Today's 2000-era generation thinks it's perfectly okay to tap into their neighbor's wireless internet, even though it's costing their neighbor extra money. Or google's SMS, even though it costs google thousands of dollars to support that overload.
While I don't disagree with your overall point there are some things I would like to point out.
Hopping onto an unsecured network is basically taking advantage of a free resource. This is basically like saying that while your playing your boombox, no one else should be able to listen. But you are too lazy to plug in your headphones. If the person the network belongs to won't take the 3 minutes to turn on wireless security then they shouldn't have the right to bitch when someone hops onto their network. They also shouldn't be surprised when they eventually become a victim of identity theft.
Same thing with Google. They opened up an API to allow people to send text messages for free. They didn't limit it, so why would people assume that it was supposed to be limited? It would be a VERY different case if someone had hacked the google API to allow unlimited texting. This is google's fault, not the person who wrote the app.
I think that people have the wrong idea about contracts. Contracts don't make it so you CAN'T do something, they just make it so there are possible consequences for it. If I signed a waiver and then posted about the doctor this merely (possibly) gives him the right to take legal action for it. But in that regard the damage is already done. As we have witnessed countless times, once something it out on the web, the harder you try to suppress it the more attention it attracts. It really boils down to do you think someone will act on the contract, and if so, how bad are the possible consequences.
I think part of the problem is the portability of software. I have pirated copies of things because I either lost the original media, damaged it beyond repair (yes, that IS my fault), or lost the Manual that the CD key is printed on.
So what happens then? Well you are basically screwed, ESPECIALLY if you lost your key. I personally find it ridiculous that I have to keep track of that in the first place.
The ability to replicate something infinity does take value away from it. AutoCAD is expensive because of the time spent building, integrating, and maintaining an awesomely powerful set of tools. By copying it, the value of the tool is reduced for the people that put the work and money into making it what it is.
Bullshit. The reason AutoCAD is expensive is because of the QUALITY of the product. They have a damn good product. They know it, and the people that fork out the money to buy it know it too. It doesn't decrease the selling value of it if they produce ten million copies versus 1 million.
If they drop features to make it faster than XP then everyone will bitch that it doesn't have those features.
People would in general, but I doubt they would here on Slashdot. A lean no-bullshit version of Windows that had much lower requirements would probably go down pretty well, doubly so if it were a lot cheaper.
I will sign off on that. I think that is why linux is popular amongst/. you can pick and choose what goes into your install
Why yes, I did consider that perhaps this OS is constantly informing Microsoft of everything I do, tracking my credit card purchases and reading my email - but are you telling me it's true?
Honestly I have little pity for this argument as most users will click on every "ZOMG YOU WON A BILLION DOLLARS IN THE MEXICAN LOTTERY", run no virus scanner, and fail at even the most basic security checks. Go find your tinfoil hat.
Seriously, computers are so fast nowadays that any OS that can noticeably slow down your computer due to overhead is probably extremely badly written, or doing all sorts of nasty things (like "trusted computing", or encrypting DRM related media to keep out out the the hands of those filthy terro^H^H^H hackers, perhaps?) that you probably wouldn't want it doing anyway.
I will give you that the DRM was a bad call. The problem with your argument is that people are comparing Windows 7 and XP on the SAME machine. Of course XP is going to be faster, it has way less than Windows 7 in features and functionality.
So I guess I am wondering why aren't you bitching that XP isn't as fast as Win 3.1? Or Dos? I am not saying that everything they put in their OS is good. What I AM saying is that people want more features with less overhead. You can optimize the HELL out of any software package and make the additional overhead from the features marginal but in the end adding more features = more overhead.
Let me preface this comment by stating that I am not a MS fanboy by any means. But I do have to say this about Windows 7:
Yea so Windows 7 isn't as fast as XP. Did anyone ever really consider the fact that it is a newer OS that is doing MORE than XP? The fact that it looks better, and does more than XP but still runs comparably fast as XP is a feat. If you are really that concerned about performance, why don't I see you using some type of DOS port? Or linux at the command line?
All I am saying is that MS is in a lose / lose battle when it comes to their OS. If they drop features to make it faster than XP then everyone will bitch that it doesn't have those features. But if they keep them in there, people will bitch because it isn't as fast as XP.
Seriously why doesn't the government hire the best of the worst to write programs like this? I mean look how fast the captcha was broken, among thousands of other security features. I bet that if there was some way to profit off of it, within a few weeks we would have a near bulletproof facial recognition software from the hacking community.
It seems that it only takes one person that is able to produce the desired result repeatedly. After that people stop arguing about if it can be done, and if so how to do it and actually start working on the problem.
There are tons of examples of this throughout history. Now that someone has actually made a superconductor, I would be willing to bet that sometime in the next 15 or so years we will see them in use. Perhaps widely in use.
I think there needs to be a distinction between an addiction and a problem. I think its fine to be addicted to something, as long as it is not a problem.
We all have our "addictions" but as long as we function as contributing members of society I say leave the addiction alone. It's when that addiction becomes a problem we have...well...a problem.
Plus, upgrading your firmware "just because". Why?
I can only imagine that with this attitude you are running Windows XP(pre SP1), and IE6 (no updates). Because installing updates "just because". Why?
In all seriousness though firmware updates are usually released for several reasons, here are two major ones:
Security updates(very important),
Bugs in the original firmware (less important but good to have).
Whatever fan you are using, they gather dust and get noisy over time. Some of my drives have started to whine as well, including rather new WD drives, which tend to be one of the most quiet drives around. Nothing that simple, unfortunately.
What type of fan are you using first off? Fluid dynamic, brushless, ball bearing? Each will affect the noise of the fan. As for them getting dirty, it's nothing that taking a q-tip and 5 minutess to clean them won't fix. If your too lazy to do that much, you won't have a computer for very long anyway.
It's funny, I have never heard anything about Western Digital being a leader in "quiet drives". Simply searching around seems to point that Seagate drives hold the gold when it comes to quiet drives.
I have personally owned probably 8-11 Seagate drives over the past 5 years and I have never once had a problem with noise on ANY of them.
the fans are the noisiest part of my computer, and always have been on any computer ive ever had. However i do occationally hear the click-click of the head moving, but never the whine of the platters, will this sort that out too?
ive seen another hard drive silencing technique elsewhere that's even cheaper, although possibly not quite as effective, which is simply to mount it with rubber bands in a 5.25" bay rather than screws.
http://www.spodesabode.com/archive/content/article/hddnoise
So buy some low decibel fans? You can get fans that are near noiseless and still move a decent amount of air. One simple solution is to simply move to a larger size fan as well. Either get a case that supports the bigger fans, or a hole saw.
120mm versus 80mm push a lot more air, at lower RPM and are thus are usually much quieter
Repeat after me: "The first line of security is physical."
Correct me if I am wrong here (I may be), but to further your point doesn't whole disk encryption protect you in ONLY the case that someone physically steals the hard drive? Thus rendering it useless unless you have a way to decrypt it.
It is, once you consider some people have dead keys. Typing "^^" can become wildly different depending on what OS you're using, and result in weird behavior.
Yes but we are talking about a very, very slim minority here are we not? No offense intended but it seems like your whole point is hinging on the absolute minority of people out there. I can't think of any systems off hand that do this
Using '\' has the best parse-ability?
Well, an unambiguous, single-character token is often easier to parse than a double-character token which might conflict with a single-character one.
I will give you that
But then again, the backslash isn't very easy to type either -- I'm daily switching between three different computers. On each one of them, the backslash key is in a different position. Seriously.
So spend the $5 and get a new keyboard? Unless your keyboard is physically, permanently attached. Then again we get into the very, very minority. This argument seems to me alot like that coming from people that are STILL using IE6:
Me: Why don't you upgrade?
Them: Upgrading is too hard
Me: You mean hitting a single button (yes install an update) and waiting for a few minutes is too hard? And because you are too lazy to update we have to go out of our way to be backwards compatible...
I know very little about the physics behind this. But I do know that when it comes to stress on the pilot it is all about acceleration. It seems to me that this is accelerating very, very quickly. What kind of G force will be exerted on the pilot and how do they handle that?
If the choice was code for one browser, or code for none, then one would be better; but you seem to be missing the option of "code to standards and look right everywhere"
Are you actually a web developer? Have you tried creating and maintaining anything beyond a three page site that actually meets standards AND displays well in all browsers? It is a pain just to get a site to look / work the same in different browsers.
1.) When the majority of browsers start supporting standards, so too will developers. Now that is not to say there aren't browsers that support the standards. But I have found that I can write a site that meets standards 100% (fairly difficult to do) but to get it to work in IE I have to hack. When I am done hacking it to work in IE, I am probably down to somewhere in the 50-65% compliance range. So your options are typically: be standards compliant and screw IE users. OR you can support IE users and screw standards.
IE6 just makes this 10X worse too...lets retire IE6
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't part of the point of linux that there isn't a face to it?
Linux is my mailserver Linux runs my mythtv Linux runs on my access point Linux runs on my sister's laptop. Linux runs on our company's DVR.
Linux is not an operating system for the desktop or for the server, or for the embedded device. Linux is an operating system for EVERYTHING.
Its like a ball of clay, endless potential and totally at the hands of the artist.
I think you are forgetting that M$ tried to do the same thing, they just don't do it as well as linux did.
Today's 2000-era generation thinks it's perfectly okay to tap into their neighbor's wireless internet, even though it's costing their neighbor extra money. Or google's SMS, even though it costs google thousands of dollars to support that overload.
While I don't disagree with your overall point there are some things I would like to point out. Hopping onto an unsecured network is basically taking advantage of a free resource. This is basically like saying that while your playing your boombox, no one else should be able to listen. But you are too lazy to plug in your headphones. If the person the network belongs to won't take the 3 minutes to turn on wireless security then they shouldn't have the right to bitch when someone hops onto their network. They also shouldn't be surprised when they eventually become a victim of identity theft. Same thing with Google. They opened up an API to allow people to send text messages for free. They didn't limit it, so why would people assume that it was supposed to be limited? It would be a VERY different case if someone had hacked the google API to allow unlimited texting. This is google's fault, not the person who wrote the app.
I think that people have the wrong idea about contracts. Contracts don't make it so you CAN'T do something, they just make it so there are possible consequences for it. If I signed a waiver and then posted about the doctor this merely (possibly) gives him the right to take legal action for it. But in that regard the damage is already done. As we have witnessed countless times, once something it out on the web, the harder you try to suppress it the more attention it attracts. It really boils down to do you think someone will act on the contract, and if so, how bad are the possible consequences.
I think part of the problem is the portability of software. I have pirated copies of things because I either lost the original media, damaged it beyond repair (yes, that IS my fault), or lost the Manual that the CD key is printed on. So what happens then? Well you are basically screwed, ESPECIALLY if you lost your key. I personally find it ridiculous that I have to keep track of that in the first place.
The ability to replicate something infinity does take value away from it. AutoCAD is expensive because of the time spent building, integrating, and maintaining an awesomely powerful set of tools. By copying it, the value of the tool is reduced for the people that put the work and money into making it what it is.
Bullshit. The reason AutoCAD is expensive is because of the QUALITY of the product. They have a damn good product. They know it, and the people that fork out the money to buy it know it too. It doesn't decrease the selling value of it if they produce ten million copies versus 1 million.
If they drop features to make it faster than XP then everyone will bitch that it doesn't have those features.
People would in general, but I doubt they would here on Slashdot. A lean no-bullshit version of Windows that had much lower requirements would probably go down pretty well, doubly so if it were a lot cheaper.
I will sign off on that. I think that is why linux is popular amongst /. you can pick and choose what goes into your install
Why yes, I did consider that perhaps this OS is constantly informing Microsoft of everything I do, tracking my credit card purchases and reading my email - but are you telling me it's true?
Honestly I have little pity for this argument as most users will click on every "ZOMG YOU WON A BILLION DOLLARS IN THE MEXICAN LOTTERY", run no virus scanner, and fail at even the most basic security checks. Go find your tinfoil hat.
Seriously, computers are so fast nowadays that any OS that can noticeably slow down your computer due to overhead is probably extremely badly written, or doing all sorts of nasty things (like "trusted computing", or encrypting DRM related media to keep out out the the hands of those filthy terro^H^H^H hackers, perhaps?) that you probably wouldn't want it doing anyway.
I will give you that the DRM was a bad call. The problem with your argument is that people are comparing Windows 7 and XP on the SAME machine. Of course XP is going to be faster, it has way less than Windows 7 in features and functionality. So I guess I am wondering why aren't you bitching that XP isn't as fast as Win 3.1? Or Dos? I am not saying that everything they put in their OS is good. What I AM saying is that people want more features with less overhead. You can optimize the HELL out of any software package and make the additional overhead from the features marginal but in the end adding more features = more overhead.
Let me preface this comment by stating that I am not a MS fanboy by any means. But I do have to say this about Windows 7: Yea so Windows 7 isn't as fast as XP. Did anyone ever really consider the fact that it is a newer OS that is doing MORE than XP? The fact that it looks better, and does more than XP but still runs comparably fast as XP is a feat. If you are really that concerned about performance, why don't I see you using some type of DOS port? Or linux at the command line? All I am saying is that MS is in a lose / lose battle when it comes to their OS. If they drop features to make it faster than XP then everyone will bitch that it doesn't have those features. But if they keep them in there, people will bitch because it isn't as fast as XP.
For getting a car that is driven with an analog stick and/or a D-pad
Seriously why doesn't the government hire the best of the worst to write programs like this? I mean look how fast the captcha was broken, among thousands of other security features. I bet that if there was some way to profit off of it, within a few weeks we would have a near bulletproof facial recognition software from the hacking community.
IE, while it may still lack acid compliance is making progress on the features front and security is supposedly improving.
So give IE another 5 or so years and they should catch up to where firefox is...today?
It seems that it only takes one person that is able to produce the desired result repeatedly. After that people stop arguing about if it can be done, and if so how to do it and actually start working on the problem. There are tons of examples of this throughout history. Now that someone has actually made a superconductor, I would be willing to bet that sometime in the next 15 or so years we will see them in use. Perhaps widely in use.
oh _goodie_! i always wanted to be a _frothing_ idiot.
Using underscores for no reason is most definitely helping
I think there needs to be a distinction between an addiction and a problem. I think its fine to be addicted to something, as long as it is not a problem. We all have our "addictions" but as long as we function as contributing members of society I say leave the addiction alone. It's when that addiction becomes a problem we have...well...a problem.
Plus, upgrading your firmware "just because". Why?
I can only imagine that with this attitude you are running Windows XP(pre SP1), and IE6 (no updates). Because installing updates "just because". Why? In all seriousness though firmware updates are usually released for several reasons, here are two major ones: Security updates(very important), Bugs in the original firmware (less important but good to have).
Whatever fan you are using, they gather dust and get noisy over time. Some of my drives have started to whine as well, including rather new WD drives, which tend to be one of the most quiet drives around. Nothing that simple, unfortunately.
What type of fan are you using first off? Fluid dynamic, brushless, ball bearing? Each will affect the noise of the fan. As for them getting dirty, it's nothing that taking a q-tip and 5 minutess to clean them won't fix. If your too lazy to do that much, you won't have a computer for very long anyway. It's funny, I have never heard anything about Western Digital being a leader in "quiet drives". Simply searching around seems to point that Seagate drives hold the gold when it comes to quiet drives. I have personally owned probably 8-11 Seagate drives over the past 5 years and I have never once had a problem with noise on ANY of them.
the fans are the noisiest part of my computer, and always have been on any computer ive ever had. However i do occationally hear the click-click of the head moving, but never the whine of the platters, will this sort that out too? ive seen another hard drive silencing technique elsewhere that's even cheaper, although possibly not quite as effective, which is simply to mount it with rubber bands in a 5.25" bay rather than screws. http://www.spodesabode.com/archive/content/article/hddnoise
So buy some low decibel fans? You can get fans that are near noiseless and still move a decent amount of air. One simple solution is to simply move to a larger size fan as well. Either get a case that supports the bigger fans, or a hole saw. 120mm versus 80mm push a lot more air, at lower RPM and are thus are usually much quieter
Repeat after me: "The first line of security is physical."
Correct me if I am wrong here (I may be), but to further your point doesn't whole disk encryption protect you in ONLY the case that someone physically steals the hard drive? Thus rendering it useless unless you have a way to decrypt it.
I am protected by Lifelock, so my information can't be stolen right?
"People with laptops" is a very, very tiny minority?
People with laptops typically have a removable keyboard
'**' is easier to type than '^^'?
It is, once you consider some people have dead keys. Typing "^^" can become wildly different depending on what OS you're using, and result in weird behavior.
Yes but we are talking about a very, very slim minority here are we not? No offense intended but it seems like your whole point is hinging on the absolute minority of people out there. I can't think of any systems off hand that do this
Using '\' has the best parse-ability?
Well, an unambiguous, single-character token is often easier to parse than a double-character token which might conflict with a single-character one.
I will give you that
But then again, the backslash isn't very easy to type either -- I'm daily switching between three different computers. On each one of them, the backslash key is in a different position. Seriously.
So spend the $5 and get a new keyboard? Unless your keyboard is physically, permanently attached. Then again we get into the very, very minority. This argument seems to me alot like that coming from people that are STILL using IE6: Me: Why don't you upgrade? Them: Upgrading is too hard Me: You mean hitting a single button (yes install an update) and waiting for a few minutes is too hard? And because you are too lazy to update we have to go out of our way to be backwards compatible...
Acme...we strap rockets to everything!
I know very little about the physics behind this. But I do know that when it comes to stress on the pilot it is all about acceleration. It seems to me that this is accelerating very, very quickly. What kind of G force will be exerted on the pilot and how do they handle that?
If the choice was code for one browser, or code for none, then one would be better; but you seem to be missing the option of "code to standards and look right everywhere"
Are you actually a web developer? Have you tried creating and maintaining anything beyond a three page site that actually meets standards AND displays well in all browsers? It is a pain just to get a site to look / work the same in different browsers.
1.) When the majority of browsers start supporting standards, so too will developers. Now that is not to say there aren't browsers that support the standards. But I have found that I can write a site that meets standards 100% (fairly difficult to do) but to get it to work in IE I have to hack. When I am done hacking it to work in IE, I am probably down to somewhere in the 50-65% compliance range. So your options are typically: be standards compliant and screw IE users. OR you can support IE users and screw standards. IE6 just makes this 10X worse too...lets retire IE6