"It always astounds me how incredibly adverse peoples' reactions are to this suggestion. Sure, it doesn't provide absolute security (ActiveX springs to mind) but that, together with frequent Windows Updates, an enabled WinXP SP2 firewall, and not using IE, I can't imagine you'll have a problem."
I'm one of the idgits that run as admin all the time. (I took no offense to your post, btw.) One of the main reasons I do this (besides the convenience) is that I'm not convinced that it'd actually spare me any security issues. It might prevent my girlfriend from installing software, but do Windows permissions actually do anything beyond that that would make my machine the slightest bit more secure? To the best of my knowledge, no. But if somebody could correct me, I'd really appreciate it.
I have to ask, though, do Linux's permissions really offer that much in terms of protection? I mean, sure, they can prevent data from being written to the disk, but does it extend farther than that? If somebody creates a worm that executes under the current users's permissions, couldn't it still send messages out to affect other people? What about a buffer overflow? Would that data be executed as the currently logged in user or as root...?
Frankly, I'm not sure I totally understand all the fuss. It's one thing to not want to have sensitive data leaving your machine. It's another to worry about data loss. All of the permissions in the world will not protect your machine from a failed hard drive or a power surge. I don't mean to belittle computer security or anything like that, but a good data backup plan is going to be more beneficial to you than being overzealous about security.
"When you run the economics of it, lets asume that the artist charges $100 per hour to work on somethine and Photo Shop cost $200. So they spend 4 hours trying to do thier work in Gimp and fail, They are out $400 potnetialy earned. Now lets say they can acomplish thier work and it takes a little longer at first but then becomes as quick as in PS. They have saved $200, plus the cost of upgrades, plus the cost of new operting systems because PS will eventualy stop supporting your operating system."
The reality of this situation is a bit different. Photoshop has a far greater toolset than GIMP. Most artists who are charging $100 an hour aren't doing just red-eye removal and levels adjustment. If they're a texture artist, such as myself, all of those fancy Photoshop doodads come into play. (For example, I recently upgraded from CS to CS2. The vanishing point tool is GREAT. Now I can make changes whilst maintaining perspective correctness.) The money you spend on Photoshop upgrades is peanuts compared to the speedups and quality improvements you get. For a LOT of artists out there, GIMP is not Photoshop. GIMP is so not Photoshop that you do NOT make more or equal money by saving the cost of Adobe upgrades etc. Maybe one day this will change, but not today. Like or hate proprietary software, Adobe has a big big incentive to keep turning out the new and interesting features. Even with the latest release of PS, they've managed to keep it interesting. I just can't see the GIMP ever reaching a point where they get that innovative.
If BMW said "use unethical means to boost our ratings", nothing. If BMW said "Here's a bag of money, boost our ratings." and the consulting firm chose to use those means, then yes, it makes a difference.
"this will help tracking car but not the person in the car. if police stop chasing person because they think they can track using gps signal, person can leave the car ( if car is stolen )."
Thus ending the high-speed pursuit. However, I do agree with another poster that said something along the lines of "Great, motivate him to hijack another car."
"I inferred that you are female, because every time I have encountered the "if you don't know, I won't tell you" game, its perpetrator was a high-school chick, or (sadly), an older woman who never progressed beyond that stage."
Ha!! The irony of this is soooo amusing.
"(Answer it or don't, but if you don't answer it, your claim remains unsubstantiated, and your credibility erodes even further.)"
I'll be happy to once you actually take a stab at working out where you think I think you made the mistake. I think you know exactly what it is considering the extra lengths you've gone to try to get me off that topic.
"He was clearly suggesting that there is no possible way this evolved and that his magic, invisible pasta monster is the only reasonable explanation."
No, he didn't. If that's how you're going to respond to a reasonable question, then how would you expect to have any more respect than the pasta monster believers?
"Not so! If the game is a FPS, then having a HUD might greatly increase the 'immersion factor' (a factor which I don't necessarily think is part of good gaming...that's another post). A soldier of the future might very well have a helmet w/ an HUD."
I'll grant you that. Something else to consider is that video games have a very limited scope of exposure. You're playing with a simple controller, sound, and a monitor that is very small compared to what your real range of sight is. In real life, you can pat your back pocket and tell your wallet is there. You don't have that form of tactile sense in a game. So, what do you do? You have to indicate your inventory somehow.
Still, though, I understand where this guy's coming from. A friend of mine used to get annoyed at Q3 going into 'text mode' and preventing him from seeing who he's shooting at.
I'm impressed that you actually went back and looked at stuff. However, s'not good enough. Read it again, and this time comprehend what I was saying. Then, once you've done that, come back and tell me why you think I think you made a mistake.
First, you wanna marry your life partner. Next, you wanna marry the gold you've farmed. After that, you'll be bitching that Blizzard is not allowing you to have sexual relations with your gold, despite the fact that you've legally married it. Also, why the hell is Blizzard not allowing gold/player hybrid children? They are very narrow minded.
I can't tell if this post is really idiotic or an on-the-nose satire.
Yeah yeah, I know this game. I point it out, you argue with me, then we go down a seperate rat hole that you won't climb out of until you've 'won' something. I don't feel like playing AssDot today. So, instead, I have a challenge for you: Find what I'm talking about. Can you actually explore your own behaviour, or do you simply need me to answer your question so you can shout "Nuh uh!!"? I personally think you're afraid to give me any credibility, but you're an otherwise intelligent person so maybe you'll surprise me.
Slashdot Mirror
"Two words: no UMD-R drive*."
So? Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see one, but I can't imagine getting that upset with them over it.
"Sony destroys your computer, insists that you accept such insipid formats as UMD and Memory Stick PRO Duo with MagicGate, and denies any wrongdoing."
What's wrong with UMD? Rootkits and MagicGate I can understand, but UMD...?
"It always astounds me how incredibly adverse peoples' reactions are to this suggestion. Sure, it doesn't provide absolute security (ActiveX springs to mind) but that, together with frequent Windows Updates, an enabled WinXP SP2 firewall, and not using IE, I can't imagine you'll have a problem."
I'm one of the idgits that run as admin all the time. (I took no offense to your post, btw.) One of the main reasons I do this (besides the convenience) is that I'm not convinced that it'd actually spare me any security issues. It might prevent my girlfriend from installing software, but do Windows permissions actually do anything beyond that that would make my machine the slightest bit more secure? To the best of my knowledge, no. But if somebody could correct me, I'd really appreciate it.
I have to ask, though, do Linux's permissions really offer that much in terms of protection? I mean, sure, they can prevent data from being written to the disk, but does it extend farther than that? If somebody creates a worm that executes under the current users's permissions, couldn't it still send messages out to affect other people? What about a buffer overflow? Would that data be executed as the currently logged in user or as root...?
Frankly, I'm not sure I totally understand all the fuss. It's one thing to not want to have sensitive data leaving your machine. It's another to worry about data loss. All of the permissions in the world will not protect your machine from a failed hard drive or a power surge. I don't mean to belittle computer security or anything like that, but a good data backup plan is going to be more beneficial to you than being overzealous about security.
"When you run the economics of it, lets asume that the artist charges $100 per hour to work on somethine and Photo Shop cost $200. So they spend 4 hours trying to do thier work in Gimp and fail, They are out $400 potnetialy earned. Now lets say they can acomplish thier work and it takes a little longer at first but then becomes as quick as in PS. They have saved $200, plus the cost of upgrades, plus the cost of new operting systems because PS will eventualy stop supporting your operating system."
The reality of this situation is a bit different. Photoshop has a far greater toolset than GIMP. Most artists who are charging $100 an hour aren't doing just red-eye removal and levels adjustment. If they're a texture artist, such as myself, all of those fancy Photoshop doodads come into play. (For example, I recently upgraded from CS to CS2. The vanishing point tool is GREAT. Now I can make changes whilst maintaining perspective correctness.) The money you spend on Photoshop upgrades is peanuts compared to the speedups and quality improvements you get. For a LOT of artists out there, GIMP is not Photoshop. GIMP is so not Photoshop that you do NOT make more or equal money by saving the cost of Adobe upgrades etc. Maybe one day this will change, but not today. Like or hate proprietary software, Adobe has a big big incentive to keep turning out the new and interesting features. Even with the latest release of PS, they've managed to keep it interesting. I just can't see the GIMP ever reaching a point where they get that innovative.
"What's the difference?"
If BMW said "use unethical means to boost our ratings", nothing. If BMW said "Here's a bag of money, boost our ratings." and the consulting firm chose to use those means, then yes, it makes a difference.
"this will help tracking car but not the person in the car. if police stop chasing person because they think they can track using gps signal, person can leave the car ( if car is stolen )."
Thus ending the high-speed pursuit. However, I do agree with another poster that said something along the lines of "Great, motivate him to hijack another car."
"Once again, you dodge the question."
Funny, that doesn't sound much like an answer to my question.
"I inferred that you are female, because every time I have encountered the "if you don't know, I won't tell you" game, its perpetrator was a high-school chick, or (sadly), an older woman who never progressed beyond that stage."
Ha!! The irony of this is soooo amusing.
"(Answer it or don't, but if you don't answer it, your claim remains unsubstantiated, and your credibility erodes even further.)"
I'll be happy to once you actually take a stab at working out where you think I think you made the mistake. I think you know exactly what it is considering the extra lengths you've gone to try to get me off that topic.
"What the heck am I doing on my Palm right now?"
You weren't doing dialing motions with your hand or using multiple points of input on the screen.
"He was clearly suggesting that there is no possible way this evolved and that his magic, invisible pasta monster is the only reasonable explanation."
No, he didn't. If that's how you're going to respond to a reasonable question, then how would you expect to have any more respect than the pasta monster believers?
"If anyone who actually payed attention in biology classes cares to elaborate, please do!"
Yeah, Resident Evil 4 didn't go into much more detail than that. Thanks for that moment of deja vu. Hehe.
"The viewing figures are less than 100 million. I think you are confusing the Super Bowl with an event that the rest of the world gives a damn about."
Yeah, that made a big fucking dent in his point.
"(For those not nautically inclined, on a boat, "head" == "toilet".)"
So wtf is the poop deck then?
"Be ready to have your inbox slashdotted with resumes :o)"
Poor guy should have known better than to have this posted on a Friday night!
Hehe. Cute. "I didn't do it. Nobody saw me do it. You can't prove anything!"
"Not so! If the game is a FPS, then having a HUD might greatly increase the 'immersion factor' (a factor which I don't necessarily think is part of good gaming...that's another post). A soldier of the future might very well have a helmet w/ an HUD."
I'll grant you that. Something else to consider is that video games have a very limited scope of exposure. You're playing with a simple controller, sound, and a monitor that is very small compared to what your real range of sight is. In real life, you can pat your back pocket and tell your wallet is there. You don't have that form of tactile sense in a game. So, what do you do? You have to indicate your inventory somehow.
Still, though, I understand where this guy's coming from. A friend of mine used to get annoyed at Q3 going into 'text mode' and preventing him from seeing who he's shooting at.
"You're a chick, aren't you?"
Hahaha. Sorry, that wasn't the magic combination of words that'd make me lose my cool. That wasn't a bad attempt, though, I'll give you that.
*sigh* Such a simple request.
"I have no trouble with comprehension.'
Hence your unwillingness to demonstrate it?
"You can either come right out and say what you mean, or continue to be a pompous git. Your choice."
I might feel threatened by this ultimatum if you weren't trying so desperately to cling to 'victory'. Pity. T'was such a simple question.
I'm impressed that you actually went back and looked at stuff. However, s'not good enough. Read it again, and this time comprehend what I was saying. Then, once you've done that, come back and tell me why you think I think you made a mistake.
I can't tell if this post is really idiotic or an on-the-nose satire.
"It sounds like the news over hyped a story for no reason. Say it ain't so!"
So... was the story overhyped, or did the hyping of the story cause ppl to protect themselves? If it's the latter, kudos.
"Nope, you've just said it's there."
Heh. "I can't hear you! Lalalaalalaala!"
"Support your claim, if you can."
Yeah yeah, I know this game. I point it out, you argue with me, then we go down a seperate rat hole that you won't climb out of until you've 'won' something. I don't feel like playing AssDot today. So, instead, I have a challenge for you: Find what I'm talking about. Can you actually explore your own behaviour, or do you simply need me to answer your question so you can shout "Nuh uh!!"? I personally think you're afraid to give me any credibility, but you're an otherwise intelligent person so maybe you'll surprise me.
I've already drawn attention to it once. It's pretty obvious, anyway. Fascinating how people would rather argue than see their own mistakes.
Take a guess.
"You don't win an argument simply by proclaiming that you have."
You can't erase mistakes you've made by trying to bait me down another discussion.