But just maybe the dictionary does not define the law. Try a legal dictionary. I stated that not all fraud is illegal. I didn't state that all illegal fraud is illegal. The dictionary might not "define the law", but it definitely defines words, and "fraud" is a word. Trying to change a person's statements by changing the meanings of their words is pathetic. Obviously if you can change the meanings of words someone uses, you can completely disprove their point. Unfortunately for you, when I used the term "fraud", I had a specific definition in mind, and further unfortunate for you, my definition is both correct and common.
So strippers who dress as cops have power over others they don't deserve? Be careful of blanket statements, for they make you look more of a fool than you clearly are. To begin, they deserve it, so long as they haven't somehow cheated you to get it. Regardless, they aren't impersonating a cop--at least, not as that term is generally taken to be meant (again, you don't get to redefine my words for your benefit). They are dressing up and acting like a cop, but but both the intent and effect are very different, and no fraud is involved.
Outlawing a tool *is* always bad - tools exist to help mankind (why they're called tools, not useless pieces of junk). Outlawing a hammer because it can be used to commit murder is ridiculous. You are correct, outlawing a hammer because it can kill is absolutely ridiculous. Something equally ridiculous is your reading comprehension. I specifically said that you are applying a generality beyond its scope, and so how do you respond? By doing just that in spectacular clarity.
Do you not think it should be illegal to own a nuclear bomb, or to own dynamite, at least in *some* circumstances? Such proscription seems entirely rational to me. I don't think it's unreasonable at all to enact laws which help prevent some idiot from accidentally leveling a neighborhood.
Now, you might argue (in fact, I'd almost guarantee you would, given your record of lame attempts to twist meanings of words around) that it's not illegal to own dynamite, it's just illegal to keep it in certain locations, and that that's not the same as outlawing it or making it illegal. This would, of course, be completely false. What it's not is *completely* outlawing it, but there are cases in which its ownership or use *are* outlawed, and not because of some secondary crime, but because mere *ownership* is wrong, in some cases. And I see nothing wrong with that, either.
What makes you think a direct connection has to be made for something to be legally about money? Well then, when looked in that way, *everything anyone ever does* is about money. You are, again (sigh) redefining words and terms. If you redefine a term to be universal, it becomes meaningless. What your attempt here is to say that your specific case is true, and is different from my specific case, because your specific case is universally true. This, of course, contradicts your claim, and is nothing more than schoolyard argument logic.
Murdering someone with a knife carries no less a penalty than shooting them, absent any other qualifiers, and in fact no distinction is made except between degrees of intent. But in some cases, use of a knife and use of a gun are illegal, and not all instances of those cases overlap, which if you'll remember, goes back to my original point.
It's rational to outlaw the use of Caller ID spoofing as opposed to generic fraud (which is *not* illegal), even though CID spoofing is a form of (generic) fraud, and can be used to engage in other (specific) frauds. Mere ownership of the tool is not illegal--i.e., owning a PBX is not illegal. Using it to falsely identify yourself will be (assuming the bill makes it all the way to law) illegal.
I have a hard time accepting the solution should be Congress essentially hard coding every variable into do's and do not's with no incentive to review it down the road. Who says they have no incentive to review it down the road? If the law is misapplied, their constituents will give them incentive to review it. I will grant you, however, that we as constituents are really falling down in our duties on that front. I place a lot of blame on a defunct media and a sheep-producing education system, but in the end, it's still us not living up to our responsibilities.
Especially when it comes to legislating technology, which it is incredibly obvious they know jack shit about. As someone else has pointed out there some legit, albeit probably minor, uses of ID spoofing. No argument with you there. Not having read the law, I assume (yes, I know what happens when you assume, and I assume that's doubly-true when assuming about the government) that it targets malicious spoofing, and not merely overriding a Caller ID setting to show a line that you have a right to, and which truly represents who you are.
My main gripe was with the libertarianesque, knee-jerk reaction of "nanny state" and "it's a feature!".
More laws+more prisons+more thinking of the children = happy voters. Cynical, and unfortunately apt. That doesn't make laws inherently wrong. I agree with the general notion that the more laws there are, the less just a nation is, but that's a generality, and cannot be applied to any specific law. And a small point regarding what you've said, this law has nothing to do specifically with "the children" and appears to have no jail time involved.
Yup, and its not fraud. Lying and fraud are NOT synonymous. Yes, they are. You can't stop at the first definition in your dictionary. Fraud does not require financial gain as a component (even if it's usually the case, and is part of the first definition in your dictionary).
Ummm... yes? Impersonating a cop gives you power over others you don't deserve. That's a very different crime than stealing someone's identity, or committing bank fraud, which are financial, and those two have very different effects on two very different targets. If you think these should all be equally punished, you are a sociopath.
You claim that the secondary crime should be the differentiator. I say merely *impersonating* a cop should be illegal, not just as some generic "fraud", but because it's an attempt to gain general power one doesn't have the right to, even if no other crime is committed. Merely stealing an identity, even if you don't commit any other crime, should be illegal, and have a different punishment, and writing a bad check should be illegal as well, etc.
In any case, any law which makes a tool illegal rather than bad actions performed with the tool is a bad law. Then you have no problem whatsoever with your neighbor (not necessarily your existing neighbor, but any neighbor you may ever have, by choice or not) owning a nuclear bomb? Sarin gas? Or someone keeping dynamite in an apartment building?
The fact is, some tools *should* be illegal or severely restricted. Your sentiment goes too far, it goes from cases where it's true (in general, outlawing a tool *is* foolish), and applies it too broadly (to say outlawing a tool is *always* bad).
That's because caller id spoofing ISN'T fraud it is a harmless deception. If you use that deception to illicit an unfair gain then you have committed fraud and would have committed a criminal act without this law. Are you certain of that? Laws are specific things (they have to be), and if Caller ID spoofing does not fall under a current law, then it *won't* necessarily be illegal, even if it is fraud (the money kind you seem to think is the only kind).
For example, calls pretending to be from the DNC, which are really from the RNC (this happened during the 2004 election, although I do not know if Caller ID spoofing was involved) had nothing to do, directly (i.e., legally) with money, and instead had to do with political influence.
Last I checked we already had laws against fraud. So why make a law specifically towards something like this? Because one size does not fit all.
Should impersonating a police officer, identity theft, false advertising and passing fake checks all have the same punishment? These are all, at the base, fraud. Could they even reasonably fit under one singular law?
We're making every damn little thing a frickin' crime in this country anymore. Here's the thing, the general term "fraud" is not illegal. Only specific forms of fraud. For example, claiming you can bench 200 lbs when you can barely press half that is not illegal. So, instead of just making "fraud" illegal, laws target specific types, and they *define* those specific types. Caller ID spoofing probably doesn't fall into any existing category of fraud, so this form of fraud can be presently engaged in with impunity.
So what choices are there? Basically, they are to expand an existing law to cover Caller ID spoofing, create a new law, or ignore it altogether. Ergo this story.
Leave it to someone who doesn't know what they're talking about to determine what should be considered "fraud". Hrm... And how did you come to this conclusion?
Do you implement the evil bit? I hear it's supposed to prevent hackers and fraud and all that... Pathetic.
Your post is all baseless ad hominem, and no fact.
Note the words, "all things remaining equal". In such a case, it most certainly does *not* depend.
The reason I added that clause is because this discussion is about generalities (one whole system vs another), and for that reason, there's no sense in cherry-picking scenarios which support one assertion or another. For example, if you get to choose your situations, a Windows 95 machine could be more secure than a hardened OpenBSD machine.
However, if you make things equal, with one exception (like I did), you highlight the effect of that one difference, and it's that very difference that this part of the thread is about.
Well, no doubt CmdrTaco carefully sifts through all the tags submitted for every story, and diligently evaluates them for selection. He even, I'm certain, cross-references tags for relationships to other projects to see if one is just an unlabeled continuation of the other. After such fastidious examination, and only then, does it make the grade. A grade which your most impressive tag passes with ease.
Given Slashdot's exemplary editorial standards, how could it possibly be otherwise?
This is clearly a gross oversight on Taco's part, and will be looked into with the gravest of concern, there can be no doubt. I suspect your well-crafted tag will don the front page in no time, perhaps even in an extra-crisp font to make up for any negligence and mishandling involved.
I look forward to it with heightened eagerness, and commend you on the alacrity and aplomb you've shown in this, your all-important tag-choosing endeavor.
Here's why: assume that windows was technologically backwards and couln't get on the internet. Would you then agree that Linux was less secure, because the possibility exists to hack it over the internet while that possibility does not exist for windows? Actually, yes, if all other things remain equal. What kind of moron are you imagining who would claim otherwise? I have to call "straw man" on this one.
Let's, in fact, *actually* make things more equal. Two *exactly identical* PCs with *exactly identical* installs of Linux, with one and only one exception: PC A is connected to the Internet, PC B is not. Do you *honestly* believe both PCs are equally secure? That the non-networked PC is not, actually, more secure[*], all other things remaining equal?
[*] I have to add, because I know otherwise someone would bring this up, that it's technically *possible* both PCs are equally secure, assuming the networked PC doesn't call out to the Internet, and there are no security flaws *at all* in the card drivers, firewall, etc. But unless you actually know for sure that your code and hardware are 100% secure, that unknown is, itself, less secure. That's not to mention the *actual* security flaws that actually exist, since even though the networking *might* be 100% secure, it's exceptionally close to certain that it isn't.
ID'ers accept that evolution happened No, they don't. They believe creationism as presented in the bible. ID is a masquerade intended to *look* like science so that it might be mistaken for science.
It's most likely true that there are people who take this façade at face-value and form the hybrid belief of ID + evolution, but these people do not reflect the views of the initiators and promoters of ID.
The reason ID is presented as it is, apparently agnostic towards evolution (god *could* have done it in 6 literal days, or it *could* have started evolution, perhaps tinkering here-and-there as necessary) is that their prized idea, creationism, has fully failed to enter mainstream education. ID is a compromise that, at the very least, gets god into the discussion, if by another name (the intelligent designer). The IDers also realize that, even though *technically* ID allows for evolution, this will jell most with creationists, giving their view a voice it does not deserve, and if it tacks on some allies who aren't creationists, so much the better, since the non-creationist ID supporters will be in the vast minority, so ID gains the benefit of their support without the drawbacks of actually having to promote evolution.
I believe that my girlfriend loves me, but I have no empirical evidence for it. If you have no empirical evidence, you are a moron. I suspect, however, that you *do* have empirical evidence. I.e., her saying, "I love you," is empirical evidence.
The whole, "prove it" line about love in Contact (of which this is a variant) is one of the most ridiculous arguments there is. In science, you don't *prove* anything. That's the sole realm of math and logic. In science, you decide whether there's evidence to support something, and love most certainly produces evidence.
In both cases, you have set of bad things A. In the carbon fiber case, you have additional set B (all carbon fiber-related problems).
Just because A is horrible, does that mean A + B is not worse?
Not that I'm against carbon fiber wings (I'm most definitely not), I just think it's silly to so cavalierly downplay risks, especially when they are being forced upon others.
You've got it all backwards. People are *genuinely* excited about the iPhone, and are not merely responding to an ad agency telling them that they should be excited. The "live up to the hype" problem arises from hype without evidence, like happened with the Segway, or happens with a highly promoted big-budget movie.
The Segway failed to live up to the hype because it was kept so secret that imagination ran wild, and there's no way an actual product can compete with wild imagination.
Big-budget films often fail (but not always) to live up to their hype because the hype has nothing to do with the *actual* quality of the film, but instead is meant to meet the studio's need to attract moviegoers. It doesn't matter if the movie sucks, if it's the studio's best film for the year, they have to stand behind it "110%" and promote it like it's the best movie ever.
With the iPhone, it's different. It's like hyping a movie we've already seen 90% of. That last 10% could suck, but people genuinely want it based on actual evidence, and not mere marketing.
There's certainly room for let-down with the iPhone. The pricing plans could be insane (it's highly doubtful they will be worse than present plans), or the keyboard could be annoying, or the data-rate could be frustrating, but we've already seen the iPhone in action and already have a lot of evidence to support the hype.
As for waiting until Friday, it's called "anticipation". Since we can't have, or even play with, an iPhone right now, news and gossip is all we've got. Or do you *never* talk about something before it's released? Do you never get excited about something that's going to happen in the future? Some new game? A family vacation? Your marriage?
Yeah, no need to get excited about any of those things. Better to just be a complete wet-blanket, then you'll never have to fear disappointment. What a dull existence that would be!
when ical can handle recurring appointments in Japan, with multiple different calendars, it'll have stopped being a joke for personal calendaring iCal supports recurring appointments, and supports multiple calendars. Do these somehow stop working in Japan?
The main thing iCal is lacking at present is a back-end server, and that is coming with Leopard's iCal.
There's not enough time in the cycle for that to happen. And why not? Safari for Windows has already been updated *twice* since its initial release, and the Mac version has been updated once. Why can't the iPhone version also be updated? And more importantly, if any of the flaws found in the Windows version affect the iPhone version, why *shouldn't* they be fixed?
There's absolutely no reason whatsoever that there can't be an "iPhone 1.01 update" awaiting every iPhone user upon their first connection through iTunes.
Furthermore, I found out just a few weeks ago that using the Windows version of iTunes on a business computer requires purchasing a license. And how, exactly, did you "find this out"? It's absolutely and unequivocally false.
So your saying that, new technology exists which makes distribution of content much cheaper... Yes, I am. I can get a $2,000.00 computer shipped to me from across the planet for $40. That does not mean the computer should cost $40.
A film (or CD, or book, or whatever), costs something to create, costs something to manufacture, costs something to promote, and costs something to ship. Due to technology, the highlighted items are, or can be, very close to zero (cents, or fractions of cents). The other costs still exist.
The problem is that, once the other costs are paid, *anyone* can just step in and perform the highlighted steps. This is taking advantage of costs paid for by others and is just as wrong (or at least, similarly wrong) to when corporations do the exact same thing to *us*. For example, corporations not paying taxes, but driving on roads the rest of us paid for; a buggy MS operating system which requires users to spend money on antivirus software, or to suffer downtime, data loss, and IT expenses; a factory which dumps toxic waste into the environment, transferring the cost of dealing with it from the company to the people who now have severe medical conditions.
At this point, I realize you have probably taken my post as being pro-DRM. It's not. It's anti-stupid-anti-DRM posts. DRM *works*. There can be absolutely *no* *doubt* *whatsoever* that people who *would* have copied a DVD or iTunes track haven't, due to the DRM. But the problem is that DRM does the exact same thing that DRM is meant to protect against--specifically, it transfers a cost to an innocent party.
DRM is, as many have posted, a flawed system, and it's doomed to eventual failure in the long run, and I *do* oppose it fully, and believe we will see more EMI's in the next few years, and should even see film and television content drop DRM sometime eventually as well, but this will *only* happen if there is an influential figure fighting against DRM. The reason for this is that *DRM works*. Just like dumping toxic waste into the nearest river *works*. It takes a counter-force to get people to stop doing a wrong thing that works. The first step in fighting DRM is to fully and honestly understand DRM. If you don't, media executives will just hear your lies, and know them to be lies, and dismiss your *entire* argument.
Pointing out the flaws in DRM is proper. Stating DRM is offensive is noble. Stating DRM does not work is a lie.
Wow, are you secretly trying to *promote* DRM by making the anti-DRM argument look retarded?
But it's not hard to create a rig that does [capture DRM limited digital data]. Then where is all this hardware? How do you plan to capture HDCP content with a "not hard to create rig"? The whole point is that DRMing the whole system leaves only analog methods, or exploiting flaws.
Many audiophiles would disagree with you, and would argue that analog presents the best "true" copy. So an analog copy of a digital file is superior to a *perfect*digital*copy*? How did that make enough sense to you for you to type this?
See above points - it's not some guy with a camcorder of his TV, it's the "pro-sumer" guy who has good quality equipment that can kill DRM. How? Ok, you get your HD cam out and record a plasma screen viewing of a Blu-ray disc. This is going to "kill drm"? No, this is going to result in poorer quality. This poorer copy is not going to kill drm. It gets around DRM, but people will still want the superior DRMed version.
You are completely missing the point. For 200 years, merely PRINTING "Copyright NNNN - all rights reserved" has resulted in a reasonable protection for copyright holders. So why is it that all of a sudden, new technology is needed to enforce what is, at its core, a human problem? Because for the first time, virtually any copyrighted work can be perfectly copied at the click of a button, and distributed with close to zero effort. Without DRM, you could make a fully perfect copy of an HD movie in less than an hour. Prior to mass-market digital technology, it took a lot of time and/or a lot of money to make a copy of something, and that copy was almost certainly going to be of lesser quality, and distribution beyond people you have physical contact with was quite expensive and/or time consuming.
Look at copyright laws circa 1975, when the Xerox copier was really starting to take hold for an EXCELLENT parallel. No, it makes an extremely poor parallel. You could not copy a film or recording with a Xerox machine. You could not make a perfect copy of *anything* with a Xerox machine. Operating a Xerox machine is timely and significantly more expensive than copying a digital file.
A statement which largely undermines the rest of your post. Are you arguing that DRM is effective? Are you arguing that it's effective but bad? Are you arguing that it's good? Your point suddenly becomes unclear. He's arguing that it's effective but not being fully utilized. And no, his point was not unclear at all.
I simply argue that it's ineffective. DRM makes piracy *harder*. Not impossible, just harder, and that's all it takes to be effective.
The problem with DRM is that it's not only effective at slowing piracy, it's effective at locking consumers out of their own content.
Some DRM can be useful to discourage blatant piracy Wait a minute! Didn't you just say, *in the preceding sentence* that DRM is ineffective? If it discourages some piracy, it's effective. That's the only reason it still exists. The various labels and studios (except EMI) do not yet realize that DRM hurts more than it helps.
but relying on it excessively is just dumb. That is, in fact, 100% true.
That's exactly the point. To get the attention of selfish people like you who will only take action when their daily routine is affected.
Maybe instead of complaining to us, or to pandora, you should complain to Congress. Make the need for such outages unnecessary, and we'll stop promoting them.
I realize it's common, I just don't believe that a majority of the 60 million or whatever installs of OS X there are out there have their docks on the side.
I suspect, for the aggregate of Macs, it's: dock on the bottom > dock on the bottom + audohide > dock on the side.
Although certainly, among some subsets of the Mac user base, docks on the side are going to be more prevalent than among others, perhaps so much so in some as to make up the majority. But in the general sense (which is what I was replying to), I would be extremely surprised to find out most docks are on the side.
I've heard it's optional (an interview with someone important at Apple (Steve?), or maybe even during the keynote). Have you checked in System Preferences? A "defaults write" command? Or maybe that feature is one of the "interface polishes" that are yet to happen.
Regardless, I think the translucent menu is a good idea, and one that probably doesn't grab you at first, but takes some acclimation. Also, I think having it be configurable via System Preferences (or at least via defaults), is also a good idea.
How long are you thinking it will take to press a disc, stick it in a box, and ship it to the store?
Given that FC is in Sept., and FC is the first *intended* final version, a month+ of going through fine-tuning, and a week or two of manufacturing, seems more than adequate.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you not think it should be illegal to own a nuclear bomb, or to own dynamite, at least in *some* circumstances? Such proscription seems entirely rational to me. I don't think it's unreasonable at all to enact laws which help prevent some idiot from accidentally leveling a neighborhood.
Now, you might argue (in fact, I'd almost guarantee you would, given your record of lame attempts to twist meanings of words around) that it's not illegal to own dynamite, it's just illegal to keep it in certain locations, and that that's not the same as outlawing it or making it illegal. This would, of course, be completely false. What it's not is *completely* outlawing it, but there are cases in which its ownership or use *are* outlawed, and not because of some secondary crime, but because mere *ownership* is wrong, in some cases. And I see nothing wrong with that, either. What makes you think a direct connection has to be made for something to be legally about money? Well then, when looked in that way, *everything anyone ever does* is about money. You are, again (sigh) redefining words and terms. If you redefine a term to be universal, it becomes meaningless. What your attempt here is to say that your specific case is true, and is different from my specific case, because your specific case is universally true. This, of course, contradicts your claim, and is nothing more than schoolyard argument logic. Murdering someone with a knife carries no less a penalty than shooting them, absent any other qualifiers, and in fact no distinction is made except between degrees of intent. But in some cases, use of a knife and use of a gun are illegal, and not all instances of those cases overlap, which if you'll remember, goes back to my original point.
It's rational to outlaw the use of Caller ID spoofing as opposed to generic fraud (which is *not* illegal), even though CID spoofing is a form of (generic) fraud, and can be used to engage in other (specific) frauds. Mere ownership of the tool is not illegal--i.e., owning a PBX is not illegal. Using it to falsely identify yourself will be (assuming the bill makes it all the way to law) illegal.
My main gripe was with the libertarianesque, knee-jerk reaction of "nanny state" and "it's a feature!". More laws+more prisons+more thinking of the children = happy voters. Cynical, and unfortunately apt. That doesn't make laws inherently wrong. I agree with the general notion that the more laws there are, the less just a nation is, but that's a generality, and cannot be applied to any specific law. And a small point regarding what you've said, this law has nothing to do specifically with "the children" and appears to have no jail time involved.
You claim that the secondary crime should be the differentiator. I say merely *impersonating* a cop should be illegal, not just as some generic "fraud", but because it's an attempt to gain general power one doesn't have the right to, even if no other crime is committed. Merely stealing an identity, even if you don't commit any other crime, should be illegal, and have a different punishment, and writing a bad check should be illegal as well, etc. In any case, any law which makes a tool illegal rather than bad actions performed with the tool is a bad law. Then you have no problem whatsoever with your neighbor (not necessarily your existing neighbor, but any neighbor you may ever have, by choice or not) owning a nuclear bomb? Sarin gas? Or someone keeping dynamite in an apartment building?
The fact is, some tools *should* be illegal or severely restricted. Your sentiment goes too far, it goes from cases where it's true (in general, outlawing a tool *is* foolish), and applies it too broadly (to say outlawing a tool is *always* bad). That's because caller id spoofing ISN'T fraud it is a harmless deception. If you use that deception to illicit an unfair gain then you have committed fraud and would have committed a criminal act without this law. Are you certain of that? Laws are specific things (they have to be), and if Caller ID spoofing does not fall under a current law, then it *won't* necessarily be illegal, even if it is fraud (the money kind you seem to think is the only kind).
For example, calls pretending to be from the DNC, which are really from the RNC (this happened during the 2004 election, although I do not know if Caller ID spoofing was involved) had nothing to do, directly (i.e., legally) with money, and instead had to do with political influence.
Is that harmless?
Should impersonating a police officer, identity theft, false advertising and passing fake checks all have the same punishment? These are all, at the base, fraud. Could they even reasonably fit under one singular law? We're making every damn little thing a frickin' crime in this country anymore. Here's the thing, the general term "fraud" is not illegal. Only specific forms of fraud. For example, claiming you can bench 200 lbs when you can barely press half that is not illegal. So, instead of just making "fraud" illegal, laws target specific types, and they *define* those specific types. Caller ID spoofing probably doesn't fall into any existing category of fraud, so this form of fraud can be presently engaged in with impunity.
So what choices are there? Basically, they are to expand an existing law to cover Caller ID spoofing, create a new law, or ignore it altogether. Ergo this story.
Your post is all baseless ad hominem, and no fact.
Leave it to Slashdot to predictably label fraud as a "feature" and laws designed to prevent it "nannystate".
Note the words, "all things remaining equal". In such a case, it most certainly does *not* depend.
The reason I added that clause is because this discussion is about generalities (one whole system vs another), and for that reason, there's no sense in cherry-picking scenarios which support one assertion or another. For example, if you get to choose your situations, a Windows 95 machine could be more secure than a hardened OpenBSD machine.
However, if you make things equal, with one exception (like I did), you highlight the effect of that one difference, and it's that very difference that this part of the thread is about.
Well, no doubt CmdrTaco carefully sifts through all the tags submitted for every story, and diligently evaluates them for selection. He even, I'm certain, cross-references tags for relationships to other projects to see if one is just an unlabeled continuation of the other. After such fastidious examination, and only then, does it make the grade. A grade which your most impressive tag passes with ease.
Given Slashdot's exemplary editorial standards, how could it possibly be otherwise?
This is clearly a gross oversight on Taco's part, and will be looked into with the gravest of concern, there can be no doubt. I suspect your well-crafted tag will don the front page in no time, perhaps even in an extra-crisp font to make up for any negligence and mishandling involved.
I look forward to it with heightened eagerness, and commend you on the alacrity and aplomb you've shown in this, your all-important tag-choosing endeavor.
Godspeed, you will prevail.
Let's, in fact, *actually* make things more equal. Two *exactly identical* PCs with *exactly identical* installs of Linux, with one and only one exception: PC A is connected to the Internet, PC B is not. Do you *honestly* believe both PCs are equally secure? That the non-networked PC is not, actually, more secure[*], all other things remaining equal?
[*] I have to add, because I know otherwise someone would bring this up, that it's technically *possible* both PCs are equally secure, assuming the networked PC doesn't call out to the Internet, and there are no security flaws *at all* in the card drivers, firewall, etc. But unless you actually know for sure that your code and hardware are 100% secure, that unknown is, itself, less secure. That's not to mention the *actual* security flaws that actually exist, since even though the networking *might* be 100% secure, it's exceptionally close to certain that it isn't.
This just debunks the first report. Just debunks *one aspect* of the first report. Or did he take the other items into consideration as well?
As it stands, this debunks the first and second (i.e., all) reports.
It's most likely true that there are people who take this façade at face-value and form the hybrid belief of ID + evolution, but these people do not reflect the views of the initiators and promoters of ID.
The reason ID is presented as it is, apparently agnostic towards evolution (god *could* have done it in 6 literal days, or it *could* have started evolution, perhaps tinkering here-and-there as necessary) is that their prized idea, creationism, has fully failed to enter mainstream education. ID is a compromise that, at the very least, gets god into the discussion, if by another name (the intelligent designer). The IDers also realize that, even though *technically* ID allows for evolution, this will jell most with creationists, giving their view a voice it does not deserve, and if it tacks on some allies who aren't creationists, so much the better, since the non-creationist ID supporters will be in the vast minority, so ID gains the benefit of their support without the drawbacks of actually having to promote evolution.
The whole, "prove it" line about love in Contact (of which this is a variant) is one of the most ridiculous arguments there is. In science, you don't *prove* anything. That's the sole realm of math and logic. In science, you decide whether there's evidence to support something, and love most certainly produces evidence.
What, exactly, is that meant to say?
In both cases, you have set of bad things A. In the carbon fiber case, you have additional set B (all carbon fiber-related problems).
Just because A is horrible, does that mean A + B is not worse?
Not that I'm against carbon fiber wings (I'm most definitely not), I just think it's silly to so cavalierly downplay risks, especially when they are being forced upon others.
Ok, all you self-professed libertarians: where do you stand on this?
Do you believe employers should be allowed to require employees to have RFID implants?
You've got it all backwards. People are *genuinely* excited about the iPhone, and are not merely responding to an ad agency telling them that they should be excited. The "live up to the hype" problem arises from hype without evidence, like happened with the Segway, or happens with a highly promoted big-budget movie.
The Segway failed to live up to the hype because it was kept so secret that imagination ran wild, and there's no way an actual product can compete with wild imagination.
Big-budget films often fail (but not always) to live up to their hype because the hype has nothing to do with the *actual* quality of the film, but instead is meant to meet the studio's need to attract moviegoers. It doesn't matter if the movie sucks, if it's the studio's best film for the year, they have to stand behind it "110%" and promote it like it's the best movie ever.
With the iPhone, it's different. It's like hyping a movie we've already seen 90% of. That last 10% could suck, but people genuinely want it based on actual evidence, and not mere marketing.
There's certainly room for let-down with the iPhone. The pricing plans could be insane (it's highly doubtful they will be worse than present plans), or the keyboard could be annoying, or the data-rate could be frustrating, but we've already seen the iPhone in action and already have a lot of evidence to support the hype.
As for waiting until Friday, it's called "anticipation". Since we can't have, or even play with, an iPhone right now, news and gossip is all we've got. Or do you *never* talk about something before it's released? Do you never get excited about something that's going to happen in the future? Some new game? A family vacation? Your marriage?
Yeah, no need to get excited about any of those things. Better to just be a complete wet-blanket, then you'll never have to fear disappointment. What a dull existence that would be!
The main thing iCal is lacking at present is a back-end server, and that is coming with Leopard's iCal.
There's absolutely no reason whatsoever that there can't be an "iPhone 1.01 update" awaiting every iPhone user upon their first connection through iTunes.
A film (or CD, or book, or whatever), costs something to create, costs something to manufacture, costs something to promote, and costs something to ship. Due to technology, the highlighted items are, or can be, very close to zero (cents, or fractions of cents). The other costs still exist.
The problem is that, once the other costs are paid, *anyone* can just step in and perform the highlighted steps. This is taking advantage of costs paid for by others and is just as wrong (or at least, similarly wrong) to when corporations do the exact same thing to *us*. For example, corporations not paying taxes, but driving on roads the rest of us paid for; a buggy MS operating system which requires users to spend money on antivirus software, or to suffer downtime, data loss, and IT expenses; a factory which dumps toxic waste into the environment, transferring the cost of dealing with it from the company to the people who now have severe medical conditions.
At this point, I realize you have probably taken my post as being pro-DRM. It's not. It's anti-stupid-anti-DRM posts. DRM *works*. There can be absolutely *no* *doubt* *whatsoever* that people who *would* have copied a DVD or iTunes track haven't, due to the DRM. But the problem is that DRM does the exact same thing that DRM is meant to protect against--specifically, it transfers a cost to an innocent party.
DRM is, as many have posted, a flawed system, and it's doomed to eventual failure in the long run, and I *do* oppose it fully, and believe we will see more EMI's in the next few years, and should even see film and television content drop DRM sometime eventually as well, but this will *only* happen if there is an influential figure fighting against DRM. The reason for this is that *DRM works*. Just like dumping toxic waste into the nearest river *works*. It takes a counter-force to get people to stop doing a wrong thing that works. The first step in fighting DRM is to fully and honestly understand DRM. If you don't, media executives will just hear your lies, and know them to be lies, and dismiss your *entire* argument.
Pointing out the flaws in DRM is proper. Stating DRM is offensive is noble. Stating DRM does not work is a lie.
The problem with DRM is that it's not only effective at slowing piracy, it's effective at locking consumers out of their own content. Some DRM can be useful to discourage blatant piracy Wait a minute! Didn't you just say, *in the preceding sentence* that DRM is ineffective? If it discourages some piracy, it's effective. That's the only reason it still exists. The various labels and studios (except EMI) do not yet realize that DRM hurts more than it helps. but relying on it excessively is just dumb. That is, in fact, 100% true.
That's exactly the point. To get the attention of selfish people like you who will only take action when their daily routine is affected.
Maybe instead of complaining to us, or to pandora, you should complain to Congress. Make the need for such outages unnecessary, and we'll stop promoting them.
I realize it's common, I just don't believe that a majority of the 60 million or whatever installs of OS X there are out there have their docks on the side.
I suspect, for the aggregate of Macs, it's: dock on the bottom > dock on the bottom + audohide > dock on the side.
Although certainly, among some subsets of the Mac user base, docks on the side are going to be more prevalent than among others, perhaps so much so in some as to make up the majority. But in the general sense (which is what I was replying to), I would be extremely surprised to find out most docks are on the side.
I've heard it's optional (an interview with someone important at Apple (Steve?), or maybe even during the keynote). Have you checked in System Preferences? A "defaults write" command? Or maybe that feature is one of the "interface polishes" that are yet to happen.
Regardless, I think the translucent menu is a good idea, and one that probably doesn't grab you at first, but takes some acclimation. Also, I think having it be configurable via System Preferences (or at least via defaults), is also a good idea.
How long are you thinking it will take to press a disc, stick it in a box, and ship it to the store?
Given that FC is in Sept., and FC is the first *intended* final version, a month+ of going through fine-tuning, and a week or two of manufacturing, seems more than adequate.