but if you are actually paying attention and not just zombie clicking accept to everything that pops up on your screen, you have the option to not install it.
That's the blame-the-user theory of user interface design:
I don't read everything that pops up on my screen. When I run an updater from a well-known, trusted company like Apple, I assume that it updates my software and doesn't install new software. Obviously, my trust in Apple is misplaced. What's next? They're going to replace the explorer shell with Finder?
Presumably one common interest between open source and Apple would be to out-do Microsoft in whichever way is applicable (ie for Apple OS share or sales, Firefox browser share).
No, that's not a common interest. When Apple gets market share from Microsoft, it does nothing for open source.
Seriously though, what a troll. In a recent article someone noted that Apple actually exceeds its contractual obligations to the FOSS by giving back some of its BSD licensed code. Granted only some, and granted only occasionally, but they don't have to give back at all if they don't want to.
Are you joking? BSD expects users to give back as much as GPL, it just doesn't hold a legals sword over people's heads; if Apple doesn't give back on all BSD software, they are not doing their part.
And against that, you can hold Apple/NeXT's decades-long waffling on gcc alone, which is GPL, but where they have gone out of their way in an attempt to make it as hard as possible for others to use their changes.
I suppose you could argue that Apple is using dominance in one market (media player) to gain traction in another (browser)
And you would be right. In addition, Apple is trying to displace Firefox that way.
If Apple really cared about open standards, they would be promoting Firefox on Windows--a mature and standards-compliant solution that already works on Windows. Instead, they have ported their own browser, which tells you that they think that there are proprietary differences in Safari that matter.
In their own minds, most of the Microsoft managers are quite certain that Microsoft would never abuse its position,
I think you're right: ridiculous as it is, many Microsoft managers really think they are winning in the market through quality and innovation.
These people haven't even consciously dealt with concepts like standards definitions before, they don't appreciate how critically important it is to get it right, and they don't want to now.
But these people presumably also want various office suite related tools from third party vendors, which are hard to create on the basis of OOXML.
In any case, in the end, I think OOXML vs ODF doesn't even matter that much anymore. Give it another few years, and all that stuff will be web-based.
Their common interest with Mozilla is open standards.
Apple and open standards? Don't make me laugh. Apple loves proprietary standards. Their business model is built on proprietary standards: a proprietary window system, a proprietary programming language, proprietary GUI APIs, proprietary iPod connectors, proprietary iTunes protocols, proprietary DRM, etc.
Why shouldn't Apple leverage iTunes like this?
Apple could easily make all the protocols and hardware interfaces on iTunes and the iPod open and non-proprietary. The entire digital audio industry would standardize on it within months. Instead, they choose to keep it all to themselves, because that way, they can squeeze their customers for all they're worth.
Apple has used a lot of free software such as KHTML on which Safari is built.
Yes, Apple uses plenty of free software; it saves them money. That's not a commitment to open standards.
is dealing with companies like Microsoft, the AAs and others who hate your freedom.
Apple hates my freedom, too. I know this first hand: I use an iMac, iTunes and a couple of iPods. Apple is as evil as Microsoft, and I really don't care whether Apple or Microsoft bites the dust first.
OOXML sucks technically, but that's not even the real problem. The real problem is Microsoft's waffling on making the standard open. If they had unequivocally placed the standard and all necessary patents in the public domain and committed to keeping it stable, more people might vote for it.
Using a combination of EEGs (which reveal alpha waves that signify calmness), EMGs (which measure muscle movement), and ECGs and GSR (which measure heart rate and sweating), developers hope to create a picture of a players mental and physical state. Near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS), which monitors changes in blood oxygenation, could also be incorporated since it overcomes some of the interference problems with EEGs.
The only component of those measurements that could actually be used for real-time game control is the EMG, that is, measuring the activation of muscles. That may make for interesting games, but it has nothing to do with "mind reading".
Good luck trying to pass that off as an accidental click.
Extensions like DTA, Scrapbook, gestures, PicLens, and others will all download all the links and images on a page with a single action. And in order to avoid blocking by sites, many of those extensions try hard to look just like manual browsing.
But I have to admit there is a second and powerful argument to be made by law enforcement and that is that if you see a link to a file called 8yo_lolita_sucking_cowboyneal_dry.avi and you deliberately attempt to download that file from a forum with known cp issues well then what can you expect.
How do you know it's deliberate? When people go to porn sites, they don't go to look at the text. From blindly clicking on all the image links to automatic gallery tools and batch download tools, there are plenty of ways in which people can end up with illegal images on their disks, without ever intending to.
I certainly have downloaded plenty of crappy images that I wouldn't have downloaded in a million years if I had know what they were actually showing (fortunately, no child pornography).
but I have a hard time explaining to myself exactly under what circumstances would this guy have to be under in order to convince me that he is completely innocent
He shouldn't have to explain. The notion that clicking on a link can land you in jail for several years is absolutely chilling.
The problem here is with the adjective "national", which suggests that there is a centralized database, and that's a privacy nightmare. But biometric ids don't need a centralized database; they can be stored securely and in a tamper-proof way on the card itself, making sure that nobody but yourself can use your driver's license or your bank card.
So, the problem isn't really the biometric identifier itself (which is generally a good thing), it's with whether it's implemented in a centralized way or in a distributed, privacy-preserving way. Unfortunately, a lot of political forces seem to be misuing biometric ids in order to fulfill their wet dreams of totalitarian, centralized registration and tracking.
Yet another incompatible frequency band. Why can't the US get together with the Europeans on frequency allocations so that the same devices work everywhere?
People have suggested criminalizing leaving access points open, or holding the owner of the access point responsible for what happens through it; let's not do that.
People have suggested criminalizing using an open access point, let's not do that either.
There's no evidence that moderate alcohol consumption has a long term negative effect on IQ at all. In fact, your body produces small amounts of alcohol, and it's a normal part of many foods.
Consuming large amounts of alcohol will destroy nerve cells and damage other tissues, and you cannot recover from that. The damage is probably largely done by acetaldehyde, an intermediate product produced when your body eliminates the alcohol from your system.
As opposed to your making up pversimplifications as strawmen?
I didn't make an "oversimplifications", you did: you tried to explain alcoholism as homeostasis, but it is not; alcohol is different from other drugs in that way.
There You also wrongly denied the benefits of modest regular alcohol use, including on cognitive function.
In short, you don't know what you're talking about. Now, stop bullshitting.
Similarly, nowadays we know how to filter and disinfect water. So whatever need for alcohol might have existed, doesn't exist any more.
That's incorrect; in fact, moderate alcohol consumption appears to have health benefits. And its health risks don't appear to result from effects on the brain, but on the liver.
It actually works that way, to a point, yes.
No, it doesn't. The way the body changes in response to repeated exposure to alcohol is nowhere near as simplistic as you dreamed it up.
The problem is that that compensated state remains so even when you're sober.
Again, nice fiction, but totally incorrect. Alcohol is a CNS despressant, but alcohol withdrawal doesn't make you manic.
I'm _only_ saying "don't be surprised if it affects your IQ",
One of the most frustrating misfeatures in OpenOffice is that it's impossible to put formulas into running text in Impress. I don't know whether that's for PowerPoint compatibility, but it makes Impress a pain to use for anything mathematical or scientific.
It would seem to me that the educational market is really important for OpenOffice, why isn't this being fixed?
Except that if your brain actually fully compensates, there would be no negative effects.
Anyway, it is wrong to just look at the effect of alcohol on your ability to think; the smartest people are not necessarily the ones that successfully reproduce. Modest alcohol consumption seems to have positive effects even today, and until a century ago, alcoholic beverages were pretty much the only ones that were safe to drink.
Smoking also seems to have a complex mix of risks and benefits, both to the individual and society. I'm glad smoking is banned in public places, but I think anybody who wants to smoke should be allowed to do so and have to live with the consequences.
if this is the intenal policy manual, then it is a leak. In fact, it's arguably a leak even if the document is handed to private banking clients but not generally public.
Many of Microsoft's so called "open source" efforts don't meet the definition and Microsoft's public statements are deliberately misleading. The purpose os OSI is to protect us from companies like Microsoft, not to support them in their disinformation campaigns,
The moment humans began to care for other members of their society survival of the fittest no long applied. What we want is far more relevant than what is evolutionarily beneficial to our species.
Not at all. We are subject to evolutionary constraints just like any other species; it just doesn't work in the simplistic and naive way you think it does. Selection may well happen at the whole species level, or at the society level.
Some societies are quickly eliminating themselves through low birth rates and life extension. The niches they leave may well be filled by people who are in some way or another genetically predisposed to shorter lifespans and high reproductive rates.
Slashdot Mirror
but if you are actually paying attention and not just zombie clicking accept to everything that pops up on your screen, you have the option to not install it.
That's the blame-the-user theory of user interface design:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUdpj3gJofQ
I don't read everything that pops up on my screen. When I run an updater from a well-known, trusted company like Apple, I assume that it updates my software and doesn't install new software. Obviously, my trust in Apple is misplaced. What's next? They're going to replace the explorer shell with Finder?
Presumably one common interest between open source and Apple would be to out-do Microsoft in whichever way is applicable (ie for Apple OS share or sales, Firefox browser share).
No, that's not a common interest. When Apple gets market share from Microsoft, it does nothing for open source.
Seriously though, what a troll. In a recent article someone noted that Apple actually exceeds its contractual obligations to the FOSS by giving back some of its BSD licensed code. Granted only some, and granted only occasionally, but they don't have to give back at all if they don't want to.
Are you joking? BSD expects users to give back as much as GPL, it just doesn't hold a legals sword over people's heads; if Apple doesn't give back on all BSD software, they are not doing their part.
And against that, you can hold Apple/NeXT's decades-long waffling on gcc alone, which is GPL, but where they have gone out of their way in an attempt to make it as hard as possible for others to use their changes.
I suppose you could argue that Apple is using dominance in one market (media player) to gain traction in another (browser)
And you would be right. In addition, Apple is trying to displace Firefox that way.
If Apple really cared about open standards, they would be promoting Firefox on Windows--a mature and standards-compliant solution that already works on Windows. Instead, they have ported their own browser, which tells you that they think that there are proprietary differences in Safari that matter.
Yeah, but whoever owns the web apps is going to set the interchange standards, and it ain't Microsoft.
Fusion in our lifetime!
In their own minds, most of the Microsoft managers are quite certain that Microsoft would never abuse its position,
I think you're right: ridiculous as it is, many Microsoft managers really think they are winning in the market through quality and innovation.
These people haven't even consciously dealt with concepts like standards definitions before, they don't appreciate how critically important it is to get it right, and they don't want to now.
But these people presumably also want various office suite related tools from third party vendors, which are hard to create on the basis of OOXML.
In any case, in the end, I think OOXML vs ODF doesn't even matter that much anymore. Give it another few years, and all that stuff will be web-based.
Their common interest with Mozilla is open standards.
Apple and open standards? Don't make me laugh. Apple loves proprietary standards. Their business model is built on proprietary standards: a proprietary window system, a proprietary programming language, proprietary GUI APIs, proprietary iPod connectors, proprietary iTunes protocols, proprietary DRM, etc.
Why shouldn't Apple leverage iTunes like this?
Apple could easily make all the protocols and hardware interfaces on iTunes and the iPod open and non-proprietary. The entire digital audio industry would standardize on it within months. Instead, they choose to keep it all to themselves, because that way, they can squeeze their customers for all they're worth.
Apple has used a lot of free software such as KHTML on which Safari is built.
Yes, Apple uses plenty of free software; it saves them money. That's not a commitment to open standards.
is dealing with companies like Microsoft, the AAs and others who hate your freedom.
Apple hates my freedom, too. I know this first hand: I use an iMac, iTunes and a couple of iPods. Apple is as evil as Microsoft, and I really don't care whether Apple or Microsoft bites the dust first.
OOXML sucks technically, but that's not even the real problem. The real problem is Microsoft's waffling on making the standard open. If they had unequivocally placed the standard and all necessary patents in the public domain and committed to keeping it stable, more people might vote for it.
Oh, please. Apple is as evil as Microsoft, and Mozilla is right to complain about them.
Claiming that open source and Apple have some kind of common interests is fiction.
The only component of those measurements that could actually be used for real-time game control is the EMG, that is, measuring the activation of muscles. That may make for interesting games, but it has nothing to do with "mind reading".
Ah, yes, Mantrid arms, weapons of mass destruction.
Good luck trying to pass that off as an accidental click.
Extensions like DTA, Scrapbook, gestures, PicLens, and others will all download all the links and images on a page with a single action. And in order to avoid blocking by sites, many of those extensions try hard to look just like manual browsing.
But I have to admit there is a second and powerful argument to be made by law enforcement and that is that if you see a link to a file called 8yo_lolita_sucking_cowboyneal_dry.avi and you deliberately attempt to download that file from a forum with known cp issues well then what can you expect.
How do you know it's deliberate? When people go to porn sites, they don't go to look at the text. From blindly clicking on all the image links to automatic gallery tools and batch download tools, there are plenty of ways in which people can end up with illegal images on their disks, without ever intending to.
I certainly have downloaded plenty of crappy images that I wouldn't have downloaded in a million years if I had know what they were actually showing (fortunately, no child pornography).
but I have a hard time explaining to myself exactly under what circumstances would this guy have to be under in order to convince me that he is completely innocent
He shouldn't have to explain. The notion that clicking on a link can land you in jail for several years is absolutely chilling.
The problem here is with the adjective "national", which suggests that there is a centralized database, and that's a privacy nightmare. But biometric ids don't need a centralized database; they can be stored securely and in a tamper-proof way on the card itself, making sure that nobody but yourself can use your driver's license or your bank card.
So, the problem isn't really the biometric identifier itself (which is generally a good thing), it's with whether it's implemented in a centralized way or in a distributed, privacy-preserving way. Unfortunately, a lot of political forces seem to be misuing biometric ids in order to fulfill their wet dreams of totalitarian, centralized registration and tracking.
Yet another incompatible frequency band. Why can't the US get together with the Europeans on frequency allocations so that the same devices work everywhere?
Let's minimize criminalizing behavior unnecessarily.
People have suggested criminalizing leaving access points open, or holding the owner of the access point responsible for what happens through it; let's not do that.
People have suggested criminalizing using an open access point, let's not do that either.
There's no evidence that moderate alcohol consumption has a long term negative effect on IQ at all. In fact, your body produces small amounts of alcohol, and it's a normal part of many foods.
Consuming large amounts of alcohol will destroy nerve cells and damage other tissues, and you cannot recover from that. The damage is probably largely done by acetaldehyde, an intermediate product produced when your body eliminates the alcohol from your system.
As opposed to your making up pversimplifications as strawmen?
I didn't make an "oversimplifications", you did: you tried to explain alcoholism as homeostasis, but it is not; alcohol is different from other drugs in that way.
There You also wrongly denied the benefits of modest regular alcohol use, including on cognitive function.
In short, you don't know what you're talking about. Now, stop bullshitting.
Similarly, nowadays we know how to filter and disinfect water. So whatever need for alcohol might have existed, doesn't exist any more.
That's incorrect; in fact, moderate alcohol consumption appears to have health benefits. And its health risks don't appear to result from effects on the brain, but on the liver.
It actually works that way, to a point, yes.
No, it doesn't. The way the body changes in response to repeated exposure to alcohol is nowhere near as simplistic as you dreamed it up.
The problem is that that compensated state remains so even when you're sober.
Again, nice fiction, but totally incorrect. Alcohol is a CNS despressant, but alcohol withdrawal doesn't make you manic.
I'm _only_ saying "don't be surprised if it affects your IQ",
Well, moderate alcohol consumption actually seems to improve cognitive ability slightly.
If you want to nuke your brain, be my guest.
I don't drink. But that's besides the point.
Stop making things up: you evidently have no clue about the physiology of alcohol or alcoholism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_consumption_and_health
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_alcohol_on_the_body
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol
People who by crap like Windows Mobile will probably buy this crap, too.
For everybody else, there are better choices.
One of the most frustrating misfeatures in OpenOffice is that it's impossible to put formulas into running text in Impress. I don't know whether that's for PowerPoint compatibility, but it makes Impress a pain to use for anything mathematical or scientific.
It would seem to me that the educational market is really important for OpenOffice, why isn't this being fixed?
Except that if your brain actually fully compensates, there would be no negative effects.
Anyway, it is wrong to just look at the effect of alcohol on your ability to think; the smartest people are not necessarily the ones that successfully reproduce. Modest alcohol consumption seems to have positive effects even today, and until a century ago, alcoholic beverages were pretty much the only ones that were safe to drink.
Smoking also seems to have a complex mix of risks and benefits, both to the individual and society. I'm glad smoking is banned in public places, but I think anybody who wants to smoke should be allowed to do so and have to live with the consequences.
Not so odd, since both science and prostitution are primarily about pleasing elderly men with deep pockets :-)
if this is the intenal policy manual, then it is a leak. In fact, it's arguably a leak even if the document is handed to private banking clients but not generally public.
Many of Microsoft's so called "open source" efforts don't meet the definition and Microsoft's public statements are deliberately misleading. The purpose os OSI is to protect us from companies like Microsoft, not to support them in their disinformation campaigns,
The moment humans began to care for other members of their society survival of the fittest no long applied. What we want is far more relevant than what is evolutionarily beneficial to our species.
Not at all. We are subject to evolutionary constraints just like any other species; it just doesn't work in the simplistic and naive way you think it does. Selection may well happen at the whole species level, or at the society level.
Some societies are quickly eliminating themselves through low birth rates and life extension. The niches they leave may well be filled by people who are in some way or another genetically predisposed to shorter lifespans and high reproductive rates.