The more people use firefox, the more major companies will depend on it, and the more money they will spend on securing firefox, just as has happened with Linux.
I hope that's the case, however in the years Firefox could have learned from IE's mistakes, they haven't fundamentally addressed the security concerns. As a counter-example, Google's Chrome actually showed some innovation in this area.
As for Linux, I'm willing to bet a default Ubuntu install is inherently no more secure than Windows, except for the amount of attention Microsoft gets because of its market dominance.
The day this article hit slashdot I said that the purpose for this was to insert Microsoft IP into Linux. People called me crazy.
You weren't some lone wise man. A lot of people saw the dangers -- in fact, the general Slashdot vibe was highly negative against Novell for this deal. Where's the link to your post? I want to see all the people calling you crazy.
Here's a comment from Nov. 2, 2006, six days before the article you mentioned:
Very simply... (Score:2, Insightful) by turgid (580780) Alter Relationship on Thursday November 02 2006, @03:48PM (#16694275) Journal
By getting their technology ("Intellectual Property", patents etc.) into SuSE Linux, the automatically get Novell and all of its SuSE customers hooked on MS IP. Then, other users will succumb, because they will see the features in SuSE and either migrate or demand it in their own distros.
Really all it is, Microsoft gave Novell $300 million for a mutual indemnification agreement. That's a hell of a lot of money, and any reasonable person would believe that Microsoft is more worried about infringing on Novell patents than vice versa.
Any naive or willfully ignorant person would believe that. Microsoft made this deal around the time they were claiming Linux violated their patents. In return for the upfront cash to Novell, Microsoft gets royalties on any future sales of Novell. It divides the Linux community between those paying protection money to Microsoft and those who don't. Open source and patent royalties are incompatible.
AC because defending an MS technology costs you karma
So what? It's not like you can accrue it and turn it into money. Once you have a big enough positive balance the extra is worthless, except as a buffer for making unpopular comments.
Having large amounts of poverty in the nation will breed crime, reduce sales, cause layoffs, and generally decrease the quality of life for those of us who planned ahead.
You're talking about "poor" people who bought $600,000 homes that now go for $230,000. Cry me a river. Not having food, health care, or any shelter at all is one thing, but losing your luxury house and moving into an apartment is a reasonable price to pay for acting irresponsibly. Poor people shouldn't be entitled to houses when responsible people lived within their means.
What do you mean by "3. Avoid posting as an administrator."? There's a lot of ways to interpret this. Are you saying that if you want to post in a non-official capacity, you create an anonymous account where your administrator status is unknown?
You are correct, they weren't charged with fraud, but with "unfair" business practices. They knew there was substantial fraud going on and did not take adequate steps to address it. The court document linked to in the summary explains all this in detail. Here are some excerpts:
"A practice is unfair under the FTC Act if: (1) it causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers, (2) the injury is not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves, and (3) the injury is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition."
[From a cited case] "The FTC's cause of action is based on unfairness, not deception, and the absence of proof that Defendants directly engaged in deception is completely irrelevant."
"Here, the circumstances are similar in that Defendants' business practice significantly facilitated fraudulent activity. [...] Defendants knew of the high level of fraud from their own files and the complaints, and, like Defendant Wholesale, who knew of unauthorized deposits, they chose to continue to operate without sufficient verification measures. Therefore, after reviewing the evidence and the case law, and giving "some deference" the FTC's theory of liability under the Act, the Court finds that the FTC has satisfied the element of causation."
Short of running their own DNS, what's a better approach? (BTW, I've run my own DNS. Not dong that again. Life's too short to think running servers is fun.)
I had to deal with an ISP's flakey DNS, so I ran my own server. On Debian Linux, this was very easy:
1) Install the bind9 package. 2) Edit/etc/dhcp3/dhclient.conf and uncomment the line:
#prepend domain-name-servers 127.0.0.1
These instructions are probably out of date, but I've had this setup for years now with no problems or maintenance whatsoever. Maybe other operating systems have similar solutions.
Look, I tried to give you a graceful way to end this by essentially saying that MY OPINION is that pop music has gotten worse over the decades.
So, what, you get to choose to have the last word? If you don't want to reply, then don't.
That people who seek fame and fortune for the sake of fame and fortune, well... I just don't respect that.
You're missing that you can seek fame and fortune and also love the music side as well. You don't become a great talent without having some passion about music.
There is nothing to "dispute".
There was plenty to dispute, which I have shown by giving examples of commercialism before the 70s, and other points like seeking fortune above. Besides, you brought up The Beatles, I brought up somebody else.
They then give them a million dollar contract and then market the crap out of them. Like most pop stars, they will only ever see a fraction of the revenue that they generate.
The producers took the risk and put the effort into making a successful show. For their reward they take a big cut. The artist loses a big cut but goes from nothing to fortune overnight. Usually once success ensues artists find a way to get better terms for follow-up albums.
We disagree on a very fundamental level. I tend not to be a fan of most pop music from my generation or earlier. Not saying I don't like some pop music, but it's the exception rather than the rule.
I don't either. I'm just disputing your position that pop music today is fundamentally worse starting from the 70s. By the way, I looked up the song and artist I was thinking of, and it turns out it was "Miss Independent" from Kelly Clarkson, the winner from the first season. I'd put that song up against any of The Beatles' early hits, like "I Want To Hold Your Hand", "She Loves You" (yeah yeah), etc.
They're not doing it for the music, but for the almighty dollar and I am fundamentally opposed to that.
Most people creating music also seek fame and fortune, even if they love the music. Who doesn't want to get paid for their work?
I'm complaining about how the industry manufactures and exploits pop stars these days. American Idol. 'Nuff said.
I don't watch American Idol -- it's not my cup of tea. However, I see nothing wrong with it when it comes to creating a new pop artist. It's a talent search. So what?
If anything, it gives some random, talented person a chance to make it, since they sift through thousands of auditions. Several years back I heard a pop song I liked, especially the way it was sung, and found out it was from an American Idol contestant. Don't these people end up with million dollar contracts? Are they exploited when they know the conditions up front?
You're right. However, pop music used to be a radically different beast and not commercialized to the extent that it is today... or rather created for the sake of commercialism like it is today.
Like The Monkees?
But if you think about it, the quality of pop music is greater when the biggest name in pop music is The Beatles and not Britney Spears.
I've listened to the early Beatles stuff, and it was mediocre pop for the time, no better than pop from any other period. They grew into a great band after that.
There has been a fundamental shift in the approach to pop music since the 1970's.
But for every one of them you have 5 Britneys, 5 'N Syncs, etc. Back in the 60's the alternative to the Beatles was The Byrds and Janis Joplin, etc. Fundamentally more mature pop music.
Seriously, I could name a lot of quality bands from any given era, and a lot of crap bands. Of course, this is subjective to a large extent, but there's so much music around that you can find stuff you like. Every generation thinks the music in their generation was better.
People need to stop bitching about the quality of pop music. It's been crap since the 70's and only gets worse.
I've listened to pop music from all decades and there's plenty of crap to go around. However, there are always some standouts from any given time. People really need to get over this "music was better back then" idea.
The RIAA does in fact get armed thugs to forcibly break into people's houses: they're called marshals and police, and they're very good at ransacking houses and seizing personal property, and in general just taking orders from TPTB and not asking any critical questions.
My understanding is that they don't bust down your door, confiscate your computer, and search your house. Instead, there is a court order to turn over your hard drive: http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2006/10/8095.ars
It hardly matters that copyright is codified in the Constitution; it's not an infallible document, any more than the people who drafted it were infallible.
It's a starting point. The Constitution is widely regarding as a solid document. We have procedures to change it and the primary one is via the ballot box. If you think violence and murder are the way to enforce your views then you'll see just what a hellhole a country can become when everybody with their pet-peeve issue responds in kind. No doubt you'll be on somebody's list.
You've got it completely backwards. At no time has there been so much free flow of information. The amazing thing is that so far, the courts have rebuked crap like the Communications Decency Act, though there have been cracks in the wall like Children's Internet Protection Act.
Think about it. Encryption is legal. There is no national firewall. You can post any damn thing you want for free on any number of sites anonymously, and have it be seen and spread around the Net instantly. Bloggers are providing an alternative news source. The Abu Ghraib prison torture photos were posted on the Net.
No, what you're complaining about are lawsuits over copyright infringement. Copyright was established by the Constitution.
You're just an ugly murderer, no better than the Unabomber or McVeigh trying to force their views. The RIAA, at least, is suing people in court, and not hiring armed thugs to come to your house. By the way, copyright was enacted in the Constitution.
I don't think they do. People on the whole seem to be quite quick to jump on 'em
This wasn't always the case. The backlash against them has been building for some time now. I'd say even a year ago Google favoritism would have been much higher.
What educational value beyond the current educational technology (e.g. books and mentoring) does VR actually give you?
Driving simulator. Training missions for the military. Surgery. Mockups for construction projects. Home walkthroughs for buyers and renters. There are alternatives now, but a fully immersive virtual reality would be useful if it was cheap, accessible, and pliable. That dedicated flight simulator I'm sure costs tons of money. This is like arguing 60 years ago that only a few people in the world need computers, because they are so big, expensive, and of limited use. If the technology was feasible in the same way that computers became feasible, there would be plenty of uses.
Games? Tried that. No body wanted to purchase the hardware when a home console was almost just as good.
Interesting item. But it cost $60k, and I doubt that the tech was all that great for the money. Consoles aren't "almost just as good". Twiddling a controller with your thumbs while watching the action on a television would pale in comparison to a fully immersive VR. I think the success of the Wii shows a demand for this kind of product. Now throw in Internet play, much better technology, and consumer prices then you'd have a winner. Again, I'm not saying this is feasible, but I won't discount it.
This point gets made every time we have one of these give-me-legal-advice Ask Slashdots.
Yes, it does. And the counter-point gets made every time too: There's a good chance somebody on Slashdot has faced the same technical + legal question you have, and already did the research or hired a lawyer. Not all the advice here is just armchair lawyers talking out their ass.
Slashdot Mirror
The more people use firefox, the more major companies will depend on it, and the more money they will spend on securing firefox, just as has happened with Linux.
I hope that's the case, however in the years Firefox could have learned from IE's mistakes, they haven't fundamentally addressed the security concerns. As a counter-example, Google's Chrome actually showed some innovation in this area.
As for Linux, I'm willing to bet a default Ubuntu install is inherently no more secure than Windows, except for the amount of attention Microsoft gets because of its market dominance.
The day this article hit slashdot I said that the purpose for this was to insert Microsoft IP into Linux. People called me crazy.
You weren't some lone wise man. A lot of people saw the dangers -- in fact, the general Slashdot vibe was highly negative against Novell for this deal. Where's the link to your post? I want to see all the people calling you crazy.
Here's a comment from Nov. 2, 2006, six days before the article you mentioned:
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=204311&cid=16694275
Very simply... (Score:2, Insightful)
by turgid (580780) Alter Relationship on Thursday November 02 2006, @03:48PM (#16694275) Journal
By getting their technology ("Intellectual Property", patents etc.) into SuSE Linux, the automatically get Novell and all of its SuSE customers hooked on MS IP. Then, other users will succumb, because they will see the features in SuSE and either migrate or demand it in their own distros.
Really all it is, Microsoft gave Novell $300 million for a mutual indemnification agreement. That's a hell of a lot of money, and any reasonable person would believe that Microsoft is more worried about infringing on Novell patents than vice versa.
Any naive or willfully ignorant person would believe that. Microsoft made this deal around the time they were claiming Linux violated their patents. In return for the upfront cash to Novell, Microsoft gets royalties on any future sales of Novell. It divides the Linux community between those paying protection money to Microsoft and those who don't. Open source and patent royalties are incompatible.
They know they must have firefox because with IE they are "unprotected".
Of course these same people will be "unprotected" if Firefox becomes the dominant browser.
AC because defending an MS technology costs you karma
So what? It's not like you can accrue it and turn it into money. Once you have a big enough positive balance the extra is worthless, except as a buffer for making unpopular comments.
what if you just coated the cables in a bit of something highly poisonous...
That sounds really stupid. People end up handling those cables.
Having large amounts of poverty in the nation will breed crime, reduce sales, cause layoffs, and generally decrease the quality of life for those of us who planned ahead.
You're talking about "poor" people who bought $600,000 homes that now go for $230,000. Cry me a river. Not having food, health care, or any shelter at all is one thing, but losing your luxury house and moving into an apartment is a reasonable price to pay for acting irresponsibly. Poor people shouldn't be entitled to houses when responsible people lived within their means.
What do you mean by "3. Avoid posting as an administrator."? There's a lot of ways to interpret this. Are you saying that if you want to post in a non-official capacity, you create an anonymous account where your administrator status is unknown?
You are correct, they weren't charged with fraud, but with "unfair" business practices. They knew there was substantial fraud going on and did not take adequate steps to address it. The court document linked to in the summary explains all this in detail. Here are some excerpts:
"A practice is unfair under the FTC Act if: (1) it causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers, (2) the injury is not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves, and (3) the injury is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition."
[From a cited case]
"The FTC's cause of action is based on unfairness, not deception, and the absence of proof that Defendants directly engaged in deception is completely irrelevant."
"Here, the circumstances are similar in that Defendants' business practice significantly facilitated fraudulent activity. [...] Defendants knew of the high level of fraud from their own files and the complaints, and, like Defendant Wholesale, who knew of unauthorized deposits, they chose to continue to operate without sufficient verification measures. Therefore, after reviewing the evidence and the case law, and giving "some deference" the FTC's theory of liability under the Act, the Court finds that the FTC has satisfied the element of causation."
Short of running their own DNS, what's a better approach? (BTW, I've run my own DNS. Not dong that again. Life's too short to think running servers is fun.)
I had to deal with an ISP's flakey DNS, so I ran my own server. On Debian Linux, this was very easy:
1) Install the bind9 package. /etc/dhcp3/dhclient.conf and uncomment the line:
2) Edit
#prepend domain-name-servers 127.0.0.1
These instructions are probably out of date, but I've had this setup for years now with no problems or maintenance whatsoever. Maybe other operating systems have similar solutions.
Look, I tried to give you a graceful way to end this by essentially saying that MY OPINION is that pop music has gotten worse over the decades.
So, what, you get to choose to have the last word? If you don't want to reply, then don't.
That people who seek fame and fortune for the sake of fame and fortune, well... I just don't respect that.
You're missing that you can seek fame and fortune and also love the music side as well. You don't become a great talent without having some passion about music.
There is nothing to "dispute".
There was plenty to dispute, which I have shown by giving examples of commercialism before the 70s, and other points like seeking fortune above. Besides, you brought up The Beatles, I brought up somebody else.
They then give them a million dollar contract and then market the crap out of them. Like most pop stars, they will only ever see a fraction of the revenue that they generate.
The producers took the risk and put the effort into making a successful show. For their reward they take a big cut. The artist loses a big cut but goes from nothing to fortune overnight. Usually once success ensues artists find a way to get better terms for follow-up albums.
We disagree on a very fundamental level. I tend not to be a fan of most pop music from my generation or earlier. Not saying I don't like some pop music, but it's the exception rather than the rule.
I don't either. I'm just disputing your position that pop music today is fundamentally worse starting from the 70s. By the way, I looked up the song and artist I was thinking of, and it turns out it was "Miss Independent" from Kelly Clarkson, the winner from the first season. I'd put that song up against any of The Beatles' early hits, like "I Want To Hold Your Hand", "She Loves You" (yeah yeah), etc.
They're not doing it for the music, but for the almighty dollar and I am fundamentally opposed to that.
Most people creating music also seek fame and fortune, even if they love the music. Who doesn't want to get paid for their work?
I'm complaining about how the industry manufactures and exploits pop stars these days. American Idol. 'Nuff said.
I don't watch American Idol -- it's not my cup of tea. However, I see nothing wrong with it when it comes to creating a new pop artist. It's a talent search. So what?
If anything, it gives some random, talented person a chance to make it, since they sift through thousands of auditions. Several years back I heard a pop song I liked, especially the way it was sung, and found out it was from an American Idol contestant. Don't these people end up with million dollar contracts? Are they exploited when they know the conditions up front?
You're right. However, pop music used to be a radically different beast and not commercialized to the extent that it is today... or rather created for the sake of commercialism like it is today.
Like The Monkees?
But if you think about it, the quality of pop music is greater when the biggest name in pop music is The Beatles and not Britney Spears.
I've listened to the early Beatles stuff, and it was mediocre pop for the time, no better than pop from any other period. They grew into a great band after that.
There has been a fundamental shift in the approach to pop music since the 1970's.
Like the payola schemes? http://www.history-of-rock.com/payola.htm
But for every one of them you have 5 Britneys, 5 'N Syncs, etc. Back in the 60's the alternative to the Beatles was The Byrds and Janis Joplin, etc. Fundamentally more mature pop music.
Seriously, I could name a lot of quality bands from any given era, and a lot of crap bands. Of course, this is subjective to a large extent, but there's so much music around that you can find stuff you like. Every generation thinks the music in their generation was better.
Nice, I hadn't seen that before.
People need to stop bitching about the quality of pop music. It's been crap since the 70's and only gets worse.
I've listened to pop music from all decades and there's plenty of crap to go around. However, there are always some standouts from any given time. People really need to get over this "music was better back then" idea.
The RIAA does in fact get armed thugs to forcibly break into people's houses: they're called marshals and police, and they're very good at ransacking houses and seizing personal property, and in general just taking orders from TPTB and not asking any critical questions.
My understanding is that they don't bust down your door, confiscate your computer, and search your house. Instead, there is a court order to turn over your hard drive: http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2006/10/8095.ars
It hardly matters that copyright is codified in the Constitution; it's not an infallible document, any more than the people who drafted it were infallible.
It's a starting point. The Constitution is widely regarding as a solid document. We have procedures to change it and the primary one is via the ballot box. If you think violence and murder are the way to enforce your views then you'll see just what a hellhole a country can become when everybody with their pet-peeve issue responds in kind. No doubt you'll be on somebody's list.
You've got it completely backwards. At no time has there been so much free flow of information. The amazing thing is that so far, the courts have rebuked crap like the Communications Decency Act, though there have been cracks in the wall like Children's Internet Protection Act.
Think about it. Encryption is legal. There is no national firewall. You can post any damn thing you want for free on any number of sites anonymously, and have it be seen and spread around the Net instantly. Bloggers are providing an alternative news source. The Abu Ghraib prison torture photos were posted on the Net.
No, what you're complaining about are lawsuits over copyright infringement. Copyright was established by the Constitution.
You're just an ugly murderer, no better than the Unabomber or McVeigh trying to force their views. The RIAA, at least, is suing people in court, and not hiring armed thugs to come to your house. By the way, copyright was enacted in the Constitution.
I don't think they do. People on the whole seem to be quite quick to jump on 'em
This wasn't always the case. The backlash against them has been building for some time now. I'd say even a year ago Google favoritism would have been much higher.
I'll quote the grandparent: "Do you only buy American? If not, your rant is completely hypocritical."
If they did, they were drowned out by the noisy chorus of self-taught legal "experts".
Sometimes we only see what we expect.
What educational value beyond the current educational technology (e.g. books and mentoring) does VR actually give you?
Driving simulator. Training missions for the military. Surgery. Mockups for construction projects. Home walkthroughs for buyers and renters. There are alternatives now, but a fully immersive virtual reality would be useful if it was cheap, accessible, and pliable. That dedicated flight simulator I'm sure costs tons of money. This is like arguing 60 years ago that only a few people in the world need computers, because they are so big, expensive, and of limited use. If the technology was feasible in the same way that computers became feasible, there would be plenty of uses.
Games? Tried that. No body wanted to purchase the hardware when a home console was almost just as good.
Interesting item. But it cost $60k, and I doubt that the tech was all that great for the money. Consoles aren't "almost just as good". Twiddling a controller with your thumbs while watching the action on a television would pale in comparison to a fully immersive VR. I think the success of the Wii shows a demand for this kind of product. Now throw in Internet play, much better technology, and consumer prices then you'd have a winner. Again, I'm not saying this is feasible, but I won't discount it.
This point gets made every time we have one of these give-me-legal-advice Ask Slashdots.
Yes, it does. And the counter-point gets made every time too: There's a good chance somebody on Slashdot has faced the same technical + legal question you have, and already did the research or hired a lawyer. Not all the advice here is just armchair lawyers talking out their ass.
If you let people run wild with no rules, then the strongest will become dictators and everyone else will be subjugated or killed.
You're comparing killing somebody vs not giving them source code.
we sacrifice some of this freedom to ensure that everyone gets the same slightly reduced level of freedom
I'll pass on sacrificing my freedom for Stallman's ideals.