So, um, buy a three button mouse. What's the problem?
The problem is that the Mighty Mouse isn't usable by people who rest their index finger on the mouse while right-clicking. Buying a different mouse is a work-around for the problem, sure, but that doesn't mean there isn't a problem.
"Everytime I try to turn left while driving this car you sold me, the engine dies."
"So, um, buy a different car. What's the problem?"
Verizon and AOL are getting paid for your traffic, but Sprint is not.
I'm confused. Wouldn't Verizon paying Sprint here? Why would Sprint agree to accept incoming traffic from Verizon's routers without having first signed an agreement of some sort with Verizon?
However - I might choose to use a more expensive ISP that doesn't subsidize its users with bills to content providers.
If there are enough ISPs available to you that you are able to make that choice, then great. For a lot of people, however, there are only a few broadband ISPs available in their area. Those people will may be able to "choose an ISP with a different business model". If a sufficiently large amount of people are in that sort of situation (and I submit that they are, or could be in the near future), then allowing the ISPs to pick and choose which web sites get "preferred" access and which don't means that those ISPs could then act as a chokepoint between producers and consumers. The fear is that then the Internet would end up like cable television: a few hundred "channels" to choose from, and if you want to start a viable web site, you'll need a few hundred thousand dollars to do it, because you'll have to pay $$$ to the ISPs to "carry" you.
Needless to say, most people would prefer the Internet to work the way it does now. Producers and consumers should should pay $X per unit of data transferred, regardless of where that data is coming from or going to.
One thing that's happening with Vista is a total redesign of file and registry access on a "sandbox" model. [...] One possible reason for these repeated delays is the need to tweak these new features so that they don't break a lot of existing apps.
So Vista will ship as soon as they are done adding all the necessary security holes to their sandbox? Sounds like it'll be great:^)
How is it that OSX gets the pass on this? I M$ built it into Windows Vista (and if it worked) you'd scream foul over anticompetitive bullying.
First, nobody even knows what "this" is yet (other than a vague rumor posted on an unreliable rumor site). Apple hasn't announced anything. Second, when Apple has 90+% of the operating system market and a criminal history of anti-competitive practices, they will be subject to strict scrutiny also.
The only protection against this form of attack is to uniformly block all lawsuits referring to potential classified projects, whether or not those projects actually exist
There is a third strategy: block some lawsuits and not others, mostly at random. Any information provided by that strategy would be cancelled out by an equal and opposite amount of misinformation, leading to effectively zero leakage.
I think there is a larger issue here, though. Which is more important: that the government never leak information under any circumstances, or that the government is held accountable and not allowed to break the law? I'm much more concerned about the latter than the former, and frankly, the government doesn't seem too concerned about the former either, since they will deliberately leak intelligence info themselves when it suits their purpose.
After looking at other democratic systems of government around the world I can't see why the USA is still stuck with a system that doesn't let the ruling party replace lame duck presidents with others
It's the same reason why the USA is stuck with a lousy cell phone infrastructure while other nations have much better systems. We implemented our infrastructure while the technology was still young, and thus we installed v1.0. Once a system is entrenched it's difficult to get people to upgrade it to something better.
Become a corporation doesn't magically get you influence. If you want influence you will need to buy (err, sorry, "contribute to the campaigns of") some lawmakers, and it will cost you much more than $500.
Does it matter whether it is a case of illegal or legal actions when the security of the nation is close to being "compromised". Secret is a secret, even if illegal secret.
The problem with that logic is that it gives the Executive branch a loophole through which they can get away with anything. Any time they want to do something illegal, they could just do it and claim that it is "secret" and therefore they can't be prosecuted for it. That's clearly unacceptable.
Conservatives are the people alarmed by this administration's willingness to disregard traditional values and re-interpret the constitution.
Too bad that didn't stop them from re-electing him.
Liberals are just pissed off that they aren't the ones doing it, they've always been in favor of trying new ways - that's why we call 'em liberals.
I'm a liberal, and I don't want to see the Constitution infringed by Bush or anybody else. One thing the American Right has been very good at is reducing their opponents to caricatures -- that is likely why your idea of what liberals stand for is so negative and cartoon-like. Keep in mind that "liberal" and "Democrat" are not anywhere close to synonymous.
IF (big if) it wasn't illegal, then the NY Times needs a slap from the courts that is big enough to put them out of business.
Yeah... pity about that First Amendment thing; if it weren't for that they could put lots of newspapers out of business. Then they could do whatever they want and nobody would be around to call them on it.
That's the very same mentality that got us Bush in office. Stop casting the anti-vote.. and start casting your real vote. Meaning.. stop voting against someone, but vote for the person you actually think will do the job. There is a difference.
That mentality is a perfectly rational response to how the system is designed. Look at it from a game theory point of view: if you know that it is overwhelmingly likely that either the Democrat or the Republican is going to win, then you have your choice of either (a) affecting the decision of which of the two gets in by voting for one or the other, or (b) not affecting the decision at all (either by not voting, or by voting for someone else who stands no chance of being elected, which is really the same thing). There is a small benefit to (a), but no benefit to (b). That's why people end up voting strategically instead of voting their true interests: because that is what the system rewards.
This is a real problem, but the problem is with the system, not with the voters. The voters are only making the best of a bad situation. If you want to change "the mentality", the only way to do that is to change the voting system to one that can fairly represent the will of the voters when there are more than two candidates in the race. IRV is one such voting system; there are others as well. In a system that does not penalize people for voting their true wishes (by ignoring their vote), people will do so.
Almost nobody voted in support of the constitution.
What, exactly, would "voting in support of the constitution" consist of?
If you mean voting for some third party candidate, I don't see how that would help. Until the US adopts a more sophisticated voting system, or a third party somehow rises to rival one of the two major parties, voting third party is about as useful as not voting, as far as the results go. It's a sad state of affairs, but true nonetheless.
The problem is noone uses encryption even though it's out there...
Very true, but if the banks were to band together and develop an effective, open mechanism, then work with the relevant software manufacturers to make sure the mechanism was implemented, then announce that after such-and-such a date, they would be switching to this mechanism for all of their customers, that would be a big incentive for people to use it. And once that was done, everyone would benefit: banks would have a reliable, authenticated email channel to their customers, and everyone else could use the feature as well. At some point, unauthenticated emails would become the exception rather than the rule, and people would (justifiably) read them with a big grain of salt.
Please list the things that Walmart has done that benefits society.
Well, at the risk of stating the obvious:
Provides mass quantities of inexpensive goods to the middle and lower classes
Provides employment for 1.7 million people (plus an unknown number of other people in supplier companies, etc)
You can argue whether this makes up for the Walmart's negative effects, or not, but to suggest that these facts do not exist is simply denying reality.
The banks really need to get together and figure out a secure, standardized, open protocol for sending authenticated emails. Otherwise, shennanigans like this just get more and more sophisticated until email becomes next to useless for business transactions (because you can't trust anything your email says, ever).
As for how this could be implemented, I'm not sure, but it seems to me that banks (working together) have enough technical skill and influence over their customers (and by extension, over the software their customers run) that they could make it work one way or another.
This could have some rather unexpected negative side-effects. For example, Lincoln was prone to depression - if he had been less melancholic, perhaps he wouldn't have spent so much time brooding over the negative consequences of slavery to the union. Similarly, this could spell the end to a lot of literature...
The "depression leads to greatness" argument is common, but I think it's incorrect. Exceptional people do great things despite their depression, not because of it. Depression doesn't help you do anything: it inhibits both thought and action. If Lincoln had been cured of his depression, he probably would have been an even better and more effective president than he was.
Any judge intentionally making fun of/with one of the two parties involved in a lawsuit must be a retard. Or atleast biassed. Any person who assumes he knows what the meaning and intent of a secret message is, without bothering to actually decode it first, must be retarded. Or at least lazy.
Now that we know it's not x86 compatible or Windows compatible so the majority of ordinary people can't do anything useful on it, like run Word or Excel
I hate to break it to you, but Word and Excel are no longer the primary tasks people use computers for. Web browsing and email are.
That said, for people who need to word process or do spreadsheets, this machine is capable of running word processors and spreadsheet apps.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that the Mighty Mouse isn't usable by people who rest their index finger on the mouse while right-clicking. Buying a different mouse is a work-around for the problem, sure, but that doesn't mean there isn't a problem.
"Everytime I try to turn left while driving this car you sold me, the engine dies."
"So, um, buy a different car. What's the problem?"
Verizon and AOL are getting paid for your traffic, but Sprint is not.
I'm confused. Wouldn't Verizon paying Sprint here? Why would Sprint agree to accept incoming traffic from Verizon's routers without having first signed an agreement of some sort with Verizon?
If there are enough ISPs available to you that you are able to make that choice, then great. For a lot of people, however, there are only a few broadband ISPs available in their area. Those people will may be able to "choose an ISP with a different business model". If a sufficiently large amount of people are in that sort of situation (and I submit that they are, or could be in the near future), then allowing the ISPs to pick and choose which web sites get "preferred" access and which don't means that those ISPs could then act as a chokepoint between producers and consumers. The fear is that then the Internet would end up like cable television: a few hundred "channels" to choose from, and if you want to start a viable web site, you'll need a few hundred thousand dollars to do it, because you'll have to pay $$$ to the ISPs to "carry" you.
Needless to say, most people would prefer the Internet to work the way it does now. Producers and consumers should should pay $X per unit of data transferred, regardless of where that data is coming from or going to.
So Vista will ship as soon as they are done adding all the necessary security holes to their sandbox? Sounds like it'll be great
First, nobody even knows what "this" is yet (other than a vague rumor posted on an unreliable rumor site). Apple hasn't announced anything. Second, when Apple has 90+% of the operating system market and a criminal history of anti-competitive practices, they will be subject to strict scrutiny also.
Tragically, there is.
Clearly they will aim for a compromise: expect to soon hear the announcement of the "Nintendo Wiivowution"
There is a third strategy: block some lawsuits and not others, mostly at random. Any information provided by that strategy would be cancelled out by an equal and opposite amount of misinformation, leading to effectively zero leakage.
I think there is a larger issue here, though. Which is more important: that the government never leak information under any circumstances, or that the government is held accountable and not allowed to break the law? I'm much more concerned about the latter than the former, and frankly, the government doesn't seem too concerned about the former either, since they will deliberately leak intelligence info themselves when it suits their purpose.
It's the same reason why the USA is stuck with a lousy cell phone infrastructure while other nations have much better systems. We implemented our infrastructure while the technology was still young, and thus we installed v1.0. Once a system is entrenched it's difficult to get people to upgrade it to something better.
Just out of curiosity, whose heads rolled after 9/11? If there was anyone in government held accountable, I must have missed it.
Incorporate.
Seriously, it costs like $500
Become a corporation doesn't magically get you influence. If you want influence you will need to buy (err, sorry, "contribute to the campaigns of") some lawmakers, and it will cost you much more than $500.
The problem with that logic is that it gives the Executive branch a loophole through which they can get away with anything. Any time they want to do something illegal, they could just do it and claim that it is "secret" and therefore they can't be prosecuted for it. That's clearly unacceptable.
Care to explain why it's treason?
Too bad that didn't stop them from re-electing him.
Liberals are just pissed off that they aren't the ones doing it, they've always been in favor of trying new ways - that's why we call 'em liberals.
I'm a liberal, and I don't want to see the Constitution infringed by Bush or anybody else. One thing the American Right has been very good at is reducing their opponents to caricatures -- that is likely why your idea of what liberals stand for is so negative and cartoon-like. Keep in mind that "liberal" and "Democrat" are not anywhere close to synonymous.
Yeah... pity about that First Amendment thing; if it weren't for that they could put lots of newspapers out of business. Then they could do whatever they want and nobody would be around to call them on it.
That mentality is a perfectly rational response to how the system is designed. Look at it from a game theory point of view: if you know that it is overwhelmingly likely that either the Democrat or the Republican is going to win, then you have your choice of either (a) affecting the decision of which of the two gets in by voting for one or the other, or (b) not affecting the decision at all (either by not voting, or by voting for someone else who stands no chance of being elected, which is really the same thing). There is a small benefit to (a), but no benefit to (b). That's why people end up voting strategically instead of voting their true interests: because that is what the system rewards.
This is a real problem, but the problem is with the system, not with the voters. The voters are only making the best of a bad situation. If you want to change "the mentality", the only way to do that is to change the voting system to one that can fairly represent the will of the voters when there are more than two candidates in the race. IRV is one such voting system; there are others as well. In a system that does not penalize people for voting their true wishes (by ignoring their vote), people will do so.
What, exactly, would "voting in support of the constitution" consist of?
If you mean voting for some third party candidate, I don't see how that would help. Until the US adopts a more sophisticated voting system, or a third party somehow rises to rival one of the two major parties, voting third party is about as useful as not voting, as far as the results go. It's a sad state of affairs, but true nonetheless.
Apparently they can...
Very true, but if the banks were to band together and develop an effective, open mechanism, then work with the relevant software manufacturers to make sure the mechanism was implemented, then announce that after such-and-such a date, they would be switching to this mechanism for all of their customers, that would be a big incentive for people to use it. And once that was done, everyone would benefit: banks would have a reliable, authenticated email channel to their customers, and everyone else could use the feature as well. At some point, unauthenticated emails would become the exception rather than the rule, and people would (justifiably) read them with a big grain of salt.
Well, at the risk of stating the obvious:
You can argue whether this makes up for the Walmart's negative effects, or not, but to suggest that these facts do not exist is simply denying reality.
As for how this could be implemented, I'm not sure, but it seems to me that banks (working together) have enough technical skill and influence over their customers (and by extension, over the software their customers run) that they could make it work one way or another.
The "depression leads to greatness" argument is common, but I think it's incorrect. Exceptional people do great things despite their depression, not because of it. Depression doesn't help you do anything: it inhibits both thought and action. If Lincoln had been cured of his depression, he probably would have been an even better and more effective president than he was.
Any judge intentionally making fun of/with one of the two parties involved in a lawsuit must be a retard. Or atleast biassed.
Any person who assumes he knows what the meaning and intent of a secret message is, without bothering to actually decode it first, must be retarded. Or at least lazy.
I hate to break it to you, but Word and Excel are no longer the primary tasks people use computers for. Web browsing and email are.
That said, for people who need to word process or do spreadsheets, this machine is capable of running word processors and spreadsheet apps.
No offense, but somehow I don't see the Slashdot crowd as being at significant risk of becoming targets of voyeurism.