Why? Both are made up. Both use fiction as their reference material.
I disagree with this statement, not as a Catholic, but as a historian. In the religious texts of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, there is a lot of original reference material and first-hand accounts of historical occurrences. Even if you strip out the spiritual bits, you are still left with a remarkable historical record.
No offense, but labeling it all false because you disagree with the God bits is ignorant.
I don't know what legal grounds one might have (consumer protection laws, maybe? RICO?) for such a lawsuit, but historically, MS is notoriously difficult to win against (although that may be changing, and not necessarily in a good way), even if you have a good case. I am sure there are enough hungry lawyers out there who would love a piece of such action. If it is possible to make a case, I am sure there are a platoon or two of lawyers who would be eager to try.
You and I know Microsoft is lying, but the non-geek rest of the world has little or no clue. These technologically disinclined unwashed masses are exactly the one-born-every-minute type that Microsoft relies on as its new customer base. In my experience, most of them truly have no idea how to begin to secure a system, or how inherently insecure Windows is. Microsoft is guilty of exploiting this.
I agree that users are also culpable, but not in a nudge-nudge wink-wink kind of way. Going back to the car analogy, your brakes need to be replaced every so often, "updated", if you will. If you are at 100k miles and still on the original pads and haven't done an oil change, don't go crying to the manufacturer when the whole thing fails. Most home users I know are guilty of not doing proper maintenance on their systems, and of often not even knowing what needs to be done.
AFAIK, COPA et al were laws that only would have affected happenings on US soil. ICANN does not require that content on sites outside the US to conform to US law. For example, CP eradication has been done by international government cooperation, rather than by fiat from ICANN.
ICANN does not censor. I don't trust some international body to be so neutral.
Obviously some of the moderators out there are offended by the idea that the US should co-operate with the International community instead of dictating to it.
The situation as many Americans see it is reversed; we don't want the rest of the world dictating things to us. Generally speaking, we prefer not to mess with things that work, and in this case work very well. Whatever you may think of the US in general or our foreign policy, the US has a track record of benignly managing its role in maintaining the internet. This guy said it nicely, despite being AC.
If we handed over control of the internet to the world, what is to stop the rest of the world from using it to impose their will on the US? I picture things going the way of the EU and Sweden, with the sovereign rights of nations subject to interference and corruption from outside.
Because if just about everyone starts using encryption, the people handling serious matters (like terrorism or child-porn) will have their task rendered nigh-impossible. Right now they focus on encrypted data, but if everything goes encrypted, they will never be able to decrypt everything.
Are you serious? Right now in the US alone, thousands of companies with millions of (aggregate) mobile workers are using encryption (VPNs) to communicate unknown terabytes of data every day. The use of encryption is in no way an indictment of its user, and the US government wouldn't be able to track & crack all that encrypted data even if they had all the computing power ever produced at their disposal.
They focus on making connections between end points of communication. If A talks to B through encryption, that is not of interest unless A and/or B are known/suspected bad guys, and/or communicate with known/suspected bad guys. Picture a LinkedIn network.
I'm waiting for his handlers to start exploiting him by using him to disseminate misinformation, like Schwarzkopf used CNN to convince Saddam that the main invasion was coming by sea in Gulf 1.
The problem is twofold. Calling something by the wrong name is just their most obvious error. The other is that in their own mind they have leaped from observing a problem (computer won't boot, I can't find a file, things are slow, etc) to making a diagnosis on equipment they obviously know nothing about (I can't find a file... so the hard drive must be broken).
Calling something by the wrong name is human nature. We learn language by observing the context in which they are used, and attempting to extrapolate meaning and emulate usage. Along the way, we screw up. Hopefully, along the way we also learn to ask for information when we know we are uneducated, rather than simply assume. But there again, it's human nature to want to appear smart by avoiding "stupid questions".
It's not marketing, actually. IIRC, serial connections are generally described in terms of bits per second because they are moving one bit at a time (think modems or SATA drives), and parallel connections in bytes per second since they're moving a byte's worth of bits together, (think SCSI or PATA drives). Since broadband connections are serial in nature... bits per second.
I'd expect (perhaps naively) more from such committees
I salute your idealism. Frankly, if this issue had more to do with Congress's interests, I'm sure they would have been more aggressive/assertive in their questioning and the responses they were looking to hear. I believe their intentions were a) to appear concerned in front of voters, b) to make sure the economy isn't impacted, and by that I mean send a message like Hey, RIAA, don't sue so many people that you kill your own market, but by all means sue enough to keep the rest honest. You're going to need those contributions, I mean, ahem, revenues come next election.
Nutter. You miss the point. They aren't top on the list because we hate them. It is inaccurate to say that 'they use electronics to catch baddies and we do the same so it's really all equal in the end'. They top the list because they are oppressive, corrupt regimes who use technology to extend their repression.
Although your favorite tinfoil hat theory may posit that the west is just as repressive and ruthless as the good ol' commies in the east, the truth is starkly different. The extent to which those governments wield technology as a weapon against their own people is far, far greater than in western countries, despite the alarming reports of abuse of the system in the west.
If you really believe that NK is no worse than the US, please by all means go and live there. You will soon find out why they are in the top of the list. And before you start preaching about the US holding themselves blameless, please note that the US is on the list as well. This report does nothing to whitewash the sins of the western governments.
At best, their testimony was disingenuous. They were purposely trying to create the impression that after years of ridiculous punitive lawsuits, they were abandoning them in favor of another approach.
They may be obnoxious, but they sure aren't stupid. They knew what the effect of their testimony would be, and they knew their future course of action would soon diverge from the false impression they gave.
If you put a squishy cup of hot coffee between your legs while driving and hurt yourself in an extremely predictable manner, you do not deserve $millions. It's that simple. The cup top has nothing to do with it. She used this case like a winning lottery ticket.
You might not know how to fix your lawnmower, but I'd bet you know how to put gas & oil in it, remove dog poo from the wheels, and have the sense not to run over big, obvious rocks. By not taking basic, common-sense (oxymoron, I know, I know...) precautions and doing basic maintenance, Joe Sixpack invites this upon himself. The information is available. The products to help protect Joe & his Wintoy are inexpensive and easy to get and use.
Megacorporations will gladly stoop to faking/planting evidence. In the Microsoft antitrust trial, the MS team faked at least one videotape which they then offered as evidence. No one faced contempt of court or perjury charges as a result, proving that one standard exists for you and I, and another for big rich corporations and their lawyers.
I realize that RIAA != MS, etc etc ad nauseum. My only 2 points here are 1- YES sleazy companies will fake evidence to win, and 2- they never (or almost never) get punished even if they get caught red handed, thus ensuring that the cycle will continue to repeat itself.
Slashdot Mirror
Why? Both are made up. Both use fiction as their reference material.
I disagree with this statement, not as a Catholic, but as a historian. In the religious texts of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, there is a lot of original reference material and first-hand accounts of historical occurrences. Even if you strip out the spiritual bits, you are still left with a remarkable historical record.
No offense, but labeling it all false because you disagree with the God bits is ignorant.
Anyone remember Rock-n-Roll High School? Exploding lab mice? Anyone?
I don't know what legal grounds one might have (consumer protection laws, maybe? RICO?) for such a lawsuit, but historically, MS is notoriously difficult to win against (although that may be changing, and not necessarily in a good way), even if you have a good case. I am sure there are enough hungry lawyers out there who would love a piece of such action. If it is possible to make a case, I am sure there are a platoon or two of lawyers who would be eager to try.
Or was that 1 guy cracking the system and voting 7300 times?
You and I know Microsoft is lying, but the non-geek rest of the world has little or no clue. These technologically disinclined unwashed masses are exactly the one-born-every-minute type that Microsoft relies on as its new customer base. In my experience, most of them truly have no idea how to begin to secure a system, or how inherently insecure Windows is. Microsoft is guilty of exploiting this.
I agree that users are also culpable, but not in a nudge-nudge wink-wink kind of way. Going back to the car analogy, your brakes need to be replaced every so often, "updated", if you will. If you are at 100k miles and still on the original pads and haven't done an oil change, don't go crying to the manufacturer when the whole thing fails. Most home users I know are guilty of not doing proper maintenance on their systems, and of often not even knowing what needs to be done.
... and the rest of the world want to tell the US what to do ... yeah nothing unusual there.
AFAIK, COPA et al were laws that only would have affected happenings on US soil. ICANN does not require that content on sites outside the US to conform to US law. For example, CP eradication has been done by international government cooperation, rather than by fiat from ICANN.
ICANN does not censor. I don't trust some international body to be so neutral.
Obviously some of the moderators out there are offended by the idea that the US should co-operate with the International community instead of dictating to it.
The situation as many Americans see it is reversed; we don't want the rest of the world dictating things to us. Generally speaking, we prefer not to mess with things that work, and in this case work very well. Whatever you may think of the US in general or our foreign policy, the US has a track record of benignly managing its role in maintaining the internet. This guy said it nicely, despite being AC.
If we handed over control of the internet to the world, what is to stop the rest of the world from using it to impose their will on the US? I picture things going the way of the EU and Sweden, with the sovereign rights of nations subject to interference and corruption from outside.
Stop! Or I'll say 'stop' again ...
Because if just about everyone starts using encryption, the people handling serious matters (like terrorism or child-porn) will have their task rendered nigh-impossible. Right now they focus on encrypted data, but if everything goes encrypted, they will never be able to decrypt everything.
Are you serious? Right now in the US alone, thousands of companies with millions of (aggregate) mobile workers are using encryption (VPNs) to communicate unknown terabytes of data every day. The use of encryption is in no way an indictment of its user, and the US government wouldn't be able to track & crack all that encrypted data even if they had all the computing power ever produced at their disposal.
They focus on making connections between end points of communication. If A talks to B through encryption, that is not of interest unless A and/or B are known/suspected bad guys, and/or communicate with known/suspected bad guys. Picture a LinkedIn network.
This does not reflect an inability to lie, just an inability to keep his mount shut. AFAIK, his ability to lie is still intact.
I'm waiting for his handlers to start exploiting him by using him to disseminate misinformation, like Schwarzkopf used CNN to convince Saddam that the main invasion was coming by sea in Gulf 1.
The problem is twofold. Calling something by the wrong name is just their most obvious error. The other is that in their own mind they have leaped from observing a problem (computer won't boot, I can't find a file, things are slow, etc) to making a diagnosis on equipment they obviously know nothing about (I can't find a file ... so the hard drive must be broken).
Calling something by the wrong name is human nature. We learn language by observing the context in which they are used, and attempting to extrapolate meaning and emulate usage. Along the way, we screw up. Hopefully, along the way we also learn to ask for information when we know we are uneducated, rather than simply assume. But there again, it's human nature to want to appear smart by avoiding "stupid questions".
I think it means that to be an Internet Libertarian you have to have mod points first.
It's not marketing, actually. IIRC, serial connections are generally described in terms of bits per second because they are moving one bit at a time (think modems or SATA drives), and parallel connections in bytes per second since they're moving a byte's worth of bits together, (think SCSI or PATA drives). Since broadband connections are serial in nature ... bits per second.
I'd expect (perhaps naively) more from such committees
I salute your idealism. Frankly, if this issue had more to do with Congress's interests, I'm sure they would have been more aggressive/assertive in their questioning and the responses they were looking to hear. I believe their intentions were a) to appear concerned in front of voters, b) to make sure the economy isn't impacted, and by that I mean send a message like Hey, RIAA, don't sue so many people that you kill your own market, but by all means sue enough to keep the rest honest. You're going to need those contributions, I mean, ahem, revenues come next election.
Nutter. You miss the point. They aren't top on the list because we hate them. It is inaccurate to say that 'they use electronics to catch baddies and we do the same so it's really all equal in the end'. They top the list because they are oppressive, corrupt regimes who use technology to extend their repression.
Although your favorite tinfoil hat theory may posit that the west is just as repressive and ruthless as the good ol' commies in the east, the truth is starkly different. The extent to which those governments wield technology as a weapon against their own people is far, far greater than in western countries, despite the alarming reports of abuse of the system in the west.
If you really believe that NK is no worse than the US, please by all means go and live there. You will soon find out why they are in the top of the list. And before you start preaching about the US holding themselves blameless, please note that the US is on the list as well. This report does nothing to whitewash the sins of the western governments.
At best, their testimony was disingenuous. They were purposely trying to create the impression that after years of ridiculous punitive lawsuits, they were abandoning them in favor of another approach.
They may be obnoxious, but they sure aren't stupid. They knew what the effect of their testimony would be, and they knew their future course of action would soon diverge from the false impression they gave.
If you put a squishy cup of hot coffee between your legs while driving and hurt yourself in an extremely predictable manner, you do not deserve $millions. It's that simple. The cup top has nothing to do with it. She used this case like a winning lottery ticket.
Hell yeah. Voicemail does things that text or voice-to-text never could.
Saving a vm from the wife/kids is a nice way to take a piece of home along on business travel.
Multicore might be a waste (mostly) for home and desktop, but it absolutely rocks in the enterprise, especially with virtualization.
You must work for EMC
You might not know how to fix your lawnmower, but I'd bet you know how to put gas & oil in it, remove dog poo from the wheels, and have the sense not to run over big, obvious rocks. By not taking basic, common-sense (oxymoron, I know, I know ...) precautions and doing basic maintenance, Joe Sixpack invites this upon himself. The information is available. The products to help protect Joe & his Wintoy are inexpensive and easy to get and use.
Megacorporations will gladly stoop to faking/planting evidence. In the Microsoft antitrust trial, the MS team faked at least one videotape which they then offered as evidence. No one faced contempt of court or perjury charges as a result, proving that one standard exists for you and I, and another for big rich corporations and their lawyers.
I realize that RIAA != MS, etc etc ad nauseum. My only 2 points here are 1- YES sleazy companies will fake evidence to win, and 2- they never (or almost never) get punished even if they get caught red handed, thus ensuring that the cycle will continue to repeat itself.
There's a porn joke in there somewhere.