Well, while I get your point and agree with it...Alice in Wonderland has a lot of hidden complexity which can be read on many different levels. So maybe in this case the disparity is actually correct.
That's sort of what I meant about judging them on their worth. However in the absence of any authority what do you chose? This is definately a blow for ISO and also for people wanting a standard. I don't see people ignoring ISO completely however. The wording was such that they are questioning its relevance. A competing standards authority might even be healthy (or it will be utter chaos).
So what? I can use OpenOffice and still read it. In fact I don't have MS office and I haven't needed it yet. PDF is more important.
ok, profesionally I have at times used MS Office. Mainly because some people insist on comunicating in word.doc format. OOXML should bring an end to that, shouldn't it?
OOXML is an open standard whatever else. This lessens the power of MS in any case. Also there is an older approved open standard, to wit ODF, which people have already invested in.
I personally am seeing Open Office used more and more. This isn't just by IT nerds, I'm talking about non-technical people who couldn't care less about the ethics of MS.
Very nice article but it doesn't do anything to fix the problem of what they might do in the future. Since the EULA reserves the right to install basically any functionality they want there is nothing preventing future abuse. Certainly it is a matter of trust. A blog like that increases my paranoia because it reads like a paid advertisement.
btw I am not anti-google. I use google to search for everyything, my primary email is gmail.
I also dont think Google or any company can actually do all the crazy things people can imagine when taking a EULA to extremes. EULAS aren't even worth the paper they're written on.
I don't agree. One of the 'out-of-context-excerpts' is about google being able to update chrome in any way they want with any service they desire. If they were to put in a spell check service which checks everything you type, then all of a sudden everythign you type is google useable? I don't think it would come to that but the implications are there.
This is why advertisers are choosing to pay for confirmed clicks. They need to measure it. Just having someone see your logo is also important...but you can't measure that. If people block ads completely then advertisers will stop advertising (or find another way probably).
basically there is no such thing as a free lunch. If people don't want to pay for content then eventually they won't receive any either.
Legal recourse would depend on how any blocking in implemented. Blocking all competitors woudl probably be illegal in some jurisdictions. I think this is a matter for the lawyers.Which probably means ad blocking is a bad idea.
Where I live names of accused are always published with only the first name and last initial. Joe B. could be anyone.
I'm not quite sure whether there even is an "openness" requirement for democracy. However, being open/transparent doesn't necessarily include full access to all information all the time. That is a fiction anyway, it certainly doesn't exist in any court I know (except ones you can bribe).
Can we withhold names and maintain transparency? Hell yes. Making th information available in the first place was meant to protect innocent people, mostly the innocent accused. Not letting mass-market media simply destroy lives doesn't break this protection. You can still allow full *offline* access to court documents but change the rules for publication. In theory non-searchable online content would be nice, but not realistic. Once it's out there....
My thoughts exactly. Wall-E is obviously inspired by number Five. OTOH take tracks and put a binocular sensor on top and that is pretty much what you are going to have.
Give that baby some arms, put a laser on top and hit it with lightning. I'll buy one.
not quite. It depends on what the service is offering. If they are guaranteeing redundant storage at multiple locations, protected against earthquake and volcanoes then you could reasonably expect the service to not crash irrecoverably.
In any case they promise a storage for your data. I would imagine they also take responsibility for its loss. It's not like stock but more like putting things in storage.
Of course with physical storage I would expect a ton of disclaimers or a mandatory insurance policy...
And I'm saying that this doesn't meet that definition. This is not a novel way of putting things together. I can put a lead bar in a loaf of bread but that wouldn't get a patent. Jsut because a thing can be done doesn't make it patentable.
This is not a case of screws and bolts. In any case I don't accept your analogy. So explain if you can what is the invention? Try not to be clever, just answer the question.
While it may be a good idea (I doubt it) it hardly seems patentable. Its an obvious application of the technology. Even if no one has ever done it before doesn't mean it isn't obvious. It just means no one has seen the point.
Databases have been known for a few years now. Customer identification cards as well. So now you can patent specific pieces of information when tied to the identification?
Maybe I'm stupid but it seems to me that the system might be in need revision. Perhaps IBM was trying to make a point?
Regardless of whether people know in advance that they are being charged for incoming SMS this should be illegal. Smart people wouldn't agree to such a contract anyway. Basically someone has the right to take all your money without notice. It is no better than loansharking if you think about it.
I do not have a problem with people talking on cell phones any more than I do them talking to each other. One is the same as the other. Volume is another issue.
It is nice when people keep to acceptable social norms however. If people in Japan do not talk in the train then a foreigner shouldn't either. As a guest you should be on your best behavior...
I've never been to the Netherlands, I would be interested to know how those sections work. Is there a door between the talking and quiet sections (perhaps separate cars)? A lot of US planes have only a single non-partitioned cabin. It would be hard to contain the volume of others' conversations without some sort of physical barricade.
Its separate cars or at least partitioned and social pressure mostly. On planes the main annoyance would be if you were on the border area. A curtain also does quite well in noise reduction.
Yes, people talk to loud on phones.
Feel free to try to train people to talk at normal volumes on cell phones. Let me know how that goes.
I'm training myself and hope to lead by example. I for one welcome our quiet-while-talking-on-the-cell-phone overlords...especially since I plan on being one of them;)
In the netherlands the intercity trains have a quiet section. In theory there is no talking or audio devices w/o headset (and not turned up so loud that you can still here it). It doesn't always work but it is nice...
It could work better on planes where stewardesses are more likely to enforce it.
Considering the tight confines of an airplane (for most US trips), if you have more than 3 people talking on phones at a time they'll likely be shouting soon to hear themselves over the other conversations.
there is no need to shout. Yes, people talk to loud on phones. I notice it about myself. It's something to work on. People talk on planes all the time without shouting however. Also, there is quite a bit of white noise from the engines, wings...This shouldn't be too much of a problem.
I'm not one of those killjoys who think you have to completely solve all human ills before launching anything into space,
I am not one of those killjoys who think that poor people shouldn't be helped at all and that the markets should completely take over the welfare functions.
I study neither economics nor minority languages. It seems to me however that quite a bit of corruption has a negative effect on both capitalistic and socialistic programs.
A prestige project is good for national morale and could help the country as a whole. At 65M$ (10â approx) it isn't all that expensive. Of course the whole program costs more.
Keeping it in perspective, the russian gdp is 1.3 trillion $, the budget is 299 billion$ in, 265 billion$ out. Meaning about 24 billion $ is surplus. 65M$ is negligble.
Parents making a choice to protect their children is oppression???
Your arguments are filled with fallacies. While you have a right to take certain measures to protect your children this doesn't mean saying that you are protecting your children makes the measures right.
How old are you? (Really, I want a real answer.)
Trying to imply someone's opinion is invalid based on emotion.
I am 32 and don't have children btw.
Choices are for me to make when it comes to protecting my child, not for you nor for the government,
well that certainly isn't true. There are certain things that most people agree noone should be allowed to do to even their own children. Please tell me you don't think you can do whatever you want with your children.
In one thread you (not just you but a generic you) scream for holding the parent's accountable and in another when they take reasonable steps to monitor their children it is oppression?
Very nicely done. The generic you who could be many people with complete opposite opinions yet will be assumed to be the person you are arguing against must be wrong. Not only is 'he' always contradicting himself but you are also neatly assuming the validity of your own argument. How could anyone fail to agree with you.
I don't doubt you love your children. Do you respect them? perhaps. Ask them how they feel when they are teenagers and you still give them no expectation of privacy. The ends do not justify the means.
Ask yourself this. How did your parents treat you? Did you grow up being constantly monitored? Would you have liked it? Not that kids have to like everything their parents do but it needs to be asked.
Please think twice before presenting your arguments. It really is easy to justify just about anything on the basis of safety, on the basis of 'love', on the basis of 'they are mine'.
You argue very much from emotion. Emotion is valid and certainly plays a role. However it makes for poor logic. You can use to to explain why you think a thing should be a certain way. It cannot prove or disprove anything.
I agree. If it was just 10 stupid things list, fine. But worst tech ever? What really turned me off was the Tamagotchi bit. Hate it all you want, it was a huge success. The authors are trying to appeal to some geek elitist ideal with the idea that if they didn't like it then it must be bad. There are about a hundred thousand product a year that shouldn't be made, but a highly succesful product does not constitute a tech failure in any way, shape or form. A failure of taste is another matter...
Slashdot Mirror
Well, while I get your point and agree with it...Alice in Wonderland has a lot of hidden complexity which can be read on many different levels. So maybe in this case the disparity is actually correct.
Who's talking not having standards? There are still standards. Just saying that you don't have to follow a standard you don't like.
That's sort of what I meant about judging them on their worth. However in the absence of any authority what do you chose? This is definately a blow for ISO and also for people wanting a standard. I don't see people ignoring ISO completely however. The wording was such that they are questioning its relevance. A competing standards authority might even be healthy (or it will be utter chaos).
So what? I can use OpenOffice and still read it. In fact I don't have MS office and I haven't needed it yet. PDF is more important.
.doc format. OOXML should bring an end to that, shouldn't it?
ok, profesionally I have at times used MS Office. Mainly because some people insist on comunicating in word
OOXML is an open standard whatever else. This lessens the power of MS in any case. Also there is an older approved open standard, to wit ODF, which people have already invested in.
I personally am seeing Open Office used more and more. This isn't just by IT nerds, I'm talking about non-technical people who couldn't care less about the ethics of MS.
Don't use OOXML. A standard is not a law and ISO/IEC not an enforcement agency. They are an authority which you can judge on its worth.
Since they are arguing that they spent money on using ODF then why care about OOXML?
Very nice article but it doesn't do anything to fix the problem of what they might do in the future. Since the EULA reserves the right to install basically any functionality they want there is nothing preventing future abuse. Certainly it is a matter of trust. A blog like that increases my paranoia because it reads like a paid advertisement.
btw I am not anti-google. I use google to search for everyything, my primary email is gmail.
I also dont think Google or any company can actually do all the crazy things people can imagine when taking a EULA to extremes. EULAS aren't even worth the paper they're written on.
I don't agree. One of the 'out-of-context-excerpts' is about google being able to update chrome in any way they want with any service they desire. If they were to put in a spell check service which checks everything you type, then all of a sudden everythign you type is google useable? I don't think it would come to that but the implications are there.
Because a kidnapping almost always ends in the death of the kidnapped?
Anyway we're talking about a spammer. He's not exactly looking for the best and the brightest is he?
This is why advertisers are choosing to pay for confirmed clicks. They need to measure it. Just having someone see your logo is also important...but you can't measure that. If people block ads completely then advertisers will stop advertising (or find another way probably).
basically there is no such thing as a free lunch. If people don't want to pay for content then eventually they won't receive any either.
Legal recourse would depend on how any blocking in implemented. Blocking all competitors woudl probably be illegal in some jurisdictions. I think this is a matter for the lawyers.Which probably means ad blocking is a bad idea.
Where I live names of accused are always published with only the first name and last initial. Joe B. could be anyone.
I'm not quite sure whether there even is an "openness" requirement for democracy. However, being open/transparent doesn't necessarily include full access to all information all the time. That is a fiction anyway, it certainly doesn't exist in any court I know (except ones you can bribe).
Can we withhold names and maintain transparency? Hell yes. Making th information available in the first place was meant to protect innocent people, mostly the innocent accused. Not letting mass-market media simply destroy lives doesn't break this protection. You can still allow full *offline* access to court documents but change the rules for publication. In theory non-searchable online content would be nice, but not realistic. Once it's out there....
Well...maybe I can get a lego-storm version?
My thoughts exactly. Wall-E is obviously inspired by number Five. OTOH take tracks and put a binocular sensor on top and that is pretty much what you are going to have.
Give that baby some arms, put a laser on top and hit it with lightning. I'll buy one.
not quite. It depends on what the service is offering. If they are guaranteeing redundant storage at multiple locations, protected against earthquake and volcanoes then you could reasonably expect the service to not crash irrecoverably.
In any case they promise a storage for your data. I would imagine they also take responsibility for its loss. It's not like stock but more like putting things in storage.
Of course with physical storage I would expect a ton of disclaimers or a mandatory insurance policy...
And I'm saying that this doesn't meet that definition. This is not a novel way of putting things together. I can put a lead bar in a loaf of bread but that wouldn't get a patent. Jsut because a thing can be done doesn't make it patentable.
This is not a case of screws and bolts. In any case I don't accept your analogy. So explain if you can what is the invention? Try not to be clever, just answer the question.
While it may be a good idea (I doubt it) it hardly seems patentable. Its an obvious application of the technology. Even if no one has ever done it before doesn't mean it isn't obvious. It just means no one has seen the point.
Databases have been known for a few years now. Customer identification cards as well. So now you can patent specific pieces of information when tied to the identification?
Maybe I'm stupid but it seems to me that the system might be in need revision. Perhaps IBM was trying to make a point?
Regardless of whether people know in advance that they are being charged for incoming SMS this should be illegal. Smart people wouldn't agree to such a contract anyway. Basically someone has the right to take all your money without notice. It is no better than loansharking if you think about it.
I do not have a problem with people talking on cell phones any more than I do them talking to each other. One is the same as the other. Volume is another issue.
It is nice when people keep to acceptable social norms however. If people in Japan do not talk in the train then a foreigner shouldn't either. As a guest you should be on your best behavior...
I've never been to the Netherlands, I would be interested to know how those sections work. Is there a door between the talking and quiet sections (perhaps separate cars)? A lot of US planes have only a single non-partitioned cabin. It would be hard to contain the volume of others' conversations without some sort of physical barricade.
Its separate cars or at least partitioned and social pressure mostly. On planes the main annoyance would be if you were on the border area. A curtain also does quite well in noise reduction.
Yes, people talk to loud on phones.
Feel free to try to train people to talk at normal volumes on cell phones. Let me know how that goes.
I'm training myself and hope to lead by example. I for one welcome our quiet-while-talking-on-the-cell-phone overlords...especially since I plan on being one of them ;)
It could work better on planes where stewardesses are more likely to enforce it.
Considering the tight confines of an airplane (for most US trips), if you have more than 3 people talking on phones at a time they'll likely be shouting soon to hear themselves over the other conversations.
there is no need to shout. Yes, people talk to loud on phones. I notice it about myself. It's something to work on. People talk on planes all the time without shouting however. Also, there is quite a bit of white noise from the engines, wings...This shouldn't be too much of a problem.
happy now?
I'm not one of those killjoys who think you have to completely solve all human ills before launching anything into space,
I am not one of those killjoys who think that poor people shouldn't be helped at all and that the markets should completely take over the welfare functions .
I study neither economics nor minority languages. It seems to me however that quite a bit of corruption has a negative effect on both capitalistic and socialistic programs.
A prestige project is good for national morale and could help the country as a whole. At 65M$ (10â approx) it isn't all that expensive. Of course the whole program costs more.
Keeping it in perspective, the russian gdp is 1.3 trillion $, the budget is 299 billion$ in, 265 billion$ out. Meaning about 24 billion $ is surplus. 65M$ is negligble.
Parents making a choice to protect their children is oppression???
Your arguments are filled with fallacies. While you have a right to take certain measures to protect your children this doesn't mean saying that you are protecting your children makes the measures right.
How old are you? (Really, I want a real answer.)
Trying to imply someone's opinion is invalid based on emotion.
I am 32 and don't have children btw.
Choices are for me to make when it comes to protecting my child, not for you nor for the government,
well that certainly isn't true. There are certain things that most people agree noone should be allowed to do to even their own children. Please tell me you don't think you can do whatever you want with your children.
In one thread you (not just you but a generic you) scream for holding the parent's accountable and in another when they take reasonable steps to monitor their children it is oppression?
Very nicely done. The generic you who could be many people with complete opposite opinions yet will be assumed to be the person you are arguing against must be wrong. Not only is 'he' always contradicting himself but you are also neatly assuming the validity of your own argument. How could anyone fail to agree with you.
I don't doubt you love your children. Do you respect them? perhaps. Ask them how they feel when they are teenagers and you still give them no expectation of privacy. The ends do not justify the means.
Ask yourself this. How did your parents treat you? Did you grow up being constantly monitored? Would you have liked it? Not that kids have to like everything their parents do but it needs to be asked.
Please think twice before presenting your arguments. It really is easy to justify just about anything on the basis of safety, on the basis of 'love', on the basis of 'they are mine'.
You argue very much from emotion. Emotion is valid and certainly plays a role. However it makes for poor logic. You can use to to explain why you think a thing should be a certain way. It cannot prove or disprove anything.
I agree. If it was just 10 stupid things list, fine. But worst tech ever? What really turned me off was the Tamagotchi bit. Hate it all you want, it was a huge success. The authors are trying to appeal to some geek elitist ideal with the idea that if they didn't like it then it must be bad. There are about a hundred thousand product a year that shouldn't be made, but a highly succesful product does not constitute a tech failure in any way, shape or form. A failure of taste is another matter...