There is more to this than terrorism. This is basic counter-espionage.
Taking pictures of military and other government installations is a common first step to both detecting and planning an attack. Troop build-ups; armor, ship, and aircraft location and movement; the locations of guards, cameras, and other surveilence equipment; and other information can all be captured, transmitted, and analyzed.
As an example, the attack on Pearl Harbor was planned, in part, using pictures taken by Japanese tourists and immigrants.
The GP poster did not make a statement of opinion. He made a false statement of fact. Specifically, he stated that one must relearn to use Microsoft products whenever there is an upgrade to a Microsoft product. That is a blatant lie. There is often very little to be learned between versions of MS products. This latest change to the "ribbon" paradigm is the most challenging change I have seen in quite a while.
I really, really hate windows, and using it make me feel bad. I don't know exactly why.
That pretty much invalidates your entire comment. It shows your bigotry, or perhaps phobia would be more appropriate, towards Microsoft products and Windows in particular.
I have over 15 years experience with AT&T System V, HP-UX, Solaris, AIX, Windows 3.1, 9X, NT 4/4.5, 2k/2k3, XP/XPPro, Vista, Novell, and other, less popular systems. In that time, I have found all of them to be frustrating in some way, at various times.
To be honest, I find it hard to believe that a professional SA with over 19 years experience is so incompetent as to be unable to use the most popular consumer operating system, which is designed to be as easy to use as possible. Perhaps you are not as professional, accomplished, or capable as you believe you are.
"Of course, Windows XP has shown that it handles netbooks with aplomb, and works with the web best of all, thanks to having all the browsers, plug-ins, downloads and more you could ever want, something you just can't claim with good old Linux."
Really??? You have to laugh really.
Yes, Linux on netbooks is so much better than WinXP.
If XP works "with aplomb" why would there be any specific need to tweak Windows 7 for the purpose? Surely it's a case of "just keep swimming", since the path they'd be on would be the correct one.
A version specifically designed for a function is always better for that function than a general design. That is how it has been in the past and how it will be in the future, and is not limited to Windows or Microsoft. Also, WinXP works well on netbooks, but Vista doesn't because the different Vista versions were designed with higher hardware requirements in mind. I notice I don't see many Linux based netbooks running compbiz, for exactly the same reason.
Unfortunately, you seem to forget while MS may be loosing customers, both Windows and Linux are loosing customers to Apple. And, Linux's market share is not growing at "a substantial rate" in the desktop/consumer markets.
Every time I get a new version of Windows or Office at work my productivy goes through the floor because I have to learn to use the damned thing all over again, as it's more different from its earlier counterpart than from its competetion.
That blatant lie completely destroyed any credibility the rest of your post might have had.
As the "you" in your example is the government, choice "B" is irrelevant as the government can make code access a condition of deployment.
In other words, in choice "B", the government can say "If you want the contract, you will let our experts examine the code". In fact, thanks to the joys of anti-trust laws, the government has the right to inspect the code just for shits and giggles.
Your counterpoint is fallacious. You assert "it is obviously broken" but offer no proof other than people who have used the device in a manner that is proscibed by the manual.
The car-based DVD devices are ruggedized and designed to be used while in motion. The XBox360 was not designed to be used in motion, comes shipped with a label that says not to move it while in use, and has the same warning in the users manual.
To suggest that something is defective because it does not perform properly when being misused is disingenuous. You may as well suggest that a car is defective because it will not run when submerged in water.
The difference between your car DVD player and an XBox360 is that the car DVD player is designed to be mobile and thus move during operation and the XBox360 is designed to be stationary and thus not moved during operation.
In other words, you ignored the sticker that covered the drive when you unpacked the console, didn't read the directions, did something stupid that scratched your disk, and blame the console and MS.
If they're going for realism, then these guys should drop their weapon after a hit to leg, put their hands up, and you then lose points for killing them.
Yes, because every time someone is shot or injured, he drops his weapon and surrenders. Just like the Japanese did, and the Russians did, and the Vietnamese did, and the Filipinos did, and the Americans did and do, and our current enemies do.
*/sarcasm*
History is replete with examples of people fighting on after being shot. Some with minor wounds, others with horrific, fatal wounds who fought on as long as they could.
Maybe you should actually have a little knowledge and experience before you open your mouth, you weaselly, cowardly, pansy
That is right, I did say that. The monopoly exists for the betterment of the copyright holder. The copyright holder gets to decide what that is. Not you, shithead. You got that? Or do you need beaten into your fucking head?
I am swearinbg because I am frustrated with you and your ilk. You refuse to see that you do nott get to be the arbitars of what is best for the copyright holders. You have the mindsets of three year olds, "he world should revolve around me and what I want. Fuck what everyone else wants for themselves and what their rights are. Gimme Gimme Gimme." But, when someone does the exact fucking thing to you, you piss your collective pants, cry "No fair!" and throw a tantrum.
You want to quote the Constitution, maybe you should try quoting the whole sentence, you lying sack of shit:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; (emphasis added)
Oh, look, they use the word RIGHT. Congress grants a legal right to authors and inventors.
It was the right of fathers in ancient Rome to kill his child if he wanted to. Should we honor that "right" too?
Do we live in ancient Rome? No, we do not. Why would we honor a right that is not part of our laws and cultures? Maybe you shouldn't try such a pathetic red herring, shithead.
You don't have any right to other people's work.
On the contrary, they don't have the right to steal their work from the Public Domain!
1) One can not, by definition, steal from the Public Domain. 2) That statement makes no sense in relation to what I said. Works come into public domain in a number of ways, including but not limited to one giving up one's copyright and one's copyright expiring. You don't have any right to other people's copyrighted work until and unless that work passes into the public domain. There, happy now, dumbass?
I suggest you look a little closer, fuckwit. You assume that your ideology allows you to ignore the law and other people's rights. But then you use those same rights and laws, which you have decried other having and using, against other who do not share your ideology. That is hypocrisy in action.
You are not just an asshole, you are an ignorant, arrogant, self-righteous, hypocritical asshole.
I see you are resorting to the old tactic of putting words in other people's mouths. I said that the copyright holder has an exclusive right to his work, not that the purpose of the law is to benefit the copyright holder exclusively.
If you are going to lie, you may as well shut the fuck up now.
I have the argument that the law provides the copyright holder an exclusive monopoly, for a limited time, on his creation and he can do with that creation what he sees fit. The creation is solely his, as is the rights copy and/or sell the creation and the right to said creation.
What exactly is the copyright holder empowered to do, if not benefit from his creation as he sees fit? Is he only empowered to benefit others? That seems to be your argument, that copyright is only valid if the copyright holder only uses the copyright to benefit others.
Look, if you are going to be willfully stupid and refuse to recognize the law and its intent, maybe you should shut your hole, shithead.
Copyright holders of proprietary information (like the RIAA) try to prevent it from being free to modify and share without restriction, so we oppose them.
It is their right to do that. That is why it is called copyright. It gives the right to control the copying of a work to the holder. You don't like that companies use copyright against you to their benefit. You bitch and whine and decry copyright and copyright litigation and copyright holders defending their rights. Then, you turn around and use copyright against them to your benefit and talk about how great it is.
You talk about your rights to other people's copyrighted work. You don't have any right to other people's work.
Refusing to see your hypocrisy does not make the hypocrisy go away. That just makes you an asshole.
Slashdot Mirror
It is scary to you because you are a fool.
There is more to this than terrorism. This is basic counter-espionage.
Taking pictures of military and other government installations is a common first step to both detecting and planning an attack. Troop build-ups; armor, ship, and aircraft location and movement; the locations of guards, cameras, and other surveilence equipment; and other information can all be captured, transmitted, and analyzed.
As an example, the attack on Pearl Harbor was planned, in part, using pictures taken by Japanese tourists and immigrants.
The GP poster did not make a statement of opinion. He made a false statement of fact. Specifically, he stated that one must relearn to use Microsoft products whenever there is an upgrade to a Microsoft product. That is a blatant lie. There is often very little to be learned between versions of MS products. This latest change to the "ribbon" paradigm is the most challenging change I have seen in quite a while.
That pretty much invalidates your entire comment. It shows your bigotry, or perhaps phobia would be more appropriate, towards Microsoft products and Windows in particular.
I have over 15 years experience with AT&T System V, HP-UX, Solaris, AIX, Windows 3.1, 9X, NT 4/4.5, 2k/2k3, XP/XPPro, Vista, Novell, and other, less popular systems. In that time, I have found all of them to be frustrating in some way, at various times.
To be honest, I find it hard to believe that a professional SA with over 19 years experience is so incompetent as to be unable to use the most popular consumer operating system, which is designed to be as easy to use as possible. Perhaps you are not as professional, accomplished, or capable as you believe you are.
Neither Ubuntu nor Fedora are in a nice, neat, and most especially "familiar(to mainstream users, meaning Windows) package".
Yes, Linux on netbooks is so much better than WinXP.
Unfortunately, you seem to forget while MS may be loosing customers, both Windows and Linux are loosing customers to Apple. And, Linux's market share is not growing at "a substantial rate" in the desktop/consumer markets.
That blatant lie completely destroyed any credibility the rest of your post might have had.
Nothing to see? Good God man! Haven't you seen Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea?!?!
As the "you" in your example is the government, choice "B" is irrelevant as the government can make code access a condition of deployment.
In other words, in choice "B", the government can say "If you want the contract, you will let our experts examine the code". In fact, thanks to the joys of anti-trust laws, the government has the right to inspect the code just for shits and giggles.
All cone-shaped things gain +1 Christmassy in December. Didn't you know that?
Your counterpoint is fallacious. You assert "it is obviously broken" but offer no proof other than people who have used the device in a manner that is proscibed by the manual.
The car-based DVD devices are ruggedized and designed to be used while in motion. The XBox360 was not designed to be used in motion, comes shipped with a label that says not to move it while in use, and has the same warning in the users manual.
To suggest that something is defective because it does not perform properly when being misused is disingenuous. You may as well suggest that a car is defective because it will not run when submerged in water.
It is not an "extremely common destructive failure". It is someone being, like you, an idiot.
I suggest you take a reading comprehension course, because your comment indicates you desperately need one.
Sewage tubes, what else?
And pneumatic tubes were installed in large numbers, but they were stand-alone systems that serviced a single building or company.
The difference between your car DVD player and an XBox360 is that the car DVD player is designed to be mobile and thus move during operation and the XBox360 is designed to be stationary and thus not moved during operation.
I did tech support for Nokia. I have dealt with quite a few customers. And, I read the manual on all my equipment.
You mean aside from the sticker on the console and the statement in the manual, right?
There, fixed that for you.
Yeah, you are right. Consumers shouldn't be expected to read the manual and follow the directions. Why that is an insane concept.
And follow Microsoft's directions? NEVER!!!!!
In other words, you ignored the sticker that covered the drive when you unpacked the console, didn't read the directions, did something stupid that scratched your disk, and blame the console and MS.
Yes, because every time someone is shot or injured, he drops his weapon and surrenders. Just like the Japanese did, and the Russians did, and the Vietnamese did, and the Filipinos did, and the Americans did and do, and our current enemies do.
*/sarcasm*
History is replete with examples of people fighting on after being shot. Some with minor wounds, others with horrific, fatal wounds who fought on as long as they could.
Maybe you should actually have a little knowledge and experience before you open your mouth, you weaselly, cowardly, pansy
That is right, I did say that. The monopoly exists for the betterment of the copyright holder. The copyright holder gets to decide what that is. Not you, shithead. You got that? Or do you need beaten into your fucking head?
I am swearinbg because I am frustrated with you and your ilk. You refuse to see that you do nott get to be the arbitars of what is best for the copyright holders. You have the mindsets of three year olds, "he world should revolve around me and what I want. Fuck what everyone else wants for themselves and what their rights are. Gimme Gimme Gimme." But, when someone does the exact fucking thing to you, you piss your collective pants, cry "No fair!" and throw a tantrum.
You people are the absolute worst of humanity.
You want to quote the Constitution, maybe you should try quoting the whole sentence, you lying sack of shit:
Oh, look, they use the word RIGHT. Congress grants a legal right to authors and inventors.
Do we live in ancient Rome? No, we do not. Why would we honor a right that is not part of our laws and cultures? Maybe you shouldn't try such a pathetic red herring, shithead.
I see you are resorting to the old tactic of putting words in other people's mouths. I said that the copyright holder has an exclusive right to his work, not that the purpose of the law is to benefit the copyright holder exclusively.
If you are going to lie, you may as well shut the fuck up now.
I have the argument that the law provides the copyright holder an exclusive monopoly, for a limited time, on his creation and he can do with that creation what he sees fit. The creation is solely his, as is the rights copy and/or sell the creation and the right to said creation.
What exactly is the copyright holder empowered to do, if not benefit from his creation as he sees fit? Is he only empowered to benefit others? That seems to be your argument, that copyright is only valid if the copyright holder only uses the copyright to benefit others.
Look, if you are going to be willfully stupid and refuse to recognize the law and its intent, maybe you should shut your hole, shithead.
Copyright holders of proprietary information (like the RIAA) try to prevent it from being free to modify and share without restriction, so we oppose them.
It is their right to do that. That is why it is called copyright. It gives the right to control the copying of a work to the holder. You don't like that companies use copyright against you to their benefit. You bitch and whine and decry copyright and copyright litigation and copyright holders defending their rights. Then, you turn around and use copyright against them to your benefit and talk about how great it is.
You talk about your rights to other people's copyrighted work. You don't have any right to other people's work.
Refusing to see your hypocrisy does not make the hypocrisy go away. That just makes you an asshole.