Actually, the insistence that this isn't "Starcraft 2" should be a strong clue that PC gamers aren't really missing out on "the next big thing" from Blizzard. This sounds much more like a completely different game, trying to cash in on the popularity of the Starcraft name.
If you were laughing before at the suggestion that the PC game market would dry up with the new generation of consoles, keep on laughing. Unreal Tournament 2003 will be out for the PC before XBox or PS2 has it. Starcraft 2 is still slated to be on the PC first, from every indication they've given.
Chris, I'm not saying *any* of us can be 100% rational all the time. Of course we aren't.
However, when people make poor choices, they need to suffer the consequences of their decisions. That's called "life's hard knocks".
In my opinion, one of society's weaknesses/problems is our perceived need to pass blame. We always want to point the finger anyplace but back at ourselves when we screw up.
Sometimes, you need to get hurt by your poor choices before you're motivated to change your ways. From the time we're little kids and our parents keep warning us not to touch the hot stove, some of us are going to do so anyway, *once*. After that, we're pretty certain not to make that mistake a second time.
First of all, what is money? That's the first thing one has to grasp. Money is simply a symbol of your labor. If you can agree with me there, then why does it seem logical to put artificial limits on how much money someone can earn for themselves?
Furthermore, it's an accepted practice that if you so choose, you can transfer these tokens of your labor to anyone else you see fit. Therefore, although you might find it upsetting somehow that rich business owners hand their wealth down to future generations - it's perfectly sensible and equitable.
Given our current system of government, those with large sums of money *do* end up forcibly giving some of it away every year. Either they're hit with high taxes, or in efforts to dodge such taxes, they have to spend some of it on charities and donations. (Why do you think Bill G. gave away that billion dollars so far, and will keep on doing so? I highly doubt it was simply because he had a sense of guilt, or just wanted to be a "nice guy" all of a sudden.)
At the most basic level, it's pretty easy to determine how much money someone "needs" to survive - but you have to look at it on a case-by-case basis. What's the cost of living index where the person currently resides? Do they have any special medical needs? Once you come up with that dollar amount, the rest is "unnecessary" - but most of it helps us live more fulfilling and enjoyable lives.
Don't forget, that guy with "too much money" who buys an expensive boat is helping other people make a living, too. Someone made a commission selling it to him, and certainly he'll employ maintenance people to fix the engine, etc. when it breaks down. Factory workers built everything in and on that boat, and somebody had to build the dock it's kept in. Still others are employed to do such things as dredge the rivers and lakes, so boats such as these can navigate through.
Well, the new discs didn't exist for Pioneer to put in their drives at the time they were built. Otherwise, I'm sure they would have addressed the issue earlier.
The new 4x DVD-R type media isn't even on store shelves yet - so nobody should have even encountered this problem yet.
What does make me mad, though, is that despite filling out my registration card and sending it in - I was not notified by email, US Mail, or phone of this issue. I just learned about it because I'm a regular Slashdot reader.
This is the type of thing you're supposed to get advance notice of if you register your product with the manufacturer! It should be "first heard of" in news articles.
IMHO, what *is* rubbish is the elite, "better than thou" attitude of the majority of self-proclaimed "white hat" hackers out there.
I'm not directly employed in "computer security", nor do I really want to be - but I know enough about it to comment on it.
First of all, there's a percentage of these "white hat hackers" that are identical to the "black hats", except they never got caught. They're really no more ethical or trustworthy than any other hacker - but they were smart enough to go where the money was, before they got in legal trouble.
There are also quite a few "white hats" in the industry that know much more about "working the media" to build their desired image than they do about actual hacking and hacking prevention.
I don't deny that the press loves to talk up the "high profile" black-hat hackers as more of a threat than they really are. Perhaps it's par for the course though - as the "white hats" seem to do the same thing for their security businesses and consultancies.
Also IMHO, any company with a well-trained I.T. staff should be able to do a reasonable job of securing their systems without spending money on some "security specialist". Most people in this job role have lots of expensive certifications (Cisco CCIE, etc.) - but when you look at the bottom line, they're just being paid to be the "fall guy" if something gets hacked.
In corporate America, your biggest security issues are co-workers sharing passwords, writing them down so they can remember them, using weak passwords that are easily guessable, never changing passwords (or when forced, rotating between the same 2 or 3 passwords every time), and disgruntled workers taking advantage of the security clearances you gave them so they could do their job to begin with.
The overpaid "security specialist" can sit there all day long and play with firewall configs and new encryption keys for VPN authentication, but 99% of the time, the problems are much more basic.
Sure, we all typically find common file formats useful.... I don't think there's much question of that. Fact is though, software companies will *always* invent proprietary file formats. For starters, they may wish to offer functionality that the competition doesn't yet offer. By using some "common file format", they might lose the ability to build the new features into the saved files.
In my experience, the most commonly-used packages always provide alternatives. In Photoshop, for example, you can save your file as.GIF,.JPG,.BMP,.TIFF or many other formats. You don't have to use Adobe's proprietary.PSD format. Same with the MS Office products. People can save their documents as ASCII text if they want, or a multitude of other formats (like WordPerfect). Not only that, but MS does offer freely downloadable document viewers for their Access databases, Excel spreadsheets, and Word documents. Someone running Windows (or likely even WINE in Linux) could at least view what they get in email with one of those viewer utilities - without spending another dime to license Office itself.
The argument that a company is "required to buy MS software because another company uses it" just doesn't seem to hold a lot of water.
Well, after browsing his web site - I sure won't be signing up as a "member" of his political platform on software.
While much of what he says is fine, I take issue with the idea that there should be some sort of political pressure placed on any software firm to "avoid lock-in type licensing agreements".
Part of being a free country is allowing people to put together whatever type of sales contract they please. As it has been pointed out so many times before, nobody is placing a gun to the heads of I.T. purchasers, saying "Sign up on these terms, or else!" Vendors willfully agree to Micrsoft's "lock-in" agreements because they think the value for the dollar is there.
The proper way to fight these types of agreements is to offer competitive and compelling alternatives! As much as most of us here love Linux and other Unix OS's, they've not usually been compelling enough to home PC workstation vendors to choose them over Microsoft's offerings. Instead of taking a "sour grapes" attitude about this situation, it's much more productive to accept this fact and keep working on improving the alternatives.
Exactly.... and that's my single biggest complaint about an otherwise outstanding game.
You'd think the auto makers would have learned from the gaming fiasco with hockey games. (The NHL didn't want to "promote violence" in hockey, so they didn't allow using official players and logos in the EA Sports games unless they removed the ability for players to start fights. That lasted a year or two, until gamers rebelled... Fights are a big part of the fun!)
Everyone knows that your car gets damaged when you ram into another car or a wall at high speed. If the damage is equal across all the vehicles in the game, that's also quickly obvious. People aren't going to really say "Wow, I didn't know that Toyota sucked so bad in accidents! Guess I don't want one after all!" after playing Gran Turismo.
You seem quite focused on debunking Libertarian politics as unworkable.
On the contrary, the only real problem I see with the Libertarian party is the number of clueless people who profess to believe in it, yet don't really understand it. (This, of course, happens constantly with the Republican and Democratic parties too. I guess it just makes it easier to single out thoughtless comments when the party in question has a small minority of constituents.)
Regarding your specific questions about Enron and Libertarian beliefs on handling fraud:
I truly believe much of the corporate fraud (a la Enron) we see today is enabled and encouraged by our current state of government. They built this monster themselves with endless legal regulations (and loopholes), and then try to play the hero when they enact new legislation (or enforce current legislation) to halt it after the fact.
Certainly, Enron's C.E.O. should be punished. I've never met a Libertarian who believed fraudulent business practices were acceptable. (At its core, Libertarianism can pretty much be watered down to one basic concept. You should have the right and freedom to do whatever you like, *as long as it doesn't infringe on another person's right and freedom to do the same*.)
The more legal "fine print" you introduce into a system, the more opportunity arises for a crafy individual (or in these recent Enron-style cases, accounting firm) to doctor records and make things appear on the "up and up".
The most useful tool in the hands of the individual attempting to defraud another is confusion. Even in the case of the street con who challenges people to "guess which cup the ball is under" or to play a card game with him for money, he's only able to cheat people because they can't understand how his scheme works.
Government red-tape makes the perfect blanket to hide fraudulent business practices under.
Wouldn't it be an "ex post facto" law, if it tried to regulate existing coasters, anyway?
I think the point is, they want to put some kind of cap on the g-force limits, to ensure the next generation or two of coasters doesn't exceed it.
New roller coasters keep increasing their speeds and drops/number of loops.
In any case, I'm not big on the whole concept of lawmakers attempting to legislate safety. If the amusement parks created a ride that really was reaching the point of being unsafe, they'd get hammered with lawsuits and forced to remove the ride in question. These problems sort themselves out, without the need of specific laws written up in advance, based on someone's guesstimate of what the limits of "safety" are.
IMHO, people paying to ride "thrill rides" aren't overly concerned about "safety risks" in the first place - or else they'd be more hesitant to place their lives in the hands of the amusement parks. For example, it's not really a big secret that the Six Flags over Mid America located outside St. Louis, Missouri isn't doing spectacularly well, financially. Are you sure that all those low-paid teenage workers are doing everything they can to ensure safety? Is all the proper maintenance being done on those rides? Maybe it is, today, but how about tomorrow? Can you say for certain? Six Flags certainly has a track record of killing at least 1 or 2 visitors every year or two....
I see this as a complete non-issue. Both environments tout their flexibility in configuration, right? Well, here you have a vendor (RedHat) making full use of that. How often can a GUI perfectly emulate a competing GUI on any platform? Look at all the half-baked attempts to turn Windows GUI into a simulation of someone else's favorite user interface.
If they managed to make Gnome and KDE work and look identical, I'd say that speaks volumes about the power of both GUIs to allow custom configuration.
Surely, any Linux "power user" that is primarily concerned with not being "tied down" to a single vendor's idea of "optimal user-interface" is capable of re-configuring KDE or Gnome to suit their tastes?
This is just sort of a side-note, but I noticed there's a project underway to give GPS capabilities to the Empeg Car/Rio MP3 Car players out there.
Once again though, the lack of good quality GPS tools and maps for Linux is sort of a stumbling block.
I've been playing with GPS stuff for years now - and I agree with the assertion that DeLorme's Street Atlas USA has the best. Unfortunately, I never cared much for some aspects of their interface. It's just that the maps themselves look the best, and it seems to track your position on the streets quite well. The biggest problems I saw in the product were related to ease of locating specific addresses or locations, so you could mark them as start or end points in a complete route.
Right now, I have a Clarion AutoPC in my car, and I'm using the 3rd. party Odyssey GPS package with it. The map data it uses is quite good, but the AutoPC itself doesn't have a fast enough CPU in it. It always lags behind where your car really is. It shows you coming up on an intersection just after you've driven past it. Quite annoying.
Umm... doesn't this depend on how the communication is initiated? EG. My firewall prevents me from hosting UT games, unless I open up specific ports for it - but I can play UT over the net with anyone without opening up anything special.
If the worm talks on UDP port 2002 only after doing some sort of initial setup through a commonly open port (like port 80), wouldn't that be possible with most people's firewall config?
I know you're just trying to troll here.... But just for the record, my biggest concern/headache/worry with my own Apache server running on Linux is the Microsoft code I have to run on it.
I need the FrontPage server extensions on it, and MS did a notoriously poor job of development on those for Unix. A perfectly secure Apache server can be rendered "full of security holes" by using their add-in.
In fact, I've found at least two different independent projects to rewrite the mod_frontpage module to make it more secure. One such project's results seem to have problems of their own. (I saw bugtrak reports of it having a buffer overflow exploit in it - and it looks like its author never bothered to work on the project again since that time.) The other (newer) project on Sourceforge looks more promising - but I was unable to get it working properly on my particular RedHat 7.3 server.
I'm not a "zealot" proclaiming Linux is inherently "better" than anything Microsoft has done or will do. IMHO, Linux certainly doesn't have the workstation desktop solution of choice yet. On the other hand, Microsoft's track record speaks volumes about their ability to provide secure sever products. They can't! When you hear about the latest worm or virus attacking Windows, you say "Oh boy, here we go again!" When it happens for Linux, it's big news. There's a reason for that....
I keep forgetting to ask about this, since it's not a particularly *high* priority item on my agenda -- but....
Has anyone actually had any luck getting an Epson ES-600C flatbed scanner working with SANE?
I own one of these old (circa 1996 or so?) beasts, and although it's a high quality unit - it uses a parallel port. Epson no longer supports it under Windows XP or 2000, but I noticed it shows up on the SANE scanner compatibility list.
Whenever I've fired up SANE in RedHat 7.2 or 7.3 though, it reports it can't detect any usable devices, even when I verify that it's attached to my LPT1 port and is powered up.
(Apparently, Epson actually sold an internal board for a short time that converted the ES-600C to SCSI. Sure wish I had that option board, but it's all but impossible to locate now. I even called the Epson parts supply house, but they said it has long since been discontinued. I hope the people adding the ES-600C to the SANE compat. list weren't just trying a SCSI version instead of the parallel port model?)
Honestly, despite all the hype over the "mind-blowing special effects" in Attack of the Clones - I also saw a few really poor quality scenes.
EG. When that "stamper" in the factory was about to crush the droids on the conveyor belt, it looked like the characters were overlaid on top of a backdrop. (Same cheezy stuff you see on those late-night commercials where they want to make it look like a guy is flying, so they have him stand in front of a bluescreen and replace the blue with a photo of the city skyline.)
The movie had sort of a "cut and paste" feel to it. Some scenes (AKA. Yoda saber fight) were top-notch, but they went up against scenes where everything looked too computer-generated and "fake". In the battle scenes with many characters on the ground, I got the feel that they took scenes from Jurassic Park and replaced the dinosaurs with Star Wars creatures.
Why would I want to see this patchwork zoomed up on an IMAX screen, where the flaws become even more apparent?
I daresay that the ultimate magnet for those of "weak character" is politics, not banking!
In any case, I don't really see much evidence of govt. loosening their grip on financial regulation. They're busy adding new restrictions to what the online stock trading businesses can and can't do, for example. (eTrade just got in trouble for one of their business practices a few weeks ago.)
I don't have a problem with federal govt. doing what they're constitutionally bound to do when it comes to maintaining the federal reserve and minting currency. I just see an awful lot of red tape of very questionable value when it comes to such things as computerizing the banking industry and electronic funds transfers/payments.
The bottom line: If I have cash, I can carry it, store it, loan it, or give it away to anyone I please with no restrictions. If that same cash becomes an electronic number in a computer (instead of a physical piece of paper), all of a sudden it's 1000 times more confusing and convoluted.
Good for you! I'm glad to hear you were successful in winning your case. Now you have me curious though.... I have no idea what the filing fees are for my county. I'm also wondering how you managed to track down enough information on the company soliciting you to bring them to court?
I've had several illegal telemarketing calls from those automated dialers that play a recording - but my caller ID box typically shows a bogus number. (Often, it shows the name and a number for a company that manufactured the dialers!) I guess I could "play along" and leave my info at the beep, hoping I could pry the info out of whoever calls me back trying to complete the sale.... but I haven't gone that far yet.
Hmm.... someone modded your post as a troll, but I changed it to "insightful" myself.
Why? Because you, unlike many of these people, get the point!
Federal govt. has governed everything related to banking or investing with an iron grip... one that tightens over time and strangles innovation.
PayPal is most certainly *not* a "loan shark" or anything of that nature. A number of people are pissed off because they didn't pay attention to the terms of service that were spelled out on PayPal's site.
Granted, the courts *may* find that they need to take a little more initiative in stopping fraud - but that's a far cry from the people on sites like "paypalsucks" who seem to want the entire service shut down as "illegal".
Ever since I started using PayPal, I kept the thought in the back of my head that it's not wise to keep large amounts of money in a PayPal account. Unlike a traditional bank, they choose to offer you a potentially higher rate of return (interest), at the "expense" of not being FDIC insured. PayPal has always positioned itself as an extremely convenient money transfer system; not another "online bank". (Among other things, they don't offer home equity or personal loans.) It's a "work around" for individuals and small business owners who want to accept credit card payments without having their own merchant account. It's also an alternative to giving a teenager/college student a regular debit/credit card for "emergency cash". A parent can deposit an exact amount in a PayPal account, give the youngster a PayPal VISA card, and effectively control and monitor their usage of the funds. (If the student spends money, it shows up on PayPal's site as soon as it happens. That sure beats my bank, which only seems to post updates once every morning.)
In fact, I dare say that if it wasn't for the advent of PayPal, traditional banks would not have gotten the much-needed "kick in the pants" to modernize their web sites. Online bill-pay for checking accounts is now more of a standard than an exception - and I think it took something like PayPal to get us there.
Re:i sold hp for a while (thanks for the info!)
on
Printer Makers' Ploys
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Thanks for writing about your recent experiences with HP! I'd have to say I had similar suspicions about their products over the last few years - and this was even before talks of the merger began.
Traditionally, I always recommended HP for anyone buying a laser printer, and almost always for a networked inkjet. (I never thought their inkjets matched Epson's ability to print near-photo quality images - but Epson's print drivers can really bog down a network print server.)
Nowdays, I have to really re-think that.
A while back, I had problems with a Deskjet 1600C that died - and was met with endless frustration getting it repaired. (Despite this being originally a $1400+ business-class inkjet with optional paper tray, HP acted like it was disposable - and couldn't understand why we wanted to fix it instead of just buying a newer model.) HP refused to sell the repair parts needed, and insisted that we ship it in for repair.
In another case, we bought several HP Laserjet 6L printers, all of which developed problems jamming when feeding paper. After over a year of putting up with this problem, HP *finally* acknowledged it as a design defect and offered to ship customers a "repair kit". When I got the "repair kit", it turns out it was simply a piece of cardboard with a double-sided block of sticky foam on the end. You were supposed to use the cardboard to shove the sticky foam down inside the printer, so it would stick to a part beneath the vertically stacked pieces of paper. That way, it was again able to "grab" sheets without trying to suck in too many at once and jam up.
Granted, this work-around did cure our problem - but it's obviously not going to be a permanent fix. HP screwed up and used a rubber material that got hard over time and lost its "tacky" characteristic needed to grab paper. They should have supplied a substitute part for the defective one - not a stick-on-top band-aid fix.
Please don't group me in your questionable category of "most of us" who feel that our responsibilities "begin and end" with "our families' health and well-being", not even coming near our concerns of whether something is "morally right or not".
I have a wife, a 5 month old daughter, and a pet cat - so I think I'm qualified to speak on this subject.
There were times when we didn't have any money left for food, and there were no groceries left in the house. We went to the local churches and asked for some help. Sure, some of the "food pantry" food they gave us wasn't the best - but it got us by.
I suppose if I didn't think morality had anything to do with the situation - it would have been the more logical and smarter alternative to just rob a store, right? After all, I would have had to go through much less effort, and could have gotten exactly what my family needed....
I think everything has to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. Of course, your family comes first, but that doesn't give you "carte blanche" to run around doing anything you damn well please to solve your problems. This is much like that age-old question of whether or not someone should be punished for stealing "a turkey from a supermarket" when they're homeless and broke, and have nothing to eat.
(I say absolutely yes, they should, if they're caught. Doing anything less would cause a serious breakdown in the entire concept of law, which by nature is supposed to act without prejudice.)
Granted, most things in life are far from being "black and white". There are many shades of grey. EG. Someone in that dire need of food might happen to have friends working at the store that allow them to easily steal the turkey and not get caught. Should the person still try it, knowing they have an "insider" who is willing to fake ringing up the sale to let it pass through? (Honestly, I'd probably say yes; they now have a situation where their level of risk of being caught/punished is greatly reduced, and there is a strong likelihood they need the item more than the store needs it. Perhaps most importantly, someone else is supporting their actions. They're not just acting alone in a "damn the consequences, I want what I want" frame of mind.)
One has to access all of their options and weigh the possible outcomes of their actions before acting. It's easy to say "It's my life vs. theirs!" - but does it have to be? That's a "last resort" mentality, and you probably have no business being there mentally, if you're simply concerned with feeding a family. There are so many assistance programs out there, ways and means to earn a few bucks working at "day labor" type centers, or even asking friends and relatives for a helping hand.
Back around 1993, I was a guitarist in a local band put together by an older friend of mine - who was aspiring to be a musical success for at least 10 years before I met him.
He had written literally hundreds of songs, and from the sound of his old cassettes, had a pretty good band together for a little while in Chicago.
Anyway, the only "marketing" we did was an investment in flyers and a couple batches of t-shirts with cool artwork on them - plus mailing tapes to any underground paper or local newspaper that would accept them for review.
The rest was just plain old "word of mouth". The most effective thing we did was playing for free at house parties. Pass the word around that there's a kegger at such-and-such a house on Sat. night - and collect "donations" for the beer at the door when people get there.
After a year or so, we developed a following of fans/groupies. Did we ever make any money from it? No, not at all... but it was a lot of fun, and I'm really glad we did it.
I think it *could* have become serious, but if you don't have money to sell yourselves (or cater to a record label who will provide that funding), you just have to do it the hard way. That is, win over fans one at a time - until you've built up a "critical mass" of fans.
Basically, I think the trick is, get a day job - but don't lose track of your long-term goals. Keep playing gigs. Above all, keep writing your own stuff and putting it out there. I see bands in this area that are musically very talented, but they keep playing everyone else's stuff. Sure, the dance party/nightclub crowds love hearing that - but in the end, the credit keeps going to the original writers of the songs, *not* to you! That's no way to become any more successful than what you earn playing those weekend nightclub gigs.
Keep on doing whatever it is that makes your fans like you. Rinse, repeat!
Yes, thanks for posting that! I absolutely agree. A name is simply a way to refer to a person with minimum confusion.
When you enter the "online world", you normally choose to carry on conversation under a "nick", "handle", or whatever you'd like to call it. It's every bit as customary as it is to give a child a first, middle, and last name when he/she is born. (Also, don't forget, these assumed names are picked out by each individual when they go online - so they do have meaning. Perhaps, they have more meaning to a person than their real name, which was assigned to them by their parents before they were old enough to have a say-so in it.)
When I used to go to regular "get-togethers" a local IRC channel organized, the only way we really put faces to the names was to call each other by the "nicks" we knew them as. Sure, eventually, you'd make an effort to learn their real names too. (After all, you're in the real world with them... not just behind a screen any longer, so it seems appropriate.) But ultimately, more people could always recite who was who by their nicks than by their real names.
It's sort of strange reading your message today, because I watched a health program on satellite last night that might be related.
They were talking about a genetic mutation that causes people to become taller than normal (Abe Lincoln suffered from it). They said about 1 out of every 3000 people has it, but most don't even realize they have it. The biggest problem with it is it causes a weakened aorta that can suddenly burst. (In the past, people didn't usually live past their 30's or 40's if they had this condition, for this reason.) The condition gets passed on from generation to generation, so people who know they have it can get regular checks at the doctor to make sure everything is still in good order.
They perform a surgery to replace 2 or 3 inches of the aorta with a vinyl substitute at the first sign of it stretching or expanding abnormally - and then the person can go on living a normal life.
While this will make another piece of "fun to quote" material for years to come - the admission of failing is little more than a marketing tactic.
Microsoft knows they've got the proverbial egg on their face because security holes keep popping up as fast as ever, despite their big "security initiative".
If you led a company like this, made a huge fanfare (and probably took a pretty big financial hit, too) by freezing production of all new code for a month, sent all your programmers to training on writing more secure code, and then got these results - you'd be expected to say something sensible too.
Microsoft's only other choices were to remain silent on it, or out-and-out lie, saying "We think our code has become more secure!". They'd get torn apart by the press if they made that claim. "Where's your proof? I count X number of security bulletins in Y number of days since your security initiative."
Admitting you don't have the problem under control is the best marketing move you can make under the circumstances. Corporate America will hopefully then say "Hey, these guys are being honest with me." and "They're smart enough to know that they need to try something else to get our problems solved."
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the insistence that this isn't "Starcraft 2" should be a strong clue that PC gamers aren't really missing out on "the next big thing" from Blizzard. This sounds much more like a completely different game, trying to cash in on the popularity of the Starcraft name.
If you were laughing before at the suggestion that the PC game market would dry up with the new generation of consoles, keep on laughing. Unreal Tournament 2003 will be out for the PC before XBox or PS2 has it. Starcraft 2 is still slated to be on the PC first, from every indication they've given.
Chris, I'm not saying *any* of us can be 100% rational all the time. Of course we aren't.
However, when people make poor choices, they need to suffer the consequences of their decisions. That's called "life's hard knocks".
In my opinion, one of society's weaknesses/problems is our perceived need to pass blame. We always want to point the finger anyplace but back at ourselves when we screw up.
Sometimes, you need to get hurt by your poor choices before you're motivated to change your ways. From the time we're little kids and our parents keep warning us not to touch the hot stove, some of us are going to do so anyway, *once*. After that, we're pretty certain not to make that mistake a second time.
First of all, what is money? That's the first thing one has to grasp. Money is simply a symbol of your labor. If you can agree with me there, then why does it seem logical to put artificial limits on how much money someone can earn for themselves?
Furthermore, it's an accepted practice that if you so choose, you can transfer these tokens of your labor to anyone else you see fit. Therefore, although you might find it upsetting somehow that rich business owners hand their wealth down to future generations - it's perfectly sensible and equitable.
Given our current system of government, those with large sums of money *do* end up forcibly giving some of it away every year. Either they're hit with high taxes, or in efforts to dodge such taxes, they have to spend some of it on charities and donations. (Why do you think Bill G. gave away that billion dollars so far, and will keep on doing so? I highly doubt it was simply because he had a sense of guilt, or just wanted to be a "nice guy" all of a sudden.)
At the most basic level, it's pretty easy to determine how much money someone "needs" to survive - but you have to look at it on a case-by-case basis. What's the cost of living index where the person currently resides? Do they have any special medical needs? Once you come up with that dollar amount, the rest is "unnecessary" - but most of it helps us live more fulfilling and enjoyable lives.
Don't forget, that guy with "too much money" who buys an expensive boat is helping other people make a living, too. Someone made a commission selling it to him, and certainly he'll employ maintenance people to fix the engine, etc. when it breaks down. Factory workers built everything in and on that boat, and somebody had to build the dock it's kept in. Still others are employed to do such things as dredge the rivers and lakes, so boats such as these can navigate through.
Well, the new discs didn't exist for Pioneer to put in their drives at the time they were built. Otherwise, I'm sure they would have addressed the issue earlier.
The new 4x DVD-R type media isn't even on store shelves yet - so nobody should have even encountered this problem yet.
What does make me mad, though, is that despite filling out my registration card and sending it in - I was not notified by email, US Mail, or phone of this issue. I just learned about it because I'm a regular Slashdot reader.
This is the type of thing you're supposed to get advance notice of if you register your product with the manufacturer! It should be "first heard of" in news articles.
IMHO, what *is* rubbish is the elite, "better than thou" attitude of the majority of self-proclaimed "white hat" hackers out there.
I'm not directly employed in "computer security", nor do I really want to be - but I know enough about it to comment on it.
First of all, there's a percentage of these "white hat hackers" that are identical to the "black hats", except they never got caught. They're really no more ethical or trustworthy than any other hacker - but they were smart enough to go where the money was, before they got in legal trouble.
There are also quite a few "white hats" in the industry that know much more about "working the media" to build their desired image than they do about actual hacking and hacking prevention.
I don't deny that the press loves to talk up the "high profile" black-hat hackers as more of a threat than they really are. Perhaps it's par for the course though - as the "white hats" seem to do the same thing for their security businesses and consultancies.
Also IMHO, any company with a well-trained I.T. staff should be able to do a reasonable job of securing their systems without spending money on some "security specialist". Most people in this job role have lots of expensive certifications (Cisco CCIE, etc.) - but when you look at the bottom line, they're just being paid to be the "fall guy" if something gets hacked.
In corporate America, your biggest security issues are co-workers sharing passwords, writing them down so they can remember them, using weak passwords that are easily guessable, never changing passwords (or when forced, rotating between the same 2 or 3 passwords every time), and disgruntled workers taking advantage of the security clearances you gave them so they could do their job to begin with.
The overpaid "security specialist" can sit there all day long and play with firewall configs and new encryption keys for VPN authentication, but 99% of the time, the problems are much more basic.
Sure, we all typically find common file formats useful.... I don't think there's much question of that. Fact is though, software companies will *always* invent proprietary file formats. For starters, they may wish to offer functionality that the competition doesn't yet offer. By using some "common file format", they might lose the ability to build the new features into the saved files.
.GIF, .JPG, .BMP, .TIFF or many other formats. You don't have to use Adobe's proprietary .PSD format. Same with the MS Office products. People can save their documents as ASCII text if they want, or a multitude of other formats (like WordPerfect). Not only that, but MS does offer freely downloadable document viewers for their Access databases, Excel spreadsheets, and Word documents. Someone running Windows (or likely even WINE in Linux) could at least view what they get in email with one of those viewer utilities - without spending another dime to license Office itself.
In my experience, the most commonly-used packages always provide alternatives. In Photoshop, for example, you can save your file as
The argument that a company is "required to buy MS software because another company uses it" just doesn't seem to hold a lot of water.
Well, after browsing his web site - I sure won't be signing up as a "member" of his political platform on software.
While much of what he says is fine, I take issue with the idea that there should be some sort of political pressure placed on any software firm to "avoid lock-in type licensing agreements".
Part of being a free country is allowing people to put together whatever type of sales contract they please. As it has been pointed out so many times before, nobody is placing a gun to the heads of I.T. purchasers, saying "Sign up on these terms, or else!" Vendors willfully agree to Micrsoft's "lock-in" agreements because they think the value for the dollar is there.
The proper way to fight these types of agreements is to offer competitive and compelling alternatives! As much as most of us here love Linux and other Unix OS's, they've not usually been compelling enough to home PC workstation vendors to choose them over Microsoft's offerings. Instead of taking a "sour grapes" attitude about this situation, it's much more productive to accept this fact and keep working on improving the alternatives.
Think: Less legislation and more innovation!
Exactly.... and that's my single biggest complaint about an otherwise outstanding game.
You'd think the auto makers would have learned from the gaming fiasco with hockey games. (The NHL didn't want to "promote violence" in hockey, so they didn't allow using official players and logos in the EA Sports games unless they removed the ability for players to start fights. That lasted a year or two, until gamers rebelled... Fights are a big part of the fun!)
Everyone knows that your car gets damaged when you ram into another car or a wall at high speed. If the damage is equal across all the vehicles in the game, that's also quickly obvious. People aren't going to really say "Wow, I didn't know that Toyota sucked so bad in accidents! Guess I don't want one after all!" after playing Gran Turismo.
You seem quite focused on debunking Libertarian politics as unworkable.
On the contrary, the only real problem I see with the Libertarian party is the number of clueless people who profess to believe in it, yet don't really understand it. (This, of course, happens constantly with the Republican and Democratic parties too. I guess it just makes it easier to single out thoughtless comments when the party in question has a small minority of constituents.)
Regarding your specific questions about Enron and Libertarian beliefs on handling fraud:
I truly believe much of the corporate fraud (a la Enron) we see today is enabled and encouraged by our current state of government. They built this monster themselves with endless legal regulations (and loopholes), and then try to play the hero when they enact new legislation (or enforce current legislation) to halt it after the fact.
Certainly, Enron's C.E.O. should be punished. I've never met a Libertarian who believed fraudulent business practices were acceptable. (At its core, Libertarianism can pretty much be watered down to one basic concept. You should have the right and freedom to do whatever you like, *as long as it doesn't infringe on another person's right and freedom to do the same*.)
The more legal "fine print" you introduce into a system, the more opportunity arises for a crafy individual (or in these recent Enron-style cases, accounting firm) to doctor records and make things appear on the "up and up".
The most useful tool in the hands of the individual attempting to defraud another is confusion. Even in the case of the street con who challenges people to "guess which cup the ball is under" or to play a card game with him for money, he's only able to cheat people because they can't understand how his scheme works.
Government red-tape makes the perfect blanket to hide fraudulent business practices under.
Wouldn't it be an "ex post facto" law, if it tried to regulate existing coasters, anyway?
I think the point is, they want to put some kind of cap on the g-force limits, to ensure the next generation or two of coasters doesn't exceed it.
New roller coasters keep increasing their speeds and drops/number of loops.
In any case, I'm not big on the whole concept of lawmakers attempting to legislate safety. If the amusement parks created a ride that really was reaching the point of being unsafe, they'd get hammered with lawsuits and forced to remove the ride in question. These problems sort themselves out, without the need of specific laws written up in advance, based on someone's guesstimate of what the limits of "safety" are.
IMHO, people paying to ride "thrill rides" aren't overly concerned about "safety risks" in the first place - or else they'd be more hesitant to place their lives in the hands of the amusement parks. For example, it's not really a big secret that the Six Flags over Mid America located outside St. Louis, Missouri isn't doing spectacularly well, financially. Are you sure that all those low-paid teenage workers are doing everything they can to ensure safety? Is all the proper maintenance being done on those rides? Maybe it is, today, but how about tomorrow? Can you say for certain? Six Flags certainly has a track record of killing at least 1 or 2 visitors every year or two....
I see this as a complete non-issue. Both environments tout their flexibility in configuration, right? Well, here you have a vendor (RedHat) making full use of that. How often can a GUI perfectly emulate a competing GUI on any platform? Look at all the half-baked attempts to turn Windows GUI into a simulation of someone else's favorite user interface.
If they managed to make Gnome and KDE work and look identical, I'd say that speaks volumes about the power of both GUIs to allow custom configuration.
Surely, any Linux "power user" that is primarily concerned with not being "tied down" to a single vendor's idea of "optimal user-interface" is capable of re-configuring KDE or Gnome to suit their tastes?
This is just sort of a side-note, but I noticed there's a project underway to give GPS capabilities to the Empeg Car/Rio MP3 Car players out there.
Once again though, the lack of good quality GPS tools and maps for Linux is sort of a stumbling block.
I've been playing with GPS stuff for years now - and I agree with the assertion that DeLorme's Street Atlas USA has the best. Unfortunately, I never cared much for some aspects of their interface. It's just that the maps themselves look the best, and it seems to track your position on the streets quite well. The biggest problems I saw in the product were related to ease of locating specific addresses or locations, so you could mark them as start or end points in a complete route.
Right now, I have a Clarion AutoPC in my car, and I'm using the 3rd. party Odyssey GPS package with it. The map data it uses is quite good, but the AutoPC itself doesn't have a fast enough CPU in it. It always lags behind where your car really is. It shows you coming up on an intersection just after you've driven past it. Quite annoying.
Umm... doesn't this depend on how the communication is initiated? EG. My firewall prevents me from hosting UT games, unless I open up specific ports for it - but I can play UT over the net with anyone without opening up anything special.
If the worm talks on UDP port 2002 only after doing some sort of initial setup through a commonly open port (like port 80), wouldn't that be possible with most people's firewall config?
I know you're just trying to troll here.... But just for the record, my biggest concern/headache/worry with my own Apache server running on Linux is the Microsoft code I have to run on it.
I need the FrontPage server extensions on it, and MS did a notoriously poor job of development on those for Unix. A perfectly secure Apache server can be rendered "full of security holes" by using their add-in.
In fact, I've found at least two different independent projects to rewrite the mod_frontpage module to make it more secure. One such project's results seem to have problems of their own. (I saw bugtrak reports of it having a buffer overflow exploit in it - and it looks like its author never bothered to work on the project again since that time.) The other (newer) project on Sourceforge looks more promising - but I was unable to get it working properly on my particular RedHat 7.3 server.
I'm not a "zealot" proclaiming Linux is inherently "better" than anything Microsoft has done or will do. IMHO, Linux certainly doesn't have the workstation desktop solution of choice yet. On the other hand, Microsoft's track record speaks volumes about their ability to provide secure sever products. They can't! When you hear about the latest worm or virus attacking Windows, you say "Oh boy, here we go again!" When it happens for Linux, it's big news. There's a reason for that....
I keep forgetting to ask about this, since it's not a particularly *high* priority item on my agenda -- but....
Has anyone actually had any luck getting an Epson ES-600C flatbed scanner working with SANE?
I own one of these old (circa 1996 or so?) beasts, and although it's a high quality unit - it uses a parallel port. Epson no longer supports it under Windows XP or 2000, but I noticed it shows up on the SANE scanner compatibility list.
Whenever I've fired up SANE in RedHat 7.2 or 7.3 though, it reports it can't detect any usable devices, even when I verify that it's attached to my LPT1 port and is powered up.
(Apparently, Epson actually sold an internal board for a short time that converted the ES-600C to SCSI. Sure wish I had that option board, but it's all but impossible to locate now. I even called the Epson parts supply house, but they said it has long since been discontinued. I hope the people adding the ES-600C to the SANE compat. list weren't just trying a SCSI version instead of the parallel port model?)
Honestly, despite all the hype over the "mind-blowing special effects" in Attack of the Clones - I also saw a few really poor quality scenes.
EG. When that "stamper" in the factory was about to crush the droids on the conveyor belt, it looked like the characters were overlaid on top of a backdrop. (Same cheezy stuff you see on those late-night commercials where they want to make it look like a guy is flying, so they have him stand in front of a bluescreen and replace the blue with a photo of the city skyline.)
The movie had sort of a "cut and paste" feel to it. Some scenes (AKA. Yoda saber fight) were top-notch, but they went up against scenes where everything looked too computer-generated and "fake". In the battle scenes with many characters on the ground, I got the feel that they took scenes from Jurassic Park and replaced the dinosaurs with Star Wars creatures.
Why would I want to see this patchwork zoomed up on an IMAX screen, where the flaws become even more apparent?
I daresay that the ultimate magnet for those of "weak character" is politics, not banking!
In any case, I don't really see much evidence of govt. loosening their grip on financial regulation. They're busy adding new restrictions to what the online stock trading businesses can and can't do, for example. (eTrade just got in trouble for one of their business practices a few weeks ago.)
I don't have a problem with federal govt. doing what they're constitutionally bound to do when it comes to maintaining the federal reserve and minting currency. I just see an awful lot of red tape of very questionable value when it comes to such things as computerizing the banking industry and electronic funds transfers/payments.
The bottom line: If I have cash, I can carry it, store it, loan it, or give it away to anyone I please with no restrictions. If that same cash becomes an electronic number in a computer (instead of a physical piece of paper), all of a sudden it's 1000 times more confusing and convoluted.
Good for you! I'm glad to hear you were successful in winning your case. Now you have me curious though.... I have no idea what the filing fees are for my county. I'm also wondering how you managed to track down enough information on the company soliciting you to bring them to court?
I've had several illegal telemarketing calls from those automated dialers that play a recording - but my caller ID box typically shows a bogus number. (Often, it shows the name and a number for a company that manufactured the dialers!) I guess I could "play along" and leave my info at the beep, hoping I could pry the info out of whoever calls me back trying to complete the sale.... but I haven't gone that far yet.
Hmm.... someone modded your post as a troll, but I changed it to "insightful" myself.
Why? Because you, unlike many of these people, get the point!
Federal govt. has governed everything related to banking or investing with an iron grip... one that tightens over time and strangles innovation.
PayPal is most certainly *not* a "loan shark" or anything of that nature. A number of people are pissed off because they didn't pay attention to the terms of service that were spelled out on PayPal's site.
Granted, the courts *may* find that they need to take a little more initiative in stopping fraud - but that's a far cry from the people on sites like "paypalsucks" who seem to want the entire service shut down as "illegal".
Ever since I started using PayPal, I kept the thought in the back of my head that it's not wise to keep large amounts of money in a PayPal account. Unlike a traditional bank, they choose to offer you a potentially higher rate of return (interest), at the "expense" of not being FDIC insured. PayPal has always positioned itself as an extremely convenient money transfer system; not another "online bank". (Among other things, they don't offer home equity or personal loans.) It's a "work around" for individuals and small business owners who want to accept credit card payments without having their own merchant account. It's also an alternative to giving a teenager/college student a regular debit/credit card for "emergency cash". A parent can deposit an exact amount in a PayPal account, give the youngster a PayPal VISA card, and effectively control and monitor their usage of the funds. (If the student spends money, it shows up on PayPal's site as soon as it happens. That sure beats my bank, which only seems to post updates once every morning.)
In fact, I dare say that if it wasn't for the advent of PayPal, traditional banks would not have gotten the much-needed "kick in the pants" to modernize their web sites. Online bill-pay for checking accounts is now more of a standard than an exception - and I think it took something like PayPal to get us there.
Thanks for writing about your recent experiences with HP! I'd have to say I had similar suspicions about their products over the last few years - and this was even before talks of the merger began.
Traditionally, I always recommended HP for anyone buying a laser printer, and almost always for a networked inkjet. (I never thought their inkjets matched Epson's ability to print near-photo quality images - but Epson's print drivers can really bog down a network print server.)
Nowdays, I have to really re-think that.
A while back, I had problems with a Deskjet 1600C that died - and was met with endless frustration getting it repaired. (Despite this being originally a $1400+ business-class inkjet with optional paper tray, HP acted like it was disposable - and couldn't understand why we wanted to fix it instead of just buying a newer model.) HP refused to sell the repair parts needed, and insisted that we ship it in for repair.
In another case, we bought several HP Laserjet 6L printers, all of which developed problems jamming when feeding paper. After over a year of putting up with this problem, HP *finally* acknowledged it as a design defect and offered to ship customers a "repair kit". When I got the "repair kit", it turns out it was simply a piece of cardboard with a double-sided block of sticky foam on the end. You were supposed to use the cardboard to shove the sticky foam down inside the printer, so it would stick to a part beneath the vertically stacked pieces of paper. That way, it was again able to "grab" sheets without trying to suck in too many at once and jam up.
Granted, this work-around did cure our problem - but it's obviously not going to be a permanent fix. HP screwed up and used a rubber material that got hard over time and lost its "tacky" characteristic needed to grab paper. They should have supplied a substitute part for the defective one - not a stick-on-top band-aid fix.
Some of you people scare/worry me.
Please don't group me in your questionable category of "most of us" who feel that our responsibilities "begin and end" with "our families' health and well-being", not even coming near our concerns of whether something is "morally right or not".
I have a wife, a 5 month old daughter, and a pet cat - so I think I'm qualified to speak on this subject.
There were times when we didn't have any money left for food, and there were no groceries left in the house. We went to the local churches and asked for some help. Sure, some of the "food pantry" food they gave us wasn't the best - but it got us by.
I suppose if I didn't think morality had anything to do with the situation - it would have been the more logical and smarter alternative to just rob a store, right? After all, I would have had to go through much less effort, and could have gotten exactly what my family needed....
I think everything has to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. Of course, your family comes first, but that doesn't give you "carte blanche" to run around doing anything you damn well please to solve your problems. This is much like that age-old question of whether or not someone should be punished for stealing "a turkey from a supermarket" when they're homeless and broke, and have nothing to eat.
(I say absolutely yes, they should, if they're caught. Doing anything less would cause a serious breakdown in the entire concept of law, which by nature is supposed to act without prejudice.)
Granted, most things in life are far from being "black and white". There are many shades of grey. EG. Someone in that dire need of food might happen to have friends working at the store that allow them to easily steal the turkey and not get caught. Should the person still try it, knowing they have an "insider" who is willing to fake ringing up the sale to let it pass through? (Honestly, I'd probably say yes; they now have a situation where their level of risk of being caught/punished is greatly reduced, and there is a strong likelihood they need the item more than the store needs it. Perhaps most importantly, someone else is supporting their actions. They're not just acting alone in a "damn the consequences, I want what I want" frame of mind.)
One has to access all of their options and weigh the possible outcomes of their actions before acting. It's easy to say "It's my life vs. theirs!" - but does it have to be? That's a "last resort" mentality, and you probably have no business being there mentally, if you're simply concerned with feeding a family. There are so many assistance programs out there, ways and means to earn a few bucks working at "day labor" type centers, or even asking friends and relatives for a helping hand.
Back around 1993, I was a guitarist in a local band put together by an older friend of mine - who was aspiring to be a musical success for at least 10 years before I met him.
He had written literally hundreds of songs, and from the sound of his old cassettes, had a pretty good band together for a little while in Chicago.
Anyway, the only "marketing" we did was an investment in flyers and a couple batches of t-shirts with cool artwork on them - plus mailing tapes to any underground paper or local newspaper that would accept them for review.
The rest was just plain old "word of mouth". The most effective thing we did was playing for free at house parties. Pass the word around that there's a kegger at such-and-such a house on Sat. night - and collect "donations" for the beer at the door when people get there.
After a year or so, we developed a following of fans/groupies. Did we ever make any money from it? No, not at all... but it was a lot of fun, and I'm really glad we did it.
I think it *could* have become serious, but if you don't have money to sell yourselves (or cater to a record label who will provide that funding), you just have to do it the hard way. That is, win over fans one at a time - until you've built up a "critical mass" of fans.
Basically, I think the trick is, get a day job - but don't lose track of your long-term goals. Keep playing gigs. Above all, keep writing your own stuff and putting it out there. I see bands in this area that are musically very talented, but they keep playing everyone else's stuff. Sure, the dance party/nightclub crowds love hearing that - but in the end, the credit keeps going to the original writers of the songs, *not* to you! That's no way to become any more successful than what you earn playing those weekend nightclub gigs.
Keep on doing whatever it is that makes your fans like you. Rinse, repeat!
Yes, thanks for posting that!
I absolutely agree. A name is simply a way to refer to a person with minimum confusion.
When you enter the "online world", you normally choose to carry on conversation under a "nick", "handle", or whatever you'd like to call it. It's every bit as customary as it is to give a child a first, middle, and last name when he/she is born. (Also, don't forget, these assumed names are picked out by each individual when they go online - so they do have meaning. Perhaps, they have more meaning to a person than their real name, which was assigned to them by their parents before they were old enough to have a say-so in it.)
When I used to go to regular "get-togethers" a local IRC channel organized, the only way we really put faces to the names was to call each other by the "nicks" we knew them as. Sure, eventually, you'd make an effort to learn their real names too. (After all, you're in the real world with them... not just behind a screen any longer, so it seems appropriate.) But ultimately, more people could always recite who was who by their nicks than by their real names.
It's sort of strange reading your message today, because I watched a health program on satellite last night that might be related.
They were talking about a genetic mutation that causes people to become taller than normal (Abe Lincoln suffered from it). They said about 1 out of every 3000 people has it, but most don't even realize they have it. The biggest problem with it is it causes a weakened aorta that can suddenly burst. (In the past, people didn't usually live past their 30's or 40's if they had this condition, for this reason.) The condition gets passed on from generation to generation, so people who know they have it can get regular checks at the doctor to make sure everything is still in good order.
They perform a surgery to replace 2 or 3 inches of the aorta with a vinyl substitute at the first sign of it stretching or expanding abnormally - and then the person can go on living a normal life.
While this will make another piece of "fun to quote" material for years to come - the admission of failing is little more than a marketing tactic.
Microsoft knows they've got the proverbial egg on their face because security holes keep popping up as fast as ever, despite their big "security initiative".
If you led a company like this, made a huge fanfare (and probably took a pretty big financial hit, too) by freezing production of all new code for a month, sent all your programmers to training on writing more secure code, and then got these results - you'd be expected to say something sensible too.
Microsoft's only other choices were to remain silent on it, or out-and-out lie, saying "We think our code has become more secure!". They'd get torn apart by the press if they made that claim. "Where's your proof? I count X number of security bulletins in Y number of days since your security initiative."
Admitting you don't have the problem under control is the best marketing move you can make under the circumstances. Corporate America will hopefully then say "Hey, these guys are being honest with me." and "They're smart enough to know that they need to try something else to get our problems solved."