It's the jerk-offs that don't seed after they've downloaded files that fear the RIAA. Let them be gone I say.
I would guess that a lot of the folks who don't seed wouldn't seed even if doing so was legal. Those who don't seed because they are afraid of the **AA are not "jerk-offs"--they're victims of bullying, even if they're only being "bullied" by proxy.
I have no sympathy for the folks who take and take but never give back--but I have a lot of sympathy for the victims of bullying.
True--but you can hurt a lot of people trying to do so.
It seems to me that that's what the MPAA, RIAA, and other associated organizations are trying to do. They can't stop downloading en mass... but if they can hurt enough individuals, maybe other individuals will be to scared to continue to download.
Google has found a loophole allowing them to provide this service without having to follow HIPAA regulations
So the only thing protecting personal health information at Google Health is internal policy and "Don't be evil"? I guess that means they'll protect your PHI--as long as you're not a dissident in China.
The claim was that Macs will "Cure the virii." I don't have to cite thousands of potential malware infections to prove the claim false--one will suffice.
I think we can handle that over here in Mac land.
Oh, you do? Then I tell you what--you go deal with the clueless losers whose machines I fix after they fuck them up. I don't mind the money, but the arrogance usually isn't worth it.
You see, this is the biggest problem with the claim "Want to stop virii? Get a Mac!" It's not the platform--all platforms are susceptible to malware.
The only jackass statement I see is the one you quoted above.
Only a relevant argument if you define "jackass = not-a-fanboi realist." I'm not a fanboi of any OS, including Linux: I support what my customers use, regardless. Whether the OS I'm supporting comes from
Not one of those is a virus...
I don't care if you call them virii, worms, trojans, or butt-nuggets. Yes, I know there are technical differences between those categories (with enough overlap to make endless arguments about equivocation possible, but no less tiring), but your average Mac user doesn't care about the difference, and doesn't care, so neither do I.
The whole point of my first post in this thread was to dispel the myth that Macs are somehow immune to malware--they are not. Nor are Linux users, BeOS users, Solaris users, or anyone else. Yes, I'm quite aware that Windows is the "low hanging fruit" for malware writers, and yes, I'm aware that (as an example) the OSX.Macarena had less than 50 confirmed infections.
I know all the arguments about how "secure" Macs are--but I also know that everyone is vulnerable to a well-crafted attack.
Cynicism. When referring to large corporations, cynicism has rarely steered me wrong--though I'm glad to hear your experience with Verizon has been so positive.
My platform of choice is Ubuntu. And unlike the AC who started this sub-thread (or like you, evidently), I'm not enough of a moron to believe that I'm invulnerable.
The biggest security problem with any platform is not the platform itself, but the user. If the user does something stupid (like opening up an insecure attachment), then they've got a problem. Anti-virus and patch programs can only go so far in protecting users from their own stupidity.
Well, that's the question, isn't it? I posit a distinction between morality (culturally defined standards of right and wrong) and ethics (the study of objective right and wrong, the existence of which is so far unproven).
Though I don't know that mathematics would be the best basis for ethics, or even a possible one. There are things in this universe that cannot be derived from mathematics--heck, there are things in this universe that can't even be modeled mathematically. If ethics exist, can they even be modeled mathematically?
And if objective ethics do exist, who says that they have to be some "cosmic" thing? The existence of objective ethics has even been posited within humanist philosophies.
This is a subject I've thought about for years--I can drivel on about it for hours, but it does detract from this specific thread.
No, I don't want to be preaching "gloom and doom," but it does raise ethical questions. The biggest question: are the ethical questions that such an act raises actual issues of right and wrong, or are they simply the products of Western culture and my own philosophical prejudices?
Here's the corrected link.
nb: I use Microsoft products, but I'm not a "fanboi."
what is the reasonable excuse for this ?
I don't know that there's any excuse for this. it sounds damn-foolish to me.
why shouldnt google censor keywords like microsoft, windows, xp, vista now ?
Because the folks at Google aren't idiots?
Like it or don't, Microsoft is the market--and though lately it sounds like they're doing everything possible to lose that position, they've got it for the time being. Why would Google block search terms for the leading OS and software producer?
But back to Microsoft--I don't know who the moron was who thought blocking Youtube was a good idea, but if it's actually a policy decision within Microsoft, it's a damn stupid one.
When will MS begin to put the interests of their customers first?
Probably not until their customers get educated enough to know what their interests actually are. Your average Joe Sixpac Computer User won't know the difference--all they'll see is "Hey, cheap computer!"
Slashdot Mirror
I never said it was OK to do anything illegal. Perhaps if you stop kicking puppies and actually read what I said, clarity will ensue.
I would guess that a lot of the folks who don't seed wouldn't seed even if doing so was legal. Those who don't seed because they are afraid of the **AA are not "jerk-offs"--they're victims of bullying, even if they're only being "bullied" by proxy.
I have no sympathy for the folks who take and take but never give back--but I have a lot of sympathy for the victims of bullying.
True--but you can hurt a lot of people trying to do so.
It seems to me that that's what the MPAA, RIAA, and other associated organizations are trying to do. They can't stop downloading en mass ... but if they can hurt enough individuals, maybe other individuals will be to scared to continue to download.
If it's not already regulated, it will be soon!
Her Majesty's Crown Prosecution Service will no longer accept cases for calling the sky blue or the grass green.
So the only thing protecting personal health information at Google Health is internal policy and "Don't be evil"? I guess that means they'll protect your PHI--as long as you're not a dissident in China.
Yes--it's called "Taxes."
The claim was that Macs will "Cure the virii." I don't have to cite thousands of potential malware infections to prove the claim false--one will suffice.
Oh, you do? Then I tell you what--you go deal with the clueless losers whose machines I fix after they fuck them up. I don't mind the money, but the arrogance usually isn't worth it.
You see, this is the biggest problem with the claim "Want to stop virii? Get a Mac!" It's not the platform--all platforms are susceptible to malware.
Only a relevant argument if you define "jackass = not-a-fanboi realist." I'm not a fanboi of any OS, including Linux: I support what my customers use, regardless. Whether the OS I'm supporting comes from
I don't care if you call them virii, worms, trojans, or butt-nuggets. Yes, I know there are technical differences between those categories (with enough overlap to make endless arguments about equivocation possible, but no less tiring), but your average Mac user doesn't care about the difference, and doesn't care, so neither do I.
The whole point of my first post in this thread was to dispel the myth that Macs are somehow immune to malware--they are not. Nor are Linux users, BeOS users, Solaris users, or anyone else. Yes, I'm quite aware that Windows is the "low hanging fruit" for malware writers, and yes, I'm aware that (as an example) the OSX.Macarena had less than 50 confirmed infections.
I know all the arguments about how "secure" Macs are--but I also know that everyone is vulnerable to a well-crafted attack.
No mod points, but please accept a +1 unofficial "Funny" mod.
Cynicism. When referring to large corporations, cynicism has rarely steered me wrong--though I'm glad to hear your experience with Verizon has been so positive.
My platform of choice is Ubuntu. And unlike the AC who started this sub-thread (or like you, evidently), I'm not enough of a moron to believe that I'm invulnerable.
The biggest security problem with any platform is not the platform itself, but the user. If the user does something stupid (like opening up an insecure attachment), then they've got a problem. Anti-virus and patch programs can only go so far in protecting users from their own stupidity.
Oh, believe it. Verizon and Comcast will be very friendly to P2P--just as soon as they can figure out a way to make a buck off the transaction.
* http://www.sophos.com/pressoffice/news/articles/2006/02/macosxleap.html
* http://www.sophos.com/pressoffice/news/articles/2007/11/mac-osx-trojan.html
* http://www.sophos.com/pressoffice/news/articles/2006/02/macpoll.html
"Mac users cannot keep thinking that they are invulnerable to these threats." -- Graham Cluley
Gonna make any other jackass statements?
Not "assuming"--I'm taking the position that the existence or non-existence of objective right and wrong is not proven.
Well, that's the question, isn't it? I posit a distinction between morality (culturally defined standards of right and wrong) and ethics (the study of objective right and wrong, the existence of which is so far unproven).
Though I don't know that mathematics would be the best basis for ethics, or even a possible one. There are things in this universe that cannot be derived from mathematics--heck, there are things in this universe that can't even be modeled mathematically. If ethics exist, can they even be modeled mathematically?
And if objective ethics do exist, who says that they have to be some "cosmic" thing? The existence of objective ethics has even been posited within humanist philosophies.
This is a subject I've thought about for years--I can drivel on about it for hours, but it does detract from this specific thread.
Hell = eternity with cable television ... that plays nothing but infomercials for products you don't want.
Seriously
No, I don't want to be preaching "gloom and doom," but it does raise ethical questions. The biggest question: are the ethical questions that such an act raises actual issues of right and wrong, or are they simply the products of Western culture and my own philosophical prejudices? Here's the corrected link.
nb: I use Microsoft products, but I'm not a "fanboi."
what is the reasonable excuse for this ?
I don't know that there's any excuse for this. it sounds damn-foolish to me.
why shouldnt google censor keywords like microsoft, windows, xp, vista now ?
Because the folks at Google aren't idiots?
Like it or don't, Microsoft is the market--and though lately it sounds like they're doing everything possible to lose that position, they've got it for the time being. Why would Google block search terms for the leading OS and software producer?
But back to Microsoft--I don't know who the moron was who thought blocking Youtube was a good idea, but if it's actually a policy decision within Microsoft, it's a damn stupid one.
Probably not until their customers get educated enough to know what their interests actually are. Your average Joe Sixpac Computer User won't know the difference--all they'll see is "Hey, cheap computer!"
In my case, it's an old Dell Axim X5, but many of the same arguments apply.
...and the license won!
Please mod parent up for the accurate correction of my error. :D