1. Have you tried configuring network devices in Vista? How many clicks did it take to get to the TCP/IP settings, IF you do everyting in the right order. A dozen perhaps?
2. Are you sure? Are you sure? Are you sure?
The reason #2 gets brought up so often is because, well, it gets brought up so often by the OS. I tried Vista when the Business Edition first released, and it took me less than a week to decide to repave with XP so I could get back to doing work instead of trying to convince the OS to let me work.
Then again, I am a Unix admin who uses OSX at home (and now recently, at work as well), so my expectations of how the OS should behave might be a little high.
Except Firefox was not new except in name, it had an established user base that wanted to try it immediately.
I agree with your second comment. The more competition on Windows for IE, the better. Perhaps it will convince developers to quit releasing web applications which require ActiveX...
Unfortunately, due to his position, his personal opinion counts for too much. He needs to be more careful posting incendiary comments like this, because the public at large interprets his comments as the position of the rest of the Linux (and dare I say, open source) community. It does not help that his comments are so obviously not well thought out. At least think it through before inserting your foot squarely in your mouth.
Well said. You just described all the reasons that we currently use NetApp filers where I work. Transparent realtime mirroring of data to another filer a couple thousand miles away, plus having NetApp automatically respond to failures by sending out hardware and a tech in just a few hours, that is what makes a real storage solution priceless. We used to have to do it the cheap way -- and while rewarding in its own way, there is a certain bliss to being able to simply ignore the storage for the most part and focus energy on other concerns.
How was the machine configured relative to an off-the-shelf OSX installation?
While I understand that for the purposes of the contest it might have been necessary to reduce those protections, I think that before something becomes "news" we should know what the real risk is.
Does this hack require the user to manually disable protections the OS ships with, or manually enable services that default to off? The article seems light on detail.
Sales figures don't tell you the whole story either, so keep looking. If Mac users keep their machines for five years on average, versus say two and a half years average for Windows PC users, then Macs could have half the sales rate of PC's and still be staying even with market share. What you want to reliably assess is installed base.
They give a few reasons why they think DAT failed, but it seems to me that there is a big obvious one right in front that was overlooked -- sequential access. I think CD's were immediately attractive only partly because they were digital. The killer feature was random access.
I think perhaps you miss the point. Storing something digitally is not something you do because a single digital copy is somehow better than a single analog one. You do it because you can make an arbitrarily a large number of duplicate copies of the data and therefore keep it safer than a single analog one could ever be. Don't just have it at the Smithsonian... have a million perfect digital representations all over the world.
How do you equate being out in public with it being okay to track my every move? I go out every day, and thousands of people "see" me. Not a single one of them knows all the places I've been, they only see me for a moment or two. This is such a huge difference from the government tracking everywhere I go that I'm scared to think there are probably many folks like you who cannot recognize the distinction.
If we ban hands free cell phones in cars, we might as well ban passengers too. And kids. At some point we just have to accept that personal responsibility needs to play a larger role than law.
In my opinion, no, it is not a bad thing at all. I call them the one percenters. That is, the one percent of your customer base who costs ninety-nine percent of your resources. That is unscientific, but I think it makes the point.
The problem is communicating that to marketing, sales, and senior management. To them it's money -- it is difficult to convey what the real cost is (and in the grand scheme, even a fairly abusive customer is a small blip on our bandwidth radar), especially the cost in terms of reputation. Even for a relatively small customer it takes a lot of arguing to get them to let go of the recurring revenue.
... is that they think the issue is education. Everyone I know of that pirates software does it quite knowingly. Even my parents, who are 60-70 years old, are fully aware that they are running pirated copies of Windows.
Does Microsoft (and along the same lines, the RIAA, MPAA, etc) believe education is really the problem? I think it's just marketing to justify the draconian measures (DRM and the like) that they want to use to control as much of our daily lives as they can get away with. If it were really about piracy they'd just correct their business model.
and i'l bet they will be *happy* to know they're a problem, and how to get better.
I can see you've never worked at an ISP. A customer who is cut off could not care less about why, all they want is to be reconnected immediately and with no work on their part. They will threaten leaving your service, lawsuits, and practically death threats if you do not reconnect them.
Seriously, why won't this work?
Primarily it becomes an issue of volume. One call to a customer with an abusive machine will eat up the profit from that customer for months. You can't just call them and say "fix it", you have to handhold them through the process or you will almost certainly lose their revenue altogether.
I think you hit on the key ingredient. What most people want is not a system that automates, but a system that enables. Give me the information in an easy to access and use format, I will still be making the decisions.
Negative on that, Houston. Neglecting outright physical size for a moment, assuming that engine fit in the F-250 you would have to figure in the weight of the engine. So instead of a curb weight of 6395 pounds, it would be closer to 4,606,395 pounds. When you figure the horsepower/weight ratio now... you would notice that you are a lot better off sticking with the engine already in the F-250.
The door nazi does not actually need to see your receipt to know what it says. Their computers just printed the receipt, they could easily have that information somewhere else. Say, up at the security desk where a camera nazi is watching you leave the register. He sees the receipt for the CDR's, notices that you are carrying a laptop instead, and he manages to accomplish the same goal as the door nazi without actually having to stop you and make you present your receipt.
Slashdot Mirror
I really don't know much about TPM, so I cannot respond with anything more than...
I just ran this on my Intel Mac Mini:
% ioreg | grep TPM
| +-o TPM
Take it FWIW. Which may not be much.
1. Have you tried configuring network devices in Vista? How many clicks did it take to get to the TCP/IP settings, IF you do everyting in the right order. A dozen perhaps?
2. Are you sure? Are you sure? Are you sure?
The reason #2 gets brought up so often is because, well, it gets brought up so often by the OS. I tried Vista when the Business Edition first released, and it took me less than a week to decide to repave with XP so I could get back to doing work instead of trying to convince the OS to let me work.
Then again, I am a Unix admin who uses OSX at home (and now recently, at work as well), so my expectations of how the OS should behave might be a little high.
There are plenty of bad drivers out there.
Indeed there are. One of the primary means I have for identifying them is if they have their hands at 10 & 2 on the wheel.
Good driving is not defined as simply as not speeding, nor how you have your hands positioned on the wheel.
Except Firefox was not new except in name, it had an established user base that wanted to try it immediately. I agree with your second comment. The more competition on Windows for IE, the better. Perhaps it will convince developers to quit releasing web applications which require ActiveX...
Unfortunately, due to his position, his personal opinion counts for too much. He needs to be more careful posting incendiary comments like this, because the public at large interprets his comments as the position of the rest of the Linux (and dare I say, open source) community. It does not help that his comments are so obviously not well thought out. At least think it through before inserting your foot squarely in your mouth.
Well said. You just described all the reasons that we currently use NetApp filers where I work. Transparent realtime mirroring of data to another filer a couple thousand miles away, plus having NetApp automatically respond to failures by sending out hardware and a tech in just a few hours, that is what makes a real storage solution priceless. We used to have to do it the cheap way -- and while rewarding in its own way, there is a certain bliss to being able to simply ignore the storage for the most part and focus energy on other concerns.
That is the norm for Mac OS X applications.
What's so special about Apple? Why can't I be notified by Slashdot when Microsoft releases patches?
How was the machine configured relative to an off-the-shelf OSX installation?
While I understand that for the purposes of the contest it might have been necessary to reduce those protections, I think that before something becomes "news" we should know what the real risk is.
Does this hack require the user to manually disable protections the OS ships with, or manually enable services that default to off? The article seems light on detail.
Sales figures don't tell you the whole story either, so keep looking. If Mac users keep their machines for five years on average, versus say two and a half years average for Windows PC users, then Macs could have half the sales rate of PC's and still be staying even with market share. What you want to reliably assess is installed base.
They give a few reasons why they think DAT failed, but it seems to me that there is a big obvious one right in front that was overlooked -- sequential access. I think CD's were immediately attractive only partly because they were digital. The killer feature was random access.
I think perhaps you miss the point. Storing something digitally is not something you do because a single digital copy is somehow better than a single analog one. You do it because you can make an arbitrarily a large number of duplicate copies of the data and therefore keep it safer than a single analog one could ever be. Don't just have it at the Smithsonian... have a million perfect digital representations all over the world.
Either would I.
Ah yes, the foundation is well designed. But when they were mixing up the concrete they forgot the cement.
How do you equate being out in public with it being okay to track my every move? I go out every day, and thousands of people "see" me. Not a single one of them knows all the places I've been, they only see me for a moment or two. This is such a huge difference from the government tracking everywhere I go that I'm scared to think there are probably many folks like you who cannot recognize the distinction.
If we ban hands free cell phones in cars, we might as well ban passengers too. And kids. At some point we just have to accept that personal responsibility needs to play a larger role than law.
Won't matter. The average consumer will stop at "It does not work, give me my money back, NOW." They will not really care how it got that way.
In my opinion, no, it is not a bad thing at all. I call them the one percenters. That is, the one percent of your customer base who costs ninety-nine percent of your resources. That is unscientific, but I think it makes the point.
The problem is communicating that to marketing, sales, and senior management. To them it's money -- it is difficult to convey what the real cost is (and in the grand scheme, even a fairly abusive customer is a small blip on our bandwidth radar), especially the cost in terms of reputation. Even for a relatively small customer it takes a lot of arguing to get them to let go of the recurring revenue.
... is that they think the issue is education. Everyone I know of that pirates software does it quite knowingly. Even my parents, who are 60-70 years old, are fully aware that they are running pirated copies of Windows.
Does Microsoft (and along the same lines, the RIAA, MPAA, etc) believe education is really the problem? I think it's just marketing to justify the draconian measures (DRM and the like) that they want to use to control as much of our daily lives as they can get away with. If it were really about piracy they'd just correct their business model.
You interact with google employees when you use google checkout?
I can see you've never worked at an ISP. A customer who is cut off could not care less about why, all they want is to be reconnected immediately and with no work on their part. They will threaten leaving your service, lawsuits, and practically death threats if you do not reconnect them.
Seriously, why won't this work?
Primarily it becomes an issue of volume. One call to a customer with an abusive machine will eat up the profit from that customer for months. You can't just call them and say "fix it", you have to handhold them through the process or you will almost certainly lose their revenue altogether.
I think you hit on the key ingredient. What most people want is not a system that automates, but a system that enables. Give me the information in an easy to access and use format, I will still be making the decisions.
I think you misplaced a few zeroes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget
"According to Steve Garber, the NASA History website curator, the final cost of project Apollo was between $20 and $25 billion."
Negative on that, Houston. Neglecting outright physical size for a moment, assuming that engine fit in the F-250 you would have to figure in the weight of the engine. So instead of a curb weight of 6395 pounds, it would be closer to 4,606,395 pounds. When you figure the horsepower/weight ratio now ... you would notice that you are a lot better off sticking with the engine already in the F-250.
I believe you missed the point.
The door nazi does not actually need to see your receipt to know what it says. Their computers just printed the receipt, they could easily have that information somewhere else. Say, up at the security desk where a camera nazi is watching you leave the register. He sees the receipt for the CDR's, notices that you are carrying a laptop instead, and he manages to accomplish the same goal as the door nazi without actually having to stop you and make you present your receipt.