Yup, I was going to post the same thing. I was using one as a file server until recently, when it occurred to me to check how much power it was consuming. Christ! For the cost of running that beast a few months, I could have just bought a cheap NAS.
Basically, yah. It's useless, sell it to some sucker, buy a cheap NAS, and move on with your life.
Intel already got snubbed for the Xbox 360. Doesn't seem to have affected the relationship any.
Honestly, Microsoft seems to be relatively CPU-agnostic anyway. For example, they picked AMD's 64-bit instruction set over Intel's. They didn't seem to hesitate when picking a PPC-based chip over an Intel chip in the Xbox 360, and they've never had any qualms about selling Windows to be installed on AMD computers.
Secondly, no, Microsoft is not saying that. You're being purposefully dense to make some kind of stupid Communist reference.
People *already* find bugs in Microsoft products without any compensation. Microsoft never asked these people to work on "fixing and bettering" ("bettering?") software, they took it upon themselves.
Basically, Microsoft's saying: "if you want to help us out without us asking, then go ahead. But don't expect us to pay you for it." Which makes perfect sense to me.
And look at it realistically: even if Microsoft did pay for security bugs, even if they paid $10,000, they couldn't compete with the mafia's rates, so it's not like the black hats would start reporting bugs to Microsoft instead of auctioning them off. (The white hats are already reporting the bugs.)
But why so little mention of Halliburton (= big American corporation) who were actually responsible for the drilling site?
We have a saying in the US: "The buck stops here."
In this case, BP is where the buck stops. They hired Halliburton, they're responsible for Halliburton's performance. There's no evidence (yet, at least) that Halliburton was acting contrary to their contract with BP, or ignoring BP safety suggestions. There's a lot of evidence that BP management was approached with concerns about the site safety which they ignored.
He says he found clear evidence of UFO encounters (256 MB photos from the ISS clearly showing UFOs), and NASA documents detailing the reverse engineering of free energy reactors, but he was so excited and stoned that he forgot to save them to his computer.
I dunno why, but that sentence has got to be one of the most hilarious things I've ever read in my life.
but (as far as I know - please correct me if I'm wrong) there is no generic way on Windows for administrators to restrict programs to certain actions with path-based rulesets,
You are fucking wrong. It's in this fucking thread, just a few fucking posts up. I FEEL LIKE I'M TAKING CRAZY-PILLS!
Christ. You guys are so committed to your "Windows sux, apparmor rox!!!" opinion that you've lost ALL FRONTAL LOBE ACTIVITY. That's why I'm getting worked up: stupidity. Stupidity on purpose to make a point.
Meaning it's designed to run ALL the time on EVERY site (mode 2.) Meaning that people who install AdBlock Plus aren't *only* blocking ads on sites with abusive ads, but they're blocking ads on EVERY site they visit, by default.
If it had a mode:
3) Show everything; allow blacklisting sites
THEN you could come here and tell me people only block annoying ads, or only sites that have annoying ads. But it doesn't have that mode.
It's really quite simple. I'm probably a poor communicator, but at this point I give up-- I'm not explaining it again.
Again, where's Windows' equivalent of Apparmor or SELinux?
Well, since I've never worked with those products, you don't seem to be interested at all in explaining what the holy fuck they do, and since I'm not telepathic, I can't answer that question.
Perhaps there is one that I'm not aware of,
Not aware of? It was posted IN THIS THREAD LIKE 3 POSTS UP! Seriously, WTF is wrong with you. IIRC, you yourself picked it apart based on a fucking typo (sudo instead of su).
You're being purposefully dense to make some point about your fucking pet software you won't bother to explain. Stop it. It's pissing me off.
I think I've entered the alternate reality where geeks forget that media is about embracing the fantasy a little and engaging in the narrative.
Way to stereotype.
Look, I'm all for immersion when watching a show or playing a video game, or consuming some other form of media. But Doctor Who? It's just not that good. Sorry.
The initial idea that there are things around us in this universe that largely do not care if we live or die that may indeed kill us when we're not looking coupled with creepy looking angel statues really freaked me out for a while.
Unless you're on an antiquated OS like Windows, anyway.
And you can't do it on Windows because...?
Oh wait, you can. If you couldn't, then this story would probably not exist, as Adobe wouldn't be able to do it either. Idiot.
This is only news because Adobe is finally admitting their product is crap. Now if they only took steps to improve the quality of all their other products... but I guess you can't have everything.
No, AdBlock does not work that way unless you subscribe to the blacklist.
When I tried it, it did. Maybe my information is out-of-date.
Of course, once you blook all *.swf and ads from the major adserver domains, that covers most of the annoying stuff.
Why is it looking at the adserver domains? DoubleClick.net could be serving ads on a site you really love, and it could also be serving ads on a site you really hate. If it *only* looks at the adserver domains, then there's no way to tell it to allow ads for the site you like, and disallow them for the site you don't.
That's exactly the problem I'm talking about! AdBlockers aren't designed for people to use for annoying sites only, they're designed to block *all* ads *all* the time.
So anybody telling me they're only used for annoying sites, well, it falls flat. The software simply isn't designed to work that way.
Exactly, and if readers are going so far as to block ads, I would suggest looking at the reasons why they're blocking ads. It's generally not because they begrudge the site owner earning money, it's more often that the ads are damn annoying and a major distraction to the content. If you can make the ads less distracting, load in a timely fashion and not weigh in at several meg, you may find that's a more sustainable business model on the web than just sticking up a toll booth.
Most people who block ads just install AdBlock in Firefox, hit "On", and never ever ever change the settings.
AdBlock doesn't have a mode where it allows ads on all sites except those you blacklist-- it actually works the opposite way, blocking all ads except for sites the user whitelists. The user never whitelists sites. (Well, not never-- sometimes site owners beg them to whitelist, and they do.)
Anyway, point is: I think you're wrong. As long as the most popular ad blockers work the way AdBlock in Firefox works, it's really really hard to agree with your opinion.
If everybody with AdBlock installed were required to see the ads at least on their first visit, *then* had to decide whether to blacklist the site or not, I'd agree with you. But that's not the situation we have; we have a situation where people block ads. Period.
I am an adult, atheist skeptic and I'm largely unphased by spooks, ghouls, ghosts, and other nonsense. *I* was hiding behind the fucking couch. He found that little fear of creepy shit button in my brain and kept pressing it.
What the hell is wrong with you?
Have I passed into an alternate dimension where people forgot that TV is fictional? Are you one of the aliens from Galaxy Quest? Or that old lady in that one Night Court episode who couldn't tell soap characters apart from her real friends? (NOTE: BOTH OF THOSE ARE FICTIONAL.)
Christ, man. If you watched Alien, something *actually* scary, you'd be pissing your pants before the halfway mark. That's pathetic.
Well, refresh rates aside, I don't see anything in the argument that makes any point against Windows. Ok: so a game was hard to get working in Windows, when you have an admittedly shitty setup. But the same game doesn't work *at all* in Linux*... so you're still better off with Windows where you at least have a fighting chance of getting it working.
*) Of course that's not fully true; it might work in Linux *only* because there's a project to replicate the entire Windows API in Linux. But it certainly never was designed to work in Linux, never was tested in Linux, doesn't have any support for Linux, etc etc.
What was it that turned you off from Runaway Bride? The TARDIS - car chase alone had me laughing out loud and I tend to prefer the more serious Doctor Who ones.
You're right, the car chase was by far the best bit in that movie. Also, the fact that the British military seems to have weapons that, for once, can actually effectively attack a UFO instead of falling on the old tired "our weapons are useless!" trope that so much sci-fi falls into.
So it's not universally bad... however:
I thought the actress playing the Racnoss was fantastic. She was utterly relishing that role and was hillarious and horrible all at the same time.
You're crazy. That was the worst costuming, acting, writing, and effects ever put into a Doctor Who episode, EVER. And that includes the spoof episode with the Absorbatrix. She wasn't scary, she was ridiculous-- I would have laughed, except it was so pathetic. Every time she opened her mouth, my ears bled. Ugh. Worst ever.
There were no Windows monitor "drivers" for the monitor (it's old and shitty), so there didn't seem to be any way to force Windows to use a lower maximum refresh rate.
But to be fair, many of them really, really suck too. Especially Runaway Bride (worst monster in Who by far), The Next Doctor (resurrecting the Robot Monster alien design, then adding in giant robots for no reason).
I thought The Christmas Invasion was quite good.
Re:United States Government Accountability Office?
on
Top Secret America
·
· Score: 1
I'm sorry, but that's simply not enough. You could say the same about diseases, yet nobody is accusing the medical profession of being an unjustifiable drain on our economy.
Are you kidding? I heard tons of people say that after the whole Swine Flu thing. What a monumental waste of time, effort, and resources-- do you know how many millions of dollars of vaccine they ended up just tossing in the trash?
As a Washingtonian, I find this use of the word "Washington" confusing. If you mean the Federal Government, say so, damnit. Don't demean our beautiful state by associating it with that east-coast crap.
At what point do we turn to the marketing overlords and say "Fuck you, you don't have a right to know my age or gender, as much as you think you might".
A train station is a public location, *everybody* there has a right to look at you and guess your age and gender.
If you don't like that, you can start wearing a burqa everywhere you go. But guess what? It's a right in our (and Japan's) society, and one that is not going to be taken away no matter how paranoid you happen to be.
Advertising has gone too far already with being microtargeted, someone has to draw the line.
You consider age&gender as "Microtargeted?" Christ, man. I hate to break this to you, but there are a lot of websites that target based on a list of websites your browser has visited in the past. What do you call that, "super-nano-ultra-targeting?" You've set the bar way too high here.
YOU DON'T HAVE AN INALIENABLE RIGHT TO MARKET TO ME.
Sure I do, in the US. It's called the First Amendment. I don't have any right to compel you to listen, though.
Make money by doing something useful, not leeching off those who do.
A lot of those "something useful" could not exist if marketing didn't guide customers with a need to the product that fulfills it.
I'm not excusing all advertising, a large proportion of it is disagreeable. (Mainly brand advertising, which isn't designed to get the consumer to buy a specific product based on its merits, but simply uses the phenomen of "the more people see X, the more they like X" to get consumers to gravitate towards their brand. This is basically *all* soft drink advertising, and the majority of car advertising.)
But to say marketing should not exist is ridiculous on the face of it. The inventors you worship so much would be in scrubbing toilets for food money without marketers.
Slashdot Mirror
Yup, I was going to post the same thing. I was using one as a file server until recently, when it occurred to me to check how much power it was consuming. Christ! For the cost of running that beast a few months, I could have just bought a cheap NAS.
Basically, yah. It's useless, sell it to some sucker, buy a cheap NAS, and move on with your life.
Intel already got snubbed for the Xbox 360. Doesn't seem to have affected the relationship any.
Honestly, Microsoft seems to be relatively CPU-agnostic anyway. For example, they picked AMD's 64-bit instruction set over Intel's. They didn't seem to hesitate when picking a PPC-based chip over an Intel chip in the Xbox 360, and they've never had any qualms about selling Windows to be installed on AMD computers.
First of all, I'm not going to read The Register.
Secondly, no, Microsoft is not saying that. You're being purposefully dense to make some kind of stupid Communist reference.
People *already* find bugs in Microsoft products without any compensation. Microsoft never asked these people to work on "fixing and bettering" ("bettering?") software, they took it upon themselves.
Basically, Microsoft's saying: "if you want to help us out without us asking, then go ahead. But don't expect us to pay you for it." Which makes perfect sense to me.
And look at it realistically: even if Microsoft did pay for security bugs, even if they paid $10,000, they couldn't compete with the mafia's rates, so it's not like the black hats would start reporting bugs to Microsoft instead of auctioning them off. (The white hats are already reporting the bugs.)
It's also possible to found your own nation every time you disagree with a new US law. But it's certainly not realistic or practical to do so.
But why so little mention of Halliburton (= big American corporation) who were actually responsible for the drilling site?
We have a saying in the US: "The buck stops here."
In this case, BP is where the buck stops. They hired Halliburton, they're responsible for Halliburton's performance. There's no evidence (yet, at least) that Halliburton was acting contrary to their contract with BP, or ignoring BP safety suggestions. There's a lot of evidence that BP management was approached with concerns about the site safety which they ignored.
He says he found clear evidence of UFO encounters (256 MB photos from the ISS clearly showing UFOs), and NASA documents detailing the reverse engineering of free energy reactors, but he was so excited and stoned that he forgot to save them to his computer.
I dunno why, but that sentence has got to be one of the most hilarious things I've ever read in my life.
but (as far as I know - please correct me if I'm wrong) there is no generic way on Windows for administrators to restrict programs to certain actions with path-based rulesets,
You are fucking wrong. It's in this fucking thread, just a few fucking posts up. I FEEL LIKE I'M TAKING CRAZY-PILLS!
Christ. You guys are so committed to your "Windows sux, apparmor rox!!!" opinion that you've lost ALL FRONTAL LOBE ACTIVITY. That's why I'm getting worked up: stupidity. Stupidity on purpose to make a point.
I give up on this thread, this is hopeless.
Adblocking can be enabled or disabled on a site basis, adblockplus gives me the option to disable for news.slashdot.org or just this page,
Look. Last time I tried AdBlock Plus, it had two modes:
1) Off.
2) Block everything; allow whitelisting sites
Meaning it's designed to run ALL the time on EVERY site (mode 2.) Meaning that people who install AdBlock Plus aren't *only* blocking ads on sites with abusive ads, but they're blocking ads on EVERY site they visit, by default.
If it had a mode:
3) Show everything; allow blacklisting sites
THEN you could come here and tell me people only block annoying ads, or only sites that have annoying ads. But it doesn't have that mode.
It's really quite simple. I'm probably a poor communicator, but at this point I give up-- I'm not explaining it again.
Again, where's Windows' equivalent of Apparmor or SELinux?
Well, since I've never worked with those products, you don't seem to be interested at all in explaining what the holy fuck they do, and since I'm not telepathic, I can't answer that question.
Perhaps there is one that I'm not aware of,
Not aware of? It was posted IN THIS THREAD LIKE 3 POSTS UP! Seriously, WTF is wrong with you. IIRC, you yourself picked it apart based on a fucking typo (sudo instead of su).
You're being purposefully dense to make some point about your fucking pet software you won't bother to explain. Stop it. It's pissing me off.
I think I've entered the alternate reality where geeks forget that media is about embracing the fantasy a little and engaging in the narrative.
Way to stereotype.
Look, I'm all for immersion when watching a show or playing a video game, or consuming some other form of media. But Doctor Who? It's just not that good. Sorry.
The initial idea that there are things around us in this universe that largely do not care if we live or die that may indeed kill us when we're not looking coupled with creepy looking angel statues really freaked me out for a while.
http://www.exitmundi.nl/exitmundi.htm
Unless you're on an antiquated OS like Windows, anyway.
And you can't do it on Windows because...?
Oh wait, you can. If you couldn't, then this story would probably not exist, as Adobe wouldn't be able to do it either. Idiot.
This is only news because Adobe is finally admitting their product is crap. Now if they only took steps to improve the quality of all their other products... but I guess you can't have everything.
No, AdBlock does not work that way unless you subscribe to the blacklist.
When I tried it, it did. Maybe my information is out-of-date.
Of course, once you blook all *.swf and ads from the major adserver domains, that covers most of the annoying stuff.
Why is it looking at the adserver domains? DoubleClick.net could be serving ads on a site you really love, and it could also be serving ads on a site you really hate. If it *only* looks at the adserver domains, then there's no way to tell it to allow ads for the site you like, and disallow them for the site you don't.
That's exactly the problem I'm talking about! AdBlockers aren't designed for people to use for annoying sites only, they're designed to block *all* ads *all* the time.
So anybody telling me they're only used for annoying sites, well, it falls flat. The software simply isn't designed to work that way.
Exactly, and if readers are going so far as to block ads, I would suggest looking at the reasons why they're blocking ads. It's generally not because they begrudge the site owner earning money, it's more often that the ads are damn annoying and a major distraction to the content. If you can make the ads less distracting, load in a timely fashion and not weigh in at several meg, you may find that's a more sustainable business model on the web than just sticking up a toll booth.
Most people who block ads just install AdBlock in Firefox, hit "On", and never ever ever change the settings.
AdBlock doesn't have a mode where it allows ads on all sites except those you blacklist-- it actually works the opposite way, blocking all ads except for sites the user whitelists. The user never whitelists sites. (Well, not never-- sometimes site owners beg them to whitelist, and they do.)
Anyway, point is: I think you're wrong. As long as the most popular ad blockers work the way AdBlock in Firefox works, it's really really hard to agree with your opinion.
If everybody with AdBlock installed were required to see the ads at least on their first visit, *then* had to decide whether to blacklist the site or not, I'd agree with you. But that's not the situation we have; we have a situation where people block ads. Period.
I am an adult, atheist skeptic and I'm largely unphased by spooks, ghouls, ghosts, and other nonsense. *I* was hiding behind the fucking couch. He found that little fear of creepy shit button in my brain and kept pressing it.
What the hell is wrong with you?
Have I passed into an alternate dimension where people forgot that TV is fictional? Are you one of the aliens from Galaxy Quest? Or that old lady in that one Night Court episode who couldn't tell soap characters apart from her real friends? (NOTE: BOTH OF THOSE ARE FICTIONAL.)
Christ, man. If you watched Alien, something *actually* scary, you'd be pissing your pants before the halfway mark. That's pathetic.
Well, refresh rates aside, I don't see anything in the argument that makes any point against Windows. Ok: so a game was hard to get working in Windows, when you have an admittedly shitty setup. But the same game doesn't work *at all* in Linux*... so you're still better off with Windows where you at least have a fighting chance of getting it working.
*) Of course that's not fully true; it might work in Linux *only* because there's a project to replicate the entire Windows API in Linux. But it certainly never was designed to work in Linux, never was tested in Linux, doesn't have any support for Linux, etc etc.
What was it that turned you off from Runaway Bride? The TARDIS - car chase alone had me laughing out loud and I tend to prefer the more serious Doctor Who ones.
You're right, the car chase was by far the best bit in that movie. Also, the fact that the British military seems to have weapons that, for once, can actually effectively attack a UFO instead of falling on the old tired "our weapons are useless!" trope that so much sci-fi falls into.
So it's not universally bad... however:
I thought the actress playing the Racnoss was fantastic. She was utterly relishing that role and was hillarious and horrible all at the same time.
You're crazy. That was the worst costuming, acting, writing, and effects ever put into a Doctor Who episode, EVER. And that includes the spoof episode with the Absorbatrix. She wasn't scary, she was ridiculous-- I would have laughed, except it was so pathetic. Every time she opened her mouth, my ears bled. Ugh. Worst ever.
There were no Windows monitor "drivers" for the monitor (it's old and shitty), so there didn't seem to be any way to force Windows to use a lower maximum refresh rate.
Display Settings -> Advanced -> Monitor -> "Screen Refresh Rate"
What the hell is wrong with British people? It's just a TV show.
But to be fair, many of them really, really suck too. Especially Runaway Bride (worst monster in Who by far), The Next Doctor (resurrecting the Robot Monster alien design, then adding in giant robots for no reason).
I thought The Christmas Invasion was quite good.
I'm sorry, but that's simply not enough. You could say the same about diseases, yet nobody is accusing the medical profession of being an unjustifiable drain on our economy.
Are you kidding? I heard tons of people say that after the whole Swine Flu thing. What a monumental waste of time, effort, and resources-- do you know how many millions of dollars of vaccine they ended up just tossing in the trash?
Is that a spoof?
It reminded me more of this: http://www.cracked.com/video_17500_a-helpful-tutorial-most-difficult-video-game-ever.html than a gameplay video.
I'm pretty sure Slashdot actually posted that tripe as an article... is that the same crockpot who wrote this: http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/10/05/13/1953208/Gulf-Gusher-Worst-Case-Scenario ?
As a Washingtonian, I find this use of the word "Washington" confusing. If you mean the Federal Government, say so, damnit. Don't demean our beautiful state by associating it with that east-coast crap.
He just saw it on Fark 4 hours ago.
At what point do we turn to the marketing overlords and say "Fuck you, you don't have a right to know my age or gender, as much as you think you might".
A train station is a public location, *everybody* there has a right to look at you and guess your age and gender.
If you don't like that, you can start wearing a burqa everywhere you go. But guess what? It's a right in our (and Japan's) society, and one that is not going to be taken away no matter how paranoid you happen to be.
Advertising has gone too far already with being microtargeted, someone has to draw the line.
You consider age&gender as "Microtargeted?" Christ, man. I hate to break this to you, but there are a lot of websites that target based on a list of websites your browser has visited in the past. What do you call that, "super-nano-ultra-targeting?" You've set the bar way too high here.
YOU DON'T HAVE AN INALIENABLE RIGHT TO MARKET TO ME.
Sure I do, in the US. It's called the First Amendment. I don't have any right to compel you to listen, though.
Make money by doing something useful, not leeching off those who do.
A lot of those "something useful" could not exist if marketing didn't guide customers with a need to the product that fulfills it.
I'm not excusing all advertising, a large proportion of it is disagreeable. (Mainly brand advertising, which isn't designed to get the consumer to buy a specific product based on its merits, but simply uses the phenomen of "the more people see X, the more they like X" to get consumers to gravitate towards their brand. This is basically *all* soft drink advertising, and the majority of car advertising.)
But to say marketing should not exist is ridiculous on the face of it. The inventors you worship so much would be in scrubbing toilets for food money without marketers.