That was before the movie companies figured out they could sell the movies to the TV networks later on. I mean, the content for TV has to come from somewhere, right? Movies made for TV usually suck.
And it's a bit different because a TV company just can't show a movie anonymously, like seeding a torrent. So they have to pay for it.
Well, if the OS does not allow the regular user to install any software or add background services, there's a LOT less threat. So it has also a LOT to do with the overall security.
I don't think MS needs much sales increase:) They already pretty much dominate in OS sales. But maybe they will get some sales from GNU/Linux OS segment, right?:)
The OS is seen as an integral part of the machine, like a CPU. You pay for a CPU, you pay for the OS.
As for my comment, I have a perfectly working 8 year old laptop with Ubuntu (well, the battery is pretty much dead)... And I know a newer versions of Ubuntu have kernels that do not have proper support for the laptop's hardware (I have to manually install modules for it and do config magic). So no, I won't update it.
Well then, good for you, I'm glad you will. As for Amazon, they probably made the calculations: Does removing "offensive" material take away more customers, than keeping the material. Maybe they made the right choice business wise, maybe they didn't. But they made the choice.
I seriously doubt the down economy has much impact in online sales. Maybe the economy has been hit more in the States, but not that much here in Europe.
You're not promoting Amazon's stuff. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Amazon does not have stuff, they just sell other people's stuff. By not selling that you are hurting the authors, not Amazon.
Now if you really want to actually make a difference, start by promoting the stuff Amazon refuses to sell, thus helping the authors. If you don't want to do that, you're no better than Amazon and you might want to get off your high horse.
So the lesson isn't people use p2p networks to download copyrighted material, and when they are told explicitly it's not ok, they decrease the downloading? News at 11.
Yes, but the idea is still the same: For each case, you must have a single person or a few to commit the break in or copy protection breach. In each case, there's a specific person or a group that did it. That's the whole point. And that's really illegal: the breach, and not the actual copying in most parts of the globe.
And you should see the tools burglars have:) They have come a long way from a crowbar and simple lock picks. For most modern locks there are specific tools that open the lock pretty fast. Without the tools, it can be very hard.
Good point there... I should have stated that I meant the actual breaking of the copy protection is illegal (well, it's illegal here in Finland, at least), not the copy.
That's not really why the copy protection is for. The protection is there so that you have to break or circumvent it in order to copy the product: It's like a lock on your front door. Sure it won't stop the robbers, but it will make it even more clear for the jury they intended to rob your house.
So the perfect copy protection is hard to break using normal methods, but is still breakable: It shows the breaker had an INTENTION to illegally make copies.
Where did it read the actual servers containing the medical records are connected to the internet? The OP did not the even specify the type of company: They might just do software development for health care needs, in which case they hold no actual patient data.
XP is no slicker or faster than it ever was. It's you machine that's slicker and faster. In 5 years, you would feel the same way about Vista.
I really hope those old XP installs are being updated automatically, or they will pretty fast gain one more rather unwanted activity they run better than Vista...
My point was Microsoft has released a lot of documentation about their security model, so there's really no need to speculate what they're doing. What the hell has this to do with Britney's unmentionables?
Your post is also a part of what I'm trying to say: It would be FAR more beneficial to actually study what Microsoft is doing than to just slam it with (sometimes) witty comments. Then again, it's more fun and a LOT easier to just shoot from the bushes.
What exactly is a *nix security model? Do you mean POSIX security model? That does also not exist? I guess you just mean Linux security model. Ok, my criticism is Microsoft gets slammed for the exactly same thing Linux security does. The problem is not in the security itself: It's in the users writing and using applications for the platform.
Now the goal to accomplish is to enforce the Linux security AND still maintain an easy enough to use platform for application developers and common users, AND while avoiding the pitfalls that Microsoft is now facing when trying to tighten the security after all these years.
You know, Microsoft has released a LOT of documentation about their security model. Maybe it's because, I dunno, they want vendors to write drivers for their hardware?:) Who would have thunk?
But I guess people would much rather live with the misconception Linux rules and Windows just sucks... That's one place that Linux people need really start to understand IMHO. It's just plain stupid to assume Microsoft does everything wrong and never learns, just because they don't do things the Linux way. I guess it makes people feel "safe" but it's just wrong.
Windows has no fanbois. That's really one big misconception with Linux and Mac people. There's no enemy in the Windows camp, only people that just don't care and just want things to work.
I do get that serenity part, though. I have the same feeling with Java: I don't even have to care about the platform, I can just code:) But that's a tool too.
Yeah, if it is so simple then why aren't small experimental games more popular?
Here's the answer: It's not simple, it's really hard. Everyone thinks they can make a new Tetris if they just put some effort into it.
Another problem is of course piracy: World of Goo was great, had no DRM and is pretty darn fun and experimental. It still had 90% piracy rate. Guess why? Because a 100 meg game is just too damn easy to download illegally. Not so with a full DVD release.
What do you mean by "current Windows"? Windows XP?
Even Windows 3.1 had memory protection because 80386 had memory protection (segmentation) and virtualization. So no, applications could not just write anywhere in the memory space.
And no, most Windows applications to NOT require admin privileges. Welcome to 2009.
One of the biggest misconceptions about the current Windows (XP, Vista, Windows 7) security is you only have two kinds of users. This is simply not true although Windows only gives you basic access to those two options. You can perfectly well have local admins and network admins which have different privileges. Local admin would have zero privileges to the whole network, for example.
Slashdot Mirror
That was before the movie companies figured out they could sell the movies to the TV networks later on. I mean, the content for TV has to come from somewhere, right? Movies made for TV usually suck.
And it's a bit different because a TV company just can't show a movie anonymously, like seeding a torrent. So they have to pay for it.
So why don't you buy the game and THEN download a crack for it if the DRM fails?
Or do you justify the downloading by "oh it has DRM in it"?
So what you're saying there would have been 120k sales if it would have been available? :)
Well, if the OS does not allow the regular user to install any software or add background services, there's a LOT less threat. So it has also a LOT to do with the overall security.
Mine only uses about 350 megs after boot...
I don't think MS needs much sales increase :) They already pretty much dominate in OS sales. But maybe they will get some sales from GNU/Linux OS segment, right? :)
The OS is seen as an integral part of the machine, like a CPU. You pay for a CPU, you pay for the OS.
As for my comment, I have a perfectly working 8 year old laptop with Ubuntu (well, the battery is pretty much dead)... And I know a newer versions of Ubuntu have kernels that do not have proper support for the laptop's hardware (I have to manually install modules for it and do config magic). So no, I won't update it.
Let's see you post that again when a new version of Ubuntu or Linux kernel is announced on Slashdot :)
Well then, good for you, I'm glad you will. As for Amazon, they probably made the calculations: Does removing "offensive" material take away more customers, than keeping the material. Maybe they made the right choice business wise, maybe they didn't. But they made the choice.
I seriously doubt the down economy has much impact in online sales. Maybe the economy has been hit more in the States, but not that much here in Europe.
You're not promoting Amazon's stuff. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Amazon does not have stuff, they just sell other people's stuff. By not selling that you are hurting the authors, not Amazon.
Now if you really want to actually make a difference, start by promoting the stuff Amazon refuses to sell, thus helping the authors. If you don't want to do that, you're no better than Amazon and you might want to get off your high horse.
The OP is not saying that, he's just saying OSS costs is not going to be zero...
So the lesson isn't people use p2p networks to download copyrighted material, and when they are told explicitly it's not ok, they decrease the downloading? News at 11.
So you think it's better for artists to get ZERO money because of warez downloading, than to give them SOME money through sales?
And if the products are "subpar" WHY ARE THEY BOOMING IN SALES THEN???
And why were then being downloaded in the first place? I mean, if you can download quality films, why would you download the subpar ones?
Yes, but the idea is still the same: For each case, you must have a single person or a few to commit the break in or copy protection breach. In each case, there's a specific person or a group that did it. That's the whole point. And that's really illegal: the breach, and not the actual copying in most parts of the globe.
And you should see the tools burglars have :) They have come a long way from a crowbar and simple lock picks. For most modern locks there are specific tools that open the lock pretty fast. Without the tools, it can be very hard.
Good point there... I should have stated that I meant the actual breaking of the copy protection is illegal (well, it's illegal here in Finland, at least), not the copy.
That's not really why the copy protection is for. The protection is there so that you have to break or circumvent it in order to copy the product: It's like a lock on your front door. Sure it won't stop the robbers, but it will make it even more clear for the jury they intended to rob your house.
So the perfect copy protection is hard to break using normal methods, but is still breakable: It shows the breaker had an INTENTION to illegally make copies.
Where did it read the actual servers containing the medical records are connected to the internet? The OP did not the even specify the type of company: They might just do software development for health care needs, in which case they hold no actual patient data.
XP is no slicker or faster than it ever was. It's you machine that's slicker and faster. In 5 years, you would feel the same way about Vista.
I really hope those old XP installs are being updated automatically, or they will pretty fast gain one more rather unwanted activity they run better than Vista...
My point was Microsoft has released a lot of documentation about their security model, so there's really no need to speculate what they're doing. What the hell has this to do with Britney's unmentionables?
Your post is also a part of what I'm trying to say: It would be FAR more beneficial to actually study what Microsoft is doing than to just slam it with (sometimes) witty comments. Then again, it's more fun and a LOT easier to just shoot from the bushes.
What exactly is a *nix security model? Do you mean POSIX security model? That does also not exist? I guess you just mean Linux security model. Ok, my criticism is Microsoft gets slammed for the exactly same thing Linux security does. The problem is not in the security itself: It's in the users writing and using applications for the platform.
Now the goal to accomplish is to enforce the Linux security AND still maintain an easy enough to use platform for application developers and common users, AND while avoiding the pitfalls that Microsoft is now facing when trying to tighten the security after all these years.
You know, Microsoft has released a LOT of documentation about their security model. Maybe it's because, I dunno, they want vendors to write drivers for their hardware? :) Who would have thunk?
But I guess people would much rather live with the misconception Linux rules and Windows just sucks... That's one place that Linux people need really start to understand IMHO. It's just plain stupid to assume Microsoft does everything wrong and never learns, just because they don't do things the Linux way. I guess it makes people feel "safe" but it's just wrong.
Windows has no fanbois. That's really one big misconception with Linux and Mac people. There's no enemy in the Windows camp, only people that just don't care and just want things to work.
I do get that serenity part, though. I have the same feeling with Java: I don't even have to care about the platform, I can just code :) But that's a tool too.
Yeah, if it is so simple then why aren't small experimental games more popular?
Here's the answer: It's not simple, it's really hard. Everyone thinks they can make a new Tetris if they just put some effort into it.
Another problem is of course piracy: World of Goo was great, had no DRM and is pretty darn fun and experimental. It still had 90% piracy rate. Guess why? Because a 100 meg game is just too damn easy to download illegally. Not so with a full DVD release.
Not to mention many people confuse DirectX with Direct3D... DirectX offers the complete package for game developers, OpenGL does not.
What do you mean by "current Windows"? Windows XP?
Even Windows 3.1 had memory protection because 80386 had memory protection (segmentation) and virtualization. So no, applications could not just write anywhere in the memory space.
And no, most Windows applications to NOT require admin privileges. Welcome to 2009.
One of the biggest misconceptions about the current Windows (XP, Vista, Windows 7) security is you only have two kinds of users. This is simply not true although Windows only gives you basic access to those two options. You can perfectly well have local admins and network admins which have different privileges. Local admin would have zero privileges to the whole network, for example.
How is it possible to not know anything, if you know that? Funny guy that Socrates, it probably is a joke :)
And we DO know a LOT about universe, there's no denying that.