One of my friends once ran a version of Windows XP that he had pretty much scraped everything of that didn't need to be there, I think he was a lot more secure than he would have been had he filled his computer with all kinds of AV and anti-malware programs, some of them seem to be causing more problems than they solve anyhow.
I think you are right in this thinking. Windows XP's services that are enabled by default are ludicrous. That's one of the main security problems with XP. What I don't understand is why someone doesn't just allow the computer to start with absolutely no services enabled, and then gradually ramp up to what the computer actually needs, turning services on only as they are needed.
For instance, shutting down a service might make a certain set of USB gadgets might not work. But when you plug the USB device in, Windows itself (or the OS itself) could recognize that the service is needed for the device to function and automatically enable the service. Depending upon how much this costs it could automatically disable the service again if it isn't being utilized by anything else.
Maybe I'm being naive, but that doesn't seem like too much to ask. On really strange services you could prompt for password information in order to ramp up the ability to use them or something. Makes sense to me.
It seems to me that windows has everything enabled by default to be user friendly. But couldn't you do the same thing using this method? Instead of having a bunch of running services running at idle constantly, turn em on when you need em.
Just like corn.
There are some serious downsides to finding ways to use human food as fuel.
Yes but you are missing the upside of this one. Unlike corn, sugar comes from a variety of sources, many of which are cheaply producable or directly obtainable from nature. For instance, the battery has been shown to use tree sap. You might say, well there's not enough tree sap, yes. But there's an abundance of sugar. Corn is one thing, not only must you grow the corn but you must break it down in a specific process for it to become fuel. This, essentially, means that you don't need to do that process. This is the ability to directly use some food products as fuel without additional conversion. Given how cheap food production has become, I'd say that's not bad.
im not a star wars fan, but boy, star wars contain heaploads of stuff for "human condition" than any of the sci-fi stuff this guy is talking about - its about humane fears, good and evil, greed, comradeship, high ideals and lowly cravings.
Yeah, it sure was a battle of fears, good and evil and greed when Lucas re-released all of the original star wars movies with crappy CGI footage. Like I fear what he's gonna molest about his previously good movies next, how long is he going to be evil with greed and try to milk an aging franchise and how have his high ideals gone to the "dark side" while he succumbs to latest "lowly cravings" to bilk customers out of yet more cash..
For wasting my time with all these frivolous lawsuits I have to read about...
Seriously. You know honestly, the RIAA reminds me of the people fighting for prohibition. In the end it's going to lose because everyone is still drinking the booze (stealing the music) and all the legal action in the world isn't going to stop it. So you might as well just come to the conclusion that it's going to happen. I personally say let's make it legal!
also, there was an interesting story on NPR a while back about recording technology, including some mention of the fact that some people were upset when it came along and changed the way people experienced music (from gathering around and playing/singing to just listening). Music will always be around. The Recording Industry won't.
The Roots of Audio Recordings Turn at 78 RPM by Susan Stamberg
I think to some degree that record companies hate this idea of music and that it is essentially contrary to their idea of where the music industry should be headed.
I'm going to try to not sound like a conspiracy theorist here, however, I think that the recording industry wants you to believe that music is a rare talent that only gifted people can have that's given from God or something and the only way that's right to get it is to go through one of their outlets and buy a CD. The best you can do is listen to a CD, listen to their "masters of the craft." Because they can't charge you for other things, they don't particularly like group singing sessions in tiny bars. Doesn't do well for their bottom line if people enjoy music without buying product or at least tickets.
I honestly think being contrary to this model is the reason they do ludicrous things like attempt to take down tab sites. Tab sites, for those who don't know, are for guitar players to guitar players, basically an internet way of doing "hey, I just figured out how to play this and here's how you do it."
If everyone saw that music wasn't some unique god given talent that only certain creative people get when born, they'd probably buy less CDs and maybe join a band or at least pick up an instrument. When this happens you have more people enjoying the magic of music instead of buying it on little discs, which is directly contrary to their business model. The RIAA doesn't care if you enjoy music, they don't care about the nature of music, the art of music, they just care if you buy it.
Even the worst home recording is better than a Skip James master copy in a lot of cases. Recording technology and instruments are cheap to come by nowadays and it doesn't cost much to record demo quality songs. Despite your intended audience, this might be entirely enough for you without having to break the bank or move to L.A. to "make it big." People need to look back to a time when music was more simple, a joyous way of spending your freetime and an oral tradition rather than singles and one hit wonders and sensational boy bands. Music did used to be a grass roots phenomenon before it became a mass market success and returning it there wouldn't be a major loss of any type like the RIAA wants you to believe. In fact I think it would be a return to its rightful place, before record contracts, advertising deals, and worldwide tours.
It gave people for mere pennies the ability to buy a service that once took a king's fortune to procure;
really? from what I remember of musical history most people got to listen to music for free and were encouraged to donate to the travelling bard or musician.
Granted history could be wrong and all artists commanded millions of rupees/gold coins/diamonds per performance from the kings of the world.
I am betting that that is not the case, most musicians worked for very little and gave away their craft, incredibly few were the "rock stars" that sold their creations for incredulous amounts of money. (Yes Mozart, Beethoven, and their likes were the exception and not the rule.)
Also most music was blatantly stolen. Most Irish jigs are variations of other jigs, and so on. Most of music's evolution is based on the original freedom and freeness the music had.
Paying huge sums of money all the time to musicians is a weird phenomenon of the past 50 years that is not the norm and will correct it's self. No matter what the RIAA and stars-in-their-eyes musicians want, it will change back to the way it was.
I love your point and I myself would add a few things. As kind of a musician myself, I think nowadays is the best time to be a musician. And that has nothing to do with money. It's the best time now to be any kind of artist. Anyone doing it merely for the beauty of art will find that you can create works of art with little to no investment. You can buy half decent recording equipment for a couple hundred dollars, and with the Internet you can have a fanbase like in no other time, generated from nothing but your own blood sweat and tears. The fact of the matter is that most musicians, in the past, in the present and in the future reach no one with their art. They are born, they live and they die, creating art or performing and 99% of them never amount to even a record contract. Nowadays, you don't even have to have a record contract to have others enjoy your music. You can make your track and send it all around the world to your friends and family and anyone else who might be interested all for very little cost. The same thing exists for writers today, for programmers, for anyone. If you want to do your work professionally, you want to not have to do anything but play rock music, gather enough to get a tour together and get a fanbase. However, unlike the bard of day's past we can afford to eat and still practice our crafts in our freetime without having to live on the street or beg or borrow to do it.
RIAA doesn't do this to profit from the lawsuits, but to stop people from using P2P. Create enough fuss around it, make people afraid of using it, show that no matter who you are, 8yo girl, mother of 8 kids, old granny, a guy after stroke, you're not safe. They don't care that you hate them, just like you hate the terrorists. They just want to scare you.
Only thing I'm scared of is their potential to shut down my favorite bittorrent sites, leaving me having to go find a new one.
Personally I allocate a partition that's purely dedicated to operating system and software. So in case the OS does a real *uck-up* I won't lose all data and I only have to re-install. The only thing that I'm annoyed with is the "Documents and Settings" directory that is allocated on the OS partition, and I really would like to have the option of reallocating that beast to a different partition.
Yep, I used to too, and you are right. This USED to work great. That's until I bought a new Windows box with Windows Media Center. I tried Vista, didn't like it, wanted to go back. I found out that my "windows" disc does some kind of weirdo complete imaging instead of just installing the OS, deleting all my partitions including my data while just saying it would format C:. I had to buy an external USB disk and get a copy of ERD to get my data back and now the data is just staying there. I guess this smart approach doesn't even apply when you don't actually own windows anymore, you license it.
Reaction: I was just a little bit pissed. Conclusion: I'm moving to linux with all new hardware components. I know I won't have this problem there.
I think a DRM standard that everyone adopts would avoid these issues but I don't forsee that happening in the future. It benefits Apple somewhat because they can have a great service or a great player and reap the market. I don't blame them, however, because they do a fine job on both ends. I am concerned about any sort of free market existing here.
Don't worry, a free market for this otherwise DRM'd material already exists. And they are selling their "warez" at bottom barrel prices!
Here's my demographic.
I'm a computer user who likes my machines to be as crash-free as possible. Failing that, I'd like access to the source code so I can fix whatever problems I perceive, rather than waiting for someone else to do it.
Ok - that's my "Linux Persona". Now let's see you cater to me.
Their strategy for you (I have just read some of the material) is basically to not cater to you. Instead of talking about the core issue involved (FOSS vs. proprietary), I, as a salesperson, am supposed to use diversionary tactics to get around that issue and then hit you with things like TCO, and "independent studies" which show MS to be the better choice. One thing I found interesting in the "get the facts" handout is how they claimed to be a great company for "interoperability."
MS doesn't want the Open vs. Proprietary argument to become mainstream, or to enter a sales call. The fact of the matter is that if the argument is made, they are obviously on the losing side and after they lose the argument too many times and people start moving to open source, their company's entire business model (the proprietary software design company) is gone.
To put it simply, they want to pretend that Linux is just another competitor, and that nothing is gained in general from using Linux and OSS, even when they know that is not the case. Because admitting this would be the end of their business, completely.
What I find hilarious is that the Linux community is essentially beating MS the way MS beats its competitors, by giving their software away. And what's even better about it is that even without big business support or any money coming into Linux, it will continue to grow without assistance. It didn't require money to start, it doesn't require money to continue and its overall adoption means the end of proprietary software companies for the most part (except maybe game and niche applications). Microsoft is already on the baton march, they just think they can still win.
Maybe you'll feel different a few years down the line when adobe and microsoft have teamed up to bring you yet another forced hardware upgrade with little to nothing to show for it. Until then, enjoy your bloated software. I'll be looking elsewhere.
You know, the worst drivers I've spotted on the road are the old people that are too old to be driving, and most of them never played a video game in their life. Sure, overly aggressive driving might cause some problems, but I'll tell you, it doesn't cause nearly as many accidents as outright incompetence or inability to conform to normal traffic procedures or speeds.
The first reason, and the less sure one and more petty one, is that I feel that Adobe ruins all software over time. If you think carefully about this, and if you have sufficient experience with Adobe software, you will agree with me. The only project Adobe has not completely destroyed is Photoshop, and that is only because they move most cautiously with that product. If they screwed up Photoshop they would cease to exist yesterday.
Definitely agreed, "adobe pdf viewer" alone is enough to bring a state-of-the-art dual core computer to its knees in some cases. I recommend everyone use any alternative PDF viewer, which has faulty printing algorithms, slow printing algorithms, and seems to go out of its way to be a bloated, buggy piece of trash that will take all the CPUs time up in a heartbeat.
Photoshop, I would even say, seems to eat more and more resources for no conceivable reason with every new revision. Adobe is a bloat machine on par with AOL, and Microsoft for sure. All that being said, Apollo should be resisted at all costs. Adobe is as Linux unfriendly as almost anything else and every step ahead it takes in adoption is a step backwards in cross-platform compatibility.
Hey Tom,
I understand what you're saying - but you have to realize that this isn't about what you do, or what I do, it's about the behavior of the overall population. If you believe that the overall population tends to follow your habits, then that is one argument. If, on the other hand, there is a growing population of freeloaders, then that's another problem.
Although I'm essentially replying to you here, I make this point more globally because I see similar responses everywhere the topic of piracy is discussed, and I think that except in very few circumstances they mask the real issue.
P.S. "Crap doesn't sell as well anymore.", agreed!
Let's return to your original assumption then: that there's a growing quantity of freeloaders. If your assumption is correct, then indeed the market does have to change its way of working. Distribution is cheap and people are sick of middlemen driving up prices. I must admit that lately even though I used to download a lot of movies I find myself buying them more: the price just isn't worth me downloading what I can buy. The younger people have less money and when you have no money but a lot of time, you'll work within those bounds. As you get older you'd rather just buy it because it isn't worth the hassle. I think that's the overall market. But let's say that these people don't become customers. At least in software's case, let's face it: OSS has them beat as a model. With FOSS, you don't really have to pirate anymore. A lot of my time in the last two years instead of cracking commercial products like I might if I wanted to pirate has just been to find an open source alternative to whatever product I used to use. Because I don't even have to crack it. It's free and available. I used to use freeware for this in the past, but there were no real alternatives when it came to office components and things, now there is. There's alternatives to almost everything: ranging from amateur to professional.
So, we don't need to pump money into software companies in order to make software happen conceivably, what else is left on your list?
Entertainment mediums: mainly TV, movies, and music. Let's say that nobody that pirates buys these things, it's a bad assumption, but let's make it. If nobody watches TV, TV would I guess eventually wither and disappear. This segment would eventually be offered in direct to web, like episodes are available now direct to web. I would guess that the production companies would be paid the same way they always are: by ads (this time on the web instead of the channel). So let's see....NOT a big deal.
Okay, how about movies. People start downloading and not purchasing movies. First we'd have to have the assumption that nobody really wants to see movies in a theater anymore. Well, that's another bad one, but let's assume it. The movie business as you know it withers and dies. What happens is low budget creations (like the kind featured on youtube for free already) ramp up in ambition and independent movie makers with other day jobs fill the void. Distribution is the segment that gets hit here. All the bloat in movie productions and the people who like to see special effects more than good acting or good writing also take a hit. Big budget blockbusters fall off. That's it. Movies still exist: the people creating them change. For better? For worse? I don't know, I think it would be better personally but that's a matter of opinion.
Okay, now music. Everyone downloads their music. Now we're going to assume that not only do they download all their music but they don't pump money into major acts with overpriced tickets sold by ticketing firms. What happens? Well, this is another would never happen scenario, but if it does, let's see. All the entrepreneurs that try to pretend to be musical artists will have to find other avenues in which to make their millions, as nobody really pays for music anymore. Bars and venues will still have to pay touring musical acts because
Feisty could win the OS wars decisively, but given the over all FOSS community attitude towards ordinary people....
Unfortunately, I believe the war is over, to risk a cliche. I think the best we can do now is just chip slowly away at MS's structure by recommending a linux switch to people who complain about MS or by putting linux on our own computers. Perhaps more people should start foundations where they give out computers for free by taking an older computer that someone wants to get rid of and putting linux on it and giving it to someone who has no computer. Either way, the war is largely decided despite most peoples' fervent hatred of the victor.
The good part is that linux exists, and with any luck it will continue to grow as a community. It's not really a war as much as it is like digging a tunnel through the shit pile of the proprietary software paradigm. Every day in every way we can we can help move things to OSS. The first thing you can do is replace the applications on existing installations of Windows. When someone suggests upgrading to office whatever, try to hit them with an openoffice suite instead. I already moved my neighbor who used to use pirated office to openoffice with a little resistance. More of this will make OSS applications feel like "home" and once they start all seeming like home, then maybe what OS they run on can be changed. The present is applications, it really doesn't matter what OS they run on. Let's start with applications, and gradually move to OSs. Just chip away at the monopoly anyway you can, from recommending firefox to installing Ubuntu on a person's old Win98 machine. Whatever you can do.
Do you really think they will spend all that money and effort to produce better products than google/yahoo/etc ?
No, they will leverage their desktop monopoly to push their search. Their search engine may be crap, just like IE is crap, but when 95% of desktop computers sold comes with their search engine as the default, very few people will ever bother looking for anything better.
I was waiting for this quote, I knew someone would say it. And what I want to say is this: that might have worked in the past with IE and everything, but it won't work anymore. I just was sitting in my office, and someone tried a search on an MS engine and couldn't find what they were looking for, immediately someone said, "that's just MS trying to make money, type google up top instead."
Here's a fact most people aren't yet recognizing: people are getting smarter, at least about the internet if not about computers in general. They are starting to change the default search provider, or at least typing in a URL instead of struggling with whatever IE gives them by default.
On the Internet, MS can't compete because it's a me too. It offers nothing someone hasn't seen somewhere else, and by this time they are already used to using those providers. They are used to typing in google.com and using the maps from that site. They aren't going to bother trying to navigate MS's site and find their version. The difference is typing in a URL.
I think this is fundamentally why MS is failing on the Internet. Picking an alternative is too easy, and usually on its own merits, MS products fail because they are inferior or simply par for the course.
MS can't leverage its monopoly to control the Internet, or at least they haven't found a good way yet and it's possible they never will. So everyone wins in that regard.
USA didn't make the list? What about a DMCA takedown? You don't call that censorship? Freedom of speech is an interesting idea, but does it actually exist anywhere?
Sure it does, free speech exists wherever there are "free speech zones." In these zones you may speak as freely as you would like. And fortunately, for your convenience, we are relocating many of these zones to a prison near you!
BTW, I'm super, thanks for asking!
Yours truly,
The U.S. Government.
P.S. Don't ask me how the Iraq war is going, it really pisses me off when you do that.
My point is this: if watching the movie on an iPod is a primary buying concern of theirs, would they really care about the movie's HD quality? Somehow I don't see the people watching the movie on the iPod in the same market as those who have to watch a movie on an HDTV in full resolution. Are you telling me people so obnoxious they have to have a 60" plasma screen at home and view their movies in 1080p are now won over by the fact that they can transfer that same movie to their 3" ipod? Please. The number of people with Blu-ray computer drives is slimmer than those who own PS3s or actual blu-ray players, and the number of those people who would even have the technical know-how to use the "crack" for blu-ray disks in order to rip said movie to an ipod has to be so fucking slim that it would have next to 0 effect on how many blu-ray discs were sold. My point is: ipods and the blu-ray crack have NOTHING to do with that blu-ray movie being in the top 10.
How about "safe for driving" certification for devices?
I my opinion this is simple and elegant... and would no eliminate dash board embedded devices... it would not effect companies... and make prosecution of the idiots who text and drive easier!
Or even better add a GPS... and if your moving fast than 20 km/h... then disable the device.
Sounds like an excellent big brother idea. But how about this, you are in the back seat of someone else's car and now you have to pull over to use your cell phone. AWESOME!
Here's a better idea, instead of trying to look for what distracted the person, just charge the person with being distracted. Done and done.
To be quiet honest, I think politicians are pushing this one because it's a hotbutton issue and new and trendy. The same dangers existed since the invention of cars. I got into an accident with someone who crossed the line and plowed into me while I was practically stopped on the road hoping he'd swerve. He had lost control of his van in a snow storm and went right into me. Ironically it was a pastor on his way to his church to get sermons or some shit.
After the accident, the officer asked me if I had been using my cellphone at the time. I said no, he said it's okay if you were it's just for statistics. I said no, I wasn't using it. It seems to me like politicians are getting police to look for certain causes of accidents. Political pressure seems to be applied to these people to make it seem like all accidents are caused by cell phone usage. When a lot of accidents are caused by old fashioned fucking stupidity (like driving 50mph on icy roads in a van and then trying to brake while approaching another car). Pulling people over for talking on their cell phone or adjusting the radio increases the nice big brother hold they have on you because everyone has done these things at one time. It's part of the risk of driving. Most of driving is trying not to hit the morons that are coming at you 10 ways to Sunday trying to total your car. You can't prevent all of this from happening. Any such law will be selectively enforced and used for profiling purposes by police who given the new policies will be given even more reasons they can pull your ass over for no reason and conduct an anal cavity search. I got pulled over once for simply being out at 3am.
People are morons on the road, but more laws = more ways they can fuck with you. They already have laws that would cover this on the books, use them. Stupid people come at you from all directions. What I love is something called the "pull-out paradox" where when you are driving down the road and have the right away, people will often see your car and remain stopped for a period of time. However, for whatever reason it seems that the closer you get to them the higher the chances are that they'll pull out until you are in accident range. Most people like to pull out just in time so that you have to squeeze your brakes hard to avoid hitting them. Had they gone sooner, they could've easily not caused you to drop your speed, but they'd rather have you almost smack them in the ass I guess, because they can't judge distance or speed. Observe sometime, it's funny to watch people "I'll wait, I'll wait, *2 seconds* fuck it, I'll just pull out and almost get in an accident."
"Likeliest to be hit" is a mislable. It should read "ISP's inept users" who allow themselves to become vunerable due to ignorance or carelessness.
This isn't some war between ISPs. The graph shows clearly what ISP had the most victims due to this virii. But even that isnt conclusive of anything because of the quantity of overall customers isnt revealed. Yeh sure we can say Comcast has the most, but they surely have more customers overall than say, oh Qwest.
I'm not so sure that what you are saying is true. I'll give you a little story. I run comcast cable at home and I setup a web server without any advertisement whatsoever. It was on port 80 so it was publicly accessible via a standard port 80 search or whatever, however, like I said, it was not advertised. I'd get either hackers or bots or whatever they were going through a list of common exploit commands on my server every single day when I'd look at the logs. Now, my web server was customized and for specific purposes, so none of these commands worked and eventually I customized it to deny access to these individuals and give them a "connection reset" return message, however, it shows what a target you are just for being on comcast's service.
People know the IP ranges. If it's zombie botnets, then there are a lot of computers on comcast that are already zombies looking to exploit you. So this puts you more at risk than being on any other ISP IMO, even if you do know what you are doing. I'd get a huge list on a daily basis of these people, they were most likely unique because some of them actually browsed the webpages when it was publicly accessible. 20-30 unique attempts a day to try to exploit a webserver that's completely advertised to the known public, I'd consider that pretty significant.
Also, email. I believe that spam networks and phishing networks target comcast users exclusively and continue to target them after getting a response back from the server that the mailbox is valid or whatever. A lot of email spam that I get isn't the result of signing up for anything, but instead a CC that also extends to a lot of other comcast subscribers. The list is usually hundreds of people long on each mailing. So somehow they are able to wholesale get the email addresses of comcast subscribers, whether it's through brute force or comcast hands them out I don't know and couldn't prove either way. But again, you are more of a target on comcast in this manner. An unsuspecting customer could easily be foiled by one of these phishing attempts and some of them look very official to the unknowing eye. Don't underestimate the guile and cunning of these snakes that lurk on the Internet to prey on their victims and don't cast the victims off as some unknowing bunch of nitwits who simply don't take basic security measures, the problem is bigger than it seems.
That chart simply looks like a demographic on the amount of users currently using those ISPs. As with spyware, it makes sense of course that the biggest population will be hit the hardest. That's effectively why alternative operating systems are impenetrable to virii and other nasty things. They aren't looked at by the majority of the 'bad people' out there.:P
That's true, and I understand this argument as it is a familiar one. However, some systems make inherently insecure choices and are slow or late to deliver patches (or in some cases, no patches are released at all). Look, everyone understands that all software security probably has holes in one way or another, but the fact of the matter is that the faster you patch those holes, the less chance you have of the ship as a whole sinking to the bottom of the ocean. And it also helps if you design the code based on security from the beginning instead of attempting to bolt-on security like it's another feature when it definitely isn't.
I'm from the UK and I was surprised to see that most films seem to be released on DVD in both widescreen and fullscreen versions in the US. This doesn't really happen in the UK.
Here almost all the films just come out in widescreen form and if you want to play on a 4:3 TV most DVD players give you the option of playing the DVD either in letter box or plan and scan. Is there a good reason for the difference?
I'm guessing that fullscreen has returned due to popular demand. Most of our DVD players don't have a good pan&scan feature (at least the cheap ones). Our country has a large section of backwards people and because they don't ever buy new anything they expect companies to get in line with their old technological preferences. The long and the short of it, of course, is people like me buy the fullscreen version of departed without realizing it (because I didn't even realize they still MADE fullscreen DVDs on a separate disc without also including the widescreen version) and have widescreen TVs and still have to zoom to get a full picture.
A few years ago it was hard to buy a fullscreen version of a DVD, but it seems they've had a resurgence. This is probably due to people buying apex and other cheap DVD players at walmart without decent pan&scan features and then whining about not being able to see the whole picture. Personally, I don't understand why both sides of the disc aren't utilized to provide hybrid versions like on some movies, but whatever. Now I'm stuck with a fullscreen version of a movie I wanted in widescreen.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you are right in this thinking. Windows XP's services that are enabled by default are ludicrous. That's one of the main security problems with XP. What I don't understand is why someone doesn't just allow the computer to start with absolutely no services enabled, and then gradually ramp up to what the computer actually needs, turning services on only as they are needed.
For instance, shutting down a service might make a certain set of USB gadgets might not work. But when you plug the USB device in, Windows itself (or the OS itself) could recognize that the service is needed for the device to function and automatically enable the service. Depending upon how much this costs it could automatically disable the service again if it isn't being utilized by anything else.
Maybe I'm being naive, but that doesn't seem like too much to ask. On really strange services you could prompt for password information in order to ramp up the ability to use them or something. Makes sense to me.
It seems to me that windows has everything enabled by default to be user friendly. But couldn't you do the same thing using this method? Instead of having a bunch of running services running at idle constantly, turn em on when you need em.
Yes but you are missing the upside of this one. Unlike corn, sugar comes from a variety of sources, many of which are cheaply producable or directly obtainable from nature. For instance, the battery has been shown to use tree sap. You might say, well there's not enough tree sap, yes. But there's an abundance of sugar. Corn is one thing, not only must you grow the corn but you must break it down in a specific process for it to become fuel. This, essentially, means that you don't need to do that process. This is the ability to directly use some food products as fuel without additional conversion. Given how cheap food production has become, I'd say that's not bad.
Yeah, it sure was a battle of fears, good and evil and greed when Lucas re-released all of the original star wars movies with crappy CGI footage. Like I fear what he's gonna molest about his previously good movies next, how long is he going to be evil with greed and try to milk an aging franchise and how have his high ideals gone to the "dark side" while he succumbs to latest "lowly cravings" to bilk customers out of yet more cash..
Seriously. You know honestly, the RIAA reminds me of the people fighting for prohibition. In the end it's going to lose because everyone is still drinking the booze (stealing the music) and all the legal action in the world isn't going to stop it. So you might as well just come to the conclusion that it's going to happen. I personally say let's make it legal!
I think to some degree that record companies hate this idea of music and that it is essentially contrary to their idea of where the music industry should be headed.
I'm going to try to not sound like a conspiracy theorist here, however, I think that the recording industry wants you to believe that music is a rare talent that only gifted people can have that's given from God or something and the only way that's right to get it is to go through one of their outlets and buy a CD. The best you can do is listen to a CD, listen to their "masters of the craft." Because they can't charge you for other things, they don't particularly like group singing sessions in tiny bars. Doesn't do well for their bottom line if people enjoy music without buying product or at least tickets.
I honestly think being contrary to this model is the reason they do ludicrous things like attempt to take down tab sites. Tab sites, for those who don't know, are for guitar players to guitar players, basically an internet way of doing "hey, I just figured out how to play this and here's how you do it."
If everyone saw that music wasn't some unique god given talent that only certain creative people get when born, they'd probably buy less CDs and maybe join a band or at least pick up an instrument. When this happens you have more people enjoying the magic of music instead of buying it on little discs, which is directly contrary to their business model. The RIAA doesn't care if you enjoy music, they don't care about the nature of music, the art of music, they just care if you buy it.
I always figured that one was an intentional oxymoron used to provoke laughter like jumbo shrimp or American idol.
Versus being married and not having a wife?
Even the worst home recording is better than a Skip James master copy in a lot of cases. Recording technology and instruments are cheap to come by nowadays and it doesn't cost much to record demo quality songs. Despite your intended audience, this might be entirely enough for you without having to break the bank or move to L.A. to "make it big." People need to look back to a time when music was more simple, a joyous way of spending your freetime and an oral tradition rather than singles and one hit wonders and sensational boy bands. Music did used to be a grass roots phenomenon before it became a mass market success and returning it there wouldn't be a major loss of any type like the RIAA wants you to believe. In fact I think it would be a return to its rightful place, before record contracts, advertising deals, and worldwide tours.
I love your point and I myself would add a few things. As kind of a musician myself, I think nowadays is the best time to be a musician. And that has nothing to do with money. It's the best time now to be any kind of artist. Anyone doing it merely for the beauty of art will find that you can create works of art with little to no investment. You can buy half decent recording equipment for a couple hundred dollars, and with the Internet you can have a fanbase like in no other time, generated from nothing but your own blood sweat and tears. The fact of the matter is that most musicians, in the past, in the present and in the future reach no one with their art. They are born, they live and they die, creating art or performing and 99% of them never amount to even a record contract. Nowadays, you don't even have to have a record contract to have others enjoy your music. You can make your track and send it all around the world to your friends and family and anyone else who might be interested all for very little cost. The same thing exists for writers today, for programmers, for anyone. If you want to do your work professionally, you want to not have to do anything but play rock music, gather enough to get a tour together and get a fanbase. However, unlike the bard of day's past we can afford to eat and still practice our crafts in our freetime without having to live on the street or beg or borrow to do it.
Only thing I'm scared of is their potential to shut down my favorite bittorrent sites, leaving me having to go find a new one.
Yep, I used to too, and you are right. This USED to work great. That's until I bought a new Windows box with Windows Media Center. I tried Vista, didn't like it, wanted to go back. I found out that my "windows" disc does some kind of weirdo complete imaging instead of just installing the OS, deleting all my partitions including my data while just saying it would format C:. I had to buy an external USB disk and get a copy of ERD to get my data back and now the data is just staying there. I guess this smart approach doesn't even apply when you don't actually own windows anymore, you license it.
Reaction: I was just a little bit pissed. Conclusion: I'm moving to linux with all new hardware components. I know I won't have this problem there.
Don't worry, a free market for this otherwise DRM'd material already exists. And they are selling their "warez" at bottom barrel prices!
Their strategy for you (I have just read some of the material) is basically to not cater to you. Instead of talking about the core issue involved (FOSS vs. proprietary), I, as a salesperson, am supposed to use diversionary tactics to get around that issue and then hit you with things like TCO, and "independent studies" which show MS to be the better choice. One thing I found interesting in the "get the facts" handout is how they claimed to be a great company for "interoperability."
MS doesn't want the Open vs. Proprietary argument to become mainstream, or to enter a sales call. The fact of the matter is that if the argument is made, they are obviously on the losing side and after they lose the argument too many times and people start moving to open source, their company's entire business model (the proprietary software design company) is gone.
To put it simply, they want to pretend that Linux is just another competitor, and that nothing is gained in general from using Linux and OSS, even when they know that is not the case. Because admitting this would be the end of their business, completely.
What I find hilarious is that the Linux community is essentially beating MS the way MS beats its competitors, by giving their software away. And what's even better about it is that even without big business support or any money coming into Linux, it will continue to grow without assistance. It didn't require money to start, it doesn't require money to continue and its overall adoption means the end of proprietary software companies for the most part (except maybe game and niche applications). Microsoft is already on the baton march, they just think they can still win.
Maybe you'll feel different a few years down the line when adobe and microsoft have teamed up to bring you yet another forced hardware upgrade with little to nothing to show for it. Until then, enjoy your bloated software. I'll be looking elsewhere.
You know, the worst drivers I've spotted on the road are the old people that are too old to be driving, and most of them never played a video game in their life. Sure, overly aggressive driving might cause some problems, but I'll tell you, it doesn't cause nearly as many accidents as outright incompetence or inability to conform to normal traffic procedures or speeds.
Definitely agreed, "adobe pdf viewer" alone is enough to bring a state-of-the-art dual core computer to its knees in some cases. I recommend everyone use any alternative PDF viewer, which has faulty printing algorithms, slow printing algorithms, and seems to go out of its way to be a bloated, buggy piece of trash that will take all the CPUs time up in a heartbeat.
Photoshop, I would even say, seems to eat more and more resources for no conceivable reason with every new revision. Adobe is a bloat machine on par with AOL, and Microsoft for sure. All that being said, Apollo should be resisted at all costs. Adobe is as Linux unfriendly as almost anything else and every step ahead it takes in adoption is a step backwards in cross-platform compatibility.
Let's return to your original assumption then: that there's a growing quantity of freeloaders. If your assumption is correct, then indeed the market does have to change its way of working. Distribution is cheap and people are sick of middlemen driving up prices. I must admit that lately even though I used to download a lot of movies I find myself buying them more: the price just isn't worth me downloading what I can buy. The younger people have less money and when you have no money but a lot of time, you'll work within those bounds. As you get older you'd rather just buy it because it isn't worth the hassle. I think that's the overall market. But let's say that these people don't become customers. At least in software's case, let's face it: OSS has them beat as a model. With FOSS, you don't really have to pirate anymore. A lot of my time in the last two years instead of cracking commercial products like I might if I wanted to pirate has just been to find an open source alternative to whatever product I used to use. Because I don't even have to crack it. It's free and available. I used to use freeware for this in the past, but there were no real alternatives when it came to office components and things, now there is. There's alternatives to almost everything: ranging from amateur to professional.
So, we don't need to pump money into software companies in order to make software happen conceivably, what else is left on your list?
Entertainment mediums: mainly TV, movies, and music. Let's say that nobody that pirates buys these things, it's a bad assumption, but let's make it. If nobody watches TV, TV would I guess eventually wither and disappear. This segment would eventually be offered in direct to web, like episodes are available now direct to web. I would guess that the production companies would be paid the same way they always are: by ads (this time on the web instead of the channel). So let's see....NOT a big deal.
Okay, how about movies. People start downloading and not purchasing movies. First we'd have to have the assumption that nobody really wants to see movies in a theater anymore. Well, that's another bad one, but let's assume it. The movie business as you know it withers and dies. What happens is low budget creations (like the kind featured on youtube for free already) ramp up in ambition and independent movie makers with other day jobs fill the void. Distribution is the segment that gets hit here. All the bloat in movie productions and the people who like to see special effects more than good acting or good writing also take a hit. Big budget blockbusters fall off. That's it. Movies still exist: the people creating them change. For better? For worse? I don't know, I think it would be better personally but that's a matter of opinion.
Okay, now music. Everyone downloads their music. Now we're going to assume that not only do they download all their music but they don't pump money into major acts with overpriced tickets sold by ticketing firms. What happens? Well, this is another would never happen scenario, but if it does, let's see. All the entrepreneurs that try to pretend to be musical artists will have to find other avenues in which to make their millions, as nobody really pays for music anymore. Bars and venues will still have to pay touring musical acts because
Unfortunately, I believe the war is over, to risk a cliche. I think the best we can do now is just chip slowly away at MS's structure by recommending a linux switch to people who complain about MS or by putting linux on our own computers. Perhaps more people should start foundations where they give out computers for free by taking an older computer that someone wants to get rid of and putting linux on it and giving it to someone who has no computer. Either way, the war is largely decided despite most peoples' fervent hatred of the victor.
The good part is that linux exists, and with any luck it will continue to grow as a community. It's not really a war as much as it is like digging a tunnel through the shit pile of the proprietary software paradigm. Every day in every way we can we can help move things to OSS. The first thing you can do is replace the applications on existing installations of Windows. When someone suggests upgrading to office whatever, try to hit them with an openoffice suite instead. I already moved my neighbor who used to use pirated office to openoffice with a little resistance. More of this will make OSS applications feel like "home" and once they start all seeming like home, then maybe what OS they run on can be changed. The present is applications, it really doesn't matter what OS they run on. Let's start with applications, and gradually move to OSs. Just chip away at the monopoly anyway you can, from recommending firefox to installing Ubuntu on a person's old Win98 machine. Whatever you can do.
I was waiting for this quote, I knew someone would say it. And what I want to say is this: that might have worked in the past with IE and everything, but it won't work anymore. I just was sitting in my office, and someone tried a search on an MS engine and couldn't find what they were looking for, immediately someone said, "that's just MS trying to make money, type google up top instead."
Here's a fact most people aren't yet recognizing: people are getting smarter, at least about the internet if not about computers in general. They are starting to change the default search provider, or at least typing in a URL instead of struggling with whatever IE gives them by default.
On the Internet, MS can't compete because it's a me too. It offers nothing someone hasn't seen somewhere else, and by this time they are already used to using those providers. They are used to typing in google.com and using the maps from that site. They aren't going to bother trying to navigate MS's site and find their version. The difference is typing in a URL.
I think this is fundamentally why MS is failing on the Internet. Picking an alternative is too easy, and usually on its own merits, MS products fail because they are inferior or simply par for the course.
MS can't leverage its monopoly to control the Internet, or at least they haven't found a good way yet and it's possible they never will. So everyone wins in that regard.
Sure it does, free speech exists wherever there are "free speech zones." In these zones you may speak as freely as you would like. And fortunately, for your convenience, we are relocating many of these zones to a prison near you!
BTW, I'm super, thanks for asking!
Yours truly,
The U.S. Government.
P.S. Don't ask me how the Iraq war is going, it really pisses me off when you do that.
My point is this: if watching the movie on an iPod is a primary buying concern of theirs, would they really care about the movie's HD quality? Somehow I don't see the people watching the movie on the iPod in the same market as those who have to watch a movie on an HDTV in full resolution. Are you telling me people so obnoxious they have to have a 60" plasma screen at home and view their movies in 1080p are now won over by the fact that they can transfer that same movie to their 3" ipod? Please. The number of people with Blu-ray computer drives is slimmer than those who own PS3s or actual blu-ray players, and the number of those people who would even have the technical know-how to use the "crack" for blu-ray disks in order to rip said movie to an ipod has to be so fucking slim that it would have next to 0 effect on how many blu-ray discs were sold. My point is: ipods and the blu-ray crack have NOTHING to do with that blu-ray movie being in the top 10.
Sounds like an excellent big brother idea. But how about this, you are in the back seat of someone else's car and now you have to pull over to use your cell phone. AWESOME!
Here's a better idea, instead of trying to look for what distracted the person, just charge the person with being distracted. Done and done.
To be quiet honest, I think politicians are pushing this one because it's a hotbutton issue and new and trendy. The same dangers existed since the invention of cars. I got into an accident with someone who crossed the line and plowed into me while I was practically stopped on the road hoping he'd swerve. He had lost control of his van in a snow storm and went right into me. Ironically it was a pastor on his way to his church to get sermons or some shit.
After the accident, the officer asked me if I had been using my cellphone at the time. I said no, he said it's okay if you were it's just for statistics. I said no, I wasn't using it. It seems to me like politicians are getting police to look for certain causes of accidents. Political pressure seems to be applied to these people to make it seem like all accidents are caused by cell phone usage. When a lot of accidents are caused by old fashioned fucking stupidity (like driving 50mph on icy roads in a van and then trying to brake while approaching another car). Pulling people over for talking on their cell phone or adjusting the radio increases the nice big brother hold they have on you because everyone has done these things at one time. It's part of the risk of driving. Most of driving is trying not to hit the morons that are coming at you 10 ways to Sunday trying to total your car. You can't prevent all of this from happening. Any such law will be selectively enforced and used for profiling purposes by police who given the new policies will be given even more reasons they can pull your ass over for no reason and conduct an anal cavity search. I got pulled over once for simply being out at 3am.
People are morons on the road, but more laws = more ways they can fuck with you. They already have laws that would cover this on the books, use them. Stupid people come at you from all directions. What I love is something called the "pull-out paradox" where when you are driving down the road and have the right away, people will often see your car and remain stopped for a period of time. However, for whatever reason it seems that the closer you get to them the higher the chances are that they'll pull out until you are in accident range. Most people like to pull out just in time so that you have to squeeze your brakes hard to avoid hitting them. Had they gone sooner, they could've easily not caused you to drop your speed, but they'd rather have you almost smack them in the ass I guess, because they can't judge distance or speed. Observe sometime, it's funny to watch people "I'll wait, I'll wait, *2 seconds* fuck it, I'll just pull out and almost get in an accident."
I'm not so sure that what you are saying is true. I'll give you a little story. I run comcast cable at home and I setup a web server without any advertisement whatsoever. It was on port 80 so it was publicly accessible via a standard port 80 search or whatever, however, like I said, it was not advertised. I'd get either hackers or bots or whatever they were going through a list of common exploit commands on my server every single day when I'd look at the logs. Now, my web server was customized and for specific purposes, so none of these commands worked and eventually I customized it to deny access to these individuals and give them a "connection reset" return message, however, it shows what a target you are just for being on comcast's service.
People know the IP ranges. If it's zombie botnets, then there are a lot of computers on comcast that are already zombies looking to exploit you. So this puts you more at risk than being on any other ISP IMO, even if you do know what you are doing. I'd get a huge list on a daily basis of these people, they were most likely unique because some of them actually browsed the webpages when it was publicly accessible. 20-30 unique attempts a day to try to exploit a webserver that's completely advertised to the known public, I'd consider that pretty significant.
Also, email. I believe that spam networks and phishing networks target comcast users exclusively and continue to target them after getting a response back from the server that the mailbox is valid or whatever. A lot of email spam that I get isn't the result of signing up for anything, but instead a CC that also extends to a lot of other comcast subscribers. The list is usually hundreds of people long on each mailing. So somehow they are able to wholesale get the email addresses of comcast subscribers, whether it's through brute force or comcast hands them out I don't know and couldn't prove either way. But again, you are more of a target on comcast in this manner. An unsuspecting customer could easily be foiled by one of these phishing attempts and some of them look very official to the unknowing eye. Don't underestimate the guile and cunning of these snakes that lurk on the Internet to prey on their victims and don't cast the victims off as some unknowing bunch of nitwits who simply don't take basic security measures, the problem is bigger than it seems.
That's true, and I understand this argument as it is a familiar one. However, some systems make inherently insecure choices and are slow or late to deliver patches (or in some cases, no patches are released at all). Look, everyone understands that all software security probably has holes in one way or another, but the fact of the matter is that the faster you patch those holes, the less chance you have of the ship as a whole sinking to the bottom of the ocean. And it also helps if you design the code based on security from the beginning instead of attempting to bolt-on security like it's another feature when it definitely isn't.
I'm guessing that fullscreen has returned due to popular demand. Most of our DVD players don't have a good pan&scan feature (at least the cheap ones). Our country has a large section of backwards people and because they don't ever buy new anything they expect companies to get in line with their old technological preferences. The long and the short of it, of course, is people like me buy the fullscreen version of departed without realizing it (because I didn't even realize they still MADE fullscreen DVDs on a separate disc without also including the widescreen version) and have widescreen TVs and still have to zoom to get a full picture.
A few years ago it was hard to buy a fullscreen version of a DVD, but it seems they've had a resurgence. This is probably due to people buying apex and other cheap DVD players at walmart without decent pan&scan features and then whining about not being able to see the whole picture. Personally, I don't understand why both sides of the disc aren't utilized to provide hybrid versions like on some movies, but whatever. Now I'm stuck with a fullscreen version of a movie I wanted in widescreen.