I think I can assure you that Blender is having no trouble at *all* in the survival department. Yes, it is difficult to master at first. The UI is always evolving, but no matter how you slice it, high-quality 3D is quite difficult no matter how many dialogs and buttons and you pile on top of it. That's just the nature of the beast. For people that need software that has been dumbed down, there's always Poser and others like it.
I believe that the parties involved might be of interest to some people, and for variosu reasons. For example, Google has been touted ad the "omni-beneveloent corporate goliath" of the internet. One of the reasons *I* liked Google (aside from having a good search engine) was the fact that its founders seemed to be well-grounded - in other words, their pursuit wasn't based on the "status" it might afford them, but in being able to do something useful (and very well) with internet technology.
When stories like this surface, it makes me wonder if the money has changed some fundamental aspects of their initial vision. If money can serve as a catalyst to *this* kind of change, what other changes can result? Will they, at some point in the future, adopt an AT&T-like mentality where money is more important than integrity?
I thought crap like what you've described led to a terrible morale problem within the company. Fiorina's decisions, good or bad, are only part of the equation. Running on half-empty all the time because your employees feel so disenfranchised can't be a good thing.
Well, it happens here in the US too. There are plenty of stories regading people being put on the 'do not fly' list due to circumstances like this as well.
I'd say with a fairly high degree of certainty that any system capable of producing so many false positives, is pretty much worthless. But then, this is the US government, and I'm sure they know exactly what they're doing.
Cullen, Microsoft's chief privacy strategist, has been very involved with the issue and readily admits that the software maker dropped the ball on WGA Notifications.
When I see stuff like this, I don't know what to think. Come on! A chimp could figure out that someone will eventually discover anything you try to get away with, especially when it involves unauthorized communication with unknown servers. They didn't drop the ball, they tried something stupid and got caught. Fess up.
I don't mind paying for content under the following two conditions: 1) it is reasonably priced, and 2) the money gets back to those who created it - not those who think they deserve to afford a payment on a second yacht.
Ownership of physical objects doesn't exist in a natural sense either, and it too had to be created and expanded by men with vested interests.
No, but possession does. Laws merely define the circumstances under which someone might lawfully possess something.
Personally I think a right to property based on the fact that the owner of that property created it purely through the intellect
That "creation" process rarely happens. It's not that people are claiming ownership of truly innovative "discoveries," but of every last crumb of potential implementation. The last example I can think of where this process might have been labeled legitimately so, is the research at Xerox PARC that revolutionized the manner in which people interact with computers.
First things first. Before said "robber" comes in and "steals" from said company, said company claims de facto ownership of something that is intangible and that is easily reproduced by someone in the field, due to its obviousness. It's like saying, "I saw that applying a directed stream of air to an object will make it move under certain conditions - before anyone else recognized it (or anyone was dumb enough to admit that they recognized something to obvious) - I now own that idea."
Note that "ownership" here is entirely subjective - it is not based on the physical acquisition or development of a tangible object, but on something defined by law. Ownership of "ideas" and "methods" does not exist in any kind of natural sense, so in order for this notion to carry any weight, this sense of ownership of things of an intangible nature had to be created and expanded by men with vested interests.
Property that is "open to the public" is not "private" in a practical sense. It is owned privately, but open for public use. That said, if we happen to both show up at the same restaurant, do you honestly feel that smokers have a right to subject others to the poisonous effluent that results from their addiction? I don't. If people want to smoke on private property, they can go home and knock themselves out.
...isn't whether people actually move to linux, what matters is that linux and open source exist. What matters is that there is a very decent counter to the evil making its way from Redmond. It's there whether or not people decide to use it, and it will continue to be available, unencumbered and free.
You say you don't mind other people seeing what you are doing and while the common misconception is completely understandable, I point out that in fact the government is made up of people.
There is one key difference: John Q. Public does not have the ability to impose the force of law upon me (however the the laws in question might be rightly or wrongly applied).
Privacy isn't necessarily the issue here - it's not that other people might be able to see what I'm doing, it's that the government is turning this into a surveilance mechanism without due process or just cause. Some might argue that it's not the government, but the ISP watching, but they are doing so with the intent of aiding and abetting the goverment. The goverment may as well be doing it themselves.
Just out of curiousity - what are your views on safe deposit boxes?
I don't use one. I am under the impression that banks do (or at least used to) respect the confidentiality of their customers- that's precisely one of the reasons for a safe deposit box. Oddly, most business used to exercise a certain degree of discretion when it came to customer data...but the whole scene is now suffering from a tragedy of the commons - once one company decided it was ok to pimp data associated with their customers, everyone joined in.
This suffers from the same issue that everything else related to technology- if all you have is one single point of failure, and it fails, you are screwed.
The problem is that all it takes is one screw-up, and you're hosed big time (depending on what kinds of data were involved). I hope people really start to think about four key words here: "out of your control". Once you've lost control, you're susceptible to whatever policies, or changes in policy, the company controlling your data wishes to exercise. I'd rather either endure the alleged inconvenience, or run my own server (which probably will not be an option).
My bank requires that their customers provide a password so that they can "verify" who their dealing with over the phone, or even at the teller line. Here's the funny part...the tellers will just ask, out in the open, "what's your password?" and the customers just stand there and blurt them out for anyone to hear. It's the dumbest form of "security" I've seen.
They use what ever will give the spin they need to get what they're after. Be that as it may, they quite obviously do not know the difference between a militant and a patriot.
Did anyone happen to notice that incredibly industrial-strength table cloth? The computer burst into flames (and is still burning in the second photo), and all it has is a laptop-sized scorch mark on it. That's one hell of a table cloth.
Basically, they've been told it's OK to buy information they're not supposed to have, from someone who may have used illegal means, because since it's at arms length (ie. no Federal employee needed to break a law) and not an organization who is bound to obey any consumer protection laws, it must be all OK. All of the crimes were comitted by other people who apparently don't have to follow the rules.
Sexual predators or not, the utlimate choice comes down to whether or not the victim decides, on their own free will, to meet someone in person. This is *not* the fault of MySpace...as many have said already, this is just plain stupidity. While he should be tried for anything illegal he may have done, her sentence should be a certain number of hours of community service spreading the word to other kids that making the stupid choice to meet a complete stranger from an online encounter can have consequences.
I'd like to point out that there is a reason the light turns yellow for several seconds...
How many "several" seconds are we talking here? I've seen yellow lights that last a whopping three seconds before changing to red. I've also seen this behavior documented by a reporter in the local paper. As best I can tell it's good business for the city and the insurance companies.
As has been mentioned, the problem with cameras is that they are the judge, jury, and executioner - unless you have some inordinately overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you are guilty. If you are pegged by a camera for speeding, but you were actually driving under the limit, there's no way you can prove it.
While I agree that most things are fair game in public, that doesn't change the fact that it's just about impossible to live without leaving the privacy of your own home.
Exactly. There is a certain infrastructure that have been built around the notion of a modern society, and as citizens, we are, for all practical purposes, required to use it. What other practical options do you have, for example, than setting your weekly trash out for collection by a specialized service? By default, then, you are required to "make public" whatever waste you generate. Unfortunately, this also means that once this happens, it's fair game to anyone (including government).
I remember a local news story about someone who had been the target of an investigation, which included the information gathered from DNA tests performed on leftover residue on materials that were located in this persons' trash. So, merely by throwing something away, under current law, you are implicitly granting permission for people to find out all manner of information about you. I personally do not believe that it should work this way, the same way I do not believe that being "in public" implicitly grants the government permission to surveil you.
Slashdot Mirror
I think I can assure you that Blender is having no trouble at *all* in the survival department. Yes, it is difficult to master at first. The UI is always evolving, but no matter how you slice it, high-quality 3D is quite difficult no matter how many dialogs and buttons and you pile on top of it. That's just the nature of the beast. For people that need software that has been dumbed down, there's always Poser and others like it.
I believe that the parties involved might be of interest to some people, and for variosu reasons. For example, Google has been touted ad the "omni-beneveloent corporate goliath" of the internet. One of the reasons *I* liked Google (aside from having a good search engine) was the fact that its founders seemed to be well-grounded - in other words, their pursuit wasn't based on the "status" it might afford them, but in being able to do something useful (and very well) with internet technology.
When stories like this surface, it makes me wonder if the money has changed some fundamental aspects of their initial vision. If money can serve as a catalyst to *this* kind of change, what other changes can result? Will they, at some point in the future, adopt an AT&T-like mentality where money is more important than integrity?
I thought crap like what you've described led to a terrible morale problem within the company. Fiorina's decisions, good or bad, are only part of the equation. Running on half-empty all the time because your employees feel so disenfranchised can't be a good thing.
Witness the continued destruction of a free market economy via the patent office.
Well, it happens here in the US too. There are plenty of stories regading people being put on the 'do not fly' list due to circumstances like this as well.
I'd say with a fairly high degree of certainty that any system capable of producing so many false positives, is pretty much worthless. But then, this is the US government, and I'm sure they know exactly what they're doing.
Cullen, Microsoft's chief privacy strategist, has been very involved with the issue and readily admits that the software maker dropped the ball on WGA Notifications.
When I see stuff like this, I don't know what to think. Come on! A chimp could figure out that someone will eventually discover anything you try to get away with, especially when it involves unauthorized communication with unknown servers. They didn't drop the ball, they tried something stupid and got caught. Fess up.
I don't mind paying for content under the following two conditions: 1) it is reasonably priced, and 2) the money gets back to those who created it - not those who think they deserve to afford a payment on a second yacht.
Ownership of physical objects doesn't exist in a natural sense either, and it too had to be created and expanded by men with vested interests.
No, but possession does. Laws merely define the circumstances under which someone might lawfully possess something.
Personally I think a right to property based on the fact that the owner of that property created it purely through the intellect
That "creation" process rarely happens. It's not that people are claiming ownership of truly innovative "discoveries," but of every last crumb of potential implementation. The last example I can think of where this process might have been labeled legitimately so, is the research at Xerox PARC that revolutionized the manner in which people interact with computers.
First things first. Before said "robber" comes in and "steals" from said company, said company claims de facto ownership of something that is intangible and that is easily reproduced by someone in the field, due to its obviousness. It's like saying, "I saw that applying a directed stream of air to an object will make it move under certain conditions - before anyone else recognized it (or anyone was dumb enough to admit that they recognized something to obvious) - I now own that idea."
Note that "ownership" here is entirely subjective - it is not based on the physical acquisition or development of a tangible object, but on something defined by law. Ownership of "ideas" and "methods" does not exist in any kind of natural sense, so in order for this notion to carry any weight, this sense of ownership of things of an intangible nature had to be created and expanded by men with vested interests.
Property that is "open to the public" is not "private" in a practical sense. It is owned privately, but open for public use. That said, if we happen to both show up at the same restaurant, do you honestly feel that smokers have a right to subject others to the poisonous effluent that results from their addiction? I don't. If people want to smoke on private property, they can go home and knock themselves out.
You say you don't mind other people seeing what you are doing and while the common misconception is completely understandable, I point out that in fact the government is made up of people.
There is one key difference: John Q. Public does not have the ability to impose the force of law upon me (however the the laws in question might be rightly or wrongly applied).
Privacy isn't necessarily the issue here - it's not that other people might be able to see what I'm doing, it's that the government is turning this into a surveilance mechanism without due process or just cause. Some might argue that it's not the government, but the ISP watching, but they are doing so with the intent of aiding and abetting the goverment. The goverment may as well be doing it themselves.
Just out of curiousity - what are your views on safe deposit boxes?
I don't use one. I am under the impression that banks do (or at least used to) respect the confidentiality of their customers- that's precisely one of the reasons for a safe deposit box. Oddly, most business used to exercise a certain degree of discretion when it came to customer data...but the whole scene is now suffering from a tragedy of the commons - once one company decided it was ok to pimp data associated with their customers, everyone joined in.
This suffers from the same issue that everything else related to technology- if all you have is one single point of failure, and it fails, you are screwed.
The problem is that all it takes is one screw-up, and you're hosed big time (depending on what kinds of data were involved). I hope people really start to think about four key words here: "out of your control". Once you've lost control, you're susceptible to whatever policies, or changes in policy, the company controlling your data wishes to exercise. I'd rather either endure the alleged inconvenience, or run my own server (which probably will not be an option).
My bank requires that their customers provide a password so that they can "verify" who their dealing with over the phone, or even at the teller line. Here's the funny part...the tellers will just ask, out in the open, "what's your password?" and the customers just stand there and blurt them out for anyone to hear. It's the dumbest form of "security" I've seen.
They use what ever will give the spin they need to get what they're after. Be that as it may, they quite obviously do not know the difference between a militant and a patriot.
As such, AT&T may disclose such records to protect its legitimate business interests,
Translation: "Everything has its price, including our souls and our integrity as a member of the private sector."
This problem is nothing that a few hundred thousand simultaneous cancellations won't cure FAST.
Did anyone happen to notice that incredibly industrial-strength table cloth? The computer burst into flames (and is still burning in the second photo), and all it has is a laptop-sized scorch mark on it. That's one hell of a table cloth.
Basically, they've been told it's OK to buy information they're not supposed to have, from someone who may have used illegal means, because since it's at arms length (ie. no Federal employee needed to break a law) and not an organization who is bound to obey any consumer protection laws, it must be all OK. All of the crimes were comitted by other people who apparently don't have to follow the rules.
Not too unlike hiring a hitman. Target: America.
How about an IQ test?
Sexual predators or not, the utlimate choice comes down to whether or not the victim decides, on their own free will, to meet someone in person. This is *not* the fault of MySpace...as many have said already, this is just plain stupidity. While he should be tried for anything illegal he may have done, her sentence should be a certain number of hours of community service spreading the word to other kids that making the stupid choice to meet a complete stranger from an online encounter can have consequences.
I'd like to point out that there is a reason the light turns yellow for several seconds...
How many "several" seconds are we talking here? I've seen yellow lights that last a whopping three seconds before changing to red. I've also seen this behavior documented by a reporter in the local paper. As best I can tell it's good business for the city and the insurance companies.
As has been mentioned, the problem with cameras is that they are the judge, jury, and executioner - unless you have some inordinately overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you are guilty. If you are pegged by a camera for speeding, but you were actually driving under the limit, there's no way you can prove it.
While I agree that most things are fair game in public, that doesn't change the fact that it's just about impossible to live without leaving the privacy of your own home.
Exactly. There is a certain infrastructure that have been built around the notion of a modern society, and as citizens, we are, for all practical purposes, required to use it. What other practical options do you have, for example, than setting your weekly trash out for collection by a specialized service? By default, then, you are required to "make public" whatever waste you generate. Unfortunately, this also means that once this happens, it's fair game to anyone (including government).
I remember a local news story about someone who had been the target of an investigation, which included the information gathered from DNA tests performed on leftover residue on materials that were located in this persons' trash. So, merely by throwing something away, under current law, you are implicitly granting permission for people to find out all manner of information about you. I personally do not believe that it should work this way, the same way I do not believe that being "in public" implicitly grants the government permission to surveil you.