Google is giving access to StreetView (and pretty much every other service) to EVERYONE. This is NOT the same as some big-brother, 1984 scenario.
Don't you think you would change your mind, maybe just a little bit, if all the surveillance cameras in the UK had a website that allowed you to view everyone, just like the "watchers" ?
My problem is, and always has been, that certain people think they are "higher above" others. That's why you get the classic public "surveillance", where a select few watchers have access to all of the cameras, and no one else.
But what if everyone had access to it? I would be totally for that. It would even the playing field. Not that there's any game to play, but at least we have access to the same technology the big-brother "watchers" had, and that makes me feel like I'm not so much under a microscope, but part of a community.
Google Street Views is NOT the one to attack. Google is doing everything the right way - they're giving us ALL access to information. Isn't that what we want??
I don't know about you, but it's been a LONG time since I got any porno pop-ups or redirections during regular web usage. Years, in fact. I think the thing is, people who WANT to find porn, WILL find porn. Those who aren't interested in searching for/looking at porn, really won't.
The only exception I can think of is spam, which is completely different than what they're trying to do here anyway.
Responsibility lies with YOU, not with those who wish to host a porn site, for legitimate reasons.
People need to stand up for what they believe in. If people didn't care about others knowing who they voted for, they'd
1) Be able to verify votes much more accurately due to any number of 3rd party voting verification mechanisms (think after-you-get-home vote checksum websites)
2) Do away with this whole scam regarding "Is a voting machine secure or not?" because people would be able to TELL if their vote counted or not
3) Probably get a bit more self confidence and esteem, knowing that they can stand up for what they believe in and who they voted for. I'm so sick of people backlashing, saying "What if your boss finds out you voted for someone he didn't like, he'd fire you / give you a pay decrease / kick your ass"...I call bullshit. There are PLENTY of laws regarding harassment and discrimination for this. As long as people weren't so pushed into being secretive about voting for a presidential candidate, maybe these elections wouldn't be widely rumored to be flawed on a fundamental level.
I'm all for voting machines - but you need to MAKE SURE your vote gets counted - and sometimes that requires you tell more than the machine who you voted for - because, as we've all seen in the past, sometimes voting machines "forget".
Why dual boot?? This is going to completely dissolve the OLPC project. It's going to get too complicated, people are going to start asking fundamental questions about the project, and it's going to die.
Good job M$, you sank a great project and stifled the adoption of computers in 3rd world countries. You've effectively reversed your role as a contributer to the world of technology.
Well, then I specifically challenge all those who have had great experiences with Sears to come forth and vocalize them. It's up to them to prove the point of Sears being an ethical corporation, rather than a spyware-installing, customer-jipping, employee-thrashing blob of firey yellow snot.
Glad to see your response. You're right, there are always two sides to a story, and your post proves it.
Just so happens that you're the only one who's counter-balanced so far. That would lead me to believe that there are many more negative stories about Sears than not...until other people decide to speak up, of course.
My dad worked for Sears as an appliance repair tech for 25+ years. The stories he's told me about their tracking their employees, their customer "service" practices, sales approaches, etc... is just plain wrong. He was constantly intimidated by "the boss" to perform better or he would be fired (even though he was the top performing tech in the area). It was nothing but stress for him and I wish he had never worked for them.
Now he works for a small appliance/TV repair shop, and he absolutely loves it. Just another reason to flip the bird to big corporations - they don't care about people, they care about money. The spyware installation on their own customers' computer systems is just one small example.
I really hate how this article summary is written. I *love* my eee. It's tiny. I take it everywhere. I don't worry about a hard drive crash (it's an SSD). I don't care that it's a slower system, I use it as an Internet/troubleshooting machine. It's plenty fast. I hacked Xandros to put Gnome on it, and it works great! I'd definitely recommend the eee to people, Linux gurus and novices - the default GUI is damn simple to operate, and it's still Xandros (Debian-based) underneath.
Check out www.eeeuser.com if you want to get the real story.
With respect to standards and interoperability, our goal in developing Internet Explorer 8 is to support the right set of standards with excellent implementations and do so without breaking the existing web.
Soooo... since you have created a community of non-standard web development practices in an otherwise open and standards-based world-wide community, you still feel like you should defend those who followed you in your path of non-standard lock-inery. No thanks. Suck it up and admit you made a big mistake by painting yourself into a corner.
This second goal refers to the lessons we learned during IE 7. IE7's CSS improvements made IE more compliant with some standards and less compatible with some sites on the web as they were coded.
Actually, that sounds exactly like your first goal. "As they were coded" really means "As they were coded to work with our non-standards-based web browser". Again, suck it up and just promise to follow the rules of the community, and we might actually start to respect you a bit more.
Many sites and developers have done special work to work well with IE6, mostly as a result of the evolution of the web and standards since 2001 and the level of support in the various versions of IE that pre-date many standards. We have a responsibility to respect the work that sites have already done to work with IE.
I'd like to hear about the 'pre-dated standards' you speak of. Most likely, You're talking about practices you implemented in IE that wandered from existing standards, which maybe became stabilized post-M$ implementation. You can't defend non-standardization by blaming the standards for being STANDARDS. If you break standards that everyone is supposed to adhere to, its YOUR fault, NOT those who didn't embrace your specific practices as their own, personal standards.
We must deliver improved standards support and backwards compatibility so that IE8 (1) continues to work with the billions of pages on the web today that already work in IE6 and IE7 and (2) makes the development of the next billion pages, in an interoperable way, much easier. We'll blog more, and learn more, about this during the IE8 beta cycle."
How about just making IE8 as standards-based as the other players in the field instead of feeling like you are required to ween your followers from your own sour milk?
As far as I'm concerned, the underlying goal is (and always has been for M$) in the very $ at the end of M$ that has become so popular for many. You can't mask the underlying motive with excuses like what you have given.
Suck it up and play by the rules, or you'll eventually be kicked out of the game.
If I read the summary correctly, they have shown (to a limited extent) that EVEN our perception of time does NOT change during such events. What they concluded therefore is that our MEMORY is more to blame for compositing (AFTER the fact) an apparent slowdown or speedup of time during the event....Which would make complete sense, since during an extraordinary experience such as a car wreck, or being a victim in a bank robbery, you would repeatedly parse your memory for information regarding the event (to process it, I'm guessing). This would create the illusion that each tiny detail of the event somehow took more time than it actually did, since you're paying so much more attention to it.
I dunno, I'm just talking out my ass. =p Although I can speak from experience.
The Google business model is to gather as much information as possible about people on the Internet and then sell it to marketing companies and governments
You have to admit that, compared to pretty much all other billion dollar corporations out there, Google is one of the most true to Slashdot's ideals (keep everything open).
You can complain about their purchase of YouTube, their ads in the sidebar for google.com, GMail's vulnerabilities, trying to capitalize on a wireless spectrum auction, etc. etc. etc...
I haven't found one thing yet to make me want to *truly* hate Google. The fact is, yes - they *are* a for-profit company. BUT, that doesn't mean they are evil. Everyone has to make money, and making a sh*tload of money isn't so bad if you think about it, either. You just have to keep your morals and business ethics in check while you do so.
AFAIK, Google has done that thus far. Nobody pays to upload to YT, text-ads in google.com are completely unintrusive by design, all manmade software has vulnerabilities at one point or another, and...well I sure would love to make a lot of money, too. Doesn't mean you have to sell your soul to do it.
Even though I am a technical support/consulting micro-business (READ: one man), I am incredibly motivated by the nature of open source. I'm motivated enough to make it my #1 priority for my business, to bring it to more and more people.
I'm currently undergoing a major project (for me, anyway) involving LTSP in education, and I would *gladly* give some of my profit back, especially for bug fixing specific issues that I run into, as well as general profit-sharing with the people who work on LTSP. I am making money off of open source, and I feel it only honest and right to share it with those who have worked so hard to make it what it is today.
Why would you consider that the deal is sour? I'm sure the people making this deal are at least a bit aware of what the laptops will require as far as support, infrastructure, etc... If my mom can set up a wireless AP, I'm sure an IT guy in Alabama can. I mean, seriously.
Giving laptops to kids for education == GOOD. Being skeptical due to political reasons == GOOD too, but I think, in this case, there's not a whole lot to be skeptical over. We're talking about education, not voting machines.
Just kidding. But aside from all of the complaints about this here (which I don't quite understand), wouldn't everyone agree that HAVING a laptop is better than NOT having a laptop? Wouldn't we all be able to agree that having access to a global Internet community is better than NOT having it? We are allowing more and more human beings to tap into a collective grid, to exchange ideas, thoughts and knowledge. I have no idea how some could see this as bad or unnecessary.
For the majority of videos that I watch, anyway, I'm not concerned about video quality (unless it's unbearably bad).
YouTube started because people wanted to share their independently made videos. With the recent news of Opera/other high-profile media stars, more blingbling style stuff, etc... it seems YT is losing sight of what their community built them up to be.
Slashdot Mirror
Or, with most dumb$*@&s who like to play off photoshopped images as real,
$ strings pic.jpg | grep -i photoshop
Google is giving access to StreetView (and pretty much every other service) to EVERYONE. This is NOT the same as some big-brother, 1984 scenario.
Don't you think you would change your mind, maybe just a little bit, if all the surveillance cameras in the UK had a website that allowed you to view everyone, just like the "watchers" ?
My problem is, and always has been, that certain people think they are "higher above" others. That's why you get the classic public "surveillance", where a select few watchers have access to all of the cameras, and no one else.
But what if everyone had access to it? I would be totally for that. It would even the playing field. Not that there's any game to play, but at least we have access to the same technology the big-brother "watchers" had, and that makes me feel like I'm not so much under a microscope, but part of a community.
Google Street Views is NOT the one to attack. Google is doing everything the right way - they're giving us ALL access to information. Isn't that what we want??
I don't know about you, but it's been a LONG time since I got any porno pop-ups or redirections during regular web usage. Years, in fact. I think the thing is, people who WANT to find porn, WILL find porn. Those who aren't interested in searching for/looking at porn, really won't.
The only exception I can think of is spam, which is completely different than what they're trying to do here anyway.
Responsibility lies with YOU, not with those who wish to host a porn site, for legitimate reasons.
But I think this is f*cking disgusting. How can anyone with a clear conscience develop this to control its own kind?
Oh wait, it's the DOD. They have no conscience.
I say again, this is f*cking disgusting.
Thank you.
People need to stand up for what they believe in. If people didn't care about others knowing who they voted for, they'd
1) Be able to verify votes much more accurately due to any number of 3rd party voting verification mechanisms (think after-you-get-home vote checksum websites)
2) Do away with this whole scam regarding "Is a voting machine secure or not?" because people would be able to TELL if their vote counted or not
3) Probably get a bit more self confidence and esteem, knowing that they can stand up for what they believe in and who they voted for. I'm so sick of people backlashing, saying "What if your boss finds out you voted for someone he didn't like, he'd fire you / give you a pay decrease / kick your ass"...I call bullshit. There are PLENTY of laws regarding harassment and discrimination for this. As long as people weren't so pushed into being secretive about voting for a presidential candidate, maybe these elections wouldn't be widely rumored to be flawed on a fundamental level.
I'm all for voting machines - but you need to MAKE SURE your vote gets counted - and sometimes that requires you tell more than the machine who you voted for - because, as we've all seen in the past, sometimes voting machines "forget".
Why dual boot?? This is going to completely dissolve the OLPC project. It's going to get too complicated, people are going to start asking fundamental questions about the project, and it's going to die.
Good job M$, you sank a great project and stifled the adoption of computers in 3rd world countries. You've effectively reversed your role as a contributer to the world of technology.
FUCK!
Well, then I specifically challenge all those who have had great experiences with Sears to come forth and vocalize them. It's up to them to prove the point of Sears being an ethical corporation, rather than a spyware-installing, customer-jipping, employee-thrashing blob of firey yellow snot.
1 2 3 POST!
Glad to see your response. You're right, there are always two sides to a story, and your post proves it.
Just so happens that you're the only one who's counter-balanced so far. That would lead me to believe that there are many more negative stories about Sears than not...until other people decide to speak up, of course.
My dad worked for Sears as an appliance repair tech for 25+ years. The stories he's told me about their tracking their employees, their customer "service" practices, sales approaches, etc... is just plain wrong. He was constantly intimidated by "the boss" to perform better or he would be fired (even though he was the top performing tech in the area). It was nothing but stress for him and I wish he had never worked for them.
Now he works for a small appliance/TV repair shop, and he absolutely loves it. Just another reason to flip the bird to big corporations - they don't care about people, they care about money. The spyware installation on their own customers' computer systems is just one small example.
I really hate how this article summary is written. I *love* my eee. It's tiny. I take it everywhere. I don't worry about a hard drive crash (it's an SSD). I don't care that it's a slower system, I use it as an Internet/troubleshooting machine. It's plenty fast. I hacked Xandros to put Gnome on it, and it works great! I'd definitely recommend the eee to people, Linux gurus and novices - the default GUI is damn simple to operate, and it's still Xandros (Debian-based) underneath.
Check out www.eeeuser.com if you want to get the real story.
Telling someone the punchline of a joke after they beat you to it.
With respect to standards and interoperability, our goal in developing Internet Explorer 8 is to support the right set of standards with excellent implementations and do so without breaking the existing web.
Soooo... since you have created a community of non-standard web development practices in an otherwise open and standards-based world-wide community, you still feel like you should defend those who followed you in your path of non-standard lock-inery. No thanks. Suck it up and admit you made a big mistake by painting yourself into a corner.
This second goal refers to the lessons we learned during IE 7. IE7's CSS improvements made IE more compliant with some standards and less compatible with some sites on the web as they were coded.
Actually, that sounds exactly like your first goal. "As they were coded" really means "As they were coded to work with our non-standards-based web browser". Again, suck it up and just promise to follow the rules of the community, and we might actually start to respect you a bit more.
Many sites and developers have done special work to work well with IE6, mostly as a result of the evolution of the web and standards since 2001 and the level of support in the various versions of IE that pre-date many standards. We have a responsibility to respect the work that sites have already done to work with IE.
I'd like to hear about the 'pre-dated standards' you speak of. Most likely, You're talking about practices you implemented in IE that wandered from existing standards, which maybe became stabilized post-M$ implementation. You can't defend non-standardization by blaming the standards for being STANDARDS. If you break standards that everyone is supposed to adhere to, its YOUR fault, NOT those who didn't embrace your specific practices as their own, personal standards.
We must deliver improved standards support and backwards compatibility so that IE8 (1) continues to work with the billions of pages on the web today that already work in IE6 and IE7 and (2) makes the development of the next billion pages, in an interoperable way, much easier. We'll blog more, and learn more, about this during the IE8 beta cycle."
How about just making IE8 as standards-based as the other players in the field instead of feeling like you are required to ween your followers from your own sour milk?
As far as I'm concerned, the underlying goal is (and always has been for M$) in the very $ at the end of M$ that has become so popular for many. You can't mask the underlying motive with excuses like what you have given.
Suck it up and play by the rules, or you'll eventually be kicked out of the game.
Now where will people get OpenOffice???
Oh wait.
The "power" button is always there for you to push...problem solved.
Not sure where you were going with your reply, but I thought it was self-transforming machine elves..? =)
If I read the summary correctly, they have shown (to a limited extent) that EVEN our perception of time does NOT change during such events. What they concluded therefore is that our MEMORY is more to blame for compositing (AFTER the fact) an apparent slowdown or speedup of time during the event. ...Which would make complete sense, since during an extraordinary experience such as a car wreck, or being a victim in a bank robbery, you would repeatedly parse your memory for information regarding the event (to process it, I'm guessing). This would create the illusion that each tiny detail of the event somehow took more time than it actually did, since you're paying so much more attention to it.
I dunno, I'm just talking out my ass. =p Although I can speak from experience.
The Google business model is to gather as much information as possible about people on the Internet and then sell it to marketing companies and governments
I'd like to see proof of this...
It's not every day a Unix sig makes me laugh out loud. Thanks. =p
You have to admit that, compared to pretty much all other billion dollar corporations out there, Google is one of the most true to Slashdot's ideals (keep everything open).
You can complain about their purchase of YouTube, their ads in the sidebar for google.com, GMail's vulnerabilities, trying to capitalize on a wireless spectrum auction, etc. etc. etc...
I haven't found one thing yet to make me want to *truly* hate Google. The fact is, yes - they *are* a for-profit company. BUT, that doesn't mean they are evil. Everyone has to make money, and making a sh*tload of money isn't so bad if you think about it, either. You just have to keep your morals and business ethics in check while you do so.
AFAIK, Google has done that thus far. Nobody pays to upload to YT, text-ads in google.com are completely unintrusive by design, all manmade software has vulnerabilities at one point or another, and...well I sure would love to make a lot of money, too. Doesn't mean you have to sell your soul to do it.
Even though I am a technical support/consulting micro-business (READ: one man), I am incredibly motivated by the nature of open source. I'm motivated enough to make it my #1 priority for my business, to bring it to more and more people.
I'm currently undergoing a major project (for me, anyway) involving LTSP in education, and I would *gladly* give some of my profit back, especially for bug fixing specific issues that I run into, as well as general profit-sharing with the people who work on LTSP. I am making money off of open source, and I feel it only honest and right to share it with those who have worked so hard to make it what it is today.
Sun FTW!
Give them time.
Why would you consider that the deal is sour? I'm sure the people making this deal are at least a bit aware of what the laptops will require as far as support, infrastructure, etc... If my mom can set up a wireless AP, I'm sure an IT guy in Alabama can. I mean, seriously.
Giving laptops to kids for education == GOOD. Being skeptical due to political reasons == GOOD too, but I think, in this case, there's not a whole lot to be skeptical over. We're talking about education, not voting machines.
Our XO laptop Alabamalords!
Just kidding. But aside from all of the complaints about this here (which I don't quite understand), wouldn't everyone agree that HAVING a laptop is better than NOT having a laptop? Wouldn't we all be able to agree that having access to a global Internet community is better than NOT having it? We are allowing more and more human beings to tap into a collective grid, to exchange ideas, thoughts and knowledge. I have no idea how some could see this as bad or unnecessary.
For the majority of videos that I watch, anyway, I'm not concerned about video quality (unless it's unbearably bad).
YouTube started because people wanted to share their independently made videos. With the recent news of Opera/other high-profile media stars, more blingbling style stuff, etc... it seems YT is losing sight of what their community built them up to be.