Apparently I can even install Windows 7, not sure why I would tho.
I just recently installed Windows 7 on my Macbook as well: it runs pretty well for a release candidate, and is fast, maybe faster than my XP partition, which means the world is going to be living with W7 for a long time. That alone is good enough reason to have a copy kicking around.
I doubt they backed up if they can't be bothered to do the bare minimum of free AV and free anti-spyware.
A backup doesn't help if the infected files have made their way into the backup. That's why you turn off System Restore on a Windows box if you're trying to clean off a virus or worm; 9 times out of 10, the worm has hidden copies of itself in your backups. But you knew that, didn't you? Didn't you?
... if you symbolically eat his flesh, drink his blood...
Uh, if I remember my Catholic doctrine correctly (and there's a good chance I don't, it's been a long time) the sacrament of Communion isn't a symbolic gesture. The Miracle of Transubstantiation is supposed to turn the bread and wine into real body and blood. Of course I've yet to meet a Catholic, lapsed or otherwise, who really believes that they become cannibals when they take Communion, and I'd bet money that there's some Church doctrinal material that "proves" that even though you really are eating Jesus, you're not doing it in that bad Cannibalistic way (or any other bad way).
All of which merely reaffirms your point that humans will believe anything, if the story is compelling enough.
By your logic, the Book of Mormon has even greater claim to Truth than the Koran, since it was "translated" for us all by Smith in 1823, into English under divine inspiration.
And I'd like to suggest that updating regulatory structures can be far, far less expensive than correcting the damage done by refraining from putting in regulations. Now having said that, I'd tend to agree that heavy regulation itself is not a panacea, and that what works better is "smart" regulation.
Says you. Do you work for Microsoft? A little extra cash on the side to troll Slashdot and shill for Ballmer?
The J of D thought differently, a judge thought differently, and the EU seems to think differently than you. I'm not sure what having %90 market share with your OS is, if it's not a monopoly.
Wait, what? Of course MS has a monopoly on OS's, are you on crack? And what they actually got nailed for was the fact that you couldn't uninstall the browser whenever you wanted to, it was "an integral part of the OS" even though you could easily design an OS without a browser as an integral part. So even if you wanted a different browser, you still had this piece of shit IE sitting there, taking up space and using up your resources. That's what MS was convicted of.
Fair enough, and really, the example only works if Apple claimed that you couldn't run iTunes without also buying an iPhone, but I figured that if the poster I responded to isn't capable of seeing the difference in the first place, he'd miss the subtlety anyway.
Because MS had a monopoly on its OS, and used that monopoly to leverage acceptance of the browser. Apple has no monopoly on cell phones or media players, and thus isn't leveraging a monopoly on one to increase adoption of the other. A buyer who wishes to opt out of iTunes can buy a different phone.
Look at it this way: Apple would only get into that kind of trouble with the DoJ if you were forced to use iTunes to sync any phone with your computer, not just an iPhone. Since that doesn't seem very likely to happen, I doubt you'd see Apple slapped with an anti-trust suit for this. iTMS/iPod is more likely, but since Amazon entered the market, I wouldn't hold my breath for that one either.
Simply pairing a software product and a hardware product together is in itself not worthy of attention from the DoJ.
They would have had an awfully hard time kidnapping Peter over the internet, don't you think? Or beaming the Flatline's construct out of the Sense/Net building instead of sending someone in to steal it?
It's to Gibson's credit that he refrains from making his technological imaginings into deii ex machinae that can save the day for our intrepid heroes.
My hypothesis is that it's a way to keep spammers from signing up for massive numbers of e-mail accounts, now that their captcha has been broken. Tying the creation of an account to the receipt of a text message would control multiple accesses by one person/company. Anyone with evidence pro or contra, please chime in.
Unfortunately, she needed to be charged with the right crimes. The Prosecutor thought he'd be cute by charging her with a bunch of computer crimes instead of going for boring old crimes like "harassment" or "criminal negligence causing death" or something like that. So she'll get to walk, in all likelihood.
I don't think that me not caring about your opinion is apathetic. Your opinion on the Queen doesn't matter to me because you're not a citizen of my country. You Americans had your revolution 250 years ago, we didn't, and a lot has changed since then. We handled things a litte differnetly, and for the most part it's worked out pretty well for us, we enjoy many of the liberties you do (and a few you don't).
And a word to the wise: the Queen doesn't actually do any ruling anymore, that's all handled by Parliament. She basically just costs the British taxpayers money. In fact, the Governor General of Canada (the Head of State and representative of the Queen here) is selected by the government, not by the Queen.
Perhaps you would do better to look to the growing levels of oppression in your own country, last I heard the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act were still good law: the two of those effectively eliminate habeus corpus, a good old-fashioned liberty developed some time ago, in England no less. Obsessing about British Royalty isn't going to protect the liberties in your country that are currently being threatened. But hey, that's your call.
You'd think after 250 or so years, you wouldn't be so butthurt. And as a non-American, I really don't give a shit what you think of the Queen. But thanks for the sympathy re: this new legislation, I appreciate that.
I feel sympathy toward those still loyal to the King/Queen of England.
Er, I know I'm picking nits, but strictly speaking, Canadians who swear a loyalty oath to the monarch are swearing an oath to the King or Queen of Canada, who also happens to be the King or Queen of England. And many Canadians can go their whole lives without ever swearing an oath to the Queen, as we don't have a universal Pledge of Allegiance.
You're still dodging the most important questions: why does America's health care system cost twice as much per person as any other public or private health care system in the developed world? Who exactly is paying so the richest of the rich get to have "cutting-edge" health care (which is available elsewhere you know, medical supply companies happily sell to other countries)?
As for my implicit assumption, a surprising number people in most nations also make that assumption. Check this out, Article 25(1).
While I'm inclined to agree with you, there is an inherent danger in your position. You can't "force" freedom and democracy on a people, it doesn't work well. And if they don't know that freedom and democracy are best for them, interfering in their country's internal politics amounts to forcing freedom on them. Also, though your North Korea example is probably fairly accurate, I would say that the Chinese probably have a more sophisticated view of their government and what it does (and what they're willing to tolerate). Neither country is anything like Iran, where the people are very ready to overthrow their government, so much so that it's not a matter of if, but when they'll finally do it.
The West, and the US in particular, have difficulty seeing the distinctions between these kinds of nations, and tragedy has too often been the result of this short-sightedness. Take for example Afghanistan, where the US has overthrown the Taliban, and subsequently the Warlords have taken over and started most of the same repressive crap. Or Iraq immediately after the first Gulf war, when Iraqis, thinking they would have aid from the US, rose up against Saddam Hussein and were slaughtered by the thousands because the US stayed out of it. When it comes to achieving freedom for your people, timing is everything.
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently I can even install Windows 7, not sure why I would tho.
I just recently installed Windows 7 on my Macbook as well: it runs pretty well for a release candidate, and is fast, maybe faster than my XP partition, which means the world is going to be living with W7 for a long time. That alone is good enough reason to have a copy kicking around.
What do backups have to do with data loss from a virus or worm? What are the odds, do you think, of the backups not also being infected?
I doubt they backed up if they can't be bothered to do the bare minimum of free AV and free anti-spyware.
A backup doesn't help if the infected files have made their way into the backup. That's why you turn off System Restore on a Windows box if you're trying to clean off a virus or worm; 9 times out of 10, the worm has hidden copies of itself in your backups. But you knew that, didn't you? Didn't you?
... if you symbolically eat his flesh, drink his blood ...
Uh, if I remember my Catholic doctrine correctly (and there's a good chance I don't, it's been a long time) the sacrament of Communion isn't a symbolic gesture. The Miracle of Transubstantiation is supposed to turn the bread and wine into real body and blood. Of course I've yet to meet a Catholic, lapsed or otherwise, who really believes that they become cannibals when they take Communion, and I'd bet money that there's some Church doctrinal material that "proves" that even though you really are eating Jesus, you're not doing it in that bad Cannibalistic way (or any other bad way).
All of which merely reaffirms your point that humans will believe anything, if the story is compelling enough.
No, not all of us.
I was being snarky. Burying a liability disclaimer in a EULA is less honest than sticking a Beta label on your product, even if it is legal.
Yes.
Yes, yes.
Yes.
Nope.
By your logic, the Book of Mormon has even greater claim to Truth than the Koran, since it was "translated" for us all by Smith in 1823, into English under divine inspiration.
True enough. Of course, every other software company just hides their liability disclaimers in the EULA. That's ever so much more honest.
You think that's impressive? I clicked on your first link, and the second link on the search page (after the answer) was to this thread.
And I'd like to suggest that updating regulatory structures can be far, far less expensive than correcting the damage done by refraining from putting in regulations. Now having said that, I'd tend to agree that heavy regulation itself is not a panacea, and that what works better is "smart" regulation.
Says you. Do you work for Microsoft? A little extra cash on the side to troll Slashdot and shill for Ballmer?
The J of D thought differently, a judge thought differently, and the EU seems to think differently than you. I'm not sure what having %90 market share with your OS is, if it's not a monopoly.
Wait, what? Of course MS has a monopoly on OS's, are you on crack? And what they actually got nailed for was the fact that you couldn't uninstall the browser whenever you wanted to, it was "an integral part of the OS" even though you could easily design an OS without a browser as an integral part. So even if you wanted a different browser, you still had this piece of shit IE sitting there, taking up space and using up your resources. That's what MS was convicted of.
Fair enough, and really, the example only works if Apple claimed that you couldn't run iTunes without also buying an iPhone, but I figured that if the poster I responded to isn't capable of seeing the difference in the first place, he'd miss the subtlety anyway.
Because MS had a monopoly on its OS, and used that monopoly to leverage acceptance of the browser. Apple has no monopoly on cell phones or media players, and thus isn't leveraging a monopoly on one to increase adoption of the other. A buyer who wishes to opt out of iTunes can buy a different phone.
Look at it this way: Apple would only get into that kind of trouble with the DoJ if you were forced to use iTunes to sync any phone with your computer, not just an iPhone. Since that doesn't seem very likely to happen, I doubt you'd see Apple slapped with an anti-trust suit for this. iTMS/iPod is more likely, but since Amazon entered the market, I wouldn't hold my breath for that one either.
Simply pairing a software product and a hardware product together is in itself not worthy of attention from the DoJ.
They would have had an awfully hard time kidnapping Peter over the internet, don't you think? Or beaming the Flatline's construct out of the Sense/Net building instead of sending someone in to steal it?
It's to Gibson's credit that he refrains from making his technological imaginings into deii ex machinae that can save the day for our intrepid heroes.
Oblig. XKCD: 603: Idiocracy
My hypothesis is that it's a way to keep spammers from signing up for massive numbers of e-mail accounts, now that their captcha has been broken. Tying the creation of an account to the receipt of a text message would control multiple accesses by one person/company. Anyone with evidence pro or contra, please chime in.
Unfortunately, she needed to be charged with the right crimes. The Prosecutor thought he'd be cute by charging her with a bunch of computer crimes instead of going for boring old crimes like "harassment" or "criminal negligence causing death" or something like that. So she'll get to walk, in all likelihood.
I don't think that me not caring about your opinion is apathetic. Your opinion on the Queen doesn't matter to me because you're not a citizen of my country. You Americans had your revolution 250 years ago, we didn't, and a lot has changed since then. We handled things a litte differnetly, and for the most part it's worked out pretty well for us, we enjoy many of the liberties you do (and a few you don't).
And a word to the wise: the Queen doesn't actually do any ruling anymore, that's all handled by Parliament. She basically just costs the British taxpayers money. In fact, the Governor General of Canada (the Head of State and representative of the Queen here) is selected by the government, not by the Queen.
Perhaps you would do better to look to the growing levels of oppression in your own country, last I heard the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act were still good law: the two of those effectively eliminate habeus corpus, a good old-fashioned liberty developed some time ago, in England no less. Obsessing about British Royalty isn't going to protect the liberties in your country that are currently being threatened. But hey, that's your call.
You'd think after 250 or so years, you wouldn't be so butthurt. And as a non-American, I really don't give a shit what you think of the Queen. But thanks for the sympathy re: this new legislation, I appreciate that.
I feel sympathy toward those still loyal to the King/Queen of England.
Er, I know I'm picking nits, but strictly speaking, Canadians who swear a loyalty oath to the monarch are swearing an oath to the King or Queen of Canada, who also happens to be the King or Queen of England. And many Canadians can go their whole lives without ever swearing an oath to the Queen, as we don't have a universal Pledge of Allegiance.
You're still dodging the most important questions: why does America's health care system cost twice as much per person as any other public or private health care system in the developed world? Who exactly is paying so the richest of the rich get to have "cutting-edge" health care (which is available elsewhere you know, medical supply companies happily sell to other countries)?
As for my implicit assumption, a surprising number people in most nations also make that assumption. Check this out, Article 25(1).
While I'm inclined to agree with you, there is an inherent danger in your position. You can't "force" freedom and democracy on a people, it doesn't work well. And if they don't know that freedom and democracy are best for them, interfering in their country's internal politics amounts to forcing freedom on them. Also, though your North Korea example is probably fairly accurate, I would say that the Chinese probably have a more sophisticated view of their government and what it does (and what they're willing to tolerate). Neither country is anything like Iran, where the people are very ready to overthrow their government, so much so that it's not a matter of if, but when they'll finally do it.
The West, and the US in particular, have difficulty seeing the distinctions between these kinds of nations, and tragedy has too often been the result of this short-sightedness. Take for example Afghanistan, where the US has overthrown the Taliban, and subsequently the Warlords have taken over and started most of the same repressive crap. Or Iraq immediately after the first Gulf war, when Iraqis, thinking they would have aid from the US, rose up against Saddam Hussein and were slaughtered by the thousands because the US stayed out of it. When it comes to achieving freedom for your people, timing is everything.
Yes, and yes.