Funny you should mention that. When people ask me about falling off the roof, they assume I had to have been drinking. Sadly, I had only prepared to drink (on the roof), and had yet to begin. I later learned from the doctor that had I been drunk during the fall, I wouldn't have instinctually tried to break the fall with rigid arms, and instead I would have been fine.
The moral of the story is, if you're going to fall, try to have a few drinks in you first.
I thought that too. Besides, if it really was that deep, the pressure would crush those giant fish swimming around. Considering the ease the fish have in moving through the water, my guess is the pressure isn't that great, and therefore it's not really that deep.
The Gungans are pretty stupid, and it makes more sense that they would call a water cave "the planet core" then it to actualy be a planet core.
And oddly enough, I fell 8 feet from the edge of my roof onto soft grass, and ended up shattering my wrist into over a dozen peices. That was 6 years ago and it still bugs me.
My guess is that if I was Skywalker, I would have survived the 50 foot drop just long enough to bankrupt me and my family with medical bills before the doctors gave up.
It was outside in the building's courtyard. My neighbor had just left his apartment, so it wasn't lit before he gave it to me, and moreover, I simply wasn't paying attention.
I also remembered that I have, in fact, smoked weed recently, in September of 2004. In Vancouver at the Amsterdam Cafe, which was (supposed) to be a recreation of the hash bars found in Amsterdam (I couldn't say either way, since I've never been to Holland). I took two good hits (which was enough to floor me), mainly because I just wanted to enjoy the novelty of being able to do it in public without fear of breaking the law (later I discovered it was against the law, it just wasn't enforced). I suppose when (or if) it becomes perfectly legal in the U.S. I'll go out and buy a joint, again just for the novelty of it.
I also bought some Codeine during the trip (just to have some available in case I hurt myself, which does happen from time to time) and I don't have to go through the time and expense of seeing a doctor and jump through the hoops to convince him to give me something a little more powerful then aspirin. I later discovered there was a limit to how much you could bring across the border, which I exceeded. So now, if I was put up against a truth machine, I'd have to admit that in addition to being a junky and a thief, I'm also an international drug smuggler.
But realistically it's not an issue of being illegal that stops me. It's easy to get and in California being found with the stuff garners a 'slap on the wrist' punishment akin to a speeding ticket. It's one of those things, like binge drinking, that most people grow out of.
Last summer, there was as a piece on This American Life about a man going through a lie detector test as part of the process of obtaining a security clearance. Everything went fine until they started asking about child pornography. The guy freely admitted that he looked at porn, but he conceded that at some point, inadvertently during one of his porn viewing sessions there might have been an under aged person in one of the pictures. He didn't know for sure either way, but since he suspected that it was probable that in all the pornographic pictures he's seen an underage person was present at some point, he couldn't answer the question "Have you ever looked at child pornography?" with a definite "no", and in the end received no clearance and had answered questions in such a way that made him out to be a pedophile, despite the fact that the worst thing he did was look at porn too much.
The problem with a purely 100% accurate 'truth telling' system is that it's too easy to neglect to measure intent or look at grey areas, especially when one freely admits to a minor infringement of the law or policy which put them inadvertently in a worst position. For example, in my younger days, from 1992 to 1996 I used to smoke marijuana on a pretty regular basis. I don't think it's a bad thing, and even though I don't do it anymore (I just don't feel like it) I have no issues with telling anyone who asks about it. Despite it being against the law, I don't see it any more dangerous then exceeding the speed limit by 10 mph or jaywalking.
However, nearly 7 years ago I returned to my apartment one night from a particularly difficult day at work. One of my neighbors offered me a pipe of what I assumed was marijuana, which I accepted. I took a long draw on it, and noticed it didn't taste anything like what I was used to (and for that matter, didn't look right burning in the bowl). I said to my neighbor 'this is some really weird weed', to which he replied 'It's not weed, it's crack'. I don't even know if it got me 'high', I was so pissed off. I spent the next 4 or 5 hours in a fit of rage walking around the block. I never spoke to that neighbor again. To me, this was a big deal.
And now, if somebody put me through any 'truth' machine, and asked me about drug use, I'd have to say that I have, in fact, smoked crack. A device like this combined with specifically directed questions could easily paint me as a real junky, even though I'm not and I have some pretty strong feelings about the harder, more dangerous drugs like cocaine or heroin, and even though I haven't smoked (nor have desired to smoke) marijuana in over two years.
I would hope, though suspect that it won't come to pass, that certain measures would be put in place that would look at intent or degree before reaching a conclusion. If I was asked 'have you ever stolen anything', the answer would be yes. 26 years ago, when I was 5 years old, I took a matchbox car from a local supermarket without paying for it. I still feel guilty about it, and haven't stolen anything since. If absolutes were used and I was obliged to be completely honest, I'd end up being thief in addition to being a junky.
No man or woman is compleatly without sin, and without looking at intent a machine like this could be used to make anyone look like a monster.
I remember reading that many years back. If I recall correctly, they ended up putting people through a 'truth test' whenever they wanted to get married or have a child. Questions would be asked about a number of things in your criminal past.
The product has been developed. The R&D has been completed. With time, it's reasonable to expect that the per-unit cost for manufacture has gone down. Why stop? I could see Sony stop all new development on the products to save money, but as long as there's a demand for the units at a price point somewhere above the per-unit cost of building the things, which seems reasonable, why stop it?
Heck, even if it turns out to be a wash on the books, it still helps build brand recognition in the consumer robot market.
There's been dozens of articles on Slashdot dealing with the subject before, and the editors here are right in expecting most of their readers don't need it explained. It would be difficult to find anyone who's interested in technology that doesn't know what the Aibo is. That you don't know is fine; everyone started from zero at some point, just some are a little behind the curve. If you're unfamiliar with a term, look it up (this is how people learn). But don't expect the world to slow down because you don't know.
I sleep well at night not worrying about privacy concerns or any of the other issues that are out there, and it helps me live in the modern age.
The first is to live an exceedingly dull life. My cell phone records, if anyone bothered to pay for them, would provide a list of short calls to other dull people, usually to arrange meetings to do dull things such as 'play skee ball' or 'watch star trek'. If someone wanted to invade my privacy, the would end up spending hours on end trying to figure out what I was hiding, because nobody's life is that boring. The jokes on them, because mine is.
The second is to have an abysmal credit rating. Go ahead and steal my identify. Trust me, you won't be getting any credit cards using *my* name.
The third is to have completely bizar purchasing habits. If you want to collect market data on me, fine. You'll think your computers, which approximate consumer behavior are broken with me. It's not that I try hard to be weird, it's just that, well, I'm going to purchase a DVD of Bergman's 'Wild Strawberries' in the same order as 'Dude, Where's My Car', and you'll jut have to live with it.
So go ahead, steal my data. Take my information. I'm just going to make your magin of error bigger.
Why tell us that bad info is being posted without telling us what the bad info is?
I thought the same thing. I think some people enjoy knowing more then others, and enjoy pointing that fact out. These people don't like to share that information with others, because hey, why bring everyone up to her level?
It might work, but I can't see any of the industries--with their current mindset--going for it without adding so much crud to the distribution method that any advantages are lost.
In their mind, downloading from the Internet is only acceptable if the industry controls exactly how it's downloaded, how it's stored, and how it's played. I just can't see them saying "okay, you have 2 tickets. Go ahead and download a divx movie to your hard drive, so you can enjoy it using your favorite media player at your own leisure. We hope you like it and choose to purchase the DVD at a later time."
I think it would more likely be "okay, you have 2 tickets. Go ahead and enter pages of personally identifiable information so we can beef up our marketing databases. We're going to need a credit card number in case you decide you like the movie; we want to make it easy for you to buy direct from us. Make sure you click 'I agree' to a 10 page document filled with legalese which, among other things, grants us license to send you spam for the rest of your life and declares you are willing to suspend your participation on the national do not call list and receive calls from telemarketers whom we have 'special 3rd party partnership agreements' with.
Still with us? Great! Now download our "Free super movie player (based on Real Networks technology, the number one media player in the world!)". Make sure you click 'yes' to agree to the terms on that software, since it'll have to install a number of spyware programs on your system to run properly . . . for some reason. Got it? Fantastic! You're almost done.
Now, go ahead and select a movie to download. You can watch this movie up to three times within the next 48 hours, using our special "Free super movie player". After 48 hours are up, you'll have to remove the movie from the hard drive. The Free super movie player will do it for you automatically if you forget."
The part that irks me is that as outrageous as the above sounds, It's all plausible in the current environment.
When I read the "MS flight simulator" bit, my screwball alert went off too. I thought 'What's next? Should we ban Mavis Beacon teaches typing because it helps train virus writers to type faster?'
The shame is that there doesn't seem to be any rational force out there watchdoging video games. I don't have kids, but when I get them I'd like to have a good resource to look towards to see if somthing is really bad. That does not mean censorship. As a full grown adult I don't want to be told what I can and cannot buy because there's a chance a child might be adversly effected by it. Give me the tools to help me direct what's good for my child and what isn't.
But instead I hear so called "parent's groups" getting bent out of shape over the "hot coffee" scandle. What, they're somehow shocked that a game that overtly promotes killing, drugs, prostitution, theft, gang warfare, gambling and dozens of other immoral and illegal activities that happens to also include nudity if you modify the game? As if any reasonable parent out there would think all of the bad things the game advertises would be alright for thier kids but the sex part isn't. The game isn't for kids. Period.
Any group who can't understand the difference can not be counted on to help parents out.
The 'Big Charts' doesn't have an obvious way to compare (I'm probably missing something), but the latest real data I have shows GE has an overall market value of $328.54b compared to Microsoft's $287.02b. Annual sales for GE is $134.19b, nearly a hundred billion dollars more then Microsoft's $34.27. Finally, GE's overall assets are suppposed to hold a value of $626.93b next to Microsoft's $85.94. That's a difference of roughly $540,990,000,000!!. Now that's walking around money.
There are dozens of ways to compare company size. You could look at the numbers I used above show that GE is much larger then MS. You could use number of employees (which GE would tromp MS at). I'm sure that you could find a stat that shows MS being larger then GE, but in general MS is nowhere close to being in GE's league.
It's all well and good that those who have widely read online journals are being given treatment traditionally reserved for regular journalists. For the most part, the online journal has few trappings that plague conventional news outlets. Having no established organization above them--organizations with political agendas or obligations to advertisers--the men or women writing these online journals need only answer to themselves, need only to worry about their own personal reputation, and their readers are generally assured that whatever they read is the unmolested words and opinions of the author.
On the other hand, the online journal writer is not bound by any of the ethical constraints of the traditional journalist. With only his or her own reputation on the line, there is no larger organization to compel them to strive towards objectivity. The online journal can ultimately be counted on to be a source of opinion (at times an extremely well informed one, but an opinion nonetheless), and shouldn't be thought of as a viable replacement of traditional news.
Imaging if half the cars on the 405 in LA suddenly slowed to less than a quarter of the speed limit and THEY were panicking because they are as confused as they guy coming up behind them.
One possibility is that the barrier of aesthetic conservativism will be bypassed only once the size gets down to the point where it really is vanishingly small-- where a pair of sunglasses (or a necklace, or a bracelet, or a ring) with a computer in it is indistinguishable from one without. The computers will simply disappear, and the state of the art for most people in wearable computing will be whatever level is the latest to be effectively vanished.
I wonder about this. Portable electronics (cell-phones, PDAs) were once looked at as status symbols regardless of how ugly they were. A businessman holding up a plastic brick sized cell phone in 1988 was thought of as someone important). All one had to do to make a statement was call attention to his or her big ugly toy.
Today, with personal electronics cheap and available to everyone, where a cell phone is a necessity instead of a luxury (instead of "oh cool my company is giving me a cell phone" it's "Dangit! My company is making me carry a cell phone"), I can see people starting to view unobtrusive electronics as a luxury item, and in a roundabout way even a status symbol, where the line between the haves and have-nots is defined by how encumbered they are with visible wires and gadgets. Who knows? In another 10 years we might be saying "Look at that business man. I can't se a cell phone. He must be somebody important!t"
I suppose it all depends on your definition of expensive. A quick search for bulk discount Lego blocks puts them at about $0.05 each; not high until you consider the block is nothing more then a tiny colored bit of molded plastic that probably cost a quarter of a penny to manufacture. If you go with one of their boxed kits, the price jumps up significantly on the price-per-block scale.
Sell Lego blocks at 1 or 2 cents each, and I'd probably get back into the hobby in a big way. Until then, it's just too pricey for me. As it stands, to start out with enough Legos to build anything significant, you're talking around $100 for something that cost them ~$5 to make.
I know that eventually I'll have to bite the bullet and lay out a few C notes for Lego blocks when the kids get old enough to play with them without trying to eat them. Yes, I did it when I was a kid, yes I was stupid (still am), and yes it hurts something awful. I wonder if there isn't a few bits of plastic still inside my stomach or intestines that have lasted 25 years. How long does it take for plastic to degrade when surrounded by stomach acid?. Regardless of the cost, it'd be cruel and a mark of an unfit parent if I denied my children one of the coolest toys out there.
The second EULA is not intended for redundancy; it's there to explicitly inform the user if a piece of software is going to do something beyond what the user expects it to do that may potentially harm the person and/or his or her computer.
When a piece of software is obtained, be it downloaded or purchased in physical media, a user has an expectation as to what that software should do. While in the process of installing that software, a user should be able to continue with the confidence that he or she will be explicitly informed if said software will do something beyond what its basic description claims it does. When they are faced with an EULA, they should be confident that the EULA is dealing exclusively with the standard liability protections you mentioned above, knowing that hidden deep within the legalese of the EULA are statements granting license for the software to perform nefarious tasks.
Unless I am interested in copying, archiving or distributing the software, or I am concerned with what rights I am afforded if a problem arises under the normal operation of the software while it is performing its expected tasks, I shouldn't have to spend 20 minutes to an hour with my lawyer sitting next to me.
When I'm talking about the second EULA, I'm talking about a separate, direct and simple window that informs the user of any feature of a piece of software that goes beyond the expected limits of the software's expected function.
Take, for example, a game similar to "Pac-Man". A user could reasonably expect this game to use the CPU, Hard Drive and memory in the normal execution of the its functions. It's expected it would access the video/graphics and audio hardware so the game's images could be displayed and game sound could be played. It also might access and/or create libraries for the sole purpose of facilitating game play. All of these things are required for a game to operate, and a user can reasonably expect that these features of his or her computer would be accessed in the normal operation of the game.
Logging a user's keystrokes, internet surfing habits, or other personal or private information and sending that information off via the Internet is not something a user would expect a game to do. Nor is installing another piece of software that has nothing to do with playing the game. Same goes for a plug-in that alters the function of pre-existing software.
In other words, anything that extends the function of that software--our 'Pac-Man' game--beyond simply playing 'Pac-Man' should be considered in this case as 'malicious' (or, if it makes people feel better, 'potentially malicious'). These are the things that would fit into the second EULA. This way, there is no confusion on the users end of what installing the software will do.
If somebody wants to program a Pac-Man game that installs spyware (say, in order to help fund the development of the game), a user is made explicitly aware that in order to play this game, the spyware is going to be installed. In order to make sure the user is made aware that the spyware is going to be installed, he must click a box in the second EULA saying 'I understand spyware will be installed which has nothing to do with playing this game'.
I don't know. When I was a little kid I ran DOS 3.3 on my Apple ][e, and yet now, 25 years later I use windows as my primary OS and have no desire to go back.
The point being, chances are that in 25 years when all those kids grow up there won't be an OSX. There probably won't be a 'mac' as we know it today. A whole heck of a lot can happen in 25 years in terms of computers.
The remaning $20 million will be paid out in "Microsoft Fun Bucks", little blue and green notes with pictures of smiling MS execs on them. These can be used to purcahse certian Microsoft products, food at the MS headquarters cafeteria and items at the MS giftshop.
At current rates, $20 million in MS fun bucks can purchase 4 force feedback joysticks, a copy of 'Age of Empries, 10 Microsoft branded tote bags and a dozen MS ballpoint pens. With enough left over for a cheese and mushroom omlet at the cafeteria.
The standard EULA is long, dull, and filled with legalese. The problem, as I see it, is that this gives software vendors the chance to hide malicious intent deep withen the contents of the EULA which customers can not reasonabily be expected to read.
I'd like to see law be written that requires a second part of the EULA, in it's own sepearte 'click yes to continue' box that outlines anything the software or service does that users may find questionable. It should be written in plain, simple words that outlines the potential for more malicious uses, and requires a user to click a 'yes I understand' next to each item.
For example:
EULA PART II: THIS SOFTWARE MAY/WILL DO THE FOLLOWING. PUT AN 'X' NEXT TO EACH BULLET STATING YOU UNDERSTAND THE INTENT BEFORE CONTINUING
[ ] o This software will collect personally identifible information and send it to third parties [ ] o This software will access your email contact lists and send them to third parties [ ] o This software will log your keystrokes and sufring habits and send them to third parties [ ] o This software does not have an easy 'uninstall' feature [ ] o This software will destroy data on your hdd [ ] o This software will install additional programs on your computer that has nothing to do with this software
PUT AN 'X' IN THE BOX NEXT TO EACH STATEMENT STATING YOU UNDERSTAND AND CLICK YES TO CONTINUE BEFORE SOFTWARE IS INSTALLED.
Slashdot Mirror
I always thought it ran VMS.
I don't have a good reason. It just seems like that's what the Empire would use.
Funny you should mention that. When people ask me about falling off the roof, they assume I had to have been drinking. Sadly, I had only prepared to drink (on the roof), and had yet to begin. I later learned from the doctor that had I been drunk during the fall, I wouldn't have instinctually tried to break the fall with rigid arms, and instead I would have been fine.
The moral of the story is, if you're going to fall, try to have a few drinks in you first.
I thought that too. Besides, if it really was that deep, the pressure would crush those giant fish swimming around. Considering the ease the fish have in moving through the water, my guess is the pressure isn't that great, and therefore it's not really that deep.
The Gungans are pretty stupid, and it makes more sense that they would call a water cave "the planet core" then it to actualy be a planet core.
I watched the famed 'Lucas Film' frame by frame. Back and to the left. Back and to the left. . .
The shot Guido made just doesn't look right. I suspect foul play.
And oddly enough, I fell 8 feet from the edge of my roof onto soft grass, and ended up shattering my wrist into over a dozen peices. That was 6 years ago and it still bugs me.
My guess is that if I was Skywalker, I would have survived the 50 foot drop just long enough to bankrupt me and my family with medical bills before the doctors gave up.
It was outside in the building's courtyard. My neighbor had just left his apartment, so it wasn't lit before he gave it to me, and moreover, I simply wasn't paying attention.
I also remembered that I have, in fact, smoked weed recently, in September of 2004. In Vancouver at the Amsterdam Cafe, which was (supposed) to be a recreation of the hash bars found in Amsterdam (I couldn't say either way, since I've never been to Holland). I took two good hits (which was enough to floor me), mainly because I just wanted to enjoy the novelty of being able to do it in public without fear of breaking the law (later I discovered it was against the law, it just wasn't enforced). I suppose when (or if) it becomes perfectly legal in the U.S. I'll go out and buy a joint, again just for the novelty of it.
I also bought some Codeine during the trip (just to have some available in case I hurt myself, which does happen from time to time) and I don't have to go through the time and expense of seeing a doctor and jump through the hoops to convince him to give me something a little more powerful then aspirin. I later discovered there was a limit to how much you could bring across the border, which I exceeded. So now, if I was put up against a truth machine, I'd have to admit that in addition to being a junky and a thief, I'm also an international drug smuggler.
But realistically it's not an issue of being illegal that stops me. It's easy to get and in California being found with the stuff garners a 'slap on the wrist' punishment akin to a speeding ticket. It's one of those things, like binge drinking, that most people grow out of.
Last summer, there was as a piece on This American Life about a man going through a lie detector test as part of the process of obtaining a security clearance. Everything went fine until they started asking about child pornography. The guy freely admitted that he looked at porn, but he conceded that at some point, inadvertently during one of his porn viewing sessions there might have been an under aged person in one of the pictures. He didn't know for sure either way, but since he suspected that it was probable that in all the pornographic pictures he's seen an underage person was present at some point, he couldn't answer the question "Have you ever looked at child pornography?" with a definite "no", and in the end received no clearance and had answered questions in such a way that made him out to be a pedophile, despite the fact that the worst thing he did was look at porn too much.
The problem with a purely 100% accurate 'truth telling' system is that it's too easy to neglect to measure intent or look at grey areas, especially when one freely admits to a minor infringement of the law or policy which put them inadvertently in a worst position. For example, in my younger days, from 1992 to 1996 I used to smoke marijuana on a pretty regular basis. I don't think it's a bad thing, and even though I don't do it anymore (I just don't feel like it) I have no issues with telling anyone who asks about it. Despite it being against the law, I don't see it any more dangerous then exceeding the speed limit by 10 mph or jaywalking.
However, nearly 7 years ago I returned to my apartment one night from a particularly difficult day at work. One of my neighbors offered me a pipe of what I assumed was marijuana, which I accepted. I took a long draw on it, and noticed it didn't taste anything like what I was used to (and for that matter, didn't look right burning in the bowl). I said to my neighbor 'this is some really weird weed', to which he replied 'It's not weed, it's crack'. I don't even know if it got me 'high', I was so pissed off. I spent the next 4 or 5 hours in a fit of rage walking around the block. I never spoke to that neighbor again. To me, this was a big deal.
And now, if somebody put me through any 'truth' machine, and asked me about drug use, I'd have to say that I have, in fact, smoked crack. A device like this combined with specifically directed questions could easily paint me as a real junky, even though I'm not and I have some pretty strong feelings about the harder, more dangerous drugs like cocaine or heroin, and even though I haven't smoked (nor have desired to smoke) marijuana in over two years.
I would hope, though suspect that it won't come to pass, that certain measures would be put in place that would look at intent or degree before reaching a conclusion. If I was asked 'have you ever stolen anything', the answer would be yes. 26 years ago, when I was 5 years old, I took a matchbox car from a local supermarket without paying for it. I still feel guilty about it, and haven't stolen anything since. If absolutes were used and I was obliged to be completely honest, I'd end up being thief in addition to being a junky.
No man or woman is compleatly without sin, and without looking at intent a machine like this could be used to make anyone look like a monster.
I remember reading that many years back. If I recall correctly, they ended up putting people through a 'truth test' whenever they wanted to get married or have a child. Questions would be asked about a number of things in your criminal past.
Scary stuff indeed.
The product has been developed. The R&D has been completed. With time, it's reasonable to expect that the per-unit cost for manufacture has gone down. Why stop? I could see Sony stop all new development on the products to save money, but as long as there's a demand for the units at a price point somewhere above the per-unit cost of building the things, which seems reasonable, why stop it?
Heck, even if it turns out to be a wash on the books, it still helps build brand recognition in the consumer robot market.
There's been dozens of articles on Slashdot dealing with the subject before, and the editors here are right in expecting most of their readers don't need it explained. It would be difficult to find anyone who's interested in technology that doesn't know what the Aibo is. That you don't know is fine; everyone started from zero at some point, just some are a little behind the curve. If you're unfamiliar with a term, look it up (this is how people learn). But don't expect the world to slow down because you don't know.
That's why no one would likely pay for your phone records.
Um . . . that's kinda the point.
Preemptive strike
I sleep well at night not worrying about privacy concerns or any of the other issues that are out there, and it helps me live in the modern age.
The first is to live an exceedingly dull life. My cell phone records, if anyone bothered to pay for them, would provide a list of short calls to other dull people, usually to arrange meetings to do dull things such as 'play skee ball' or 'watch star trek'. If someone wanted to invade my privacy, the would end up spending hours on end trying to figure out what I was hiding, because nobody's life is that boring. The jokes on them, because mine is.
The second is to have an abysmal credit rating. Go ahead and steal my identify. Trust me, you won't be getting any credit cards using *my* name.
The third is to have completely bizar purchasing habits. If you want to collect market data on me, fine. You'll think your computers, which approximate consumer behavior are broken with me. It's not that I try hard to be weird, it's just that, well, I'm going to purchase a DVD of Bergman's 'Wild Strawberries' in the same order as 'Dude, Where's My Car', and you'll jut have to live with it.
So go ahead, steal my data. Take my information. I'm just going to make your magin of error bigger.
Why tell us that bad info is being posted without telling us what the bad info is?
I thought the same thing. I think some people enjoy knowing more then others, and enjoy pointing that fact out. These people don't like to share that information with others, because hey, why bring everyone up to her level?
It might work, but I can't see any of the industries--with their current mindset--going for it without adding so much crud to the distribution method that any advantages are lost.
In their mind, downloading from the Internet is only acceptable if the industry controls exactly how it's downloaded, how it's stored, and how it's played. I just can't see them saying "okay, you have 2 tickets. Go ahead and download a divx movie to your hard drive, so you can enjoy it using your favorite media player at your own leisure. We hope you like it and choose to purchase the DVD at a later time."
I think it would more likely be "okay, you have 2 tickets. Go ahead and enter pages of personally identifiable information so we can beef up our marketing databases. We're going to need a credit card number in case you decide you like the movie; we want to make it easy for you to buy direct from us. Make sure you click 'I agree' to a 10 page document filled with legalese which, among other things, grants us license to send you spam for the rest of your life and declares you are willing to suspend your participation on the national do not call list and receive calls from telemarketers whom we have 'special 3rd party partnership agreements' with.
Still with us? Great! Now download our "Free super movie player (based on Real Networks technology, the number one media player in the world!)". Make sure you click 'yes' to agree to the terms on that software, since it'll have to install a number of spyware programs on your system to run properly . . . for some reason. Got it? Fantastic! You're almost done.
Now, go ahead and select a movie to download. You can watch this movie up to three times within the next 48 hours, using our special "Free super movie player". After 48 hours are up, you'll have to remove the movie from the hard drive. The Free super movie player will do it for you automatically if you forget."
The part that irks me is that as outrageous as the above sounds, It's all plausible in the current environment.
When I read the "MS flight simulator" bit, my screwball alert went off too. I thought 'What's next? Should we ban Mavis Beacon teaches typing because it helps train virus writers to type faster?'
The shame is that there doesn't seem to be any rational force out there watchdoging video games. I don't have kids, but when I get them I'd like to have a good resource to look towards to see if somthing is really bad. That does not mean censorship. As a full grown adult I don't want to be told what I can and cannot buy because there's a chance a child might be adversly effected by it. Give me the tools to help me direct what's good for my child and what isn't.
But instead I hear so called "parent's groups" getting bent out of shape over the "hot coffee" scandle. What, they're somehow shocked that a game that overtly promotes killing, drugs, prostitution, theft, gang warfare, gambling and dozens of other immoral and illegal activities that happens to also include nudity if you modify the game? As if any reasonable parent out there would think all of the bad things the game advertises would be alright for thier kids but the sex part isn't. The game isn't for kids. Period.
Any group who can't understand the difference can not be counted on to help parents out.
I guess it depends on what you define as "big"
The 'Big Charts' doesn't have an obvious way to compare (I'm probably missing something), but the latest real data I have shows GE has an overall market value of $328.54b compared to Microsoft's $287.02b. Annual sales for GE is $134.19b, nearly a hundred billion dollars more then Microsoft's $34.27. Finally, GE's overall assets are suppposed to hold a value of $626.93b next to Microsoft's $85.94. That's a difference of roughly $540,990,000,000!!. Now that's walking around money.
There are dozens of ways to compare company size. You could look at the numbers I used above show that GE is much larger then MS. You could use number of employees (which GE would tromp MS at). I'm sure that you could find a stat that shows MS being larger then GE, but in general MS is nowhere close to being in GE's league.
The EU is just trying to hurt the US economy by hurting the largest American company.
The EU is trying to hurt General Electric? First time I've heard of it, but if you say so . . .
But, okay. I'll bite. You've piqued my curiosity: What does GE have to do with Microsoft?
It's all well and good that those who have widely read online journals are being given treatment traditionally reserved for regular journalists. For the most part, the online journal has few trappings that plague conventional news outlets. Having no established organization above them--organizations with political agendas or obligations to advertisers--the men or women writing these online journals need only answer to themselves, need only to worry about their own personal reputation, and their readers are generally assured that whatever they read is the unmolested words and opinions of the author.
On the other hand, the online journal writer is not bound by any of the ethical constraints of the traditional journalist. With only his or her own reputation on the line, there is no larger organization to compel them to strive towards objectivity. The online journal can ultimately be counted on to be a source of opinion (at times an extremely well informed one, but an opinion nonetheless), and shouldn't be thought of as a viable replacement of traditional news.
Imaging if half the cars on the 405 in LA suddenly slowed to less than a quarter of the speed limit and THEY were panicking because they are as confused as they guy coming up behind them.
I believe those are called 'weekdays'
One possibility is that the barrier of aesthetic conservativism will be bypassed only once the size gets down to the point where it really is vanishingly small-- where a pair of sunglasses (or a necklace, or a bracelet, or a ring) with a computer in it is indistinguishable from one without. The computers will simply disappear, and the state of the art for most people in wearable computing will be whatever level is the latest to be effectively vanished.
I wonder about this. Portable electronics (cell-phones, PDAs) were once looked at as status symbols regardless of how ugly they were. A businessman holding up a plastic brick sized cell phone in 1988 was thought of as someone important). All one had to do to make a statement was call attention to his or her big ugly toy.
Today, with personal electronics cheap and available to everyone, where a cell phone is a necessity instead of a luxury (instead of "oh cool my company is giving me a cell phone" it's "Dangit! My company is making me carry a cell phone"), I can see people starting to view unobtrusive electronics as a luxury item, and in a roundabout way even a status symbol, where the line between the haves and have-nots is defined by how encumbered they are with visible wires and gadgets. Who knows? In another 10 years we might be saying "Look at that business man. I can't se a cell phone. He must be somebody important!t"
Lego isn't to [sic] expensive
I suppose it all depends on your definition of expensive. A quick search for bulk discount Lego blocks puts them at about $0.05 each; not high until you consider the block is nothing more then a tiny colored bit of molded plastic that probably cost a quarter of a penny to manufacture. If you go with one of their boxed kits, the price jumps up significantly on the price-per-block scale.
Sell Lego blocks at 1 or 2 cents each, and I'd probably get back into the hobby in a big way. Until then, it's just too pricey for me. As it stands, to start out with enough Legos to build anything significant, you're talking around $100 for something that cost them ~$5 to make.
I know that eventually I'll have to bite the bullet and lay out a few C notes for Lego blocks when the kids get old enough to play with them without trying to eat them. Yes, I did it when I was a kid, yes I was stupid (still am), and yes it hurts something awful. I wonder if there isn't a few bits of plastic still inside my stomach or intestines that have lasted 25 years. How long does it take for plastic to degrade when surrounded by stomach acid?. Regardless of the cost, it'd be cruel and a mark of an unfit parent if I denied my children one of the coolest toys out there.
The second EULA is not intended for redundancy; it's there to explicitly inform the user if a piece of software is going to do something beyond what the user expects it to do that may potentially harm the person and/or his or her computer.
When a piece of software is obtained, be it downloaded or purchased in physical media, a user has an expectation as to what that software should do. While in the process of installing that software, a user should be able to continue with the confidence that he or she will be explicitly informed if said software will do something beyond what its basic description claims it does. When they are faced with an EULA, they should be confident that the EULA is dealing exclusively with the standard liability protections you mentioned above, knowing that hidden deep within the legalese of the EULA are statements granting license for the software to perform nefarious tasks.
Unless I am interested in copying, archiving or distributing the software, or I am concerned with what rights I am afforded if a problem arises under the normal operation of the software while it is performing its expected tasks, I shouldn't have to spend 20 minutes to an hour with my lawyer sitting next to me.
When I'm talking about the second EULA, I'm talking about a separate, direct and simple window that informs the user of any feature of a piece of software that goes beyond the expected limits of the software's expected function.
Take, for example, a game similar to "Pac-Man". A user could reasonably expect this game to use the CPU, Hard Drive and memory in the normal execution of the its functions. It's expected it would access the video/graphics and audio hardware so the game's images could be displayed and game sound could be played. It also might access and/or create libraries for the sole purpose of facilitating game play. All of these things are required for a game to operate, and a user can reasonably expect that these features of his or her computer would be accessed in the normal operation of the game.
Logging a user's keystrokes, internet surfing habits, or other personal or private information and sending that information off via the Internet is not something a user would expect a game to do. Nor is installing another piece of software that has nothing to do with playing the game. Same goes for a plug-in that alters the function of pre-existing software.
In other words, anything that extends the function of that software--our 'Pac-Man' game--beyond simply playing 'Pac-Man' should be considered in this case as 'malicious' (or, if it makes people feel better, 'potentially malicious'). These are the things that would fit into the second EULA. This way, there is no confusion on the users end of what installing the software will do.
If somebody wants to program a Pac-Man game that installs spyware (say, in order to help fund the development of the game), a user is made explicitly aware that in order to play this game, the spyware is going to be installed. In order to make sure the user is made aware that the spyware is going to be installed, he must click a box in the second EULA saying 'I understand spyware will be installed which has nothing to do with playing this game'.
I hope that clears things up.
I don't know. When I was a little kid I ran DOS 3.3 on my Apple ][e, and yet now, 25 years later I use windows as my primary OS and have no desire to go back.
The point being, chances are that in 25 years when all those kids grow up there won't be an OSX. There probably won't be a 'mac' as we know it today. A whole heck of a lot can happen in 25 years in terms of computers.
The remaning $20 million will be paid out in "Microsoft Fun Bucks", little blue and green notes with pictures of smiling MS execs on them. These can be used to purcahse certian Microsoft products, food at the MS headquarters cafeteria and items at the MS giftshop.
At current rates, $20 million in MS fun bucks can purchase 4 force feedback joysticks, a copy of 'Age of Empries, 10 Microsoft branded tote bags and a dozen MS ballpoint pens. With enough left over for a cheese and mushroom omlet at the cafeteria.
The standard EULA is long, dull, and filled with legalese. The problem, as I see it, is that this gives software vendors the chance to hide malicious intent deep withen the contents of the EULA which customers can not reasonabily be expected to read.
I'd like to see law be written that requires a second part of the EULA, in it's own sepearte 'click yes to continue' box that outlines anything the software or service does that users may find questionable. It should be written in plain, simple words that outlines the potential for more malicious uses, and requires a user to click a 'yes I understand' next to each item.
For example:
EULA PART II:
THIS SOFTWARE MAY/WILL DO THE FOLLOWING.
PUT AN 'X' NEXT TO EACH BULLET STATING YOU UNDERSTAND THE INTENT BEFORE CONTINUING
[ ] o This software will collect personally identifible information and send it to third parties
[ ] o This software will access your email contact lists and send them to third parties
[ ] o This software will log your keystrokes and sufring habits and send them to third parties
[ ] o This software does not have an easy 'uninstall' feature
[ ] o This software will destroy data on your hdd
[ ] o This software will install additional programs on your computer that has nothing to do with this software
PUT AN 'X' IN THE BOX NEXT TO EACH STATEMENT STATING YOU UNDERSTAND AND CLICK YES TO CONTINUE BEFORE SOFTWARE IS INSTALLED.
It won't happen, but it'd be nice.