If you read my first post you will see that I do think about this. But I agree with the author of the/. article that that many people are overreacting. There really is no need to wear your tinfoil hat if you are just an average person doing a bit of web surfing.
Did you know that before the internet was there, thick books existed that had everybody's full name and telephone number in it?
I am not arrogant enough to think that I am so important that my privacy needs protecting.
But I never post my credit card number in my facebook status, and only post what I did, never what I am going to do so that people with bad intentions cannot anticipate when I am away from my house (of which they cannot find the address anyway). That should be enough.
The following material should be a compulsory read for all university students (and some slashdot commenters).
http://xkcd.com/552/
How about: busy and/or stressed people have worse nights and also work more in the evening. One is not necessarily the cause for the other.
I'm not saying my idea is new. I am also not saying that buying open.org is a wise thing to do (rather the contrary).
But I DO think that a debian repository as you like to call it is the best use for a domain like that.
Think of it from the users' point of view: all they want is free, virus-free software to get things done with their computer. Unless you have a better idea, I think a good software repository is the best choice.
Yes, obviously. I am sure they spent more than $1000, but don't think this domain is worth even $1000 for its intended use as open source platform. Who is going to blindly type "open.org" when they are interested in finding open source software? People will just use google. Heck, I've even seen lots of people that even type the URL in google to go to the intended page.
Also, speaking of google, that word was not even in the dictionary when they bought the domain and I bet they bought it for a very low price.
A free, open source "app store", of course!
A database with open source programs (similar to the Ubuntu Software Centre), but including windows programs. With systems to search for, rate and review open source applications, with screen shots, installation instructions and everything. I cannot think of anything more useful than that.
This is easily self-sustaining if they did not spend more than $1000 on the domain. If they did, the best option is to sell it and buy a cheaper domain name.
It also reminds me of the story of Perceval. As I remember it, a mother brought up her kid in a forest to protect him, after her husband (a knight) was killed in battle. The only thing she achieved with this was that the first time the young boy accidentally saw a knight in shiny armor wandering in the forest, he first thought it was a god, and from that moment on, all he wanted to do was become a knight.
Children need to be protected, but not overprotected. They need to be ready for a society where the naive are being used by the not-so-naive.
Before there were computers and the Big Evil Internet, did parents follow their children everywhere when they were playing outside to make sure they did not accidentally see a porn magazine? (at the time, the older brother of your children's best friend usually had them). Did they rig their kid's Walkman to record everything they said, in order to later check if it was "acceptable"?
How is this informative if we do not know if we need to be worried or not?
Given many of the comments, and the fact that my OP got modded interesting instead of funny, I have to conclude that there is much to worry about. But it is not the solar flare.
How is this informative if we do not know if we need to be worried or not?
Please let us know if we need to start worrying or not, just like in this post earlier on slashdot.
This is about the 10th comment I read about the article not being original. Should be modded +1 funny for the irony of it.
If you are criticising an article for not being original, what about the comments?
And then what? They describe the video to you call all your friends and relatives to stage a demonstration? And where are you going to get that tank and all those police vans?
Fundamentally there's something wrong with a corporation as large as Starbucks being unable or unwilling to pay for models or get permission directly from the person whom they're wanting to feature.
That is not the point. They want _everybody_ to feature in their ads, so your everybody's friends will think you strongly recommend starbucks (which is very unlikely if you ever had _real_ coffee or cheescake)
Slashdot Mirror
If you read my first post you will see that I do think about this. But I agree with the author of the /. article that that many people are overreacting. There really is no need to wear your tinfoil hat if you are just an average person doing a bit of web surfing.
Did you know that before the internet was there, thick books existed that had everybody's full name and telephone number in it?
Ok, let me rephrase that: I am not arrogant enough to think that I am or will be so important that my privacy needs protecting.
I am not arrogant enough to think that I am so important that my privacy needs protecting. But I never post my credit card number in my facebook status, and only post what I did, never what I am going to do so that people with bad intentions cannot anticipate when I am away from my house (of which they cannot find the address anyway). That should be enough.
Not that I ever illegally download a discography, but if I did it would be because the price of buying music is just way too high.
The following material should be a compulsory read for all university students (and some slashdot commenters). http://xkcd.com/552/ How about: busy and/or stressed people have worse nights and also work more in the evening. One is not necessarily the cause for the other.
I'm not saying my idea is new. I am also not saying that buying open.org is a wise thing to do (rather the contrary). But I DO think that a debian repository as you like to call it is the best use for a domain like that.
Think of it from the users' point of view: all they want is free, virus-free software to get things done with their computer. Unless you have a better idea, I think a good software repository is the best choice.
$1000?! Are you joking?
Yes, obviously. I am sure they spent more than $1000, but don't think this domain is worth even $1000 for its intended use as open source platform. Who is going to blindly type "open.org" when they are interested in finding open source software? People will just use google. Heck, I've even seen lots of people that even type the URL in google to go to the intended page.
Also, speaking of google, that word was not even in the dictionary when they bought the domain and I bet they bought it for a very low price.
A free, open source "app store", of course! A database with open source programs (similar to the Ubuntu Software Centre), but including windows programs. With systems to search for, rate and review open source applications, with screen shots, installation instructions and everything. I cannot think of anything more useful than that. This is easily self-sustaining if they did not spend more than $1000 on the domain. If they did, the best option is to sell it and buy a cheaper domain name.
Does anyone know what exactly "banned" means in Australia?
Will the game simply not be for sale? I think most people were planning to download it anyway
Will people get sued for playing it? That seems unlikely, as it will be impossible to check.
It also reminds me of the story of Perceval. As I remember it, a mother brought up her kid in a forest to protect him, after her husband (a knight) was killed in battle. The only thing she achieved with this was that the first time the young boy accidentally saw a knight in shiny armor wandering in the forest, he first thought it was a god, and from that moment on, all he wanted to do was become a knight.
Children need to be protected, but not overprotected. They need to be ready for a society where the naive are being used by the not-so-naive.
Before there were computers and the Big Evil Internet, did parents follow their children everywhere when they were playing outside to make sure they did not accidentally see a porn magazine? (at the time, the older brother of your children's best friend usually had them). Did they rig their kid's Walkman to record everything they said, in order to later check if it was "acceptable"?
The eagle has left the nest. Please mod my post up +5 Insightful in the interest of national security, it is a message of the utmost importance.
How is this informative if we do not know if we need to be worried or not?
Given many of the comments, and the fact that my OP got modded interesting instead of funny, I have to conclude that there is much to worry about. But it is not the solar flare.
How is this informative if we do not know if we need to be worried or not? Please let us know if we need to start worrying or not, just like in this post earlier on slashdot.
There is exactly one problem: greedy people
"it appears there is some reason to be concerned about" Yeah! Let's all be concerned about this. That'll help.
This may be art, but it is certainly not science.
Is that like a usb stick with wheels, or does sending the video over the ethernet also count as "moving".
Sounds like your statistics class helped. http://xkcd.com/552/
Not really. He created his hypothesis based on sample size two. After that he bought more lottery tickets to test this hypothesis.
It isn't newsworthy
This is about the 10th comment I read about the article not being original. Should be modded +1 funny for the irony of it. If you are criticising an article for not being original, what about the comments?
So now all we need to do is put GSM antennae on the roof of all schools.
So now all we need to do is deploy this technology everywhere by putting GSM antennae on top of schools.
http://xkcd.com/418/ s/cook/grow/
And then what? They describe the video to you call all your friends and relatives to stage a demonstration? And where are you going to get that tank and all those police vans?
Fundamentally there's something wrong with a corporation as large as Starbucks being unable or unwilling to pay for models or get permission directly from the person whom they're wanting to feature.
That is not the point. They want _everybody_ to feature in their ads, so your everybody's friends will think you strongly recommend starbucks (which is very unlikely if you ever had _real_ coffee or cheescake)