Correct decision? You are kidding right? So it's ok to act irresponsibly and maliciously towards a minor (as an adult) and cause the death of said minor? And you should not face the consequences? There's no emotion about it, well, other than reactions to those that attempt to justify the adults actions as "free speech".
I guess this is the same group that thinks that it's ok to pirate music, movies and software because, well, you want to! Freedom of the Internet?
What happened to right and wrong? What happened to being held accountable for your actions?
I fear for the world our children have to live in 20 years from now.
That's what "Medical Charts" are for. Used to be every patient had a chart on a clipboard at the end of the bed. It should be a pretty simple thing to add that chart back into the mix and use it in case of emergencies.
As for the other side of things, the materials and information the doctor and nurses need to perform their duties should be available in cabinets and they should have been trained on their use, with or without a computer.
There's no excuse for not providing medical care because computers are down. Not to mention that many of the veteran doctors hate using the things in the first place.
I guess Symantec and McAfee should shut down their Mac operations since Macs are so safe. I wonder why they even try to sell antivirus software for Macs in the first place seeing how they are immune from attack!
Then it sounds like you have nothing to worry about. Of course I find it hard to believe that people would download music instead of ripping it themselves... I would suspect that a chronic downloader does not own the content they are downloading, and are, therefore, downloading it illegally.
While I also hate the idea of this kind of thing, and seriously doubt it will ever happen, I also find it hard to believe that anyone would actively download ONLY the music they own.
This is what just blows me away about these types of cases. Seeing how many people try to defend them as if it is some form of free speech or fair use or whatever.... it's wrong, period, and anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.
Their latest scheme to avoid paying is wrong as well, but what do you expect from a culture that values selfishness and unethical immoral behavior.
Star Trek had less of an initial draw, much due to fears it would dissapoint, and some due to the fact it's not a superhero movie.
Now that it's out, and the reviews are in, I think we'll see a strong running over the next several weeks as those who decided to wait run out to see it and the die hards go for the second viewing:)
First off you have NO idea why it was reconsidered. You can speculate all day long, but it's pure speculation.
Second 3.0 is in beta and is NOT released so it has no bearing on the "legal protection" Apple might have from it's parental controls. If that was the reason or concern you can damn well bet Apple would have waited until 3.0 is released before approving the app.
They reconsidered on the merits of the app and the validity of the initial rejection itself, nothing more.
So your solution is what exactly? Blame the users for not being technically savvy? That shows a complete lack of understanding of the purpose of computing and the audience who uses it.
Security is a much technical implementation as it is smart design, and this choice by Microsoft is not smart security design.
If the infrastructure is designed poorly and makes poor security practices easy, it's not the users fault, it's the fault of those who implemented the infrastructure.
It would be nice if you actually made a point. I'm suprised you were modded up.
You and I know ATI cards are top performers and SOLID stable cards. The trumping they gave nVidia over the last year speaks volumes.
The release of this card does nothing more than to say they are sticking to a tried and true strategy. While nVidia is forced to sell more costly hardware ATI is able to produce less expensive hardware that outperforms the competition.
I'm sorry but I have to laugh at the irony of this. Hey, I hope they get shot down too, I hate them as does everyone else... but don't you think "obvious abuse of the legal system" applies to both them and those downloading and sharing copyrighted works?:)
Just remember your post is your opinion, and not one shared by the vast majority of people.
Wikipedia is most certainly NOT a broken experiment. It's also entitled to protection of it's brand, just like any other organization would be. Posting that they are "a horrible joke" has nothing to do with their rights (and is, as already stated, your opinion).
The abuse of the Wikipedia brand is a wrong as it would be for any other and they deserve the full protection under the law. If it was me I'd fine the hell out of the Wikipediaart bozos that think to abuse the law for their own personal reasons, while at the same time wasting others time and money. The joke should be on them.
Interesting isn't it. And as you read deeper into the article the ONLY things you hear mention that would apply to a "slick new interface" are actually called "subtle changes"... like moving the power buttons to the right of the menu....
Interface as slick and new as...? Someone explain to me cause I don't get it.
Oh melodrama, it's why we come. And for the occasional wack job.
You do realize, Mr. Wack, that most translations are done by machine nowadays? And that any edits, if they even occur, are lackluster at best?
And IF the work is done by a good translator do you really honestly believe they deserve as much credit as the AUTHOR? What planet are you from anyway?
I suppose you actually think copyright infringement is a right too, right?
Anybody who doesn't realize that Obama took on one of the biggest messes left by a precceding administration is seriously fooling themselves.
But hey, there are those of you with no more of an agenda but to look, pray, hope and push for the new guy to fail, we understand you. We don't like you, but we understand you.
First off how about you quote the actual statements made by the government, or the law itself, instead of interpretations that serve your position? It's like Slashdot posters referencing their own posts as a factual basis for their argument.
Additionally try to avoid adding in your own hyperbole to change the meaning of the entire argument to win your point. It's interesting how you insert statements like "completely immune" and "never be sued for surveillance that violates federal privacy statues". Really? Do you think it's a responsible thing to do to simply make up facts to suit your position? Didn't your parents ever teach you anything about integrity and character?
The "facts" are that the government is looking for the ability to surveil without fear of random joe schmoe lawsuits from political lynching groups simply to help win the next election. They also state that if they willfully disclose the information gathered then they are open to suit.
What it boils down to is this. We need to have surveilance and spying in order to protect ourselves. What we don't need is every Tom Dick and Harry suing to the point where the governement can no longer protect it's citizens. What idiot actually thinks that there's no need for intelligence gathering WITHIN OUR OWN borders? Do you think that terrorists and foreign nationals only plan and spy outside of the United States?
It seems these days huh? Exactly how many days has it been? How many people have been "smitten down and piled up"?
It boils down to this. The election is over, your side lost, deal with it and stop living in yesterday. And if you don't have real meaningful things to say don't say them at all.
Or does it pain you so much that Obama not only won but is popular as well?
Lol. Why do people come here and make these outrageous posts? Arguing that they have soverign immunity from ANY federal laws? Not required to follow the constitution? You sir are an idiot.
Even if I hated Obama I'd not listen to hyperbole like this.
Stop being part of the problem, like the press. Talk about facts not your made up self serving fantasy world hype.
Don't confuse the press's fearmongering to sell ad space and your own political conspiracy theories.
These theats are real. Just because you want to believe that they are only public in order to distract us from other things....
I wonder, how many of you are "distracted" by these things from the other troubles, like the economy? I bet none. So exactly what are we being distracted from anon? Book burnings?
Slashdot Mirror
Correct decision? You are kidding right? So it's ok to act irresponsibly and maliciously towards a minor (as an adult) and cause the death of said minor? And you should not face the consequences? There's no emotion about it, well, other than reactions to those that attempt to justify the adults actions as "free speech".
I guess this is the same group that thinks that it's ok to pirate music, movies and software because, well, you want to! Freedom of the Internet?
What happened to right and wrong? What happened to being held accountable for your actions?
I fear for the world our children have to live in 20 years from now.
That's what "Medical Charts" are for. Used to be every patient had a chart on a clipboard at the end of the bed. It should be a pretty simple thing to add that chart back into the mix and use it in case of emergencies.
As for the other side of things, the materials and information the doctor and nurses need to perform their duties should be available in cabinets and they should have been trained on their use, with or without a computer.
There's no excuse for not providing medical care because computers are down. Not to mention that many of the veteran doctors hate using the things in the first place.
Sensitive is NOT classified, they are entirely different levels. Also, this was as public website, not a "classified" network.
Random stats for the win.
I guess Symantec and McAfee should shut down their Mac operations since Macs are so safe. I wonder why they even try to sell antivirus software for Macs in the first place seeing how they are immune from attack!
Then it sounds like you have nothing to worry about. Of course I find it hard to believe that people would download music instead of ripping it themselves... I would suspect that a chronic downloader does not own the content they are downloading, and are, therefore, downloading it illegally.
While I also hate the idea of this kind of thing, and seriously doubt it will ever happen, I also find it hard to believe that anyone would actively download ONLY the music they own.
I guess the truth hurts doesn't it :)
This is what just blows me away about these types of cases. Seeing how many people try to defend them as if it is some form of free speech or fair use or whatever.... it's wrong, period, and anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.
Their latest scheme to avoid paying is wrong as well, but what do you expect from a culture that values selfishness and unethical immoral behavior.
Star Trek had less of an initial draw, much due to fears it would dissapoint, and some due to the fact it's not a superhero movie.
Now that it's out, and the reviews are in, I think we'll see a strong running over the next several weeks as those who decided to wait run out to see it and the die hards go for the second viewing :)
I think it's a case of Chris being an idiot and Slashdot demonstrating, once again, a complete lack of quality content.
This guy is an idiot.
First off NO ONE accused him of being a "thief" or a "criminal", that's just his idea of drama.
Secondly they asked him to simply have himself added to the account. Is that so difficult?
Hmm, wrong.
First off you have NO idea why it was reconsidered. You can speculate all day long, but it's pure speculation.
Second 3.0 is in beta and is NOT released so it has no bearing on the "legal protection" Apple might have from it's parental controls. If that was the reason or concern you can damn well bet Apple would have waited until 3.0 is released before approving the app.
They reconsidered on the merits of the app and the validity of the initial rejection itself, nothing more.
So your solution is what exactly? Blame the users for not being technically savvy? That shows a complete lack of understanding of the purpose of computing and the audience who uses it.
Security is a much technical implementation as it is smart design, and this choice by Microsoft is not smart security design.
If the infrastructure is designed poorly and makes poor security practices easy, it's not the users fault, it's the fault of those who implemented the infrastructure.
This is a link to a Goole search for nVidia BSOD in 2008. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=nvidia+bsod+2008&btnG=Search
So I have to agree, if it doesn't work it doesn't work.
Of course if you don't know how to use it you don't know how to use it. You stuck with a card that BSOD since last October? /boggle
Try turning off Vista AERO.
It would be nice if you actually made a point. I'm suprised you were modded up.
You and I know ATI cards are top performers and SOLID stable cards. The trumping they gave nVidia over the last year speaks volumes.
The release of this card does nothing more than to say they are sticking to a tried and true strategy. While nVidia is forced to sell more costly hardware ATI is able to produce less expensive hardware that outperforms the competition.
And you keep telling yourself that if it makes YOU feel any better...
I'm sorry but I have to laugh at the irony of this. Hey, I hope they get shot down too, I hate them as does everyone else... but don't you think "obvious abuse of the legal system" applies to both them and those downloading and sharing copyrighted works? :)
As you perfectly predicted... yeah
Your best shot at fixing this.... our savior
Just remember your post is your opinion, and not one shared by the vast majority of people.
Wikipedia is most certainly NOT a broken experiment. It's also entitled to protection of it's brand, just like any other organization would be. Posting that they are "a horrible joke" has nothing to do with their rights (and is, as already stated, your opinion).
The abuse of the Wikipedia brand is a wrong as it would be for any other and they deserve the full protection under the law. If it was me I'd fine the hell out of the Wikipediaart bozos that think to abuse the law for their own personal reasons, while at the same time wasting others time and money. The joke should be on them.
Interesting isn't it. And as you read deeper into the article the ONLY things you hear mention that would apply to a "slick new interface" are actually called "subtle changes"... like moving the power buttons to the right of the menu....
Interface as slick and new as...? Someone explain to me cause I don't get it.
Oh melodrama, it's why we come. And for the occasional wack job.
You do realize, Mr. Wack, that most translations are done by machine nowadays? And that any edits, if they even occur, are lackluster at best?
And IF the work is done by a good translator do you really honestly believe they deserve as much credit as the AUTHOR? What planet are you from anyway?
I suppose you actually think copyright infringement is a right too, right?
oops didn't log in on that post.
Anybody who doesn't realize that Obama took on one of the biggest messes left by a precceding administration is seriously fooling themselves.
But hey, there are those of you with no more of an agenda but to look, pray, hope and push for the new guy to fail, we understand you. We don't like you, but we understand you.
I smell a barn burning!
Fanatics like you make me sick. Don't they even teach values and ethics anymore in our schools?
First off how about you quote the actual statements made by the government, or the law itself, instead of interpretations that serve your position? It's like Slashdot posters referencing their own posts as a factual basis for their argument.
Additionally try to avoid adding in your own hyperbole to change the meaning of the entire argument to win your point. It's interesting how you insert statements like "completely immune" and "never be sued for surveillance that violates federal privacy statues". Really? Do you think it's a responsible thing to do to simply make up facts to suit your position? Didn't your parents ever teach you anything about integrity and character?
The "facts" are that the government is looking for the ability to surveil without fear of random joe schmoe lawsuits from political lynching groups simply to help win the next election. They also state that if they willfully disclose the information gathered then they are open to suit.
What it boils down to is this. We need to have surveilance and spying in order to protect ourselves. What we don't need is every Tom Dick and Harry suing to the point where the governement can no longer protect it's citizens. What idiot actually thinks that there's no need for intelligence gathering WITHIN OUR OWN borders? Do you think that terrorists and foreign nationals only plan and spy outside of the United States?
It seems these days huh? Exactly how many days has it been? How many people have been "smitten down and piled up"?
It boils down to this. The election is over, your side lost, deal with it and stop living in yesterday. And if you don't have real meaningful things to say don't say them at all.
Or does it pain you so much that Obama not only won but is popular as well?
Lol. Why do people come here and make these outrageous posts? Arguing that they have soverign immunity from ANY federal laws? Not required to follow the constitution? You sir are an idiot.
Even if I hated Obama I'd not listen to hyperbole like this.
Stop being part of the problem, like the press. Talk about facts not your made up self serving fantasy world hype.
Don't confuse the press's fearmongering to sell ad space and your own political conspiracy theories.
These theats are real. Just because you want to believe that they are only public in order to distract us from other things....
I wonder, how many of you are "distracted" by these things from the other troubles, like the economy? I bet none. So exactly what are we being distracted from anon? Book burnings?