Why would that you consider that data to be encrypted? Encryption implies purposeful obfuscation of the data (purposfully making it unreadable to a Windows machine, to continue your example). Usage of another filesystem is hardly an attempt to make it unreadable on a Windows box, merely usage of either the default recommended filesystem for your operating system or usage of a filesystem that performs well. The unreadability is merely a side effect.
Actually, I think what we are seeing is Microsoft adapting to the market place. Microsoft is at a point that they haven't been in for at least 10 to 15 years; competition that they view as either currently or potentially viable as a replacement for their product, and consumer/corporate reaction to the marketplace. It started mainly with Firefox. It was a popular 3rd party product that has been steadily gaining marketshare on their product (IE) since it's creation, and has for the most part been resistant to their reactionary responses (IE 7). Now, we have a major system builder that is selling systems with a competing product on them, aimed potentially at their markets (Dell/Ubuntu), seemingly as a result of consumer outcry for a NON-Microsoft option (although, considering how this behavior predates Ideastorm, I would be willing to bet that Dell and Shuttleworth were talking way before then, and that Shuttleworth might be talking to other major vendors as well). Microsoft is suddenly faced with the possibility that their product won't be the de facto standard that people become used to. This isn't about "lets kill the competition" or "lets weaken the competition," it is about Microsoft working to keep themselves profitable (not to say that they are not now, just to say that they are concerned about future profits and are attempting to secure those). Honestly, there is no threat of Microsoft suing anyone for patent infringement. However, they are still the 800lb gorilla, and CEOs are more knowledgeable about Microsoft PR then the fact of the matter. These patent agreements aren't anything odd, or unprecedented for Microsoft. All they are doing is expanding into yet another line of business (same as with the Xbox devision, or their myriad of other product divisions) and trying to set themselves up for what they think might happen 10-20 years from now. Plus, with this deal, they get to continue their standard line of business as well (their defaults on prebuilt machines).
I just did a Google search on my name, and although I have never made any online screwups, my first name is listed as being associated with an Italian spammer. At one point, my name was randomly associated with a load of porn sites. No, I don't have a common name. The sad thing is not the longevity of your screwups on the net. It is the longevity of the screwups that you didn't make, but that are associated with your name, that is truly sad. Especially since many of those things screwups that you didn't make are very hard to disprove (say, a blog by someone that has your name, that doesn't list a location, that happens to speak a lot about going out, getting drunk, partying, and many other acts that a company might disapprove of, but could be hard for you to personally disprove because of vagueness in the original writing).
I am not going to type out a long response as to why it still costs the government money, because I don't have the time, but even assuming that, we are still left with all of the other points I made.
Junkmail wastes my time. It wastes the post offices time, it wastes space in my mailbox, it costs the government money, and junkmail has a greater environmental impact than email. With snail mail, the junk mailer pays for the mail, in the same way that everyone else pays for the mail. With email, the mass mailer (in many cases, spammer) shouldn't pay, because there is no cost for anyone else to send an email. Not all spam promotes botnets, viruses, and spyware, in the same way that not all spam or snailmail promotes scams that rip people off for hundreds of thousands of dollars. They aren't disrupting the email system, because they are using it essentially how it was meant to be used. They are, however, disrupting the system as the user sees it, but I am sure that it was the same way originally with junkmail as well. 90% would be a 9:1 ratio. And not agreeing with the use of Goodmail is hardly forgetting how "clean" smells, just believing that it is just as dirty.
What strips them of their protection (to use your words) is the fact that while they might not be directly employed by the public, they are employees of the government, which is created by the public, and they themselves have powers beyond those of the average citizen which, depending on the situation, can either allow them to ask someone to not do something, to arrest someone, or to shoot and kill someone. These are powers the average citizen does not truly legally have (save for the first). While most police are decent, honest people, there are those out there who are far from those qualities. The public pays taxes that eventually pay these people. Even though they are not directly employed by them, the public has the right to assure that their money is being spent correctly, and to ensure that the police are not abusing their powers. Essentially, it is another form of oversight. It is public oversight, which the police SHOULD NOT have any control over. Otherwise, the only other oversight we are left up which is oversight by the very people you are monitoring, and, while most are decent and honest people, it isn't hard to believe that one crooked cop might lose a tape or other record or piece of evidence, to help another crooked cop get off or convict someone unduly. As has been stated on this thread already, we need more private citizens filming cops.
The game you are describing sounds like gizmos and gadgets. At one point in my elementary career, there were so many user profiles created that I had to go through and delete most of them randomly to be able to play. Then the teacher yelled at me...ok, I am done.
...the reasoning behind the provision about expiration? I understand how someone could think that keeping copies of all documents is a good idea (assuming someone who has the technical literacy of a lamp post, AKA avg. govt. worker) but I honestly don't understand where the expiration provision would come from.
If you have speech and hearing impediments, then can you explain what features Gtalk and Pidgin are missing that make them worthless to you, as both support actual text chat?
See, that is what I don't understand about anything electronic that doesn't actually have you write your signature to say "I Agree" and then expects you to in some way be legally bound by it. If the guys computer had not been messed up, then how do they know that he actually agreed to it? How do they not know that he had the kid from down the street come to his house and set it up for him, and like any half-sane person, just clicked OK on the EULA before the guy even saw it since the guy would have to do that anyway? Honestly, where do companies get off thinking that they have the right to enforce anything in that manner? Unless they can very specifically prove that someone was the person who accepted the EULA, then how does it have any power?
I wouldn't. Gaim supports so many more protocols than Trillian does (although Trillian does have a nicer UI). However, I don't like the idea of forking out $25 for the ability to use gtalk.
See, though, nobody here is saying that there aren't dangers on the internet. People here are really irritated by three things about this. First of all, is the fact that it is worded in a very alarmist manner by people who for the most part haven't the first clue what they are talking about, as opposed to a rationally thought out piece of legislation that could potentially actually cause some good written by someone who knows what they are doing. Second is that this bit of saber rattling by our wonderful duly elected congress critters is a possible sign of further idiocy to come aimed in this direction. Third, are the number of companies that will use this to sell their own software to families, and the number of parents who won't see them as part of the solution to regulating their child's online activity, but as the entire solution.
Hmm. I introduced my little sister to Linux when she was six. She herself has used XP and Linux (Ubuntu, specifically) and from what I have seen has a very strong preference for Ubuntu.
Why is it Valve's job to make sure that the end user is using the latest graphics driver? How do you know that the user using the old driver isn't intentional (say, the new driver(s) happen to break some application or other or cause some odd instability in their system)? And what does it do if it knows what card you are running, but can't ID the driver (which could very well happen if you are running third party drivers)?
Yeah, that might be related to the fact that they still haven't hit the mystical 1.0 release yet (and unlike a lot of other open source software that is rock solid and amazingly fully featured before 1.0, Democracy needs it).
No idea what version of Windows you have been using, but all the versions I have used (9x and NT based) are still way too crash happy with the desktop for my preferences. Yeah, the invulnerability of Linux apps doesn't quite translate to the desktop stuff, but overall, there are still far fewer crashes with Linux (including the desktop environments) than there are with Windows.
Nobody has a problem paying for what they use. However, plans here in the US generally aren't sold as "x amount of data per month, then y amount of money for every z amount of data over x" but as "unlimited bandwidth until you stop paying us." Actually, I don't know of any broadband service (here broadband being defined as cable/dsl, since those two are the ones that a consumer is most likely to use) that advertises "x amount of data per month, then y amount of money for every z amount of data over x." The companies here in the states have severely screwed themselves. If they actually begin advertising "x amount of data per month, then y amount of money for every z amount of data over x," then there will be consumer outcry, because before they thought were getting "unlimited bandwidth." Even if they actually weren't, they thought they were. Of course, this leads to the whole net neutrality thing, but really the telcos here want to get more money out of the government (supposedly to build new lines, although they have received such money countless times before and nothing got built) and to legally have more control over what goes over their lines, with the obvious orwellian implications that may have.
They aren't crucial in every situation, however in this one they are. Gamers are much more likely to be the relatively geeky types who have relatively geeky jobs doing relatively geeky things and making relatively geeky decisions for large masses of people. Many of those relatively geeky people with relatively geeky jobs making relatively geeky decisions for large masses of people use Windows because their games work in it, so they spend their time using/learning/tweaking/promoting Windows. However, if said relatively geeky people with relatively geeky jobs making relatively geeky decisions for large masses of people were linux users (which will happen if/when the games start rolling in) then they will spend their time using/learning/tweaking/promoting linux. The problem with LINA is it provides no incentive for development to further areas where linux itself needs to advance, all it does is promote development to areas that are traditionally linux strongpoints while at the same time removing incentive for Windows/Mac/Operating System Whatever to use linux while at the same time essentially placing a penalty on linux because using linux means that for the most part you won't be able to run programs from Windows/Mac/Operating System Whatever in a reliable fashion without some performance penalty.
Ballmer. The last one is for him so that he can properly gauge how far he can throw it, most lethal angles, etc, for when they start losing significant sales to linux boxxen.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would that you consider that data to be encrypted? Encryption implies purposeful obfuscation of the data (purposfully making it unreadable to a Windows machine, to continue your example). Usage of another filesystem is hardly an attempt to make it unreadable on a Windows box, merely usage of either the default recommended filesystem for your operating system or usage of a filesystem that performs well. The unreadability is merely a side effect.
Actually, I think what we are seeing is Microsoft adapting to the market place. Microsoft is at a point that they haven't been in for at least 10 to 15 years; competition that they view as either currently or potentially viable as a replacement for their product, and consumer/corporate reaction to the marketplace. It started mainly with Firefox. It was a popular 3rd party product that has been steadily gaining marketshare on their product (IE) since it's creation, and has for the most part been resistant to their reactionary responses (IE 7). Now, we have a major system builder that is selling systems with a competing product on them, aimed potentially at their markets (Dell/Ubuntu), seemingly as a result of consumer outcry for a NON-Microsoft option (although, considering how this behavior predates Ideastorm, I would be willing to bet that Dell and Shuttleworth were talking way before then, and that Shuttleworth might be talking to other major vendors as well). Microsoft is suddenly faced with the possibility that their product won't be the de facto standard that people become used to. This isn't about "lets kill the competition" or "lets weaken the competition," it is about Microsoft working to keep themselves profitable (not to say that they are not now, just to say that they are concerned about future profits and are attempting to secure those). Honestly, there is no threat of Microsoft suing anyone for patent infringement. However, they are still the 800lb gorilla, and CEOs are more knowledgeable about Microsoft PR then the fact of the matter. These patent agreements aren't anything odd, or unprecedented for Microsoft. All they are doing is expanding into yet another line of business (same as with the Xbox devision, or their myriad of other product divisions) and trying to set themselves up for what they think might happen 10-20 years from now. Plus, with this deal, they get to continue their standard line of business as well (their defaults on prebuilt machines).
I just did a Google search on my name, and although I have never made any online screwups, my first name is listed as being associated with an Italian spammer. At one point, my name was randomly associated with a load of porn sites. No, I don't have a common name. The sad thing is not the longevity of your screwups on the net. It is the longevity of the screwups that you didn't make, but that are associated with your name, that is truly sad. Especially since many of those things screwups that you didn't make are very hard to disprove (say, a blog by someone that has your name, that doesn't list a location, that happens to speak a lot about going out, getting drunk, partying, and many other acts that a company might disapprove of, but could be hard for you to personally disprove because of vagueness in the original writing).
I am not going to type out a long response as to why it still costs the government money, because I don't have the time, but even assuming that, we are still left with all of the other points I made.
Junkmail wastes my time. It wastes the post offices time, it wastes space in my mailbox, it costs the government money, and junkmail has a greater environmental impact than email. With snail mail, the junk mailer pays for the mail, in the same way that everyone else pays for the mail. With email, the mass mailer (in many cases, spammer) shouldn't pay, because there is no cost for anyone else to send an email. Not all spam promotes botnets, viruses, and spyware, in the same way that not all spam or snailmail promotes scams that rip people off for hundreds of thousands of dollars. They aren't disrupting the email system, because they are using it essentially how it was meant to be used. They are, however, disrupting the system as the user sees it, but I am sure that it was the same way originally with junkmail as well. 90% would be a 9:1 ratio. And not agreeing with the use of Goodmail is hardly forgetting how "clean" smells, just believing that it is just as dirty.
What strips them of their protection (to use your words) is the fact that while they might not be directly employed by the public, they are employees of the government, which is created by the public, and they themselves have powers beyond those of the average citizen which, depending on the situation, can either allow them to ask someone to not do something, to arrest someone, or to shoot and kill someone. These are powers the average citizen does not truly legally have (save for the first). While most police are decent, honest people, there are those out there who are far from those qualities. The public pays taxes that eventually pay these people. Even though they are not directly employed by them, the public has the right to assure that their money is being spent correctly, and to ensure that the police are not abusing their powers. Essentially, it is another form of oversight. It is public oversight, which the police SHOULD NOT have any control over. Otherwise, the only other oversight we are left up which is oversight by the very people you are monitoring, and, while most are decent and honest people, it isn't hard to believe that one crooked cop might lose a tape or other record or piece of evidence, to help another crooked cop get off or convict someone unduly. As has been stated on this thread already, we need more private citizens filming cops.
Uhh, since 6.06 the livecds have wanted to have at least 256 megs of RAM. Before that, 128 was more than sufficient to pull up the live CD.
The game you are describing sounds like gizmos and gadgets. At one point in my elementary career, there were so many user profiles created that I had to go through and delete most of them randomly to be able to play. Then the teacher yelled at me...ok, I am done.
...the reasoning behind the provision about expiration? I understand how someone could think that keeping copies of all documents is a good idea (assuming someone who has the technical literacy of a lamp post, AKA avg. govt. worker) but I honestly don't understand where the expiration provision would come from.
...that a group based IN THE UK is giving anybody a grade on privacy, considering how much respect the government down there has for it.
If you have speech and hearing impediments, then can you explain what features Gtalk and Pidgin are missing that make them worthless to you, as both support actual text chat?
See, that is what I don't understand about anything electronic that doesn't actually have you write your signature to say "I Agree" and then expects you to in some way be legally bound by it. If the guys computer had not been messed up, then how do they know that he actually agreed to it? How do they not know that he had the kid from down the street come to his house and set it up for him, and like any half-sane person, just clicked OK on the EULA before the guy even saw it since the guy would have to do that anyway? Honestly, where do companies get off thinking that they have the right to enforce anything in that manner? Unless they can very specifically prove that someone was the person who accepted the EULA, then how does it have any power?
I wouldn't. Gaim supports so many more protocols than Trillian does (although Trillian does have a nicer UI). However, I don't like the idea of forking out $25 for the ability to use gtalk.
Actually, I'm surprised they didn't add the Ant Missions from right next to the funpark stuff.
Raiden. Nude. Sack. 'Nuff said.
See, though, nobody here is saying that there aren't dangers on the internet. People here are really irritated by three things about this. First of all, is the fact that it is worded in a very alarmist manner by people who for the most part haven't the first clue what they are talking about, as opposed to a rationally thought out piece of legislation that could potentially actually cause some good written by someone who knows what they are doing. Second is that this bit of saber rattling by our wonderful duly elected congress critters is a possible sign of further idiocy to come aimed in this direction. Third, are the number of companies that will use this to sell their own software to families, and the number of parents who won't see them as part of the solution to regulating their child's online activity, but as the entire solution.
Hmm. I introduced my little sister to Linux when she was six. She herself has used XP and Linux (Ubuntu, specifically) and from what I have seen has a very strong preference for Ubuntu.
Why is it Valve's job to make sure that the end user is using the latest graphics driver? How do you know that the user using the old driver isn't intentional (say, the new driver(s) happen to break some application or other or cause some odd instability in their system)? And what does it do if it knows what card you are running, but can't ID the driver (which could very well happen if you are running third party drivers)?
Yeah, that might be related to the fact that they still haven't hit the mystical 1.0 release yet (and unlike a lot of other open source software that is rock solid and amazingly fully featured before 1.0, Democracy needs it).
Opening a file isn't a common task?
No idea what version of Windows you have been using, but all the versions I have used (9x and NT based) are still way too crash happy with the desktop for my preferences. Yeah, the invulnerability of Linux apps doesn't quite translate to the desktop stuff, but overall, there are still far fewer crashes with Linux (including the desktop environments) than there are with Windows.
Nobody has a problem paying for what they use. However, plans here in the US generally aren't sold as "x amount of data per month, then y amount of money for every z amount of data over x" but as "unlimited bandwidth until you stop paying us." Actually, I don't know of any broadband service (here broadband being defined as cable/dsl, since those two are the ones that a consumer is most likely to use) that advertises "x amount of data per month, then y amount of money for every z amount of data over x." The companies here in the states have severely screwed themselves. If they actually begin advertising "x amount of data per month, then y amount of money for every z amount of data over x," then there will be consumer outcry, because before they thought were getting "unlimited bandwidth." Even if they actually weren't, they thought they were. Of course, this leads to the whole net neutrality thing, but really the telcos here want to get more money out of the government (supposedly to build new lines, although they have received such money countless times before and nothing got built) and to legally have more control over what goes over their lines, with the obvious orwellian implications that may have.
They aren't crucial in every situation, however in this one they are. Gamers are much more likely to be the relatively geeky types who have relatively geeky jobs doing relatively geeky things and making relatively geeky decisions for large masses of people. Many of those relatively geeky people with relatively geeky jobs making relatively geeky decisions for large masses of people use Windows because their games work in it, so they spend their time using/learning/tweaking/promoting Windows. However, if said relatively geeky people with relatively geeky jobs making relatively geeky decisions for large masses of people were linux users (which will happen if/when the games start rolling in) then they will spend their time using/learning/tweaking/promoting linux. The problem with LINA is it provides no incentive for development to further areas where linux itself needs to advance, all it does is promote development to areas that are traditionally linux strongpoints while at the same time removing incentive for Windows/Mac/Operating System Whatever to use linux while at the same time essentially placing a penalty on linux because using linux means that for the most part you won't be able to run programs from Windows/Mac/Operating System Whatever in a reliable fashion without some performance penalty.
Ballmer. The last one is for him so that he can properly gauge how far he can throw it, most lethal angles, etc, for when they start losing significant sales to linux boxxen.
Difference is that there is a cost for a license for those Operating Systems, whereas Ubuntu has no cost for a license for the OS.