... Their future downloadable software business models depend on it!
They would hate to have in place that you can actually purchase a single purchase and NOT have it locked to certain hardware.
For example, I have a single copy of WinXP Pro on a 300GB Raptor HDD.
I enjoy removing said drive and inserting in one of three computers with DIFFERENT HARDWARE depending on what I want to do.
Sure, it might be easier to pirate another copy of WinXP, but since I PAID FOR IT RETAIL (and it was NOT the Upgrade version) I believe I should be able to run said purchased code on any device I see fit to run it on. (so long as only that single installation copy is ever used at any given time no matter what PC is fits into..)
Sure, I get to have WGA the DRM fun every week or two, but who cares? I jsut call the number on speaker phone after the Internet activations fail and get the pweson on the other end of the phone to unlock it.
For some reason I ask to PAY FULL PRICE for another copy of WinXP Pro which DOES NOT use WGA (the corporate versions are like this) and I was flat told NO YOU CANNOT. I sadi ok, fine, I will call you every time your DRM locks my PC down and Microsoft can lose money every time you are forced to unlock its DRM "feature" (And NOT gain another sale and hopefully lose money for the trouble of the over 10 calls I have had to make so far...
So, I follow the stupid rules legitimately and use them against the DRM machine...
I believe MS is planning on using the DRM they are using in the MSN Music store as a sort of 'trial run' for what they hope to have as downloadable OS and Office apps very soon... (And the it will be a matter of time before said apps expire and they enforce a time-based subscription service like SlySoft.com just did when they took their licenses from eligible for updates to said software forever to only one year for the free updates.)
No political statement intended, but it would be surprising if one day the government contractors doing cleanup also found a more/less completed Nuclear weapon warhead buried in a trash pit too.
Makes one wonder what Russia still has buried in their "nuclear trash pits"?
I am sure Mike Rowe will Not be going to film that Dirty Job... (But I would certainly watch it if he ever did... as I imagine seeing Barsky fall in a pit of Nuclear Waste as Mike kiddingly mocks him.../chuckle)
I'd wager ALL (or a good portion) of the magnetic hard drive manufacturer's BEST people are working on their prototype SSD units (NOT magnetic drives and their respective firmware)...
Magnetic Media Hard Drives have now entered the time of their final epic journey to join their ancestors, Betamax, Cassettes, and 8-Track (et al.) at the great campfire in the sky...
So the 4th Amendment was intended to protect US Citizens on their own person as well as in/on their private property?
Meaning that the 4th Amendment was meant to protect their person in public areas also?
That being given, how does that apply to messages sent from them to another party outside of on their person and exclusively through their private property?
I am thinking that "Cyberspace" or "Tubes" or whatever the public Internet or other type of public infrastructure that US Citizens are using is *outside* of the intended protections of the 4th Amendment.
That is why we have PGP (et al) and there are strongly encrypted telephone devices available for use by private US Citizens.
Having formerly worked at the USPS, I was impressed with the lengths the Postal Inspection Service and the Postmasters go to in order to uphold laws which protect anything sent in the US Postal Service mail. It is (and was) my understanding that EVERY piece of mail is subject to inspection simply by the implied contract by which the act of buying a stamp and affixing it to a parcel and then placing said stamped parcel onto Federal Property for delivery between Federal mailboxes. (NOTE: mail boxes *do* count as Federal Property or at least fall under Federal Jurisdiction, try vandalizing one and getting caught if you ~really~ wish to find out)
I agree there are various ROE and hoops and tightropes which must be perfectly navigated as well as chains of evidence, etc... that Police must follow to validate the evidence used and to decrease the possibility that the legal defense for an 'alleged' law breaker will get said evidence thrown out...
It seems that common sense has been removed from the law and it all is down to semantics.
The 4th Amendment was meant to uphold the intention to protect US Citizens from illegal searches and seizures on their person and on their property. It seems everyone is now arguing about what "illegal" means (much like Pres. Clinton argued about what "is" means to him...)
It is very likely the 4th Amendment was NOT intended to cover any interstate communications / voice communications / parcels and letters / smoke signals / and even the Bat-Signal. Those things are not searches and seizures to an individual and their property as the 4th Amendment likely intends protection for AND those who feel they DO own their electrons and photons traveling through the Internet and these ARE part of their personal property as protected by the 4th Amendment (and therefore not subject to search and seizure without due process), are IMHO mistaken. (...Unless you own the private network said photos/electrons reside in and said network is entirely contained on your private property).
I wish the 4th Amendment did cover these things, but I interpret the 4th Amendment to cover your person and your private property only.
(Just as the 2nd Amendment DID mean "Arms" were firearms as they existed back then and were subject to seizure and search without the written right to bear them and form militias. (The definition of "bear" sure has changed to "licensed concealed-carry only" but it is still a regulated right we retain in the US largely do toe that 2nd Amendment. The framers likely did not intend communication messages to be covered by the 4th Amendment or they would have written it so, as parcels and letters did exist back then.)
So the current shiny White and snappy Aluminum Macs will now be offered in limited edition "Mourning Period" Matte Black until The Great Jobs' returns?
This is not Tucker and his car.
Apple is a ginormus company with a fruity logo and there are plenty of others working there who can probably design expensive locked-in hardware to run OSX and who could just as well leverage the closed-source iPhone and iPod device lines (not to mention to further bloat and propagate the forced installation of iTunes to fully utilize said devices).
(Admit it, some of the new Macs would look KewL in Matte Black...)
Depends on if that "communication" goes over lands/buildings/properties exclusively owned by a private individual US Citizen with 4th Amendment protections OR does that transmission cross some line of demarcation onto property that is not solely owned by that 4th Amendment protested individual?
To walk around your house naked is legal as it your right to privacy, but to go outside and walk down the street naked, your rights to privacy vanish!
My email have been ruled to be "unprotected" once it passes my line of demarcation and this is no different.
Putting it another way, two parties yelling across a public alley at one another from each of their private homes (or even if signaling each other in Morse Code with Naval Signaling Lights) are not protected by the 4th Amendment in their "Communication" as intercepting it can be done from lands and property not owned by either party. (And the same would be true if the same individual owned both homes, because the message crossed lands and property not subject to the 4th Amendment protections of the individual citizen.
IANAL, but as I understand the 4th Amendment, it was written over SEARCH and SEIZURES in/of a Private US Citizen's PROPERTY/HOME, and does not cover PUBLIC locations. For public locations, the Police need to abide by their own ROE and typically only probable cause or some other suspicion or wrongdoing is needed for the Police to search your person or vehicle (as you would NOT be located on/in YOUR 4th Amendment Protected private property but in a public location.)
SO what you are implying is that a dumb user can utilize Win7 better by connecting an Apple ONE BUTTON MOUSE to it?
Not to troll, but I agree with this entire tree of comments... (And I am not a dumb user... I was around for DOS and more or less used Windows 1.0)
Unfortunately, natural evolution rewards COMPETITION among differing genetic phenotypes through the survival of the fittest (and the occasional comet impact, Global GRB, and super volcano eruption.)
Microsoft is not following the natural evolution pattern as nature uses, they have BILLIONS in funds and some products are unnaturally selected for, whereas they are clearly NOT the fittest. (Anyone recall when WinME was selling alongside Win2k and was touted as a better version of Windows?)
Forgive my skepticism/sarcasm, I am writing this EVEN NOW as my Win7 Beta build 7000 install has puked all over itself in the endless black screen of monitor blue light blinking and will not boot into Normal Mode nor into Safe Mode "because Win7 cannot complete installation in Safe Mode. To continue installing Windows, restart the computer." GREAT!
-->What good is Safe Mode if one cannot detect hardware and at least pre-install drivers in it for the next "Normal" boot??? ...So an endless loop of NOT being able to play with something I'll probably dislike a very small amount less than I do Vista... (The Intel D975XBX mainboard with Nvidia 8800 GTS 320 is not exactly an uncommon setup...) Thank You Microsoft.
(NOTE: WinXP (Pre-SP1) installs and boots completely to the desktop on the same setup, all things being equal save boot/install disks...) Time to plug the XP drive back in and wait for their next Beta build... GRRRRRr.. Wasted Time...
One should be able to install Win7 on most any hardware from the last 3 years using only a one button mouse and keyboard missing the all of its vowel and enter keys...
Actually, I kinda have to like disagree with you on that...
Current PC games are utilizing these latest generation cards NOW...
I use the predecessor to this card (Nvidia's GTX280 GPU with its 240 'cores') to play the latest FPS games at 1920x1200 and it runs a Folding@Home GPU CUDA client whenever it is not gaming...
If I had one of these new $500 GTX295's I could run my games even faster or even assign one of the GPU's with its 240 'cores' for physics processing (A/K/A Nvidia PhysX, F/K/A Ageia PhysX) and the other GPU would serve as the primary rendering GPU. (And of course I would have BOTH of the GTX295 GPU's using their 240 'cores' each for twice the F@H contributions [or whatever distributed computing task I choose to donate some cycles to...]
(Since I have an all-electric home, why not use my PC to heat part of it in the wintertime instead of wasting that electricity heating air solely through with my all-electric HVAC unit...)
Re:Web ads are getting killed....by my FF extensio
on
How Web Advertising May Go
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Anyone care to guess why Google's CHROME has no ability to use plugins/add-ons?
(And, I'd actually use Chrome if I could BLOCK THE DAMN ADS!!! Who cares if Chrome renders this well and/or is faster... CAN IT BLOCK ADS??, No?... OK! Fine... So, where's my FF icon? )
Therefore I use FireFox 3.x with NoScript, AdBlock Pro, and Flashblock installed...
(Sure, I find myself whitelisting certain sites often... but that is the way it should be!)
Try reading certain sites with IE7 at netbook resolutions and you will love FF with the ad killing plugins/add-ons....
I am so tired of reading about these Patent Troll turds. Let's just pile these guys in with the likes of SCO and Rambus.
People with this mentality come from the non-branching family trees of the ones who also try to enFORCE DRM on the world.
Isn't there a joke in here about a ship containing 1000 (Patent) Lawyers on the bottom of the ocean?...
('Bout time for a ship containing 1000 Patent Examiners to sink also...) Now get off my lawn!
I have read about Sony adding Malware (and Rootkits) to their consumer USB removable devices before...
I also wonder if these files "DPFMate.exe" and "FEnCodeUnicode.dll" are something someone post-production put on the devices or if these files are some intended application?
Never using a digital photo frame before, I assume one simply copies image files into a mounted USB attached drive letter folder? (similar to how USB drives mount as a removable drive letter folder in Windows)
Is there not a way to just block the ability to direct dial International Calls at the Phone company level. That way a calling card could be used to only dial international?
If the phone company does not offer such a protection, they are in a manner condoning such abuse are they not?
I was also under the impression that YOU had to be the one that actually 'in good faith' placed the calls for it to legally billed to you. I am not sure about US/Canadian telecom laws?
If a stranger hacks my WIFI encryption in my neighborhood and downloads child prOn, warez, illegal MP3, etc.. through my router/IP that DOES NOT mean that I did it and I AM NOT responsible for those communications/transfers as I have made reasonable accommodations to prevent that (plus I shutter to think that any of my neighbors are into any of that).
I would simply be responsible for getting a better protected router or some other commonplace and reasonable standard process of WiFi protection.
Similarly, this firm likely had made reasonable efforts to NOT have their phone system hacked, and therefore did not make the calls and thus should not be made responsible for them. The phone company should protect their customers 'in good faith'.
Actually I took "Injectable Artificial Bone Developed" a completely different direction...
Following the snicker to the Gods of obvious marketing difficulties, I imagined that a new model of the common female "Personal Massager" (AKA Dildo) was in development...
I thought that "Lack of Oxygen to the Brain" was the root cause and standard 'Definition of Death'?
(Of course, I am excluding those who blow themselves up with high explosives, fall to their deaths from great heights [or any who may ride thermonuclear bombs as they fall to earth]...and any other such instantaneous trauma deaths.)
Ah, through the "wisdom" of the US Congress, the SSC (Superconducting Super Collider) was killed over a mere $12 Billion cost savings (which was well under construction just south of Dallas, TX). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Super_Collider
Some say it was largely due to infighting with 'higher educational interests' back East and in the Chicago area, - but really the answer most likely due to nothing more than Greed and Money.
We (in the US) could have had something MORE POWERFUL than the LHC here in the US. (As I try not to think about the high-energy physicist brain-drain to France/Switzerland)...
Once upon a time, the US took pride in having the best and coolest toys the world over... (/sigh)
I just figured that if Van Halen could have contract riders stating that they would get 10lbs of m&m's (sans brown ones) backstage, I ask that the computer knowledge-deprived ladies to provide me with good beer and free dinner OR that they invite a cute single friend over (no DUFFs) and I bring the drinks. Sometimes this works. I suggest bringing a good bottle of white and red wine (or four).:)
HAL9000 singing that song popped into my head after reading that headline.
Perhaps this discovery is just one more step in the direction of a singing homicidal AI computer.
Daisy, Daisy
Give me your answer do
I'm half crazy
all for the love of you...
You missed my point, I was making (or at least attempting to make) a fundamental analogy. Not some type of geopolitical statement.
Also, it had nothing to do with the country of Iraq. (And apparently, you have never been held at gunpoint and robbed before.)
There *are* very bad people out there, and some of them use the Internet and do very bad things there too.
Some believe that an individual Internet User should be filtered, 'protected', and passively controlled by bureaucrats, in a fully rubber-padded and hand-railed world, leaving only the police having any legal power and authority to protect individuals (hit-back). (As in "For Your Protection", yes think Douglas Adams)
Others believe in self-protection, self-regulation, and self-defense and embrace the concept of personal responsibility for one's safety and personal accountability if you threaten or harm another. (I lean that way...)
If someone breaks into my home and threatens me or my family with a weapon, they die.
(This is a valid and appropriate example of Self-protection and deterrence to any others from making attempts to attempt to do the same.)
There are many who believe I should not have right to have the tools of my own protection (because someone out there might misuse the same tools or whatever) and therefore only the police (government) should have such tools and they will be the only ones with said 'protection'.
Classic gun-control fallacy. The world does not work that way. People do not work that way. Deterrence works.
I was suggesting that some offensive capability be permitted/granted to those who are attacked on the open Internet as a deterrent. Something with teeth.
To my knowledge, all we can do legally is filter/firewall and block an attacker (as we have walls and locks and doors on our homes) on the Internet who is harming/attacking us.
It would be nice to have a honeypot full of coded hurt at the ready for attackers to steal or a botnet ready to flood them into leaving me alone. (I am sure the DOD has these and many more effective 'protection' tools at their disposal.)
It was an argument against the concept that the Internet should be policed only by the government/military/police and rubber-padded and filtered for its users.
I do realize that the Internet is not built that way and there is no good analogy in the real world to best explain it, but a nice protective capability like a DNS kick-ban or remote forced system reboot on my attacker would make me happier knowing I *could* do that to some bad and harmful user who is attacking my system on my side of the demark.
I would wager some companies on the open Internet have some off-shore 'contractors' on call to dish out some digital hurt to attackers.
...People carried guns for protection.
And individuals who learned to best use their 'protection', with faster assessment of threats and the resulting execution of such with precise accuracy, found they had a satisfactory level of self-protection.
I say, legalize some offensive capabilities for "Internet Users" and set up some general universal use rules. After all, when you point a gun to shoot at someone else, you are tacitly giving them permission to shoot back at you (or even preemptively), hence the deterrence of pointing a gun at someone else WHO IS ARMED.
I truly hope this is not just FUD for setting up a new government great-firewall bureaucracy in order to big-brother those of us lucky enough to still have open unfiltered Internet.
Not "Windows" Market Share, but specifically Vista Market share only, after all, it's their shiny new thing being forced down all of out throats.
(Yes, I mean to Exclude counting any WinVista Downgrade licenses in the %, and show the *Actual* market share % use of WinVista in PCs since the WinVista release to date.)
Those stats might be more interesting and possibly more insightful to MS losing market share to other PC OS options.
Grouping *EVERYTHING* marketed as "Windows" into one pool is not statistically transparent.
I argue that many would NOT consider WinME, Win2k, WinXP, WinVista, or even Windows Mobile to be the the same category, etc...
Slashdot Mirror
... Their future downloadable software business models depend on it!
They would hate to have in place that you can actually purchase a single purchase and NOT have it locked to certain hardware.
For example, I have a single copy of WinXP Pro on a 300GB Raptor HDD.
I enjoy removing said drive and inserting in one of three computers with DIFFERENT HARDWARE depending on what I want to do.
Sure, it might be easier to pirate another copy of WinXP, but since I PAID FOR IT RETAIL (and it was NOT the Upgrade version) I believe I should be able to run said purchased code on any device I see fit to run it on. (so long as only that single installation copy is ever used at any given time no matter what PC is fits into..)
Sure, I get to have WGA the DRM fun every week or two, but who cares? I jsut call the number on speaker phone after the Internet activations fail and get the pweson on the other end of the phone to unlock it.
For some reason I ask to PAY FULL PRICE for another copy of WinXP Pro which DOES NOT use WGA (the corporate versions are like this) and I was flat told NO YOU CANNOT. I sadi ok, fine, I will call you every time your DRM locks my PC down and Microsoft can lose money every time you are forced to unlock its DRM "feature" (And NOT gain another sale and hopefully lose money for the trouble of the over 10 calls I have had to make so far...
So, I follow the stupid rules legitimately and use them against the DRM machine...
I believe MS is planning on using the DRM they are using in the MSN Music store as a sort of 'trial run' for what they hope to have as downloadable OS and Office apps very soon... (And the it will be a matter of time before said apps expire and they enforce a time-based subscription service like SlySoft.com just did when they took their licenses from eligible for updates to said software forever to only one year for the free updates.)
When in doubt, always check File 13.
/chuckle)
No political statement intended, but it would be surprising if one day the government contractors doing cleanup also found a more/less completed Nuclear weapon warhead buried in a trash pit too.
Makes one wonder what Russia still has buried in their "nuclear trash pits"?
I am sure Mike Rowe will Not be going to film that Dirty Job... (But I would certainly watch it if he ever did... as I imagine seeing Barsky fall in a pit of Nuclear Waste as Mike kiddingly mocks him...
I'd wager ALL (or a good portion) of the magnetic hard drive manufacturer's BEST people are working on their prototype SSD units (NOT magnetic drives and their respective firmware)...
Magnetic Media Hard Drives have now entered the time of their final epic journey to join their ancestors, Betamax, Cassettes, and 8-Track (et al.) at the great campfire in the sky...
So the 4th Amendment was intended to protect US Citizens on their own person as well as in/on their private property?
Meaning that the 4th Amendment was meant to protect their person in public areas also?
That being given, how does that apply to messages sent from them to another party outside of on their person and exclusively through their private property?
I am thinking that "Cyberspace" or "Tubes" or whatever the public Internet or other type of public infrastructure that US Citizens are using is *outside* of the intended protections of the 4th Amendment.
That is why we have PGP (et al) and there are strongly encrypted telephone devices available for use by private US Citizens.
Having formerly worked at the USPS, I was impressed with the lengths the Postal Inspection Service and the Postmasters go to in order to uphold laws which protect anything sent in the US Postal Service mail. It is (and was) my understanding that EVERY piece of mail is subject to inspection simply by the implied contract by which the act of buying a stamp and affixing it to a parcel and then placing said stamped parcel onto Federal Property for delivery between Federal mailboxes. (NOTE: mail boxes *do* count as Federal Property or at least fall under Federal Jurisdiction, try vandalizing one and getting caught if you ~really~ wish to find out)
I agree there are various ROE and hoops and tightropes which must be perfectly navigated as well as chains of evidence, etc... that Police must follow to validate the evidence used and to decrease the possibility that the legal defense for an 'alleged' law breaker will get said evidence thrown out...
It seems that common sense has been removed from the law and it all is down to semantics.
The 4th Amendment was meant to uphold the intention to protect US Citizens from illegal searches and seizures on their person and on their property. It seems everyone is now arguing about what "illegal" means (much like Pres. Clinton argued about what "is" means to him...)
It is very likely the 4th Amendment was NOT intended to cover any interstate communications / voice communications / parcels and letters / smoke signals / and even the Bat-Signal. Those things are not searches and seizures to an individual and their property as the 4th Amendment likely intends protection for AND those who feel they DO own their electrons and photons traveling through the Internet and these ARE part of their personal property as protected by the 4th Amendment (and therefore not subject to search and seizure without due process), are IMHO mistaken. (...Unless you own the private network said photos/electrons reside in and said network is entirely contained on your private property).
I wish the 4th Amendment did cover these things, but I interpret the 4th Amendment to cover your person and your private property only.
(Just as the 2nd Amendment DID mean "Arms" were firearms as they existed back then and were subject to seizure and search without the written right to bear them and form militias. (The definition of "bear" sure has changed to "licensed concealed-carry only" but it is still a regulated right we retain in the US largely do toe that 2nd Amendment. The framers likely did not intend communication messages to be covered by the 4th Amendment or they would have written it so, as parcels and letters did exist back then.)
So the current shiny White and snappy Aluminum Macs will now be offered in limited edition "Mourning Period" Matte Black until The Great Jobs' returns?
This is not Tucker and his car.
Apple is a ginormus company with a fruity logo and there are plenty of others working there who can probably design expensive locked-in hardware to run OSX and who could just as well leverage the closed-source iPhone and iPod device lines (not to mention to further bloat and propagate the forced installation of iTunes to fully utilize said devices).
(Admit it, some of the new Macs would look KewL in Matte Black...)
Depends on if that "communication" goes over lands/buildings/properties exclusively owned by a private individual US Citizen with 4th Amendment protections OR does that transmission cross some line of demarcation onto property that is not solely owned by that 4th Amendment protested individual?
To walk around your house naked is legal as it your right to privacy, but to go outside and walk down the street naked, your rights to privacy vanish!
My email have been ruled to be "unprotected" once it passes my line of demarcation and this is no different.
Putting it another way, two parties yelling across a public alley at one another from each of their private homes (or even if signaling each other in Morse Code with Naval Signaling Lights) are not protected by the 4th Amendment in their "Communication" as intercepting it can be done from lands and property not owned by either party. (And the same would be true if the same individual owned both homes, because the message crossed lands and property not subject to the 4th Amendment protections of the individual citizen.
IANAL, but as I understand the 4th Amendment, it was written over SEARCH and SEIZURES in/of a Private US Citizen's PROPERTY/HOME, and does not cover PUBLIC locations. For public locations, the Police need to abide by their own ROE and typically only probable cause or some other suspicion or wrongdoing is needed for the Police to search your person or vehicle (as you would NOT be located on/in YOUR 4th Amendment Protected private property but in a public location.)
SO what you are implying is that a dumb user can utilize Win7 better by connecting an Apple ONE BUTTON MOUSE to it?
...So an endless loop of NOT being able to play with something I'll probably dislike a very small amount less than I do Vista... (The Intel D975XBX mainboard with Nvidia 8800 GTS 320 is not exactly an uncommon setup...) Thank You Microsoft.
Not to troll, but I agree with this entire tree of comments... (And I am not a dumb user... I was around for DOS and more or less used Windows 1.0)
Unfortunately, natural evolution rewards COMPETITION among differing genetic phenotypes through the survival of the fittest (and the occasional comet impact, Global GRB, and super volcano eruption.)
Microsoft is not following the natural evolution pattern as nature uses, they have BILLIONS in funds and some products are unnaturally selected for, whereas they are clearly NOT the fittest. (Anyone recall when WinME was selling alongside Win2k and was touted as a better version of Windows?)
Forgive my skepticism/sarcasm, I am writing this EVEN NOW as my Win7 Beta build 7000 install has puked all over itself in the endless black screen of monitor blue light blinking and will not boot into Normal Mode nor into Safe Mode "because Win7 cannot complete installation in Safe Mode. To continue installing Windows, restart the computer." GREAT!
-->What good is Safe Mode if one cannot detect hardware and at least pre-install drivers in it for the next "Normal" boot???
(NOTE: WinXP (Pre-SP1) installs and boots completely to the desktop on the same setup, all things being equal save boot/install disks...) Time to plug the XP drive back in and wait for their next Beta build... GRRRRRr.. Wasted Time...
One should be able to install Win7 on most any hardware from the last 3 years using only a one button mouse and keyboard missing the all of its vowel and enter keys...
Actually, I kinda have to like disagree with you on that...
Current PC games are utilizing these latest generation cards NOW...
I use the predecessor to this card (Nvidia's GTX280 GPU with its 240 'cores') to play the latest FPS games at 1920x1200 and it runs a Folding@Home GPU CUDA client whenever it is not gaming...
If I had one of these new $500 GTX295's I could run my games even faster or even assign one of the GPU's with its 240 'cores' for physics processing (A/K/A Nvidia PhysX, F/K/A Ageia PhysX) and the other GPU would serve as the primary rendering GPU. (And of course I would have BOTH of the GTX295 GPU's using their 240 'cores' each for twice the F@H contributions [or whatever distributed computing task I choose to donate some cycles to...]
(Since I have an all-electric home, why not use my PC to heat part of it in the wintertime instead of wasting that electricity heating air solely through with my all-electric HVAC unit...)
Anyone care to guess why Google's CHROME has no ability to use plugins/add-ons?
(And, I'd actually use Chrome if I could BLOCK THE DAMN ADS!!! Who cares if Chrome renders this well and/or is faster... CAN IT BLOCK ADS??, No?... OK! Fine... So, where's my FF icon? )
Therefore I use FireFox 3.x with NoScript, AdBlock Pro, and Flashblock installed...
(Sure, I find myself whitelisting certain sites often... but that is the way it should be!)
Try reading certain sites with IE7 at netbook resolutions and you will love FF with the ad killing plugins/add-ons....
Actually, Leahy does have an impressive resume though: http://leahy.to/daveleahy06.html
LOL... liked the part where he described himself in his background paragraph as "Sharper than a brass tack." We shall see...
I am so tired of reading about these Patent Troll turds. Let's just pile these guys in with the likes of SCO and Rambus.
People with this mentality come from the non-branching family trees of the ones who also try to enFORCE DRM on the world.
Isn't there a joke in here about a ship containing 1000 (Patent) Lawyers on the bottom of the ocean?...
('Bout time for a ship containing 1000 Patent Examiners to sink also...) Now get off my lawn!
I have read about Sony adding Malware (and Rootkits) to their consumer USB removable devices before...
I also wonder if these files "DPFMate.exe" and "FEnCodeUnicode.dll" are something someone post-production put on the devices or if these files are some intended application?
Never using a digital photo frame before, I assume one simply copies image files into a mounted USB attached drive letter folder? (similar to how USB drives mount as a removable drive letter folder in Windows)
Is there not a way to just block the ability to direct dial International Calls at the Phone company level. That way a calling card could be used to only dial international?
If the phone company does not offer such a protection, they are in a manner condoning such abuse are they not?
I was also under the impression that YOU had to be the one that actually 'in good faith' placed the calls for it to legally billed to you. I am not sure about US/Canadian telecom laws?
If a stranger hacks my WIFI encryption in my neighborhood and downloads child prOn, warez, illegal MP3, etc.. through my router/IP that DOES NOT mean that I did it and I AM NOT responsible for those communications/transfers as I have made reasonable accommodations to prevent that (plus I shutter to think that any of my neighbors are into any of that).
I would simply be responsible for getting a better protected router or some other commonplace and reasonable standard process of WiFi protection.
Similarly, this firm likely had made reasonable efforts to NOT have their phone system hacked, and therefore did not make the calls and thus should not be made responsible for them. The phone company should protect their customers 'in good faith'.
Seems like Dr. Evil is going to drill into the "red hot mag-ma" sooner than he thought...
Actually I took "Injectable Artificial Bone Developed" a completely different direction...
Following the snicker to the Gods of obvious marketing difficulties, I imagined that a new model of the common female "Personal Massager" (AKA Dildo) was in development...
I thought that "Lack of Oxygen to the Brain" was the root cause and standard 'Definition of Death'? ...and any other such instantaneous trauma deaths.)
(Of course, I am excluding those who blow themselves up with high explosives, fall to their deaths from great heights [or any who may ride thermonuclear bombs as they fall to earth]
Ah, through the "wisdom" of the US Congress, the SSC (Superconducting Super Collider) was killed over a mere $12 Billion cost savings (which was well under construction just south of Dallas, TX). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Super_Collider
Some say it was largely due to infighting with 'higher educational interests' back East and in the Chicago area, - but really the answer most likely due to nothing more than Greed and Money.
TO think that The US Federal Government will give taxpayer money to banks et al to the tune of $2 Trillion with NIL oversight and NIL public disclosure is extremely dangerous and shortsighted. ( http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20670001&refer=home&sid=aXNaCKxb.oIs )
We (in the US) could have had something MORE POWERFUL than the LHC here in the US. (As I try not to think about the high-energy physicist brain-drain to France/Switzerland)...
Once upon a time, the US took pride in having the best and coolest toys the world over... (/sigh)
Dammit.... you got me.. ok three.
:)
But, I have worn this t-shirt while preforming the duty: http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts-apparel/unisex/frustrations/388b/zoom/
I just figured that if Van Halen could have contract riders stating that they would get 10lbs of m&m's (sans brown ones) backstage, I ask that the computer knowledge-deprived ladies to provide me with good beer and free dinner OR that they invite a cute single friend over (no DUFFs) and I bring the drinks. Sometimes this works. I suggest bringing a good bottle of white and red wine (or four).
HAL9000 singing that song popped into my head after reading that headline.
Perhaps this discovery is just one more step in the direction of a singing homicidal AI computer.
Daisy, Daisy
Give me your answer do
I'm half crazy
all for the love of you...
You missed my point, I was making (or at least attempting to make) a fundamental analogy. Not some type of geopolitical statement.
Also, it had nothing to do with the country of Iraq. (And apparently, you have never been held at gunpoint and robbed before.)
There *are* very bad people out there, and some of them use the Internet and do very bad things there too.
Some believe that an individual Internet User should be filtered, 'protected', and passively controlled by bureaucrats, in a fully rubber-padded and hand-railed world, leaving only the police having any legal power and authority to protect individuals (hit-back). (As in "For Your Protection", yes think Douglas Adams)
Others believe in self-protection, self-regulation, and self-defense and embrace the concept of personal responsibility for one's safety and personal accountability if you threaten or harm another. (I lean that way...)
If someone breaks into my home and threatens me or my family with a weapon, they die.
(This is a valid and appropriate example of Self-protection and deterrence to any others from making attempts to attempt to do the same.)
There are many who believe I should not have right to have the tools of my own protection (because someone out there might misuse the same tools or whatever) and therefore only the police (government) should have such tools and they will be the only ones with said 'protection'.
Classic gun-control fallacy. The world does not work that way. People do not work that way. Deterrence works.
I was suggesting that some offensive capability be permitted/granted to those who are attacked on the open Internet as a deterrent. Something with teeth.
To my knowledge, all we can do legally is filter/firewall and block an attacker (as we have walls and locks and doors on our homes) on the Internet who is harming/attacking us.
It would be nice to have a honeypot full of coded hurt at the ready for attackers to steal or a botnet ready to flood them into leaving me alone. (I am sure the DOD has these and many more effective 'protection' tools at their disposal.)
It was an argument against the concept that the Internet should be policed only by the government/military/police and rubber-padded and filtered for its users.
I do realize that the Internet is not built that way and there is no good analogy in the real world to best explain it, but a nice protective capability like a DNS kick-ban or remote forced system reboot on my attacker would make me happier knowing I *could* do that to some bad and harmful user who is attacking my system on my side of the demark.
I would wager some companies on the open Internet have some off-shore 'contractors' on call to dish out some digital hurt to attackers.
...People carried guns for protection.
And individuals who learned to best use their 'protection', with faster assessment of threats and the resulting execution of such with precise accuracy, found they had a satisfactory level of self-protection.
I say, legalize some offensive capabilities for "Internet Users" and set up some general universal use rules. After all, when you point a gun to shoot at someone else, you are tacitly giving them permission to shoot back at you (or even preemptively), hence the deterrence of pointing a gun at someone else WHO IS ARMED.
I truly hope this is not just FUD for setting up a new government great-firewall bureaucracy in order to big-brother those of us lucky enough to still have open unfiltered Internet.
Not "Windows" Market Share, but specifically Vista Market share only, after all, it's their shiny new thing being forced down all of out throats.
(Yes, I mean to Exclude counting any WinVista Downgrade licenses in the %, and show the *Actual* market share % use of WinVista in PCs since the WinVista release to date.)
Those stats might be more interesting and possibly more insightful to MS losing market share to other PC OS options.
Grouping *EVERYTHING* marketed as "Windows" into one pool is not statistically transparent.
I argue that many would NOT consider WinME, Win2k, WinXP, WinVista, or even Windows Mobile to be the the same category, etc...
Like this?
http://www.simplybovine.com/products/cow_mug.php
There has to be a Galaxy Quest 'Rock Monster' joke in here somewhere...
(Cue the F4 'Thing' jokes too...)
Let us not leave out Eubacteria & Archaebacteria (Monera), Protista, as well as the Plantae and Fungi when describing "not animals" (Animalia)...