Having your documents online is more convenient and more secure....It is more secure because most at home users computers are riddled with virus's and spyware.
If your home PC is not secure, then any document you access using it, is not secure either. If an attacker has control of your machine he can get
access to anything your webbrowser is accessing, too.
In case that hasn't made the market small enough, the price is around EU 599 (~$720).:-)
A quick search will find many news articles featuring the jacket (and similar ones from other manufacturers) but no indication where you can buy it. I suspect you can't really.
Actually, I think it's somewhat surprising that a woman thought of this. To quote from the article: Safety and usefulness were uppermost in Rosanna Kilfidder's mind.
Now if you look at handbags, they come in many shapes or sizes, but if you wanted to pick the two features which have the least bearing for handbag fashion, you'd probably end up with the two which Ms Kilfidder picked.:-)
For clothing and accessories, people don't consider extra gimmicks like this, just like no-one buys jackets with integrated mp3 players. The focus for the design of these items is primarily to make the wearer look better. A slightly differently placed seam or the right label has a higher importance than some technology feature.
Don't see how that matters - assuming the animals are not trained to kill anyway, what's the advantage for "some other nation" to get their hands on them? I don't think there is a dolphin shortage, so they could just plainly catch some random dolphins and train them.
Yeah, once we believe that, we might as well believe that out of the thousands of miles of US coastline, they'd built a city below sea level and prone to flooding; they weren't smart enought to evacuate their citizens before the hurricane; they didn't bother to stockpile food and other supplies or to provide adequate shelter.
Ok, I concede that your point about the dolphins being armed 24-7 is good, but I don't think mere incompetence and inertia qualifies for the "unlikely" status...
Similarly monotheism is the result of a power struggle. The power of a priest is proportional not only to his position in the hierarchy, but also to the imagined power of the god he serves. Priests of other gods are a competition, so he'll try to advertise his god as the most powerful and downgrade the other gods. The best position is reached once his god is the only god and omnipotent. This way Ra became the only god of Egypt (for a little while).
People do not want new different IM clients or email or web editors or office suites or whatever, people want THE software their are used to use. Unless the other "new" software is identical to the old software they used to use they wont use it.
Depends - once you have acquired some friends who use ICQ, some others who use MSN and some more using AOL or Yahoo.... you really appreaciate a IM client like kopete or gaim which can handle all the protocols in one interface.
Also a lot of people are fed up with the severe security issues in Windows. Not to claim that Linux is all secure and bug free, it's not. However the severity of these issues is neclegible in comparison to the Windows issues of the last two years or so. A frequent Windows user won't have that problem, but someone like my dad who only goes online once every other week finds it a real problem. If you are online that infrequently you just miss the important fixes and your machine might be compromised before you have a chance to do something about it. That's why he decided to switch to Linux for internet access, while keeping most of his office-type applications on the Windows partition.
While I see your point about the ads, and don't like Flash-based navigation, I really like flash movies. It's an incredibly democratic way to create art, and quite good art at times.
That's forbidding *black-box* reverse-engineering. Sure, no decompiling, etc... but they're saying that if you use the software as intended, to run a Flash file, but you're keeping track of what it looks like, you're violating their agreement. Wow.
What surprises me is that there is no professional standard among lawyers in this regard. It seems many lawyers are perfectly happy to put all sorts of invalid clauses in legal documents, you'd think with half the world's lawyers in one country, they'd at least be able to regulate themselves. Instead they burden society with all sorts of legal nonsense.
During the centuries, women were treated differently as men - that's true - however they weren't ever treated as "a lesser human", quite to the contrary, a women's life was regarded to be worthy a lot more than the life of a man.
Well, for some time they weren't allowed to own property, to vote etc. Sure it was nice to give them priority on lifeboats, but that doesn't negate the fact that in most areas of life they were treated as being incompetent to handle their own affairs, and their opinion considered to be irrelevant. If you treat someone like a child, is that treating him like a lesser human? Might depend on your definition of "lesser", but most people I know would not like that treatment, no matter what you call it.
At least in the european societies, that just isn't true for at least 2000 years.
In the last 2000 years European societies have changed wildly, at some point most of Europe was part of a Roman society, Spain had a muslimic dominated culture etc. For some of those societies it might be pretty hard to even define what role women played in them, it certainly doesn't make much sense to lump them all together...
What if all the studios agreed to a salary cap for stars?
Then the stars could go independent and make their movies without the studios. Or they could take two jobs producer/actor or director/actor etc and sidestep this.
The problem is, if all the studios agree but one, then this studio can get the stars for salary cap + $1. Makes it cheaper for them to get the stars, and all the other studios lose out. So they in turn would leave the agreement, start to offer more again and so on... You really have the very basics of a market economy working against your plan.
Also - lots of people watch a movie solely because actor X is in it. So from a market perspective, an actor can demand that much, because a movie in which he stars earns that much. I don't see how you could get around this unless you use massive government regulation, and in this case it would be easy to circumvent these regulations. Not to talk of just producing the movie outside of the US. Ireland is a good place for that - artists don't pay taxes there. (Strangely a lot more movies play in Dublin as one might expect for such a tiny country.)
I think a better way might be to give more weight to who writes the movie - give the script writers more visibility, then maybe people might be more willing to chose the movie they want to see according to the writer, rather than the actor. I wouldn't count on that though.
Other than that, the studios will just have to invest a bit more, just hire better writers and hope the influx of better movies will lift up the market and increase revenues in the long term. Hey here is an idea: they could use the money they spend lobbying in Washington on that instead...
But the basics my parents learned are more relevant today than ever - reading and writing and arithmatic should be the core studies required for all students. Add in history, language (especially for those of us in the US who think English is the only language), PE and an artistic course and that's a sound core curriculum. All of this can be taught without tech. Teach the buggers how to talk, write, and think.
Reading, writing and artihmatic? How long do they need to be in school for this?
What sort of job does the curriculum you suggest prepare you for? Working the cash register at MacDonalds and taking food orders in Spanish? Or do you want to send them to college so they can become lawyers?
Sorry, but you live in a high-tech society and all you want to teach kids about science is some maths basics?
There is one thing I'm still not sure about reagarding MAC-filtering. If you have just one allowed MAC address and the computer which actually owns that MAC address is already connected, can you still connect with another computer, or will the frames which both computers send interfere with each other?
He calls it stealing. He assumes it's not ok with them.
Their AP was telling him that it was OK to connect.
It's ok with their access point, but that's not communication with a person. Most people don't know how to configure APs properly, he assumes that's the case with his neighbours.
If lots of (deliberately) open APs exist, and you connect to one of them assuming that it's ok, nobody can blame you for that. However deliberately connecting to an AP which you assume is only open due to misconfiguriation sucks.
Perhaps because he had no way of knowing who the owners were or where they were?
If you check further up this thread - he knows who the owners are. He just decided not to ask. He assumes it's not ok with them. Ever heard of a cell phone tower which the owners don't want you to connect to? If not the analogy is not so good.
But the Wifi login *is* the electronic proxy for the person. It *is* where the person gets to say whether its OK to come in or not.
I agree. However people don't configure their hardware correctly - we know this, right? So when our computer connects to their network we are not really sure that this is ok to them. In fact, this guy in the story apparently assumed that they didn't like it as he was trying to hide the fact that he was accessing their network when they were around.
On the other hand when our phone connects to the mobile tower we are actually sure that this is ok.
I don't think the internet has to change to accomodate all newbies. A certain procedure was agreed upon and newcomers ought to learn about this and follow it. However using something assuming that the owner doesn't want you to, is still morally wrong. I wouldn't use an AP assuming that the owner wouldn't want me to.
He did not ask them. If he believed they'd be ok with it he probably would have asked and probably gotten permission.
For some reason he chose not to ask. Why? I guess that's because he assumes they wouldn't agree. If you use something assuming that the owner doesn't want you to - well that's bad manners.
It doesn't have to have a date if it's just going into someone's safe (it's not like the FBI can raid Google China's headquarters).
Nevertheless it should be ridiculously easy for MS to prove that this person does indeed work for Google. A private detective should do the trick, or just some testimony from a secretary working for Google China. And then Google might face some more severe problems. Quite apart from the forged accounts which would be involved in your plan and which likely would come to light.
I agree. What's inside a person's brain should belong to that person. The idea that companies are trying to establish property rights on the contents of some person's brain are scary - this is something the law should protect us from.
If someone wants to be the sole owner of some knowledge they can do that by doing the work involved by themselves. If someone employs another person to do the work, he should have to accept that the knowledge gained by that person belongs to that person.
US inmate population is in the 1 million range isn't it?
About 2.1 million according to the
International Centre for Prison Studies
The prison population rate is 726 / 100,000 in comparison Germany has 96 / 100,000. The population there is 82.6 million, so in order to get to the same rate, Germany would have to imprison (726-96) / 100,000 * 82.6 million = 520,380 people (more than 6 times the number imprisoned there now).
A minimum requirement for that to be ethical would be that they hired you without any previous experience in the field you are working for.
What I think is ethical is if you are paid for the work you do, and the company gets to keep the results of your work. What's in your brain obviously belongs to you.
Slashdot Mirror
If your home PC is not secure, then any document you access using it, is not secure either. If an attacker has control of your machine he can get access to anything your webbrowser is accessing, too.
In case that hasn't made the market small enough, the price is around EU 599 (~$720). :-)
A quick search will find many news articles featuring the jacket (and similar ones from other manufacturers) but no indication where you can buy it. I suspect you can't really.
Now if you look at handbags, they come in many shapes or sizes, but if you wanted to pick the two features which have the least bearing for handbag fashion, you'd probably end up with the two which Ms Kilfidder picked. :-)
For clothing and accessories, people don't consider extra gimmicks like this, just like no-one buys jackets with integrated mp3 players. The focus for the design of these items is primarily to make the wearer look better. A slightly differently placed seam or the right label has a higher importance than some technology feature.
Don't see how that matters - assuming the animals are not trained to kill anyway, what's the advantage for "some other nation" to get their hands on them? I don't think there is a dolphin shortage, so they could just plainly catch some random dolphins and train them.
Ok, I concede that your point about the dolphins being armed 24-7 is good, but I don't think mere incompetence and inertia qualifies for the "unlikely" status...
Similarly monotheism is the result of a power struggle. The power of a priest is proportional not only to his position in the hierarchy, but also to the imagined power of the god he serves. Priests of other gods are a competition, so he'll try to advertise his god as the most powerful and downgrade the other gods. The best position is reached once his god is the only god and omnipotent. This way Ra became the only god of Egypt (for a little while).
Doubt it - they might be able to pull that off legally, but it would hurt them politically. So in all likelyhood they'll just ignore the whole thing.
So did he find any penguins in Norway yet? :-)
Depends - once you have acquired some friends who use ICQ, some others who use MSN and some more using AOL or Yahoo.... you really appreaciate a IM client like kopete or gaim which can handle all the protocols in one interface.
Also a lot of people are fed up with the severe security issues in Windows. Not to claim that Linux is all secure and bug free, it's not. However the severity of these issues is neclegible in comparison to the Windows issues of the last two years or so. A frequent Windows user won't have that problem, but someone like my dad who only goes online once every other week finds it a real problem. If you are online that infrequently you just miss the important fixes and your machine might be compromised before you have a chance to do something about it. That's why he decided to switch to Linux for internet access, while keeping most of his office-type applications on the Windows partition.
Dragging the CD icon to the trashcan? I don't think I do that on the PC, actually. :-)
While I see your point about the ads, and don't like Flash-based navigation, I really like flash movies. It's an incredibly democratic way to create art, and quite good art at times.
What surprises me is that there is no professional standard among lawyers in this regard. It seems many lawyers are perfectly happy to put all sorts of invalid clauses in legal documents, you'd think with half the world's lawyers in one country, they'd at least be able to regulate themselves. Instead they burden society with all sorts of legal nonsense.
Well, for some time they weren't allowed to own property, to vote etc. Sure it was nice to give them priority on lifeboats, but that doesn't negate the fact that in most areas of life they were treated as being incompetent to handle their own affairs, and their opinion considered to be irrelevant. If you treat someone like a child, is that treating him like a lesser human? Might depend on your definition of "lesser", but most people I know would not like that treatment, no matter what you call it.
At least in the european societies, that just isn't true for at least 2000 years.
In the last 2000 years European societies have changed wildly, at some point most of Europe was part of a Roman society, Spain had a muslimic dominated culture etc. For some of those societies it might be pretty hard to even define what role women played in them, it certainly doesn't make much sense to lump them all together...
Then the stars could go independent and make their movies without the studios. Or they could take two jobs producer/actor or director/actor etc and sidestep this.
The problem is, if all the studios agree but one, then this studio can get the stars for salary cap + $1. Makes it cheaper for them to get the stars, and all the other studios lose out. So they in turn would leave the agreement, start to offer more again and so on... You really have the very basics of a market economy working against your plan.
Also - lots of people watch a movie solely because actor X is in it. So from a market perspective, an actor can demand that much, because a movie in which he stars earns that much. I don't see how you could get around this unless you use massive government regulation, and in this case it would be easy to circumvent these regulations. Not to talk of just producing the movie outside of the US. Ireland is a good place for that - artists don't pay taxes there. (Strangely a lot more movies play in Dublin as one might expect for such a tiny country.)
I think a better way might be to give more weight to who writes the movie - give the script writers more visibility, then maybe people might be more willing to chose the movie they want to see according to the writer, rather than the actor. I wouldn't count on that though.
Other than that, the studios will just have to invest a bit more, just hire better writers and hope the influx of better movies will lift up the market and increase revenues in the long term. Hey here is an idea: they could use the money they spend lobbying in Washington on that instead...
Reading, writing and artihmatic? How long do they need to be in school for this? What sort of job does the curriculum you suggest prepare you for? Working the cash register at MacDonalds and taking food orders in Spanish? Or do you want to send them to college so they can become lawyers?
Sorry, but you live in a high-tech society and all you want to teach kids about science is some maths basics?
They claim it was charity though. Of course, if they deduct the list price, they are actually earning a lot of money on that deal, too.
There is one thing I'm still not sure about reagarding MAC-filtering. If you have just one allowed MAC address and the computer which actually owns that MAC address is already connected, can you still connect with another computer, or will the frames which both computers send interfere with each other?
He calls it stealing. He assumes it's not ok with them.
Their AP was telling him that it was OK to connect.
It's ok with their access point, but that's not communication with a person. Most people don't know how to configure APs properly, he assumes that's the case with his neighbours.
If lots of (deliberately) open APs exist, and you connect to one of them assuming that it's ok, nobody can blame you for that. However deliberately connecting to an AP which you assume is only open due to misconfiguriation sucks.
If you check further up this thread - he knows who the owners are. He just decided not to ask. He assumes it's not ok with them. Ever heard of a cell phone tower which the owners don't want you to connect to? If not the analogy is not so good.
I agree. However people don't configure their hardware correctly - we know this, right? So when our computer connects to their network we are not really sure that this is ok to them. In fact, this guy in the story apparently assumed that they didn't like it as he was trying to hide the fact that he was accessing their network when they were around.
On the other hand when our phone connects to the mobile tower we are actually sure that this is ok.
I don't think the internet has to change to accomodate all newbies. A certain procedure was agreed upon and newcomers ought to learn about this and follow it. However using something assuming that the owner doesn't want you to, is still morally wrong. I wouldn't use an AP assuming that the owner wouldn't want me to.
For some reason he chose not to ask. Why? I guess that's because he assumes they wouldn't agree. If you use something assuming that the owner doesn't want you to - well that's bad manners.
Nevertheless it should be ridiculously easy for MS to prove that this person does indeed work for Google. A private detective should do the trick, or just some testimony from a secretary working for Google China. And then Google might face some more severe problems. Quite apart from the forged accounts which would be involved in your plan and which likely would come to light.
If someone wants to be the sole owner of some knowledge they can do that by doing the work involved by themselves. If someone employs another person to do the work, he should have to accept that the knowledge gained by that person belongs to that person.
About 2.1 million according to the International Centre for Prison Studies The prison population rate is 726 / 100,000 in comparison Germany has 96 / 100,000. The population there is 82.6 million, so in order to get to the same rate, Germany would have to imprison (726-96) / 100,000 * 82.6 million = 520,380 people (more than 6 times the number imprisoned there now).
A minimum requirement for that to be ethical would be that they hired you without any previous experience in the field you are working for.
What I think is ethical is if you are paid for the work you do, and the company gets to keep the results of your work. What's in your brain obviously belongs to you.