It's fair enough if the network is subsidising the handset, but the iPhone is not subsidised at all. They should all be sold unlocked, as if you bought it over the counter (which you do).
The only people not being paid when someone downloads MP3s are the record shops and the RIAA, not the artists. Both the shops and the RIAA are anachronisms. And did anyone actually not get paid? Who's to say the lady would have bought the music if it wasn't available for free? If someone wanted to give me a car, I'd take it. That doesn't mean I would buy a car if I wasn't given one for free. If she lied, then the judge should have found her in contempt of court - bankrupting her for that is insane. The RIAA is not trustworthy - they decided to file a suit against a woman without any evidence of actual sharing. If the jury had an ounce of sense, they would have found her not guilty, or at least made her pay 1c per song. It fell on them to do the right thing, and they ended up looking like a bunch of hicks with pitch-forks and torches trying to burn that which they didn't like.
They could have chosen to not award any damages to the RIAA, or even decided their own. That's entirely within the jury's rights. Even something paltry like 1 cent per song, if they did want to convict. Personally, without any evidence what-so-ever, they shouldn't have even considered convicting the lady, no matter what a lying asshat she was in court. If she was that bad, the judge should have found her in contempt of court, and punished her for that.
You'd be perfectly right if it were not for the fact that there are a great deal of folks out there who are, and I choose my words carefully, idiots. Seatbelts, for example, when not used, affect other road users. It's not the driver's decision whether his mangled corpse should slam into someone else's vehicle or a pedestrian. The same goes for airbags, only this time they're there to remove the tax burden on other people when the fire service spends hours trying to remove a steering wheel from a driver's face. Seatbelts and airbags cost money, so people will frequently choose to forego them in order to save some cash when purchasing a car. That is dangerous, as it puts the price of their car ahead of their health and taxes (and the health and taxes of those around them). The government did the right thing when it made these mandatory, as it removes the "should I buy these safety features?" question so many of us would answer incorrectly, at the cost of others.
Because thinking about email as just being email is a bit short-sighted. I'm not being rude, but emails rarely start and end with the conversation, especially in a work-place. Outlook is as strong as it is because the Outlook team realises that. That's why they have built in various features people in offices love to use - shared folders, global address books, calendars, etc. It's the same reason email clients are also usually NNTP clients - it's all about communication. Calendars, shared folders, web-accessible email, IM, etc. are other facets of communication many businesses want in one single place. Microsoft has (for better or worse) made a solution that does all of that, and people seem to love it. Standing up saying everyone else is wrong isn't going to help Thunderbird, or any software, that is trying to do something most folks don't want.
So the problem there is the technician, not the technology. You could have just said "Friday: Technician faxes key to thieves, tells them where to break in and what to steal".
BT has consitently been on the side of the consumer, but the telecomms regulator (ofcom) frequently steps in to stop BT "abusing" (their words not mine) its position.
Apart from the obvious security concerns of having unknown software sniffing packets, etc. Even encrypted traffic can be intercepted by substitution of keys. At least with a known provider there are regulations regarding what can and can not happen.
So then there's no problem. This feature (and it is a feature - requested by clients) is only dangerous if it's used, not if it's not known about. How much its documented doesn't play any part in determining how secure it is.
If you RTFA you'd see this feature is needed for anyone who remotely-boots their encrypted drive. The feature is not a backdoor - it has to be enabled by someone with cryptographic access to the drive, and it only works once per setting - reboot, and it's disabled. The only way this could be a security issue is if it's enabled, and before the drive boots up again, the drive is stolen. Features like this are needed, as without them, the drive is useless for remote management, and people won't use encryption, which is obviously far more insecure than having this feature and using it correctly.
True, but it's the de facto solution to wireless functionality on Linux. The fact that it's the de facto solution AND relies on a massive hack (and Windows drivers) says an awful lot about the state of hardware support in Linux.
Nope. Any server admin (or even home user) who knows his stuff will have a streamlined CD for that task. Most servers (and even home PCs), when bought with Windows, come with such a disk. And considering Vista has drivers for the vast majority of the new SATA and RAID controllers, that's not a problem in the slightest.
Vista, for all its faults, is a great operating system. I know this is slashdot, and I'm supposed to jump up and down foaming at the mouth whenever Vista is mentioned, but I can't. I've been using it for a few months now, and it's solid as a rock. Considering it runs all my applications, whereas any Linux distro you pick can't, that rules out Linux entirely for me, and those in my office. It has the performance I want, does what I want, and gives me the hardware support and accelerated GUI I want. Considering Linux hasn't even caught up with Windows 2000 or XP, how it's suddenly going to leap ahead, get full Windows compatibility, get full hardware support, AND get killer apps developed solely for it, is beyond me. It will be playing catch-up on the desktop until we blow ourselves up.
You don't need a floppy drive to install Windows. It's simple. There are about 5 options to choose, and the default options on all of them will install Windows fine. Unless typing a product key constitutes a pain in the ass. And then there's the unattended install, where you don't even have to type anything.
I don't want to question your computer ability, as installing Windows, or even upgrading it, is as easy as it gets. Pop in the DVD/CD, click "Upgrade Windows", sit back, and you're done. To install from scratch? Pop in the DVD/CD, restart the computer, press Return a few times, and it's installed. Also, Windows has the "Files and Settings Transfer Wizard", which allows you to seamlessly copy all your personal data/application settings across from one version of Windows to a newer one, or even back to the same one should you want to. Most folks don't give a rat's ass about "vendor lock", as they just want to use a computer. Avoiding "vendor lock" is not a good enough reason for people to ditch support for some of their hardware and a good deal of their software. Most people don't use their OS as an ideological expression, but as a tool.
If everything stayed the same, then yes, in a few years Linux would dominate every other OS out there. Unfortunately that's not the case. Other OSs, with larger R&D budgets allocated to them, with comprehensive guidance from a single entity, will push the face of OSs forward, and Linux will still be playing this game of keep-up. I've seen some fantastic improvements to Linux, but the basic aspects found in most distros are still not even at the Windows 2000 level when it comes to operation, usability, support for hardware, or even ease of use.
Those reasons haven't disappeared. You still can't do 100% of what you can on Windows on Linux. Until that changes, there are real, tangible reasons for people not to switch. People don't like to compromise. There is no way any of the companies I've worked for could become 100% Linux, as there are key pieces of software that many folks use every single day that are nowhere near available on Linux. It's a shame, and it's getting better, but to say it's "there" is doing Linux a great disservice, as it entices people to sit on their laurels and not strive to actually close the gap.
Slashdot Mirror
It's fair enough if the network is subsidising the handset, but the iPhone is not subsidised at all. They should all be sold unlocked, as if you bought it over the counter (which you do).
You missed the lack of hyphen in "over hyped" in the previous sentence, and the missing comma after "course" in the sentence you quoted.
The only people not being paid when someone downloads MP3s are the record shops and the RIAA, not the artists. Both the shops and the RIAA are anachronisms. And did anyone actually not get paid? Who's to say the lady would have bought the music if it wasn't available for free? If someone wanted to give me a car, I'd take it. That doesn't mean I would buy a car if I wasn't given one for free. If she lied, then the judge should have found her in contempt of court - bankrupting her for that is insane. The RIAA is not trustworthy - they decided to file a suit against a woman without any evidence of actual sharing. If the jury had an ounce of sense, they would have found her not guilty, or at least made her pay 1c per song. It fell on them to do the right thing, and they ended up looking like a bunch of hicks with pitch-forks and torches trying to burn that which they didn't like.
They could have chosen to not award any damages to the RIAA, or even decided their own. That's entirely within the jury's rights. Even something paltry like 1 cent per song, if they did want to convict. Personally, without any evidence what-so-ever, they shouldn't have even considered convicting the lady, no matter what a lying asshat she was in court. If she was that bad, the judge should have found her in contempt of court, and punished her for that.
It's not theft.
It's slower, for one. And I say that as a die-hard Apache user.
You'd be perfectly right if it were not for the fact that there are a great deal of folks out there who are, and I choose my words carefully, idiots. Seatbelts, for example, when not used, affect other road users. It's not the driver's decision whether his mangled corpse should slam into someone else's vehicle or a pedestrian. The same goes for airbags, only this time they're there to remove the tax burden on other people when the fire service spends hours trying to remove a steering wheel from a driver's face. Seatbelts and airbags cost money, so people will frequently choose to forego them in order to save some cash when purchasing a car. That is dangerous, as it puts the price of their car ahead of their health and taxes (and the health and taxes of those around them). The government did the right thing when it made these mandatory, as it removes the "should I buy these safety features?" question so many of us would answer incorrectly, at the cost of others.
Soon they'll just have a "solve crime" button and be done with the entire show :)
Because thinking about email as just being email is a bit short-sighted. I'm not being rude, but emails rarely start and end with the conversation, especially in a work-place. Outlook is as strong as it is because the Outlook team realises that. That's why they have built in various features people in offices love to use - shared folders, global address books, calendars, etc. It's the same reason email clients are also usually NNTP clients - it's all about communication. Calendars, shared folders, web-accessible email, IM, etc. are other facets of communication many businesses want in one single place. Microsoft has (for better or worse) made a solution that does all of that, and people seem to love it. Standing up saying everyone else is wrong isn't going to help Thunderbird, or any software, that is trying to do something most folks don't want.
So the problem there is the technician, not the technology. You could have just said "Friday: Technician faxes key to thieves, tells them where to break in and what to steal".
Where in the constitution does it talk about British books?
BT has consitently been on the side of the consumer, but the telecomms regulator (ofcom) frequently steps in to stop BT "abusing" (their words not mine) its position.
Apart from the obvious security concerns of having unknown software sniffing packets, etc. Even encrypted traffic can be intercepted by substitution of keys. At least with a known provider there are regulations regarding what can and can not happen.
No, the founding fathers were rebels, and William the Conqueror was an invader.
Well, one of either will stop the video from playing :)
I can't see it!
So then there's no problem. This feature (and it is a feature - requested by clients) is only dangerous if it's used, not if it's not known about. How much its documented doesn't play any part in determining how secure it is.
If you RTFA you'd see this feature is needed for anyone who remotely-boots their encrypted drive. The feature is not a backdoor - it has to be enabled by someone with cryptographic access to the drive, and it only works once per setting - reboot, and it's disabled. The only way this could be a security issue is if it's enabled, and before the drive boots up again, the drive is stolen. Features like this are needed, as without them, the drive is useless for remote management, and people won't use encryption, which is obviously far more insecure than having this feature and using it correctly.
True, but it's the de facto solution to wireless functionality on Linux. The fact that it's the de facto solution AND relies on a massive hack (and Windows drivers) says an awful lot about the state of hardware support in Linux.
Nope. Any server admin (or even home user) who knows his stuff will have a streamlined CD for that task. Most servers (and even home PCs), when bought with Windows, come with such a disk. And considering Vista has drivers for the vast majority of the new SATA and RAID controllers, that's not a problem in the slightest.
Vista, for all its faults, is a great operating system. I know this is slashdot, and I'm supposed to jump up and down foaming at the mouth whenever Vista is mentioned, but I can't. I've been using it for a few months now, and it's solid as a rock. Considering it runs all my applications, whereas any Linux distro you pick can't, that rules out Linux entirely for me, and those in my office. It has the performance I want, does what I want, and gives me the hardware support and accelerated GUI I want. Considering Linux hasn't even caught up with Windows 2000 or XP, how it's suddenly going to leap ahead, get full Windows compatibility, get full hardware support, AND get killer apps developed solely for it, is beyond me. It will be playing catch-up on the desktop until we blow ourselves up.
You don't need a floppy drive to install Windows. It's simple. There are about 5 options to choose, and the default options on all of them will install Windows fine. Unless typing a product key constitutes a pain in the ass. And then there's the unattended install, where you don't even have to type anything.
I don't want to question your computer ability, as installing Windows, or even upgrading it, is as easy as it gets. Pop in the DVD/CD, click "Upgrade Windows", sit back, and you're done. To install from scratch? Pop in the DVD/CD, restart the computer, press Return a few times, and it's installed. Also, Windows has the "Files and Settings Transfer Wizard", which allows you to seamlessly copy all your personal data/application settings across from one version of Windows to a newer one, or even back to the same one should you want to. Most folks don't give a rat's ass about "vendor lock", as they just want to use a computer. Avoiding "vendor lock" is not a good enough reason for people to ditch support for some of their hardware and a good deal of their software. Most people don't use their OS as an ideological expression, but as a tool.
If everything stayed the same, then yes, in a few years Linux would dominate every other OS out there. Unfortunately that's not the case. Other OSs, with larger R&D budgets allocated to them, with comprehensive guidance from a single entity, will push the face of OSs forward, and Linux will still be playing this game of keep-up. I've seen some fantastic improvements to Linux, but the basic aspects found in most distros are still not even at the Windows 2000 level when it comes to operation, usability, support for hardware, or even ease of use.
Those reasons haven't disappeared. You still can't do 100% of what you can on Windows on Linux. Until that changes, there are real, tangible reasons for people not to switch. People don't like to compromise. There is no way any of the companies I've worked for could become 100% Linux, as there are key pieces of software that many folks use every single day that are nowhere near available on Linux. It's a shame, and it's getting better, but to say it's "there" is doing Linux a great disservice, as it entices people to sit on their laurels and not strive to actually close the gap.