make it for people to use the more likely it is that they will use it, thus raising the "merit level" of the update. Slashdotters have a lot more faith in the general public than I do (even going so far as to believe that people running Linux will be better protected) but what they fail to understand is the direct link between human failure and OS failure. Thus it is very important to discuss both.
Some of these people that you talk of probably think they have AV software installed, or perhaps it's not up to date. Anything that will make ppl take a second look and perhaps learn something is GOOD in my book.
Again you are giving the end users too much credit. I have already mentioned that these users are the same ones that blindly click YES to move through annoying boxes that show up on their screen. Do you really think that they are going to give it a second look especially when it is nothing more than an annoyance?
Thank you for pointless rebuttal, and good luck with the idle conjectures.
Thank you for your troll.
It doesn't "yell" at you for not having antivirus software, it announces, and quite rightly too.
Announcing is telling me once and going away (possibly once a boot would be acceptable w/o having to click something else). "Yelling" at me is telling me quite frequently that I don't have it installed.
Another ridiculous thing to say. The popup blocker was the most requested feature, and anytime anyone dissed IE in the past, it included that particular lack. Where do you get these ideas from?
I got them from running the Google toolbar pop-up blocker. It is much easier for me to understand. I can only imagine that it would be easier for someone else as well.
Another ridiculously empty statement: yes, it may be hassle for some people, but they have to learn somewhere. How hard can it be to click "next", "next", "finish"? For every person that goes through installing it, it means _less_ hassle for the rest of us, not more. At this point, it is clear to all that you are just engaging in pointless FUD, either for the sheer fun of trolling or perhaps regrettably, you are as dumb as you sound.
You are such a troll. First off, it's not difficult to download and install, as that wasn't what I was talking about. It is, however, an annoyance that most users will not care to deal with (these are the same people that get trojans, viruses, and spyware because they click YES through everything and fail to read what they are doing). You think that they want firewall and anti-virus notifications to pop-up? You think that they want to have their popups on valid sites not show because they have the pop-up blocker installed by default? I don't.
It's a godsend, and it works pretty well.
While it may work pretty well (depending on your own definition of that) it is certainly NOT a godsend.
It's certainly not a "godsend". If anything it is just an annoyance that most people (who will even get it installed) will shut off if they can.
So will just about everyone else who has auto-updates disabled. Many people will never install this patch. Even if they do spend the time to install it they will likely have issues out the ass.
It yells at you if you don't have virus protection enabled. It asks if you want to run your own Firewall but its is enabled by default. If you have both running it could cause you problems.
I don't particularly care for the pop-up blocker and I can't imagine that most users will care for it either.
This is going to be a big hassle for people who don't know what they are doing and it's likely going to be a big hassle for everyone else too.
Use this link for the pirates info. No sense in linking to a forum that just links to another.
Daddypants agrees.
*WE* can't trust them but the rest of the population does with little or no questioning. All in the name of protection from terrorists, communists, or whatever.
We need to learn from History.
BAMFORD: It's something that people cherish.
I think it's something that we do need to safeguard. I think it's
important to recognise that privacy, rather like trust and confidence -
once you've lost it, it's very, very difficult, if not possible, ever to
regain. It's something we need to work hard not to lose in the first
place.
CAIRNCROSS: One of the most powerful symbols
of intrusion into privacy has been the ability of the authorities to watch
over us. In that sense, George Orwell's Big Brother is alive and well,
and gleefully acquiring all the latest gadgetry. There are close-circuit
television cameras on almost every street corner, speed cameras, and
cameras that monitor people entering London's congestion charging
zone. Caoilfhionn Gallagher is a lawyer with Liberty, a campaigning
group on civil liberties, and follows the latest monitoring technologies.
What are her current concerns?
They talk as if most people care. Most people ignore the traffic cameras, the red-light cameras, the bank cameras, the whatever cameras... They openly hand over their address and telephone number to anyone who asks (in person, on the telephone, or over the Internet). These are the people that tell you that you are paranoid when you suggest to them that they might want to keep that information more private than they already are.
HARKIN: In Scandinavia and in Japan, you
have services whereby young people can pass along street corners and
they can be automatically hooked up via location based tracking to
someone who meets their personal profile for the purposes of dating or
finding a friend.
And people want this? Can't people make up their mind for themselves?
CRAWFORD: We can track a mobile phone even
if it's not in use. As long as the phone is on, we can track it every
minute of the day - in rural countryside, in cities. And, for example, in
London we can track it right down to if somebody was in, for example,
Earl's Court Exhibition Centre, we can know they're in that building.
In rural countryside, it's a little bit wide - I mean we'd know what hill
they're on.
CAIRNCROSS: Now that's wonderful if you're a
parent worrying about your child. But another usage is for companies
to track their employees. And I think you suggest it is a way of making
sure that your employee is secure if they are late returning to the office,
but you and I know that what employers really want to know is is the
guy in the pub or is he doing what he's supposed to be doing.
Back to the "save the children" thing. Let's stop appealing to the paranoid, careless parent who wants everyone else to know where his kid is and let's pay attention to the fact that it is intrusive and basically unnecessary.
CRAWFORD: Well what we're doing is we're
actually sending messages on a regular basis to phones to make sure
they continue to consent. The employee would then receive messages
saying that that phone is being tracked. He needs to know that that
phone would have to be the company's property, so really you know
another way of looking at it is saying the company has a right to know
where their property is. Obviously this is tracking which is during
office hours, and it's all been approved by the Information
Commissioner who's studied it very closely.
And when you say no? They fire you, right? In this day and age people can't just say, "oh well, I don't need a job w/a company that tracks me, I can find one in a single day somewhere else." Unfortunately for most it doesn't seem to work that way.
This is the same stuff rehashed as always. We need to better educate the public to remind them that this sort of intrusion is not a necessary part of their lives no matter how much the government and third parties want to make it be.
No no. Free has nothing to do with media coverage of an event. A free market causes control of the event by a single entity because they were willing to pay for it.
Free means that you can leave this country at your own will to watch them live in Athens.
yes, everythng is bushes fault.
Actually, you're 100% right about it not being Bush's fault. He's not fucking smart enough to think that we need to play perestroika with the Olympics. His asshole cronies, OTOH, are smart enough. Why do you think that they instituted "Free Speech Zones"? They don't want Bush's feelings to be hurt when he sees signs that read "Bush is a coke snorting, beer pissing, cock sucker that kills people for money."
get over it, no one has liked the US for about 55 years. time to accept that a move on.
And yet, a good majority of the population isn't even aware of it. Yeah, we live in a free world my ass. We are under just as much spin as ever.
I'm more interested in the X-Games. I have been watching their video coverage on the net.
the numerous cases of doping discovered recently (in cycling, athletics, soccer,...).
Doping has been big news in swimming. The Germans in the 1980s, the Chinese women in the 1990s, and then various random samplings of high-level atheletes that gained there status through the use of designer steroids and whiskey in their piss.
On top of that, U.S. viewers must verify their identity using a credit card from Visa - an NBC advertiser - though they will not be charged.
Not a Visa cardholder? You're out of luck.
Interesting but not surprising. I'm surprised you don't have to prove you were one of the 8% of the population that ate at McDonalds that day...
Some European broadcasters are limiting video to high-speed, broadband customers only, seeking to keep foreigners from connecting via international phone calls.
Oh fuck you, give me a break, no one is going to download Olympics video over dialup via an international call. It's just not worth it. Perhaps AmEx would love for you to pay for that call on their card?
"Of course you get frustrated you can't do everything you want, but compared to four years ago, this is incredibly much better," said Kristian Elster, who works on the Web site for Norwegian broadcaster NRK.
Maybe in Norway you can't see the shit on TV. NBC comes over the air here and you see a ton of stuff. Most of the really boring shit is on during the day and they play the important races at prime time (live or not). Watching video via the net doesn't impress me.
Fans are the ultimate winners, Joerg said. Even with some 12,000 hours of total TV coverage across Europe, "you cannot cover all," he said. "Broadband and mobile technology can complement the traditional television coverage."
No you can't and most of it sucks anyway. What's shown is generally the important/good stuff. At least in my experience. 1250 hours of coverage is a lot.
I guess the idea is that these "technological wonders" will prevent the chaos that surrounded the Floria polls in 2000 from re-occuring.
Most of the problems associated with the 2000 election in Florida came as a result of "techological wonders" enacted well before any voting actually occured.