Ah. See, that to me is not "taking control". But - damn! - those four conditions pretty much smack all of the points of adware, spyware, etc!
I still see this as a problem, though. Even if the company is a U.S. company who is found guilty of this, if they're not based in California does California have the right to extradite? Well, now wait a minute! That then involves interstate network traffic which puts it under FEDERAL control, and the jackasses in Washington would never make a law similar to this because they have no clue and because it seems to be a well-written law! So, what course of action does California have if the company is not in California?
I'm not even going to touch the notion of the company being out of the U.S., because we all know that nothing would happen in that case.
So, it still brings to mind the question of how effective is this law really going to be?
The state's Consumer Protection Against Spyware Act bans the installation of software that takes control of another computer.
I'm really concerned about this type of language. The effectiveness of this really comes down to "How do you define 'takes control'?" Snooping where you go in the Internet is not "taking control". I don't even know that pop-up advertisements can really be called "taking control" since I have ultimate control over the power button as well as the network plug in the back of the computer. Even if there is spyware installed, I have control over installing another browser or installing spyware removal software. VNC, PC Anywhere, and other such tools are meant to truly "take control" of a system, but they're obviously not spyware. I'm also concerned about spyware being used at the threat. I would think that viruses and spambots would me the obvious targets, but do they "take control" or do they just "steal CPU cycles"?
The article didn't go into great detail on this particular matter. How can one really define "taking control" if something ever goes to court on this? Or is it possible that this was just a bad choice of words on BBC's part?
Absolutely. I know a lot of people who told me that they thought it was a cool idea (this was obviously not recent) until I said, "You mean the same Microsoft that announces exploits in their operating systems on a weekly basis? You mean the Microsoft that had its Hotmail servers broken into a few times? Is that the Microsoft that you want to trust with your credit card numbers?"
The most common reply was "Oh. I never thought of that."
I don't know that I necessarily believe that Microsoft has never been concerned about security. I just don't think that they ever gave it a priority until recently.
Personally, I think that the reason why it failed was more that peole just don't trust storing such critical information in a single place. Convenience is fine, but the increase in Internet fraud, phishing, viruses/virii, and the like are increasing andmore importantly are being reported to the public. Let's not forget the frequent reports of how some major network site comewhere was broken into.
I agree that rival companies banding together was not relevant. I think that Passport's demise is due more and more news about the lack of security in Microsoft products and on the web in general. I find it difficult to believe that any kind of Passport-like service would work any time soon.
Eudora 6 has been doing something like this for a while. If you get any e-mail with a URL in it, hovering over it will show the actual, underlying HREF, no different that any browser will; however, it will give you a warning if the URL is not the same as the underlying HREF code.
Sadly, the biggest obstacles to any topic such as this are user ignorance, apathy, and lack of common sense. And these are three massive hurdles that need to be overcome, which no single tool bar can do. As many can attest, it's a bitch of a task to try to get the following kinds of people to actually think rationally:
Oh, look! I just got an e-mail. Hey! It has a link! Although I cannot explain why, I have such an incredible urge to click on the link even though I have never heard of the company and I really don't need a fake Rolex watch! Same thing with those bank with whom I never know that I had an account, but I obviously need to update my information.
You lost all credibility as soon as you said "Netizen."
You have got to be kidding me. If you're so tunnel-visioned that you're going to hang my credibility on the use of a single word, then quite frankly your opinion of my credibility has no credibility in and of itself and certainly no value.
You sound like one of those parents who get pissed if their kid gets a 95% on a test. Rather than praise the kid for getting a 95%, they condemn him because he didn't get that extra 5%.
Personally, I am not surprised by this revelation. I doubt that they would have done this if the shuttle fleet wasn't grounded. Right now, they see themselves as the only current way to get our astronauts into space, so they're going to take advantage of that. Besides, $20 million to the Russian space agency is a fraction of the cost of somehow getting a new shuttle out (if that's even possible anymore). I'm somewhat surprised that this wasnt thought of earlier.
They pretty much have us by the jubbles and they know it. You vant an astronaut in space, comrade? Ve're your only real solution right now. Ve're going to take advantage of that. Can't say that I blame them. Ah, the capitalist spirit hits the Russian space program!
Here in Canada I have never ever paid any sort of setup fee. At the very least if it exists, it is waived. Also there is no minimum time you have to wait between you re-signup for a new account. But if that is the case, I can see your point.
Whoops! My apologies. Should have mentioned that I was referring to ISPs in the U.S. like with the anti-slamming law. I unfortunately have a tendency of forgetting that Slashdot while primarily used by Americans is not exclusively American.
Why don't the ISP's do the even easier thing and just firewall whole sections of their network? That way they have a single investment instead of a bunch of $50 "modems". Since all the traffic is traveling over their network anyway...
No way. Some big potential problems there, especially for gamers. At least with Joe User, their firewall/router will shut down everything inbound and they won't know any better because they just surf or read e-mail. Those who know what they're doing, however, can at least open ports on their individual firewall.
If the ISP is reponsible, then I can just imagine the hell that would brew when a new multiplayer games comes out using unusual ports for connectivity! No one could connect to your server because your ISP blocks those ports and you'll have to go through hell to get those ports open at your ISP!
Although an ISP-centric approach might seem to be more common sense, it will be a major pain-in-the-ass for a potentially large number of their educated users.
The whole thing comes down to personal responsibility. When we buy a car, we have certain responsibilities that we have to maintain if we want the continued privilege of driving that car. Our local Department of Transportation is not responsible for my responsibilities, nor is the dealership who sold me the car, nor is the Turnpike Commission when I drive on their highway. I am the operator; therefore, I must be held responsible. Internet usage is no different, or at least shouldn't be.
Nope. They would not. They would cancel their subscription and either switch to competiton who will give them a free router, or re-signup with the provider to get the 'firewall' enabled modem. Simple laws of economics.
Major flaws in that argument.
Most ISPs require a sign-up fee for the hardware. More often than not, the sign-up fee is greater than the cost of a new router.
The broadband style of anti-slamming laws prevent (in the U.S.) the immediate switching of broadband ISPs. There must be a 90-day wait between the termination of the old broadband account to the installation of the new account. I've tried it a few times before and got hit with this every time., unless the law has changed in the very recent past. The only solution to that is to have a second phone line, which again is a cost equal to a router in the short term and definitely more expensive in the long run.
Noble goal.. What about AIDS or teen pregnancies? We are tought about them at a very young age and yet both still exist/happen. The problem lies with the user's indifference.
Again, you have a major flaw in that argument. Once you are educated on such topics, who is going to be around you to prevent you from having sex? If I teach my daughter about AIDS, the ONLY way to physically stop her from having sex (without silly ideas that I'm sure people are dreaming up right now in response) is to be around her 24/7. Not realistic.
ISPs, however, can very easily say "We're cutting off your connection now" and then do it. The user's indifference is certainly not a factor when it comes to that.
Listen to the radio. See how many car accidents licenced drivers have caused in your area this moring. This is not the answer nor a deterrant.
True, but if every accident or violation (even a minor offense like a rolling stop) that was indeed your fault meant that you lose driving privileges for x months (as an example), wouldn't you be a bit more careful? It would only take one of those instances for you to realize how much you depend on it and then view it with a bit more seriousness.
The main problem with your argument and the examples that you gave is that there is no "gatekeeper" to physically force you from, in your examples, having sex or getting into an accident. When it comes to being a responsible Netizen, the ISP is the gatekeeper that you have to rely on. They can force people to lose their indifference by the click of a button.
To an extent that is true, but you are living in a fantasy world if you think that e-mail will ever be able to go back to such innocence any time soon.
Have you noticed that when it comes to computers the relatives always replace had a major lapse of common sense and with accidentally?
"So, you accidentally received a piece of mail from someone you didn't know, you accidentally opened it up to see what it was, you accidentally moved the mouse over the attachment, and then you accidentally double-clicked on the attachment just because it was there? Oops! I accidentally just formatted your hard drive. Do you have your installation CD?"
The problem with this topic is that Microsoft is always blamed for making an inherently insecure operating system. They are also to blame because of "too little, too late", aka. activating the firewall by default only in SP2.
But quite frankly the ISPs and of course the individual users are to blame as well.
Why don't broadband ISPs require boradband firewalls? Only recently have some of them started to incorporate firewalled modems, and even then they're only sent to new customers. Would this mean that existing customers would have to spend money for a new router at the ISPs demand? You bet. But given the choice between disconnection or buying a $50 router, I'm sure that the vast majority would find a way to get that $50.
Additionally, most virii are sent over SMTP ports since they contain their own SMTP servers. I would not be against shutting down direct-from-client SMTP as long as those who run their own mail servers have the option of having their specific connection opened for SMTP traffic.
Finally, the users absolutely MUST be educated. There are enough free tools out there that no one should be unprotected. But again who should be responsible for teaching these end users?
At this point I would actually welcome something like a drivers license for broadband access. You don't gain the ability to use a broadband connection unless you prove to the ISP that you know the rules and that you are informed of how to be a responsible Netizen, including the use of firewalls, virus scanners, and alternate products like Mozilla, Eudora, Firefox, and others. If you break the "law" afterwards, your broadband privileges are revoked until you come into compliance.
If people were made aware that any virus or worm outbreak cause by them would mean the complete loss of their Internet connectivity, I think we'd see the number of virus infections drop dramatically.
But have an ISP do the responsible thing at the risk of pissing off customers? No, they'd rather spend billions of dollars a year on mail storage, spam-fighting hardware and software, increasing bandwidth usage, and always-rising amounts of mail to abuse@isp.net...and of course pass those charges onto us.
Although your points are taken, you made a lot of assumptions in my reply.
Firstly, I was using "PC" as personal computer - any personal computer. Apple computers also fit into that category. I was not just talking about AMD/Intel. You can't compare a desktop that can perform a huge number of different functions and to a PVR that really can only perform one function. That was the point that I was trying to make.
Secondly, there is nothing that says that you have to be restricted to Windows DRM. My ATI All-In-Wonder 7200 comes with all of the software that I would need to record and archive. (I'm not looking at HD at the moment.) It even comes with its own remote control so that *it* can act as the TV tuner. It can record in DVD-ready MPEG-2 and in its own (what seems to be) proprietary format. So, the Windows DRM shackles don't even have to be involved.
Yes, a PVR might be a better value when it comes to the bottom line, but only if you want nothing other than PVR functionality.
I also fully disagree about the "better DVD creation and video editing software", but that's best left for another discussion.:)
Although the article focuses on Microsoft vs. everyone else, a lot of the responses seem to be talking about media PCs vs. PVRs. So, I'll address that point.
PCs and PVRs are just not comparable. Complete apples and oranges. You can't compare a Tivo or other PVR with a PC that's connected to a TV and the Internet. While it's nice that a PVR is meant specifically for its purpose and does it very well (even better if you know how to hack it), I can find many more advantages to having a PC connected to a TV instead.
First off, do you need more hard drive space? You buy a new secondary drive. You can't do that with PVRs unless you hack (in violation of contract if you rent the box) or buy/rent a newer one with a bigger hard drive.
If you don't want to watch TV, a wireless keyboard and mouse/trackball will allow you to surf on your TV. You can't do that with a PVR.
If the box is beefy enough, there is no reason why you can't use the PC as a gaming console. I'm sure that I'd have a lot more fun playing multiplayer "Ghost Recon" on my 55" widescreen TV than on my 21" monitor -- potential burn-in not withstanding.
There are other reasons, but I've made my point. Snd I'm sure that the vast majority of us on/. have a spare system laying around (or the majority of components to make one)that is more than capable of being a repectable system to act as a PVR.
Linux would have the same benefits, so I don't want to act as though only Windows can satisfy my requirements. But only us geeks would actually be comfortable using Linux for this purpose. The vast majority of people are unfortunately still brainwashed that Microsoft = Heaven, Bill Gates = God, and anything else != easy-to-use. So, properly positioned and marketed, XP MCE can be a highly effective alternative to PVRs to a huge amount of people.
That being said, I'm hearing a lot of good things about MythTV. I'm going to have to look into that. And I'll have a spare system shortly that's more than capable of handling the task. I'll pass on the PVR, thank you.
But the problem is one of perception, not behavior as others are trying to push.
For example, "open source" to me can represent a better alternative than "free software", not the least of which is that with "open source" I can compile the code natively so that it can take advantage of the system on which is it compiled. That's often the biggest benefit to open source.
"Free software" generally denotes "precompiled and available at no cost". It might do what I want but might not be as efficient or flexible as an "open course" counterpart.
I understand where he's coming from, but to imply that the two are somehow synonymous or at least not different I think is completely wrong. Maybe it's just a matter of finding a totally different title for what he's trying to promote. I'll let him come up with that, however.
I'm sorry, but I think it's utterly ridiculous. The two are not mutually inclusive and cannot be used interchangably.
Although all open source software is free by its very nature, it's ridiculous to try to make the reverse analogy that free software is also by default open source. There are a number of quality programs out there for which the source code is not freely available but the program itself is free of cost and in many cases limitations.
Web sites have been posted and we are all aware of many of them. I have not seen the source code to AdAware being made available, but I know that it is not only a high-quality piece of software, but it is also free from cost, whether hidden (adware) or explicit. We can all name multiple other products that are the same way.
If anyone confuses "free" with "cheap", they are only preventing themselves from experiencing some great products as long as they are aware of which "free" products really are free and which ones have hidden "costs", aka Kazaa.
It can also be argued that early Shareware programs, like Doom and the various Apogee games were free but not open source (at least back then). We could play the first chapter of those games as often as we wanted. They were indeed free but they at the time were most certainly not open source.
So, there is a strong distinction between "open source" and "free software". Just because one includes the other doesn't mean that it has to be the same in the other direction. To consider the two phrases to be synonymous is a ridiculous notion.
The problem with the opening statement from CmdrTaco is that this plant upgrade is not solely due to AMD's dominance in the gaming market. Remember, people, Intel makes a hell of a lot of other chips besides microprocessors. The article even states that AMD is considered to be the leader in automation processors. There is only a brief mention of gaming systems in the article, and Intel has other threats besides AMD. So, CmdrTaco's opening statement is somewhat misleading of Intel's reasons for this upgrade.
Regardless, one of the reasons why I prefer AMD is price/performance. Most of the benchmarks that I've seen in addition to my personal experience make AMD the clear winner in this scenario, particularly for gaming. AMD chips run cooler, take up less electricity, and cost less than their Intel counterparts. But that's only a small part of the competition's offensive against Intel. Intel now realizes that.
Gouging for a ticket is bad enough, but the additional gouging for food and beverage just adds insult to injury anyway.
Actually, the "gouging" for food and drinks is what keeps the theaters there. The studios take almost all of the profits from ticket sales. The theaters get their profit from concession sales. A theater could sell out every seat in the house for every showing for every movie. But if no one buys anything to eat or drink, that theater will close in short order.
Support your local theater, especially second-run and independent theaters. Buy some popcorn.
Death to transfers that stop at 99.8%, sit around with 10x more uploading than downloading on a connection that does 3mbit/356kbit
This has always been my biggest gripe with BitTorrent. I have a 1.5 down/128 up DSL. Whenever I fired up BitTorrent, it would always upload at the full 12 KB/sec but download at closer to 1.2 KB/sec. I got so frustrated that I just shut it off and suffered with downloading from the company's main FTP site at a whopping 2.7 or 2.8 KB/sec, but it was still faster. (Yes, it was actually for legal purposes.) It should probably be renamed to BitTrickle.
I still think that it's a great tool that can be used for a lot of completely legal purposes, not the least of which would be game and application patches and updates. I can only imagine what the bandwidth costs must be to companies like Sun, any Linux distributor, Microsoft, etc. Why host the file when you can proviede a BT link and let everyone else distribute your patches for you?
But as long as BT gives abysmal download rates, I'll stick with the various Gnutella clients, newsgroups, or straight FTP.
Inexpensive direct printing on discs is old stuff
on
Burn the CD on Both Sides
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
This is somehow newsworthy? There are a number of ink-jet printers out there that are modifications to existing HP and Epson priters that allow you to put a CD in a specific CD-sized tray to print directly to the disc. The only requirement is that you use discs with printable surfaces. Otherwise, it's an ink-jet printer. So, you get full color and the ability to use relatively inexpensive inks (refills, anyone?) with out the costs of proprietary software or hardware, toner, or other kind of inks.
And seriously, folks, is it that difficult or embarassing to use a Stomper or similar disc labeling tool? The implication that I read from this advertisment... er... article is that somehow the disc is not professional unless it has its text directly embedded onto the disc. Don't be ridiculous. I've been using full-coverage labels for my CDs for years and no one has ever complained about "unprofessionalism".
Sheesh. All of this time I thought that I was buying CDs for their content. I guess that everyone else was more concerned about the professionalism of the disc top.
If giving positive word-of-mouth over a product that has proven itself to me as an excellent alternative to another product is becoming an "evangelist", then all that I can say is "Amen, brother!"
There is nothing "evangelical" about showing strong support for a product that you truly believe in, particularly when using that "other" product continually results in problems for others in the world partially due to its inherent security flaws.
Why was that moderated as trolling? That kind of attitude is typical of what we're seeing in a lot of software development anymore, whether from Microsoft or from other companies. They are starting to take on an attitude where the next version (which is only going to be available for purchase) is going to be the set of patches for the previous version, so to speak. Microsoft has been doing this for years.
It always irritates me when the solution is for the *consumer* to spend *more* money to fix a problem that should not have existed in the first place. "Well, we can't fix Windows 95 completely, so let's repackage it with some extra goodies and call it Windows 98! The robots will buy it in droves!" (which they did).
Did you notice that companies (I'll continue to use Microsoft for this example) never suggest backing up your system and performing a clean re-install to get rid of problems? The solution is always to get the newest version of whatever the software is. Why do you think that is? Could it possibly be that these companies get more money when their newest software is sold whereas they get nothing if you just wipe your system and re-install?
This is no better than software companies that release buggy code and then immediately tell consumers "We know about them and we're expecting to have a patch released soon." They're both disingenuous attitudes towards the consumers who are keeping them in business.
As far as I'm concerned, that an even more plausible reason to go to open source software, with Firefox being at the head of what should be on every PC. Even if the next version *is* the "patch" for the previous version, at least it's not costing the end consumer anything!
Slashdot Mirror
Ah. See, that to me is not "taking control". But - damn! - those four conditions pretty much smack all of the points of adware, spyware, etc!
I still see this as a problem, though. Even if the company is a U.S. company who is found guilty of this, if they're not based in California does California have the right to extradite? Well, now wait a minute! That then involves interstate network traffic which puts it under FEDERAL control, and the jackasses in Washington would never make a law similar to this because they have no clue and because it seems to be a well-written law! So, what course of action does California have if the company is not in California?
I'm not even going to touch the notion of the company being out of the U.S., because we all know that nothing would happen in that case.
So, it still brings to mind the question of how effective is this law really going to be?
The state's Consumer Protection Against Spyware Act bans the installation of software that takes control of another computer.
I'm really concerned about this type of language. The effectiveness of this really comes down to "How do you define 'takes control'?" Snooping where you go in the Internet is not "taking control". I don't even know that pop-up advertisements can really be called "taking control" since I have ultimate control over the power button as well as the network plug in the back of the computer. Even if there is spyware installed, I have control over installing another browser or installing spyware removal software. VNC, PC Anywhere, and other such tools are meant to truly "take control" of a system, but they're obviously not spyware. I'm also concerned about spyware being used at the threat. I would think that viruses and spambots would me the obvious targets, but do they "take control" or do they just "steal CPU cycles"?
The article didn't go into great detail on this particular matter. How can one really define "taking control" if something ever goes to court on this? Or is it possible that this was just a bad choice of words on BBC's part?
Absolutely. I know a lot of people who told me that they thought it was a cool idea (this was obviously not recent) until I said, "You mean the same Microsoft that announces exploits in their operating systems on a weekly basis? You mean the Microsoft that had its Hotmail servers broken into a few times? Is that the Microsoft that you want to trust with your credit card numbers?"
The most common reply was "Oh. I never thought of that."
I don't know that I necessarily believe that Microsoft has never been concerned about security. I just don't think that they ever gave it a priority until recently.
Personally, I think that the reason why it failed was more that peole just don't trust storing such critical information in a single place. Convenience is fine, but the increase in Internet fraud, phishing, viruses/virii, and the like are increasing andmore importantly are being reported to the public. Let's not forget the frequent reports of how some major network site comewhere was broken into.
I agree that rival companies banding together was not relevant. I think that Passport's demise is due more and more news about the lack of security in Microsoft products and on the web in general. I find it difficult to believe that any kind of Passport-like service would work any time soon.
Eudora 6 has been doing something like this for a while. If you get any e-mail with a URL in it, hovering over it will show the actual, underlying HREF, no different that any browser will; however, it will give you a warning if the URL is not the same as the underlying HREF code.
Sadly, the biggest obstacles to any topic such as this are user ignorance, apathy, and lack of common sense. And these are three massive hurdles that need to be overcome, which no single tool bar can do. As many can attest, it's a bitch of a task to try to get the following kinds of people to actually think rationally:
Oh, look! I just got an e-mail. Hey! It has a link! Although I cannot explain why, I have such an incredible urge to click on the link even though I have never heard of the company and I really don't need a fake Rolex watch! Same thing with those bank with whom I never know that I had an account, but I obviously need to update my information.
You lost all credibility as soon as you said "Netizen."
You have got to be kidding me. If you're so tunnel-visioned that you're going to hang my credibility on the use of a single word, then quite frankly your opinion of my credibility has no credibility in and of itself and certainly no value.
You sound like one of those parents who get pissed if their kid gets a 95% on a test. Rather than praise the kid for getting a 95%, they condemn him because he didn't get that extra 5%.
No, sir, give me a break!
Personally, I am not surprised by this revelation. I doubt that they would have done this if the shuttle fleet wasn't grounded. Right now, they see themselves as the only current way to get our astronauts into space, so they're going to take advantage of that. Besides, $20 million to the Russian space agency is a fraction of the cost of somehow getting a new shuttle out (if that's even possible anymore). I'm somewhat surprised that this wasnt thought of earlier.
They pretty much have us by the jubbles and they know it. You vant an astronaut in space, comrade? Ve're your only real solution right now. Ve're going to take advantage of that. Can't say that I blame them. Ah, the capitalist spirit hits the Russian space program!
Here in Canada I have never ever paid any sort of setup fee. At the very least if it exists, it is waived. Also there is no minimum time you have to wait between you re-signup for a new account. But if that is the case, I can see your point.
Whoops! My apologies. Should have mentioned that I was referring to ISPs in the U.S. like with the anti-slamming law. I unfortunately have a tendency of forgetting that Slashdot while primarily used by Americans is not exclusively American.
Why don't the ISP's do the even easier thing and just firewall whole sections of their network? That way they have a single investment instead of a bunch of $50 "modems". Since all the traffic is traveling over their network anyway ...
No way. Some big potential problems there, especially for gamers. At least with Joe User, their firewall/router will shut down everything inbound and they won't know any better because they just surf or read e-mail. Those who know what they're doing, however, can at least open ports on their individual firewall.
If the ISP is reponsible, then I can just imagine the hell that would brew when a new multiplayer games comes out using unusual ports for connectivity! No one could connect to your server because your ISP blocks those ports and you'll have to go through hell to get those ports open at your ISP!
Although an ISP-centric approach might seem to be more common sense, it will be a major pain-in-the-ass for a potentially large number of their educated users.
The whole thing comes down to personal responsibility. When we buy a car, we have certain responsibilities that we have to maintain if we want the continued privilege of driving that car. Our local Department of Transportation is not responsible for my responsibilities, nor is the dealership who sold me the car, nor is the Turnpike Commission when I drive on their highway. I am the operator; therefore, I must be held responsible. Internet usage is no different, or at least shouldn't be.
Fair enough - on all counts. :)
Nope. They would not. They would cancel their subscription and either switch to competiton who will give them a free router, or re-signup with the provider to get the 'firewall' enabled modem. Simple laws of economics.
Major flaws in that argument.
Most ISPs require a sign-up fee for the hardware. More often than not, the sign-up fee is greater than the cost of a new router.
The broadband style of anti-slamming laws prevent (in the U.S.) the immediate switching of broadband ISPs. There must be a 90-day wait between the termination of the old broadband account to the installation of the new account. I've tried it a few times before and got hit with this every time., unless the law has changed in the very recent past. The only solution to that is to have a second phone line, which again is a cost equal to a router in the short term and definitely more expensive in the long run.
Noble goal.. What about AIDS or teen pregnancies? We are tought about them at a very young age and yet both still exist/happen. The problem lies with the user's indifference.
Again, you have a major flaw in that argument. Once you are educated on such topics, who is going to be around you to prevent you from having sex? If I teach my daughter about AIDS, the ONLY way to physically stop her from having sex (without silly ideas that I'm sure people are dreaming up right now in response) is to be around her 24/7. Not realistic.
ISPs, however, can very easily say "We're cutting off your connection now" and then do it. The user's indifference is certainly not a factor when it comes to that.
Listen to the radio. See how many car accidents licenced drivers have caused in your area this moring. This is not the answer nor a deterrant.
True, but if every accident or violation (even a minor offense like a rolling stop) that was indeed your fault meant that you lose driving privileges for x months (as an example), wouldn't you be a bit more careful? It would only take one of those instances for you to realize how much you depend on it and then view it with a bit more seriousness.
The main problem with your argument and the examples that you gave is that there is no "gatekeeper" to physically force you from, in your examples, having sex or getting into an accident. When it comes to being a responsible Netizen, the ISP is the gatekeeper that you have to rely on. They can force people to lose their indifference by the click of a button.
To an extent that is true, but you are living in a fantasy world if you think that e-mail will ever be able to go back to such innocence any time soon.
Accidentally
Have you noticed that when it comes to computers the relatives always replace had a major lapse of common sense and with accidentally?
"So, you accidentally received a piece of mail from someone you didn't know, you accidentally opened it up to see what it was, you accidentally moved the mouse over the attachment, and then you accidentally double-clicked on the attachment just because it was there? Oops! I accidentally just formatted your hard drive. Do you have your installation CD?"
The problem with this topic is that Microsoft is always blamed for making an inherently insecure operating system. They are also to blame because of "too little, too late", aka. activating the firewall by default only in SP2.
But quite frankly the ISPs and of course the individual users are to blame as well.
Why don't broadband ISPs require boradband firewalls? Only recently have some of them started to incorporate firewalled modems, and even then they're only sent to new customers. Would this mean that existing customers would have to spend money for a new router at the ISPs demand? You bet. But given the choice between disconnection or buying a $50 router, I'm sure that the vast majority would find a way to get that $50.
Additionally, most virii are sent over SMTP ports since they contain their own SMTP servers. I would not be against shutting down direct-from-client SMTP as long as those who run their own mail servers have the option of having their specific connection opened for SMTP traffic.
Finally, the users absolutely MUST be educated. There are enough free tools out there that no one should be unprotected. But again who should be responsible for teaching these end users?
At this point I would actually welcome something like a drivers license for broadband access. You don't gain the ability to use a broadband connection unless you prove to the ISP that you know the rules and that you are informed of how to be a responsible Netizen, including the use of firewalls, virus scanners, and alternate products like Mozilla, Eudora, Firefox, and others. If you break the "law" afterwards, your broadband privileges are revoked until you come into compliance.
If people were made aware that any virus or worm outbreak cause by them would mean the complete loss of their Internet connectivity, I think we'd see the number of virus infections drop dramatically.
But have an ISP do the responsible thing at the risk of pissing off customers? No, they'd rather spend billions of dollars a year on mail storage, spam-fighting hardware and software, increasing bandwidth usage, and always-rising amounts of mail to abuse@isp.net...and of course pass those charges onto us.
Although your points are taken, you made a lot of assumptions in my reply.
:)
Firstly, I was using "PC" as personal computer - any personal computer. Apple computers also fit into that category. I was not just talking about AMD/Intel. You can't compare a desktop that can perform a huge number of different functions and to a PVR that really can only perform one function. That was the point that I was trying to make.
Secondly, there is nothing that says that you have to be restricted to Windows DRM. My ATI All-In-Wonder 7200 comes with all of the software that I would need to record and archive. (I'm not looking at HD at the moment.) It even comes with its own remote control so that *it* can act as the TV tuner. It can record in DVD-ready MPEG-2 and in its own (what seems to be) proprietary format. So, the Windows DRM shackles don't even have to be involved.
Yes, a PVR might be a better value when it comes to the bottom line, but only if you want nothing other than PVR functionality.
I also fully disagree about the "better DVD creation and video editing software", but that's best left for another discussion.
Although the article focuses on Microsoft vs. everyone else, a lot of the responses seem to be talking about media PCs vs. PVRs. So, I'll address that point.
/. have a spare system laying around (or the majority of components to make one)that is more than capable of being a repectable system to act as a PVR.
PCs and PVRs are just not comparable. Complete apples and oranges. You can't compare a Tivo or other PVR with a PC that's connected to a TV and the Internet. While it's nice that a PVR is meant specifically for its purpose and does it very well (even better if you know how to hack it), I can find many more advantages to having a PC connected to a TV instead.
First off, do you need more hard drive space? You buy a new secondary drive. You can't do that with PVRs unless you hack (in violation of contract if you rent the box) or buy/rent a newer one with a bigger hard drive.
If you don't want to watch TV, a wireless keyboard and mouse/trackball will allow you to surf on your TV. You can't do that with a PVR.
If the box is beefy enough, there is no reason why you can't use the PC as a gaming console. I'm sure that I'd have a lot more fun playing multiplayer "Ghost Recon" on my 55" widescreen TV than on my 21" monitor -- potential burn-in not withstanding.
There are other reasons, but I've made my point. Snd I'm sure that the vast majority of us on
Linux would have the same benefits, so I don't want to act as though only Windows can satisfy my requirements. But only us geeks would actually be comfortable using Linux for this purpose. The vast majority of people are unfortunately still brainwashed that Microsoft = Heaven, Bill Gates = God, and anything else != easy-to-use. So, properly positioned and marketed, XP MCE can be a highly effective alternative to PVRs to a huge amount of people.
That being said, I'm hearing a lot of good things about MythTV. I'm going to have to look into that. And I'll have a spare system shortly that's more than capable of handling the task. I'll pass on the PVR, thank you.
But the problem is one of perception, not behavior as others are trying to push.
For example, "open source" to me can represent a better alternative than "free software", not the least of which is that with "open source" I can compile the code natively so that it can take advantage of the system on which is it compiled. That's often the biggest benefit to open source.
"Free software" generally denotes "precompiled and available at no cost". It might do what I want but might not be as efficient or flexible as an "open course" counterpart.
I understand where he's coming from, but to imply that the two are somehow synonymous or at least not different I think is completely wrong. Maybe it's just a matter of finding a totally different title for what he's trying to promote. I'll let him come up with that, however.
I'm sorry, but I think it's utterly ridiculous. The two are not mutually inclusive and cannot be used interchangably.
Although all open source software is free by its very nature, it's ridiculous to try to make the reverse analogy that free software is also by default open source. There are a number of quality programs out there for which the source code is not freely available but the program itself is free of cost and in many cases limitations.
Web sites have been posted and we are all aware of many of them. I have not seen the source code to AdAware being made available, but I know that it is not only a high-quality piece of software, but it is also free from cost, whether hidden (adware) or explicit. We can all name multiple other products that are the same way.
If anyone confuses "free" with "cheap", they are only preventing themselves from experiencing some great products as long as they are aware of which "free" products really are free and which ones have hidden "costs", aka Kazaa.
It can also be argued that early Shareware programs, like Doom and the various Apogee games were free but not open source (at least back then). We could play the first chapter of those games as often as we wanted. They were indeed free but they at the time were most certainly not open source.
So, there is a strong distinction between "open source" and "free software". Just because one includes the other doesn't mean that it has to be the same in the other direction. To consider the two phrases to be synonymous is a ridiculous notion.
The problem with the opening statement from CmdrTaco is that this plant upgrade is not solely due to AMD's dominance in the gaming market. Remember, people, Intel makes a hell of a lot of other chips besides microprocessors. The article even states that AMD is considered to be the leader in automation processors. There is only a brief mention of gaming systems in the article, and Intel has other threats besides AMD. So, CmdrTaco's opening statement is somewhat misleading of Intel's reasons for this upgrade.
Regardless, one of the reasons why I prefer AMD is price/performance. Most of the benchmarks that I've seen in addition to my personal experience make AMD the clear winner in this scenario, particularly for gaming. AMD chips run cooler, take up less electricity, and cost less than their Intel counterparts. But that's only a small part of the competition's offensive against Intel. Intel now realizes that.
Okay, where is the -5, uber-off-topic, "Just blame everything on Bush" moderation?
*chuckle* Not quite the spirit of what I was saying, but whatever works for you... :)
Gouging for a ticket is bad enough, but the additional gouging for food and beverage just adds insult to injury anyway.
Actually, the "gouging" for food and drinks is what keeps the theaters there. The studios take almost all of the profits from ticket sales. The theaters get their profit from concession sales. A theater could sell out every seat in the house for every showing for every movie. But if no one buys anything to eat or drink, that theater will close in short order.
Support your local theater, especially second-run and independent theaters. Buy some popcorn.
Death to transfers that stop at 99.8%, sit around with 10x more uploading than downloading on a connection that does 3mbit/356kbit
This has always been my biggest gripe with BitTorrent. I have a 1.5 down/128 up DSL. Whenever I fired up BitTorrent, it would always upload at the full 12 KB/sec but download at closer to 1.2 KB/sec. I got so frustrated that I just shut it off and suffered with downloading from the company's main FTP site at a whopping 2.7 or 2.8 KB/sec, but it was still faster. (Yes, it was actually for legal purposes.) It should probably be renamed to BitTrickle.
I still think that it's a great tool that can be used for a lot of completely legal purposes, not the least of which would be game and application patches and updates. I can only imagine what the bandwidth costs must be to companies like Sun, any Linux distributor, Microsoft, etc. Why host the file when you can proviede a BT link and let everyone else distribute your patches for you?
But as long as BT gives abysmal download rates, I'll stick with the various Gnutella clients, newsgroups, or straight FTP.
This is somehow newsworthy? There are a number of ink-jet printers out there that are modifications to existing HP and Epson priters that allow you to put a CD in a specific CD-sized tray to print directly to the disc. The only requirement is that you use discs with printable surfaces. Otherwise, it's an ink-jet printer. So, you get full color and the ability to use relatively inexpensive inks (refills, anyone?) with out the costs of proprietary software or hardware, toner, or other kind of inks.
... er ... article is that somehow the disc is not professional unless it has its text directly embedded onto the disc. Don't be ridiculous. I've been using full-coverage labels for my CDs for years and no one has ever complained about "unprofessionalism".
And seriously, folks, is it that difficult or embarassing to use a Stomper or similar disc labeling tool? The implication that I read from this advertisment
Sheesh. All of this time I thought that I was buying CDs for their content. I guess that everyone else was more concerned about the professionalism of the disc top.
If giving positive word-of-mouth over a product that has proven itself to me as an excellent alternative to another product is becoming an "evangelist", then all that I can say is "Amen, brother!"
There is nothing "evangelical" about showing strong support for a product that you truly believe in, particularly when using that "other" product continually results in problems for others in the world partially due to its inherent security flaws.
Why was that moderated as trolling? That kind of attitude is typical of what we're seeing in a lot of software development anymore, whether from Microsoft or from other companies. They are starting to take on an attitude where the next version (which is only going to be available for purchase) is going to be the set of patches for the previous version, so to speak. Microsoft has been doing this for years.
It always irritates me when the solution is for the *consumer* to spend *more* money to fix a problem that should not have existed in the first place. "Well, we can't fix Windows 95 completely, so let's repackage it with some extra goodies and call it Windows 98! The robots will buy it in droves!" (which they did).
Did you notice that companies (I'll continue to use Microsoft for this example) never suggest backing up your system and performing a clean re-install to get rid of problems? The solution is always to get the newest version of whatever the software is. Why do you think that is? Could it possibly be that these companies get more money when their newest software is sold whereas they get nothing if you just wipe your system and re-install?
This is no better than software companies that release buggy code and then immediately tell consumers "We know about them and we're expecting to have a patch released soon." They're both disingenuous attitudes towards the consumers who are keeping them in business.
As far as I'm concerned, that an even more plausible reason to go to open source software, with Firefox being at the head of what should be on every PC. Even if the next version *is* the "patch" for the previous version, at least it's not costing the end consumer anything!