|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 8, 2017 13:07:26 GMT
tpfkar CoolJGS☺ said:Of course there is, akin to "don't touch that car in your yard!" They can prevent it with tech (or not), but the point is whether they have the right to tell him not to use things they left on his machine, or even restrict how he, personally uses it. He could probably turn it into a (personal) screensaver if he liked. Care Of Cell 44
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 8, 2017 13:10:04 GMT
Aj_June Not sure that's an accurate statement. Depending on the terms and conditions of the agreement I imagine there is a specific time limit spelled out and the data no longer belongs to you. You just have the data trapped. It will be illegal when i will retrieve data from their server or site. My computer belongs to me and i can't commit anything illegal unless i share the retrieved contents of my computer with others. The company should have given me printing ability like most other test providers do in most of the fields of education but this greedy company didn't. Giving print feature to access educational content is also ethical thing to do based on fact that many people are not comfortable reading on screen. If retrieving data from the server is the part that is wrong, then why bother thinking this is an issue in the first place? Are you now saying that your intent has nothing to do with retrieving information that, per your agreement, you no longer have the legal right to access? I'm not sure why updates has anything to do with it. They aren't asking for your computer, but the information it houses in no way automatically belongs to you to do with as you wish. You already know this which is why you take steps to work around it. I think sometimes people like to think data is fair game while at the same time, they strangely try to compare it to physical product. Let's say that one could , TRON style, turn something physical into digital. If you did that with a car rental, do you get to keep the car rental?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 8, 2017 13:17:53 GMT
tpfkar CoolJGS☺ said:I'm pretty sure he just takes the steps needed to access it. Well, the analogy most used is "stealing". If you could "clone" the rental and return the original, of course. Robbin' people with a six-gun
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jul 8, 2017 13:22:38 GMT
It will be illegal when i will retrieve data from their server or site. My computer belongs to me and i can't commit anything illegal unless i share the retrieved contents of my computer with others. The company should have given me printing ability like most other test providers do in most of the fields of education but this greedy company didn't. Giving print feature to access educational content is also ethical thing to do based on fact that many people are not comfortable reading on screen. If retrieving data from the server is the part that is wrong, then why bother thinking this is an issue in the first place? Are you now saying that your intent has nothing to do with retrieving information that, per your agreement, you no longer have the legal right to access? I'm not sure why updates has anything to do with it. They aren't asking for your computer, but the information it houses in no way automatically belongs to you to do with as you wish. You already know this which is why you take steps to work around it. I think sometimes people like to think data is fair game while at the same time, they strangely try to compare it to physical product. Let's say that one could , TRON style, turn something physical into digital. If you did that with a car rental, do you get to keep the car rental? Retrieving data from my own computer cannot be part of any wrong. In fact ordering me not to will be part of their wrong as I can only be stopped doing that if I was mandated to delete my browser cache. Which is aggain an ethical issue. Had they given me printing ability none of this issue would have surfaced. But assuming that that they had any stipulation that one can't retrieve data from his or her own computer they will further weaken their case as they will then be classified as akin to some malicious software. I do know of malicious software which damage your system in a way when you delete them.
Are you now saying that your intent has nothing to do with retrieving information that, per your agreement, you no longer have the legal right to access? I don't know if I don't have legal right to access contents on my own computer which they left behind. I cannot go online and access the quiz bank from their online server/website. They already closed my online account. I am assuming that they are not bothered about what I do with my browser content as long as I don't put in public.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jul 8, 2017 13:45:46 GMT
tpfkar CoolJGS☺ said:I'm pretty sure he just takes the steps needed to access it. Well, the analogy most used is "stealing". If you could "clone" the rental and return the original, of course. Robbin' people with a six-gunUpon further reading the FAQ page I get that I didn't indulge in even "technical stealing". Not that I would consider my actions unethical even if they had some stupid clause that I can't look into my own computer. They don't mention anything about expiry of offline access of quizbank But they do say something about other downloadable contents of their website. So while they have not stated the same for Qbank, they do say that one can use some downloaded contents from their website for as long as they want to use.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 30, 2017 15:29:34 GMT
The home computer has changed the way many things are done. Considerably more attention to detail is possible than without the computer. With changes come misunderstandings and confusion. In the past reading a book of much social impact was simply a matter of having a library card. Even recently I read Greetings from Utopia Park simply by checking it out from my local library. It is so close I did not even need my car to drive there. In the past (also still today) obtaining a copy of a popular music was simply a matter of tape recording it when it was played on the radio. These "free" copies of course have limitations. They depend on the legal concept of "fair use" expressed in law. It is not legal to profit directly by fair use. They are generally for "private study" only. There is another legal concept known as "fair comment." Profit by such comment can be legal providing its interest is more the comment than the work commented upon. For example you cannot simply record an entire movie and add the comment "I liked this movie" at the end and sell all that as your own work. Any profit you make must be obviously from your own work in commenting on the movie, not from the movie itself. Were the special permissions abused? To some extent they were. Some people collected vast, valuable works without giving much thought at all, much less "study," to the proper place in society of those works (the obvious intent of "fair" use). They were simply entertaining themselves. In rare cases they would even entertain guests. The economy was not considered in any great peril though. When watching movies on video tape became a regular thing the television stations added a little trademark notice in the lower right corner of the screen. If taped copies were played for guests they would be quickly aware they were watching a "private study" copy of the movie rather than a legitimate "for entertainment" copy. All that was before the computer happened along. With the computer not only could a copy of music be sold it was possible to count how many times the copy was played. Many in the computer business believed they could use that to solve the problem (as they measured it) of too much free entertainment. What they failed to understand is that they would not get the price they expected. If it costs nothing people will listen to the radio all day. If they have to pay something per song they will listen to far less music far less of the time (basic economics). Not only does the new system often not bring in more money, it actually can bring in less than with people buying CDs for example. How? They buy fewer CDs having less interest in music generally. You might think Youtube songs are "not fair" in many cases (sometimes they are very unfair), but sales of CDs would drop like a rock without Youtube. Then there is your problem, software with limited licensing. I cannot recommend buying things with limited licensing as a general rule. The people you're buying from are probably not the quality you believe. It might be counter intuitive, but free things, especially where essential academic materials are concerned, can be very high quality. I got an excellent graphics editing program with the purchase of a scanner. It is fantastic and I used it for years. When computers changed so much it might not install on new ones I worried about having to pay $100 for an equivalent program that would install. I never needed to do that though. The free program "Gimp2" does everything my "with purchase" software did. The most interesting time I had in economics class was the discussion of profit margin. A significant change in the way things are done computers brought was the enormous profit margin on copies of software. Getting $100 or $200 dollars for a copy of software was unheard of in economics. The CDs only cost 25¢ to make and getting $200 for that has no comparison in any other field. Music CDs are still considered more original work and sell for $10 to $20. Early attempts by the computer industry to maintain its unheard of profits were fraught with technical difficulties. People who paid $500 collecting large quantities of music on their computer found that when they upgraded their computer equipment or operating system the licenses failed to transfer and they had to start all over. Of course they did not start all over and went back to CDs. Although fair use and fair comment privileges have been abused, there has been quite much "fair" all along as well. People who misunderstood that saw a larger problem than really existed and just made more problems. I would recommend that you not pay any more than you already have if you are dissatisfied with a product. Also quit using it. It's probably not as good as far less costly materials. A history professor of mine once asked me privately whether I understood the materials in his class were available at the local library at no special expense to me. He said much of everything at college was similarly available. I told him I did know that having used the library much of my life. I told him I paid for college in order to get some sort of certification or credit for my learning. I needed a raise in pay. He agreed to do his best to help in that regard. In the end remember there is no fooling some people. They can plainly see what is your own work and what is someone else's. Don't try to get credit for things when you never put any effort in them. And watch that profit margin so that it compares to others.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jul 30, 2017 15:37:13 GMT
The home computer has changed the way many things are done. Considerably more attention to detail is possible than without the computer. With changes come misunderstandings and confusion. In the past reading a book of much social impact was simply a matter of having a library card. Even recently I read Greetings from Utopia Park simply by checking it out from my local library. It is so close I did not even need my car to drive there. In the past (also still today) obtaining a copy of a popular music was simply a matter of tape recording it when it was played on the radio. These "free" copies of course have limitations. They depend on the legal concept of "fair use" expressed in law. It is not legal to profit directly by fair use. They are generally for "private study" only. There is another legal concept known as "fair comment." Profit by such comment can be legal providing its interest is more the comment than the work commented upon. For example you cannot simply record an entire movie and add the comment "I liked this movie" at the end and sell all that as your own work. Any profit you make must be obviously from your own work in commenting on the movie, not from the movie itself. Were the special permissions abused? To some extent they were. Some people collected vast, valuable works without giving much thought at all, much less "study," to the proper place in society of those works (the obvious intent of "fair" use). They were simply entertaining themselves. In rare cases they would even entertain guests. The economy was not considered in any great peril though. When watching movies on video tape became a regular thing the television stations added a little trademark notice in the lower right corner of the screen. If taped copies were played for guests they would be quickly aware they were watching a "private study" copy of the movie rather than a legitimate "for entertainment" copy. All that was before the computer happened along. With the computer not only could a copy of music be sold it was possible to count how many times the copy was played. Many in the computer business believed they could use that to solve the problem (as they measured it) of too much free entertainment. What they failed to understand is that they would not get the price they expected. If it costs nothing people will listen to the radio all day. If they have to pay something per song they will listen to far less music far less of the time (basic economics). Not only does the new system often not bring in more money, it actually can bring in less than with people buying CDs for example. How? They buy fewer CDs having less interest in music generally. You might think Youtube songs are "not fair" in many cases (sometimes they are very unfair), but sales of CDs would drop like a rock without Youtube. Then there is your problem, software with limited licensing. I cannot recommend buying things with limited licensing as a general rule. The people you're buying from are probably not the quality you believe. It might be counter intuitive, but free things, especially where essential academic materials are concerned, can be very high quality. I got an excellent graphics editing program with the purchase of a scanner. It is fantastic and I used it for years. When computers changed so much it might not install on new ones I worried about having to pay $100 for an equivalent program that would install. I never needed to do that though. The free program "Gimp2" does everything my "with purchase" software did. The most interesting time I had in economics class was the discussion of profit margin. A significant change in the way things are done computers brought was the enormous profit margin on copies of software. Getting $100 or $200 dollars for a copy of software was unheard of in economics. The CDs only cost 25¢ to make and getting $200 for that has no comparison in any other field. Music CDs are still considered more original work and sell for $10 to $20. Early attempts by the computer industry to maintain its unheard of profits were fraught with technical difficulties. People who paid $500 collecting large quantities of music on their computer found that when they upgraded their computer equipment or operating system the licenses failed to transfer and they had to start all over. Of course they did not start all over and went back to CDs. Although fair use and fair comment privileges have been abused, there has been quite much "fair" all along as well. People who misunderstood that saw a larger problem than really existed and just made more problems. I would recommend that you not pay any more than you already have if you are dissatisfied with a product. Also quit using it. It's probably not as good as far less costly materials. A history professor of mine once asked me privately whether I understood the materials in his class were available at the local library at no special expense to me. He said much of everything at college was similarly available. I told him I did know that having used the library much of my life. I told him I paid for college in order to get some sort of certification or credit for my learning. I needed a raise in pay. He agreed to do his best to help in that regard. In the end remember there is no fooling some people. They can plainly see what is your own work and what is someone else's. Don't try to get credit for things when you never put any effort in them. And watch that profit margin so that it compares to others. Thanks Arlon for putting your views. I will start a new topic in which I will touch some parts of your post and also give my views on open source movement and what I consider to be ethical when it comes to sharing stuffs on internet. Meanwhile, I have edited my original post.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 30, 2017 16:33:42 GMT
The home computer has changed the way many things are done. Considerably more attention to detail is possible than without the computer. With changes come misunderstandings and confusion. In the past reading a book of much social impact was simply a matter of having a library card. Even recently I read Greetings from Utopia Park simply by checking it out from my local library. It is so close I did not even need my car to drive there. In the past (also still today) obtaining a copy of a popular music was simply a matter of tape recording it when it was played on the radio. These "free" copies of course have limitations. They depend on the legal concept of "fair use" expressed in law. It is not legal to profit directly by fair use. They are generally for "private study" only. There is another legal concept known as "fair comment." Profit by such comment can be legal providing its interest is more the comment than the work commented upon. For example you cannot simply record an entire movie and add the comment "I liked this movie" at the end and sell all that as your own work. Any profit you make must be obviously from your own work in commenting on the movie, not from the movie itself. Were the special permissions abused? To some extent they were. Some people collected vast, valuable works without giving much thought at all, much less "study," to the proper place in society of those works (the obvious intent of "fair" use). They were simply entertaining themselves. In rare cases they would even entertain guests. The economy was not considered in any great peril though. When watching movies on video tape became a regular thing the television stations added a little trademark notice in the lower right corner of the screen. If taped copies were played for guests they would be quickly aware they were watching a "private study" copy of the movie rather than a legitimate "for entertainment" copy. All that was before the computer happened along. With the computer not only could a copy of music be sold it was possible to count how many times the copy was played. Many in the computer business believed they could use that to solve the problem (as they measured it) of too much free entertainment. What they failed to understand is that they would not get the price they expected. If it costs nothing people will listen to the radio all day. If they have to pay something per song they will listen to far less music far less of the time (basic economics). Not only does the new system often not bring in more money, it actually can bring in less than with people buying CDs for example. How? They buy fewer CDs having less interest in music generally. You might think Youtube songs are "not fair" in many cases (sometimes they are very unfair), but sales of CDs would drop like a rock without Youtube. Then there is your problem, software with limited licensing. I cannot recommend buying things with limited licensing as a general rule. The people you're buying from are probably not the quality you believe. It might be counter intuitive, but free things, especially where essential academic materials are concerned, can be very high quality. I got an excellent graphics editing program with the purchase of a scanner. It is fantastic and I used it for years. When computers changed so much it might not install on new ones I worried about having to pay $100 for an equivalent program that would install. I never needed to do that though. The free program "Gimp2" does everything my "with purchase" software did. The most interesting time I had in economics class was the discussion of profit margin. A significant change in the way things are done computers brought was the enormous profit margin on copies of software. Getting $100 or $200 dollars for a copy of software was unheard of in economics. The CDs only cost 25¢ to make and getting $200 for that has no comparison in any other field. Music CDs are still considered more original work and sell for $10 to $20. Early attempts by the computer industry to maintain its unheard of profits were fraught with technical difficulties. People who paid $500 collecting large quantities of music on their computer found that when they upgraded their computer equipment or operating system the licenses failed to transfer and they had to start all over. Of course they did not start all over and went back to CDs. Although fair use and fair comment privileges have been abused, there has been quite much "fair" all along as well. People who misunderstood that saw a larger problem than really existed and just made more problems. I would recommend that you not pay any more than you already have if you are dissatisfied with a product. Also quit using it. It's probably not as good as far less costly materials. A history professor of mine once asked me privately whether I understood the materials in his class were available at the local library at no special expense to me. He said much of everything at college was similarly available. I told him I did know that having used the library much of my life. I told him I paid for college in order to get some sort of certification or credit for my learning. I needed a raise in pay. He agreed to do his best to help in that regard. In the end remember there is no fooling some people. They can plainly see what is your own work and what is someone else's. Don't try to get credit for things when you never put any effort in them. And watch that profit margin so that it compares to others. Thanks Arlon for putting your views. I will start a new topic in which I will touch some parts of your post and also give my views on open source movement and what I consider to be ethical when it comes to sharing stuffs on internet. Meanwhile, I have edited my original post. I think I covered just about everything. I might add that I am one of those people who erases the operating system entirely from the home drive and re-installs it about once a year or perhaps sooner if i notice trouble. That sort of thing has a bad reputation. Some people fear I might cheat by getting limited time offers over and over again. I would not cheat that way although it is technically possible. There are two reasons. One, I don't steal. Two, there's never been anything worth stealing. As I said before, there are plenty of high quality, legitimate, low cost solutions. So no, I am not going to quit cleaning my computer. Some software is problematic and installing it can foul the way other things work. Presumably it should be possible to "uninstall" the problematic software, but it doesn't always solve the problem even when you select a "complete" uninstall. Sometimes the only way to fix a problem is to wipe the hard drive clean, reinstall the OS, and never install the problematic software on the clean computer. No, I am not going online to fix a problem or to increase security. A ten year old CD is safer than going online for new things all the time. Getting new "drivers" is particularly fraught with malicious software. I proved that myself with an experiment on safely disposable equipment. America Online started that "daily update" thing and some people actually thought that was a good thing. First of all people who think that are too stupid to own a computer. A computer is a tool for doing work. What they want and need is an entertainment system, something that requires no intellect on their part. Secondly they are too stupid to be the police of the internet or anything else. Thirdly they are never going to be the police so they might quit dreaming. Just get a TV, sit in front of it, and shut up. As for the real police, Microsoft was taken to court years ago over attempting a "monopoly," Linux has not. I was selected to debate for Virginia Commonwealth University because professors there noticed my "fair comments" were indeed fair and often interesting. Part of their job is recognizing whose work is whose. That's important in every field, but especially difficult with intellectual property.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 30, 2017 21:49:35 GMT
Thanks Arlon for putting your views. I will start a new topic in which I will touch some parts of your post and also give my views on open source movement and what I consider to be ethical when it comes to sharing stuffs on internet. Meanwhile, I have edited my original post. I think I covered just about everything. I might add that I am one of those people who erases the operating system entirely from the home drive and re-installs it about once a year or perhaps sooner if i notice trouble. That sort of thing has a bad reputation. Some people fear I might cheat by getting limited time offers over and over again. I would not cheat that way although it is technically possible. There are two reasons. One, I don't steal. Two, there's never been anything worth stealing. As I said before, there are plenty of high quality, legitimate, low cost solutions. So no, I am not going to quit cleaning my computer. Some software is problematic and installing it can foul the way other things work. Presumably it should be possible to "uninstall" the problematic software, but it doesn't always solve the problem even when you select a "complete" uninstall. Sometimes the only way to fix a problem is to wipe the hard drive clean, reinstall the OS, and never install the problematic software on the clean computer. No, I am not going online to fix a problem or to increase security. A ten year old CD is safer than going online for new things all the time. Getting new "drivers" is particularly fraught with malicious software. I proved that myself with an experiment on safely disposable equipment. America Online started that "daily update" thing and some people actually thought that was a good thing. First of all people who think that are too stupid to own a computer. A computer is a tool for doing work. What they want and need is an entertainment system, something that requires no intellect on their part. Secondly they are too stupid to be the police of the internet or anything else. Thirdly they are never going to be the police so they might quit dreaming. Just get a TV, sit in front of it, and shut up. As for the real police, Microsoft was taken to court years ago over attempting a "monopoly," Linux has not. I was selected to debate for Virginia Commonwealth University because professors there noticed my "fair comments" were indeed fair and often interesting. Part of their job is recognizing whose work is whose. That's important in every field, but especially difficult with intellectual property. wow, your knowledge of computers rivals your ability as a journalist.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 31, 2017 9:26:00 GMT
I think I covered just about everything. I might add that I am one of those people who erases the operating system entirely from the home drive and re-installs it about once a year or perhaps sooner if i notice trouble. That sort of thing has a bad reputation. Some people fear I might cheat by getting limited time offers over and over again. I would not cheat that way although it is technically possible. There are two reasons. One, I don't steal. Two, there's never been anything worth stealing. As I said before, there are plenty of high quality, legitimate, low cost solutions. So no, I am not going to quit cleaning my computer. Some software is problematic and installing it can foul the way other things work. Presumably it should be possible to "uninstall" the problematic software, but it doesn't always solve the problem even when you select a "complete" uninstall. Sometimes the only way to fix a problem is to wipe the hard drive clean, reinstall the OS, and never install the problematic software on the clean computer. No, I am not going online to fix a problem or to increase security. A ten year old CD is safer than going online for new things all the time. Getting new "drivers" is particularly fraught with malicious software. I proved that myself with an experiment on safely disposable equipment. America Online started that "daily update" thing and some people actually thought that was a good thing. First of all people who think that are too stupid to own a computer. A computer is a tool for doing work. What they want and need is an entertainment system, something that requires no intellect on their part. Secondly they are too stupid to be the police of the internet or anything else. Thirdly they are never going to be the police so they might quit dreaming. Just get a TV, sit in front of it, and shut up. As for the real police, Microsoft was taken to court years ago over attempting a "monopoly," Linux has not. I was selected to debate for Virginia Commonwealth University because professors there noticed my "fair comments" were indeed fair and often interesting. Part of their job is recognizing whose work is whose. That's important in every field, but especially difficult with intellectual property. wow, your knowledge of computers rivals your ability as a journalist. Whatever else my knowledge of computers might be, it is at least mine. Is your knowledge of computers really yours or someone else's? At one time a long time ago my ISP added a charge to my bill for a security plan. I tried to explain that I did not want that "extra" protection. I was then told it was not optional. I explained that involuntary participation in a security plan is known as "extortion." The charge was removed and never added again. It turned out to be optional after all. Too many people today have immature and unrealistic ideas about security. They think the more they pay for it the better it will be. Part of that might have to do with money being their only way to measure anything. I suppose if you have a close relative who knows computers well and can help you keep yours secure, it might make sense to pay him. Paying total strangers for "security" can be a very bad idea. Police protection is not supposed to be proportional to some amount paid for it. Everyone is supposed to be protected the same. Of course people who use locks with good sense are easier to protect than others, but they usually don't get a discount from the police for that. Security software and new versions of operating systems typically do not guarantee anything and that should tell you what they are worth. It doesn't sink in for some people though. They have their childish concept of what "good" people do and can't be educated beyond it.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jul 31, 2017 9:41:17 GMT
I think I covered just about everything. I might add that I am one of those people who erases the operating system entirely from the home drive and re-installs it about once a year or perhaps sooner if i notice trouble. That sort of thing has a bad reputation. Some people fear I might cheat by getting limited time offers over and over again. I would not cheat that way although it is technically possible. There are two reasons. One, I don't steal. Two, there's never been anything worth stealing. As I said before, there are plenty of high quality, legitimate, low cost solutions. So no, I am not going to quit cleaning my computer. Some software is problematic and installing it can foul the way other things work. Presumably it should be possible to "uninstall" the problematic software, but it doesn't always solve the problem even when you select a "complete" uninstall. Sometimes the only way to fix a problem is to wipe the hard drive clean, reinstall the OS, and never install the problematic software on the clean computer. No, I am not going online to fix a problem or to increase security. A ten year old CD is safer than going online for new things all the time. Getting new "drivers" is particularly fraught with malicious software. I proved that myself with an experiment on safely disposable equipment. America Online started that "daily update" thing and some people actually thought that was a good thing. First of all people who think that are too stupid to own a computer. A computer is a tool for doing work. What they want and need is an entertainment system, something that requires no intellect on their part. Secondly they are too stupid to be the police of the internet or anything else. Thirdly they are never going to be the police so they might quit dreaming. Just get a TV, sit in front of it, and shut up. As for the real police, Microsoft was taken to court years ago over attempting a "monopoly," Linux has not. I was selected to debate for Virginia Commonwealth University because professors there noticed my "fair comments" were indeed fair and often interesting. Part of their job is recognizing whose work is whose. That's important in every field, but especially difficult with intellectual property. wow, your knowledge of computers rivals your ability as a journalist. I do like to ask which part of his post do you differ with? There are indeed better low cost or free solutions than propriety software. Chromium or Firefox does a better job in terms of security than Internet explorer . BSD family operating systems as well as Linux is undoubtedly superior to Windows. Most BSD family OS or Linux come free of charge. They are also more ethical software. Openoffice/Libreoffice is a pretty good free substitute for Microsoft office. VLC is best all around video player and it is open source and free. Being online is indeed a dangerous thing. We have to bear in mind that an average user is not that adept at using computer as most of us are on this board. Thousands and 100s of 1000s of Windows user are vulnerable to malicious software and identify theft. Microsoft is indeed an unethical company. Windows is indeed an unethical operating system and so is Mackintosh or whatever it is called now. Going online to fix a security issue indeed makes an average computer user more vulnerable to identity theft. Google back search and many other websites can reveal a lot about you if you feed your info to them. From my previous interactions with Arlon, I have perceived that he is fairly good in regards to certain aspects of computing.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jul 31, 2017 10:03:42 GMT
wow, your knowledge of computers rivals your ability as a journalist. Whatever else my knowledge of computers might be, it is at least mine. Is your knowledge of computers really yours or someone else's? At one time a long time ago my ISP added a charge to my bill for a security plan. I tried to explain that I did not want that "extra" protection. I was then told it was not optional. I explained that involuntary participation in a security plan is known as "extortion." The charge was removed and never added again. It turned out to be optional after all. Too many people today have immature and unrealistic ideas about security. They think the more they pay for it the better it will be. Part of that might have to do with money being their only way to measure anything. I suppose if you have a close relative who knows computers well and can help you keep yours secure, it might make sense to pay him. Paying total strangers for "security" can be a very bad idea. Police protection is not supposed to be proportional to some amount paid for it. Everyone is supposed to be protected the same. Of course people who use locks with good sense are easier to protect than others, but they usually don't get a discount from the police for that. Security software and new versions of operating systems typically do not guarantee anything and that should tell you what they are worth. It doesn't sink in for some people though. They have their childish concept of what "good" people do and can't be educated beyond it. Will just like to make it clear that Mackintosh or Mac OS X or IOS or whatever operating system Apple has is actually based on base of FreeBSD OS. That is very ethical. But they add their nonsense and bind computer users to their hardware to suck wealth from them. Also, they add a lot of additional restrictions and in effect kick FreeBSD's ethics in their back while using their source code. That said, Arlon, I know you use Linux apart from Windows. Have you ever used FreeBSD/OpenBSD/NetBSD or openSolaris/OpenIndiana OS?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 31, 2017 10:08:42 GMT
wow, your knowledge of computers rivals your ability as a journalist. I do like to ask which part of his post do you differ with? There are indeed better low cost or free solutions than propriety software. Chromium or Firefox did a better job in terms of security than Internet explorer . BSD family operating systems as well as Linux is undoubtedly superior to Windows. Most BSD family OS or Linux come free of charge. They are also more ethical software. Openoffice/Libreoffice is a pretty good free substitute for Microsoft office. VLC is best all around video player and it is open source and free. Being online is indeed a dangerous thing. We have to bear in mind that an average user is not that adept at using computer as most of us are on this board. Thousands and 100s of 1000s of Windows user are vulnerable to malicious software and identify theft. Microsoft is indeed an unethical company. Windows is indeed an unethical operating system and so is Mackintosh or whatever it is called now. Going online to fix a security issue indeed makes an average computer user more vulnerable to identity theft. Google back search and many other websites can reveal a lot about you if you feed your info to them. From my previous interactions with Arlon, I have perceived that he is fairly good in regards to certain aspects of computing. I wouldn't say Microsoft is "unethical." Their profit margin continues to be unlike that in any other business but people are not forced to pay it. There are other choices. I have been very happy with Microsoft products for years. I have availed myself of OEM licenses and equipment for a small percentage of their regular non-OEM price. There has always been a way to turn off those annoying, stupid "updates" and constantly going online in what is really a reckless manner. That is until Windows 10. I have heard that it will not allow the user to turn all updates off. I won't buy it until it does. I spoke with a representative who said I would be able to turn updates off, but I need to see that in writing and I haven't seen it online yet.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 31, 2017 18:22:35 GMT
wow, your knowledge of computers rivals your ability as a journalist. I do like to ask which part of his post do you differ with? There are indeed better low cost or free solutions than propriety software. Chromium or Firefox does a better job in terms of security than Internet explorer . BSD family operating systems as well as Linux is undoubtedly superior to Windows. Most BSD family OS or Linux come free of charge. They are also more ethical software. Openoffice/Libreoffice is a pretty good free substitute for Microsoft office. VLC is best all around video player and it is open source and free. Being online is indeed a dangerous thing. We have to bear in mind that an average user is not that adept at using computer as most of us are on this board. Thousands and 100s of 1000s of Windows user are vulnerable to malicious software and identify theft. Microsoft is indeed an unethical company. Windows is indeed an unethical operating system and so is Mackintosh or whatever it is called now. Going online to fix a security issue indeed makes an average computer user more vulnerable to identity theft. Google back search and many other websites can reveal a lot about you if you feed your info to them. From my previous interactions with Arlon, I have perceived that he is fairly good in regards to certain aspects of computing. He has some basic understanding of computers, I would put him at the kind of knowledgeable user point, he is where I was before I got my degree (in computer science). I have in the past reinstalled my operating system and it can be a good idea on a mildly regular basis depending a bit on your computer use profile, but where I realised that there was a disconnect was the 10 year old CD, the don't update your drivers, and that people who allow their software to update are idiots. It's classic paranoia from someone with enough knowledge to make him dangerous.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 31, 2017 23:05:28 GMT
I do like to ask which part of his post do you differ with? There are indeed better low cost or free solutions than propriety software. Chromium or Firefox does a better job in terms of security than Internet explorer . BSD family operating systems as well as Linux is undoubtedly superior to Windows. Most BSD family OS or Linux come free of charge. They are also more ethical software. Openoffice/Libreoffice is a pretty good free substitute for Microsoft office. VLC is best all around video player and it is open source and free. Being online is indeed a dangerous thing. We have to bear in mind that an average user is not that adept at using computer as most of us are on this board. Thousands and 100s of 1000s of Windows user are vulnerable to malicious software and identify theft. Microsoft is indeed an unethical company. Windows is indeed an unethical operating system and so is Mackintosh or whatever it is called now. Going online to fix a security issue indeed makes an average computer user more vulnerable to identity theft. Google back search and many other websites can reveal a lot about you if you feed your info to them. From my previous interactions with Arlon, I have perceived that he is fairly good in regards to certain aspects of computing. He has some basic understanding of computers, I would put him at the kind of knowledgeable user point, he is where I was before I got my degree (in computer science). I have in the past reinstalled my operating system and it can be a good idea on a mildly regular basis depending a bit on your computer use profile, but where I realised that there was a disconnect was the 10 year old CD, the don't update your drivers, and that people who allow their software to update are idiots. It's classic paranoia from someone with enough knowledge to make him dangerous. Intelligent people are not "dangerous." Stupid people are generally kept safe by intelligent people leading the crowd the stupid must follow having no choice but to follow. I do not choose to "lead" though, just offer advice. What can be dangerous are stupid people deciding to lead. I happen to be a very intelligent person by several measures. I do hold opinions that are popularly considered unintelligent, but that is the fault of misguided popular opinion. For years (some time ago) there actually were reasons to change the operating system. Memory capacity, disc capacity, and processor speed increased several fold. Changes were necessary to implement those higher capacities. For many years (recently) there has not been any change in processor speed. It appears to have topped out below 4 gigaherz quite many years ago. The trick of multiple cores has been used to create an illusion of faster speeds. Multiple cores can move data faster, but they can't process it faster. That can be an important difference. Memory and disc capacities have increased, but beyond much usefulness except for watching "blue-ray" video. It is a nice medium, but there isn't much content of value for it. Most television and movies have been done already and don't gain by moving them to the new medium. Monochrome episodes of the original Twilight Zone are still better entertainment than what followed. The good reasons to upgrade operating systems are gone. There never was a "securtity" reason to upgrade. If you believe an operating system is more secure the day it is first released than it is two years later you are dangerously stupid. It makes no sense. I realize that there is a popular opinion that new is more secure, but we all here know I am especially immune to misguided popular opinions. Windows 10 will likely be the "last" operating system. Speed, memory, and storage have topped out. The illusion of "security updates" might continue, but I will find a way to get along without them. I wrote this message on Windows XP (also considered a "last" operating system). How dangerous is that?
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Aug 1, 2017 3:47:56 GMT
You are totally incorrect regarding the statement that I quoted. There are considerable reasons to upgrade/update. Any operating system always has security vulnerabilities and bugs when it is first launched. Security upgrades provide the fixes for those vulnerabilities. As a matter of fact one should try to keep his or her systems updated to have less chance of being infected. Firewall should also be optimized as per needs.
This is also wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 1, 2017 22:01:18 GMT
You are totally incorrect regarding the statement that I quoted. There are considerable reasons to upgrade/update. Any operating system always has security vulnerabilities and bugs when it is first launched. Security upgrades provide the fixes for those vulnerabilities. As a matter of fact one should try to keep his or her systems updated to have less chance of being infected. Firewall should also be optimized as per needs. This is also wrong. I see you believe that security updates make sense. They do not make sense. There is never any time when when you are secure. Or if there is when is that? Obviously you cannot say. Then you have no business saying I'm wrong. If you believe they make any sense then you're not critically analyzing what you're told by the crowd, you're just accepting it regardless how little sense it makes.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 1, 2017 22:04:18 GMT
You are totally incorrect regarding the statement that I quoted. There are considerable reasons to upgrade/update. Any operating system always has security vulnerabilities and bugs when it is first launched. Security upgrades provide the fixes for those vulnerabilities. As a matter of fact one should try to keep his or her systems updated to have less chance of being infected. Firewall should also be optimized as per needs. This is also wrong. I see you believe that security updates make sense. They do not make sense. There is never any time when when you are secure. Or if there is when is that? Obviously you cannot say. Then you have no business saying I'm wrong. If you believe they make any sense then you're not critically analyzing what you're told by the crowd, you're just accepting it regardless how little sense it makes. Security updates make sense because they address the discovered vulnerabilities of a piece of software that have been uncovered after their release, no one claims that a computer is magically secure after an update, just that the known vulnerabilities have been patched. This is a prime example of why a little knowledge is dangerous.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Aug 1, 2017 22:38:39 GMT
You are totally incorrect regarding the statement that I quoted. There are considerable reasons to upgrade/update. Any operating system always has security vulnerabilities and bugs when it is first launched. Security upgrades provide the fixes for those vulnerabilities. As a matter of fact one should try to keep his or her systems updated to have less chance of being infected. Firewall should also be optimized as per needs. This is also wrong. I see you believe that security updates make sense. They do not make sense. There is never any time when when you are secure. Or if there is when is that? Obviously you cannot say. Then you have no business saying I'm wrong. If you believe they make any sense then you're not critically analyzing what you're told by the crowd, you're just accepting it regardless how little sense it makes. After software update you may not be 100% secure but you are much more secure than before the update. It may be true that you are never 100% secure but there are always different degrees to which you are secure.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 1, 2017 23:10:50 GMT
I see you believe that security updates make sense. They do not make sense. There is never any time when when you are secure. Or if there is when is that? Obviously you cannot say. Then you have no business saying I'm wrong. If you believe they make any sense then you're not critically analyzing what you're told by the crowd, you're just accepting it regardless how little sense it makes. Security updates make sense because they address the discovered vulnerabilities of a piece of software that have been uncovered after their release, no one claims that a computer is magically secure after an update, just that the known vulnerabilities have been patched. This is a prime example of why a little knowledge is dangerous. for emphasis, Bingo!! That's why it is simple foolishness to bother with them. I've had a somewhat "public" life since I started debating for my school way back in high school. My life is somewhat an "open" book. I do not avoid crowds. No one who needs to avoid crowds can be a good journalist. I address crowds, much smaller ones lately, but stay tuned. I never got as famous as regular TV and radio people, but I have appeared on TV and radio and in newspapers, real ones not just Examiner. When you appear like that you can become a target. People would like to mess you over. They do try. I don't care. In the end they learn it does them no good. Then there is a new bus load of them about every two weeks. Then those find out I can't be bothered, and so on.
I know what keeps me secure, God does. Why don't people steal my identity? Because they fear getting caught being "bad" people. Computers have very little to do with it. The only people who try are the people who think they can make some case that I deserve the treatment they want to deal me. I generally make better cases than they anticipated.
I understand security very well including computer security. I know how to use encryption keys. If you take the current events quiz on my website and look at the source page you'll see that the answers are there, but they're encrypted. I did it that way because it's easier than trying to track a client page to page. Have you cracked my encryption method yet? I don't think so. Can someone crack it? Probably, but anyone smart enough to crack it is also smart enough not to mess with me.
|
|