And if you get directed to a site run by a dude that they guy running the blacklist doesn't like, you get blocked.
You have to trust someone, somewhere, sometime, but blocking hundreds or thousands of sites because some guy on the internets said so is not a very attractive solution.
If you do it that way so that people think you don't have flash installed, you should realize that no one cares if you have flash installed or not (putting it another way, the few people who are actually looking at the installed base when they consider using flash are making their decisions based on the enormous majority that does have flashed installed, not based on the puny minority that does not have flashed installed).
My response was motivated by a belief that part of making criticism effective is making it very clear.
If people read your comment and think "What?!, they are doing that?" and then fail to find anything similar, it increases the chances that they will ignore reports of actual abuse in the future.
No, you shouldn't expect it. The vast majority of people do not get to enjoy a cavity search when they cross the border. What you should do is be aware that it is a small possibility and factor it into your planning.
If your government requires that you take pills, eat trans fats and live a sedentary, sugar filled lifestyle, you should consider looking into the other available options.
Or maybe I misunderstood the point you were trying to make.
In the context of the story (people are referring to the rule as if it guarantees that you can install an antenna) and the comment that the parent poster had replied to, it seemed worth it to make it clear that the rule only applies to exclusive use areas.
"The rule does not apply to common areas that are owned by a landlord, a community association, or jointly by condominium or cooperative owners where the antenna user does not have an exclusive use area. Such common areas may include the roof or exterior wall of a multiple dwelling unit. Therefore, restrictions on antennas installed in or on such common areas are enforceable."
My mom (pushing towards the big 7-0) gets by, but she hasn't bothered to understand a whole lot, she still thinks of it as putting pictures 'in' or 'on' the computer. She gets that they can be copied easily (you put them 'on' a cd), but the full abstraction hasn't sunk in. Not by any means.
98 (the second version) supported USB out of the box. HUGE.
XP improved the gaming experience quite a bit over 2000, and 'Home' is actually quite a bit friendlier to 'home' users than 2000 was (At least, it works pretty well for my mom).
The only truly-awful-shitty DRM in Vista is HDCP, and good luck finding hardware that doesn't follow it (basically, if you are Microsoft and you have decided not to take a stand against all DRM, being able to play Blu-ray is a 'feature' not ' a problem').
It's much less of a problem for Blizzard than it is for any corporation worried about their extremely-valuable-data.
Blizzard is using OTPs to lower their support costs, not to prop up their business model (as far as I can tell, plenty of people could give a shit if their account is secure, because they have no idea what that even means.)
If some yahoo really trusts the authenticator and then, by way of an internets miracle, their 3 year old account gets hijacked, Blizzard can give the guy $1,000 and go on their way. If super-awesome-ip-company loses their ip to super-hacker-mega-stealers-that-need-info-more-than-implementation (can you tell that I am being sarcastic here? Information is often valuable, but almost never as valuable as whatever it is being used to actually *do*), they are out thousands of dollars.
If it was a fresh muffin, you could call it a bread of its time.
I'll be pretty surprised if Vista SP2 doesn't see pretty wide adoption. As it is, I would say that Microsoft is about 85% of the way through the pain that is caused by their binary driver model.
There isn't any need to manually catalog everything. If you have a scanner that can readily tell a tomato plant from a tobacco plant, it is very unlikely that it would be unable to tell you that you have something between the two, and it would be enormously helpful in gathering information towards cataloging your new specimen.
He is arguing that the scanner isn't worth much until you have a relatively complete database.
Some people think that it is more fair to tax people who can pay more a *lot* more than people can pay less. They often associate this with the fact that the payers didn't start life in a 'fair' way.
The black market argument is easily amended to say that the black market situation created would be worse than the current situation.
Again, I don't have real strong feelings about the fair tax (It would likely increase my everyday spending, but I would get pretty much all of it back), but you asked "how you can argue against this" and I gave you a couple of ways that people do it. Saying you don't care about those arguments doesn't really negate them.
Without claiming to support them, here are a couple of arguments:
* People don't all start their lives under the same economic situations; there are often factors that influence income that are beyond the control of the people involved
* It creates enormous incentive for black markets (especially for high priced goods; a seller will go an awful long way to help a buyer avoid taxes on a $30 million yacht if he thinks he will get some of the millions of dollars that are saved)
* the figures used in discussing the tax aren't 'reality based'
These guys don't like it for poor people (surprising, given that it is being pushed by a billionaire):
Slashdot Mirror
The space shuttle is a rocket. A really big rocket with some odd comprises related to the notion that it is 'reusable', but it is a rocket.
And if you get directed to a site run by a dude that they guy running the blacklist doesn't like, you get blocked.
You have to trust someone, somewhere, sometime, but blocking hundreds or thousands of sites because some guy on the internets said so is not a very attractive solution.
Why?
If you do it that way so that people think you don't have flash installed, you should realize that no one cares if you have flash installed or not (putting it another way, the few people who are actually looking at the installed base when they consider using flash are making their decisions based on the enormous majority that does have flashed installed, not based on the puny minority that does not have flashed installed).
For some people, it is already tomorrow.
My response was motivated by a belief that part of making criticism effective is making it very clear.
If people read your comment and think "What?!, they are doing that?" and then fail to find anything similar, it increases the chances that they will ignore reports of actual abuse in the future.
There are stories of people being detained indefinitely by the U.S. for not giving up encryption keys?
Where?
If the backdoors do exist, it is much more likely that they are not worth burning on this case.
No, you shouldn't expect it. The vast majority of people do not get to enjoy a cavity search when they cross the border. What you should do is be aware that it is a small possibility and factor it into your planning.
Well that's good. This $900 laptop is 23 months old and going strong, I hope it stays that way.
If your government requires that you take pills, eat trans fats and live a sedentary, sugar filled lifestyle, you should consider looking into the other available options.
Or maybe I misunderstood the point you were trying to make.
Who lives too close to a nuclear reactor?
That would just be stupid.
Much better to create false videos of them making comments that would irritate/agitate/undermine their respective political bases.
In the context of the story (people are referring to the rule as if it guarantees that you can install an antenna) and the comment that the parent poster had replied to, it seemed worth it to make it clear that the rule only applies to exclusive use areas.
Yes, it does:
"The rule does not apply to common areas that are owned by a landlord, a community association, or jointly by condominium or cooperative owners where the antenna user does not have an exclusive use area. Such common areas may include the roof or exterior wall of a multiple dwelling unit. Therefore, restrictions on antennas installed in or on such common areas are enforceable."
Sounds like they need the faxputer.
My mom (pushing towards the big 7-0) gets by, but she hasn't bothered to understand a whole lot, she still thinks of it as putting pictures 'in' or 'on' the computer. She gets that they can be copied easily (you put them 'on' a cd), but the full abstraction hasn't sunk in. Not by any means.
98 (the second version) supported USB out of the box. HUGE.
XP improved the gaming experience quite a bit over 2000, and 'Home' is actually quite a bit friendlier to 'home' users than 2000 was (At least, it works pretty well for my mom).
The only truly-awful-shitty DRM in Vista is HDCP, and good luck finding hardware that doesn't follow it (basically, if you are Microsoft and you have decided not to take a stand against all DRM, being able to play Blu-ray is a 'feature' not ' a problem').
Have you had the Macbook for 12 months yet?
It's much less of a problem for Blizzard than it is for any corporation worried about their extremely-valuable-data.
Blizzard is using OTPs to lower their support costs, not to prop up their business model (as far as I can tell, plenty of people could give a shit if their account is secure, because they have no idea what that even means.)
If some yahoo really trusts the authenticator and then, by way of an internets miracle, their 3 year old account gets hijacked, Blizzard can give the guy $1,000 and go on their way. If super-awesome-ip-company loses their ip to super-hacker-mega-stealers-that-need-info-more-than-implementation (can you tell that I am being sarcastic here? Information is often valuable, but almost never as valuable as whatever it is being used to actually *do*), they are out thousands of dollars.
If it was a fresh muffin, you could call it a bread of its time.
I'll be pretty surprised if Vista SP2 doesn't see pretty wide adoption. As it is, I would say that Microsoft is about 85% of the way through the pain that is caused by their binary driver model.
Confusing Frankie Muniz with a man is a rookie mistake.
They don't. Nor do they have smug.
There isn't any need to manually catalog everything. If you have a scanner that can readily tell a tomato plant from a tobacco plant, it is very unlikely that it would be unable to tell you that you have something between the two, and it would be enormously helpful in gathering information towards cataloging your new specimen.
He is arguing that the scanner isn't worth much until you have a relatively complete database.
Some people think that it is more fair to tax people who can pay more a *lot* more than people can pay less. They often associate this with the fact that the payers didn't start life in a 'fair' way.
The black market argument is easily amended to say that the black market situation created would be worse than the current situation.
Again, I don't have real strong feelings about the fair tax (It would likely increase my everyday spending, but I would get pretty much all of it back), but you asked "how you can argue against this" and I gave you a couple of ways that people do it. Saying you don't care about those arguments doesn't really negate them.
Without claiming to support them, here are a couple of arguments:
* People don't all start their lives under the same economic situations; there are often factors that influence income that are beyond the control of the people involved
* It creates enormous incentive for black markets (especially for high priced goods; a seller will go an awful long way to help a buyer avoid taxes on a $30 million yacht if he thinks he will get some of the millions of dollars that are saved)
* the figures used in discussing the tax aren't 'reality based'
These guys don't like it for poor people (surprising, given that it is being pushed by a billionaire):
http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html
Etc..