To be fair, it did have a lot of other "features" that clearly weren't very well explained (or designed, for that matter). For example, you could add people to each Wave, but you could also add "robots" that would perform specific tasks, like pull information for a calendar or check your spelling. I mean, they could be powerful if you know how to use them. Just nobody did.
Oh I see, I disagree with you thus I am incapable of understanding. That must be it! It couldn't possibly be that I simply disagree with your opinion, could it? No, that's just far too obvious.
Tell me good sir, what happens when the average non-Linux person wants to try Linux? They download an ISO, burn it to disk (or ask to have one shipped to them), pop it into their computer, restart and....what happens next?
Well see that depends on the configuration of the computer. If they're lucky, Linux will boot without any interaction from them, but chances are windows will still boot. Why is this? Because many computers today come with the boot ordering configured to look on the HDD first, not the ODD. Heaven forbid they try to use a USB drive.
So what does this person have to do? Go into the BIOS and change the boot ordering, or press a key to select the boot device. Well shit, that sounds a lot like what they'll have to do to disable Secure boot. In fact, it's probably easier to find "Secure Boot" and set it to "Disable" than it is for them to identify which of those random letter and number combinations is their DVD drive. But is there a big conspiracy here? Do people bitch and whine that it stifles Linux adoption? No, it's an accepted thing and frankly, if the user doesn't know how to access the BIOS, then chances are Linux isn't for them anyway, not even a "user-friendly" distro like Ubuntu.
As for the silly law analogies, you're focusing on the fact that I pointed out that Secure Boot wasn't designed by Microsoft, missing the point that the technology and specification has been around for ages without anyone complaining, until Microsoft decided to use it. Meanwhile I pointed out that people are making a huge fuss out of something that hasn't happened yet.
Once again, you've done what every other person who's barraging Microsoft about this issue has done - neglected the part where Microsoft only demands that UEFI Secure boot be enabled by default. At no point does Microsoft state that UEFI Secure boot be present and permanent. If you go into the BIOS and find that an option to disable it isn't present, it won't be Microsoft's doing, it'll be the OEM's. Got a problem with that? Don't bitch to Microsoft, bitch to the OEM. Don't buy their products, demand a BIOS update that'll fix it, etc. etc. Microsoft doesn't pay them, you do, so speak with your wallet.
Your analogy is also flawed, it's more like
"Your honour, I find the defendant Guilty because he was probably going to murder that person. Even though the person is still alive and well, he hates his guts so lets lock him up just in case".
Well no, that's not the case at all. The fact is that the UEFI secure boot process wasn't designed by Microsoft, it was designed by the UEFI board to which many groups are part of. For some reason, it was detailed as a ploy by Microsoft, when really they're just making use of technology that already exists. The one vaguely official Windows 8 device, that gave out at BUILD, has an option to disable secure boot. It wasn't a "wait and see" approach, but rather a "there's no reason to get upset" approach. It'd be like campaigning that the Government doesn't deploy troops on the streets to kill bums and homeless people that are a drain on the economy, just so they don't think of doing it. Protesting something that hasn't happened yet, that there's no evidence that it'll happen, is pointless and a waste of resources. Furthermore, my main argument was that ultimately, Microsoft aren't the ones that decide if UEFI secure boot can be disabled or not, it's the OEM's - but nobody seemed to care about that and wanted to blame Microsoft anyway.
Maybe he's not really trolling, maybe he's just expressing his opinion? Now I could be completely wrong here, with a name like "CmdrPony", he's obviously playing on CmdrTaco and the whole slashdot infatuation with Ponies which does vaguely indicate that he might be trying to get a rise out of people, or it could just be a "fun" name. From reading his recent posts today, most of them seem straight up and clear, certainly with very little trolling (There is a "U mad Bro?" comment in there, however that's very obvious and not subtle).
While I'm not directly defending him, I have noticed that Slashdot lately seems to be very quick to judge people as "trolling" simply because they have an opinion that contradicts with what some people believe. I've been labelled a troll myself on more than one occasion, usually because I disagreed with the topic at hand - a good example of this is the recent debacle with Windows Secure boot, whereby many are convinced that it's simply a ploy to sell more copies of windows and block Linux, whereas I don't believe it. I might be wrong, nobody actually knows for sure the real agenda at hand and we wont until devices start shipping with Windows 8 on them, but still I got labelled a troll when personally I thought I was being reasonable.
This post, to me, does seem anything other than perhaps a bit controversial. He clearly doesn't like the US, but does that necessarily make him a troll? The US does certainly seem to be behind all the pushes for copyright enforcement and then there's things like SOPA - which most people utterly disagree with, so is his opinion really that unfounded?
Truecrypt does offer a hidden OS partition, that would operate entirely independently of the "main" OS. This would mean that no document history would appear or anything like that, but it also requires that you use both OS's occasionally to keep up the illusion. I use Truecrypt myself, but I don't use a hidden partition because frankly I'm not doing anything that illegal and it's a lot of hassle to do this.
I do wonder if it's possible to access one partition while actively using the other? Or better yet, use something like VMware to "run" the second OS while inside the first?
To be honest, as long as these scanners aren't misused (which these regulations are supposed to prevent), I'm all for them. If there's one thing I hate about flying, it's going through security. Queuing up, taking your shoes off, emptying your pockets, rushing through only to be searched anyway, it's fucking awful and if these scanners mean I'm more able to just walk straight through, I'm all for it.
It sucks as a desktop processor, though, which is what most of the people on slashdot care about. It's still up in the air if OS optimisations will solve that, though.
Still, hopefully a good foothold in the supercomputing market will give AMD the oomph it needs to compete with Intel in every field.
...but what keeps me with Windows is the fact that, in my mind, nearly every important system variable can be accessed via a GUI element that's usually in an obviouis/sane place. Sure, there is the odd occasion where you'll have to dig into the registry, or open the command line, but generally you won't have to.
Linux, on the other hand, necessitates that you drop into a terminal to change some trivial value. Or it'll be stored in a random text file that has its own unique format, which you MUST adhere to or you'll hose the whole system. Sure, you can recover from that and probably a lot easier than recovering a windows installation, but that's not the point.
I would, genuinely, LOVE to switch to Linux. Aside from gaming, I don't have a need to run windows for every day tasks like web browsing, document writing and even development (I do use VS as it's what I do with my day job, but I'm happy enough with Eclipse or Code::Blocks), but the fact that I know how it all works keeps me here. Every time I make the switch to Linux, I always find myself fighting for hours on finding a missing driver, figuring out how to INSTALL that missing driver (assuming it exists) and configuring the system for every day tasks. Not to mention that learning an entirely new UI isn't easy, especially when Linux seems to have at least 5 popular flavours of UI, with people being unable to agree which is "best" or even what "best" is).
Seriously, if someone could make a Linux distro that was Linux in every way, but had the same UI layout as Windows, I'd give it a go. And by UI Layout, I don't just mean looks a bit like windows, I mean it has all the usual options in the same place Windows does. Call it Control Panel, call it Add/Remove Programs, hell call it C:\ drive, do it and I'll switch.
Testing for something and finding that the test didn't pass is NOT a failure of a system. It's exactly what it said - a test. Now they know where the faults are they can work on fixing them.
I'm curious - why did they go after Newsbin2? Why not one of the main sites, like Piratebay (I know they're next, but you'd have thought they'd have gone after the big fish first). Unless Newsbin2 is a bigger site than I gave it credit for. I've never really heard of it, even from chatter amongst heavy filesharers and newsgroup users - nzbmatrix, binsearch, etc. all seem a lot more popular.
What did Newsbin2 do to specifically piss off this label?
It's not the UK government, it's the ISPs who are being forced into it by the Record Labels. BT, Virgin, etc. don't want to filter these sites, so they're not going to care if they do a particularly poor job of it.
I'm curious though, as far as I'm aware, this is done at the DNS level - anyone on BT know what happens when you use OpenDNS?
WTF are you talking about? The best part is that we can have actual working JONNY CABS! Pay the fare or it'll TRY TO MURDER YOU. That's the future I want to live in.
I also presume it'll somehow lead to women with three breasts. Definitely the future I want to live in.
Except this kind of thing has been dealt with in the aviation industry before. There are many, many incidents where pilots override the autopilot and cause a crash. The same will happen here - many incidents where people who "know better" try to do something stupid and crash the car, when an automated system would have protected them. If an accident occurs, the telemetry can be used to determine why it happened and prevent it in future. If something really horrendous happens, then a recall will be issued while a software update is made. Eventually, the technology will mature to the point where it is factually safer than human drivers and I, for one, cannot wait. The usefulness and benefits from these automated cars cannot be overstated. They will be safer, they will be more efficient (both in terms of congestion and fuel efficiency as they can maintain specific speeds to help both) and frankly, they'll be more comfortable.
Honestly, is there anything Graphene CAN'T do? I'm just waiting for an article to appear that states Graphene may be a cure for Cancer and AIDS rolled into one. And then I'm fully expecting another article stating that it's more deadly than asbestos.
"Anonymous" isn't a single group, it's whatever the fuck people want it to be. "Anonymous" has been responsible for hacking kiddie porn sites, yet at the same time trolling sites for people with epilepsy by putting flashing images on them. Those two "anonymous" groups are clearly not the same. Anyone can do whatever and say it's anonymous, there are even groups that don't frequent/b/, it's just a free for all and an excuse to do whatever.
What's wrong with a bit of user choice? The image thing is a good example. If you're looking around for a particular image, you don't want to download each one before trying it, you want your browser to download it first and display it quickly. PDF's aren't much different.
I regularly have to google around for specific information that's nearly always found in PDFs and currently it's more of a chore than it needs to be. Adobe reader's browser plugin is horrendous and crashes more often than not. To make matters worse, it locks up the whole browser while the PDF downloads in the background. I mean, that alone is idiotic. It's much easier to download the PDF separately and then display it, but I'd much rather it display in the browser for quick access.
I've installed windows countless times, I'm a software developer, I build computers, I have made custom (legal) windows installation disks that have drivers and updates slip streamed on them. I've hex edited DVD ROM firmware updates, rooted plenty of Android devices. I'm also pretty good with regular expressions and can use vim in a pinch. Suffice to say, I'm pretty technically inclined and when Linux doesn't recognise my wireless adapter out of the box, I haven't a fucking clue what to do, either.
Slashdot Mirror
To be fair, it did have a lot of other "features" that clearly weren't very well explained (or designed, for that matter). For example, you could add people to each Wave, but you could also add "robots" that would perform specific tasks, like pull information for a calendar or check your spelling. I mean, they could be powerful if you know how to use them. Just nobody did.
Oh I see, I disagree with you thus I am incapable of understanding. That must be it! It couldn't possibly be that I simply disagree with your opinion, could it? No, that's just far too obvious.
Tell me good sir, what happens when the average non-Linux person wants to try Linux? They download an ISO, burn it to disk (or ask to have one shipped to them), pop it into their computer, restart and....what happens next?
Well see that depends on the configuration of the computer. If they're lucky, Linux will boot without any interaction from them, but chances are windows will still boot. Why is this? Because many computers today come with the boot ordering configured to look on the HDD first, not the ODD. Heaven forbid they try to use a USB drive.
So what does this person have to do? Go into the BIOS and change the boot ordering, or press a key to select the boot device. Well shit, that sounds a lot like what they'll have to do to disable Secure boot. In fact, it's probably easier to find "Secure Boot" and set it to "Disable" than it is for them to identify which of those random letter and number combinations is their DVD drive. But is there a big conspiracy here? Do people bitch and whine that it stifles Linux adoption? No, it's an accepted thing and frankly, if the user doesn't know how to access the BIOS, then chances are Linux isn't for them anyway, not even a "user-friendly" distro like Ubuntu.
As for the silly law analogies, you're focusing on the fact that I pointed out that Secure Boot wasn't designed by Microsoft, missing the point that the technology and specification has been around for ages without anyone complaining, until Microsoft decided to use it. Meanwhile I pointed out that people are making a huge fuss out of something that hasn't happened yet.
Once again, you've done what every other person who's barraging Microsoft about this issue has done - neglected the part where Microsoft only demands that UEFI Secure boot be enabled by default. At no point does Microsoft state that UEFI Secure boot be present and permanent. If you go into the BIOS and find that an option to disable it isn't present, it won't be Microsoft's doing, it'll be the OEM's. Got a problem with that? Don't bitch to Microsoft, bitch to the OEM. Don't buy their products, demand a BIOS update that'll fix it, etc. etc.
Microsoft doesn't pay them, you do, so speak with your wallet.
Your analogy is also flawed, it's more like
Well no, that's not the case at all. The fact is that the UEFI secure boot process wasn't designed by Microsoft, it was designed by the UEFI board to which many groups are part of. For some reason, it was detailed as a ploy by Microsoft, when really they're just making use of technology that already exists. The one vaguely official Windows 8 device, that gave out at BUILD, has an option to disable secure boot. It wasn't a "wait and see" approach, but rather a "there's no reason to get upset" approach. It'd be like campaigning that the Government doesn't deploy troops on the streets to kill bums and homeless people that are a drain on the economy, just so they don't think of doing it. Protesting something that hasn't happened yet, that there's no evidence that it'll happen, is pointless and a waste of resources.
Furthermore, my main argument was that ultimately, Microsoft aren't the ones that decide if UEFI secure boot can be disabled or not, it's the OEM's - but nobody seemed to care about that and wanted to blame Microsoft anyway.
Maybe he's not really trolling, maybe he's just expressing his opinion?
Now I could be completely wrong here, with a name like "CmdrPony", he's obviously playing on CmdrTaco and the whole slashdot infatuation with Ponies which does vaguely indicate that he might be trying to get a rise out of people, or it could just be a "fun" name. From reading his recent posts today, most of them seem straight up and clear, certainly with very little trolling (There is a "U mad Bro?" comment in there, however that's very obvious and not subtle).
While I'm not directly defending him, I have noticed that Slashdot lately seems to be very quick to judge people as "trolling" simply because they have an opinion that contradicts with what some people believe. I've been labelled a troll myself on more than one occasion, usually because I disagreed with the topic at hand - a good example of this is the recent debacle with Windows Secure boot, whereby many are convinced that it's simply a ploy to sell more copies of windows and block Linux, whereas I don't believe it. I might be wrong, nobody actually knows for sure the real agenda at hand and we wont until devices start shipping with Windows 8 on them, but still I got labelled a troll when personally I thought I was being reasonable.
This post, to me, does seem anything other than perhaps a bit controversial. He clearly doesn't like the US, but does that necessarily make him a troll? The US does certainly seem to be behind all the pushes for copyright enforcement and then there's things like SOPA - which most people utterly disagree with, so is his opinion really that unfounded?
Truecrypt does offer a hidden OS partition, that would operate entirely independently of the "main" OS. This would mean that no document history would appear or anything like that, but it also requires that you use both OS's occasionally to keep up the illusion. I use Truecrypt myself, but I don't use a hidden partition because frankly I'm not doing anything that illegal and it's a lot of hassle to do this.
I do wonder if it's possible to access one partition while actively using the other? Or better yet, use something like VMware to "run" the second OS while inside the first?
How long have you been waiting to use that one?
To be honest, as long as these scanners aren't misused (which these regulations are supposed to prevent), I'm all for them. If there's one thing I hate about flying, it's going through security. Queuing up, taking your shoes off, emptying your pockets, rushing through only to be searched anyway, it's fucking awful and if these scanners mean I'm more able to just walk straight through, I'm all for it.
It sucks as a desktop processor, though, which is what most of the people on slashdot care about. It's still up in the air if OS optimisations will solve that, though.
Still, hopefully a good foothold in the supercomputing market will give AMD the oomph it needs to compete with Intel in every field.
You mean like HD sets, that only really came into the market a few years ago?
Or better yet - 3D! That worked out really well, too, people FLOCKED to stores to not buy those.
...but what keeps me with Windows is the fact that, in my mind, nearly every important system variable can be accessed via a GUI element that's usually in an obviouis/sane place. Sure, there is the odd occasion where you'll have to dig into the registry, or open the command line, but generally you won't have to.
Linux, on the other hand, necessitates that you drop into a terminal to change some trivial value. Or it'll be stored in a random text file that has its own unique format, which you MUST adhere to or you'll hose the whole system. Sure, you can recover from that and probably a lot easier than recovering a windows installation, but that's not the point.
I would, genuinely, LOVE to switch to Linux. Aside from gaming, I don't have a need to run windows for every day tasks like web browsing, document writing and even development (I do use VS as it's what I do with my day job, but I'm happy enough with Eclipse or Code::Blocks), but the fact that I know how it all works keeps me here. Every time I make the switch to Linux, I always find myself fighting for hours on finding a missing driver, figuring out how to INSTALL that missing driver (assuming it exists) and configuring the system for every day tasks. Not to mention that learning an entirely new UI isn't easy, especially when Linux seems to have at least 5 popular flavours of UI, with people being unable to agree which is "best" or even what "best" is).
Seriously, if someone could make a Linux distro that was Linux in every way, but had the same UI layout as Windows, I'd give it a go. And by UI Layout, I don't just mean looks a bit like windows, I mean it has all the usual options in the same place Windows does. Call it Control Panel, call it Add/Remove Programs, hell call it C:\ drive, do it and I'll switch.
^ This
Testing for something and finding that the test didn't pass is NOT a failure of a system. It's exactly what it said - a test. Now they know where the faults are they can work on fixing them.
But they didn't go after Newsbin2 directly, they went after BT to BLOCK Newsbin2.
I'm curious - why did they go after Newsbin2? Why not one of the main sites, like Piratebay (I know they're next, but you'd have thought they'd have gone after the big fish first). Unless Newsbin2 is a bigger site than I gave it credit for. I've never really heard of it, even from chatter amongst heavy filesharers and newsgroup users - nzbmatrix, binsearch, etc. all seem a lot more popular.
What did Newsbin2 do to specifically piss off this label?
And while you're at it, subscribe to Slashdot so you don't see the ads any more. Remember - you have to spend money to save money!
It's not the UK government, it's the ISPs who are being forced into it by the Record Labels. BT, Virgin, etc. don't want to filter these sites, so they're not going to care if they do a particularly poor job of it.
I'm curious though, as far as I'm aware, this is done at the DNS level - anyone on BT know what happens when you use OpenDNS?
WTF are you talking about? The best part is that we can have actual working JONNY CABS! Pay the fare or it'll TRY TO MURDER YOU. That's the future I want to live in.
I also presume it'll somehow lead to women with three breasts. Definitely the future I want to live in.
Except this kind of thing has been dealt with in the aviation industry before. There are many, many incidents where pilots override the autopilot and cause a crash. The same will happen here - many incidents where people who "know better" try to do something stupid and crash the car, when an automated system would have protected them. If an accident occurs, the telemetry can be used to determine why it happened and prevent it in future. If something really horrendous happens, then a recall will be issued while a software update is made. Eventually, the technology will mature to the point where it is factually safer than human drivers and I, for one, cannot wait. The usefulness and benefits from these automated cars cannot be overstated. They will be safer, they will be more efficient (both in terms of congestion and fuel efficiency as they can maintain specific speeds to help both) and frankly, they'll be more comfortable.
"we dun fucked up"
Yes indeed, why should we bother progressing? It's just a waste of time. Better stick with what we have now, because that's going to work out better.
Honestly, is there anything Graphene CAN'T do? I'm just waiting for an article to appear that states Graphene may be a cure for Cancer and AIDS rolled into one.
And then I'm fully expecting another article stating that it's more deadly than asbestos.
"Anonymous" isn't a single group, it's whatever the fuck people want it to be. "Anonymous" has been responsible for hacking kiddie porn sites, yet at the same time trolling sites for people with epilepsy by putting flashing images on them. Those two "anonymous" groups are clearly not the same. Anyone can do whatever and say it's anonymous, there are even groups that don't frequent /b/, it's just a free for all and an excuse to do whatever.
Hi! I'm the Versatile Administrator of Giant Interconnected Network Architectures, nice to meet you.
What's wrong with a bit of user choice? The image thing is a good example. If you're looking around for a particular image, you don't want to download each one before trying it, you want your browser to download it first and display it quickly. PDF's aren't much different.
I regularly have to google around for specific information that's nearly always found in PDFs and currently it's more of a chore than it needs to be. Adobe reader's browser plugin is horrendous and crashes more often than not. To make matters worse, it locks up the whole browser while the PDF downloads in the background. I mean, that alone is idiotic. It's much easier to download the PDF separately and then display it, but I'd much rather it display in the browser for quick access.
I've installed windows countless times, I'm a software developer, I build computers, I have made custom (legal) windows installation disks that have drivers and updates slip streamed on them. I've hex edited DVD ROM firmware updates, rooted plenty of Android devices. I'm also pretty good with regular expressions and can use vim in a pinch. Suffice to say, I'm pretty technically inclined and when Linux doesn't recognise my wireless adapter out of the box, I haven't a fucking clue what to do, either.