I know that's what they're getting at, but "professional" applies just as much to a business as anything else, term-wise at least. That's what I'm getting at, along with Businesses, other groups like students and such would use XP Pro, so why call it "Business" when they have nothing to do with a business? It just cuts down how marketable the product is.
WinFS is not a file system, it was never anything to replace NTFS. It was a database technology, a layer that sat on top of the filesystem and used to keep information about the files within said system.
As for NTFS, I think it actually has changed over the years, just not enough to break compatibility yet. Who knows what they have planned next, call me cynical but I wouldn't be surprised if we had a new filesystem that was just basically NTFS with a few tweaks, enough to break it on Linux.
I never said it was identical, I was just pointing out that if you say to the average joe "Install linux!", even if they have a vague idea of what "Linux" is, there's still about 50 different variants they'd have to pick from (And that's just the popular ones). You'll need a big-assed crib-sheet to try and show them the differences and probably just get them lost along the way.
It's not really that much different or no less confusing than the different versions of Windows.
It's possible he's referring to someone who has a quick once-over of the Maid's cart the next morning when they're leaving and helps themselves to a few of those complimentary soaps.
It didn't stop many people when the RIAA were on a rampage. It didn't even stop any of my friends when they got cease-and-desist-on-fear-of-being-taken-to-court letters from the MPAA.
The way I see it, you can flame Microsoft all you want, but how many Linux distros are there? I know it's slightly off-topic and borderline trolling, but the whole "year of the linux desktop" is hampered by "linux" being a balloon term these days.
They never marketed it as "Pro", they marketed it as "Professional". Are you a professional? You'll want windows XP Professional then. Makes sense to me.
Now Vista Business, on the other hand, I have no idea where the hell that came from. Professional is the best name you could give that product for what it's aimed at.
I believe in their own arrogance, they thought their disk-based copy protection would be too hard to crack, so people may consider capturing the digital output directly from the cable. Fat chance.
You mean like exFAT? Which, as far as I'm aware, is basically just FAT64. I.e. it's got all the "benefits" of FAT32 without the filesize limit, probably at the cost of a bit of performance.
I'd hazard a guess and say it's HDCP being crap. Even if it was a hardware or software fault, it still highlights the problems caused by it. And for what? It certainly hasn't prevented piracy of Blu-ray disks.
This post deserves more coverage here. The "additional" DRM in Vista (And 7) does not in any way affeact anything you could do on XP, OTHER than being able to play HD content from a Blu-ray or HD-DVD (if you still have one lying around) device.
It doesn't monitor your MP3s, it doesn't scan your XviDs or anything like that, it's just HDCP crap. If you have a problem with this, go complain to the likes of the MPAA who forced this crap on us, not Microsoft who just wanted to make sure future content would play on future OSs.
Once again with the childish insults, all I've done is provide a counterargument to your point, which seems to have shifted focus since the beginning of this thread. You went from arguing about weather I agree or disagree with the policy (and apparently there's just no middle ground) to arguing about what the policy's intentions really were. Fuck the impractical issues of preventing any kind of tracking on the internet, lets just outright claim that no government website should have ANY way of possibly tracking anyone. Sure, sounds great on paper, but that would be technically impossible. And besides, the whole reason the policy exists is because it's all too 1984 for some people and I'm inclined to agree with them, however the policy also covers the fact that youtube (or whomever) can track users - the federal agencies cannot obtain this information from them, so the most you have to worry about is said 3rd parties. As I already pointed out, you run that risk no matter what website you go on, but at least you know that whitehouse.gov shouldn't be doing any tracking, that's all that the policy demands and that's all that's physically and technically possible. Now, I really don't see why you keep up with the childish attitude, but trust me - nobody cares, I very much doubt more than a handful of people will read this thread and of those that do, I see no reason why they'd be interested. You've proven that you are unable to keep a civil discussion, that when opposed you have some...inability to accept it and immediately retort with an insult rather than a decent, thought-out counter argument. I seriously suggest you take the internet less seriously. I can at least take solace in the fact that at some level, I've apparently gotten under your skin, unfortunately for you, your silly little retorts have done nothing but solidify my position here. Take this as my final message to you in this thread - the government isn't tracking you, youtube is. There's no law against this. Deal with it. If you have a problem with this, do us all a favour and disconnect - permanently. Good day to you, sir.
I'm not trying to bait you into anything, you are the one that accused me of not thinking before I posted anything, you're also the one that keeps using childish insults (while avoiding the point entirely). If anyone's doing the baiting, it's you, but I'm level headed enough to ask a simple question that you cannot possibly answer: How is whitehouse.gov tracking you? You seem to have a problem with this because you don't understand the difference between a federal agency tracking you and a being tracked by a 3rd party on a site run by the federal agency. Honestly, if you're that worried about being tracked on the internet, you should pull out your network cable right now, as every step you make, every site you visit leaves a trail that several people can follow (your ISP, your DNS, the site itself, 3rd parties on the site, etc.). The point here is that what youtube does is beyond the control of whitehouse.gov, just like what your ISP does is beyond their control. Look at even the summary, read CAREFULLY what it says: "prohibiting such user tracking by federal agencies". Do you understand what that says? User tracking BY federal agencies. So I ask again, how is whitehouse.gov tracking you?
Now, if you really do not get this (or if you still want to pretend that I'm baiting you into something), by all means just stop replying here, but I'm quite happy to point out your simple misunderstanding with this whole thing again and again.
But if you do feel the need to reply, please, answer my question: How is whitehouse.gov tracking you?
"I should be able to visit federal websites without being tracked."
This is only partially accurate, you should be able to visit federal websites without being tracked by that federal agency. If that agency happens to link to an image off site, or any kind of content off site and that offsite content provider happens to track you, it's nothing to do with the agency and thus why youtube does not apply here. The agency is never tracking you, they can't even track if you've downloaded said content or not. What part of this are you not getting?
It's technically impossible for a website to ensure that you're not being tracked while visiting that particular site, all they can do is make sure THEY'RE not tracking you, which whitehouse.gov has done. Seriously, I don't understand why you can't get this into your head.
Whitehouse.gov is NOT tracking you, youtube is. Youtube is not a federal agency. The rule isn't "you shouldn't be tracked if you're on a federal agency's website", the rule is "Federal agencies cannot track you if you visit their site". Understand?
Ok, I will happily admit that I know bugger all about cracking CAPTCHAs, but one thing I have noticed is that most sites use their own version of a CAPTCHA, probably to make it harder to crack. This must mean that sites are specifically targeted by the crackers, specific routines are probably made to maximise the chances of a successful "crack" against that site. So rather than just making them harder and more obscure (Thus making them harder for humans to read), why not just vary them by a great deal? If an algorithm has a 50% chance at cracking any given CAPTCHA (And 50% is pretty good, as far as I know it's more like 5, 10 or 15% for a "good" crack), but you have 10 variations of CAPTCHAS to crack, then that routine drops from 50% to 5%. A 5% crack only works on 5% out of every 10, so 0.5%. Just by being different, not harder. And by different, I don't just mean using different colours and symbols, I mean being completely different, but still ultimately simple. Some may be "please input the 5 characters below", others may be "click on the kitty", another one might be "pick the blue pill", it doesn't have to be complicated, just varied. Better yet, vary the possible algorithms that you can use in any given period, rotate them say every 15 or 20mins, making life much harder for them to detect which particular algorithms are in use at any given time (so for example, have about 20 or 30 algorithms, but only use 10 at any given point, then randomly pick 10 new ones after so long). Then again, maybe I'm talking out of my rear end, but it makes sense to me. Perhaps someone with more foresight could tell me why that wouldn't work?
Slashdot Mirror
WinFS = Windows Future Storage.
I know that's what they're getting at, but "professional" applies just as much to a business as anything else, term-wise at least. That's what I'm getting at, along with Businesses, other groups like students and such would use XP Pro, so why call it "Business" when they have nothing to do with a business? It just cuts down how marketable the product is.
WinFS is not a file system, it was never anything to replace NTFS. It was a database technology, a layer that sat on top of the filesystem and used to keep information about the files within said system.
As for NTFS, I think it actually has changed over the years, just not enough to break compatibility yet. Who knows what they have planned next, call me cynical but I wouldn't be surprised if we had a new filesystem that was just basically NTFS with a few tweaks, enough to break it on Linux.
Ahh yes, you've hit the nail on the head there. My bad!
I never said it was identical, I was just pointing out that if you say to the average joe "Install linux!", even if they have a vague idea of what "Linux" is, there's still about 50 different variants they'd have to pick from (And that's just the popular ones). You'll need a big-assed crib-sheet to try and show them the differences and probably just get them lost along the way.
It's not really that much different or no less confusing than the different versions of Windows.
It's possible he's referring to someone who has a quick once-over of the Maid's cart the next morning when they're leaving and helps themselves to a few of those complimentary soaps.
Maybe not on your fileserver....
I think you mean Disk-TOG-raphy!
It didn't stop many people when the RIAA were on a rampage. It didn't even stop any of my friends when they got cease-and-desist-on-fear-of-being-taken-to-court letters from the MPAA.
OH EM GEE!!!!!!
The way I see it, you can flame Microsoft all you want, but how many Linux distros are there?
I know it's slightly off-topic and borderline trolling, but the whole "year of the linux desktop" is hampered by "linux" being a balloon term these days.
No, that's AOL's latest product.
They never marketed it as "Pro", they marketed it as "Professional". Are you a professional? You'll want windows XP Professional then. Makes sense to me.
Now Vista Business, on the other hand, I have no idea where the hell that came from. Professional is the best name you could give that product for what it's aimed at.
I believe in their own arrogance, they thought their disk-based copy protection would be too hard to crack, so people may consider capturing the digital output directly from the cable.
Fat chance.
I'd wager that it's more compatible than NTFS, though.
Still, it's not ideal and I agree with what you're saying.
You mean like exFAT? Which, as far as I'm aware, is basically just FAT64. I.e. it's got all the "benefits" of FAT32 without the filesize limit, probably at the cost of a bit of performance.
I'd hazard a guess and say it's HDCP being crap. Even if it was a hardware or software fault, it still highlights the problems caused by it. And for what? It certainly hasn't prevented piracy of Blu-ray disks.
This post deserves more coverage here. The "additional" DRM in Vista (And 7) does not in any way affeact anything you could do on XP, OTHER than being able to play HD content from a Blu-ray or HD-DVD (if you still have one lying around) device.
It doesn't monitor your MP3s, it doesn't scan your XviDs or anything like that, it's just HDCP crap. If you have a problem with this, go complain to the likes of the MPAA who forced this crap on us, not Microsoft who just wanted to make sure future content would play on future OSs.
This has got bugger all to do with the topic at hand, I don't really know what your game is but please, quit now.
Once again with the childish insults, all I've done is provide a counterargument to your point, which seems to have shifted focus since the beginning of this thread. You went from arguing about weather I agree or disagree with the policy (and apparently there's just no middle ground) to arguing about what the policy's intentions really were.
Fuck the impractical issues of preventing any kind of tracking on the internet, lets just outright claim that no government website should have ANY way of possibly tracking anyone. Sure, sounds great on paper, but that would be technically impossible.
And besides, the whole reason the policy exists is because it's all too 1984 for some people and I'm inclined to agree with them, however the policy also covers the fact that youtube (or whomever) can track users - the federal agencies cannot obtain this information from them, so the most you have to worry about is said 3rd parties. As I already pointed out, you run that risk no matter what website you go on, but at least you know that whitehouse.gov shouldn't be doing any tracking, that's all that the policy demands and that's all that's physically and technically possible.
Now, I really don't see why you keep up with the childish attitude, but trust me - nobody cares, I very much doubt more than a handful of people will read this thread and of those that do, I see no reason why they'd be interested. You've proven that you are unable to keep a civil discussion, that when opposed you have some...inability to accept it and immediately retort with an insult rather than a decent, thought-out counter argument. I seriously suggest you take the internet less seriously. I can at least take solace in the fact that at some level, I've apparently gotten under your skin, unfortunately for you, your silly little retorts have done nothing but solidify my position here. Take this as my final message to you in this thread - the government isn't tracking you, youtube is. There's no law against this. Deal with it. If you have a problem with this, do us all a favour and disconnect - permanently.
Good day to you, sir.
I'm not trying to bait you into anything, you are the one that accused me of not thinking before I posted anything, you're also the one that keeps using childish insults (while avoiding the point entirely). If anyone's doing the baiting, it's you, but I'm level headed enough to ask a simple question that you cannot possibly answer: How is whitehouse.gov tracking you?
You seem to have a problem with this because you don't understand the difference between a federal agency tracking you and a being tracked by a 3rd party on a site run by the federal agency.
Honestly, if you're that worried about being tracked on the internet, you should pull out your network cable right now, as every step you make, every site you visit leaves a trail that several people can follow (your ISP, your DNS, the site itself, 3rd parties on the site, etc.). The point here is that what youtube does is beyond the control of whitehouse.gov, just like what your ISP does is beyond their control. Look at even the summary, read CAREFULLY what it says: "prohibiting such user tracking by federal agencies". Do you understand what that says? User tracking BY federal agencies. So I ask again, how is whitehouse.gov tracking you?
Now, if you really do not get this (or if you still want to pretend that I'm baiting you into something), by all means just stop replying here, but I'm quite happy to point out your simple misunderstanding with this whole thing again and again.
But if you do feel the need to reply, please, answer my question: How is whitehouse.gov tracking you?
Ok, I'll be blunt - explain to me how whitehouse.gov is tracking you. Note that I'm asking how they're tracking you, not youtube.com or anyone else.
Ok, I'll spell it out for you again:
"I should be able to visit federal websites without being tracked."
This is only partially accurate, you should be able to visit federal websites without being tracked by that federal agency.
If that agency happens to link to an image off site, or any kind of content off site and that offsite content provider happens to track you, it's nothing to do with the agency and thus why youtube does not apply here. The agency is never tracking you, they can't even track if you've downloaded said content or not. What part of this are you not getting?
It's technically impossible for a website to ensure that you're not being tracked while visiting that particular site, all they can do is make sure THEY'RE not tracking you, which whitehouse.gov has done. Seriously, I don't understand why you can't get this into your head.
Whitehouse.gov is NOT tracking you, youtube is. Youtube is not a federal agency. The rule isn't "you shouldn't be tracked if you're on a federal agency's website", the rule is "Federal agencies cannot track you if you visit their site". Understand?
Ok, I will happily admit that I know bugger all about cracking CAPTCHAs, but one thing I have noticed is that most sites use their own version of a CAPTCHA, probably to make it harder to crack.
This must mean that sites are specifically targeted by the crackers, specific routines are probably made to maximise the chances of a successful "crack" against that site. So rather than just making them harder and more obscure (Thus making them harder for humans to read), why not just vary them by a great deal?
If an algorithm has a 50% chance at cracking any given CAPTCHA (And 50% is pretty good, as far as I know it's more like 5, 10 or 15% for a "good" crack), but you have 10 variations of CAPTCHAS to crack, then that routine drops from 50% to 5%. A 5% crack only works on 5% out of every 10, so 0.5%. Just by being different, not harder.
And by different, I don't just mean using different colours and symbols, I mean being completely different, but still ultimately simple. Some may be "please input the 5 characters below", others may be "click on the kitty", another one might be "pick the blue pill", it doesn't have to be complicated, just varied. Better yet, vary the possible algorithms that you can use in any given period, rotate them say every 15 or 20mins, making life much harder for them to detect which particular algorithms are in use at any given time (so for example, have about 20 or 30 algorithms, but only use 10 at any given point, then randomly pick 10 new ones after so long).
Then again, maybe I'm talking out of my rear end, but it makes sense to me. Perhaps someone with more foresight could tell me why that wouldn't work?