Mail order catalogs. Started way, way back in the late 1700s and the business model still works today. Hell, Sears sent out their first catalog more than 100 years ago and still does so today. The products are different of course (from farm equipment to everyday department store items) but the basic concept of buying items in bulk, selling via catalog, and delivering directly to the home (while avoiding local sales tax) is still very much sound.
I think you're thinking along the lines of a more traditional search engine than what Microsoft is going for here. You are thinking the user will select a 'Hotels' radio button and enter a city and date in a form specifically for hotels. I think what they are actually going for is you simply typing in something like "3 star las vegas hotel june 26" would supply the obvious but might also give you details about show times, flight information, and package deals.
Something like a cross of Wolfram Alpha, Google, and Kayak: WA's natural language processing, Google's indexing of the web, and Kayak's aggregation of travel stuff.
Am I the only one that finds it interesting how short the lifetime is for Internet business models? Traditional business models can be successful for dozens if not hundreds of years. Web based models seem to only remain viable for around a decade at best, then competition crops up with a new idea or some independent developer ruins the model (Ad-block anyone?).
It seems to me that if your business is going to survive on the web, you'd better be spending time and effort every single day looking for new revenue streams and business models.
Right action demands serving all people and the most in need first not shareholders. In plain terms a corporation is about the essence of pure evil.
By that logic, if I don't live in a shack and give away all the money I don't absolutely need, I must be an evil, immoral person. Right and wrong are determined by culture and society. In our culture, a business has a duty to maximize shareholder value because shareholders have essentially loaned the corporation the money it needs to operate. If I loan you money, it is correct in our society to pay it back with agreed upon interest; there's very little difference between that and a corporation maximizing shareholder value.
The idea is that malware running as a normal user...
That isn't the idea at all. The idea is to prevent the malware running at all. Yes, there is nothing stopping malware from destroying your files or spreading once it is being run, but UAC puts a significant obstacle (a big scary warning requiring user interaction) before malware is installed.
Jews/Christians/Muslims quite often don't believe in magic but at the same time believes an invisible being turned people into salt.
No we don't, at least a lot of us don't. Please don't confuse every christian, Jew, or Muslim with fundamentalist, backward, literalistic holy book readers. They are a very vocal part of religions, but they do not represent all(or even most) believers.
Maybe I don't get what you're saying here so let me summarize my argument for why UAC makes sense...
UAC makes it much, much more difficult to install a program without the user's knowledge. UAC makes it much, much more difficult to make software run automatically on start up without the user's knowledge. UAC gives users more control over what is and isn't on their systems.
You seem to be making the argument that UAC is about protecting my data from someone else who uses my computer. That's not what UAC is meant to do.
To summarize: The trial judge is being accused of bias because he is a member of several IP protection groups. The judge assigned to review those allegations is also a member of the same groups. What's worse is that it seems the original judge may have directed the case specifically to this new judge.
The unanswered question is, why was the second judge found to be biased? If his membership in those groups made it inappropriate for him to judge copyright cases in general, that would imply the first judge will also be found biased. But if his membership only made it inappropriate because he was judging the implications of the first judge's membership, that is less meaningful.
What threats are you protecting against by subjecting users to extra authentication buttons when installing apps?
If something wants to install or edit system files or even view some important system information, you get a warning about it and explicitly have to ok the event. If someone clicks what they think is movie download (but is actually a malware installer) then clicks run without looking closely, UAC will pop up and ask if you really want to let that program edit system files.
Considering that the vast majority of malware is still caused by user initiated actions, that is a non-trivial piece of security.
Its been very thoroughly established that Apple's censorship program is based more upon the reviewer you get than any standard set of guidelines. Someone got overzealous and rejected it, that doesn't mean that it is against Apple's policies. Just re-submit the thing and I'd lay even money on it that it will be approved the next time.
I thought the implication in T3 was the Skynet was basically the Internet emerging into consciousness and the Cyber Research project was just how Skynet got access to the weapons. That's the only explanation I could think of for the fact that there are all kinds of computer problems before the Military project was even turned on.
They have/had a forum (erotic services) on their website known to all as a place you go to hire a prostitute.
Kind of how the phone book has an entire section dedicated to 'escort services'? Or kind of how cheap hotels rent rooms by the hour? Or kind of how the city government maintains street corners where women stand to sell themselves? Or kind of how you could use the telephone to contact a prostitute?
Craigslist is a forum where people can post information, it is a method of communication, nothing more. The idea that because a technology can be used for something illegal means the technology itself should be outlawed is both flawed and dangerous. A list of things that should be illegal following that logic: P2P software, guns, magnetic card readers, cars, knives, hammers, telephones, email, etc, etc.
Erotic Services includes services that are both legitimate and legal, just because some people abuse the forum to do something illegal doesn't mean the moderators are responsible. By that logic, I could sell myself in a Slashdot comment and the owners of slashdot should be responsible for my behavior.
He improperly used his office to personally threaten Craigslist into doing what he wanted. He also publicly and improperly stated that the operators of Craigslist were criminally responsible for prostitution, essentially calling them pimps in the national media. I'm not saying they're going to win, but I believe that those two issues are the basis for their case.
That is beyond confusing to me. The headline of the article is "'Flick of a switch' to override speed limiter". The subheading and first three paragraphs are all talking about how pointless the system is, since the driver can easily disable it. Can respectable news sites really change the message of an article that completely and call it an 'update'? To me, that should be a retraction/appology, not a single sentence at the end of the article.
And in this case, isn't this quite likely what is being sought?
It's a murder case and the commenter seemed to have knowledge of the crime. If, and that's a big 'if', this ruling is limited to similar circumstances (i.e. commenter seem to have intimate knowledge of a serious crime), I see no problem with it. Like most potentially abusive laws/rulings, it is the 'potentially' that worries me.
Summary: If you go too fast, they kill the engine and leave you stranded. Article: If you go too fast, they limit your speed to the legal speed limit and you can override it with a push of a button.
Summary is designed and implemented to piss off and scare the slashdot crowd. Article is a reasonable, if very intrusive, approach to reducing traffic accidents.
We'd complain if the mainstream media had a headline like "New Nuclear Power Plant Will Mutate Your Children?" and the article says "No, no it won't" wouldn't we? How is this any different.
I believe there is a difference between being investigated for a crime and being charged with it. Maybe there's more recent news items about Sony actually getting charged?
I'm about to commit a cardinal sin of slashdot, but I don't care.
Bring back idle
At least when all this worthless, not even funny 'news' was on idle, I could filter it out of my front page. Now it's in every category: news, entertainment, IT... Just put it in the corner somewhere so that those of us that don't want it don't have to see it.
Are they helping people communicate or are they publishing someone else's statements? Communication is generally from one person/group to another. Publishing is broadcasting to anyone who cares to listen. It seems to me there is a difference. If I swear on the phone and a little kid hears it, that's my fault. If I swear on live TV and a bunch of kids hear it, the network would be partially responsible.
(I am, obviously, not saying that swearing is/should be illegal, just using it as a convenient example).
Yep, how stupid of them to try to be reasonably and cooperate with other organizations. Why, if everyone did what they did... oh wait. If everyone did what they did the world would run a lot smoother and we wouldn't need to go to the courts over every tiny little issue. Now, obviously not everyone is going to cooperate, but that just means the organizations that do deserve our appreciation and encouragement, not our disdain
That's because WWII is easy: Nazi's == Evil. It's satisfying to kill Nazi's because deep down you think of them as inhuman monsters. It's worth noting that the only FPS genre currently more common than WWII is alien invasion, I think it's pretty clear what that says about our culture's current level of xenophobia.
Another reason the adaptations are loose: PK Dick was arguably insane.
No, seriously, I don't know if it was from the drugs or what, but anyone that thinks we're living in ancient Greece and that our world is being projected onto our consciousness by benevolent aliens/gods has got to be at least a little bit crazy. Especially if that belief is based in large part on an incident where he helped a Black guy stranded on the side of the road; all because a similar story takes place in Acts in the bible.
"Only stem cells created from sources which have little chance of ever being implanted for pregnancy may be used, and only with the consent of the genetic donors"
Ta-Da!!
One sentence that captures what they're actually trying to say, without invalidating the work that has already been done. Just write it in plain, understandable English and move on to the next issue please.
Dude, we survive everywhere. There is no other species on the planet that comes close to being as adaptable as human beings. We live in the tropics and the arctic and everywhere in between. We can take food out of oceans, out of swamps, out of the forests, and out of plains. We can grow food in the desert if we're forced to. For crying out loud, we can survive limited amounts of time in the vacuum of space.
The idea that the climate is going to change so fast and so drastically that it is going to risk human civilization is just ridiculous. We might have problems that are worth working to avoid, but human extinction isn't one of them. We'll dome over our cities and grow food in skyscrapers before we die off from global warming.
Slashdot Mirror
Mail order catalogs. Started way, way back in the late 1700s and the business model still works today. Hell, Sears sent out their first catalog more than 100 years ago and still does so today. The products are different of course (from farm equipment to everyday department store items) but the basic concept of buying items in bulk, selling via catalog, and delivering directly to the home (while avoiding local sales tax) is still very much sound.
I think you're thinking along the lines of a more traditional search engine than what Microsoft is going for here. You are thinking the user will select a 'Hotels' radio button and enter a city and date in a form specifically for hotels. I think what they are actually going for is you simply typing in something like "3 star las vegas hotel june 26" would supply the obvious but might also give you details about show times, flight information, and package deals.
Something like a cross of Wolfram Alpha, Google, and Kayak: WA's natural language processing, Google's indexing of the web, and Kayak's aggregation of travel stuff.
Am I the only one that finds it interesting how short the lifetime is for Internet business models? Traditional business models can be successful for dozens if not hundreds of years. Web based models seem to only remain viable for around a decade at best, then competition crops up with a new idea or some independent developer ruins the model (Ad-block anyone?).
It seems to me that if your business is going to survive on the web, you'd better be spending time and effort every single day looking for new revenue streams and business models.
Right action demands serving all people and the most in need first not shareholders. In plain terms a corporation is about the essence of pure evil.
By that logic, if I don't live in a shack and give away all the money I don't absolutely need, I must be an evil, immoral person. Right and wrong are determined by culture and society. In our culture, a business has a duty to maximize shareholder value because shareholders have essentially loaned the corporation the money it needs to operate. If I loan you money, it is correct in our society to pay it back with agreed upon interest; there's very little difference between that and a corporation maximizing shareholder value.
The idea is that malware running as a normal user...
That isn't the idea at all. The idea is to prevent the malware running at all. Yes, there is nothing stopping malware from destroying your files or spreading once it is being run, but UAC puts a significant obstacle (a big scary warning requiring user interaction) before malware is installed.
Jews/Christians/Muslims quite often don't believe in magic but at the same time believes an invisible being turned people into salt.
No we don't, at least a lot of us don't. Please don't confuse every christian, Jew, or Muslim with fundamentalist, backward, literalistic holy book readers. They are a very vocal part of religions, but they do not represent all(or even most) believers.
Maybe I don't get what you're saying here so let me summarize my argument for why UAC makes sense...
UAC makes it much, much more difficult to install a program without the user's knowledge. UAC makes it much, much more difficult to make software run automatically on start up without the user's knowledge. UAC gives users more control over what is and isn't on their systems.
You seem to be making the argument that UAC is about protecting my data from someone else who uses my computer. That's not what UAC is meant to do.
This is just laughable.
To summarize: The trial judge is being accused of bias because he is a member of several IP protection groups. The judge assigned to review those allegations is also a member of the same groups. What's worse is that it seems the original judge may have directed the case specifically to this new judge.
The unanswered question is, why was the second judge found to be biased? If his membership in those groups made it inappropriate for him to judge copyright cases in general, that would imply the first judge will also be found biased. But if his membership only made it inappropriate because he was judging the implications of the first judge's membership, that is less meaningful.
What threats are you protecting against by subjecting users to extra authentication buttons when installing apps?
If something wants to install or edit system files or even view some important system information, you get a warning about it and explicitly have to ok the event. If someone clicks what they think is movie download (but is actually a malware installer) then clicks run without looking closely, UAC will pop up and ask if you really want to let that program edit system files.
Considering that the vast majority of malware is still caused by user initiated actions, that is a non-trivial piece of security.
Its been very thoroughly established that Apple's censorship program is based more upon the reviewer you get than any standard set of guidelines. Someone got overzealous and rejected it, that doesn't mean that it is against Apple's policies. Just re-submit the thing and I'd lay even money on it that it will be approved the next time.
I thought the implication in T3 was the Skynet was basically the Internet emerging into consciousness and the Cyber Research project was just how Skynet got access to the weapons. That's the only explanation I could think of for the fact that there are all kinds of computer problems before the Military project was even turned on.
They have/had a forum (erotic services) on their website known to all as a place you go to hire a prostitute.
Kind of how the phone book has an entire section dedicated to 'escort services'?
Or kind of how cheap hotels rent rooms by the hour?
Or kind of how the city government maintains street corners where women stand to sell themselves?
Or kind of how you could use the telephone to contact a prostitute?
Craigslist is a forum where people can post information, it is a method of communication, nothing more. The idea that because a technology can be used for something illegal means the technology itself should be outlawed is both flawed and dangerous. A list of things that should be illegal following that logic: P2P software, guns, magnetic card readers, cars, knives, hammers, telephones, email, etc, etc.
Erotic Services includes services that are both legitimate and legal, just because some people abuse the forum to do something illegal doesn't mean the moderators are responsible. By that logic, I could sell myself in a Slashdot comment and the owners of slashdot should be responsible for my behavior.
He improperly used his office to personally threaten Craigslist into doing what he wanted. He also publicly and improperly stated that the operators of Craigslist were criminally responsible for prostitution, essentially calling them pimps in the national media. I'm not saying they're going to win, but I believe that those two issues are the basis for their case.
That is beyond confusing to me. The headline of the article is "'Flick of a switch' to override speed limiter". The subheading and first three paragraphs are all talking about how pointless the system is, since the driver can easily disable it. Can respectable news sites really change the message of an article that completely and call it an 'update'? To me, that should be a retraction/appology, not a single sentence at the end of the article.
Yet again...
Summary: "Cut all power"
Article: "limit the available fuel to the engine so that it will not exceed a certain speed"
And in this case, isn't this quite likely what is being sought?
It's a murder case and the commenter seemed to have knowledge of the crime. If, and that's a big 'if', this ruling is limited to similar circumstances (i.e. commenter seem to have intimate knowledge of a serious crime), I see no problem with it. Like most potentially abusive laws/rulings, it is the 'potentially' that worries me.
How is this information not in the summary?
Summary: If you go too fast, they kill the engine and leave you stranded.
Article: If you go too fast, they limit your speed to the legal speed limit and you can override it with a push of a button.
Summary is designed and implemented to piss off and scare the slashdot crowd. Article is a reasonable, if very intrusive, approach to reducing traffic accidents.
We'd complain if the mainstream media had a headline like "New Nuclear Power Plant Will Mutate Your Children?" and the article says "No, no it won't" wouldn't we? How is this any different.
I believe there is a difference between being investigated for a crime and being charged with it. Maybe there's more recent news items about Sony actually getting charged?
I'm about to commit a cardinal sin of slashdot, but I don't care.
Bring back idle
At least when all this worthless, not even funny 'news' was on idle, I could filter it out of my front page. Now it's in every category: news, entertainment, IT... Just put it in the corner somewhere so that those of us that don't want it don't have to see it.
Are they helping people communicate or are they publishing someone else's statements? Communication is generally from one person/group to another. Publishing is broadcasting to anyone who cares to listen. It seems to me there is a difference. If I swear on the phone and a little kid hears it, that's my fault. If I swear on live TV and a bunch of kids hear it, the network would be partially responsible.
(I am, obviously, not saying that swearing is/should be illegal, just using it as a convenient example).
Yep, how stupid of them to try to be reasonably and cooperate with other organizations. Why, if everyone did what they did... oh wait. If everyone did what they did the world would run a lot smoother and we wouldn't need to go to the courts over every tiny little issue. Now, obviously not everyone is going to cooperate, but that just means the organizations that do deserve our appreciation and encouragement, not our disdain
WWII has been beat to a pulp.
That's because WWII is easy: Nazi's == Evil. It's satisfying to kill Nazi's because deep down you think of them as inhuman monsters. It's worth noting that the only FPS genre currently more common than WWII is alien invasion, I think it's pretty clear what that says about our culture's current level of xenophobia.
Another reason the adaptations are loose: PK Dick was arguably insane.
No, seriously, I don't know if it was from the drugs or what, but anyone that thinks we're living in ancient Greece and that our world is being projected onto our consciousness by benevolent aliens/gods has got to be at least a little bit crazy. Especially if that belief is based in large part on an incident where he helped a Black guy stranded on the side of the road; all because a similar story takes place in Acts in the bible.
"Only stem cells created from sources which have little chance of ever being implanted for pregnancy may be used, and only with the consent of the genetic donors"
Ta-Da!!
One sentence that captures what they're actually trying to say, without invalidating the work that has already been done. Just write it in plain, understandable English and move on to the next issue please.
Dude, we survive everywhere. There is no other species on the planet that comes close to being as adaptable as human beings. We live in the tropics and the arctic and everywhere in between. We can take food out of oceans, out of swamps, out of the forests, and out of plains. We can grow food in the desert if we're forced to. For crying out loud, we can survive limited amounts of time in the vacuum of space.
The idea that the climate is going to change so fast and so drastically that it is going to risk human civilization is just ridiculous. We might have problems that are worth working to avoid, but human extinction isn't one of them. We'll dome over our cities and grow food in skyscrapers before we die off from global warming.