Is it for certain that we will need new monitors for Visa? If so then I guess I won't be able to update to Visa for another 5 or so years.
You will need HDCP capabile monitors to view DRM content that its producers have encoded as requiring HDCP. How much of that content there will be is unknown. HDCP is implemented in the DVI interface, so if your monitors are analog only, you may not be able to view that type of protected content.
Of the BMW, Ford, and Abrams battle tank, which do you think is most likely to SURVIVE being driven off a cliff (maybe even with surviving passengers!), that's right, the Tank!
Well, it's off topic, as the analogy was not meant to be taken so literally, but I would disagree with you in any case. All the vehicles will be subjected to acceleration at something close to 9.8 m/s/s, but due to the tank being orders of magnitude more massive than the cars, will have a significantly higher terminal velocity. Further, that huge amount of mass means that the kinetic energy release of the impact is going to be much, much, greater than any of the other two vehicles. Furthermore, while the tank is armored, its bulk is not going to absorb very much of the impact force, transmitting it to the occupants inside. The interior of the tank itself is mostly hard steel, with little in the way of safety restraints or impact-absorbing components. The other cars, however, will reach a much lower terminal velocity, have crushable bodies that will absorb a lot of the impact force, and are built with seat belts and airbags to cushion occupants against impacts. Throw in the fact that the tank carries around 400 gallons of fuel and a wide selection of highly explosive ordnance, and I think I'd rather ride the passenger car off the cliff.
Good old fashioned self interest, likely. There are good reasons for peace. Unfortunately in the eyes of both sides there are even better reasons for conflict.Fair enough, though this assumes that all parties are acting rationally and self-interestedly - not, in my view, a safe assumption.
I'm just saying that as long as you keep your personal blinders on, and refuse to acknowledge differences in values and morals, peace is completely impossible.
And I'm just saying that removing our personal blinders and acknowledging different values and morals does not guarantee peace.
Hacking and viruses are two related but different things. Microsoft provides protection against hackers through free security updates, hotfixes, and service packs. To the extent that you can get viruses from hackers, this provides some protection against viruses. But you can also get viruses from careless computing, something that is not the result of any specific vulnerability. Anti-virus software protects you against careless computing.
I'm saying that if you want to find an end to the fighting, you have to stop vilifying the enemy, and start searching for some mutually agreeable reasons to stop fighting - and be willing to accept the fact that the group you are encountering friction with does not think the way you do. Compromise in the name of sharing the planet.
Compromise, however, requires cooperation from both parties. And if even if our values prohibit us from simply killing them all, if theirs do not, what reason do they have to compromise?
That's not a hypothetical question. If someone epoxies a flier to your windshield, the manufacturer will not remove it for free, no matter how much you argue that they should have used anti-vandalism coatings on the glass.
But Microsoft does already fix those types of problems for free (via hotfixes and service packs) and will continue to do so. That's not what anti-virus software does. Clear?
Which isn't quite the same in this case, as while you can say part of the virus/spam/etc problem is operator error...there are plenty of nasties out there that don't require action from the user, other than turning the computer on, to cause a problem.
But Microsoft does provide fixes for those problems for free. That's what patches, hotfixes and service packs are. Anti-virus is different; it's more like insurance because it protects you from doing something you shouldn't.
Bad analogy. We're talking about users running malicious code, not breakdowns or failures. More like, if you pour bleach into your gas tank because someone told you it would turbo-boost your engine, should the manufacturer fix it for free?
Afterall, viruses are nothing but exploits which take advantage of the windows bugs.
Everyone so far keeps saying that, but I don't think that's true at all. A virus is executable code that does something malicious. Unless your OS has so little functionality that it is impossible to do something malicious or to run executable code, people will get tricked into running malicious code. In slashdot tradition, the car analogy: whether your car is a BMW (OSX), a Ford (Windows), or an M1 Abrams main battle tank (*ix), it is possible to drive it off a cliff. That's not the manufacturer's fault because it's a subset of the activity that a car is expected to be able to do. It's not reasonable to expect them to clean up the mess if you do so. If you want anti-cliff-off-driving protection (in the automotive world, called "insurance") - that's extra.
You can indeed be held liable for inaction -- the concept of negligence is well-established in law.
Part of proving negligence (generally) is proving that the negligent party owed a duty of care - not just that you failed to act, but that you failed to do something you were supposed to. There is, however, no generally recognized duty to help strangers.
Turn it down. If you turn it off, you'll waste more heat trying to heat up an icy cold house each day.That seems unlikely. Assuming that the rate of heat loss from air leaks is roughly constant, and that the heat loss from conduction and radiation is proportional to the temperature differential, I don't see how you'd be worse off reheating a cold house (overcoming those losses for a brief time, and adding additional heat) as opposed to overcoming those losses all night, then adding less additional heat in the morning. The losses are the big energy sinks.
So, if you don't care about solar and other alternative energies, go ahead and live your little life, but don't scorn those who are trying to give you alternatives.
There is already a perfectly fine alternative, ready to go. I'll give you a hint: it starts with "n" and ends with "uclear". The only thing holding it back is irrational fear - and if anything will cause people to get over their fear in a hurry, it's soaring fuel costs.
Even accepting the analogy, that is irrelevant. Such behavior is unacceptable, regardless of who is doing it. If somebody posted a defense of abortion bombers, arguing that they tried nonviolent means first and so had no other choice, I would condemn them just as harshly.
They tried peaceful means first. Violence only came later.
The means are irrelevant, except that they have become so grossly disproportionate. Their very goal - the suppression of speech they find disagreeable - is illegitimate in liberal societies.
Second, these images of Muhammad are as offensive to muslims as it would be to christians to depict the Virgin Mary getting fucked by a pig with the caption "Technically, she's still a virgin."
Yet, curiously, when confronted with such works as the piss Christ and the elephant dung Virgin Mary, Christians were told to suck it up and accept that as the price of living in a pluralistic society. And guess what? They did.
I hate all DRM and refuse to buy any products that use it, unless Microsoft is selling DRM, in which case I need it and I'm appalled that they don't give it to me! For free!
Slashdot Mirror
You will need HDCP capabile monitors to view DRM content that its producers have encoded as requiring HDCP. How much of that content there will be is unknown. HDCP is implemented in the DVI interface, so if your monitors are analog only, you may not be able to view that type of protected content.
Well, it's off topic, as the analogy was not meant to be taken so literally, but I would disagree with you in any case. All the vehicles will be subjected to acceleration at something close to 9.8 m/s/s, but due to the tank being orders of magnitude more massive than the cars, will have a significantly higher terminal velocity. Further, that huge amount of mass means that the kinetic energy release of the impact is going to be much, much, greater than any of the other two vehicles. Furthermore, while the tank is armored, its bulk is not going to absorb very much of the impact force, transmitting it to the occupants inside. The interior of the tank itself is mostly hard steel, with little in the way of safety restraints or impact-absorbing components. The other cars, however, will reach a much lower terminal velocity, have crushable bodies that will absorb a lot of the impact force, and are built with seat belts and airbags to cushion occupants against impacts. Throw in the fact that the tank carries around 400 gallons of fuel and a wide selection of highly explosive ordnance, and I think I'd rather ride the passenger car off the cliff.
I'm just saying that as long as you keep your personal blinders on, and refuse to acknowledge differences in values and morals, peace is completely impossible.
And I'm just saying that removing our personal blinders and acknowledging different values and morals does not guarantee peace.
Then I would expect them to fix it for free, just as Microsoft distributes security updates, hotfixes, and service packs for free.
Hacking and viruses are two related but different things. Microsoft provides protection against hackers through free security updates, hotfixes, and service packs. To the extent that you can get viruses from hackers, this provides some protection against viruses. But you can also get viruses from careless computing, something that is not the result of any specific vulnerability. Anti-virus software protects you against careless computing.
Compromise, however, requires cooperation from both parties. And if even if our values prohibit us from simply killing them all, if theirs do not, what reason do they have to compromise?
That's not a hypothetical question. If someone epoxies a flier to your windshield, the manufacturer will not remove it for free, no matter how much you argue that they should have used anti-vandalism coatings on the glass.
The manufacturer.
should they charge you for it?
No.
But Microsoft does already fix those types of problems for free (via hotfixes and service packs) and will continue to do so. That's not what anti-virus software does. Clear?
But Microsoft does provide fixes for those problems for free. That's what patches, hotfixes and service packs are. Anti-virus is different; it's more like insurance because it protects you from doing something you shouldn't.
Bad analogy. We're talking about users running malicious code, not breakdowns or failures. More like, if you pour bleach into your gas tank because someone told you it would turbo-boost your engine, should the manufacturer fix it for free?
Everyone so far keeps saying that, but I don't think that's true at all. A virus is executable code that does something malicious. Unless your OS has so little functionality that it is impossible to do something malicious or to run executable code, people will get tricked into running malicious code. In slashdot tradition, the car analogy: whether your car is a BMW (OSX), a Ford (Windows), or an M1 Abrams main battle tank (*ix), it is possible to drive it off a cliff. That's not the manufacturer's fault because it's a subset of the activity that a car is expected to be able to do. It's not reasonable to expect them to clean up the mess if you do so. If you want anti-cliff-off-driving protection (in the automotive world, called "insurance") - that's extra.
Botuline, cyanide, ricin...Zyklon-B...
Part of proving negligence (generally) is proving that the negligent party owed a duty of care - not just that you failed to act, but that you failed to do something you were supposed to. There is, however, no generally recognized duty to help strangers.
This battleblimp is now the ultimate power in the universe. I suggest we use it.
Really? Do you have any accounts of Christian anti-abortion suicide bombers?
Turn it down. If you turn it off, you'll waste more heat trying to heat up an icy cold house each day.That seems unlikely. Assuming that the rate of heat loss from air leaks is roughly constant, and that the heat loss from conduction and radiation is proportional to the temperature differential, I don't see how you'd be worse off reheating a cold house (overcoming those losses for a brief time, and adding additional heat) as opposed to overcoming those losses all night, then adding less additional heat in the morning. The losses are the big energy sinks.
Once again, The Onion Predicts The Future.
There is already a perfectly fine alternative, ready to go. I'll give you a hint: it starts with "n" and ends with "uclear". The only thing holding it back is irrational fear - and if anything will cause people to get over their fear in a hurry, it's soaring fuel costs.
Even accepting the analogy, that is irrelevant. Such behavior is unacceptable, regardless of who is doing it. If somebody posted a defense of abortion bombers, arguing that they tried nonviolent means first and so had no other choice, I would condemn them just as harshly.
The means are irrelevant, except that they have become so grossly disproportionate. Their very goal - the suppression of speech they find disagreeable - is illegitimate in liberal societies.
Second, these images of Muhammad are as offensive to muslims as it would be to christians to depict the Virgin Mary getting fucked by a pig with the caption "Technically, she's still a virgin."
Yet, curiously, when confronted with such works as the piss Christ and the elephant dung Virgin Mary, Christians were told to suck it up and accept that as the price of living in a pluralistic society. And guess what? They did.
I vote for dog sled.
Of course, they'd have to be robotic dogs, because as we know there is no dog food on the moon.
I'm curious what the "non-computer prior art" is for Pac-Man. In any case, prior art applies to patents, not copyright.
I hate all DRM and refuse to buy any products that use it, unless Microsoft is selling DRM, in which case I need it and I'm appalled that they don't give it to me! For free!
That is to say, it's about to shuffle off this mortal coil?
I disagree. People should be allowed to consent if they want to.