They have the right to search you just as much as you have a right to be on that plane(none at all). If you chose to not be searched then you chose to not get on the plane, its that simple. I don't like the searching policies as they currently stand as much as you but I think its a bit outrageous to claim you should be able to walk on the plane without being screened in any way.
They don't need to use these things while on the plane and all of these are allowed anyway. You are allowed to wear shoes, you are allowed to bring toothpaste, you are allowed to bring shampoo. That might be why it hasn't made a difference. If you were going to bring anything up it should have at least been true, as there are some things that are banned that people could use.
Regardless, laptops are going to be allowed because they have the same risk of (malicious) fire as carry on as they would in checked baggage. Try telling the world they can't transport laptops in a plane and see how well that goes over. I would predict the death of the public airline industry and a rise in video conferencing and private jets.
Usually you add FRIENDS on facebook. If your friend dies you are likely to say something positive, or meaningful not give 'senseless opinions'. You chose your facebook friends when you are alive, its not like randoms show up when you die. Its not a public forum unless you make it that way.
I think that family and close friends would be the main people participating on a deceased persons facebook page. Maybe you have never used facebook but family and friends are the only people that seem to interact with me when I am alive, why would that change in death? I would only see it tightening to the closest friends and family.
Duh! I can't imagine why it takes the act of those controlling the rights of the movies to get anything done! Sure, Wal-Mart doesn't control the rights, but they have the power to make arrangements with those that do. It seems like the media companies fail miserably at extracting money from people by selling their products and instead chose to wait until some big name comes along and promises them lots of cash if they just listen.
The only slightly strange thing is that I thought Netflix was in with the rights owners, which makes me very confused as to why they can't make a deal to distribute internationally. Regardless, it seems like a no-brainier business decision to distribute IP internationally if there is demand. It doesn't take Wal-Marts CEO to realize that and want to act on it.
You also might want to note we live in a world that has time and exclusivity doesn't necessarily include all times past and present. Microsoft may have been told that for X period of time the service would not appear on any other consoles thus their statement, at that point, was true.
I think it is fairly standard human behavior to judge statements based on when they occurred and not the present situation. That is why newton is considered 'genius' despite getting lots of physics wrong.
I don't understand where you are going with #3. As far as I can tell you linked to an article, from Fox, written in 2007, that details why the internet won't collapse. Am I missing something here?
That does bring up a good point. How does one explicitly know they are breaking copyright law while on the internet. I could click a link that someone says is their own original music, I download it, start playing it, and THEN find out it is a work that is protected under copyright. The very nature of the net allows you to accidentally break all sorts of copyright laws based on what people put on their sites. If someone put the whole text to harry potter on a html page, maybe even in a comment so you don't notice, bam, you have just copied the book to your computers memory. This does not only apply to German law. This could apply to any place that has copyright laws.
Essentially your computer system is committing the copyright infringement, not you. I know cases like this would be rare and most infringement is intentional, but how do you know? I could potentially have tons of copyright protected pictures I downloaded off sites that offered them free, and I have no way of knowing if some artist owns them + your computer makes copies the cache automatically, so if you have ever browsed to a site with copyrighted pics, you have broken the law, right?
Anti-*** doesn't do crap except detect the old stuff that has been out forever. Sure it will reduce the number of malware items by 25-50% but that is hardly enough because even one item of malware can disable the anti-malware systems and let the rest in.
I agree with the idea that employees should not be docked pay.. as that is a bit harsh. Users DO need to be held accountable for their actions though. Just as an employee would be held accountable for a physical security breach (bringing that hobo to work) an employee should be held accountable for other types of security breaches, if they have had proper training. If a user is breaching business policy and ends up with an infected computer, then they should be reminded that the policy is there for a reason. How they are reminded depends on lots of factors such as the severity of the breach, past history of the user, degree of stupidity that it took to contract the virus, etc.
Educating employees on how to not get owned by viruses is far more important than setting up some anti-virus software and calling it good.
There is obviously lots of gray area in this topic but using only technical solutions to a problem that is not only technical is the wrong approach. You need to use managerial and technical solutions to properly manage the IT infrastructure.
It all makes sense now. You are from Argentina. I was offering middle ground. Explaining why everything is not as black and white as you are painting it. You are shoving your black/white opinion down everyone's throat without even thinking about reality.
Certain American companies are gaining business from the efforts in the middle east that is true. They are NOT gaining it by stealing or unfairly taking anything from any country in the middle east. In fact its quite opposite. The American taxpayer is paying for the renovations in the middle east. I don't see you worried about the taxpayers that are being forced to pay for the rebuilding of the country. The net transaction is a loss for the US. That hardly seems like a good reason for the US to want to do it. Take it how you want to, because I know you wont change your mind, but please realize that this shit is all gray area. Also, nearly all your arguments are riddled with ad hominem fallacies.
Have fun living in a fantasy Utopian world... the one where communism works, prisons aren't needed and everyone is happy. The rest of us live in a reality where people must be controlled by force or they will become the controlling force.
The only question is who that force is and how compassionate they are. You can argue that the gang rule was better for Afghanistan if you want, and maybe you are right, but your other arguments fall into the realm of fallacies and fantasy.
Unless you look at the fact and realize that the country of Afghanistan's innocent people were being help hostage and terrorized by what can only be described as gangsters, terrorists and organized crime bosses. Not saying the US doesn't have other motives for helping restore order to the country but to say the US just invade for the sake of resources is unfounded (please show me evidence that we have taken any natural resource at below market price). So to the point of your #3: who really is invading? Should the international community stand around and watch while innocent people are controlled by ruthless gangs? What is more responsible? Is watching a murder happen and doing nothing better than trying to stop that murder?
Maybe you should think about things a bit more as well. Things aren't as clear cut as you make them seem.
So? If they A) Don't have prior art and B) Don't have a patent then Apple effectively "thought of it first" and thus they get the rights to it. If Google was planning on doing this, and had the technology, maybe they should have patented it.
That is like asking why an inventor would invent anything and not personally bring it to market? Not every inventor plans to personally manufacture, distribute, market, etc. It is common practice to license or sell inventions [patents and related knowledge].
woohoo. Way to think your shitty tech jobs are significant. Sorry but the real jobs are in sectors where you think and determine the specs and requirements and not just press buttons to set it up. Sorry for offending you jackasses who think your jobs are hard because linux obscures easy as fuck shit into more complicated tasks.
Job security through obscurity is dumb. Quit bitching about consulting companies who have talented, smart and promising young individuals who tell you that you are doing it wrong. Just because they don't know how to set it all up doesn't make them wrong, and when apple makes it to where they CAN set it all up then you are fucked. Sorry. This is coming from a person who can set things up in linux right now but at least I am smart enough to realize how trivial it really is and not pretend I am some God just because I can set up a LAMP or some other dumb service where a manual could guide a blind man to setting it up. Technical = technical, which means a trained monkey (or a script, or a script with a GUI) can do the job.
This tech is equivalent to a builder getting shipped completed houses and all he has to do is make building deals. Of course the workers are going to be pissed, to them they seem invaluable and there is no way the company can survive without them, right? Wrong.
Down vote this more, I don't care because I am not the one losing my job because my skills are no longer needed. I am right and you know it, accept it and adapt, or lose.
*has karma to burn and is willing to burn it in hopes one person will be helped*
You do own valve games, you are not renting them and if you do go to the store you gets discs to have. Steam is awesome but to say steam is a "rental" of the game is downright false. You can continue to play games that you owned via the steam system forever, with no monthly fees. That is more ownership than you get with most physical things these days. Don't get me wrong, steam is doing awesome but it isn't what you are claiming it is.
This has less to do with mac and more to do with the idea that servers simply are not hard to set up and the only thing that makes them hard is the lack of a decent UI to guide a person. I learned how to set up linux servers in my first tech job in literally two days (from 0 linux experience). Slap a decent GUI with commands to install the shit you selected and BAM you have a 0 day learning curve on it. More obscure options that enterprise or transaction based systems need are not what this is for. This is for standing up servers in small businesses or for the home.
Ever study the real effects of a planned economy, i.e. what this man is proposing? The effects are terrible. Crappy products not made for the consumer but made to fill government plans. Gaming the system to technically fulfill requirements while delivering worthless products. Not giving a flying shit what people want but meeting government requirements. The classic example is of companies creating thousands of shoes... only for one foot and not the other. Another example is "create 1000kg of nails" Resulting in the production of a couple very large nails that weigh in at the desired weight. The issue is simple... there are millions of tiny variables that make up a single product. Those variables are easily detected via a free or semi-free market. Defining those aspects of every product in a rule book is impossible and impractical. A free market can quickly and easily identify what individuals want and what they value it at. If customers are taken advantage of or if the proper products are not available, an entrepreneur can come along and start the business to fill the gap.
If low MPG cars were so undesirable then companies would not be able to sell them even in a free market. A company would make "the car that everyone wants" and sell it.
Want to know the effects of a 100% free market? Look at the not so distant past where governemnt had no or little regulations. Traders and craftsmen trading and marketing freely. It wasn't so bad now was it. Look at the only examples of large scale (nation sized) communism and you only see bad examples and certainly no "great successes". Even China is moving towards a more free market in order to truly take advantage of the opportunity that they have.
So perhaps I have committed fallacies in an effort to sensationalize my post enough for people to get the point, but it is also a fallacy to condemn a point of view just because the argument for that point of view contained a fallacy. As a fallacy master you should understand that, right?
Obviously we have safety and health concerns now and regulation to ensure people know about these risks are fair and should exist. Some products that are downright dangerous should be regulated. But beyond the idea of "clear and present danger" governemnt planning of products simply limits freedom of the individual which can only be construed as a good thing if you are into bondage or something.
It should be up to the consumer. Why do you think you are important enough to tell me what I can buy. If everyone did everything "in the best interest of society" all fun and creativity in the world would be destroyed. Painting, sky diving, water skiing, snowboarding the list goes on forever of things that harm the environment and society and provide no directly measurable benefit. So unless you are going to ban EVERYTHING that society as a whole deems worthless, there is absolutely no reason to ban this one. I for one don't want to live in a future world where the sole purpose of cars is to "efficiently transport a person from one location to another". Under this definition you no longer need a radio, cup holder, adjustable seats, etc. In other words, if you are going to pull the "its irresponsible" thing think about what you are saying first. You are claiming that a car has a sole, defined by the government, purpose and anything that gets in the way of that purpose should be banned.
The overarching effects of what you propose are gigantic and would result in a brain-dead communist nation of zombies... hopefully I will have a hummer and a shotgun to survive the ensuing zombieland of dumbfucks that will only be allowed to buy what the nation deems suitable for them (which is so much better than being convinced by commercials don't you think?)
Slashdot Mirror
Cans of soda have been free on every flight I have ever been on. What carriers charge, that didn't before, so I don't use them?
They have the right to search you just as much as you have a right to be on that plane(none at all). If you chose to not be searched then you chose to not get on the plane, its that simple. I don't like the searching policies as they currently stand as much as you but I think its a bit outrageous to claim you should be able to walk on the plane without being screened in any way.
They don't need to use these things while on the plane and all of these are allowed anyway. You are allowed to wear shoes, you are allowed to bring toothpaste, you are allowed to bring shampoo. That might be why it hasn't made a difference. If you were going to bring anything up it should have at least been true, as there are some things that are banned that people could use.
Regardless, laptops are going to be allowed because they have the same risk of (malicious) fire as carry on as they would in checked baggage. Try telling the world they can't transport laptops in a plane and see how well that goes over. I would predict the death of the public airline industry and a rise in video conferencing and private jets.
Usually you add FRIENDS on facebook. If your friend dies you are likely to say something positive, or meaningful not give 'senseless opinions'. You chose your facebook friends when you are alive, its not like randoms show up when you die. Its not a public forum unless you make it that way.
I think that family and close friends would be the main people participating on a deceased persons facebook page. Maybe you have never used facebook but family and friends are the only people that seem to interact with me when I am alive, why would that change in death? I would only see it tightening to the closest friends and family.
Duh! I can't imagine why it takes the act of those controlling the rights of the movies to get anything done! Sure, Wal-Mart doesn't control the rights, but they have the power to make arrangements with those that do. It seems like the media companies fail miserably at extracting money from people by selling their products and instead chose to wait until some big name comes along and promises them lots of cash if they just listen.
The only slightly strange thing is that I thought Netflix was in with the rights owners, which makes me very confused as to why they can't make a deal to distribute internationally. Regardless, it seems like a no-brainier business decision to distribute IP internationally if there is demand. It doesn't take Wal-Marts CEO to realize that and want to act on it.
You also might want to note we live in a world that has time and exclusivity doesn't necessarily include all times past and present. Microsoft may have been told that for X period of time the service would not appear on any other consoles thus their statement, at that point, was true.
I think it is fairly standard human behavior to judge statements based on when they occurred and not the present situation. That is why newton is considered 'genius' despite getting lots of physics wrong.
They can aid in transmitting it in "HD 4X" faster than it takes someone to realize the mistake of clicking a tinyurl.
Dangerous stuff we have here.. better ban it.
I don't understand where you are going with #3. As far as I can tell you linked to an article, from Fox, written in 2007, that details why the internet won't collapse. Am I missing something here?
That does bring up a good point. How does one explicitly know they are breaking copyright law while on the internet. I could click a link that someone says is their own original music, I download it, start playing it, and THEN find out it is a work that is protected under copyright. The very nature of the net allows you to accidentally break all sorts of copyright laws based on what people put on their sites. If someone put the whole text to harry potter on a html page, maybe even in a comment so you don't notice, bam, you have just copied the book to your computers memory. This does not only apply to German law. This could apply to any place that has copyright laws.
Essentially your computer system is committing the copyright infringement, not you. I know cases like this would be rare and most infringement is intentional, but how do you know? I could potentially have tons of copyright protected pictures I downloaded off sites that offered them free, and I have no way of knowing if some artist owns them + your computer makes copies the cache automatically, so if you have ever browsed to a site with copyrighted pics, you have broken the law, right?
Anti-*** doesn't do crap except detect the old stuff that has been out forever. Sure it will reduce the number of malware items by 25-50% but that is hardly enough because even one item of malware can disable the anti-malware systems and let the rest in.
I agree with the idea that employees should not be docked pay.. as that is a bit harsh. Users DO need to be held accountable for their actions though. Just as an employee would be held accountable for a physical security breach (bringing that hobo to work) an employee should be held accountable for other types of security breaches, if they have had proper training. If a user is breaching business policy and ends up with an infected computer, then they should be reminded that the policy is there for a reason. How they are reminded depends on lots of factors such as the severity of the breach, past history of the user, degree of stupidity that it took to contract the virus, etc.
Educating employees on how to not get owned by viruses is far more important than setting up some anti-virus software and calling it good.
There is obviously lots of gray area in this topic but using only technical solutions to a problem that is not only technical is the wrong approach. You need to use managerial and technical solutions to properly manage the IT infrastructure.
It all makes sense now. You are from Argentina. I was offering middle ground. Explaining why everything is not as black and white as you are painting it. You are shoving your black/white opinion down everyone's throat without even thinking about reality.
Certain American companies are gaining business from the efforts in the middle east that is true. They are NOT gaining it by stealing or unfairly taking anything from any country in the middle east. In fact its quite opposite. The American taxpayer is paying for the renovations in the middle east. I don't see you worried about the taxpayers that are being forced to pay for the rebuilding of the country. The net transaction is a loss for the US. That hardly seems like a good reason for the US to want to do it. Take it how you want to, because I know you wont change your mind, but please realize that this shit is all gray area. Also, nearly all your arguments are riddled with ad hominem fallacies.
Have fun living in a fantasy Utopian world... the one where communism works, prisons aren't needed and everyone is happy. The rest of us live in a reality where people must be controlled by force or they will become the controlling force.
The only question is who that force is and how compassionate they are. You can argue that the gang rule was better for Afghanistan if you want, and maybe you are right, but your other arguments fall into the realm of fallacies and fantasy.
Unless you look at the fact and realize that the country of Afghanistan's innocent people were being help hostage and terrorized by what can only be described as gangsters, terrorists and organized crime bosses. Not saying the US doesn't have other motives for helping restore order to the country but to say the US just invade for the sake of resources is unfounded (please show me evidence that we have taken any natural resource at below market price). So to the point of your #3: who really is invading? Should the international community stand around and watch while innocent people are controlled by ruthless gangs? What is more responsible? Is watching a murder happen and doing nothing better than trying to stop that murder?
Maybe you should think about things a bit more as well. Things aren't as clear cut as you make them seem.
Only after you give them tons of doggy treats which, as far as I can tell, there are no substitutes for in training humans. We are SOL.
That is how we reproduce, we better be good at it.
good point, I was almost convinced.
So? If they A) Don't have prior art and B) Don't have a patent then Apple effectively "thought of it first" and thus they get the rights to it. If Google was planning on doing this, and had the technology, maybe they should have patented it.
That is like asking why an inventor would invent anything and not personally bring it to market? Not every inventor plans to personally manufacture, distribute, market, etc. It is common practice to license or sell inventions [patents and related knowledge].
Parent is modded informative, rofl.
woohoo. Way to think your shitty tech jobs are significant. Sorry but the real jobs are in sectors where you think and determine the specs and requirements and not just press buttons to set it up. Sorry for offending you jackasses who think your jobs are hard because linux obscures easy as fuck shit into more complicated tasks.
Job security through obscurity is dumb. Quit bitching about consulting companies who have talented, smart and promising young individuals who tell you that you are doing it wrong. Just because they don't know how to set it all up doesn't make them wrong, and when apple makes it to where they CAN set it all up then you are fucked. Sorry. This is coming from a person who can set things up in linux right now but at least I am smart enough to realize how trivial it really is and not pretend I am some God just because I can set up a LAMP or some other dumb service where a manual could guide a blind man to setting it up. Technical = technical, which means a trained monkey (or a script, or a script with a GUI) can do the job.
This tech is equivalent to a builder getting shipped completed houses and all he has to do is make building deals. Of course the workers are going to be pissed, to them they seem invaluable and there is no way the company can survive without them, right? Wrong.
Down vote this more, I don't care because I am not the one losing my job because my skills are no longer needed. I am right and you know it, accept it and adapt, or lose.
*has karma to burn and is willing to burn it in hopes one person will be helped*
You do own valve games, you are not renting them and if you do go to the store you gets discs to have. Steam is awesome but to say steam is a "rental" of the game is downright false. You can continue to play games that you owned via the steam system forever, with no monthly fees. That is more ownership than you get with most physical things these days. Don't get me wrong, steam is doing awesome but it isn't what you are claiming it is.
This has less to do with mac and more to do with the idea that servers simply are not hard to set up and the only thing that makes them hard is the lack of a decent UI to guide a person. I learned how to set up linux servers in my first tech job in literally two days (from 0 linux experience). Slap a decent GUI with commands to install the shit you selected and BAM you have a 0 day learning curve on it. More obscure options that enterprise or transaction based systems need are not what this is for. This is for standing up servers in small businesses or for the home.
Current:
Apple Market Cap:170.08B
Cisco Market Cap:140.47B
The coke machines around here have credit card swipers which means they must be networked. Add another company to the list please.
Ever study the real effects of a planned economy, i.e. what this man is proposing? The effects are terrible. Crappy products not made for the consumer but made to fill government plans. Gaming the system to technically fulfill requirements while delivering worthless products. Not giving a flying shit what people want but meeting government requirements. The classic example is of companies creating thousands of shoes... only for one foot and not the other. Another example is "create 1000kg of nails" Resulting in the production of a couple very large nails that weigh in at the desired weight. The issue is simple... there are millions of tiny variables that make up a single product. Those variables are easily detected via a free or semi-free market. Defining those aspects of every product in a rule book is impossible and impractical. A free market can quickly and easily identify what individuals want and what they value it at. If customers are taken advantage of or if the proper products are not available, an entrepreneur can come along and start the business to fill the gap.
If low MPG cars were so undesirable then companies would not be able to sell them even in a free market. A company would make "the car that everyone wants" and sell it.
Want to know the effects of a 100% free market? Look at the not so distant past where governemnt had no or little regulations. Traders and craftsmen trading and marketing freely. It wasn't so bad now was it. Look at the only examples of large scale (nation sized) communism and you only see bad examples and certainly no "great successes". Even China is moving towards a more free market in order to truly take advantage of the opportunity that they have.
So perhaps I have committed fallacies in an effort to sensationalize my post enough for people to get the point, but it is also a fallacy to condemn a point of view just because the argument for that point of view contained a fallacy. As a fallacy master you should understand that, right?
Obviously we have safety and health concerns now and regulation to ensure people know about these risks are fair and should exist. Some products that are downright dangerous should be regulated. But beyond the idea of "clear and present danger" governemnt planning of products simply limits freedom of the individual which can only be construed as a good thing if you are into bondage or something.
Young.
It should be up to the consumer. Why do you think you are important enough to tell me what I can buy. If everyone did everything "in the best interest of society" all fun and creativity in the world would be destroyed. Painting, sky diving, water skiing, snowboarding the list goes on forever of things that harm the environment and society and provide no directly measurable benefit. So unless you are going to ban EVERYTHING that society as a whole deems worthless, there is absolutely no reason to ban this one. I for one don't want to live in a future world where the sole purpose of cars is to "efficiently transport a person from one location to another". Under this definition you no longer need a radio, cup holder, adjustable seats, etc. In other words, if you are going to pull the "its irresponsible" thing think about what you are saying first. You are claiming that a car has a sole, defined by the government, purpose and anything that gets in the way of that purpose should be banned.
The overarching effects of what you propose are gigantic and would result in a brain-dead communist nation of zombies... hopefully I will have a hummer and a shotgun to survive the ensuing zombieland of dumbfucks that will only be allowed to buy what the nation deems suitable for them (which is so much better than being convinced by commercials don't you think?)