I beg to differ. The product is only as secure as its default settings. Windows XP, pre-SP2 had some very insecure default settings, allowing for these botnets to proliferate. SP2 addresses this issue to some extent, and Vista goes further. You'll find that a lot of compromised machines were hacked because they're running pre-SP2 Windows XP.
Net neutrality *actually* means everyone pays the same for net use, regardless of how much they use the net.
Net non-neutrality means people pay according to how much they use.
Nope.
Net Neutrality means that carriers cannot discriminate based upon the type of traffic you're sending. HTTP traffic and SSH traffic would be treated equally. Whether that's a good thing is for you to decide.
What you describe is the current (neutral) model of pricing. I'm charged based upon how much data I send. If I want to send more data, I have to pay for additional bandwidth.
The most concentrated link in this chain of production is last-mile transmission. I would say that ISP services - e-mail hosting and those sorts of things - are relatively competitive and the barriers to entry are fairly low - there are no reasons we couldn't have multiple services.
Huh? How is the last-mile market competitive? Where I live, I have 1 option for high-speed internet: the cable company. The phone company refuses to build a switching station to offer DSL. As far as I'm concerned, I'm living in a monopoly market, the very opposite of the one described in the article.
I wouldn't have a problem with network non-neutrality if the ISP market was a competitive one, allowing me to switch to a better ISP if my current provider was not meeting my needs. Given that I don't live in that kind of a market, I support network neutrality as it provides a compromise solution that meets the needs of most people while causing as little harm as possible.
Government oppression is alive and well, apparently.
In all seriousness, miniaturization of surveillance technology is a sword that cuts both ways. Sure, we can have cell-phone cameras that can record police brutality. However, the government gets access to the same technology, allowing them to monitor us more easily as well.
Seriously, wasn't this settled during the Betamax case? If I recall correctly, the movie industry tried the same argument there — i.e. video cassette recorders encourage copying of intellectual property. The Supreme Court there ruled that videocassette recorders were legal because of the many legal uses they had, and the fact that they could be used for illegal purposes did not diminish this.
I would suspect (I haven't used this particular version) that its niche is the same as RedHat/SuSE. It aims to be a Linux distribution mainly for business use, with a specific emphasis on Windows compatibility.
That said, I would like to see how Xandros reacts to the Novell/Microsoft deal. With Novell poised to take the lead in Windows compatibility, it seems that Xandros is fading into another "me-too" Debian based distro.
As a previous commenter noted, there really isn't any easy way to add "modules" to OpenOffice. What Novell is doing is submitting a patch adding this (potentially patent infringing) functionality and calling it a module, despite the fact that it would have to be integrated into the source and OpenOffice would have to be recompiled in order to get the additional functionality.
Is that true? My understanding was that any registered user with an account older than X period of time was eligible to moderate.
If what you say is true, then what is the point of metamoderation?
The way I see it, metamoderation establishes a reputation system. If the metamods (e.g. everyone willing to moderate) votes that your moderation is inaccurate, then your chances of getting mod points again decrease.
Here on Slashdot, there is a selection process and a reputation system that determines who has the ability to moderate. How does this "Web 2.0" address the fact that anyone can attach and moderate tags?
I've looked at some of the Vista previews, and the standard (non-Aero) look is close enough to XP, that its not worth it for me to upgrade. As for the security improvements, I'm booted into Linux for the vast majority of the time. Windows remains on my machine solely for gaming. The only benefit that Vista will give me is DirectX 10, and the graphics cards capable of full DX10 support are still astronomically expensive.
I'm also waiting for Microsoft to issue an initial set of patches taking care of the various problems and security flaws that arise when a new product is exposed to the real world.
Both of these companies invest heavily in open source, and are pushing Linux. I'd have recommended Novell as well, but I don't know what effect the Novell-Microsoft deal will have in the long term.
Because (in both real life and online) where ever there are windows, you'll have douchebags willing to throw rocks through them. You can whine all you want about how these people should do something "more constructive with their time", but that doesn't change the fact that they exist.
You just have to work around/ignore them as best as you can, and go on with your life.
And that's exactly why Microsoft is pushing "trusted computing" aka NGSCB/Palladium, with its associated motherboard-integrated TPM chip so heavily. TPM allows the manufacturer to cryptographically sign all code running on the machine, and only allow "trusted" code to run.
Well, I really wouldn't mind using Vista, but to get the full benefit, I'd need a new processor (which means a new motherboard, in my case) and a new graphics card. At this point, the cost of upgrading is high enough that I may as well build myself a new rig solely for Vista. Therefore I'm going to stick with my current XP/Ubuntu configuration until my financial state improves and Vista capable hardware comes down in price.
MechWarrior 3 (a Fasa + Microsoft collaboration) was a far more fun game than MW2, IMHO. The plot, and the gameplay elements (customization of 'Mechs, especially) made MW3 more fun to play than Mechwarrior2. The somewhat modernized graphics also helped.
X11 has also been worked upon since the '80s. That means about 20 years of cruft, vs. Aqua's 6. I'm just saying that X11 today isn't the same X11 from the '80s.
Locking your car is the equivalent of encrypting your data. This DRM crap is the equivalent of me selling you a car, but keeping the keys and making you ask permission and state your intended route every time you drive.
Is X11 really that much better than Aqua? I don't think so. Remember, Aqua has been optimized for Mac hardware. X11 (unless you've compiled it yourself) probably hasn't been optimized to as great of an extent. You can try switching, but I don't think you'll se much of an improvement with X11 vs. Aqua.
While the low price is a plus for me, I'd personally buy one of the OLPC laptops for durability and power consumption reasons. This laptop is designed to withstand some pretty serious abuse. The $250 laptops from Best Buy aren't nearly as hardened. This laptop actually has to have a decent battery life. The cheapo ones from Best Buy do not.
In fact, the only other "hardened" notebooks I can think of are high-end Thinkpads and Panasonic Toughbooks. I challenge you to find me one of those for $250.
Slashdot Mirror
I beg to differ. The product is only as secure as its default settings. Windows XP, pre-SP2 had some very insecure default settings, allowing for these botnets to proliferate. SP2 addresses this issue to some extent, and Vista goes further. You'll find that a lot of compromised machines were hacked because they're running pre-SP2 Windows XP.
Your argument is like saying if you don't like having non-neutral cable, you can always switch to 56k dialup for net-neutral access.
Nope.
Net Neutrality means that carriers cannot discriminate based upon the type of traffic you're sending. HTTP traffic and SSH traffic would be treated equally. Whether that's a good thing is for you to decide.
What you describe is the current (neutral) model of pricing. I'm charged based upon how much data I send. If I want to send more data, I have to pay for additional bandwidth.
Huh? How is the last-mile market competitive? Where I live, I have 1 option for high-speed internet: the cable company. The phone company refuses to build a switching station to offer DSL. As far as I'm concerned, I'm living in a monopoly market, the very opposite of the one described in the article.
I wouldn't have a problem with network non-neutrality if the ISP market was a competitive one, allowing me to switch to a better ISP if my current provider was not meeting my needs. Given that I don't live in that kind of a market, I support network neutrality as it provides a compromise solution that meets the needs of most people while causing as little harm as possible.
Intentionally subverting habeas corpus is not an impeachable offense. Presidents from Lincoln onward have suppressed habeas corpus during wartime.
Nothing for you to see here, please move along.
Government oppression is alive and well, apparently.
In all seriousness, miniaturization of surveillance technology is a sword that cuts both ways. Sure, we can have cell-phone cameras that can record police brutality. However, the government gets access to the same technology, allowing them to monitor us more easily as well.
This is all about law. It isn't supposed to make sense and it rarely relates to the real world.
Well, precedent is an important part of law. Apparently the DMCA obviates the precedent set by the Betamax case.
Seriously, wasn't this settled during the Betamax case? If I recall correctly, the movie industry tried the same argument there — i.e. video cassette recorders encourage copying of intellectual property. The Supreme Court there ruled that videocassette recorders were legal because of the many legal uses they had, and the fact that they could be used for illegal purposes did not diminish this.
How is that situation different from this one?
I would suspect (I haven't used this particular version) that its niche is the same as RedHat/SuSE. It aims to be a Linux distribution mainly for business use, with a specific emphasis on Windows compatibility.
That said, I would like to see how Xandros reacts to the Novell/Microsoft deal. With Novell poised to take the lead in Windows compatibility, it seems that Xandros is fading into another "me-too" Debian based distro.
As a previous commenter noted, there really isn't any easy way to add "modules" to OpenOffice. What Novell is doing is submitting a patch adding this (potentially patent infringing) functionality and calling it a module, despite the fact that it would have to be integrated into the source and OpenOffice would have to be recompiled in order to get the additional functionality.
Is that true? My understanding was that any registered user with an account older than X period of time was eligible to moderate.
If what you say is true, then what is the point of metamoderation?
The way I see it, metamoderation establishes a reputation system. If the metamods (e.g. everyone willing to moderate) votes that your moderation is inaccurate, then your chances of getting mod points again decrease.
Here on Slashdot, there is a selection process and a reputation system that determines who has the ability to moderate. How does this "Web 2.0" address the fact that anyone can attach and moderate tags?
I've looked at some of the Vista previews, and the standard (non-Aero) look is close enough to XP, that its not worth it for me to upgrade. As for the security improvements, I'm booted into Linux for the vast majority of the time. Windows remains on my machine solely for gaming. The only benefit that Vista will give me is DirectX 10, and the graphics cards capable of full DX10 support are still astronomically expensive.
I'm also waiting for Microsoft to issue an initial set of patches taking care of the various problems and security flaws that arise when a new product is exposed to the real world.
Both of these companies invest heavily in open source, and are pushing Linux. I'd have recommended Novell as well, but I don't know what effect the Novell-Microsoft deal will have in the long term.
Because (in both real life and online) where ever there are windows, you'll have douchebags willing to throw rocks through them. You can whine all you want about how these people should do something "more constructive with their time", but that doesn't change the fact that they exist.
You just have to work around/ignore them as best as you can, and go on with your life.
And that's exactly why Microsoft is pushing "trusted computing" aka NGSCB/Palladium, with its associated motherboard-integrated TPM chip so heavily. TPM allows the manufacturer to cryptographically sign all code running on the machine, and only allow "trusted" code to run.
Well, I really wouldn't mind using Vista, but to get the full benefit, I'd need a new processor (which means a new motherboard, in my case) and a new graphics card. At this point, the cost of upgrading is high enough that I may as well build myself a new rig solely for Vista. Therefore I'm going to stick with my current XP/Ubuntu configuration until my financial state improves and Vista capable hardware comes down in price.
So what are the "killer games" for Vista, besides Halo2?
As for user productivity gains, you have to balance the gains in productivity against the cost of new hardware to run Vista.
How about the Nano, whose battery is soldered in?
MechWarrior 3 (a Fasa + Microsoft collaboration) was a far more fun game than MW2, IMHO. The plot, and the gameplay elements (customization of 'Mechs, especially) made MW3 more fun to play than Mechwarrior2. The somewhat modernized graphics also helped.
X11 has also been worked upon since the '80s. That means about 20 years of cruft, vs. Aqua's 6. I'm just saying that X11 today isn't the same X11 from the '80s.
Locking your car is the equivalent of encrypting your data. This DRM crap is the equivalent of me selling you a car, but keeping the keys and making you ask permission and state your intended route every time you drive.
Is X11 really that much better than Aqua? I don't think so. Remember, Aqua has been optimized for Mac hardware. X11 (unless you've compiled it yourself) probably hasn't been optimized to as great of an extent. You can try switching, but I don't think you'll se much of an improvement with X11 vs. Aqua.
While the low price is a plus for me, I'd personally buy one of the OLPC laptops for durability and power consumption reasons. This laptop is designed to withstand some pretty serious abuse. The $250 laptops from Best Buy aren't nearly as hardened. This laptop actually has to have a decent battery life. The cheapo ones from Best Buy do not.
In fact, the only other "hardened" notebooks I can think of are high-end Thinkpads and Panasonic Toughbooks. I challenge you to find me one of those for $250.
Marx is the opiate of the stupid.
Looks like he found your button.