An obvious (to me) question comes to mind: If they have functionality to work out whether it's a false positive, why isn't that functionality in WGA in the first place?
In the UK, in my experience, ALL ATMs owned by a bank do not charge you, and I don't know any bank which charges you either. There are ATMs that are operated by other entities for profit, which tend to have a charge. I avoid those for obvious reasons.
(Not that I do economics at present; did an introductory unit in my first year and dropped it in favour of an introductory marketing course as a minor part of my second and third years.)
There's nothing stopping the students paying once and sharing it, either. Both charging and giving out passwords to those who attended will be equally ineffective at ensuring attendance.
The market is NOT free if the company providing the OS is adding security features that, oh so coincidentally, prevent companies other than themselves from providing security software.
This is the basis of this entire issue. MS's new security features apparently prevent any software that they don't specifically allow from getting low-level system access - access of the sort that security software needs. Their own security software, naturally, gets access. The problem is that other company's doesn't.
Some of the other companies have apparently found ways to bypass these features to enable their software to work - but these bypasses can also be found and used by malicious hackers and so forth, so one would assume MS will patch them, and then the third party security software gets disabled again.
I wouldn't be too surprised if MS offers - for some sum of money, of course - to allow certain companies access in an attempt to please antitrust prosecutors - but that still leaves out any of the freely available software.
Some of the security companies have already partly succeeded in hacking their way around these new security features to allow their software to work. If they can, any malicious entity can. Clearly the added features are not effective enough.
MS can't be achieving their goal of security at all here. Remember, they make additional money from people using their security software - software that attempts to cover security holes that they put there in the first place (hopefully non-intentionally, but I would not be too surprised...). They BENEFIT by locking out other security companies and leaving their OS in need of security software.
Can you honestly tell me that you think MS will try to eliminate the need for any security software, including their own, when such software can be a nice big constant - not one-time as with the OS itself - revenue stream?
EU competition law is being broken. If the population of Europe wants those laws changed they can try to get something done. As it is, MS is breaking the law and is being punished for it.
However, the major security companies have already found ways to hack round all this to make their products work - and if they can, so can malicious people. So what's the point in having it? It just makes the security companies have to spend more money, increasing the cost to the user in most cases. That's about it.
Oh, you can drink, here... you can't buy it yourself, and you can't get someone to buy it for you, but you can drink anything you get your hands on. Drinking itself is not restricted.
I find differing ages for sex/marriage and for viewing/making pornography to be even more stupid. You're allowed to have sex with whoever you want at 16, with the exception of those in a position of power over you, and you're allowed to marry and so forth. But you're not allowed to buy porn. You're allowed to take part in sexual acts, but not to view them.
MP3 has come to mean "any music on my computer" to the average person, in the same way that "hoover" means any vacuum cleaner, "selotape" means any such product, and "iPod" means any portable digital audio player.
Correction: they sell your info to make more profit. If making more profit involves lower fees so more people use their service (and therefore more income from selling your info), then that's what they'll do. But in almost every single case, lower fees for customers is definitely NOT the intended result.
Re:Consumers don't care about their privacy
on
The Death of Privacy
·
· Score: 1
That's part of why I trust google/gmail more. They flat-out tell you they use your info.
At my university, everybody takes three courses in their first year. Physics was one of mine.
The fifth of five modules making up that year's physics course was quantum physics. The lecturer for that module was, as with the previous two modules, some form of eastern european. None of us could understand more than two in every three words, let alone what he was trying to teach us. His english was terrible, his accent was terrible, and his writing was terrible. To make things worse, he didn't use any of the modern forms of presentation - his lecturers consisted of copying his own handwritten notes onto the blackboard and reading them out simultaneously. His handouts, such as they were, were photocopies of his handwritten notes.
I couldn't pick up enough from simply reading textbooks and so forth, so I ended up just failing that course. (I later swapped the physics for a much more interesting course, which I'm still doing a year and a bit down the line.)
Slashdot Mirror
An obvious (to me) question comes to mind:
If they have functionality to work out whether it's a false positive, why isn't that functionality in WGA in the first place?
In the UK, in my experience, ALL ATMs owned by a bank do not charge you, and I don't know any bank which charges you either. There are ATMs that are operated by other entities for profit, which tend to have a charge. I avoid those for obvious reasons.
Well... She does fuck you over at every opportunity, does that count?
Pity.
And what about the Great Unwashed?
(Not that I do economics at present; did an introductory unit in my first year and dropped it in favour of an introductory marketing course as a minor part of my second and third years.)
There's nothing stopping the students paying once and sharing it, either. Both charging and giving out passwords to those who attended will be equally ineffective at ensuring attendance.
Telling them that if they ever call you again you will never even consider voting for them could be effective...
Available to all, or only that class's students?
Undelete utilities are of considerably LESS use if the information was never written to disk in the first place.
Relatively simple: record all license plates of cars that do that, see which ones are there consistently with the bahaviour you're trying to catch.
Doesn't deal with the problem of many many many short pages, though.
The market is NOT free if the company providing the OS is adding security features that, oh so coincidentally, prevent companies other than themselves from providing security software.
This is the basis of this entire issue. MS's new security features apparently prevent any software that they don't specifically allow from getting low-level system access - access of the sort that security software needs. Their own security software, naturally, gets access. The problem is that other company's doesn't.
Some of the other companies have apparently found ways to bypass these features to enable their software to work - but these bypasses can also be found and used by malicious hackers and so forth, so one would assume MS will patch them, and then the third party security software gets disabled again.
I wouldn't be too surprised if MS offers - for some sum of money, of course - to allow certain companies access in an attempt to please antitrust prosecutors - but that still leaves out any of the freely available software.
Some of the security companies have already partly succeeded in hacking their way around these new security features to allow their software to work. If they can, any malicious entity can. Clearly the added features are not effective enough.
MS can't be achieving their goal of security at all here. Remember, they make additional money from people using their security software - software that attempts to cover security holes that they put there in the first place (hopefully non-intentionally, but I would not be too surprised...). They BENEFIT by locking out other security companies and leaving their OS in need of security software.
Can you honestly tell me that you think MS will try to eliminate the need for any security software, including their own, when such software can be a nice big constant - not one-time as with the OS itself - revenue stream?
EU competition law is being broken. If the population of Europe wants those laws changed they can try to get something done. As it is, MS is breaking the law and is being punished for it.
However, the major security companies have already found ways to hack round all this to make their products work - and if they can, so can malicious people. So what's the point in having it? It just makes the security companies have to spend more money, increasing the cost to the user in most cases. That's about it.
Oh, you can drink, here... you can't buy it yourself, and you can't get someone to buy it for you, but you can drink anything you get your hands on. Drinking itself is not restricted.
Seems to be slashdotted.
I find differing ages for sex/marriage and for viewing/making pornography to be even more stupid. You're allowed to have sex with whoever you want at 16, with the exception of those in a position of power over you, and you're allowed to marry and so forth. But you're not allowed to buy porn. You're allowed to take part in sexual acts, but not to view them.
Which is one reason, perhaps, to wish that copyright infringement WAS a criminal act like theft is.
MP3 has come to mean "any music on my computer" to the average person, in the same way that "hoover" means any vacuum cleaner, "selotape" means any such product, and "iPod" means any portable digital audio player.
Most people don't know what an MP3 is either. I know plenty of people who thin a WMA is an MP3, and so forth.
They may know the name, but they don't know what it is.
Correction: they sell your info to make more profit. If making more profit involves lower fees so more people use their service (and therefore more income from selling your info), then that's what they'll do. But in almost every single case, lower fees for customers is definitely NOT the intended result.
That's part of why I trust google/gmail more. They flat-out tell you they use your info.
At my university, everybody takes three courses in their first year. Physics was one of mine.
The fifth of five modules making up that year's physics course was quantum physics. The lecturer for that module was, as with the previous two modules, some form of eastern european. None of us could understand more than two in every three words, let alone what he was trying to teach us. His english was terrible, his accent was terrible, and his writing was terrible. To make things worse, he didn't use any of the modern forms of presentation - his lecturers consisted of copying his own handwritten notes onto the blackboard and reading them out simultaneously. His handouts, such as they were, were photocopies of his handwritten notes.
I couldn't pick up enough from simply reading textbooks and so forth, so I ended up just failing that course. (I later swapped the physics for a much more interesting course, which I'm still doing a year and a bit down the line.)
In other words, it's not just maths.