The problem is, we don't care what you think about us.
Yes, that is a problem.
"People who say they don't care what people think are usually desperate to have people think they don't care what people think."
-George Carlin
What I will tell you is that the [*]ubuntites are a confusing squirming mass of trustafarians who eat their own, and find spinning cubes to be of more importance than achieving real productivity in a high pressure work environment.
And here we can see your true face. You hate us. You are trying to find some way to demonstrate your supposed superiority, a way to convince (yourself or others) that your decision to always use Microsoft software is somehow justified, and your opponents are somehow deficient.
The problem is, we don't care what you think about us. You aren't convincing anyone -- us, linux users, or your supposed audience, potential netbook users. You sound like a Microsoft marketdroid, and you may or may not actually be one, however one thing is clear -- you are too stupid for us to care.
And remarkably, you truly lack the self-awareness to see what a perversion of your own cause that you have become. Was it necessary to drop the F-bomb twice in your post? Do you still kiss your mother with that mouth? What is it that makes Ubuntu zealots so hateful?
Seriously... If you are frustrated I can understand, but you publicly resorted to a vicious personal attack. Your response was neither helpful nor professional. If I were just a casual bystander reading your post, I certainly would not want to be associated with you or the causes you support. You just came across far too mean spirited and heavy handed. I'd hate to think that you were the status quo behind the Linux community, and you are not at all like I've experienced with the wonderfully helpful Mandriva community.
BTW: What have you got against using the Sugar OS on the OLPC XO? After all, they didn't design it for use with Ubuntu.
It's more along the lines that the clock speed was getting faster, but the performance wasn't proportional. Right now I've got a 2GHz Celeron laptop that is much slower at compile than my Athlon 1.47GHz. (Both have a modest 256MB RAM.) So obviously, clock speed isn't everything.
Don't get me wrong... I still love my Laptop!:-)
The important concept to keep in mind is that all these computers are powerful enough to do what I need them to do, so merely making CPU clocks tick at a higher rate isn't going to persuade me to run out and upgrade.
I'm suggesting that THAT should be illegal, just as my choice of door/window locks doesn't make stealing my fridge any less of a crime.
That's not rational. An open hole in your computer is more akin to leaving your purse on the hood of your car in a busy parking lot while you shop. Anyone can just walk by and take it. It's still stealing, and illegal, but it's hard to have any sympathy for the "victim".
They should, yes. It's my problem if I suffer an attack, but not my fault. It's the fault of the person doing it, and it's they who are/should be breaking the law and punished.
So the rabbits got into your garden... Now you want to hunt them down and kill them. Trouble is, there are a lot more rabbits out there than you realize and not all of them were responsible for what happened to your lettuce. Seems like a lot of innocent bunnies are going to get splattered if we let people run around with their shotguns shouting "kill da wabbit".
Oh, and if your computer is attacked, no... it's not your fault. If you computer is compromised by the attack, then yes... Yes it is. Your computer is your responsibility. MS, Sun, GNU/Linux, etc... have already stated they aren't responsible for any damages caused by the use of their software, and you agreed to those terms else you couldn't be posting here. Again, an attack is not your fault, but you are still the only one who should be responsible for your system following that attack. If your system is now a net-ping-flooding zombie, then you were negligent.
No - enter a freeware program which I may choose to install having decided I'm prepared to take the risk of it causing unforeseen problems.
That's reasonable too. Take whatever help you can get. Take whatever risks you are comfortable with taking. Keep in mind that taking no action has its own risk.
I don't care what it's called - if it's running on my system without my permission it's the same as a hacker - unauthorized use/modification of a computer system, and is/should be considered a crime.
I agree that you should never have to run software that you didn't authorize, however, unless you are writing all your own software, or reviewing every line of source, you don't even begin to know what all your computer is running. These multitasking networked computers of today are doing so many things in the background, not even Steve Balmer knows all the stuff his desktop PC is running. Unfortunately, when you use a modern operating system, it is nigh impossible to explicitely grant permission for every single program on that system.
There'll always be virus writers. I'm just saying that there should also always be laws and court cases to ensure that some of them get to do a little whining if their own.
There are enough laws already. Too many laws in fact. Virus writers forever? Perhaps... But Univac has long been retired, we no longer run MS DOS 2.0, ISA Slots and cards are no longer available in stores, and many, many other once popular technologies have been discarded for better systems. Do we really want or need big government entrenching us into a stagnet cops and robbers scenario?
Rather than froth at the mouth and cry for the blood of the infedels, try looking ahead towards the future where our current technology is going to be considered obsolete, and the remenants of those laws are now tyrannical dinosaurs that just won't take a hint when they are no longer relevant or just. Bad technology goes away. Inapplicable laws do not, and the legal systems that support their enforcement have a history of making themselves self-sustaining.
Ultimately the industry can regulate itself without "Big Brother" clamping down in its usual drakonian style, and if someone wants to experiment with "white worms"... well... I don't like it either, but I'm not about ready to go running tail-tucked to Barney Fife to come rescue me.
I rather like the idea that Netscape is still around. Back in my "Internet Explorer" days, Netscape seemed almost a joke. IE did everything that NS did, and it was pre-installed!
Now that the WWW is a scarier place, Mozilla is much more comforting to me than IE, but I miss some of the ease of IE when it came to the ability to play some of the "multimedia" out there.
Netscape was just as effective as IE when it came to that sort of thing, and if they can bring the "full flavor" back to the internet without the nagging security holes in Internet Explorer then it might just be worth the second chance.
I chose what runs on my machine. I don't want other people deciding on my behalf.
Normally, yes. Youchoose. But if someone knows how to run a program on your computer from someplace else on the internet, then you obviously haven't been as responsible in your choices as you thought you were in the first place.
People should be expected to take reasonable precautions to protect their own systems, but sadly, the number of security holes that have been discovered has made it quite difficult to know what is reasonable.
Is switching to Linux reasonable? For some, perhaps. Others may find this to be absolutely unreasonable, so they need to find better alternatives.
Constantly updating your software? Since the updates are being written by the same people that gave you the security holes in the first place, how effective do you think that's going to be?
Purchasing additional software such as firewalls and anti-virus? That's a good thought, but they aren't much better once a security hole is found inside of them, and then you're back to patching/updating their software and the OS software, not to mention you had to pay extra for that privledge. Bare in mind that all background services also use up your processor's time. I hope you didn't think antivirus software would make your computer run faster.
Enter the "white worm":
It finds your weak point, jumps in, looks for others with weak points, spreads if/when it finds them, then patches your security hole and dies. If it does anything else it is not a "white worm".
Keep in mind, if your computer has a security hole in it (and let's face it: They all do... *nix is not excluded!), then what good is all your handwaving and complaining about it going to do?
Do you go outside and complain when the birds eat the insects that invade your backyard because you never gave them permission?
Do you complain that the rain washes the dirt off your sidewalk when you've withheld your consent?
If you don't want to be infected by a worm (white or otherwise) patch your system effectively enough that it is no longer vulnerable, or take the system offline! You're not going to whine the virus writers out of existence, and the people who provided you with software that has security holes are probably not as brilliant as you'd hoped.
For those who won't or for lack of knowledge can't secure their systems, the white worm approach might just be more viable than people are willing to admit. If someone comes up with a novel approach to negate some of the malware out there, then so be it!
Nope. Al's songs are making fun of the original song -- the lyrics still scan similarly and there's really no other target.
What? Of course there is! If you look at all of Weird Al's music the target is RARELY the song itself- "This song is just six words long" is one such exception, but look at a couple more examples:
"Like a Surgeon" - How does this directly make fun of Madonna or the original, "Like a Virgin"? It doesn't! The accompanying video makes a few "Madona-esque" poses, but the song itself is not related. It's a jab at surgeons.
What about "Another One Rides The Bus". How does this become a jab at Queen or the infamous "Another One Bites the Dust"?
Again, it doesn't.
Of course Al can muddy the waters a bit since he gets permission anyway, so it's a non-issue for him.
Don't forget about the "Amish Paradise" issue. Coolio was not thrilled about Gangsta's Paradise being parodied (Again, how does poking fun at the Amish make fun of Coolio or the original song? Answer: It doesn't.)
What's truly sad is how the original spirit of the song by Woodie Guthry is more damaged by the legal copyright holders than the work done by the guys at Jibjab.
At the end of the Jibjab performance you see the two candidates arm in arm implying that while we all have our differences, we all still manage to get along harmoniously in the same country.
I don't see that spirit coming out of "The Richmond Organization".
This song is my song.
This song ain't your song.
If you try to use it,
We'll get nasty and litigeous because we're just that kind of greedy company that wants to squeeze every last drop of cash we can out of a dead man's legacy.
3) Drive right into you because they weren't paying attention.
Since this thing relies on really precise computer timing, human reaction would be a really BAD thing to this system. I can just imagine all kinds of cars whizzing all around like a scene out of "The Jetsons". You would have to train yourself NOT to pay attention just to have the nerve to go through an intersection like that. It really creates for a more dangerous scenario.
Thanks, but I'll stick with the annoying stop lights for now.
Collecting this information may seem scary at first, but privacy isn't really lost. Just try finding your driver's license photo online, and unless you put it there yourself, you'll see that you're fairly well protected.
The most harm that could come of this sort of system is the tendency for authorities to embarass you with such broad access to your history. Like the time the cop ran down my driving record after I denied speeding when he pulled me over for the offense. I already looked foolish enough to the passengers in my vehical, but it made me look even worse now that they knew every ticket I had for the past three years. Boy, did he ever put me in my place!
So now they will have access to the websites you surf, the television you watch, the videos you rent, the foods you buy, the property you own, the banks you use, the crimes you've committed, the people you've met, the jobs you've held, the classes you've attended, the doctors you've seen, the diseases you've had, the opionions you've expressed, the sports you play, the religion you follow, the taxes you've paid, and so on, and so on...
I guess the scariest part is when somebody else who meshes up with all the things you do and enjoy, happens to commit some kind of horrible atrocity. Now they run profiles through their database to determine other likely culprits for similar crimes, and lo- your name appears. You couldn't win the lottery, but you've won a free "closer inspection". But if you didn't do anything wrong, don't worry about it. You probably won't even know they were investigating you.
It's easy to see where potential employers may also eventually have access to this information, and that's good too, because you wouldn't want to work with somebody who has a shady history now would you? Obviously, current employers need access to this information as well. Employees can be such a handful! Personal information can help you better manage them to make them more productive.
Needless to say, one could only hope that banks will also be in line to have a shot at your personal info, because they need to know the spending habits of their clients in order to detect fraud. It's for your protection.
Eventually many responsible corperations will have some degree of access to this information to better improve the comfort and security of their clients and associates. It will bring greater stability and certainty to the markets.
And of course these records will always be available to local, state, and federal law enforcement for obvious beneficial reasons. It's much more effecient to investigators if they don't actually have to run around to investigate who, what, when, where, why, and how on a person's history. You can immediately establish links and let the obvious story fall into place. It's not as if you'll be denied a jury trial if it's a major offense.
No... Only good can come of this so called "invasion of privacy" and the sooner it starts, the better.
Note: Even when I play devil's advocate, this kind of thinking still scares the shit out of me, though I have no criminal history. Now can someone explain why that is?
I've missed messing around with MIDI since I left MS Windows, but this still looks a little too tricky for a convert like me...
~~~
Requirements (paraphrased)
- QT: Qt 3.2.0 or above
- ALSA 0.9.x or newer (cvs)
- gcc 3.x.x
NOTE: you _must_ compile MusE with the same compiler
you used to compile QT
- libsndfile 1.0.1 (current 1.0.4)
- Linux kernel with rtc (RealTimeClock) driver (device/dev/rtc)
- JACK
- fluidsynth-1.0.3 (formerly known as iiwusynth)
- of course: a soundcard and/or some midi gear
- (if you compile from cvs:) automake 1.7 and autoconf 2.54
~~~~
I don't even know "JACK", and just looking over these things I'd have to update every single one of these requirements except for the ones I don't even have installed in the first place. I guess I won't be installing this for a while...:-(
Sadly all my boxes have that on-board AC97 audio, and it has no hardware MIDI support at all. Otherwise, ALSA does a great job, and I never needed to configure anything for wave output. Just no MIDI.
(Side note: I never could get things like TiMIDIty to work right either... Guess, I'm just not quite geeky enough... yet.)
The immediate use of these "primitive" humanoid robots is probably going to be limited to entertainment and novelty, but you touch on a point that is at the very heart of why we attempt to create humanoid robots: We want artificial "friends" to do what we can't persuade actual humans to do for us.
Essentially, it's giving people the ability to say, "Hey, you won't scratch my back? Fine. I'll just go out and buy a robot, and then I won't need you at all!"
It's the social equivalent to masterbation, and yet I still want one.
Wanna bet? Once people get hooked on something, they'll moan and groan about a price-hike or some restriction put into place, but ultimately they will still keep using it because "that's what everybody else uses".
Believe me, I love using Google. They gained everyone's trust by keeping their interface simple and clean, provided excellent quality results, and did it with a seemingly ultruistic intent. It made for a very attractive package, especially for us "geek" types.
But then it started looking like Wonka's factory. People started nosing around, wanting to know all of Google's secrets, and Google clammed up. I can't recall, but did they ever go IPO?
To add to the mystery, they are starting to aquire other entities. With the previous FUD splashing around it raises the question, "How true are their intentions?"
I'm not suggesting that Google is an evil villain about to decend upon the helpless nerds in a cyber-round-up, but it does need to be watched more closely.
If the "Don't be evil" mantra doesn't hold true, then I doubt that those who were won over by that philosophy will cause any damage to what has become a true business giant.
Google is powerful now, and we all know that power tends to corrupt. Just be careful which gods you choose to serve, and hey... "Don't be evil."
How is this any scarier than "self-sustaining, swarms, of tiny" insects? Nature still has some of the scariest arsenals known to man. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find any mechination of man's that isn't handled better than those found in nature. We just haven't discovered effective ways of harnessing them.
Mild example: Did you know that a goldfish can see infrared radiation? That fish can see warm bodies through the walls in your house, and perhaps even the neighbor's house. But it takes some pretty sophisticated equipment for a human to achieve that end. Good thing that fish don't talk.;-)
- Intelligent typo interpretation. Some kind of mechanism that, if the user wishes, will browse to the correct place despite a typo such as "yahoo.cmo", with a meaningful symbol or message describing why it did what it did.
Oooo! That just spawned an even better idea in my mind: FULL BLOWN SPELL CHECKER!!! That way people who post on Slashdot won't have any excuse! Just right click on the comment window and select "Spell Check"! We'd still have that whole loose/lose argument, but I wouldn't have to wonder if my posts had typos or other creative spellings contained within them... Hmmm... Another idea: "Grammer Check"!
I'm stopping short before I digress into something awful like "Show Clippy".
You know, I have the same problem when it comes to reading patents. It's impossible for me to actually parse that "language" they use to determine just what the heck they are trying to describe.
Of course, I don't really understand why anyone needs to hold onto a patent on GIFs anyway, but such is life.
From the article: The problem with ICH6 can even the cause the computer to not boot. Some motherboard makers reported the loss to be minimal while others reported it to be rather significant.
Oh, lord... The comedic value to be had in that line alone...
Were the ones who reported that loss to be "minimal" either Windows or Linux users? In any event, the inability to boot would certainly negate my ability to download that evil free stuff off the internet, so perhaps Intel just mistakenly released their DRM version ahead of schedule.
If they're going to continue to deregulate things, they ought to completely deregulate the patent and copyright system. No more government protections for either, and the judges don't have time to hear anymore cases.
One thing that still puzzles me about this whole "internet" thing: When are we going to see significant deployments of dedicated internet only services for the masses, instead of "piggy-back" broadband technology?
Glad someone mentioned that. I check mine quite regularly. I see every click and can track every system that connects to my server. I see referring links (although tabbed browers tend to hide the referrer), IP addresses, what they were going after (or failed to get), and when it all happened. There's just too much good information in an access log to ignore it.
Personally I'm not making any attempts at revenue, but if I were ever to advertise goods and/or services via someone's website, I'd insist I see their access logs, even if I had to sign an NDA. That data is going to tell me more about the people seeing the ads than anything else you could come up with.
Review the access logs. They just don't lie.
OK... So when they get 100 000+ unique hits an hour, that's not the most practical, but a simple perl script to snag the high-lights will do nicely as well.
Come to think of it... If they're actually getting that much traffic, you're probably getting your money's worth.
Back when Microsoft first attempted to use that report they bankrolled as proof that the TCO is in favor of Windows, I thought that someone was probably going to either get demoted or lose their job. They were taking the "low road", and it was just not credible. MS going on a roadshow to convince people not to switch to Linux is just plain sad. I expected better Messers Balmer and Gates.
I'm one of the lucky ones who successfully made the transition away from Windows to Linux. What was my TCO? I'd say I've spent around $300. That includes the cost of books (most of which were of less help than I hoped), and a copy of Lycoris and its Productivity Pak. (It's a nice distro, but it feels constraining.) Ultimately I became a Mandrake user, and it is installed on all three of my PC's.
Had I stuck with using MS Windows, I would still have spent about $300, and two of my PC's would not be "Kosher" according to MS's EULA. Of course if I were to get "picky" I could toss on the cost of all the additional software (Norton's, Office, etc...) and watch the TCO plow through the roof, but then, I don't want to stoop that low.
I just wish MS, and even some Linux zealots out there would get it through their heads: There are places to use MS Windows, places to use Linux, and even places where either will do nicely. (OK, I'll even include Mac's as having a place as well...)
But to make broad claims that draw illogical conclusions based on a pile of inequitable features-- Well, it's just not very professional, and I'm once again disappointed in Microsoft.
No. An insertion sort requires 2 list structures. Bubble sorts only require one.
Insertion sorts "insert" the data in order to a second list, while bubble sorts "swap" if O[n] > O[n+1].
If you simply run a bubble sort in a nested loop, then yes, it will run n*n, but adding a simple flag that checks to see if there were no swaps during an inner loop pass followed by an exit can greatly reduce the number of unnecessary passes. Therefore, the less random the data, the better the bubblesort performs.
All that and without the need to allocate room for a second list structure.
I'll put my crudely coded Javascript quicksort algorithm against your finely honed 100% assembly bubblesort algorithm any day.
Depends on what you are sorting. Anyone will tell you that the quicksort algorithm works fastest when dealing with total randomness, but a properly designed bubblesort can quickly shake out a couple of minor swaps much faster than a quicksort.
Seriously... I've never had a cell phone. The whole "contract" thing creeped me out from the begining. I'm reading down the list of horror stories from cell phone users. This is obviously not a limited number of isolated cases.
Let me back up again... I've never had a cell phone. I don't remember people needing them back in the 70s, 80s, and most of the 90s, and they still had cars, kids, businesses, and elderly parents. So why should I need one today? Answer: I don't. And Most people probably don't need them either... but they sign up for them anyway.
Cell phone customers are among the highest in customer dissatisfaction until you point out what a sucker they've been, then they immediately switch to defensive mode to let you know that it's not as bad as what some other guy with some other company had to go through, and other straw-man face saving attempts.
People I know actually use arguments for having a cell phone such as:
"It's insurance in case I have car trouble."
I've owned several cars over the years, and at some point they all gave me car trouble. Somehow I managed to survive without a cell phone.
"I have kids, and I need to be able to get in touch with them."
My mom had kids too. I don't recall her needing a cell phone to raise us. Come to think of it, none of the other mothers needed them either, and we're all still living in the same region still raising kids.
"It was part of a deal where you get so many minutes and a free..."
Yeah, well, it's not so free when they get you with some obscured clause that allows them to charge you $200+ for whatever reason.
"My friend talked me into it"
That's it?! Was it your "friend" who works the kiosk booth selling these things at the mall?!
Nope... I'm not going to run out and buy a cell phone anytime soon. From the mentality of the people I know who have them, it's more than obvious that the radiation from those phones really does affect their brain tissue.
Why else would you put up with such abuse from a company that takes your money for a service you can easily live without?
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is, we don't care what you think about us.
Yes, that is a problem.
"People who say they don't care what people think are usually desperate to have people think they don't care what people think."
-George Carlin
What I will tell you is that the [*]ubuntites are a confusing squirming mass of trustafarians who eat their own, and find spinning cubes to be of more importance than achieving real productivity in a high pressure work environment.
And here we can see your true face. You hate us. You are trying to find some way to demonstrate your supposed superiority, a way to convince (yourself or others) that your decision to always use Microsoft software is somehow justified, and your opponents are somehow deficient.
The problem is, we don't care what you think about us. You aren't convincing anyone -- us, linux users, or your supposed audience, potential netbook users. You sound like a Microsoft marketdroid, and you may or may not actually be one, however one thing is clear -- you are too stupid for us to care.
And remarkably, you truly lack the self-awareness to see what a perversion of your own cause that you have become. Was it necessary to drop the F-bomb twice in your post? Do you still kiss your mother with that mouth? What is it that makes Ubuntu zealots so hateful?
Seriously... If you are frustrated I can understand, but you publicly resorted to a vicious personal attack. Your response was neither helpful nor professional. If I were just a casual bystander reading your post, I certainly would not want to be associated with you or the causes you support. You just came across far too mean spirited and heavy handed. I'd hate to think that you were the status quo behind the Linux community, and you are not at all like I've experienced with the wonderfully helpful Mandriva community.
BTW: What have you got against using the Sugar OS on the OLPC XO? After all, they didn't design it for use with Ubuntu.
Seriously... Even the fastest CPUs can't begin to overpower poorly written programs.
Don't get me wrong... I still love my Laptop! :-)
The important concept to keep in mind is that all these computers are powerful enough to do what I need them to do, so merely making CPU clocks tick at a higher rate isn't going to persuade me to run out and upgrade.
They're mostly patched now, but there were several cases where vbscripting and the like would automatically execute in Outlook.
That's not rational. An open hole in your computer is more akin to leaving your purse on the hood of your car in a busy parking lot while you shop. Anyone can just walk by and take it. It's still stealing, and illegal, but it's hard to have any sympathy for the "victim".
They should, yes. It's my problem if I suffer an attack, but not my fault. It's the fault of the person doing it, and it's they who are/should be breaking the law and punished.
So the rabbits got into your garden... Now you want to hunt them down and kill them. Trouble is, there are a lot more rabbits out there than you realize and not all of them were responsible for what happened to your lettuce. Seems like a lot of innocent bunnies are going to get splattered if we let people run around with their shotguns shouting "kill da wabbit".
Oh, and if your computer is attacked, no... it's not your fault. If you computer is compromised by the attack, then yes... Yes it is. Your computer is your responsibility. MS, Sun, GNU/Linux, etc... have already stated they aren't responsible for any damages caused by the use of their software, and you agreed to those terms else you couldn't be posting here. Again, an attack is not your fault, but you are still the only one who should be responsible for your system following that attack. If your system is now a net-ping-flooding zombie, then you were negligent.
No - enter a freeware program which I may choose to install having decided I'm prepared to take the risk of it causing unforeseen problems.
That's reasonable too. Take whatever help you can get. Take whatever risks you are comfortable with taking. Keep in mind that taking no action has its own risk.
I don't care what it's called - if it's running on my system without my permission it's the same as a hacker - unauthorized use/modification of a computer system, and is/should be considered a crime.
I agree that you should never have to run software that you didn't authorize, however, unless you are writing all your own software, or reviewing every line of source, you don't even begin to know what all your computer is running. These multitasking networked computers of today are doing so many things in the background, not even Steve Balmer knows all the stuff his desktop PC is running. Unfortunately, when you use a modern operating system, it is nigh impossible to explicitely grant permission for every single program on that system.
There'll always be virus writers. I'm just saying that there should also always be laws and court cases to ensure that some of them get to do a little whining if their own.
There are enough laws already. Too many laws in fact. Virus writers forever? Perhaps... But Univac has long been retired, we no longer run MS DOS 2.0, ISA Slots and cards are no longer available in stores, and many, many other once popular technologies have been discarded for better systems. Do we really want or need big government entrenching us into a stagnet cops and robbers scenario?
Rather than froth at the mouth and cry for the blood of the infedels, try looking ahead towards the future where our current technology is going to be considered obsolete, and the remenants of those laws are now tyrannical dinosaurs that just won't take a hint when they are no longer relevant or just. Bad technology goes away. Inapplicable laws do not, and the legal systems that support their enforcement have a history of making themselves self-sustaining.
Ultimately the industry can regulate itself without "Big Brother" clamping down in its usual drakonian style, and if someone wants to experiment with "white worms"... well... I don't like it either, but I'm not about ready to go running tail-tucked to Barney Fife to come rescue me.
Now that the WWW is a scarier place, Mozilla is much more comforting to me than IE, but I miss some of the ease of IE when it came to the ability to play some of the "multimedia" out there.
Netscape was just as effective as IE when it came to that sort of thing, and if they can bring the "full flavor" back to the internet without the nagging security holes in Internet Explorer then it might just be worth the second chance.
Normally, yes. You choose. But if someone knows how to run a program on your computer from someplace else on the internet, then you obviously haven't been as responsible in your choices as you thought you were in the first place.
People should be expected to take reasonable precautions to protect their own systems, but sadly, the number of security holes that have been discovered has made it quite difficult to know what is reasonable.
Is switching to Linux reasonable? For some, perhaps. Others may find this to be absolutely unreasonable, so they need to find better alternatives.
Constantly updating your software? Since the updates are being written by the same people that gave you the security holes in the first place, how effective do you think that's going to be?
Purchasing additional software such as firewalls and anti-virus? That's a good thought, but they aren't much better once a security hole is found inside of them, and then you're back to patching/updating their software and the OS software, not to mention you had to pay extra for that privledge. Bare in mind that all background services also use up your processor's time. I hope you didn't think antivirus software would make your computer run faster.
Enter the "white worm":
It finds your weak point, jumps in, looks for others with weak points, spreads if/when it finds them, then patches your security hole and dies. If it does anything else it is not a "white worm".
Keep in mind, if your computer has a security hole in it (and let's face it: They all do... *nix is not excluded!), then what good is all your handwaving and complaining about it going to do?
Do you go outside and complain when the birds eat the insects that invade your backyard because you never gave them permission?
Do you complain that the rain washes the dirt off your sidewalk when you've withheld your consent?
If you don't want to be infected by a worm (white or otherwise) patch your system effectively enough that it is no longer vulnerable, or take the system offline! You're not going to whine the virus writers out of existence, and the people who provided you with software that has security holes are probably not as brilliant as you'd hoped.
For those who won't or for lack of knowledge can't secure their systems, the white worm approach might just be more viable than people are willing to admit. If someone comes up with a novel approach to negate some of the malware out there, then so be it!
What? Of course there is! If you look at all of Weird Al's music the target is RARELY the song itself- "This song is just six words long" is one such exception, but look at a couple more examples:
"Like a Surgeon" - How does this directly make fun of Madonna or the original, "Like a Virgin"? It doesn't! The accompanying video makes a few "Madona-esque" poses, but the song itself is not related. It's a jab at surgeons.
What about "Another One Rides The Bus". How does this become a jab at Queen or the infamous "Another One Bites the Dust"?
Again, it doesn't.
Of course Al can muddy the waters a bit since he gets permission anyway, so it's a non-issue for him.
Don't forget about the "Amish Paradise" issue. Coolio was not thrilled about Gangsta's Paradise being parodied (Again, how does poking fun at the Amish make fun of Coolio or the original song? Answer: It doesn't.)
What's truly sad is how the original spirit of the song by Woodie Guthry is more damaged by the legal copyright holders than the work done by the guys at Jibjab. At the end of the Jibjab performance you see the two candidates arm in arm implying that while we all have our differences, we all still manage to get along harmoniously in the same country.
I don't see that spirit coming out of "The Richmond Organization".
This song is my song.
This song ain't your song.
If you try to use it,
We'll get nasty and litigeous because we're just that kind of greedy company that wants to squeeze every last drop of cash we can out of a dead man's legacy.
Since this thing relies on really precise computer timing, human reaction would be a really BAD thing to this system. I can just imagine all kinds of cars whizzing all around like a scene out of "The Jetsons". You would have to train yourself NOT to pay attention just to have the nerve to go through an intersection like that. It really creates for a more dangerous scenario.
Thanks, but I'll stick with the annoying stop lights for now.
Um... weren't you supposed to mention "Chewbaca", "Ewoks", and "Endore" at some point?
The most harm that could come of this sort of system is the tendency for authorities to embarass you with such broad access to your history. Like the time the cop ran down my driving record after I denied speeding when he pulled me over for the offense. I already looked foolish enough to the passengers in my vehical, but it made me look even worse now that they knew every ticket I had for the past three years. Boy, did he ever put me in my place!
So now they will have access to the websites you surf, the television you watch, the videos you rent, the foods you buy, the property you own, the banks you use, the crimes you've committed, the people you've met, the jobs you've held, the classes you've attended, the doctors you've seen, the diseases you've had, the opionions you've expressed, the sports you play, the religion you follow, the taxes you've paid, and so on, and so on...
I guess the scariest part is when somebody else who meshes up with all the things you do and enjoy, happens to commit some kind of horrible atrocity. Now they run profiles through their database to determine other likely culprits for similar crimes, and lo- your name appears. You couldn't win the lottery, but you've won a free "closer inspection". But if you didn't do anything wrong, don't worry about it. You probably won't even know they were investigating you.
It's easy to see where potential employers may also eventually have access to this information, and that's good too, because you wouldn't want to work with somebody who has a shady history now would you? Obviously, current employers need access to this information as well. Employees can be such a handful! Personal information can help you better manage them to make them more productive.
Needless to say, one could only hope that banks will also be in line to have a shot at your personal info, because they need to know the spending habits of their clients in order to detect fraud. It's for your protection.
Eventually many responsible corperations will have some degree of access to this information to better improve the comfort and security of their clients and associates. It will bring greater stability and certainty to the markets.
And of course these records will always be available to local, state, and federal law enforcement for obvious beneficial reasons. It's much more effecient to investigators if they don't actually have to run around to investigate who, what, when, where, why, and how on a person's history. You can immediately establish links and let the obvious story fall into place. It's not as if you'll be denied a jury trial if it's a major offense.
No... Only good can come of this so called "invasion of privacy" and the sooner it starts, the better.
Note: Even when I play devil's advocate, this kind of thinking still scares the shit out of me, though I have no criminal history. Now can someone explain why that is?
I've missed messing around with MIDI since I left MS Windows, but this still looks a little too tricky for a convert like me...
/dev/rtc)
:-(
~~~ Requirements (paraphrased)
- QT: Qt 3.2.0 or above
- ALSA 0.9.x or newer (cvs)
- gcc 3.x.x
NOTE: you _must_ compile MusE with the same compiler you used to compile QT
- libsndfile 1.0.1 (current 1.0.4)
- Linux kernel with rtc (RealTimeClock) driver (device
- JACK
- fluidsynth-1.0.3 (formerly known as iiwusynth)
- of course: a soundcard and/or some midi gear
- (if you compile from cvs:) automake 1.7 and autoconf 2.54
~~~~
I don't even know "JACK", and just looking over these things I'd have to update every single one of these requirements except for the ones I don't even have installed in the first place. I guess I won't be installing this for a while...
Sadly all my boxes have that on-board AC97 audio, and it has no hardware MIDI support at all. Otherwise, ALSA does a great job, and I never needed to configure anything for wave output. Just no MIDI.
(Side note: I never could get things like TiMIDIty to work right either... Guess, I'm just not quite geeky enough... yet.)
Essentially, it's giving people the ability to say, "Hey, you won't scratch my back? Fine. I'll just go out and buy a robot, and then I won't need you at all!"
It's the social equivalent to masterbation, and yet I still want one.
Believe me, I love using Google. They gained everyone's trust by keeping their interface simple and clean, provided excellent quality results, and did it with a seemingly ultruistic intent. It made for a very attractive package, especially for us "geek" types.
But then it started looking like Wonka's factory. People started nosing around, wanting to know all of Google's secrets, and Google clammed up. I can't recall, but did they ever go IPO?
To add to the mystery, they are starting to aquire other entities. With the previous FUD splashing around it raises the question, "How true are their intentions?"
I'm not suggesting that Google is an evil villain about to decend upon the helpless nerds in a cyber-round-up, but it does need to be watched more closely.
If the "Don't be evil" mantra doesn't hold true, then I doubt that those who were won over by that philosophy will cause any damage to what has become a true business giant.
Google is powerful now, and we all know that power tends to corrupt. Just be careful which gods you choose to serve, and hey... "Don't be evil."
Mild example: Did you know that a goldfish can see infrared radiation? That fish can see warm bodies through the walls in your house, and perhaps even the neighbor's house. But it takes some pretty sophisticated equipment for a human to achieve that end. Good thing that fish don't talk. ;-)
"Damn, Bob... Did you see that? He might have made it if that cab driver hadn't run over him."
"Yeah, Pete. Let's take this tabby up to the 23rd floor. Oh, by the way, did you hear they're working on a robot that mimics this sort of behavior."
"I think I did read something about that, Bob, but tossing an expensive piece of hardware out the window just isn't as satisfying."
"You've never owned a Mac, have you, Pete?"
Oooo! That just spawned an even better idea in my mind: FULL BLOWN SPELL CHECKER!!! That way people who post on Slashdot won't have any excuse! Just right click on the comment window and select "Spell Check"! We'd still have that whole loose/lose argument, but I wouldn't have to wonder if my posts had typos or other creative spellings contained within them... Hmmm... Another idea: "Grammer Check"!
I'm stopping short before I digress into something awful like "Show Clippy".
Of course, I don't really understand why anyone needs to hold onto a patent on GIFs anyway, but such is life.
Oh, lord... The comedic value to be had in that line alone...
Were the ones who reported that loss to be "minimal" either Windows or Linux users? In any event, the inability to boot would certainly negate my ability to download that evil free stuff off the internet, so perhaps Intel just mistakenly released their DRM version ahead of schedule.
According to MS, they are cheaper than Linux, and if SCO has anything to say about it, you've got another think coming as well.
If they're going to continue to deregulate things, they ought to completely deregulate the patent and copyright system. No more government protections for either, and the judges don't have time to hear anymore cases. One thing that still puzzles me about this whole "internet" thing: When are we going to see significant deployments of dedicated internet only services for the masses, instead of "piggy-back" broadband technology?
Glad someone mentioned that. I check mine quite regularly. I see every click and can track every system that connects to my server. I see referring links (although tabbed browers tend to hide the referrer), IP addresses, what they were going after (or failed to get), and when it all happened. There's just too much good information in an access log to ignore it.
Personally I'm not making any attempts at revenue, but if I were ever to advertise goods and/or services via someone's website, I'd insist I see their access logs, even if I had to sign an NDA. That data is going to tell me more about the people seeing the ads than anything else you could come up with.
Review the access logs. They just don't lie.
OK... So when they get 100 000+ unique hits an hour, that's not the most practical, but a simple perl script to snag the high-lights will do nicely as well.
Come to think of it... If they're actually getting that much traffic, you're probably getting your money's worth.
I'm one of the lucky ones who successfully made the transition away from Windows to Linux. What was my TCO? I'd say I've spent around $300. That includes the cost of books (most of which were of less help than I hoped), and a copy of Lycoris and its Productivity Pak. (It's a nice distro, but it feels constraining.) Ultimately I became a Mandrake user, and it is installed on all three of my PC's.
Had I stuck with using MS Windows, I would still have spent about $300, and two of my PC's would not be "Kosher" according to MS's EULA. Of course if I were to get "picky" I could toss on the cost of all the additional software (Norton's, Office, etc...) and watch the TCO plow through the roof, but then, I don't want to stoop that low.
I just wish MS, and even some Linux zealots out there would get it through their heads: There are places to use MS Windows, places to use Linux, and even places where either will do nicely. (OK, I'll even include Mac's as having a place as well...)
But to make broad claims that draw illogical conclusions based on a pile of inequitable features-- Well, it's just not very professional, and I'm once again disappointed in Microsoft.
Insertion sorts "insert" the data in order to a second list, while bubble sorts "swap" if O[n] > O[n+1].
If you simply run a bubble sort in a nested loop, then yes, it will run n*n, but adding a simple flag that checks to see if there were no swaps during an inner loop pass followed by an exit can greatly reduce the number of unnecessary passes. Therefore, the less random the data, the better the bubblesort performs.
All that and without the need to allocate room for a second list structure.
Depends on what you are sorting. Anyone will tell you that the quicksort algorithm works fastest when dealing with total randomness, but a properly designed bubblesort can quickly shake out a couple of minor swaps much faster than a quicksort.
Let me back up again... I've never had a cell phone. I don't remember people needing them back in the 70s, 80s, and most of the 90s, and they still had cars, kids, businesses, and elderly parents. So why should I need one today? Answer: I don't. And Most people probably don't need them either... but they sign up for them anyway.
Cell phone customers are among the highest in customer dissatisfaction until you point out what a sucker they've been, then they immediately switch to defensive mode to let you know that it's not as bad as what some other guy with some other company had to go through, and other straw-man face saving attempts.
People I know actually use arguments for having a cell phone such as:
Nope... I'm not going to run out and buy a cell phone anytime soon. From the mentality of the people I know who have them, it's more than obvious that the radiation from those phones really does affect their brain tissue.
Why else would you put up with such abuse from a company that takes your money for a service you can easily live without?