My bad, I had assumed njnnetwork had a connection to njn.net --- which is actually why it surprised me to find ad content on the site, since njn.net is public radio... clearly I should've dug further, yet I still would have made a post expressing the same overall sentiment.
The DMCA does not apply, but the blogger didn't have the right to republish the material. I am not familiar with Canadian law, but I am assuming that there's a provision similar to that aspect of DMCA...
No, they are not. They might want to, but they're not FORCED to do this. This means they are part of the problem, because if IE6 didn't work with most sites it would provide another reason to make the free upgrade.
That's naive at best. If the official company standard -- guaranteed to be present and supported on every single workstation and thin client device to the exclusion of all else -- is IE6, developers create apps that take advantage of IE6. Doing otherwise would be foolish and a waste of time, because it only has to run on IE6 - standards-compliant web apps would take significantly longer to create, because it would STILL be required to to work on IE6 (and we all know how well that POS respects standards). Keep in mind we're not talking about customer-facing applications, but internal tools.
A comparison would be blaming developers for not creating a Linux-compatible internal app when their entire company is a Windows shop. Don't think in terms of web standards, but a standardized development platform within an organization.
There are , alas, too many Bobs in the world. Do you believe that most people using computers *aren't* dumb enough to do this? And since it only takes one occurrence to be compromised, it doesn't matter how quickly you fire him.
Sometimes, deadly videos are important to illustrate the deadly consequence of other people's actions.
--
Other times, as in this case, they're great for driving up hit counts and ad revenue. I don't disagree, but let's not get so lost in high ideals that we forget the reality of how the video was being used (I checked - njnnetwork does host clickthrough ad content). In that context, this usage of a DMCA takedown makes sense and is completely appropriate.
If you're using it to report news or even give commentary on news, fine. If you're using it to give commentary and make some money off of it along the way, that's rather crossing the line.
This is true as long as you don't have any chronic condition that requires recurring dr visits - or worse, medication. Even a simple prescription required monthly can eat up more than your yearly premium very quickly.
Look into various small business associations. Look local to your area and nationally - my understanding is that when they are representing a coallition of small business, they often negotiate larger group rates for their participants. Here are a couple of places to start for the national scene:
NASE and NBA
Though SuperFetch is a little less aggressive in Windows 7, it will still use a substantial amount of memory—but with an important proviso. The OS will only use memory for cache when there is no other demand for that memory.
I really wonder when people will get this.
If it were correct, I would "get it". But when tabbing back to my app which has been sitting idle for 30 minutes causes page file reads, and at the same time I can see that there's a signficant amount of "cache" in use, this means that the OS is using the cache at the expense of applications that need the memory. I don't understand how people can consistently claim that this is only done when there is "no other demand" for the memory, unless they think that because an application is idle, the OS should be reclaiming its memory.
Another way of looking at it: Win7 is using SuperFetch to cache the applications I *might* want to use in priority over the memory of the applications I *am currently running* -- even if not actively so.
When I have 4GB of RAM in my box, and I am seeing pagefile activity when running apps consuming a total of 2GB, there's something very wrong.
Indeed. The summary reads as if he made up a fake person at a real company to which he had no connection. Truth is that he made up a fake person at a company that he owned, as a pseudonym. I think they're right in no longer keeping him on as a blogger (full disclosure and all that), but the/. summary makes it look like something much more serious than what actually happened.
With su you give full control over the root account, with sudo you need to write it every time you require root account. UAC is actually a lot better than what there is available for linux, in desktop use (in command line/server use it pwns).
UAC is a stumbling block that doesn't help anything. By requiring this every time you adjust a system setting *of any kind*, you just train the user to click "OK" and/or enter the required password without thought. It becomes a matter of course - when installing software, when changing hardware configuration, when changing shared options -- you will see this prompt and click through it as quickly as possible to do what you intended to do.
If some web site suddenly causes you to click an extra button, or enter your password yet again, it doesn't make people stop and think. It just raises that old "get this annoying crap out of my faces so I can see my dancing bunnies" response that they've been trained to have.
The sudo model is no better - it's a few more keystrokes, but it is the same model - and trains the same behavior into users.
The answer isn't artificial obstacles that we train people to ignore even as we throw them up -- it's in education for those who want to learn, in iPads and similar locked-down devices for those who don't; and in at least getting people aware to the point that they know which device is safe for them to own.
These are all areas of weakness I've seen in university-taught programmers too. That's more a result of the general lowering of standards that our industry underwent in the 90s.
company's Chief Technology Officer Barney Morrison-Lyons says that was never going to be the right route: 'The biggest problem with Microsoft is badly-written software — the operating system allows you to write software badly unlike Mac or Linux.'
That kind of makes me question their level of competency. It is possible to write software badly for any platform, device, or language. Saying otherwise means only that you're mis-parroting something one of your underlings has said.
IANAL... but it seems to me that supplemental digital downloads sound like the only valid way to do this. You can make additional content available at your discretion, to those people whom you choose - especially if the conditions for downloading specifically state no redistribution rights (because you're agreeing to those terms by accepting the optional content in exchange - that content was not part of the original sale). You cannot, as you say, prevent someone from selling content you paid for (the boxed game and everything advertised on it) to someone else.
Of course, this is just the result of logically thinking it through - the law and logic often seem to diverge.
When you react to somebody else's suppression or censorship with suppression or censorship of your own, you have no moral ground to stand on. You can be easily dismissed as "hackers" or "loser basement dwellers" then, by the very same people you're trying to convince to enact change.
Name-calling doesn't change the validity of this point.
I don't know how caching works in W7 but on Linux, if the system has to "turn to disk-based virtual memory to handle tasks" then the memory utilization isn't caused by buffers because buffers are never swapped out to disk. If W7 behaves in a similar manner the it's either a memory leak, system bloat or the caching mechanism is broken.
Not entirely true either. I've seen swap usage grow (albeit very little) when there is over 2GB in use only by cache.
Here's what I've noticed - and it's not just in Win7, it also happens to a lesser extent in XP. I do think the memory is being used for cache -- but Windows will cache things to the exclusion of memory actually in use by applications. So if you have minimized something to the taskbar, or just haven't used it in a while, you will almost *always* have to wait while it gets loaded back from the page file. In the case of a large application (IDE, 3d editor, etc) this can take many seconds. On a quad-core machine with 4GB of RAM, I just don't see that this is acceptable.
I think it's great that Windows is using all available RAM for cache - but it should not do so at the expense of running applications because that RAM is *not* actually available.
How about the fact that their methods of "protesting" are consistently as suppressive as what they're trying to protest?
Uh, yeah, that's the point, Sherlock. "You censor us, we censor you. Sucks, doesn't it? This is the internet. You don't make the rules here, we do. You stop, we stop."
In other words "Do as I say, not as I do".
Yep, that sounds like a great way to accomplish something. Principles are great, but only if you apply them consistently - even and perhaps especially when the other party doesn't.
as determined by requests made by devices for ads on AdMob’s extensive mobile advertising network.,
In other words this has nothing to do with market share , or even usage - only usage of apps that interact with AdMob's network. (Presumably this is more than just the web browser - which would limit the significance of this even further - but I don't have time to look it up.)
Why do I keep seeing this word "member". Anonymous has no "members", it's not some organization you join. The fact that I'm posting AC means I'm a "member" of anonymous.
How about the fact that their methods of "protesting" are consistently as suppressive as what they're trying to protest? Their arsenal consists solely of "I don't like what you're saying, so you don't get to say it." If any person, corporation, or government did this, we would be outraged. So why would we accept or encourage it from Anonymous? It's certainly no better a behavior coming from what is putatively "our side" than anywhere else. .
The fact is that Australians have elected their lawmakers. If they don't want this law, it's up to them to change it. If Anon wants to bring attention to to the legislation, that's great. If they want to protest , that's cool too. If they are disrupting services in the name of doing so -- services that people presumably need and use -- that just makes them childish.
Let the downmod commence, I know it's not popular to be critical of Anonymous here. But is it any surprise that they're viewed as basement-dwelling losers when their only tactic is equivalent to shouting so loud their opposition can't be heard?
And that "doing without" is precisely what would motivate Microsoft to reconsider.
American consumers, even when they're not ignorant, are too addicted and apathetic to do anything but whine. They file for divorce often enough, yet they can't ever seem to divorce themselves from their corporate abusers.
I think you can strike "American" and leave "consumers". Once you get to a point where the things required to meet your basic needs and wants are readily available for purchase -- or even better, are "free" such as when installed on a purchased computer -- apathy becomes easy.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess we'll never really know. Maybe it was both.
We do really know..
That sound you just heard? Yep, you got it. Whoosh
The DMCA does not apply, but the blogger didn't have the right to republish the material. I am not familiar with Canadian law, but I am assuming that there's a provision similar to that aspect of DMCA...
No, they are not. They might want to, but they're not FORCED to do this. This means they are part of the problem, because if IE6 didn't work with most sites it would provide another reason to make the free upgrade.
That's naive at best. If the official company standard -- guaranteed to be present and supported on every single workstation and thin client device to the exclusion of all else -- is IE6, developers create apps that take advantage of IE6. Doing otherwise would be foolish and a waste of time, because it only has to run on IE6 - standards-compliant web apps would take significantly longer to create, because it would STILL be required to to work on IE6 (and we all know how well that POS respects standards). Keep in mind we're not talking about customer-facing applications, but internal tools.
A comparison would be blaming developers for not creating a Linux-compatible internal app when their entire company is a Windows shop. Don't think in terms of web standards, but a standardized development platform within an organization.
There are , alas, too many Bobs in the world. Do you believe that most people using computers *aren't* dumb enough to do this? And since it only takes one occurrence to be compromised, it doesn't matter how quickly you fire him.
This round of panic brought to you by Fireeye -- but rest assured, they can protect you from this latest 2-year-old+ threat.
Sometimes, deadly videos are important to illustrate the deadly consequence of other people's actions. --
Other times, as in this case, they're great for driving up hit counts and ad revenue. I don't disagree, but let's not get so lost in high ideals that we forget the reality of how the video was being used (I checked - njnnetwork does host clickthrough ad content). In that context, this usage of a DMCA takedown makes sense and is completely appropriate.
If you're using it to report news or even give commentary on news, fine. If you're using it to give commentary and make some money off of it along the way, that's rather crossing the line.
This is true as long as you don't have any chronic condition that requires recurring dr visits - or worse, medication. Even a simple prescription required monthly can eat up more than your yearly premium very quickly.
Look into various small business associations. Look local to your area and nationally - my understanding is that when they are representing a coallition of small business, they often negotiate larger group rates for their participants. Here are a couple of places to start for the national scene: NASE and NBA
Though SuperFetch is a little less aggressive in Windows 7, it will still use a substantial amount of memory—but with an important proviso. The OS will only use memory for cache when there is no other demand for that memory.
I really wonder when people will get this.
If it were correct, I would "get it". But when tabbing back to my app which has been sitting idle for 30 minutes causes page file reads, and at the same time I can see that there's a signficant amount of "cache" in use, this means that the OS is using the cache at the expense of applications that need the memory. I don't understand how people can consistently claim that this is only done when there is "no other demand" for the memory, unless they think that because an application is idle, the OS should be reclaiming its memory.
Another way of looking at it: Win7 is using SuperFetch to cache the applications I *might* want to use in priority over the memory of the applications I *am currently running* -- even if not actively so.
When I have 4GB of RAM in my box, and I am seeing pagefile activity when running apps consuming a total of 2GB, there's something very wrong.
Indeed. The summary reads as if he made up a fake person at a real company to which he had no connection. Truth is that he made up a fake person at a company that he owned, as a pseudonym. I think they're right in no longer keeping him on as a blogger (full disclosure and all that), but the /. summary makes it look like something much more serious than what actually happened.
With su you give full control over the root account, with sudo you need to write it every time you require root account. UAC is actually a lot better than what there is available for linux, in desktop use (in command line/server use it pwns).
UAC is a stumbling block that doesn't help anything. By requiring this every time you adjust a system setting *of any kind*, you just train the user to click "OK" and/or enter the required password without thought. It becomes a matter of course - when installing software, when changing hardware configuration, when changing shared options -- you will see this prompt and click through it as quickly as possible to do what you intended to do.
If some web site suddenly causes you to click an extra button, or enter your password yet again, it doesn't make people stop and think. It just raises that old "get this annoying crap out of my faces so I can see my dancing bunnies" response that they've been trained to have.
The sudo model is no better - it's a few more keystrokes, but it is the same model - and trains the same behavior into users.
The answer isn't artificial obstacles that we train people to ignore even as we throw them up -- it's in education for those who want to learn, in iPads and similar locked-down devices for those who don't; and in at least getting people aware to the point that they know which device is safe for them to own.
Only Chuck Norris is safe from Chuck Norris.
Are you implying that Chuck Norris could beat up Chuck Norris?
If you ponder it for too long, the world will end. So please, for the sake of all of us -- don't.
These are all areas of weakness I've seen in university-taught programmers too. That's more a result of the general lowering of standards that our industry underwent in the 90s.
company's Chief Technology Officer Barney Morrison-Lyons says that was never going to be the right route: 'The biggest problem with Microsoft is badly-written software — the operating system allows you to write software badly unlike Mac or Linux.'
That kind of makes me question their level of competency. It is possible to write software badly for any platform, device, or language. Saying otherwise means only that you're mis-parroting something one of your underlings has said.
Of course, this is just the result of logically thinking it through - the law and logic often seem to diverge.
When you react to somebody else's suppression or censorship with suppression or censorship of your own, you have no moral ground to stand on. You can be easily dismissed as "hackers" or "loser basement dwellers" then, by the very same people you're trying to convince to enact change.
Name-calling doesn't change the validity of this point.
Rick Rolling, told you Microsoft is evil ;-)
I agree with you. In fact, I have recorded an incisive and insightful video commentary on exactly this subject, which you can find at this location.
I don't know how caching works in W7 but on Linux, if the system has to "turn to disk-based virtual memory to handle tasks" then the memory utilization isn't caused by buffers because buffers are never swapped out to disk. If W7 behaves in a similar manner the it's either a memory leak, system bloat or the caching mechanism is broken.
Not entirely true either. I've seen swap usage grow (albeit very little) when there is over 2GB in use only by cache.
Here's what I've noticed - and it's not just in Win7, it also happens to a lesser extent in XP. I do think the memory is being used for cache -- but Windows will cache things to the exclusion of memory actually in use by applications. So if you have minimized something to the taskbar, or just haven't used it in a while, you will almost *always* have to wait while it gets loaded back from the page file. In the case of a large application (IDE, 3d editor, etc) this can take many seconds. On a quad-core machine with 4GB of RAM, I just don't see that this is acceptable.
I think it's great that Windows is using all available RAM for cache - but it should not do so at the expense of running applications because that RAM is *not* actually available.
How about the fact that their methods of "protesting" are consistently as suppressive as what they're trying to protest?
Uh, yeah, that's the point, Sherlock. "You censor us, we censor you. Sucks, doesn't it? This is the internet. You don't make the rules here, we do. You stop, we stop."
In other words "Do as I say, not as I do".
Yep, that sounds like a great way to accomplish something. Principles are great, but only if you apply them consistently - even and perhaps especially when the other party doesn't.
he iPhone DOMINATES the worldwide smartphone mark
as determined by requests made by devices for ads on AdMob’s extensive mobile advertising network.,
In other words this has nothing to do with market share , or even usage - only usage of apps that interact with AdMob's network. (Presumably this is more than just the web browser - which would limit the significance of this even further - but I don't have time to look it up.)
Why do I keep seeing this word "member". Anonymous has no "members", it's not some organization you join. The fact that I'm posting AC means I'm a "member" of anonymous.
Me too!
Oh, shit.
until you have some real criticism against them?
How about the fact that their methods of "protesting" are consistently as suppressive as what they're trying to protest? Their arsenal consists solely of "I don't like what you're saying, so you don't get to say it." If any person, corporation, or government did this, we would be outraged. So why would we accept or encourage it from Anonymous? It's certainly no better a behavior coming from what is putatively "our side" than anywhere else. .
The fact is that Australians have elected their lawmakers. If they don't want this law, it's up to them to change it. If Anon wants to bring attention to to the legislation, that's great. If they want to protest , that's cool too. If they are disrupting services in the name of doing so -- services that people presumably need and use -- that just makes them childish.
Let the downmod commence, I know it's not popular to be critical of Anonymous here. But is it any surprise that they're viewed as basement-dwelling losers when their only tactic is equivalent to shouting so loud their opposition can't be heard?
Thanks, I'll give it a shot
And that "doing without" is precisely what would motivate Microsoft to reconsider.
American consumers, even when they're not ignorant, are too addicted and apathetic to do anything but whine. They file for divorce often enough, yet they can't ever seem to divorce themselves from their corporate abusers.
I think you can strike "American" and leave "consumers". Once you get to a point where the things required to meet your basic needs and wants are readily available for purchase -- or even better, are "free" such as when installed on a purchased computer -- apathy becomes easy.