Funny thing about DVDs: They're usually movies that have already been in theaters. For some reason, insta-casettes didn't make it into the digital realm.
It wasn't all that long ago that iTunes sold it's 100 millionth song. With numbers like that, you cannot brush the iTunes DRM under the carpet.
"Any random anti-DRM screed is sure to get modded +5 on Slashdot, but you should put in the extra work and have it at least make some kind of sense."
Any random defense of Apple is sure to get modded +5 on Slashdot, but you should have put in the extra work and made sense of the point he was making. Especially this bit: "They want to turn it on, and not have to worry that the computer from which they're trying to transfer music is "iTunes anointed" or not." This happens. Get a new desktop? 'Annoint' a license to iTunes. 5 years have gone by, and on average, people get new machnies every two years. iTunes is largely successful. When you look at this data and dismiss it by saying "Nahh, that's not happening. Slashdot just likes to mod up anti-DRM comments." you sound like Rush Limbaugh in defense of Bush.
"There is no way you can say all movies are art, same with video games."
That could be said for a lot of art that's being called 'art'. It's not so clearly defined, unfortunately. I am, however, inclined to call something that expresses a view of the world (like GTA or even V for Vendetta) art.
"Wow, what fantasy world have you been living in for the past decade? Also, could you get me a copy of BeOS, OS/2, and all the other vastly superior programs that MS has nevertheless managed to kill, since they apparently still exist there?"
Probably the fantasy world where WinZip, Quicktime, RealPlayer, ZoneAlarm, Nero, and a whole lotta other apps that overlap with XP features exist.
Who cares? If the effect is the same, what does a court decision have to do with it? If the argument is that bundling apps with the OS gives Apple or Microsoft an unfair advantage, then it doesn't matter who was convicted of what.
"2. iLife is a separate suite, not part of the OS, but you get a copy when buying a Mac. it's more like how you now get a remote control with all new Macs and an iSight camera with all new Macs with displays."
I'll give you points for the integration bit. All Apple would have to do is decide to stop including it and it'd mainly just affect the packaging. I wouldn't defend Microsoft's integration of things like Media Player.
However, there's still the bit about including a product at all. Any competitor to iLife would be shitting their pants if Apple started including it. Why's it magically OK? If the answer is "We trust Apple more than Microsoft", just say so. Otherwise, let's at least cover the "how it actually hurts other companies" base a little more completely than just spouting off the usual "oh they were convicted of stuff" line.
"If I were ROXIO or NERO, I'd be pissed, this looks like a de facto and direct competitor product, and if it's bundled as "part of the OS", it would seem close to the line of leveraging again."
Yeah, I'd be pissed if I were forced to innovate and make a better product, too.
I have this image in my head of an IE developer reading this story and thinking "Gee Slashdot, I guess writing a browser is pretty fucking hard, isn't it?"
"I'm sure if you just turn on your computer and let it sit there running a torrent, it's perfectly stable. However, when you do stuff that gets the processor hot and uses up all the RAM and some swap space for hours on end, it's going to crash from time to time...unless you've got some really expensive hardware."
I've had Windows boxes that ran for weeks at a time doing 3D rendering. These were all machines built from pieces ordered at Newegg, and the rendering maxed out the CPU and RAM for quite some time.
YMMV, of course. I think the instabilities I've had may have come from frequent game playing. I never got around to actually sitting down and testing that, but I do remember more reboots when I was a gamer than after when I moved on to consoles.
"I'd kill to play FF7 again on a portable system. Download time? A 600MB game'd take me about 10 minutes..."
FF7 had two or three discs. Not that it defeats your point but if it breaks a gig lots of people would find themselves needing to spring for a bigger memory card.
"It sorta chills me to think of being afraid to run particular binaries on a machine that I own and am legitimate owner of, because a 'phone home' feature will nark on me."
I totally agree with your sentiment. In fact, I'm keeping 2K around for exactly the reasons you've stated. But I do have doubts as to whether or not the narc'ing will land me in any real trouble. It might prevent me from running something, but I wouldn't expect the Feds to come knocking on my door. Not only would that be expensive for Microsoft considering how petty that'd be, but that's not PR they'd enjoy.
"That's probably quite reasonable. How many shoplifters are brazen enough to go looking for a store employee like that?"
Just to add to this point: Most times, the person who checks the receipts can watch the person walk straight from the register to the door. The odds are pretty darned low that a would-be thief would take that route. Even if they did, is it worth stopping the occasional thief if you inconvenience a number of legit customers?
Evidently not, since your search didn't reveal a solution either. He needs the process to start up at low priority when other programs call it, not just when a shortcut is clicked. You're right, though. Google doesn't work for people anymore, especially those that don't understand the question.
I googled windows priority command line and the 6th result was titled: "smallbusiness.itworld.com - Windows Tip: Launching a low priority..."
Did you Google a little farther and find the answer to the question that was asked? The network rendering manager is spawning 3DSM, not somebody sitting at the computer. The start command won't work unless the network renderer is modified. What he needs is for Windows to always recognize that.exe is low priority so that mode is set regardless of how the app is actually started. He's already got the 'use human interaction to make the process low priority' bit working, so elite Googling skills didn't save the day.
Sending two people with bombs doesn't increase your chance of success, it increases your chance of being caught. What do you think the security reaction is to finding one person with a bomb? It's not to remove that person and carry on as normal, it's to remove that person and tighten up security much more, cancel flights, etc. If you send through two people, you've doubled your chance of one person being caught.
Check this out:
As I wrote this post it occured to me that if you were trying to get explosives that only a random search would reveal through, and you were to send two people, then there's a 2/10 chance of getting caught. If one person's caught, they'll shut the airport down. My 1/100 suggestion doesn't stand on as solid of ground.
"Google's habit of logging EVERYTHING is starting to get a bit scary. EVERYTHING that a person has EVER done with ANY of Google's services has been warehoused and is subject to subpoena."
You know what cracks me up? A number of times over the last year, I've heard people brag about how much they love Google because they 'do no evil'. They've even gone as far as to state that they plan on trusting Google until they give them reason to do otherwise. (These comments were always modded up, to boot.) I imagine lots of these people use a GMail account... which they log in with using their browser. So, while they're logged in to GMail, they use Google to browse. The potential here is that they can trace back your searches and tie them to your login. Who needs to log IP addresses when they can identify you that way?
So why does this crack me up? By the time Google does do something 'evil', they've already handed a lot of personal goodies over to Google. Oops...
I do hope I'm wrong, though. I'd like it pointed out if I am. (you see, I like Google as well, and I use Gmail...) I'd feel a lot more comfortable if GMail had stuck to its own domain instead of using mail.google.com.
"The USA market as a whole has never been known for uh... informed buying habits. Say, Deer Hunter is high on the list! What a shock..."
As I recall, Deer Hunter was cheap, a simple concept, and had mass appeal. I could see my Dad picking up that game, for example, but never Quake. I couldn't tell you from first hand experience that it was a good game, but I wouldn't make rash judgements on the informedness of American markets based on the sales of Deer Hunter.
The problem with random searches is that a would-be-terrorist could defeat it rather simply. If the odds are 1 in 10 that you won't get contraband through, you can increase them by sending two people. The odds of them both getting searched become 1 in 100.
I should point out, though, that I'm also using 'back of the napkin' logic. As I wrote this post it occured to me that if you were trying to get explosives that only a random search would reveal through, and you were to send two people, then there's a 2/10 chance of getting caught. If one person's caught, they'll shut the airport down. My 1/100 suggestion doesn't stand on as solid of ground.
I've just woken up and this topic is making my head hurt. I don't really have an opinion on whether profiling or random searches are any more effective. They both have nasty cons. I think the main reason I felt compelled to reply is that I worked at a place where I was 'randomly' chosen twice within a month to take a drug test. I do believe it was random. (or at least that they weren't singling me out.) But it made me angry enough that I told my boss I would not submit to a third one until some time had gone by. (Fortunately the computer that 'randomly' chose people didn't test my threat.)
I didn't feel that random testing worked if it picked people repeatedly. I felt like it should work in such a way that eventually everybody would be tested. There is some sense in this. The reason they did the testing is that most of the employees either drove company trucks or operated heavy machinery. If randomly testing people failed to ever test some of them, then they'd risk an intoxicant related injury. Alternatively, they could only test high risk people. Unfortunately, this is not only insulting, but it also is hard to group people this way. Somebody could be a drug or alcohol user without showing outward signs of it. If you know you will be tested some time within the next 6 months, you're likely to be a lot more careful than if it's just a 1 in 20 chance every week that you'd actually get tested.
As I said, I don't have a particularly strong opinion either way as to the right approach to solving this problem. I think niether are designed to be effective and ideal. It's a very tough problem.
"If you're worried about your privacy, then stop using Google software. "
But I have no reason to distrust Google. They've done nothing wrong! It's even in their PR tagline that they won't do anything evil. So, until they do something to earn my distrust (like give the gov't access to all the email in my GMail account and the related web searches since I'm always logged in to get said email...), I'm going to voluntarily hand all of my sensitive data over to them.
Slashdot Mirror
"I have already seen "Full Metal Jacket"."
Funny thing about DVDs: They're usually movies that have already been in theaters. For some reason, insta-casettes didn't make it into the digital realm.
After reading your post, I was inspired to suggest Dumb Shit.
It wasn't all that long ago that iTunes sold it's 100 millionth song. With numbers like that, you cannot brush the iTunes DRM under the carpet.
"Any random anti-DRM screed is sure to get modded +5 on Slashdot, but you should put in the extra work and have it at least make some kind of sense."
Any random defense of Apple is sure to get modded +5 on Slashdot, but you should have put in the extra work and made sense of the point he was making. Especially this bit: "They want to turn it on, and not have to worry that the computer from which they're trying to transfer music is "iTunes anointed" or not." This happens. Get a new desktop? 'Annoint' a license to iTunes. 5 years have gone by, and on average, people get new machnies every two years. iTunes is largely successful. When you look at this data and dismiss it by saying "Nahh, that's not happening. Slashdot just likes to mod up anti-DRM comments." you sound like Rush Limbaugh in defense of Bush.
"I read /. to get real news and facts, and see discussions from people with insight."
Wait.. is there a section of Slashdot I don't know about?
"Everyone knows the best thing to do with garbage is to attach a rocket to a large ball of it and fire it directly into space."
Unfortunately it's making people think twice about going into suspended animation.
"There is no way you can say all movies are art, same with video games."
That could be said for a lot of art that's being called 'art'. It's not so clearly defined, unfortunately. I am, however, inclined to call something that expresses a view of the world (like GTA or even V for Vendetta) art.
"Wow, what fantasy world have you been living in for the past decade? Also, could you get me a copy of BeOS, OS/2, and all the other vastly superior programs that MS has nevertheless managed to kill, since they apparently still exist there?"
Probably the fantasy world where WinZip, Quicktime, RealPlayer, ZoneAlarm, Nero, and a whole lotta other apps that overlap with XP features exist.
"1. Apple is not a convicted abusive monopolist"
Who cares? If the effect is the same, what does a court decision have to do with it? If the argument is that bundling apps with the OS gives Apple or Microsoft an unfair advantage, then it doesn't matter who was convicted of what.
"2. iLife is a separate suite, not part of the OS, but you get a copy when buying a Mac. it's more like how you now get a remote control with all new Macs and an iSight camera with all new Macs with displays."
I'll give you points for the integration bit. All Apple would have to do is decide to stop including it and it'd mainly just affect the packaging. I wouldn't defend Microsoft's integration of things like Media Player.
However, there's still the bit about including a product at all. Any competitor to iLife would be shitting their pants if Apple started including it. Why's it magically OK? If the answer is "We trust Apple more than Microsoft", just say so. Otherwise, let's at least cover the "how it actually hurts other companies" base a little more completely than just spouting off the usual "oh they were convicted of stuff" line.
"But if the MS one works at even a basic level, it's 'good enough' for 90% of the people who are going to buy a new machine with Vista on it."
So does that mean OSS is unfair, then? Afterall, how can anybody compete with free?
"If I were ROXIO or NERO, I'd be pissed, this looks like a de facto and direct competitor product, and if it's bundled as "part of the OS", it would seem close to the line of leveraging again."
Yeah, I'd be pissed if I were forced to innovate and make a better product, too.
I have this image in my head of an IE developer reading this story and thinking "Gee Slashdot, I guess writing a browser is pretty fucking hard, isn't it?"
"I'm sure if you just turn on your computer and let it sit there running a torrent, it's perfectly stable. However, when you do stuff that gets the processor hot and uses up all the RAM and some swap space for hours on end, it's going to crash from time to time...unless you've got some really expensive hardware."
I've had Windows boxes that ran for weeks at a time doing 3D rendering. These were all machines built from pieces ordered at Newegg, and the rendering maxed out the CPU and RAM for quite some time.
YMMV, of course. I think the instabilities I've had may have come from frequent game playing. I never got around to actually sitting down and testing that, but I do remember more reboots when I was a gamer than after when I moved on to consoles.
"I'd kill to play FF7 again on a portable system. Download time? A 600MB game'd take me about 10 minutes..."
FF7 had two or three discs. Not that it defeats your point but if it breaks a gig lots of people would find themselves needing to spring for a bigger memory card.
"I don't know why Sony keeps getting such a hard rap."
- $600.
- Blu-Ray.
- Delays.
- Controller.
- Root-kit.
- Real-time weapon switch.
"It sorta chills me to think of being afraid to run particular binaries on a machine that I own and am legitimate owner of, because a 'phone home' feature will nark on me."
I totally agree with your sentiment. In fact, I'm keeping 2K around for exactly the reasons you've stated. But I do have doubts as to whether or not the narc'ing will land me in any real trouble. It might prevent me from running something, but I wouldn't expect the Feds to come knocking on my door. Not only would that be expensive for Microsoft considering how petty that'd be, but that's not PR they'd enjoy.
"That's probably quite reasonable. How many shoplifters are brazen enough to go looking for a store employee like that?"
Just to add to this point: Most times, the person who checks the receipts can watch the person walk straight from the register to the door. The odds are pretty darned low that a would-be thief would take that route. Even if they did, is it worth stopping the occasional thief if you inconvenience a number of legit customers?
Hehe. I really shouldn't be casting stones. :)
Have a good day!
"Google doesn't work for people anymore"
Evidently not, since your search didn't reveal a solution either. He needs the process to start up at low priority when other programs call it, not just when a shortcut is clicked. You're right, though. Google doesn't work for people anymore, especially those that don't understand the question.
"You can't expect me to do everything for him, can you?"
Nope. All that you're expected to do is understand the question before you answer.
"If the rendering manager is spawning 3DSM, why can't it spawn a batch file which spawns 3DSM in low priority mode instead?"
He can't change the code.
"Ah, so my elite googling skills DID save the day!"
Not even close. Your impression of Jim Carrey talking out of his rear, however, is spot on.
Did you Google a little farther and find the answer to the question that was asked? The network rendering manager is spawning 3DSM, not somebody sitting at the computer. The start command won't work unless the network renderer is modified. What he needs is for Windows to always recognize that
Check this out:
"Google's habit of logging EVERYTHING is starting to get a bit scary. EVERYTHING that a person has EVER done with ANY of Google's services has been warehoused and is subject to subpoena."
You know what cracks me up? A number of times over the last year, I've heard people brag about how much they love Google because they 'do no evil'. They've even gone as far as to state that they plan on trusting Google until they give them reason to do otherwise. (These comments were always modded up, to boot.) I imagine lots of these people use a GMail account... which they log in with using their browser. So, while they're logged in to GMail, they use Google to browse. The potential here is that they can trace back your searches and tie them to your login. Who needs to log IP addresses when they can identify you that way?
So why does this crack me up? By the time Google does do something 'evil', they've already handed a lot of personal goodies over to Google. Oops...
I do hope I'm wrong, though. I'd like it pointed out if I am. (you see, I like Google as well, and I use Gmail...) I'd feel a lot more comfortable if GMail had stuck to its own domain instead of using mail.google.com.
"The USA market as a whole has never been known for uh... informed buying habits. Say, Deer Hunter is high on the list! What a shock..."
As I recall, Deer Hunter was cheap, a simple concept, and had mass appeal. I could see my Dad picking up that game, for example, but never Quake. I couldn't tell you from first hand experience that it was a good game, but I wouldn't make rash judgements on the informedness of American markets based on the sales of Deer Hunter.
The problem with random searches is that a would-be-terrorist could defeat it rather simply. If the odds are 1 in 10 that you won't get contraband through, you can increase them by sending two people. The odds of them both getting searched become 1 in 100.
I should point out, though, that I'm also using 'back of the napkin' logic. As I wrote this post it occured to me that if you were trying to get explosives that only a random search would reveal through, and you were to send two people, then there's a 2/10 chance of getting caught. If one person's caught, they'll shut the airport down. My 1/100 suggestion doesn't stand on as solid of ground.
I've just woken up and this topic is making my head hurt. I don't really have an opinion on whether profiling or random searches are any more effective. They both have nasty cons. I think the main reason I felt compelled to reply is that I worked at a place where I was 'randomly' chosen twice within a month to take a drug test. I do believe it was random. (or at least that they weren't singling me out.) But it made me angry enough that I told my boss I would not submit to a third one until some time had gone by. (Fortunately the computer that 'randomly' chose people didn't test my threat.)
I didn't feel that random testing worked if it picked people repeatedly. I felt like it should work in such a way that eventually everybody would be tested. There is some sense in this. The reason they did the testing is that most of the employees either drove company trucks or operated heavy machinery. If randomly testing people failed to ever test some of them, then they'd risk an intoxicant related injury. Alternatively, they could only test high risk people. Unfortunately, this is not only insulting, but it also is hard to group people this way. Somebody could be a drug or alcohol user without showing outward signs of it. If you know you will be tested some time within the next 6 months, you're likely to be a lot more careful than if it's just a 1 in 20 chance every week that you'd actually get tested.
As I said, I don't have a particularly strong opinion either way as to the right approach to solving this problem. I think niether are designed to be effective and ideal. It's a very tough problem.
"If you're worried about your privacy, then stop using Google software. "
But I have no reason to distrust Google. They've done nothing wrong! It's even in their PR tagline that they won't do anything evil. So, until they do something to earn my distrust (like give the gov't access to all the email in my GMail account and the related web searches since I'm always logged in to get said email...), I'm going to voluntarily hand all of my sensitive data over to them.