I was wondering why no one mentioned the extremely versatile open document format already available to everyone and even used 300 katrillion times a day, HTML.
Then you mentioned it! I was like, cool, finally I found a post to use my last mod point on. Then you finish with how you bought Word to conform to common stupidity. I'm sorry, I just don't buy it. No one is too stupid to open an HTML document, as it opens in a browser automatically. The browser is what people have more experience than any other application, c'mon, my mom can use a browser!
HTML - the only open doc format 99.99% of us need - embrace it.
I know the first page of the article throws around the word obsolete TVs to drum up hype, but the second page does state the truth of the matter, "Many analog television owners won't need a converter: 85 percent of Americans now get all their television from cable or satellite providers, so for the most part the change-over won't affect them."
Not that I believe 15% of Americans use rabbit ears, I certainly don't know anyone who does. If I only knew 100 people, that would mean that 15 of them do. I'm not about to count them all off in my head, but I'm pretty sure I know several hundred people, perhaps even over a thousand.
Anyway, back to your point, anyone with broadband and rabbit ears might be a little mixed up. Even still, with that fat pipe to google they'll be able to find a deal on a converter box I'm sure.
The worst part is the stores that don't participate. I wanted to test out the no late fee policy, I returned 3 movies 3 days late. What do you know, I get a late fee notice in the mail. I go in all cocky... "but you don't have late fees anymore!" Ah, but they don't participate in that.
I'm so glad this happened, I was about to switch my Netflix account over to Blockbuster even though I knew deep down they were still evil. Same on me, fooled my twice.
I guess this means Comcast isn't going to roll out the Microsoft version they were testing in limited areas. I was interested in the Microsoft version because Comcast's software really blows. I ended up taking my Comcast DVR back because not only did nobody at Comcast know when or if the Microsoft version would ever come out, they'd never even heard of it.
Now I'm using a HTPC solution, Beyond TV, which is barely acceptable. It has all the features a DVR needs, but the features don't all function on a level I would consider professional.
I'm about to go to MythTV, I had that running once a year or so ago, but it took a lot of time and effort to get it working. I understand that's not as big of a problem now, so I'm going to give it another try.
However, a Tivo/Comcast DVR really would be hard to beat. Well aside from the fact that Comcast wants to suck every last dime from my bank account every month. However, the quality of the Comcast DVR was excellent, it just lacked features.
I'll most likely go back to the Comcast DVR when the Tivo versions are out. Other than not being able to archive shows, I can see the Comcast/Tivo solution being unbeatable. My PC solution will be able to pick up the slack by recording any shows I want to archive.
"Why people think OSS is automatically more secure is something I never have really understood. There is some added comfort in knowing that most holes will be discovered and fixed promptly, but even that is an assumption one shouldn't bank on."
I'll go one step further to say that a proprietary OS is inherently more secure than open source.
I know that probably sounds like a bizarre and perhaps even insane statement to make considering the sheer number of MS secuirty hole headlines here on Slashdot, however, it's based on things I don't feel very many people take into consideration.
The people working on Mac OS and Windows are the absolute top of their field. Apple and MS do not hire any random Joe with a Space Invaders clone in their portfolio, they only hire amazingly talented and intelligent people that know a whole lot more than you.
Many posters on Slashdot have the Monday Morning Quarterback syndrome. They are quick to judge and criticize, but if they ever found themselves in the big game they'd quickly realize just how unqualified they are to definativly state the right way, or even more so, the wrong way to do something. They'd realize that there is a whole lot more to the equation than they can see.
Most people working on open source do so freely in their spare time. Their ability to contribute is limited much more by their freetime than their skill level. Rightly so, they have no accountability for the project. If it doesn't work, you can't complain, it was free after all. If it eats your entire system, you can't complain, it was free.
So if you consider all the factors, proprietary is indeed "inherently" more secure than open source. A highly skilled professional chosen out of thousands of applicants, getting paid to work on a project full time, and knowing that major mistakes can drastically impact his way of life is more likely to produce a secure product than someone with unspecified training, working in their free time, with no accountability to the project.
Keep in mind that I'm not saying open source is less secure. I'm saying, in general, I am personally more apt to trust the security of a proprietary OS because of the ambiguous qualifications accountability of open source developers. Just as I am more apt to trust a board certified surgeon working through a hospital than a person of unknown qualification working out of a leased office. Two months down the line if I have problems I know the hospital is still going to be there whether the surgeon is or not, and because of that there is a pretty high level of security. Whereas 2 months down the line that leased office might be in use by a nail salon and the person with the unknown qualifications is nowhere to be found.
Slashdot Mirror
I was wondering why no one mentioned the extremely versatile open document format already available to everyone and even used 300 katrillion times a day, HTML.
Then you mentioned it! I was like, cool, finally I found a post to use my last mod point on. Then you finish with how you bought Word to conform to common stupidity. I'm sorry, I just don't buy it. No one is too stupid to open an HTML document, as it opens in a browser automatically. The browser is what people have more experience than any other application, c'mon, my mom can use a browser!
HTML - the only open doc format 99.99% of us need - embrace it.
I know the first page of the article throws around the word obsolete TVs to drum up hype, but the second page does state the truth of the matter, "Many analog television owners won't need a converter: 85 percent of Americans now get all their television from cable or satellite providers, so for the most part the change-over won't affect them."
Not that I believe 15% of Americans use rabbit ears, I certainly don't know anyone who does. If I only knew 100 people, that would mean that 15 of them do. I'm not about to count them all off in my head, but I'm pretty sure I know several hundred people, perhaps even over a thousand.
Anyway, back to your point, anyone with broadband and rabbit ears might be a little mixed up. Even still, with that fat pipe to google they'll be able to find a deal on a converter box I'm sure.
The worst part is the stores that don't participate. I wanted to test out the no late fee policy, I returned 3 movies 3 days late. What do you know, I get a late fee notice in the mail. I go in all cocky... "but you don't have late fees anymore!" Ah, but they don't participate in that.
I'm so glad this happened, I was about to switch my Netflix account over to Blockbuster even though I knew deep down they were still evil. Same on me, fooled my twice.
I guess this means Comcast isn't going to roll out the Microsoft version they were testing in limited areas. I was interested in the Microsoft version because Comcast's software really blows. I ended up taking my Comcast DVR back because not only did nobody at Comcast know when or if the Microsoft version would ever come out, they'd never even heard of it.
Now I'm using a HTPC solution, Beyond TV, which is barely acceptable. It has all the features a DVR needs, but the features don't all function on a level I would consider professional.
I'm about to go to MythTV, I had that running once a year or so ago, but it took a lot of time and effort to get it working. I understand that's not as big of a problem now, so I'm going to give it another try.
However, a Tivo/Comcast DVR really would be hard to beat. Well aside from the fact that Comcast wants to suck every last dime from my bank account every month. However, the quality of the Comcast DVR was excellent, it just lacked features.
I'll most likely go back to the Comcast DVR when the Tivo versions are out. Other than not being able to archive shows, I can see the Comcast/Tivo solution being unbeatable. My PC solution will be able to pick up the slack by recording any shows I want to archive.
That makes perfect sense, because IBM makes the PPC. Oh wait, you're right, that doesn't make sense at all.
Possibly, but I wouldn't worry too much about such a threat from an anonymous coward.
Check out the technology test in Serious Sam Second Encounter. Look familiar?
...block all French ISP's.
"Why people think OSS is automatically more secure is something I never have really understood. There is some added comfort in knowing that most holes will be discovered and fixed promptly, but even that is an assumption one shouldn't bank on."
I'll go one step further to say that a proprietary OS is inherently more secure than open source.
I know that probably sounds like a bizarre and perhaps even insane statement to make considering the sheer number of MS secuirty hole headlines here on Slashdot, however, it's based on things I don't feel very many people take into consideration.
The people working on Mac OS and Windows are the absolute top of their field. Apple and MS do not hire any random Joe with a Space Invaders clone in their portfolio, they only hire amazingly talented and intelligent people that know a whole lot more than you.
Many posters on Slashdot have the Monday Morning Quarterback syndrome. They are quick to judge and criticize, but if they ever found themselves in the big game they'd quickly realize just how unqualified they are to definativly state the right way, or even more so, the wrong way to do something. They'd realize that there is a whole lot more to the equation than they can see.
Most people working on open source do so freely in their spare time. Their ability to contribute is limited much more by their freetime than their skill level. Rightly so, they have no accountability for the project. If it doesn't work, you can't complain, it was free after all. If it eats your entire system, you can't complain, it was free.
So if you consider all the factors, proprietary is indeed "inherently" more secure than open source. A highly skilled professional chosen out of thousands of applicants, getting paid to work on a project full time, and knowing that major mistakes can drastically impact his way of life is more likely to produce a secure product than someone with unspecified training, working in their free time, with no accountability to the project.
Keep in mind that I'm not saying open source is less secure. I'm saying, in general, I am personally more apt to trust the security of a proprietary OS because of the ambiguous qualifications accountability of open source developers. Just as I am more apt to trust a board certified surgeon working through a hospital than a person of unknown qualification working out of a leased office. Two months down the line if I have problems I know the hospital is still going to be there whether the surgeon is or not, and because of that there is a pretty high level of security. Whereas 2 months down the line that leased office might be in use by a nail salon and the person with the unknown qualifications is nowhere to be found.