"The idea that bobs_your_uncle_32.exe, installed on a user account, runs as a superuser and can modify important system files is completely idiotic."
It would be, if that was even close to how it worked. Instead the problem is that bobs_your_uncle_32.exe is installed and run by an administrator, and if you ban admin from modifying important system files you run into a host of other issues.
MS needs to start pushing (as in, default case) low privileges for default accounts and the ability to sudo an app up to administrator level. Don't blame them for your software (which you run as admin) running as administrator, blame them for making administrator default rather than rare.
"Apples and oranges as voting machines have considerably higher requirements."
Yeah but they're so far below those requirements that Casino's are doing better than them. When was the last time you heard about a slot machine malfunctioning and spitting out jackpots to everyone on it?
Being the rightful owner != no circumvention. Last I checked no-cd cracks were still considered illegal, even if you own the game and are using it in an acceptable manner.
It's still circumvention because it's still circumventing the DRM via brute force. Just because your brute force attack is 36 tries long (at most) doesn't mean it's not a brute force attack.
The question is whether it's illegal circumvention (and, more importantly, whether it is now illegal circumvention since they removed the suggestion) or not.
"If Microsoft can stop being associated with Windows and Office which most people have issues with, and start being associated with the Xbox..."
Which most people have issues with (Red Ring). Sorry, but I just had to point that out. Even if they become more associated with XBox than Windows, they're still associated with a system known for failing.
I have a rather amusing problem with steam as well, easier to solve than yours thankfully, but more stupefying. Everytime I run a game, then quit it, then try to run another game Steam suddenly forgets I own any games until I restart it.
Steam is not a good service. I should be able to run my games without requesting permission from another program, no ifs ands or buts about it.
1. You're using acrobat? Well there's one of your problems, get something faster like Foxit or something. Don't blame FF for acrobat's problems.
2. I don't have any experience with slow javascript, mainly because I use noscript and only allow javascript on sites I trust.
Add both of these together and you get a browser that never crashes and only locks up when loading RSS feeds (which is acceptable since two of the RSS feeds are poorly designed by the site owners (pass all 500+ articles to the reader to check rather than just the most recent 50 or so) and I have 100+ feeds).
Here's my outlook on this issue. If you have enough problems with websites that you get lockups and crashes regularly, then go ahead and swap to Chrome. As for me, I don't really want that kind of a feature. It feels too much like planning for failure. If you build a browser around easy crash recovery, then you'll have little incentive to fix the problems that are causing crashes. Already I've had Chrome crash on me twice, and while I accept it's a beta product (what of Google's isn't?) I'd rather stick with my tried and true FF than settle for being able to easily recover from crashes. Better to never crash at all than to be able to recover quickly from a crash IMHO.
"Gee, why didn't I think of that? Develop a magical foresight that allows me to know what actions will cause my applications to crash! Brilliant!"
Well let's see. Is is javascript or flash based? Does it come from a less than reputable site? What else would cause a browser crash I ask? I have little experience with them, despite visiting probably 100 web pages per day.
I have used Chrome, fairly extensively (as I said, about 3 hours worth thus far). Haven't found that process manager yet, it's either well hidden or poorly shown.
I developed that insight through simple application of common sense. 99% of reputable webpages will not crash your browser, period. If they do, then there's something wrong with your computer besides your browser. Ergo, if you don't want to crash, don't visit irreputable websites. And if you can't tell the good from the bad on the internet then you haven't spent enough time on it.
"I never said anything resembling your idiotic "IE has it, so everyone else must have it" mockery."
Yes, you did.
"especially in light of the fact that their main competitor (IE) is developing it."
Tell me, how do you read that statement to not mean "Since IE is developing it, Firefox needs it"? That's pretty much exactly what you said, perhaps not what you mean, but what you said.
Lol. You have a grossly inflated view of process-specific tabs IMHO.
To take your points one by one,
"Stable over Lightweight" - Firefox 3 has never crashed on me. Not once in the time I've been using it, which has been over a month now. And I use it daily, for at least an hour a day, with flash games being a near daily diversion. Chrome, on the other hand, is far lighter weight (at least ram wise, CPU wise it's too much of a hog for me) but has crashed twice, and I've used it for, perhaps, 3 hours. Ergo, by your logic, FF3 is the better browser for me.
"Lack of threaded tabs is shameful" - Why? Is it really that big of a deal? Don't open a tab that's going to lock up your browser.
"IE developing it" - Oh noes! We need this now, if IE has it then FF needs it! Guess we should go ahead and make FF IE5 complient then, since IE is as well. Forget that standards nonsense, IE has it so we need it.
If you're encountering enough lock-ups to cause you to need to be able to end a single tab's process regularly (which is pretty hard to do in Chrome with all the tabs having the same process name mind you) then have fun with your threaded tabs. Me, I'm just not going to open sites that are likely to lock up my browser. There aren't many out there, I haven't seen a single one in a couple of months.
Which is why you'd magnetize it. Most of the debris up there is at least partially metallic.
Heck, just toss a flat sheet of metal with a couple retro-rockets up there, let it fly around for an orbit or two collecting debris, then bring it down. Repeat a couple of times and there goes a lot of the small debris.
The problem isn't coming up with ways to get rid of space junk, it's coming up with cheap and efficient ways and getting them implemented.
Does not having the update stop you from playing the game? Seriously, you're going to compare patch blocking to CD-Drive and server checks while running the game?
And what bloated client? It's a 75 meg client, that only runs when you want updates (doesn't run in the background or anything). If that's bloated then you need a new harddrive (the actual install might be smaller, I've had it for a while now).
Your last point might be true, I don't know. Did Sins of a Solar Empire try to get you to install Impulse or SDCentral? I didn't actually install it via disk, I pre-ordered and then installed via SD-Central, so I wouldn't know. If so then it is a bit annoying, but annoying checkmarks are not DRM in my mind.
What DRM do they have now in your mind? Last I saw their business model is the same as it's been before Impulse. Only check activation keys for install of the game and patching, otherwise let they player do what they want. And if you really hate Impulse (personally I find it a little low on functionality) then SD-Central still works, they haven't shut it down (yet), so you could get patches that way.
Pretty much. Really the line between DRM and identification is pretty slim, a lot of identification policies (server check) are really just identification. Really my Guideline is that if I'm already logging into your server, you have every right to check my CD-Key to make sure I didn't steal the game (online games, Stardock patches). Otherwise it's DRM.
And bans are usually applied to IP addresses, not CD-Keys. If the admin of a server could see everyone's CD-Keys, well, it wouldn't be a good situation (I think you might be thinking of Steam Numbers, which can be banned but belong to the person, not the game)
More like "Oh no! I have to watch a screen of legalese and possibly some junky trailers for fifteen to thirty seconds because I bought the movie legitimately! Why didn't I just pirate it and skip this junk!"
That screen can get very annoying when you know that it's well within your abilities to get the movie for free without it, but instead you chose to buy it legally and are now being punished for it.
Precisely. I'd be willing to bet good money that the GP has only a few of the most popular extensions, and none of the rarer ones. For someone like me upgrading to FF3 isn't really much of a choice right now, a lot of the extensions I used everyday, every minute while browsing, aren't updated yet. Could I live without them? Certainly, but why should it? Since when is giving up features expected of users?
A Nag screen is probably a good idea in the long run, because it'll make sure that the people who don't know what FF3 is get it, and they probably need it. Repetitive nagging or auto-updating would be bad. I'll happily upgrade to Firefox 3...as soon as I can be sure most of my extensions will follow me. Until then it's more important for me to have access to those extensions than to have a fancy new bookmark system. Perhaps that'll change when FF2 stops updating at all, but for now FF3 isn't a good choice for someone like me.
Irrelevant. What you want and what is legal are two different things here. Were the chemicals illegal for an individual to possess? If not then no matter how many he had there's no good legal reason to take them. You do know that a lot of cleaning chemicals are potentially explosive right? Heck, water, given the right conditions, can be made potentially explosive.
If you want all potentially explosive material not stored in a proper state removed from people's houses then let's start with yours, I'm sure we can take 10 or 15 items away that you might not have even known were potentially explosive.
Or use Firefox, uncheck accept third-party cookies, and get the Permit Cookies extension so you can allow cookies on a site-by-site (even internal to site) basis and allow them for a sesson or persistent.
Asking for perfection isn't a bad thing, expecting it is.
In this case, however, I don't see how the officer did anything wrong. A bunch of kids (effectively, you know how geeks get when they're doing something marginally legal with technology) hanging out in a field with a balloon...what are you going to do? I'd say they responded properly, driving in to check it out (probably called in), realizing it wasn't anything important, and making the people aware that they were there before leaving.
Slashdot Mirror
"The idea that bobs_your_uncle_32.exe, installed on a user account, runs as a superuser and can modify important system files is completely idiotic."
It would be, if that was even close to how it worked. Instead the problem is that bobs_your_uncle_32.exe is installed and run by an administrator, and if you ban admin from modifying important system files you run into a host of other issues.
MS needs to start pushing (as in, default case) low privileges for default accounts and the ability to sudo an app up to administrator level. Don't blame them for your software (which you run as admin) running as administrator, blame them for making administrator default rather than rare.
I don't know, if you say it with a Captain Barbosa voice viruses actually sounds pretty good...
"A year-round DST"
I see what you did there...
"Apples and oranges as voting machines have considerably higher requirements."
Yeah but they're so far below those requirements that Casino's are doing better than them. When was the last time you heard about a slot machine malfunctioning and spitting out jackpots to everyone on it?
Being the rightful owner != no circumvention. Last I checked no-cd cracks were still considered illegal, even if you own the game and are using it in an acceptable manner.
It's still circumvention because it's still circumventing the DRM via brute force. Just because your brute force attack is 36 tries long (at most) doesn't mean it's not a brute force attack.
The question is whether it's illegal circumvention (and, more importantly, whether it is now illegal circumvention since they removed the suggestion) or not.
True, and sad. Once again showing that a pirated EA game is better than a purchased one.
8 minutes between portals...
8 years since being far north (far from these portals)..
A UID divisible evenly by 8...
Hmm...
Woosh? I my day we just had to point and laugh conspiratorially!
This next magnetic field configuration is impossible...
"If Microsoft can stop being associated with Windows and Office which most people have issues with, and start being associated with the Xbox..."
Which most people have issues with (Red Ring). Sorry, but I just had to point that out. Even if they become more associated with XBox than Windows, they're still associated with a system known for failing.
I have a rather amusing problem with steam as well, easier to solve than yours thankfully, but more stupefying. Everytime I run a game, then quit it, then try to run another game Steam suddenly forgets I own any games until I restart it.
Steam is not a good service. I should be able to run my games without requesting permission from another program, no ifs ands or buts about it.
If those are the best you've got then I'd happily be paid $20 to discuss Vista with you. And I don't even use it (probably disqualifies me :P).
1. You're using acrobat? Well there's one of your problems, get something faster like Foxit or something. Don't blame FF for acrobat's problems.
2. I don't have any experience with slow javascript, mainly because I use noscript and only allow javascript on sites I trust.
Add both of these together and you get a browser that never crashes and only locks up when loading RSS feeds (which is acceptable since two of the RSS feeds are poorly designed by the site owners (pass all 500+ articles to the reader to check rather than just the most recent 50 or so) and I have 100+ feeds).
Here's my outlook on this issue. If you have enough problems with websites that you get lockups and crashes regularly, then go ahead and swap to Chrome. As for me, I don't really want that kind of a feature. It feels too much like planning for failure. If you build a browser around easy crash recovery, then you'll have little incentive to fix the problems that are causing crashes. Already I've had Chrome crash on me twice, and while I accept it's a beta product (what of Google's isn't?) I'd rather stick with my tried and true FF than settle for being able to easily recover from crashes. Better to never crash at all than to be able to recover quickly from a crash IMHO.
"Gee, why didn't I think of that? Develop a magical foresight that allows me to know what actions will cause my applications to crash! Brilliant!"
Well let's see. Is is javascript or flash based? Does it come from a less than reputable site? What else would cause a browser crash I ask? I have little experience with them, despite visiting probably 100 web pages per day.
I have used Chrome, fairly extensively (as I said, about 3 hours worth thus far). Haven't found that process manager yet, it's either well hidden or poorly shown.
I developed that insight through simple application of common sense. 99% of reputable webpages will not crash your browser, period. If they do, then there's something wrong with your computer besides your browser. Ergo, if you don't want to crash, don't visit irreputable websites. And if you can't tell the good from the bad on the internet then you haven't spent enough time on it.
"I never said anything resembling your idiotic "IE has it, so everyone else must have it" mockery."
Yes, you did.
"especially in light of the fact that their main competitor (IE) is developing it."
Tell me, how do you read that statement to not mean "Since IE is developing it, Firefox needs it"? That's pretty much exactly what you said, perhaps not what you mean, but what you said.
Lol. You have a grossly inflated view of process-specific tabs IMHO.
To take your points one by one,
"Stable over Lightweight" - Firefox 3 has never crashed on me. Not once in the time I've been using it, which has been over a month now. And I use it daily, for at least an hour a day, with flash games being a near daily diversion. Chrome, on the other hand, is far lighter weight (at least ram wise, CPU wise it's too much of a hog for me) but has crashed twice, and I've used it for, perhaps, 3 hours. Ergo, by your logic, FF3 is the better browser for me.
"Lack of threaded tabs is shameful" - Why? Is it really that big of a deal? Don't open a tab that's going to lock up your browser.
"IE developing it" - Oh noes! We need this now, if IE has it then FF needs it! Guess we should go ahead and make FF IE5 complient then, since IE is as well. Forget that standards nonsense, IE has it so we need it.
If you're encountering enough lock-ups to cause you to need to be able to end a single tab's process regularly (which is pretty hard to do in Chrome with all the tabs having the same process name mind you) then have fun with your threaded tabs. Me, I'm just not going to open sites that are likely to lock up my browser. There aren't many out there, I haven't seen a single one in a couple of months.
Which is why you'd magnetize it. Most of the debris up there is at least partially metallic.
Heck, just toss a flat sheet of metal with a couple retro-rockets up there, let it fly around for an orbit or two collecting debris, then bring it down. Repeat a couple of times and there goes a lot of the small debris.
The problem isn't coming up with ways to get rid of space junk, it's coming up with cheap and efficient ways and getting them implemented.
Does not having the update stop you from playing the game? Seriously, you're going to compare patch blocking to CD-Drive and server checks while running the game?
And what bloated client? It's a 75 meg client, that only runs when you want updates (doesn't run in the background or anything). If that's bloated then you need a new harddrive (the actual install might be smaller, I've had it for a while now).
Your last point might be true, I don't know. Did Sins of a Solar Empire try to get you to install Impulse or SDCentral? I didn't actually install it via disk, I pre-ordered and then installed via SD-Central, so I wouldn't know. If so then it is a bit annoying, but annoying checkmarks are not DRM in my mind.
What DRM do they have now in your mind? Last I saw their business model is the same as it's been before Impulse. Only check activation keys for install of the game and patching, otherwise let they player do what they want. And if you really hate Impulse (personally I find it a little low on functionality) then SD-Central still works, they haven't shut it down (yet), so you could get patches that way.
There's a default awkward pause after the word dvorak in my mind, so he's good.
Pretty much. Really the line between DRM and identification is pretty slim, a lot of identification policies (server check) are really just identification. Really my Guideline is that if I'm already logging into your server, you have every right to check my CD-Key to make sure I didn't steal the game (online games, Stardock patches). Otherwise it's DRM.
And bans are usually applied to IP addresses, not CD-Keys. If the admin of a server could see everyone's CD-Keys, well, it wouldn't be a good situation (I think you might be thinking of Steam Numbers, which can be banned but belong to the person, not the game)
More like "Oh no! I have to watch a screen of legalese and possibly some junky trailers for fifteen to thirty seconds because I bought the movie legitimately! Why didn't I just pirate it and skip this junk!"
That screen can get very annoying when you know that it's well within your abilities to get the movie for free without it, but instead you chose to buy it legally and are now being punished for it.
Precisely. I'd be willing to bet good money that the GP has only a few of the most popular extensions, and none of the rarer ones. For someone like me upgrading to FF3 isn't really much of a choice right now, a lot of the extensions I used everyday, every minute while browsing, aren't updated yet. Could I live without them? Certainly, but why should it? Since when is giving up features expected of users?
A Nag screen is probably a good idea in the long run, because it'll make sure that the people who don't know what FF3 is get it, and they probably need it. Repetitive nagging or auto-updating would be bad. I'll happily upgrade to Firefox 3...as soon as I can be sure most of my extensions will follow me. Until then it's more important for me to have access to those extensions than to have a fancy new bookmark system. Perhaps that'll change when FF2 stops updating at all, but for now FF3 isn't a good choice for someone like me.
Irrelevant. What you want and what is legal are two different things here. Were the chemicals illegal for an individual to possess? If not then no matter how many he had there's no good legal reason to take them. You do know that a lot of cleaning chemicals are potentially explosive right? Heck, water, given the right conditions, can be made potentially explosive.
If you want all potentially explosive material not stored in a proper state removed from people's houses then let's start with yours, I'm sure we can take 10 or 15 items away that you might not have even known were potentially explosive.
Or use Firefox, uncheck accept third-party cookies, and get the Permit Cookies extension so you can allow cookies on a site-by-site (even internal to site) basis and allow them for a sesson or persistent.
Or, a better answer still would be "You're a cop, your job is not to make laws about what people can and cannot do in a zone"
Asking for perfection isn't a bad thing, expecting it is.
In this case, however, I don't see how the officer did anything wrong. A bunch of kids (effectively, you know how geeks get when they're doing something marginally legal with technology) hanging out in a field with a balloon...what are you going to do? I'd say they responded properly, driving in to check it out (probably called in), realizing it wasn't anything important, and making the people aware that they were there before leaving.