Those solutions are already available from Intel and faster than anything AMD can currently throw at it.
Instead of waiting for AMD you can buy a dual-proc Xeon 51xx series system and get two Xeon procs based on Core 2 architecture that are both dual core which will provide 4 cores total to the OS. Its available now and very fast. A DELL Precision 690 is one example of a system already ready for this configuration. These systems should also support the Core 2 Quadro based Xeons when they are released which will provide 8 cores to the OS.
I really hope AMD continues to leapfrop as it only means better performance and price for everyone.
Its probably marked critical and fixed so quickly because they are likely under contractual obligation to do so. DRM releases are sometimes coupled to relationships with the big media labels. If they don't fix this, and quickly, they could get sued for breach of contract by the labels for not adequately supporting copyright protection systems.
Another angle is that fixes elsewhere in the system require much more regression testing to ensure they dont "break something else". In the DRM case, the vulnerabilities are probably isolated to the DRM code which is already broken and has fewer "other features" test against once a fix is created.
There is a major flaw in your argument. About 50% of all Palestinians are Christians, were just as displaced as arab muslims and living in the same conditions as the Islamic Palestinians, yet you never hear about Christian suicide bombers because poverty doesn't make people suicidal killers. Poverty creates a mass of uneducated people who are easily controlled by wacko religious leaders. In this case the Islamic leaders espouse a religion of death. Other religions have done the same in the past and have learned and matured with civilization. Muslims are still fighting in a centuries old holy war and wont progress because their leaders want to keep their people in a backwards third-world civilization so they have a steady pool of human bombs.
I agree that conditions for these people are terrible and to many would seem unfair, but the people who carry out these acts use methods that are clearly motivated by a wacko radical religion. You can rationalize why they think the world deserves to pay for their plight, but that doesn't mean we have to tolerate it.
Anyway, I dont think you were supporting them, just challenging the parent to think about the enemies motivations, but I just don't think its as simple as you make it out to be. There are plenty of societies that go through just as much problems, yet dont resort to the kind of violence that the Islamic world does.
You wonder what low-level control has to do with non-native or interpreted languages?
One word: pointers.
Virtual machines (ie: runtimes) handle garbage collection and memory management. In low-level languages, you, the programmer handle it. Dont confuse a vmware virtual machine with a runtime like the java virtual machine, or the.net framework runtime which performs JIT and memory mangement.
Managed and interpreted languages take a perf hit for using special threads to run a generic (albeit engineered) algorithm to manage objects that no longer have references. In low-level languages, you have complete control over when objects are created in and destroyed from memory. So you have more power to optimize memory usage for your application, but also more power to make mistakes regarding memory. (ie: buffer overrun/underrun, bad pointer math).
So I would say that "low level control" has a great deal to do with "interpreted languages" since virtual machines are what perform the native tasks that you would normally be responsible for.
Then again, maybe you were just making fun of his grammar and already knew all of this.
The entire argument is bogus. Katrina is NOT caused by global warming. You have been brainwashed by the stupid political activists. There were more destructive CAT 3-5 Hurricanes in the 1920-1940 period than there have been any time since then, including this decade, so I guess we had a ton of global warming during 1920-1940? NO. Katrina is a natural part of normal storm cycles. The sky is not falling. You may resume normal activities now.
You do know there are multiple laws that cover theft right?
Take identity theft, where no tangible property is deprived from the victim, however there was a act passed by Congress in 1998 called the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act which states that it is a federal crime when anyone:
"...knowingly transfers or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, any unlawful activity that constitutes a violation of Federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable State or local law."
So by this act's definition, I would say that this is clearly a case of stealing information.
Stealing is not exclusively defined as depriving someone else of something that belongs to them.
Most children know that stealing is taking something that does not belong to you, regardless of whether it is a copy or the original item.
Stealing has a lot to do with intent as well. If I take the wrong coat at a restaurant, I deprived it from someone else, but I didn't have the intent to do so, so it isn't stealing.
Besides, even by your deifinition, it IS stealing. The records were private, once they were copied, the company was deprived of its secrecy/privacy of those records. Same as stealing a password.
Not true..Net Winforms controls can be hosted in IE using the <object> tag and operate a lot like ActiveX controls, except this time they are secure using the Code Access Security sandbox (similar to Java applet's code access security).
To view web pages that host these controls you MUST have the.net framework installed on your client machine.
This search will find tons of articles on how this works.
Perhaps all parrots "know" the quantity of zero. This one may simply have learned to communicate its understanding of the concept to humans. For that matter, perhaps all animals know about zero. I know my cats dont try to eat food thats not in their dish. They complain incessantly that it contains zero kibbles of food.
Javascript is a scripting language that can be plugged into anything that has a script host for it. Dont confuse javascript with the DHTML DOM. Plenty of javascript code is perfectly valid and does not run inside a browser:
- Windows Scripting Host allows you to write shell scripts in many languages (Javascript, Perl, VBScript) You can install new script engines and it will host those languages as well. WSH gives you a object model to access the disk and other windows components. (COM, ActiveX, etc). - Classic ASP used the Windows Script Host javascript engine so that js can be the language for ASP. (instead of the default of vbscript). Again, you could use any language that a script engine was installed for, including PERL. (see ActivePerl). - I also believe some cgi scripts can be written in javascript.
Just because you aren't accessing the DHTML DOM objects (document, location, windows, etc) doesn't mean you aren't coding javascript!
I mostly agree, but we do need Javascript. If you look at the Strict XHTML spec, there is no target="" attribute allowed on anchor tags. So if you want to open a link in a new browser, the official way to do it requires client-script (something about targetting is a browser behavior not a document structure semantic, so it should be script, not html):
So you can argue that XHTML blows, or that you shouldn't open links in a new window, but if you decide you want to be standards compliant, you are going to need some client script. This is not the only example.
They used to do exactly that and they got pummeled by companies complaining that they couldn't regularly test and release patches to their machines on a days notice, so they specifically asked for a monthly patch release schedule unless an exploit was already in the wild.
You might say that they could just release the patch and let the company deal with their own schedule, but the crackers out there reverse engineer the patches to create exploits as soon as they are released.
This is just another example of how Microsoft is screwed either way. If they release on a schedule, people like you complain that they wait to release patches, if they release right away, the paying corporate customers complain they can't keep up implementing the patches.
So its either you, or the corporations paying maintenance contracts, who do you think wins the lose-lose decision for Microsoft?
You NEVER own the music. Not even when you buy a CD from the store. You have always been buying a license to listen to the CD for your own personal use only. You can't play it in your store as background music without paying extra licensing fees. You can't copy it and give to a friend. You can't copy it and sell it.
People need to get over this illusion that they have always "owned" the music in their CD collection and then thinking that this same illusion should apply to downloaded music content. If they could lock down records/tapes/cds when they were introduced, they would have.
If you dont like it, then start a band and enjoy listening to your own music. Or get free stuff form the indie bands (as others have said).
Laws are not always clear. Thats why a judge's job is to intepret a law's meaning as it applies to a specific case. (Legislators make laws, judges interpret them, and the police enforces them).
So some company is engaging in action X that they dont believe breaks the law by their interpretation. You cry fowl and say it is breaking the law by your interpretation. So you file a lawsuit to have a judge determine the law's meaning for this situation. Even if the judge sides with your interpretation, that doesn't mean the company was knowingly breaking the law. They can show that they felt it was legal. Much of punishment has to do with intent. The key is that the judge will make it clear going forward what is legal and what is not and how to resolve/punish past actions. (ie: are there damages to 3rd parties as a result, was the market damaged? Does the company need to cleanup the results of their actions?) In this way the company is fined based on what damages they are responsible for (maybe none) and the law is clarified for future companies who are unsure how to interpret the law.
There is a common way to handle these agreements in the U.S. that is called a "Consent Decree" where a company effectively says "We didn't do anything wrong, but we promise to never do it again." This EU decision and its resulting consequences/agreements is probably similar to a consent decree.
This is a totally reasonable result for this case. Just saying "Microsoft broke the law" is easy to say after a judge has interpreted the law to agree with you. You can debate all day wether Microsoft or other companies knowingly break laws and then cry "we didn't know", but these consent decrees/settlements protect everyone from getting screwed by vaugely worded laws.
With closed source, you never enter the room, something breaks and is visible from the outside and you say "Microsoft, thou shalt fix this or I will take my maintenance contract elsewhere!", and then Microsoft sends its devs into the room of razor blades with their own lights to fix the problem. (Now you might debate their effectiveness, but thats another issue.)
With open source, stuff breaks, no one is there to help you and you have to visit hundreds of howto sites in order to get the exact path to traverse the razor blades in the dark without killing yourself, just so you can fix the problem yourself.
They are trying. Clearly the previous OS's didn't make it easy to not run as admin, but it is possible in XP, 2000 and 2003, despite a few jumps and hoops.
A choice quote:
"My #3 reason applies just to Microsoft personnel, particularly those of us in customer-facing roles. Hey, y'all! We need to lead by example. People look to us for best practices, for the right way to do things. We are trying to convince the world that we are thought leaders in software and in software security. In the Unix world, they never run as root except when necessary. They "su", do what they need to do, and revert back. We are not leaders when we run as root all the time. Comrades: you need to run as "User", and your customers need to see you doing it. If you run into issues, don't add yourself back to the admins group - file a bug against the offending product. Customers: if you see any MS sales, MCS, Premier, PSS, etc., doing web or email as admin, please tell them, "You're not setting a very good example. I am disappointed.""
So when Longhorn is released we can see if they made good on this idea, but until then, they openly agree with you and are working towards making it the standard to not run as root.
They are not just concerned about the cost of this movie being shared and the amount of money lost from this movie. Its more about the cost of not pursuing each of these movie postings.
If they dont do anything about it, it will happen more often, and in a more accessible way. Sure they can never eliminate the sharing of their movies, but they can ensure that the punishment is painful enough that the common citizen cannot easily get at it.
If you dont believe me, just look at Napster. I had totally computer illiterate friends who were able to use Napster to get free music. After that was shut down, they simply dont know how to use the other more complicated file sharing systems. (Not to mention they are aware that downloading is illegal now, so some stay away for that reason alone.) Shutting down Napster didn't stop music sharing, but it did curb it immensely and stop other Napster competitors from popping up and making it even easier.
So not all legal battles are immediately profitable, but the money spent can be an investment to prevent future infringement.
There has not been a single observed naturally occuring mutation that had a positive life-giving effect. If the entire theory is based on these mutations that have a positive effect, how come we have never observed any?
The fossil record is extremely inconclusive and has been littered with hoaxes and misrepresentations. (Yah, that one shoulder bone from transitional skeleton X is really conclusive!!)
So the foundation of evolution is transitional forms, and we have no conclusive fossil record of transitional forms. Not only that, but we have never observed any positive mutations in living creatures. What audacity many people have on this forum acting like ID people are quacks on the burden of proof!
When will all the evolution elitists realize that their belief is a faith just like religion. Yes evolution is a fairly good explanation of things we have observed and things we have not observed, but the ID science is pretty much the same (with respect to proof). I think its fine if you dont want to believe in ID and prefer the evolutionary view, but dont act like evolution has even come close to being proven or factual. Any real scientist will admit that there has been no solid proof for evolution, and as thus is still labeled a theory.
Time is worth more than money. The fact that he spent his own personal time and money to make this happen is a testament to the courage and vision and talent.
When Universities spend government grant money to do stuff like this, people fall all over themselves to congratulate them. Some guy spends his own money and years of his life to do the same, and suddenly he is some "rich fuck" in your eyes.
It is obvious that your problem is that you are insecure about your own lack of funds and this is preventing you from congratulating someone who deserves accolades for their hard work. This wasn't some fly-by-night (no pun intended) attempt. This guy has been trying for many years with multiple prototypes and failed attempts. He didn't give up, regardless of how expensive it was.
Get over the fact that you are not rich and see the value that his research brings to the world. (the same value you would see if this was a government funded research project).
This tactic is not new, and its not weird that you can choose your price. If you have taken a basic Economics 101 course, you have learned about "price discrimination" and ideally "perfect price discrimination".
Businesses decide what price to charge by looking at the supply and demand curve. The demand curve shows you that there are people who will demand really high prices and those who will demand really low prices for the same product. The equilibrium price is the price where the company makes the most money by balancing the number of people willing to buy at a price that maximizes profit.
However many companies realize that there are still people on the high end of the demand curve that will still pay higher than the equilibrium price. So companies tried to differentiate a sales channel or product in a way that the customer feels they are getting a product worthy of the higher price, even if the same thing is available for less.
Easy examples: - High-octane gas - Business travelers pay much higher airfare - Designer clothing brands that have a high-end label and a lower-end label that are simply sold in different stores
Generally the higher-end priced items have marginally better quality that is not proportionate with the increase in price. The issue is that the consumer is still willing to pay the price.
If I can sell you a cup of lemonade for $1000.00 and you are willing to buy it for that price, then there is no wrongdoing, even if I tell you that its made from a specially crafted blend of rind and pulp. The 25c cup of lemonade doesn't get any fancy marketing, but I still make money there too (see volume).
Perfect Price Discrimination means that I can sell to EVERY person on the demand curve at the price they are willing to pay. (obviously only the price that is above my cost).
So this isn't news, its standard business practice. It can be sometimes be a monopoly tactic, but only if it can be proven that you are trying to hurt a competitor. (ie: lowering your price to drive someone else out of business)
We make laws based on a belief that the good outweighs the rights that we take away.
I believe that the number of accidents caused by cellphone usage is so fractional that it does more harm to take away the right of using cellphones while driving.
The same is not true of drunk driving, so it should be illegal. There is far more of a cause-effect between drunkeness and dangerous driving. I dont think the drunk-driving accident rates even remotely compare to the cellphone induced accident rates.
I simply disagree with the premise that cellphone usage makes most people more dangerous drivers. It is my opinion that they were likely bad drivers to begin with, cellphones are just a new thing to blame an accident on that would probably have happened anyway.
Jaywalking and Bicycle safety laws are for personal safety, not to minimize danger to others, so they are completely unrelated. Speeding is somewhat related, but like drunk driving, there is a much more established cause and effect relationship between speeding and accidents than cellphone usage.
Besides, there are plenty of dangerous things not outlawed even though some people abuse them. (Guns and knives come to mind).
You can say "Period. End of story" all you want, but it is still just your opinion vs mine. Ultimately the voters and legislators will decide and the rest will have to deal with it.
The difference is that many people can drive while talking on a cellphone without being impaired (despite what you might think). The same is not true of drunk driving.
The parent poster pointed out that more accidents are caused by distractions outside the vehicle or from music/food in the car. Are we going to ban all of that as well just because *some* people can't do it safely?
I think everyone agrees that drunk-driving is unsafe and shouldn't be legal, but trying to compare this to talking on cellphones while driving is a bit of a stretch. (ie: anyone who is drunk is CLEARLY impaired, however many people are perfectly alert while talking on their cellphone).
Why is there a new tendency to punish everyone in this country when a minor few are incompetant? We don't need another law for this!!
Slashdot Mirror
Those solutions are already available from Intel and faster than anything AMD can currently throw at it.
Instead of waiting for AMD you can buy a dual-proc Xeon 51xx series system and get two Xeon procs based on Core 2 architecture that are both dual core which will provide 4 cores total to the OS. Its available now and very fast. A DELL Precision 690 is one example of a system already ready for this configuration. These systems should also support the Core 2 Quadro based Xeons when they are released which will provide 8 cores to the OS.
I really hope AMD continues to leapfrop as it only means better performance and price for everyone.
-David
Its probably marked critical and fixed so quickly because they are likely under contractual obligation to do so. DRM releases are sometimes coupled to relationships with the big media labels. If they don't fix this, and quickly, they could get sued for breach of contract by the labels for not adequately supporting copyright protection systems.
Another angle is that fixes elsewhere in the system require much more regression testing to ensure they dont "break something else". In the DRM case, the vulnerabilities are probably isolated to the DRM code which is already broken and has fewer "other features" test against once a fix is created.
Dont know this for sure, but thats my guess.
-David
There is a major flaw in your argument. About 50% of all Palestinians are Christians, were just as displaced as arab muslims and living in the same conditions as the Islamic Palestinians, yet you never hear about Christian suicide bombers because poverty doesn't make people suicidal killers. Poverty creates a mass of uneducated people who are easily controlled by wacko religious leaders. In this case the Islamic leaders espouse a religion of death. Other religions have done the same in the past and have learned and matured with civilization. Muslims are still fighting in a centuries old holy war and wont progress because their leaders want to keep their people in a backwards third-world civilization so they have a steady pool of human bombs.
I agree that conditions for these people are terrible and to many would seem unfair, but the people who carry out these acts use methods that are clearly motivated by a wacko radical religion. You can rationalize why they think the world deserves to pay for their plight, but that doesn't mean we have to tolerate it.
Anyway, I dont think you were supporting them, just challenging the parent to think about the enemies motivations, but I just don't think its as simple as you make it out to be. There are plenty of societies that go through just as much problems, yet dont resort to the kind of violence that the Islamic world does.
-David
You wonder what low-level control has to do with non-native or interpreted languages?
.net framework runtime which performs JIT and memory mangement.
One word: pointers.
Virtual machines (ie: runtimes) handle garbage collection and memory management. In low-level languages, you, the programmer handle it. Dont confuse a vmware virtual machine with a runtime like the java virtual machine, or the
Managed and interpreted languages take a perf hit for using special threads to run a generic (albeit engineered) algorithm to manage objects that no longer have references. In low-level languages, you have complete control over when objects are created in and destroyed from memory. So you have more power to optimize memory usage for your application, but also more power to make mistakes regarding memory. (ie: buffer overrun/underrun, bad pointer math).
So I would say that "low level control" has a great deal to do with "interpreted languages" since virtual machines are what perform the native tasks that you would normally be responsible for.
Then again, maybe you were just making fun of his grammar and already knew all of this.
-David
The entire argument is bogus. Katrina is NOT caused by global warming. You have been brainwashed by the stupid political activists. There were more destructive CAT 3-5 Hurricanes in the 1920-1940 period than there have been any time since then, including this decade, so I guess we had a ton of global warming during 1920-1940? NO. Katrina is a natural part of normal storm cycles. The sky is not falling. You may resume normal activities now.
-David
You do know there are multiple laws that cover theft right?
Take identity theft, where no tangible property is deprived from the victim, however there was a act passed by Congress in 1998 called the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act which states that it is a federal crime when anyone:
"...knowingly transfers or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, any unlawful activity that constitutes a violation of Federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable State or local law."
So by this act's definition, I would say that this is clearly a case of stealing information.
You can read more here:
http://www.consumer.gov/idtheft/federallaws.html
-David
Stealing is not exclusively defined as depriving someone else of something that belongs to them.
Most children know that stealing is taking something that does not belong to you, regardless of whether it is a copy or the original item.
Stealing has a lot to do with intent as well. If I take the wrong coat at a restaurant, I deprived it from someone else, but I didn't have the intent to do so, so it isn't stealing.
Besides, even by your deifinition, it IS stealing. The records were private, once they were copied, the company was deprived of its secrecy/privacy of those records. Same as stealing a password.
-David
Slashdot's new mantra:
Common Sense for Nerds, Obviousness that matters!
-David
Not true. .Net Winforms controls can be hosted in IE using the <object> tag and operate a lot like ActiveX controls, except this time they are secure using the Code Access Security sandbox (similar to Java applet's code access security).
.net framework installed on your client machine.
To view web pages that host these controls you MUST have the
This search will find tons of articles on how this works.
-David
Perhaps all parrots "know" the quantity of zero. This one may simply have learned to communicate its understanding of the concept to humans. For that matter, perhaps all animals know about zero. I know my cats dont try to eat food thats not in their dish. They complain incessantly that it contains zero kibbles of food.
-David
Javascript is a scripting language that can be plugged into anything that has a script host for it. Dont confuse javascript with the DHTML DOM. Plenty of javascript code is perfectly valid and does not run inside a browser:
- Windows Scripting Host allows you to write shell scripts in many languages (Javascript, Perl, VBScript) You can install new script engines and it will host those languages as well. WSH gives you a object model to access the disk and other windows components. (COM, ActiveX, etc).
- Classic ASP used the Windows Script Host javascript engine so that js can be the language for ASP. (instead of the default of vbscript). Again, you could use any language that a script engine was installed for, including PERL. (see ActivePerl).
- I also believe some cgi scripts can be written in javascript.
Just because you aren't accessing the DHTML DOM objects (document, location, windows, etc) doesn't mean you aren't coding javascript!
-David
I mostly agree, but we do need Javascript. If you look at the Strict XHTML spec, there is no target="" attribute allowed on anchor tags. So if you want to open a link in a new browser, the official way to do it requires client-script (something about targetting is a browser behavior not a document structure semantic, so it should be script, not html):
<a href="http://www.slashdot.org" onclick="window.open(this.href,'_blank');return false;">Slashdot</a>
So you can argue that XHTML blows, or that you shouldn't open links in a new window, but if you decide you want to be standards compliant, you are going to need some client script. This is not the only example.
-David
They used to do exactly that and they got pummeled by companies complaining that they couldn't regularly test and release patches to their machines on a days notice, so they specifically asked for a monthly patch release schedule unless an exploit was already in the wild.
You might say that they could just release the patch and let the company deal with their own schedule, but the crackers out there reverse engineer the patches to create exploits as soon as they are released.
This is just another example of how Microsoft is screwed either way. If they release on a schedule, people like you complain that they wait to release patches, if they release right away, the paying corporate customers complain they can't keep up implementing the patches.
So its either you, or the corporations paying maintenance contracts, who do you think wins the lose-lose decision for Microsoft?
-David
You NEVER own the music. Not even when you buy a CD from the store. You have always been buying a license to listen to the CD for your own personal use only. You can't play it in your store as background music without paying extra licensing fees. You can't copy it and give to a friend. You can't copy it and sell it.
People need to get over this illusion that they have always "owned" the music in their CD collection and then thinking that this same illusion should apply to downloaded music content. If they could lock down records/tapes/cds when they were introduced, they would have.
If you dont like it, then start a band and enjoy listening to your own music. Or get free stuff form the indie bands (as others have said).
-David
Laws are not always clear. Thats why a judge's job is to intepret a law's meaning as it applies to a specific case. (Legislators make laws, judges interpret them, and the police enforces them).
So some company is engaging in action X that they dont believe breaks the law by their interpretation. You cry fowl and say it is breaking the law by your interpretation. So you file a lawsuit to have a judge determine the law's meaning for this situation. Even if the judge sides with your interpretation, that doesn't mean the company was knowingly breaking the law. They can show that they felt it was legal. Much of punishment has to do with intent. The key is that the judge will make it clear going forward what is legal and what is not and how to resolve/punish past actions. (ie: are there damages to 3rd parties as a result, was the market damaged? Does the company need to cleanup the results of their actions?) In this way the company is fined based on what damages they are responsible for (maybe none) and the law is clarified for future companies who are unsure how to interpret the law.
There is a common way to handle these agreements in the U.S. that is called a "Consent Decree" where a company effectively says "We didn't do anything wrong, but we promise to never do it again." This EU decision and its resulting consequences/agreements is probably similar to a consent decree.
This is a totally reasonable result for this case. Just saying "Microsoft broke the law" is easy to say after a judge has interpreted the law to agree with you. You can debate all day wether Microsoft or other companies knowingly break laws and then cry "we didn't know", but these consent decrees/settlements protect everyone from getting screwed by vaugely worded laws.
-David
Here is my version of the analogy:
With closed source, you never enter the room, something breaks and is visible from the outside and you say "Microsoft, thou shalt fix this or I will take my maintenance contract elsewhere!", and then Microsoft sends its devs into the room of razor blades with their own lights to fix the problem. (Now you might debate their effectiveness, but thats another issue.)
With open source, stuff breaks, no one is there to help you and you have to visit hundreds of howto sites in order to get the exact path to traverse the razor blades in the dark without killing yourself, just so you can fix the problem yourself.
-David
They are trying. Clearly the previous OS's didn't make it easy to not run as admin, but it is possible in XP, 2000 and 2003, despite a few jumps and hoops.
See Aaron Margosis' blog on msdn.
A choice quote:
"My #3 reason applies just to Microsoft personnel, particularly those of us in customer-facing roles. Hey, y'all! We need to lead by example. People look to us for best practices, for the right way to do things. We are trying to convince the world that we are thought leaders in software and in software security. In the Unix world, they never run as root except when necessary. They "su", do what they need to do, and revert back. We are not leaders when we run as root all the time. Comrades: you need to run as "User", and your customers need to see you doing it. If you run into issues, don't add yourself back to the admins group - file a bug against the offending product. Customers: if you see any MS sales, MCS, Premier, PSS, etc., doing web or email as admin, please tell them, "You're not setting a very good example. I am disappointed.""
So when Longhorn is released we can see if they made good on this idea, but until then, they openly agree with you and are working towards making it the standard to not run as root.
-David
Obvious, not Informative
They are not just concerned about the cost of this movie being shared and the amount of money lost from this movie. Its more about the cost of not pursuing each of these movie postings.
If they dont do anything about it, it will happen more often, and in a more accessible way. Sure they can never eliminate the sharing of their movies, but they can ensure that the punishment is painful enough that the common citizen cannot easily get at it.
If you dont believe me, just look at Napster. I had totally computer illiterate friends who were able to use Napster to get free music. After that was shut down, they simply dont know how to use the other more complicated file sharing systems. (Not to mention they are aware that downloading is illegal now, so some stay away for that reason alone.) Shutting down Napster didn't stop music sharing, but it did curb it immensely and stop other Napster competitors from popping up and making it even easier.
So not all legal battles are immediately profitable, but the money spent can be an investment to prevent future infringement.
-David
Major flaws in evolution:
There has not been a single observed naturally occuring mutation that had a positive life-giving effect. If the entire theory is based on these mutations that have a positive effect, how come we have never observed any?
The fossil record is extremely inconclusive and has been littered with hoaxes and misrepresentations. (Yah, that one shoulder bone from transitional skeleton X is really conclusive!!)
So the foundation of evolution is transitional forms, and we have no conclusive fossil record of transitional forms. Not only that, but we have never observed any positive mutations in living creatures. What audacity many people have on this forum acting like ID people are quacks on the burden of proof!
When will all the evolution elitists realize that their belief is a faith just like religion. Yes evolution is a fairly good explanation of things we have observed and things we have not observed, but the ID science is pretty much the same (with respect to proof). I think its fine if you dont want to believe in ID and prefer the evolutionary view, but dont act like evolution has even come close to being proven or factual. Any real scientist will admit that there has been no solid proof for evolution, and as thus is still labeled a theory.
Thanks,
David
Time is worth more than money. The fact that he spent his own personal time and money to make this happen is a testament to the courage and vision and talent.
When Universities spend government grant money to do stuff like this, people fall all over themselves to congratulate them. Some guy spends his own money and years of his life to do the same, and suddenly he is some "rich fuck" in your eyes.
It is obvious that your problem is that you are insecure about your own lack of funds and this is preventing you from congratulating someone who deserves accolades for their hard work. This wasn't some fly-by-night (no pun intended) attempt. This guy has been trying for many years with multiple prototypes and failed attempts. He didn't give up, regardless of how expensive it was.
Get over the fact that you are not rich and see the value that his research brings to the world. (the same value you would see if this was a government funded research project).
-David
Literal? Come on - this reads worse than half of the AC posts in YRO. I hate playing the grammar nazi, but this was painful to read...
See what happens when you RTFA!!!
-David
This tactic is not new, and its not weird that you can choose your price. If you have taken a basic Economics 101 course, you have learned about "price discrimination" and ideally "perfect price discrimination".
Businesses decide what price to charge by looking at the supply and demand curve. The demand curve shows you that there are people who will demand really high prices and those who will demand really low prices for the same product. The equilibrium price is the price where the company makes the most money by balancing the number of people willing to buy at a price that maximizes profit.
However many companies realize that there are still people on the high end of the demand curve that will still pay higher than the equilibrium price. So companies tried to differentiate a sales channel or product in a way that the customer feels they are getting a product worthy of the higher price, even if the same thing is available for less.
Easy examples: - High-octane gas - Business travelers pay much higher airfare - Designer clothing brands that have a high-end label and a lower-end label that are simply sold in different stores
Generally the higher-end priced items have marginally better quality that is not proportionate with the increase in price. The issue is that the consumer is still willing to pay the price.
If I can sell you a cup of lemonade for $1000.00 and you are willing to buy it for that price, then there is no wrongdoing, even if I tell you that its made from a specially crafted blend of rind and pulp. The 25c cup of lemonade doesn't get any fancy marketing, but I still make money there too (see volume).
Perfect Price Discrimination means that I can sell to EVERY person on the demand curve at the price they are willing to pay. (obviously only the price that is above my cost).
So this isn't news, its standard business practice. It can be sometimes be a monopoly tactic, but only if it can be proven that you are trying to hurt a competitor. (ie: lowering your price to drive someone else out of business)
Here is a link to an article discussing price discrimination.
-David
We make laws based on a belief that the good outweighs the rights that we take away.
I believe that the number of accidents caused by cellphone usage is so fractional that it does more harm to take away the right of using cellphones while driving.
The same is not true of drunk driving, so it should be illegal. There is far more of a cause-effect between drunkeness and dangerous driving. I dont think the drunk-driving accident rates even remotely compare to the cellphone induced accident rates.
I simply disagree with the premise that cellphone usage makes most people more dangerous drivers. It is my opinion that they were likely bad drivers to begin with, cellphones are just a new thing to blame an accident on that would probably have happened anyway.
Jaywalking and Bicycle safety laws are for personal safety, not to minimize danger to others, so they are completely unrelated. Speeding is somewhat related, but like drunk driving, there is a much more established cause and effect relationship between speeding and accidents than cellphone usage.
Besides, there are plenty of dangerous things not outlawed even though some people abuse them. (Guns and knives come to mind).
You can say "Period. End of story" all you want, but it is still just your opinion vs mine. Ultimately the voters and legislators will decide and the rest will have to deal with it.
-David
The difference is that many people can drive while talking on a cellphone without being impaired (despite what you might think). The same is not true of drunk driving.
The parent poster pointed out that more accidents are caused by distractions outside the vehicle or from music/food in the car. Are we going to ban all of that as well just because *some* people can't do it safely?
I think everyone agrees that drunk-driving is unsafe and shouldn't be legal, but trying to compare this to talking on cellphones while driving is a bit of a stretch. (ie: anyone who is drunk is CLEARLY impaired, however many people are perfectly alert while talking on their cellphone).
Why is there a new tendency to punish everyone in this country when a minor few are incompetant? We don't need another law for this!!
-David