/* Try writing 'GTK' without using an acronym. Go ahead. Try it. I dare ya. */
Hmm... Shouldn't be too hard.
GTK
GIMP ToolKit
GNU Image Manipulation Program ToolKit
GNU's Not Unix Image Manipulation dammit!
You missed the trick. Try this:
'GTK' written without using an acronym is... 'GTK'.
Lets play a game of Rules Lawyer. An acronym is an abreviation that is pronounced as a word in itself. Examples: Perl, Fortran, GNU, SCSI (as "Scuzzy").
GTK, though, is pronounced letter for letter, and is thus not an acronym. It's just an abreviation.
(quickly ducking behind cover as bricks get thrown)
Thank you! I was thinking these very same things as I was reading the article. But there's one bit of Newspeak that you failed to point out, and it's one that really bugs me.
When exactly did the "citizens" of the United States become the "consumers"? (I know this article has implications for the whole world, but the linguistic trend is something I've seen in many other places and contexts. This is just the latest manifestation.)
When we let them refer to us as "consumers", then we are being put into a lower position, since consumers do not produce anything useful (they "consume" instead). A consumer is someone with few inherent rights, and should be grateful to receive whatever the mysterious and implied producers choose to give. Basically, they don't have to give anything (it's business, after all), so you don't have a right to anything.
A citizen, on the other hand is someone who has rights. There are certain freedoms and protections granted to every citizen, such as speech, assembly, and privacy. A citizen is also not just a passive recipient, but is an active participant in the process, since citizens are expected, and even have a duty to involve themselves in government, perhaps suggesting legislation to their representatives, or even becoming representatives themselves.
Yet somewhere along the way we changed from being a nation of citizens who owned corporations to a nation of good corporate citizens (another insidious phrase) who sell things to consumers.
The associations of the two words, consumer and citizen, are very divergent, and by saying the former instead of the latter we denigrate the majority population to whom we are refering.
Take back your rights and powers!
Consumers of Oceania! Newspeak is doubleplusbad. We become free of Newspeak. In Doublenewspeak we are Citizens!
Speaking of dread, What is it that Rastas dread? Locks? If they dread locks so much, they shouldn't get into trouble in the first place!
You've misheard that. It's not "locks", it's "lox". Rastafarian's dread lox. They live in mortal fear of smoked salmon! This is why you never see any Rastas in Jewish delicatessens - it's all the bagels and lox that keep them away.
But seriously, this study seems to be one of those everyone-knows-its-true-but-we-have-to-measure-it- to-call-it-science type studies.
Of course I dread coming to work. How could I not? I come in and spend eight hours behind a computer screen in a room where
it's too cold, because there are 3 servers in the room with me.
the lights glare in my eyes when they are on.
its too dark when the lights are off.
my "window" gives me a wonderful view of the pipes and ducts of the building AC (the pipes are 1 foot away from the window).
I only see other people when I get leave the office to use the restroom.
It's really a depressing place, so...yeah...it's stressful.
"In the spirit of frankness and directness of the 21st Century, I never saw the movie," he [Steve Ballmer] said. "To most people at Microsoft, HAL stands for hardware application layer."
That explains why it took so long for Windows NT to become even a halfway decent OS. I mean, if Microsoft doesn't even know that H.A.L. is NT's Hardware Abstraction Layer then they really do need to be hit with a cluestick.
If you're walking down a public street, you can expect to be seen by anyone.
Wrong.
If I am walking down a public street, then I can expect to be seen by anyone who has me in line of sight! I do not expect to be seen by someone on the other side of a building or hill, and I certainly do not expect to be seen by someone who is over the horizon.
Surveillance cameras change all of this. Now when I go out, I must contend with the fact that (potentially) someone on the other side of the world can see me!
This is a Bad Thing(tm) and is a violation of my patent on Evil(R). All criminal enforcement organizations are herby ordered to cease and desist all use of all technologies that infringe on my Personal Privacy(tm).
555 numbers are used internally by the phone companies for various things. Some have test equipment, some provide customer name and lookup (tell you who owns the phone your calling from), some provide things like directory assistance (as others have mentioned).
The actual usage varies from one bell to another, but if you really want details, try looking for phreaking info.
This is a nice try, but I think they've messed up on several counts.
In the Aimster FAQ, the only mention of any particular type of file is this:
Q: After I download a file, how do I play the music/see the video/etc.?
This is not likely to be sufficient in itself to create a probable cause to search for illegal files, but combined with the things below, it may be.
Their screenshots only show.mp3's as files being traded. This might be suspicious enough for a warrant, but maybe not.
It's called "Aimster" -- a take of on Napster. Napster is in court for alleged illegal activity. Again, this be itself is not enought, but I imagine that most US judges would grant a warrant based on this and the above items.
The "you may not open this file" clause.
This is the clincher. Since there is no reason to download a file without opening it, this, along with the items listed above, creates immediate suspicion of illegal activity. Cops get a warrant. Encryption gets broken. RIAA gets their day in court. (Remember: you don't need proof to get a warrant, merely reasonable suspicion, and "reasonable" effectively means what the judge says it does.)
Aimster's TOS describe their service as one where you agree to wall off a portion of your hard drive, and put a few files in there. Then you and other Aimster users merrily move files from one place to another inspecting the files for spam and viruses, and then sending them on to yet more people.
Wonderful.
Very useful.
Highly suspicious.
If Microsoft tried this we'd be all over them like ugly on Larry Ellison^H^H^H^H^H^H^H an ape.
Then how could they do better? Simple!
Don't mention audio, video, or mp anything on the website.
Don't have obviously bogus terms of service. It will suffice to say "Aimster may not be used for any illegal purposes, including, but not limited to, the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material. Aimster reserves the right to terminate your license to use the software and the service at any time."
Do provide examples and FAQs describing use of Aimster with all sorts of obviously non-offending files, like spreadsheets and word processing docs.
But Aimster didn't do these things. Instead they set themselves up on a fence and started yelling "Yoohoo! RIAA! See if you can hit me with that shotgun from 10 feet!"
First I would find a place to stay, perhaps with a religious charity. I could do cleaning and other handiwork for them. I would save my money to buy stone knives and bearskins. From these, I would build a mnemonic memory circuit which I could connect to my tricorder and use to contact the computer of the starship Enterprise.
Once I have access to the ship's computer, I would try to find out who caused the destruction of all computers and this annoying time warp thingy. It's probably Edith Keeler. (Idealistic twit! I knew her ideas would get us in trouble someday!)
Anyway. Assuming I can kill Keeler, then I run home...through a wall.
Ultima 6 is a good example of a non-zero-sum computer game. For those who don't know, it's a fantasy rgp type computer game where you are summoned to save Brintannia from the evil Gargoyles who are ravaging the land, but as the game progresses, you learn that the Gargoyles are not evil (they actually think *you* are) and the whole situation is the result of a massive cutural misunderstanding. In the end you teach everyone to respect each other and be friends.
Very NON zero-sum.
Eris
A wicked thought...Open Source Censorware
on
Kid Clicks For Sale
·
· Score: 3
Why don't we start an open source project to build a free software censorware product? I know. It's kind of oxymoronic, or maybe just moronic;-) -- but bare with me here.
We don't want censorware either: it doesn't work, and the companies that make it often push radical conservative political agendas, that target a lot of ideas near and dear to us.
So let's make our own product. By controlling the development, we could make certain that the blocked sites list is as minimal as possible to satisfy the legal requirement. The ALA, schools, and libraries would like it for being
a) FREE software (budgets are important, after all), and
b) software that is made by people who are friendly to free speech.
In the meantime, we all continue to support the legal challenges. But in the event that the ever more conservative Supreme Court upholds the law, we also have a weapon to use in holding censorship at least in check. If someone is going to do censorship, then let it be a civil libertarian.
I'd be willing to work on such a project. I think I would enjoy sticking it to CyberSitter -- they once blocked the site of a friend of mine because he's pagan, and especially because he dared take a public stance against them.
Let the market decide how valuable your privacy is.
No thanks! I don't want "the market" or any one else deciding the value of my privacy. I'll make that decision. The privacy in question is, after all, mine. No one else has a right to decide that I will give it up regardless of what dubious "advantage" I get in exchange.
As for privacy policies, they are of no use to people without any legislation to back them up, for the following reasons:
1 - The market has demonstrated quite decisively that the disadvantages of angering potential customers by violating their privacy are nothing compared to the advantages to be gained by going ahead and collecting the information. Junk mail and spam are classic examples of this. Spammers constantly anger millions of people, but at the same time, they get enough return on their investment to make it worth the trouble.
Because of this, we cannot expect "the market" to protect our privacy by allowing the least invasive companies to rise to the top.
2 - No matter how good the privacy policy of a company is, they nearly all contain language saying that the company may change the policy at any time without consent, and often without even notification of their customers. Thus they can tell you one thing, and then later change their minds.
The first problem above can't really be solved without changing societal attitudes towards giving information to companies. But the second problem could be alleviated to great extent (but not completely - nothing is ever perfect) by passing some basic legislation. To wit:
1 - Require companies that collect information to explicitly tell you what that information is, and how it will be used. Essentially, they must have privacy policies.
2 - Require that if they want to change the policy that they notify you before the change, and that if you reject the change, then they must either continue to use your info under the terms of the old policy, or delete your information entirely (in which case you would probably have to explicitly agree to their new policy in order to keep using their services). This requirement of notification and giving someone a chance to reject changes is not any onerous burden; in fact it is standard procedure in contracts (read your credit card agreements for an example). All I'm saying is that "privacy policies" should be treated as contracts, since they are used as if they were contracts describing an exchange of personal information for use of a service.
I would also like to see a law requiring deletion of personal information at the customer's request. We already have something similar in the National Direct Marketing Association, but participation in that is voluntary.
[Note: I tend to agree with the above poster, but the first paragraph created an image in my mind that screamed out for parody. Please forgive me for what I now do.]
Building a community, real or virtual, is hard work, requiring lots of brick, mortar, planning, and the time and effort of many workers, both skilled artisans, and manual laborers. The really enduring communities have been ones that provide a mechanism to exclude unwanted outsiders, such as a great huge stone wall or other fortification. This seems a bit contradictory, but the effectivness of armed defense is a reality. The community is open to those who share its ethos, its gates are closed to those who will not share its ethos, and it ejects, imprisons, or executes those who attempt to disrupt it.
This is much easier in real world communities. The obnoxious teenager can be stunned with a cattle prod. Body language, side conversations, polite hostility, active hostility and power tools can be used. The truly anti-social personalities eventually become politicians. Usually the social pressure of being openly unwelcome suffices to create the necessary atmosphere of conformity, such as making sure everyone vote for the new football stadium and root for the home team. Sometimes the police are employed. Sometimes they are unemployed. But Texas always needs more prison guards, so the out of work cops can get jobs quickly.
But there is a powerful mix of Neilism and liposuction at work in US and European cultures, as Neil Sedaka music sucks the life out of our cultural instituions. Contemplate the horrifying changes to things like childrens sports. Where at one time (long ago, in a galaxy far, far away...) these were a method for teaching children how to manage anger and conflict by tackling people, throwing hard balls at them, and kicking. And sentence fragments. It taught the social skill of "Dumping Gatorade on the Coach", albeit an ideal that was rarely acheived, owing to the coaches fear of freezing to death in the cold New England winters. The usual achievement was grudging politeness and a pledge to crush the enemy's bones and drink their blood during the next battle...ahem...game. Today it too has succumbed to the solipcist hostility and the nihilist willingness to destroy that which you cannot win. In other words, it's just become honest about its true goals.
The virtual communities have it much harder. While throwing some jerk out of a window it quite satisfying, it is extremely hard to throw the destructive players out of Windows(tm). It is extremely hard to provide the gradual responses and discreet (un-embarassing) feedback for inappropriate behavior, and thus most people have to settle for absolute unchecked flame wars on public forums, complete with DoS attacks against the offenders ISP. And its openness makes it more attactive to those frustrated anti-social personalities that have found no other single supplier of hard-core porn, warez, bomb making instructions, and conversation with other 3133t d00dz. These people share the human desire to be part of a community, but have yet to learn the skills needed to be human. They flock to the wide open access of the virtual community and thereby create massive virtual communities of assholes.
But since it seems to be legal, the obvious solution is not to complain, but to move your damn photos onto some web space that you're paying for, rather than some free web space that comes with odious terms of use.
First off, that which is legal, is not neccessarily ethical. This is another case of Microsoft unethically violating the trust their users have placed in them. When I read through the Terms of Use just now I interpreted them as an attempt by Microsoft to protect themselves from irate users who try to sue them claiming that "distributing" the photos and other items through MSN violates copyright. Of course, such a lawsuit would be falacious, but in these litigious times, who can blame even Microsoft for trying to protect themselves.
The problem is that the wording of the Terms of Use is broad enough to allow Microsoft to sell the photos, and this is the course of action they have chosen. By doing this they violate people's reasonable expectation to control their own works.
Most people don't expect this kind of behavior, even when it is legal. If Microsoft wanted to profit from the photos, then (ethically, not legally) they should have explicitly written into their usage agreement that Microsoft reserved the right to republished in other media the content uploaded to MSN.
As for the statement that the "obvious" solution is to move rather than complain, I have to respond that in an ostensibly democratic and capatalistic society, the "obvious" solution is twofold:
1 - Complain to Microsoft. If they don't change their policy to meet the customer's needs, then move to a different service.
2 - Complain to your CongressCritter. Just because something is legal, that doesn't mean it has to be legal, or even that it should be. Let your representatives know that you find this kind of action to be disturbing and that "there oughta be a law". Maybe there will be a law passed, and maybe there won't, but if you don't at least try to make the world better, then that's when you really shouldn't complain.
The real scam is that he's scammed everyone into thinking he's a scam artist, even though he really isn't! This man has never actually scammed anyone in his life, so if you believe that he has...
Surprise! You've been scammed!
I know this to be true, because I met him one time, and he told me that he's really just using the book to raise money for a liver transplant for his 12 year old little girl, who's waiting at the Shriner's Hospital in Houston. So do like I did, and send him some money, right now!
But don't believe his cockamamey stories about being able to fool people.
What methods do database administrators employ for recovery in such situations?
Big database systems like Oracle, Image, Sybase, etc., will have a logging mechanism that records each transaction against the database. You can change what information is actually recorded, but for maximum safety you have it record everything, logins, additions (including the added data), deletions (including the deleted data), and so on.
This way if something happens to your database, you can load a backup, and then bring it up to date again rolling forward the transaction log to redo any transactions that have occcured since the backup was made.
You could also examine the transaction log first to make sure nothing funny has been inserted into it by a sophisticated cracker.
BTW - I *must* do this, so please to forgive:
First Post!
Weeelllllll. It's my first post, at least. My first ever. I'm going to go hide again, now.
Slashdot Mirror
On a related note, inflatable habitat prototypes have been developed and tested, but Congress has actually forbidden further work on them.
Here's a link to an article from a few months ago. It has some neat photo's of a giant vacuum chamber used for testing the prototype.
Eris
You missed the trick. Try this:
'GTK' written without using an acronym is ... 'GTK'.
Lets play a game of Rules Lawyer. An acronym is an abreviation that is pronounced as a word in itself. Examples: Perl, Fortran, GNU, SCSI (as "Scuzzy").
GTK, though, is pronounced letter for letter, and is thus not an acronym. It's just an abreviation.
(quickly ducking behind cover as bricks get thrown)
Eris
...Oops. We already have a simulaation of democracy installed and running. Never mind.
Eris Caffee
Thank you! I was thinking these very same things as I was reading the article. But there's one bit of Newspeak that you failed to point out, and it's one that really bugs me.
When exactly did the "citizens" of the United States become the "consumers"? (I know this article has implications for the whole world, but the linguistic trend is something I've seen in many other places and contexts. This is just the latest manifestation.)
When we let them refer to us as "consumers", then we are being put into a lower position, since consumers do not produce anything useful (they "consume" instead). A consumer is someone with few inherent rights, and should be grateful to receive whatever the mysterious and implied producers choose to give. Basically, they don't have to give anything (it's business, after all), so you don't have a right to anything.
A citizen, on the other hand is someone who has rights. There are certain freedoms and protections granted to every citizen, such as speech, assembly, and privacy. A citizen is also not just a passive recipient, but is an active participant in the process, since citizens are expected, and even have a duty to involve themselves in government, perhaps suggesting legislation to their representatives, or even becoming representatives themselves.
Yet somewhere along the way we changed from being a nation of citizens who owned corporations to a nation of good corporate citizens (another insidious phrase) who sell things to consumers.
The associations of the two words, consumer and citizen, are very divergent, and by saying the former instead of the latter we denigrate the majority population to whom we are refering.
Take back your rights and powers!
Consumers of Oceania! Newspeak is doubleplusbad. We become free of Newspeak. In Doublenewspeak we are Citizens!
Eris
Ooops. Had cookies turned off while posting. That was me if you really want to email me.
Eris
You've misheard that. It's not "locks", it's "lox". Rastafarian's dread lox. They live in mortal fear of smoked salmon! This is why you never see any Rastas in Jewish delicatessens - it's all the bagels and lox that keep them away.
But seriously, this study seems to be one of those everyone-knows-its-true-but-we-have-to-measure-it- to-call-it-science type studies.
Of course I dread coming to work. How could I not? I come in and spend eight hours behind a computer screen in a room where
It's really a depressing place, so...yeah...it's stressful.
Eris
That explains why it took so long for Windows NT to become even a halfway decent OS. I mean, if Microsoft doesn't even know that H.A.L. is NT's Hardware Abstraction Layer then they really do need to be hit with a cluestick.
Eris
If you're walking down a public street, you can expect to be seen by anyone.
Wrong.
If I am walking down a public street, then I can expect to be seen by anyone who has me in line of sight! I do not expect to be seen by someone on the other side of a building or hill, and I certainly do not expect to be seen by someone who is over the horizon.
Surveillance cameras change all of this. Now when I go out, I must contend with the fact that (potentially) someone on the other side of the world can see me!
This is a Bad Thing(tm) and is a violation of my patent on Evil(R). All criminal enforcement organizations are herby ordered to cease and desist all use of all technologies that infringe on my Personal Privacy(tm).
Eris
555 numbers are used internally by the phone companies for various things. Some have test equipment, some provide customer name and lookup (tell you who owns the phone your calling from), some provide things like directory assistance (as others have mentioned).
The actual usage varies from one bell to another, but if you really want details, try looking for phreaking info.
Eris
This is a nice try, but I think they've messed up on several counts.
Aimster's TOS describe their service as one where you agree to wall off a portion of your hard drive, and put a few files in there. Then you and other Aimster users merrily move files from one place to another inspecting the files for spam and viruses, and then sending them on to yet more people.
Wonderful.
Very useful.
Highly suspicious.
If Microsoft tried this we'd be all over them like ugly on Larry Ellison^H^H^H^H^H^H^H an ape.
Then how could they do better? Simple!
But Aimster didn't do these things. Instead they set themselves up on a fence and started yelling "Yoohoo! RIAA! See if you can hit me with that shotgun from 10 feet!"
rant_done = 1;
return rant_done;
Eris
Well, if I got thrown back in time...
First I would find a place to stay, perhaps with a religious charity. I could do cleaning and other handiwork for them. I would save my money to buy stone knives and bearskins. From these, I would build a mnemonic memory circuit which I could connect to my tricorder and use to contact the computer of the starship Enterprise.
Once I have access to the ship's computer, I would try to find out who caused the destruction of all computers and this annoying time warp thingy. It's probably Edith Keeler. (Idealistic twit! I knew her ideas would get us in trouble someday!)
Anyway. Assuming I can kill Keeler, then I run home...through a wall.
Just my thoughts on these vital questions.
Eris
So, is this what they mean by "CyberSex"?
And following up on a previous article, does sex between two computers count as adultery?
Inquiring minds want to know!
Eris
You've almost got it! Try cyborganism .
Eris
Ultima 6 is a good example of a non-zero-sum computer game. For those who don't know, it's a fantasy rgp type computer game where you are summoned to save Brintannia from the evil Gargoyles who are ravaging the land, but as the game progresses, you learn that the Gargoyles are not evil (they actually think *you* are) and the whole situation is the result of a massive cutural misunderstanding. In the end you teach everyone to respect each other and be friends.
Very NON zero-sum.
Eris
Why don't we start an open source project to build a free software censorware product? I know. It's kind of oxymoronic, or maybe just moronic ;-) -- but bare with me here.
Think about it! Schools and libraries don't want censorware, and the American Library Association is challenging this law.
We don't want censorware either: it doesn't work, and the companies that make it often push radical conservative political agendas, that target a lot of ideas near and dear to us.
So let's make our own product. By controlling the development, we could make certain that the blocked sites list is as minimal as possible to satisfy the legal requirement. The ALA, schools, and libraries would like it for being
a) FREE software (budgets are important, after all), and
b) software that is made by people who are friendly to free speech.
In the meantime, we all continue to support the legal challenges. But in the event that the ever more conservative Supreme Court upholds the law, we also have a weapon to use in holding censorship at least in check. If someone is going to do censorship, then let it be a civil libertarian.
I'd be willing to work on such a project. I think I would enjoy sticking it to CyberSitter -- they once blocked the site of a friend of mine because he's pagan, and especially because he dared take a public stance against them.
Eris
No thanks! I don't want "the market" or any one else deciding the value of my privacy. I'll make that decision. The privacy in question is, after all, mine. No one else has a right to decide that I will give it up regardless of what dubious "advantage" I get in exchange.
As for privacy policies, they are of no use to people without any legislation to back them up, for the following reasons:
1 - The market has demonstrated quite decisively that the disadvantages of angering potential customers by violating their privacy are nothing compared to the advantages to be gained by going ahead and collecting the information. Junk mail and spam are classic examples of this. Spammers constantly anger millions of people, but at the same time, they get enough return on their investment to make it worth the trouble.
Because of this, we cannot expect "the market" to protect our privacy by allowing the least invasive companies to rise to the top.
2 - No matter how good the privacy policy of a company is, they nearly all contain language saying that the company may change the policy at any time without consent, and often without even notification of their customers. Thus they can tell you one thing, and then later change their minds.
The first problem above can't really be solved without changing societal attitudes towards giving information to companies. But the second problem could be alleviated to great extent (but not completely - nothing is ever perfect) by passing some basic legislation. To wit:
1 - Require companies that collect information to explicitly tell you what that information is, and how it will be used. Essentially, they must have privacy policies.
2 - Require that if they want to change the policy that they notify you before the change, and that if you reject the change, then they must either continue to use your info under the terms of the old policy, or delete your information entirely (in which case you would probably have to explicitly agree to their new policy in order to keep using their services). This requirement of notification and giving someone a chance to reject changes is not any onerous burden; in fact it is standard procedure in contracts (read your credit card agreements for an example). All I'm saying is that "privacy policies" should be treated as contracts, since they are used as if they were contracts describing an exchange of personal information for use of a service.
I would also like to see a law requiring deletion of personal information at the customer's request. We already have something similar in the National Direct Marketing Association, but participation in that is voluntary.
Eris
[Note: I tend to agree with the above poster, but the first paragraph created an image in my mind that screamed out for parody. Please forgive me for what I now do.]
Building a community, real or virtual, is hard work, requiring lots of brick, mortar, planning, and the time and effort of many workers, both skilled artisans, and manual laborers. The really enduring communities have been ones that provide a mechanism to exclude unwanted outsiders, such as a great huge stone wall or other fortification. This seems a bit contradictory, but the effectivness of armed defense is a reality. The community is open to those who share its ethos, its gates are closed to those who will not share its ethos, and it ejects, imprisons, or executes those who attempt to disrupt it.
This is much easier in real world communities. The obnoxious teenager can be stunned with a cattle prod. Body language, side conversations, polite hostility, active hostility and power tools can be used. The truly anti-social personalities eventually become politicians. Usually the social pressure of being openly unwelcome suffices to create the necessary atmosphere of conformity, such as making sure everyone vote for the new football stadium and root for the home team. Sometimes the police are employed. Sometimes they are unemployed. But Texas always needs more prison guards, so the out of work cops can get jobs quickly.
But there is a powerful mix of Neilism and liposuction at work in US and European cultures, as Neil Sedaka music sucks the life out of our cultural instituions. Contemplate the horrifying changes to things like childrens sports. Where at one time (long ago, in a galaxy far, far away...) these were a method for teaching children how to manage anger and conflict by tackling people, throwing hard balls at them, and kicking. And sentence fragments. It taught the social skill of "Dumping Gatorade on the Coach", albeit an ideal that was rarely acheived, owing to the coaches fear of freezing to death in the cold New England winters. The usual achievement was grudging politeness and a pledge to crush the enemy's bones and drink their blood during the next battle...ahem...game. Today it too has succumbed to the solipcist hostility and the nihilist willingness to destroy that which you cannot win. In other words, it's just become honest about its true goals.
The virtual communities have it much harder. While throwing some jerk out of a window it quite satisfying, it is extremely hard to throw the destructive players out of Windows(tm). It is extremely hard to provide the gradual responses and discreet (un-embarassing) feedback for inappropriate behavior, and thus most people have to settle for absolute unchecked flame wars on public forums, complete with DoS attacks against the offenders ISP. And its openness makes it more attactive to those frustrated anti-social personalities that have found no other single supplier of hard-core porn, warez, bomb making instructions, and conversation with other 3133t d00dz. These people share the human desire to be part of a community, but have yet to learn the skills needed to be human. They flock to the wide open access of the virtual community and thereby create massive virtual communities of assholes.
First off, that which is legal, is not neccessarily ethical. This is another case of Microsoft unethically violating the trust their users have placed in them. When I read through the Terms of Use just now I interpreted them as an attempt by Microsoft to protect themselves from irate users who try to sue them claiming that "distributing" the photos and other items through MSN violates copyright. Of course, such a lawsuit would be falacious, but in these litigious times, who can blame even Microsoft for trying to protect themselves.
The problem is that the wording of the Terms of Use is broad enough to allow Microsoft to sell the photos, and this is the course of action they have chosen. By doing this they violate people's reasonable expectation to control their own works.
Most people don't expect this kind of behavior, even when it is legal. If Microsoft wanted to profit from the photos, then (ethically, not legally) they should have explicitly written into their usage agreement that Microsoft reserved the right to republished in other media the content uploaded to MSN.
As for the statement that the "obvious" solution is to move rather than complain, I have to respond that in an ostensibly democratic and capatalistic society, the "obvious" solution is twofold:
1 - Complain to Microsoft. If they don't change their policy to meet the customer's needs, then move to a different service.
2 - Complain to your CongressCritter. Just because something is legal, that doesn't mean it has to be legal, or even that it should be. Let your representatives know that you find this kind of action to be disturbing and that "there oughta be a law". Maybe there will be a law passed, and maybe there won't, but if you don't at least try to make the world better, then that's when you really shouldn't complain.
I guess Mac users don't like having to "Think Different".
As they say over at Despair.com
Think Same.
As for me, the only working computer I personally own at the moment is an Apple ][+.
Help me! I'm a Luddite! ;)
Surprise! You've been scammed!
I know this to be true, because I met him one time, and he told me that he's really just using the book to raise money for a liver transplant for his 12 year old little girl, who's waiting at the Shriner's Hospital in Houston. So do like I did, and send him some money, right now!
But don't believe his cockamamey stories about being able to fool people.
What methods do database administrators employ for recovery in such situations?
Big database systems like Oracle, Image, Sybase, etc., will have a logging mechanism that records each transaction against the database. You can change what information is actually recorded, but for maximum safety you have it record everything, logins, additions (including the added data), deletions (including the deleted data), and so on.
This way if something happens to your database, you can load a backup, and then bring it up to date again rolling forward the transaction log to redo any transactions that have occcured since the backup was made.
You could also examine the transaction log first to make sure nothing funny has been inserted into it by a sophisticated cracker.
BTW - I *must* do this, so please to forgive:
First Post!
Weeelllllll. It's my first post, at least. My first ever. I'm going to go hide again, now.
Maltz! Engage the Lurking Device!