This concept exists in Perl as well, as undef (an undefined value). This is treated as false, but is different from '0' or the empty string.
The concept of no data is an important one, and should not be easily dismissed. I have read many arguments about why it shouldn't exist in relational models (needs to be normalized away, or whatnot), but most of the arguments fall down in the face of implementation considerations.
Let me try an example. Say I have an application that needs to process data in CSV format and store it in a database; imagine these are scientific measurements of time and temperature for an experiment. There is a vast difference between an integral '0' as a temp measurement and a NULL value. One means the temperature was zero degrees, and the other means that no measurement could be made.
Preserving the fact that no data is supplied for a column is essential, and cannot reasonably be normalized away in such a simple instance without creating unneccesary complexity (e.g. creating two tables that share a key, one with all the times and one with all the correlated measurements). Such a normalization approach also makes it difficult to tell if a measurement is absent because of an error in process (row not inserted, accidentally deleted) as opposed to a measurement that was absent in the source data.
NULLs are also useful in relationships as an indicator that no relationship exists yet. In general, I think the elimination of NULLs might sound great in theory, but in practice would be unreasonable - it's typically bad to sacrifice simplicity for the sake of theoretical correctness.
Honestly, don't assume. I cannot stand the regular Starbucks coffees -- I find them absolutely rank. I can barely deal with their espresso, but only in a milk-containing beverage. This doesn't mean I'm a coffee snob.
I think, like most things, it's a matter of taste. Some people like Starbucks, and find it worth the cost. I find it repulsive at any cost. Fortunately for me, my local coffee shop roasts and brews coffee much more to my liking, and even happen to be cheaper than the major chains.
The difference between a snob and not a snob, here, is evangelism: a coffee snob will not only be convinced Starbucks is bad, but will deride anyone who likes it. A non-snob might hate Starbucks and simply not care if other people like it.
Re:But that's the point of malware software
on
Bad Day To Be Sony
·
· Score: 1
Well I can easily see a clueless user inserting the CD, opening it up since it shows up, and running Start.app. I mean, that's what you do right? That's the program they've been taught to run.
Not in the Mac world. By default, inserting an audio CD just opens iTunes. Clicking 'Start.app' is an unusual thing for a Mac user to do, partly because installing software on the Mac is usually a DnD operation, not the running of an installer. I'd wager that most Mac users would not even bother to open the CD in Finder, much less double-click a file that they haven't been instructed to do anything to.
It isn't, as you suggest, something they've been taught to run.
As for the password part, I agree that it's mostly a hoop. However, it's a hoop users are used to when changing system settings or installing software. Users advanced enough to have opened an audio disc in finder and run an application merely called 'Start.app' will know this, and wonder why software is being installed.
The risk, to me, is the thought that "hey, maybe this CD has a Mac screensaver or something on it, I'll just go ahead and install that...". Still there is a world of difference between allowing automatic installation (as in Windows) and playing on users' stupidity.
Linux administrators took 68 per cent longer to implement new business requirements than their Windows counterparts.
And how long maintaining them afterward? How many flaws or deviations did their implementations have? How maintainable were the implementations?
I'm not saying that Windows automatically leads to that type of thing, but saying "hey, the implementation was done faster" is the most meaningless of statistics. I've had experiences where I took longer to implement a solution on the same platform as a competitor, but my solution was more complete, more fault-tolerant, and future changes took about a third as long. Which was the better solution? I suppose that depends on whether fast or good is more important.
This whole thing is a quantitative analysis without any consideration of qualitative differences, making it pointless as a basis for reasonable discussion.
This is why Microsoft gets accused of FUD: instead of comprehensively making their point about where Windows is a better choice than Linux, they produce pointless "flashy" studies like this that provide no real argument.
Depends on your interpretation of copyright law. The way I've read it, it says that copies are only prohibited when there's commercial gain. Therefore, personal, not-for-profit sharing is ok.
Hm, not exactly. Copying a copyright-protected work in its entirety without license, and distributing that work to anyone else, even for free, is still copyright infringement.
However, making copies for strictly personal use, when you already have a legally-obtained copy of a work, is fair use (and therefore legal).
Much of the body of precedent that suggests some forms of personal sharing are acceptible have to do with volume: courts have commonly (though not always) held that such actions as ripping a CD and sharing it with a friend, while technically illegal, do not damage copyright-holders. Therefore, it is very hard to win a lawsuit on such small-scale sharing; and, it's not often pursued because it makes the plaintiff look like a real prick.
Most of the debate about music sharing and DRM-stripping doesn't center around legal issues, as copyright law is fairly well-tested, but around ethical and occasionally Constitutional issues.
For instance, is it ethical to share reduced-quality recordings with friends? Some anecdotal evidence suggests that such sharing increases sales of shared music; if true, no one is being harmed, so an argument of ethics may be possible. It's only short-sighted people who think that disobeying a law is always unethical.
As for Constitutional arguments, most center around the idea that Copyright law has been perverted much to far from the Constitutional grant that supports it. It's an interesting debate, and not nearly as clear-cut as most of the vocal arguers would suggest.
Every employer and contract customer I've had has been willing to negotiate the exact language in the contract. This is the nice thing about contracts instead of laws: the parties can negotiate on what benefits them both.
Typically, contracts will say something to the tune of "any work created while contracted with the Customer shall be the property of the Customer." I typically change this to something along the lines of "any work created during the performance of this contract and utilizing equipment, resources (including paid time), or proprietary information belonging to the Customer shall be the property of the Customer." The exact phrasing varies, of course.
No one has any issues with such things, so long as you explain to them up front that you agree with them having ownership of what they've paid you to create, but that you want what you do for a second jobs or volunteer positions to be owned by those groups. I've never had anyone think this to be unreasonable.
That's because you didn't hire them, you contracted their company. They are not your employee. You don't technically 'hire' contractors either, you contract for their services. The law applies differently.
Also, the photographers have successfully argued that you don't contract them to create the end product, but to perform a service (they have a point, even though it annoys me to admit it). They own the copyrights to the products they create during the performance of that service. This is annoying, but the way it works.
That type of thing highlights why contracts containing the copyright assignment agreement are so important: there are just too many "gray areas" and loopholes in deciding whether the "work for hire" doctrine applies. It makes more sense, for an employer, to be explicit.
As a contractor, I also like the terms of such things spelled out, because it gives me opportunity to negotiate the terms. Typically, I have language altered from "any work created while contracted" to "any work created during the performance of contracted duties, or utilizing {customer}'s resources, equipment, and/or proprietary information." Otherwise, you run the risk of concurrent projects being nabbed by your customer.
Logical conclusion: I can produce a product called "Word for Linux" and avoid confusion.
Actually, that doesn't map. If the combination "Windows Vista" avoids confustion with a product named "Vista", then you could produce a product called "Linux Word" and avoid confusion. I think you'd actually win that.
"Word for Linux", on the other hand, sounds like an existing product (Word) ported to a different OS (Linux). You might be able to win that, but it would certainly be a lot tougher (and more expensive).
MS didn't call a product "Vista for Windows", which would have been confusing, they called the next version of Windows "Windows Vista". I can see Vista.com's point, but I don't think MS's argument was without merit.
IANAL, but I don't think that [assignment of copyright to an employer] happens by default. That's why companies have you sign something that makes it explicit.
I'm not an attorney, either, but I have been an employer. The error of the statement above, and a similar line of thought in this comment below, is that everything in a contract is stuff that isn't already in the law. That's simply not true.
When you create a contract, you do it for a few reasons. One is to address things that aren't already covered adequately elsewhere. Another is to have a single document where all terms are agreed upon, to establish that all parties knew their rights and responsibilities -- even if they are already coded in law. Another is that terms in contracts are often easier to enforce than the same terms coded as law (in terms of suing someone for violation).
When someone hires you to create a work, they own the copyright under the doctrine of "work for hire". The contracts do a couple of things: they spell this out explicitly, and often extend the provision to works you were not directly asked to create.
Your comments show me how there are few to no consistent atheists. If God doesn't exist, who cares?
I do, if people insist on teaching the next generation that God does exist as though it were unassailable fact.
The core problem with discussions of this nature is that the extremes on both sides characterize each other as monsters, as is wont to happen with any emotionally intense debate. The extreme atheists (those who believe that anyone who has faith is an idiot) cast ID-proponents as blathering morons who are out to corrupt our youth into believing a lie. And the extreme ID-proponents cast atheists as people trying to corrupt our youth into being godless heathens.
The reality, of course, is that many ID-proponents are either misinformed or blind to their biases -- that doesn't make them stupid or evil (though, as with any sufficiently large group of people, there are many outspoken fools). Of course, the percentage of outspoken idiots in the Atheist camp would have you believe that religion and science cannot share proponents.
And, of course, most atheists are confused about why Christian conservatives think something like a lack of belief can be forced on anyone, and think faith is something personal and should be taught at home, not in public school. Of course, the percentage of outspoken idiots in the Conservative Christian camp (some of the most vocal ID supporters) would have you believe that relegating religious instruction to the privacy of the home is somehow "encouraging atheism".
So please, don't cast us atheists into the mold of the few outspoken idiots who haven't carefully considered their position, just as I refrain from casting conservative Christians into the mold of the "Christian Right Warrior" who would ignore the rights of everyone else to further their version of the truth. The respect must run both ways.
Now there are those that will say, "Sure, but do it in a mythology class." Right there, that's an inappropriate judgement that just shows that certain people are afraid to have the debate at all. They feel safer if it is pre-ordained that creationism or ID is a myth.
Well, I've never seen that particular comment made. From what I've seen, the opponents of ID are largely scientists and the teachers the public schools have hired to teach Science courses; the proponents are typically religiously-motivated fundamentalists. This, to me, suggests that the motivation to teach creationism and/or ID in science class is based in a desire to teach a religious rather than scientific ideal.
Creationism as a scientific theory has been widely discredited, so why should it be taught in a science class, except perhaps as a historical note? I'd have no problem with creationism taught in the same manner as science references the theory of spontaneous generation. And no, I don't mean mocking it -- spontaneous generation was discredited because it didn't stand up to scientific scrutiny, much as creationism has been. Unfortunately, teaching it this way would offend many Christians who believe in creationism as a matter of faith. I think it's a fair compromise to simply avoid the topic. The unfortunate part of ID is that it's just a "kinder, gentler" version of Creationism.
I do happen to agree that the controversy and alternate viewpoints should be taught, but such things don't belong in a Science class. I'd love to see it taught as part of philosophy, comparative religion, or social studies. In the latter case, the focus would probably have to be on the controversy and debate to be topical.
I look at books like this, and the inevitable cries of "but Linux has usability problems! It doesn't do (some thing that Windows does), so your average user doesn't want it." in response to such things. All I can do is sigh and shake my head. People who argue on either side of a 'Linux vs. Windows' dichotomy need a few clues.
There is no dichotomy.
The dichotomy of Windows vs. Linux is imaginary. Windows does some things exceedingly well. Linux does some things exceedingly well. Both have shortcomings. There are places where both succeed; there are places where both fail. Ultimately, these are tools. If one wishes to promote Linux, one should be promoting that people understand the truth about it and every other major OS, and decide for themselves which tool is best for them. I think a lot more people would consider Linux, but a lot wouldn't -- and that's OK.
There is no such thing as an 'average user'.
Every user is unique. There is no mythical "average user" to target. People use computers for different things, and have varying degrees of proficiency at those tasks. Ideally, software should be created that scales to a range of abilities and investment in eductation -- creating it to please an "average user" is a waste, because it will just frustrate everybody.
Most computer users are not idiots.
Yes, there are lots of people that make us geekier types want to pull our hair out. These people, for the most part, are not stupid, they just don't care. Why should they? Most people do not buy a computer to own a computer: they buy it to write documents, send e-mail, use the web, or whatever other thing they want to accomplish. Users are task-driven: if the task they bought the computer for becomes more complicated than its "analog" equivalent, they will be (rightly) upset.
Power and simplicity are tradeoffs, as any good developer knows. Grep is very powerful, but it is complex. Edit.exe is very simple, but not very powerful. More often than not, users will prefer simple over complex. Again, scalability is important: what if you could use grep on the CLI, but someone who just wants to find a misfiled document had a very simple interface wrapped around it? Complexity is ok, but most users don't want it until they know they need it.
As long as the things that came with a computer do the job (like Windows), no one wants to bother changing. That's not idiocy, that's apathy.
Users need compelling reasons to change.
Most users do not care about our definitions of usability, the finer points of security, or the magic of a well-designed packaging system. The user wants to spend as little time as possible learning to accomplish what it is they set out to accomplish. If a user is already using Word, they have no compelling reason to change to OpenOffice. If a user is already familiar with Windows, they don't want to bother learning the difference between Windows and Linux. To them, it is a waste of time. There's nothing wrong with that.
My mother moved to Linux when she realized that all she does at home is use Firefox (which is basically no different on Linux) to surf the web, and that with Linux she would no longer need to pay for her AV subscription or for upgrades. Because she's on a budget, this was compelling to her. My mother-in-law uses the computer in the same way, but paying for upgrades doesn't concern her: it isn't worth it, to her, for the time she'd have to invest to re-learn. She'd rather read a new book.
Any user who isn't interested in computers for fun or profit is just using it to do things they do have fun with or profit by. These users would, obviously, rather spend time doing something fun or profitable than learning to change how they already do these things. Asking an author to give up writing time to convert from using Word on Windows to using OpenOffice on Linux will seem, to that user, to be pointless.
>If you believe that there are forms of authority you should always obey, you might be stupid.
I'm glad you said 'might be'. I tend to beleive that I should always obey laws based on universal constants. For this reason, I never drive faster than c.
Granted violence in media is not necessarily the cause, but it might be a contributor, and California is taking a stand and that's to be applauded, despite the fallout.
It's fairly dangerous to pass laws based on things that "might be" true. Especially when we're talking about restricting someone's freedom to enjoy art. Like it or not, video games are art just as much as movies, books, or paintings. I tend to think that violence in media isn't a contributor toward our violent society, but another expression of it. Our society is violent, so our entertainment is violent. The Romans weren't a warrior culture because of the gladiators, they had gladiators because they were a warrior culture. You shouldn't pass laws to change culture.
I like the idea of banning violence to kids. I think a person mature enough to watch violence is mature enough to watch porn. If a kid can't handle sex, they shouldn't be expected to be able to handle watching murder either.
Unfortunatley, there are a couple of problems with this. First, let me say that I agree that someone old enough to see a graphic depiction of murder is old enough to view sex scenes. In fact, I'd rather have kids watching sex than watching people kill each other; but, that's personal.
First problem: when we say "violence", we aren't saying "murder". This isn't a video of someone being killed, it's an animation. Yes, they're getting more realistic, but most teenagers are perfectly capable of distinguishing between fantasy and reality. The comparison to porn breaks down a bit here, too, since porn really is people having sex (unless it's softcore, but I don't consider that "porn", really).
Second problem: this isn't based on "maturity", but on age. I know plenty of 30-year-olds that still giggle when they hear the word "penis", and I know 15-year-olds that have a more balanced, rational, and informed view of sex and violence than their parents. Kids just aren't as suggestible as so many people seem to think: we don't need to "protect" them from as much as we try to.
I always resent it when the state tries to "play the parent". I resent it more when it tries to do so without even a modicum of just cause. Just because lots of people "think" that violent media might cause problems, doesn't mean we should pass laws against it. Want to reduce violence in society? Join neighborhood watch, vote for politicians that support non-lethal response research (provides non-lethal countermeasures, and training, to police, reducing the need for fire-fights), and for those that support community programs that have been proved to reduce violence.
That's like saying people who look at kiddy porn are less likely to molest. I'd wager it validates their feelings and feeds it, rather than curbs it.
The difference, here, is that not all kids who play violent video games do so out of a deviant tendency towards violence. People who look at kiddy porn are already well into a deviant behavior, so the fantasy feeds on itself. At least, that's one theory -- the path from kiddy porn to molestation hasn't been firmly established. The reason kiddy porn is evil has a lot more to do with the children that are already being exploited to produce it than it does with the theory that it encourages molestation.
I will grant that a kid who already has a deviant tendency towards violence is probably not helped by playing violent video games, and I realize upon re-reading my post that I may have implied that. To clarify: overall, the existence of games that allow kids to release aggression in a healthy way, IMO, reduces the risk that those kids will be violent in inappropriate ways.
My core issue is that everyone wants to place the blame for violence on violent media, when its doubtful that the media actually causes any problems except for possibly inciting kids that already have unhealthy violent tendencies. Kids wanting to play a game where you blow stuff up doesn't automatically mean they are deviant. The blame only belongs in two places: with the kids themselves, and with the adults that so utterly fail to notice a child's obsession with violence that they feed it.
There's a real correlation between kids' watching violence and kids' violent behaviour.
In this case, I strongly suspect a third factor. Don't you think that kids with violent tendencies anyway would be more likely to seek out violent video games? Think about it: if I'm a kid that wants to hurt people, I'm likely to do it. I'm also likely to seek out ways of doing that in a fantasy environment, like a violent video game. But that doesn't mean the game caused my violent tendency -- it was a symptom.
Correlation does not causation make. There is a real correlation between domestic violence and ice-cream sales. Let's ban ice-cream! Of course, the third factor is the heat: heat tends to make people more agressive, and also tends to make them buy more ice cream. Of course, no one is banning ice-cream (or suggesting the need for publicly-funded air conditioning, for that matter).
In fact, I suspect that rather than causing violent behavior, playing a violent videogame can actually reduce the risk of violent behavior. Psychologists will often instruct agressive patients to channel their violent tendencies into acceptable behaviors to "burn off" their agression in an appropriate manner. This can be exercise, etc. -- but often can be moderated forms of violence like football, martial arts, etc. So, why not FPS games?
I find it somewhat offensive to ban something on a mere suggestion that it's connected with something undesirable. It's not really different than people who want to ban the HPV vaccine on the premise that it encourages promiscuity; making connections based on correlation and assumption alone is a dark path.
Are you seriously arguing that the violence depicted in the bible may be also encourage violence in readers?
No, the point of these kinds of statements is to demonstrate the narrow view so many proponents of limiting depictions of sex and violence continue to hold. The Bible is picked out because many of said proponents purport to be Christians, and claim that their Christian values are behind the drive to limit access to the "horrible images" and the like.
Unfortunately for them, they don't realize that the very book they choose to live their life by, and which they claim is encouraging them to support legislation to limit violence and sex in the media, is itself filled with the very imagery they are trying to repress.
I'll put it this way: if someone were to make a complete and accurate video game of the Bible, it would be banned under the rules these primarily-Christian advocates propose. Many of us think that's ridiculous, even if we have no issue with the Bible or Christian beliefs prima facie.
>The only erason Linux can do these things is because the vast majority of users are technically savvy. Any real solution needs to be usable by the average user.
Most of this conversation has centered around protecting servers; the "average users" of servers should be competent admins, and all of these things are within their purview.
>So when my mother, who uses her computer for playing bridge online and printing e-mail pictures of her granchildren buys a new printer, you think she should have to recompile her kernel.
There is a huge difference between user-space drivers like printers and mice and kernel-space drivers like IDE chipsets and video drivers. Your mom is unlikely to need kernel-space drivers.
>Are you going to pay for a full computer science program at a good university for her so she can even understand that idea.
Oh, please. I have my mother running Linux, and it took very little time for me to explain all that she really needed to know about running and administering it. Kernel recompiles to add kernel-space drivers could be made stupid-simple:
HW detect & modprobe the correct modules
Test the hardware (e.g. "Print a test page")
Ask user to finalize changes, which requires the root password.
When user agrees and authenticates, compile above-loaded modules into new kernel (automatically, and behind the scenes), and reboot.
Of course, I'd not recommend actually doing things this way, but implementing systems to allow easy signing and kernel-level signature-checking of modules would accomplish most of the same things for the end user.
I'm not rebutting anything, I'm explaining why people feel the way they do. You say "symantec provided numbers, facts and figures", but my point is that they didn't. They pointed to a single metric which does not provide a compelling or complete picture. I'm not rebutting their report, I'm dismissing it for its poor quality; and, I would do so regardless of what their findings had been.
Your post is nothing but heresay and what you would like to believe true.
My post is what I believe to be true based on my experience. It is not what I'd like to believe to be true -- the simple fact is that Symantec/news.com are merely hyping a finding without supporting it. Their report was simply devoid of any information that would allow anyone to make a reasoable choice. It's bad reporting, therefore I distrust their conclusion.
My ultimate point, which you seem to be missing, is that people who want to make a decision should consider all the factors. If someone considers all of them and IE turns out to be more secure, great! I'd re-evaluate using it. There's a far cry between the pipe dreams that the OP is spouting and people, like me, who are skeptical of a report that contains no evidence or useful information.
Feh. I wouldn't stand up and say that any Mozilla product is "flawless" by any stretch. We're talking, though, about relative security. There are a few things to consider in the equation:
Number of reported bugs
Number of acknowledged bugs
Vendor-accepted severtity of bugs
Response to acknowledged bugs
"Real" severity of bugs (e.g. how were normal users impacted?)
Vendor willingness to acknowledge generally-accepted bugs
Ease with which an average user can stumble upon the bug
Ease with which product can be "hardened" without impacting basic functionality
Keep in mind that when I say "bug" above, I'm referring to security-related problems only.
Now, I'm not paid enough to do a detailed analysis of all of these factors, and so I will admit that I'm at least partly speculating. However, I'd say that even though Firefox falls short of IE on the first 3, it tends to outperform IE on the last few.
Add to that pretty decent stacks of anecdotal evidence; I have family members that had malware issues that disappeared after converting to Firefox, and reappeared when returning to IE. I read and hear many such stories on a regular basis. Granted, anecdotal evidence is not hard evidence, but it give me a "gut feeling".
This "gut feeling" that Firefox is more secure is shared by many knowledgeable people. Because of this, any report that suggests the opposite should be rigorous in presenting evidence. The core issue here is that Symantec and News.com failed to provide compelling evidence to counter the prevailing opinion. Firefox gets the benefit of the doubt until someone can present a clear argument why it shouldn't.
Attacking accepted wisdom is a wonderful thing -- but doing so in such a shoddy manner gives it the stink of "spin", or "hype reporting" at best.
What you are missing is that it doesn't matter. If you have a CSS-aware browser, you can simply turn the entire annoying section off, move it, or change the way it flows to make it more navigable.
Lynx-compatiblity just isn't important anymore, because even readers for the blind are more feauture-compatible than lynx. If reading the web in a text console is that important w3m or links work just wonderfully.
People with disabilities prefer CSS because it allows them to trivally alter layout and visual presentation in a way that works for them. For example, some people have trouble seeing low-contrast presentations; they can insert their own CSS into a CSS-aware page to make any site readable.
The folks who pay for the bandwidth tend to like CSS because it costs less to serve (properly implemented, that is). CSS separates style from content, so the style can be cached while smaller content pages are tranferred on request. This makes a better end-user experience and costs less to provide.
Developers and designers like CSS because it follows the excellent practice of separating view from data. It's easier for a developer to make changes to the underlying code because they worry less about breaking the view; likewise, a designer can make layout tweaks without affecting other areas of code. Clean separation makes fewer bugs.
Do you have a daughter or a wife? Would you like a bunch of random teenage employees at the local Gap watching her everytime she tried on a piece of clothing?
I have a wife, and I don't worry about this. I figure one of three things will happen:
the watcher will think my wife is beautiful, in which case someone had a good day. My wife hasn't lost anything.
the watcher will think my wife is ugly, in which case he/she will simply look away. My wife still hasn't lost anything.
the watcher will be ambivalent and just watch for shoplifting. My wife still hasn't lost antyhing.
Why does this freak everyone out so much? I mean, you certainly have the right to your privacy, and if you think the skin that lies under your clothes is a private matter, then so be it. But, why is it a private matter?
Remember, we aren't talking about nakedness — this isn't a bathroom stall camera — we're talking about someone seeing someone else in their underwear. What's private, your bellybutton? I don't think I would have married someone who felt their privacy was being invaded because someone saw her undies.
The loss of people's right to privacy is a scary thing, but what scares me more is that our society hasn't progressed beyond this idea that skin is somehow shameful, wrong, or private. And that we have a double standard to boot: when it's IP we're talking about, then we rail about how we are depriving people of something, but when it comes to privacy (another mythical construct) suddenly we aren't harming them. Or vice-versa, depending.
It'd require some deep thought, but initially I'd say that yes, it is possible that I'd consume products that were derived from an animal, so long as it was humane, sterile, and non-harmful to the animal.
I hear many ethical vegans say this, but it has always piqued my curiosity: why not choose to eat free-range, locally-raised, certified organic animal products? For example, I buy my milk from the local co-op, which acquires it from a local free-range organic farm: the cows are milked because they have given birth to calves which will be raised for breeding stock (males) or replacement producers (female). When their cows are unable to safely produce offspring, they are sold for the beef.
Would something like that cause you trouble?
I ask because I share many of the concerns that vegans express about the production of things like milk, eggs, and beef -- but my answer is to vote with my wallet and buy from producers that practice responsible and sustainable farming. As a bonus, the food usually tastes better, too, because there is a greater focus on quality as opposed to quantity.
you do eventually see things like a plain glass of milk or a block of cheese as pretty gross..which, if you think about it, they really are
You must be easily grossed out. I made cheese for a living, and still love the product (tasty). Though, I learned two things: Velveeta is not cheese, it is a cheese food product and thoroughly disgusting; and soaking cheese in italian dressings is not only bad marketing, but creates a horrific smell when it goes bad.;-)
Oh sure, accept it for a session, but when the session ends, the cookie is deleted automatically
In the "Cookies" section of the "Privacy" panel in Firefox options, you can set the "Keep Cookies" dropdown to "Ask me every time". When you do this, a site attempting to set a cookie will trigger a dialog box, where you can choose to Allow, Deny, or Allow for Session. By clicking a checkbox on that dialog, you can remember your decision for a domain.
By doing that, session cookies are kept until you close your browser, but no longer. Sites you want to allow to set cookies (like/.), you can choose to Allow. Sites like doubleclick, you can choose to Deny.
Slashdot Mirror
This concept exists in Perl as well, as undef (an undefined value). This is treated as false, but is different from '0' or the empty string.
The concept of no data is an important one, and should not be easily dismissed. I have read many arguments about why it shouldn't exist in relational models (needs to be normalized away, or whatnot), but most of the arguments fall down in the face of implementation considerations.
Let me try an example. Say I have an application that needs to process data in CSV format and store it in a database; imagine these are scientific measurements of time and temperature for an experiment. There is a vast difference between an integral '0' as a temp measurement and a NULL value. One means the temperature was zero degrees, and the other means that no measurement could be made.
Preserving the fact that no data is supplied for a column is essential, and cannot reasonably be normalized away in such a simple instance without creating unneccesary complexity (e.g. creating two tables that share a key, one with all the times and one with all the correlated measurements). Such a normalization approach also makes it difficult to tell if a measurement is absent because of an error in process (row not inserted, accidentally deleted) as opposed to a measurement that was absent in the source data.
NULLs are also useful in relationships as an indicator that no relationship exists yet. In general, I think the elimination of NULLs might sound great in theory, but in practice would be unreasonable - it's typically bad to sacrifice simplicity for the sake of theoretical correctness.
Honestly, don't assume. I cannot stand the regular Starbucks coffees -- I find them absolutely rank. I can barely deal with their espresso, but only in a milk-containing beverage. This doesn't mean I'm a coffee snob.
I think, like most things, it's a matter of taste. Some people like Starbucks, and find it worth the cost. I find it repulsive at any cost. Fortunately for me, my local coffee shop roasts and brews coffee much more to my liking, and even happen to be cheaper than the major chains.
The difference between a snob and not a snob, here, is evangelism: a coffee snob will not only be convinced Starbucks is bad, but will deride anyone who likes it. A non-snob might hate Starbucks and simply not care if other people like it.
Well I can easily see a clueless user inserting the CD, opening it up since it shows up, and running Start.app. I mean, that's what you do right? That's the program they've been taught to run.
Not in the Mac world. By default, inserting an audio CD just opens iTunes. Clicking 'Start.app' is an unusual thing for a Mac user to do, partly because installing software on the Mac is usually a DnD operation, not the running of an installer. I'd wager that most Mac users would not even bother to open the CD in Finder, much less double-click a file that they haven't been instructed to do anything to.
It isn't, as you suggest, something they've been taught to run.
As for the password part, I agree that it's mostly a hoop. However, it's a hoop users are used to when changing system settings or installing software. Users advanced enough to have opened an audio disc in finder and run an application merely called 'Start.app' will know this, and wonder why software is being installed.
The risk, to me, is the thought that "hey, maybe this CD has a Mac screensaver or something on it, I'll just go ahead and install that...". Still there is a world of difference between allowing automatic installation (as in Windows) and playing on users' stupidity.
Linux administrators took 68 per cent longer to implement new business requirements than their Windows counterparts.
And how long maintaining them afterward? How many flaws or deviations did their implementations have? How maintainable were the implementations?
I'm not saying that Windows automatically leads to that type of thing, but saying "hey, the implementation was done faster" is the most meaningless of statistics. I've had experiences where I took longer to implement a solution on the same platform as a competitor, but my solution was more complete, more fault-tolerant, and future changes took about a third as long. Which was the better solution? I suppose that depends on whether fast or good is more important.
This whole thing is a quantitative analysis without any consideration of qualitative differences, making it pointless as a basis for reasonable discussion.
This is why Microsoft gets accused of FUD: instead of comprehensively making their point about where Windows is a better choice than Linux, they produce pointless "flashy" studies like this that provide no real argument.
Depends on your interpretation of copyright law. The way I've read it, it says that copies are only prohibited when there's commercial gain. Therefore, personal, not-for-profit sharing is ok.
Hm, not exactly. Copying a copyright-protected work in its entirety without license, and distributing that work to anyone else, even for free, is still copyright infringement.
However, making copies for strictly personal use, when you already have a legally-obtained copy of a work, is fair use (and therefore legal).
Much of the body of precedent that suggests some forms of personal sharing are acceptible have to do with volume: courts have commonly (though not always) held that such actions as ripping a CD and sharing it with a friend, while technically illegal, do not damage copyright-holders. Therefore, it is very hard to win a lawsuit on such small-scale sharing; and, it's not often pursued because it makes the plaintiff look like a real prick.
Most of the debate about music sharing and DRM-stripping doesn't center around legal issues, as copyright law is fairly well-tested, but around ethical and occasionally Constitutional issues.
For instance, is it ethical to share reduced-quality recordings with friends? Some anecdotal evidence suggests that such sharing increases sales of shared music; if true, no one is being harmed, so an argument of ethics may be possible. It's only short-sighted people who think that disobeying a law is always unethical.
As for Constitutional arguments, most center around the idea that Copyright law has been perverted much to far from the Constitutional grant that supports it. It's an interesting debate, and not nearly as clear-cut as most of the vocal arguers would suggest.
Every employer and contract customer I've had has been willing to negotiate the exact language in the contract. This is the nice thing about contracts instead of laws: the parties can negotiate on what benefits them both.
Typically, contracts will say something to the tune of "any work created while contracted with the Customer shall be the property of the Customer." I typically change this to something along the lines of "any work created during the performance of this contract and utilizing equipment, resources (including paid time), or proprietary information belonging to the Customer shall be the property of the Customer." The exact phrasing varies, of course.
No one has any issues with such things, so long as you explain to them up front that you agree with them having ownership of what they've paid you to create, but that you want what you do for a second jobs or volunteer positions to be owned by those groups. I've never had anyone think this to be unreasonable.
That's because you didn't hire them, you contracted their company. They are not your employee. You don't technically 'hire' contractors either, you contract for their services. The law applies differently.
Also, the photographers have successfully argued that you don't contract them to create the end product, but to perform a service (they have a point, even though it annoys me to admit it). They own the copyrights to the products they create during the performance of that service. This is annoying, but the way it works.
That type of thing highlights why contracts containing the copyright assignment agreement are so important: there are just too many "gray areas" and loopholes in deciding whether the "work for hire" doctrine applies. It makes more sense, for an employer, to be explicit.
As a contractor, I also like the terms of such things spelled out, because it gives me opportunity to negotiate the terms. Typically, I have language altered from "any work created while contracted" to "any work created during the performance of contracted duties, or utilizing {customer}'s resources, equipment, and/or proprietary information." Otherwise, you run the risk of concurrent projects being nabbed by your customer.
Logical conclusion: I can produce a product called "Word for Linux" and avoid confusion.
Actually, that doesn't map. If the combination "Windows Vista" avoids confustion with a product named "Vista", then you could produce a product called "Linux Word" and avoid confusion. I think you'd actually win that.
"Word for Linux", on the other hand, sounds like an existing product (Word) ported to a different OS (Linux). You might be able to win that, but it would certainly be a lot tougher (and more expensive).
MS didn't call a product "Vista for Windows", which would have been confusing, they called the next version of Windows "Windows Vista". I can see Vista.com's point, but I don't think MS's argument was without merit.
IANAL, but I don't think that [assignment of copyright to an employer] happens by default. That's why companies have you sign something that makes it explicit.
I'm not an attorney, either, but I have been an employer. The error of the statement above, and a similar line of thought in this comment below, is that everything in a contract is stuff that isn't already in the law. That's simply not true.
When you create a contract, you do it for a few reasons. One is to address things that aren't already covered adequately elsewhere. Another is to have a single document where all terms are agreed upon, to establish that all parties knew their rights and responsibilities -- even if they are already coded in law. Another is that terms in contracts are often easier to enforce than the same terms coded as law (in terms of suing someone for violation).
When someone hires you to create a work, they own the copyright under the doctrine of "work for hire". The contracts do a couple of things: they spell this out explicitly, and often extend the provision to works you were not directly asked to create.
Your comments show me how there are few to no consistent atheists. If God doesn't exist, who cares?
I do, if people insist on teaching the next generation that God does exist as though it were unassailable fact.
The core problem with discussions of this nature is that the extremes on both sides characterize each other as monsters, as is wont to happen with any emotionally intense debate. The extreme atheists (those who believe that anyone who has faith is an idiot) cast ID-proponents as blathering morons who are out to corrupt our youth into believing a lie. And the extreme ID-proponents cast atheists as people trying to corrupt our youth into being godless heathens.
The reality, of course, is that many ID-proponents are either misinformed or blind to their biases -- that doesn't make them stupid or evil (though, as with any sufficiently large group of people, there are many outspoken fools). Of course, the percentage of outspoken idiots in the Atheist camp would have you believe that religion and science cannot share proponents.
And, of course, most atheists are confused about why Christian conservatives think something like a lack of belief can be forced on anyone, and think faith is something personal and should be taught at home, not in public school. Of course, the percentage of outspoken idiots in the Conservative Christian camp (some of the most vocal ID supporters) would have you believe that relegating religious instruction to the privacy of the home is somehow "encouraging atheism".
So please, don't cast us atheists into the mold of the few outspoken idiots who haven't carefully considered their position, just as I refrain from casting conservative Christians into the mold of the "Christian Right Warrior" who would ignore the rights of everyone else to further their version of the truth. The respect must run both ways.
Now there are those that will say, "Sure, but do it in a mythology class." Right there, that's an inappropriate judgement that just shows that certain people are afraid to have the debate at all. They feel safer if it is pre-ordained that creationism or ID is a myth.
Well, I've never seen that particular comment made. From what I've seen, the opponents of ID are largely scientists and the teachers the public schools have hired to teach Science courses; the proponents are typically religiously-motivated fundamentalists. This, to me, suggests that the motivation to teach creationism and/or ID in science class is based in a desire to teach a religious rather than scientific ideal.
Creationism as a scientific theory has been widely discredited, so why should it be taught in a science class, except perhaps as a historical note? I'd have no problem with creationism taught in the same manner as science references the theory of spontaneous generation. And no, I don't mean mocking it -- spontaneous generation was discredited because it didn't stand up to scientific scrutiny, much as creationism has been. Unfortunately, teaching it this way would offend many Christians who believe in creationism as a matter of faith. I think it's a fair compromise to simply avoid the topic. The unfortunate part of ID is that it's just a "kinder, gentler" version of Creationism.
I do happen to agree that the controversy and alternate viewpoints should be taught, but such things don't belong in a Science class. I'd love to see it taught as part of philosophy, comparative religion, or social studies. In the latter case, the focus would probably have to be on the controversy and debate to be topical.
I look at books like this, and the inevitable cries of "but Linux has usability problems! It doesn't do (some thing that Windows does), so your average user doesn't want it." in response to such things. All I can do is sigh and shake my head. People who argue on either side of a 'Linux vs. Windows' dichotomy need a few clues.
There is no dichotomy.
The dichotomy of Windows vs. Linux is imaginary. Windows does some things exceedingly well. Linux does some things exceedingly well. Both have shortcomings. There are places where both succeed; there are places where both fail. Ultimately, these are tools. If one wishes to promote Linux, one should be promoting that people understand the truth about it and every other major OS, and decide for themselves which tool is best for them. I think a lot more people would consider Linux, but a lot wouldn't -- and that's OK.
There is no such thing as an 'average user'.
Every user is unique. There is no mythical "average user" to target. People use computers for different things, and have varying degrees of proficiency at those tasks. Ideally, software should be created that scales to a range of abilities and investment in eductation -- creating it to please an "average user" is a waste, because it will just frustrate everybody.
Most computer users are not idiots.
Yes, there are lots of people that make us geekier types want to pull our hair out. These people, for the most part, are not stupid, they just don't care. Why should they? Most people do not buy a computer to own a computer: they buy it to write documents, send e-mail, use the web, or whatever other thing they want to accomplish. Users are task-driven: if the task they bought the computer for becomes more complicated than its "analog" equivalent, they will be (rightly) upset.
Power and simplicity are tradeoffs, as any good developer knows. Grep is very powerful, but it is complex. Edit.exe is very simple, but not very powerful. More often than not, users will prefer simple over complex. Again, scalability is important: what if you could use grep on the CLI, but someone who just wants to find a misfiled document had a very simple interface wrapped around it? Complexity is ok, but most users don't want it until they know they need it.
As long as the things that came with a computer do the job (like Windows), no one wants to bother changing. That's not idiocy, that's apathy.
Users need compelling reasons to change.
Most users do not care about our definitions of usability, the finer points of security, or the magic of a well-designed packaging system. The user wants to spend as little time as possible learning to accomplish what it is they set out to accomplish. If a user is already using Word, they have no compelling reason to change to OpenOffice. If a user is already familiar with Windows, they don't want to bother learning the difference between Windows and Linux. To them, it is a waste of time. There's nothing wrong with that.
My mother moved to Linux when she realized that all she does at home is use Firefox (which is basically no different on Linux) to surf the web, and that with Linux she would no longer need to pay for her AV subscription or for upgrades. Because she's on a budget, this was compelling to her. My mother-in-law uses the computer in the same way, but paying for upgrades doesn't concern her: it isn't worth it, to her, for the time she'd have to invest to re-learn. She'd rather read a new book.
Any user who isn't interested in computers for fun or profit is just using it to do things they do have fun with or profit by. These users would, obviously, rather spend time doing something fun or profitable than learning to change how they already do these things. Asking an author to give up writing time to convert from using Word on Windows to using OpenOffice on Linux will seem, to that user, to be pointless.
Moving to Linux
>If you believe that there are forms of authority you should always obey, you might be stupid. I'm glad you said 'might be'. I tend to beleive that I should always obey laws based on universal constants. For this reason, I never drive faster than c.
Granted violence in media is not necessarily the cause, but it might be a contributor, and California is taking a stand and that's to be applauded, despite the fallout.
It's fairly dangerous to pass laws based on things that "might be" true. Especially when we're talking about restricting someone's freedom to enjoy art. Like it or not, video games are art just as much as movies, books, or paintings. I tend to think that violence in media isn't a contributor toward our violent society, but another expression of it. Our society is violent, so our entertainment is violent. The Romans weren't a warrior culture because of the gladiators, they had gladiators because they were a warrior culture. You shouldn't pass laws to change culture.
I like the idea of banning violence to kids. I think a person mature enough to watch violence is mature enough to watch porn. If a kid can't handle sex, they shouldn't be expected to be able to handle watching murder either.
Unfortunatley, there are a couple of problems with this. First, let me say that I agree that someone old enough to see a graphic depiction of murder is old enough to view sex scenes. In fact, I'd rather have kids watching sex than watching people kill each other; but, that's personal.
First problem: when we say "violence", we aren't saying "murder". This isn't a video of someone being killed, it's an animation. Yes, they're getting more realistic, but most teenagers are perfectly capable of distinguishing between fantasy and reality. The comparison to porn breaks down a bit here, too, since porn really is people having sex (unless it's softcore, but I don't consider that "porn", really).
Second problem: this isn't based on "maturity", but on age. I know plenty of 30-year-olds that still giggle when they hear the word "penis", and I know 15-year-olds that have a more balanced, rational, and informed view of sex and violence than their parents. Kids just aren't as suggestible as so many people seem to think: we don't need to "protect" them from as much as we try to.
I always resent it when the state tries to "play the parent". I resent it more when it tries to do so without even a modicum of just cause. Just because lots of people "think" that violent media might cause problems, doesn't mean we should pass laws against it. Want to reduce violence in society? Join neighborhood watch, vote for politicians that support non-lethal response research (provides non-lethal countermeasures, and training, to police, reducing the need for fire-fights), and for those that support community programs that have been proved to reduce violence.
That's like saying people who look at kiddy porn are less likely to molest. I'd wager it validates their feelings and feeds it, rather than curbs it.
The difference, here, is that not all kids who play violent video games do so out of a deviant tendency towards violence. People who look at kiddy porn are already well into a deviant behavior, so the fantasy feeds on itself. At least, that's one theory -- the path from kiddy porn to molestation hasn't been firmly established. The reason kiddy porn is evil has a lot more to do with the children that are already being exploited to produce it than it does with the theory that it encourages molestation.
I will grant that a kid who already has a deviant tendency towards violence is probably not helped by playing violent video games, and I realize upon re-reading my post that I may have implied that. To clarify: overall, the existence of games that allow kids to release aggression in a healthy way, IMO, reduces the risk that those kids will be violent in inappropriate ways.
My core issue is that everyone wants to place the blame for violence on violent media, when its doubtful that the media actually causes any problems except for possibly inciting kids that already have unhealthy violent tendencies. Kids wanting to play a game where you blow stuff up doesn't automatically mean they are deviant. The blame only belongs in two places: with the kids themselves, and with the adults that so utterly fail to notice a child's obsession with violence that they feed it.
There's a real correlation between kids' watching violence and kids' violent behaviour.
In this case, I strongly suspect a third factor. Don't you think that kids with violent tendencies anyway would be more likely to seek out violent video games? Think about it: if I'm a kid that wants to hurt people, I'm likely to do it. I'm also likely to seek out ways of doing that in a fantasy environment, like a violent video game. But that doesn't mean the game caused my violent tendency -- it was a symptom.
Correlation does not causation make. There is a real correlation between domestic violence and ice-cream sales. Let's ban ice-cream! Of course, the third factor is the heat: heat tends to make people more agressive, and also tends to make them buy more ice cream. Of course, no one is banning ice-cream (or suggesting the need for publicly-funded air conditioning, for that matter).
In fact, I suspect that rather than causing violent behavior, playing a violent videogame can actually reduce the risk of violent behavior. Psychologists will often instruct agressive patients to channel their violent tendencies into acceptable behaviors to "burn off" their agression in an appropriate manner. This can be exercise, etc. -- but often can be moderated forms of violence like football, martial arts, etc. So, why not FPS games?
I find it somewhat offensive to ban something on a mere suggestion that it's connected with something undesirable. It's not really different than people who want to ban the HPV vaccine on the premise that it encourages promiscuity; making connections based on correlation and assumption alone is a dark path.
Are you seriously arguing that the violence depicted in the bible may be also encourage violence in readers?
No, the point of these kinds of statements is to demonstrate the narrow view so many proponents of limiting depictions of sex and violence continue to hold. The Bible is picked out because many of said proponents purport to be Christians, and claim that their Christian values are behind the drive to limit access to the "horrible images" and the like.
Unfortunately for them, they don't realize that the very book they choose to live their life by, and which they claim is encouraging them to support legislation to limit violence and sex in the media, is itself filled with the very imagery they are trying to repress.
I'll put it this way: if someone were to make a complete and accurate video game of the Bible, it would be banned under the rules these primarily-Christian advocates propose. Many of us think that's ridiculous, even if we have no issue with the Bible or Christian beliefs prima facie.
Most of this conversation has centered around protecting servers; the "average users" of servers should be competent admins, and all of these things are within their purview.
>So when my mother, who uses her computer for playing bridge online and printing e-mail pictures of her granchildren buys a new printer, you think she should have to recompile her kernel.
There is a huge difference between user-space drivers like printers and mice and kernel-space drivers like IDE chipsets and video drivers. Your mom is unlikely to need kernel-space drivers.
>Are you going to pay for a full computer science program at a good university for her so she can even understand that idea.
Oh, please. I have my mother running Linux, and it took very little time for me to explain all that she really needed to know about running and administering it. Kernel recompiles to add kernel-space drivers could be made stupid-simple:
Of course, I'd not recommend actually doing things this way, but implementing systems to allow easy signing and kernel-level signature-checking of modules would accomplish most of the same things for the end user.
I'm not rebutting anything, I'm explaining why people feel the way they do. You say "symantec provided numbers, facts and figures", but my point is that they didn't. They pointed to a single metric which does not provide a compelling or complete picture. I'm not rebutting their report, I'm dismissing it for its poor quality; and, I would do so regardless of what their findings had been.
Your post is nothing but heresay and what you would like to believe true.
My post is what I believe to be true based on my experience. It is not what I'd like to believe to be true -- the simple fact is that Symantec/news.com are merely hyping a finding without supporting it. Their report was simply devoid of any information that would allow anyone to make a reasoable choice. It's bad reporting, therefore I distrust their conclusion.
My ultimate point, which you seem to be missing, is that people who want to make a decision should consider all the factors. If someone considers all of them and IE turns out to be more secure, great! I'd re-evaluate using it. There's a far cry between the pipe dreams that the OP is spouting and people, like me, who are skeptical of a report that contains no evidence or useful information.
Feh. I wouldn't stand up and say that any Mozilla product is "flawless" by any stretch. We're talking, though, about relative security. There are a few things to consider in the equation:
Keep in mind that when I say "bug" above, I'm referring to security-related problems only.
Now, I'm not paid enough to do a detailed analysis of all of these factors, and so I will admit that I'm at least partly speculating. However, I'd say that even though Firefox falls short of IE on the first 3, it tends to outperform IE on the last few.
Add to that pretty decent stacks of anecdotal evidence; I have family members that had malware issues that disappeared after converting to Firefox, and reappeared when returning to IE. I read and hear many such stories on a regular basis. Granted, anecdotal evidence is not hard evidence, but it give me a "gut feeling".
This "gut feeling" that Firefox is more secure is shared by many knowledgeable people. Because of this, any report that suggests the opposite should be rigorous in presenting evidence. The core issue here is that Symantec and News.com failed to provide compelling evidence to counter the prevailing opinion. Firefox gets the benefit of the doubt until someone can present a clear argument why it shouldn't.
Attacking accepted wisdom is a wonderful thing -- but doing so in such a shoddy manner gives it the stink of "spin", or "hype reporting" at best.
What you are missing is that it doesn't matter. If you have a CSS-aware browser, you can simply turn the entire annoying section off, move it, or change the way it flows to make it more navigable.
Lynx-compatiblity just isn't important anymore, because even readers for the blind are more feauture-compatible than lynx. If reading the web in a text console is that important w3m or links work just wonderfully.
Who cares? Three main groups:
People with disabilities prefer CSS because it allows them to trivally alter layout and visual presentation in a way that works for them. For example, some people have trouble seeing low-contrast presentations; they can insert their own CSS into a CSS-aware page to make any site readable.
The folks who pay for the bandwidth tend to like CSS because it costs less to serve (properly implemented, that is). CSS separates style from content, so the style can be cached while smaller content pages are tranferred on request. This makes a better end-user experience and costs less to provide.
Developers and designers like CSS because it follows the excellent practice of separating view from data. It's easier for a developer to make changes to the underlying code because they worry less about breaking the view; likewise, a designer can make layout tweaks without affecting other areas of code. Clean separation makes fewer bugs.
I have a wife, and I don't worry about this. I figure one of three things will happen:
Why does this freak everyone out so much? I mean, you certainly have the right to your privacy, and if you think the skin that lies under your clothes is a private matter, then so be it. But, why is it a private matter?
Remember, we aren't talking about nakedness — this isn't a bathroom stall camera — we're talking about someone seeing someone else in their underwear. What's private, your bellybutton? I don't think I would have married someone who felt their privacy was being invaded because someone saw her undies.
The loss of people's right to privacy is a scary thing, but what scares me more is that our society hasn't progressed beyond this idea that skin is somehow shameful, wrong, or private. And that we have a double standard to boot: when it's IP we're talking about, then we rail about how we are depriving people of something, but when it comes to privacy (another mythical construct) suddenly we aren't harming them. Or vice-versa, depending.
It'd require some deep thought, but initially I'd say that yes, it is possible that I'd consume products that were derived from an animal, so long as it was humane, sterile, and non-harmful to the animal.
;-)
I hear many ethical vegans say this, but it has always piqued my curiosity: why not choose to eat free-range, locally-raised, certified organic animal products? For example, I buy my milk from the local co-op, which acquires it from a local free-range organic farm: the cows are milked because they have given birth to calves which will be raised for breeding stock (males) or replacement producers (female). When their cows are unable to safely produce offspring, they are sold for the beef.
Would something like that cause you trouble?
I ask because I share many of the concerns that vegans express about the production of things like milk, eggs, and beef -- but my answer is to vote with my wallet and buy from producers that practice responsible and sustainable farming. As a bonus, the food usually tastes better, too, because there is a greater focus on quality as opposed to quantity.
you do eventually see things like a plain glass of milk or a block of cheese as pretty gross..which, if you think about it, they really are
You must be easily grossed out. I made cheese for a living, and still love the product (tasty). Though, I learned two things: Velveeta is not cheese, it is a cheese food product and thoroughly disgusting; and soaking cheese in italian dressings is not only bad marketing, but creates a horrific smell when it goes bad.
Oh sure, accept it for a session, but when the session ends, the cookie is deleted automatically
/.), you can choose to Allow. Sites like doubleclick, you can choose to Deny.
In the "Cookies" section of the "Privacy" panel in Firefox options, you can set the "Keep Cookies" dropdown to "Ask me every time". When you do this, a site attempting to set a cookie will trigger a dialog box, where you can choose to Allow, Deny, or Allow for Session. By clicking a checkbox on that dialog, you can remember your decision for a domain.
By doing that, session cookies are kept until you close your browser, but no longer. Sites you want to allow to set cookies (like