Sure. But lets be fair, what's the cost to keep Linux fully patched as well?
The cost is exteremly minimal too; setup WSUS, set it to auto-approve all security updates, and a simple group policy change. No further costs needed.
This is the setup we run here, and conflicker was never even a concern for us. To be safe, we set a deadline to install the patch.. we picked the day before. Every computer in the company had the patch by the next day.
Uh, no its not. Would it be fair to include the cost of frequent breakdowns of Hondas because you're including all those that fail to do even basic maintence? No, you wouldn't include those costs, because you're not properly maintaining the car.. just like malware is spread by people not maintaining their computers.
I am not following your argument, since windows has a higher market share than FOSS solutions it is exempt from malware removal costs?
Not that its exempt, its that should people target Linux as much, the figure would likely be the same.
Also, if you keep up with security patches (like you should, regardless of OS), it becomes a non-issue. This is really just FUD aimed at MS, using 2001 "MS is insecure" arguements which are no longer true today.
no, they actually don't. They came up with some abboration of logic called a Use tax, which means you pay tax on something bought in another state fro the right to USE that property in your state. oh, it just happens to be the same rate as the sales tax. The courts for sme reason didn't shoot this down, but at least they said it can't be MORE than the sales tax.
Hi, you must be new here... trolling is actually discouraged on slashdot.
Hi, you must not have a brain in your head. Someone disagreeing or being angry about your post doesn't make that person a troll.
There are many different types of abuse. Physical abuse is just one type of harm.
Oh really? Thanks for cleaing that up. As if physical abuse ever comes without emotional abuse. You have never been abused, nor do you know anybody that has. Please keep your ignorance to yourself, because until you have any clue what its like, you need to STFU.
There are more insidious types of harm that exist, such as defamation, or emotional harm when it's later learned how your picture's been used.
You're harmed when someone posts, disseminates, or deals in pictures that depict you in a false, perverse way.
Defamation is not abuse. The harm you're talking about is not even in the same league as actual abuse. You likely would never know someone even did this.
It doesn't destory your life, your family, drive you to alocholism or worse. It doesn't scar you 50 years later and continue to imped having normal relationships with others.
Get a clue, or drop dead. Which-ever you prefer. All this case is doing is tying up resources better spent on ACTUAL child abuse.
No, I don't think its whining for the sake of whining. I have a Wii and PS3. Sometimes, I really just want to veg and play a game, without getting off the couch. The PS3 controller is perfect for that. The Wii is fun if I actually want to move around to play the game. Sometimes I feel more active... it hurts though that even for games like Zelda, where there's SOME movement, I can't just sit back... because I need to keep the damn thing pointed at the screen. The PS3 controller doesn't care how I'm holding it, which is nice.
This consumes the money he would've spend on that new oven and new employees, leaving him in the same position as before. So how exactly has this helped him or the economy
Those employees he would have hired have been hired by the oven maker, to meet demands for the new oven which have gone up. Also, the same is said for the Ac builders, window builders, installers, contractors, etc.
Yes, THE BAKER is in the same spot, but the economy still benifited.
Tell me why there aren't nuclear power plants in every township in the United States? That is easy to see, right? People fear for their health and safety.
And it's an irrational fear, at that. Nuclear is one of the safest, cleanest ways we could produce power, and for some reason peole want to shut nuclear plants down. I lived within throwing distance from Limerick NPP, and there weren't kids with faces melting off an deer with two heads.
So your argument is that because perfection is impossible that we shouldn't even try? Sorry but I'm not buying what you're selling.
My arguement is that there are pros and cons to police, and we need to be serious about considering if the pros are greatly outweighting the cons or not. If its 51 / 49, I'm not sure it's worth it.
The evidence that a police force is helpful to society (free or otherwise) is overwhelming. This remains true even in the face of a fairly substantial amount of corruption and abuse by that police force. Look to the looting and violence that occurs in the aftermath of many natural disasters when police are not around.
Huh? The police ARE around. You think they just all up and leave? Remove natural disaster and replace with OJ verdict. Where the police effective there? What about all the crime that CONTINUES to occur even WITH police patrols? I've been in enough situtations to understand that for the most part, you already ARE on your own, but by law you can't defend yourself.
I think one can successfully argue that the reason there isn't more crime is that most people are decent, even when left alone.
Yes it is possible for the police to become the problem rather than the solution but in the US and most other industrialized nations that is FAR from being the case. Even in ostensibly non-free countries (China) the problem isn't usually the police force but the laws and policies the police force is tasked with enforcing by the government.
I find your last statements particularly amusing. The problem isn't the police, its that the police are enforcing the law? I think that points out the biggest problem; just by having police, you put yourself at a disadvatage when those in power decide to abuse said power, as China easily demonstrates. And I can't figure out what the real difference is here, should one decide to use police (or the army) to dictate.
Not for long you wouldn't. There are places in this world where there is no substantial police or government presence. I suggest you go to one of them and then report back on how safe you feel. Take whatever weapons you like.
Not a valid scenario, since I'd be an outsider. Also, I didn't say anything about government being absent, simply a strong police force. And it seems to me that crime didn't overrun the country shortly after it's formation, and there was a lack of police over much of the US.
To steal something is to willingly effect a deprivation on the owner. To copy something has no such baggage, you can copy something and they are deprived of nothing.
Um, copyright defines who the owner is. An artist's song is under copyright, they OWN the song. That's what having rights to it means. You score 0, because you're making things up to rationalize theft.
Now my use of the word deprivation is distinct from your own use. You talk about deprived in the sense of denied whereas I talk about deprived in the sense of taken. To use other words, were I to copy something I would not be physically taking anything, but I would have use of my copy without needing to pay any money. In that sense, I may deny the owner of the original my money. On the other hand, I may decide to give them all the money I have, in which case they would not have been denied my money.
Yet the law says both definitions are one in the same. And that makes sense. If you break my window, you've not taken anything from me, yet you've deprived me of something and are liable for the value of the window. Its the same thing; the song has value (which is why we HAVE copyright to begin with; we reconize the VALUE in art and are trying to encourage artists to create it) and you've deprived the owner the value of it. You've stolen his time which he invested in the song.
Now I've cleared that little misunderstanding up.. You state (and given no reference I presume it to be your opinion) that people will not create if there is not money to motivate them. That is a load of bollocks, the strongest argument for copyright is indeed to provide motivation to create but you do it no service by claiming that there is no other way.
Oh shut up. Go research some history, and see what artists were doing PRIOR to copyright laws. Just because you're ignorant doesn't mean what I said isn't true, and that you can dismiss it out of hand. God I hate people like... get off your ass and DO YOU'RE OWN FUCKING RESEARCH. You're willfully ignornant.
How do you know their intention? By judging their actions? That seems impossible when the action you are judging is purely benign. No, you are judging the people, not the actions. Some would describe such intolerance as bigotry. As you state yourself, paying is always an option.. there is nothing stopping a copyright infringer from giving their money away.
Piss off. Yes, I am juding someone. People do that all the time, and there's nothing wrong with it. The fact that they CAN PAY AND DON'T tells me clearly their intention, and the act of downloading a song without paying is NOT benign, just because you say it is.
Sorry, what the fuck? I'd be generous if I thought you were just trolling, I really hope you're not that ignorant. I've seen some interesting twists in logic on Slashdot but this is the first time I have seen someone pull off an association fallacy in such a spectacular way. Please explain why the guy who wrote a book about the harm principle's association with your founders in any way effects the validity of said principle. I hope it's not because you are basing the value of the principle on its proponents because its a really really simple concept and you would be far better off just applying what it actually means not what you think of the guy who wrote about it.
I love when people stop talking about the argument and say "oh fallacy omgomgmogm11!1." Its shows they have no point. Your reasoning is this "A implies B but B doesn't necessarly imply A therefore B doesn't imply A." Again, please go read some books, especially those written by the Founders, in addition to the cherry picked readings you've done to back your point. People love to pick and chose pieces of text that back them up, even though the whole of it wouldn't.
You know, one of the cool things about typing on a computer is that you can go back and reword your sentences.
Ahh, I love this trick. You think that rewording makes a contradic
Its posts like these that lead me to believe there's more drugs in the water supply than anyone is willing to admit to. You're off in fantasy land; abuse means someone was actually harmed, and your idiocy is disgusting to me, who knows someone ACTUALLY abused, and your fucking nonsense is trivializing the REAL, ACTUAL PAIN my loved one continues to go through.
Pretty sure they can, as long as they don't distribute it. Why would you care? What about if someone draws a sketch of you doing something disgusting, for their own amusement, and never distributes it? Do you have any right to stop them?
Where do you get distribution entering the picture? Go check out what made Perez Hilton famous. That's pretty much ALL he is known for.
Even if all cops aren't bad, if bad cops are a big of enough problem, it does call into question whether having cops at all is worth it in a free society. Personally, I'd feel safer if I were allowed to defend myself.
Leaks are usually from leaving the battery sit in a device in your basement for years. As far as how long they last, that's not really part of the specs.. the voltages and size are, not how much power they contain.
Hmm... a gym might be a better option. Improving his physique would likely improve chancing of finding a girl... plus a good number of women at the gym are in good shape themselves.
And yet, any AA battery will work in any device which takes AA batteries.
The whole of your complaint can be rectified by "using 3rd party batteries may cause fire, weird problems.. " and so on.
Or, better yet (since we've all learned that corportations are lying scumbags that, given the oppertunity, will rip you off at the drop of a hat), build all that fancy protection circuitry right into the camera. Seriously, why does it make sense to have any of that in the battery?
This is nothing more than Panasonic trying to fleece its customers.
Slashdot Mirror
Fine. Show me where this has been a problem. I'm not so sure a rushed out patch is better than none at all either.
Sure. But lets be fair, what's the cost to keep Linux fully patched as well?
The cost is exteremly minimal too; setup WSUS, set it to auto-approve all security updates, and a simple group policy change. No further costs needed.
This is the setup we run here, and conflicker was never even a concern for us. To be safe, we set a deadline to install the patch.. we picked the day before. Every computer in the company had the patch by the next day.
Uh, no its not. Would it be fair to include the cost of frequent breakdowns of Hondas because you're including all those that fail to do even basic maintence? No, you wouldn't include those costs, because you're not properly maintaining the car.. just like malware is spread by people not maintaining their computers.
I am not following your argument, since windows has a higher market share than FOSS solutions it is exempt from malware removal costs?
Not that its exempt, its that should people target Linux as much, the figure would likely be the same.
Also, if you keep up with security patches (like you should, regardless of OS), it becomes a non-issue. This is really just FUD aimed at MS, using 2001 "MS is insecure" arguements which are no longer true today.
no, they actually don't. They came up with some abboration of logic called a Use tax, which means you pay tax on something bought in another state fro the right to USE that property in your state. oh, it just happens to be the same rate as the sales tax. The courts for sme reason didn't shoot this down, but at least they said it can't be MORE than the sales tax.
Hi, you must be new here... trolling is actually discouraged on slashdot.
Hi, you must not have a brain in your head. Someone disagreeing or being angry about your post doesn't make that person a troll.
There are many different types of abuse. Physical abuse is just one type of harm.
Oh really? Thanks for cleaing that up. As if physical abuse ever comes without emotional abuse. You have never been abused, nor do you know anybody that has. Please keep your ignorance to yourself, because until you have any clue what its like, you need to STFU.
There are more insidious types of harm that exist, such as defamation, or emotional harm when it's later learned how your picture's been used.
You're harmed when someone posts, disseminates, or deals in pictures that depict you in a false, perverse way.
Defamation is not abuse. The harm you're talking about is not even in the same league as actual abuse. You likely would never know someone even did this.
It doesn't destory your life, your family, drive you to alocholism or worse. It doesn't scar you 50 years later and continue to imped having normal relationships with others.
Get a clue, or drop dead. Which-ever you prefer. All this case is doing is tying up resources better spent on ACTUAL child abuse.
Hmm... seems quite a bit different than the acutal 4G spec being developed...
No, I don't think its whining for the sake of whining. I have a Wii and PS3. Sometimes, I really just want to veg and play a game, without getting off the couch. The PS3 controller is perfect for that. The Wii is fun if I actually want to move around to play the game. Sometimes I feel more active... it hurts though that even for games like Zelda, where there's SOME movement, I can't just sit back... because I need to keep the damn thing pointed at the screen. The PS3 controller doesn't care how I'm holding it, which is nice.
4G I believe refers to the connection via Sprint wireless card, which is a seperate technology than the WiMax.
Heh... is it still just inline scripting, or did they come up with embedable contorls, like Asp.net or the java equivolent?
This consumes the money he would've spend on that new oven and new employees, leaving him in the same position as before. So how exactly has this helped him or the economy
Those employees he would have hired have been hired by the oven maker, to meet demands for the new oven which have gone up. Also, the same is said for the Ac builders, window builders, installers, contractors, etc.
Yes, THE BAKER is in the same spot, but the economy still benifited.
Tell me why there aren't nuclear power plants in every township in the United States? That is easy to see, right? People fear for their health and safety.
And it's an irrational fear, at that. Nuclear is one of the safest, cleanest ways we could produce power, and for some reason peole want to shut nuclear plants down. I lived within throwing distance from Limerick NPP, and there weren't kids with faces melting off an deer with two heads.
Higher prices for getting less is effectively raising prices.
So your argument is that because perfection is impossible that we shouldn't even try? Sorry but I'm not buying what you're selling.
My arguement is that there are pros and cons to police, and we need to be serious about considering if the pros are greatly outweighting the cons or not. If its 51 / 49, I'm not sure it's worth it.
The evidence that a police force is helpful to society (free or otherwise) is overwhelming. This remains true even in the face of a fairly substantial amount of corruption and abuse by that police force. Look to the looting and violence that occurs in the aftermath of many natural disasters when police are not around.
Huh? The police ARE around. You think they just all up and leave? Remove natural disaster and replace with OJ verdict. Where the police effective there? What about all the crime that CONTINUES to occur even WITH police patrols? I've been in enough situtations to understand that for the most part, you already ARE on your own, but by law you can't defend yourself.
I think one can successfully argue that the reason there isn't more crime is that most people are decent, even when left alone.
Yes it is possible for the police to become the problem rather than the solution but in the US and most other industrialized nations that is FAR from being the case. Even in ostensibly non-free countries (China) the problem isn't usually the police force but the laws and policies the police force is tasked with enforcing by the government.
I find your last statements particularly amusing. The problem isn't the police, its that the police are enforcing the law? I think that points out the biggest problem; just by having police, you put yourself at a disadvatage when those in power decide to abuse said power, as China easily demonstrates. And I can't figure out what the real difference is here, should one decide to use police (or the army) to dictate.
Not for long you wouldn't. There are places in this world where there is no substantial police or government presence. I suggest you go to one of them and then report back on how safe you feel. Take whatever weapons you like.
Not a valid scenario, since I'd be an outsider. Also, I didn't say anything about government being absent, simply a strong police force. And it seems to me that crime didn't overrun the country shortly after it's formation, and there was a lack of police over much of the US.
To steal something is to willingly effect a deprivation on the owner. To copy something has no such baggage, you can copy something and they are deprived of nothing.
Um, copyright defines who the owner is. An artist's song is under copyright, they OWN the song. That's what having rights to it means. You score 0, because you're making things up to rationalize theft.
Now my use of the word deprivation is distinct from your own use. You talk about deprived in the sense of denied whereas I talk about deprived in the sense of taken. To use other words, were I to copy something I would not be physically taking anything, but I would have use of my copy without needing to pay any money. In that sense, I may deny the owner of the original my money. On the other hand, I may decide to give them all the money I have, in which case they would not have been denied my money.
Yet the law says both definitions are one in the same. And that makes sense. If you break my window, you've not taken anything from me, yet you've deprived me of something and are liable for the value of the window. Its the same thing; the song has value (which is why we HAVE copyright to begin with; we reconize the VALUE in art and are trying to encourage artists to create it) and you've deprived the owner the value of it. You've stolen his time which he invested in the song.
Now I've cleared that little misunderstanding up.. You state (and given no reference I presume it to be your opinion) that people will not create if there is not money to motivate them. That is a load of bollocks, the strongest argument for copyright is indeed to provide motivation to create but you do it no service by claiming that there is no other way.
Oh shut up. Go research some history, and see what artists were doing PRIOR to copyright laws. Just because you're ignorant doesn't mean what I said isn't true, and that you can dismiss it out of hand. God I hate people like... get off your ass and DO YOU'RE OWN FUCKING RESEARCH. You're willfully ignornant.
How do you know their intention? By judging their actions? That seems impossible when the action you are judging is purely benign. No, you are judging the people, not the actions. Some would describe such intolerance as bigotry. As you state yourself, paying is always an option.. there is nothing stopping a copyright infringer from giving their money away.
Piss off. Yes, I am juding someone. People do that all the time, and there's nothing wrong with it. The fact that they CAN PAY AND DON'T tells me clearly their intention, and the act of downloading a song without paying is NOT benign, just because you say it is.
Sorry, what the fuck? I'd be generous if I thought you were just trolling, I really hope you're not that ignorant. I've seen some interesting twists in logic on Slashdot but this is the first time I have seen someone pull off an association fallacy in such a spectacular way. Please explain why the guy who wrote a book about the harm principle's association with your founders in any way effects the validity of said principle. I hope it's not because you are basing the value of the principle on its proponents because its a really really simple concept and you would be far better off just applying what it actually means not what you think of the guy who wrote about it.
I love when people stop talking about the argument and say "oh fallacy omgomgmogm11!1." Its shows they have no point. Your reasoning is this "A implies B but B doesn't necessarly imply A therefore B doesn't imply A." Again, please go read some books, especially those written by the Founders, in addition to the cherry picked readings you've done to back your point. People love to pick and chose pieces of text that back them up, even though the whole of it wouldn't.
You know, one of the cool things about typing on a computer is that you can go back and reword your sentences.
Ahh, I love this trick. You think that rewording makes a contradic
I still wouldn't; I don't think having a chunk of the planet eaten by a black hole would be good for anyone on this rock. :-)
Its posts like these that lead me to believe there's more drugs in the water supply than anyone is willing to admit to. You're off in fantasy land; abuse means someone was actually harmed, and your idiocy is disgusting to me, who knows someone ACTUALLY abused, and your fucking nonsense is trivializing the REAL, ACTUAL PAIN my loved one continues to go through.
Pretty sure they can, as long as they don't distribute it. Why would you care? What about if someone draws a sketch of you doing something disgusting, for their own amusement, and never distributes it? Do you have any right to stop them?
Where do you get distribution entering the picture? Go check out what made Perez Hilton famous. That's pretty much ALL he is known for.
Even if all cops aren't bad, if bad cops are a big of enough problem, it does call into question whether having cops at all is worth it in a free society. Personally, I'd feel safer if I were allowed to defend myself.
I hear they have these pieces of glass built into walls now in which light may freely pass...
If Stephen Hawking says something about physics, do you require a citation from him? Nielson is recognized as one of the leading experts in his field.
Not at all. But I wouldn't listen to his ideas on beating the Taliban in Afganistan.
Leaks are usually from leaving the battery sit in a device in your basement for years. As far as how long they last, that's not really part of the specs.. the voltages and size are, not how much power they contain.
Hmm... a gym might be a better option. Improving his physique would likely improve chancing of finding a girl... plus a good number of women at the gym are in good shape themselves.
And yet, any AA battery will work in any device which takes AA batteries.
The whole of your complaint can be rectified by "using 3rd party batteries may cause fire, weird problems.. " and so on.
Or, better yet (since we've all learned that corportations are lying scumbags that, given the oppertunity, will rip you off at the drop of a hat), build all that fancy protection circuitry right into the camera. Seriously, why does it make sense to have any of that in the battery?
This is nothing more than Panasonic trying to fleece its customers.
I looked up that law, and didn't find any mention that indicated what you are claiming. Can you point me to the part that does?