I lived within 20 miles of a nuclear power plant most of my life. Don't really see what the big deal is. Now coal I'd have a problem with, you know, actually releasing the radation into the air, unlike a properly maintained nuclear plant.
I have a restaurant. You run around town telling people we spit in each and every plate that goes out. I've lost business because of it. Are you saying I'd have to go and find each and every person that didn't come to my restaurant because of your lies? Even if I could find them all, what possible way would I have to convince them to testify for me?
Any simple solution to a complex problem is wrong.
A corporation is not an association of people. There's ONE guy at the top running things, maybe a board. Nor do the employees even agree with what their corporation may be pushing.
A corporation is not a person, and thus has no rights. It has privledges we grant it. The SC is off its rocker on this one.
Very good job. After I just explained how it wasn't a defect in the manufacturing but rather in the design, you go on to tell me all about how it was manufactured exactly as it was designed. And you accuse me of lack of critical thinking?
Yes, you do lack critial thinking. If its PURPOSEFULLY in the design, the design is fine, by definition. If the design lead to something they didn't intend to produce, then sure, you can say its a bad design. In the case of these alumbs we're discussing, they got exactly what they intended to produce. Thus the design if fine.
But then you come along, and don't like what they made. Which in itself is fine.. but you're trying to claim there's something wrong with the design, which is not your call to make.
Like the way you disparage people who say something you don't like (ex: "defective by design") by calling them "dumb", "retarded 13 yr old boys", and "Orwellean[sic]"? I guess you would know all about it, so I will yield to your expertise on the matter.
Again, you lack in thinking. There's nothing wrong with being disparaging, nor did I claim otherwise. Its when you try to claim someone else's work is actually faulty when the problem is really that you don't care for what they made that I have a problem with. No need to lie and mislead people; just tell them, "hey that's not an actual CD because it doesn't meet CD specs, and so might not work on your players."
But for some reason that's not good enough; you claim to be an expert in their product design, enough for you to comment that the design itself is flawed.
Apparently you are the one lacking critical thinking. Let me summarize the post to you: 1) You suggested it was a term used by 13 year olds. 2) I point out I'm well beyond 13. 3) You use my age to somehow indicate that my actions are Orwellian.
1) I said the term was COINED by 13 year olds. See, there's your lack of reading comprehension again. Please, go read my original post again. 2) I really never cared how old you were; you, for reasons unknown to me, brought it up. 3) Your age has nothing to do with my Orwellian comment; where the fuck do you come up with these strawmen? It has to do with the fact that "defective by design" sounds very much like doublespeak. You're trying to say something is designed to fail, when really it functions as the designers created. Twisting language to push your agenda. If that's not doublespeak, I don't know what is.
Wow, suddenly you know me so well...you can see right into my soul, apparently. I simply use the term to describe my opinions on a product, much as you might tell someone your opinion on an item is that it is a piece of junk. Is that "Orwellian" of you to tell someone not to buy something because it's a piece of junk, conjuring up pictures of some feces encrusted item buried in a landfill along with dirty diapers, used tampons, and rotting meat? No, it's just a term you use to convey your feelings. That's all it is for me. I don't go our spreading propaganda trying to rally people. Someone simply asked how DRM was a defect and I was simply familiarizing them with a somewhat common term, and then out of nowhere you started attacking me. If you had used critical thinking skills which you apparently have and I apparently do not, you would have even seen in my VERY FIRST POST ON THE MATTER that I even admitted it's not a perfectly applicable term and that it applies only "on some level".
I find it interesting that while you claim to believe its not even really appopriate, you're so strongly trying to defend it. Junk simply refers to something that's useless; I don't know where you get the idea that it conjours images of landfills and shit. Garbage maybe, but both terms are fairly generic. Defective by design isn't that generic though, nor have I seen any indication its ever been used except for maybe computer software, but it originated around DRM.
The correct answer would have been that DRM is a control mechism
Its a defect because it was unwanted....is a defective design. Yes they were purposefully there, so it's not a MANUFACTURING defect, but it can reasonably be considered a DESIGN defect.
That's where it falls apart. If the design CALLS FOR a bad sector, and its there, the disc meets the design. Thus, its NOT defective. Its also not a CD and doesn't meet specs, but it was manufactored as they intended (the design is the intent).
You're claiming there's something wrong with the design itself because it does something YOU don't like. But what you want is irrelevent. You're not the ones paying to make the discs.
It's not like I ever said that a court of law will rule that it is indeed a defect. I can't believe you want to sit and argue literal definitions on this. When somebody says their car is a piece of shit, do you tend to reply "no, I don't think so...it doesn't smell like excrement at all".
Its not a literal definition; its a phrase said by dumb people wanting to sound intelligent while disparaging something they don't like.
1) WTF does my age have to do with that? If I were 20 then it couldn't be Orwellean[sic], but since I'm 30...oh yeah, definitely some 1984 shit going down.
You're the one that mentioned you were 30. I would hope someone your age would be better at critical thinking, but I suppose its too much to ask for today.
2) Orwellian? Really? I thought that was about controlling the people, and I'm not sure who I'm supposedly trying to control here. I've got an opinion on an product and use a term that describes my opinion.
Well that's what you want isn't it? After all, if something really can be defective by design, to the layperson that must be bad right? So we should make companies not do that anymore... right? Because it's bad.
So ya, you're twisting language to push your agenda. Seems fair enough to say its Orwellian.
3) Crap, I realized too late...I'm being trolled, aren't I.
Oh ya, this is/. Anyone that argues against the group think MUST be a troll. Way to go, you really got me there!
Customers pay extra to get their voip traffic to us treated preferentially. They are perfectly free to pay for preferential traffic to another voip provider (as customers get to specify, up to a certain bandwidth, which traffic is prioritized, that limit being dependant on how much they pay. We even allow residential customers to prioritize certain traffic over others. Except for my own home connection I doubt anyone actually does that, though).
Oh, i see. You offer internet... but if you want "certain" apps to actually work over the connection they're already paying for... you expect them to pay up. Got it.
One way customers use this is to have telephony interconnects over our network to their different sites. We don't mind this at all, in fact I make it a point to help anyone who wants to do this. Same goes for IPv6 : if you want to configure it native on our network, I'll personally help you do it.
For extra fees, I'm sure.
What makes you think they don't do that already ? What keeps us alive is cooperation agreements with other small (and even somewhat larger) ISPs, and as much own infrastructure as we can get our hands on.
Yes, that's my point. This whole nonsense is driving up prices for end users needlessly. Raising prices because you can,, and no one can reasonally compete, smacks of antitrust violations. So again, what will you do when these agreements fall apart because your partners now want in on your market?
As for internet and telephony transit we have no local upstream provider, for obvious reasons.
That only makes sense if you're one of the big players, and even they have to deal with each other, but you've claimed to be a smaller operation.
We don't want the government to interfere, as it's government interference that brought us to this position in the first place. Corrupt government cannot get us out again. If we're going to beat the large telcos we're going to have to do it by adapting faster than telcos do and offering better service. And we're going to do it by only placing infrastructure in interesting locations.
Of course you don't want government interference; you want to screw users are much as possible. Of course if the government suddenly owned all the infrastructure, you'd have to compete on service alone, because all these nonsense peering agreements would go out the window. And who wants to do that when they can just screw people of money because they have no other choices?
As far as I'm concerned, the public already PAID for all the lines to be laid (and many that never were).
The problem with democracy is large numbers of clueless uninvolved "do-gooders" interfering in everything. Needless to say, what they do never turns out to be all that good.
Ya, because things were SO much better in 1910, when we had child labor, dangerous work conditions and no upward mobility. You may want to read up on what happens with unrestrained business. You might also want to read up on what happened without the "do-gooders" in eastern Europe and Russia.
So as long as they're throttling ALL traffic its fine? So the fact that Comcast owns NBC gives them a right to throttle all other channnels' websites... because NBC is internal and all the other ones aren't. Is that what you're getting at?
It might still be considered false advertising, because its deceptively similar to a CD and casual inspection wouldn't alert you to the fact that it really isn't a cd. Or it might fall under another law... but deception for profit is frowned upon and illegal... even if we're now debating which particular law is violated.
No, from a technical / manufactoring perspective, they made a disc that meets the requirements they set, but does not met the specs of a CD.
Your 1 in 1000 example doesn't hold up; if you making a Britney Spears CD, and 1 in a 1000 has a bad sector, that is a defect. If you're making a Britney Spears disc, and PURPOSEFULLY putting a bad sector on each one, knowing it violates the specs, and then calling it a CD, thats False Advertising.
The fact that you're 30 and decided to go with a nonsense term like that shows that you're willing to use Orwellean tactics to disparage something you don't like too.
Defective by design is something retarded 13 yr old boys came up with to disparage something they don't like. The discs you refer to are NOT CDs exactly because they don't meet the spec. The fact that companies lied when they called them CDs is false advertising.
You work for a shitty ISP. Care to post its name, so I know to avoid it?
VZ didn't build the network, we did, through taxes (money was given to the telecoms) and tax breaks (they didn't have to pay as much as they should have).
If you treat all VOIP as high priority, thats one thing. If you treat YOUR OWN better than your VOIP competitors, you should be forced to close your doors.
Your attitude is retarded; you're a tiny ISP. What happens when your upstream provider wants to compete, and they just raise your rates until your prices are forced higher than theirs?
So you're complaining that nobody has produced a fix while trying to convince us that a program we're free to fix is equivalent to a program we're forbidden from fixing.
You need to improve reading comprehension. I'm not complaining there's no patch. And for the large majority of users, the fact that ANY PROGRAMMER can fix the browser is irrelevent. Yup, programmers are free to fix flaws in FF. And how exactly doese that help end users, who will still rely on the automatic update feature of FF? It doesn't, they still have to wait. And that is my point; that to the typical end user, the fact that one is open and the other closed HAS NO APPRECIABLE DIFFERENCE.
No wonder the fix isn't coming fast enough to satisfy you! I think that when you encourage people to think that way you shoot yourself in the foot by conflating freedom with dependency.
I'm not conflating freedom with dependency; the freedom you talk about is irrelevent to most users, so its a non-issue.
I fully appreciate that most users aren't capable of helping or going to help, but I also don't think it's fair or wise to give the impression it's reasonable to tell people nothing practical they can do to help. We can all help by contributing time and money toward those who can help fix things.
Most users time is useless to help. If they're helping with money... might as well buy a commerical package where at least you can be reasonablly assured a fix will be tested before being rushed out the door.
Freedom is not a guarantee of help. Having free speech doesn't make one a great orator. Freedom is permission to do something. The average computer user hasn't been taught about software freedom, no thanks to the open source movement which purposefully pushes aside software freedom to speak to business interests. The average computer user hasn't been taught about why they should value community and sharing even when that means buggy software (as it will). We all want more reliable stuff but in the real world everything breaks. The fact remains that free software gives us all more options to get involved help the community than proprietary software does.
Your fatal assumption is that users WANT to be involved. They don't. They want to buy something, and have it work. Just like cars, most people aren't keen on fixing it themselves. They have other things they want to do. So your community is wholely irrelevent to them.
People just want to drive their cars (not deal with broken tires, busted timing belts, and other failures), people just want to live in houses (not deal with electrical, plumbing, and roofing problems), people just want to drink potable affordable water (not effluent from the printing plant or get water-borne diseases), and much more. But society can't afford the short-term what-about-my-project political laziness you defend. "People just want to..." doesn't help anyone understand the real world where we all have to live with broken and unsafe stuff. The question remains, particularly for those who can help such as you in this situation, how much you're willing to put into fixing things to make life better and help the community. Eschewing freedom to fix things is not at all productive. The amount of software the free software community has made and improved over 20 years is anything but "delusional".
Oh please. Society has been doing this ever since civizilation invented money. And its allowed us to progress much faster than when people had to do everything themselves. And by the way, equiating open source with freedom is nonsense. You're not any less free with closed software. The reason is that people don't care about source code just like they don't care about timing belts.
But I'm sure you grow your own food, cut your own trees to build your house, mine your own metal to build your car or bike. Yup, you do it all by yourself, because knowing the details of everything possible in the world leaves you with a bunch of free time to program on your computer.
The software "improved" over the last 20 years STILL SUCKS. I know, because I tried it, for quite a few years. I ended up buying Windows. I have better things to do that fix other peoples programs.
It wasn't flu season; who cares? Do you think viruses care what time of year it is? So that's irrelevent.
It didn't infect anymore people than the normal flu, and it killed far less than the normal flu. Those that died all had complications, just like the regular flu. The supposedly 'healthy' people weren't healthy; they were obese, which compromises your immune system.
Honestly, whats your reasoning that its not over? Remember SARS, the bird flu, and the host of other threats that went nowhere? I do. Its typical overhyping... and now we have a reason. FOR THE PROFIT OF DRUG COMPANIES.
I see a problem with that; it would allow operators like VZ to kill any competition. It's unfair to Vonage. Why should I again be forced to use the phone service my phone company dictates?
One of the problems Microsoft (and this/. thread) gets at is how out of control Microsoft's users are. Microsoft wants you to upgrade to a version of a proprietary browser that can still be compromised with some reconfiguration.
Ya, well then you're going out of your way to make yourself vunerable again. At which point, I'd have to ask... why did you bother to upgrade?
Because IE is proprietary, all IE users must wait until Microsoft genuinely fixes the bugs that allow remote code to compromise the browser even after said reconfiguration. Firefox, while vulnerable even in a default install, is free software. Firefox's destiny is in our collective hands. We decide how and when Firefox is fixed and we decide how thorough that fix is.
And to the average user, there is no differnce. They'll have to way for FF to update itself to get the patch as well, as they're waiting on the mozilla people to do so.
So while you're probably not a programmer
Actually I am.
, like most computer users, you have options with Firefox that you don't have with IE. You could learn to program and help fix Firefox's code. You stand virtually no chance of doing this with IE's code no matter how expert you become. It is of no help to look at this as though Firefox hackers are your workers so you can sit back and wait for them to deliver a fix ("I haven't seen any indication that they aren't working on a fix. What will you say if the patch comes out?").
Ya, in the real world, thats not going to happen. By the time the average user learned to progam, they'd be a new version of both IE and FF out already. As I explained, to the average user, there is no difference between FF and IE; either browser you're still at the mercy of a 3rd party for a patch.
Software freedom changes the game by giving you permission to control your computer; the more free software you run, the more control you have. Like with any other freedom how much of that permission you're willing to leverage is up to you
No, it doesn't. It puts users are the mercy of the OS community (which has an attitude "if you didn't pay for it you don't have a right to complain") instead of a company. But at the end of the day, its the same for them. Don't be delusional; people just want to USE their computers, not spend time learning to program to fix other people's software.
Not just Joe Sixpack, but Mr. Corp as well. Breaking REQUIRED functionality is less desirable than the security vunerablity, especially if there are other means (like simply not going to untrusted sites).
Your memory fails you. Firestone said the problem was that their tire wasn't rated to the standards which were required for a particular Ford model. Ford installed them as OEM tires anyway. When it came out, Ford said Firestone made a faulty tire, but Firestone responded that the tire wasn't designed to be used in the environment created by Fords one SUV model.
Sandboxing & virtualization of a sick browser is not a panacea. If the sandboxed application is compromised, it could still be controlled in its own domain and compromise cookies, passwords and anything else that it obtainable in its virtual space. It could still be used for malicious purposes, purposes that can could result in a knock on the door from the law.
Sandboxing and virtualization are sane for ANY application which is processing content from untrusted sources, regardless of whether you think them secure or not.
A hale and open sourced browser is the only safe way to go. Screw IE, any version.
Right, because FF hasn't had any major security holes. Open source does not mean secure. It means you can see the code.
Was it not the browser that would install keyloggers and dialers through the press of the [Enter] key as it would default on installation of any "signed" ActiveX, not matter how fucked up it was? Yes! Did these people have any idea of what was happening on the Internet? Yes! Fuckit, the said, system-browser integration is not debatable; Microsoft had their fun killing Netscape, now we have our fun watching them trying to fix the mess. (They wont).
Ignoring the fact that they've come along way in both securing the browser and supporting standards shows nothing they do would make you happy. I think the problem is that you're upset that, even with problems in MS software, people would STILL rather use it than your favorite OS.
Also, I haven't seen any indication that they aren't working on a fix. What will you say if the patch comes out? oh ya, it took way too long, they should have rushed it out without any kind of testing, like open source does.
A security fix which breaks other required functionality isn't much better though is it? A patch rushed out the door without much testing isn't a patch I necessarly want to install.
Slashdot Mirror
I lived within 20 miles of a nuclear power plant most of my life. Don't really see what the big deal is. Now coal I'd have a problem with, you know, actually releasing the radation into the air, unlike a properly maintained nuclear plant.
I have a restaurant. You run around town telling people we spit in each and every plate that goes out. I've lost business because of it. Are you saying I'd have to go and find each and every person that didn't come to my restaurant because of your lies? Even if I could find them all, what possible way would I have to convince them to testify for me?
Any simple solution to a complex problem is wrong.
What kind of punishment would you get for shoplifting a $16 than giving copies away to around 100 people?
I see nothing wrong with liberalism. Why do you hate freedom?
You act as if we have to accept a flaw in democracy or eliminate it, when we can simply fix the flaw.
A corporation is not an association of people. There's ONE guy at the top running things, maybe a board. Nor do the employees even agree with what their corporation may be pushing.
A corporation is not a person, and thus has no rights. It has privledges we grant it. The SC is off its rocker on this one.
Very good job. After I just explained how it wasn't a defect in the manufacturing but rather in the design, you go on to tell me all about how it was manufactured exactly as it was designed. And you accuse me of lack of critical thinking?
Yes, you do lack critial thinking. If its PURPOSEFULLY in the design, the design is fine, by definition. If the design lead to something they didn't intend to produce, then sure, you can say its a bad design. In the case of these alumbs we're discussing, they got exactly what they intended to produce. Thus the design if fine.
But then you come along, and don't like what they made. Which in itself is fine.. but you're trying to claim there's something wrong with the design, which is not your call to make.
Like the way you disparage people who say something you don't like (ex: "defective by design") by calling them "dumb", "retarded 13 yr old boys", and "Orwellean[sic]"? I guess you would know all about it, so I will yield to your expertise on the matter.
Again, you lack in thinking. There's nothing wrong with being disparaging, nor did I claim otherwise. Its when you try to claim someone else's work is actually faulty when the problem is really that you don't care for what they made that I have a problem with. No need to lie and mislead people; just tell them, "hey that's not an actual CD because it doesn't meet CD specs, and so might not work on your players."
But for some reason that's not good enough; you claim to be an expert in their product design, enough for you to comment that the design itself is flawed.
Apparently you are the one lacking critical thinking. Let me summarize the post to you:
1) You suggested it was a term used by 13 year olds.
2) I point out I'm well beyond 13.
3) You use my age to somehow indicate that my actions are Orwellian.
1) I said the term was COINED by 13 year olds. See, there's your lack of reading comprehension again. Please, go read my original post again.
2) I really never cared how old you were; you, for reasons unknown to me, brought it up.
3) Your age has nothing to do with my Orwellian comment; where the fuck do you come up with these strawmen? It has to do with the fact that "defective by design" sounds very much like doublespeak. You're trying to say something is designed to fail, when really it functions as the designers created. Twisting language to push your agenda. If that's not doublespeak, I don't know what is.
Wow, suddenly you know me so well...you can see right into my soul, apparently. I simply use the term to describe my opinions on a product, much as you might tell someone your opinion on an item is that it is a piece of junk. Is that "Orwellian" of you to tell someone not to buy something because it's a piece of junk, conjuring up pictures of some feces encrusted item buried in a landfill along with dirty diapers, used tampons, and rotting meat? No, it's just a term you use to convey your feelings. That's all it is for me. I don't go our spreading propaganda trying to rally people. Someone simply asked how DRM was a defect and I was simply familiarizing them with a somewhat common term, and then out of nowhere you started attacking me. If you had used critical thinking skills which you apparently have and I apparently do not, you would have even seen in my VERY FIRST POST ON THE MATTER that I even admitted it's not a perfectly applicable term and that it applies only "on some level".
I find it interesting that while you claim to believe its not even really appopriate, you're so strongly trying to defend it. Junk simply refers to something that's useless; I don't know where you get the idea that it conjours images of landfills and shit. Garbage maybe, but both terms are fairly generic. Defective by design isn't that generic though, nor have I seen any indication its ever been used except for maybe computer software, but it originated around DRM.
The correct answer would have been that DRM is a control mechism
A bad sector is a defect. Yes.
Its a defect because it was unwanted. ...is a defective design. Yes they were purposefully there, so it's not a MANUFACTURING defect, but it can reasonably be considered a DESIGN defect.
That's where it falls apart. If the design CALLS FOR a bad sector, and its there, the disc meets the design. Thus, its NOT defective. Its also not a CD and doesn't meet specs, but it was manufactored as they intended (the design is the intent).
You're claiming there's something wrong with the design itself because it does something YOU don't like. But what you want is irrelevent. You're not the ones paying to make the discs.
It's not like I ever said that a court of law will rule that it is indeed a defect. I can't believe you want to sit and argue literal definitions on this. When somebody says their car is a piece of shit, do you tend to reply "no, I don't think so...it doesn't smell like excrement at all".
Its not a literal definition; its a phrase said by dumb people wanting to sound intelligent while disparaging something they don't like.
1) WTF does my age have to do with that? If I were 20 then it couldn't be Orwellean[sic], but since I'm 30...oh yeah, definitely some 1984 shit going down.
You're the one that mentioned you were 30. I would hope someone your age would be better at critical thinking, but I suppose its too much to ask for today.
2) Orwellian? Really? I thought that was about controlling the people, and I'm not sure who I'm supposedly trying to control here. I've got an opinion on an product and use a term that describes my opinion.
Well that's what you want isn't it? After all, if something really can be defective by design, to the layperson that must be bad right? So we should make companies not do that anymore... right? Because it's bad.
So ya, you're twisting language to push your agenda. Seems fair enough to say its Orwellian.
3) Crap, I realized too late...I'm being trolled, aren't I.
Oh ya, this is /. Anyone that argues against the group think MUST be a troll. Way to go, you really got me there!
Wine enumlates dos now? Hmm.
Of course, your own phrase illuminates the problem. I don't want to rely on "suprisingly good luck" to run applications.
Except that as those exploits prove, people AREN'T auditing the code. Otherwise, how would they end up in the wild?
Customers pay extra to get their voip traffic to us treated preferentially. They are perfectly free to pay for preferential traffic to another voip provider (as customers get to specify, up to a certain bandwidth, which traffic is prioritized, that limit being dependant on how much they pay. We even allow residential customers to prioritize certain traffic over others. Except for my own home connection I doubt anyone actually does that, though).
Oh, i see. You offer internet... but if you want "certain" apps to actually work over the connection they're already paying for... you expect them to pay up. Got it.
One way customers use this is to have telephony interconnects over our network to their different sites. We don't mind this at all, in fact I make it a point to help anyone who wants to do this. Same goes for IPv6 : if you want to configure it native on our network, I'll personally help you do it.
For extra fees, I'm sure.
What makes you think they don't do that already ? What keeps us alive is cooperation agreements with other small (and even somewhat larger) ISPs, and as much own infrastructure as we can get our hands on.
Yes, that's my point. This whole nonsense is driving up prices for end users needlessly. Raising prices because you can,, and no one can reasonally compete, smacks of antitrust violations. So again, what will you do when these agreements fall apart because your partners now want in on your market?
As for internet and telephony transit we have no local upstream provider, for obvious reasons.
That only makes sense if you're one of the big players, and even they have to deal with each other, but you've claimed to be a smaller operation.
We don't want the government to interfere, as it's government interference that brought us to this position in the first place. Corrupt government cannot get us out again. If we're going to beat the large telcos we're going to have to do it by adapting faster than telcos do and offering better service. And we're going to do it by only placing infrastructure in interesting locations.
Of course you don't want government interference; you want to screw users are much as possible. Of course if the government suddenly owned all the infrastructure, you'd have to compete on service alone, because all these nonsense peering agreements would go out the window. And who wants to do that when they can just screw people of money because they have no other choices?
As far as I'm concerned, the public already PAID for all the lines to be laid (and many that never were).
The problem with democracy is large numbers of clueless uninvolved "do-gooders" interfering in everything. Needless to say, what they do never turns out to be all that good.
Ya, because things were SO much better in 1910, when we had child labor, dangerous work conditions and no upward mobility. You may want to read up on what happens with unrestrained business. You might also want to read up on what happened without the "do-gooders" in eastern Europe and Russia.
So as long as they're throttling ALL traffic its fine? So the fact that Comcast owns NBC gives them a right to throttle all other channnels' websites... because NBC is internal and all the other ones aren't. Is that what you're getting at?
It might still be considered false advertising, because its deceptively similar to a CD and casual inspection wouldn't alert you to the fact that it really isn't a cd. Or it might fall under another law... but deception for profit is frowned upon and illegal... even if we're now debating which particular law is violated.
No, from a technical / manufactoring perspective, they made a disc that meets the requirements they set, but does not met the specs of a CD.
Your 1 in 1000 example doesn't hold up; if you making a Britney Spears CD, and 1 in a 1000 has a bad sector, that is a defect. If you're making a Britney Spears disc, and PURPOSEFULLY putting a bad sector on each one, knowing it violates the specs, and then calling it a CD, thats False Advertising.
The fact that you're 30 and decided to go with a nonsense term like that shows that you're willing to use Orwellean tactics to disparage something you don't like too.
Defective by design is something retarded 13 yr old boys came up with to disparage something they don't like. The discs you refer to are NOT CDs exactly because they don't meet the spec. The fact that companies lied when they called them CDs is false advertising.
You work for a shitty ISP. Care to post its name, so I know to avoid it?
VZ didn't build the network, we did, through taxes (money was given to the telecoms) and tax breaks (they didn't have to pay as much as they should have).
If you treat all VOIP as high priority, thats one thing. If you treat YOUR OWN better than your VOIP competitors, you should be forced to close your doors.
Your attitude is retarded; you're a tiny ISP. What happens when your upstream provider wants to compete, and they just raise your rates until your prices are forced higher than theirs?
So your argument is that as long as they kill ALL VOIP, and not just Vonage, its fine? Well I'm sure they'll have no problem throttling majicjack too.
God damn... are you really this stupid?
So you're complaining that nobody has produced a fix while trying to convince us that a program we're free to fix is equivalent to a program we're forbidden from fixing.
You need to improve reading comprehension. I'm not complaining there's no patch. And for the large majority of users, the fact that ANY PROGRAMMER can fix the browser is irrelevent. Yup, programmers are free to fix flaws in FF. And how exactly doese that help end users, who will still rely on the automatic update feature of FF? It doesn't, they still have to wait. And that is my point; that to the typical end user, the fact that one is open and the other closed HAS NO APPRECIABLE DIFFERENCE.
No wonder the fix isn't coming fast enough to satisfy you! I think that when you encourage people to think that way you shoot yourself in the foot by conflating freedom with dependency.
I'm not conflating freedom with dependency; the freedom you talk about is irrelevent to most users, so its a non-issue.
I fully appreciate that most users aren't capable of helping or going to help, but I also don't think it's fair or wise to give the impression it's reasonable to tell people nothing practical they can do to help. We can all help by contributing time and money toward those who can help fix things.
Most users time is useless to help. If they're helping with money... might as well buy a commerical package where at least you can be reasonablly assured a fix will be tested before being rushed out the door.
Freedom is not a guarantee of help. Having free speech doesn't make one a great orator. Freedom is permission to do something. The average computer user hasn't been taught about software freedom, no thanks to the open source movement which purposefully pushes aside software freedom to speak to business interests. The average computer user hasn't been taught about why they should value community and sharing even when that means buggy software (as it will). We all want more reliable stuff but in the real world everything breaks. The fact remains that free software gives us all more options to get involved help the community than proprietary software does.
Your fatal assumption is that users WANT to be involved. They don't. They want to buy something, and have it work. Just like cars, most people aren't keen on fixing it themselves. They have other things they want to do. So your community is wholely irrelevent to them.
People just want to drive their cars (not deal with broken tires, busted timing belts, and other failures), people just want to live in houses (not deal with electrical, plumbing, and roofing problems), people just want to drink potable affordable water (not effluent from the printing plant or get water-borne diseases), and much more. But society can't afford the short-term what-about-my-project political laziness you defend. "People just want to..." doesn't help anyone understand the real world where we all have to live with broken and unsafe stuff. The question remains, particularly for those who can help such as you in this situation, how much you're willing to put into fixing things to make life better and help the community. Eschewing freedom to fix things is not at all productive. The amount of software the free software community has made and improved over 20 years is anything but "delusional".
Oh please. Society has been doing this ever since civizilation invented money. And its allowed us to progress much faster than when people had to do everything themselves. And by the way, equiating open source with freedom is nonsense. You're not any less free with closed software. The reason is that people don't care about source code just like they don't care about timing belts.
But I'm sure you grow your own food, cut your own trees to build your house, mine your own metal to build your car or bike. Yup, you do it all by yourself, because knowing the details of everything possible in the world leaves you with a bunch of free time to program on your computer.
The software "improved" over the last 20 years STILL SUCKS. I know, because I tried it, for quite a few years. I ended up buying Windows. I have better things to do that fix other peoples programs.
It wasn't flu season; who cares? Do you think viruses care what time of year it is? So that's irrelevent.
It didn't infect anymore people than the normal flu, and it killed far less than the normal flu. Those that died all had complications, just like the regular flu. The supposedly 'healthy' people weren't healthy; they were obese, which compromises your immune system.
Honestly, whats your reasoning that its not over? Remember SARS, the bird flu, and the host of other threats that went nowhere? I do. Its typical overhyping... and now we have a reason. FOR THE PROFIT OF DRUG COMPANIES.
I see a problem with that; it would allow operators like VZ to kill any competition. It's unfair to Vonage. Why should I again be forced to use the phone service my phone company dictates?
One of the problems Microsoft (and this /. thread) gets at is how out of control Microsoft's users are. Microsoft wants you to upgrade to a version of a proprietary browser that can still be compromised with some reconfiguration.
Ya, well then you're going out of your way to make yourself vunerable again. At which point, I'd have to ask... why did you bother to upgrade?
Because IE is proprietary, all IE users must wait until Microsoft genuinely fixes the bugs that allow remote code to compromise the browser even after said reconfiguration. Firefox, while vulnerable even in a default install, is free software. Firefox's destiny is in our collective hands. We decide how and when Firefox is fixed and we decide how thorough that fix is.
And to the average user, there is no differnce. They'll have to way for FF to update itself to get the patch as well, as they're waiting on the mozilla people to do so.
So while you're probably not a programmer
Actually I am.
, like most computer users, you have options with Firefox that you don't have with IE. You could learn to program and help fix Firefox's code. You stand virtually no chance of doing this with IE's code no matter how expert you become. It is of no help to look at this as though Firefox hackers are your workers so you can sit back and wait for them to deliver a fix ("I haven't seen any indication that they aren't working on a fix. What will you say if the patch comes out?").
Ya, in the real world, thats not going to happen. By the time the average user learned to progam, they'd be a new version of both IE and FF out already. As I explained, to the average user, there is no difference between FF and IE; either browser you're still at the mercy of a 3rd party for a patch.
Software freedom changes the game by giving you permission to control your computer; the more free software you run, the more control you have. Like with any other freedom how much of that permission you're willing to leverage is up to you
No, it doesn't. It puts users are the mercy of the OS community (which has an attitude "if you didn't pay for it you don't have a right to complain") instead of a company. But at the end of the day, its the same for them. Don't be delusional; people just want to USE their computers, not spend time learning to program to fix other people's software.
Not just Joe Sixpack, but Mr. Corp as well. Breaking REQUIRED functionality is less desirable than the security vunerablity, especially if there are other means (like simply not going to untrusted sites).
Your memory fails you. Firestone said the problem was that their tire wasn't rated to the standards which were required for a particular Ford model. Ford installed them as OEM tires anyway. When it came out, Ford said Firestone made a faulty tire, but Firestone responded that the tire wasn't designed to be used in the environment created by Fords one SUV model.
As usual, another analogy on /. fails...
Sandboxing & virtualization of a sick browser is not a panacea. If the sandboxed application is compromised, it could still be controlled in its own domain and compromise cookies, passwords and anything else that it obtainable in its virtual space. It could still be used for malicious purposes, purposes that can could result in a knock on the door from the law.
Sandboxing and virtualization are sane for ANY application which is processing content from untrusted sources, regardless of whether you think them secure or not.
A hale and open sourced browser is the only safe way to go. Screw IE, any version.
Right, because FF hasn't had any major security holes. Open source does not mean secure. It means you can see the code.
Was it not the browser that would install keyloggers and dialers through the press of the [Enter] key as it would default on installation of any "signed" ActiveX, not matter how fucked up it was? Yes! Did these people have any idea of what was happening on the Internet? Yes! Fuckit, the said, system-browser integration is not debatable; Microsoft had their fun killing Netscape, now we have our fun watching them trying to fix the mess. (They wont).
Ignoring the fact that they've come along way in both securing the browser and supporting standards shows nothing they do would make you happy. I think the problem is that you're upset that, even with problems in MS software, people would STILL rather use it than your favorite OS.
Also, I haven't seen any indication that they aren't working on a fix. What will you say if the patch comes out? oh ya, it took way too long, they should have rushed it out without any kind of testing, like open source does.
A security fix which breaks other required functionality isn't much better though is it? A patch rushed out the door without much testing isn't a patch I necessarly want to install.