And Vista covers all those bases by transparently redirecting those folders (writing to Program Files sends you to \Users\{username}\AppData\VirtualStore\Program Files, writing to Windows sends you to \Users\{username}\AppData\VirtualStore\Windows) - although it doesn't appear to protect the HKLM root of the registry (at least that I could find, anyway).
I wonder if this is going to cause any unpleasant and potentially expensive legal repercussions for CCP, from users who have lost data while trying to fix the issue? Why legal repercussions for CCP? CCP didn't write the operating system that lets any old program overwrite critical system files. Who is responsible for that? CCP for releasing an untested installer which overwrites critical system files if you're logged in as an administrator.
Linux would let you do THE SAME THING if you were root.
Oh, OK. So if I were to write a book, I can guarantee I get paid for it... how? A contract with whom exactly? A publisher? No, I don't think they'd chance it if there's no guarantee that they'll get anything for it - and I couldn't blame them! With everybody on the planet? Oh, I don't see that working.
Oh, I know how I'll do it! I'll get a sort of contract with the government that says that because I wrote this book, I should have the exclusive right to make copies! Then, people can either buy a copy from me, or they can get it secondhand from someone else for as much or as little as they like. I think I'll call this novel contract a "copyright"!
ODF, Inc. was never "in charge" of the format. They were just two guys in a garage whose company name happened to be confusingly similar to "Open Document Format". They made a small splash a few days ago by loudly renouncing the format in favor of some Microsoft junk. Then the entire ODF, Inc. disappeared in a puff of smoke. Actually, they renounced the format in favour of some W3C junk. (Much to W3C's chagrin, who instantly released a statement saying CDF is not a document format)
The strong suspicion is that Microsoft had slipped them some money under the table, specifically to spread confusion.
Fortunately, ODF, Inc. was almost instantly exposed here at Slashdot. Another Microsoft dirty trick crashed and burned. The strong suspicion by complete fucking morons is that Microsoft slipped them money. Seriously, just because someone disagrees with an Open Source format/standard/product, doesn't make them paid by Microsoft. It just means they have an opinion, much like yours, which they are entitled to have.
Stop whining. For $70 I get a 2Mb link with only 15GB a month. Well, the theoretical maximum speed of the link is 7.6Mb, but the exchanges can't really hack that.
I assume this nearly caused a fatal exception in the minds of the submitter or editor. I mean, they can't blame it on Firefox, because it's the Browser of Gods. And they can't blame it on Quicktime, because it's Apple.
They would have blamed it on IE, but they couldn't find any way to make any connection (and for the first time ever, IE just kind of sat off to the side and shrugged it's shoulders in disinterest that it isn't affected).
You clearly don't understand the real intent of copyright, which is censorship and the protection of vested industries. And obviously you don't understand how we all build on previous works. You don't understand the impediment to progress that copyrights and patents represent. You don't understand that progress comes from the spreading and sharing of knowledge, not from hoarding and speculation caused by your IP law. It is the ultimate of selfishness to withhold knowledge for personal advantage over others. But that's what your economy is about...me me me. Except that as I don't produce anything that could actually get me money as a result of copyright, I can't see how my economy is all "me me me". It's all about "making sure people who do work get paid", which is significantly different. You're actually the one displaying the "me me me" mentality, as your whole argument hinges on you wanting to get stuff for free.
The intent of copyright is to encourage people to actually produce artistic works (no comments about how half the crap these days is far from artistic, I KNOW) by making sure they can actually get paid for it. The abuse of it is another matter entirely and does not demonstrate a failure in copyright at all, rather a failure in government.
Your idea basically equates to:...
Nothing but inane bullpuckey. It's been shown countless times that everybody will get paid without copyright. I'll make it simple for you. They will get paid just like me, for performance of work. They can make a contract and receive compensation according to that contract. And I guess I have repeat this for your sake. If I fix your car then I want mileage royalties. I could retire in 5 years. Still a stupid argument from you. Yes, because you can perform a book. Since you can't, you're saying book writers should never get paid? And while we're at it, let's not pay people for actually writing songs or movies. Scriptwriters and songwriters don't deserve money! They should PERFORM it if they want money! Whatever. If you still hold to your stupid "dump copyright" idea, you're a bigger idiot than I thought.
And exactly when has it been proven that anyone can get paid without copyright? Try not to dig too far back in the past, anything past 1900 is a completely different beast entirely and can hardly be considered part of anything.
...but think the only answer is to abolish it entirely.
Because that is the only correct answer, but even I can accept the return of its original duration of 17 years as a temporary compromise. Anything older than that would and should lose their privileges NOW. Just so you know, copyright is a government granted privilege(for the above stated reasons), NOT any kind of natural right. You don't own, or have a right to restrict the replication and distribution of revealed knowledge any more than you own the smoke coming out of your chimney. The real greed and deprivation come from those who claim that they do. Uh, no, it's the only incorrect answer. The problem is not with the framework, it's with the government and industry's changes to it. Reverse those and you've got yourself the fairly decently working framework that worked for decades.
Of course, you really couldn't accept the 17 years return at all. In reality, you're grasping at any excuse that will let you declare copyright as "immoral" or whatever so you can justify to yourself your piracy. If it was returned to 17 years, you'd continue to pirate and claim that only abolition is acceptable, though you might accept a cut down to 5 years.
No, it's not where this stuff belongs. Anybody who thinks that is just trying to rationalise piracy (no, it's not stealing. you're right there).
Your idea basically equates to: * Employers should not pay employees, they should work for free. * Anybody should be able to walk into your house and read your mail. Oh, and your email too. Oh yeah, and listen in to your phone calls. * A person should be able to pick up a book, then photocopy 10,000 copies and give them away free. The author doesn't need to get paid, right? Copyright is EVIL! * A person should be able to buy a music CD, copy it 10,000 times, and give it away free. The artist doesn't need to get paid, right? Copyright is EVIL! * A person should be able to buy a software CD, copy it 10,000 time, and give it away free. The developer doesn't need to get paid, right? Copyright is EVIL!
That QuestionCopyright site is a load of bollocks. They have the right idea (the current implementation sucks) but think the only answer is to abolish it entirely. No, it would be better if:
* Something made by a person loses protection when they die, if they relinquish it, or upon the author's ending of commercial distribution. * Something made by a company loses protection when they end commercial distribution.
Think of it simply, that'd result in copyrights on a given "thing" expiring the moment the author has decided they don't want to make any money off it anymore (so why should they retain the right to take people to court for "pirating" something there's no other way to get?)
Easily done, thanks to not being in the US and Apple's insistence on acting as if we still had a USD0.62 per dollar exchange rate. As such, a Mac Mini is $1500 (by the way, a BETTER Dell is cheaper), a MacBook Pro is $3500, and a Mac Pro is $5000. And those prices all have "From" beside them! How, pray tell, could they possibly increase that crappy price more?!?
This I didn't know! So Google doesn't actually take note of them at all?
Actually, trying this is somewhat worrysome... I tried logging into Google without the fullstop, and it added "Did you mean..." with my correct username appended. WTF? Why not just log me in with the correct username?
Hotmail does no such thing. The newsletters are optional (and off by default, the "Continue" button can be reached by scrolling down).
If you mean they "sell your email address to spammers", well, I have more evidence of GOOGLE doing that than Microsoft. My Hotmail account receives no spam at all (it's quite long, but still). My Gmail account receives about a few pieces a week. Here's the interesting bit: I don't USE my Gmail account. Ever. I don't post the email address anywhere, use it to sign up to anything, or even email real people with it. So how did the spammers guess it? (Note: it is also quite long, with fullstops in it).
No, I simply feel there is more than enough evidence scattered across Slashdot that I have no need to bring it to anyone's attention. Anyone that hasn't already noticed that you do have an unwholesome obsession with Apple is blind and wont be able to see it after I point it out either.
Say... have you met Twitter? I reckon you two would get along just famously!
Thanks for proving the GP's point. I should have known it'd be YOU that did it. Have you and your website ever considered speaking truth (after detaching yourselves from Apple's collective rear end, of course) or is that pushing it too far?
If you can get the user running with a limited user account (i.e. any user NOT a member of administrators) then the UAC prompt WILL demand the administrator password to continue. One could argue (weakly) that UAC is better security than the equivalent on Linux, because even administrative/root users are blocked by it.
Potentially. To be honest, not a lot of cards (even new ones) actually support DirectX 10 APIs. Quite a few people are probably content with their 7600GTX (or equivalent ATi card) and those aren't DX10 based GPUs. You made the mistake of assuming that Vista automatically meant DX10 (which is understandable, but a bit hasty) while the GGGP made the mistake of assuming that (!DX9) == (DX10).
Oh bullshit. They provide the same security that "sudo" does on, say, Ubuntu. This is to say, UAC isn't the whole of the security (just as sudo isn't the whole of the security) and still needs to be backed up by users who aren't complete idiots and a decent setup. UAC does a perfectly good job at improving security, and they're already working to reduce the insane number of things that trigger it (which is definitely far too much).
It's also possible that his email was scraped. Note one thing which is unique about Bennett's submissions to Slashdot... that's right; his name is a link to his email, not a website. If when the link exchanger was scraping for email addresses Bennett had a story on the front page of Slashdot, that email would be the first email found for the Slashdot domain and the scraper would tag him as the "owner" of the website (note: they wouldn't use WHOIS, because that often has falsified or anonymised information).
From the same link:
Windows Vista 40,235 13.97 % ############## You only counted systems with a DirectX 10 GPU. Not all GPUs support DX10. Feel free to apologise.
and I'm sure you'll be happy to say Windows XP wasn't a "major change to the architecture of Windows". This is DECS, the Twitter of Apple supporters. He sure WONT be happy to say that.
That joke sucks more every time I see it, not the least of which because it is not even factually correct. The buttons on the dialog are CONTINUE and CANCEL, with ALLOW and CANCEL being reserved for when launching a program needing admin rights that isn't digitally signed.
Slashdot Mirror
And Vista covers all those bases by transparently redirecting those folders (writing to Program Files sends you to \Users\{username}\AppData\VirtualStore\Program Files, writing to Windows sends you to \Users\{username}\AppData\VirtualStore\Windows) - although it doesn't appear to protect the HKLM root of the registry (at least that I could find, anyway).
Linux would let you do THE SAME THING if you were root.
How can Google do that? ALL requests to Google are GET. In fact, sending a POST returns Method not Supported!
Oh, OK. So if I were to write a book, I can guarantee I get paid for it... how? A contract with whom exactly? A publisher? No, I don't think they'd chance it if there's no guarantee that they'll get anything for it - and I couldn't blame them! With everybody on the planet? Oh, I don't see that working.
Oh, I know how I'll do it! I'll get a sort of contract with the government that says that because I wrote this book, I should have the exclusive right to make copies! Then, people can either buy a copy from me, or they can get it secondhand from someone else for as much or as little as they like. I think I'll call this novel contract a "copyright"!
Exactly! You know what I meant there.
Fortunately, ODF, Inc. was almost instantly exposed here at Slashdot. Another Microsoft dirty trick crashed and burned. The strong suspicion by complete fucking morons is that Microsoft slipped them money. Seriously, just because someone disagrees with an Open Source format/standard/product, doesn't make them paid by Microsoft. It just means they have an opinion, much like yours, which they are entitled to have.
Stop whining. For $70 I get a 2Mb link with only 15GB a month. Well, the theoretical maximum speed of the link is 7.6Mb, but the exchanges can't really hack that.
I assume this nearly caused a fatal exception in the minds of the submitter or editor. I mean, they can't blame it on Firefox, because it's the Browser of Gods. And they can't blame it on Quicktime, because it's Apple.
They would have blamed it on IE, but they couldn't find any way to make any connection (and for the first time ever, IE just kind of sat off to the side and shrugged it's shoulders in disinterest that it isn't affected).
The intent of copyright is to encourage people to actually produce artistic works (no comments about how half the crap these days is far from artistic, I KNOW) by making sure they can actually get paid for it. The abuse of it is another matter entirely and does not demonstrate a failure in copyright at all, rather a failure in government. Your idea basically equates to:...
Nothing but inane bullpuckey. It's been shown countless times that everybody will get paid without copyright. I'll make it simple for you. They will get paid just like me, for performance of work. They can make a contract and receive compensation according to that contract. And I guess I have repeat this for your sake. If I fix your car then I want mileage royalties. I could retire in 5 years. Still a stupid argument from you. Yes, because you can perform a book. Since you can't, you're saying book writers should never get paid? And while we're at it, let's not pay people for actually writing songs or movies. Scriptwriters and songwriters don't deserve money! They should PERFORM it if they want money! Whatever. If you still hold to your stupid "dump copyright" idea, you're a bigger idiot than I thought.
And exactly when has it been proven that anyone can get paid without copyright? Try not to dig too far back in the past, anything past 1900 is a completely different beast entirely and can hardly be considered part of anything.
Because that is the only correct answer, but even I can accept the return of its original duration of 17 years as a temporary compromise. Anything older than that would and should lose their privileges NOW. Just so you know, copyright is a government granted privilege(for the above stated reasons), NOT any kind of natural right. You don't own, or have a right to restrict the replication and distribution of revealed knowledge any more than you own the smoke coming out of your chimney. The real greed and deprivation come from those who claim that they do. Uh, no, it's the only incorrect answer. The problem is not with the framework, it's with the government and industry's changes to it. Reverse those and you've got yourself the fairly decently working framework that worked for decades.
Of course, you really couldn't accept the 17 years return at all. In reality, you're grasping at any excuse that will let you declare copyright as "immoral" or whatever so you can justify to yourself your piracy. If it was returned to 17 years, you'd continue to pirate and claim that only abolition is acceptable, though you might accept a cut down to 5 years.
No, it's not where this stuff belongs. Anybody who thinks that is just trying to rationalise piracy (no, it's not stealing. you're right there).
Your idea basically equates to:
* Employers should not pay employees, they should work for free.
* Anybody should be able to walk into your house and read your mail. Oh, and your email too. Oh yeah, and listen in to your phone calls.
* A person should be able to pick up a book, then photocopy 10,000 copies and give them away free. The author doesn't need to get paid, right? Copyright is EVIL!
* A person should be able to buy a music CD, copy it 10,000 times, and give it away free. The artist doesn't need to get paid, right? Copyright is EVIL!
* A person should be able to buy a software CD, copy it 10,000 time, and give it away free. The developer doesn't need to get paid, right? Copyright is EVIL!
That QuestionCopyright site is a load of bollocks. They have the right idea (the current implementation sucks) but think the only answer is to abolish it entirely. No, it would be better if:
* Something made by a person loses protection when they die, if they relinquish it, or upon the author's ending of commercial distribution.
* Something made by a company loses protection when they end commercial distribution.
Think of it simply, that'd result in copyrights on a given "thing" expiring the moment the author has decided they don't want to make any money off it anymore (so why should they retain the right to take people to court for "pirating" something there's no other way to get?)
That's not a related article, that IS the article. TFA is the AP source for it.
Easily done, thanks to not being in the US and Apple's insistence on acting as if we still had a USD0.62 per dollar exchange rate. As such, a Mac Mini is $1500 (by the way, a BETTER Dell is cheaper), a MacBook Pro is $3500, and a Mac Pro is $5000. And those prices all have "From" beside them! How, pray tell, could they possibly increase that crappy price more?!?
This I didn't know! So Google doesn't actually take note of them at all?
..." with my correct username appended. WTF? Why not just log me in with the correct username?
Actually, trying this is somewhat worrysome... I tried logging into Google without the fullstop, and it added "Did you mean
Hotmail does no such thing. The newsletters are optional (and off by default, the "Continue" button can be reached by scrolling down).
If you mean they "sell your email address to spammers", well, I have more evidence of GOOGLE doing that than Microsoft. My Hotmail account receives no spam at all (it's quite long, but still). My Gmail account receives about a few pieces a week. Here's the interesting bit: I don't USE my Gmail account. Ever. I don't post the email address anywhere, use it to sign up to anything, or even email real people with it. So how did the spammers guess it? (Note: it is also quite long, with fullstops in it).
No, I simply feel there is more than enough evidence scattered across Slashdot that I have no need to bring it to anyone's attention. Anyone that hasn't already noticed that you do have an unwholesome obsession with Apple is blind and wont be able to see it after I point it out either.
Say... have you met Twitter? I reckon you two would get along just famously!
Thanks for proving the GP's point. I should have known it'd be YOU that did it. Have you and your website ever considered speaking truth (after detaching yourselves from Apple's collective rear end, of course) or is that pushing it too far?
If you can get the user running with a limited user account (i.e. any user NOT a member of administrators) then the UAC prompt WILL demand the administrator password to continue. One could argue (weakly) that UAC is better security than the equivalent on Linux, because even administrative/root users are blocked by it.
Potentially. To be honest, not a lot of cards (even new ones) actually support DirectX 10 APIs. Quite a few people are probably content with their 7600GTX (or equivalent ATi card) and those aren't DX10 based GPUs. You made the mistake of assuming that Vista automatically meant DX10 (which is understandable, but a bit hasty) while the GGGP made the mistake of assuming that (!DX9) == (DX10).
Oh bullshit. They provide the same security that "sudo" does on, say, Ubuntu. This is to say, UAC isn't the whole of the security (just as sudo isn't the whole of the security) and still needs to be backed up by users who aren't complete idiots and a decent setup. UAC does a perfectly good job at improving security, and they're already working to reduce the insane number of things that trigger it (which is definitely far too much).
It should also be noted that his entries aren't put through the Firehose either. Why is that?
It's also possible that his email was scraped. Note one thing which is unique about Bennett's submissions to Slashdot... that's right; his name is a link to his email, not a website. If when the link exchanger was scraping for email addresses Bennett had a story on the front page of Slashdot, that email would be the first email found for the Slashdot domain and the scraper would tag him as the "owner" of the website (note: they wouldn't use WHOIS, because that often has falsified or anonymised information).
CentaurHauls is a Via processor. Not sure about GenuineBMCpu. Transmeta maybe?
No Wine at all.
That joke sucks more every time I see it, not the least of which because it is not even factually correct. The buttons on the dialog are CONTINUE and CANCEL, with ALLOW and CANCEL being reserved for when launching a program needing admin rights that isn't digitally signed.