Suppose you were driving on an ice road - would you wear a seat belt? I wouldn't! I don't care how safe they say it is there is no way I'll wear a seat belt when driving on ice.
The difference being, seatbelts have saved my life, but I've never used AV software and have (almost) never had a virus. I don't connect windows boxes directly to the Internets, don't use IE, and just generally don't install anything that I don't know enough about to feel it's safe.
IMO, AV software is malware itself. It interferes with the normal operation of the system in order to "protect" it. The simple fact is, users should never execute code that might be malicious, and the system shouldn't execute any arbitrary code.
AV software just lulls people into a false sense of security. Plain and simple, it doesn't even work. Most of the virus-infected windows machines I've seen have had up-to-date copies of a major AV package. It's the users, and the general lack of proper security of the systems -- well, that's a very simplistic view.
Honestly, and obviously, I don't know what the answer is. AV software, in its current form, is simply not it though. Trusted computing? Perhaps if TC was designed around users' needs, instead of greedy vendors.
That really sounds like my kind of evening. I'd much rather spend my hard earned cash on a quality outing like that than disappointing experiences elsewhere. Hell, even if the movie ends up being lame, at least you were treated like an adult, had some real food / drink, and relaxed enough to let out some stress.
There's nothing like that around here. So, I have a 50" widescreen TV, and play DVDs upscaled to 720p with VLC, which bypasses region coding so I can watch imports too. I have a really nice wireless keyboard to control it, which I keep on my coffee table.
Hmmm... Pizza, wine, and a movie tonight sounds relaxing.
I hate the Beatles. I don't understand why they're so loved, *especially* by anyone who has a real appreciation for music. Is there a whole catalog of Beatles music that's more than a few cheesy chords and really, *really* god awful lyrics that I just am not aware of?
Oh, please note that I am not trolling or picking a fight or anything. I'm specifically asking you because you seem to know what you're talking about.
I would agree 100%, indeed, without politics involved I am interested in the results myself, but in this case, I'd just rather the study not be done. I simply do not want our shittastic "leaders" to know, because they're far too stupid to make decisions about such things.
I'm not afraid of the results of this study. The fact is, I don't even *care* about the results. What I *do* care about, and what we should all be caring about, is whether or not the results can justify censorship of video games.
The fact of the matter is, all forms of expression DO in fact influence people. That is the whole fucking point of expressing something in the first damn place! That has never been at issue with regards to freedom of expression. Banning expression because it's influential is a bad, bad precedent to set.
Adults are responsible for their own actions, and parents are responsible for thier own children. The government of the United States was designed to protect our rights, not limit them.
Well, considering that the latest installment of PoP looks like shit on all the consoles, and even the PC, I wouldn't hold my breath for anything so magnificent from Ubisoft. It's a damn shame too, because PoP:WW is one of the most beautiful games I've ever played - I played it on GC, I hear the PS2 version had serious framerate issues. T2T just looks like shit by comparison. Good game though, just could have been better. With everything they had going for them... it's almost as if Ubisoft was determined to not make a perfect game.
I think SotC would have been a real letdown on any other console. The effects, which are nothing short of amazing, may have been used to cover up the lack of a huge poly-count in some cases, but they're really what gives the world in SotC it's beauty. The main character, I agree, does look kinda crappy. The horse isn't too bad. But the world looks absolutely amazing, and so do the Colossi.
The PS2 doesn't have the raw power of the Xbox or the Cube, but it is capable of some really amazing visual effects. It's really a shame that most developers haven't taken full advantage of it. OTOH, there's still some great games coming out on that ancient thing.
Octopus isn't bad. I get it occasionally at sushi restaurants. It's chewy, and rather plant-like in texture. It also pops a little when you chew it. The taste is very subtle, not fishy, but mostly it's a good delivery device for soy sauce and wasabi.
HOW MANY FUCKING TIMES DO I HAVE TO FUCKING TELL YOU THAT I DID NOT VOTE FOR A REPUBLICAN OR A DEMOCRAT?
blah blah blah avoid the lameness filter blah blah blah yes i know i am lame blah blah blah blah blah blah lame lame lame blah blah blah blah what percentage of a post has to be non-caps to pass the lame lameness filter blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
Defending yourself against a patent claim is expensive. Considering that you don't have to even be making any money to violate a patent, that already means the patent system is not setup to do what it was intended to do, hence, broken.
Add to that the ridiculous patents being awarded today, and we are completely fucked by this shit.
I really hate to think that the law is so fucking insane that your "regular," above average intelligence bloke can't figure it out for himself. If that truly is the case, which it most certainly seems to be, we seriously need to start all over again. Start with the Constitution, and go from there, and try a little fucking harder to prevent it all from being corrupted like it is now.
The Founders of this insane country have got to be spinning in their graves.
Jesus fucking Christ, STFU, I said I didn't vote for a goddamn Republicrat.
Your bullshit about the Libertarian party being less extreme is just that, bullshit. You're using some really disengenuous arguments to support that stance. And your statements are not all true. The U.S. did not invade with support from both parties - while technically yes, not really. Both parties gave tentative support, assuming the president wasn't a lying shiteater, which it turns out he was. The diplomatic approach was a ruse.
And fucking christ man, less evil is less evil. Just stop with that bullshit about "wholeheartedly endorsing" either parties' ideals. I don't, and noone I know does, wholeheartedly support any political party, period. In the case of the last election, it would have saved this country a lot of grief, IMO anyway, had Bush lost to Kerry. You make the world out to be black and white; it's not. Sometimes you have to compromise. Sometimes you have to be pragmatic.
The Libertarian party will gain no traction as long as it remains so focused on ideals. Learn some fucking pragmatism.
I agree that the Republicrats need to be deposed. But, being rational and pragmatic about it, I'd like to do it in a non-destructive manner. Letting Bush win the last election was not an option. Luckily for me, I don't live in a swing state, so I could not influence the outcome with my vote, so I voted for who I supported the most. Unfortuneately, roughly 50% of this godforsaken turd of a country are stupid enough to believe that mouth-breathing piece of shit GWB. That has been a huge loss for us, and indeed, the world as a whole. Less evil would have been far, far more palatable in this instance.
For the record, I am most accurately labeled as a left-leaning Libertarian. I like to refer to myself as a pragmatist, and avoid the Libertarian label so avoid being thought of as a raving fucking lunatic the way people see you "real" Libertarians.
So once you accept that speech should be regulated (which you do, if you voted Republican or Democrat)
Don't, don't, didn't. But were I in a state where the vote could have gone either way, I'd have voted _against Bush_, because in this particular case, I think the lesser of two evils would have been a damn sight better than what we've got. But that's neither here nor there.
Right now there is only one party in the U.S. that doesn't support censorship (the Libertarian party), and needless to say that party or it's idea's aren't very popular.
The Libertarian party is too extreme. If they want to get anywhere, they'll have to meet the people somewhere between their extreme ideals and the reality that the people are living in.
Pssst! Your US-centric worldview is showing. You're the one who needs to go out and see the rest of the world. Not only are you wrong about all those places, but America is still falling behind, fast.
I am so sick of seeing shit like this in the good ol' United States of America. Land of the Free^W^Wcriminals, home of the Brave^Wcowards.
Is speech really so dangerous? Why are so many people so hellbent on preventing other people from speaking their minds? Libel, slander? That's bullshit. There is no slander so damaging that NJ needs to restrict freedom of speech like this, which would possibly be the largest restriction on speech ever in U.S. history.
Anyone who supports this legislation should be hung. I'm not even kidding.
Well, I always disliked Napster. From whatshisname being a complete prick, the users, and the software itself, I'm not upset that it's dead. I thought they sold the company to an RIAA affiliated company or something, however. The fact the the company was basically stolen, despite my dislike of the previous owners, makes it all the more fitting that it should die by DRM.
What happened to MP3.com was a fucking travesty. It had major potential to shake up the industry, and the lawsuits against them were a fucking fraud. They may have, technically, violated copyrights, but they were not acting outside the spirit of copyright protection laws, or at least they were acting in good faith.
That's a pretty good idea indeed. But what about, say, doctors who are on call? I'm not sure myself, but do you think it's a good idea for them to leave their pagers with some minimum wage earning bloke? I'm honestly asking for opinions, because I just don't know.
I think it is quite fitting that DRM is killing Napster. Napster made it's name by facilitating "piracy," sold out to the man and started selling heavily encumbered music, and is now dying for it. That's fitting, IMO. What would be nicer still, however, is if all this DRM shit would bring down the whole of the music industry.
I can envision a new industry, where artists sign with small labels or produce their own music, and sell DRM free music on the web, and have small batches of CDs pressed at reasonable prices to be sold at reasonable prices in stores of the brick and mortor and online varieties. With reasonable prices, I don't think piracy would be a big issue, and with artists getting paid directly and in control of their own product, they'll be making better livings. And I can see the current record execs selling their homes, cars, vacation homes, etc, just to make it by.
But who'm I kidding, that'd make too much sense and be the right thing to happen, so it's obviously impossible.
Slashdot Mirror
Huh?
IMO, AV software is malware itself. It interferes with the normal operation of the system in order to "protect" it. The simple fact is, users should never execute code that might be malicious, and the system shouldn't execute any arbitrary code.
AV software just lulls people into a false sense of security. Plain and simple, it doesn't even work. Most of the virus-infected windows machines I've seen have had up-to-date copies of a major AV package. It's the users, and the general lack of proper security of the systems -- well, that's a very simplistic view.
Honestly, and obviously, I don't know what the answer is. AV software, in its current form, is simply not it though. Trusted computing? Perhaps if TC was designed around users' needs, instead of greedy vendors.
He must be a product of one of their education systems!
There's nothing like that around here. So, I have a 50" widescreen TV, and play DVDs upscaled to 720p with VLC, which bypasses region coding so I can watch imports too. I have a really nice wireless keyboard to control it, which I keep on my coffee table.
Hmmm... Pizza, wine, and a movie tonight sounds relaxing.
Oh, please note that I am not trolling or picking a fight or anything. I'm specifically asking you because you seem to know what you're talking about.
Thanks.
The fact of the matter is, all forms of expression DO in fact influence people. That is the whole fucking point of expressing something in the first damn place! That has never been at issue with regards to freedom of expression. Banning expression because it's influential is a bad, bad precedent to set.
Adults are responsible for their own actions, and parents are responsible for thier own children. The government of the United States was designed to protect our rights, not limit them.
I think SotC would have been a real letdown on any other console. The effects, which are nothing short of amazing, may have been used to cover up the lack of a huge poly-count in some cases, but they're really what gives the world in SotC it's beauty. The main character, I agree, does look kinda crappy. The horse isn't too bad. But the world looks absolutely amazing, and so do the Colossi.
The PS2 doesn't have the raw power of the Xbox or the Cube, but it is capable of some really amazing visual effects. It's really a shame that most developers haven't taken full advantage of it. OTOH, there's still some great games coming out on that ancient thing.
blah blah blah avoid the lameness filter blah blah blah yes i know i am lame blah blah blah blah blah blah lame lame lame blah blah blah blah what percentage of a post has to be non-caps to pass the lame lameness filter blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
Add to that the ridiculous patents being awarded today, and we are completely fucked by this shit.
The Founders of this insane country have got to be spinning in their graves.
Your bullshit about the Libertarian party being less extreme is just that, bullshit. You're using some really disengenuous arguments to support that stance. And your statements are not all true. The U.S. did not invade with support from both parties - while technically yes, not really. Both parties gave tentative support, assuming the president wasn't a lying shiteater, which it turns out he was. The diplomatic approach was a ruse.
And fucking christ man, less evil is less evil. Just stop with that bullshit about "wholeheartedly endorsing" either parties' ideals. I don't, and noone I know does, wholeheartedly support any political party, period. In the case of the last election, it would have saved this country a lot of grief, IMO anyway, had Bush lost to Kerry. You make the world out to be black and white; it's not. Sometimes you have to compromise. Sometimes you have to be pragmatic.
The Libertarian party will gain no traction as long as it remains so focused on ideals. Learn some fucking pragmatism.
I agree that the Republicrats need to be deposed. But, being rational and pragmatic about it, I'd like to do it in a non-destructive manner. Letting Bush win the last election was not an option. Luckily for me, I don't live in a swing state, so I could not influence the outcome with my vote, so I voted for who I supported the most. Unfortuneately, roughly 50% of this godforsaken turd of a country are stupid enough to believe that mouth-breathing piece of shit GWB. That has been a huge loss for us, and indeed, the world as a whole. Less evil would have been far, far more palatable in this instance.
For the record, I am most accurately labeled as a left-leaning Libertarian. I like to refer to myself as a pragmatist, and avoid the Libertarian label so avoid being thought of as a raving fucking lunatic the way people see you "real" Libertarians.
Don't, don't, didn't. But were I in a state where the vote could have gone either way, I'd have voted _against Bush_, because in this particular case, I think the lesser of two evils would have been a damn sight better than what we've got. But that's neither here nor there.
Right now there is only one party in the U.S. that doesn't support censorship (the Libertarian party), and needless to say that party or it's idea's aren't very popular.
The Libertarian party is too extreme. If they want to get anywhere, they'll have to meet the people somewhere between their extreme ideals and the reality that the people are living in.
Is speech really so dangerous? Why are so many people so hellbent on preventing other people from speaking their minds? Libel, slander? That's bullshit. There is no slander so damaging that NJ needs to restrict freedom of speech like this, which would possibly be the largest restriction on speech ever in U.S. history.
Anyone who supports this legislation should be hung. I'm not even kidding.
That's interesting, two weeks ago you didn't know what a Blackberry was.
That's completely irrelevent.
Well, this story sure makes quite a number of really awful sci-fi/horror flicks much less retarded in hindsight.
What happened to MP3.com was a fucking travesty. It had major potential to shake up the industry, and the lawsuits against them were a fucking fraud. They may have, technically, violated copyrights, but they were not acting outside the spirit of copyright protection laws, or at least they were acting in good faith.
I can envision a new industry, where artists sign with small labels or produce their own music, and sell DRM free music on the web, and have small batches of CDs pressed at reasonable prices to be sold at reasonable prices in stores of the brick and mortor and online varieties. With reasonable prices, I don't think piracy would be a big issue, and with artists getting paid directly and in control of their own product, they'll be making better livings. And I can see the current record execs selling their homes, cars, vacation homes, etc, just to make it by.
But who'm I kidding, that'd make too much sense and be the right thing to happen, so it's obviously impossible.