Yeah, yeah. But in pragmatic terms there's a much higher likelihood of bad people targeting public officials or celebrities. They're the people with power, money, influence, and visibility. And nobody's been granted anything by the government; the private data collection firms are simply making business decisions.
And how exactly would the FBI be violating your Constitutional rights by obtaining such information, anyway? I don't recall anything in the Constitution prohibiting the simple collection of data on individuals by other individuals, corporations, or even law enforcement agencies.
Do you have any actual evidence that police are rounding people up and charging them with felonies based on books they may or may not have read? Or are you just spouting meaningless hyperbole in a lame attempt to show how horrible and despotic everything is?
And, if things are as bad as you claim to believe, don't you find it odd that you're allowed to talk about it in a public forum without any kind of reprisal?
"I've noticed that the more a parent spends time with computers, the less important they think it is for their children to use one."
This attitude is not limited to the IT field. I think we'd see the same pattern with virtually every profession. We shouldn't dismiss this, of course, but just because a parent may have become cynical and bored with a particular topic doesn't mean that children shouldn't be exposed to it.
You also have to consider that the children of IT professionals will likely have a much greater exposure to technology outside of the school environment. All the tech stuff that you and your kids may take for granted simply isn't there in some other home environments.
"Talk about mucking with reality, but then there's a whole new market for special sun glasses that reflect this kind of bombardment... Oakley Ad Blockers!"
Yeah, but looking at all those big OBEY, CONSUME, and PROCREATE billboards would get pretty dull.
Does someone need a nap? Lots of people have their Windows systems configured to automatically download critical updates, and many software packages from other vendors have automatic updates, patches, etc.
Whether you or I think it's a good idea is irrelevant, lots of people apparently think it is. It's a simple tradeoff: the risk that the feature will be exploited or that MS will issue a patch or update that has horrible, irreversible consequences is generally outweighed by the risk of operating a system with known bugs or security problems.
My guess is that Microsoft added this to the EULA to avoid having silly people (or companies) turn on the auto-update feature and then sue MS when something breaks, whether it's really Microsoft's fault or not. That's not an unreasonable or uncommon precaution.
I do agree that most EULAs are stupid and need to go away. They're an artifact of our lawyer-driven society that many companies take advantage of to do things that they shouldn't. But ranting about meglomaniacs and consipracy theories, with the solution being (surprise!) OSS software isn't very convincing.
If individuals who contribute to OSS projects assumed the same kind of potential legal liablity that most commercial vendors fear I think we'd see some people soften their attitudes.
Bad example. If someone tries to frame you for a criminal offense then you at least have a chance of defending yourself, and, by law, you're presumed innocent until proven guilty. Random tips are viewed with suspicion because they are so easily abused.
Not so with a private enforcement regime like the BSA. They're likely to get their money whether the accusations are true or not, and that sort of setup will surely lead even the most well-intentioned organization to adopt abusive tactics.
"All you've really done when it comes right down to it is flipped a few bits on a server."
Um, whatever you say. Any day now I suppose we'll see "Mythic Patents Ones, Zeroes" on the front page of the New York Times. After all, it's just flipping bits.
Look at it this way. Mythic's server-based code is the application. Your online character is the document created by you, using that application. The gameplay is the means of editing your document, achieving what is potentially a unique combination of characteristics.
"IANAL either, but a simple reading of most EULAs shows that you are wrong."
The issue at hand isn't what the TOS/EULA/contract says, it's whether it's actually enforcable.
Not every agreement in every contract ever written is automatically enforceable. If EvilCo slips a clause into their EULA requiring that you sacrifice your firstborn son to Baal, or sign over the rights to your bestselling novel because you spell-checked it with their program then you are quite likely under no obligation to actually do so.
IANAL, either, BTW. And, frankly, I wish real lawyers didn't tend to be so lilly-livered when it came to talking about these things. I know they have their reasons/excuses, but it's still silly.
Whether the police are technically allowed to stop and search your vehicle under a certain set of conditions is one matter (though I don't think it's quite as clear-cut as you imply.)
But whether they can/should be bothered to use radio detection equipment to enforce copyright laws is another matter altogether. Should we also ask police to check drivers' car CD players to see if they're playing illegally burned copies?
"1 - The right of the people to overthrow their government when it fails to meet their needs is written in the Declaration of Independence:
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"
Selective quotation is a wonderful thing. Here's the second half of that paragraph:
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security."
So, in other words, the government must be pretty darn dysfunctional before an attempt to replace it makes any sense at all. Read the list of their grievances against the British crown and you'll start to see what a despotic government is really like (hint: not like ours.) Note also that the colonies of the time had essentially no representation in their own government and no legislative means to address their plight. They tried to make such arrangements and were repeatedly refused.
"NOR have we been wanting in Attentions to our British Brethren. We have warned them from Time to Time of Attempts by their Legislature to extend an unwarrantable Jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the Circumstances of our Emigration and Settlement here. We have appealed to their native Justice and Magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the Ties of our common Kindred to disavow these Usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our Connections and Correspondence. They too have been deaf to the Voice of Justice and of Consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the Necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of Mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace, Friends."
There are an almost infinite number of legitimate ways to address shortcomings in our government short of blowing things up and killing people. People who show no interest in voting, running for office, other peaceful and productive ways of accomplishing change generally shouldn't be trusted. They're just lazy wannabes looking for excuses to become little tyrants themselves.
"And what about those who didn't like the English government's rule of our country and waged all out war to change things?"
They declared independence from England, clearly stating their reasons and their objectives, and then defended themselves when the British gov't refused to grant the American colonies the rights they demanded. Note that they did not try to kill the king, deface Parliament, etc. They most definitely were not terrorists, as you seem to be implying by equating them with that loony.
If there were actually a nice variety of games available with those unique control schemes then I would agree.
Unfortunately most modern arcades are worthless collections of virtually identical fighting and driving games, with a shooter or two and maybe a skiing machine if you're lucky. I have nothing against those types of games, but, with few exceptions, after you've seen one you've seen them all.
Most of these games don't even bother with distinctive cabinets anymore, just generic white boxes with interchangable marquees. What a thrill.
"The cooling system is minicule - a heatsink with case fans - compared to what has to be done with Pentium IIIs and IVs (some designs look as though they would make impressive window unit air conditioners)."
In my experience those kind of heavy-duty cooling systems are needed only for highly overclocked Pentium III and 4 systems, which aren't generally found in CompUSA. The Dell and IBM minitower systems we use at work, for example, use only a single large heatsink and one ducted fan in the rear of the case. Quieter, and less to go wrong.
At home I have a much more elaborate cooling arrangement with multiple fans, but that's mainly because I'm overclocking my PIII-700 to 900MHz.
The lens aspect may be new, but the problems associated with lots of transparent surfaces appear to be largely ignored by architects who place appearances above practicality (in other words, most architects.)
I understand that many large buildings with glass curtain-wall construction already have serious problems with heat buildup inside. They look pretty on magazine covers, but the people inside quickly realize that they're gonna bake whenever the sun shines. And the windows can't be opened, of course, because that would be wrong somehow. The "solution" is lots of venetian blinds covering up the windows.
You also have the obvious problems with lack of privacy, and the fact that any necessary and useful objects visible through the giant windows (like desks, wires, etc) will look really ugly from the outside.
Or the management might have been mistaken in their decision to ignore that bug, in ways that would only become obvious upon later reflection. Or they may have actually had ulterior motives for making the decision that were not know at the time.
Either way, it was their decision and they should be held responsible for it. If they were right, you can always justify it later, right?
"Consider: you want to know more about an opponent's business practices - get inside info, as it were. You file a lawsuit on a minor charge, subpoena ALL records, and in the process of going over the records you gain your insight. You might also find something that can ACTUALLY be used against them, leading to another, more substantiated lawsuit."
Isn't that sort of fishing expedition frowned upon in most legal circles?
So clearly the only solution is to never communicate with anyone, except with secret codes written in disappearing ink on flash paper with the ashes then fed to hungry piranahs. Then personally kill the person who sent the message, because they know too much.
"Andersen cannot be held responsible (even though they will) for the illegal acts of a few."
Sure they can. Especially now that it looks like as many as 80 employees might have been involved. Do you think they all just got together at lunch one day and decided to make some confetti, just for fun?
Managers in a company with a sizeable bunch of employees wandering around shredding documents illegally are clearly either criminally corrupt or criminally stupid. In either case they'll get no sympathy from me.
Huh? That doesn't even make any sense. Why would the company get in trouble for advising proper safety measure? I'm not saying it isn't true, but it hardly presents a compelling case for destroying old documentation. Just the opposite, I'd think. After all, the memo showed that the company considered the issue of injury and addressed it in their design. It wasn't their fault some random people in the intervening decades decided to be stupid.
"The web is a medium for people to do what they otherwise would have done anyway through other means."
True, but the web (well, actually the Internet in a larger sense, since we're including email already) also allows people to do things they may never have been able to accomplish through other means. Or things they never would have thought to do if not for the possibilities it presents. Would I be hacking my Audrey Internet-appliance into an MP3 jukebox without the support of like-minded individuals on the net? Would such a device or such concept even exist without the web? Nope.
I think what it all comes down to is that the Internet is the most flexible and efficient communications medium ever invented. Effective and instantaneous communication can overcome many difficulties that would otherwise be insurmountable. And the standard of what's considered "effective" has been dramatically raised by the expectations of the user. Fifteen years ago we had flyer sent out in response to one of those little bingo cards tucked inside magazines. Now companies without well written, informative web sites and the internal policies to support such sites are at a serious competitive disadvantage.
So, no, the web hasn't "changed reality". But what ever has? Did cars? Radio? TV? Not really. Nonetheless, I think the kind of enhanced personal communication the web makes possible is the latest example of incremental change that has already had a huge impact.
"Batman, way past his prime, fights the immortal Superman, and wins! You have to see it to believe it."
IIRC, Batman cheats.:) And Supes actions near the end of the story suggest he wasn't altogether unsympathetic to Bruce's cause, despite his orders to the contrary.
But you're right, it was a great story. There's also a new sequel out.
If someone commits a crime worthy of the death penalty then I don't really see why their age is particularly relevant, regardless of what mistaken notions may prevail in other countries.
Likewise, I don't see what drinking alcohol has to with volunteering to serve in the armed forces. You're not presenting very coherent arguments.
Are you kidding? Netscape 4 is a terrible browser compared to IE4. And the initial disappointment over it's poor quality was only compounded by the fact that they did nothing to signifigantly improve their product while MS went on to release IE5 and capture even die-hard Netscape users, who finally had to admit that IE was a pretty good browser. The lingering presence of NS4 has been the bane of web designers ever since.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, yeah. But in pragmatic terms there's a much higher likelihood of bad people targeting public officials or celebrities. They're the people with power, money, influence, and visibility. And nobody's been granted anything by the government; the private data collection firms are simply making business decisions.
And how exactly would the FBI be violating your Constitutional rights by obtaining such information, anyway? I don't recall anything in the Constitution prohibiting the simple collection of data on individuals by other individuals, corporations, or even law enforcement agencies.
Do you have any actual evidence that police are rounding people up and charging them with felonies based on books they may or may not have read? Or are you just spouting meaningless hyperbole in a lame attempt to show how horrible and despotic everything is?
And, if things are as bad as you claim to believe, don't you find it odd that you're allowed to talk about it in a public forum without any kind of reprisal?
"I've noticed that the more a parent spends time with computers, the less important they think it is for their children to use one."
This attitude is not limited to the IT field. I think we'd see the same pattern with virtually every profession. We shouldn't dismiss this, of course, but just because a parent may have become cynical and bored with a particular topic doesn't mean that children shouldn't be exposed to it.
You also have to consider that the children of IT professionals will likely have a much greater exposure to technology outside of the school environment. All the tech stuff that you and your kids may take for granted simply isn't there in some other home environments.
"Talk about mucking with reality, but then there's a whole new market for special sun glasses that reflect this kind of bombardment... Oakley Ad Blockers!"
Yeah, but looking at all those big OBEY, CONSUME, and PROCREATE billboards would get pretty dull.
Does someone need a nap? Lots of people have their Windows systems configured to automatically download critical updates, and many software packages from other vendors have automatic updates, patches, etc.
Whether you or I think it's a good idea is irrelevant, lots of people apparently think it is. It's a simple tradeoff: the risk that the feature will be exploited or that MS will issue a patch or update that has horrible, irreversible consequences is generally outweighed by the risk of operating a system with known bugs or security problems.
My guess is that Microsoft added this to the EULA to avoid having silly people (or companies) turn on the auto-update feature and then sue MS when something breaks, whether it's really Microsoft's fault or not. That's not an unreasonable or uncommon precaution.
I do agree that most EULAs are stupid and need to go away. They're an artifact of our lawyer-driven society that many companies take advantage of to do things that they shouldn't. But ranting about meglomaniacs and consipracy theories, with the solution being (surprise!) OSS software isn't very convincing.
If individuals who contribute to OSS projects assumed the same kind of potential legal liablity that most commercial vendors fear I think we'd see some people soften their attitudes.
Bad example. If someone tries to frame you for a criminal offense then you at least have a chance of defending yourself, and, by law, you're presumed innocent until proven guilty. Random tips are viewed with suspicion because they are so easily abused.
Not so with a private enforcement regime like the BSA. They're likely to get their money whether the accusations are true or not, and that sort of setup will surely lead even the most well-intentioned organization to adopt abusive tactics.
"All you've really done when it comes right down to it is flipped a few bits on a server."
Um, whatever you say. Any day now I suppose we'll see "Mythic Patents Ones, Zeroes" on the front page of the New York Times. After all, it's just flipping bits.
Look at it this way. Mythic's server-based code is the application. Your online character is the document created by you, using that application. The gameplay is the means of editing your document, achieving what is potentially a unique combination of characteristics.
"IANAL either, but a simple reading of most EULAs shows that you are wrong."
The issue at hand isn't what the TOS/EULA/contract says, it's whether it's actually enforcable.
Not every agreement in every contract ever written is automatically enforceable. If EvilCo slips a clause into their EULA requiring that you sacrifice your firstborn son to Baal, or sign over the rights to your bestselling novel because you spell-checked it with their program then you are quite likely under no obligation to actually do so.
IANAL, either, BTW. And, frankly, I wish real lawyers didn't tend to be so lilly-livered when it came to talking about these things. I know they have their reasons/excuses, but it's still silly.
Whether the police are technically allowed to stop and search your vehicle under a certain set of conditions is one matter (though I don't think it's quite as clear-cut as you imply.)
But whether they can/should be bothered to use radio detection equipment to enforce copyright laws is another matter altogether. Should we also ask police to check drivers' car CD players to see if they're playing illegally burned copies?
"1 - The right of the people to overthrow their government when it fails to meet their needs is written in the Declaration of Independence:
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"
Selective quotation is a wonderful thing. Here's the second half of that paragraph:
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security."
So, in other words, the government must be pretty darn dysfunctional before an attempt to replace it makes any sense at all. Read the list of their grievances against the British crown and you'll start to see what a despotic government is really like (hint: not like ours.) Note also that the colonies of the time had essentially no representation in their own government and no legislative means to address their plight. They tried to make such arrangements and were repeatedly refused.
"NOR have we been wanting in Attentions to our British Brethren. We have warned them from Time to Time of Attempts by their Legislature to extend an unwarrantable Jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the Circumstances of our Emigration and Settlement here. We have appealed to their native Justice and Magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the Ties of our common Kindred to disavow these Usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our Connections and Correspondence. They too have been deaf to the Voice of Justice and of Consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the Necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of Mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace, Friends."
There are an almost infinite number of legitimate ways to address shortcomings in our government short of blowing things up and killing people. People who show no interest in voting, running for office, other peaceful and productive ways of accomplishing change generally shouldn't be trusted. They're just lazy wannabes looking for excuses to become little tyrants themselves.
"And what about those who didn't like the English government's rule of our country and waged all out war to change things?"
They declared independence from England, clearly stating their reasons and their objectives, and then defended themselves when the British gov't refused to grant the American colonies the rights they demanded. Note that they did not try to kill the king, deface Parliament, etc. They most definitely were not terrorists, as you seem to be implying by equating them with that loony.
If there were actually a nice variety of games available with those unique control schemes then I would agree.
Unfortunately most modern arcades are worthless collections of virtually identical fighting and driving games, with a shooter or two and maybe a skiing machine if you're lucky. I have nothing against those types of games, but, with few exceptions, after you've seen one you've seen them all.
Most of these games don't even bother with distinctive cabinets anymore, just generic white boxes with interchangable marquees. What a thrill.
Yup, the "Trak Ball", as Atari spelled it, was introduced in Atari Football back in late 1978 (or early 1979, depending on which source you believe.)
"The cooling system is minicule - a heatsink with case fans - compared to what has to be done with Pentium IIIs and IVs (some designs look as though they would make impressive window unit air conditioners)."
In my experience those kind of heavy-duty cooling systems are needed only for highly overclocked Pentium III and 4 systems, which aren't generally found in CompUSA. The Dell and IBM minitower systems we use at work, for example, use only a single large heatsink and one ducted fan in the rear of the case. Quieter, and less to go wrong.
At home I have a much more elaborate cooling arrangement with multiple fans, but that's mainly because I'm overclocking my PIII-700 to 900MHz.
Yes, it is in contrast to IE4. IE4's implementation of CSS, while far from perfect, is far better than NS4. Perhaps you're thinking of IE3.
e rg rid.shtml
Netscape 4's CSS support was broken from day one, and none of the subsequent point updates have improved things much.
For a quick overview take a look at this handy chart:
http://www.webreview.com/style/css1/charts/mast
The lens aspect may be new, but the problems associated with lots of transparent surfaces appear to be largely ignored by architects who place appearances above practicality (in other words, most architects.)
I understand that many large buildings with glass curtain-wall construction already have serious problems with heat buildup inside. They look pretty on magazine covers, but the people inside quickly realize that they're gonna bake whenever the sun shines. And the windows can't be opened, of course, because that would be wrong somehow. The "solution" is lots of venetian blinds covering up the windows.
You also have the obvious problems with lack of privacy, and the fact that any necessary and useful objects visible through the giant windows (like desks, wires, etc) will look really ugly from the outside.
Or the management might have been mistaken in their decision to ignore that bug, in ways that would only become obvious upon later reflection. Or they may have actually had ulterior motives for making the decision that were not know at the time.
Either way, it was their decision and they should be held responsible for it. If they were right, you can always justify it later, right?
"Consider: you want to know more about an opponent's business practices - get inside info, as it were. You file a lawsuit on a minor charge, subpoena ALL records, and in the process of going over the records you gain your insight. You might also find something that can ACTUALLY be used against them, leading to another, more substantiated lawsuit."
Isn't that sort of fishing expedition frowned upon in most legal circles?
So clearly the only solution is to never communicate with anyone, except with secret codes written in disappearing ink on flash paper with the ashes then fed to hungry piranahs. Then personally kill the person who sent the message, because they know too much.
"Andersen cannot be held responsible (even though they will) for the illegal acts of a few."
Sure they can. Especially now that it looks like as many as 80 employees might have been involved. Do you think they all just got together at lunch one day and decided to make some confetti, just for fun?
Managers in a company with a sizeable bunch of employees wandering around shredding documents illegally are clearly either criminally corrupt or criminally stupid. In either case they'll get no sympathy from me.
Huh? That doesn't even make any sense. Why would the company get in trouble for advising proper safety measure? I'm not saying it isn't true, but it hardly presents a compelling case for destroying old documentation. Just the opposite, I'd think. After all, the memo showed that the company considered the issue of injury and addressed it in their design. It wasn't their fault some random people in the intervening decades decided to be stupid.
"The web is a medium for people to do what they otherwise would have done anyway through other means."
True, but the web (well, actually the Internet in a larger sense, since we're including email already) also allows people to do things they may never have been able to accomplish through other means. Or things they never would have thought to do if not for the possibilities it presents. Would I be hacking my Audrey Internet-appliance into an MP3 jukebox without the support of like-minded individuals on the net? Would such a device or such concept even exist without the web? Nope.
I think what it all comes down to is that the Internet is the most flexible and efficient communications medium ever invented. Effective and instantaneous communication can overcome many difficulties that would otherwise be insurmountable. And the standard of what's considered "effective" has been dramatically raised by the expectations of the user. Fifteen years ago we had flyer sent out in response to one of those little bingo cards tucked inside magazines. Now companies without well written, informative web sites and the internal policies to support such sites are at a serious competitive disadvantage.
So, no, the web hasn't "changed reality". But what ever has? Did cars? Radio? TV? Not really. Nonetheless, I think the kind of enhanced personal communication the web makes possible is the latest example of incremental change that has already had a huge impact.
"Batman, way past his prime, fights the immortal Superman, and wins! You have to see it to believe it."
:) And Supes actions near the end of the story suggest he wasn't altogether unsympathetic to Bruce's cause, despite his orders to the contrary.
IIRC, Batman cheats.
But you're right, it was a great story. There's also a new sequel out.
If someone commits a crime worthy of the death penalty then I don't really see why their age is particularly relevant, regardless of what mistaken notions may prevail in other countries.
Likewise, I don't see what drinking alcohol has to with volunteering to serve in the armed forces. You're not presenting very coherent arguments.
Are you kidding? Netscape 4 is a terrible browser compared to IE4. And the initial disappointment over it's poor quality was only compounded by the fact that they did nothing to signifigantly improve their product while MS went on to release IE5 and capture even die-hard Netscape users, who finally had to admit that IE was a pretty good browser. The lingering presence of NS4 has been the bane of web designers ever since.