Wow, I'm sorry, Windows 3.1 was newer AND better than DOS. Windows 95 was CERTAINLY newer and better than Windows 3.1. Holy crap, Windows 2000 was even BETTER STILL! What? Windows XP? OMFGWOWOWOWOMFG!
But seriously, how can you really believe this? it's not "anal, stale and anti-progressive", it's... well... ignorant. I'm not trying to troll, and to put that foot forward, I'll explain myself.
Interfaces are constantly changing. They have to. If the interface does not change, it means there are no new features. If there are no new features, it means that we are not getting something out of a product that we could. If you remember the "bag phone" from the 90's. The "portable" cellular phone in a bag for your vehicle. It was big, heavy, bulky and could call people and that's about it. Do you have a cellular phone now? Do you use text messaging? Do you use the web on it? I don't know, maybe you don't, but a LOT of people do!
What OS do you use? VAX? HP/UX? I'm sure you use something with a modern interface since you seem to like "simple GUIs" and those OSes are CLI. So then, what version do you use? Something old? MacOS 6.x? Windows 3.0/3.1?
There are infinite innovative interfaces. Also, humans THRIVE on learning new things. While many people are technophobes and/or have difficulty learning new things, learning and adapting keeps your brain strong. Innovation fuels innovation. Without it, the human intelligence average would slowly decline. Is that what you want? More ignorant people (more as a quantity AND a quality)?
Wow, I completely disagree. Allowing customization and personal details to be used on the internet is a step forward, not backward. If you want a consistant interface, use linux with lynx, and it'll always be 'x' pt. with tabbable links. It's not pretty but it's consistant. Oh wait, you WANT it to look nice... that's right, that's what GUIs are for. If you don't like the garden gnome interface, protest by NOT visiting that site. If you really like the site that much, you'll get over the interface issues. *shrug*
This doesn't foster a healthy technological effort. IMHO, these companies need to stop being so damned greedy and start making US Technology a leader again. I mean, if LG made x86-64 procs, I'd buy one before I bought AMD (and LONG before I bought Intel) because I trust them as a technology developer.
Frankly, AMD doesn't have the resources because, though they've been around as long as Intel (roughly), they've never gouged the market like Intel has for the last decade and a half. So they should suffer for having made affordable quality products instead of trying to rape you for every last dime? Hmmm...
I don't see how typos and spelling errors really constitute a lack of effective communication. If l337 sp34k can still offer effective communication, why does it matter if I type "definately" instead of "definitely"? What about "d3f1n4t3ly"? If the person reading it understand, via visual cues or context, does that not constitute effective communication?
I agree that it's a sad decline in the language overall, but language evolves. Apparently American English is in it's angsty teen age at the moment. *shrug*
AFAIK, telemarketers cannot call your cell phone due to the fact that you pay usage charges in the form of air time, and that call costs you money. If this is, in fact, correct, why can Adware and Spam artists get away with doing the same thing when the typical company pays usage charges (in the form of bandwidth) for their connectivity?
As far as I'm concerned, my company loses money every time an ad pops up. How is this lawful?
If you check out the US Google maps and look at the Pentagon, it's normal. If you check out the Capitol Bldg., it's fuzzed out (digitally, post-capture). If you look at the White House and surrounding buildings, they look as if they were faked, or at LEAST had the detail on the top of those buildings removed entirely.
... when button-style ads were the only ads. A small 160x90px button that linked somewhere. Maybe the button was flashy, maybe it was Spartan, maybe nobody clicked it.
The internet started as a mostly academic venture. The early adopters of most internet protocols (Gopher, email, NNTP, even HTTP) were government agencies and universities. If I lost free access to http://www.webmd.com/, I'd live. The truly good sites are the primarily free sites, such as http://www.wikipedia.com/. If the internet moved away from corporatization, it'd be better (like it was in the olden days). No spam, no ads, no crap, no millions of business websites that add no value to the global community. In other words, aside from the folk at DoubleClick losing their jobs, who really loses out here?
The best thing is, I was coming back to say this exact same thing, and it was the first topic I saw. You beat me to it, but it's still just as funny! ^_^
Well, unless DRM is somehow involved. And actually, yes... sometimes originals do have a "magical" property. For many years copies of windows installation CDs were great for updates and adding drivers, but often could not be installed from. It's all about the technology my friend... I'd rather keep the master under lock and key, just to err on the side of caution.
The problem is that it's not reasonable to assume we will be able to get rid of DRM altogether. There are such great sums of money and power behind it, that that may not be the proper approach to take.
Also, from a tech/IT perspective, the point of having backups is to use the backup so that the master stays pristine. Not sure why you would make a backup then use the master... that seems counter-productive.
...why people are upset about THIS one? Frankly, the way I see it, this still allows for fair use under the law as it's written. Who cares if you can't copy a copy? Hell, just a few decades ago, pre-digital, you never WANTED to copy a copy because it would just keep getting worse and worse as far as quality is concerned. My only worry about this new technique is whether is will break playability of primary copies like some DRM has with originals in the past. *shrug*
I still think McD's should not have been held liable...
McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.
I wasn't aware that there was a federal regulation that required coffee to be served below a specific temperature. Oh... there's not? If it's so damned dangerous, why not?!?!
McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.
More than 700 incidents? Hmm, cigarettes kill HOW many people each year? Gee, big tobacco companies still sell their product. Oh, so just putting a LABEL on it makes the difference. And this is why plastic bags have to be labelled "Do not put over head" and hair dryers labelled, "Do not use while in bath tub". See, there's a certian point where we need to install some common sense into people rather than coddling their stupidity!
McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.
Again, I fail to see how this is McDonald's fault. She spilled coffee. if she made hot coffee at home and spilled it, could she expect to sue Folger's for not telling you how hot to make the coffee?
McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.
Again, it's a matter of liability. If they compensate, it opens the doors for further requests for compensation (yes, I understand that they'd settled other cases... still...)
McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.
The risk of 7-11 selling hot dogs is that someone could choke on it and sue them. Should they stop selling dogs? No, that would be unreasonable.
McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)
Hell, they sell 1 BILLION cups of hot ass coffee a year... obviously someone likes it that way.
McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.
So?
McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this te
Seriously, for being a troll post, this thread is out of control. Either the original poster is a moral infant, or they're uptight... or they're just trying to get everyone's panties in a bunch. Regardless, I can't believe so many people have posted similarly assinine comments.
Wow, that's absolutely ridiculous p51d007. So what you're saying is that your right to privacy, your right to explore your sexuality and your right to partake in sexual situations with a partner makes you stupid because there MAY be an outcome like this? Hmmm... that's why they're called rights. Oh, and the boyfriend did NOT have the right to humiliate her in that fashion.
Frankly, I think you should have been SMARTER than to post such an assinine comment.
Some cities even go so far as to have "tacky laws" that prevent stores and homes from looking "out of place". Regardless, there are city codes for a reason. A HOA is not a legal entity, per se (AFAIK), but a city is. If the city has codes against parking on your front laws, digging a pool without a permit, putting in a garage without a permit or... covering your home in sheet metal, then you are required by local laws to abide by those codes. Most codes are either, a) Put in place by your elected local government (mayor's office), or b) Put into place by a vote of local citizens. Either way, it IS democratic... and we live in a democratic society, not necessarily a "free" society. I think people tend to forget this sometimes...
This is blatently anti-American, or at a bare minimum anti-Checks and Balances. Primary identification has always been a function of the state. In fact, I can rarely use my military ID in place of a state ID at banks and the like. Places that do accept it often require additional identification, where if I had used my state driver's license, that one piece would suffice.
RFID as a Convenient Technology
Why, you ask, is it that most/.ers will champion technology that created convenience as long as it doesn't have to do with privacy? I almost feel ignorant answering that question, but I will anyhow. The fact of the matter is, if RFID chips make it more convenient for a grocery store to track items, therefore saving money due to less shoplifting, better restock times, no lost items, et cetera, I will(should) in turn save as well. If RFID chips are used in retail for inventory purposes, then those companies will see more profit. More profit for American companies = good.
Now, if those same RFID chips make it more convenient for a would-be thief to steal my identity, or for government agents in a terrorist-stricken world to pilfer my whereabouts, then I am against it. Stolen identity != good. You following?
Uniformity in Identification
Currently, the most common and uniform form of identity in the United States is the Social Security Card / SSN. This common and uniform (and important) piece of information is also the root cause of the majority of identity theft in the US. Uniformity is not always a good thing. Each state creates it's own forms of ID, and those agents that are required to request that ID understand where/what/how data is stored on those cards. Nobody else needs to know. *shrug*
Final Comments
Now DNA/Fingerprints I don't see as much of a problem. Of course, being in the Army, they already have that for me. Frankly, the only thing I can see that being used for is matching criminal investigations. The amount of effort spent tracking a person down for whatever reason solely on DNA and/or fingerprints is outrageous. However, RFID, GPS, tracking devices, cameras... Anything that allows a person to be tracked by the government (even for potentially legitimate reasons) allows a person to be tracked by malevolent persons as well. That is never an option IMHO.
This link to Cornell University's Law School site states (from US Code):
107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include--
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
So in this case, it was not used commercially and parody is a form of criticism, which is protected as fair use... how was he in violation again?
What about non-transfer clauses in EULAs where companies explicitly state you cannot resell their software? What about any license or purchased item that you are not allowed to resell? How is it any different?
I disagree... Technically an EULA or other device by which a software manufacturer tries to hold their rights to the software is your "computer acting against me on behalf of others". Let me guess, if it's not GNU, it's not for you?
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, I'm sorry, Windows 3.1 was newer AND better than DOS. Windows 95 was CERTAINLY newer and better than Windows 3.1. Holy crap, Windows 2000 was even BETTER STILL! What? Windows XP? OMFGWOWOWOWOMFG!
But seriously, how can you really believe this? it's not "anal, stale and anti-progressive", it's... well... ignorant. I'm not trying to troll, and to put that foot forward, I'll explain myself.
Interfaces are constantly changing. They have to. If the interface does not change, it means there are no new features. If there are no new features, it means that we are not getting something out of a product that we could. If you remember the "bag phone" from the 90's. The "portable" cellular phone in a bag for your vehicle. It was big, heavy, bulky and could call people and that's about it. Do you have a cellular phone now? Do you use text messaging? Do you use the web on it? I don't know, maybe you don't, but a LOT of people do!
What OS do you use? VAX? HP/UX? I'm sure you use something with a modern interface since you seem to like "simple GUIs" and those OSes are CLI. So then, what version do you use? Something old? MacOS 6.x? Windows 3.0/3.1?
There are infinite innovative interfaces. Also, humans THRIVE on learning new things. While many people are technophobes and/or have difficulty learning new things, learning and adapting keeps your brain strong. Innovation fuels innovation. Without it, the human intelligence average would slowly decline. Is that what you want? More ignorant people (more as a quantity AND a quality)?
*sigh*
Wow, I completely disagree. Allowing customization and personal details to be used on the internet is a step forward, not backward. If you want a consistant interface, use linux with lynx, and it'll always be 'x' pt. with tabbable links. It's not pretty but it's consistant. Oh wait, you WANT it to look nice... that's right, that's what GUIs are for. If you don't like the garden gnome interface, protest by NOT visiting that site. If you really like the site that much, you'll get over the interface issues. *shrug*
After "inventing" the internet, Al thought he could help HP "invent" a few things. Maybe this was a key manuever for HP after all...
Errr... no!
This doesn't foster a healthy technological effort. IMHO, these companies need to stop being so damned greedy and start making US Technology a leader again. I mean, if LG made x86-64 procs, I'd buy one before I bought AMD (and LONG before I bought Intel) because I trust them as a technology developer.
Frankly, AMD doesn't have the resources because, though they've been around as long as Intel (roughly), they've never gouged the market like Intel has for the last decade and a half. So they should suffer for having made affordable quality products instead of trying to rape you for every last dime? Hmmm...
I don't see how typos and spelling errors really constitute a lack of effective communication. If l337 sp34k can still offer effective communication, why does it matter if I type "definately" instead of "definitely"? What about "d3f1n4t3ly"? If the person reading it understand, via visual cues or context, does that not constitute effective communication?
I agree that it's a sad decline in the language overall, but language evolves. Apparently American English is in it's angsty teen age at the moment. *shrug*
AFAIK, telemarketers cannot call your cell phone due to the fact that you pay usage charges in the form of air time, and that call costs you money. If this is, in fact, correct, why can Adware and Spam artists get away with doing the same thing when the typical company pays usage charges (in the form of bandwidth) for their connectivity?
As far as I'm concerned, my company loses money every time an ad pops up. How is this lawful?
If you check out the US Google maps and look at the Pentagon, it's normal. If you check out the Capitol Bldg., it's fuzzed out (digitally, post-capture). If you look at the White House and surrounding buildings, they look as if they were faked, or at LEAST had the detail on the top of those buildings removed entirely.
How odd...
... when button-style ads were the only ads. A small 160x90px button that linked somewhere. Maybe the button was flashy, maybe it was Spartan, maybe nobody clicked it.
The internet started as a mostly academic venture. The early adopters of most internet protocols (Gopher, email, NNTP, even HTTP) were government agencies and universities. If I lost free access to http://www.webmd.com/, I'd live. The truly good sites are the primarily free sites, such as http://www.wikipedia.com/. If the internet moved away from corporatization, it'd be better (like it was in the olden days). No spam, no ads, no crap, no millions of business websites that add no value to the global community. In other words, aside from the folk at DoubleClick losing their jobs, who really loses out here?
You people must not be using FireFox... the page loaded without any hulabaloo and all the links worked fine... I don't get it...
The best thing is, I was coming back to say this exact same thing, and it was the first topic I saw. You beat me to it, but it's still just as funny! ^_^
You mean the one that doesn't exist?
*boggle*
Well, unless DRM is somehow involved. And actually, yes... sometimes originals do have a "magical" property. For many years copies of windows installation CDs were great for updates and adding drivers, but often could not be installed from. It's all about the technology my friend... I'd rather keep the master under lock and key, just to err on the side of caution.
The problem is that it's not reasonable to assume we will be able to get rid of DRM altogether. There are such great sums of money and power behind it, that that may not be the proper approach to take.
Also, from a tech/IT perspective, the point of having backups is to use the backup so that the master stays pristine. Not sure why you would make a backup then use the master... that seems counter-productive.
...why people are upset about THIS one? Frankly, the way I see it, this still allows for fair use under the law as it's written. Who cares if you can't copy a copy? Hell, just a few decades ago, pre-digital, you never WANTED to copy a copy because it would just keep getting worse and worse as far as quality is concerned. My only worry about this new technique is whether is will break playability of primary copies like some DRM has with originals in the past. *shrug*
I wasn't aware that there was a federal regulation that required coffee to be served below a specific temperature. Oh... there's not? If it's so damned dangerous, why not?!?!
More than 700 incidents? Hmm, cigarettes kill HOW many people each year? Gee, big tobacco companies still sell their product. Oh, so just putting a LABEL on it makes the difference. And this is why plastic bags have to be labelled "Do not put over head" and hair dryers labelled, "Do not use while in bath tub". See, there's a certian point where we need to install some common sense into people rather than coddling their stupidity!
Again, I fail to see how this is McDonald's fault. She spilled coffee. if she made hot coffee at home and spilled it, could she expect to sue Folger's for not telling you how hot to make the coffee?
Again, it's a matter of liability. If they compensate, it opens the doors for further requests for compensation (yes, I understand that they'd settled other cases... still...)
The risk of 7-11 selling hot dogs is that someone could choke on it and sue them. Should they stop selling dogs? No, that would be unreasonable.
Hell, they sell 1 BILLION cups of hot ass coffee a year... obviously someone likes it that way.
So?
I wish I could just format jued0001...
*sigh*
Seriously, for being a troll post, this thread is out of control. Either the original poster is a moral infant, or they're uptight... or they're just trying to get everyone's panties in a bunch. Regardless, I can't believe so many people have posted similarly assinine comments.
Wow, that's absolutely ridiculous p51d007. So what you're saying is that your right to privacy, your right to explore your sexuality and your right to partake in sexual situations with a partner makes you stupid because there MAY be an outcome like this? Hmmm... that's why they're called rights. Oh, and the boyfriend did NOT have the right to humiliate her in that fashion.
Frankly, I think you should have been SMARTER than to post such an assinine comment.
~X
This varies a lot...
Some cities even go so far as to have "tacky laws" that prevent stores and homes from looking "out of place". Regardless, there are city codes for a reason. A HOA is not a legal entity, per se (AFAIK), but a city is. If the city has codes against parking on your front laws, digging a pool without a permit, putting in a garage without a permit or... covering your home in sheet metal, then you are required by local laws to abide by those codes. Most codes are either, a) Put in place by your elected local government (mayor's office), or b) Put into place by a vote of local citizens. Either way, it IS democratic... and we live in a democratic society, not necessarily a "free" society. I think people tend to forget this sometimes...
~X
Come now... you can't be serious?!
/.ers will champion technology that created convenience as long as it doesn't have to do with privacy? I almost feel ignorant answering that question, but I will anyhow. The fact of the matter is, if RFID chips make it more convenient for a grocery store to track items, therefore saving money due to less shoplifting, better restock times, no lost items, et cetera, I will(should) in turn save as well. If RFID chips are used in retail for inventory purposes, then those companies will see more profit. More profit for American companies = good.
Federal Identification
This is blatently anti-American, or at a bare minimum anti-Checks and Balances. Primary identification has always been a function of the state. In fact, I can rarely use my military ID in place of a state ID at banks and the like. Places that do accept it often require additional identification, where if I had used my state driver's license, that one piece would suffice.
RFID as a Convenient Technology
Why, you ask, is it that most
Now, if those same RFID chips make it more convenient for a would-be thief to steal my identity, or for government agents in a terrorist-stricken world to pilfer my whereabouts, then I am against it. Stolen identity != good. You following?
Uniformity in Identification
Currently, the most common and uniform form of identity in the United States is the Social Security Card / SSN. This common and uniform (and important) piece of information is also the root cause of the majority of identity theft in the US. Uniformity is not always a good thing. Each state creates it's own forms of ID, and those agents that are required to request that ID understand where/what/how data is stored on those cards. Nobody else needs to know. *shrug*
Final Comments
Now DNA/Fingerprints I don't see as much of a problem. Of course, being in the Army, they already have that for me. Frankly, the only thing I can see that being used for is matching criminal investigations. The amount of effort spent tracking a person down for whatever reason solely on DNA and/or fingerprints is outrageous. However, RFID, GPS, tracking devices, cameras... Anything that allows a person to be tracked by the government (even for potentially legitimate reasons) allows a person to be tracked by malevolent persons as well. That is never an option IMHO.
No. Gigabit ethernet uses the same pairs as 10/100 ethernet.
No. 1000Base-T (802.3ab), or Gigabit Ethernet, does indeed require all four pairs (8 conductors) of the cable.
This link to Cornell University's Law School site states (from US Code):
107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include--
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
So in this case, it was not used commercially and parody is a form of criticism, which is protected as fair use... how was he in violation again?
Which will be the standard? *frets* Maybe HOLO*RW?
tiger + tiger
-or-
tiger^2
I think this is important, as it's plain to see that tiger^2 would yield a much more powerful result
What about non-transfer clauses in EULAs where companies explicitly state you cannot resell their software? What about any license or purchased item that you are not allowed to resell? How is it any different?
I disagree... Technically an EULA or other device by which a software manufacturer tries to hold their rights to the software is your "computer acting against me on behalf of others". Let me guess, if it's not GNU, it's not for you?