It isn't only about losing Aero. A guy I work with got a new HP last year that came with vista basic, and it is completely unusably slow. It says vista capable on the case, but 2 tabs open in firefox (for them, its ebay and gmail) and try to do anything else = unresponsive.
Same thing after I figured it was spyware/malware related and reverted from the system restore partition HP provides (since you don't get disc media anymore)
Vista Capable at the low end of the spectrum is at best a complete lie.
Cost wise, probably still cheaper. I'd think that aside from in-prison crimes, the hacks don't themselves care about catching their prisoners on other crimes (like unsolved crimes from the outside, whatever) Only outside investigators would care. Guards are just working jobs, not really law enforcement with combating crime as a goal. I would think.
While it is enticing perhaps, to essentially wire tap the criminals who you know are committing a crime just by having the phones, other than specific targets of high profile people, the overall gain of listening in probably would not outweigh the cost.
I don't know, but I still have a gut feeling it'd be better to prevent all calls than try to capture them all to listen in. Anyone really sophisticated, like an organized crime boss, probably would not rely on cell phones anyway to make hits or anything. And those would be the people probably would have been worth listening in on.
But equipment to monitor signals, detect signals, locate signal sources, and trained personnel cost money that the prison system does not have. It costs more to hire a few people full time to maintain and operate all that gear, compared to just contracting out installation of a jammer, or a foily paint job.
In cost vs. benefit, I would say preventing signals is less costly than monitoring, detection, and confiscation.
Blocking removes the benefit of inmates smuggling in phones.
The naming on the ipod does that, but it also obfuscates the contents, a positive side effect if you want to add a stumbling block to sharing out songs. It is harder to give someone a copy of an album, if the album is split up between like 100 folders, and each file has an encoded unreadable name.
You can copy from an iPod to a computer with iTunes now.
When did they add that capability? When I used to use itunes, it could only copy to the ipod from the library, and not back. It only had sync options.
And if you try to connect to another itunes library, you had to erase your ipod first or it wouldn't let you. Doing this would then make your itunes library not usable until you erase the ipod again.
If they changed that, cool. But I don't think they ever would, since that helps almost no one except people who are sharing their music collections illegaly.
I know you can enable disk use and just copy the folders full of the illegible and uselessly named files, but that is pretty ugly way to share that would take a long long time to untangle. Without third party software interpreting the database, that is pretty worthless.
Convenience is really the only difference. To load up the SD card/flash drive/whatever that is not your iPod, requires forethought. But just dumping something from your iPod could be done spur of the moment. They can't stop the people who 'really' want to do it, only people who are like 'oh I have that song right here, take a copy' somewhere.
All their obfuscation stops is people who would only do it because it was convenient to do so. Everyone else would work around the problem.
Hopefully, once the X360 exclusive deal for DLC runs out, Rockstar will make a PS3 exclusive DLC for GTAIV that reinserts lost and missing gameplay aspects from previous games into GTAIV.
Also pointed out, is that people far away somehow notice you and flee as soon as you scope them with a rifle, despite the fact they probably should have no idea they are being sighted until a shot is fired. (Or hits something nearby anyway)
What is the latest? My sister got one of the 80GB iPod 'Classic' in January that works fine with Amarok. Is there a new generation already since then?
Or was it introduced in a firmware/software update? If it was in an update I'm sure she doesn't have it, and neither would I since we don't use iTunes in the first place.
But if that were all it is, a custom firmware that is just the original or slightly modified could be used to revert. I would think.
They encode the db, and rename all the files and sort them into unrecognizable folders and such to obfuscate the files.
You can enable disk mode on the ipod, and just drag and drop stuff onto it, but you can't put music on it that way for the iPod to play. They do this so you can't 'easily' (for a casual iPod user) just load up your ipod, take it to someone else's computer, and give them a copy of all your music.
Of course, this hasn't stopped anyone who really wants to do that, since free software exists to copy playlists, and tracks off of the ipod onto your pc without using iTunes exist. But it stops 'regular' iPod users from just sharing all their music everywhere.
Stopping that, is the reason that they tie your iPod to an itunes account, and why they obfuscate the music you put on the ipod with iTunes.
Other than that though, it conforms to the mass storage device.
I always just used amarok with my ipod, havn't had any problems. But I think the windows port of amarok isn't stable yet, so not really useful for windows users.
I think it is pretty stupid. The problem is people expect the plastic pedal housing a solenoid switch to be as strong as a real bass drum kick pedal. It is complete stupidity on the consumer's part.
I got rock band at launch, and within 2 months we broke my pedal. My room mate plays drums and he really abused the thing, like he hits his when he plays. It broke in half. I fixed it by screwing a diamond plate cut to fit the pedal part, and it has worked perfectly since then, better than new.
I think the class should lose based on just being stupid for thinking plastic == strength of metal.
The only metal in the original pedal was literally the spring, metal on the pcb, and in the magnetic switch. Of course you can't stomp the shit out of it.
If there's any case for class action, I'd think it would be the defective drum heads that shipped until a hardware revision a month or so later, or for the defective guitars that used leaf switches that fail after like 100,000 switches (Why even think that would be ok for this application?)
Of course, they did offer free replacement for all of these problems, for months longer than a normal warantee for a game, and they covered shipping. Even would ship you the new gear first, if you'd give them a credit card # in case you didn't send yours back.
I figure, let them switch to a per song per listen business model.
Once they do, they will see how few consumers (approximately 0%) are willing to purchase music for personal use under that kind of restriction.
Piracy will become the -only- channel for consumers to personally get music, since not a single consumer will purchase a song good for only one play. Their business model collapses, hopefully chapter 11 ensues, new management enters, abolishes overpaid execs.
Sanity can return to the music industry, but I think that it will only happen after an utter and complete failure of their 'ideal' business model.
So I say let them try to charge per song per listen. It would be quite amusing when they post their first quarter profits after adopting fully such a model. I doubt they would ever really try though, because it can't be possible that they are so blinded by greed that they can't see that adopting a pay per song per play, and ending their other distribution, is complete fail.
Problem with that though, is that while the used game market allows the game to be sold at a lower price point some guy is willing to pay, the game publisher gets only a 0% cut of that sale, having gotten their only cut from the new retail purchase.
That is their problem with used game sales. If the publishers had their own channel to sell the games used, where they got the profit from the used sale, I'm sure they would be exploiting it directly.
I think Dynasty Warriors is worse than RE2. RE2 the characters were honestly just novelty characters, with little 'challenge level' type things to play after you were done.
But in Dynasty Warriors, there's like 30000000000000000 different characters from the Romance era you can unlock by playing the same 4-6 missions 30 times in musou mode. For example: Lu Bu:
To unlock Lu Bu you must beat the following
character's Musou modes.
1. Liu Bei
2. Cao Cao
3. Sun Jian
4. Diao Chan
In order to unlock the first 3 characters you must finish from their respective
kingdoms 3 character's Musou modes as well. Diao Chan is unlocked by clearing
Musou Mode with 1 character from each kingdom. So in total you will have to
finish 13 Musou modes to get to our beloved killing machine. It will be
however quite worth the trouble to go through.
It's a horrible timesink for a hack and slash game.
Agree. My first 64bit cpu was an Athlon64 Clawhammer around 5 years ago. So developers had about 5 years to plan ahead for 64-bit capable home computer ubiquity, and for the most part did not.
Now of course, 64bit windows XP didn't launch until about 2 years later, so maybe they only had 3 years to 'really' develop, since before that it was probably still not viable for the home market. But they should have got the hint that 32-bit can not address enough memory for the ever increasingly demand of new applications and operating systems. They (not just Adobe, but most developers of popular/necessary software) should have planned ahead better.
I'm really suprised that this is even being considered. I really enjoyed the manga, but the story never got any anime release beyond a 2 part OVA. I guess it is cool that it is getting attention, but I'm just suprised is all.
Something fairly similar to this happened with Ford. Link here
A key difference though is the photos of the cars were put into a calendar for sale. Eventually Ford compromised, saying they could use the photos of their cars, just could not use the Ford logos, as they are trademarks.
Of course! Printers already are programmed to not print US legal tender, and to include identifiable codes in all things printed for tracebacks, why can't keyboards and mice be made to refuse input of anything covered by copyright?
If you can't get away with blocking all P2P traffic because it may block legitimate traffic, then how can you attempt to sue the companies making the programs that facilitate that P2P traffic that you can't block?
Having that initial premise of not being able to block all P2P proves the case that their software is not only for unlawful P2P, which in turn would make the same argument against blocking all P2P valid against persecuting the companies and sponsors of said P2P applications.
Lol reminds me of this flash based advertisement for an offsite backup solution with John Cleese.
Wish I had remembered it when all the moaning about backups/RAID/ZFS/etc was going on a couple weeks ago.
Cleese describes people who failed to back up properly as having gone insane following mental breakdowns.
I could have sworn they got in trouble for doing that because while they are tapping, the onstar system is unable to alert authorities to an emergency by its regular, intended, means.
Meaning it can't dial out 911 or whatever if you have a normal emergency, not that the cops listening in couldn't respond.
Maybe not, but I only wrote as to point out that the intrusion itself was a crime, and made no point of the relative severity if ip theft were included or not.
Op said no crime committed, and I just wanted to point out that it was still a crime.
Not really a server admin, but SMB stands for server message(messaging?) blocks. SMB is the MS windows file sharing standard basically, and Samba is basically an implementation of it for linux/unix.
I would hope enterprise environments would use something a bit more sophisticated than windows file sharing. Even then, I doubt any business would have any box with smb/samba enabled without a firewall preventing internet based or external smb connections.
Slashdot Mirror
It isn't only about losing Aero. A guy I work with got a new HP last year that came with vista basic, and it is completely unusably slow. It says vista capable on the case, but 2 tabs open in firefox (for them, its ebay and gmail) and try to do anything else = unresponsive.
Same thing after I figured it was spyware/malware related and reverted from the system restore partition HP provides (since you don't get disc media anymore)
Vista Capable at the low end of the spectrum is at best a complete lie.
Cost wise, probably still cheaper. I'd think that aside from in-prison crimes, the hacks don't themselves care about catching their prisoners on other crimes (like unsolved crimes from the outside, whatever) Only outside investigators would care. Guards are just working jobs, not really law enforcement with combating crime as a goal. I would think.
While it is enticing perhaps, to essentially wire tap the criminals who you know are committing a crime just by having the phones, other than specific targets of high profile people, the overall gain of listening in probably would not outweigh the cost.
I don't know, but I still have a gut feeling it'd be better to prevent all calls than try to capture them all to listen in. Anyone really sophisticated, like an organized crime boss, probably would not rely on cell phones anyway to make hits or anything. And those would be the people probably would have been worth listening in on.
But equipment to monitor signals, detect signals, locate signal sources, and trained personnel cost money that the prison system does not have. It costs more to hire a few people full time to maintain and operate all that gear, compared to just contracting out installation of a jammer, or a foily paint job.
In cost vs. benefit, I would say preventing signals is less costly than monitoring, detection, and confiscation.
Blocking removes the benefit of inmates smuggling in phones.
You can copy from an iPod to a computer with iTunes now.
When did they add that capability? When I used to use itunes, it could only copy to the ipod from the library, and not back. It only had sync options.
And if you try to connect to another itunes library, you had to erase your ipod first or it wouldn't let you. Doing this would then make your itunes library not usable until you erase the ipod again.
If they changed that, cool. But I don't think they ever would, since that helps almost no one except people who are sharing their music collections illegaly.
I know you can enable disk use and just copy the folders full of the illegible and uselessly named files, but that is pretty ugly way to share that would take a long long time to untangle.
Without third party software interpreting the database, that is pretty worthless.
Convenience is really the only difference. To load up the SD card/flash drive/whatever that is not your iPod, requires forethought. But just dumping something from your iPod could be done spur of the moment. They can't stop the people who 'really' want to do it, only people who are like 'oh I have that song right here, take a copy' somewhere.
All their obfuscation stops is people who would only do it because it was convenient to do so. Everyone else would work around the problem.
Hopefully, once the X360 exclusive deal for DLC runs out, Rockstar will make a PS3 exclusive DLC for GTAIV that reinserts lost and missing gameplay aspects from previous games into GTAIV.
e.g.
Summary: Tanks, Parachutes, Planes, Flamethrower, Trains, Hydraulics, Connecting Semi-truck trailers, Replays, usable Fork trucks, Car customisation, Bicycles.
Also pointed out, is that people far away somehow notice you and flee as soon as you scope them with a rifle, despite the fact they probably should have no idea they are being sighted until a shot is fired. (Or hits something nearby anyway)
What is the latest? My sister got one of the 80GB iPod 'Classic' in January that works fine with Amarok. Is there a new generation already since then?
Or was it introduced in a firmware/software update? If it was in an update I'm sure she doesn't have it, and neither would I since we don't use iTunes in the first place.
But if that were all it is, a custom firmware that is just the original or slightly modified could be used to revert. I would think.
They encode the db, and rename all the files and sort them into unrecognizable folders and such to obfuscate the files.
You can enable disk mode on the ipod, and just drag and drop stuff onto it, but you can't put music on it that way for the iPod to play. They do this so you can't 'easily' (for a casual iPod user) just load up your ipod, take it to someone else's computer, and give them a copy of all your music.
Of course, this hasn't stopped anyone who really wants to do that, since free software exists to copy playlists, and tracks off of the ipod onto your pc without using iTunes exist. But it stops 'regular' iPod users from just sharing all their music everywhere.
Stopping that, is the reason that they tie your iPod to an itunes account, and why they obfuscate the music you put on the ipod with iTunes.
Other than that though, it conforms to the mass storage device.
I always just used amarok with my ipod, havn't had any problems. But I think the windows port of amarok isn't stable yet, so not really useful for windows users.
I think it is pretty stupid. The problem is people expect the plastic pedal housing a solenoid switch to be as strong as a real bass drum kick pedal. It is complete stupidity on the consumer's part. I got rock band at launch, and within 2 months we broke my pedal. My room mate plays drums and he really abused the thing, like he hits his when he plays. It broke in half. I fixed it by screwing a diamond plate cut to fit the pedal part, and it has worked perfectly since then, better than new. I think the class should lose based on just being stupid for thinking plastic == strength of metal. The only metal in the original pedal was literally the spring, metal on the pcb, and in the magnetic switch. Of course you can't stomp the shit out of it. If there's any case for class action, I'd think it would be the defective drum heads that shipped until a hardware revision a month or so later, or for the defective guitars that used leaf switches that fail after like 100,000 switches (Why even think that would be ok for this application?) Of course, they did offer free replacement for all of these problems, for months longer than a normal warantee for a game, and they covered shipping. Even would ship you the new gear first, if you'd give them a credit card # in case you didn't send yours back.
I figure, let them switch to a per song per listen business model.
Once they do, they will see how few consumers (approximately 0%) are willing to purchase music for personal use under that kind of restriction.
Piracy will become the -only- channel for consumers to personally get music, since not a single consumer will purchase a song good for only one play. Their business model collapses, hopefully chapter 11 ensues, new management enters, abolishes overpaid execs.
Sanity can return to the music industry, but I think that it will only happen after an utter and complete failure of their 'ideal' business model.
So I say let them try to charge per song per listen. It would be quite amusing when they post their first quarter profits after adopting fully such a model. I doubt they would ever really try though, because it can't be possible that they are so blinded by greed that they can't see that adopting a pay per song per play, and ending their other distribution, is complete fail.
Problem with that though, is that while the used game market allows the game to be sold at a lower price point some guy is willing to pay, the game publisher gets only a 0% cut of that sale, having gotten their only cut from the new retail purchase.
That is their problem with used game sales. If the publishers had their own channel to sell the games used, where they got the profit from the used sale, I'm sure they would be exploiting it directly.
But in Dynasty Warriors, there's like 30000000000000000 different characters from the Romance era you can unlock by playing the same 4-6 missions 30 times in musou mode. For example: Lu Bu:
To unlock Lu Bu you must beat the following character's Musou modes. 1. Liu Bei 2. Cao Cao 3. Sun Jian 4. Diao Chan In order to unlock the first 3 characters you must finish from their respective kingdoms 3 character's Musou modes as well. Diao Chan is unlocked by clearing Musou Mode with 1 character from each kingdom. So in total you will have to finish 13 Musou modes to get to our beloved killing machine. It will be however quite worth the trouble to go through.
It's a horrible timesink for a hack and slash game.
That day is now, with its brand new feature, multiple simultaneous memory leaks (MSML), which promises to halt X-servers across the nation.
Agree. My first 64bit cpu was an Athlon64 Clawhammer around 5 years ago. So developers had about 5 years to plan ahead for 64-bit capable home computer ubiquity, and for the most part did not.
Now of course, 64bit windows XP didn't launch until about 2 years later, so maybe they only had 3 years to 'really' develop, since before that it was probably still not viable for the home market. But they should have got the hint that 32-bit can not address enough memory for the ever increasingly demand of new applications and operating systems. They (not just Adobe, but most developers of popular/necessary software) should have planned ahead better.
I'm really suprised that this is even being considered. I really enjoyed the manga, but the story never got any anime release beyond a 2 part OVA. I guess it is cool that it is getting attention, but I'm just suprised is all.
Many of the entries scare me. A lot.
Something fairly similar to this happened with Ford. Link here
A key difference though is the photos of the cars were put into a calendar for sale.
Eventually Ford compromised, saying they could use the photos of their cars, just could not use the Ford logos, as they are trademarks.
Of course! Printers already are programmed to not print US legal tender, and to include identifiable codes in all things printed for tracebacks, why can't keyboards and mice be made to refuse input of anything covered by copyright?
If you can't get away with blocking all P2P traffic because it may block legitimate traffic, then how can you attempt to sue the companies making the programs that facilitate that P2P traffic that you can't block?
Having that initial premise of not being able to block all P2P proves the case that their software is not only for unlawful P2P, which in turn would make the same argument against blocking all P2P valid against persecuting the companies and sponsors of said P2P applications.
I believe the territory you are looking for is most of Europe.
Of course, that was quite some time ago, only 30 years or so after the US became a separate country.
Lol reminds me of this flash based advertisement for an offsite backup solution with John Cleese.
Wish I had remembered it when all the moaning about backups/RAID/ZFS/etc was going on a couple weeks ago.
Cleese describes people who failed to back up properly as having gone insane following mental breakdowns.
I could have sworn they got in trouble for doing that because while they are tapping, the onstar system is unable to alert authorities to an emergency by its regular, intended, means.
Meaning it can't dial out 911 or whatever if you have a normal emergency, not that the cops listening in couldn't respond.
Maybe not, but I only wrote as to point out that the intrusion itself was a crime, and made no point of the relative severity if ip theft were included or not.
Op said no crime committed, and I just wanted to point out that it was still a crime.
Whether he took or leaked the code or not, just breaking into Valve would be an unauthorised intrusion, and a crime.
Not really a server admin, but SMB stands for server message(messaging?) blocks. SMB is the MS windows file sharing standard basically, and Samba is basically an implementation of it for linux/unix.
I would hope enterprise environments would use something a bit more sophisticated than windows file sharing. Even then, I doubt any business would have any box with smb/samba enabled without a firewall preventing internet based or external smb connections.