I'd say a lot of slashdotters are interested in seeing what Win7 is like - half the posts revolve around Windows vs Linux, plus there's the whole know your enemy thing...
Sorry if I seemed to go after all Protestants, that wasn't my intention.
As I recently had it explained to me, Catholic's do not see themselves as being Christian, partly since they were here first and partly since they use 'Christian' to mean 'other non-Catholic follower of Christ'.
Every Catholic I know (including myself) would call themselves Christian, since they follow Christ. I think the term Christian is generally used in the broader context, but anyone who who reject the concept of being Christian certainly isn't Catholic, and would also be out of sync with the RCC's latest attempts to accept other Churches.
To summarise it, iiNet's only going along with the trial to demonstrate the futility of filtering. They're also currently fighting a court case regarding copyright infringement to maintain their user's privacy, instead of just rolling over like most other ISPs would.
That might be because the USA is one of the largest Protestant-majority countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism_by_country). Catholics (and most of the groups which split from them prior to the Protestant Reformation) aren't fundamentalists. i.e. they don't take the Bible literally, seeing Genesis as symbolic rather than historical. This enables them to reconcile evolution (and other scientific principles) with their faith. This also demonstrates that it is possible to be both religious and scientific.
Actually, he was referring to Vista - say what you want about its blaot and compatibility, it is way more secure than its predecessors in terms of UAC and changes like this.
Alternatively, if Microsoft sues Mono into oblivion - and we've all been happily developing C# code for hundreds of applications - then it's going to be a total meltdown.
First of all, C# is an open language, so there is zero chance of it being the direct subject of a lawsuit.
What gives Microsoft the right to change the way the Windows platform handles media content?
Probably something to do with the fact that they wrote it. Fact is, they can make whatever changes they want, and we have to deal with it. The truth of the matter is that making any kind of change/update will have some effect on backward compatibility. The more significant the change, the greater the effect. If you really want a static, unchanging operating system, then just keep using whatever OS you have now and don't install any updates. Meanwhile, the rest of the us will keep on moving forward.
I think the better question is whether the RIAA will try to sue Google over this service. After all, haven't they previously sued other companies which provided digital music lockers?
OK, I know your NYCL, but seriously? +5 Informative for just agreeing with the parent and reformatting it? Not that its your fault, but sometimes I suspect that people mod purely based on reputation without actually reading.
How exactly would they get these offers? If one company can locate them, then so can the others, including the ones interested in suing them. Besides, I sincerely doubt that anyone would waste their time breaking into someone else's account just so that they could upload an infected torrent that would be removed within the hour. Finally, there are the comments - people will warn you if the torrent is infected.
Unless you know exactly who you are downloading from you don't know what you are getting.
That's just it - anyone who frequently downloads software will know the main uploaders by their reputation. We see the same thing with videos (e.g. Axxo). Plus, there's always the comments.
Haven't you seen the ads? Mac OS X doesn't get viruses. This story is a complete fabrication, bankrolled by Microsoft, created to instil fear in The Perfect Operating System. Please link real stories next time.
What about The Perfect Operating System? No-one's said anything about Linux yet...
P.S. Yes, I am aware that viruses exist for Linux as well.
If the author lumped together the entire C family, it just goes to show that they don't understand them at all. C# is more similar to Java then to C++, and the transition between the two is just as difficult (I'm talking about native C++, not managed C++).
Better yet, i can't believe people install the 64 bit version, only to get the same performance and software incompatibilities. Unless you have over 4 gigs in ram it isn't worth it. It won't go faster if the software is not optimized to use the additional memory or cpu registers.</quote>
Actually, 64-bit Vista is supposed to be 15% faster than 32-bit Vista. Apparently having a 64-bit register means that twice the amount of data can returned in a single call for 32-bit apps, which was one of the optimizations Vista used.
While it would be suicide to stop producing 32-bit editions, why is it that 64-bit is portrayed as a 'special' edition - there are the normal Windows editions and the 64-bit editions. It would be better if they clearly labelled one 32-bit and the other 64-bit. Most modern computers have 64-bit CPUs, even if they don't have more than 4 GB RAM, and a 64-bit OS could use that, as I discussed above.
P.S. excuse the formatting, Slashdot is playing up and I can't access the options.
Simple - because no matter how you hard you try, there will always be false positives. Watch your software total a few major customer systems and then try to explain that it was to combat piracy. Microsoft uses some of the most stringent antipiracy mechanisms around, and they face heaps of crap for it (plus its not even effective). Your best bet is to make the program dependent on a dongle, and even then there are no guarrantees.
It looks like you forgot that Chrome (or Chromium) is open source, meaning that anyone who wants to can integrate AdBlock Plus and NoScript (which wouldn't affect Google, since all their ads are text-based) into Chrome if they want to. Of course, its only a matter of time before they release support for plugins (that's going to be their killer feature when they get round to it), and then all this will be redundant. After all, Google is no Apple.
Really this is a question about how much faith do you put in your fellow man? Think about that, and the fact that the one doctor your friend overheard is not representative of all of them.
There is also the question of why aren't organ transplants opt-out instead of opt-in? Everytime there's always these few people who have religious objections - why can't they just fill out a form and get opt-out status? Let's see, 1 hour's (I'm being generous) worth of work vs several lives... Clearly its easier to be lazy. The fact is that most people do not care either way, and it would save millions of lives if organ donations ocurred after death unless the subject was a registered exception.
Slashdot Mirror
it's not exactly eagerly awaited anyway.
I'd say a lot of slashdotters are interested in seeing what Win7 is like - half the posts revolve around Windows vs Linux, plus there's the whole know your enemy thing...
Sorry if I seemed to go after all Protestants, that wasn't my intention.
As I recently had it explained to me, Catholic's do not see themselves as being Christian, partly since they were here first and partly since they use 'Christian' to mean 'other non-Catholic follower of Christ'.
Every Catholic I know (including myself) would call themselves Christian, since they follow Christ. I think the term Christian is generally used in the broader context, but anyone who who reject the concept of being Christian certainly isn't Catholic, and would also be out of sync with the RCC's latest attempts to accept other Churches.
I'm with iiNet, but there's no way I'm dumping them, and here's one reason why: http://www.iinet.net.au/customers/iinews/internet-filtering.html
To summarise it, iiNet's only going along with the trial to demonstrate the futility of filtering. They're also currently fighting a court case regarding copyright infringement to maintain their user's privacy, instead of just rolling over like most other ISPs would.
That might be because the USA is one of the largest Protestant-majority countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism_by_country). Catholics (and most of the groups which split from them prior to the Protestant Reformation) aren't fundamentalists. i.e. they don't take the Bible literally, seeing Genesis as symbolic rather than historical. This enables them to reconcile evolution (and other scientific principles) with their faith.
This also demonstrates that it is possible to be both religious and scientific.
DISCLAIMER: IAAC (I am a Catholic).
Actually, he was referring to Vista - say what you want about its blaot and compatibility, it is way more secure than its predecessors in terms of UAC and changes like this.
You were expecting the RIAA to act logically? I suppose you also believe that CD sales are down due to piracy...
Alternatively, if Microsoft sues Mono into oblivion - and we've all been happily developing C# code for hundreds of applications - then it's going to be a total meltdown.
First of all, C# is an open language, so there is zero chance of it being the direct subject of a lawsuit.
[It is] approved as a standard by ECMA (ECMA-334) and ISO (ISO/IEC 23270).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_Sharp_(programming_language)
Secondly, should Mono die (which is extremely unlikely), we can always run those program under Wine.
Either way, no meltdown (except for the purists who wouldn't let Microsoft's .NET Framework onto their systems, and I doubt they'd use Mono anyway).
Disclaimer: C# is my primary language, and my favourite by far.
What gives Microsoft the right to change the way the Windows platform handles media content?
Probably something to do with the fact that they wrote it. Fact is, they can make whatever changes they want, and we have to deal with it.
The truth of the matter is that making any kind of change/update will have some effect on backward compatibility. The more significant the change, the greater the effect. If you really want a static, unchanging operating system, then just keep using whatever OS you have now and don't install any updates. Meanwhile, the rest of the us will keep on moving forward.
I think the better question is whether the RIAA will try to sue Google over this service. After all, haven't they previously sued other companies which provided digital music lockers?
Not really. You must be new here.
OK, I know your NYCL, but seriously? +5 Informative for just agreeing with the parent and reformatting it?
Not that its your fault, but sometimes I suspect that people mod purely based on reputation without actually reading.
Perhaps if you put holy water in the fire sprinkler system, then 'accidentally' triggered it...
How exactly would they get these offers? If one company can locate them, then so can the others, including the ones interested in suing them.
Besides, I sincerely doubt that anyone would waste their time breaking into someone else's account just so that they could upload an infected torrent that would be removed within the hour.
Finally, there are the comments - people will warn you if the torrent is infected.
Unless you know exactly who you are downloading from you don't know what you are getting.
That's just it - anyone who frequently downloads software will know the main uploaders by their reputation. We see the same thing with videos (e.g. Axxo). Plus, there's always the comments.
Haven't you seen the ads? Mac OS X doesn't get viruses. This story is a complete fabrication, bankrolled by Microsoft, created to instil fear in The Perfect Operating System. Please link real stories next time.
What about The Perfect Operating System? No-one's said anything about Linux yet...
P.S. Yes, I am aware that viruses exist for Linux as well.
There's just one problem: within seconds the company would be slashdotted.
Don't worry, I'm sure you can infect your WINE with some of the existing viruses...
If the author lumped together the entire C family, it just goes to show that they don't understand them at all. C# is more similar to Java then to C++, and the transition between the two is just as difficult (I'm talking about native C++, not managed C++).
The one with the best marketing division.
Yeah, but Britain they're *traditional*. I'm not sure about Canada, but in Australia we just use the metric system.
Better yet, i can't believe people install the 64 bit version, only to get the same performance and software incompatibilities.
Unless you have over 4 gigs in ram it isn't worth it. It won't go faster if the software is not optimized to use the additional memory or cpu registers.</quote>
Actually, 64-bit Vista is supposed to be 15% faster than 32-bit Vista. Apparently having a 64-bit register means that twice the amount of data can returned in a single call for 32-bit apps, which was one of the optimizations Vista used.
While it would be suicide to stop producing 32-bit editions, why is it that 64-bit is portrayed as a 'special' edition - there are the normal Windows editions and the 64-bit editions. It would be better if they clearly labelled one 32-bit and the other 64-bit. Most modern computers have 64-bit CPUs, even if they don't have more than 4 GB RAM, and a 64-bit OS could use that, as I discussed above.
P.S. excuse the formatting, Slashdot is playing up and I can't access the options.
http://www.ubuntu.com/
Simple - because no matter how you hard you try, there will always be false positives. Watch your software total a few major customer systems and then try to explain that it was to combat piracy. Microsoft uses some of the most stringent antipiracy mechanisms around, and they face heaps of crap for it (plus its not even effective).
Your best bet is to make the program dependent on a dongle, and even then there are no guarrantees.
It looks like you forgot that Chrome (or Chromium) is open source, meaning that anyone who wants to can integrate AdBlock Plus and NoScript (which wouldn't affect Google, since all their ads are text-based) into Chrome if they want to.
Of course, its only a matter of time before they release support for plugins (that's going to be their killer feature when they get round to it), and then all this will be redundant. After all, Google is no Apple.
Really this is a question about how much faith do you put in your fellow man? Think about that, and the fact that the one doctor your friend overheard is not representative of all of them.
... Clearly its easier to be lazy.
There is also the question of why aren't organ transplants opt-out instead of opt-in? Everytime there's always these few people who have religious objections - why can't they just fill out a form and get opt-out status? Let's see, 1 hour's (I'm being generous) worth of work vs several lives
The fact is that most people do not care either way, and it would save millions of lives if organ donations ocurred after death unless the subject was a registered exception.