I don't subscribe to the idea that I know what is best for other people, or that other people don't know what they want. If they want no rootkits, then they will think about it.
Let's discuss some basic facts:
1. Pretty much no one who knows what a rootkit is wants a rootkit on their computer. 2. Very few people know what a rootkit is.... 3. Therefore rootkits are okay?
Society does not benefit when decisions are made based on the ignorance of the majority. And lets be blunt, this issue is not about what people care about, but about ignorance. If you explain what a rootkit is to most users, and ask them if they care, then they do care about it and don't want it.
We shouldn't have to expect the majority to learn technical details about things like this just to be able to make the right decision. There has to be a better process, because technology is not going to get simpler.
But I can also see this becoming an annoying advertising tool.
I doubt it. You can also broadcast bogus FM radio station signals containing your own advertisements, because News Flash: FM radio is also not authenticated.
But in the U.S. the FCC regulates these sort of things, and would not take kindly to you broadcasting all over the spectrum without authorization.
The fact that 50% of spouses will cheat is a root cause to HIV and many other societal woes. Perhaps if as much effort went into ensuring stable family ralationships and educating people about the consequences of their actions, we would actually get somewhere with this disease.
Jon Stewart once joked, "He's a moderate Republican, which is just like a regular Republican except he gets sick."
The simple fact is, this is not a guarantee. Statistics show that roughly 50% of married people have an affair. Perhaps you never will, and perhaps your spouse never will. But you cannot call a large group of people irresponsible just because their spouse has cheated.
As I mentioned before, there are so many ways to contract HIV that you cannot go around blaming people for getting the disease.
If for some reason you have trouble wrapping your mind around sexuality, think of a common cold. You can avoid a common cold if you take precautions such as washing your hands, avoiding contact with bodily fluids, and so forth. But yet almost everyone catches them on a regular basis. Are they being irresponsible?
Actually, you don't have to not have sex with anyone; you just have to not have sex with anyone who has HIV or has had sex with someone who has. I do it why can't everybody else? According to reports from friends of mine who recently immigrated from Liberia there is only one country in Africa where the rate of contraction is declining, I believe it is Uganda. The reason has nothing o do with medication or research, it is education that if you have sex with someone with HIV you will die. Seems pretty simple to me.
And how do you realistically determine the HIV status of every person each time before you have sex with them?
If people choose to not save and can't make it tough.
Without SOME sort of government program to insure such, it is impossible to guarantee a retirement fund. Read the history which inspired the program and understand how a solution is necessary. When the economy is okay it's easy to postulate that everybody should just take care of themselves, but the economy does not always STAY okay. It is times like that when a civilized society does not throw it's old people out to rot on the street, which is the outcome of your suggestion.
Anyone who takes proper minimal precautions will not get HIV or AIDS, unless they are maliciously targetted or woth in a health-related field and/or are VERY unlucky.
I believe this is fairly false. Just about the only way to ensure you do not contract HIV is to not have sex with anyone. You cannot always have sex with a condom, because then you cannot have children. (And of course, condoms fail.) Even if a person only has sex within a monogamous relationship (which for some people is not a "minimal" precaution), most people cannot guarantee that their partner is being faithful all the time (check the statistics).
Taking precautions will greatly reduce your chances of contracting HIV, and therefore this should certainly be done. But there are countless ways people can get HIV even while doing everything by the book.
Personally I have always felt the absolutely enormous amounts of money funneled into AIDS research would be much better spent on areas like Type 1 diabetes, MLS, and other genetic diseases, which affect far more people and is not preventable in any way.
There is much research occurring regarding diabetes, but for perspective, more than twice as many people in the world have AIDS as have Type 1 diabetes. I never heard of MLS.
Yes, there could never be any privacy abuse at all with a system that automatically identifies and tracks the location of each car at each point along the road...
Otherwise, get a professional, and I don't mean one of these "tax only" companies who hire people just for tax season to do data entry... Use a real CPA.
I'll grant that a CPA would know more than the tax-company employees. But can you give a ballpark of how much a CPA would charge for filing taxes?
And according to the wikipedia entry as of today, the definition of what is called "Oceania" varies quite a bit, and sometimes doesn't even include Australia. There's no sense in calling people ignorant and racist when major information sources indicate that it is a non-standard or poorly standardized term.
I could believe that millimeter waves, if strong enough, could kill bees. But lower frequencies, i.e. longer wavelengths, are very unlikely to affect bees. For the same reason as ants survive in a microwave oven, the wavelengths are much bigger than the insects bodies.
This fallacy is simple to refute. The wavelength of a standard microwave is around 130mm. Take a tiny piece of meat, and place it in any standard microwave with a rotating plate. It will cook. The only way an ant could survive inside a microwave is by hiding at standing nodes at which there is no power, which cell phone systems do not have at any reasonable distance away from the tower.
If not, it seems like a significant oversight in the process.
Of course. That law was written specifically TO cause failure. It was a law wanted by companies that distribute media through traditional outlets so they could disrupt the new media distribution outlets which they couldn't figure out how to profit from, and weren't setup to profit from.
The only logical recourse will be to make serious changes to that law to remove the clear preference for systemic failure, and this will probably only come about after a large amount of civil disobedience (or pranks or exploitation) of the sort described in the summary.
If someone distributes a virus which randomly generates and submits DMCA takedown notices for every video on youtube, then the law says they should follow them all. Does that make sense?
Competitive? Negotiating? Don't sign up? In many places the first two don't exist, and in many cases the latter results in not having internet access (hardly a solution).
In the modern world, most companies are competing to gain shareholders, not customers. Customers are merely a means to an end.
Night vision devices are indeed restricted to a single wavelength. They cannot output color.
It's not a question of output, it's a question of input, since presumably the invisible-cloak-wearer is outside of the night vision goggles. And they input many wavelengths.
They promise they would never shoot innocent people, and in fact, added that being shot by a RIMPAA anti-piracy squad is actually proof that the target was a pirate.
It's not like they would shoot people without warning. I'm sure they would first give people an offer they can't refuse.
This is somewhat "broken". If you can't use https or ssh with an internet connection, then that particular internet provider is little more than a glorified TV. If anything, ssh and https should be the highest priority.
There are reasons why p2p systems have started encrypting their traffic. Due to popular discontent with bandwidth throttling, they are trying to classify their traffic with a group of services that cannot be removed without breaking the functionality of the internet for that service provider. So their ideal solution to that is to break the functionality of their internet connection?
If you have to look at output while editing anything two monitors tends to be more effective.... You'd think "ALT-tab" wouldn't be such an effort... until you don't have to do it.
I'm with you that two monitors can be more effective for some tasks. But you can gain MOST of the advantages of this, even on laptops, by simply using multiple desktops in software, which you can switch between by pressing Window-1 through Window-4 or so. Most Linux desktop environments support this natively. Windows can be made to support multiple software desktops by installing a tiny program called MultiDesk.
This approach allows you to divide your work more effectively, browsing in one window, documents and articles in another, editing in a third, music in a fourth, or however your usage divides most naturally. I find this makes me much more efficient than having to switch between dozens of windows cluttered on the same desktop.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's discuss some basic facts:
1. Pretty much no one who knows what a rootkit is wants a rootkit on their computer.
2. Very few people know what a rootkit is.
3. Therefore rootkits are okay?
Society does not benefit when decisions are made based on the ignorance of the majority. And lets be blunt, this issue is not about what people care about, but about ignorance. If you explain what a rootkit is to most users, and ask them if they care, then they do care about it and don't want it.
We shouldn't have to expect the majority to learn technical details about things like this just to be able to make the right decision. There has to be a better process, because technology is not going to get simpler.
Getting it to compile on your platform is the real trick.
I doubt it. You can also broadcast bogus FM radio station signals containing your own advertisements, because News Flash: FM radio is also not authenticated.
But in the U.S. the FCC regulates these sort of things, and would not take kindly to you broadcasting all over the spectrum without authorization.
Err, yes. Everyone can get involved with planting virtual trees so they don't have to think about real ones?
I feel like this completely misses the point of Earth Day, since the focus seems to be on improving a fake environment.
Jon Stewart once joked, "He's a moderate Republican, which is just like a regular Republican except he gets sick."
Think about it.
The simple fact is, this is not a guarantee. Statistics show that roughly 50% of married people have an affair. Perhaps you never will, and perhaps your spouse never will. But you cannot call a large group of people irresponsible just because their spouse has cheated.
As I mentioned before, there are so many ways to contract HIV that you cannot go around blaming people for getting the disease.
If for some reason you have trouble wrapping your mind around sexuality, think of a common cold. You can avoid a common cold if you take precautions such as washing your hands, avoiding contact with bodily fluids, and so forth. But yet almost everyone catches them on a regular basis. Are they being irresponsible?
And how do you realistically determine the HIV status of every person each time before you have sex with them?
Without SOME sort of government program to insure such, it is impossible to guarantee a retirement fund. Read the history which inspired the program and understand how a solution is necessary. When the economy is okay it's easy to postulate that everybody should just take care of themselves, but the economy does not always STAY okay. It is times like that when a civilized society does not throw it's old people out to rot on the street, which is the outcome of your suggestion.
I believe this is fairly false. Just about the only way to ensure you do not contract HIV is to not have sex with anyone. You cannot always have sex with a condom, because then you cannot have children. (And of course, condoms fail.) Even if a person only has sex within a monogamous relationship (which for some people is not a "minimal" precaution), most people cannot guarantee that their partner is being faithful all the time (check the statistics).
Taking precautions will greatly reduce your chances of contracting HIV, and therefore this should certainly be done. But there are countless ways people can get HIV even while doing everything by the book.
There is much research occurring regarding diabetes, but for perspective, more than twice as many people in the world have AIDS as have Type 1 diabetes. I never heard of MLS.
"You must be wearing Prada from 2006 or later to enter this store."
Yes, there could never be any privacy abuse at all with a system that automatically identifies and tracks the location of each car at each point along the road...
I'll grant that a CPA would know more than the tax-company employees. But can you give a ballpark of how much a CPA would charge for filing taxes?
Australia
Oceania
And according to the wikipedia entry as of today, the definition of what is called "Oceania" varies quite a bit, and sometimes doesn't even include Australia. There's no sense in calling people ignorant and racist when major information sources indicate that it is a non-standard or poorly standardized term.
My counterpoint was simply what I stated, which is that wavelengths do not have to be short in order to cause substantial heating or to kill.
I concur completely that any effect due to cell phones would most likely be a non-thermal effect.
This fallacy is simple to refute. The wavelength of a standard microwave is around 130mm. Take a tiny piece of meat, and place it in any standard microwave with a rotating plate. It will cook. The only way an ant could survive inside a microwave is by hiding at standing nodes at which there is no power, which cell phone systems do not have at any reasonable distance away from the tower.
If you don't have a bee handy, grab a bee sized piece of meat and test this out. You will find your assumption incorrect.
Of course. That law was written specifically TO cause failure. It was a law wanted by companies that distribute media through traditional outlets so they could disrupt the new media distribution outlets which they couldn't figure out how to profit from, and weren't setup to profit from.
The only logical recourse will be to make serious changes to that law to remove the clear preference for systemic failure, and this will probably only come about after a large amount of civil disobedience (or pranks or exploitation) of the sort described in the summary.
If someone distributes a virus which randomly generates and submits DMCA takedown notices for every video on youtube, then the law says they should follow them all. Does that make sense?
And what's your brilliant solution when you have to choose between signing up for a contract and not having service?
Competitive? Negotiating? Don't sign up? In many places the first two don't exist, and in many cases the latter results in not having internet access (hardly a solution).
In the modern world, most companies are competing to gain shareholders, not customers. Customers are merely a means to an end.
1. Compromise or replace the target's nameserver.
2. Profit.
3. ???
It's not a question of output, it's a question of input, since presumably the invisible-cloak-wearer is outside of the night vision goggles. And they input many wavelengths.
This has been done.
It's not like they would shoot people without warning. I'm sure they would first give people an offer they can't refuse.
This is somewhat "broken". If you can't use https or ssh with an internet connection, then that particular internet provider is little more than a glorified TV. If anything, ssh and https should be the highest priority.
There are reasons why p2p systems have started encrypting their traffic. Due to popular discontent with bandwidth throttling, they are trying to classify their traffic with a group of services that cannot be removed without breaking the functionality of the internet for that service provider. So their ideal solution to that is to break the functionality of their internet connection?
I'm with you that two monitors can be more effective for some tasks. But you can gain MOST of the advantages of this, even on laptops, by simply using multiple desktops in software, which you can switch between by pressing Window-1 through Window-4 or so. Most Linux desktop environments support this natively. Windows can be made to support multiple software desktops by installing a tiny program called MultiDesk.
This approach allows you to divide your work more effectively, browsing in one window, documents and articles in another, editing in a third, music in a fourth, or however your usage divides most naturally. I find this makes me much more efficient than having to switch between dozens of windows cluttered on the same desktop.