|
|
What a load of crap. Most teachers salaries are paid for with local and state funds, not federal income tax. And if you don't have a home, it is highly unlikely you have any deductions that can be itemized. This likely means you are part of the 45% or so that don't even pay any effective income tax, so you would hardly be starving the federal govt. Hate to rant, but this is just trolling and I don't have mod points.
That's not good enough. The Start menu has to return
No, it doesn't. Microsoft doesn't have to do anything. Haven't you figured that out yet?
I believe his implication was that the Start menu has to return in order for people to want to buy it. Microsoft isn't required to do what customers want, and... customers are not required to remain customers.
Aspirin is actually used as the generic name in the US (and Canada?) from what I understand. It's certainly easier to read and remember, but doesn't say anything about the structure of the molecule.
Neither does acetylsalicylic acid. The IUPAC name is needed for that, which is 2-acetoxybenzoic acid.
The problem then becomes the fact that it gives incentive for device prices to remain artificially high. If the device is higher priced, companies make more money. It justifies warranty purchases (also at higher prices) in many minds due to how expensive the device is.
The solution to this problem is more competition.
Now in the case of Apple specifically I'll give them a certain level of a pass on this because they are well known for honoring their warranties very consistently. Everyone else...not so much.
Agreed. I've had a consistently positive experience with Apple's repair services, although I suppose it's not ideal that I've needed it on the majority of Apple products that I've owned.
Rather than focusing on DRM itself, let's turn things back around and focus on why we have DRM in the first place.
There is a demand for rented content. A movie that I want to watch once, but have no desire to keep. A book I want to read once, but don't plan to read again. I song I want to hear when I'm in the mood to listen to music, but don't want to own. Not everyone wants these things - you might not want these things - but a lot of people do, including me. I also want to own things, but for now let's focus on the things I don't. I might be willing to pay $15 to buy my own copy of a movie, but I only want to pay a tenth of that to rent it.
It used to be that you could go to a video rental place and rent a movie on VHS. It was possible to copy them, but most people didn't own the necessary equipment (a second VCR), there was a loss of quality in the copying process, and the blank media cost about as much as the rental. Similar issues with copying a show of the TV or a song off the radio (minus the part about the second VCR).
In the digital era, data can be copied perfectly with no loss of quality and the media to store it on is cheap.
As a consumer, I want the option to rent a movie for $1.50 or buy it for $15. Content providers want to offer me this choice. How would you suggest that this should work?
When you are using Wikipedia as a citation, you are either lazy, or you don't understand what Wikipedia is.
Spam....
2GB for a full Slackware install? Try nearly 8.
And yeah, I'd like to put it on a diet, but once something is already included it becomes quite entrenched. It's extremely difficult to remove anything large enough to make a difference without causing rioting in the streets with torches and pitchforks. I suspect it's the same for any Linux distribution.
Ahh, maybe that was it - not that it's difficult to do, just that it requires a $50 app to do it.
And if the DRM offends you so much, remove it. Honestly for a Slashdot user to complain about something so easy to strip is rather silly.
Last time I looked into it, removing DRM from FairPlay DRM'd videos without loss of quality sounded non-trivial. Do you have an easy way to do it?
Then you should have switched ISP. By paying an ISP that didn't deal with spam, you were part of the problem, so your inconvenience leaves me cold.
No no, It's a fair point. Sometimes switching ISPs isn't that simple, and the user has no way to know an ISP's reputation as a spam source before signing up with them.
But (to the GP) do you really mean ISP or email hosting provider? If you're relaying through your hosting provider but the mail is being rejected because your ISP is blacklisted, then somebody is doing something wrong (I do not condone using Spamhaus in this way). If you meant to say your email hosting provider is blacklisted, well, that's a problem.
What about the idea that Spamhaus, by being a blacklist, is denying service to all sorts of websites itself? Why is a DDOS attack that much different from what they do every day?
I mean, sure, they block a lot of spam, but what about all the times someone's domain gets blacklisted and it's not spam? And yeah, I realize domain admins opt in to use their blacklists.
I don't think you really understand what you're talking about. First of all, Spamhaus isn't denying service to web sites; they're listing IP addresses of known spam sources. Mail administrators use the list to block email - not web sites - from those IPs. Spamhaus is just one of many such services, but Spamhaus happens to be the best. Why is that? Exactly because they keep the false positives to a minimum. What you're talking about theoretically COULD happen, and certainly does happen with other blacklists, but the reason we mail admins use the Spamhaus SBL-XBL lists instead of the other blacklists is because we DON'T see legitimate servers getting blocked. Believe me, if we were blocking legitimate mail, our users would complain. It's not happening.
It still does not change the fact it's a denial of service, coming from a self-appointed body that is in no better position to judge what is and is not spam than anyone else.
They are in a better position. I don't know how they do it, I don't know how they got into that position, but they've managed to pull it off.
A real common tactic with political campaigns is to sign up for the opponents mailing list on an AOL account, wait for them to send you an email, then complain you are receiving spam. AOL turns around and gets that domain blacklisted. Then it takes time and resources to resolve the issue.
I just don't see much of a difference.
The difference is that while this happens all the time with AOL's internal blacklist, Spamhaus doesn't work this way.
Let's say I want to run a public DNS recursive server, that is, I want to allow anyone to issue a handful of queries for any arbitrary DNS records, and in addition to just serving up my own, I want to also service requests for whatever arbitrary thing they requested. Is there an easy way to rate limit these queries based on source IP address, to prevent abuse of this service I've chosen to offer?
How should one set that up?
"so there may be some hope of making UEFI more Linux-friendly"
The only hope is to make Linux distributions more UEFI friendly. UEFI and Secure Boot is certainly here to stay.
Not to be a dick, but SuSE is the last distro any Linux enthusiast should be suggesting. Their microsoft pact f#cked the rest of the community[0]
What were the terrible effects of that agreement? I'm having trouble remembering any. Everyone ran around screaming that the sky was falling, but it didn't fall. Just sayin'.*
* it is necessary to end with "just sayin" when replying to any statement that begins with "not to be a dick"
When it is incorrect, it is, at least *authoritatively* incorrect. -- Hitchiker's Guide To The Galaxy