Yeah, it's partly a technical problem, and one I feel has been solved already. I use 1password. If I go to a new site, it transparently creates a random password for me, and store the password along with any other login information I set up and the names of the text fields. Once I unlock the database it will type that password in for me. I remember one password, but have many.
For the couple of sites that I visit on more than one occasion I have different memorable (but strong) passwords. But for some one off internet purchase, there's no reason to keep using the same password, or to even remember a password. Let the computer do the grunt work.
KeePass does much of the same, even letting you create little macros for it's autotype feature, so it's compatible with pretty much any program. Hell, if you only ever use Firefox you can just set up a master password and get much of the same ease of use and protection.
Another benefit of a good password manager is that, if you keep backups of the database, should you lose your laptop or become otherwise compromised, you have a list of what passwords you have, and you can change them all in five minutes. They'll fence your laptop anyway, but at least you don't have to wonder.
they can tell you down to the last penny how much it costs
It's a lot easier to keep track of one company's pricing than 10, especially when they only have 5 or so different models on the floor.
All I can say is, try using OS X before you assume the only thing Apple has going is polish. There's no good reason to judge a computer system based on who's using it rather than its technical merits. Reading the pro/anti-Apple posts on here makes me think we're back in the days of people flaming each other over BBS because someone had a Commodore and someone had a Tandy.
Anyway, how can you say that Apple doesn't sell to the masses? It's not like it's this boutique product that only 2,000 people have ever used. They have close to 10% of the market.
It shouldn't surprise you. Being quite old at this point, the Catholic faith is chock full of mysticism, but its followers are extremely practical people. I don't know if the two things are related.
Also, the Church itself changed quite a bit during the Counter-Reformation, in terms of philosophy as well as structure.
I'll tell you as someone who was raised Catholic...it's all about life cycle events. They're considered holy, so you approach them a certain way, which gives rise to the major sacraments. Baptism. Death: Last Rites. Marriage: Holy Matrimony (or Holy Orders). Church itself has Eucharist, which is the most holy. Instead of having a period like Ramadan, you are expected to be penitent on a schedule (Reconciliation).
Honestly, not strange things for a religion to deal with. And none of that sola fide crap. You can be Catholic all you want, but if you're a rapist you aren't getting past cloud one.
It does get weird...my grandma loves reading about Padre Pio, who everyone (well, everyone that's Catholic and crazy) said had the stigmata. But that's religion for you. Many Catholics in America are recent immigrants. Real "salt of the earth" people, not just people who like the phrase but are in reality lazy and stupid. They have their weird customs but they know better than to go knocking on doors with them...they don't eat fish on Friday but on the other hand you don't hear them screaming about the rapture.
Actually, that's the nice thing about growing up Catholic...if you've actually read the Bible people look at you funny:)
And there we have it. The key to literally reading the Bible...once something doesn't seem consistent with the rest, you just break out the Hebrew concordance. Poof! Potential cognitive dissonance averted.
So somehow they have to pick and choose which parts are literal and which are not.
Somehow? That's their bread and butter. Any literary scholar will tell you that there's no such thing as a literal reading of a text. All we have with the Bible is people that claim to read it as literal but in reality emphasize and de-emphasize very liberally. And there is a whole industry of concordances, study guides and the like, so that you can pick your favorite (what I'm calling) pattern of emphasis, and feel like it's somehow standard.
Seriously, Genesis comes right out of the gate with two incompatible creation stories. So, no, there's no way to literally read the thing. Which is good, because if someone did, they'd be really, really, really screwed in the head.
That's a great response. You may have realized this by now (it being Saturday where I am) but the parent post was a copy-paste from a YouTube smartass known as venomfangx.
The whole VFX story is interesting. He's someone who's intelligent enough to construct (what appears to be) a rhetorical argument, but is quick to make bad leaps in logic in support of his pet idea. But his errors are pointed out to him by many, and over time he tweaks the arguments. By the time this was written they were whittled down to what I consider to be three main misunderstandings:
1. That Darwin must be wrong since his writings may or may not pass Popper's tests
2. The whole "kind" thing...basically a statement that if we can find two organisms that appear similar, but prove scientifically that they are not of the same "kind", then evolution is false. Of course, the beauty of this is that you can play fast and loose with your classifications, and anyone who tries to give you an honest-to-god taxonomy lecture will just bore any innocent bystanders to death, giving you a win by default:)
3. The idea (not exaggerating here--he states it again and again in clear English) that disproving evolution in and of itself proves Christian creationism. Nevermind that there are other theories of evolution, and other forms of Creationism. Ironically, Muslim creationist "scholars" point to evolution as another ill brought on by the Christian West. Not a secular problem, but a Christian problem.
So, yeah, empty rhetoric. The interesting part was when one of his debunkers' videos were taken down because of DMCA violation claims that the kid made. The affected person scared him really bad with the threat of legal retaliation, and then made him read a protracted apology. Twice, in fact, because the first time wasn't sincere enough. Funny stuff.
Given that it's February now, I wonder if his arguments have gotten any better?
God is supernatural. If you want to say that there is beauty or something similar in the workings of the universe, be my guest. But giving it a name and a beard is not something you will ever see any scientist worthy of the name do.
This is not to say that there is absolutely no God. This is also not to say that science is somehow inferior for refusing to study the possible effects of one. It is simply a statement of what science is, and what it deals with.
Assuming the sides you mention are Creationism vs acceptance of evolution:
That they are both theories does not make them equal in their usefulness, or their ability to make predictions, or accurately explain past events.
But they are not both theories. Only one of the two is in fact a scientific theory...it's the one that is a naturalistic explanation for natural phenomena. The other relies on the supernatural. Not testable, not falsifiable. Not a theory.
What exactly about evolution hasn't been proven to your satisfaction? If you ask me a serious question I will do my best to point you in the right direction. The amount of evidence supporting evolution is just staggering. Darwin's own writing is a great starting point. But like the summary mentions, the theory has been expanded and modified. Not to mention, Darwin wasn't the only one to explore it in his own time. It's never been a case of "thus spake Darwin". This is hundreds of years of solid science talking.
You're right about this: evolution cannot be witnessed in a laboratory on the scale that it has (yes supposedly) unfolded on this planet. But as with all manners of inquiry, sometimes we can figure things out without literally seeing them happen.
I personally think our chromosome #2 is pretty damning proof of evolution.
If you're looking for a mathematical proof, you won't find one. Or is that the point?
Theories require evidence, and we are standing on a planet that is full of it. A lot of it is discussed in this thread. Still more is discussed in pretty much every biology textbook you will find.
What is your evidentiary requirement? Because I guarantee you that it has been met, should you care to start reading. Wherever you have set the bar, it has long since been passed.
Actually, here's a proof: Macro-evolution and micro-evolution are the same thing. The prefix simply denotes a time scale. If you have one then you by necessity have the other. You admit the former, so you must also admit the latter. QED.
Think of it like this: they're getting paid twice...once for the product you use and once for the one you don't. It doesn't matter if they suppress Vista in this case, because OEMs are buying it anyway and passing on the cost. In a perfect world, the OEMs would have brought this suit the day XP support ended, but they don't care because the upgrade treadmill benefits them most of all.
This is hypothetical, though. I think that in reality MS gave the OEMs the same XP downgrade rights as their volume license customers, because everyone was screaming at them to do it. I'm sure they would have preferred to stick to the roadmap they'd set and get on with selling Vista.
I think it's the monopoly status, honestly. It changes the game a lot. I agree that normally they should be able to charge whatever they want, but we're still looking at a desktop monoculture. And if you are a monopoly with lots of government contracts, charging twice for your most popular product is a quick way to get lynched.
They got off pretty easy with the DoJ so I can't say I feel bad either.
Granted, that's nowhere near top of the line anymore, but I still can't say I know many people with a computer like that. I'm not in the ghetto. It's just that everyone's got an XP-sized box that's still bumbling along.
I don't understand. If you have a site license, shouldn't you also have media that accepts the license? Then as long as there are drivers for XP, it doesn't matter what OS comes on the hardware. Is it because of a warranty issue with the OEM or something that you're paying for the downgrade?
I can't profess to understand the intricacies of Windows licensing, my place doesn't have enough machines to make bulk licensing worth my time. So maybe there's something I just didn't realize.
Also, I'm not clear on what you're saying about running linux. You're not paying extra to MS to run linux, right? Just paying for Red Hat licenses or something?
I'd say that's already happened, as far as copyright is concerned. I didn't bring it up because the thread was about what's legal or illegal rather than what happens in practice.
Fair use is unfortunately mostly an urban legend these days. It's a defense, not something you can establish prior to being challenged. So if someone that can afford a stable of lawyers accuses you of a copyright violation, it ceases to matter whether you or any other reasonable person considered it fair use.
The DMCA makes the breaking of encryption in certain circumstances a copyright violation. There are certain exemptions to this. Apple is trying to make sure that jailbreaking *on the whole* does not become one of them. Obviously unauthorized distribution of commercial apps is as much as a violation as it ever was.
The one thing Microsoft does *not* have a monopoly on, is being a tech company that's not afraid to do or say something that in the long run is immoral. There are plenty of them. Doesn't mean they're all Microsoft.
And they claim that there is some kind of law that prohibits anyone who buys this little plastic box from opening it, determining how it works, and telling other people how to make it work better.
Depending on the circumstances, the DMCA can do exactly that. However, there are some allowances for reverse engineering and if memory serves correct there is some case law regarding cell phones specifically which says that it's OK to open them.
I could be wrong on the second part but my point is that it's not black and white.
This is a lot like Nintendo saying it's illegal to dump a ROM. The situation as described by written and case law is more complicated, but it serves the company's interest to *basically* lie to people, in order to fight what they see as *basically* piracy.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, it's partly a technical problem, and one I feel has been solved already. I use 1password. If I go to a new site, it transparently creates a random password for me, and store the password along with any other login information I set up and the names of the text fields. Once I unlock the database it will type that password in for me. I remember one password, but have many.
For the couple of sites that I visit on more than one occasion I have different memorable (but strong) passwords. But for some one off internet purchase, there's no reason to keep using the same password, or to even remember a password. Let the computer do the grunt work.
KeePass does much of the same, even letting you create little macros for it's autotype feature, so it's compatible with pretty much any program. Hell, if you only ever use Firefox you can just set up a master password and get much of the same ease of use and protection.
Another benefit of a good password manager is that, if you keep backups of the database, should you lose your laptop or become otherwise compromised, you have a list of what passwords you have, and you can change them all in five minutes. They'll fence your laptop anyway, but at least you don't have to wonder.
they can tell you down to the last penny how much it costs
It's a lot easier to keep track of one company's pricing than 10, especially when they only have 5 or so different models on the floor.
All I can say is, try using OS X before you assume the only thing Apple has going is polish. There's no good reason to judge a computer system based on who's using it rather than its technical merits. Reading the pro/anti-Apple posts on here makes me think we're back in the days of people flaming each other over BBS because someone had a Commodore and someone had a Tandy.
Anyway, how can you say that Apple doesn't sell to the masses? It's not like it's this boutique product that only 2,000 people have ever used. They have close to 10% of the market.
It shouldn't surprise you. Being quite old at this point, the Catholic faith is chock full of mysticism, but its followers are extremely practical people. I don't know if the two things are related.
Also, the Church itself changed quite a bit during the Counter-Reformation, in terms of philosophy as well as structure.
I'll tell you as someone who was raised Catholic...it's all about life cycle events. They're considered holy, so you approach them a certain way, which gives rise to the major sacraments. Baptism. Death: Last Rites. Marriage: Holy Matrimony (or Holy Orders). Church itself has Eucharist, which is the most holy. Instead of having a period like Ramadan, you are expected to be penitent on a schedule (Reconciliation).
Honestly, not strange things for a religion to deal with. And none of that sola fide crap. You can be Catholic all you want, but if you're a rapist you aren't getting past cloud one.
It does get weird...my grandma loves reading about Padre Pio, who everyone (well, everyone that's Catholic and crazy) said had the stigmata. But that's religion for you. Many Catholics in America are recent immigrants. Real "salt of the earth" people, not just people who like the phrase but are in reality lazy and stupid. They have their weird customs but they know better than to go knocking on doors with them...they don't eat fish on Friday but on the other hand you don't hear them screaming about the rapture.
Actually, that's the nice thing about growing up Catholic...if you've actually read the Bible people look at you funny :)
And there we have it. The key to literally reading the Bible...once something doesn't seem consistent with the rest, you just break out the Hebrew concordance. Poof! Potential cognitive dissonance averted.
So somehow they have to pick and choose which parts are literal and which are not.
Somehow? That's their bread and butter. Any literary scholar will tell you that there's no such thing as a literal reading of a text. All we have with the Bible is people that claim to read it as literal but in reality emphasize and de-emphasize very liberally. And there is a whole industry of concordances, study guides and the like, so that you can pick your favorite (what I'm calling) pattern of emphasis, and feel like it's somehow standard.
Seriously, Genesis comes right out of the gate with two incompatible creation stories. So, no, there's no way to literally read the thing. Which is good, because if someone did, they'd be really, really, really screwed in the head.
That's a great response. You may have realized this by now (it being Saturday where I am) but the parent post was a copy-paste from a YouTube smartass known as venomfangx.
Here's a rebuttal someone posted in May:
http://talkingtotheists.blogspot.com/2008/05/story-thus-far-noted-youtube.html
The whole VFX story is interesting. He's someone who's intelligent enough to construct (what appears to be) a rhetorical argument, but is quick to make bad leaps in logic in support of his pet idea. But his errors are pointed out to him by many, and over time he tweaks the arguments. By the time this was written they were whittled down to what I consider to be three main misunderstandings:
1. That Darwin must be wrong since his writings may or may not pass Popper's tests
2. The whole "kind" thing...basically a statement that if we can find two organisms that appear similar, but prove scientifically that they are not of the same "kind", then evolution is false. Of course, the beauty of this is that you can play fast and loose with your classifications, and anyone who tries to give you an honest-to-god taxonomy lecture will just bore any innocent bystanders to death, giving you a win by default :)
3. The idea (not exaggerating here--he states it again and again in clear English) that disproving evolution in and of itself proves Christian creationism. Nevermind that there are other theories of evolution, and other forms of Creationism. Ironically, Muslim creationist "scholars" point to evolution as another ill brought on by the Christian West. Not a secular problem, but a Christian problem.
So, yeah, empty rhetoric. The interesting part was when one of his debunkers' videos were taken down because of DMCA violation claims that the kid made. The affected person scared him really bad with the threat of legal retaliation, and then made him read a protracted apology. Twice, in fact, because the first time wasn't sincere enough. Funny stuff.
Given that it's February now, I wonder if his arguments have gotten any better?
God is supernatural. If you want to say that there is beauty or something similar in the workings of the universe, be my guest. But giving it a name and a beard is not something you will ever see any scientist worthy of the name do.
This is not to say that there is absolutely no God. This is also not to say that science is somehow inferior for refusing to study the possible effects of one. It is simply a statement of what science is, and what it deals with.
Assuming the sides you mention are Creationism vs acceptance of evolution:
That they are both theories does not make them equal in their usefulness, or their ability to make predictions, or accurately explain past events.
But they are not both theories. Only one of the two is in fact a scientific theory...it's the one that is a naturalistic explanation for natural phenomena. The other relies on the supernatural. Not testable, not falsifiable. Not a theory.
What exactly about evolution hasn't been proven to your satisfaction? If you ask me a serious question I will do my best to point you in the right direction. The amount of evidence supporting evolution is just staggering. Darwin's own writing is a great starting point. But like the summary mentions, the theory has been expanded and modified. Not to mention, Darwin wasn't the only one to explore it in his own time. It's never been a case of "thus spake Darwin". This is hundreds of years of solid science talking.
You're right about this: evolution cannot be witnessed in a laboratory on the scale that it has (yes supposedly) unfolded on this planet. But as with all manners of inquiry, sometimes we can figure things out without literally seeing them happen.
I personally think our chromosome #2 is pretty damning proof of evolution.
http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm
In a broader sense, the fact that life on this planet can be classified with decent accuracy in a tree-like structure is a little telling I think.
But this is an assertion which must be proven.
If you're looking for a mathematical proof, you won't find one. Or is that the point?
Theories require evidence, and we are standing on a planet that is full of it. A lot of it is discussed in this thread. Still more is discussed in pretty much every biology textbook you will find.
What is your evidentiary requirement? Because I guarantee you that it has been met, should you care to start reading. Wherever you have set the bar, it has long since been passed.
Actually, here's a proof:
Macro-evolution and micro-evolution are the same thing. The prefix simply denotes a time scale. If you have one then you by necessity have the other. You admit the former, so you must also admit the latter. QED.
Small towns subsidize cities? Something tells me you didn't bother to look that one up.
Corporations are guaranteed liberty?
Posting to undo a mod. Sorry, meant to get you out of the zeroes but I can't read.
Because the OEMs are greedy as hell?
Think of it like this: they're getting paid twice...once for the product you use and once for the one you don't. It doesn't matter if they suppress Vista in this case, because OEMs are buying it anyway and passing on the cost. In a perfect world, the OEMs would have brought this suit the day XP support ended, but they don't care because the upgrade treadmill benefits them most of all.
This is hypothetical, though. I think that in reality MS gave the OEMs the same XP downgrade rights as their volume license customers, because everyone was screaming at them to do it. I'm sure they would have preferred to stick to the roadmap they'd set and get on with selling Vista.
Normally this is where individual responsibility comes into play. But the fact that they are a monopoly changes things quite a bit.
I think it's the monopoly status, honestly. It changes the game a lot. I agree that normally they should be able to charge whatever they want, but we're still looking at a desktop monoculture. And if you are a monopoly with lots of government contracts, charging twice for your most popular product is a quick way to get lynched.
They got off pretty easy with the DoJ so I can't say I feel bad either.
Granted, that's nowhere near top of the line anymore, but I still can't say I know many people with a computer like that. I'm not in the ghetto. It's just that everyone's got an XP-sized box that's still bumbling along.
I don't understand. If you have a site license, shouldn't you also have media that accepts the license? Then as long as there are drivers for XP, it doesn't matter what OS comes on the hardware. Is it because of a warranty issue with the OEM or something that you're paying for the downgrade?
I can't profess to understand the intricacies of Windows licensing, my place doesn't have enough machines to make bulk licensing worth my time. So maybe there's something I just didn't realize.
Also, I'm not clear on what you're saying about running linux. You're not paying extra to MS to run linux, right? Just paying for Red Hat licenses or something?
I'd say that's already happened, as far as copyright is concerned. I didn't bring it up because the thread was about what's legal or illegal rather than what happens in practice.
Some people program for a living. Controversial I know.
Fair use is unfortunately mostly an urban legend these days. It's a defense, not something you can establish prior to being challenged. So if someone that can afford a stable of lawyers accuses you of a copyright violation, it ceases to matter whether you or any other reasonable person considered it fair use.
The DMCA makes the breaking of encryption in certain circumstances a copyright violation. There are certain exemptions to this. Apple is trying to make sure that jailbreaking *on the whole* does not become one of them. Obviously unauthorized distribution of commercial apps is as much as a violation as it ever was.
Thank you for the link and the better summary. I'm surprised I found it underneath the pile of knee-jerk Apple bashing.
So who's the old Microsoft? IBM?
The one thing Microsoft does *not* have a monopoly on, is being a tech company that's not afraid to do or say something that in the long run is immoral. There are plenty of them. Doesn't mean they're all Microsoft.
Right, but also not everyone that understands how to secure a computer platform works for Apple. So it's a handful vs. another handful I guess.
And they claim that there is some kind of law that prohibits anyone who buys this little plastic box from opening it, determining how it works, and telling other people how to make it work better.
Depending on the circumstances, the DMCA can do exactly that. However, there are some allowances for reverse engineering and if memory serves correct there is some case law regarding cell phones specifically which says that it's OK to open them.
I could be wrong on the second part but my point is that it's not black and white.
This is a lot like Nintendo saying it's illegal to dump a ROM. The situation as described by written and case law is more complicated, but it serves the company's interest to *basically* lie to people, in order to fight what they see as *basically* piracy.