I'm not saying that there shouldn't be any piracy protection. I'm saying that companies should only take basic precautions. Car companies could design a safer seat-belt, maybe some sort of webbing, but it would be a pain to get in and out of it.
However, I am not sure where the line between basic precautions and excessive precautions should be.
No, but the general public (or the media maybe) put the blame on the government for not "heeding" the warning they had.
Now, I'm not exactly sure what they were supposed to do with the warning they had received. Amongst most people, the government is to blame for not doing something.
Unless the FBI thinks that God exists and that this person was conspiring with Him to kill the President, there was no threat, period.
It doesn't matter what the FBI thinks about God, it matters what the person in question believes about God.
Crimes have been known to be committed in the name of God.
I can see why the FBI might take this seriously. I think they just want to cover their rear-ends. If something did happen, they would be in deep trouble if it was known that they knew of a threat previously (kind of like what happened with Sep. 11 incident).
If Microsoft didn't include a browser, any browser, with their operating system, people would complain that it isn't "Internet-ready". In this case, Microsoft has a browser. They use it to give the operating system a link that it can it use automatically with the Internet. Windows uses it to render off line html, and for Windows Update.
Windows wouldn't be a complete operating system without a browser.
A bug is a bug not matter if it's present on one platform or all of them. Suppose I write a program that works fine on Windows, but fails to run on Linux because of an oversight on my part. My failure to take into consideration the workings of my program on all the platforms it's designed for is called a bug.
So, the Mozilla application has a bug, in that it allows Windows to execute arbitrary code.
I think Mozilla is cool, but a bug is a bug, not matter what causes it.
Re:Unix Tools and Shells.. that's what windows lac
on
Linux Users Are Spoiled
·
· Score: 1, Informative
You're right VBScript is a bad example.
But Windows XP (and, I think, Windows 2000) does come with scripting tools (more than batch files) that work right off the command line. VBScript and JavaScript support is built in, but you can add you favorite scripting language (like perl!) with a third party add-on, Run a search on Google for "Windows XP scripting". You will find that there are ways to automate things in Windows. You just have to know how to do it, just like in Linux.
Big as Microsoft are, there are significant holes in their product line: graphic design, electronic circuit design, music composition, genealogy, CAD, Mathematical modelling, and so on. To some people these are killer apps, and FOSS does cover significant chunks in these areas. If it can cover the basics (which it mostly does now) then these will be the areas that will encourage people to switch.
The thing is that if Microsoft did include all those applications with Windows, people everywhere would scream "Monopoly!"
If you think about it, Microsoft was been slowly increasing the value of it's OS by adding more applications in it's OS. A couple of years ago, you would have to pay extra for a firewall, CD burning software, movie editer, etc. But Windows XP comes with those included. Yes, they aren't the best programs out there (far from it), but they are free.
Re:Unix Tools and Shells.. that's what windows lac
on
Linux Users Are Spoiled
·
· Score: 1, Troll
It sounds like you don't know the tools to use in Windows. I'm sure with some VBScript you could quickly rearrange that text file.
Windows has power. You just have to be educated. For example, I don't have a clue how to do the things you mentioned on Linux. Does that make Linux powerless?
I have to agree. I find the MSDN documentation very helpful. Most of my knowledge of Windows-specific code was learned from the MSDN docs. I think they did a realy good job on the docs.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone should maybe add this to wikipedia's slashdot entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slashdot_subculture
I'm not saying that there shouldn't be any piracy protection. I'm saying that companies should only take basic precautions. Car companies could design a safer seat-belt, maybe some sort of webbing, but it would be a pain to get in and out of it.
However, I am not sure where the line between basic precautions and excessive precautions should be.
One can poison a dog.....
I guess my point is that game companies knock themselves out trying to prevent piracy because it can't be done.
For the record, however, I don't believe that piracy is right, just unpreventable.
-Morty
I don't know if there are any proven anti-piracy systems.
Can you list any proven anti-burgler devices for homes?
Any determined burgler can break into a house.
Any determined cracker can crack a game's copy protection scheme.
-Morty
I think the previous posters has a point. There's difference between taking some precautions, and going overboard on dealing with piracy.
-Morty
Most people are murdered for monetary or other reasons, and not because of religion.
-Morty
Now, I'm not exactly sure what they were supposed to do with the warning they had received. Amongst most people, the government is to blame for not doing something.
-Morty
Crimes have been known to be committed in the name of God.
I can see why the FBI might take this seriously. I think they just want to cover their rear-ends. If something did happen, they would be in deep trouble if it was known that they knew of a threat previously (kind of like what happened with Sep. 11 incident).
-Morty
I have a friend who also is a delegate at the convention. She's active in her party, but I don't think has ever held a political office.
It's an issue of privacy.
You shill! You can't just change a law, on a whim, without the consent of the people! ;)
Windows wouldn't be a complete operating system without a browser.
So, the Mozilla application has a bug, in that it allows Windows to execute arbitrary code.
I think Mozilla is cool, but a bug is a bug, not matter what causes it.
You're right VBScript is a bad example.
But Windows XP (and, I think, Windows 2000) does come with scripting tools (more than batch files) that work right off the command line. VBScript and JavaScript support is built in, but you can add you favorite scripting language (like perl!) with a third party add-on, Run a search on Google for "Windows XP scripting". You will find that there are ways to automate things in Windows. You just have to know how to do it, just like in Linux.
Some links to Windows Scripting Resources:
Microsoft's Web Site
X vs. XP > Scriptability
Also, if you really love the Unix command line tools, you can get a port of them for Windows.
The thing is that if Microsoft did include all those applications with Windows, people everywhere would scream "Monopoly!"
If you think about it, Microsoft was been slowly increasing the value of it's OS by adding more applications in it's OS. A couple of years ago, you would have to pay extra for a firewall, CD burning software, movie editer, etc. But Windows XP comes with those included. Yes, they aren't the best programs out there (far from it), but they are free.
It sounds like you don't know the tools to use in Windows. I'm sure with some VBScript you could quickly rearrange that text file. Windows has power. You just have to be educated. For example, I don't have a clue how to do the things you mentioned on Linux. Does that make Linux powerless?
I have to agree. I find the MSDN documentation very helpful. Most of my knowledge of Windows-specific code was learned from the MSDN docs. I think they did a realy good job on the docs.
Case in point:
A couple of years back I built two computers, identical except that one was built with brand name hardware and the other with generic hardware.
The computer with generic hardware is always crashing, but the other runs well.
It seems that buying high-quality hardware really makes a difference.