You're trying to compare post-sale restrictions like a EULA to a more-permissive-than-default offer like the GPL.
Try to consider this rationally, pretend it wasn't your comfort blanket that I was talking about. It's not your cool mac, nor the cool company that makes them. It's some icky company that will sell you a product, and box it with a big pile of legalese that you don't get to see before shelling out your money, if you were a qualified lawyer and suited to really evaluate it, just so that this company could prevent what everyone has always been doing, and try to sell exactly the same product, but without this feature disabled for more money. Pretty icky.
Now imagine loathsome leech-like creatures inhabiting cyberspace. These loathsome beasts exist only to tell people that this company is wonderful. That black is white, up is down, a sale isn't a sale, and restrictions aren't really restricting you if you don't try to do anything. Nobody knows why they exist, or why they choose to attach themselves to the nether-regions of the rich CEO of this company, but one must assume it's because if you've drunk the kool-aid, it's humiliating when others choose to have their own mind.
Doesn't this seem wrong? That companies should sell things they've intentionally crippled and people defend them for it, by joking about pissing all over a totally unrelated volunteer project. Seems wrong to me...
But maybe if there was a requirement for shareholders to know, they'd find a way to watch? Nowadays the safe thing to do is to not check, if you don't know someone is committing a crime you try not to look.
If I told you I was going to rob people and asked you for money to buy tools, you'd be guilty as well.
If I started a company, and with the thinnest pretense claimed to be in legitimate business yet still robbed people, thus returning profits far in excess of what you could reasonably expect, you just look the other way and whistle, in total legal innocence.
That seems unreasonable. Your responsibility for your own actions (and providing money is an action) should go beyond that. I think being deceived is some defense, but only a little. You could tell me a gun in unloaded, but common sense says that I should check before handling it. If an investment is worth making, surely it's worth getting a few fellow-shareholders together and paying for an audit of the company.
And as for companies committing crimes, I think that's not quite right either. Certainly sometimes a company's worker commits a crime, like running a red light while delivering a parcel. But sometimes the company places unreasonable demands on drivers that necessitate running red lights to meet goals, yet the executives want to disclaim responsibility.
In other words, sometimes it's something the employee is doing while at work. Other times it's what the employee is doing for work. When the company's policies are to commit crimes, it seems that the company itself has committed a crime.
Certainly many companies do things that would be illegal and offensively unethical for a single person to do, simply because no one person has to see their actions as responsible for the mess.
1) You're wrong. I do own the software. The law says that I own it like I own a book. I can do anything except produce extra copies or display it to a public audience. If you don't want me to own a copy of your software, you shouldn't sell it to me. And btw, if it looks like a sale to the customer, it is.
2) Yeah yeah, their right to do what they want... to lessen the value of the product with restrictions hidden in 30+ pages of inaccessible legalese, not in what it can do, but what you're allowed to try to do with it. It's sold as a working product and broken by the EULA. That's false advertising and horribly unethical.
3) How about you stop whining and making excuses when I expect something to work as advertised?
4) MacOS is capable of an action, but intentionally broken in a critical way that prevents the action. That's what we call crippled. DRM cripples products.
5) You totally proved my point. MacOS is crippled. Mac fanboys can't admit it. Think Different, or at all.
Maybe not such a bad idea. But it's unlikely to have to be done from scratch by everyone. Maybe that guy could simply note that Coke had a dept of ethical standards, was an up-to-date member of some consumer-reports style magazine that audited and tested companies blindly, and was open with its practices so that illegal actions couldn't be hidden.
After all, a share-holder is in a better place to examine Coke's practices for malfeasance than some assembly-line worker in Guatemala. Surely if a crime is committed and someone needs to pay, it'd make more sense to charge the shareholders than society in general?
They'd then be left with the standard option of suing the execs if they believed they were lied to.
Why should stockholders of a company have more protection for its crimes than the victims?
Anything less makes it better to know less about your company, you'd still get the profits but dodge the responsibility.
Investment would slow initially, but adding any rules would have that effect and our system is successful because of the many rules (unregulated stock markets get fewer buyers because they're full of scams). If we increased reliability it could only benefit those companies that didn't intend to break laws. But when our government is acting less responsibly than Enron, how much can we hope for?
Of course right and left-wingers both don't want less government, they're by definitions supporters of government. Duh.
And then you seem to confuse anarchy (the lack of all government) with the shifting of power from a federal to a local level. This has been pointed out to you many times. Are you daft?
The federal government as designed provided for defense in times of war, and emergencies. That would cover anything George W. has tried and failed to do. The country would still tax enough to build an army, build "national" projects like interstates, etc, but not for things which would be done through state and city government.
Most of the institutions you think would go away would survive, but be owned by the states.
What we wouldn't have is a nation-wide government passing laws on video-game violence. If your area wasted money voting on this you'd have more voice with which to argue, and realistic options on where to live. Now if you don't like USA law, where do you go? You need a passport to even get to Canada. If the states were more independent you'd have real choice.
You support watering down the choices of the independent cultures such that nobody gets what they want. If that led to efficiency it might be forgivable, but instead it leads to corruptions because government is in the habit of ignoring the wishes of its citizens. Then (ie, now) people stop voting because it doesn't make any damn difference which batch of big-government thugs they elect. Kang? I'm a Kodos man myself!
Did you sign a Vista EULA? For me Vista comes when I buy laptops. I'm only bound by contracts I've seen, read, understood, agreed to, and indicated consent for. I don't do any of those things to the Vista EULA so it's not a contract, or at least, not binding on me.
It used to be that MS sold the same software to corporate clients that you could get from Best Buy. (If you wanted to buy the corp version at BB). Now though, the BB version will do things that you can't do with the volume-licensed ones you buy from MS. (Because when you buy MS software through volume-licensing you sign that you agree to the EULA, which over-the-shelf software doesn't force you to do.) The only people who are going to be prevented from running Vista in virtualization are companies. (And only with copies they got cheap - if they buy another copy at the store they're not volume-license bound on that copy.)
Until MS gets BestBuy to show and require a 30+ page contract for purchase of their software, it'll never be binding. (And can you imagine how that'd slow the line, because if you don't give someone time to read and understand the contract they aren't valid - you can't honestly believe the person you're contracting to has understood and consented to something in 30s that would take a lawyer 60m to read carefully and contracts aren't valid unless both parties believe the other is competent and consenting.)
I eagerly await the day MS tries to make their EULAs binding, it'll be the biggest marketing push Linux and Mac have ever received.
Wow, it's living proof that using a Mac makes you as dumb as a fucking stump.
It could have run on an x86 machine, until they specifically programming in a check. They felt that their profit margins are more important than my rights (yes Mac boy, legal rights) to run their OS anywhere I felt like.
Nobody here respects Microsoft when they say you aren't allowed to run their OSes in virtualization. They don't have the right to place those restrictions on use. Once they sell the product, they aren't involved.
Apple is saying the same thing. They sell you the OS, you own it and thus the right to run it anywhere for as long as you wish. But it's crippled to prevent this. You could do it, but Apple doesn't want you to and is willing to lessen the customer's experience in order to sell more computers.
Sure, it's what we expect them to do. They want to sell more, yes. We get that they want this and are allowed want this. But when they act more like Microsoft than Microsoft and *cripple* their own product just to spite creative users, what's the attraction supposed to be?
Apple's product checks for "legit" hardware, what happens if I want to run this in 10 years after my mac breaks? It'll check for authentic hardware and fail, where other OSes will work on an emulator.
Junk. Total unmitigated junk. And totally rectally attached fanboys.
And what I'm trying to point out is that those people do have faces. [...] Do you see how you're perpetuating the issue?
No. In fact, I think of it as bringing accountability and recognition to the faceless cog. If this person isn't seen, they'll keep being an anonymous faceless cog in a cold uncaring system. If however, their actions would be less faceless and distant - more the actions of a member of the community, they'd be respected for their otherwise unnoticed work.
If these people have to consider that people will see them do what they do, they'll have to ask themselves if they want to be seen that way.
If we had videos of our prison guards torturing suspects they'd either 1) shape up 2) get social justice. (ie, beaten) As is, we're supporting a corrupt system that collectively breaks all the laws we individually hold sacred. As a faceless servant of the empire you don't take responsibility for your actions. You lose sight of how it's a human system - theoretically doing only what thinking humans would do. If you had to justify your actions, you might think about them first. If not, at least those who pay for the system (and are tarred with the same brush, ala US war crimes making US citizens look bad) could take out the bad apples.
If anything, this should show the futility of such a system. There is (alleged) hard evidence that a man paid from your taxes is not doing his job correctly, and yet nothing is being done about it.
Only because we're not really watching him. If we had a camera on the bastard 24/7 we'd have had enough to impeach during his first term. If we watched all of his underlings we'd be able to tell when his illegal plans really went into action. As is we've only got a few video clips of him, all forewarned and lying.
[only] A handful of people have access to the security cameras at these businesses, as opposed to the entire world.
By default, but do something of interest and watch your picture hit the news. Your privacy comes from not being interesting.
they're typically used for evidence after a crime has been committed, rather than to watch people in real-time.
That's their purpose, and it would be here as well. Watching someone work (in real-time or later) is simply how you'd do that. There are many civil servants, I think you'd get bored if you just watched them do paperwork.
there have been multiple sites like Jennicam where this was done.
If one of your workers is doing what Jenni was doing, I'd suggest you fire them and hire someone to actually do work and stop the striptease. This way you'd know. The video feed would get popular on Fark, you'd notice a lot of bandwidth from people watching a certain employee, you'd tune in as well, jumping back to check out the stored footage. If they're doing something inappropriate, you'd know.
If a large portion of us were suddenly watched at work we'd adjust. Armored Car drivers are watched. They can't just have sex in the back of the truck. Surgeons are watched. They can't just make a personal call during an operation. People adjust. I've sometimes had a desk in view of my coworkers, sometimes not. You just redraw the lines. Work isn't a personal space, even if the current lack of cameras there make you think otherwise. Neither is the bus. If I drove to work I could have more privacy. If I wanted to sing and not be critiqued, I'd use the car.
More importantly though, if I was tired of being watched, I'd give up the job handling everyone's money. Now I do work, intentionally, that can be judged in its final state so that I don't have to be watched. But, if my work could fall apart the instant I left if I hadn't taken proper care, but there was no way to tell before the disaster, I'd expect my clients to want to watch me work.
In conclusion. Some work needs to be watched. People who do that work simply treat it as
It's a system that is already in place, and that works pretty well.
Works pretty well? It's pretty much a horrid failure. Collectively those low-level workers are the huge faceless system. Everything a government does goes through many low-level employees. There's no employee doing something they couldn't twist for gain, or just slack off and not do. If we can't watch the pieces and nobody's accountable we can't trust the system.
Of course, we're literally slaves. Try to leave the country without permission, or to not fight if drafted. With that in mind, the government isn't much inclined to be accountable. Constitutional best-wishes aside, governments still aren't based on the concept of individual freedom. Nobody gets a choice to accept government, or the social 'contract', or to even verify that it does what it says it's doing.
The president is an open liar. Caught. Proven. He's still doing it. What kind of accountability can there be in a system where we can't watch over the fucker's shoulder and *see* what he's doing?
The line is somewhere between police and that student worker.
I see no difference, except in scale, between the two. A policeman could beat, kill, or imprison someone unfairly, a government researcher could screw with vaccines or QA for them, or falsify their results for personal gain or sabotage. They could both cause harm, and if I'm paying them I want to make sure that they aren't.
I think you'd have to look at corruption statistics to decide who got monitored with video cameras. Some police departments are worse than others, or just politically charged, as are some public-works departments, election officials, etc. The goal though, would be everyone.
I don't think it's unreasonably intrusive. Many people, from hair-dressers to bank employees are always watched while they work. The jobs are still popular, so it's likely not that onerous. How interesting do you think some clerk doing a good job of filing is going to be to watch? And if there is anything juicy, it's probably good for the employees to take it outside on break anyways.
Personally I think we're going to end up in Brin's Transparent Society. Cameras everywhere, too small and easily hidden for you to be 100% sure of privacy anywhere. Not because this is particularly desirable, but because it's a natural progression of the technology. Surveillance is being used on 'us', we've got to start demanding (and just taking, regardless of the answer - or rather especially because of the answer) the right to watch those who are theoretically our servants.
Tipping your server isn't (much of) a bribe. Paying him to go against his employers interests would be. It's what I mean anyways - bribes to make the judge reconsider a case unfairly, to make a building inspector do a poor job, or make a mayor sell out his city.
In my example I was assuming that Burger King and McDonalds would bring the same deal to the table. That includes all indirect benefits, such as one simply seeming like a better fit for that area of town, cross-licensing deals, etc.
I guess the gist of it is that I feel you have the right to change your registry at will, but not to put the key/software-X/critical_setting=wrong_value key, where software-X is unambiguously a recognizable product. Nor would I support your right to specifically sabotage your OS, terminating other programs with 'software-X is broken' message that isn't true.
Those actions seem to be lies. The medium in one is your registry, but you'd be using it to tell the user lies about the performance of my product. The other likewise.
Fraud and misrepresentation (my calling the bank pretending to be you/or have secret info on you) should be and mostly is illegal. There are civil penalties for simply violating the terms of a contract, but there should be criminal charges (and in many cases are) for going into the contract planning to violate it. The gist of all of these crimes is presenting false information knowingly.
As for Microsoft's potential immunity to prosecution for any number of possible reasons, that's bunk. If they're guilty, they're guilty. If they have any excuses those should go towards lessening the sentence, and should be made as public as the trial. How can anyone compete when their own government doesn't enforce laws evenly or as written
I agree about product configuration. MS should be able to sell Windows with IE. Nowadays we recognize that a browser really is a system component. What they should not be able to do is use threats, lies, and bribes to control that market.
The specific ones I asked, yes, but still not quite... You feel able to deal with many non-physical personal attacks. And you feel that people who leave themselves open have little reason to whine (someone who doesn't ask for money up front). Also that special treatment isn't necessarily bad.
Assume if I was to reroute your phone that my next call was to your domain-name provider, then cancel power at your home and office to slow you down, etc...
Assume that if I was to empty your bank account I'd also tell people you molested children and buy a plane ticket in your name to Mexico.
If one person refusing to pay, for a reason, is okay, how about all the customers you currently have, without valid reason? How about if I threaten to sue every one of them for triple what they owe you because of some patent mumbo jumbo unless they stop payment and stop using your product?
Essentially, consider yourself the little guy. If the bank manager likes you, let's wait till he's moved on. If your customers trust you, fake an FBI memo about defrauding customers...
Those seem to me to be the level of the things Microsoft does to competing businesses. They modify their OS to crash with messages that impugn the perfectly functional DR-DOS. Bill G. lies on the stand to a judge about IE integration - is caught in his lie and faces no censure.
If we wrote similar software utilities and yours sabotaged mine (left broken registry entries to specifically make it install in the wrong place, etc) I'd sue you. You'd either lose, or suffer from the court case. If I caught you in a lie and had proof, you'd be sitting in jail for a month or two on top of it.
If Microsoft does it... well history shows that. They're fine, competition dead. Even if they get sued (and lose), the damages to the competitor were far less than what MS gained from doing so. It's a huge win for Bill to break almost any law.
There are two ways to compete. Go onto the field and play hard - nice isn't required. Or, beat the other guy up in the locker room before the game.
If your utility just outperformed mine, or stunk on ice but was more popular, that'd be one thing. But if you need to ruin me to do well yourself, that's when I think you've gone too far.
Everyone 'makes mistakes' now and then. No need to close MS, but estimate how much market they gained from any given lie and multiply it by their current value - fine them double that. Anything less is a joke.
Special treatment is given, as you said to McDonalds, but would Burger King have gotten the deal? Is the city consistently willing to lower tax in exchange for guaranteed employment, or is it because of kickbacks to the mayor? If you're a more efficient diner, restaurants should treat you differently. If you bribe the waiter to sit you despite being a less profitable customer to the restaurant, that would be bad. (As if the mayor was taking bribes from McDs - if it were my city I'd be pissed if we sold out our future selves on taxes for a short-term profit to the mayor or a crony.)
So really, I want to know what you'd think if you couldn't just expect everyone to believe you, if you had to deal with competitors who'd pay someone to sue you over a lie, taking years and millions, before the case dissolved into the predictable nothing leaving you broke and years behind schedule, would you mind?
Because that's what's happening to people. If you're in a business Microsoft wants to be in they'll continually lie and bribe to win. Witness SCO, the 200+ undisclosed patents, the OOXML bribes to uninterested countries, etc.
And that is why I say it's unethical to attach yourself to them. There may be no law against buying stock in companies that break the law yet don't get punished, or writing software that helps market their OS, or even going to their dinner parties, but it's still profiting from illegal acts - just indirectly enough we don't pursue it. Do you have to cheat to play? Do you have to join a cheater's team?
For the average suburban household, buying a Dell PC with Vista is the most optimal choice. Anyone who works with computers and normal users knows this. Sorry if you don't.
But that's totally wrong. Who's going to support that Windows box for Mr and Mrs Average Suburban Household?
If they browse much at all that thing's going to be hip-deep in viruses unless they've got third-party programs for defense. It won't do *anything* out of the box. You'll have to spend hundreds of dollars for those third-party programs I mention, or muck around with finding trial versions and keeping them up to date.
Now how are they going to edit a photo? MS Paint? Photoshop? That's close to a thousand dollars. Paintshop Pro or off-brand? You might as well learn Gimp if you're going non-standard.
Office apps? Well, it'll view some word processing docs (in Word Viewer, ick), but not spreadsheets or presenations. You'll have to buy another set of programs ($350+ for a non-crippled version of MS Office). Or, again a different version for less, if you research it. But then, why not Open Office?
Sorry, but I'll have to flunk you on this one. You've speced a computer that's not safe to plug into the internet, and doesn't contain applications people want.
You mean to compare these items
Vindows Vista + Professional Installer + Apps + Regular Maintenance vs Ubuntu
Keeping my mom's computer working used to be a pain, through '98 and 2k, but then I switched her to Ubuntu a few years back and haven't had any problems. No viruses, easy remote config, working browser, working office suite, image editor I can walk her through. The only snag has been cheap printers.
No, the advice to buy a Dell with Vista is about the worst advice you could give someone. This is what consumer reports should be warning against. If you buy that lemon your computing will suck. People who can properly maintain the Windows PC are not reading Consumer Reports to buy a PC, so it's pretty much guaranteed to be the worst advice.
If you recommend Vista to a non-pro, recommend they never plug it into the network. Anything else is a sick joke.
Hurting competition is one thing, but if it's okay for Bill Gates to break contracts, lie to customers about a rival's performance, and lie to a judge, shouldn't it be legal for you to steal his car? What are the limits?
Doesn't it bother you that other businesses are much more profitable than yours because they break laws you'd be put in jail if you violated?
As for speaking to my politician, wouldn't it be easier to just deal with you in an 'extra-legal' fashion? I feel removing hypocritical asses is acceptable. Is it okay if I murder you? Or maybe if I just call all your customers and tell them you've been convicted of child molesting and tax fraud? Call the phone company and get your number pointed to my office, then clean out your bank account with fake checks I ordered? Maybe just contract you to do a job and default on payment after you've spent time working on it? All fine?
It's funny the third-party crap that people are willing to include in their pages, with no guarantee of content or correctness, for the loose promise of a few cents for click.
This is the current state of the art, but it's pathetic. It's like ordering a toy from Acme Stuffed Toys, Landmines, and Live Scorpions Inc., and drop-shipping it to your customer without looking in the box.
I agree with the nutjob, there needs to be a Wikipedia article on his crazy theory and everyone else's. How do I know what EU supporters believe if there isn't a page about their theory?
Wikipedia talks about other failed theories, and Greek gods, but can't find space for a topic that (right, or probably wrong) many people currently living find important?
Pretty much anyone who wants to remove content from Wikipedia is a fascist. There are ways to tag articles as bad, and there's a process for fixing them up before showing them. Besides, it'd be trivial to do a NPOV article on the EU theory "The theory suggests that X, Y, because of Z. Claims made about the theory are 'xxxx'[1] and 'yyyy'[2]. Many scientists[3][4][5][6] believe the theory is untenable and feel[7][8] that the current theory adequately explains the discrepancies[9][10] noticed."
That would let anyone who went there know at least who said what. I don't care that it "promotes" some quack, as it also exposes them to critical oversight.
But it'll be fought tooth and nail because while it's not Wikipedia specifically, there are the kind of authoritarian jerks who exist simply to make others do it their way - even if a compromise is painless, and many of them are editors. These people are everywhere, like in IRC where they get ops and use it to reward suck-ups, etc. The problem isn't Wikipedia, but it's how Wikipedia forces a stupid consensus (one where one of the parties has no real vested interest) over every decision. If your only contribution is thinking this is 'non notable' then fuck off. The hassle from having an extra page of questionable quality (properly marked as being questionable) is far less than the hassle of endless deletion fights which end up presenting 'create new article' link when done - encouraging yet another person to do just that.
In other words, if you think of yourself as a Wikipedia admin, shoot yourself. If you're a power user who edits, rock on. If you can't tell, check if 90% of what you do is reading and editing vs 90% nitpicking the validity of other people's suggestions. If it's the latter, you're worse than worthless - you're a vandal of the worst sort.
Sure, that's all well and good, if you don't mind performing those acrobatics over people that Microsoft boats over.
If they were just big and successful, that'd be one thing. People would still write open source to do their own thing. Everyone would be relatively happy.
Instead Microsoft defrauds other companies, lies in court, etc.
So, if you're comfortable being where you are only because you're riding the coat tails of a thief, enjoy.
If you merely want to get rich off the labors of others and you have no qualms, why not simply rob people? Microsoft has done it, so by riding their coat tails you're condoning it. Cut out the middle man, if you honestly have no ethics.
Or is it better that MS does it? They're too big to get punished, so you'll likely be safe, like a remora clinging to a shark.
IE is only successful because they give it away. It causes billions of dollars in lost productivity through viruses and other problems that Microsoft shoves off on its "partners", people like you. You support IE despite its mistakes, you support windows PCs despite having to virus scan and firewall the hell out of them and it still not being enough.
The *only* thing IE is successful at is dumping an inferior product, specifically though tying it to the OS, in an effort to kill people who actually compete on features - you know, value.
Microsoft is rich, but isn't it sad that you're sucking the hind tit? You're looking for scraps from a company that's consistently broken laws, lied in court, and defrauded users pretty much throughout its history. Even if you find some, and MS doesn't take it, you'll be right where you belong. Firmly attached to MS's nether-regions. Enjoy.
They put in a feature that nobody could use because then they'd have a truly IE only site. And this is helpful?
But Firefox, which is totally expandable, not just in this one area, is bad because there's a slight barrier of entry?
Never mind that in any situation other than the contrived one where you'd want to change just the scripting language and *NOTHING ELSE*, IE couldn't even do it. And if it could, Microsoft would sue you for modifying it. A company that wanted its volume licensing would have to suck up to Microsoft.
And never mind that the only reason the feature is there is to hurt people in exactly your position. If MS can get one person showing their boss some IE only "feature" they've kept those people locked in. Not only does this hurt them directly by sticking them with an inferior product (any product the manufacturer fobs off on you for free to kill competition is obviously inferior) but it hurts everyone on the web.
Have you ever used a monitor spider to set the color and gamma of your monitors separately?
You can't do it in Windows. Trivial for anyone who on a Mac.
Some of the problem is the GUI. You set one option here, it unsets another in the last screen. It showed the wrong value (not what it was using) in a few places, and has absolutely abysmal hardware overlay controls.
Once you've got your dual monitors, though unfortunately not profiled properly, try to play a DVD on them. Play on one, then switch to the other. If you can do it in less than a reboot you're lucky. Often playing a video on the other device requires swapping primary and secondary in the main dual-monitor screen. At that point you only have to reconfigure everything it lost when switching them. Of course it's not like it's obvious if it'll work on not, you have to try playing to movie to test it and have to restart the player at each change so it'll try to reallocate the overlay.
I run Debian on a PC - I'm not a Mac lover, but god damn does Windows blow compared to a Mac.
Yeah, Firefox does get a bit sluggish. With 150+ tabs open. And it dies every two weeks or so under that load.
Does Windows stay up that long? I've only rarely seen it do so, and it was only when coming to Linux full-time that I realized Firefox dies after a while, Windows XP rarely lasted long enough for Firefox to have a problem.
IE won't do what FF will. If you tried it would result in a smoking pile of fail.
Oh wow, they had a quota of lies to meet, which totally excuses them from having to have any ethics!
The only bigger scum than you is someone who tries that excuse. Don't blame me for my actions, I'm only following orders!
Well how about getting a job you're not incompetent at?! Ever think of that? One where you can meet the requirements and not lie to do so? It might mean you have to pass up jobs from bosses who lie.
I imagine GameSpot is hiring though and you'd fit right in. A corporate culture of dishonesty and a liar to defend it. With some luck you'll get through life never having been helpful to another human.
GameSpot threatened to lower reviews because of an incident regarding a game who's demo was launched before their official premier.
Bad grammar aside, "official" doesn't mean jack. If they had an *exclusive* premiere (with your company's game??), there would: A)... B) Be no need to threaten anything that wasn't already agreed to by both parties. C)...
Oh yes, they might drop a review score because of some procedural crap, but that's okay because they have a contract which says they'll lie in those conditions and they blame this on the publisher.
Wow, that's not totally corrupted or anything. We were worried, but the fact that they sign a contract with the game publisher beforehand totally makes it wonderful!
How about magazine publishers, who may be trying to just make a living, try to do it the way that 95% of everyone else does it. You know, honestly. If they can't make an honest living in that field, maybe they shouldn't do it.
What is it with retards like you justifying anything with "they're just making money"? No shit. We all like money. That's supposed to excuse anything? Get in a fucking food-bank line asshole. It's for people who can't make a living honestly.
3) They've only got quotes, but they've chosen the quotes so they contain everything you wish wasn't repeated anyways.
Wouldn't you rather know you were being recorded, than be surprised by something someone found years after the fact that you'd said when assuming you had privacy.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, you really are stump-like.
You're trying to compare post-sale restrictions like a EULA to a more-permissive-than-default offer like the GPL.
Try to consider this rationally, pretend it wasn't your comfort blanket that I was talking about. It's not your cool mac, nor the cool company that makes them. It's some icky company that will sell you a product, and box it with a big pile of legalese that you don't get to see before shelling out your money, if you were a qualified lawyer and suited to really evaluate it, just so that this company could prevent what everyone has always been doing, and try to sell exactly the same product, but without this feature disabled for more money. Pretty icky.
Now imagine loathsome leech-like creatures inhabiting cyberspace. These loathsome beasts exist only to tell people that this company is wonderful. That black is white, up is down, a sale isn't a sale, and restrictions aren't really restricting you if you don't try to do anything. Nobody knows why they exist, or why they choose to attach themselves to the nether-regions of the rich CEO of this company, but one must assume it's because if you've drunk the kool-aid, it's humiliating when others choose to have their own mind.
Doesn't this seem wrong? That companies should sell things they've intentionally crippled and people defend them for it, by joking about pissing all over a totally unrelated volunteer project. Seems wrong to me...
But maybe if there was a requirement for shareholders to know, they'd find a way to watch? Nowadays the safe thing to do is to not check, if you don't know someone is committing a crime you try not to look.
If I told you I was going to rob people and asked you for money to buy tools, you'd be guilty as well.
If I started a company, and with the thinnest pretense claimed to be in legitimate business yet still robbed people, thus returning profits far in excess of what you could reasonably expect, you just look the other way and whistle, in total legal innocence.
That seems unreasonable. Your responsibility for your own actions (and providing money is an action) should go beyond that. I think being deceived is some defense, but only a little. You could tell me a gun in unloaded, but common sense says that I should check before handling it. If an investment is worth making, surely it's worth getting a few fellow-shareholders together and paying for an audit of the company.
And as for companies committing crimes, I think that's not quite right either. Certainly sometimes a company's worker commits a crime, like running a red light while delivering a parcel. But sometimes the company places unreasonable demands on drivers that necessitate running red lights to meet goals, yet the executives want to disclaim responsibility.
In other words, sometimes it's something the employee is doing while at work. Other times it's what the employee is doing for work. When the company's policies are to commit crimes, it seems that the company itself has committed a crime.
Certainly many companies do things that would be illegal and offensively unethical for a single person to do, simply because no one person has to see their actions as responsible for the mess.
1) You're wrong. I do own the software. The law says that I own it like I own a book. I can do anything except produce extra copies or display it to a public audience. If you don't want me to own a copy of your software, you shouldn't sell it to me. And btw, if it looks like a sale to the customer, it is.
... to lessen the value of the product with restrictions hidden in 30+ pages of inaccessible legalese, not in what it can do, but what you're allowed to try to do with it. It's sold as a working product and broken by the EULA. That's false advertising and horribly unethical.
2) Yeah yeah, their right to do what they want
3) How about you stop whining and making excuses when I expect something to work as advertised?
4) MacOS is capable of an action, but intentionally broken in a critical way that prevents the action. That's what we call crippled. DRM cripples products.
5) You totally proved my point. MacOS is crippled. Mac fanboys can't admit it. Think Different, or at all.
Maybe not such a bad idea. But it's unlikely to have to be done from scratch by everyone. Maybe that guy could simply note that Coke had a dept of ethical standards, was an up-to-date member of some consumer-reports style magazine that audited and tested companies blindly, and was open with its practices so that illegal actions couldn't be hidden.
After all, a share-holder is in a better place to examine Coke's practices for malfeasance than some assembly-line worker in Guatemala. Surely if a crime is committed and someone needs to pay, it'd make more sense to charge the shareholders than society in general?
They'd then be left with the standard option of suing the execs if they believed they were lied to.
Why should stockholders of a company have more protection for its crimes than the victims?
Anything less makes it better to know less about your company, you'd still get the profits but dodge the responsibility.
Investment would slow initially, but adding any rules would have that effect and our system is successful because of the many rules (unregulated stock markets get fewer buyers because they're full of scams). If we increased reliability it could only benefit those companies that didn't intend to break laws. But when our government is acting less responsibly than Enron, how much can we hope for?
Of course right and left-wingers both don't want less government, they're by definitions supporters of government. Duh.
And then you seem to confuse anarchy (the lack of all government) with the shifting of power from a federal to a local level. This has been pointed out to you many times. Are you daft?
The federal government as designed provided for defense in times of war, and emergencies. That would cover anything George W. has tried and failed to do. The country would still tax enough to build an army, build "national" projects like interstates, etc, but not for things which would be done through state and city government.
Most of the institutions you think would go away would survive, but be owned by the states.
What we wouldn't have is a nation-wide government passing laws on video-game violence. If your area wasted money voting on this you'd have more voice with which to argue, and realistic options on where to live. Now if you don't like USA law, where do you go? You need a passport to even get to Canada. If the states were more independent you'd have real choice.
You support watering down the choices of the independent cultures such that nobody gets what they want. If that led to efficiency it might be forgivable, but instead it leads to corruptions because government is in the habit of ignoring the wishes of its citizens. Then (ie, now) people stop voting because it doesn't make any damn difference which batch of big-government thugs they elect. Kang? I'm a Kodos man myself!
Did you sign a Vista EULA? For me Vista comes when I buy laptops. I'm only bound by contracts I've seen, read, understood, agreed to, and indicated consent for. I don't do any of those things to the Vista EULA so it's not a contract, or at least, not binding on me.
It used to be that MS sold the same software to corporate clients that you could get from Best Buy. (If you wanted to buy the corp version at BB). Now though, the BB version will do things that you can't do with the volume-licensed ones you buy from MS. (Because when you buy MS software through volume-licensing you sign that you agree to the EULA, which over-the-shelf software doesn't force you to do.) The only people who are going to be prevented from running Vista in virtualization are companies. (And only with copies they got cheap - if they buy another copy at the store they're not volume-license bound on that copy.)
Until MS gets BestBuy to show and require a 30+ page contract for purchase of their software, it'll never be binding. (And can you imagine how that'd slow the line, because if you don't give someone time to read and understand the contract they aren't valid - you can't honestly believe the person you're contracting to has understood and consented to something in 30s that would take a lawyer 60m to read carefully and contracts aren't valid unless both parties believe the other is competent and consenting.)
I eagerly await the day MS tries to make their EULAs binding, it'll be the biggest marketing push Linux and Mac have ever received.
Wow, it's living proof that using a Mac makes you as dumb as a fucking stump.
It could have run on an x86 machine, until they specifically programming in a check. They felt that their profit margins are more important than my rights (yes Mac boy, legal rights) to run their OS anywhere I felt like.
Nobody here respects Microsoft when they say you aren't allowed to run their OSes in virtualization. They don't have the right to place those restrictions on use. Once they sell the product, they aren't involved.
Apple is saying the same thing. They sell you the OS, you own it and thus the right to run it anywhere for as long as you wish. But it's crippled to prevent this. You could do it, but Apple doesn't want you to and is willing to lessen the customer's experience in order to sell more computers.
Sure, it's what we expect them to do. They want to sell more, yes. We get that they want this and are allowed want this. But when they act more like Microsoft than Microsoft and *cripple* their own product just to spite creative users, what's the attraction supposed to be?
Apple's product checks for "legit" hardware, what happens if I want to run this in 10 years after my mac breaks? It'll check for authentic hardware and fail, where other OSes will work on an emulator.
Junk. Total unmitigated junk. And totally rectally attached fanboys.
No. In fact, I think of it as bringing accountability and recognition to the faceless cog. If this person isn't seen, they'll keep being an anonymous faceless cog in a cold uncaring system. If however, their actions would be less faceless and distant - more the actions of a member of the community, they'd be respected for their otherwise unnoticed work.
If these people have to consider that people will see them do what they do, they'll have to ask themselves if they want to be seen that way.
If we had videos of our prison guards torturing suspects they'd either 1) shape up 2) get social justice. (ie, beaten) As is, we're supporting a corrupt system that collectively breaks all the laws we individually hold sacred. As a faceless servant of the empire you don't take responsibility for your actions. You lose sight of how it's a human system - theoretically doing only what thinking humans would do. If you had to justify your actions, you might think about them first. If not, at least those who pay for the system (and are tarred with the same brush, ala US war crimes making US citizens look bad) could take out the bad apples.
Only because we're not really watching him. If we had a camera on the bastard 24/7 we'd have had enough to impeach during his first term. If we watched all of his underlings we'd be able to tell when his illegal plans really went into action. As is we've only got a few video clips of him, all forewarned and lying.
By default, but do something of interest and watch your picture hit the news. Your privacy comes from not being interesting.
That's their purpose, and it would be here as well. Watching someone work (in real-time or later) is simply how you'd do that. There are many civil servants, I think you'd get bored if you just watched them do paperwork.
If one of your workers is doing what Jenni was doing, I'd suggest you fire them and hire someone to actually do work and stop the striptease. This way you'd know. The video feed would get popular on Fark, you'd notice a lot of bandwidth from people watching a certain employee, you'd tune in as well, jumping back to check out the stored footage. If they're doing something inappropriate, you'd know.
If a large portion of us were suddenly watched at work we'd adjust. Armored Car drivers are watched. They can't just have sex in the back of the truck. Surgeons are watched. They can't just make a personal call during an operation. People adjust. I've sometimes had a desk in view of my coworkers, sometimes not. You just redraw the lines. Work isn't a personal space, even if the current lack of cameras there make you think otherwise. Neither is the bus. If I drove to work I could have more privacy. If I wanted to sing and not be critiqued, I'd use the car.
More importantly though, if I was tired of being watched, I'd give up the job handling everyone's money. Now I do work, intentionally, that can be judged in its final state so that I don't have to be watched. But, if my work could fall apart the instant I left if I hadn't taken proper care, but there was no way to tell before the disaster, I'd expect my clients to want to watch me work.
In conclusion. Some work needs to be watched. People who do that work simply treat it as
Works pretty well? It's pretty much a horrid failure. Collectively those low-level workers are the huge faceless system. Everything a government does goes through many low-level employees. There's no employee doing something they couldn't twist for gain, or just slack off and not do. If we can't watch the pieces and nobody's accountable we can't trust the system.
Of course, we're literally slaves. Try to leave the country without permission, or to not fight if drafted. With that in mind, the government isn't much inclined to be accountable. Constitutional best-wishes aside, governments still aren't based on the concept of individual freedom. Nobody gets a choice to accept government, or the social 'contract', or to even verify that it does what it says it's doing.
The president is an open liar. Caught. Proven. He's still doing it. What kind of accountability can there be in a system where we can't watch over the fucker's shoulder and *see* what he's doing?
I see no difference, except in scale, between the two. A policeman could beat, kill, or imprison someone unfairly, a government researcher could screw with vaccines or QA for them, or falsify their results for personal gain or sabotage. They could both cause harm, and if I'm paying them I want to make sure that they aren't.
I think you'd have to look at corruption statistics to decide who got monitored with video cameras. Some police departments are worse than others, or just politically charged, as are some public-works departments, election officials, etc. The goal though, would be everyone.
I don't think it's unreasonably intrusive. Many people, from hair-dressers to bank employees are always watched while they work. The jobs are still popular, so it's likely not that onerous. How interesting do you think some clerk doing a good job of filing is going to be to watch? And if there is anything juicy, it's probably good for the employees to take it outside on break anyways.
Personally I think we're going to end up in Brin's Transparent Society. Cameras everywhere, too small and easily hidden for you to be 100% sure of privacy anywhere. Not because this is particularly desirable, but because it's a natural progression of the technology. Surveillance is being used on 'us', we've got to start demanding (and just taking, regardless of the answer - or rather especially because of the answer) the right to watch those who are theoretically our servants.
Tipping your server isn't (much of) a bribe. Paying him to go against his employers interests would be. It's what I mean anyways - bribes to make the judge reconsider a case unfairly, to make a building inspector do a poor job, or make a mayor sell out his city.
/software-X/critical_setting=wrong_value key, where software-X is unambiguously a recognizable product. Nor would I support your right to specifically sabotage your OS, terminating other programs with 'software-X is broken' message that isn't true.
In my example I was assuming that Burger King and McDonalds would bring the same deal to the table. That includes all indirect benefits, such as one simply seeming like a better fit for that area of town, cross-licensing deals, etc.
I guess the gist of it is that I feel you have the right to change your registry at will, but not to put the key
Those actions seem to be lies. The medium in one is your registry, but you'd be using it to tell the user lies about the performance of my product. The other likewise.
Fraud and misrepresentation (my calling the bank pretending to be you/or have secret info on you) should be and mostly is illegal. There are civil penalties for simply violating the terms of a contract, but there should be criminal charges (and in many cases are) for going into the contract planning to violate it. The gist of all of these crimes is presenting false information knowingly.
As for Microsoft's potential immunity to prosecution for any number of possible reasons, that's bunk. If they're guilty, they're guilty. If they have any excuses those should go towards lessening the sentence, and should be made as public as the trial. How can anyone compete when their own government doesn't enforce laws evenly or as written
I agree about product configuration. MS should be able to sell Windows with IE. Nowadays we recognize that a browser really is a system component. What they should not be able to do is use threats, lies, and bribes to control that market.
more later, gotta run
You're an idiot. COULD, not should.
The specific ones I asked, yes, but still not quite... You feel able to deal with many non-physical personal attacks. And you feel that people who leave themselves open have little reason to whine (someone who doesn't ask for money up front). Also that special treatment isn't necessarily bad.
Assume if I was to reroute your phone that my next call was to your domain-name provider, then cancel power at your home and office to slow you down, etc...
Assume that if I was to empty your bank account I'd also tell people you molested children and buy a plane ticket in your name to Mexico.
If one person refusing to pay, for a reason, is okay, how about all the customers you currently have, without valid reason? How about if I threaten to sue every one of them for triple what they owe you because of some patent mumbo jumbo unless they stop payment and stop using your product?
Essentially, consider yourself the little guy. If the bank manager likes you, let's wait till he's moved on. If your customers trust you, fake an FBI memo about defrauding customers...
Those seem to me to be the level of the things Microsoft does to competing businesses. They modify their OS to crash with messages that impugn the perfectly functional DR-DOS. Bill G. lies on the stand to a judge about IE integration - is caught in his lie and faces no censure.
If we wrote similar software utilities and yours sabotaged mine (left broken registry entries to specifically make it install in the wrong place, etc) I'd sue you. You'd either lose, or suffer from the court case. If I caught you in a lie and had proof, you'd be sitting in jail for a month or two on top of it.
If Microsoft does it... well history shows that. They're fine, competition dead. Even if they get sued (and lose), the damages to the competitor were far less than what MS gained from doing so. It's a huge win for Bill to break almost any law.
There are two ways to compete. Go onto the field and play hard - nice isn't required. Or, beat the other guy up in the locker room before the game.
If your utility just outperformed mine, or stunk on ice but was more popular, that'd be one thing. But if you need to ruin me to do well yourself, that's when I think you've gone too far.
Everyone 'makes mistakes' now and then. No need to close MS, but estimate how much market they gained from any given lie and multiply it by their current value - fine them double that. Anything less is a joke.
Special treatment is given, as you said to McDonalds, but would Burger King have gotten the deal? Is the city consistently willing to lower tax in exchange for guaranteed employment, or is it because of kickbacks to the mayor? If you're a more efficient diner, restaurants should treat you differently. If you bribe the waiter to sit you despite being a less profitable customer to the restaurant, that would be bad. (As if the mayor was taking bribes from McDs - if it were my city I'd be pissed if we sold out our future selves on taxes for a short-term profit to the mayor or a crony.)
So really, I want to know what you'd think if you couldn't just expect everyone to believe you, if you had to deal with competitors who'd pay someone to sue you over a lie, taking years and millions, before the case dissolved into the predictable nothing leaving you broke and years behind schedule, would you mind?
Because that's what's happening to people. If you're in a business Microsoft wants to be in they'll continually lie and bribe to win. Witness SCO, the 200+ undisclosed patents, the OOXML bribes to uninterested countries, etc.
And that is why I say it's unethical to attach yourself to them. There may be no law against buying stock in companies that break the law yet don't get punished, or writing software that helps market their OS, or even going to their dinner parties, but it's still profiting from illegal acts - just indirectly enough we don't pursue it. Do you have to cheat to play? Do you have to join a cheater's team?
Hurting competition is one thing, but if it's okay for Bill Gates to break contracts, lie to customers about a rival's performance, and lie to a judge, shouldn't it be legal for you to steal his car? What are the limits?
Doesn't it bother you that other businesses are much more profitable than yours because they break laws you'd be put in jail if you violated?
As for speaking to my politician, wouldn't it be easier to just deal with you in an 'extra-legal' fashion? I feel removing hypocritical asses is acceptable. Is it okay if I murder you? Or maybe if I just call all your customers and tell them you've been convicted of child molesting and tax fraud? Call the phone company and get your number pointed to my office, then clean out your bank account with fake checks I ordered? Maybe just contract you to do a job and default on payment after you've spent time working on it? All fine?
It's funny the third-party crap that people are willing to include in their pages, with no guarantee of content or correctness, for the loose promise of a few cents for click.
This is the current state of the art, but it's pathetic. It's like ordering a toy from Acme Stuffed Toys, Landmines, and Live Scorpions Inc., and drop-shipping it to your customer without looking in the box.
I agree with the nutjob, there needs to be a Wikipedia article on his crazy theory and everyone else's. How do I know what EU supporters believe if there isn't a page about their theory?
Wikipedia talks about other failed theories, and Greek gods, but can't find space for a topic that (right, or probably wrong) many people currently living find important?
Pretty much anyone who wants to remove content from Wikipedia is a fascist. There are ways to tag articles as bad, and there's a process for fixing them up before showing them. Besides, it'd be trivial to do a NPOV article on the EU theory "The theory suggests that X, Y, because of Z. Claims made about the theory are 'xxxx'[1] and 'yyyy'[2]. Many scientists[3][4][5][6] believe the theory is untenable and feel[7][8] that the current theory adequately explains the discrepancies[9][10] noticed."
That would let anyone who went there know at least who said what. I don't care that it "promotes" some quack, as it also exposes them to critical oversight.
But it'll be fought tooth and nail because while it's not Wikipedia specifically, there are the kind of authoritarian jerks who exist simply to make others do it their way - even if a compromise is painless, and many of them are editors. These people are everywhere, like in IRC where they get ops and use it to reward suck-ups, etc. The problem isn't Wikipedia, but it's how Wikipedia forces a stupid consensus (one where one of the parties has no real vested interest) over every decision. If your only contribution is thinking this is 'non notable' then fuck off. The hassle from having an extra page of questionable quality (properly marked as being questionable) is far less than the hassle of endless deletion fights which end up presenting 'create new article' link when done - encouraging yet another person to do just that.
In other words, if you think of yourself as a Wikipedia admin, shoot yourself. If you're a power user who edits, rock on. If you can't tell, check if 90% of what you do is reading and editing vs 90% nitpicking the validity of other people's suggestions. If it's the latter, you're worse than worthless - you're a vandal of the worst sort.
Sure, that's all well and good, if you don't mind performing those acrobatics over people that Microsoft boats over.
If they were just big and successful, that'd be one thing. People would still write open source to do their own thing. Everyone would be relatively happy.
Instead Microsoft defrauds other companies, lies in court, etc.
So, if you're comfortable being where you are only because you're riding the coat tails of a thief, enjoy.
If you merely want to get rich off the labors of others and you have no qualms, why not simply rob people? Microsoft has done it, so by riding their coat tails you're condoning it. Cut out the middle man, if you honestly have no ethics.
Or is it better that MS does it? They're too big to get punished, so you'll likely be safe, like a remora clinging to a shark.
Successful product?
IE is only successful because they give it away. It causes billions of dollars in lost productivity through viruses and other problems that Microsoft shoves off on its "partners", people like you. You support IE despite its mistakes, you support windows PCs despite having to virus scan and firewall the hell out of them and it still not being enough.
The *only* thing IE is successful at is dumping an inferior product, specifically though tying it to the OS, in an effort to kill people who actually compete on features - you know, value.
Microsoft is rich, but isn't it sad that you're sucking the hind tit? You're looking for scraps from a company that's consistently broken laws, lied in court, and defrauded users pretty much throughout its history. Even if you find some, and MS doesn't take it, you'll be right where you belong. Firmly attached to MS's nether-regions. Enjoy.
They put in a feature that nobody could use because then they'd have a truly IE only site. And this is helpful?
But Firefox, which is totally expandable, not just in this one area, is bad because there's a slight barrier of entry?
Never mind that in any situation other than the contrived one where you'd want to change just the scripting language and *NOTHING ELSE*, IE couldn't even do it. And if it could, Microsoft would sue you for modifying it. A company that wanted its volume licensing would have to suck up to Microsoft.
And never mind that the only reason the feature is there is to hurt people in exactly your position. If MS can get one person showing their boss some IE only "feature" they've kept those people locked in. Not only does this hurt them directly by sticking them with an inferior product (any product the manufacturer fobs off on you for free to kill competition is obviously inferior) but it hurts everyone on the web.
Have you ever used a monitor spider to set the color and gamma of your monitors separately?
You can't do it in Windows. Trivial for anyone who on a Mac.
Some of the problem is the GUI. You set one option here, it unsets another in the last screen. It showed the wrong value (not what it was using) in a few places, and has absolutely abysmal hardware overlay controls.
Once you've got your dual monitors, though unfortunately not profiled properly, try to play a DVD on them. Play on one, then switch to the other. If you can do it in less than a reboot you're lucky. Often playing a video on the other device requires swapping primary and secondary in the main dual-monitor screen. At that point you only have to reconfigure everything it lost when switching them. Of course it's not like it's obvious if it'll work on not, you have to try playing to movie to test it and have to restart the player at each change so it'll try to reallocate the overlay.
I run Debian on a PC - I'm not a Mac lover, but god damn does Windows blow compared to a Mac.
Yeah, Firefox does get a bit sluggish. With 150+ tabs open. And it dies every two weeks or so under that load.
Does Windows stay up that long? I've only rarely seen it do so, and it was only when coming to Linux full-time that I realized Firefox dies after a while, Windows XP rarely lasted long enough for Firefox to have a problem.
IE won't do what FF will. If you tried it would result in a smoking pile of fail.
But, it open ActiveX malware...
If there already is a requirement to report crimes you see, why pass another redundant one?
Apparently Ron Paul is one who voted against it. Huge point in his favor.
Oh wow, they had a quota of lies to meet, which totally excuses them from having to have any ethics!
The only bigger scum than you is someone who tries that excuse. Don't blame me for my actions, I'm only following orders!
Well how about getting a job you're not incompetent at?! Ever think of that? One where you can meet the requirements and not lie to do so? It might mean you have to pass up jobs from bosses who lie.
I imagine GameSpot is hiring though and you'd fit right in. A corporate culture of dishonesty and a liar to defend it. With some luck you'll get through life never having been helpful to another human.
Oh yes, they might drop a review score because of some procedural crap, but that's okay because they have a contract which says they'll lie in those conditions and they blame this on the publisher.
Wow, that's not totally corrupted or anything. We were worried, but the fact that they sign a contract with the game publisher beforehand totally makes it wonderful!
How about magazine publishers, who may be trying to just make a living, try to do it the way that 95% of everyone else does it. You know, honestly. If they can't make an honest living in that field, maybe they shouldn't do it.
What is it with retards like you justifying anything with "they're just making money"? No shit. We all like money. That's supposed to excuse anything? Get in a fucking food-bank line asshole. It's for people who can't make a living honestly.
3) They've only got quotes, but they've chosen the quotes so they contain everything you wish wasn't repeated anyways.
Wouldn't you rather know you were being recorded, than be surprised by something someone found years after the fact that you'd said when assuming you had privacy.