Because the politicians in the US don't give a fuck about ethics, legality, etc. and most people don't either. Our constitution has been shitted on just about every election year with people actually promising in their election ads to tear down pillars of human rights when it comes to "undesirable" people ("terrorists", illegal aliens, "sex" offenders, etc)
But here in the US we have a 2 party system with no real differences between them other than on a few "hot" meaningless issues. For example, should the words "Under God" be on our currency? Despite the fact we have no real debate on actually reforming our currency to be backed by anything. Debates on whether abortion should be legal all the while few debates on privacy issues, etc.
Until we either have an awakening of the masses, or an electoral system like proportional voting, it will remain this way.
...Iran has at least somewhat of internet access for its people, and hence we haven't invaded them. Yeah, we've been exchanging harsh words but thats it. We aren't going to invade Iran like we invaded Iraq. Yeah, their nuclear reactor might "mysteriously" stop working, but that will be the end of it.
Most people support the Iranian people because they have internet, remember the election protests last year that pretty much the entire internet stood up in support of the Iranian people?
We aren't invading Iran for particularly that reason, it would be a PR nightmare. Yes, I know, some people want to nuke Iran, China, India, and I'm sure if you gave them the change they'd nuke Canada, Mexico and most of Europe.
Don't design fucking critical infrastructure to communicate with the internet. Life support, power plants, hospitals, water treatment plants can use very secure computers and use local networking. BUT DON'T PUT THEM ON THE FUCKING INTERNET.
Round 2.
Don't consolidate the internet into a monopoly or duopoly. Yeah, some major thing might kill AT&T, but T-Mobile, Verizon and Sprint should still be active. Its a lot harder to "destroy" the internet when everything is spread out.
The internet is the only thread uniting mankind to the point where a conventional war won't happen easily. Of course, this isn't going to stop nukes or wars in third world countries, but the internet allows people of the country that "we're" bombing to communicate back to us so people push pressure on the government.
Imagine if Iraq or Afghanistan had common internet access, something tells me we wouldn't invade because public opinion would be very much against it. The internet lets you break down all the previous things that held countries in conflict, language, culture, and reporting hindrances no longer exist to countries with internet access.
Exactly. What I think is hilarious is that if these same things would have been released about fraud in a company everyone would be calling Assange a hero, but do it to actually make democracy work and apparently Assange is equivalent to Bin Ladin.
Engadget has photos of 'Pionen White Mountains, the nuclear bunker in which Wikileaks will locate some of its servers. It was excavated 98 feet underground, in a rock hill in the center of Stockholm, Sweden, during the Cold War.' It looks like they hired the same interior designer who decorated Batman's lair
Even though the summary mentions Engadget as the source, the TFA links to Gizmodo and as far as I know Engadget has nothing about this on their homepage.
Why is Microsoft increasing the price when service is going downhill? Is Xbox live -really- that enjoyable for anyone? In my experience its filled with 12 year old kids who just call you gay the entire match, team-killing assholes, most games have a pretty crappy skill matching system meaning the learning curve is high and older players get frustrated, etc.
I'm not seeing why Xbox live costs as much as it does now, let alone why there would be a price increase.
And really, MS shouldn't give Sony a foothold in this area because the PS3 can keep on kicking long after the 360 has been "maxed out"
They track some movement of slang, yes, but not the type that has been popping up lately. For example, the OED wouldn't pick up something like "Icing" as in the "Bros Icing Bros" meme/campus activity because its not in use long enough. There is some slang generated that will be picked up by the OED but not a ton. Urban Dictionary will prove to be more useful for things like that
Ok, who is going to use "The accepted authority on all words"? Not me, not you, perhaps a few English majors at a university, but no one else cares. Everyone else can just Google/Wikipedia/UrbanDictionary any word they don't know the definition to. Except for a few English majors no one cares about the etymology of "Napkin" everyone else just knows its what they use to wipe the sour cream off their chin after biting into a burrito.
The only place that needs the OED is universities, and even then its stretching it depending on the number of English majors into that sort of stuff.
On one hand I can see the advantage of something online, for one thing its a whole lot easier to type in to a definition box a word than search through a dictionary filled with tiny print. But on the other hand I can't see there being much of a market for it. If I want a definition of a word, why wouldn't I just Google it? If I needed more examples I'd go to Wikipedia. Unless I'm an English major there is really no need for the average person to even touch the OED and even for English majors unless your specialty is finding old, out of use words and meanings, even you won't use it. For the 2 times a college student somehow needs to use the OED, its just as easy to buy a print copy that will last a long time than a search-able database that is used a few times during the year.
Other than academia, the OED has no real niche, I'm not going to subscribe to it when I can use Google/Wikipedia/Dictionary.com/etc and get it all for free with the relevant definitions and if I really, really, really need to look something up, why wouldn't I just go to a library with it? Its not like its going to be used/checked out...
Hardcover, physical books would save the university money in the long run, and other than total bibliophiles, no one is going to get the OED when there are free, good references available.
Exactly, and its all for the same work. This next edition when it comes out in 2020 or whenever can still pretty much use 99.999% of definitions from 1989, the definitions of words don't change too much in academia, after all the OED isn't going to track the movement of slang that is in use for a year or two then fades out of the vernacular.
Not to mention that once the OED is complete, they can make a lot of money taking smaller portions of it and selling it to students, libraries, etc. that is all the same work.
Of course they want to go online only, think about it, a 10 year subscription is over $2,000 for them to pocket compared to only $1,165 for the printed copy that lasts a decade. Plus, they can raise that fee in the future and don't have materials cost (which is significant in a book that large)
So I take it you aren't mad whenever someone slams a door in your face, after all you didn't sign a contract that he wouldn't. You aren't pissed off when someone takes the next taxi cab in the rain when you are left to stand out without an umbrella? You aren't mad when some guy takes a massive dump in a public toilet and you have to use it? You don't get angry when someone cuts in line?
You have no legal right for someone to open the door for you, you don't have a piece of paper assuring that you will get the next taxi, you don't have a "Bill of Rights of the Bathroom", and you don't have assurance of your place in most lines.
But that doesn't mean you aren't an asshole if you do these things.
Thats the point that these developers are trying to say, that essentially Microsoft was an asshole. Few people seek for legal action after having these things happen to them, but they still have the right to say the person who did that to them was a jerk.
The problem isn't that the license doesn't allow it, the license does, its just that its common courtesy to contribute back to the project if you are making money or a large enterprise working on it.
Its like tipping, nowhere does it say that you -must- tip (unless the tip is included with the bill) but its still common courtesy. A waitress has every right to be mad when someone orders $300 worth of food and doesn't even leave her a single cent.
Legal != Moral. Just because something doesn't/have/ to be done doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
These are the 98 U.S. senators for voted in favor of the US Patirot Act of 2001 (Senator Landrieu (D-LA) did not vote) Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin was the only senator who voted against the Patriot Act on October 24, of 2001.
Out of all the members, only 2 people didn't vote in favor of it. Yeah, sounds like a lot of opposition...
Yes, there were a few members of congress who voted against it, but if you really look at it, they simply wanted to opposed just about everything Bush was in favor of. They didn't make a conscious decision against it based on a constitutional point that they evaluate all their bills with, they saw that it was one of Bush's main points and voted against it.
And I don't proclaim that "all hope is lost" I continue to vote but in most cases with the exception of local elections the people who I vote for don't win because the vast majority of America is so entwined in the two party system that they completely miss the point and instead vote for parties that are two sides of the same coin and only disagree on insignificant issues.
Ok, its easy to make a bomb, easy to detonate unseen? Conceal it? Make it cause some damage?
Sure, its easy to purchase a gun, but to shoot it with accuracy? To stop a mob of people from taking you down? If people could conceal carry anywhere that would add in another dimension to it
The fact that some things -are- possible doesn't mean that they are likely, or even possible.
For every "successful" bombings, there have been thousands of failed ones.
The only "successful" attacks have happened because of three conditions:
A) A smart perpetrator
B) Unarmed people unable to defend themselves
C) Everything working perfectly according to plans, which is rare.
Its easy to make french fries, but to make french fries that taste indistinguishable from your favourite restaurant is a lot harder.
Plus, really the airline lobbyists need to tell the DHS and the FAA to stop subjecting their customers to crap. Because its a vicious circle.
A) FAA/DHS pass some new stupid requirement
B) Less people fly because of A
C) Airlines, facing a loss of revenue try to cut costs in any way possible which makes even less people fly.
D) GOTO A
Airlines cannot be profitable when the government fucks with their customers. Before the airlines go broke/get nationalized they need to have their lobbyists put sanity back in flying.
Neither. The government these days can either selectively decide which parts of the constitution to follow, the courts can selectively decide how to "interpret" it and congress simply ignores the constitution. How many congressmen (excluding Ron Paul) really make an effort to decide whether something is constitutional or not? The PATRIOT act was blatantly unconstitutional yet it passed with little opposition, many, many other laws have been passed that were blatantly unconstitutional that the issue of the constitution wasn't even raised.
Ok, how many "violations" have these scanners found that could be linked to something serious. No, some guy who carries a pocketknife daily who forgot to take it out at the airport is not a real threat.
There are three reasons why we haven't had any "terrorist attacks" since 9/11
A) Terrorists are stupid. Its not easy to carry out an attack.
B) People are smarter. Pre-9/11 if your plane got hijacked you simply complied with the hijackers, landed in Cuba, and were on a flight back home later in the day. Today, if someone would try doing that, they would be stopped by the passengers. And unless there was a plane full of terrorists, the number of average passengers are much, much, much higher.
C) Terrorists are rare. There aren't billions of terrorists everywhere, yes, there are a few, but the number of normal people outnumber them by far which makes stopping them very easy.
9/11 was a one shot deal and only was successfully carried out because prior to that the standard operating procedure for dealing with a hijacker as a passenger was to let them do whatever they want and try to survive because they weren't crashing the hijacked planes in buildings.
Remember the days of DOS and having to try to walk someone through installing something through DOS (with a CLI mind you) and how many people couldn't just type the drive right? Misspelled Install every single time, etc?
Yeah, autorun might be a security nightmare, but its a lot nicer for anyone who has had to do tech support with clueless users.
Slashdot Mirror
Because the politicians in the US don't give a fuck about ethics, legality, etc. and most people don't either. Our constitution has been shitted on just about every election year with people actually promising in their election ads to tear down pillars of human rights when it comes to "undesirable" people ("terrorists", illegal aliens, "sex" offenders, etc)
But here in the US we have a 2 party system with no real differences between them other than on a few "hot" meaningless issues. For example, should the words "Under God" be on our currency? Despite the fact we have no real debate on actually reforming our currency to be backed by anything. Debates on whether abortion should be legal all the while few debates on privacy issues, etc.
Until we either have an awakening of the masses, or an electoral system like proportional voting, it will remain this way.
Um, yes its called sneakernet and it can be 100% confidential. It has insanely high bandwidth, but a bit of latency issues.
If you want to update programs in your power plant, do it with physical media or take in a laptop and sync it that way.
...Iran has at least somewhat of internet access for its people, and hence we haven't invaded them. Yeah, we've been exchanging harsh words but thats it. We aren't going to invade Iran like we invaded Iraq. Yeah, their nuclear reactor might "mysteriously" stop working, but that will be the end of it.
Most people support the Iranian people because they have internet, remember the election protests last year that pretty much the entire internet stood up in support of the Iranian people?
We aren't invading Iran for particularly that reason, it would be a PR nightmare. Yes, I know, some people want to nuke Iran, China, India, and I'm sure if you gave them the change they'd nuke Canada, Mexico and most of Europe.
Round 1.
Don't design fucking critical infrastructure to communicate with the internet. Life support, power plants, hospitals, water treatment plants can use very secure computers and use local networking. BUT DON'T PUT THEM ON THE FUCKING INTERNET.
Round 2.
Don't consolidate the internet into a monopoly or duopoly. Yeah, some major thing might kill AT&T, but T-Mobile, Verizon and Sprint should still be active. Its a lot harder to "destroy" the internet when everything is spread out.
Round 3.
Take steps to protect yourself from DoS attacks.
The internet is the only thread uniting mankind to the point where a conventional war won't happen easily. Of course, this isn't going to stop nukes or wars in third world countries, but the internet allows people of the country that "we're" bombing to communicate back to us so people push pressure on the government.
Imagine if Iraq or Afghanistan had common internet access, something tells me we wouldn't invade because public opinion would be very much against it. The internet lets you break down all the previous things that held countries in conflict, language, culture, and reporting hindrances no longer exist to countries with internet access.
Exactly. What I think is hilarious is that if these same things would have been released about fraud in a company everyone would be calling Assange a hero, but do it to actually make democracy work and apparently Assange is equivalent to Bin Ladin.
Engadget has photos of 'Pionen White Mountains, the nuclear bunker in which Wikileaks will locate some of its servers. It was excavated 98 feet underground, in a rock hill in the center of Stockholm, Sweden, during the Cold War.' It looks like they hired the same interior designer who decorated Batman's lair
Even though the summary mentions Engadget as the source, the TFA links to Gizmodo and as far as I know Engadget has nothing about this on their homepage.
Because the bunker/data center is designed for 100% uptime and such.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlXVQXiu3tk
And yes a coworker did just send me that today.
...Well, really out of all of your e-mail how much of it is actually sent by an actual, thinking person. The majority of my e-mail goes as follows:
Reminder that anyone who wants to go to the company picnic can call XXX-XXXX
Please conserve paper
Hi, I saw this funny video of a cat running into a wall
Did you know that sometimes doctors are wrong and people can live longer then their doctor tells them they can?
Most of the junk e-mail is sent by:
A) Mass-emailers
B) Clueless computer users
and not someone who thinks before they hit send.
Why is Microsoft increasing the price when service is going downhill? Is Xbox live -really- that enjoyable for anyone? In my experience its filled with 12 year old kids who just call you gay the entire match, team-killing assholes, most games have a pretty crappy skill matching system meaning the learning curve is high and older players get frustrated, etc.
I'm not seeing why Xbox live costs as much as it does now, let alone why there would be a price increase.
And really, MS shouldn't give Sony a foothold in this area because the PS3 can keep on kicking long after the 360 has been "maxed out"
They track some movement of slang, yes, but not the type that has been popping up lately. For example, the OED wouldn't pick up something like "Icing" as in the "Bros Icing Bros" meme/campus activity because its not in use long enough. There is some slang generated that will be picked up by the OED but not a ton. Urban Dictionary will prove to be more useful for things like that
Ok, who is going to use "The accepted authority on all words"? Not me, not you, perhaps a few English majors at a university, but no one else cares. Everyone else can just Google/Wikipedia/UrbanDictionary any word they don't know the definition to. Except for a few English majors no one cares about the etymology of "Napkin" everyone else just knows its what they use to wipe the sour cream off their chin after biting into a burrito.
The only place that needs the OED is universities, and even then its stretching it depending on the number of English majors into that sort of stuff.
On one hand I can see the advantage of something online, for one thing its a whole lot easier to type in to a definition box a word than search through a dictionary filled with tiny print. But on the other hand I can't see there being much of a market for it. If I want a definition of a word, why wouldn't I just Google it? If I needed more examples I'd go to Wikipedia. Unless I'm an English major there is really no need for the average person to even touch the OED and even for English majors unless your specialty is finding old, out of use words and meanings, even you won't use it. For the 2 times a college student somehow needs to use the OED, its just as easy to buy a print copy that will last a long time than a search-able database that is used a few times during the year.
Other than academia, the OED has no real niche, I'm not going to subscribe to it when I can use Google/Wikipedia/Dictionary.com/etc and get it all for free with the relevant definitions and if I really, really, really need to look something up, why wouldn't I just go to a library with it? Its not like its going to be used/checked out...
Hardcover, physical books would save the university money in the long run, and other than total bibliophiles, no one is going to get the OED when there are free, good references available.
Exactly, and its all for the same work. This next edition when it comes out in 2020 or whenever can still pretty much use 99.999% of definitions from 1989, the definitions of words don't change too much in academia, after all the OED isn't going to track the movement of slang that is in use for a year or two then fades out of the vernacular.
Not to mention that once the OED is complete, they can make a lot of money taking smaller portions of it and selling it to students, libraries, etc. that is all the same work.
Of course they want to go online only, think about it, a 10 year subscription is over $2,000 for them to pocket compared to only $1,165 for the printed copy that lasts a decade. Plus, they can raise that fee in the future and don't have materials cost (which is significant in a book that large)
So I take it you aren't mad whenever someone slams a door in your face, after all you didn't sign a contract that he wouldn't. You aren't pissed off when someone takes the next taxi cab in the rain when you are left to stand out without an umbrella? You aren't mad when some guy takes a massive dump in a public toilet and you have to use it? You don't get angry when someone cuts in line?
You have no legal right for someone to open the door for you, you don't have a piece of paper assuring that you will get the next taxi, you don't have a "Bill of Rights of the Bathroom", and you don't have assurance of your place in most lines.
But that doesn't mean you aren't an asshole if you do these things.
Thats the point that these developers are trying to say, that essentially Microsoft was an asshole. Few people seek for legal action after having these things happen to them, but they still have the right to say the person who did that to them was a jerk.
The problem isn't that the license doesn't allow it, the license does, its just that its common courtesy to contribute back to the project if you are making money or a large enterprise working on it.
/have/ to be done doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
Its like tipping, nowhere does it say that you -must- tip (unless the tip is included with the bill) but its still common courtesy. A waitress has every right to be mad when someone orders $300 worth of food and doesn't even leave her a single cent.
Legal != Moral. Just because something doesn't
You mean like the "Times Square Bomber" which um, failed to detonate?
It sounds easy on paper but history tells something radically different.
These are the 98 U.S. senators for voted in favor of the US Patirot Act of 2001 (Senator Landrieu (D-LA) did not vote) Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin was the only senator who voted against the Patriot Act on October 24, of 2001.
Out of all the members, only 2 people didn't vote in favor of it. Yeah, sounds like a lot of opposition...
Yes, there were a few members of congress who voted against it, but if you really look at it, they simply wanted to opposed just about everything Bush was in favor of. They didn't make a conscious decision against it based on a constitutional point that they evaluate all their bills with, they saw that it was one of Bush's main points and voted against it.
And I don't proclaim that "all hope is lost" I continue to vote but in most cases with the exception of local elections the people who I vote for don't win because the vast majority of America is so entwined in the two party system that they completely miss the point and instead vote for parties that are two sides of the same coin and only disagree on insignificant issues.
Ok, its easy to make a bomb, easy to detonate unseen? Conceal it? Make it cause some damage?
Sure, its easy to purchase a gun, but to shoot it with accuracy? To stop a mob of people from taking you down? If people could conceal carry anywhere that would add in another dimension to it
The fact that some things -are- possible doesn't mean that they are likely, or even possible.
For every "successful" bombings, there have been thousands of failed ones.
The only "successful" attacks have happened because of three conditions:
A) A smart perpetrator
B) Unarmed people unable to defend themselves
C) Everything working perfectly according to plans, which is rare.
Its easy to make french fries, but to make french fries that taste indistinguishable from your favourite restaurant is a lot harder.
Plus, really the airline lobbyists need to tell the DHS and the FAA to stop subjecting their customers to crap. Because its a vicious circle.
A) FAA/DHS pass some new stupid requirement
B) Less people fly because of A
C) Airlines, facing a loss of revenue try to cut costs in any way possible which makes even less people fly.
D) GOTO A
Airlines cannot be profitable when the government fucks with their customers. Before the airlines go broke/get nationalized they need to have their lobbyists put sanity back in flying.
Neither. The government these days can either selectively decide which parts of the constitution to follow, the courts can selectively decide how to "interpret" it and congress simply ignores the constitution. How many congressmen (excluding Ron Paul) really make an effort to decide whether something is constitutional or not? The PATRIOT act was blatantly unconstitutional yet it passed with little opposition, many, many other laws have been passed that were blatantly unconstitutional that the issue of the constitution wasn't even raised.
Ok, how many "violations" have these scanners found that could be linked to something serious. No, some guy who carries a pocketknife daily who forgot to take it out at the airport is not a real threat.
There are three reasons why we haven't had any "terrorist attacks" since 9/11
A) Terrorists are stupid. Its not easy to carry out an attack.
B) People are smarter. Pre-9/11 if your plane got hijacked you simply complied with the hijackers, landed in Cuba, and were on a flight back home later in the day. Today, if someone would try doing that, they would be stopped by the passengers. And unless there was a plane full of terrorists, the number of average passengers are much, much, much higher.
C) Terrorists are rare. There aren't billions of terrorists everywhere, yes, there are a few, but the number of normal people outnumber them by far which makes stopping them very easy.
9/11 was a one shot deal and only was successfully carried out because prior to that the standard operating procedure for dealing with a hijacker as a passenger was to let them do whatever they want and try to survive because they weren't crashing the hijacked planes in buildings.
Remember the days of DOS and having to try to walk someone through installing something through DOS (with a CLI mind you) and how many people couldn't just type the drive right? Misspelled Install every single time, etc?
Yeah, autorun might be a security nightmare, but its a lot nicer for anyone who has had to do tech support with clueless users.