I hate feeding trolls but..
If the rich and important minority screws over the majority then why is it that the rich pay much more in taxes than the majority?
There's a big difference between the licensing mechanism of what they include and the licensing mechanism of what they distribute.
GPl in => GPL out.
BSD in => Closed Source out, GPL out, BSD out.
Closed Source in => Closed Source out, GPL out, BSD out (provide they buy the rights to the software, not just license it)
SGI could include BSD code and are then free to release their own work as closed source, BSD or even GPL - as they wish.
Yes, there are many problems in Windows that are caused by extremely complex conditions that are extremely hard to detect or predict but there are also a lot that can be fixed by taking a good look at the code, running tools (not necessarily just compiler warnings) that will check for specific problem areas, etc. (read: areas where security bugs have been found in the past)
Be sure to word it strongly or you may not get a response. I ended up getting to the point where I was using curse words and basically spamming this address
... or you can just do the easy thing and go to the support page and enter a request to delete your account. (Just search for delete in the help section to learn how. )
But naaah, that's obviously too easy and non-contentious...
without even trying, anyone is able to sign up anybody else's e-mail account for a passport.
Have you even tried to do that? Anytime you register an email for a passport account, passport sends an email to the email address specified informing the user about the fact that the passport address was registered under that email address. So no, you can't hijack someone else's account unless you also have access to their email account.
An email address is not a security feature. The fact that I can register foo@bang.com as my passport ID means diddly squat (assuming there is no foo@bang.com) and is a great way to protect your privacy if you want to use passport features without revealing any personal information.
The original plan was to have Whistler followed by Blackcomb. When plans changed and they wanted to have a release in between the two, they decided to codename it Longhorn, which is the name of the saloon in between Whistler and Longhorn.
Re:Could be the saddest thing I have ever heard
on
EverQuest and the UN
·
· Score: 2
Rest easy. The article is based on quack economics. Further, it is 77th in per capita GDP, not net GDP. I have a per capita GDP greater than most countries - my income divided by 1.
Your roommate is an idiot, then. He can simply select Windows XP from Add/Remove Programs in the Control Panel and go back to whatever was on his computer before.
The problem has nothing to do with MSN. MSN is just an ISP and has no direct control over your line. It's Qwest and Qwest alone which can reprovision your line.
What a load of crap. Qwest sucks pure and simple. The problem at hand has nothing to do with Microsoft. Far be it from the average Slashdot reader to be able to distinguish it, though so I won't bother to explain.
Wrong. The switch only applies to customers currently using Qwest as the ISP. Essentially Qwest is getting out of the ISP business and automatically switching all users of Qwest the ISP to use MSN as the ISP.
It's no different than if you *selected* your local bell for your long distance phone service and they got out of doing that and switched you over to another service.
There is the fact, however, that Qwest sucks bigtime and it is virtually impossible to get out of it and change ISPs but that's a very generic problem with Qwest that has nothing to do with MSN. The last time I moved it took me 15 phone calls, including getting a lawyer involved and 28 days before my phone service was moved to my new address. (I did get a nice $450 credit on my account for my troubles, though which was nice).
The bottomline is that Qwest has just the most horrendous customer support network and information system imaginable. I suspect that's more because of incompetence than malice, though.
What morons moderated this post up? The sentence quoted states:
One existing specification, called Digital Transmission Content Protection (DTCP), defines a cryptographic protocol for safeguarding audio/video entertainment content against illegal copying, intercepting and tampering as it traverses high-performance digital buses, such as the IEEE1394 standard.
There are many palms to grease in DC. Eventually someone will rise up in Congress and ask that we brush aside this blight on the profits of such a fine company as Microsoft.
You mean like all those palms greased by Oracle, Sun, AOL, etc. which caused the original DoJ case in the first place?
The case of people who had Windoes pre-installed on their computers was already thrown out by the court (ruling that Microsoft did not engage in a sale directly to the customer).
These class-action lawsuits are on the behalf of people who went out and purchased a copy of Windows 98. They are on the basis of the findings of fact which stated that Microsoft could have charged $48, instead of $99 for Windows but was able to overcharge because it was a monopoly.
(Disclaimer: I think the tax on recordable media is stupid and completely unjustifiable - it is not the job of the government to compensate people for flawed business models)
Assuming that you can somehow justify paying a tax on recordable media, IIRC the way it works right now is that the copyright owners get a proportion of the money based on the sales of the particular records.
Records which are copy-protected should simply be removed from the equation and everything should continue the way it is. Why is this so hard?
There's a lot of folk on Slashdot who seem to have no clue about how international laws or politics work. Unfortunately that doesn't stop them from posting on here.
Virtually every international treaty is a voluntary agreement. Any country that doesn't like the provisions is free to quit. Don't like the WTO? Well, don't sign it. Don't bitch about other countries benefiting from it, though. Any country that feels a particular agreement is prejudicial to its interests is free to not accept it.
A world micro-government is precisely the wrong thing to do. There is no challenging the authority of such a government. There is nothing to prevent the more influential countries from ganging up to screw the others.
Look at things like the CTBT (Comprehensive (Nuclear) Test Ban Treaty) for example. Countries like India and Pakistan don't think that is fair to them because it allows countries like the US to keep their nukes while forcing them to give up theirs. So what do they do? They refuse to sign it!.
A world micro-government would force them to accept what (in their view) is an iniquitable solution.
There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the way things work right now. Yes, some countries are able to get more but that's only because they bring more to the table. And this is not about military power - I can't think of a time when a country was bombed because they didn't sign a trade treaty. This is about financial power. "You want access to the US's markets? Well, how much is that worth to you? What are you willing to give up for that access?" The only reason the US has more of a say in these affairs is because the other countries would rather let the US have the bigger say than drop out of the agreement.
Not quite. The director of the CIA is a presidentially appointed position that undergoes a similar ratification process as cabenet appointments and abassadors. The CIA director is in theory ultimitely responsible for all actions of the CIA.
Aaaaargh! You are an utter and complete moron. I will use as many of your words as possible and you should read this slowly so you understand.
The USTR is a presidentially appointed position that undergoes a similar ratification process as cabenet(sic) appointements(sic) and ambassadors. The USTR is in theory ultimately responsible for all actions of the USTR office (including the WTO representatives).
Anyway, you're skirting the issue: who from the US appoints US representatives to the WTO and by what process? Where are there checks or balances? Who is accountable? I don't think you can answer because this information is not publicly available. I imagine that even if you know, you're not allowed to tell.
You know what else is a corporate conspiracy? The CIA! There are no senate meetings or congress approval to appoint the individual agents in the CIA. It's gotto be a corporate conspiracy!
Or there is the logical conclusion that the secretary for trade is the one responsible for the decisions of who represents the US and the secretary is appointed by the president with the approval of the Senate and Congress - but that theory is so boring.
I have to take issue again. Were you there among the "majority of WTO protesters" or did you rely on (hostile) mainstream media coverage to make your assessment?
I live in Seattle. I have heard the stupid comments first hand from idiots trying to prove to me the WTO was evil and from the same morons in other forums like Slashdot. Clueless uninformed opinions. Vague hints of nebulous corporate conspiracies. You guys should really read some newspapers from other countries to get a clue what organizations like the WTO are. Too many idiots are journalists in this country.
Slashdot Mirror
Majority loses to the rich or important minority.
I hate feeding trolls but..
If the rich and important minority screws over the majority then why is it that the rich pay much more in taxes than the majority?
There's a big difference between the licensing mechanism of what they include and the licensing mechanism of what they distribute.
GPl in => GPL out.
BSD in => Closed Source out, GPL out, BSD out.
Closed Source in => Closed Source out, GPL out, BSD out (provide they buy the rights to the software, not just license it)
SGI could include BSD code and are then free to release their own work as closed source, BSD or even GPL - as they wish.
Buffer overruns
Buffer overruns
Buffer overruns
Yes, there are many problems in Windows that are caused by extremely complex conditions that are extremely hard to detect or predict but there are also a lot that can be fixed by taking a good look at the code, running tools (not necessarily just compiler warnings) that will check for specific problem areas, etc. (read: areas where security bugs have been found in the past)
Space Ice Cream. Yum! Ice Cream. Boring. Space Frisbee! Exciting! Frisbee
Personally, I prefer Space Cakes - the kind you find in stores in Amsterdam. Way cool, maan!
The largest problem in my mind with passport and its related .NET services is the dependance on username@hotmail.com.
Bzzzt! Wrong! You can register any email address (it doesn't even have to be a valid one) for a passport account.
How does such uninformed tripe get moderated up?
Be sure to word it strongly or you may not get a response. I ended up getting to the point where I was using curse words and basically spamming this address
... or you can just do the easy thing and go to the support page and enter a request to delete your account. (Just search for delete in the help section to learn how. )
But naaah, that's obviously too easy and non-contentious...
RTFM
without even trying, anyone is able to sign up anybody else's e-mail account for a passport.
Have you even tried to do that? Anytime you register an email for a passport account, passport sends an email to the email address specified informing the user about the fact that the passport address was registered under that email address. So no, you can't hijack someone else's account unless you also have access to their email account.
An email address is not a security feature. The fact that I can register foo@bang.com as my passport ID means diddly squat (assuming there is no foo@bang.com) and is a great way to protect your privacy if you want to use passport features without revealing any personal information.
The original plan was to have Whistler followed by Blackcomb. When plans changed and they wanted to have a release in between the two, they decided to codename it Longhorn, which is the name of the saloon in between Whistler and Longhorn.
Rest easy. The article is based on quack economics. Further, it is 77th in per capita GDP, not net GDP. I have a per capita GDP greater than most countries - my income divided by 1.
Your roommate is an idiot, then. He can simply select Windows XP from Add/Remove Programs in the Control Panel and go back to whatever was on his computer before.
If you upgrade to Windows XP, you can revert to the previous state by selecting Windows XP from Add/Remove Programs in the Control Panel.
I know this is a troll but I'm going to indulge you anyway.
BillG's house cost him $65 million. In the past couple years he has given away more than $15 BILLION.
Making more money is not going to help him build a bigger house - his house is as big as he possibly ever wants it to be.
Now go back under the rock, the sun is coming out.
The problem has nothing to do with MSN. MSN is just an ISP and has no direct control over your line. It's Qwest and Qwest alone which can reprovision your line.
What a load of crap. Qwest sucks pure and simple. The problem at hand has nothing to do with Microsoft. Far be it from the average Slashdot reader to be able to distinguish it, though so I won't bother to explain.
Wrong. The switch only applies to customers currently using Qwest as the ISP. Essentially Qwest is getting out of the ISP business and automatically switching all users of Qwest the ISP to use MSN as the ISP.
It's no different than if you *selected* your local bell for your long distance phone service and they got out of doing that and switched you over to another service.
There is the fact, however, that Qwest sucks bigtime and it is virtually impossible to get out of it and change ISPs but that's a very generic problem with Qwest that has nothing to do with MSN. The last time I moved it took me 15 phone calls, including getting a lawyer involved and 28 days before my phone service was moved to my new address. (I did get a nice $450 credit on my account for my troubles, though which was nice).
The bottomline is that Qwest has just the most horrendous customer support network and information system imaginable. I suspect that's more because of incompetence than malice, though.
Quit making stuff up. There isn't a single authoritative source anywhere that even suggests such a thing.
Wait, you're one of those idiots that believe in giant corporate conspiracies and that man never landed on the moon, right? Never mind then....
What the hell are you smoking? XP is not sold on a yearly-renewal license. XP's licensing scheme is no different from NT4s.
I guess the real reason XP is failing is because uninformed idiots like the parent poster are running the IT departments.
What morons moderated this post up? The sentence quoted states:
One existing specification, called Digital Transmission Content Protection (DTCP), defines a cryptographic protocol for safeguarding audio/video entertainment content against illegal copying, intercepting and tampering as it traverses high-performance digital buses, such as the IEEE1394 standard.
The post is not +4 Insightful but -1 Illiterate.
There are many palms to grease in DC. Eventually someone will rise up in Congress and ask that we brush aside this blight on the profits of such a fine company as Microsoft.
You mean like all those palms greased by Oracle, Sun, AOL, etc. which caused the original DoJ case in the first place?
The case of people who had Windoes pre-installed on their computers was already thrown out by the court (ruling that Microsoft did not engage in a sale directly to the customer).
These class-action lawsuits are on the behalf of people who went out and purchased a copy of Windows 98. They are on the basis of the findings of fact which stated that Microsoft could have charged $48, instead of $99 for Windows but was able to overcharge because it was a monopoly.
Unless M$ gets into the movile phone market,
You mean like Stinger?
(Disclaimer: I think the tax on recordable media is stupid and completely unjustifiable - it is not the job of the government to compensate people for flawed business models)
Assuming that you can somehow justify paying a tax on recordable media, IIRC the way it works right now is that the copyright owners get a proportion of the money based on the sales of the particular records.
Records which are copy-protected should simply be removed from the equation and everything should continue the way it is. Why is this so hard?
There's a lot of folk on Slashdot who seem to have no clue about how international laws or politics work. Unfortunately that doesn't stop them from posting on here.
Virtually every international treaty is a voluntary agreement. Any country that doesn't like the provisions is free to quit. Don't like the WTO? Well, don't sign it. Don't bitch about other countries benefiting from it, though. Any country that feels a particular agreement is prejudicial to its interests is free to not accept it.
A world micro-government is precisely the wrong thing to do. There is no challenging the authority of such a government. There is nothing to prevent the more influential countries from ganging up to screw the others.
Look at things like the CTBT (Comprehensive (Nuclear) Test Ban Treaty) for example. Countries like India and Pakistan don't think that is fair to them because it allows countries like the US to keep their nukes while forcing them to give up theirs. So what do they do? They refuse to sign it!.
A world micro-government would force them to accept what (in their view) is an iniquitable solution.
There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the way things work right now. Yes, some countries are able to get more but that's only because they bring more to the table. And this is not about military power - I can't think of a time when a country was bombed because they didn't sign a trade treaty. This is about financial power. "You want access to the US's markets? Well, how much is that worth to you? What are you willing to give up for that access?" The only reason the US has more of a say in these affairs is because the other countries would rather let the US have the bigger say than drop out of the agreement.
Nothing is broken. Move along.
Not quite. The director of the CIA is a presidentially appointed position that undergoes a similar ratification process as cabenet appointments and abassadors. The CIA director is in theory ultimitely responsible for all actions of the CIA.
Aaaaargh! You are an utter and complete moron. I will use as many of your words as possible and you should read this slowly so you understand.
The USTR is a presidentially appointed position that undergoes a similar ratification process as cabenet(sic) appointements(sic) and ambassadors. The USTR is in theory ultimately responsible for all actions of the USTR office (including the WTO representatives).
Anyway, you're skirting the issue: who from the US appoints US representatives to the WTO and by what process? Where are there checks or balances? Who is accountable? I don't think you can answer because this information is not publicly available. I imagine that even if you know, you're not allowed to tell.
You're right! It's a big evil conspiracy! Posting links to the US Trade Representatives websites will immediately bring the secret police to your door. Deep links to the USTR WTO website are expressly prohibited! In fact everything is so hidden that if you search for "US representative WTO" on google you get nothing at all!
You know what else is a corporate conspiracy? The CIA! There are no senate meetings or congress approval to appoint the individual agents in the CIA. It's gotto be a corporate conspiracy!
Or there is the logical conclusion that the secretary for trade is the one responsible for the decisions of who represents the US and the secretary is appointed by the president with the approval of the Senate and Congress - but that theory is so boring.
I have to take issue again. Were you there among the "majority of WTO protesters" or did you rely on (hostile) mainstream media coverage to make your assessment?
I live in Seattle. I have heard the stupid comments first hand from idiots trying to prove to me the WTO was evil and from the same morons in other forums like Slashdot. Clueless uninformed opinions. Vague hints of nebulous corporate conspiracies. You guys should really read some newspapers from other countries to get a clue what organizations like the WTO are. Too many idiots are journalists in this country.