While I agree with you to a certain extent, I do not think linear laws (ones which follow straight lines of if/else if/while/while not) would be the best thing to employ. Simply put, there are too many variables, and often times the punishment wouldn't suit the crime.
Take for example the California three-strikes (I under stand it is a California law, not sure about elsewhere) law. This law says (and I am paraphrasing from memory) that after three felonies one will face the maximum sentence. That doesn't sound like a smart plan, but it is often employed like you suggest: without variation or discretion. This has lead to a huge glut in the prison system.
Also, to counter your cruel and unusual punishment example -- yes, by that definition, the punishment must be cruel and unusual. What constitutes cruel? Unusual? I haven't a clue. But that is an example of a terribly ambiguous law (like a great deal of the American constitution). I would say something like this would be far more effective:
Cruel punishments are outlawed. Cruel punishments consist of (insert terms here). Unusual punishments are outlawed. Unusual punishments consist of (insert terms here).
Now, the obvious vector of attack to circumvent these laws would be to argue that the punishment employed is not on this list, and therefore does not constitute cruel or unusual punishment. This is where discretion would kick in, but that is also where the sunset clause would kick in. If in five years, it was determined that the law was truly broken, then the bill could be modified and resubmitted with the terms. And chances are, in five years, the idiot who enacted the law would have little power.
Again, my system depends on the good of humanity, which is something I do believe in. I think Americans are naturally good. I think Iraqis are naturally good. I think Communists are naturally good. It is simply apathy and inertia that eats away at the system, and like any good systems administrator knows, a system is not a static thing, it must be mutable. But straightforward programming language like laws would be a bad idea, because there would be no room for exceptions. If an exception was found -- well, from my PASCAL programming days, it usually ended up in one Hell of a mess. Yes, you can employ error capturing techniques, but this is not a cure all, you can forsee every possible error and that is where I would hope that using basic language laws, and judges, people could defend themselves in court (without the need of a lawyer).
You know, back in the days of the Cold War, it used to be that in the "West" Communists were feared. In the USSR, it was the "Spreaders of American Imperialism". It would seem that history is repeating itself, but with the added proviso of having a unified enemy. One that can literally be indistinguishable from the common person, and even more disturbing, cannot be defeated. Now, I know that is nothing new in this crowd, but think about it, a Communist can be defeated, I would say for the most part they have been. The USSR fell, Cuba has its own problems with Castro falling to old age, China a communist country in name, now has "capitalist zones" throughout -- Communism is a dead horse and it has been flogged to death.
Terrorism, however, is a bird of a different colour. How would you defeat Terrorism? Overthrow the state that the Terrorists occupy? Nope, look at Iraq. Do you put up a cute little "Terror Alert Scale"? Oh yeah, that was really effective! Nope, you can't "defeat it", and anyone saying you can has not thought enough about the concept. Regardless, however, it would seem that many (frivolous) laws are being put in place to combat terror, even in countries one wouldn't expect this in (Say Canada, for example...). What is perhaps scariest is that these laws will probably not go away quickly -- giving anyone who wants to abuse them more than enough chance to get away with it and cover up evidence.
By no means, am I advocating that there was some "master plan" by some Evil Genius(tm), instead I think it is just a general ideology that comes with the times. What disturbs me is in this enlightened age, we seem to completely avert our eyes to the consequences of these laws. While some might ultimately get repealed, most will not and some may even snowball into much bigger, much badder laws that essentially go from government monitoring, to Government Sanctioned Living(tm).
I am also not, by any means, saying that I have all the answers -- which always seemed like a cop out to me, to criticize without at least adding your own view and possible solution -- but I do have a couple of thoughts.
*Every law should have a sunset clause -- an expiration date, if you will. This would be an immutable amount of time (say five years), and the law would be required to be reviewed and passed through whatever checks and balances exist (if any). The law could of course be repealed, but it could not be extended anymore than 5 years from the date of review. This would still be open to abuse, but would certainly stop a lot of the stupid laws that stay on the books and are used solely for abusive purposes by law enforcement or Government Men (tm).
*Laws should be "subdivided" into categories. So laws dealing with "Terrorism" would all be put into that category and that way one could remove them from the system wholesale. No need to go hunting and pecking. Obviously, this too would present problems, but I think it would simply things.
*Lastly -- every law should be understandable at a (4/5/6/7/8th) grade reading level, written in plain English. If the common man (and yes, I am inferring that the common man isn't the "sharpest knife in the drawer") can't read it, it can't pass.
After I installed the unified drivers for my Samsung printer/scanner, I had the unwelcome surprise of discovering that OpenOffice now opens as root, and not only that but did not ask for my password!
As a result, all documents I created were saved in the/root/ directory with super user rights. Practical and super secure!
I attempted to re-install.Xauthority without success.
The beast (the problem) is occuring under Ubuntu 7.04 under Gnome.
Thank You.
Bonjour,
Après avoir installé les drivers unifiés de Samsung pour gérer mon imprimante scanner, j'ai eu la très mauvaise surprise de constater que la suite openoffice s'ouvrait en root et ceci sans que me soit demandé le moindre mot de passe !!!
Du coup, les documents que je crée s'enregistrent dans le dossier/root/ avec des droits de super utilisateur. Pratique et super sécure !
A tout hasard j'ai réinitialisé le.Xauthority : aucun succès.
La bête est sous Ubuntu 7.04 et gnome. En attendant vote aide, je cherche et tente de résister au désespoir le plus sombre !
"...and a slick, flamed-out paint job that you've just got to see." Jeeze, why not throw on a set oh chromes pipes, some saddle bags and get a big biker-like dude to ride on it. That thing is absolutely hideous, and to boot, as soon as you install an optical drive, or anything requiring a 5 1/2" bay, the grease-ball paint job goes from extremely greaseball to extremely greaseball and chopped up. Hell, a Dell charcoal SFF PC has more of a Zen appearance than this!
I have always wondered how such a cure for (types of) autism would be handled when you factor in the push by some to recognize Autism as merely another frame of mind (so to speak). Similar to the mutants in X-Men III when faced with the cure, parents would be faced with allowing their child to grow up austistic (with all the advantages it conveys, and all of the disadvantages) or to give the child a "normal" life, however that may be defined and again, with all the benefits and drawbacks thereof.
So wait... This mummy, was a daddy who has been discovered as a mummy? I am guessing her kids needed therapy and might be a good candidate for the Jerry Springer Show, or the a match for Paris Hilton
"We fully realize that past success is no guarantee of future success, but it does give you some perspective. We have to bring the games to market that will showcase what the PS3 can do and ultimately entertain you like no other games have. We need to provide proof of what the PS3 can do for you and work tirelessly to improve the value and justify your investment. At the end of the day, it's always been about the games. To push the boundaries of gaming beyond where they currently lie takes a great deal of risk. I think all the hardware manufacturers are doing that in some way." Seriously, this has got to be one of the most obvious business 101 comments I have ever heard from a multi-national, multi-billion dollar-a-year, multimedia-electronics mega supercorp.
Now, what I can't decide is this: did they actually just figure this out (doubtful...) or did marketing decide to restate the doesn't-deserve-to-be-restated obvious in hopes of getting a bunch of people to nod their heads and say: "yep, Sony is definitely now a contender in this race (I'm willing to put money on it...).
Now this is something I have thought about long and hard (though no hard research to back it up) about. WHat happens when we do get the power to *poof* the bad genes out of existance from an unborn infant? Well, obviously they won't develop "problem A", but what about other factors? For instance, I know that black people in regions of Africa are born with sickle-cell anemia, but this also helps prevent a certain disease commonly transported by insects in the region. How do we know what (if any) other things might depend on that particular gene?
And on that note, someone mentioned that this may well lead us to our next step in evolution -- that may well be true, but shouldn't evolution happen in response to natural factors by nature's invisible hand? Not some doc in a lab? I mean, so many people on Slashdot are keen on letting the "ivisible hand of capitalism" work the market, why shouldn't we let nature decide what is best for us?
I believe this sort of thing was covered with the Asgaard in Stargate SG-1, they died out because they genetically modified their bodies past a certain point where they could no longer reproduce, only extend their own lives. Now, I am not saying there is any scientific basis for something liek that happening, but aren't parables supposed to make you at least think before acting?
Has anyone noticed that patents may well be the farming and agriculture of the 21st century? Allow me to explain.
During the shift to urbanization, it was common for individuals to keep cattle, chickens, pigs and sheep in the city. The animals would be allowed to roam free and would then be captured and slaughter/sheered as was necessary. It was subsistence living in an urban environment where barter was VERY common.
However, as time went on, factories and other places of employment found that they couldn't get enough workers for the lower level jobs. Why would the poor go work there in a crappy environment, when they could breed their cattle and chickens for rent and food?
So these companies petitioned the government to disallow animals, citing disease and the cause (and to some degree, this was true, especially with large amounts of fecal matter in the city -- but then not everyone had plumbing either). This in turn caused people to starve and move to these companies to be paid in "money".
Now, however, we have patents. Patents force the little guy out of the market (let's face it, no individual can afford to beat MS, IBM, Monsanto, et al in a court where lawyers form 99.9% of your chances) Small companies are forced out of business and big companies get to take over. The small companies are the only real thorn in the side of the bigger ones as they might offer a product that revolutionizes the field, but ends up costing a major conglomerate billions to redevelop their products). So patents force them out of business, causing the owners to work for the mega-corp and thus give the mega-corp control.
Perhaps in a few years, everyone will be working for a mega-corp and that will define our identities. We are theirs after all...
I know there are a lot of you out there saying: this is the kind of action that will spur congress to get off their deriere, but frankly, I can only see this as YANITC (yet another nail in the coffin).
We looked on in horror when the thought of software patents came up, and we said that surely no one would be dumb enough (or greedy enough) to do it. We were wrong...
Then there was Bezo's one-click patent and we shielded our eyes saying: the fireworks are going to start any time now... Again, however, the sky was clear and there we no signs of change on the horizon.
Then you had all the spurrious patents from SCO, Microsoft and IBM, and we thought, well maybe this time! However, as was before, so was then...
Then Microsoft threatened Linux and we said "they are running scarred!" and "no one would be dumb enough to..." They were, and they are. Not only that, but mere weeks later, you have several major contributors signing licensing deals to patent infringements that were never released. My God, that costs the companies money and they do nothing but bend over...
Today we got word of Bezo's expansion of the one-click patent, and on top of that the willingness of the USPTO to accept the patent with little to no effort. The USPTO, after all, has employees they have to pay...
And now you have this, and again we here individuals decrying the "end times" for software patents. No, that isn't going to happen. They are here to stay, because the system is working for its citizens in a very efficient way. It is just that we think that we are the citizens. Much like TV viewers or magazine subscribers think that they are the clients of the company. They aren't, they are the product.
We are the product and the consumer, but not the client of the government. The government is there to protect the interests of its citizens, it's just that its citizens have trademarked names. We have gone form Micro to Macro folks.
Will my files survive 50 years of moving between storage media? Will I be able to view JPEG files in 50 years time? If you are worried about lossy compression and the uncertain nature of JPEG-licensing and popularity, might I suggest the open source alternative?
PNG -- a lossless (or lossy, if you prefer to skimp on space) image format that is open source, and can handle a variety of effects (the big one that I can think of is transparency, but then that has little berring on photography).
I made the switch to PNG about two years ago, and really haven't looked back. I just find working with them to be a lot simpler than JPEG. It doesn't hurt that it is open source either...
I have never understood people's desire to print their photos at home using current technology.
First-of-all, the price-per-print is absolutely ludricrous. It used to be in the 1-2 CDN per print, and has come down, but not significantly. While gas and time may prove a factor for some, I just walk to the neighbourhood developer and get them developed that way (or keep them digital!).
Secondly, the investment reeks of a fleecing. Upwards of a hundred dollars in ink? A packet of 20 sheets of paper for the better part of 10 dollars? A printer that will definitely break before it becomes obsolete? No thanks.
For a period, I worked in a big-box computer store and any chance someone told me that they wanted to print from home, I tried to politely tell them that the technology was unproven, and that the pictures wouldn't last as long as the conventionally developed ones. That, combined with showing them what a discount setup would produce, and what an investment it would ultimately prove to be, would often turn them away from that direction.
It is not that I object to home printing, nor do I have a vested interest in getting people to go to a developer. I am not a professional developer, or one of those photography buffs who insists on doing it in the "well, back in my day..." way. Rather, I see this whole "home printing" phenomeneon as a potential market that has been tapped using an inefficient tool not made for the task.
Now some may point out those supposed "specialty" printers that Kodak, Canon or Hewlett-Packard manufacture, but these are also no different, other than usually fleecing you on the ink.
And for those that would suggest using "off-brand" supplies, for most printing that is a fine suggestion, but in my experience (which, I will admit has not been considerable), the quality is sorely lacking in many of these products. THe paper is ill-suited to the task, and the ink is often "not quite as clear". ANd the price differential can be drastic, but if the product is noticably inferior, then what purpose does it serve?
Just my 2c CND (which incidentally is rapidily approaching parity with the US dollar.)
Well I do distinctly remember the song that was played in place of my RATM, it was Nickleback's photograph. I think you can see why I was a bit miffed...
Well, actually it isn't illegal. At least at the time that I listened to them, neither had record labels outside of Japan/South Korea. My point, I believe, still remains. Lots of groups are the "little guy" who might be VERY good, but aren't what EVERYONE listens to, and therefore they are isolated to their small corner of the world. File sharing can help them gain exposure.
I realized that there might eb some confusion over this point after I posted it, so allow me to clear this up for you.
The local station is one of the "big" stations in the area, and they claim to "play what you want". They also advertise that they are the only hard rock station in the area. Rage Against the Machine is hard rock. Therefore, I expected that if I could get into their lines, I could request a "hard rock" song. I am not an avid listener, but I think that my assumption is only logical...
As for your example, of course they aren't going to play Garth Brooks on most normal stations, since that isn't the genre that they advertise, but in this case it was.
1. It encourages the distribution of art. That is what music is -- art. It isn't a product that can be bought, marketed, packaged and sold (though some people would love to believe so). The band, well maybe they could be a product, but the music itself can never be.
2. It encourages innovation. While it might sound less than ideal from a public relations standpoint, file sharing encourages programmers and problem solvers to think of more interesting and innovative methods to circumvent the measures put in place, and it furthers the study of peer-to-peer technology. You went from Napster, to Kazaa, to bitTorrent, with massive leaps at each step.
3. It opens music to a much wider audience. Let's face it, most stores will never carry certain artists and one wants to know that they like the artist before they shell out the cash for a CD from Amazon or eBay. And lets face it, the radio stations will seldom, if ever, play bands like Screeching Weasel, Cara Dillon, Celtae, R.A.M.B.O., or even some fo the more popular people like Jann Arden or Sinead O'Conner and Sarah Brightman. In fact, case in point: Rage Against the Machine. I called a local radio station when they said, "ok, the lines are open, tell us what you want to hear, because this is a radio station powered by YOU!". I called and requested RATM, what did they say? "Oh, sorry, that is too hard for our listeners. I just said okay, and turned off the radio. Barely ever play it anymore.
4. It helps gain artist recognition and exposure. Had file sharing come along, how many of you might know who BoA or Ayumi Hamazaki are?
5.It forces artists to be more creative, and less like the Back Street Boys and Spice Girls. If everyone of the bands sound the same, it forces more people to look elsewhere for the music that fits their tastes.
6. It breaks the copyright holder's regime. I'm sorry, this is going to piss off a lot of individuals around here, since a lot of people pay lip service to the "benefiot" of copyright, but the system is fundamentally flawed. Ever since the Bono-act, the fact that you could "extend" an artificial monopoly is just plain WRONG.
7. It also helps bring artists that would have no exposure form the record labels to break into the mainstream (or at least get a few more listeners and feedback).
8. It exposes people to more than the drivel that comes off the radio today. I like to equate most music on the radio and that is being produced by the big labels as "dime store fiction". In other words, a waste of plastic. Now there is some music (in every genre) that isn't produced by the big name labels that is VERY good. This allows people not "in the know" about the "scene" to become exposed to it.
9. For the love of all that is HOLY, file sharing does not only mean music. Lots of stuff (that is public domain or otherwise free) is distributed via filesharing. Not to mention the amount of pr0n.
I am by no means trolling here, when I say that if someone doesn't want their picture floating around on the Internet, don't send it into the tubes. As far as I am concerned, once it has gotten there, the horse has left the barn.
As for laws that would deal with some kind of do-not-tag list, that is just damned stupid. Yes, somehow, magically all of these photohosting sites are going to be able to use facial recognition and ensure that someone else's photo doesn't have you somewhere in it? Facial recognition, from what I am hearing, is coming along, but it is nowhere near "that ready".
Personally, I am going out on a limb here, I see two options: one is that since most photos of people of teh interwebs is self-posted, simply have an option chosen at registration that says something to the effect of "do you wish other users to tag your photos?" and have a radial button beside yes/no. Or even a photo-level option, so that upon uploading and posting a photo it asks a similar question.
My other idea is decidedly less kind to those who get their photo posted: don't let other people take your picture. yes folks, you don't really need your photo taken, and it can be done with out looking like a party pooper. Volunteer to take the picture.
People have to start learning about technology, and the consequences of society's use of it. Imagine if people knew that posting that picture of them underage drinking at a high school bash on MySpace is going to get them in deep doo doo. Or that what they type can be used against them. Or that they shouldn't just post their personal details for all to see (including extra-marital affairs.... something I have seen several times) With action comes consequence... here endeth the lesson.
Now, for those who might start pointing their fingers at me, saying that "they are talking about people who get caught on camera without knowing it, like the bikini-clad Stanford co-ed students on Google Earth and such!" To that, I would say, you can't see a single identifying feature about them. And if you did get a picture taken by Google Earth that could be used to identify you (and let us face it, that number would be small indeed), if you were outside, you really have no reasonable expectation of privacy in such a situation.
I realize people want to know "should I shell out my hard earned cash for this?" However, reviewing a game that can change every other month and coming to one conclusion (yes/no) is ridiculous at best.
While it might be pretty (or as others have pointed out, have a very limited combat system), all of these things can change very quickly.
So, let us take for example, that it has a really strong story line: what is to say this continues next month when thousands of 13-15 yr olds coming charging in and act like asses (much like what happened with WoW)? Suddenly the story begins to slide tremendously.
Or Asheron's Call is another example. I remember signing up to Asheron's Call's beta test and enjoying it immensely (the Otholoi story was quite interesting). However, as time went on, the story was down right pathetic, and monthly updates were mostly patches and nerfs. Story went by the wayside.
I would say, whatever you read in reviews (or hell, even if you aren't going to read any reviews) don't charge into this game until it matures a little. Since, much like Apple's early adopters, you usually get a nerfed product in the end. Wait until you can see whether the devs will continue the strong and fix up the weak stuff.
By the way, last I head, this game was being published by EA, don't we hate them? Or were we always at peace with Eurasia?
Cash cow for how much longer though? iPod/itunes/iPhone/iTV are expected to bring in the cash now. Well iTunes still doesn't make Apple much money last I heard, the iPhone has yet to be released, so really there is no idea whether it will be a hit or not, only speculation, and the iTV has widely been seen with lackluster (probably one of the reasons Apple is trying to push the iPhone, to cover up for the iTV. The only solid cash Apple is seeing is from the iPod (which is, no doubt, considerable.
Because every schmuck has an iPod and it already has credibility as a quality product. If Apple can make a decent implementation people will buy Macs for the full experience. I don't think that means what you think it means For Apple to have a qualified product, it would need a helluva lot of drivers written up. I would hazard a guess and say that Apple products (where the drivers are written by Apple and not a third party) have far fewer drivers available than Linux, and even Linux is problematic on hardware. Not to mention, most people are morons when it comes to technology -- if their iPod runs Mac OS X (and think of the sheer number of people that would run it), and it doesn't suck (which I am not convinced of, see: drivers) then there would be no incentive because it doesn't suck. If it did suck, then again there would be no desire to upgrade and it would sully the Apple brand.
Besides, if Apple was going to do something like this, it would be far more beneficial (although stupid, IMHO) to release it as a DVD-install like Windows. To compensate for a lack of Apple hardware, they would probably be charging $150 USD for it -- now figure that if it went the way you are proposing, that would be $150 USD on top of the iPod price, and there is still no guarantee that they'd switch. At least if they are buying the software (and let's face it, most people just take whatever is pre-installed on the system) they might consider buying hardware at the same time.
Wouldn't this cut into Apple's hardware sales, the true Cash Cow for the company? What would be the incentive to distribute its OS on the iPod so that any schmuck can use OS X without Apple hardware. And if it could only be used with Apple hardware, isn't OSX already on it? I just don't see the benefit...
Please note, I use WIndows, I use Linux, and I use Mac OS X, and am an apologist for none of them, but to put it bluntly, I have read much about this supposed innovation and it leaves me wanting tremendously. It requires so many ifs and ands that I would find it impractical in all but the most specialized settings.
For instance, from what I understand (though I may very well be mistaken), the table can read various things on it. That's great, but your body (or any part of it) better not be obscuring the infrared bath, otherwise it will look like your arm also is supposed to be indexed on it.
Also, the whole multitouch thing seems a bit overrated. Now, before anyone jumps on my back, I understand its implications to graphic manipulation, photo manipulation, engineering, and architecture, but it seems like it would be a rather trivial thing to implement on a touchscreen device, if there was a need. First off it has to be big, to allow the artist to use it comfortably, but then the artist has to keep it clear of any clutter, less it mistake the clutter for fingers.
Not only that, but the damned thing isn't all that new. I remember a documentary on Discovery about "anti-terrorism" efforts in the United States. The Department of Defense had something very similar in that they could call up any place in any city via live satellite imagery and manipulate it in real-time via their hands. They claimed it was the most advanced such display in the world, and frankly it was damned cool. It didn't rely on a bathing infrared light and cameras, it was touch sensitive, and you could use one hand to adjust pitch while simultaneously adjusting yaw with both hands.
Frankly, this device is sounding more and more like the iLoo (joke) from Microsoft.
I have been waiting for something like this! Finally, an operating system and company that "just get it!" This redesign will restructure the world of computing just as WinFS and Monad di... oh, never mind...
And just to get a few jokes out of the way:
Finally! Something that will run Vista!
-and- Does it come bundled with Duke Nukem Forever?
So according to their exclusion agreement, Novell can't create an operating system? While it may not use the same APIs, it sure as Hell duplicates obvious functionality (well, duplicates in the sense that they do the same thing, not in the sense of Microsoft doing it first).
Come to mention it, if such an agreement were widespread, how would anyone ever create a better product, since by the very virtue of the fact that you need to recreate some of the functionality to improve upon it.
Sigh, I feel as if a thousand lawyers screamed out in delight when they wrote that clause in...
I would say the big thing that I would look for in such a product would be a consistent (or even better, non-existent) use/removal of registry entries. I have dealt with so many so-called "professionally" done software pieces that upon uninstallation would leave several dozen registry entries. This seems terribly unnecessary, and if the so-called apt-get method could circumvent the registry (much like the run from USB flash drive programs) altogether, or at least make it a sure-fire thing to remove, instead of wipe-and-pray.
Good on you for trying to better the system man, I wish you the best of luck!
Slashdot Mirror
While I agree with you to a certain extent, I do not think linear laws (ones which follow straight lines of if/else if/while/while not) would be the best thing to employ. Simply put, there are too many variables, and often times the punishment wouldn't suit the crime.
Take for example the California three-strikes (I under stand it is a California law, not sure about elsewhere) law. This law says (and I am paraphrasing from memory) that after three felonies one will face the maximum sentence. That doesn't sound like a smart plan, but it is often employed like you suggest: without variation or discretion. This has lead to a huge glut in the prison system.
Also, to counter your cruel and unusual punishment example -- yes, by that definition, the punishment must be cruel and unusual. What constitutes cruel? Unusual? I haven't a clue. But that is an example of a terribly ambiguous law (like a great deal of the American constitution). I would say something like this would be far more effective:
Cruel punishments are outlawed.
Cruel punishments consist of (insert terms here).
Unusual punishments are outlawed.
Unusual punishments consist of (insert terms here).
Now, the obvious vector of attack to circumvent these laws would be to argue that the punishment employed is not on this list, and therefore does not constitute cruel or unusual punishment. This is where discretion would kick in, but that is also where the sunset clause would kick in. If in five years, it was determined that the law was truly broken, then the bill could be modified and resubmitted with the terms. And chances are, in five years, the idiot who enacted the law would have little power.
Again, my system depends on the good of humanity, which is something I do believe in. I think Americans are naturally good. I think Iraqis are naturally good. I think Communists are naturally good. It is simply apathy and inertia that eats away at the system, and like any good systems administrator knows, a system is not a static thing, it must be mutable. But straightforward programming language like laws would be a bad idea, because there would be no room for exceptions. If an exception was found -- well, from my PASCAL programming days, it usually ended up in one Hell of a mess. Yes, you can employ error capturing techniques, but this is not a cure all, you can forsee every possible error and that is where I would hope that using basic language laws, and judges, people could defend themselves in court (without the need of a lawyer).
But like I said... all of this is a pipe dream.
You know, back in the days of the Cold War, it used to be that in the "West" Communists were feared. In the USSR, it was the "Spreaders of American Imperialism". It would seem that history is repeating itself, but with the added proviso of having a unified enemy. One that can literally be indistinguishable from the common person, and even more disturbing, cannot be defeated. Now, I know that is nothing new in this crowd, but think about it, a Communist can be defeated, I would say for the most part they have been. The USSR fell, Cuba has its own problems with Castro falling to old age, China a communist country in name, now has "capitalist zones" throughout -- Communism is a dead horse and it has been flogged to death.
Terrorism, however, is a bird of a different colour. How would you defeat Terrorism? Overthrow the state that the Terrorists occupy? Nope, look at Iraq. Do you put up a cute little "Terror Alert Scale"? Oh yeah, that was really effective! Nope, you can't "defeat it", and anyone saying you can has not thought enough about the concept. Regardless, however, it would seem that many (frivolous) laws are being put in place to combat terror, even in countries one wouldn't expect this in (Say Canada, for example...). What is perhaps scariest is that these laws will probably not go away quickly -- giving anyone who wants to abuse them more than enough chance to get away with it and cover up evidence.
By no means, am I advocating that there was some "master plan" by some Evil Genius(tm), instead I think it is just a general ideology that comes with the times. What disturbs me is in this enlightened age, we seem to completely avert our eyes to the consequences of these laws. While some might ultimately get repealed, most will not and some may even snowball into much bigger, much badder laws that essentially go from government monitoring, to Government Sanctioned Living(tm).
I am also not, by any means, saying that I have all the answers -- which always seemed like a cop out to me, to criticize without at least adding your own view and possible solution -- but I do have a couple of thoughts.
*Every law should have a sunset clause -- an expiration date, if you will. This would be an immutable amount of time (say five years), and the law would be required to be reviewed and passed through whatever checks and balances exist (if any). The law could of course be repealed, but it could not be extended anymore than 5 years from the date of review. This would still be open to abuse, but would certainly stop a lot of the stupid laws that stay on the books and are used solely for abusive purposes by law enforcement or Government Men (tm).
*Laws should be "subdivided" into categories. So laws dealing with "Terrorism" would all be put into that category and that way one could remove them from the system wholesale. No need to go hunting and pecking. Obviously, this too would present problems, but I think it would simply things.
*Lastly -- every law should be understandable at a (4/5/6/7/8th) grade reading level, written in plain English. If the common man (and yes, I am inferring that the common man isn't the "sharpest knife in the drawer") can't read it, it can't pass.
Anyway, yeah, pipe dream.
What is this species, I have yet to hear about it? Is it endangered? Should be call PETA or Greenpeace or what?
Seriously though -- this seems like corporate laziness to the nth degree.
After I installed the unified drivers for my Samsung printer/scanner, I had the unwelcome surprise of discovering that OpenOffice now opens as root, and not only that but did not ask for my password!
As a result, all documents I created were saved in the
I attempted to re-install
The beast (the problem) is occuring under Ubuntu 7.04 under Gnome.
Thank You. Bonjour,
Après avoir installé les drivers unifiés de Samsung pour gérer mon imprimante scanner, j'ai eu la très mauvaise surprise de constater que la suite openoffice s'ouvrait en root et ceci sans que me soit demandé le moindre mot de passe !!!
Du coup, les documents que je crée s'enregistrent dans le dossier
A tout hasard j'ai réinitialisé le
La bête est sous Ubuntu 7.04 et gnome. En attendant vote aide, je cherche et tente de résister au désespoir le plus sombre !
Merci
I have always wondered how such a cure for (types of) autism would be handled when you factor in the push by some to recognize Autism as merely another frame of mind (so to speak). Similar to the mutants in X-Men III when faced with the cure, parents would be faced with allowing their child to grow up austistic (with all the advantages it conveys, and all of the disadvantages) or to give the child a "normal" life, however that may be defined and again, with all the benefits and drawbacks thereof.
Autism Acceptance
So wait... This mummy, was a daddy who has been discovered as a mummy? I am guessing her kids needed therapy and might be a good candidate for the Jerry Springer Show, or the a match for Paris Hilton
Now, what I can't decide is this: did they actually just figure this out (doubtful...) or did marketing decide to restate the doesn't-deserve-to-be-restated obvious in hopes of getting a bunch of people to nod their heads and say: "yep, Sony is definitely now a contender in this race (I'm willing to put money on it...).
*Sigh*
Now this is something I have thought about long and hard (though no hard research to back it up) about. WHat happens when we do get the power to *poof* the bad genes out of existance from an unborn infant? Well, obviously they won't develop "problem A", but what about other factors? For instance, I know that black people in regions of Africa are born with sickle-cell anemia, but this also helps prevent a certain disease commonly transported by insects in the region. How do we know what (if any) other things might depend on that particular gene?
And on that note, someone mentioned that this may well lead us to our next step in evolution -- that may well be true, but shouldn't evolution happen in response to natural factors by nature's invisible hand? Not some doc in a lab? I mean, so many people on Slashdot are keen on letting the "ivisible hand of capitalism" work the market, why shouldn't we let nature decide what is best for us?
I believe this sort of thing was covered with the Asgaard in Stargate SG-1, they died out because they genetically modified their bodies past a certain point where they could no longer reproduce, only extend their own lives. Now, I am not saying there is any scientific basis for something liek that happening, but aren't parables supposed to make you at least think before acting?
Has anyone noticed that patents may well be the farming and agriculture of the 21st century? Allow me to explain.
During the shift to urbanization, it was common for individuals to keep cattle, chickens, pigs and sheep in the city. The animals would be allowed to roam free and would then be captured and slaughter/sheered as was necessary. It was subsistence living in an urban environment where barter was VERY common.
However, as time went on, factories and other places of employment found that they couldn't get enough workers for the lower level jobs. Why would the poor go work there in a crappy environment, when they could breed their cattle and chickens for rent and food?
So these companies petitioned the government to disallow animals, citing disease and the cause (and to some degree, this was true, especially with large amounts of fecal matter in the city -- but then not everyone had plumbing either). This in turn caused people to starve and move to these companies to be paid in "money".
Now, however, we have patents. Patents force the little guy out of the market (let's face it, no individual can afford to beat MS, IBM, Monsanto, et al in a court where lawyers form 99.9% of your chances) Small companies are forced out of business and big companies get to take over. The small companies are the only real thorn in the side of the bigger ones as they might offer a product that revolutionizes the field, but ends up costing a major conglomerate billions to redevelop their products). So patents force them out of business, causing the owners to work for the mega-corp and thus give the mega-corp control.
Perhaps in a few years, everyone will be working for a mega-corp and that will define our identities. We are theirs after all...
I know there are a lot of you out there saying: this is the kind of action that will spur congress to get off their deriere, but frankly, I can only see this as YANITC (yet another nail in the coffin).
We looked on in horror when the thought of software patents came up, and we said that surely no one would be dumb enough (or greedy enough) to do it. We were wrong...
Then there was Bezo's one-click patent and we shielded our eyes saying: the fireworks are going to start any time now... Again, however, the sky was clear and there we no signs of change on the horizon.
Then you had all the spurrious patents from SCO, Microsoft and IBM, and we thought, well maybe this time! However, as was before, so was then...
Then Microsoft threatened Linux and we said "they are running scarred!" and "no one would be dumb enough to..." They were, and they are. Not only that, but mere weeks later, you have several major contributors signing licensing deals to patent infringements that were never released. My God, that costs the companies money and they do nothing but bend over...
Today we got word of Bezo's expansion of the one-click patent, and on top of that the willingness of the USPTO to accept the patent with little to no effort. The USPTO, after all, has employees they have to pay...
And now you have this, and again we here individuals decrying the "end times" for software patents. No, that isn't going to happen. They are here to stay, because the system is working for its citizens in a very efficient way. It is just that we think that we are the citizens. Much like TV viewers or magazine subscribers think that they are the clients of the company. They aren't, they are the product.
We are the product and the consumer, but not the client of the government. The government is there to protect the interests of its citizens, it's just that its citizens have trademarked names. We have gone form Micro to Macro folks.
PNG -- a lossless (or lossy, if you prefer to skimp on space) image format that is open source, and can handle a variety of effects (the big one that I can think of is transparency, but then that has little berring on photography).
I made the switch to PNG about two years ago, and really haven't looked back. I just find working with them to be a lot simpler than JPEG. It doesn't hurt that it is open source either...
I have never understood people's desire to print their photos at home using current technology.
First-of-all, the price-per-print is absolutely ludricrous. It used to be in the 1-2 CDN per print, and has come down, but not significantly. While gas and time may prove a factor for some, I just walk to the neighbourhood developer and get them developed that way (or keep them digital!).
Secondly, the investment reeks of a fleecing. Upwards of a hundred dollars in ink? A packet of 20 sheets of paper for the better part of 10 dollars? A printer that will definitely break before it becomes obsolete? No thanks.
For a period, I worked in a big-box computer store and any chance someone told me that they wanted to print from home, I tried to politely tell them that the technology was unproven, and that the pictures wouldn't last as long as the conventionally developed ones. That, combined with showing them what a discount setup would produce, and what an investment it would ultimately prove to be, would often turn them away from that direction.
It is not that I object to home printing, nor do I have a vested interest in getting people to go to a developer. I am not a professional developer, or one of those photography buffs who insists on doing it in the "well, back in my day..." way. Rather, I see this whole "home printing" phenomeneon as a potential market that has been tapped using an inefficient tool not made for the task.
Now some may point out those supposed "specialty" printers that Kodak, Canon or Hewlett-Packard manufacture, but these are also no different, other than usually fleecing you on the ink.
And for those that would suggest using "off-brand" supplies, for most printing that is a fine suggestion, but in my experience (which, I will admit has not been considerable), the quality is sorely lacking in many of these products. THe paper is ill-suited to the task, and the ink is often "not quite as clear". ANd the price differential can be drastic, but if the product is noticably inferior, then what purpose does it serve?
Just my 2c CND (which incidentally is rapidily approaching parity with the US dollar.)
Well I do distinctly remember the song that was played in place of my RATM, it was Nickleback's photograph. I think you can see why I was a bit miffed...
Well, actually it isn't illegal. At least at the time that I listened to them, neither had record labels outside of Japan/South Korea. My point, I believe, still remains. Lots of groups are the "little guy" who might be VERY good, but aren't what EVERYONE listens to, and therefore they are isolated to their small corner of the world. File sharing can help them gain exposure.
I realized that there might eb some confusion over this point after I posted it, so allow me to clear this up for you.
The local station is one of the "big" stations in the area, and they claim to "play what you want". They also advertise that they are the only hard rock station in the area. Rage Against the Machine is hard rock. Therefore, I expected that if I could get into their lines, I could request a "hard rock" song. I am not an avid listener, but I think that my assumption is only logical...
As for your example, of course they aren't going to play Garth Brooks on most normal stations, since that isn't the genre that they advertise, but in this case it was.
2c
1. It encourages the distribution of art. That is what music is -- art. It isn't a product that can be bought, marketed, packaged and sold (though some people would love to believe so). The band, well maybe they could be a product, but the music itself can never be.
2. It encourages innovation. While it might sound less than ideal from a public relations standpoint, file sharing encourages programmers and problem solvers to think of more interesting and innovative methods to circumvent the measures put in place, and it furthers the study of peer-to-peer technology. You went from Napster, to Kazaa, to bitTorrent, with massive leaps at each step.
3. It opens music to a much wider audience. Let's face it, most stores will never carry certain artists and one wants to know that they like the artist before they shell out the cash for a CD from Amazon or eBay. And lets face it, the radio stations will seldom, if ever, play bands like Screeching Weasel, Cara Dillon, Celtae, R.A.M.B.O., or even some fo the more popular people like Jann Arden or Sinead O'Conner and Sarah Brightman. In fact, case in point: Rage Against the Machine. I called a local radio station when they said, "ok, the lines are open, tell us what you want to hear, because this is a radio station powered by YOU!". I called and requested RATM, what did they say? "Oh, sorry, that is too hard for our listeners. I just said okay, and turned off the radio. Barely ever play it anymore.
4. It helps gain artist recognition and exposure. Had file sharing come along, how many of you might know who BoA or Ayumi Hamazaki are?
5.It forces artists to be more creative, and less like the Back Street Boys and Spice Girls. If everyone of the bands sound the same, it forces more people to look elsewhere for the music that fits their tastes.
6. It breaks the copyright holder's regime. I'm sorry, this is going to piss off a lot of individuals around here, since a lot of people pay lip service to the "benefiot" of copyright, but the system is fundamentally flawed. Ever since the Bono-act, the fact that you could "extend" an artificial monopoly is just plain WRONG.
7. It also helps bring artists that would have no exposure form the record labels to break into the mainstream (or at least get a few more listeners and feedback).
8. It exposes people to more than the drivel that comes off the radio today. I like to equate most music on the radio and that is being produced by the big labels as "dime store fiction". In other words, a waste of plastic. Now there is some music (in every genre) that isn't produced by the big name labels that is VERY good. This allows people not "in the know" about the "scene" to become exposed to it.
9. For the love of all that is HOLY, file sharing does not only mean music. Lots of stuff (that is public domain or otherwise free) is distributed via filesharing. Not to mention the amount of pr0n.
10. ??? & Profit! (sorry, I couldn't resist)
I am by no means trolling here, when I say that if someone doesn't want their picture floating around on the Internet, don't send it into the tubes. As far as I am concerned, once it has gotten there, the horse has left the barn.
As for laws that would deal with some kind of do-not-tag list, that is just damned stupid. Yes, somehow, magically all of these photohosting sites are going to be able to use facial recognition and ensure that someone else's photo doesn't have you somewhere in it? Facial recognition, from what I am hearing, is coming along, but it is nowhere near "that ready".
Personally, I am going out on a limb here, I see two options: one is that since most photos of people of teh interwebs is self-posted, simply have an option chosen at registration that says something to the effect of "do you wish other users to tag your photos?" and have a radial button beside yes/no. Or even a photo-level option, so that upon uploading and posting a photo it asks a similar question.
My other idea is decidedly less kind to those who get their photo posted: don't let other people take your picture. yes folks, you don't really need your photo taken, and it can be done with out looking like a party pooper. Volunteer to take the picture.
People have to start learning about technology, and the consequences of society's use of it. Imagine if people knew that posting that picture of them underage drinking at a high school bash on MySpace is going to get them in deep doo doo. Or that what they type can be used against them. Or that they shouldn't just post their personal details for all to see (including extra-marital affairs.... something I have seen several times) With action comes consequence... here endeth the lesson.
Now, for those who might start pointing their fingers at me, saying that "they are talking about people who get caught on camera without knowing it, like the bikini-clad Stanford co-ed students on Google Earth and such!" To that, I would say, you can't see a single identifying feature about them. And if you did get a picture taken by Google Earth that could be used to identify you (and let us face it, that number would be small indeed), if you were outside, you really have no reasonable expectation of privacy in such a situation.
Just my 2c...
I realize people want to know "should I shell out my hard earned cash for this?" However, reviewing a game that can change every other month and coming to one conclusion (yes/no) is ridiculous at best.
While it might be pretty (or as others have pointed out, have a very limited combat system), all of these things can change very quickly.
So, let us take for example, that it has a really strong story line: what is to say this continues next month when thousands of 13-15 yr olds coming charging in and act like asses (much like what happened with WoW)? Suddenly the story begins to slide tremendously.
Or Asheron's Call is another example. I remember signing up to Asheron's Call's beta test and enjoying it immensely (the Otholoi story was quite interesting). However, as time went on, the story was down right pathetic, and monthly updates were mostly patches and nerfs. Story went by the wayside.
I would say, whatever you read in reviews (or hell, even if you aren't going to read any reviews) don't charge into this game until it matures a little. Since, much like Apple's early adopters, you usually get a nerfed product in the end. Wait until you can see whether the devs will continue the strong and fix up the weak stuff.
By the way, last I head, this game was being published by EA, don't we hate them? Or were we always at peace with Eurasia?
Besides, if Apple was going to do something like this, it would be far more beneficial (although stupid, IMHO) to release it as a DVD-install like Windows. To compensate for a lack of Apple hardware, they would probably be charging $150 USD for it -- now figure that if it went the way you are proposing, that would be $150 USD on top of the iPod price, and there is still no guarantee that they'd switch. At least if they are buying the software (and let's face it, most people just take whatever is pre-installed on the system) they might consider buying hardware at the same time.
Wouldn't this cut into Apple's hardware sales, the true Cash Cow for the company? What would be the incentive to distribute its OS on the iPod so that any schmuck can use OS X without Apple hardware. And if it could only be used with Apple hardware, isn't OSX already on it? I just don't see the benefit...
Please note, I use WIndows, I use Linux, and I use Mac OS X, and am an apologist for none of them, but to put it bluntly, I have read much about this supposed innovation and it leaves me wanting tremendously. It requires so many ifs and ands that I would find it impractical in all but the most specialized settings.
For instance, from what I understand (though I may very well be mistaken), the table can read various things on it. That's great, but your body (or any part of it) better not be obscuring the infrared bath, otherwise it will look like your arm also is supposed to be indexed on it.
Also, the whole multitouch thing seems a bit overrated. Now, before anyone jumps on my back, I understand its implications to graphic manipulation, photo manipulation, engineering, and architecture, but it seems like it would be a rather trivial thing to implement on a touchscreen device, if there was a need. First off it has to be big, to allow the artist to use it comfortably, but then the artist has to keep it clear of any clutter, less it mistake the clutter for fingers.
Not only that, but the damned thing isn't all that new. I remember a documentary on Discovery about "anti-terrorism" efforts in the United States. The Department of Defense had something very similar in that they could call up any place in any city via live satellite imagery and manipulate it in real-time via their hands. They claimed it was the most advanced such display in the world, and frankly it was damned cool. It didn't rely on a bathing infrared light and cameras, it was touch sensitive, and you could use one hand to adjust pitch while simultaneously adjusting yaw with both hands.
Frankly, this device is sounding more and more like the iLoo (joke) from Microsoft.
I have been waiting for something like this! Finally, an operating system and company that "just get it!" This redesign will restructure the world of computing just as WinFS and Monad di... oh, never mind...
And just to get a few jokes out of the way:
Finally! Something that will run Vista!
-and-
Does it come bundled with Duke Nukem Forever?
So according to their exclusion agreement, Novell can't create an operating system? While it may not use the same APIs, it sure as Hell duplicates obvious functionality (well, duplicates in the sense that they do the same thing, not in the sense of Microsoft doing it first).
Come to mention it, if such an agreement were widespread, how would anyone ever create a better product, since by the very virtue of the fact that you need to recreate some of the functionality to improve upon it.
Sigh, I feel as if a thousand lawyers screamed out in delight when they wrote that clause in...
I would say the big thing that I would look for in such a product would be a consistent (or even better, non-existent) use/removal of registry entries. I have dealt with so many so-called "professionally" done software pieces that upon uninstallation would leave several dozen registry entries. This seems terribly unnecessary, and if the so-called apt-get method could circumvent the registry (much like the run from USB flash drive programs) altogether, or at least make it a sure-fire thing to remove, instead of wipe-and-pray.
Good on you for trying to better the system man, I wish you the best of luck!