I'm sure as most times I've missed the boat on this, but what are you referencing when you say that:
Vista will degrade audio that is "unsigned", meaning, created or put in place by software that hasn't got some kind of deal going with Microsoft.
I don't need counseling. I will just wait until that quest has gone green in my log and should be able to solo it. Unless it's an elite or dungeon quest, then I will just find a group.
So I keep reading comments on this and other related stories and I'm a bit confused. There are many analogies that if you play your music out onto the street if someone overhears are they stealing. Sure that makes sense as a valid analogy, in part. But isn't the theft in question the actual Internet connectivity? There is no analogous trait in the broadcasted music example. What the WAP is broadcasting is a wireless/radio signal.
The fact that you can utilize this two way communication over a broadcasted radio transmission is a separate entity. I would think that simply connecting to the WAP and talking directly to it, like checking out the configuration page most/all have is one thing. But once you cross the threshold to using the Internet connection it uses induces a whole new level of complexity that can't be ignored. I know for home networks in my area the WAP does not provide modulation and demodulation of the ISPs signal, so to me when you cross that bridge from WAP (which is open) to accessing the ISP modem you have crossed the threshold of free and open into private and paid.
So I guess the question stands in the instances of accessing "open" home networks. Is it right to access an Internet connection regardless of the means used to access it?
Perhaps you missed the "costing us billions of dollars a year to secure our systems" bit you quoted?
It was more to highlight that problems in any society cannot have the fault lain completely upon a certain group. The difficulty is that people cannot, in general, be trusted. As described in the many other replies to the article, we lock our doors at night, etc... To say that one group of miscreants embodies all the distrustful people is unrealistic. The problem lies at the heart of societal problems that generate other criminals, if not those of the more severe crimes mentioned.
So, if "hackers" didn't exists, or more correctly crackers, and our systems were left open without the billion dollar protection then anyone could access this information. So, then the distrustful people of the world that aren't the magical hackers could gain access to it. But no one would do that because that sort of deviant behavior is demonstrated by only those dastardly hackers
They're the ones who are costing us billions of dollars a year to secure our systems against them. They're the ones who place their desire for fun ahead of everyone on earth's desire for peace and the right to privacy.
Yes, because only hackers are the ones that can't be trusted. I guess that is why all the prisons are full of hackers not murderers, rapists, etc...
Under the law, Internet providers in Utah must provide their customers with a way to disable access to sites on the list or face felony charges.
How about holding the parents responsible for what their children do? Sounds like any ISP can easily put this process in place. Hmmm, parenting your own children anyone?
Slashdot Mirror
Because parenting your own children is so old fashioned.
Didn't find this the first couple passes of digging around, but I believe you were indicating this content: http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_c ost.txt
- from -
http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=2689 97
Thanks for the link. Posted a comment and guessing it will fail to get past the stage of "our comment is awaiting moderation."
But at least he can take comfort that their (Verizon's) math will be spot on.
http://consumerist.com/ The stances, as most forums, seem a bit zealous at times. But such a venue does indeed exist.
I don't need counseling. I will just wait until that quest has gone green in my log and should be able to solo it. Unless it's an elite or dungeon quest, then I will just find a group.
I've already had problems with my dog eating my cell. Why make him want to?
So I keep reading comments on this and other related stories and I'm a bit confused. There are many analogies that if you play your music out onto the street if someone overhears are they stealing. Sure that makes sense as a valid analogy, in part. But isn't the theft in question the actual Internet connectivity? There is no analogous trait in the broadcasted music example. What the WAP is broadcasting is a wireless/radio signal. The fact that you can utilize this two way communication over a broadcasted radio transmission is a separate entity. I would think that simply connecting to the WAP and talking directly to it, like checking out the configuration page most/all have is one thing. But once you cross the threshold to using the Internet connection it uses induces a whole new level of complexity that can't be ignored. I know for home networks in my area the WAP does not provide modulation and demodulation of the ISPs signal, so to me when you cross that bridge from WAP (which is open) to accessing the ISP modem you have crossed the threshold of free and open into private and paid. So I guess the question stands in the instances of accessing "open" home networks. Is it right to access an Internet connection regardless of the means used to access it?
Perhaps you missed the "costing us billions of dollars a year to secure our systems" bit you quoted?
It was more to highlight that problems in any society cannot have the fault lain completely upon a certain group. The difficulty is that people cannot, in general, be trusted. As described in the many other replies to the article, we lock our doors at night, etc... To say that one group of miscreants embodies all the distrustful people is unrealistic. The problem lies at the heart of societal problems that generate other criminals, if not those of the more severe crimes mentioned.
So, if "hackers" didn't exists, or more correctly crackers, and our systems were left open without the billion dollar protection then anyone could access this information. So, then the distrustful people of the world that aren't the magical hackers could gain access to it. But no one would do that because that sort of deviant behavior is demonstrated by only those dastardly hackers
They're the ones who are costing us billions of dollars a year to secure our systems against them. They're the ones who place their desire for fun ahead of everyone on earth's desire for peace and the right to privacy.
Yes, because only hackers are the ones that can't be trusted. I guess that is why all the prisons are full of hackers not murderers, rapists, etc...
Under the law, Internet providers in Utah must provide their customers with a way to disable access to sites on the list or face felony charges.
How about holding the parents responsible for what their children do? Sounds like any ISP can easily put this process in place. Hmmm, parenting your own children anyone?
will use hydrogen peroxide and kerosene as propellants. It will operate autonomously under control of on-board computers, with no ground control.
No problems what so ever. Sounds incredibly safe to me.
we could make it far easier for people who dislike pornography to block it out .
And easier for those that do to find it
Any halfway intelligent phisher It's the comedy that keeps me coming back to /.
Actually it first started out in Stranger in a Strange Land by . So I would wager the Heinlein was the first to grok grok.