The iTunes Music Store is a marketing tool to sell iPods. They don't make enough profit on selling music to make it play on all platforms and devices - their real objectives are to sell Macs and iPods, not music.
And I expect that upwards of 90% of iPod owners and iTunes users have absolutely no complaints: they can download their and put it on their iPods, whether they use Macs or Windows. My girlfriend didn't even realize there were restrictions on her music until I explained that I couldn't play her music on my Linux box. In fact, if Apple ever released a Linux iTunes client, I'd probably use it. I'd be hesitant to use a Crossover solution, for fear of Apple breaking it, but so long as the only restrictions on my music are that I can only put it on iPods and authorized computers (and I get to choose the OS), I really don't mind the DRM.
Not quite. Buying cocaine is a criminal offense, downloading movies is a civil offense.
My question is, if the MPAA were offering real movies in an attempt to entrap pirates, would it be piracy? If the legitimate copyright owner, or someone acting with their consent, is distributing the content, can it be illegal?
I frequently argue against other points of global warming, I pointed out that paper because the parent was claiming there was a scientific consensus, indirectly citing Oreskes' flawed study.
What do you mean by "a fraction?" That's an incredibly vague term that tells absolutely nothing about how fast the light is traveling. 999/1000 is a fraction, as is 1/1000, yet there's a lot of variance in between (especially when dealing with the speed of light.
Sorry, it just bugs me when people use the word "fraction" that way.
For quite some time, I paid attention to CrossOver because I thought they might provide a descent solution to iTunes on Linux (the last piece of Windows software I was able to shed before making the switch). They advertise iTunes support, but they only support up to iTunes 4.9, which is almost completely useless as of 7.0. iTunes 4.9 on Crossover doesn't update iPods, and since 7.0 came out, the Music Store won't authorize music on anything less than 6.0.
A critical fact in Al Gore's film: after compiling the results of 1,100 serious scientific papers about GW not one suggests that it is anything but man's fault. The percentage of journalistic articles suggesting that it may not be man's fault: 53%.
This is an extremely important point
That point, like numerous others in Gore's film, is incorrect. In attempts to reproduce the study Gore mentions, less than 2% explicitly endorse the " consensus view". This website lists the 1,117 documents and abstracts Oreskes (Gore's source) claims to have analyzed in her paper. You can see for yourself that there is not a scientific consensus, at least in the ISI databses.
I may be mistaken, but I believe the event that may have destroyed the Pillars occurred between earth and the pillars, in which case we've already seen the light from that event. That doesn't make a ton of sense to me, but it makes more sense than anything else I can think of.
That hardly sounds fanboyish, I was under the impression ext2/3 were at least as well supported on OSX as they are on Windows, and I'd hope no one would consider a file system that's hardly compatible with their OS.
I'm not really much of a fan of ext3. I recommend it for cross compatibility, but nothing else. I tried using ext3 for storage of MythTV recordings, and that turned out to be problematic - it would frequently crash if there was too much going on. Recording one show, transcoding another and watching a third was pretty risky. For lots of storage that only needs to be used on Linux, I use JFS. The downside is that the partition can't be reduced, but the stability and handling of large files is superb.
I completely agree. If the number of Firefox and IE users were switched, there would probably be a few more Firefox exploits exposed, that doesn't mean Firefox is more secure solely because it's not as common of a web browser, as many people seem to think.
you are still currently less likely to be exploited when running Mac OS X or Linux since script kiddies don't really care about you so much
This may be true, but it's also a lot harder to take control of a Linux box or a Mac than it is to take control of a Windows PC. I'm going to use Windows and Ubuntu Linux in my examples, as I've never used a Mac beyond some simple applications in computer labs.
If someone visits the wrong website using IE and insufficient anti-virus software, they can quickly become part of a botnet (in large part thanks to ActiveX controls). Visiting the same website in Firefox (even on windows) can be perfectly safe. Even if the webmaster wanted to target Firefox users, the ActiveX controls aren't present for the exploit.
In Windows, if you download a file that ends in.bat,.com,.exe, and a few others, the file is automatically treated as an executable. Recent "fixes" throw up a warning to make sure the user wants to execute the file, but many people will ignore the warning and run something even though they think it's a jpeg. In Linux, something that ends in.jpeg can be an executable, but it's permissions must be set to executable. You can't download something and run it without actively making it executable first.
At this point we'll assume that on either operating system, a trojan has been executed. In Windows, most home users run as the administrative user by default. Most Linux distros I've run into make it difficult to run as root, and make it clear that it is not a good idea. So if a trojan is running in Windows, it has access to the entire computer. It can install device drivers, read any file it wants, write data (or copies of itself) anywhere it wants, and ultimately some viruses require reformatting to eliminate. In Linux, if a user runs a trojan, it can trash the files in their home directory (which certainly isn't good), but it can't install device drivers, effect the data of other users, or make embed itself so deeply in the system that a reformat becomes necessary.
In order to take over a Linux machine you'd have to convince the user to execute the file as root, or find some file the user can write to that root will eventually execute. Yes, this may be doable if you're targeting a specific system and can spend a lot of time trying to find a place to plant the executable, but a script kiddie is going to have a lot harder time taking over a Linux box than a Windows box.
FAT has issues with partitions larger than 32 GB and files larger than 4 GB. It's nice for Flash drives that you're taking from a Windows PC to a Mac to a Linux box, but if you're talking about serious arches, you'll definitely run into the first problem, and quite possibly run into the second.
I use Ext3 for my backup drive, and this driver for when I need to attach it to a Windows box.
Sadly, I have to agree with the grandparent. A few years ago, I wrote a Half-Life server side mod. I got no input from the vast majority of my users. Of the people who gave me input, most didn't understand the point of the mod. Of those who understood the point of the mod, most of them wanted it to work more like another mod, even though I made an effort to make my mod compatible with any other mods they wanted to run. There was only one (other) person the entire time who really understood my mod and was able to constructively contribute to it.
I agree. Who else is going to fund such studies? I hate it when people say "The oil companies funded that research, so it's invalid," rather than looking at the well documented information in the research. When Al Gore released "An Inconvenient Truth" I didn't say "Oh, he's just a liberal politician trying to achieve some political goal," and ignore him, I went and saw his movie and found numerous flaws in the data he was reporting. If someone really wants to discredit Exxon's data, they need to look at the research and find flaws in the data, rather than simply ignoring the data because of its source.
I have 20/20 vision and am not color blind. Captchas are becoming so complicated and garbled that I get the code wrong about 40% of the time.
I have 20/40 vision and am colorblind. I find a site with a captcha, I give up on it unless it's something I'm really interested in. There have definitely been websites that have lost my business because of their obnoxious captchas.
I'm colorblind, and I frequently find myself refreshing a page numerous times to get a captcha I can actually read. I find the things really annoying. I understand a need to keep bots from spamming sites, but some of these captchas are absolutely ridiculous.
While it's true that it's tough to switch people, many people wouldn't be able to tell you why they "need" Windows.
I agree. I've been using Ubuntu for a little over a year, and it's been on all my boxes for about a month. I've been explaining to my friends and family lately that Linux is a great operating system, and while I'm okay with them using Windows, I think they ought to have a reason for it before they pay $200 for it, then pay annually for security.
When I ask my girlfriend "Why do you use Windows?" Her answer is simple and straightforward - games. You can't play The Sims 2, Zoo Tycoon 2, or a few of her other games on Linux. She's just gotten an expansion to The Sims 2, and she says when she gets bored with that, she might like to look into switching.
When I ask my dad, his answer is also fairly straightforward. He has some software he uses in his business that has no Linux equivalent. It doesn't appear in the Wine AppDB, so even if I could get it installed under Wine it's hard to say whether it would function properly. He might consider switching his every day desktop, but he'll still need Windows for his work.
Of the three people I'm talking about, my mom is the one I think would be best served by Linux. My mom's answer: "I don't want to learn something new." I suppose this is semi-legitimate. She had trouble switching from Windows 98 to XP, but all she really uses on her computer are OpenOffice, Firefox, and on occasion she'll play a music CD using whatever program pops up when she puts in the CD. I've explained that her web browser and office suite won't change much when she switches, and the CD will still play automatically. I've also explained that she won't have to keep paying for an anti-virus every year, and if she ever has problems, I can log into her computer from school and help her fix it. But she'd rather pay out the nose for anti-virus, have me try and talk her through problems over the phone (they usually end up waiting until my next trip home), just so she has a "familiar" desktop. Depending on how drastic the change to Vista turns out to be, I might get her to switch next time she needs a new computer, but I'm somewhat doubtful on that.
I agree, to a point. I've been a Google user for years. If Microsoft were able to provide better search results in shorter time, it would still take me a while to switch, mainly out of habit, but also holding out hope that Google would catch up.
Try that after buying some crack. Tell the judge "He invited me into the back alley and sold me the crack. It's not my responsibility to make sure what I'm buying is legal.
Seriously though, that's a weak argument. When one person is distributing thousands of well known songs and hundreds of high dollar movies, you can be fairly confident that the distribution is illegal.
That said, I think it's a weak case to go after downloaders instead of distributors. The only way to have evidence that they're downloading something (prior to searching their computer) is if they're downloading it from you, and if you actually own the copyright to that item, I'm not sure you can distribute it illegally.
I completely disagree. I think the one area Desktop Linux is making the most progress is hardware support. When I first installed Linux on my desktop (barely a year ago), my laptop wasn't even a consideration because there was no support for my ATI graphics card, my wireless card, my SD card reader, etc. When I installed Ubuntu Edgy Eft on my laptop, I had accelerated graphics, my wireless card was automatically recognized, and I had to load one kernel module to get my SD card reader working. In order to run a composite desktop, I had to modify my Xorg.conf and add a few lines to set up the graphics card for Beryl, but overall it worked fairly easily.
This may not be the case with all distros, but Ubuntu has definitely improved hardware support in the Last year. The desktop environment has gotten prettier, but not much more functional.
I've only read one Niven novel, and that wasn't mentioned in it. My comment was intended mainly as a joke, although it was based off some ideas I picked up in my CS and physics classes. I'm intrigued to know there is other writing on the subject. Do you happen to know the title of that Niven story?
Douglass Adams? Who is he to claim the answer to life, the universe and everything isn't 42?
In my Discrete Mathematics class, I learned that a "hard" problem is one where, if all atoms in the universe were a super-computer processing at the speed of light, it would take several times the age of the universe to solve using a brute force method.
In my physics class, I learned that one might theoretically be able to create a universe by imploding certain particles. The result would be a universe that would expand inwards upon itself, and that universe would exist only for a fleeting moment in our universe.
Now, if one could manipulate the creation of a universe such that every atom in said universe were a super computer processing at the speed of light, and could extract the result once that universe had poofed out of existence, then "hard" problems could be solved using brute force in a miniscule amount of time. As with any method of computing, this would eventually become the norm even for problems that weren't "hard". Our universe is simply a computer calculating 6x9 in base 13, no matter what some mere humorist says.
I've had the exact same experience. I've heard endless complaints about OpenOffice being unstable, slowing down the system, memory leaks, etc. The only problems I've ever had involve some formatting issues when using the same files in MS word and OpenOffice.org. I gave up on MS office (back when I used Windows) because I couldn't write a 10 page paper without it crashing 10 times in the process. It would always revert to an auto-saved version that was fairly recent, but it was an annoying interruption to my writing. I've also found that OpenOffice opens PowerPoint presentations much faster than MS Powerpoint, and they never crash.
I've reccomended OpenOffice to several people, and I'm not aware of any of them being upset with the software. It may not be quite as complete as MS Office, but it does enough to satisfy the average user.
Now that I use Linux almost exclusively, MS Office isn't really an option, but I'm in no hurry to buy the SoftMaker Suite, OOo works fine for me.
It's true that Opera isn't Free Software, but it is a valid point (although off-topic). I'm a Linux user myself, and the only people I expect to make Linux compatible with third party hardware, software and other standards are the Linux users and developers. I don't expect the people who made my wireless card to be responsible for making sure it works on an operating system that will be used by maybe 2% of potential customers. If it's more profitable to lose those sales than develop Linux drivers, I don't expect them to develop the Linux drivers.
However when something follows established standards (as does Opera), I would expect third party developers to honor those standards.
Slashdot Mirror
And I expect that upwards of 90% of iPod owners and iTunes users have absolutely no complaints: they can download their and put it on their iPods, whether they use Macs or Windows. My girlfriend didn't even realize there were restrictions on her music until I explained that I couldn't play her music on my Linux box. In fact, if Apple ever released a Linux iTunes client, I'd probably use it. I'd be hesitant to use a Crossover solution, for fear of Apple breaking it, but so long as the only restrictions on my music are that I can only put it on iPods and authorized computers (and I get to choose the OS), I really don't mind the DRM.
I see. I hadn't seen that page before.
My question is, if the MPAA were offering real movies in an attempt to entrap pirates, would it be piracy? If the legitimate copyright owner, or someone acting with their consent, is distributing the content, can it be illegal?
I frequently argue against other points of global warming, I pointed out that paper because the parent was claiming there was a scientific consensus, indirectly citing Oreskes' flawed study.
Sorry, it just bugs me when people use the word "fraction" that way.
For quite some time, I paid attention to CrossOver because I thought they might provide a descent solution to iTunes on Linux (the last piece of Windows software I was able to shed before making the switch). They advertise iTunes support, but they only support up to iTunes 4.9, which is almost completely useless as of 7.0. iTunes 4.9 on Crossover doesn't update iPods, and since 7.0 came out, the Music Store won't authorize music on anything less than 6.0.
I may be mistaken, but I believe the event that may have destroyed the Pillars occurred between earth and the pillars, in which case we've already seen the light from that event. That doesn't make a ton of sense to me, but it makes more sense than anything else I can think of.
I'm not really much of a fan of ext3. I recommend it for cross compatibility, but nothing else. I tried using ext3 for storage of MythTV recordings, and that turned out to be problematic - it would frequently crash if there was too much going on. Recording one show, transcoding another and watching a third was pretty risky. For lots of storage that only needs to be used on Linux, I use JFS. The downside is that the partition can't be reduced, but the stability and handling of large files is superb.
I completely agree. If the number of Firefox and IE users were switched, there would probably be a few more Firefox exploits exposed, that doesn't mean Firefox is more secure solely because it's not as common of a web browser, as many people seem to think.
If someone visits the wrong website using IE and insufficient anti-virus software, they can quickly become part of a botnet (in large part thanks to ActiveX controls). Visiting the same website in Firefox (even on windows) can be perfectly safe. Even if the webmaster wanted to target Firefox users, the ActiveX controls aren't present for the exploit.
In Windows, if you download a file that ends in .bat, .com, .exe, and a few others, the file is automatically treated as an executable. Recent "fixes" throw up a warning to make sure the user wants to execute the file, but many people will ignore the warning and run something even though they think it's a jpeg. In Linux, something that ends in .jpeg can be an executable, but it's permissions must be set to executable. You can't download something and run it without actively making it executable first.
At this point we'll assume that on either operating system, a trojan has been executed. In Windows, most home users run as the administrative user by default. Most Linux distros I've run into make it difficult to run as root, and make it clear that it is not a good idea. So if a trojan is running in Windows, it has access to the entire computer. It can install device drivers, read any file it wants, write data (or copies of itself) anywhere it wants, and ultimately some viruses require reformatting to eliminate. In Linux, if a user runs a trojan, it can trash the files in their home directory (which certainly isn't good), but it can't install device drivers, effect the data of other users, or make embed itself so deeply in the system that a reformat becomes necessary.
In order to take over a Linux machine you'd have to convince the user to execute the file as root, or find some file the user can write to that root will eventually execute. Yes, this may be doable if you're targeting a specific system and can spend a lot of time trying to find a place to plant the executable, but a script kiddie is going to have a lot harder time taking over a Linux box than a Windows box.
I use Ext3 for my backup drive, and this driver for when I need to attach it to a Windows box.
Sadly, I have to agree with the grandparent. A few years ago, I wrote a Half-Life server side mod. I got no input from the vast majority of my users. Of the people who gave me input, most didn't understand the point of the mod. Of those who understood the point of the mod, most of them wanted it to work more like another mod, even though I made an effort to make my mod compatible with any other mods they wanted to run. There was only one (other) person the entire time who really understood my mod and was able to constructively contribute to it.
I agree. Who else is going to fund such studies? I hate it when people say "The oil companies funded that research, so it's invalid," rather than looking at the well documented information in the research. When Al Gore released "An Inconvenient Truth" I didn't say "Oh, he's just a liberal politician trying to achieve some political goal," and ignore him, I went and saw his movie and found numerous flaws in the data he was reporting. If someone really wants to discredit Exxon's data, they need to look at the research and find flaws in the data, rather than simply ignoring the data because of its source.
I'm colorblind, and I frequently find myself refreshing a page numerous times to get a captcha I can actually read. I find the things really annoying. I understand a need to keep bots from spamming sites, but some of these captchas are absolutely ridiculous.
I agree. I've been using Ubuntu for a little over a year, and it's been on all my boxes for about a month. I've been explaining to my friends and family lately that Linux is a great operating system, and while I'm okay with them using Windows, I think they ought to have a reason for it before they pay $200 for it, then pay annually for security.
When I ask my girlfriend "Why do you use Windows?" Her answer is simple and straightforward - games. You can't play The Sims 2, Zoo Tycoon 2, or a few of her other games on Linux. She's just gotten an expansion to The Sims 2, and she says when she gets bored with that, she might like to look into switching.
When I ask my dad, his answer is also fairly straightforward. He has some software he uses in his business that has no Linux equivalent. It doesn't appear in the Wine AppDB, so even if I could get it installed under Wine it's hard to say whether it would function properly. He might consider switching his every day desktop, but he'll still need Windows for his work.
Of the three people I'm talking about, my mom is the one I think would be best served by Linux. My mom's answer: "I don't want to learn something new." I suppose this is semi-legitimate. She had trouble switching from Windows 98 to XP, but all she really uses on her computer are OpenOffice, Firefox, and on occasion she'll play a music CD using whatever program pops up when she puts in the CD. I've explained that her web browser and office suite won't change much when she switches, and the CD will still play automatically. I've also explained that she won't have to keep paying for an anti-virus every year, and if she ever has problems, I can log into her computer from school and help her fix it. But she'd rather pay out the nose for anti-virus, have me try and talk her through problems over the phone (they usually end up waiting until my next trip home), just so she has a "familiar" desktop. Depending on how drastic the change to Vista turns out to be, I might get her to switch next time she needs a new computer, but I'm somewhat doubtful on that.
I agree, to a point. I've been a Google user for years. If Microsoft were able to provide better search results in shorter time, it would still take me a while to switch, mainly out of habit, but also holding out hope that Google would catch up.
Seriously though, that's a weak argument. When one person is distributing thousands of well known songs and hundreds of high dollar movies, you can be fairly confident that the distribution is illegal.
That said, I think it's a weak case to go after downloaders instead of distributors. The only way to have evidence that they're downloading something (prior to searching their computer) is if they're downloading it from you, and if you actually own the copyright to that item, I'm not sure you can distribute it illegally.
This may not be the case with all distros, but Ubuntu has definitely improved hardware support in the Last year. The desktop environment has gotten prettier, but not much more functional.
I've only read one Niven novel, and that wasn't mentioned in it. My comment was intended mainly as a joke, although it was based off some ideas I picked up in my CS and physics classes. I'm intrigued to know there is other writing on the subject. Do you happen to know the title of that Niven story?
In my Discrete Mathematics class, I learned that a "hard" problem is one where, if all atoms in the universe were a super-computer processing at the speed of light, it would take several times the age of the universe to solve using a brute force method.
In my physics class, I learned that one might theoretically be able to create a universe by imploding certain particles. The result would be a universe that would expand inwards upon itself, and that universe would exist only for a fleeting moment in our universe.
Now, if one could manipulate the creation of a universe such that every atom in said universe were a super computer processing at the speed of light, and could extract the result once that universe had poofed out of existence, then "hard" problems could be solved using brute force in a miniscule amount of time. As with any method of computing, this would eventually become the norm even for problems that weren't "hard". Our universe is simply a computer calculating 6x9 in base 13, no matter what some mere humorist says.
If you shouldn't be dropping it, you probably shouldn't be throwing it, no matter what "it" is.
I've reccomended OpenOffice to several people, and I'm not aware of any of them being upset with the software. It may not be quite as complete as MS Office, but it does enough to satisfy the average user.
Now that I use Linux almost exclusively, MS Office isn't really an option, but I'm in no hurry to buy the SoftMaker Suite, OOo works fine for me.
However when something follows established standards (as does Opera), I would expect third party developers to honor those standards.