I'm actually looking forward to seeing what they are doing with Longhorn(not TCPA as a whole or anything, but some of its related features perhaps). I'm a long-time linux fan and don't think I would replace linux completely any more than I would replace windows completely, but Longhorn is looking like a large step in the right direction in terms of security and reliability, as well as using.NET which looks like a fairly easy to use API.
These additions to XP make it look even more like they are finally doing the right thing, and the.NET framework might even end up being truly multiplatform in the future, which is a Good Thing.
True I guess, the old classics were fun too. Thanks for reminding me of them. Guess I was just thinking of my current favourite games which have a lot of story. I always preferred a game that told a story to a game which was basically just a fragfest, at least in single player.
Remember, though, that some of the first games were also adventure games like... well.... "Adventure". Text RPG's where there was little else but a story (of some description at least).
What about those of us who just want to watch a little TV on our computers? My monitor is actually larger than my TV at the moment (and it's only 15", sad huh?).
HDTV's main expense is the screen last I heard, so if you can watch it on your computer screen you have saved a significant amount of money no?
"Story in games is like story in porn movies, you expect it to be there, but it's really not that important."
Tell that to all the people who played all those final fantasy games. Story was what makes a single player game playable IMO.
It's sad that this is the way the world is going; casting away the vital aspect of plot for a quick fix of andrenaline. They did it with games, they are doing it with movies most of the time, what next? At least we have lord of the rings (the movie not the game) to show there is something left, even if the story was written years ago.
And the other problem is when you gray something out because it "isn't detected", you could just be graying out the option that they wanted. Not everything autodetects easily, and if I *know* I have one of the grayed out options then I damn well want to be able to select it regardless of whether the program can detect the settings or not.
"For the rest, players being able to vote losers out of the game is a great feature. My main complaint is that too few games explore such a feature fully."
The problem with being able to vote people out of the game is one of the losers could get all his/her (usually his) "friends" to come on and vote people out just to annoy the players. Not such a problem if an admin is online and sees it, but when one isn't (which could be most of the time) then it's a real game killer.
because we pretend there aren't humans making these things, but faceless monikers ("MPAA," "RIAA"...never mind that these organizations merely represent the people making the content that otheres are ripping off).
It's more likely that people just aren't too happy about forking over cash to these organizations which "represent" the artists, because the organisations rip off the people who actually make the "content". There is an interesting article here which outlines exactly how recording artists are ripped off by the very organisations that are supposed to represent them.
Is there really any reason to believe that the RIAA represents anything more than its shareholders' profits(even at the expense of the artists who supply the "content" that they need to survive)? They just want a monopoly on ripping off artists.
I always thought of the law as a way of trying to make people use good sense, not to define what good sense is(or to prohibit the use of good sense). It's a shame that in recent times people are trying to convince us that it is the other way around because they want to be able to make laws and have the little people agree with them ("because it's the law.. it can't be wrong").
I never said there weren't good closed source programs, just that this is usually the reason that the good OSS programs are good, and the bad ones are usually not used. It's why an OSS programmer is encouraged to write "good secure code".
Closed source programmers are sometimes encouraged to write "good secure code" for other reasons by whoever got them to write it or for their own pride. Often (e.g. in some businesses), they are not encouraged, in fact they are prevented.
My reply was a direct answer to the question asked("Where does it say here that I have to produce "good secure code" to be defined as OpenSource code?"), not a comparison between open source and closed source.
There are some very well written closed source programs I am sure. The problem is that it is a little harder to tell which are well written and which LOOK well written but are really disasters waiting to happen. In this case the advantage of closed source is that unless a lot of people use the poorly written program perhaps nobody will look close enough to do something nasty with the poorly written one (unless they are really bored).
It doesn't, but the fact that if your product is to be widely used then there is likely to be a large amount of peer review. If it isn't good, then there is a good chance people will know this and not use it. This means that if you write something you want someone to use, you better make it good. The widely accepted OSS programs are widely accepted because they are good not just because they came with the computer.
Because not all of them do. If it could be there wouldn't be people trying to use crossover office to run photoshop on linux.
Not every linux fan requires free (beer) software either. Many people bought Savage, neverwinter nights and ut2003 for linux, and they most certainly are not for free.
I have a theory that coke doesnt actually taste good, it's like cigarettes. People are just addicted to it so they think that it tastes good. Would partially explain why people who are addicted to coke dont like pepsi and why people who are addicted to pepsi dont like coke:)
"I.e., I'll be all for mandating such skill checks for people whose use of a computer can pose a similar danger. E.g., seeing the link you've posted, those in charge of securing the networks. By all means, I'm all for testing those."
And the people who work in the offices of some company that provides a vital service perhaps?
Example: Boss A in company X (which provides vital service S) demands that he be allowed unlimited access to the web/email/whatever. Boss A then proceeds to open attachments/click unsafe links/whatever causing widespread infection in the entire network (company X allows SMB to travel freely inside their secure network because people from the outside can't connect to that, and without it there is no widespread alternative to share files that the employees can understand). This infection causes company X to be unable to provide vital service S as this service requires a working network and working computers to operate.
Then there are the people at home who "just surf the web". The same people who are likely to be infected with the latest DDOS worm. One day there will be a worm that infects enough computers and attacks some critical part of the net causing widespread outages in the network. These critical areas would be near impossible to secure as EVERYONE needs to be able to access them to use the Internet and also a lot of the possible targets are likely implemented in hardware so adding new protections would be difficult. We have already seen something like this in the SQL slammer worm.
Also likely in the future is an increased reliance by business/government/medical institutions on the internet for their operation. I think where this is going is pretty obvious;)
Slashdot Mirror
"No, it is just the way the world is."
Why do people keep touting this as an excuse for things? Why should something be considered right just because "that's the way the world is?"
I'm actually looking forward to seeing what they are doing with Longhorn(not TCPA as a whole or anything, but some of its related features perhaps). I'm a long-time linux fan and don't think I would replace linux completely any more than I would replace windows completely, but Longhorn is looking like a large step in the right direction in terms of security and reliability, as well as using .NET which looks like a fairly easy to use API.
.NET framework might even end up being truly multiplatform in the future, which is a Good Thing.
These additions to XP make it look even more like they are finally doing the right thing, and the
It also doesn't complain if you put Xfree by itself either.
True I guess, the old classics were fun too. Thanks for reminding me of them. Guess I was just thinking of my current favourite games which have a lot of story. I always preferred a game that told a story to a game which was basically just a fragfest, at least in single player. Remember, though, that some of the first games were also adventure games like... well.... "Adventure". Text RPG's where there was little else but a story (of some description at least).
What about those of us who just want to watch a little TV on our computers? My monitor is actually larger than my TV at the moment (and it's only 15", sad huh?).
HDTV's main expense is the screen last I heard, so if you can watch it on your computer screen you have saved a significant amount of money no?
"Story in games is like story in porn movies, you expect it to be there, but it's really not that important."
Tell that to all the people who played all those final fantasy games. Story was what makes a single player game playable IMO.
It's sad that this is the way the world is going; casting away the vital aspect of plot for a quick fix of andrenaline. They did it with games, they are doing it with movies most of the time, what next? At least we have lord of the rings (the movie not the game) to show there is something left, even if the story was written years ago.
And the other problem is when you gray something out because it "isn't detected", you could just be graying out the option that they wanted. Not everything autodetects easily, and if I *know* I have one of the grayed out options then I damn well want to be able to select it regardless of whether the program can detect the settings or not.
"For the rest, players being able to vote losers out of the game is a great feature. My main complaint is that too few games explore such a feature fully."
The problem with being able to vote people out of the game is one of the losers could get all his/her (usually his) "friends" to come on and vote people out just to annoy the players. Not such a problem if an admin is online and sees it, but when one isn't (which could be most of the time) then it's a real game killer.
because we pretend there aren't humans making these things, but faceless monikers ("MPAA," "RIAA"...never mind that these organizations merely represent the people making the content that otheres are ripping off).
It's more likely that people just aren't too happy about forking over cash to these organizations which "represent" the artists, because the organisations rip off the people who actually make the "content". There is an interesting article here which outlines exactly how recording artists are ripped off by the very organisations that are supposed to represent them.
Is there really any reason to believe that the RIAA represents anything more than its shareholders' profits(even at the expense of the artists who supply the "content" that they need to survive)? They just want a monopoly on ripping off artists.
I always thought of the law as a way of trying to make people use good sense, not to define what good sense is(or to prohibit the use of good sense). It's a shame that in recent times people are trying to convince us that it is the other way around because they want to be able to make laws and have the little people agree with them ("because it's the law.. it can't be wrong").
"I just hope some no-nonsense judge really slaps them hard for this one."
I vote for judge judy!
I never said there weren't good closed source programs, just that this is usually the reason that the good OSS programs are good, and the bad ones are usually not used. It's why an OSS programmer is encouraged to write "good secure code".
Closed source programmers are sometimes encouraged to write "good secure code" for other reasons by whoever got them to write it or for their own pride. Often (e.g. in some businesses), they are not encouraged, in fact they are prevented.
My reply was a direct answer to the question asked("Where does it say here that I have to produce "good secure code" to be defined as OpenSource code?"), not a comparison between open source and closed source.
There are some very well written closed source programs I am sure. The problem is that it is a little harder to tell which are well written and which LOOK well written but are really disasters waiting to happen. In this case the advantage of closed source is that unless a lot of people use the poorly written program perhaps nobody will look close enough to do something nasty with the poorly written one (unless they are really bored).
It doesn't, but the fact that if your product is to be widely used then there is likely to be a large amount of peer review. If it isn't good, then there is a good chance people will know this and not use it. This means that if you write something you want someone to use, you better make it good. The widely accepted OSS programs are widely accepted because they are good not just because they came with the computer.
Because not all of them do. If it could be there wouldn't be people trying to use crossover office to run photoshop on linux. Not every linux fan requires free (beer) software either. Many people bought Savage, neverwinter nights and ut2003 for linux, and they most certainly are not for free.
I have a theory that coke doesnt actually taste good, it's like cigarettes. People are just addicted to it so they think that it tastes good. Would partially explain why people who are addicted to coke dont like pepsi and why people who are addicted to pepsi dont like coke :)
The admin/networking tools are probably likely candidates to be taken out (look at XP home).
A vote for howard would probably be as good as a vote for bush no?
"I.e., I'll be all for mandating such skill checks for people whose use of a computer can pose a similar danger. E.g., seeing the link you've posted, those in charge of securing the networks. By all means, I'm all for testing those."
;)
And the people who work in the offices of some company that provides a vital service perhaps?
Example: Boss A in company X (which provides vital service S) demands that he be allowed unlimited access to the web/email/whatever. Boss A then proceeds to open attachments/click unsafe links/whatever causing widespread infection in the entire network (company X allows SMB to travel freely inside their secure network because people from the outside can't connect to that, and without it there is no widespread alternative to share files that the employees can understand). This infection causes company X to be unable to provide vital service S as this service requires a working network and working computers to operate.
Then there are the people at home who "just surf the web". The same people who are likely to be infected with the latest DDOS worm. One day there will be a worm that infects enough computers and attacks some critical part of the net causing widespread outages in the network. These critical areas would be near impossible to secure as EVERYONE needs to be able to access them to use the Internet and also a lot of the possible targets are likely implemented in hardware so adding new protections would be difficult. We have already seen something like this in the SQL slammer worm.
Also likely in the future is an increased reliance by business/government/medical institutions on the internet for their operation. I think where this is going is pretty obvious