So again, Microsoft are re-re-inventing the One True Unix Way (centralised server, remote thin clients).
Ah me. Still waiting for MS-Winux v1.0, when they release a true unix clone and tout it as more stable, reliable, and secure than any Windows ever. Oh and no they're not re-inventing 30-yr old technology "like linux did". Theirs will be Microsoft Unix after all! New! Improved! Washes whiter than white!
(completely brushing aside xenix at this point).
Where are we going? and why am I in this handbasket?
Also, personally speaking, I must declare an interest. I much prefer using Linux to Windows because it is easy to use and allows doesn't want me to be an idiot and try to do everything for me. The last time I used windows it wouldn't let me recompile my kernel so that I could have working sound and access my linux partition.
Except it didn't work. So I was screwed over.
Don't be so naive. Few laws are written in the interest of society. Look at who funds the lawmakers and you will see why. Hell, the Americanian public didn't even get the president they voted for.
And we do pay "royalties" to breathe. Your taxes fund the EPA. Yes, another well-run and powerful Americanian institution.
...the average user (including yourself and I) have absolutely no need...
How do you know what needs I or anyone else for that matter may have? Sure I don't want people poring over my letters to my wife, neither do I want my wife accidentally finding out what I'm getting her for Christmas. Or someone sniffing my new Secret Recipe for Coka-Kola that I whipped up in my kitchen and am sending a friend to try out. Or any of dozens of other things that yes I damn well have a right to protect.
What's going to stop the FBI from peeking through the window
Um. closing the curtains, perhaps. Also a little thing called the law[0].
You are saying on the one hand that the little guy has no need for privacy and therefore deserves none. On the other you say that since we can't protect our privacy completely anyway, why bother trying? What's your argument here? If you don't want to use encryption, or protect your privacy, fine. But don't seek to prevent others from doing so.
No, there is no such thing as perfect privacy. However we should do all we can to protect what little we have, because once it's gone it'll be much harder to get back.
Intelligent, educated people will make smart choices
Which is why you will never see a politician successfully propose a platform that intends to make people smarter -- those newly educated people will realise what out-and-out liars and sheisters most politicians area and might just come up with a better system.
...up to the point of attaching it to the wall with magnets. Know of anyone with metal walls?
Secondly, why the hell should I have to move it around my house, to have it available in different areas? Stick the thing in a closet and have smart interfaces throughout the house.
Stories like this just make me roll my eyes: the thing will get tons of traffic from you guys and his editor will say "Good Job Fred" because they got to sell lots of banner ads on it
Wouldn't something that reflects radar energy 'like a mirror' be rather pointless as a cloaking device? Shurely better to scatter or absorb said energy.
"It's absurd to compare illicit narcotics with caffeine."
Yet you do so in all of your points and your conclusion.
"Caffeine is not outlawed. Can caffeine produce the same kind of effects as illicit narcotics? No, then, I am not against websites like that."
Guns are not outlawed. Can guns produce the same kind of effects as illicit narcotics? No, then, I am not against websites like that.
Cars are not outlawed. Can cars produce the same kind of effects as illicit narcotics? No, then, I am not against websites like that.
My point? That many many things can and do have far worse effects on people than illicit-or-otherwise drugs. Most outlawed substances are that way because of arbitrary decisions by ill-informed doctors made years ago.
"Caffeine does not cause people to go rob stores/banks/innocents so they can get cash for their next fix. Drugs do. When was the last time you saw someone jumped in the street because the mugger needed money for a Coke? "
Perhaps if it were possible to go into a supermarket and buy a pound of 'drugs', no-one would be jumped in the street.
It's not the drugs that create the crime, it's the fact that they can only be obtained illegally and therefore at a much higher price, and less easily, than otherwise. Actually, the need for alcohol ( a legal drug) does cause crimes to be committed. Maybe poverty is the cause of this sort of crime?
And, as others have pointed out, caffeine is addictive.
You're correct that the ad should make an individual want the product, but have you ever heard anyone say they bought something because they saw it being advertised?
IME people say 'I would never buy X after seeing the adverts for it'.
Yet those same people have no trouble remembering the jingle, or the slogan, or the logo, or whatever, for a particular product. Seems advertising is fulfilling its purpose there.
I've often toyed with the idea of what the world would be like with/no/ advertising beyond putting up a store front and relying on word-of-mouth (which seems to be the most effective form of getting new customers, from what I've read and from what a student of advertising told me). The three hour drive to see my in-laws would be a lot prettier, for one thing.
The purpose of advertising is not to make you buy the product, it's to make you/remember/ the product. So the next time you are thinking of buying a widget, you think Brand X widgets and not Brand Y's. On your trip to the widget store you will thus seek out Brand X.
The best use I can think of for this would be to have all network connections show up as monsters:
"Ah-ha! a portscan, huh? Say goodbye, caco-kiddie!"
Maybe connections to services on other machines could be shown as doors, like httpd would be a door with a big spider web bitmap (overdone cliches? yus!).
Slashdot Mirror
not very free then, is it.
So again, Microsoft are re-re-inventing the One True Unix Way (centralised server, remote thin clients).
Ah me. Still waiting for MS-Winux v1.0, when they release a true unix clone and tout it as more stable, reliable, and secure than any Windows ever. Oh and no they're not re-inventing 30-yr old technology "like linux did". Theirs will be Microsoft Unix after all! New! Improved! Washes whiter than white!
(completely brushing aside xenix at this point).
Where are we going? and why am I in this handbasket?
and Penguin and Bertlesman are it's IBM and Microsoft.
Shurely a stoodint of Inglish wuld noe it's "its" and not "it's". </grammar_nazi>
Itchy and Scratchy Land?
Westworld.
Also, personally speaking, I must declare an interest. I much prefer using Linux to Windows because it is easy to use and allows doesn't want me to be an idiot and try to do everything for me. The last time I used windows it wouldn't let me recompile my kernel so that I could have working sound and access my linux partition.
Except it didn't work. So I was screwed over.
ok Wowbagger.
Credit Mr Adams why doncha?
If there were _un_successful attempts to hack, what situations needed correction?
Don't be so naive. Few laws are written in the interest of society. Look at who funds the lawmakers and you will see why. Hell, the Americanian public didn't even get the president they voted for.
And we do pay "royalties" to breathe. Your taxes fund the EPA. Yes, another well-run and powerful Americanian institution.
because microsoft produces poor quality software?
because microsoft has conditioned the average person into accepting said poor quality?
because that mindless acceptance now bleeds into other areas?
nah, it must be because microsoft have 9 letters in their name.
...the average user (including yourself and I) have absolutely no need...
How do you know what needs I or anyone else for that matter may have? Sure I don't want people poring over my letters to my wife, neither do I want my wife accidentally finding out what I'm getting her for Christmas. Or someone sniffing my new Secret Recipe for Coka-Kola that I whipped up in my kitchen and am sending a friend to try out. Or any of dozens of other things that yes I damn well have a right to protect.
What's going to stop the FBI from peeking through the window
Um. closing the curtains, perhaps. Also a little thing called the law[0].
You are saying on the one hand that the little guy has no need for privacy and therefore deserves none. On the other you say that since we can't protect our privacy completely anyway, why bother trying? What's your argument here? If you don't want to use encryption, or protect your privacy, fine. But don't seek to prevent others from doing so.
No, there is no such thing as perfect privacy. However we should do all we can to protect what little we have, because once it's gone it'll be much harder to get back.
[0] - standard disclaimers apply.
Intelligent, educated people will make smart choices
Which is why you will never see a politician successfully propose a platform that intends to make people smarter -- those newly educated people will realise what out-and-out liars and sheisters most politicians area and might just come up with a better system.
Why are documents and settings grouped together?
What do they have in common?
...up to the point of attaching it to the wall with magnets. Know of anyone with metal walls?
Secondly, why the hell should I have to move it around my house, to have it available in different areas? Stick the thing in a closet and have smart interfaces throughout the house.
Could they sue Gates? No. Why? Gates is rich.
First thing you learn in law school: don't sue poor people.
Stories like this just make me roll my eyes: the thing will get tons of traffic from you guys and his editor will say "Good Job Fred" because they got to sell lots of banner ads on it
...but that won't stop you posting it.
C++ style comments (// blah) are a proposed part of the new ANSI C standard (C99).
Wouldn't something that reflects radar energy 'like a mirror' be rather pointless as a cloaking device? Shurely better to scatter or absorb said energy.
I intended no comparison to SCO, simply to Solaris on x86 vs Sparc. I should have been clearer.
The only evidence I have that Solaris is slow on x86 is anecdotal, but from sources I trust to make such judgments.
"What makes you so sure that SCO customers would immediately migrate to linux? "
SCO, like Linux, runs on commodity hardware[0]. No re-investment needed.
[0] Yes, so does Solaris. Just not well.
"It's absurd to compare illicit narcotics with caffeine."
Yet you do so in all of your points and your conclusion.
"Caffeine is not outlawed. Can caffeine produce the same kind of effects as illicit narcotics? No, then, I am not against websites like that."
Guns are not outlawed. Can guns produce the same kind of effects as illicit narcotics? No, then, I am not against websites like that.
Cars are not outlawed. Can cars produce the same kind of effects as illicit narcotics? No, then, I am not against websites like that.
My point? That many many things can and do have far worse effects on people than illicit-or-otherwise drugs. Most outlawed substances are that way because of arbitrary decisions by ill-informed doctors made years ago.
"Caffeine does not cause people to go rob stores/banks/innocents so they can get cash for their next fix. Drugs do. When was the last time you saw someone jumped in the street because the mugger needed money for a Coke? "
Perhaps if it were possible to go into a supermarket and buy a pound of 'drugs', no-one would be jumped in the street.
It's not the drugs that create the crime, it's the fact that they can only be obtained illegally and therefore at a much higher price, and less easily, than otherwise. Actually, the need for alcohol ( a legal drug) does cause crimes to be committed. Maybe poverty is the cause of this sort of crime?
And, as others have pointed out, caffeine is addictive.
What did I say that disagreed with this?
You're correct that the ad should make an individual want the product, but have you ever heard anyone say they bought something because they saw it being advertised?
/no/ advertising beyond putting up a store front and relying on word-of-mouth (which seems to be the most effective form of getting new customers, from what I've read and from what a student of advertising told me). The three hour drive to see my in-laws would be a lot prettier, for one thing.
IME people say 'I would never buy X after seeing the adverts for it'.
Yet those same people have no trouble remembering the jingle, or the slogan, or the logo, or whatever, for a particular product. Seems advertising is fulfilling its purpose there.
I've often toyed with the idea of what the world would be like with
The purpose of advertising is not to make you buy the product, it's to make you /remember/ the product. So the next time you are thinking of buying a widget, you think Brand X widgets and not Brand Y's. On your trip to the widget store you will thus seek out Brand X.
The best use I can think of for this would be to have all network connections show up as monsters:
"Ah-ha! a portscan, huh? Say goodbye, caco-kiddie!"
Maybe connections to services on other machines could be shown as doors, like httpd would be a door with a big spider web bitmap (overdone cliches? yus!).
I need more coffee.
> ... cops have started harrasing themselves in > order to not get busted by these kids..
...rather than tracking down actual criminals.
Sounds great.