Since the majority desktop OS is Windows and most computer users don't care which browser to use as long as their browser work (by that I mean, able to browse webpages with a few occassional spyware distractions and virus infection), what else besides IE do you expect them to use?
They don't care if their browser pass the Acid2 or not.
Even if Mozilla pumps out a kitchen-sink Firefox tomorrow, Microsoft will release the same thing the day after. What else do you think MS is releasing IE7 as an independent release before Longhorn?
However, once Linux gains ground on desktop computing (that remains to be seen, however), I think Firefox usage will grow tremendously.
Actually, IMO, IE isn't THAT bad, but if you're going to click every link in those chain mails you received, have luck keeping your PC clean.
It's about knowing what you're actually doing (e.g. clicking links, installing software...) and making decisions on whether the risk worths it. But, it seems most users really don't know much about that.
BTW, I'm kind of amused by the grandparent's author proclamation of his father's "veteran status", knowing that he can't keep his computer and complains about Windows.
No disrespect, but I've met people who have used computers for many years but don't know how to handle and/or use Windows properly and divert the blame to Bill Gates.
IMHO, you were probably just having a bad connection or there was a strangely configured transparent proxy.
It seems that China does not want any unauthorized information going OUT of the country.
As many posters have pointed out, the Great Firewall is more for blocking access to subversive information about the government rather then monitoring.
Suppose Longhorn is going to be released in 2006, it's very likely that alot of boxes will still have no PS 2.0 support. Remember a lot of boxes sold in recent years have integrated graphics, and most of those integrated graphics don't support PS 2.0.
Of course, by MS's tradition, one will probably fall back to classic mode. But then, many people don't know how to configure it, so it will be better if the installer configures this automatically or at least easier.
Also, since the demos will probably be run on some very capable hardware and demostrate these nifties. It could disappoint upgraders after they found out they need to upgrade their graphics after they bought the copies. Not so good for corporate image I guess.
So it probably won't be a big issue, but neither a non-issue.
Frankly, I can't wait to see this. All that GPU power of my 9800 is basically being wasted 99.99999999% of the time right now.
I think, maybe you shouldn't have gotten a 9800 then...? @_@
BTW, for those who want/need to know which chips support PS 2.0, try this and this.
Besides the confusion you see here, one may note that ExpressCard, besides the name, is not new at all. It was originaly named "NEWCARD" and announced 2 years ago.
FYI, you can find more about its history here, here, and here.
...supports Microsoft DRM protected files (WMV, WMA)...
Just wonder, does Archos do it with the blessing of Microsoft (and does it bare the PlaysForSure logo)? Will it become incompatible when MS tweaked the implementation?
If it's done via reverse-engineering, wouldn't that put Archos up for DMCA lawsuits? Also, what it means for MS that its DRM system is publicly hacked?
I've heard some companies have licensed to port Windows Media to Linux but couldn't remember MS approving the DRM stuff.
I'm not talking about incoming packets addressed to the router itself (123.123.123.123), I'm talking about incoming packets addressed to the private addresses (10/8, 192.168/16, 172.16/12, whatever you use on the inside).
But wait... Aren't private IP addresses non-routable on the real Net? Then how could someone, outside the private network, contact a host inside the private network?
Say, if you're running a private network with 10/8 and a host with the address 10.10.10.10, I shouldn't be able to "ping" you at that address, the packets won't get through the Net, right...?
Your own router will route them to internal hosts unless it has filtering rules to tell it to do otherwise.
I don't get this, since the hosts behind the NAT are using private IPs, how could the NAT knows which host to send the packets to?
Say, someone initiate a TCP connection to port 80 to the NAT host, which has a real IP of 123.123.123.123, when the NAT receives the packets, how could it know which internal host to forward the packets to?
Maybe it's because I'm too get used to Linux's IP Masquerade, but I suppose a NAT maintains a "database" of connections initiated from INSIDE the NAT, when packets from the OUTSIDE arrives, it matches against the database to see which host the packets should then be forwarded to. As the way implemented in the Netfilter's stateful firewall.
Therefore, when an outside initiated connection comes to the NAT at an arbitrary port, and the NAT found that there are no records of connections with regards to that, it doesn't know where to forward the packets to (I suppose it won't randomly forward packets to internal hosts...), so the packets will be rejected or dropped.
Or maybe, this is only ONE type of the NAT and oops... There are static NATs (just Googled it...)?
Sometimes I find it amusing that while Apple has been constantly frightening the likes of Think Secret (enthusiast sites?), even with lawsuits, its supporters keep on supporting Apple, more than ever.
Try that with another company.
Also, whenever Steve Jobs is on the stands and giving a presentation (sometimes with questionable accuracies...), the audience seem to clap their hands every so often.
Maybe these are explained in the book "The Cult of Mac"?
Traditional NAT can be viewed as providing a privacy mechanism as sessions are uni-directional from private hosts and the actual addresses of the private hosts are not visible to external hosts.
Are we talking about the NAT as described in RFC 1631?
AFAIK (please correct if wrong), internal hosts behind a NAT uses private addresses (and that's the whole point of using a NAT...?), and the only device within the internal network including the NAT who has a REAL IP is the NAT device.
Therefore, how could external packets "routed" to internal hosts? As private IP won't get transferred at all on the Net.
If you want to claim the Chinese doesn't respect the US IP system as much as the US do, just pointing out a Chinese firm being sued doesn't seem very convincing to me...
Just my 2 cents.
P.S. Software piracy is probably more (Or much more...) serious in China (And many developing countries.), and China doesn't seem to have a good track record in holding up the US IP system, but the above article doesn't tell much IMO, US companies get sued on IP infringements all the time... Umm?
a view to becoming a leader amongst world powers when it comes to the internet
That doesn't do it? : )
To be serious, I think (With no hard data supporting the claim.) China's technology, especially in the academic institutions, is much more advanced than many think, and can actually utilize some of that.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope, it's the same.
No war on terror, less terrorism attacks, and your Fed stop less.
Result: Terror attack once in a while.
War on terror, more terrorism attacks, and your Fed stop more.
Result: Terror attack once in a while.
The difference? More resources poured into security for less productivity elsewhere.
Since the majority desktop OS is Windows and most computer users don't care which browser to use as long as their browser work (by that I mean, able to browse webpages with a few occassional spyware distractions and virus infection), what else besides IE do you expect them to use?
They don't care if their browser pass the Acid2 or not.
Even if Mozilla pumps out a kitchen-sink Firefox tomorrow, Microsoft will release the same thing the day after. What else do you think MS is releasing IE7 as an independent release before Longhorn?
However, once Linux gains ground on desktop computing (that remains to be seen, however), I think Firefox usage will grow tremendously.
Actually, IMO, IE isn't THAT bad, but if you're going to click every link in those chain mails you received, have luck keeping your PC clean.
It's about knowing what you're actually doing (e.g. clicking links, installing software...) and making decisions on whether the risk worths it. But, it seems most users really don't know much about that.
BTW, I'm kind of amused by the grandparent's author proclamation of his father's "veteran status", knowing that he can't keep his computer and complains about Windows.
No disrespect, but I've met people who have used computers for many years but don't know how to handle and/or use Windows properly and divert the blame to Bill Gates.
http://www.msexchange.org/tutorials/SSL_Enabling_O WA_2003.html
You can easily create a certificate yourself with other OS and programs too, as others have noted.
Maybe the mighty IBM can withstand one?
IMHO, you were probably just having a bad connection or there was a strangely configured transparent proxy.
It seems that China does not want any unauthorized information going OUT of the country.
As many posters have pointed out, the Great Firewall is more for blocking access to subversive information about the government rather then monitoring.
... Then Microsoft security is mysterious?
Or else...
I don't know what I'm talking about...?
Sony Considers Opening PSP
Is there no one going to say a word about this?
BTW, I thought he was to mean "computer idiot", that's a bit better though.
It could also be that the current authorities don't yet have an effective way to enforce the laws and prosecute the offenders.
When Apple files the lawsuits... : )
Suppose Longhorn is going to be released in 2006, it's very likely that alot of boxes will still have no PS 2.0 support. Remember a lot of boxes sold in recent years have integrated graphics, and most of those integrated graphics don't support PS 2.0.
Of course, by MS's tradition, one will probably fall back to classic mode. But then, many people don't know how to configure it, so it will be better if the installer configures this automatically or at least easier.
Also, since the demos will probably be run on some very capable hardware and demostrate these nifties. It could disappoint upgraders after they found out they need to upgrade their graphics after they bought the copies. Not so good for corporate image I guess.
So it probably won't be a big issue, but neither a non-issue.
I think, maybe you shouldn't have gotten a 9800 then...? @_@
BTW, for those who want/need to know which chips support PS 2.0, try this and this.
Good catch... Maybe it's referring to the hands in this image? : )
But then, Apple isn't likely to actually sell any "hands" anyway, so it's probably another crack.
Besides the confusion you see here, one may note that ExpressCard, besides the name, is not new at all. It was originaly named "NEWCARD" and announced 2 years ago.
FYI, you can find more about its history here, here, and here.
Just wonder, does Archos do it with the blessing of Microsoft (and does it bare the PlaysForSure logo)? Will it become incompatible when MS tweaked the implementation?
If it's done via reverse-engineering, wouldn't that put Archos up for DMCA lawsuits? Also, what it means for MS that its DRM system is publicly hacked?
I've heard some companies have licensed to port Windows Media to Linux but couldn't remember MS approving the DRM stuff.
I see... I suppose a stateful firewall like Netfilter configured correctly can prevent this, right?
:)
Anyway, thanks alot, I think I get a better view on NAT now.
But wait... Aren't private IP addresses non-routable on the real Net? Then how could someone, outside the private network, contact a host inside the private network?
Say, if you're running a private network with 10/8 and a host with the address 10.10.10.10, I shouldn't be able to "ping" you at that address, the packets won't get through the Net, right...?
I'm so confusing now... @_@
I don't get this, since the hosts behind the NAT are using private IPs, how could the NAT knows which host to send the packets to?
Say, someone initiate a TCP connection to port 80 to the NAT host, which has a real IP of 123.123.123.123, when the NAT receives the packets, how could it know which internal host to forward the packets to?
Maybe it's because I'm too get used to Linux's IP Masquerade, but I suppose a NAT maintains a "database" of connections initiated from INSIDE the NAT, when packets from the OUTSIDE arrives, it matches against the database to see which host the packets should then be forwarded to. As the way implemented in the Netfilter's stateful firewall.
Therefore, when an outside initiated connection comes to the NAT at an arbitrary port, and the NAT found that there are no records of connections with regards to that, it doesn't know where to forward the packets to (I suppose it won't randomly forward packets to internal hosts...), so the packets will be rejected or dropped.
Or maybe, this is only ONE type of the NAT and oops... There are static NATs (just Googled it...)?
Sometimes I find it amusing that while Apple has been constantly frightening the likes of Think Secret (enthusiast sites?), even with lawsuits, its supporters keep on supporting Apple, more than ever.
Try that with another company.
Also, whenever Steve Jobs is on the stands and giving a presentation (sometimes with questionable accuracies...), the audience seem to clap their hands every so often.
Maybe these are explained in the book "The Cult of Mac"?
According to RFC 3022:
Are we talking about the NAT as described in RFC 1631?
AFAIK (please correct if wrong), internal hosts behind a NAT uses private addresses (and that's the whole point of using a NAT...?), and the only device within the internal network including the NAT who has a REAL IP is the NAT device.
Therefore, how could external packets "routed" to internal hosts? As private IP won't get transferred at all on the Net.
Copernic Desktop Search doesn't seem to support Unicode, which is a major strength of Google's various offerings.
Why would a government like to do something to protect someone else's broken system?
And I don't think the Chinese government is doing nothing about it, but if you want to put US standard on other countries, so be it.
So...?
Minidrive maker Cornice slapped with another suit
If you want to claim the Chinese doesn't respect the US IP system as much as the US do, just pointing out a Chinese firm being sued doesn't seem very convincing to me...
Just my 2 cents.
P.S. Software piracy is probably more (Or much more...) serious in China (And many developing countries.), and China doesn't seem to have a good track record in holding up the US IP system, but the above article doesn't tell much IMO, US companies get sued on IP infringements all the time... Umm?
That doesn't do it? : )
To be serious, I think (With no hard data supporting the claim.) China's technology, especially in the academic institutions, is much more advanced than many think, and can actually utilize some of that.