Perhaps I am confused, for I am not a parent.. but.. wouldn't it be a good thing to be able to know where your kids are at all times? I see all those anti-drug commercials stating that being a good parent means invading the privacy of your children, so wouldn't this help? Perhaps the paranoia is that, if it's okay to use on children, the government might think it's okay to use on it's citizens.
I see it as a tool to be used in conjunction with your normal parenting routine.
Anti-Spyware is still in beta release, so who says that they will not charge us for it later? My logic still stands, they develop/release proprietary software that "covers" up the holes that their operating system opens up. It's like putting a car bra over your dented front end.
They don't look on security as anything other then a marketing ploy
Right, they just want to sell software like Microsoft Anti-Spyware and Windows Defender. Why spend money and resources patching a software when you can make money by selling software that is designed to cover your holes.
Most importantly, why wasn't the utmost care taken on anything that takes foreign input (browser parsers, etc).
I'd take a gander and say because you just don't know what people are going to throw at it until you let them have it.
It's more cost effective to release a piece of software and apply patches periodically than to attempt to work out all the bugs (which is almost impossible) before you release it.
I don't really see the difference in denying or allowing single letter domain names.
Domain names are becomming less and less important with search engines like google, msn and yahoo out there. I mean, if I'm looking for a car or house these days, the first thing that I do is go to a search engine, like google, and do a search for "cars" or, more specifically, "ford pintos". I don't type out www.house.com or www.cars.com in my address bar because, chances are, I'll get some adsense spam site.
I'm sorry -- I don't subscribe to the antiquated belief that Networks should dictate WHEN I watch a show. I have a Tivo that let's ME control what I watch and when I watch it.
Then I don't understand why you are upset. This shouldn't really affect you because you already have a solution, your tivo.
I don't have a tivo and I don't really watch television that much, but I don't think I would mind shelling out 99 cents to watch an episode of a program that I missed.
I do agree with you though that, anyone who watches tv on a regular basis, should probably own a tivo. Atleast, they'd save some money in the long run.
While I'm not sure if anyone has been directly killed by a machine running a windows product, I can probably be assured that many monitors, keyboards, and computer cases have been smashed and thrown out of buildings because of their software.
The article says that 99 cents is the cost, but it includes commercials. So you're paying $1 to watch a free show WITH commercials [..]I'm not going to pay extra to watch a show with commercials (which you probably can't skip).
Well, it wouldn't make sense for the company to offer a tv program for free without commercials. I would just miss all of my favorite shows on purpose to watch the free commercial-free version.
These guys don't realize that their shows are mediocre at best and placing any higher threshold on watching them will actually DECREASE viewers
I just don't see this. The people that watch their programs on time, when they are aired, won't be affected. But the people who miss their programs get the added benefit of watching them some other time, for a fee. In a way it promotes people to watch their programs when they are scheduled/aired yet they don't have to feel left out, or wait for a re-run, when they miss an episode. Fanatics no longer have to cancel all of their evening plans just to catch their favorite show's episode.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps I am confused, for I am not a parent.. but.. wouldn't it be a good thing to be able to know where your kids are at all times? I see all those anti-drug commercials stating that being a good parent means invading the privacy of your children, so wouldn't this help? Perhaps the paranoia is that, if it's okay to use on children, the government might think it's okay to use on it's citizens.
I see it as a tool to be used in conjunction with your normal parenting routine.
I recommend SpyAxe. It generates pop-ups and then, conveniently and promptly, lets me know that my machine has been infected with spyware.
They are also used to reduce overhead and make their stock price look better.
err how'd this get here... I must still be drunk ;)
I for one welcome slashdot.xxx! Porn and slashdot on one site.. I'd be set!
Anti-Spyware is still in beta release, so who says that they will not charge us for it later? My logic still stands, they develop/release proprietary software that "covers" up the holes that their operating system opens up. It's like putting a car bra over your dented front end.
They don't look on security as anything other then a marketing ploy
Right, they just want to sell software like Microsoft Anti-Spyware and Windows Defender. Why spend money and resources patching a software when you can make money by selling software that is designed to cover your holes.
Most importantly, why wasn't the utmost care taken on anything that takes foreign input (browser parsers, etc).
I'd take a gander and say because you just don't know what people are going to throw at it until you let them have it.
It's more cost effective to release a piece of software and apply patches periodically than to attempt to work out all the bugs (which is almost impossible) before you release it.
My virus scanner seemed to stop it on the proof of concept page. McAfee sees it as JS/Exploit-BO.gen
I don't really see the difference in denying or allowing single letter domain names.
Domain names are becomming less and less important with search engines like google, msn and yahoo out there. I mean, if I'm looking for a car or house these days, the first thing that I do is go to a search engine, like google, and do a search for "cars" or, more specifically, "ford pintos". I don't type out www.house.com or www.cars.com in my address bar because, chances are, I'll get some adsense spam site.
all you need is your mouse and the "Character Map" program. No need to use your keyboard.
Sure this post took me 10 minutes to type (or copy and paste I should say), but those hackers won't have a clue!
'With text games, you can sit there at the prompt, go make a sandwich, then come back and play more.'"
I used to do this all the time with Everquest....
Zone, goto the restroom/get food/etc, come back and play more.
Likewise...
and I get stressed when my ping hops over 50ms while playing online action games. I couldn't imaging a 16minute lag.
Perhaps, the author is refering to Generation Y. Might give some insight as to Zonk's age aswell.
not if you steal it.
Yeah I know, I was being stupid ;)
I'm sorry -- I don't subscribe to the antiquated belief that Networks should dictate WHEN I watch a show. I have a Tivo that let's ME control what I watch and when I watch it.
Then I don't understand why you are upset. This shouldn't really affect you because you already have a solution, your tivo.
I don't have a tivo and I don't really watch television that much, but I don't think I would mind shelling out 99 cents to watch an episode of a program that I missed.
I do agree with you though that, anyone who watches tv on a regular basis, should probably own a tivo. Atleast, they'd save some money in the long run.
While I'm not sure if anyone has been directly killed by a machine running a windows product, I can probably be assured that many monitors, keyboards, and computer cases have been smashed and thrown out of buildings because of their software.
The article says that 99 cents is the cost, but it includes commercials. So you're paying $1 to watch a free show WITH commercials [..]I'm not going to pay extra to watch a show with commercials (which you probably can't skip).
Well, it wouldn't make sense for the company to offer a tv program for free without commercials. I would just miss all of my favorite shows on purpose to watch the free commercial-free version.
These guys don't realize that their shows are mediocre at best and placing any higher threshold on watching them will actually DECREASE viewers
I just don't see this. The people that watch their programs on time, when they are aired, won't be affected. But the people who miss their programs get the added benefit of watching them some other time, for a fee. In a way it promotes people to watch their programs when they are scheduled/aired yet they don't have to feel left out, or wait for a re-run, when they miss an episode. Fanatics no longer have to cancel all of their evening plans just to catch their favorite show's episode.
But if you miss the show, the tivo is pointless.
There is often a technical solution for government stupidity
Case and point, Google and Firefox getting past the great firewall of china
Amazone pays you 2 cents but then charges you 3 cents to click on the link that leads to the picture.
Furthermore, I find it ironic that we attempt to emulate it in a video game. The very thing that is keeping us from going outside ;)
I'm sure /.'ers know full well the effects of HDR in those rare occasions that we actually venture outside into the sun.