"these drives may trigger it when stopping a playing movie, and not pausing"
I doubt it. That would mean I could just unplug the DVD player when the credits start rolling, and then I could watch it again! And the only way I can see them stopping me from being able to do this is by having the laser destroy the data on the disk after it reads it.
Unless the DVD players connect to the Internet and get some stupid key from MS and then the key gets deleted. But that's just stupid - who would want to connect their DVD player to the Internet?
Paying a premium for the convenience of not having to go back to the store.
Having to take out the trash when it's full of stuff you otherwise could've kept.
Going to the store, buying your favorite movie, and then finding out that you can only watch it once.
Not really saving much time not returning the DVD because you'll just go back and rent another one next week.
And if you own a video store, making less revenue since now you have to keep buying DVDs - and because people are buying disposable DVDs for $4-5 and ripping them.
Does this mean these games will be outlawed in Michigan, or just that you'll have to show your driver's license? Or that they're going to rate them stricter?
You forgot the gum stuck to the seat that there usually is in the theaters;). Also, have you ever been in a theater that has the sound turned down too low? Man, what a waste of money - even if you tell them to turn it up, you still already missed part of the movie.
I still think that the loss is more related to the quality of the movies. And the fact that you're not allowed to use technology that modifies how the DVD plays (such as if you want one of those special DVD players that takes out sex scenes and stuff).
The fact that you pay the same amount to watch a lower-quality version on PSP also sucks - why not just buy the regular DVD, rip it, put it on your PSP, and then watch it? Is it really worth the loss in quality just to watch it on PSP? IMO, no. Maybe if it was a few bucks less, but not for the same price - it means that not only would you have to buy all your movies twice, but also that one of the copies you bought is just a cheapened version of the original you bought for the same price.
Anyways, I hope the music industry follows suit and fesses up that the reason sales are down is because new music sucks. They should take a hint from the teenagers - everyone at my school prefers old rock to the shit on the radio now (except for a few bands/songs). Some popular songs/bands are Lynard Skynard, Aerosmith, Metallica, Led Zeppelin, and Ram Jam's "Black Betty".
Well at least (if it's like on the Simpsons) we'll be allowed to live. Hey, look at the bright side - at least we'll have more than sea monkeys and goldfish as pets! Too bad we won't be able to have cable anymore, though. . .
People like you make me sick. If you get sick from Quizno's, you shouldn't sue anyone because:
1)it's not the parent company's fault you got a bad sandwich
2)the parent company didn't - and couldn't possibly - interview each individual, and - while the store itself can do this and does - an interview doesn't really represent an individual 100% accurately. No one goes into an interview dropping the "F" bomb or using ebonics, but that doesn't mean they won't talk like that on the job.
3)it could've been poorly processed meat - which isn't the store's fault, or the company's, or the individual's.
Instead, you should demand a refund.
Anyways, your argument has no grounds. You think they can just take control of what their users do? Firefox's license says you can redistribute it freely - this Korean site didn't violate the license, so the most Mozilla can do is to ask them to remove the virus.
There's no way Mozilla can stop the web site's owner from downloading the code - either in a literal sense or in a legal sense. As I mentioned before, the site's not in violation of Firefox's license, so they can't threaten to sue or anything unless they can prove that the site is PURPOSELY trying to hurt their name. And technically, since the Firefox code is available to everyone, it's not like they'd slow the web site's owner down at all by not sending him the code. All he has to do is go on the Web and get it.
The reason they have this problem is because they don't keep their systems as up-to-date as they should. The latest Linux distros have fixed these binaries - the reason people are still getting the virus is because they are still using old distros and not updating. Install all your updates and you'll have no problem.
Why? Because it requires you to leave reference to the original writers of the code? Or because if you modify it you have to make the modifications GPL, too? Neither of these is a good reason.
Funny how MS called it a "cancer" yet it played a crucial part with their TCP/IP stack - and now in their "Complete Cluster Edition" of Win Server 2k3. . . guess we're just better when it comes to networking and clusters. . .
It appears to me that open-source has been quite the opposite of a cancer - instead of hindering MS, it actually helped them out.
Actually, I remember reading that ALL (or maybe it was most of?) Xbox games use Ogg. And I know for a FACT that the PC version of Halo uses Ogg - I remember looking through the files and seeing a bunch of.ogg files. I think they also said it somewhere with the copyright info.
I wonder what would've happened with the Xbox if Bungie had released Halo for PS2 like they originally planned?
Surely the OS can't have 100% control - otherwise how do programs such as Norton Antivirus stop running programs if it knows they are virus-infected, if the OS takes total control of the MMU? Or how can (I'm using this as an example) Diet Kazaa modify the way Kazaa acts by changing it on-the-fly (from what I remember - I use Linux and LimeWire now - Kazaa acts different when Diet Kazaa is running then when it's not running)? And how is it that you can run a program for cheats while you're running the game?
Also, in C++ it is possible to overwrite other applications' memory locations - even by accident. Usually you'll get an error message or your program will crash, but sometimes it will have an effect on other programs.
Re:How can you vouche for the security of this?
on
Flash, Meet Sparkle
·
· Score: 1
I think it's important to note two things:
1. There are many people who are, in fact, using Linux on the desktop. Linux is more than ready to be used as a desktop OS - it's just a question of whether or not you want to use it.
2. The claims about different years being "the year for Linux on the desktop" have all been by individuals who aren't involved in the open-source community and really don't know anything about Linux other than how to use it. Don't mock us for Linux not being on every desktop by now because we never said it would be. Also, as I said before, Linux is ready for use as a desktop OS - it's just that MS and Windows users (seem to) have a vendetta against it.
. . . is it just me, or would giving Web applications direct access to objects be a HUGE security risk?
I know in C++ it's easy to crash the machine by trying to write to memory that isn't being used by your program, and that since you've got direct control over certain resources you can do just about anything including overwrite other programs' memory. Wouldn't this "Sparkle" also give the programmer the same amount of control? I know I certainly don't want some stupid ad or some game to have this much control over my PC.
"Yes, that makes them a user of open source, as the grandparent was saying. If they contributed changes back to TrollTech, they would be contributing."
But they're not making any changes to Qt.
"Which was a continuous embarrassment to them. They tried several times to switch to Windows before they finally got it right. They would have switched immediately if they were capable of doing so."
My point exactly. Google warmly embraces open-source, while MS's product deeply depended on it - and they made absolutely no mention of it and, instead, bashed the Linux/OS community, calling it a "cancer".
"We have higher standards for google because they're huge. What you're saying - many small contributions - works out well when you're talking about lone developers. A giant organization like google gets a lot of good out of open source. It's expected that they'll contribute a lot back. If they contributed nearly nothing, they would actually be hindering open source because other companies would follow their example."
You shouldn't expect Google to contribute a lot back. They're a search engine company, not a programming company. AFAIK Google isn't *required* to open-source ANY of their code (even if it does use the Qt toolkit).
I think you're expecting that Google will bow down to Tux or something. They've gotta make money - they're not going to switch from being a search company to a company that makes open-source software. And they're doing what they can by open-sourcing the few programs that they actually make.
Plus, what about MS? As I mentioned before, they used open-source software for Hotmail. What are they giving back to the community?
What about companies like RedHat and SuSE who owe their entire existence to Linux? I don't know of any open-source programs released by either of these companies. Plus, even they generally don't create programs of their own - programs made specifically for Fedora may be released by RedHat, but they're still made by the open-source community. Is this to say that their existence is detrimental to the open-source community? I don't think so - they're still supporting Linux and spreading the good word about it.
"People like you truly amaze and frighten me -- how is it possible to have such an appallingly weak grasp of logic and still function day to day in the real world?"
You don't believe me? I didn't come up with a huge idea like that on my own. Go to the library and get a book about the Government. Or an American History book. As much as you and I'd like to believe otherwise, you can't outlaw what people do in private unless it somehow affects other people.
It's been tried before - at one point in American history alcohol was illegal. It didn't stop alcohol consumption OR the purchasing of alcohol, though - all it did was make more money for moonshiners and smugglers.
While no alcohol might sound like a great idea to some, not everybody agrees with that - and if they're going to do it anyways, whether it's illegal or not, and it's not hurting anyone else, then why make it illegal?
"You said drugs are outlawed because of the crime connected to selling and using them. I would consider that to be something harmful."
I would, too. What I was saying is that things aren't outlawed because they're harmful to the person involved in this behavior, but rather because they're harmful to others.
"You then mention kids smoking and doing other things because of peer pressure, again I would have to think this is considered a harmful thing also."
I think you're misunderstanding what I said. The point I was trying to make is that things aren't outlawed simply because they hurt the people who do them, but rather because of the harm they do to others.
I used the example of kids smoking to fit in and be "cool" because, even though one might consider this to be only harmful to oneself, in this case it would also harm the other teens - which is why tobacco products aren't sold to minors. When you're grown up, you're probably not as likely to start smoking to fit into the group.
I do hope you realize that things aren't outlawed simply for their harmfulness. The reason drugs are outlawed isn't because they're bad for you, it's because of all the crime connected to selling them and using them. There are PLENTY of drugs that are perfectly legal which you can buy through the Internet - because they're not seen as "hard" drugs and aren't sold on the black market.
The reason minors can't buy alcohol, tobacco, and porn isn't *JUST* because they are harmful, it's also because of the effect they could have on minors. If there's a group of 15-year-olds, and one of them is sort of the "leader" of the group, and everyone thinks he's cool and looks up to him, if he starts smoking then the others might do it, too, whether they want to smoke or not. Normally I'd say that peer pressure isn't a good reason to make a law about something, I feel differently in the case of teens because part of being a teen is wanting to fit in.
That's right - the government has no right to tell people what they can and can't watch or play. We can make those decisions for ourselves. Also, it's the job of the parents to teach values, not the government.
Re:If your child sees boobs, they will become a sl
on
Pornified
·
· Score: 1
"So if you honestly think there is nothing wrong with pornography, then just wait. Eventually it will become such a problem in society that you see ads on TV like you see anti-smoking ads. "Don't look at smut" says McGriff. So you call a society fucked up that tries its best to prevent kids from getting hooked on cigarettes. It's the same thing, in fact the sexual sensation deals with the same pathways in the brain. Kids will get hooked on pornography and that will be the end of them."
Problem is that we tell kids all the time "don't do it" without telling them why. We say "don't smoke weed". They ask why. "Because it's bad for you." There's either absolutely no description of what's so bad about it, or an attempt to explain why that's not fully informative (perhaps because the parents don't know why themselves?). Then, during the teenage years, when kids go through puberty and try to separate from their parents (this is perfectly normal and, in fact, it's not healthy for it not to happen to some degree), some teens try doing drugs, alcohol, porn, and sex and what not to rebel against their parents - because, so far, their opinion of these things is just based on their parents' opinions, rather than their own opinion formulated by facts they have heard from their parents and other people.
Maybe if we actually taught why premarital sex and porn are so bad, we wouldn't have such a big problem. If you tell your kids about what happened to you with your porn addiction, I'm sure they'll be much more likely to not look at it than if you just tell them "don't do it because it's bad".
Probably depends where you work, too - a programmer at MS probably ranks higher than sys admins, whereas other places programmers would be important but not as important as sys admins. Guess it depends on what your company is best known for.
Getting paid that much as a sys admin, I can believe. Getting paid that much as a programmer, though. . . I'm not so sure about that. Sys admins have to maintain a big network of computers - which consists of everyone in the company's computers. Someone installs a virus, you've gotta fix it. Someone's computer keeps locking up, you've gotta fix it.
Programmers just write and fix programs. They don't have to go around fixing other people's stuff (except for maybe other programmers' code).
Slashdot Mirror
I doubt it. That would mean I could just unplug the DVD player when the credits start rolling, and then I could watch it again! And the only way I can see them stopping me from being able to do this is by having the laser destroy the data on the disk after it reads it.
Unless the DVD players connect to the Internet and get some stupid key from MS and then the key gets deleted. But that's just stupid - who would want to connect their DVD player to the Internet?
That's EXACTLY the problem - NO ONE wants it except for the movie industry.
Paying a premium for the convenience of not having to go back to the store.
Having to take out the trash when it's full of stuff you otherwise could've kept.
Going to the store, buying your favorite movie, and then finding out that you can only watch it once.
Not really saving much time not returning the DVD because you'll just go back and rent another one next week.
And if you own a video store, making less revenue since now you have to keep buying DVDs - and because people are buying disposable DVDs for $4-5 and ripping them.
Does this mean these games will be outlawed in Michigan, or just that you'll have to show your driver's license? Or that they're going to rate them stricter?
I still think that the loss is more related to the quality of the movies. And the fact that you're not allowed to use technology that modifies how the DVD plays (such as if you want one of those special DVD players that takes out sex scenes and stuff).
The fact that you pay the same amount to watch a lower-quality version on PSP also sucks - why not just buy the regular DVD, rip it, put it on your PSP, and then watch it? Is it really worth the loss in quality just to watch it on PSP? IMO, no. Maybe if it was a few bucks less, but not for the same price - it means that not only would you have to buy all your movies twice, but also that one of the copies you bought is just a cheapened version of the original you bought for the same price.
Anyways, I hope the music industry follows suit and fesses up that the reason sales are down is because new music sucks. They should take a hint from the teenagers - everyone at my school prefers old rock to the shit on the radio now (except for a few bands/songs). Some popular songs/bands are Lynard Skynard, Aerosmith, Metallica, Led Zeppelin, and Ram Jam's "Black Betty".
Well at least (if it's like on the Simpsons) we'll be allowed to live. Hey, look at the bright side - at least we'll have more than sea monkeys and goldfish as pets! Too bad we won't be able to have cable anymore, though. . .
1)it's not the parent company's fault you got a bad sandwich
2)the parent company didn't - and couldn't possibly - interview each individual, and - while the store itself can do this and does - an interview doesn't really represent an individual 100% accurately. No one goes into an interview dropping the "F" bomb or using ebonics, but that doesn't mean they won't talk like that on the job.
3)it could've been poorly processed meat - which isn't the store's fault, or the company's, or the individual's.
Instead, you should demand a refund.
Anyways, your argument has no grounds. You think they can just take control of what their users do? Firefox's license says you can redistribute it freely - this Korean site didn't violate the license, so the most Mozilla can do is to ask them to remove the virus.
There's no way Mozilla can stop the web site's owner from downloading the code - either in a literal sense or in a legal sense. As I mentioned before, the site's not in violation of Firefox's license, so they can't threaten to sue or anything unless they can prove that the site is PURPOSELY trying to hurt their name. And technically, since the Firefox code is available to everyone, it's not like they'd slow the web site's owner down at all by not sending him the code. All he has to do is go on the Web and get it.
The reason they have this problem is because they don't keep their systems as up-to-date as they should. The latest Linux distros have fixed these binaries - the reason people are still getting the virus is because they are still using old distros and not updating. Install all your updates and you'll have no problem.
Why? Because it requires you to leave reference to the original writers of the code? Or because if you modify it you have to make the modifications GPL, too? Neither of these is a good reason.
Can't remember where I heard it originally, but it does say it here.
Maybe the PS2 wouldn't have done a much better job than the Xbox, but they were going to release it for PS2.
Funny how MS called it a "cancer" yet it played a crucial part with their TCP/IP stack - and now in their "Complete Cluster Edition" of Win Server 2k3. . . guess we're just better when it comes to networking and clusters. . . It appears to me that open-source has been quite the opposite of a cancer - instead of hindering MS, it actually helped them out.
I wonder what would've happened with the Xbox if Bungie had released Halo for PS2 like they originally planned?
Also, in C++ it is possible to overwrite other applications' memory locations - even by accident. Usually you'll get an error message or your program will crash, but sometimes it will have an effect on other programs.
1. There are many people who are, in fact, using Linux on the desktop. Linux is more than ready to be used as a desktop OS - it's just a question of whether or not you want to use it.
2. The claims about different years being "the year for Linux on the desktop" have all been by individuals who aren't involved in the open-source community and really don't know anything about Linux other than how to use it. Don't mock us for Linux not being on every desktop by now because we never said it would be. Also, as I said before, Linux is ready for use as a desktop OS - it's just that MS and Windows users (seem to) have a vendetta against it.
I know in C++ it's easy to crash the machine by trying to write to memory that isn't being used by your program, and that since you've got direct control over certain resources you can do just about anything including overwrite other programs' memory. Wouldn't this "Sparkle" also give the programmer the same amount of control? I know I certainly don't want some stupid ad or some game to have this much control over my PC.
Now it's "We won the desktop. We won the server. We will win the Web. We will move fast, we will get there. We will win the Web."
Now if that quote doesn't say "MONOPOLY" then I don't know what does.
But they're not making any changes to Qt.
"Which was a continuous embarrassment to them. They tried several times to switch to Windows before they finally got it right. They would have switched immediately if they were capable of doing so."
My point exactly. Google warmly embraces open-source, while MS's product deeply depended on it - and they made absolutely no mention of it and, instead, bashed the Linux/OS community, calling it a "cancer".
"We have higher standards for google because they're huge. What you're saying - many small contributions - works out well when you're talking about lone developers. A giant organization like google gets a lot of good out of open source. It's expected that they'll contribute a lot back. If they contributed nearly nothing, they would actually be hindering open source because other companies would follow their example."
You shouldn't expect Google to contribute a lot back. They're a search engine company, not a programming company. AFAIK Google isn't *required* to open-source ANY of their code (even if it does use the Qt toolkit).
I think you're expecting that Google will bow down to Tux or something. They've gotta make money - they're not going to switch from being a search company to a company that makes open-source software. And they're doing what they can by open-sourcing the few programs that they actually make.
Plus, what about MS? As I mentioned before, they used open-source software for Hotmail. What are they giving back to the community?
What about companies like RedHat and SuSE who owe their entire existence to Linux? I don't know of any open-source programs released by either of these companies. Plus, even they generally don't create programs of their own - programs made specifically for Fedora may be released by RedHat, but they're still made by the open-source community. Is this to say that their existence is detrimental to the open-source community? I don't think so - they're still supporting Linux and spreading the good word about it.
You don't believe me? I didn't come up with a huge idea like that on my own. Go to the library and get a book about the Government. Or an American History book. As much as you and I'd like to believe otherwise, you can't outlaw what people do in private unless it somehow affects other people.
It's been tried before - at one point in American history alcohol was illegal. It didn't stop alcohol consumption OR the purchasing of alcohol, though - all it did was make more money for moonshiners and smugglers.
While no alcohol might sound like a great idea to some, not everybody agrees with that - and if they're going to do it anyways, whether it's illegal or not, and it's not hurting anyone else, then why make it illegal?
I would, too. What I was saying is that things aren't outlawed because they're harmful to the person involved in this behavior, but rather because they're harmful to others.
"You then mention kids smoking and doing other things because of peer pressure, again I would have to think this is considered a harmful thing also."
I think you're misunderstanding what I said. The point I was trying to make is that things aren't outlawed simply because they hurt the people who do them, but rather because of the harm they do to others.
I used the example of kids smoking to fit in and be "cool" because, even though one might consider this to be only harmful to oneself, in this case it would also harm the other teens - which is why tobacco products aren't sold to minors. When you're grown up, you're probably not as likely to start smoking to fit into the group.
I do hope you realize that things aren't outlawed simply for their harmfulness. The reason drugs are outlawed isn't because they're bad for you, it's because of all the crime connected to selling them and using them. There are PLENTY of drugs that are perfectly legal which you can buy through the Internet - because they're not seen as "hard" drugs and aren't sold on the black market.
The reason minors can't buy alcohol, tobacco, and porn isn't *JUST* because they are harmful, it's also because of the effect they could have on minors. If there's a group of 15-year-olds, and one of them is sort of the "leader" of the group, and everyone thinks he's cool and looks up to him, if he starts smoking then the others might do it, too, whether they want to smoke or not. Normally I'd say that peer pressure isn't a good reason to make a law about something, I feel differently in the case of teens because part of being a teen is wanting to fit in.
That's right - the government has no right to tell people what they can and can't watch or play. We can make those decisions for ourselves. Also, it's the job of the parents to teach values, not the government.
Problem is that we tell kids all the time "don't do it" without telling them why. We say "don't smoke weed". They ask why. "Because it's bad for you." There's either absolutely no description of what's so bad about it, or an attempt to explain why that's not fully informative (perhaps because the parents don't know why themselves?). Then, during the teenage years, when kids go through puberty and try to separate from their parents (this is perfectly normal and, in fact, it's not healthy for it not to happen to some degree), some teens try doing drugs, alcohol, porn, and sex and what not to rebel against their parents - because, so far, their opinion of these things is just based on their parents' opinions, rather than their own opinion formulated by facts they have heard from their parents and other people.
Maybe if we actually taught why premarital sex and porn are so bad, we wouldn't have such a big problem. If you tell your kids about what happened to you with your porn addiction, I'm sure they'll be much more likely to not look at it than if you just tell them "don't do it because it's bad".
What who said?
Probably depends where you work, too - a programmer at MS probably ranks higher than sys admins, whereas other places programmers would be important but not as important as sys admins. Guess it depends on what your company is best known for.
Programmers just write and fix programs. They don't have to go around fixing other people's stuff (except for maybe other programmers' code).