Right right, yea, I know. Ritalin is a stimulant, but it manifests itself like a sedative. Just like nicotine is a stimulant, but when people smoke it calms them down. It's all about brain chemistry and nerve receptors.
So do I not understand something unless I agree with you?
Re:You may have read it but nothing sunk in.
on
Working with ADHD?
·
· Score: 1
I predict in your next post you'll use some reference to Jews and Nazi Germany... it's consistent with this tired, "You don't understand I'm 'special' therefore you are evil and want to oppress me you facist bigot!" line.
I've encountered plenty of ADD and ADHD people. I likely would be diagnosed with the condition myself if I went to one of the many drug dealers with memberships to CibaGeneva Pharmaceuticals' summer camp golf club.
Yes you are special. But I believe that Ritalin is no different than alcohol, pot, or other drugs that are essentially used (and quite often abused) to temporarily alter peoples' personalities, in lieu of the more difficult task of un-doing the chemical programming of the brain that was done over decades of being exposed to hyperactive media and other sensory input.
In some cases, as is with depression, drugs can help get people out of the hole they've fallen into, but the industry has gone crazy mis-diagnosing people and creating entire classes of sedation subscriptions through a liberal diagnosis of this "condition."
We obviously disagree. I am not prejudiced against people on Ritalin. I just think it's not a solution. It is a subscription service that sedates people and doesn't really fix the problem. Over time, your tolerance for Ritalin will wane and you'll need heavier drugs to accomplish the same level of sedation. In the long run, you'll be more messed up and dependant upon pharmaceuticals instead of altering your lifestyle to naturally correct the cerebral chemical imbalance. But it obviously is easier and more convenient to pop a pill and call anyone who argues that your choice is the most appropriate, a bigot. It's always easy to generalize and rationalize about a person than consider what they say might have some truth. Take the easy way out. That's the new way. Go reactive, not pro-active. Taking Ritalin itself is likely the ultimate symptom of ADD!
I have tried just about every ADHD medicine on the market and have found that Metadate and Ritalin work for me. Metadate is a time released version of Ritalin as Ritalin only lasts about 4 hours or so (for me anyways).
Dude, you are the one who doesn't get it. I am not saying you can't sedate yourself into appearing "normal" and for you this works best. Knock yourself out (pun intended).
What I don't appreciate is my taxpaying/insurance dollars going to make insurance and healthcare industries even more powerful so they can promote questionable pills as an effective treatment when I disagree, and no number of stories or programs underwritten by pharmaceutical companies (who are obviously completely unbiased) will make me come around.
This doesn't discount the reality that this disorder has what I believe are more healthy approaches to treatment that don't involve radically altering a person's brain chemistry via the introduction of questionable substances into the blood stream.
Obviously your mileage may vary. But not all of us want divest responsibility for our antisocial behavior to a medication.
When personality control becomes an industry
on
Working with ADHD?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I am being sincere when I say that I have much respect for everyone here. I am not suggesting that the "condition" of ADD or ADHD, OCD, RAD and all the other "diseases" and "disorders" do not exist. The circumstances that these conditions describe do obviously exist. However, I take offense to the industry that has cropped up to take advantage of people who are troubled, and promote this ideal that there is some sort of solution that more often than not, involves the medical/theraputical/pharmacological equivalent of a get-rich-quick scheme.
What we are talking about, in essence, with the exception of extreme cases where people have very serious, identifiable physical handicaps, is a burgeoning new industry which revolves around the selling of drugs to alter peoples' personalities, and usually to just make them non-uppity so they fall into line like everyone else and don't make waves.
Take RAD for instance: Reactive Attachment Disorder. A psychological "condition" where people who have come from backgrounds of trauma, abuse or abandonment have trouble getting close to others. The same thing for ADD. It's a behavioral anomoly, but it's only really an anomoly by comparison to what is considered a social norm, so it's arguable as to whether or not anyone is ultimately "afflicted" or they're merely guilty of being different from those around them.
Do these issues need to be treated? Sure. But the way in which they are being treated, especially with drugs, for most people, exacerbates the condition and makes it worse.
The end result is that society pushes people who are different into little categories in order to explain why they are disappointing, unproductive, unusual, etc. Rather than taking some time to understand a person, let's just call him ADD and pop a pill in his mouth. What kind of goddam treatment is that?
Regarding ADD and its various spin-offs, I'd bet good money you can find a solid correllation between people diagnosed with ADD and being put on medication and: 1. Crappy, self-absorbed parents who would rather give their kid a pill or send him to a psychologist than actually sit down with him and take some time to understand his issues; 2. People who grew up with a very low amount of physical activity during formative developmental periods, and 3. children who were weaned on excessive amounts of television, video games and other forms of hyperactive sensory bombardment.
Especially regarding ADD. Who the fuck isn't going to have a short attention span when they spend X hours a day watching television or playing games, which nowadays are so amazingly explosive, redundant and senationalized in their presentation of information, it's obvious the media has the capacity to desensitize people to the many non-obnoxious nuances of communication.... THIS is the source of ADD.
I read an article the other day from a psychology publication that stated that people nowadays are so bombarded with redundant soundbytes of information, it now takes 6-7 transmissions of the same advertising message to "stick" in a person's head. And every day it gets worse.
Put down the controller. Pull out the GTA cartridge, get off your ass and go out and ride your skateboard... Get physically active; lay off caffeine; make an effort to alter your normal behavior via normal means! Stop going from high speed to sedating yourself before you go to sleep. Before we had mass-obnoxious-neuron-sucking media, humans got along well and had plenty to do. Our technology is turning newer generations into epileptic zombies.
Our brains are incredibly powerful instruments. They get used to things; chemicals we put in our bodies; stimuli we are exposed to. If you sit there for hours a day being bombarded with little soundbytes, then unless your boss is wearing a flat panel LCD screen around his neck with the NASDAQ scrolling off it, and flailing dramatically as he talks, you're probably somewhat board with the dullness of the interaction.
Recently I was diagnosed with BADD. I am hoping that someone can help me deal with this horrible condition: Bank Account Deficit Disorder. My credit card company diagnosed me with this. I know it's not my fault and I need help. Is there a pill I can take? Does insurance cover it?
The problem with Ender's worm is that by design it is self-defeating. The idea of a "worm farm" of different units targetting different systems is effective, but with a common communications protocol, it negates the worms' ability to evolve and thwart detection. The writer of the paper talks about the worms' needs to change signatures to avoid AV detection, yet communicate with other units by a common question-and-response session, which would make it incredibly easy for any infected unit on the network to be easily identified.
To date, what gives away worm activity is the incessant talking they perpetrate, which is necessary to their propagation. So the key to any "super worm" isn't necessarily the speed at which it can infect nodes, but how quietly this can be done. I would argue that a slow, methodical infection, at a pace which makes the activity unsuspicious, has the potential to be much more dangerous.
Maybe this would be the ultimate worm.. two modes.. the first one slowly propagates and avoids detection, then a second phase which triggers a more aggressive frontal assault.
This guy lives in Seattle. But in every picture on the web site he's poking around in nice, sunny, dry weather. Maybe Jobs left his reality distortion field in the meeting and this guy picked it up and flipped it to maximum stun?
Slower, goofy looking, gimmicky, 99.9% marketing-hype driven "new technology" that is basically recycled old technology that was promised to revolutionize the world, but never was able to prove it was superior in any way to existing solutions. This amazing new "innovation" later became embroiled in legal battles over acceptance on the street.
Someone can sue a spammer any time they want IF they can find out who the spammer is. That's the problem.
If spam is getting to inappropriate people (i.e. children) that's just yet another potential illegality among many that have been continually perpetrated, among many that the authorities on virtually every level seem uninterested in enforcing.
I keep saying over and over, the spam problem is not one that needs new legislation. It's one that needs state, local, national and international authorities to enforce the laws already on the books that are currently being broken. People need to start asking questions of each new elected official as to whether or not they're going to prosecute spammers or continue to ignore the laws they break.
Maybe this particular crime's political incorrectess might finally motivate the authorities to actually pursue the spammers? One can only hope, but since almost every spammer already breaks numerous federal laws, it's a crap shoot to determine if anything will be done.
Grr... Someone need to hack the Sorenson codec or whatever is the usual codec for.mov files, to make it a standard DirectShow thingy that can be used in Windows Media Player / Winamp or any other player supporting those codecs.
Hear Hear! I'm so sick of the Quicktime nagware and the way that player as well as the Realplayer continues to re-install it's spyware every time you run it regardless of the configuration settings.
People should standardize on mpeg and refuse to support all these other goofy formats that force the install of extra crap that engages in epic battles with other plug-ins every time they run.
The days are gone where being careful about publicizing your e-mail address has that dramatic an effect on receiving spam.
Nowadays spammers use "name guessing" where they randomly send e-mail to a dictionary of names @ every domain/server they can identify.
Beyond that, anyone who is foolish enough to use Outlook and add your email to their address book can easily compromise the privacy of your address.
Then we have "friends" of yours who think it's a good idea to use the "mail this web page to a friend" link on stupid web sites to give your e-mail to a commercial entity without your approval.
Not to mention people who have a tendency of forwarding mail you've sent to all their friends without removing your e-mail.
Then we have spammers who lurk on mailing lists and weasel the address/identity of any traffic.
And then there's the... nevermind.. what's the point... this is like security... the only "secure" computer is one that's unplugged.
You're entirely correct. Why try to design and build your own computer when you can spend your time on other more common, socially-acceptable pursuits such as sitting on your fat ass watching CNN, FOX and "American Idol", or sedating yourself into oblivion with alcohol or Vicodin. When will these nerds get with the program?
the whole machine was designed around being open. The first thing anyone did when showing off their Apple was pull off the cover and expose its innards, the pcboard, the expansion slots. The excitement of adding an 80-column card!
I was a TRS-80 guy, but played with the C64s, the Pets, the 99/4s and everything in between. We always marveled early on at the Apple's color display and selection of games (Choplifter!)
Then they closed everything up and tried to go proprietary. Apple to me was always the underdog but their openness really gave them a chance to make it. But as soon as they achieved a substantive degree of success, the company got greedy and tried to monopolize the market. IBM stole their thunder by copying their open architecture design and having more resources. Apple got too greedy, too early and it cost them.
26 years later, has the company leaned? OS-X has potential, but ONLY if Apple doesn't try to "own" it. You'd think they would have learned something in all these years but they still seem to be innovative to a point, then shut everything down and try to make it as proprietary as possible.
My advice to Apple is to have more trust in the computing public. Embrace more open standards and don't feel so threatened if others can compete with you. This only adds value to your products and your company. Have you not learned anything in all these years? Don't simply private label FreeBSD as an "Apple Innovation". That will not work. Champion the marketplace and have faith that you will be rewarded for not being selfish. It really sounds stupid in today's economic age, but what has made Apple survive (aside from Microsoft needing it to shunt monopoly arguments) has been the loyalty of its users. Give them freedom and you gain even more loyalty.
It's worth noting that our tax dollars fund all sorts of aerial (satellite) survellience technology, most of which we'll never see even though we've paid for it. Why? In the interest of "National Security."
So is there a double standard here? Can the government restrict information and expression but individually, we aren't afforded the same protections to our security?
I'm totally in favor of this scam. I think it's a litmus test for greedy idiots. Anyone foolish enough to fall for this scam, or order the $153 Leptoprin weight loss pills, the $9.95 commemorative colored US quarter, or any other overhyped useless product deserves to be ripped off.
The only missing part is to wait a few months, then put these scrupulous marketers in the same room with the people they ripped off, lock the door, and move on to a better, more productive society.
I disagree. The Internet was founded on exactly the opposite. The whole distributed computing concept was bourne out of a distrust for any single node being too important.
In effect, on the Internet, nothing is trusted.
The reason we have a spamming problem is not because the net is too trusting by design. It's because the medium is largely unregulated and transgressions therein are unenforced, so spammers operate with little fear of consequences.
In no other medium can you exploit other peoples' resources like you can on the Internet, and there are plenty of laws already, both criminal and civil that address these transgressions, but unlike other mediums, there is no agency or organized force in place to do something about it.
The spam issue has some interesting parallels in the models of the new economy. Just like in other industries like healthcare and pharmacuticals, the major players are not interested in a "cure". That's not profitable for them. A more appealing approach for them is some method of "treatment", preferably something that obligates the user to continually do business with them in perpetuity in order to maintain their spam-free condition.
Efforts to regulate the content of spam messages, inconsequential civil penalties, client side filtering, and any system which filters mail based on content caters to this impotent approach to addressing the spam problem. It offers no cure. It does nothing to reduce spam; it does nothing to discourage spammers; it does nothing to address the most serious problem of spam, which involves unfair and often illegal exploitation of resources.
Maybe this is the new way. We don't actually solve any problems. We just put bandaids on them and allow them to consume more wasted resources, and the demand for more resources, hardware and bandwith is what drives the new economy.
Call me idealistic, but I think it sucks. I am appalled that so many people will settle for such shallow and ineffective approaches to these problems. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Most of these people profit from the existence of spam so why bite the hand that feeds them on a major artery when you can collect some bucks and merely trim their nails?
You're right. Existing laws aren't being enforced. So why complain when we get a law that allows end users, rather than resource-constrained prosecutors, to enforce justice against these scum?
You need a lawyer to take action. You have to subpeona records in order to even identify who the spammer is. It's a very time consuming process. Look at the situation where the MPAA tried to get the identity of the Verizon user who was doing the P2P violations... they had to take that case to the state supreme court before they could even get the records to identify who the perp was to sue him! They probably spent more than $100k in legal fees before they even knew who to sue.
I'm complaining because the law is misleading. It won't do anything to reduce spam. And realistically it does not give users any practical way to fight spammers. If anything, it's only likely to more closely regulate legitimate companies who are already engaging in responsible mailing tactics. It has no teeth. It would ultimately punish the wrong people.
This was already tried on a national level in 1999 and was hotly debated in the community and dismissed as ineffective. The Murkowski bill proposed the same punitive structure.
In addition to this, there are a plethora of bills that have this lame penalty for unsolicited telemarketing and faxes. They have proven to be ineffective even though it's exponentially easier to take action against these people. Still these perpetrators operate with no fear of legal action and have found ways to get around the laws by subcontracting their services among large groups of ever-mobile independent contractors. Spammers have elevated this evasive tactic to an art form, bouncing their junk e-mail across multiple continents/nations/jurisdictions that make it unbelievably difficult to track.
As a step for the state to recognize that UCE is something that needs to be dealt with, the effort is a good sign. As any sort of solution, it is not.
Given that most of the people involved in the writing and support of these bills are lawyers themselves, I'd bet good money not a single one of them would ever be inclined to pursue such civil action as dictated therein.
Slashdot Mirror
Nasa is back to working on space stuff? I thought they gave it up to focus their energy on mattresses?
Right right, yea, I know. Ritalin is a stimulant, but it manifests itself like a sedative. Just like nicotine is a stimulant, but when people smoke it calms them down. It's all about brain chemistry and nerve receptors.
So do I not understand something unless I agree with you?
I predict in your next post you'll use some reference to Jews and Nazi Germany... it's consistent with this tired, "You don't understand I'm 'special' therefore you are evil and want to oppress me you facist bigot!" line.
I've encountered plenty of ADD and ADHD people. I likely would be diagnosed with the condition myself if I went to one of the many drug dealers with memberships to CibaGeneva Pharmaceuticals' summer camp golf club.
Yes you are special. But I believe that Ritalin is no different than alcohol, pot, or other drugs that are essentially used (and quite often abused) to temporarily alter peoples' personalities, in lieu of the more difficult task of un-doing the chemical programming of the brain that was done over decades of being exposed to hyperactive media and other sensory input.
In some cases, as is with depression, drugs can help get people out of the hole they've fallen into, but the industry has gone crazy mis-diagnosing people and creating entire classes of sedation subscriptions through a liberal diagnosis of this "condition."
We obviously disagree. I am not prejudiced against people on Ritalin. I just think it's not a solution. It is a subscription service that sedates people and doesn't really fix the problem. Over time, your tolerance for Ritalin will wane and you'll need heavier drugs to accomplish the same level of sedation. In the long run, you'll be more messed up and dependant upon pharmaceuticals instead of altering your lifestyle to naturally correct the cerebral chemical imbalance. But it obviously is easier and more convenient to pop a pill and call anyone who argues that your choice is the most appropriate, a bigot. It's always easy to generalize and rationalize about a person than consider what they say might have some truth. Take the easy way out. That's the new way. Go reactive, not pro-active. Taking Ritalin itself is likely the ultimate symptom of ADD!
Dude, you are the one who doesn't get it. I am not saying you can't sedate yourself into appearing "normal" and for you this works best. Knock yourself out (pun intended).
What I don't appreciate is my taxpaying/insurance dollars going to make insurance and healthcare industries even more powerful so they can promote questionable pills as an effective treatment when I disagree, and no number of stories or programs underwritten by pharmaceutical companies (who are obviously completely unbiased) will make me come around.
This doesn't discount the reality that this disorder has what I believe are more healthy approaches to treatment that don't involve radically altering a person's brain chemistry via the introduction of questionable substances into the blood stream.
Obviously your mileage may vary. But not all of us want divest responsibility for our antisocial behavior to a medication.
I am being sincere when I say that I have much respect for everyone here. I am not suggesting that the "condition" of ADD or ADHD, OCD, RAD and all the other "diseases" and "disorders" do not exist. The circumstances that these conditions describe do obviously exist. However, I take offense to the industry that has cropped up to take advantage of people who are troubled, and promote this ideal that there is some sort of solution that more often than not, involves the medical/theraputical/pharmacological equivalent of a get-rich-quick scheme.
What we are talking about, in essence, with the exception of extreme cases where people have very serious, identifiable physical handicaps, is a burgeoning new industry which revolves around the selling of drugs to alter peoples' personalities, and usually to just make them non-uppity so they fall into line like everyone else and don't make waves.
Take RAD for instance: Reactive Attachment Disorder. A psychological "condition" where people who have come from backgrounds of trauma, abuse or abandonment have trouble getting close to others. The same thing for ADD. It's a behavioral anomoly, but it's only really an anomoly by comparison to what is considered a social norm, so it's arguable as to whether or not anyone is ultimately "afflicted" or they're merely guilty of being different from those around them.
Do these issues need to be treated? Sure. But the way in which they are being treated, especially with drugs, for most people, exacerbates the condition and makes it worse.
The end result is that society pushes people who are different into little categories in order to explain why they are disappointing, unproductive, unusual, etc. Rather than taking some time to understand a person, let's just call him ADD and pop a pill in his mouth. What kind of goddam treatment is that?
Regarding ADD and its various spin-offs, I'd bet good money you can find a solid correllation between people diagnosed with ADD and being put on medication and: 1. Crappy, self-absorbed parents who would rather give their kid a pill or send him to a psychologist than actually sit down with him and take some time to understand his issues; 2. People who grew up with a very low amount of physical activity during formative developmental periods, and 3. children who were weaned on excessive amounts of television, video games and other forms of hyperactive sensory bombardment.
Especially regarding ADD. Who the fuck isn't going to have a short attention span when they spend X hours a day watching television or playing games, which nowadays are so amazingly explosive, redundant and senationalized in their presentation of information, it's obvious the media has the capacity to desensitize people to the many non-obnoxious nuances of communication.... THIS is the source of ADD.
I read an article the other day from a psychology publication that stated that people nowadays are so bombarded with redundant soundbytes of information, it now takes 6-7 transmissions of the same advertising message to "stick" in a person's head. And every day it gets worse.
Put down the controller. Pull out the GTA cartridge, get off your ass and go out and ride your skateboard... Get physically active; lay off caffeine; make an effort to alter your normal behavior via normal means! Stop going from high speed to sedating yourself before you go to sleep. Before we had mass-obnoxious-neuron-sucking media, humans got along well and had plenty to do. Our technology is turning newer generations into epileptic zombies.
Our brains are incredibly powerful instruments. They get used to things; chemicals we put in our bodies; stimuli we are exposed to. If you sit there for hours a day being bombarded with little soundbytes, then unless your boss is wearing a flat panel LCD screen around his neck with the NASDAQ scrolling off it, and flailing dramatically as he talks, you're probably somewhat board with the dullness of the interaction.
Who's fault is that? The
Recently I was diagnosed with BADD. I am hoping that someone can help me deal with this horrible condition: Bank Account Deficit Disorder. My credit card company diagnosed me with this. I know it's not my fault and I need help. Is there a pill I can take? Does insurance cover it?
The problem with Ender's worm is that by design it is self-defeating. The idea of a "worm farm" of different units targetting different systems is effective, but with a common communications protocol, it negates the worms' ability to evolve and thwart detection. The writer of the paper talks about the worms' needs to change signatures to avoid AV detection, yet communicate with other units by a common question-and-response session, which would make it incredibly easy for any infected unit on the network to be easily identified.
To date, what gives away worm activity is the incessant talking they perpetrate, which is necessary to their propagation. So the key to any "super worm" isn't necessarily the speed at which it can infect nodes, but how quietly this can be done. I would argue that a slow, methodical infection, at a pace which makes the activity unsuspicious, has the potential to be much more dangerous.
Maybe this would be the ultimate worm.. two modes.. the first one slowly propagates and avoids detection, then a second phase which triggers a more aggressive frontal assault.
Apparently a lot of unemployed java programmers have moderator access here. Sorry to hear that guys. No offense.
This guy lives in Seattle. But in every picture on the web site he's poking around in nice, sunny, dry weather. Maybe Jobs left his reality distortion field in the meeting and this guy picked it up and flipped it to maximum stun?
Slower, goofy looking, gimmicky, 99.9% marketing-hype driven "new technology" that is basically recycled old technology that was promised to revolutionize the world, but never was able to prove it was superior in any way to existing solutions. This amazing new "innovation" later became embroiled in legal battles over acceptance on the street.
A reliable source claims that SCO is looking into legal action against Foundstone for infringement of their patent on Irony.
Someone can sue a spammer any time they want IF they can find out who the spammer is. That's the problem.
If spam is getting to inappropriate people (i.e. children) that's just yet another potential illegality among many that have been continually perpetrated, among many that the authorities on virtually every level seem uninterested in enforcing.
I keep saying over and over, the spam problem is not one that needs new legislation. It's one that needs state, local, national and international authorities to enforce the laws already on the books that are currently being broken. People need to start asking questions of each new elected official as to whether or not they're going to prosecute spammers or continue to ignore the laws they break.
Maybe this particular crime's political incorrectess might finally motivate the authorities to actually pursue the spammers? One can only hope, but since almost every spammer already breaks numerous federal laws, it's a crap shoot to determine if anything will be done.
Grr... Someone need to hack the Sorenson codec or whatever is the usual codec for .mov files, to make it a standard DirectShow thingy that can be used in Windows Media Player / Winamp or any other player supporting those codecs.
Hear Hear! I'm so sick of the Quicktime nagware and the way that player as well as the Realplayer continues to re-install it's spyware every time you run it regardless of the configuration settings.
People should standardize on mpeg and refuse to support all these other goofy formats that force the install of extra crap that engages in epic battles with other plug-ins every time they run.
I've been meaning to tell you...
Get some new pr0n. I'm tired of the crap you've had sitting on your computer. Update it plz.
Also, your mom is still waiting for a reply from the message you sent her last saturday.
The days are gone where being careful about publicizing your e-mail address has that dramatic an effect on receiving spam.
Nowadays spammers use "name guessing" where they randomly send e-mail to a dictionary of names @ every domain/server they can identify.
Beyond that, anyone who is foolish enough to use Outlook and add your email to their address book can easily compromise the privacy of your address.
Then we have "friends" of yours who think it's a good idea to use the "mail this web page to a friend" link on stupid web sites to give your e-mail to a commercial entity without your approval.
Not to mention people who have a tendency of forwarding mail you've sent to all their friends without removing your e-mail.
Then we have spammers who lurk on mailing lists and weasel the address/identity of any traffic.
And then there's the... nevermind.. what's the point... this is like security... the only "secure" computer is one that's unplugged.
This guy has too much time on his hands.
You're entirely correct. Why try to design and build your own computer when you can spend your time on other more common, socially-acceptable pursuits such as sitting on your fat ass watching CNN, FOX and "American Idol", or sedating yourself into oblivion with alcohol or Vicodin. When will these nerds get with the program?
I just remember...
the whole machine was designed around being open. The first thing anyone did when showing off their Apple was pull off the cover and expose its innards, the pcboard, the expansion slots. The excitement of adding an 80-column card!
I was a TRS-80 guy, but played with the C64s, the Pets, the 99/4s and everything in between. We always marveled early on at the Apple's color display and selection of games (Choplifter!)
Then they closed everything up and tried to go proprietary. Apple to me was always the underdog but their openness really gave them a chance to make it. But as soon as they achieved a substantive degree of success, the company got greedy and tried to monopolize the market. IBM stole their thunder by copying their open architecture design and having more resources. Apple got too greedy, too early and it cost them.
26 years later, has the company leaned? OS-X has potential, but ONLY if Apple doesn't try to "own" it. You'd think they would have learned something in all these years but they still seem to be innovative to a point, then shut everything down and try to make it as proprietary as possible.
My advice to Apple is to have more trust in the computing public. Embrace more open standards and don't feel so threatened if others can compete with you. This only adds value to your products and your company. Have you not learned anything in all these years? Don't simply private label FreeBSD as an "Apple Innovation". That will not work. Champion the marketplace and have faith that you will be rewarded for not being selfish. It really sounds stupid in today's economic age, but what has made Apple survive (aside from Microsoft needing it to shunt monopoly arguments) has been the loyalty of its users. Give them freedom and you gain even more loyalty.
Be open.
That should be Apple's new mantra.
Why is it that people seem to feel money/success and artistic/creative integrity are mutually exclusive concepts?
It's worth noting that our tax dollars fund all sorts of aerial (satellite) survellience technology, most of which we'll never see even though we've paid for it. Why? In the interest of "National Security."
So is there a double standard here? Can the government restrict information and expression but individually, we aren't afforded the same protections to our security?
I'm totally in favor of this scam. I think it's a litmus test for greedy idiots. Anyone foolish enough to fall for this scam, or order the $153 Leptoprin weight loss pills, the $9.95 commemorative colored US quarter, or any other overhyped useless product deserves to be ripped off.
The only missing part is to wait a few months, then put these scrupulous marketers in the same room with the people they ripped off, lock the door, and move on to a better, more productive society.
We already have a mafia MMORPG.
.NET"
It's called "Microsoft
Microsoft calls their next OS version, "Lisa".
Then the circle will be complete!
I disagree. The Internet was founded on exactly the opposite. The whole distributed computing concept was bourne out of a distrust for any single node being too important.
In effect, on the Internet, nothing is trusted.
The reason we have a spamming problem is not because the net is too trusting by design. It's because the medium is largely unregulated and transgressions therein are unenforced, so spammers operate with little fear of consequences.
In no other medium can you exploit other peoples' resources like you can on the Internet, and there are plenty of laws already, both criminal and civil that address these transgressions, but unlike other mediums, there is no agency or organized force in place to do something about it.
The spam issue has some interesting parallels in the models of the new economy. Just like in other industries like healthcare and pharmacuticals, the major players are not interested in a "cure". That's not profitable for them. A more appealing approach for them is some method of "treatment", preferably something that obligates the user to continually do business with them in perpetuity in order to maintain their spam-free condition.
Efforts to regulate the content of spam messages, inconsequential civil penalties, client side filtering, and any system which filters mail based on content caters to this impotent approach to addressing the spam problem. It offers no cure. It does nothing to reduce spam; it does nothing to discourage spammers; it does nothing to address the most serious problem of spam, which involves unfair and often illegal exploitation of resources.
Maybe this is the new way. We don't actually solve any problems. We just put bandaids on them and allow them to consume more wasted resources, and the demand for more resources, hardware and bandwith is what drives the new economy.
Call me idealistic, but I think it sucks. I am appalled that so many people will settle for such shallow and ineffective approaches to these problems. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Most of these people profit from the existence of spam so why bite the hand that feeds them on a major artery when you can collect some bucks and merely trim their nails?
You're right. Existing laws aren't being enforced. So why complain when we get a law that allows end users, rather than resource-constrained prosecutors, to enforce justice against these scum?
You need a lawyer to take action. You have to subpeona records in order to even identify who the spammer is. It's a very time consuming process. Look at the situation where the MPAA tried to get the identity of the Verizon user who was doing the P2P violations... they had to take that case to the state supreme court before they could even get the records to identify who the perp was to sue him! They probably spent more than $100k in legal fees before they even knew who to sue.
I'm complaining because the law is misleading. It won't do anything to reduce spam. And realistically it does not give users any practical way to fight spammers. If anything, it's only likely to more closely regulate legitimate companies who are already engaging in responsible mailing tactics. It has no teeth. It would ultimately punish the wrong people.
This was already tried on a national level in 1999 and was hotly debated in the community and dismissed as ineffective. The Murkowski bill proposed the same punitive structure.
In addition to this, there are a plethora of bills that have this lame penalty for unsolicited telemarketing and faxes. They have proven to be ineffective even though it's exponentially easier to take action against these people. Still these perpetrators operate with no fear of legal action and have found ways to get around the laws by subcontracting their services among large groups of ever-mobile independent contractors. Spammers have elevated this evasive tactic to an art form, bouncing their junk e-mail across multiple continents/nations/jurisdictions that make it unbelievably difficult to track.
As a step for the state to recognize that UCE is something that needs to be dealt with, the effort is a good sign. As any sort of solution, it is not.
Given that most of the people involved in the writing and support of these bills are lawyers themselves, I'd bet good money not a single one of them would ever be inclined to pursue such civil action as dictated therein.