Not sure which world you are in, but in the age where humans dont have elephant arms for holding their hands up all day every day messing with a touch screen on a desktop, it sure isnt this world where windows 8 Does suck. This is primarily a website for IT and Developers, people who make things/work for others, if you want a site that is about the average joe with his laptop, go ahead praise it all you want, but this is news for nerds, and according to nerd usage, yes, it does suck.
I am not sure what world you are in, but Windows 8 does not require touch for anything. The primary input scheme for desktops is the keyboard and mouse and Windows 8 does nothing to change that. You comment implies to me that you either have not used Windows 8 on a desktop or you are purposely trying to mislead others because you don't like Microsoft.
I know what this site is about and have been using it longer than you have (compare our account ids) and I have been a software engineer for my entire career. I think it is totally relevant that any advanced user or novice can use Windows 8 without any touch-based gestures.
It is true that Windows 8 adds application APIs which provides developers with tools to natively support touch-based input, but virtually every Metro application I have used supports the keyboard and mouse without issues in addition to gestures. I can even play games like Angry Birds which were designed solely for touch using my mouse.
Please explain to me what you cannot do with your keyboard and mouse in Windows 8 after receiving a 15 minute introduction to the new UI features (charms bar, etc)?
Windows 7 has shown itself to be very valuable to all types of customers. Windows 8 is just Windows 7 with a different start menu that a few vocal folks don't like as well as some under the hood improvements.
I know a lot of people on this site are really hoping that Windows 8 is going to fail, however it is pretty silly to think that if a business thought Windows 7 was valuable that somehow they would think Windows 8 somehow is *less* valuable when it is the same thing with some extra Metro framework that they don't have to use.
It is fair to argue that there isn't a compelling reason to upgrade to Windows 8 right now if you already have Windows 7, but if you are buying a new machine, businesses will be perfectly happy with Windows 8. I know this because I work in a business and no one is running around complaining that the newer machines are coming with Windows 8.
They have to be stored in the short-term storage pools because its the only way the spent fuel gets cool enough to be stored in long-term storage. After about 5 years, the rods are cool enough to get moved from pools to spent-fuel casks which are then stored outside on a concrete pad at the nuclear facility. It is these casks that would be moved to off-site permanent storage which is stalled by bureaucracy.
These casks are over-engineerd to be very safe. One company in the UK smashed two trains into their cask and it did not rupture. They also have to pass government certification tests which costs hundreds of thousands of dollars that ensure they can withstand drops of 30+ feed and all sorts of impacts.
From that page: "For a second test the same flask was fitted with a new lid, filled again with steel bars and water before a train was driven into it at high speed. The flask survived with only cosmetic damage while the train was destroyed. Although referred to as a test, the actual stresses the flask underwent were well below what they are designed to withstand, as much of the energy from the collision was absorbed by the train and also in moving the flask some distance. This flask is on display at the training center at Heysham 1 Power Station"
From that article: "Dry cask storage systems are designed to resist floods, tornadoes, projectiles, temperature extremes, and other unusual scenarios. NRC requires the spent fuel to be cooled in the spent fuel pool for at least five years before being transferred to dry casks. Typically, the maximum heat generated from 24 fuel assemblies stored in a cask is less than that given off by a typical home heating system in an hour. As the fuel cools further, the heat generated will decrease over time. "
The bottom line here is that permanent storage should be trivial and done. This has been engineered for decades and the hold-up is really silly.
One thing useful about a payment for time contract is that, while your employer owns all inventions, the employer also assumes all liability.
Imagine a scenario where you were to invent some kind of new brain scanning device for detecting cancer, and later it turns out that the device kills people. In the current patent/invention landscape, the company you worked for gets sued for millions and millions over the deaths of those affected. If you were to own and profit directly from your invention, you would probably be personally liable.
I would rather negotiate my salary and bonuses and not worry about the liability. If I have something truly novel that my company didn't ask me to work on, I will quit my job and work on it on my own if I am comfortable with that liability.
You should avoid absolute statements. I am a Windows user and I care greatly about privacy, freedom, security and ownership. Windows provides all of those things. If you don't think so, you probably aren't using it right.
The reason for this harsh shift is that Microsoft's strategy for winning over the iPad or Android is that new apps written for the "Metro" framework will be portable between all form factors without much work other than ensuring various screen resolution support. This will be a HUGE boon to developers and end-users, but for it to be "valuable", the desktop form factor needs to be a viable platform for running these apps.
If MS were to ship Metro as some extra desktop app you launch to get into "Metro World", a lot of users would not bother looking at it and this would spoil a lot of the shared platform advantages.
They are probably very smart to enforce the Metro home screen at this point. Right now, it feels weird because you aren't yet attached to new applications that you use on your phone, tablet and desktop seamlessly. If you have used the Release Preview with a Microsoft Account, you can also see the cloud-based storage for app settings will also be tied seamlessly across form factors. From what I have seen so far, this is actually very smooth and useful.
After using the various previews for a while, I honestly believe many users will love the shared experience across their devices. But my opinion doesn't matter, sales numbers matter, so we will have to see if their strategy pays off.
I think the ethical rule is that you dont keep things that dont belong to you. Regardless of wether he is legally required to fix this with Amazon, it is his duty as a responsible adult to make it right. I dont get the attitude these days where some folks celebrate when others make a costly mistake in their favor.
I hear this all the time, but it is really quite simple. All those things you mentioned are either very cool to the vast majority of players, or in the silly cases, they are such a minor part of the game as to not matter.
In this case, Pandas feel like a joke and they are the theme of the expansion, new land, new race and new class. If Wrath was renamed "Mists of Tuskarria", where the new playable race was the Tuskarr sporting the new class of Fisherman while you raid in Tuskarria, I think you would have had a similar level of revolt. Even the "space goats" dont walk/talk/act like a silly joke. Pandas on the other hand, well, your opinion is as good as any, only subscription numbers will matter.
I think your determination is premature and opinionated. I dont understand how you got modded "Informative" for a purely opinion statement.
Windows 8 isn't even released yet. The UI differences between Developer Preview, Consumer Preview and Release Preview were significant. I found the earlier desktop/metro integrations unpleasant, but the current Release Preview build feels right. Even on a desktop with just keyboard and mouse, I can navigate to everything I want relatively easily.I didn't like metro at first, but since I have been actively using it on my main laptop, I do feel like its an improvement. The integration to the cloud and app store integration across form factors definitely needed a face lift that the old desktop UI just couldn't support.
My personal opinion is that Windows 8 is great. They will continue to iterate on the UI until launch to satisfy as many people as possible. They wont make everyone happy, but then again a lot of people are still running Windows XP, so even if some people hold off on 8, I think they will be just fine.
You are welcome to "think" it is wrong and it is good for us all to have beliefs that we feel strong enough to do something about. However we have laws that say it is an illegal activity. If you want to do your moral and civic duty, you should work to change the laws. You should not pick and choose which laws you want to follow and should not applaud others for ignoring the law.
Microsoft has never been convicted of anti-competitive behavior in the U.S. They signed a consent decree which legally means they did nothing wrong, but must change their practices and admit that they were in fact a monopoly whose behavior does impact other business in the market.
Some of the people posting here need to understand that there are plenty of actions that are legal and performed by companies every day that would be considered anti-competitive if the company making those actions grew one day to have a controlling market share.
Microsoft had plenty of business practices that were both legal and standard in the industry for non-monopoly businesses. Microsoft grew to the point where they were considered a monopoly and thus could no longer do those same things that other companies can still do. Bundling a web browser with Windows is not illegal or anti-compettive for virtually every other OS on the market at the time Microsoft was sued by the US government. It was only considered anti-competitive because Microsoft was considered to have a controlling market share and thus the "bundling" was not allowed. A majority of that lawsuit dealt with Microsoft not considering themselves large enough to be a monopoly. The end result was that they had to admit, their actions could have an impact on entry into that marketplace.
Apple has never been charged for anti-competitve behaviors because they have never been large enough of any market to be considered in control of that market.
First, you don't get convicted as a monopolist. Being a monopoly is not a crime. Anti-competitive behavior is where you get into legal trouble. You either exist as a monopoly or you don't. You get convicted for anti-competitive behavior when you are in a position where you already represent a majority of the market and then further seek to control choice.
Second, Microsoft was not convicted of anti-competitive behavior. They signed a consent decree which means "We agree that we did nothing wrong, but we also agree to do things differently in the future now that we understand we really are in a controlling position in the market."
The part that is true is that Microsoft is treated differently because they have a controlling percentage of the market, thus the same behavior by Microsoft is considered anti-competitive while a less controlling business might be able to exhibit that behavior without any legal problems because they have no controlling stake.
Woz has 2 iphones as his primary devices. He says that Windows Phone 7 has a better interface than Android and chooses it over that platform, but he always carries multiple devices with him and still says his two iPhones (ATT and Verizon) are his primaries. Despite this, he praises a lot of aspects of the WP7 OS as better than iOS.
Agreed. MS will need to convert existing WinMo customers to WP7 while also converting dumbphone users as well as wooing people from other platforms. It will be an uphill battle. I am sure they intend to lose money on this for quite a while. Xbox wasn't exactly a doorbuster when it launched, but at least it had a platformer like Halo. WP7 needs a platform defining feature rather than simply playing catch-up.
The only thing I can think of is that DVI is signal equivalent for overlapping resolutions in the HDMI spec and thus perhaps allowed while the other cables do some conversion of the signal which is the illegal part?
You don't get convicted/punished until proven guilty, that doesn't mean they don't shut down the operation when it's obvious they are actively selling fake goods right now. It is the courts job to decide what criminal charges may exist. Perhaps the shop owner didn't know they were fake? Just because the owner may not be the person criminally liable, that doesn't mean you allow the operation to continue.
It was obvious these sites were selling fake goods and distributing copyrighted works. They shut them down and the owner's get to plead their case about how they didn't know or whatever their case is. The site still gets shut down now if they are breaking laws now.
It is interesting that most countries that dont have copyright laws also dont have basic human rights protected by law.
I think perhaps the majority of the modern world considers artistic control of your work is worth protecting. You could always move somewhere like China to avoid the stigma of copyright laws.
The websites in these cases amount to a storefront to distribute fake goods or copyrighted materials. When this happens with physical storefronts, they get shut down. I don't really see how this is any different.
This isn't about free speech, no liberties were lost, this is about people breaking the law and reasonable steps are being taken to stop them. You shouldn't fear the government as a result of this. Take off your tinfoil hat.
Comcast main service description if you search by your zipcode and look at the "Performance" plan: "Get download speeds up to 12 Mbps and uploads up to 2 Mbps with PowerBoost® for only $19.99 a month for 6 months!"
Click to immediate link in the summary "Terms and Conditions", in the first paragraph: "Actual speeds vary and are not guaranteed. PowerBoost provides bursts of download and upload speeds for the first 10 MB and 5 MB of a file, respectively."
You will find similar clauses in any service description for residential cable/dsl.
I am all for pushing the companies to get the best service for the cheapest price, but you do that by voting with your dollar. It is not reasonable or effective to agree to a service contract, then demonize the business for living up to their end of the bargain as they said they would.
The bottom line is you didn't pay for those speeds for any guaranteed amount of time. Techincally those speeds aren't guaranteed at all if your line quality isn't good enough to support the transmission. The only way to get guaranteed service is to pay for a dedicated line, ie: T1.
Go look at the cost of a T1 and realize it is only 1.5 Mbps, now look at the cost of that 12 Mbps residential cable. Why do you think the T1 is so much more expensive for almost 1/10th the speed? Technology may change, bandwidth may get so cheap it doesn't matter, but right now, guaranteeing 100% throughput at residential service prices simply wont work.
Even since cable/dsl was introduced it was made clear you didn't buy 24/7 full throughput, you bought burst speeds that were subject to the traffic of others on your aggregation point. So yes, you are getting to use exactly what you paid for.
The alternative if you wanted guaranteed 100% throughput 24/7 was and still is a dedicated line like a T1. There is a technological limitation to providing those burst speeds in a guaranteed way 24/7 to every subscriber on the network. They let power users get by when they aren't single-handedly affecting the performance of all of their neighbors, but you get throttled if it turns out you are.
If cable/dsl are forced to require 100% guaranteed speeds like a dedicated line, you will see the cost go way up, or the speeds go way down.
Because a T1 line is expensive and guarantees service 24/7. A residential cable/dsl service is far far cheaper and is contractually not obligated to provide consistent speeds, only burst speeds that can be affected by the traffic of other users of the system.
Consumers went from only have only T1/ISDN as a high-speed option and few could afford it, to cable/dsl that almost anyone could afford and has the performance 99% can appreciate. The 1% that expect 24/7 full throughput should understand they never bought that guarantee of service. Just because their aggregation point wasn't previously saturated and they weren't previously throttled doesn't mean that was an entitlement to that level of service forever.
This article is not saying Windows 7 is insecure. You couldn't even come to that conclusion if you look at what they did. They ran untrusted code known to contain viruses on a Windows 7 machine. UAC only blocked those that tried to perform administrative tasks, which is what its job is. They did not try to do remote infection.
I could write a virus attached to an executable that deleted your favorites file or all of the documents in your user's document folders. This would still be a nasty virus and would not be classified as an administrative activity, thus not triggering UAC. This would not indicate any flaw in the OS or it's level of security. This is no different from any other platform, running as admin or not, if you run untrusted code, it will be able to do anything your logged in user can do.
The point of the article is that people should not pretend UAC *is* virus protection. Microsoft doesn't market it as virus protection, and people shouldn't be under the impression that UAC prevents viruses from running.
The whole foundation of your argument is flawed. UNIX was not designed with security in mind. In a 1979 document titled "On the Security of UNIX", Dennis Ritchie said
"The first fact to face is that UNIX was not developed with security, in any realistic sense, in mind; this fact alone guarantees a vast number of holes."
Certainly Unix as well as other OS software have come a long way in security and none of them is perfect, but to make such a false statement that Windows is bad because security was an afterthought while thinking that Unix is any different is just foolish. There have been massive internet worms for Unix in the past, there will be virii for their vulnerabilities in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
Not sure which world you are in, but in the age where humans dont have elephant arms for holding their hands up all day every day messing with a touch screen on a desktop, it sure isnt this world where windows 8 Does suck. This is primarily a website for IT and Developers, people who make things/work for others, if you want a site that is about the average joe with his laptop, go ahead praise it all you want, but this is news for nerds, and according to nerd usage, yes, it does suck.
I am not sure what world you are in, but Windows 8 does not require touch for anything. The primary input scheme for desktops is the keyboard and mouse and Windows 8 does nothing to change that. You comment implies to me that you either have not used Windows 8 on a desktop or you are purposely trying to mislead others because you don't like Microsoft.
I know what this site is about and have been using it longer than you have (compare our account ids) and I have been a software engineer for my entire career. I think it is totally relevant that any advanced user or novice can use Windows 8 without any touch-based gestures.
It is true that Windows 8 adds application APIs which provides developers with tools to natively support touch-based input, but virtually every Metro application I have used supports the keyboard and mouse without issues in addition to gestures. I can even play games like Angry Birds which were designed solely for touch using my mouse.
Please explain to me what you cannot do with your keyboard and mouse in Windows 8 after receiving a 15 minute introduction to the new UI features (charms bar, etc)?
Is there any integrity left on this site?
Windows 7 has shown itself to be very valuable to all types of customers. Windows 8 is just Windows 7 with a different start menu that a few vocal folks don't like as well as some under the hood improvements.
I know a lot of people on this site are really hoping that Windows 8 is going to fail, however it is pretty silly to think that if a business thought Windows 7 was valuable that somehow they would think Windows 8 somehow is *less* valuable when it is the same thing with some extra Metro framework that they don't have to use.
It is fair to argue that there isn't a compelling reason to upgrade to Windows 8 right now if you already have Windows 7, but if you are buying a new machine, businesses will be perfectly happy with Windows 8. I know this because I work in a business and no one is running around complaining that the newer machines are coming with Windows 8.
They have to be stored in the short-term storage pools because its the only way the spent fuel gets cool enough to be stored in long-term storage. After about 5 years, the rods are cool enough to get moved from pools to spent-fuel casks which are then stored outside on a concrete pad at the nuclear facility. It is these casks that would be moved to off-site permanent storage which is stalled by bureaucracy.
These casks are over-engineerd to be very safe. One company in the UK smashed two trains into their cask and it did not rupture. They also have to pass government certification tests which costs hundreds of thousands of dollars that ensure they can withstand drops of 30+ feed and all sorts of impacts.
This link has info about that train crash:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_nuclear_fuel_shipping_cask
From that page:
"For a second test the same flask was fitted with a new lid, filled again with steel bars and water before a train was driven into it at high speed. The flask survived with only cosmetic damage while the train was destroyed. Although referred to as a test, the actual stresses the flask underwent were well below what they are designed to withstand, as much of the energy from the collision was absorbed by the train and also in moving the flask some distance. This flask is on display at the training center at Heysham 1 Power Station"
See this for more info:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/dry-cask-storage.html
From that article:
"Dry cask storage systems are designed to resist floods, tornadoes, projectiles, temperature extremes, and other unusual scenarios. NRC requires the spent fuel to be cooled in the spent fuel pool for at least five years before being transferred to dry casks. Typically, the maximum heat generated from 24 fuel assemblies stored in a cask is less than that given off by a typical home heating system in an hour. As the fuel cools further, the heat generated will decrease over time. "
The bottom line here is that permanent storage should be trivial and done. This has been engineered for decades and the hold-up is really silly.
One thing useful about a payment for time contract is that, while your employer owns all inventions, the employer also assumes all liability.
Imagine a scenario where you were to invent some kind of new brain scanning device for detecting cancer, and later it turns out that the device kills people. In the current patent/invention landscape, the company you worked for gets sued for millions and millions over the deaths of those affected. If you were to own and profit directly from your invention, you would probably be personally liable.
I would rather negotiate my salary and bonuses and not worry about the liability. If I have something truly novel that my company didn't ask me to work on, I will quit my job and work on it on my own if I am comfortable with that liability.
You should avoid absolute statements. I am a Windows user and I care greatly about privacy, freedom, security and ownership. Windows provides all of those things. If you don't think so, you probably aren't using it right.
I haven't seen anyone read between the lines yet.
The reason for this harsh shift is that Microsoft's strategy for winning over the iPad or Android is that new apps written for the "Metro" framework will be portable between all form factors without much work other than ensuring various screen resolution support. This will be a HUGE boon to developers and end-users, but for it to be "valuable", the desktop form factor needs to be a viable platform for running these apps.
If MS were to ship Metro as some extra desktop app you launch to get into "Metro World", a lot of users would not bother looking at it and this would spoil a lot of the shared platform advantages.
They are probably very smart to enforce the Metro home screen at this point. Right now, it feels weird because you aren't yet attached to new applications that you use on your phone, tablet and desktop seamlessly. If you have used the Release Preview with a Microsoft Account, you can also see the cloud-based storage for app settings will also be tied seamlessly across form factors. From what I have seen so far, this is actually very smooth and useful.
After using the various previews for a while, I honestly believe many users will love the shared experience across their devices. But my opinion doesn't matter, sales numbers matter, so we will have to see if their strategy pays off.
I think the ethical rule is that you dont keep things that dont belong to you. Regardless of wether he is legally required to fix this with Amazon, it is his duty as a responsible adult to make it right. I dont get the attitude these days where some folks celebrate when others make a costly mistake in their favor.
I hear this all the time, but it is really quite simple. All those things you mentioned are either very cool to the vast majority of players, or in the silly cases, they are such a minor part of the game as to not matter.
In this case, Pandas feel like a joke and they are the theme of the expansion, new land, new race and new class. If Wrath was renamed "Mists of Tuskarria", where the new playable race was the Tuskarr sporting the new class of Fisherman while you raid in Tuskarria, I think you would have had a similar level of revolt. Even the "space goats" dont walk/talk/act like a silly joke. Pandas on the other hand, well, your opinion is as good as any, only subscription numbers will matter.
I think your determination is premature and opinionated. I dont understand how you got modded "Informative" for a purely opinion statement.
Windows 8 isn't even released yet. The UI differences between Developer Preview, Consumer Preview and Release Preview were significant. I found the earlier desktop/metro integrations unpleasant, but the current Release Preview build feels right. Even on a desktop with just keyboard and mouse, I can navigate to everything I want relatively easily.I didn't like metro at first, but since I have been actively using it on my main laptop, I do feel like its an improvement. The integration to the cloud and app store integration across form factors definitely needed a face lift that the old desktop UI just couldn't support.
My personal opinion is that Windows 8 is great. They will continue to iterate on the UI until launch to satisfy as many people as possible. They wont make everyone happy, but then again a lot of people are still running Windows XP, so even if some people hold off on 8, I think they will be just fine.
You are welcome to "think" it is wrong and it is good for us all to have beliefs that we feel strong enough to do something about. However we have laws that say it is an illegal activity. If you want to do your moral and civic duty, you should work to change the laws. You should not pick and choose which laws you want to follow and should not applaud others for ignoring the law.
Microsoft has never been convicted of anti-competitive behavior in the U.S. They signed a consent decree which legally means they did nothing wrong, but must change their practices and admit that they were in fact a monopoly whose behavior does impact other business in the market.
Some of the people posting here need to understand that there are plenty of actions that are legal and performed by companies every day that would be considered anti-competitive if the company making those actions grew one day to have a controlling market share.
Microsoft had plenty of business practices that were both legal and standard in the industry for non-monopoly businesses. Microsoft grew to the point where they were considered a monopoly and thus could no longer do those same things that other companies can still do. Bundling a web browser with Windows is not illegal or anti-compettive for virtually every other OS on the market at the time Microsoft was sued by the US government. It was only considered anti-competitive because Microsoft was considered to have a controlling market share and thus the "bundling" was not allowed. A majority of that lawsuit dealt with Microsoft not considering themselves large enough to be a monopoly. The end result was that they had to admit, their actions could have an impact on entry into that marketplace.
Apple has never been charged for anti-competitve behaviors because they have never been large enough of any market to be considered in control of that market.
First, you don't get convicted as a monopolist. Being a monopoly is not a crime. Anti-competitive behavior is where you get into legal trouble. You either exist as a monopoly or you don't. You get convicted for anti-competitive behavior when you are in a position where you already represent a majority of the market and then further seek to control choice.
Second, Microsoft was not convicted of anti-competitive behavior. They signed a consent decree which means "We agree that we did nothing wrong, but we also agree to do things differently in the future now that we understand we really are in a controlling position in the market."
The part that is true is that Microsoft is treated differently because they have a controlling percentage of the market, thus the same behavior by Microsoft is considered anti-competitive while a less controlling business might be able to exhibit that behavior without any legal problems because they have no controlling stake.
Woz has 2 iphones as his primary devices. He says that Windows Phone 7 has a better interface than Android and chooses it over that platform, but he always carries multiple devices with him and still says his two iPhones (ATT and Verizon) are his primaries. Despite this, he praises a lot of aspects of the WP7 OS as better than iOS.
Here is a link to a audio recording of an interview with Woz where he talks about all his devices and why he likes WP7 over Android:
http://soundcloud.com/kopoint/the-report-steve-wozniak-interview
Go to 6:25 to hear him say that iPhone is still his primary.
BTW, I carry a Lumia 900 for personal bias warning.
Agreed. MS will need to convert existing WinMo customers to WP7 while also converting dumbphone users as well as wooing people from other platforms. It will be an uphill battle. I am sure they intend to lose money on this for quite a while. Xbox wasn't exactly a doorbuster when it launched, but at least it had a platformer like Halo. WP7 needs a platform defining feature rather than simply playing catch-up.
Incorrect, all of Windows smartphones is around 9-10%, it is projected that the WP7 portion is around 2%.
From July 28th, 2011, showing all Windows Mobile + WP7 = 9% of smartphone market share
http://www.engadget.com/2011/07/28/nielsen-android-leads-us-smartphone-market-with-39-percent-shar/
From March 2011 showing all Windows Mobile + WP7 = 10% of smartphone market share
http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/03/visualized-us-smartphone-market-share-by-manufacturer-and-plat/
I was going to post about this this as well. I have bought and used several of these over the years:
http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=102&cp_id=10231&cs_id=1023104&p_id=2405&seq=1&format=2
The only thing I can think of is that DVI is signal equivalent for overlapping resolutions in the HDMI spec and thus perhaps allowed while the other cables do some conversion of the signal which is the illegal part?
You don't get convicted/punished until proven guilty, that doesn't mean they don't shut down the operation when it's obvious they are actively selling fake goods right now. It is the courts job to decide what criminal charges may exist. Perhaps the shop owner didn't know they were fake? Just because the owner may not be the person criminally liable, that doesn't mean you allow the operation to continue.
It was obvious these sites were selling fake goods and distributing copyrighted works. They shut them down and the owner's get to plead their case about how they didn't know or whatever their case is. The site still gets shut down now if they are breaking laws now.
It is interesting that most countries that dont have copyright laws also dont have basic human rights protected by law.
I think perhaps the majority of the modern world considers artistic control of your work is worth protecting. You could always move somewhere like China to avoid the stigma of copyright laws.
The websites in these cases amount to a storefront to distribute fake goods or copyrighted materials. When this happens with physical storefronts, they get shut down. I don't really see how this is any different.
This isn't about free speech, no liberties were lost, this is about people breaking the law and reasonable steps are being taken to stop them. You shouldn't fear the government as a result of this. Take off your tinfoil hat.
Comcast main service description if you search by your zipcode and look at the "Performance" plan:
"Get download speeds up to 12 Mbps and uploads up to 2 Mbps with PowerBoost® for only $19.99 a month for 6 months!"
Click to immediate link in the summary "Terms and Conditions", in the first paragraph:
"Actual speeds vary and are not guaranteed. PowerBoost provides bursts of download and upload speeds for the first 10 MB and 5 MB of a file, respectively."
You will find similar clauses in any service description for residential cable/dsl.
I am all for pushing the companies to get the best service for the cheapest price, but you do that by voting with your dollar. It is not reasonable or effective to agree to a service contract, then demonize the business for living up to their end of the bargain as they said they would.
The bottom line is you didn't pay for those speeds for any guaranteed amount of time. Techincally those speeds aren't guaranteed at all if your line quality isn't good enough to support the transmission. The only way to get guaranteed service is to pay for a dedicated line, ie: T1.
Go look at the cost of a T1 and realize it is only 1.5 Mbps, now look at the cost of that 12 Mbps residential cable. Why do you think the T1 is so much more expensive for almost 1/10th the speed? Technology may change, bandwidth may get so cheap it doesn't matter, but right now, guaranteeing 100% throughput at residential service prices simply wont work.
Even since cable/dsl was introduced it was made clear you didn't buy 24/7 full throughput, you bought burst speeds that were subject to the traffic of others on your aggregation point. So yes, you are getting to use exactly what you paid for.
The alternative if you wanted guaranteed 100% throughput 24/7 was and still is a dedicated line like a T1. There is a technological limitation to providing those burst speeds in a guaranteed way 24/7 to every subscriber on the network. They let power users get by when they aren't single-handedly affecting the performance of all of their neighbors, but you get throttled if it turns out you are.
If cable/dsl are forced to require 100% guaranteed speeds like a dedicated line, you will see the cost go way up, or the speeds go way down.
Because a T1 line is expensive and guarantees service 24/7. A residential cable/dsl service is far far cheaper and is contractually not obligated to provide consistent speeds, only burst speeds that can be affected by the traffic of other users of the system.
Consumers went from only have only T1/ISDN as a high-speed option and few could afford it, to cable/dsl that almost anyone could afford and has the performance 99% can appreciate. The 1% that expect 24/7 full throughput should understand they never bought that guarantee of service. Just because their aggregation point wasn't previously saturated and they weren't previously throttled doesn't mean that was an entitlement to that level of service forever.
This article is not saying Windows 7 is insecure. You couldn't even come to that conclusion if you look at what they did. They ran untrusted code known to contain viruses on a Windows 7 machine. UAC only blocked those that tried to perform administrative tasks, which is what its job is. They did not try to do remote infection.
I could write a virus attached to an executable that deleted your favorites file or all of the documents in your user's document folders. This would still be a nasty virus and would not be classified as an administrative activity, thus not triggering UAC. This would not indicate any flaw in the OS or it's level of security. This is no different from any other platform, running as admin or not, if you run untrusted code, it will be able to do anything your logged in user can do.
The point of the article is that people should not pretend UAC *is* virus protection. Microsoft doesn't market it as virus protection, and people shouldn't be under the impression that UAC prevents viruses from running.
The whole foundation of your argument is flawed. UNIX was not designed with security in mind. In a 1979 document titled "On the Security of UNIX", Dennis Ritchie said
"The first fact to face is that UNIX was not developed with security, in any realistic sense, in mind; this fact alone guarantees a vast number of holes."
http://www.kernelthread.com/publications/security/tunix.html
Certainly Unix as well as other OS software have come a long way in security and none of them is perfect, but to make such a false statement that Windows is bad because security was an afterthought while thinking that Unix is any different is just foolish. There have been massive internet worms for Unix in the past, there will be virii for their vulnerabilities in the future.