I think you're misunderstanding the claim. It's not when you hit cancel, it's when you update iTunes or QuickTime that you are offered (by default) to install Safari. Because you hit cancel it did not ask you. But, the next time it pops up hit OK and see what happens.
And further, how did Microsoft force IE8 on you? It's a beta that isn't even out yet. Perhaps you meant 7? And if that's the case, I know plenty of people (homes and busineses) that haven't yet installed IE7. I'm pretty sure you accepted the update to IE7 somewhere along the way. And maybe it was even a default option, too.
The issue here is that IE7 is the update to IE6. It's a far stretch though to claim that's like iTunes giving you an "update" to Safari, a program you never installed.
RE #2: I'm okay with interrupting ads if (and only if) the videos are quite long. If I'm watching something that's 5+ minutes, it's perfectly acceptable to show me an ad every 5 minutes or so. It's just like commercials on TV.
RE #3: Oh god yes.
New #4: As long as the download of the ad doesn't impede the actual video. I can't count how many times I've tried to watch a video online but became frustrated because the preceding ad took forever to load (or didn't).
New #5: The ad doesn't contain material that would be insuitable for me to forward to other people. There's been times where a funny video would be perfect to forward to a coworker, but a random ad might be "fire me" material.
New #6: The ad can't float in a layer above the video in a minimized-fashion at any time.
If you RTFM, you'll see that they allegedly copied the SWF file and made minor tweaks to some of the sprites and wording, and of course the author of the game.
He even says he decompiled their game and found remnants of code that he reused from other games he made which have nothing to do with this one.
So it's a lot more than just a knock-off. It's an alleged derivitave work without permission.
Fair enough, but what happens when he decides to leave the company or gets hit by a car?
Then the business owner needs to find someone else to support the application which is mission-critical to the business. Craigslist?
"Extremely expensive windows-only commercial off-the-shelf solutions" aren't all that expensive, especially compared to potential downtime or the lost productivity of this employee tinkering rather than doing what he was likely hired for.
And for all we know, the owner might already be using QuickBooks to do accounting and payroll. Likewise, their accountant might be, too. I'd love to see the look on the accountant's face when he's told they are using something called "Banana POS" from 2001.
I based my comment on what the OP said and the comments made thus far. While I've never gone looking for any "out of the box" POS hardware/software solutions, I sure haven't seen any. And based on the OP's comments, it sounds like he's ready to go tinkering.
I realize this is Slashdot, but for your owner's business why does this have to be an open source solution?
There are plenty of businesses who are quite satisfied with solutions from Intuit or Microsoft that are very affordable, easy to use, and much more "out of the box" than any open product.
And if your owner is already using QuickBooks or Small Business Accounting, then a POS solution can tie directly into it.
Remember that your employer is going to pay either way. Either by paying you to piece together a solution for him or by paying for off-the-shelf software. You would be doing a disservice to your employer to only recommend one side of the fence.
It's articles (and lawsuits) like this, plus the war still raging between HD and Blu that are stopping consumers like myself from investing in EITHER technology.
My DVD (one of the first-generation Sony) and TV are both about 10 years old, and despite usually being on the "cutting edge" of technology I've held off buying replacements for quite some time.
I'm very hesitant to buy either HD or Blu, or even a new TV, with all the new standards and versions that seem to be coming out left and right. And I won't be buying anything any time soon until the market stabilizes, or I'm forced to replace what I already have.
Knowing that future airliners might possess this technology, what's to stop a terrorist from adding a counter-counter measure to their missle?
So lasers will confuse the guidance system of the missle in mid-flight? Add a little code that says if the guidance system is confused switch to a "aim towards the big loud thing" mode.
Or a secondary pre-determined target, perhaps, that's on the ground.
Or just expode instantly and send tiny metal balls of fury in all directions, a la the bombs in Swordfish.
I'm not a military genius or anything, this sure does sound like a big waste of money. The cash could be spent on so many other things that could be guaranteed to save lives, reduce dependance on oil, research a disease, or provide free porn to everyone.
Why don't these devices support normal resolutions?
If they are going through all that trouble to make a really cool tiny projector, can't they figure out how to make it support 1024x768 without resampling the image down?
I realize that 848 by 480 is used by some video formats and is 16:9, but still. Anyone using this to show a lecture or demonstrate how to use a computer program is going to be disappointed.
I know this is/. but come on. You read the summary and take it for face-value.
The KB article plainly states that Word and Excel 2003 can still open the documents, but they are blocked by default. And if you want to open them, you'll need a registry change to do so. Or, you click on the link in the KB article and a script does it for you.
You can bash Microsoft all you want, but for this? They found a security issue with a product that was released four years ago. They made it lightly more secure. Users who have issues can run the KB script or not.
Or they can upgrade to Office 2007 which doesn't have the vulnerability or the issues opening the older formats.
Here's a few reasons why I don't visit my local library:
1) Selection: I just checked online, and of the ten books I've recently purchased only two were in the library system, one copy each, and one was currently checked out. By "system", I mean the *entire county* (San Joaquin) which has about a half million people in it. I did a search for "CSS" and only three general website design books came up.
2) Ghetto: We have a nice, clean library, but the people who hang out there make me feel like I'm in the ghetto. There are occasionally homeless people in the parking lot and the walkway into the library. Kids are often found making out in the back corners. This is why I shop at Target instead of Wal*Mart.
I just don't think that I'm the "target market" for their services. They still serve a great need, though, for people who have a smaller income or would rather save a few bucks occasionally. For people without internet access, the library is a fantastic resource (especially for those who need internet access for a job application or to file taxes).
That being said, I support the library when I can. I donate my used books to them, I volunteer and teach free computer classes to patrons, and I've helped them modernize their website.
At first I was going to write a post saying how this is a pretty decent solution and they're offering an opt-out option, but after thinking about it more:
Why does the government have to require this? If the consumer demand is for filtered access, there are tools already in place to help parents "protect" their children. Many of them are free. If the demand were high enough, an ISP could also offer their own filtered service (it would probably not cost them any extra since those users are less likely to use lots of bandwidth).
This will suck for people who want to access filtered material. They'll either have to call the ISP or register somehow, possibly in writing, which goes in the face of privacy.
The ISP will have a database of users with the "pervert" bit and who knows what might happen with that. Will that data be confidential? Or can the ISP sell the list to its "marketing partners" and send users direct mail offers for porn?
If subpoenaed, can that data be brought up in court? "Your honor, the only evidence we have that this man committed the crime is that he is - pause for effect - an unfiltered user. And you know what that means."
The filtering service needs to be opt-in, not required of the ISPs, and controlled via the market.
I guess what I'm saying is that it doesn't really matter where the line is.
If the business wants to terminate their relationship with you because you wore a low-cut blouse off-hours, or because of excessive tatoos, or maybe because you wore green on the second tuesday of a month following the leap year, then that should be their perogative to do it.
We already have enough government control over businesses and look where that gets us. Sometimes it's fair, but most of the time it just annoys us and limits our rights as employees, business owners, etc.
It's easy to get upset with The Man for having a "sociological department" whos job is to minimize risks by looking for potential issues... but I can't say there's anything wrong with it. If a mom-n-pop store owner took a few minutes to look up the MySpace of one of their employees and found out he was an off-hours lunatic, I'd have no problem with them firing him before it became a problem.
Sure the line is blurred, but abused? Doesn't a business have a right to hire employees that it believes will be good for the business?
What you're doing and how you appear off-hours may be personal, but it becomes business if that starts affecting the business. Scenario: You are a manager for an expensive consulting firm. A valuable client sees you off-hours doing something (or dressed in a way) that leads them to question your experience, maturity, skill set, trustworthiness, etc. The next day the client decides it's best to hire a new consulting firm.
Is that your fault? No. Is it the client's fault? No, they're doing what's in their best interest, even if they might be short-sighted.
But then you get fired so that the company can beg for the client to return. Should your employer have stood up for you? Perhaps, but the company and its employees are not there to promote your freedom of expression, they're there for a job and to profit.
It really depends on what your day job is, but I can certainly see situations where terminating someone for off-site behavior is completely appropriate. And just as you have the right to quit, they have the right to fire. (Unless it's because of religion, ethnicity, etc.)
As much as we like to think we're the only ones that matter, why is it that we always look on graphs, data, trends, and feedback from geeks and draw global conclusions from them?
Since when did PCWorld.com become the de facto website that all web users visit?
More interesting to me would be the same analysis from a website such as CNN or MySpace or Amazon.Com which has a much more normalized audience. Did I just call MySpace normalized?
As for all those new Mac visits, my guess is that now that they have Bootcamp/Parallels Mac users are hopping on PCWorld to learn more about Windows and available software.
I went looking on walmart.com for the Linux box and could not find it. However, I found that they are selling an Everex Impact GC3502 Desktop with Windows Vista Home Basic for $278!
Now the specs suck, but it's comparible to my old laptop which runs Vista just fine (without Aero). It's an 80 GB hard drive, 1 GB of RAM, ethernet, modem, and comes with OpenOffice installed. Just no monitor.
You can upgrade the RAM to 2 GB or throw in a USB stick and use ReadyBoost. And external drives are cheap.
Sounds like a much better alternatve for the kids and grandma.
The first time: they discussed us using irrelevant analogies, took a senseless poll, said things like "imagine a Beowulf cluster of these" and "itsatrap!", and one alien remarked "I, for one, welcome our new Earthling overlords."
The second time: they just shouted "DUPE!" and moved on.
Does anyone know how this standard affects files that are not text? I mean things like posters, graphic images, audio, video, databases, complex spreadsheets, slideshows, etc. Basically, everything outside of Word?
For example, many government employees use Excel and are using features not supported by ODF. What happens when they need to send those files to others to edit?
Slashdot Mirror
I think you're misunderstanding the claim. It's not when you hit cancel, it's when you update iTunes or QuickTime that you are offered (by default) to install Safari. Because you hit cancel it did not ask you. But, the next time it pops up hit OK and see what happens.
And further, how did Microsoft force IE8 on you? It's a beta that isn't even out yet. Perhaps you meant 7? And if that's the case, I know plenty of people (homes and busineses) that haven't yet installed IE7. I'm pretty sure you accepted the update to IE7 somewhere along the way. And maybe it was even a default option, too.
The issue here is that IE7 is the update to IE6. It's a far stretch though to claim that's like iTunes giving you an "update" to Safari, a program you never installed.
RE #1: Agreed.
RE #2: I'm okay with interrupting ads if (and only if) the videos are quite long. If I'm watching something that's 5+ minutes, it's perfectly acceptable to show me an ad every 5 minutes or so. It's just like commercials on TV.
RE #3: Oh god yes.
New #4: As long as the download of the ad doesn't impede the actual video. I can't count how many times I've tried to watch a video online but became frustrated because the preceding ad took forever to load (or didn't).
New #5: The ad doesn't contain material that would be insuitable for me to forward to other people. There's been times where a funny video would be perfect to forward to a coworker, but a random ad might be "fire me" material.
New #6: The ad can't float in a layer above the video in a minimized-fashion at any time.
What we really need are whalecows...
It's the only chance we have against the army of evil sharks, if you ask me.
Isn't signing up for Facebook your opt-in?
Don't like it; don't use it.
If you RTFM, you'll see that they allegedly copied the SWF file and made minor tweaks to some of the sprites and wording, and of course the author of the game.
He even says he decompiled their game and found remnants of code that he reused from other games he made which have nothing to do with this one.
So it's a lot more than just a knock-off. It's an alleged derivitave work without permission.
Apparently this blog is running on 16k, too.
If companies offered a choice would we still care?
Or are we worried that all providers will go the way of #2 and the price of #1 will inflate as supply dwindles?
Fair enough, but what happens when he decides to leave the company or gets hit by a car?
Then the business owner needs to find someone else to support the application which is mission-critical to the business. Craigslist?
"Extremely expensive windows-only commercial off-the-shelf solutions" aren't all that expensive, especially compared to potential downtime or the lost productivity of this employee tinkering rather than doing what he was likely hired for.
And for all we know, the owner might already be using QuickBooks to do accounting and payroll. Likewise, their accountant might be, too. I'd love to see the look on the accountant's face when he's told they are using something called "Banana POS" from 2001.
I based my comment on what the OP said and the comments made thus far. While I've never gone looking for any "out of the box" POS hardware/software solutions, I sure haven't seen any. And based on the OP's comments, it sounds like he's ready to go tinkering.
I realize this is Slashdot, but for your owner's business why does this have to be an open source solution?
There are plenty of businesses who are quite satisfied with solutions from Intuit or Microsoft that are very affordable, easy to use, and much more "out of the box" than any open product.
And if your owner is already using QuickBooks or Small Business Accounting, then a POS solution can tie directly into it.
Remember that your employer is going to pay either way. Either by paying you to piece together a solution for him or by paying for off-the-shelf software. You would be doing a disservice to your employer to only recommend one side of the fence.
Dear Anonymous Coward,
While it may be true that you don't listen much to Prince, some other people might disagree with your assertations.
Here's a few highlights from the Wikipedia article about Prince in just the last two years:
* Won a lifetime achievment Webby award for his use of the internet in 2006
* Won best R&B artist in 2006 from BET
* Won a Golden Globe for "Song of the Heart" in 2006
* His song "3121" made it to #31 on Billboard R&B charts in 2007
* Performed the half-time show for the Superbowl to 140M people, the most watched TV performance this century
* Sold out 140,000 tickets to a single show in May 2007 in just 20 minutes
* Won two Grammies for "Future Baby Mama" and "Songn of the Heart" in 2008
And if you go back to 2004, his tour scored $87.4M -- the most profitable tour that year.
So uh, yeah.
Oh great, thanks. Now everyone that's read your comment has committed...
BRB, door.
Anyone got a really long hose?
It's articles (and lawsuits) like this, plus the war still raging between HD and Blu that are stopping consumers like myself from investing in EITHER technology.
My DVD (one of the first-generation Sony) and TV are both about 10 years old, and despite usually being on the "cutting edge" of technology I've held off buying replacements for quite some time.
I'm very hesitant to buy either HD or Blu, or even a new TV, with all the new standards and versions that seem to be coming out left and right. And I won't be buying anything any time soon until the market stabilizes, or I'm forced to replace what I already have.
Knowing that future airliners might possess this technology, what's to stop a terrorist from adding a counter-counter measure to their missle?
So lasers will confuse the guidance system of the missle in mid-flight? Add a little code that says if the guidance system is confused switch to a "aim towards the big loud thing" mode.
Or a secondary pre-determined target, perhaps, that's on the ground.
Or just expode instantly and send tiny metal balls of fury in all directions, a la the bombs in Swordfish.
I'm not a military genius or anything, this sure does sound like a big waste of money. The cash could be spent on so many other things that could be guaranteed to save lives, reduce dependance on oil, research a disease, or provide free porn to everyone.
Why don't these devices support normal resolutions?
If they are going through all that trouble to make a really cool tiny projector, can't they figure out how to make it support 1024x768 without resampling the image down?
I realize that 848 by 480 is used by some video formats and is 16:9, but still. Anyone using this to show a lecture or demonstrate how to use a computer program is going to be disappointed.
I know this is /. but come on. You read the summary and take it for face-value.
The KB article plainly states that Word and Excel 2003 can still open the documents, but they are blocked by default. And if you want to open them, you'll need a registry change to do so. Or, you click on the link in the KB article and a script does it for you.
You can bash Microsoft all you want, but for this? They found a security issue with a product that was released four years ago. They made it lightly more secure. Users who have issues can run the KB script or not.
Or they can upgrade to Office 2007 which doesn't have the vulnerability or the issues opening the older formats.
So, what exactly is the problem here?
Here's a few reasons why I don't visit my local library:
1) Selection: I just checked online, and of the ten books I've recently purchased only two were in the library system, one copy each, and one was currently checked out. By "system", I mean the *entire county* (San Joaquin) which has about a half million people in it. I did a search for "CSS" and only three general website design books came up.
2) Ghetto: We have a nice, clean library, but the people who hang out there make me feel like I'm in the ghetto. There are occasionally homeless people in the parking lot and the walkway into the library. Kids are often found making out in the back corners. This is why I shop at Target instead of Wal*Mart.
I just don't think that I'm the "target market" for their services. They still serve a great need, though, for people who have a smaller income or would rather save a few bucks occasionally. For people without internet access, the library is a fantastic resource (especially for those who need internet access for a job application or to file taxes).
That being said, I support the library when I can. I donate my used books to them, I volunteer and teach free computer classes to patrons, and I've helped them modernize their website.
At first I was going to write a post saying how this is a pretty decent solution and they're offering an opt-out option, but after thinking about it more:
Why does the government have to require this? If the consumer demand is for filtered access, there are tools already in place to help parents "protect" their children. Many of them are free. If the demand were high enough, an ISP could also offer their own filtered service (it would probably not cost them any extra since those users are less likely to use lots of bandwidth).
This will suck for people who want to access filtered material. They'll either have to call the ISP or register somehow, possibly in writing, which goes in the face of privacy.
The ISP will have a database of users with the "pervert" bit and who knows what might happen with that. Will that data be confidential? Or can the ISP sell the list to its "marketing partners" and send users direct mail offers for porn?
If subpoenaed, can that data be brought up in court? "Your honor, the only evidence we have that this man committed the crime is that he is - pause for effect - an unfiltered user. And you know what that means."
The filtering service needs to be opt-in, not required of the ISPs, and controlled via the market.
I guess what I'm saying is that it doesn't really matter where the line is.
If the business wants to terminate their relationship with you because you wore a low-cut blouse off-hours, or because of excessive tatoos, or maybe because you wore green on the second tuesday of a month following the leap year, then that should be their perogative to do it.
We already have enough government control over businesses and look where that gets us. Sometimes it's fair, but most of the time it just annoys us and limits our rights as employees, business owners, etc.
It's easy to get upset with The Man for having a "sociological department" whos job is to minimize risks by looking for potential issues... but I can't say there's anything wrong with it. If a mom-n-pop store owner took a few minutes to look up the MySpace of one of their employees and found out he was an off-hours lunatic, I'd have no problem with them firing him before it became a problem.
Sure the line is blurred, but abused? Doesn't a business have a right to hire employees that it believes will be good for the business?
What you're doing and how you appear off-hours may be personal, but it becomes business if that starts affecting the business. Scenario: You are a manager for an expensive consulting firm. A valuable client sees you off-hours doing something (or dressed in a way) that leads them to question your experience, maturity, skill set, trustworthiness, etc. The next day the client decides it's best to hire a new consulting firm.
Is that your fault? No. Is it the client's fault? No, they're doing what's in their best interest, even if they might be short-sighted.
But then you get fired so that the company can beg for the client to return. Should your employer have stood up for you? Perhaps, but the company and its employees are not there to promote your freedom of expression, they're there for a job and to profit.
It really depends on what your day job is, but I can certainly see situations where terminating someone for off-site behavior is completely appropriate. And just as you have the right to quit, they have the right to fire. (Unless it's because of religion, ethnicity, etc.)
As much as we like to think we're the only ones that matter, why is it that we always look on graphs, data, trends, and feedback from geeks and draw global conclusions from them?
Since when did PCWorld.com become the de facto website that all web users visit?
More interesting to me would be the same analysis from a website such as CNN or MySpace or Amazon.Com which has a much more normalized audience. Did I just call MySpace normalized?
As for all those new Mac visits, my guess is that now that they have Bootcamp/Parallels Mac users are hopping on PCWorld to learn more about Windows and available software.
I went looking on walmart.com for the Linux box and could not find it. However, I found that they are selling an Everex Impact GC3502 Desktop with Windows Vista Home Basic for $278!
Now the specs suck, but it's comparible to my old laptop which runs Vista just fine (without Aero). It's an 80 GB hard drive, 1 GB of RAM, ethernet, modem, and comes with OpenOffice installed. Just no monitor.
You can upgrade the RAM to 2 GB or throw in a USB stick and use ReadyBoost. And external drives are cheap.
Sounds like a much better alternatve for the kids and grandma.
We've already been discovered, twice.
The first time: they discussed us using irrelevant analogies, took a senseless poll, said things like "imagine a Beowulf cluster of these" and "itsatrap!", and one alien remarked "I, for one, welcome our new Earthling overlords."
The second time: they just shouted "DUPE!" and moved on.
Does anyone know how this standard affects files that are not text? I mean things like posters, graphic images, audio, video, databases, complex spreadsheets, slideshows, etc. Basically, everything outside of Word?
For example, many government employees use Excel and are using features not supported by ODF. What happens when they need to send those files to others to edit?