Wait -- you're saying this is a good reason to allow restrictive licensing? So you can do less?
Re:If you replace enough files...
on
OSx86 Cracked Again
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Hell, I usually don't even buy boxes with discs in them, I just download the images...;^)
Re:If you replace enough files...
on
OSx86 Cracked Again
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Devil's Advocate: You've almost certainly never owned any software, unless you coded it yourself. It was licensed to you, and legally Steve Jobs has the power to dictate everything about how, when, where, and on what you run his sortware.
In other news: This has never stopped me from running any software the way I want to use it.
Most amateur and small budget PHP coders can't afford a dedicated server though. What's your advice to them? Is there a way they can protect themselves from others on the same server?
Indeed, and they're certainly quite quiet about it if you don't read their Terms of Service. A friend of mine tried to get me to sign up after he was using it for a while, and I told him a few minutes later that we're both ineligible as we're Canadians. They'll certainly let you sign up and think you can win though...
You have to script in order to use it? Huh... If scripting is unsupported, then I obviously didn't read enough and am incorrect, and I apologize. If it is supported, then it's a bug, albeit a very small one. Either way, not really that interesting.
Precedent? Interesting how you immediately jumped on Firefox and didn't consider any other possible causes, of which there are many, such as spyware inserted as a layer between the system and TCP/IP.
Why didn't you tell the original poster to just try the page with Internet Explorer? I mean, their system is otherwise clean, and while I too would hesitate to get them to open a suspicious site with it, they could simply crank the security to full and be equally protected, assuming they had all their patches.
Sounds like you had a solution waiting for a problem, and this one didn't quite fit but you threw it in anyway.
To the original poster: What are the sites showing this issue? It might be that they are actually using Unicode characters that your system isn't setup to recognize. In any case, try reinstalling Firefox. If that doesn't resolve the issue, try reinstalling TCP/IP; try the easy way first, and if that doesn't fix the issue, try the harder way. Being that you're running AOL, you will probably have to reinstall that as well for both of these methods, as it sometimes uses its own drivers.
PS: You should post messages requesting help in a forum appropriate for them. Slashdot is not a good place to request support, usually (as evidenced by your 100% Off Topic moderation). Check out Experts Exchange for one such forum, though you may have to pay for the points to ask questions. You should also take a look at How to Ask Questions the Smart Way by ESR, as posting questions on the internet (esp. to volunteers) is somewhat different from calling technical support.
One of the most interesting comments I've read on Slashdot in quite a while. Thanks for posting that.
I found an interesting short story a while ago about how copyright will eventually strangle creativity: it's called Melancholy Elephants, and it's an interesting read if you haven't seen it before.
I agree. Where's the link? I'd be willing to believe either of you, but your argument comes out looking more falsified because you don't have any citations to back it up, while the rebuttal to your arguments has at least one. Are we supposed to take you at your word?
Yeah, that's what I said. Their headline doesn't match the text of their article. Interesting, BTW, that you say that your quote was accurate but have no way of proving it.
Anyway, I don't particularly like arguing for argument's sake. Perhaps you don't like the EFF, but it's obvious that you didn't read the article all the way through or you wouldn't have worded it the way you did. Or, hey, maybe you would because you thought Slashdot was more likely to post a more polarizing article?
Then that headline is bad as well, since the actual article is very careful to state that it's only bad if that option is enabled. As for your quote, let me post the rest that you conveniently left off:
If you use the Search Across Computers feature and don't configure Google Desktop very carefully--and most people won't--Google will have copies of your tax returns, love letters, business records, financial and medical files, and whatever other text-based documents the Desktop software can index.
In fact, it kinda looks like you typed that from memory. Not a great way to quote IMHO.
San Francisco - Google today announced a new "feature" of its Google Desktop software that greatly increases the risk to consumer privacy. If a consumer chooses to use it, the new "Search Across Computers" feature will store copies of the user's Word documents, PDFs, spreadsheets and other text-based documents on Google's own servers, to enable searching from any one of the user's computers. EFF urges consumers not to use this feature, because it will make their personal data more vulnerable to subpoenas from the government and possibly private litigants, while providing a convenient one-stop-shop for hackers who've obtained a user's Google password.
The EFF isn't advising people to avoid Google Desktop, just not to enable the feature, which IMHO makes complete sense. Google can't prevent the files from being taken if they're subpoenaed and a court orders them to make them available, now can they? It's not up to Google and the EFF knows this. They're not saying anything against Google here, just that people should be careful who they let have access to their files.
Does this mean DirectX 10 will be available exclusively on Vista? Or are they simply introducing an artificial restriction here? If the latter is the case, I imagine someone will work around it fairly quickly.
I'm sorry, but even as a programmer I can see that having your program work and be maintainable is much, much more important than allowing a developer to play with new toys.
If people can't get to Google quickly, they'll change ISPs. Google has a huge bandwidth bill as it is, connecting them to the customers of the ISPs. As much as certain ISPs would like, they can't force Google to pay their "bandwidth protection" fee because if they don't and Google becomes slow, the ISPs' customers will simply go elsewhere.
Verizon et al need to concentrate on making their own service better for their real customers, the end users, instead of trying to make a grab from a made-up privilege they might be able to give websites.
Gay-friendly != gay-only. Your comparison is inaccurate. A better one would be to ask if staunch fundamentalist Christian friendly guilds be tolerated -- in which I would guess that the answer was yes.
Thanks to the two sibling posts explaining that there are other options. I enjoy my cynical rantings being quashed when it means things are better than I thought;^)
Slashdot Mirror
Wait -- you're saying this is a good reason to allow restrictive licensing? So you can do less?
Hell, I usually don't even buy boxes with discs in them, I just download the images... ;^)
Devil's Advocate: You've almost certainly never owned any software, unless you coded it yourself. It was licensed to you, and legally Steve Jobs has the power to dictate everything about how, when, where, and on what you run his sortware.
In other news: This has never stopped me from running any software the way I want to use it.
Web 3.0 -> The next Web will be posted soon, but subscribers can see it early!
Ah, cool, they've changed it then. That bold notice wasn't there previously (a few months ago I believe was when I was referred).
Most amateur and small budget PHP coders can't afford a dedicated server though. What's your advice to them? Is there a way they can protect themselves from others on the same server?
Funny how half of those (music, mail, personals) are cobranded services that Yahoo offers, eh?
Indeed, and they're certainly quite quiet about it if you don't read their Terms of Service. A friend of mine tried to get me to sign up after he was using it for a while, and I told him a few minutes later that we're both ineligible as we're Canadians. They'll certainly let you sign up and think you can win though...
You have to script in order to use it? Huh... If scripting is unsupported, then I obviously didn't read enough and am incorrect, and I apologize. If it is supported, then it's a bug, albeit a very small one. Either way, not really that interesting.
Precedent? Interesting how you immediately jumped on Firefox and didn't consider any other possible causes, of which there are many, such as spyware inserted as a layer between the system and TCP/IP.
Why didn't you tell the original poster to just try the page with Internet Explorer? I mean, their system is otherwise clean, and while I too would hesitate to get them to open a suspicious site with it, they could simply crank the security to full and be equally protected, assuming they had all their patches.
Sounds like you had a solution waiting for a problem, and this one didn't quite fit but you threw it in anyway.
To the original poster: What are the sites showing this issue? It might be that they are actually using Unicode characters that your system isn't setup to recognize. In any case, try reinstalling Firefox. If that doesn't resolve the issue, try reinstalling TCP/IP; try the easy way first, and if that doesn't fix the issue, try the harder way. Being that you're running AOL, you will probably have to reinstall that as well for both of these methods, as it sometimes uses its own drivers.
PS: You should post messages requesting help in a forum appropriate for them. Slashdot is not a good place to request support, usually (as evidenced by your 100% Off Topic moderation). Check out Experts Exchange for one such forum, though you may have to pay for the points to ask questions. You should also take a look at How to Ask Questions the Smart Way by ESR, as posting questions on the internet (esp. to volunteers) is somewhat different from calling technical support.
Maybe the implant will have "loyalty" functions for people who leave without giving notice.
Hehe, like exploding in your arm and giving you an aneurysm?
Admittedly easy to pick up in an autopsy, but interesting from a tin-foil hat standpoint.
Well, it's obviously a bug, but... Slashdot-worthy?
This just seems like something I'd quietly forward to their developers.
One of the most interesting comments I've read on Slashdot in quite a while. Thanks for posting that.
I found an interesting short story a while ago about how copyright will eventually strangle creativity: it's called Melancholy Elephants, and it's an interesting read if you haven't seen it before.
I agree. Where's the link? I'd be willing to believe either of you, but your argument comes out looking more falsified because you don't have any citations to back it up, while the rebuttal to your arguments has at least one. Are we supposed to take you at your word?
Amen, and that's a good reason why those things too should be allowed, assuming they're not "hetero-only".
If a manager wanted to get rid of you enough, they could just make you quit. (Warning: Some very evil stuff in that link.)
Yeah, that's what I said. Their headline doesn't match the text of their article. Interesting, BTW, that you say that your quote was accurate but have no way of proving it.
Anyway, I don't particularly like arguing for argument's sake. Perhaps you don't like the EFF, but it's obvious that you didn't read the article all the way through or you wouldn't have worded it the way you did. Or, hey, maybe you would because you thought Slashdot was more likely to post a more polarizing article?
Then that headline is bad as well, since the actual article is very careful to state that it's only bad if that option is enabled. As for your quote, let me post the rest that you conveniently left off:
If you use the Search Across Computers feature and don't configure Google Desktop very carefully--and most people won't--Google will have copies of your tax returns, love letters, business records, financial and medical files, and whatever other text-based documents the Desktop software can index.
In fact, it kinda looks like you typed that from memory. Not a great way to quote IMHO.
The EFF isn't advising people to avoid Google Desktop, just not to enable the feature, which IMHO makes complete sense. Google can't prevent the files from being taken if they're subpoenaed and a court orders them to make them available, now can they? It's not up to Google and the EFF knows this. They're not saying anything against Google here, just that people should be careful who they let have access to their files.
Does this mean DirectX 10 will be available exclusively on Vista? Or are they simply introducing an artificial restriction here? If the latter is the case, I imagine someone will work around it fairly quickly.
I'm sorry, but even as a programmer I can see that having your program work and be maintainable is much, much more important than allowing a developer to play with new toys.
If people can't get to Google quickly, they'll change ISPs. Google has a huge bandwidth bill as it is, connecting them to the customers of the ISPs. As much as certain ISPs would like, they can't force Google to pay their "bandwidth protection" fee because if they don't and Google becomes slow, the ISPs' customers will simply go elsewhere.
Verizon et al need to concentrate on making their own service better for their real customers, the end users, instead of trying to make a grab from a made-up privilege they might be able to give websites.
I swear to God, if I see spam with this seal in the headers, I'm switching ISPs.
Gay-friendly != gay-only. Your comparison is inaccurate. A better one would be to ask if staunch fundamentalist Christian friendly guilds be tolerated -- in which I would guess that the answer was yes.
Thanks to the two sibling posts explaining that there are other options. I enjoy my cynical rantings being quashed when it means things are better than I thought ;^)