I wouldn't mind seeing a "donate now, and if you need one later we will get it to you. If there is a shortage you and others who donated will be in a preferential line to get it"
This is not like donating an organ and the fears that come with it...the placenta is, traditionally, trashed. So if you have an option to donate it - it won't hurt.
In ten years we will have flying cars. What are you running for president "In 10 years...."
If I have the money then I would go for this storage option. You never know what they can come up with in ten years, so I will bank on what they have now. Besides - they may find out, in 10 years, that they can use this stuff for something else that is beneficial.
If you don't think 1.2 mil isn't big dollars to a SINGLE business, as opposed to an INDUSTRY, then you are mistaken. If it was a multi-billion dollar company sure - but someone is gonna feel some heat on this.
Besides - there needs to be reasonable penalties. Just because a company has 100 million in assests/revenue does not mean they need to be fined 100 million for any infraction of any law. That would be prejudicial and wrong. It would be along the lines of how drug laws are racist (cheaper drugs, which tend to be used mroe by low socio-economic people aka minorities, get stiffer penalties then those who use more expensive drugs.)
So 1.2 million for calling is pretty fair. If they don't stop doing it the next judge can make it 10 million (cumulative penalties), and the judge after that can make it 50, and so forth until they get the message.
In the top portion of your message you said this was a "speed bump" but in the bottom portion you said we should look the other way because of our economy. These two statements clash. If it is a slap on the wrist the only people to be fired are those responsible for the screw-up...usually a few management. It won't cause massive lay-offs. Also - no we should not look the other way. We should not allow people to break the law because the economy sucks right now. Plenty of people work and make a profit without breaking the law.
I like this mind-set, it reminds me of an episode of the west wing. Someone wanted to create the Wolves Only Highway. Except they hadn't figured out how to keep wolves from straying off the highway.
Smoking up is not health, just like cigarettes. This country is working hard on getting rid of smoking - it is hard because smoking industry is firmly entrenched in our government and pays off our lawyers. But thats great, lets make this legal, and then we can start marketing cigarettes to children again. Hey gotta start them on something.
Your analysis is very flawed. While beer takes some hardware, clothing takes some hardware - you seem to think growing a plant for profit does not. You are wrong - look at plant farms.
If you are planning to grow stuff to sell it you will need "minimal" equipment. A greenhouse on your roof (are you allowed to put something on the roof - if its not your house that you hold the title to probably not), an automated water system, pesticides, someway to process the raw product. Then you need mechanisms to weigh it, bag it and then distribute it. How do you deal when winter sets in if you are in a colder climate, droughts, floods, etc.
Then there is the issue you are selling things for consumption...you don't think the FDA will require you to get a distribution license? You may not tell them you are selling anything, but your neighbors might - or an upset customer or competitor. Then you are screwed for circumventing them. Now the FDA knows you sell this stuff - what makes you think the IRS won't. Didn't pay your taxes...great so your options are to hope the position of Treasury Secretary is available and they hire drug dealers or go to jail for a realy long time.
Probably the hardest thing for the gov't to tax are contractors, or self employed people providing services. Guess what - those people pay taxes. Your arguments are very very flawed.
Or that FOSS lacks the funds to have a server which can handle the load.
It's great they are doing this - but in the end the project needs funding to get huge - otherwise it is a hobby for the technical folk (with rare exception).
With luck these guys will use this on their resume', get great jobs, and help make some great products. I know someone will flame me, and 5 others will mod me down - but think about it. WoW costs money (all three expansions = about 75-100 probably), then it's 14.95 a month. Not free at all - but look at the game. It's been out since what 2002 and still the most played game with the largest base of paid accounts. None of that could not happen if the resources were not in place, and resources are limited which means they cost money.
Obama, you could prove your salt here by putting some REAL Common Sense behind MY money.
Obama ain't reading this post. Also, if the gov't put more regulation we would end up just turning and crying foul on gov't regulation. Not that I disagree with you - but the people are notorious for 1) not agreeing with each other and 2) not sticking behind the decisions we pushed our politicians into
No, a monopoly means market dominance, to a level decided by a court. 90% market share, for example, could be considered a monopoly (for legal reasons). It doesn't mean there's no one else in the market, just extreme dominance.
Considering that people who commit manslaughter can go to jail for less then no I don't think so.
Problem with our legal system is that it has disparaging sentences. This turns out to be cruel and unusual punishment. We have people who kill others and go to jail for a couple of years...then we have people who rob banks who go to jail for a decade (plus extra time for each illegal weapon/ammunition even if a shot was never fired) and then we expect computer hackers (while malicious, didn't kill anyone) go to jail for a long time?
Yes what he did was bad, but no 5 years is a bit extreme, and anything over that is just being petty.
Who do we blame
1) Play computer games - be a nerd
2) Get called a geek and beat up by bullies
3) Learn to hack computer games putting pictures of the bullies on the characters you plan to frag
4) Learn to hack your bullies computers so you can destroy their homework
5) Hack the world
6) Get caught
7) Get a job, get rich
Well we can either blame video games or bullies. I point my finger at video games.
Or we look for a middle ground. Black and White never work all that well, shades of gray however do.
If we are for open markets - we should have let the banks die. We did not, we looked for a middle ground.
I wholly agree with you. We should look for the middle ground, or more appropriately the correct ground. Given that, if Windows has to bundle, or make an easy download tool, for other browsers...then so should Linux, Mac, Unix, FreeBSD, and any other OS out there. If you want to make the market fair then you need to make the rules apply to everyone - otherwise you are being biased.
My g/f recently did something to screw up my computer. I need to reformat it anyhow. I barely managed to get my information off the hard drive. I have a primary computer i use for my sensitive data. So if the laptop gets screwy its not a big deal...though I would prefer at the end of beta to have the option to buy windows 7 and keep it.
THanks for the info!
I know this gets brought up ad nauseam, but it is pertinent to your comments : MS is a monopoly, and as such is regulated by a different set of rules and standards.
NOT regulating a monopoly leads to disastrous consequences for all involved.
A monopoly means there is only one option....We have IE, FireFox, Opera, Safari, etc. How is it a monopoly? For PC OS' we have Windows, Mac, Linux and other operating systems. How is it a monopoly?
We can say that MS leveraged it's power in an unfair manner - but to say there is only ONE option available is wrong. Since there is more then one option available then there is no monopoly.
The EU is not complaining that people are buying Windows over Linux...they are complaining that people are using IE instead of Safari.
If the people really wanted MS gone they would stop using it's products. Apparantly the vast majority of the people use MS and are happy about it. To say people are sheep and don't care to complain and will buy blindly and not say a word about it is incorrect...for example - the gasoline industry. That is an ologopoly. They price gouge, and price fix. They also have a captive audience - people have to buy their product for daily uses (e.g. getting to work, heating their homes, etc). But the people are not quiet about it and complain left and right (feel free to go to any news medium to read archived articles).
I disagre they are a monopoly - and just because a judge said it doesn't make it true (how many times have we said XYZ judge is a moron for making a ruling).
So if I have Vista, and I upgrade to Windows 7 Beta...what happens at the end of beta testing? Does my computer still run Windows 7 (presumably I am now forced to either reformat or purchase Windows 7 or does it downgrade to Vista or does it just lock up or do I basically get Windows 7 for free?)?
When installing windows 7, does the software uninstall any defunct Vista components? If it doesn't, can I reformat my computer and use the the Windows 7 install (once I burn it to DVD) as a fresh install? I would like to try Windows 7 on my laptop but just have some questions.
They are thinking let's bash the top dog. It's not uncommon for the number 1 guy to get all the flak - even if its unwarranted. Now MS is guilty of doing some shady stuff, but really - to force them to install multiple browsers on their product? So the next time I buy a car, say a Toyota, should the US gov't force that Toyota to come with the same features/products that a Lamborghini has? I mean the Lamborghini is a better product - so maybe Toyota should be forced to bundle in a v12 engine in there for me.
No I do not want multiple browsers on my computer. IE is fine for me - i will then go to mozilla and download firefox. IE will be used for MS Exchange and other similar restrictive sites that I utilize.
I like having IE pre-installed...it gives me a way to go to mozilla.org and download firefox. Your method works also. From my understanding Windows is fully integrated with IE. Meaning removing IE would require a huge reworking to windows. FireFox seems to be doing fine on its own. Opera/Safari is doing fine for Mac. I believe Safari comes standard on a Mac...will the EU require Mac to carry IE so IE can have a chance to being competative on the Mac?
Honestly - for all the talk of "open market", "less regulation", "get off my lawn", etc - we sure are big on "force MS to integrate". Either we are for less regulation and let the market decide, or we are for gov't intervention. Again - FireFox has a pretty good market share without gov't intervention.
By forcing MS to put in FireFox, as the OP said, what about the other browsers? I do not want 50 browsers on my computer. I enjoy FireFox and ONLY use IE when I have to (MS Exchange for work).
Landing an object on an asteroid is neither cheap nor convenient...even a robotic device is difficult. First to hit it is difficult - its a fast moving object - and we will likely have one shot. Second to land on it and not destroy what is landing on it would be nearly impossible. Third to "mine" valuable information from the asteroid is difficult, and may turn up nothing more then ice (the good stuff may be deep inside and outside the range of a small automated vehicle) and forth getting that information sent back to Earth is pain since we have no control which way this object will face.
With current technologies it is next to impossible. We first need to develop tools that can overcome the basic hurdles (getting there safely) then make those tools able to provide us with useful information (otherwise what's the point)?
The DoD has to look at it and see if:
1) If the mission is over and if it is not the mission may be compromised...meaning people's lives are at stake
2) It's one thing to google someone's name, its another thing to have a gov't confirmed list. Even worse if it says what they do "Sniper team leader, John Doe....Mission: Assassinate XYZ dictator"... Not only is the mission compromised, but if XYZ dictator finds out he may pay someone off to target John Doe and his family. The army takes the confidentiality of it's soldiers to be a very serious issue.
3) If the equipment is highly classified (e.g. some new technology) do you really want the enemy getting a look?
We don't know exactly what is on it. Also, even if the information is trivial (the names are not), it could be part of a larger issue where some people in the DoD are putting information on mediums not authorized...and worse, accidentally distributing to non-authorized personnel...who in this case happen to be in another country!
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't mind seeing a "donate now, and if you need one later we will get it to you. If there is a shortage you and others who donated will be in a preferential line to get it"
This is not like donating an organ and the fears that come with it...the placenta is, traditionally, trashed. So if you have an option to donate it - it won't hurt.
You mean on Second Life??
No, half-life.
In ten years we will have flying cars. What are you running for president "In 10 years...."
If I have the money then I would go for this storage option. You never know what they can come up with in ten years, so I will bank on what they have now. Besides - they may find out, in 10 years, that they can use this stuff for something else that is beneficial.
Again if you can afford it go for it.
If you don't think 1.2 mil isn't big dollars to a SINGLE business, as opposed to an INDUSTRY, then you are mistaken. If it was a multi-billion dollar company sure - but someone is gonna feel some heat on this.
Besides - there needs to be reasonable penalties. Just because a company has 100 million in assests/revenue does not mean they need to be fined 100 million for any infraction of any law. That would be prejudicial and wrong. It would be along the lines of how drug laws are racist (cheaper drugs, which tend to be used mroe by low socio-economic people aka minorities, get stiffer penalties then those who use more expensive drugs.)
So 1.2 million for calling is pretty fair. If they don't stop doing it the next judge can make it 10 million (cumulative penalties), and the judge after that can make it 50, and so forth until they get the message.
In the top portion of your message you said this was a "speed bump" but in the bottom portion you said we should look the other way because of our economy. These two statements clash. If it is a slap on the wrist the only people to be fired are those responsible for the screw-up...usually a few management. It won't cause massive lay-offs. Also - no we should not look the other way. We should not allow people to break the law because the economy sucks right now. Plenty of people work and make a profit without breaking the law.
So we'll develop one,
I like this mind-set, it reminds me of an episode of the west wing. Someone wanted to create the Wolves Only Highway. Except they hadn't figured out how to keep wolves from straying off the highway.
Smoking up is not health, just like cigarettes. This country is working hard on getting rid of smoking - it is hard because smoking industry is firmly entrenched in our government and pays off our lawyers. But thats great, lets make this legal, and then we can start marketing cigarettes to children again. Hey gotta start them on something.
Your analysis is very flawed. While beer takes some hardware, clothing takes some hardware - you seem to think growing a plant for profit does not. You are wrong - look at plant farms.
If you are planning to grow stuff to sell it you will need "minimal" equipment. A greenhouse on your roof (are you allowed to put something on the roof - if its not your house that you hold the title to probably not), an automated water system, pesticides, someway to process the raw product. Then you need mechanisms to weigh it, bag it and then distribute it. How do you deal when winter sets in if you are in a colder climate, droughts, floods, etc.
Then there is the issue you are selling things for consumption...you don't think the FDA will require you to get a distribution license? You may not tell them you are selling anything, but your neighbors might - or an upset customer or competitor. Then you are screwed for circumventing them. Now the FDA knows you sell this stuff - what makes you think the IRS won't. Didn't pay your taxes...great so your options are to hope the position of Treasury Secretary is available and they hire drug dealers or go to jail for a realy long time.
Probably the hardest thing for the gov't to tax are contractors, or self employed people providing services. Guess what - those people pay taxes. Your arguments are very very flawed.
Or that FOSS lacks the funds to have a server which can handle the load.
It's great they are doing this - but in the end the project needs funding to get huge - otherwise it is a hobby for the technical folk (with rare exception).
With luck these guys will use this on their resume', get great jobs, and help make some great products. I know someone will flame me, and 5 others will mod me down - but think about it. WoW costs money (all three expansions = about 75-100 probably), then it's 14.95 a month. Not free at all - but look at the game. It's been out since what 2002 and still the most played game with the largest base of paid accounts. None of that could not happen if the resources were not in place, and resources are limited which means they cost money.
No.
Obama, you could prove your salt here by putting some REAL Common Sense behind MY money.
Obama ain't reading this post. Also, if the gov't put more regulation we would end up just turning and crying foul on gov't regulation. Not that I disagree with you - but the people are notorious for 1) not agreeing with each other and 2) not sticking behind the decisions we pushed our politicians into
They have less then 90%: http://www.tgdaily.com/html_tmp/content-view-40381-113.html about 65%
Even if it is off by 20% they still have only a 85% market share. SO I guess they are no longer a monopoly by your definition?
No, a monopoly means market dominance, to a level decided by a court. 90% market share, for example, could be considered a monopoly (for legal reasons). It doesn't mean there's no one else in the market, just extreme dominance.
Really? The magic 8 ball says that Merriam doesn't give that answer http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monopoly
And as I said, just because a judge makes a ruling doesn't make it correct - it just makes it enforceable.
According to this article, http://www.tgdaily.com/html_tmp/content-view-40381-113.html, As of Dec 1, 2008 IE is below 70%
Considering that people who commit manslaughter can go to jail for less then no I don't think so.
Problem with our legal system is that it has disparaging sentences. This turns out to be cruel and unusual punishment. We have people who kill others and go to jail for a couple of years...then we have people who rob banks who go to jail for a decade (plus extra time for each illegal weapon/ammunition even if a shot was never fired) and then we expect computer hackers (while malicious, didn't kill anyone) go to jail for a long time?
Yes what he did was bad, but no 5 years is a bit extreme, and anything over that is just being petty.
This isn't a hero, this is a master thief.
So was Robin of Locksley and he was a hero.
Who do we blame
1) Play computer games - be a nerd
2) Get called a geek and beat up by bullies
3) Learn to hack computer games putting pictures of the bullies on the characters you plan to frag
4) Learn to hack your bullies computers so you can destroy their homework
5) Hack the world
6) Get caught
7) Get a job, get rich
Well we can either blame video games or bullies. I point my finger at video games.
spent the past 15 working as a professional in the security scene
Common CmdrTaco... Months...15 months....
Or we look for a middle ground. Black and White never work all that well, shades of gray however do. If we are for open markets - we should have let the banks die. We did not, we looked for a middle ground.
I wholly agree with you. We should look for the middle ground, or more appropriately the correct ground. Given that, if Windows has to bundle, or make an easy download tool, for other browsers...then so should Linux, Mac, Unix, FreeBSD, and any other OS out there. If you want to make the market fair then you need to make the rules apply to everyone - otherwise you are being biased.
My g/f recently did something to screw up my computer. I need to reformat it anyhow. I barely managed to get my information off the hard drive. I have a primary computer i use for my sensitive data. So if the laptop gets screwy its not a big deal...though I would prefer at the end of beta to have the option to buy windows 7 and keep it. THanks for the info!
I know this gets brought up ad nauseam, but it is pertinent to your comments : MS is a monopoly, and as such is regulated by a different set of rules and standards. NOT regulating a monopoly leads to disastrous consequences for all involved.
A monopoly means there is only one option....We have IE, FireFox, Opera, Safari, etc. How is it a monopoly? For PC OS' we have Windows, Mac, Linux and other operating systems. How is it a monopoly?
We can say that MS leveraged it's power in an unfair manner - but to say there is only ONE option available is wrong. Since there is more then one option available then there is no monopoly.
The EU is not complaining that people are buying Windows over Linux...they are complaining that people are using IE instead of Safari.
If the people really wanted MS gone they would stop using it's products. Apparantly the vast majority of the people use MS and are happy about it. To say people are sheep and don't care to complain and will buy blindly and not say a word about it is incorrect...for example - the gasoline industry. That is an ologopoly. They price gouge, and price fix. They also have a captive audience - people have to buy their product for daily uses (e.g. getting to work, heating their homes, etc). But the people are not quiet about it and complain left and right (feel free to go to any news medium to read archived articles).
I disagre they are a monopoly - and just because a judge said it doesn't make it true (how many times have we said XYZ judge is a moron for making a ruling).
Yea but if i open up windows explorer and i type in a URL it gives me a website. Does it need the .exe for that?
So if I have Vista, and I upgrade to Windows 7 Beta...what happens at the end of beta testing? Does my computer still run Windows 7 (presumably I am now forced to either reformat or purchase Windows 7 or does it downgrade to Vista or does it just lock up or do I basically get Windows 7 for free?)?
When installing windows 7, does the software uninstall any defunct Vista components? If it doesn't, can I reformat my computer and use the the Windows 7 install (once I burn it to DVD) as a fresh install? I would like to try Windows 7 on my laptop but just have some questions.
No, Google just never removes the beta logo and falls back on that. How long did it take gmail to fall out of beta?
They are thinking let's bash the top dog. It's not uncommon for the number 1 guy to get all the flak - even if its unwarranted. Now MS is guilty of doing some shady stuff, but really - to force them to install multiple browsers on their product? So the next time I buy a car, say a Toyota, should the US gov't force that Toyota to come with the same features/products that a Lamborghini has? I mean the Lamborghini is a better product - so maybe Toyota should be forced to bundle in a v12 engine in there for me.
No I do not want multiple browsers on my computer. IE is fine for me - i will then go to mozilla and download firefox. IE will be used for MS Exchange and other similar restrictive sites that I utilize.
I like having IE pre-installed...it gives me a way to go to mozilla.org and download firefox. Your method works also. From my understanding Windows is fully integrated with IE. Meaning removing IE would require a huge reworking to windows. FireFox seems to be doing fine on its own. Opera/Safari is doing fine for Mac. I believe Safari comes standard on a Mac...will the EU require Mac to carry IE so IE can have a chance to being competative on the Mac?
Honestly - for all the talk of "open market", "less regulation", "get off my lawn", etc - we sure are big on "force MS to integrate". Either we are for less regulation and let the market decide, or we are for gov't intervention. Again - FireFox has a pretty good market share without gov't intervention.
By forcing MS to put in FireFox, as the OP said, what about the other browsers? I do not want 50 browsers on my computer. I enjoy FireFox and ONLY use IE when I have to (MS Exchange for work).
Landing an object on an asteroid is neither cheap nor convenient...even a robotic device is difficult. First to hit it is difficult - its a fast moving object - and we will likely have one shot. Second to land on it and not destroy what is landing on it would be nearly impossible. Third to "mine" valuable information from the asteroid is difficult, and may turn up nothing more then ice (the good stuff may be deep inside and outside the range of a small automated vehicle) and forth getting that information sent back to Earth is pain since we have no control which way this object will face.
With current technologies it is next to impossible. We first need to develop tools that can overcome the basic hurdles (getting there safely) then make those tools able to provide us with useful information (otherwise what's the point)?
The DoD has to look at it and see if:
1) If the mission is over and if it is not the mission may be compromised...meaning people's lives are at stake
2) It's one thing to google someone's name, its another thing to have a gov't confirmed list. Even worse if it says what they do "Sniper team leader, John Doe....Mission: Assassinate XYZ dictator"... Not only is the mission compromised, but if XYZ dictator finds out he may pay someone off to target John Doe and his family. The army takes the confidentiality of it's soldiers to be a very serious issue.
3) If the equipment is highly classified (e.g. some new technology) do you really want the enemy getting a look?
We don't know exactly what is on it. Also, even if the information is trivial (the names are not), it could be part of a larger issue where some people in the DoD are putting information on mediums not authorized...and worse, accidentally distributing to non-authorized personnel...who in this case happen to be in another country!