Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Repeat after me... (Score 2) 310

by mrchaotica (#47560503) Attached to: Programming Languages You'll Need Next Year (and Beyond)

You mean, limited to writing for any platform that uses something other than a web page as its UI (including embedded development, server-side development, regular PC applications, mobile, video games, etc.)? I think I can live with that limitation!

(Actually, even if you do write things that use web pages for their UI, unless you're the "UI guy" you still might not have to know much CSS!)

Comment: Re:Anybody know? (Score 1) 232

by mrchaotica (#47557117) Attached to: Free Copy of the Sims 2 Contains SecuROM

No. ESPESCIALLY for free games. Why add copy protection to free stuff anyway? It's free to begin with! No one needs or wants to "pirate" it. Unless of course you need a "pirated" copy of the game to keep the negative SecuROM effects from your system.

This is the difference between "free as in beer" and "free as in speech" / copyleft. In the former case, maybe the company offered the program "free" for a limited time or "free" to a certain group of people or "free" as long as some other particular condition were met, and would object to people distributing the program outside of those conditions.

I'm not saying it's a legitimate reason -- far from it; SecuROM is malware and everyone who conspired to produce or distribute it should be in federal prison-- but it is a "reason."

Comment: Re:Advantages? (Score 1) 146

by mrchaotica (#47554023) Attached to: Comcast Carrying 1Tbit/s of IPv6 Internet Traffic

The fact that someone bothered to make uPnP suggests that there's a need for this capability for average users.

There's also a "need" for antigravity and wish-granting genies. They're just needs that may remain unfulfilled due to impossibility.

I assume since you bring up uPnP without citing it as a viable solution, you're aware that it's disasterous for security. I think at least some of that is due to inherent problems in the concept, not just a poor implementation.

Granted, we seem to have gone down that path already (perhaps driven in no small part by the prevalence of NAT), and these services may have a place, but do we want it to be *all* there is to the internet?

I agree that we want people to not be reliant on centralized servers... however, the way to accomplish that would be to upgrade the "average" technical expertise of users to the point where they'd be competent to configure a firewall. That may be practically impossible, but I think developing a technical solution capable of saving them from themselves would be even harder.

I accidentally left my Windows box connected to the internet without an external firewall for a few months with no ill effects.

...that you know of!

The trouble with the rat-race is that even if you win, you're still a rat. -- Lily Tomlin