Sadly, as right as you are, this is/. and you'll be lucky if your post ends up with a positive score. You echo my sentiments exactly on the security issue. The reason most malware is written for Windows is simple ROI math. Linux has almost no desktop home-user market share compared to that of Windows or even OS X. Additionally, those who ARE using linux at home are generally far and away more computer-savvy than the average Windows users. These two factors alone, code in the OS aside, would make linux significantly more secure. Your OS is only as secure as the person using it.
What a week.. First I find out my golf hero is a cheater, and now I find another article describing just how slimy the underbelly of Google really is. Eric Schmidt is an asshole.
It takes an hour to download a 720p movie. You don't usually _need_ a 1080p movie. And more importantly, with the technological marvel that is streaming you can start watching after 15 minutes (unless you're downloading.mkv or something) and the playtime will not catch up to the download time.
But then again, some people don't have FTTH like most of us in developed countries do.:)
It only takes an hour to download a 720p movie if you happen to have access to about 7mb+ broadband. And even then, you're subject also to the bandwidth of the service you're trying to download from. For instance, take trying to download a movie from Sony's PS3 store. You'll only ever make that mistake once. You could have a 10 petabyte internet connection and it would still take you 16 hours to download a TV episode from them because they won't send you the file at anywhere near a reasonable speed.
Ahh, good point. Granted, I didn't read more than just TFS (mistype in my original post) so didn't see the FAQ you linked. And yes, Google does have a much better honesty record than most companies. But - even if they aren't doing it now, there's nothing to prevent them from doing so in the future.
From TFA: "but of course there are questions about Google's true motivations behind knowing every site you visit."
If you can't answer these questions yourself, you're an idiot. Google is, first and foremost, an ad service seller who base their business on being the best at providing context specified, directed ads. They are, true, a search engine among many other useful end-user apps too.. but their business is ads. So in that context, it's pretty damned obvious why they'd like to know every site people visit (and not just every site they visit via searches). Duh?
I guess if the criteria for action are so pedestrian that only a scoring event registers, you're right. After NASCAR, the NFL is second highest major sport in the US in catering the the least common denominator in intelligence. Cheers.
Welcome to capitalism and competition. Microsoft is little different from most any caplitalistic company in that once it has established a product in the marketplace, the innovation on that product is most often reduced to only the minimum necessary investment to maintain marketshare and maximize short-term profit (especially if the company is a publicly traded company focusing on short-term share value). It generally takes stiff competition, in the form of a better mousetrap, to really drive major innovation. Google playing with Mozilla and Microsoft in the browser world is a good thing for us because their competition will mean a better overall browser for us.
60% of the population of the Netherlands live below sea level. Are they all stupid too?
Not yet - but they would be if they were devastated by a natural disaster exacerbated by their elevation (say, a tsunami or hurricane), and then proceeded to whine to their federal government for not protecting them from it. However, unlike Louisiana, the Netherlands is not in a prime hurricane or tsunami path, so their elevation in relation to the sea is less of consequence.
Ha - while I think the guy in this example is particularly stupid and just after a quick buck - you have your assessment nearly completely ass-backwards. Voters usually only manage to convince government to correct the grievous exploitation of workers or customers by business if it wouldn't be too damaging to the politician's campaign contribution network. US Government is currently so far in the pocket of business, its ridiculous. Generally, though, only in the pocket of very large business, not your average small business. You have to be a public company, or even better, an investment back - and then you pretty much get whatever you want from the government.
But clearly this guy is obviously just out to tell the world he's a jackass (really, he's obviously just out to make a quick buck). I believe that if you're actually ask for a specified amount in damages, and then lose your case - you should have to pay the court an amount equal to those damages. That would limit the number of frivolous lawsuits like this crap.
I'm sorry, I think you're referring to a reasonably logical copyright or patent system. Silly things like logic and common sense do not apply to US law. Prior art in US copyright only matters if you can't afford to get the enforcement agencies to look the other way. Rupert Murdoch does not fall into this category.;)
I have loved Hulu, but I will do one or the other: I will pay a subscription fee or I will watch advertisements during my programming - I will not do both, which is one of the reasons I don't have cable service. I'm okay with Hulu charging a subscription if the content is ad-free. But I'm not willing to pay twice for the same content.
Slashdot Mirror
Sadly, as right as you are, this is /. and you'll be lucky if your post ends up with a positive score. You echo my sentiments exactly on the security issue. The reason most malware is written for Windows is simple ROI math. Linux has almost no desktop home-user market share compared to that of Windows or even OS X. Additionally, those who ARE using linux at home are generally far and away more computer-savvy than the average Windows users. These two factors alone, code in the OS aside, would make linux significantly more secure. Your OS is only as secure as the person using it.
Slashdot serves Google's AdSense ads which means Google knows you are here
If only that meant that Eric Schmidt would read about just how many people consider him to be a complete asshole for his words in this article...
What a week.. First I find out my golf hero is a cheater, and now I find another article describing just how slimy the underbelly of Google really is. Eric Schmidt is an asshole.
It takes an hour to download a 720p movie. You don't usually _need_ a 1080p movie. And more importantly, with the technological marvel that is streaming you can start watching after 15 minutes (unless you're downloading .mkv or something) and the playtime will not catch up to the download time.
But then again, some people don't have FTTH like most of us in developed countries do. :)
It only takes an hour to download a 720p movie if you happen to have access to about 7mb+ broadband. And even then, you're subject also to the bandwidth of the service you're trying to download from. For instance, take trying to download a movie from Sony's PS3 store. You'll only ever make that mistake once. You could have a 10 petabyte internet connection and it would still take you 16 hours to download a TV episode from them because they won't send you the file at anywhere near a reasonable speed.
Ahh, good point. Granted, I didn't read more than just TFS (mistype in my original post) so didn't see the FAQ you linked. And yes, Google does have a much better honesty record than most companies. But - even if they aren't doing it now, there's nothing to prevent them from doing so in the future.
From TFA: "but of course there are questions about Google's true motivations behind knowing every site you visit."
If you can't answer these questions yourself, you're an idiot. Google is, first and foremost, an ad service seller who base their business on being the best at providing context specified, directed ads. They are, true, a search engine among many other useful end-user apps too.. but their business is ads. So in that context, it's pretty damned obvious why they'd like to know every site people visit (and not just every site they visit via searches). Duh?
I guess if the criteria for action are so pedestrian that only a scoring event registers, you're right. After NASCAR, the NFL is second highest major sport in the US in catering the the least common denominator in intelligence. Cheers.
Yeah, that 5-10s of action for every 45s off the game clock sure is riveting.
Looks like I need to unsubscribe from that DIY ICBM podcast. And the host was so witty and charming....
Achmedinejad is on ham radio, too.
Just keep telling yourself whatever you need to to feel good about being wrong.
Welcome to capitalism and competition. Microsoft is little different from most any caplitalistic company in that once it has established a product in the marketplace, the innovation on that product is most often reduced to only the minimum necessary investment to maintain marketshare and maximize short-term profit (especially if the company is a publicly traded company focusing on short-term share value). It generally takes stiff competition, in the form of a better mousetrap, to really drive major innovation. Google playing with Mozilla and Microsoft in the browser world is a good thing for us because their competition will mean a better overall browser for us.
To be fair, you don't really have to "look" to find bugs in software products...
Fixed it for you, if you were really being fair. But then, this is /. so we love to rail on MS anywhere we can.
60% of the population of the Netherlands live below sea level. Are they all stupid too?
Not yet - but they would be if they were devastated by a natural disaster exacerbated by their elevation (say, a tsunami or hurricane), and then proceeded to whine to their federal government for not protecting them from it. However, unlike Louisiana, the Netherlands is not in a prime hurricane or tsunami path, so their elevation in relation to the sea is less of consequence.
learn to read, faggot.
Looks like someone had their XBox360 disconnected from LIVE. /smirk
+1 Insightful
Nope. You missed my point completely and I don't care enough to try to re-explain it to you. Suffice it to say my post had nothing to do with Marxism.
Come on, where is common sense gone to these days?
In the USA, at least, it died in the 80's along with another silly notion called 'personal responsibility.'
Ha - while I think the guy in this example is particularly stupid and just after a quick buck - you have your assessment nearly completely ass-backwards. Voters usually only manage to convince government to correct the grievous exploitation of workers or customers by business if it wouldn't be too damaging to the politician's campaign contribution network. US Government is currently so far in the pocket of business, its ridiculous. Generally, though, only in the pocket of very large business, not your average small business. You have to be a public company, or even better, an investment back - and then you pretty much get whatever you want from the government.
But clearly this guy is obviously just out to tell the world he's a jackass (really, he's obviously just out to make a quick buck). I believe that if you're actually ask for a specified amount in damages, and then lose your case - you should have to pay the court an amount equal to those damages. That would limit the number of frivolous lawsuits like this crap.
I'm sorry, I think you're referring to a reasonably logical copyright or patent system. Silly things like logic and common sense do not apply to US law. Prior art in US copyright only matters if you can't afford to get the enforcement agencies to look the other way. Rupert Murdoch does not fall into this category. ;)
Tell that to FOXNews, please.
We're sorry - "OMGCancer panic" (c) is copyrighted and owned by FOXNews, along with "OMG panic" for any other noun you can think of.
In a year or two, we'll "fondly" also remember him as the man who killed Hulu. :)
Indeed. There are just so many reasons why this move is stupid. The MPAA thinks WAY more of its product than we do, but we already knew that.
I have loved Hulu, but I will do one or the other: I will pay a subscription fee or I will watch advertisements during my programming - I will not do both, which is one of the reasons I don't have cable service. I'm okay with Hulu charging a subscription if the content is ad-free. But I'm not willing to pay twice for the same content.