It's expensive to line the hall's walls with digital photo frames.
Will it become less so in the future? Maybe. Not in the near future. Also, putting a nail in the wall (and then covering the hole if you want to move it later) is much simpler than making sure there is an electricity outlet nearby. Will remote charging fix that? Maybe, but that is an even more distant future.
They are not as dirt cheap as inkjets, that's true, but the printer we bought is a very far cry from "bloddy expensive". We bought a low end HP color laser jet. It is painfully slow to start up and to print stuff (I think it's rated at 4 pages a minute, and you can actually see it mulling the PCL commands it is receiving and turning it into a page), but for our purposes (my wife is getting a teacher's certificate) this is more than enough. B&W printing is actually faster, unsurprisingly.
inkjet printers are built for photos while laser/LED printers excel at text and business graphics.
I keep hearing that, but my personal experience is almost reverse. When I'm printing photos, I always do that on a color laser printer, as the quality is higher.
After some investigation, I came to the conclusion that it's the paper. Normal paper has fibers that cause the ink dots to squash. A laser printer, that presses the ink on the paper, does not cause the ink to smudge.
So I'm faced with either getting really good pictures for cheap (per page), or pay lots more for both more expensive ink AND more expensive paper. I end up simply using a laser for photos, and getting quality which I'm quite satisfied with.
I did that with the cartridges that came with my wife's printer (HP color laser printer). We bought the replacements as soon as the warning came up, but actually replaced them only when it started going bad, which was several months later.
Then the replacement cartridge (black, original HP) started printing with stripes while the printer said it still has 60% left!!!
I went out and bought a replacement (non-original) cartridge.
At least where I'm at, the law says that a contract unilaterally phrased by one side needs to be interpreted, in a court of law, in the way most detrimental to that side. Under those conditions, the question is not how AM can construe the phrase, but how the plaintiff can construe it.
Happy to see someone is able to express arguments, especially since I disagree with most of them. A refreshing change in these forums.
FTFY.
Surely, you meant that you were tired of talking either to hotheads or to people who already agree with you, and that you greatly welcome the opportunity to test your assumptions against someone who's willing to answer with actual verifiable statements of fact, so that you can find out in case you are, against all of your expectations, wrong.
A little less of "hypocritical" and "dubious" would be fine though.
I'll do my best, though I counted one "hypocritical", directed at a statement (i.e. - not at you, but at a statement you made), and zero "dubious", which I'll find hard to cut back further on. If you found offense from the "hypocritical", please do accept my apology. I'll do my best to also assume ignorance rather than malice.
And putting words in my mouth is very effective but counter-productive in the long-run.
I did not think I did. If I did, please: A. Accept my apology and B. Assume I did it out of a genuine misunderstanding rather than malice.
I will be happy (in private, as you said) for you to point out where you thought I attributed to you things you did not say. I am always happy to engage in facts based discussion with people whose opinions I completely disagree, as it allows me to find out my own blind spots and, occasionally, find out that I am wrong about something I believe in.
I might take you up on you offer though, maybe we could have productive discussions.
My email is public for that specific reason.
Although you're defending Israel and I oppose it and if history is any judge, discussions haven't gotten really far, sadly.
The amount of heated, needlessly ad-hominem and derogatory discussions on this topic is, indeed, quite high. It would be a mistake to assume it only happens by Israeli supporters. Personally, I do my best to start each discussion anew, and not apply my opinion of previous speakers to new discussion. I would love for you to give me credit and do the same.
If you are still worried, however, please do feel free to click on to my slashdot page, and then check out earlier comments I've made. This is not the first time I dive into this subject when it comes up here.
Ayoob Kara is an Arab, yes, but check his alliances...
So an Arab isn't really an Arab if his opinions do not align with what you think an Arab should believe in? Or do you think that Netanyahu's government should have accepted an Arab minister who has an ideology very different than the government's, merely because they are Arab?
Israel is de facto an apartheid nation
Most of that sentence was opinion, so I cut it out. You are entitled to yours, of course (what's more, it is impossible to really prove or disprove to anyone's satisfaction). This part, however, requires more clarification. How can you claim that a country where you can and do find Arab judges judging disputes between Jewish parties, Arab doctors treating Jewish patients, etc is a de-facto apartheid? You do not seem to be using any standard definition of the word that I'm aware of. If this is a result of my ignorance, please do enlighten me, but it seems like the definition you are using is "whatever the dictionary says + whatever it is that I believe, irrespective of facts, that Israel is doing", which is another way of saying "dictionary definition + Israel".
A israeli jew, by law (you know about the Torah right ?) cannot sell its property to an non-jew (arab or otherwise)
The Torah has no binding effect in Israeli court of law, except for very special courts that are only authorized to handle family matters (i.e. - divorces) between all Jews parties. Before you go all giddy with finding another aspect of Israel's apparent segregation, yes, there are parallel Muslim courts.
As for the selling of land, quite a few years ago (I think over a decade, now) the supreme court told KKL, a private organization that, due to historical reasons, holds quite a few lands in Israel, that it is not allowed to discriminate against selling to Arabs, because the volume of lands it is holding creates a de facto racial discrimination.
chekpoints for arabs, house destructions, land stealings, separate transportation for each "race", constant humiliation etc.
But, see, that does not apply to all Arabs, doesn't it? And if it does not, then claiming that it has a racial, rather than, say, security and/or citizenship, reasons is a claim that, at the very least, needs further discussion. What is obviously clear, however, is that you cannot claim racial discrimination while ignoring the fact that the separating line between those who do and those who don't isn't racial.
This is doubly hypocritical now, only a month after the Israeli government (yes, that's Netanyahu's government) started applying these measures against extremist Jews suspected of trying to hurt Arabs.
Don't get me wrong. I hate those measures and I believe Israel should find a more democratic means to resolve the real problems it is facing, but claiming that the reasons for those measures is racism is simply ludicrous.
And the most important thing : the whole state of Israel has been taken by force in 1948 !
I find it hard to explain just how widely inaccurate, and even apocryphal, that claim is. I'd gladly go into the details in private (my email is in this, and every other one of my, comment headers). It is widely off topic here. Truthfully, the entire thread is off topic, but this particular subject is also long.
Why would you defend such a country ?
I'm not the original commenter, but I'll answer anyway: I'm not defending such a country. I'm defending Israel, which isn't such a country.
PS : you're never wise to post anonymously.
Like I said, I'm not the original commenter, but if you need someone not an anonymous coward to respond to, I'm here.
I think the main problem with full screen applications as done by Windows 8 is the lack of user choice. Some applications are full screen. Other applications are windowed. You want to mix them? Sorry, no. You want to run a Metro (or whatever they ended up calling it) application in a window? Sorry, not an option. You want to run a "legacy" application full screen? Tough.
Choosing to run a specific application in full screen may be something positive, if so warranted by circumstances.
There are two paths you might wish to take. You want to know the chances of something bad happening in each one, regardless of what each one actually is.
They need to be compared, because as far as the patient is concerned, they are alternatives she needs to chose between.
You, as a patient, need to know whether to consent to a robot operated procedure, or whether to insist on a human surgeon. When you sign the dotted line, that is precisely the comparison you need.
User doesn't update. User gets hacked. How much did user cost Samsung? Nothing.
Use updates. Drivers stop working. User calls Samsung tech-sup. Possibly, user gets told to restore machine, costing user all of their data. User posts bad reviews.
The economy of the matter is that sometimes the drivers mismatch (I'm not sure why this happens) or otherwise fail to work properly. Samsung has very little influence over what drivers get pushed through the update mechanism. When the drivers don't work, it costs Samsung money.
When I worked at Check Point, someone there used to joke that Check Point is in the connectivity business. People know you cannot connect to the Internet without a firewall.....
The truth of the matter is that there is no trade-off between security and usability. An unusable security device will get turned off by the user, resulting in less security. Usability is as important a driver to security as avoiding buffer overruns. Obviously, at least as far as Samsung is concerned, MS isn't doing a good enough job on that front.
This is not malicious. It is stupid and ignorant, but not malicious.
This reminds me of when someone got Verisign to issue a signed certificate saying "microsoft.com". Clearly Verisign, and not MS's, fault.
It turned out Microsoft could not issue a revocation, because Internet explorer does not check CRLs. MS's fault, right? Wrong. They were not testing CRLs because verisign would not bring up the web server that issues them, causing each and every SSL connection to time out. MS preferred, reasonably IMHO, to be insecure over not working.
In essence, these sites claim that your site is maleware/spam. This seems to me to be an actionable claim.
Furthermore, winning such a court case would also result in companies not automatically listening to those falsly reporting, or placing a proper appeal process into their blocking procedures.
It does have a domestic function, but I suspect that's not what you meant. I thought it was implicit in my reply, but here it is explicitly: The NSA does not have any domestic spying function, charter or legitimacy.
Shachar
* By "spying", I mean data collection. Analysis of otherwise legally obtained domestic data is where I'm not sure where I stand. On the one hand, letting a military oriented organization perform police work (and vice versa, e.g. SWAT teams) leads to exactly the sort of bad behaviour we are all glad might soon be over. On the other hand, developing this huge organization specializing with data analysis, and then not using it when you need to seems like a waste.
Where things stand today, where the overstepping is so huge, I understand people's reaction in saying "no, do not let it do anything domestically". Then again, if we were to start from scratch, I could see a function for it as an operational arm carrying out search and computer related eavesdropping warrants for the FBI.
First, please remember that the NSA is a spy agency. So long that their targets are legitimate (more on that in a second), they are expected to do everything within their powers to get to it.
Subverting the standards was a low blow, but as the ol' Tennessee saying goes "fool me once.... shame on... you?". Of course, by the time those standards were drafted, the standards body should have already known better (selling Enigma based encryption devices to foreign countries well into the 70's, anyone?). I'm hopeful, however, that we'll get spared "third time a fool".
As for the other activities, well, this is how spying gets done. That is how you spy on people in this day and age. With all of the justified criticism of the NSA, it would still be bad if they couldn't spy at all. They do, in fact, have a function to fulfill, and it is a function that needs fulfilling.
Circling back to who the targets should be. Spying against friendly foreign country leaders is not against the the law, or even, as far as I understand it, against the NSA's charter. It is an extremely foolish thing to do, but I don't think changing the law is the way to handle it.
Why don't you pick ONE that is actually about an actual Israeli company actually backdooring its own products for the Israeli government (or whatever)?
Because that was and is your claim, and neither of the two stories you linked discuss that. The first discusses Skype setting a backdoor, but does not mention Israel in any way or form (and even if it did, Skype is not, and has never been, an Israeli company). The second talks about how the NSA is cooperating with Israeli intelligence, and uses Israeli produced technology. Again, no mention of products shipping to either individual or governmental users being backdoored.
If there are, as you said, 100's of stories, I'm sure you can do better than these two.
still no reason to trust israeli companys.. when it comes to safe software packages
Slashdot Mirror
It's expensive to line the hall's walls with digital photo frames.
Will it become less so in the future? Maybe. Not in the near future. Also, putting a nail in the wall (and then covering the hole if you want to move it later) is much simpler than making sure there is an electricity outlet nearby. Will remote charging fix that? Maybe, but that is an even more distant future.
Shachar
They are not as dirt cheap as inkjets, that's true, but the printer we bought is a very far cry from "bloddy expensive". We bought a low end HP color laser jet. It is painfully slow to start up and to print stuff (I think it's rated at 4 pages a minute, and you can actually see it mulling the PCL commands it is receiving and turning it into a page), but for our purposes (my wife is getting a teacher's certificate) this is more than enough. B&W printing is actually faster, unsurprisingly.
Shachar
inkjet printers are built for photos while laser/LED printers excel at text and business graphics.
I keep hearing that, but my personal experience is almost reverse. When I'm printing photos, I always do that on a color laser printer, as the quality is higher.
After some investigation, I came to the conclusion that it's the paper. Normal paper has fibers that cause the ink dots to squash. A laser printer, that presses the ink on the paper, does not cause the ink to smudge.
So I'm faced with either getting really good pictures for cheap (per page), or pay lots more for both more expensive ink AND more expensive paper. I end up simply using a laser for photos, and getting quality which I'm quite satisfied with.
Shachar
I did that with the cartridges that came with my wife's printer (HP color laser printer). We bought the replacements as soon as the warning came up, but actually replaced them only when it started going bad, which was several months later.
Then the replacement cartridge (black, original HP) started printing with stripes while the printer said it still has 60% left!!!
I went out and bought a replacement (non-original) cartridge.
How's that for extreme YMMV sports?
Shachar
At least where I'm at, the law says that a contract unilaterally phrased by one side needs to be interpreted, in a court of law, in the way most detrimental to that side. Under those conditions, the question is not how AM can construe the phrase, but how the plaintiff can construe it.
Shachar
Happy to see someone is able to express arguments, especially since I disagree with most of them. A refreshing change in these forums.
FTFY.
Surely, you meant that you were tired of talking either to hotheads or to people who already agree with you, and that you greatly welcome the opportunity to test your assumptions against someone who's willing to answer with actual verifiable statements of fact, so that you can find out in case you are, against all of your expectations, wrong.
A little less of "hypocritical" and "dubious" would be fine though.
I'll do my best, though I counted one "hypocritical", directed at a statement (i.e. - not at you, but at a statement you made), and zero "dubious", which I'll find hard to cut back further on. If you found offense from the "hypocritical", please do accept my apology. I'll do my best to also assume ignorance rather than malice.
And putting words in my mouth is very effective but counter-productive in the long-run.
I did not think I did. If I did, please:
A. Accept my apology
and
B. Assume I did it out of a genuine misunderstanding rather than malice.
I will be happy (in private, as you said) for you to point out where you thought I attributed to you things you did not say. I am always happy to engage in facts based discussion with people whose opinions I completely disagree, as it allows me to find out my own blind spots and, occasionally, find out that I am wrong about something I believe in.
I might take you up on you offer though, maybe we could have productive discussions.
My email is public for that specific reason.
Although you're defending Israel and I oppose it and if history is any judge, discussions haven't gotten really far, sadly.
The amount of heated, needlessly ad-hominem and derogatory discussions on this topic is, indeed, quite high. It would be a mistake to assume it only happens by Israeli supporters. Personally, I do my best to start each discussion anew, and not apply my opinion of previous speakers to new discussion. I would love for you to give me credit and do the same.
If you are still worried, however, please do feel free to click on to my slashdot page, and then check out earlier comments I've made. This is not the first time I dive into this subject when it comes up here.
I eagerly await your private reply,
Shachar
Ayoob Kara is an Arab, yes, but check his alliances...
So an Arab isn't really an Arab if his opinions do not align with what you think an Arab should believe in? Or do you think that Netanyahu's government should have accepted an Arab minister who has an ideology very different than the government's, merely because they are Arab?
Israel is de facto an apartheid nation
Most of that sentence was opinion, so I cut it out. You are entitled to yours, of course (what's more, it is impossible to really prove or disprove to anyone's satisfaction). This part, however, requires more clarification. How can you claim that a country where you can and do find Arab judges judging disputes between Jewish parties, Arab doctors treating Jewish patients, etc is a de-facto apartheid? You do not seem to be using any standard definition of the word that I'm aware of. If this is a result of my ignorance, please do enlighten me, but it seems like the definition you are using is "whatever the dictionary says + whatever it is that I believe, irrespective of facts, that Israel is doing", which is another way of saying "dictionary definition + Israel".
A israeli jew, by law (you know about the Torah right ?) cannot sell its property to an non-jew (arab or otherwise)
The Torah has no binding effect in Israeli court of law, except for very special courts that are only authorized to handle family matters (i.e. - divorces) between all Jews parties. Before you go all giddy with finding another aspect of Israel's apparent segregation, yes, there are parallel Muslim courts.
As for the selling of land, quite a few years ago (I think over a decade, now) the supreme court told KKL, a private organization that, due to historical reasons, holds quite a few lands in Israel, that it is not allowed to discriminate against selling to Arabs, because the volume of lands it is holding creates a de facto racial discrimination.
chekpoints for arabs, house destructions, land stealings, separate transportation for each "race", constant humiliation etc.
But, see, that does not apply to all Arabs, doesn't it? And if it does not, then claiming that it has a racial, rather than, say, security and/or citizenship, reasons is a claim that, at the very least, needs further discussion. What is obviously clear, however, is that you cannot claim racial discrimination while ignoring the fact that the separating line between those who do and those who don't isn't racial.
This is doubly hypocritical now, only a month after the Israeli government (yes, that's Netanyahu's government) started applying these measures against extremist Jews suspected of trying to hurt Arabs.
Don't get me wrong. I hate those measures and I believe Israel should find a more democratic means to resolve the real problems it is facing, but claiming that the reasons for those measures is racism is simply ludicrous.
And the most important thing : the whole state of Israel has been taken by force in 1948 !
I find it hard to explain just how widely inaccurate, and even apocryphal, that claim is. I'd gladly go into the details in private (my email is in this, and every other one of my, comment headers). It is widely off topic here. Truthfully, the entire thread is off topic, but this particular subject is also long.
Why would you defend such a country ?
I'm not the original commenter, but I'll answer anyway: I'm not defending such a country. I'm defending Israel, which isn't such a country.
PS : you're never wise to post anonymously.
Like I said, I'm not the original commenter, but if you need someone not an anonymous coward to respond to, I'm here.
Shachar
Yes, it's horrible, but it has nothing to do with the water shortage.
Shachar
I think the main problem with full screen applications as done by Windows 8 is the lack of user choice. Some applications are full screen. Other applications are windowed. You want to mix them? Sorry, no. You want to run a Metro (or whatever they ended up calling it) application in a window? Sorry, not an option. You want to run a "legacy" application full screen? Tough.
Choosing to run a specific application in full screen may be something positive, if so warranted by circumstances.
Shachar
The direction of the cable? Are you shitting me?
There's shitting you here, alright, but it's not jandrese that's doing it.
Shachar
I fail to see how that is relevant to my point.
There are two paths you might wish to take. You want to know the chances of something bad happening in each one, regardless of what each one actually is.
They need to be compared, because as far as the patient is concerned, they are alternatives she needs to chose between.
Shachar
No, that is the correct comparison.
You, as a patient, need to know whether to consent to a robot operated procedure, or whether to insist on a human surgeon. When you sign the dotted line, that is precisely the comparison you need.
Shachar
A Freudian slip is when you mean one thing but say your mother.
- Anonymous
Shachar
He also literally blew up.
In other words, whoosh.
Shachar
Can't it be both?
In Israel, the one ISP supporting IPv6 is also the cheapest, but also the crammiest.
Go figure.
And they won't give you a fixed IPv6 address without paying extra (though the IPv6 address they do give you are /64, so no shortage of anything).
Shachar
At least in Israel, parent meetings are always late afternoon, going well into the evening, and even the night.
And, no, our education system isn't in a wonderful shape.
Shachar
You have to follow the money.
User doesn't update. User gets hacked. How much did user cost Samsung? Nothing.
Use updates. Drivers stop working. User calls Samsung tech-sup. Possibly, user gets told to restore machine, costing user all of their data. User posts bad reviews.
The economy of the matter is that sometimes the drivers mismatch (I'm not sure why this happens) or otherwise fail to work properly. Samsung has very little influence over what drivers get pushed through the update mechanism. When the drivers don't work, it costs Samsung money.
When I worked at Check Point, someone there used to joke that Check Point is in the connectivity business. People know you cannot connect to the Internet without a firewall.....
The truth of the matter is that there is no trade-off between security and usability. An unusable security device will get turned off by the user, resulting in less security. Usability is as important a driver to security as avoiding buffer overruns. Obviously, at least as far as Samsung is concerned, MS isn't doing a good enough job on that front.
Shachar
Wow! That's probably the lamest troll I've seen in ages.
Was I supposed to get mad over this? Man (woman?), you should really step up your act.
Shachar
This is not malicious. It is stupid and ignorant, but not malicious.
This reminds me of when someone got Verisign to issue a signed certificate saying "microsoft.com". Clearly Verisign, and not MS's, fault.
It turned out Microsoft could not issue a revocation, because Internet explorer does not check CRLs. MS's fault, right? Wrong. They were not testing CRLs because verisign would not bring up the web server that issues them, causing each and every SSL connection to time out. MS preferred, reasonably IMHO, to be insecure over not working.
Shachar
Or is it slander? I'm not a lawyer.
In essence, these sites claim that your site is maleware/spam. This seems to me to be an actionable claim.
Furthermore, winning such a court case would also result in companies not automatically listening to those falsly reporting, or placing a proper appeal process into their blocking procedures.
Shachar
You are given nude female workers and beer, and it's the beer you choose to fuck?
I question your self identity as a sexist.
Shachar
It does have a domestic function, but I suspect that's not what you meant. I thought it was implicit in my reply, but here it is explicitly: The NSA does not have any domestic spying function, charter or legitimacy.
Shachar
* By "spying", I mean data collection. Analysis of otherwise legally obtained domestic data is where I'm not sure where I stand. On the one hand, letting a military oriented organization perform police work (and vice versa, e.g. SWAT teams) leads to exactly the sort of bad behaviour we are all glad might soon be over. On the other hand, developing this huge organization specializing with data analysis, and then not using it when you need to seems like a waste.
Where things stand today, where the overstepping is so huge, I understand people's reaction in saying "no, do not let it do anything domestically". Then again, if we were to start from scratch, I could see a function for it as an operational arm carrying out search and computer related eavesdropping warrants for the FBI.
Like I said, I'm not sure where I stand on this.
No. It does not all die.
First, please remember that the NSA is a spy agency. So long that their targets are legitimate (more on that in a second), they are expected to do everything within their powers to get to it.
Subverting the standards was a low blow, but as the ol' Tennessee saying goes "fool me once.... shame on... you?". Of course, by the time those standards were drafted, the standards body should have already known better (selling Enigma based encryption devices to foreign countries well into the 70's, anyone?). I'm hopeful, however, that we'll get spared "third time a fool".
As for the other activities, well, this is how spying gets done. That is how you spy on people in this day and age. With all of the justified criticism of the NSA, it would still be bad if they couldn't spy at all. They do, in fact, have a function to fulfill, and it is a function that needs fulfilling.
Circling back to who the targets should be. Spying against friendly foreign country leaders is not against the the law, or even, as far as I understand it, against the NSA's charter. It is an extremely foolish thing to do, but I don't think changing the law is the way to handle it.
Shachar
100s more storys on this
Why don't you pick ONE that is actually about an actual Israeli company actually backdooring its own products for the Israeli government (or whatever)?
Because that was and is your claim, and neither of the two stories you linked discuss that. The first discusses Skype setting a backdoor, but does not mention Israel in any way or form (and even if it did, Skype is not, and has never been, an Israeli company). The second talks about how the NSA is cooperating with Israeli intelligence, and uses Israeli produced technology. Again, no mention of products shipping to either individual or governmental users being backdoored.
If there are, as you said, 100's of stories, I'm sure you can do better than these two.
still no reason to trust israeli companys.. when it comes to safe software packages
Still bullshit FUD.
Shachar