We should not regulate tracking cookies for non-government things any more than we are doing now. Its pathetically easy to clear cookies and anyone with a bit of knowledge can even clear these "impossible to remove" Flash cookies. The problem is, if we try to spread this around we end up with these super-paranoid users which honestly are more of a pain to deal with than those who enjoy running IE 6 on an unpatched XP install. Remember when the media did stuff on normal cookies? There were people who thought a cookie, a plain text file contained viruses! All this media paranoia has given rise to people who think that -anything- has viruses, that the.pdf on a trusted site -MUST- have a virus, that Firefox -MUST- be a virus, that anything -MUST- be a virus, and that even though they admit you know more about computers than them, you -MUST- be breaking their computers whenever you navigate to a site other than Google and a handful of others.
'If users don't want to be tracked and there is a problem with tracking, then we should regulate tracking, not regulate cookies,' Soltani said."
Really, I can't think of a single good reason for the government to use tracking cookies. There are a few simi-legitimate reasons for third-parties to use tracking cookies, but they should not be regulated. If you don't want cookies either
A) Configure your browser to reject certain cookies
B) Clear cookies
C) Clear your Flash cookies
D) Write to a few OSS developers and tell them if you want a privacy program, or add on
Seriously, if people are -that- paranoid they should do the research to figure out how to disable them. If Flash cookies scare them that much, use Flashblock or don't even install Flash.
The next thing we know the senate will try to pass a bill removing all cookies because those are the things that cause Windows to be slow and spread viruses right? Its just like the '90s, all over again.
Honestly, I prefer the interface in IE 6 even a bit more than I do Firefox. Heck, really the only reason why I stopped using IE 6 (this was a few years ago, before IE 7 was past beta) for Firefox was that I wanted to eventually convert to Linux and wanted to make sure that I could use the browser. And really, IE 7+'s interfaces simply fail, everything is oversized and it seems to go terribly with XP, especially if you are using the classic theme. I use Firefox mostly because of its similarity to IE and ease of configuration. I tried using Opera but the lack of fine control (I practically live on Firefox's about:config page) and the funky position of the tab bar, made me not use it for long. While Opera, Firefox, Safari and Chrome are all light years ahead of IE 6, I have to say that the interface for IE 6 is very well done.
Yah, I really meant to hit the back button but got distracted by a call and ended up submitting it, I guess thats why I really shouldn't be commenting on/. at work... But its better than in my car...
What I play depends on my mood, not always because of work. Generally, during the summers I play a lot of FPS games, and newer-ish games. Generally during the winters I play RPGs and other more in-depth games. Generally in the fall and spring I pick up older titles or retrogame. I suppose the reason behind this is because in the summers there are a lot more new games, I vacation a lot in the summers and the fact that during summer I tend to have more free time and sitting down and playing an RPG for very long seems too much like a "waste" when I should be doing more productive things. And in the winter I can't physically escape as easily as I can during the summer times, so I need more escapist games like RPGs.
I don't really get the point of powerful CPUs for single-tasking either. For example, my local library has a machine with a Pentium Dual-Core to simply have a web browser open to their card catalog intranet. And other more powerful computers behind the desks (Core 2 quads!), I suppose the reasoning is it keeps the machine up-to-date for any new changes, but really, a Pentium III is more than sufficent to run the low-powered stuff that they are running, even buying a few used P4 boxes are a bit of overkill, and in a public library I'd rather the $500 or so extra spent on the machines to go to something more useful, like buying more books or updating some old ones (I'm looking at you, "Learn Fedora Core 2")
When was the last time that a hardware fault contributed to malware on a typical PC that there are many thousands of varieties (as in, not a mobile device, and not a Mac, because there are only a few models of those). In 99.999% of malware cases they are flaws in the OS, user or programs. Not a flaw in the CPU, motherboard, RAM or monitor. And really Sony, why disable a feature that a lot of people might have bought a high-end laptop to have that in it? Not that I know why anyone would even think about buying an overpriced Vaio, but really, don't disable features and make it impossible or hard to re-enable.
The problem is, even if you are willing to pay, the social network is totally worthless if no one else thinks the same way. And then, messages from only trusted people? Generally its trivial to ignore someone who you don't know. And sure, some things are kinda unnecessary (like Facebook applications...) but I don't mind the dynamic feed, I don't notice my internet connection slowing anymore with it on, nor does Firefox become unresponsive. As for trusted communication, sure, it might be nice, but in all honesty, its unnecessary, if you talk to someone enough on Facebook its pretty obvious if they aren't themselves, and if you don't know them just send them an e-mail, call them, etc. "trusted" communication is for 99.9% of people totally useless.
The only thing I really don't like about Facebook is the fact that they change things for no real reason, even with user outrage (look at Facebook 2.0).
If you value your freedoms, that is a -bad idea-. The entire point of government is to get more power and screw its citizens over and hope they don't rebel. Sure, they start with nice ideals, but they slowly descend into tyranny.
Goldeneye was the first console shooter that really worked. Plus, it was a ton of fun on local multiplayer in a time before online play was common with console games, making it fun to play, plus had lots of secrets.
You have a power PC CPU, it will soon not be able to run the latest OS X, and eventually will not be able to run most modern Mac software. PPC is dead in Apple's eyes, and really, without support from Apple you won't get all of your applications and such.
Toshiba Satellite L305-S5955, its got pretty pathetic specs, but is nice for watching DVDs, runs Vista not to terribly, and aside from some odd display problems (occasionally it refuses to go to its native resolution, but logging out and logging in works just fine) it works flawlessly in Ubuntu 9.04. http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=9368169&type=product&id=1218092959299 is the link, apparently it increased in price $30 since I got it, but when I bought it it was $300.
Does Microsoft make an IE that can run on Linux without requiring compatibility layers? How this is modded interesting I'm not sure, because that would be the same thing as forcing the 360 and Wii to play Blu-Ray movies and PS3 games.
Its because Apple doesn't want to make cheap computers that people want to spend money on. $999 for their cheapest laptop? The last three laptops I've bought have all been sub-$400. $599 for their cheapest desktop? The last desktop I bought was relatively high-end for no more than $450, plus its easily upgradable unlike the mini.
OS X isn't Apple's downfall, its the fact their computers are so annoyingly expensive that most people won't buy them. I know I don't have $1K to spend on a laptop, especially when I can buy a $300 laptop that meets all my needs, has a 15 inch screen and works decently with Linux. Macs are great if you have the money, but I don't have $600 I can just spend on a desktop that will quickly go obsolete, is a pain to upgrade and requires a converter to use my VGA monitor.
I'll bite again. I live in the US and I can't say that I'm not being constantly bombarded with pro-government propaganda and censorship. We've also had plenty of protests stopped violently, including one where the military slaughtered students at a college. In the American Revolution we also had farmers with pitch-forks and torches. We had to make or buy firearms to compete "fairly" as you eluded to.
Sure, there is censorship in the US, yes, there is propaganda in the US. On the other hand though, there are many, many, many news outlets that we can turn to for US news. While each one has their own bias, we don't have a government-owned news station giving us -all- of our news and censorship in place where we can't get news from other sources about other forms of government. If you want Anarchy a quick Google search pulls up http://www.anarchistnews.org/ , want Communism? You are free to get your news from People's Weekly World (http://www.pww.org/). You can find news sites for every single political view. All uncensored in the USA. In China, you have a few state-run news agencies, and that is it.
However, it was not a crime to own a gun in colonial times in the USA. Everyone could own a gun. Heck, they even had their own militia allowing them to have military-grade weapons. It is -illegal- for a citizen in China to own even a low-powered gun. If the American Revolution happened today with all the same conditions just with newer weapons, the revolutionaries would have access to fighter aircraft, tanks, cruise missiles and almost every home would have a fully automatic rifle, all legally.
I've seen China do rolling formations with tanks to demonstrate their power, and read about them using infantry to suppress protesters with lethal force. I have never read of China deploying snipers, bombers, missiles, and using them on their civilians. I highly doubt that any 1st world country a part of the UN would sit idly by if that were indeed happening.
Sure, but if the revolution broke into full civil war (which is what would happen if a violent revolution ended up gaining momentum), it wouldn't be too far fetched for them to use those types of weapons.
Basic freedoms are essential to preventing this though. If there was a larger presence of non-state-run media, could this have been brought to the attention sooner before this person died? Could people organize protests to give these "camps" such a bad name that no one is willing to send their child to them? If the Chinese government had allowed freedoms, could this have been prevented? I think the answer might just be a yes.
Or you know, the fact that they are constantly being bombarded with pro-government propaganda, has internet censorship, the fact that protests are violently stopped, and the fact that even very basic rights like the right to religion isn't even there, even for religions that are very non-violent. Mix that in with the fact that a violent revolution is nearly impossible, no media to report on your death, and you have a situation that is nearly impossible to rebel against. Take the American revolution, you had guys with muskets fighting other guys with muskets, in China if you are lucky you are a guy with a 9 MM fighting other guys with tanks, sniper rifles, bombers, and missiles.
With a country with decent human rights you can at least protest without having to fear being shot, you can spread your word around in many outlets, and you have a media which has the ability to track the government. With government-run news you do not have an incentive to break news against the government unlike private news. While the deaths might have happened in a country with human rights, you can be sure that they would not be able to cover them up as much as in China.
Is China handling this delicate issue appropriately or are the news reports of justice and monitoring treatments merely a facade?
Of course it is not, you cannot say that a country that allows for few basic freedoms, has a mostly state-run economy, and has almost no non-state run news. Along with no real way for its people to voice their opinion in government matters. So lets see, we have no third-party news service, no public records, and no way for Chinese citizens to act against this. How can anyone say they are anything but a facade?
However there are -some- really interesting shows on TV, such as the History and Discovery shows, along with the occasional Sci-Fi shows/movies (the genre, not the channel). And really, buying the shows on DVD is kind of a waste of money. Assuming I watch about 2 hour long shows a day (about less than average for most people, but about average for me), that would be about 60 episodes a month, I pay about $30 for cable every month, a DVD costs about $30 for 15 episodes. So I would be paying twice as much, even if I cut my TV usage in half, so I don't see the savings. Add that with a very low entry to me seeing new shows (even if I pirate them, I won't torrent a random show I have no clue what they are) by just flipping to a channel and seeing it for 5-10 seconds, but if it is interesting I will watch it.
But you have to realize that the reason why people use Ubuntu is because it is pre-configured and you don't have to do much to get it how you wanted. Ubuntu wasn't much "better" than Debian, other than the fact it had regular releases and was pre-configured. If Ubuntu stops being pre-configured how most people like it, it will stop being used. This is a suicidal move for Ubuntu which has been losing mindshare after the 8.10 and 9.04 releases which dumbed-down the distro to a new low (the annoying update window which pops up as a window, removing the useful CTRL+ALT+Backspace shortcut, the notification boxes that can't be quickly closed, etc). Ubuntu needs all the good press they can get, I don't understand why they would risk it.
Slashdot Mirror
We should not regulate tracking cookies for non-government things any more than we are doing now. Its pathetically easy to clear cookies and anyone with a bit of knowledge can even clear these "impossible to remove" Flash cookies. The problem is, if we try to spread this around we end up with these super-paranoid users which honestly are more of a pain to deal with than those who enjoy running IE 6 on an unpatched XP install. Remember when the media did stuff on normal cookies? There were people who thought a cookie, a plain text file contained viruses! All this media paranoia has given rise to people who think that -anything- has viruses, that the .pdf on a trusted site -MUST- have a virus, that Firefox -MUST- be a virus, that anything -MUST- be a virus, and that even though they admit you know more about computers than them, you -MUST- be breaking their computers whenever you navigate to a site other than Google and a handful of others.
'If users don't want to be tracked and there is a problem with tracking, then we should regulate tracking, not regulate cookies,' Soltani said."
Really, I can't think of a single good reason for the government to use tracking cookies. There are a few simi-legitimate reasons for third-parties to use tracking cookies, but they should not be regulated. If you don't want cookies either
A) Configure your browser to reject certain cookies
B) Clear cookies
C) Clear your Flash cookies
D) Write to a few OSS developers and tell them if you want a privacy program, or add on
Seriously, if people are -that- paranoid they should do the research to figure out how to disable them. If Flash cookies scare them that much, use Flashblock or don't even install Flash.
The next thing we know the senate will try to pass a bill removing all cookies because those are the things that cause Windows to be slow and spread viruses right? Its just like the '90s, all over again.
Honestly, I prefer the interface in IE 6 even a bit more than I do Firefox. Heck, really the only reason why I stopped using IE 6 (this was a few years ago, before IE 7 was past beta) for Firefox was that I wanted to eventually convert to Linux and wanted to make sure that I could use the browser. And really, IE 7+'s interfaces simply fail, everything is oversized and it seems to go terribly with XP, especially if you are using the classic theme. I use Firefox mostly because of its similarity to IE and ease of configuration. I tried using Opera but the lack of fine control (I practically live on Firefox's about:config page) and the funky position of the tab bar, made me not use it for long. While Opera, Firefox, Safari and Chrome are all light years ahead of IE 6, I have to say that the interface for IE 6 is very well done.
Yah, I really meant to hit the back button but got distracted by a call and ended up submitting it, I guess thats why I really shouldn't be commenting on /. at work... But its better than in my car...
Like every Game Boy model before it, the original Game Boy Advance model did not include a built-in light for its LCD screen.
While it was Japan only, the Game Boy Light did have a backlight. http://nintendo.wikia.com/wiki/Game_Boy_Light
I'd like to see more HUDs in cars, honestly, if they can pair that with some head movement or something, it would
What I play depends on my mood, not always because of work. Generally, during the summers I play a lot of FPS games, and newer-ish games. Generally during the winters I play RPGs and other more in-depth games. Generally in the fall and spring I pick up older titles or retrogame. I suppose the reason behind this is because in the summers there are a lot more new games, I vacation a lot in the summers and the fact that during summer I tend to have more free time and sitting down and playing an RPG for very long seems too much like a "waste" when I should be doing more productive things. And in the winter I can't physically escape as easily as I can during the summer times, so I need more escapist games like RPGs.
I don't really get the point of powerful CPUs for single-tasking either. For example, my local library has a machine with a Pentium Dual-Core to simply have a web browser open to their card catalog intranet. And other more powerful computers behind the desks (Core 2 quads!), I suppose the reasoning is it keeps the machine up-to-date for any new changes, but really, a Pentium III is more than sufficent to run the low-powered stuff that they are running, even buying a few used P4 boxes are a bit of overkill, and in a public library I'd rather the $500 or so extra spent on the machines to go to something more useful, like buying more books or updating some old ones (I'm looking at you, "Learn Fedora Core 2")
When was the last time that a hardware fault contributed to malware on a typical PC that there are many thousands of varieties (as in, not a mobile device, and not a Mac, because there are only a few models of those). In 99.999% of malware cases they are flaws in the OS, user or programs. Not a flaw in the CPU, motherboard, RAM or monitor. And really Sony, why disable a feature that a lot of people might have bought a high-end laptop to have that in it? Not that I know why anyone would even think about buying an overpriced Vaio, but really, don't disable features and make it impossible or hard to re-enable.
The problem is, even if you are willing to pay, the social network is totally worthless if no one else thinks the same way. And then, messages from only trusted people? Generally its trivial to ignore someone who you don't know. And sure, some things are kinda unnecessary (like Facebook applications...) but I don't mind the dynamic feed, I don't notice my internet connection slowing anymore with it on, nor does Firefox become unresponsive. As for trusted communication, sure, it might be nice, but in all honesty, its unnecessary, if you talk to someone enough on Facebook its pretty obvious if they aren't themselves, and if you don't know them just send them an e-mail, call them, etc. "trusted" communication is for 99.9% of people totally useless.
The only thing I really don't like about Facebook is the fact that they change things for no real reason, even with user outrage (look at Facebook 2.0).
If you value your freedoms, that is a -bad idea-. The entire point of government is to get more power and screw its citizens over and hope they don't rebel. Sure, they start with nice ideals, but they slowly descend into tyranny.
Goldeneye was the first console shooter that really worked. Plus, it was a ton of fun on local multiplayer in a time before online play was common with console games, making it fun to play, plus had lots of secrets.
Well, they could have done worse, they could have used YouTube comments.
You have a power PC CPU, it will soon not be able to run the latest OS X, and eventually will not be able to run most modern Mac software. PPC is dead in Apple's eyes, and really, without support from Apple you won't get all of your applications and such.
Toshiba Satellite L305-S5955, its got pretty pathetic specs, but is nice for watching DVDs, runs Vista not to terribly, and aside from some odd display problems (occasionally it refuses to go to its native resolution, but logging out and logging in works just fine) it works flawlessly in Ubuntu 9.04. http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=9368169&type=product&id=1218092959299 is the link, apparently it increased in price $30 since I got it, but when I bought it it was $300.
Does Microsoft make an IE that can run on Linux without requiring compatibility layers? How this is modded interesting I'm not sure, because that would be the same thing as forcing the 360 and Wii to play Blu-Ray movies and PS3 games.
Its because Apple doesn't want to make cheap computers that people want to spend money on. $999 for their cheapest laptop? The last three laptops I've bought have all been sub-$400. $599 for their cheapest desktop? The last desktop I bought was relatively high-end for no more than $450, plus its easily upgradable unlike the mini.
OS X isn't Apple's downfall, its the fact their computers are so annoyingly expensive that most people won't buy them. I know I don't have $1K to spend on a laptop, especially when I can buy a $300 laptop that meets all my needs, has a 15 inch screen and works decently with Linux. Macs are great if you have the money, but I don't have $600 I can just spend on a desktop that will quickly go obsolete, is a pain to upgrade and requires a converter to use my VGA monitor.
I'll bite again. I live in the US and I can't say that I'm not being constantly bombarded with pro-government propaganda and censorship. We've also had plenty of protests stopped violently, including one where the military slaughtered students at a college. In the American Revolution we also had farmers with pitch-forks and torches. We had to make or buy firearms to compete "fairly" as you eluded to.
Sure, there is censorship in the US, yes, there is propaganda in the US. On the other hand though, there are many, many, many news outlets that we can turn to for US news. While each one has their own bias, we don't have a government-owned news station giving us -all- of our news and censorship in place where we can't get news from other sources about other forms of government. If you want Anarchy a quick Google search pulls up http://www.anarchistnews.org/ , want Communism? You are free to get your news from People's Weekly World (http://www.pww.org/). You can find news sites for every single political view. All uncensored in the USA. In China, you have a few state-run news agencies, and that is it.
However, it was not a crime to own a gun in colonial times in the USA. Everyone could own a gun. Heck, they even had their own militia allowing them to have military-grade weapons. It is -illegal- for a citizen in China to own even a low-powered gun. If the American Revolution happened today with all the same conditions just with newer weapons, the revolutionaries would have access to fighter aircraft, tanks, cruise missiles and almost every home would have a fully automatic rifle, all legally.
I've seen China do rolling formations with tanks to demonstrate their power, and read about them using infantry to suppress protesters with lethal force. I have never read of China deploying snipers, bombers, missiles, and using them on their civilians. I highly doubt that any 1st world country a part of the UN would sit idly by if that were indeed happening.
Sure, but if the revolution broke into full civil war (which is what would happen if a violent revolution ended up gaining momentum), it wouldn't be too far fetched for them to use those types of weapons.
Basic freedoms are essential to preventing this though. If there was a larger presence of non-state-run media, could this have been brought to the attention sooner before this person died? Could people organize protests to give these "camps" such a bad name that no one is willing to send their child to them? If the Chinese government had allowed freedoms, could this have been prevented? I think the answer might just be a yes.
Or you know, the fact that they are constantly being bombarded with pro-government propaganda, has internet censorship, the fact that protests are violently stopped, and the fact that even very basic rights like the right to religion isn't even there, even for religions that are very non-violent. Mix that in with the fact that a violent revolution is nearly impossible, no media to report on your death, and you have a situation that is nearly impossible to rebel against. Take the American revolution, you had guys with muskets fighting other guys with muskets, in China if you are lucky you are a guy with a 9 MM fighting other guys with tanks, sniper rifles, bombers, and missiles.
With a country with decent human rights you can at least protest without having to fear being shot, you can spread your word around in many outlets, and you have a media which has the ability to track the government. With government-run news you do not have an incentive to break news against the government unlike private news. While the deaths might have happened in a country with human rights, you can be sure that they would not be able to cover them up as much as in China.
Is China handling this delicate issue appropriately or are the news reports of justice and monitoring treatments merely a facade?
Of course it is not, you cannot say that a country that allows for few basic freedoms, has a mostly state-run economy, and has almost no non-state run news. Along with no real way for its people to voice their opinion in government matters. So lets see, we have no third-party news service, no public records, and no way for Chinese citizens to act against this. How can anyone say they are anything but a facade?
However there are -some- really interesting shows on TV, such as the History and Discovery shows, along with the occasional Sci-Fi shows/movies (the genre, not the channel). And really, buying the shows on DVD is kind of a waste of money. Assuming I watch about 2 hour long shows a day (about less than average for most people, but about average for me), that would be about 60 episodes a month, I pay about $30 for cable every month, a DVD costs about $30 for 15 episodes. So I would be paying twice as much, even if I cut my TV usage in half, so I don't see the savings. Add that with a very low entry to me seeing new shows (even if I pirate them, I won't torrent a random show I have no clue what they are) by just flipping to a channel and seeing it for 5-10 seconds, but if it is interesting I will watch it.
But you have to realize that the reason why people use Ubuntu is because it is pre-configured and you don't have to do much to get it how you wanted. Ubuntu wasn't much "better" than Debian, other than the fact it had regular releases and was pre-configured. If Ubuntu stops being pre-configured how most people like it, it will stop being used. This is a suicidal move for Ubuntu which has been losing mindshare after the 8.10 and 9.04 releases which dumbed-down the distro to a new low (the annoying update window which pops up as a window, removing the useful CTRL+ALT+Backspace shortcut, the notification boxes that can't be quickly closed, etc). Ubuntu needs all the good press they can get, I don't understand why they would risk it.
If you are going to troll, at least troll with proper grammar otherwise you attract the wrath of grammar Nazis.