Hard to know whether this is going to turn into a bidding war, but no matter what happens, Yahoo's days as an independant 'net player on the big stage are numbered.
I don't know who's going to win either Office battle, but I don't think one player will win both. Cloud apps and "traditional" (offline) apps are just different animals, as are GOOG and MSFT different companies. Clearly thier battles are heating up, but I don't see a clear victor here - just more bits being twiddled.
Happens when the network's "content", which turns out to be nothing other than more disappointing dreck, wastes my time, energy and other resources. That's piracy against me.
Trust me, NBC/Universal, none of your nonsense flows through any of the copper in my house.
Same goes for the other traditional "TV networks" in these United States.
I like cats, and my family has had pet cats in the past, but I just can't give this "survey" very much legitimacy.
I could find a similar "survey audience" of beer drinkers, sex addicts, computer geeks (never mind, I'm already here!), root canal patients, or ANY group, and come up with whatever "favorable result" I want.
Just my opinion and observation, but it seems to me more like an agenda piece than an honest scientific exercise.
Anyone with an agenda can push any "theory" they like.
Example? Water is dangerous and deadly... we should ban that, right? After all:
It causes death due to accidental inhalation, even in small quantities. Prolonged exposure to water in solid form causes severe tissue damage. Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects. It's is a major component of acid rain. Gaseous water can cause severe burns. It contributes to soil erosion. It leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals. Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits. Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes. Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions. Given to vicious dogs involved in recent deadly attacks. Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere, and in hurricanes including deadly storms in Florida, New Orleans and other areas of the southeastern U.S. Thermal variations in it are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect.
If you are so interested in this whole "immunity" business with the telco, then direct your passions and energy at them. It's not my issue. Certainly if there is lawbreaking going on, then by all means go have it prosecuted.
My interest is allowing the government to surveil terrorists as a means to disrupt or completely stop thier plans. That is certainly not limited to telcos, or for that matter, any entity.
It is ironic you use the phrase "Give me Liberty or give me Death". Patrick Henry was a slave owner... a man who denied liberty to a many men himself. He clearly did not believe his own words, now, did he?
I on the other hand have no conflict in my position... I believe that we can have our civil liberties protected AND have the government check communications for terrorist planning and other operations AT THE SAME TIME. They are NOT mutually exclusive.
And, no, I do not believe my being modded down is due to "hysterics" or "borderline off-topic" nonsense, nor am I "spouting".
I am being modded down because there is a substantial lack of tolerance for dissenting opinion here on this website. But I'll certainly not change my position that without secure borders (and coastlines), secure airways, secure roads (and other infrastructure)... a secure nation... we won't last long enough for you me or any other citizen to have enough time to argue about "protecting our civil liberties" or any other aspect of our Constitution. Because it will cease to exist.
I'm done with this discussion. Flame away more if you like, but I'm on to something else.
I never said deal with immunity "later". I said deal with them as separate issues.
You may claim I don't have my facts straight (which is nonsense), but putting words into my mouth is not helpful either.
And all these ideas of let's set aside security and worry about civil liberties first is a very dangerous road. BOTH MUST BE HANDLED WITH THE SAME HIGH PRIORITY AND AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
How is anyone at liberty under the threat of being bombed anywhere at any time?
Likewise, how is anyone at liberty if Uncle Sam listens to ALL phone calls, including my 97-year old grandmother? I never suggested the government DO that!
I NEVER SAID GIVE UP ONE OR THE OTHER. I said BOTH must be handled AT THE SAME TIME.
Yet all the loonies come out and say - "ooohh, he has some dangerous ideas and must be silenced" (or at least modded down on slashdot - not much different, just not carried out to the same extreme).
Look at what you people are writing.
Do you ever wonder that you would really, truly do... if you ever had the reins of power in your own hands?
Last time I checked, I was an American Citizen with First Amendment rights, the same as all of you.
First World Trade Center Attack in 1993. President: Bill Clinton. Pearl Harbor, 1941. President: Franklin Delano Roosevelt. (Yes, even then Hawaii was "our soil".)
Those were both a "foreign attack on our soil."
As I have said before, and I'll say again: BOTH can be done - both protecting our civil liberties AND preventing terrorist attacks. They are NOT mutually exclusive.
If you sacrifice either one without the other (EITHER WAY), we're in trouble.
You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, an Islamic terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the knife, and charges at you.
You are carrying a Glock cal. 40, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family.
What do you do?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Democrat's Answer:
Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor? Or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it? Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children? Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? Should I call 9-1-1? Why is this street so deserted? We need to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior. This is all so confusing! I need to discuss with some friends over a latte and try to come to a consensus.
You think a terrorist gives a damn about a warrant?
You think they are going to sit around and wait for a federal judge to give an FBI or ATF agent or a US Marshall a search warrant to find their suitcase nuke?
Tell me: how might serving a search warrant might have averted 9/11?
You know... I have literally dozens of items in my home that can be used to hijack an airplane, including the now-infamous box-cutter. Last time I checked, it was still legal to possess one of those.
Flame me all you like, but I kinda think it's a pretty good idea for my government to try and find out how best to prevent terrorist attacks in the future, and as long as my constituional rights don't get outright trampled on, I REALLY DON'T CARE HOW THEY FIND TERRORISTS... just as long as they catch and kill every goddamn one of them.
Is your idea of debating a legitimate issue - intervening and interdicting terrorism - launching a straw man attack against politicians and "evil" big corportations... or private citizens who don't happen to agree with you?
This is why those on the left don't manage to get anything done. Their whole strategy is to bash others who propose solutions and come up with no solutions on their own.
Why not come up with an ACTUAL WORKING SOLUTION to the problem terrorism, as was the original topic of this discussion?
Other lawbreaking (such as the allegations against telcos and whatnot) can still be dealt with - that is a separate issue. Leave out there, don't sweep it under the rug... but don't use it as a means of obstructing our national defense, either.
I want the tools, a toolbox, a mechanic to fix the busted tools, and people who are ready, able and willing to use them.
And use them in a way that still protects the legitimate privacy interests of citizens, while allowing intervention and interdiction of terrorist activities.
Again, BOTH can and must be done. I don't care who it is that takes up residence or gets "hired" to work on either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, it still has to be done.
...it doesn't matter to me whether you think the law is good or bad, or whether you love Bush or hate him (or for that matter, people from either side of the aisle)...
Bottom line is: there needs to be a way to be able to monitor terrorist activity, criminal actvity... ANY KIND OF THREAT BEING PLANNED.
I'm as much a freedom-loving, flag-waving, baseball-hot-dogs-and-apple-pie loving American as the next Yankee here, but ya know... it's kinda hard to have a debate about civil liberties if you've been blown to smithereens by a nuclear suitcase, or had your crops poisoned by a stolen airplane dusting all your corn with Lord Knows What.
We've been damned fortunate and thwarted every single planned attack since 9/11... we've batted 1.000 so far. At some point, we're going to be nailed again unless a way is found to MONITOR future plans.
I'm not suggesting we totally roll over to the authorities and have Big Brother watch every single thing every American does. But Common Sense dictates that SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE.
There should be a way - there MUST be a way - to safeguard our security, while safeguarding everyday civil liberties. I don't buy the argument that they are mutually exclusive.
I don't think Uncle Sam gives a rodent's rear end about when my wife's parents are coming to visit us, and when we have to pick them up from the airport... but you can bet if someone there wants to fly that plane into the Sears Tower, I damn well want Uncle Sam to be able to find out and know about it.
They tried a replacement of their My Yahoo! page, which seemingly turned out to be an abysmal attempt at copying Sharepoint or some other CMS. It sucks and as long as the "old" My Yahoo! exists, I'm going to stick with it.
If their efforts to "improve" my Inbox turn out to be just as bad, I'm moving on. I already have Google and Hotmail accounts, and am more willing to wade through the spam more than I am to endure a horribly designed and "broken" UI.
The keys weren't even laptop-style "chicklet" keys... they were basically like the old number-tiles off the 4x4 sliding numbers puzzle. Remember those?
I didn't have a real problem with the C-64 keyboard... I was quite accustomed to it. The TRS-80, though... I couldn't stand it. But I'm not sure if that's entirely the fault of the keyboard.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't count out another media player:
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0929033920080410?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true
Hard to know whether this is going to turn into a bidding war, but no matter what happens, Yahoo's days as an independant 'net player on the big stage are numbered.
I don't know who's going to win either Office battle, but I don't think one player will win both. Cloud apps and "traditional" (offline) apps are just different animals, as are GOOG and MSFT different companies. Clearly thier battles are heating up, but I don't see a clear victor here - just more bits being twiddled.
Could it be that someone there is worried about their own FINANCIAL "health" instead?
Does someone there have a vested intere$t in making sure this deal fell through?
As with anything else... follow the money.
Why can't they focus thier efforts and resources on shaping traffic to block this kind of nonsense, rather than Torrents?
Happens when the network's "content", which turns out to be nothing other than more disappointing dreck, wastes my time, energy and other resources. That's piracy against me.
Trust me, NBC/Universal, none of your nonsense flows through any of the copper in my house.
Same goes for the other traditional "TV networks" in these United States.
Non-smokers also get cancer, genius.
I like cats, and my family has had pet cats in the past, but I just can't give this "survey" very much legitimacy.
I could find a similar "survey audience" of beer drinkers, sex addicts, computer geeks (never mind, I'm already here!), root canal patients, or ANY group, and come up with whatever "favorable result" I want.
Just my opinion and observation, but it seems to me more like an agenda piece than an honest scientific exercise.
...to borrow the 'obvious' tag from FARK.com So, why not just tag it that way yourself?Just declare war on them.
Anyone with an agenda can push any "theory" they like.
Example? Water is dangerous and deadly... we should ban that, right? After all:
It causes death due to accidental inhalation, even in small quantities.
Prolonged exposure to water in solid form causes severe tissue damage.
Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
It's is a major component of acid rain.
Gaseous water can cause severe burns.
It contributes to soil erosion.
It leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
Given to vicious dogs involved in recent deadly attacks.
Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere, and in hurricanes including deadly storms in Florida, New Orleans and other areas of the southeastern U.S.
Thermal variations in it are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect.
And on, and on and on...
If you are so interested in this whole "immunity" business with the telco, then direct your passions and energy at them. It's not my issue. Certainly if there is lawbreaking going on, then by all means go have it prosecuted.
My interest is allowing the government to surveil terrorists as a means to disrupt or completely stop thier plans. That is certainly not limited to telcos, or for that matter, any entity.
It is ironic you use the phrase "Give me Liberty or give me Death". Patrick Henry was a slave owner... a man who denied liberty to a many men himself. He clearly did not believe his own words, now, did he?
I on the other hand have no conflict in my position... I believe that we can have our civil liberties protected AND have the government check communications for terrorist planning and other operations AT THE SAME TIME. They are NOT mutually exclusive.
And, no, I do not believe my being modded down is due to "hysterics" or "borderline off-topic" nonsense, nor am I "spouting".
I am being modded down because there is a substantial lack of tolerance for dissenting opinion here on this website. But I'll certainly not change my position that without secure borders (and coastlines), secure airways, secure roads (and other infrastructure)... a secure nation... we won't last long enough for you me or any other citizen to have enough time to argue about "protecting our civil liberties" or any other aspect of our Constitution. Because it will cease to exist.
I'm done with this discussion. Flame away more if you like, but I'm on to something else.
About my old cassette tape copy of "Under A Blood Red Sky" I had made back in 1983?
I never said deal with immunity "later". I said deal with them as separate issues.
You may claim I don't have my facts straight (which is nonsense), but putting words into my mouth is not helpful either.
And all these ideas of let's set aside security and worry about civil liberties first is a very dangerous road. BOTH MUST BE HANDLED WITH THE SAME HIGH PRIORITY AND AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
How is anyone at liberty under the threat of being bombed anywhere at any time?
Likewise, how is anyone at liberty if Uncle Sam listens to ALL phone calls, including my 97-year old grandmother? I never suggested the government DO that!
I NEVER SAID GIVE UP ONE OR THE OTHER. I said BOTH must be handled AT THE SAME TIME.
Yet all the loonies come out and say - "ooohh, he has some dangerous ideas and must be silenced" (or at least modded down on slashdot - not much different, just not carried out to the same extreme).
Look at what you people are writing.
Do you ever wonder that you would really, truly do... if you ever had the reins of power in your own hands?
Last time I checked, I was an American Citizen with First Amendment rights, the same as all of you.
Wow, folks...
Utter Nonsense:
First World Trade Center Attack in 1993. President: Bill Clinton.
Pearl Harbor, 1941. President: Franklin Delano Roosevelt. (Yes, even then Hawaii was "our soil".)
Those were both a "foreign attack on our soil."
As I have said before, and I'll say again: BOTH can be done - both protecting our civil liberties AND preventing terrorist attacks. They are NOT mutually exclusive.
If you sacrifice either one without the other (EITHER WAY), we're in trouble.
Are you a Democrat, a Republican, or a Redneck?
Here is a little test that will help you decide:
You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, an Islamic terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the knife, and charges at you.
You are carrying a Glock cal. 40, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family.
What do you do?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Democrat's Answer:
Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor? Or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it? Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children? Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while
he was stabbing me? Should I call 9-1-1? Why is this street so deserted? We need to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior. This is all so confusing! I need to discuss with some friends over a latte and try to come to a consensus.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Republican's Answer:
BANG!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Redneck's Answer:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! Click....
(sounds of reloading)
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click
Daughter: 'Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or Hollow Points?'
Son: 'You got him, Pop! Can I shoot the next one?'
Wife: 'You are not taking that to the taxidermist.'
You think a terrorist gives a damn about a warrant?
You think they are going to sit around and wait for a federal judge to give an FBI or ATF agent or a US Marshall a search warrant to find their suitcase nuke?
Tell me: how might serving a search warrant might have averted 9/11?
You know... I have literally dozens of items in my home that can be used to hijack an airplane, including the now-infamous box-cutter. Last time I checked, it was still legal to possess one of those.
Flame me all you like, but I kinda think it's a pretty good idea for my government to try and find out how best to prevent terrorist attacks in the future, and as long as my constituional rights don't get outright trampled on, I REALLY DON'T CARE HOW THEY FIND TERRORISTS... just as long as they catch and kill every goddamn one of them.
Go ahead, mod me down.
Is your idea of debating a legitimate issue - intervening and interdicting terrorism - launching a straw man attack against politicians and "evil" big corportations... or private citizens who don't happen to agree with you?
This is why those on the left don't manage to get anything done. Their whole strategy is to bash others who propose solutions and come up with no solutions on their own.
Why not come up with an ACTUAL WORKING SOLUTION to the problem terrorism, as was the original topic of this discussion?
Other lawbreaking (such as the allegations against telcos and whatnot) can still be dealt with - that is a separate issue. Leave out there, don't sweep it under the rug... but don't use it as a means of obstructing our national defense, either.
And remember what happened in the aftermath of Watergate?
Those who carried out the "abuses"... did they not get caught? I recall that even a sitting President had to step down, the offenses were so bad.
What would be so different now?
Obviously some reasonable controls would have to be put in place. Common-sense and all...
I want the tools, a toolbox, a mechanic to fix the busted tools, and people who are ready, able and willing to use them.
And use them in a way that still protects the legitimate privacy interests of citizens, while allowing intervention and interdiction of terrorist activities.
Again, BOTH can and must be done. I don't care who it is that takes up residence or gets "hired" to work on either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, it still has to be done.
Bottom line is: there needs to be a way to be able to monitor terrorist activity, criminal actvity... ANY KIND OF THREAT BEING PLANNED.
I'm as much a freedom-loving, flag-waving, baseball-hot-dogs-and-apple-pie loving American as the next Yankee here, but ya know... it's kinda hard to have a debate about civil liberties if you've been blown to smithereens by a nuclear suitcase, or had your crops poisoned by a stolen airplane dusting all your corn with Lord Knows What.
We've been damned fortunate and thwarted every single planned attack since 9/11... we've batted 1.000 so far. At some point, we're going to be nailed again unless a way is found to MONITOR future plans.
I'm not suggesting we totally roll over to the authorities and have Big Brother watch every single thing every American does. But Common Sense dictates that SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE.
There should be a way - there MUST be a way - to safeguard our security, while safeguarding everyday civil liberties. I don't buy the argument that they are mutually exclusive.
I don't think Uncle Sam gives a rodent's rear end about when my wife's parents are coming to visit us, and when we have to pick them up from the airport... but you can bet if someone there wants to fly that plane into the Sears Tower, I damn well want Uncle Sam to be able to find out and know about it.
Make the tools available, for crying out loud.
They need to learn another 4-letter term: RICO.
I don't understand what's up with Yahoo!
They tried a replacement of their My Yahoo! page, which seemingly turned out to be an abysmal attempt at copying Sharepoint or some other CMS. It sucks and as long as the "old" My Yahoo! exists, I'm going to stick with it.
If their efforts to "improve" my Inbox turn out to be just as bad, I'm moving on. I already have Google and Hotmail accounts, and am more willing to wade through the spam more than I am to endure a horribly designed and "broken" UI.
The original Pet: Worst. Keyboard. EVER.
The keys weren't even laptop-style "chicklet" keys... they were basically like the old number-tiles off the 4x4 sliding numbers puzzle. Remember those?
I didn't have a real problem with the C-64 keyboard... I was quite accustomed to it. The TRS-80, though... I couldn't stand it. But I'm not sure if that's entirely the fault of the keyboard.
Now get off my lawn.
"Don't FACE me, bro!"