Bush is a religious man. It is hardly a surprise to me that he would attempt to bring church and state together. However, it is my deepest hope that he does not succeed.
One of the main reasons I do not like it when people call Bush the Devil is that is does not convey any description of the negativity within the statement. It is a blanket statement without any depth. I prefer more qualitative statements involving reasonable criticisms or complaints than pie-in-the-sky religious labels that get nobody anywhere useful.
"Ohio State Senator Jeff Jacobson, Republican, asked Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell in July, 2003 to disqualify Diebold's bid to supply voting machines for the state, after security problems were discovered in its software..."
This by a Republican.
Check your facts before you post. There are numerous other instances where Diebold machines have been subject to scrutiny.
But I figure you just wanted to find some reason to support your own political agenda. Not surprising. Carry on.
What the fuck is the point of calling Bush the Devil? First of all, one of the strongest ideas in the US constitution is the separation of church and state. It is fucking CENTRAL. So why do people insist on tying it back in? I mean, if you can't handle living in a country where the government fundamentally keeps its distance from religion (for damned good reasons) then just, please, leave.
Bush is not the Devil, even if the Devil were to exist other than as an idea.
Bush is just a stupid politician who panders to specialist interest groups and ignores the larger morally sound issues behind the gripes his country brings to him. People seem to center their hatred of Bush on the war in Iraq. Was it a mistake goin to Iraq? In retrospect, probably yes. But hindsight is 20/20.
So he made a mistake. And now he's making another mistake by not owning up to it and getting us the hell out of there.
But, please, at least call him what he is and stop throwing around religious ideas when it has nothing to do with the truth: he's incompetent to lead, not inherently evil.
(airport announcer over intercom) Boarding Northwest Flight 171 has begun...
Passenger 1, with fake ticket, gets to seat 13F first. Sits down and gets comfortable. Passenger 2, with real ticket, gets to seat 13F, finds someone else in their seat, and politely claims that it is their seat. Passenger 3 gets to seat 13F, finds two people arguing over whos seat it is, and considers his mistake. Flight attendant 1 arrives on scene, cannot determine who is the proper passenger, and has Air Marshall 1 escort them both off the plane, where the receive black bags over their heads and are both never heard from again.
Passenger 3, like passenger 1, forgot to change the seat number they printed for the fake ticket they heard would work 'from a friend on the internet'.
But, let's be serious for a minute. This would never work for actually getting to FLY somewhere. You would get into the seat dispute and the person with the real ticket would win every time. And you'd end up in a dark, dark room with FBI agents, then finally in prison for a long time. Gee, that was worth it.
Of course, the real threat is probably just being able to get to the plane. So, point taken. And it truly is a sad state of affairs for security. I am curious to see if this guy gets arrested and if so, convicted of a crime.
I apologize, sometimes I just type and a typo comes out and I don't proof read. Usually when what I'm saying is said in anger, like now: fuckign seu me.
If there is one thing Microsoft is famous for it their inability to 'assimilating a successful business strategy and making their own version viable and profitable' outside of their core OS and office suite software.
Sony has made billions off of their two consoles over the past decade while Microsoft has lost 4-5 billion of known losses and no one knows how much more due to hiding recent Xbox losses with other profitable parts of the company.
With the 360 selling worse than the first Xbox, Microsoft is nothing but a retarded sideshow to Sony's main battle with Nintendo in Japan this upcoming console cycle.
Let's dispense with the ad homs, AC. They're not necessary. In case you don't know what I mean, please do a google search of 'ad hom'.
You want to talk numbers? Let's talk.
Did Microsoft lose money on the XBox? Hell yes. Did they fully well know that they would? YES. In fact, they were certain they would lose money on them. But that didn't matter because it bought Microsoft valuable entrance into the console market. Which they have now used to position themselves against Sony in a way nobody thought they would be able to. They have sold over 10 million 360s as of today. How many PS3s has Sony sold? Zero. In the next-gen war, Microsoft is clearly way ahead right now.
But what happens when the PS3 is released? Does Sony suddenly sell 100 million PS3s? Not in the USA. Not a single person I know is excited enough to go out and immediately fork over $600 USD for a PS3. They are wary of Sony's first run systems. They often ship with problems and need to be returned. Add to this that PS3 graphical performance hasn't been shown to exceed the 360 by any real noticable amount and you have what could be a very slow launch for the PS3.
People simply aren't very excited for the PS3 where I live. And I happen to think that it's indicative of a greater trend.
But it's pointless to argue really, until the PS3 is released.
"Microsoft is just one of the highest-profile examples of a company viewing their customers as criminals (Sony Music also comes to mind)."
I don't understand how you see it this way. Microsoft obviously would never view their paying customers as criminals. Your statement makes absolutely no sense. It is completely illogical. Microsoft, and every single other company in the entire world, view people who steal their products as criminals. This is the way it should be. It's the only way that makes any sense.
Most of the piracy comes from people who would never buy the products in the first place. Punishing legitimate users won't end piracy and it won't boost sales.
Uhhm? Who said this is punishment? Because you have to withstand the horrible, terrible, hellishly long three seconds it takes to validate the software you now feel that you are being punished? Good god. Talk about impatience.
Do you really, honestly think that the average person will think anything of it? Software activation/validation is becoming ubiquitous. From anti-virus to online gaming. Microsoft is hardly the first, or worst. It is an accepted practice. Nobody. Really. Cares.
Well...
Except maybe you or people like you, because you are used to getting everything for free. To downloading the Torrent and the crack and stealing it. So let me make a suggestion. Go get the free software and use it. And stop whining because you actually have to buy a product if you want to use it. You seem like the kind of person who would go to a store like Fred Meyers, with the security scanners at the exit that scan for shoplifters, and decide that you will never shop at the store again because "Fred Meyers think's their customers are criminals! all of them! And the man is out to get me!!!11" It's an immature attitude and I for one am tired of hearing it.
Now, since I know there are so many of you, and obviously a few with mod points, I have one more thing to say:
Let the Karma burn. I've saved up enough to withstand the worst you can do. Besides, it's/. karma, and it's completely worthless.
...And he's entitled to his opinion. And so am I entitled to mine. Whether either opinion is valuable is totally and completely up to the individual (you).
That said, I think there's more than enough room in the console market that nobody truly loses this round.
But I also think that no matter how you slice it, Microsoft has cut, and cut deep, in the what would have been much greater profits for Sony from the PS3. Everybody who thought their opinion mattered said when the xBox first came out that Microsoft could never compete with Sony and the Playstation line. But, as Microsoft has shown time and time again, Microsoft is capable of assimilating a successful business strategy and making their own version viable and profitable. Sure, Microsoft has failed, don't get me wrong. Just not most of the times, or even really a substantial percentage of the times, that they've done so. Witness the Zune. I am prepared to predict that the Zune doesn't really steal the market from the iPod, much in the same way the xBox didn't from the Playstation. But the Zune will be profitable. That is my prediction.
Oh and one other thing. I am not an owner of a single game console, from any year. So I don't think I am biased towards any particular one. I prefer the PC.
" A delay for Vista now would be convenient for Microsoft, Gartner analyst David Mitchell-Smith argued, because 'when people start complaining about the delay, Microsoft can reasonably say 'don't blame us' and point the finger at the EC.'... Mitchell-Smith also noted that Microsoft wants to avoid further litigation, as it is already facing legal action by Symantec and Adobe Systems."
I really don't see how a delay is good for Microsoft, no matter who's fault it is. I mean, OK so I follow this guy's logic and Microsoft says to me 'don't blame us, blame the EC'. Of course then I go to the EC and according to them the blame is squarely on Microsoft for being at fault in the first place. So it just leads back to Microsoft anyway, which I hardly imagine could be 'convenient' for them.
Sort of like if I committed a crime and, to explain why I haven't gotten out of jail yet, I said 'don't blame me! blame the government for putting me here!'. Yeah, because it had nothing at all to do with the fact that I started it?
"Since India is unique in that there is representation of almost every major religion in the world..."
That's weird, I thought unique meant one-of-a-kind. But, and I'm not trying to be smug here, I always thought the United States of America had representation of almost every major religion in the world too... possibly as much or more than India?
Anyway, that point aside, I generally liked your post.
This Q&A felt like a Wal-Mart commerical for some reason.
- No real information about the PS3 launch, basically just "I think we'll have it this fall" - Plenty of plugging for The Apprentice, but why? Who cares? I sure don't. - Basically just said everything everyone already knows about the console wars. - Stop the press!! This just in: Wal-Mart is a business. Amazingly, they'll stock products if those products will sell.
I read all three pages and was left with a sense that I just wasted a piece of my life. Sometimes I wonder how these stories get through the submission process (ok, a lot of times).
Meh, maybe someone got something useful out of it.. somewhere...
I happen to think it has little to do with control schemes et al.
It is more about the story, believe it or not. I mean, hello? Most FPS games share almost identical control schemes. And if the defaults aren't the same between Quake 4 and F.E.A.R then you have free reign to change the controls.
No, I think it's the story. A story creates a world in our imaginations. A world which if we find we enjoy we will want to continue to visit.
Why do I want a sequal to a movie like The Matrix? Because (actual sequels aside) I want to be able to go back to the world the Wachowski's created, be a part of it even if I'm just the observer.
I am curious; what methods do these scientists intend to use to achieve their agenda? Obviously a central tenet of their philosophy is that science should not be restricted by politically charged interest groups. They argue that science should be free from the effects of political posturing -- essentially popular cultural beliefs are ineffective at choosing the proper course for scientific research, largely because of religious intrusion (but not solely). They seem to be saying that religious thoughts, i.e. thoughts unsupported by empiricism and experiment, are responsible for hampering human progress and development.
Of course, they understand the irony in their attempt to fight the politicizing of science using political methods. They see that one must fight fire with fire. Except that in their case they argue their fire has a fuel stronger than the fuel of religion; a fuel of proof. Of couse, they don't really know the outcome of their research. It could be that research into stem cells leads to a discovery which leads to an invention of some form which unltimately is responsible for the destruction of humanity. Far-fetched? Of course, but nevertheless possible. I am sure they would be willing to admit that they truly have no way to predict the outcome of certain lines of scientific research. They would probably tell us that the utmost care will be taken in such research to prevent misuse of the knowledge gained.
This situation is what brings us to where we are today. Caught between a balance of the known and the unknown. Between trying to figure out what is right, what should be researched and what shouldn't. Using religious principles to guide scientific research is of course wrong. But is it not also wrong to study simply for the sake of study, without at least first having a collective agreement regarding the safety of said study? Witness the idea that a powerful enough particle accelerator could create a tiny black hole which falls into the center of the planet and slowly consumes it, eventually destroying us all. Of course this has yet to actually happen, but the point is that we went ahead and smashed those particles together anyway. And we're still here, for now, but what about the LHC? Or, if it were built, the SSC?
When humanity set off the first nuclear bomb there was talk that it might literally set the world on fire. It seems the truth is nobody was 100% certain it wouldn't.
I some senses science is blind. Experiments are done because we don't know what they're going to produce. If we knew the outcome, we'd need never experiment. So, while I support the idea that science should not be hindered by certain forms of human thought, I also hope that this group doesn't stray to the other extreme. That of electing somebody who throws caution to the wind and a blind eye to scientific progress. The more advanced we get, the more cautious we should be.
But as one person replied, using a credit card with fraud protection is probably the best method. My problem is I just avoid using credit cards altogether except for emergencies. And even though you have fraud protection on a credit card you are unlikely to get the protection without having to spend a certain amount of time actually communicating with the credit company, something which I find is akin to torture.
I am not sure how they can monitor my account. They'd need more than just the card info to see available balances. At the very least they'd need the PIN and if they wanted to access the online portion with bots they'd need my account password, which is a pretty strong one that would take some brute force approach to crack since it is not related to anything personal of mine.
And I would think that malicious identitiy thieves are more hit-and-run, not hang-out-and-wait types. They wouldn't likely continue to try to get money from a single account over a long period of time for fear of getting tracked and caught.
Yes, it's extra steps. And yes time is money is power. The transferring of money to the checking account literally takes me less than a minute. So not that much time. I guess this means the ultimate question is, is that time worth the difference in price compared to buying from a 'secure' site, and secondly, how do I know a site is really secure anyway?
I mean, just because an online retailer has low prices does not mean they aren't secure, which is sort of the meaning I got from the article.
Say I happen to like this online retailer, and they happen to have good prices. Say they might cut corners on security so they can pass the savings on to me, the consumer. Then also say that in my account with them I offer no social security number and pay with a check card. Furthermore, let's assume that in using my check card I transfer only the money I need to use to the checking account from the savings account (this is done easily online with my bank), thus after using said money anybody who did happen to get my card details won't be finding any money in the account anyway.
So, how exactly am I at risk? I have a bank account that stays at basically zero balance except during the exact moments I intend to use the money. Call it a safety net... I mean this as a serious question. How am I at risk? Looks like I'm the one saving money here.
Let me get this straight, for only one million dollars Intel makes a 'contest' in which the true winners are.. Intel themselves!
Cost of the contest aside, they get free advertising (via word of mouth from places like/.) and, in the end, possibly even free development of a nicely designed PC.
Not that there's anything wrong with it... I guess it's just good business. Just don't ever think they're not purely doing it for their benefit.
I have to admit though, I like the idea. Maybe people will stop thinking that a PC that looks like an Alien is cool once this contest possibly produces something actually nice looking.
Let me say that I knew when posting my original comment I would get modded up and down at the same time. The issue is sharply divided.
To the parent: You obviously are on the Anti-MS side of the issue. I'm not really too enthralled by the idea of responding to your post, but here goes anyway.
In case you didn't even read the/. story quote from the article, here it is again:
"European Union officials warned Microsoft Corp. on Tuesday not to shut out rivals in the security software market as the company plans to launch its Windows Vista operating system with built-in protection from hackers and malicious programs. EU spokesman Jonathan Todd told reporters that the European Commission is "ready to give guidance to Microsoft" concerning Vista but added that it was up to the U.S. software maker 'to accept and implement its responsibilities as a near monopolist to ensure full compliance' with EU competition rules."
Let's go over it, shall we?
In the first sentence the EU spokesman clearly states that by building protection into Vista Microsoft is 'shutting out' rivals in the software security market. Except that if Windows was secure in the first place those 'rivals' would've never existed. So a market emerged and now it is disappearing. It should've been seen as temporary from day one, especially considering the fact that Microsoft has ALWAYS been trying to make their software more secure.
But wait, now they might actually be achieving that goal, and what happens? Nothing less than whining from people who should've already known it was coming. There have been so many companies and industries in the past which have been forced to change, to adapt, or to go extinct in the past that adding another one (which I still think is not going to be the case anyway) is hardly a surprise.
It's also not surprising that there will be a lobby, a dying scream if you will, to prevent it. Like you said, a lot of people make money off of Microsoft's insecure programs. A lot of untrustworthy people do as well. People who make spyware and botnets. And hopefully not as many after Vista.
When Todd said the EU is "ready to give guidance" what he really meant was "We want Microsoft to do whatever we ask". He is just a puppet of course, going through the motions of his strings which are pulled by the EU.
And, simply put, Microsoft does NOT have a monopoly. Nobody is forced to have Microsoft products. There are viable alternatives. Even OSS offers alternatives, and we've seen many organizations, from companies to countries, going to OSS. And more so as time goes on.
Slashdot Mirror
I am not arguing against anything but the stupidity of using religious labels to define someone based on their mistakes.
That is all.
Thank you.
TLF
Bush is a religious man. It is hardly a surprise to me that he would attempt to bring church and state together. However, it is my deepest hope that he does not succeed.
One of the main reasons I do not like it when people call Bush the Devil is that is does not convey any description of the negativity within the statement. It is a blanket statement without any depth. I prefer more qualitative statements involving reasonable criticisms or complaints than pie-in-the-sky religious labels that get nobody anywhere useful.
Yes it seems there's a shortage of 'bakers' in the world...humble pie is rarely on the human political menu these days.
TLF
From Wikipedia:
"Ohio State Senator Jeff Jacobson, Republican, asked Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell in July, 2003 to disqualify Diebold's bid to supply voting machines for the state, after security problems were discovered in its software..."
This by a Republican.
Check your facts before you post. There are numerous other instances where Diebold machines have been subject to scrutiny.
But I figure you just wanted to find some reason to support your own political agenda. Not surprising. Carry on.
TLF
What the fuck is the point of calling Bush the Devil? First of all, one of the strongest ideas in the US constitution is the separation of church and state. It is fucking CENTRAL. So why do people insist on tying it back in? I mean, if you can't handle living in a country where the government fundamentally keeps its distance from religion (for damned good reasons) then just, please, leave.
Bush is not the Devil, even if the Devil were to exist other than as an idea.
Bush is just a stupid politician who panders to specialist interest groups and ignores the larger morally sound issues behind the gripes his country brings to him. People seem to center their hatred of Bush on the war in Iraq. Was it a mistake goin to Iraq? In retrospect, probably yes. But hindsight is 20/20.
So he made a mistake. And now he's making another mistake by not owning up to it and getting us the hell out of there.
But, please, at least call him what he is and stop throwing around religious ideas when it has nothing to do with the truth: he's incompetent to lead, not inherently evil.
TLF
(airport announcer over intercom) Boarding Northwest Flight 171 has begun...
Passenger 1, with fake ticket, gets to seat 13F first. Sits down and gets comfortable.
Passenger 2, with real ticket, gets to seat 13F, finds someone else in their seat, and politely claims that it is their seat.
Passenger 3 gets to seat 13F, finds two people arguing over whos seat it is, and considers his mistake.
Flight attendant 1 arrives on scene, cannot determine who is the proper passenger, and has Air Marshall 1 escort them both off the plane, where the receive black bags over their heads and are both never heard from again.
Passenger 3, like passenger 1, forgot to change the seat number they printed for the fake ticket they heard would work 'from a friend on the internet'.
But, let's be serious for a minute. This would never work for actually getting to FLY somewhere. You would get into the seat dispute and the person with the real ticket would win every time. And you'd end up in a dark, dark room with FBI agents, then finally in prison for a long time. Gee, that was worth it.
Of course, the real threat is probably just being able to get to the plane. So, point taken. And it truly is a sad state of affairs for security. I am curious to see if this guy gets arrested and if so, convicted of a crime.
TLF
He's an artist. He inherently does not understand "magical computer make-go-worky stuff"...
I apologize, sometimes I just type and a typo comes out and I don't proof read. Usually when what I'm saying is said in anger, like now: fuckign seu me.
TLF
Let's dispense with the ad homs, AC. They're not necessary. In case you don't know what I mean, please do a google search of 'ad hom'.
You want to talk numbers? Let's talk.
Did Microsoft lose money on the XBox? Hell yes. Did they fully well know that they would? YES. In fact, they were certain they would lose money on them. But that didn't matter because it bought Microsoft valuable entrance into the console market. Which they have now used to position themselves against Sony in a way nobody thought they would be able to. They have sold over 10 million 360s as of today. How many PS3s has Sony sold? Zero. In the next-gen war, Microsoft is clearly way ahead right now.
But what happens when the PS3 is released? Does Sony suddenly sell 100 million PS3s? Not in the USA. Not a single person I know is excited enough to go out and immediately fork over $600 USD for a PS3. They are wary of Sony's first run systems. They often ship with problems and need to be returned. Add to this that PS3 graphical performance hasn't been shown to exceed the 360 by any real noticable amount and you have what could be a very slow launch for the PS3.
People simply aren't very excited for the PS3 where I live. And I happen to think that it's indicative of a greater trend.
But it's pointless to argue really, until the PS3 is released.
TLF
I don't understand how you see it this way. Microsoft obviously would never view their paying customers as criminals. Your statement makes absolutely no sense. It is completely illogical. Microsoft, and every single other company in the entire world, view people who steal their products as criminals. This is the way it should be. It's the only way that makes any sense.
Uhhm? Who said this is punishment? Because you have to withstand the horrible, terrible, hellishly long three seconds it takes to validate the software you now feel that you are being punished? Good god. Talk about impatience.
Do you really, honestly think that the average person will think anything of it? Software activation/validation is becoming ubiquitous. From anti-virus to online gaming. Microsoft is hardly the first, or worst. It is an accepted practice. Nobody. Really. Cares.
Well...
Except maybe you or people like you, because you are used to getting everything for free. To downloading the Torrent and the crack and stealing it. So let me make a suggestion. Go get the free software and use it. And stop whining because you actually have to buy a product if you want to use it. You seem like the kind of person who would go to a store like Fred Meyers, with the security scanners at the exit that scan for shoplifters, and decide that you will never shop at the store again because "Fred Meyers think's their customers are criminals! all of them! And the man is out to get me!!!11" It's an immature attitude and I for one am tired of hearing it.
Now, since I know there are so many of you, and obviously a few with mod points, I have one more thing to say:
Let the Karma burn. I've saved up enough to withstand the worst you can do. Besides, it's
TLF
...And he's entitled to his opinion. And so am I entitled to mine. Whether either opinion is valuable is totally and completely up to the individual (you).
That said, I think there's more than enough room in the console market that nobody truly loses this round.
But I also think that no matter how you slice it, Microsoft has cut, and cut deep, in the what would have been much greater profits for Sony from the PS3. Everybody who thought their opinion mattered said when the xBox first came out that Microsoft could never compete with Sony and the Playstation line. But, as Microsoft has shown time and time again, Microsoft is capable of assimilating a successful business strategy and making their own version viable and profitable. Sure, Microsoft has failed, don't get me wrong. Just not most of the times, or even really a substantial percentage of the times, that they've done so. Witness the Zune. I am prepared to predict that the Zune doesn't really steal the market from the iPod, much in the same way the xBox didn't from the Playstation. But the Zune will be profitable. That is my prediction.
Oh and one other thing. I am not an owner of a single game console, from any year. So I don't think I am biased towards any particular one. I prefer the PC.
TLF
" A delay for Vista now would be convenient for Microsoft, Gartner analyst David Mitchell-Smith argued, because 'when people start complaining about the delay, Microsoft can reasonably say 'don't blame us' and point the finger at the EC.' ... Mitchell-Smith also noted that Microsoft wants to avoid further litigation, as it is already facing legal action by Symantec and Adobe Systems."
I really don't see how a delay is good for Microsoft, no matter who's fault it is. I mean, OK so I follow this guy's logic and Microsoft says to me 'don't blame us, blame the EC'. Of course then I go to the EC and according to them the blame is squarely on Microsoft for being at fault in the first place. So it just leads back to Microsoft anyway, which I hardly imagine could be 'convenient' for them.
Sort of like if I committed a crime and, to explain why I haven't gotten out of jail yet, I said 'don't blame me! blame the government for putting me here!'. Yeah, because it had nothing at all to do with the fact that I started it?
TLF
"Since India is unique in that there is representation of almost every major religion in the world..."
That's weird, I thought unique meant one-of-a-kind. But, and I'm not trying to be smug here, I always thought the United States of America had representation of almost every major religion in the world too... possibly as much or more than India?
Anyway, that point aside, I generally liked your post.
TLF
This Q&A felt like a Wal-Mart commerical for some reason.
- No real information about the PS3 launch, basically just "I think we'll have it this fall"
- Plenty of plugging for The Apprentice, but why? Who cares? I sure don't.
- Basically just said everything everyone already knows about the console wars.
- Stop the press!! This just in: Wal-Mart is a business. Amazingly, they'll stock products if those products will sell.
I read all three pages and was left with a sense that I just wasted a piece of my life. Sometimes I wonder how these stories get through the submission process (ok, a lot of times).
Meh, maybe someone got something useful out of it.. somewhere...
TLF
I happen to think it has little to do with control schemes et al.
It is more about the story, believe it or not. I mean, hello? Most FPS games share almost identical control schemes. And if the defaults aren't the same between Quake 4 and F.E.A.R then you have free reign to change the controls.
No, I think it's the story. A story creates a world in our imaginations. A world which if we find we enjoy we will want to continue to visit.
Why do I want a sequal to a movie like The Matrix? Because (actual sequels aside) I want to be able to go back to the world the Wachowski's created, be a part of it even if I'm just the observer.
TLF
I am curious; what methods do these scientists intend to use to achieve their agenda? Obviously a central tenet of their philosophy is that science should not be restricted by politically charged interest groups. They argue that science should be free from the effects of political posturing -- essentially popular cultural beliefs are ineffective at choosing the proper course for scientific research, largely because of religious intrusion (but not solely). They seem to be saying that religious thoughts, i.e. thoughts unsupported by empiricism and experiment, are responsible for hampering human progress and development.
Of course, they understand the irony in their attempt to fight the politicizing of science using political methods. They see that one must fight fire with fire. Except that in their case they argue their fire has a fuel stronger than the fuel of religion; a fuel of proof. Of couse, they don't really know the outcome of their research. It could be that research into stem cells leads to a discovery which leads to an invention of some form which unltimately is responsible for the destruction of humanity. Far-fetched? Of course, but nevertheless possible. I am sure they would be willing to admit that they truly have no way to predict the outcome of certain lines of scientific research. They would probably tell us that the utmost care will be taken in such research to prevent misuse of the knowledge gained.
This situation is what brings us to where we are today. Caught between a balance of the known and the unknown. Between trying to figure out what is right, what should be researched and what shouldn't. Using religious principles to guide scientific research is of course wrong. But is it not also wrong to study simply for the sake of study, without at least first having a collective agreement regarding the safety of said study? Witness the idea that a powerful enough particle accelerator could create a tiny black hole which falls into the center of the planet and slowly consumes it, eventually destroying us all. Of course this has yet to actually happen, but the point is that we went ahead and smashed those particles together anyway. And we're still here, for now, but what about the LHC? Or, if it were built, the SSC?
When humanity set off the first nuclear bomb there was talk that it might literally set the world on fire. It seems the truth is nobody was 100% certain it wouldn't.
I some senses science is blind. Experiments are done because we don't know what they're going to produce. If we knew the outcome, we'd need never experiment. So, while I support the idea that science should not be hindered by certain forms of human thought, I also hope that this group doesn't stray to the other extreme. That of electing somebody who throws caution to the wind and a blind eye to scientific progress. The more advanced we get, the more cautious we should be.
Then I'm pretty much screwed.
Luckily my bank is rarely unavailable.
But as one person replied, using a credit card with fraud protection is probably the best method. My problem is I just avoid using credit cards altogether except for emergencies. And even though you have fraud protection on a credit card you are unlikely to get the protection without having to spend a certain amount of time actually communicating with the credit company, something which I find is akin to torture.
I am not sure how they can monitor my account. They'd need more than just the card info to see available balances. At the very least they'd need the PIN and if they wanted to access the online portion with bots they'd need my account password, which is a pretty strong one that would take some brute force approach to crack since it is not related to anything personal of mine.
And I would think that malicious identitiy thieves are more hit-and-run, not hang-out-and-wait types. They wouldn't likely continue to try to get money from a single account over a long period of time for fear of getting tracked and caught.
Yes, it's extra steps. And yes time is money is power. The transferring of money to the checking account literally takes me less than a minute. So not that much time. I guess this means the ultimate question is, is that time worth the difference in price compared to buying from a 'secure' site, and secondly, how do I know a site is really secure anyway?
I mean, just because an online retailer has low prices does not mean they aren't secure, which is sort of the meaning I got from the article.
A very good point.
Would definitely defeat the purpose of the safety net idea.
TLF
Here's what I wonder...
Say I happen to like this online retailer, and they happen to have good prices. Say they might cut corners on security so they can pass the savings on to me, the consumer. Then also say that in my account with them I offer no social security number and pay with a check card. Furthermore, let's assume that in using my check card I transfer only the money I need to use to the checking account from the savings account (this is done easily online with my bank), thus after using said money anybody who did happen to get my card details won't be finding any money in the account anyway.
So, how exactly am I at risk? I have a bank account that stays at basically zero balance except during the exact moments I intend to use the money. Call it a safety net... I mean this as a serious question. How am I at risk? Looks like I'm the one saving money here.
Let me get this straight, for only one million dollars Intel makes a 'contest' in which the true winners are.. Intel themselves!
/.) and, in the end, possibly even free development of a nicely designed PC.
Cost of the contest aside, they get free advertising (via word of mouth from places like
Not that there's anything wrong with it... I guess it's just good business. Just don't ever think they're not purely doing it for their benefit.
I have to admit though, I like the idea. Maybe people will stop thinking that a PC that looks like an Alien is cool once this contest possibly produces something actually nice looking.
TLF
"We (the folks over at InventGeek) have produced the first (and last) ionic cooling system for your high-end gaming system"
TLF
Well, it made a profit. Thus "plenty".
:)
You may now cease to live
TLF
Let me say that I knew when posting my original comment I would get modded up and down at the same time. The issue is sharply divided.
/. story quote from the article, here it is again:
To the parent: You obviously are on the Anti-MS side of the issue. I'm not really too enthralled by the idea of responding to your post, but here goes anyway.
In case you didn't even read the
"European Union officials warned Microsoft Corp. on Tuesday not to shut out rivals in the security software market as the company plans to launch its Windows Vista operating system with built-in protection from hackers and malicious programs. EU spokesman Jonathan Todd told reporters that the European Commission is "ready to give guidance to Microsoft" concerning Vista but added that it was up to the U.S. software maker 'to accept and implement its responsibilities as a near monopolist to ensure full compliance' with EU competition rules."
Let's go over it, shall we?
In the first sentence the EU spokesman clearly states that by building protection into Vista Microsoft is 'shutting out' rivals in the software security market. Except that if Windows was secure in the first place those 'rivals' would've never existed. So a market emerged and now it is disappearing. It should've been seen as temporary from day one, especially considering the fact that Microsoft has ALWAYS been trying to make their software more secure.
But wait, now they might actually be achieving that goal, and what happens? Nothing less than whining from people who should've already known it was coming. There have been so many companies and industries in the past which have been forced to change, to adapt, or to go extinct in the past that adding another one (which I still think is not going to be the case anyway) is hardly a surprise.
It's also not surprising that there will be a lobby, a dying scream if you will, to prevent it. Like you said, a lot of people make money off of Microsoft's insecure programs. A lot of untrustworthy people do as well. People who make spyware and botnets. And hopefully not as many after Vista.
When Todd said the EU is "ready to give guidance" what he really meant was "We want Microsoft to do whatever we ask". He is just a puppet of course, going through the motions of his strings which are pulled by the EU.
And, simply put, Microsoft does NOT have a monopoly. Nobody is forced to have Microsoft products. There are viable alternatives. Even OSS offers alternatives, and we've seen many organizations, from companies to countries, going to OSS. And more so as time goes on.
TLF