Can someone explain to me why broadcasters think they can claim this as being illegal? If something is shown on TV and a person makes a copy using a video capture card this is = the quality of the broadcast, and that person (who has paid his TV license) then shares that program over the internet, and I, having paid my TV license, download that file, what is the difference between this and if I had just watched and recorded the TV show myself??? As TV is broadcast over the airwaves, and as nearly 100% of the population owns a TV in the developed world and presumably pays their license fees, how can this be made illegal, simply because it is re-distributed via another channel without profit?
Or, for the paranoid...
Disconnect broadband cable.
Full format hard disk with NTFS.
Install Windows XP.
Secure admin account.
Stop unneccessary services.
Install Norton Internet Security 2004.
Reconnect broadband connection.
Install all critical patches, plus all recommended patches that I require.
Update Norton Internet Security to latest definitions etc.
Completely remove, as much as it possible, IE6, Outlook Express and Media Player.
OpenOffice 1.1.1
Firefox nightly build 0.8.0+
Thunderbird weekly build 0.6a
7-Zip
FileZilla
WinAmp 5.03
Scite 1.59
PGP 8.0.2 (WinPT is so buggy it's unusable)
Adobe Acrobat Reader 6.0
Adobe Photoshop CS (Gimp is much less user-friendly in my opinion)
This is a problem with many programs, MS or OSS. I installed XP and, as admin, installed and configured the whole system. Created 2 users with just User rights and half the programs fail to work as expected due to bad software engineering. You have to have at least Power User rights to do anything. If you get software from a major development team, such as MS, Adobe or Mozilla, then you can be pretty safe in assuming that it will be multi-user, but not always (MS Office stupidly tries to 'install' for the user when the user is not admin, causing errors galore).
But, with smaller utilities, that one comes to rely on (Fastcheck for Fastmail, Gabber for Windows etc.) then it becomes immediately obvious that not many people really consider the term multi-user when developing smaller apps.
Regarding the whole security thing, Firefox/Thunderbird or Mozilla are *at the moment* infinitely better choices than MS due to the amount of cracking going on with MS products. However, you can _never_ assume that you are safe just because it's OSS and uses GPL and the sun shines out of it's....
Yeah, they are great alternatives but a dev team can never rest on it's laurels and must continuously evaluate it's product for holes, and this requires a dedicated test team and large user base.
The most dissapointing thing about OSS is that unfortunately, the useability and functionality is not quite up to the standard of MS in some cases, such as over-zealous HTML handling in Thunderbird causes HTML not to display, lack of export and inability to change viewing prefs are key features that should be there even in a preview app.
Too right! There is way too much coverage implying that bacteria are bad guys. If we wiped out bacteria, we'd probably wipe out ourselves.
Admittedly, some bacteria are more dangerous than others and extra care should be taken to try to minimise contact with these, I suppose, but studies like this never seem to mention this fact. So what if there are only 49 bacteria in a toilet!? They might be 20 times more harmful than a desk with a 1000 bacteria.
Slashdot Mirror
Can someone explain to me why broadcasters think they can claim this as being illegal? If something is shown on TV and a person makes a copy using a video capture card this is = the quality of the broadcast, and that person (who has paid his TV license) then shares that program over the internet, and I, having paid my TV license, download that file, what is the difference between this and if I had just watched and recorded the TV show myself??? As TV is broadcast over the airwaves, and as nearly 100% of the population owns a TV in the developed world and presumably pays their license fees, how can this be made illegal, simply because it is re-distributed via another channel without profit?
Or, for the paranoid... Disconnect broadband cable. Full format hard disk with NTFS. Install Windows XP. Secure admin account. Stop unneccessary services. Install Norton Internet Security 2004. Reconnect broadband connection. Install all critical patches, plus all recommended patches that I require. Update Norton Internet Security to latest definitions etc. Completely remove, as much as it possible, IE6, Outlook Express and Media Player. OpenOffice 1.1.1 Firefox nightly build 0.8.0+ Thunderbird weekly build 0.6a 7-Zip FileZilla WinAmp 5.03 Scite 1.59 PGP 8.0.2 (WinPT is so buggy it's unusable) Adobe Acrobat Reader 6.0 Adobe Photoshop CS (Gimp is much less user-friendly in my opinion)
This is a problem with many programs, MS or OSS. I installed XP and, as admin, installed and configured the whole system. Created 2 users with just User rights and half the programs fail to work as expected due to bad software engineering. You have to have at least Power User rights to do anything. If you get software from a major development team, such as MS, Adobe or Mozilla, then you can be pretty safe in assuming that it will be multi-user, but not always (MS Office stupidly tries to 'install' for the user when the user is not admin, causing errors galore).
But, with smaller utilities, that one comes to rely on (Fastcheck for Fastmail, Gabber for Windows etc.) then it becomes immediately obvious that not many people really consider the term multi-user when developing smaller apps.
Regarding the whole security thing, Firefox/Thunderbird or Mozilla are *at the moment* infinitely better choices than MS due to the amount of cracking going on with MS products. However, you can _never_ assume that you are safe just because it's OSS and uses GPL and the sun shines out of it's....
Yeah, they are great alternatives but a dev team can never rest on it's laurels and must continuously evaluate it's product for holes, and this requires a dedicated test team and large user base.
The most dissapointing thing about OSS is that unfortunately, the useability and functionality is not quite up to the standard of MS in some cases, such as over-zealous HTML handling in Thunderbird causes HTML not to display, lack of export and inability to change viewing prefs are key features that should be there even in a preview app.
Too right! There is way too much coverage implying that bacteria are bad guys. If we wiped out bacteria, we'd probably wipe out ourselves. Admittedly, some bacteria are more dangerous than others and extra care should be taken to try to minimise contact with these, I suppose, but studies like this never seem to mention this fact. So what if there are only 49 bacteria in a toilet!? They might be 20 times more harmful than a desk with a 1000 bacteria.