Generally, such permission could be requested at Websites, particularly those with a product for download or sale. There's also the issue of requesting permission to use personal information purchased from another company, which my proposal still permits.
There are also other venues through permission could be gained; perhaps as a part of tech-support calls. And, of course, print catalog sales could include a checkbox.
My point: even with e-mail taken out of the picture, there are plenty of venues through which one could ask permission. So requiring permission does not unduly impede the process of online advertising at all.
Laws like this leave a bad taste in my mouth. The spammers are right in that it's something of an abridgement of freedom.
What I'd prefer to see is an approach like this:
Corporations must obtain a consumer's explicit consent before sending an advertisement via e-mail.
This consent may not be a part of any other agreement, i.e. it must be obtained separately from any other agreements made (in other words, no hiding it in the fine print).
This consent is not transferable to any other entity; if a list is sold to another entity (person, corporation, or whatever), that entity may send a single notice asking for permission, but no more until permission is gained. Failure to respond to that notice must be taken as denial of permission.
The permission given must be revocable at any time, and all advertisements must send clear and valid instructions on how to revoke that permission, should the user desire to do so.
If an entity starts sending e-mail to a user without their permission (aside from the single notice mentioned above), the person has the option to press charges of harassment. Note that I said the option.
The idea is to require online advertising to be opt-in, without specifically banning any types of messages. I'm not certain how workable it is; ideas?
That kind of thing is simple to do. You just create the popup, and then immediately check to see if it still exists, before the user could possibly have closed it. If you're even running the code at all, you must have JavaScript, but if the window doesn't exist immediately after being created, they must be blocking popups.
I write code to do this as soon as Mozilla introduced the feature, though I didn't release it for fear of misuse. I considered trying to get a patent and then sitting on it. I should have done that, and I apologize that I did not.
For instance, we're looking at the later appearance of the Klingons, when Worf told us that something happened to change their appearance that "we don't like to talk about". That's still possible. All Worf said was that "it is a long story; we do not discuss it with outsiders." For all we know, this appearance-changing thing could well have only been for a hundred years or so. I can't believe I'm actually dredging this up, but remember the episode where Kahless -an Klingon from thousands of years in the past- was cloned? And yet he looked very similar to "the modern Klingon." So it's possible what whatever this thing was that changed their appearance was only a temporary phenomenon of some kind.
Of course, the writers could simply be casting "Summon Plot-Hole" again. I wouldn't be the first time.
And Picard told us that the war with the Klingons was sparked by a botched first contact with them. But that contact didn't seem to be botched. Even that is still a possibility. Remember, we don't know what the High Council said to him in the end. It could still lead to war.
I'm a little disappointed with how contrived the disinfectant scene was. And the way the camera paused during it was just silly. OK, you've got me there. Utterly gratuitous. I used to say that Seven of Nine was a great character, when she was actually being "7 of 9" and not "36 of DD." Seems we have that factor again in T'Pol.
Steganography is supposed to hide messages as well as possible. That's the whole point. So wouldn't a study just find the use of bad steganography, that is, stego that is easy to detect?
I'm no expert, but does this solve the licensing issues with libart?
If it does, that could mean native SVG support by 1.0 (the current implementation has licensing issues because of libart, if I am not mistaken). That would be a great thing for Mozilla.
We need to get people downloading these MP3's. Create a bunch of Net radio stations that play [i]only [/i]these songs, as "freedom stations" or something like that. Anyone else have input to the idea?
On a more serious note, what makes people think a fundamentalist Islamic group would hide pictures in porn? Wouldn't that require them to go against most of their fundamental beliefs and actually look at nakedness and fornication?
Others have already addressed the bit about them having nothing to do with the religion of Mohammed. Instead, I'll point out that it's not necessary for them to actually look at it, even. Just download pictures from known sites with wget or lynx, use some stego program to hide the stuff (you don't have to look at the image there), and send it off. On the other side, just assume all the images you get have messages in them; if they do, you know they're porn, so you don't look.
I would disagree. Every time some horrible event as Tuesday's attacks happens, the bookburners try to use it as ammunition to pass their agenda. It's at the point where media companies have started to act preempttively, bowing to their sick pressure before they even place it. Yes, in this particular case it's anime that suffers (why? I very much doubt the terrorists even knew what anime was, and if they did they would certainly not watch it). But it doesn't matter what the specific victim is; what matters is that censorship is taking place.
Certainly the ability to travel freely is a right. However, the various methods one might use to do this are not rights; all are privileges. Including driving. This is why we require licenses for drivers.
That said, I still think this is a Really Bad Idea, because it amounts to a search without a warrant. Furthermore, it has no way to tell if the driver has actually been drinking; it just tests for the presence of alcohol, so you don't even have probable cause; that makes it an unreasonable search as well.
The whole point of the article was to show the absurd philosophy behind the DMCA, namely that potential guilt = actual guilt (otherwise known as "guilty until proven innocent," which last I checked was unconstitutional) for what it really is.
I do admit to taking issue with the article's promoting the horrid misconception that only men can commit rape, however; the subjects of the DMRA should have been anyone with a set of genitals, or a mouth or rectum (if you consider forced anal or oral sex to be forms of rape, which most do). ----------
when you hit a page that needs java for the first time a thing pops up asking if you want to download the java thing with a big OK button You don't understand. Even that is enough to scare many users off, because it "changes" their computer. It doesn't matter how easy you make it; making it necessary to install new software, no matter how easy you make that process, will frighten a very large portion of users so much that they won't do it. This is particularly true of Windows users, from what I've seen, but it happens in other communities too.
This is Microsoft's ace in the hole. It controls, to a large degree, what gets installed with a machine. If it comes with a computer, chances are the user will never switch, and they won't even upgrade what they have. It's stupid, but people are just that way. And Microsoft can ruthlessly exploit that. ----------
...well, no it isn't. But most users think it is. And that's all that matters, because they act on what they perceive, not what is real. Stupid? You bet. But it's the way things are.
Honestly: the average user is outright afraid to change anything on their computer. It's a "magic box" that will break if they do anything to it. You have no idea how many times I've seen this with users. They don't want to upgrade if they can possibly avoid it, and installing new software is even more to be avoided. I know one guy who got so mad when a beta release of some software he was using expired that he now boycotts that company because ""they released it for download, so it must have been ready for general use."
This is the fact Microsoft is banking on: computer-wise, the average user is a technophobe. Those of us who actually stay current are very much the exception. And because of this, anything Microsoft adds or removes is immediately crippled in the marketplace; users do not want it if they have to do anything whatsoever to get it. ----------
I'd make a modification to it, though. One which would, at least hopefully, ensure that my personal data got out only to who I wanted it to.
The basic idea is that the data is stored on a central server (or perhaps even a Freenet-like network) and encrypted. However, only the user has the decryption key. This key could be generated and/or stored in any number of ways; my favorite idea would be a USB dongle-type device (or "token") that could be worn or carried on a keychain. When a server requests a pieve of personal info, it sends a key I can use to encrypt it. Then, if I accept, I pull my personal data (still encrypted) from the "holding" server, decrypt it, re-encrypt it using the recipient's key, and send. Theoretically, if this were implemented right, the encryption and decryption could be handled right in the token, so that the decrypted data never even touches an untrusted hard drive or enters an untrusted computer's memory.
There is, of course, the problem of a token being stolen or lost. In this case, give the user the option to delete his personal data from the holding server, generate a new personal key, re-encrypt, and re-upload.
There is one chicken-and-egg point: getting the original personal data onto the token.
The big problem with this system: making the tokens and distributing them. But I think this could really work, if those two problems were overcome. Anyone else have any opinions on this one? ----------
If I were criticizing Katz for not judging the movie based on its medium, you would have a point.
However, I'm not criticizing him for not doing it. In fact, I couldn't have done that even if I wanted to, because to a rather large extent, he is judging the movie based on its medium. Go back and look it over. He clearly feels that this movie should be some kind of "cartoon", which it is not.
And I never said I hated his previous work. It's still very good. But something's happened to him lately; this is only the biggest sympton yet of a greater problem. ----------
You forget, we're spoofing software patents. The guy doesn't own a patent on walking, he holds a patent on movement (such is, more or less, how these things run). ----------
I'd been on the fence about this. But if someone who doesn't understand that amination is a medium and not a genre gives the movie such a negative review, I'm going to see it. I don't care how bad it is; I want this thing to succeed, and perhaps spread the word that animation isn't just kids' stuff.
And frankly, Katz, you disappoint me. It's obvious you don't get a lot of respect here; I was one of the relatively few who seem to be willing to give you a chance. But you lost it on this one. I expected so much better out of you; I actually liked many of your articles. No, I wasn't looking for a positive review. I was looking for a little respect of the technical achievements made in the film, though. And I was certainly expecting at least a little respect for animation, the opposite of which you exude in this article. For the author of the Hellmouth series to be this condescending and ignorant... well, perhaps it's just that I didn't see your true colors until now, or perhaps it's a recent development, but regardless, I very much dislike what I see. ----------
Child pornography is very different. The reason: the making of child pornography pretty much by definition involves one of the most hideous abuses of another human being possible: sexual exploitation of a child.
Now, before you say "why not just go after the makers?" consider this: child porn is not given out for nothing. Usually it involves paying money. Other times it's done in a trade. Even if no cost is involved, you're showing demand for the stuff. So by obtaining it, you've financed the operation, directly (by paying money) or indirectly (by providing more goods, which can later be sold, or by showing demand, which motivates further production). Under most legal definitions, that would make you an accomplice or accessory to the crime. That seems to be a fair enough reason to criminalize the stuff.
Now, things do get stickier in the case of hand-drawn or computer-generated child pornography, in which case it's quite possible (even probable, in the case of CG) that no living beings were ever used in the creation of the work. I don't know if this has been tested in a legal system or not. It would be interesting to see the results of such a case. ----------
This is FUD of a totally different sort. Microsoft realizes that they can't use FUD in terms of quality or interoperability when it comes to Open-SOurce stuff. So instead they're painting it as a threat to The American Way Of Life. And spreading their usual lies in the process, of course (have they claimed that anything compiled with GCC must be GPL'd yet? That's a common myth too). ----------
Want to know what the runes in the commercial say?
on
Review: Atlantis
·
· Score: 1
They say approximately the following:
NADIA - THE SECRET OF BLUE WATER
COPYRIGHT 1990, STUDIO GAINAX
Actually, it would be interesting to translate those. They supposedly got the guy who invented Klingon to invent their version of Atlantean, so it probably really does say something. ----------
I'll be honest: I like the hologram bit. The one they want to stamp onto the DVD? That, in my mind, would be an ethical antipiracy method. Why?
It doesn't violate the user's privacy. It's just a hologram, and it's not a unique one even. Players probably wouldn't even be able to recignize that the hologram is even there, due to the nature of holograms.
It doesn't artificially extend copyrights. Encryption keeps the disk from being copied, even long after it would be legal to do so because of copyright expiration. This has no such problems.
It must allow for fair use. Holograms don't stop copying for fair-use purposes. Encryption and region-coding stop all copying, even fair-use works.
It must presume innocence when copying is made, unless proof can be given otherwise. Actually, this method doesn't even accept proof of guilt. But it presumes innocence, and this is what is most important. Anything that stops all copying period by definition presumes guilt, and that's frankly unconstitutional. Of course, when's the last time a corporation cared about the Constitution, except to twist it to their own ends?
The system isn't necessary to make a DVD that works. This allows people who can't afford to create the holograms, or lack the resources by some other means, to enter the market. In other words, it does not create a barrier to entry. CSS, with its obscene licensing costs, does this very thing; while one can make an unencrypted disk (as is common in the porn indistry), you're not going to get very far without doing so.
And yet, the method is still effective. Anyone would be able to tell at a glance whether or not a disk was pirated. With a number for an antipiracy put into DVD boxes, this would provide the movie companies with a very effective method of stopping piracy: consumer policing. Believe it or not, most people actually don't want to pirate movies, and most would probably be more than happy to turn in pirated discs, as well as whoever sold the discs to them. And yet, this method would still allow legitimate copies to be made. It's the best of all worlds. It's not as effective at stopping all piracy as Draconian methods like watermarking, but it doesn't punish a single innocent, and in the end that's what is truly important. ----------
It seems there's a great reluctance on the Net to say what he actually did. It took quite a bit of work to find it.
The law in Oregon is wrong. It's far too broad. However, I'm going to have to support Intel on this. Schwartz should have told them what he was going to do, if he had no criminal intentions. By compromising the computers without forewarning, he put the rest of the company in not insignificant danger.
Yes, as it turns out, their system security was crap. That's not an excuse to go cracking it without warning them that you're going to do it.
Do I think he should go to jail for it? No. But I believe Intel's within their rights to fire him for it, and to demand compensation for fixing the mess. Had he only told them what he wanted to do (heck, call it a "security analysis by simulated break-in" even, if he really thought they wouldn't let him do it) the whole mess could have been avoided. ----------
What a great, informed, open-minded reason to refuse access. Geez, and people say Mac users are bigoted...
Having a unified IT environment makes things easier on the majority of the users...
No, it makes things easier on the techs. But the techs don't matter when it comes to ease of use; only the user matters.
...and it saves money on having to pay techs that know both M$ and Apple.
Not really, it doesn't. While knowing multiple platforms is a marketable skill, knowing Macs doesn't tend to add that much to a person's salary.
I also get tired of some of the Apple users that claim that Apple is the best solution for everything IT related...
You have yet to refute it.
...and while Apple has made a great step in including BSD in OS X you have to admit that they're worse than even M$ in trying to dumb down their OS.
Making things easier isn't "dumbing down" the OS. Removing functionality from the OS would be, but Apple hasn't done that at all.
I also find it amazing that the Apple user base isn't insulted by this dumbing down.
What, because we're not arrogant pricks who think the "peasantry" shouldn't have access to computing because they haven't spent years learning things that are unnecessarily difficult? Dream on.
UML is extremely useful, up to a point. The problem is when programmers become dependent on it. I've worked with programmers that are utterly paralyzed without a full, complete UML-based overview of the project. They're great at UML, but their reliance on it has cost them the ability to think on their feet. It's sad, because UML is supposed to be a tool, not a crutch. But to some programmers, it becomes exactly that. ----------
Well, the IT department was lying to you about everything but the instability.
In reality, MacOS-to-Netware connections are quite viable. I've seen and used several networks that actually do connect Macs to their NetWare networks, with no problems whatsoever. The software isn't always the easiest to find (Novell's site can help with that, even though they don't develop the actual client for MacOS), but it's there and it works.
OSX, as far as I know, is currently another matter (are there any NetWare clients for any Unix-based OS, actually, much less Open-Soruce ones?) But that should be fixed soon. ----------
Slashdot Mirror
Generally, such permission could be requested at Websites, particularly those with a product for download or sale. There's also the issue of requesting permission to use personal information purchased from another company, which my proposal still permits.
There are also other venues through permission could be gained; perhaps as a part of tech-support calls. And, of course, print catalog sales could include a checkbox.
My point: even with e-mail taken out of the picture, there are plenty of venues through which one could ask permission. So requiring permission does not unduly impede the process of online advertising at all.
What I'd prefer to see is an approach like this:
- Corporations must obtain a consumer's explicit consent before sending an advertisement via e-mail.
- This consent may not be a part of any other agreement, i.e. it must be obtained separately from any other agreements made (in other words, no hiding it in the fine print).
- This consent is not transferable to any other entity; if a list is sold to another entity (person, corporation, or whatever), that entity may send a single notice asking for permission, but no more until permission is gained. Failure to respond to that notice must be taken as denial of permission.
- The permission given must be revocable at any time, and all advertisements must send clear and valid instructions on how to revoke that permission, should the user desire to do so.
- If an entity starts sending e-mail to a user without their permission (aside from the single notice mentioned above), the person has the option to press charges of harassment. Note that I said the option.
The idea is to require online advertising to be opt-in, without specifically banning any types of messages. I'm not certain how workable it is; ideas?That kind of thing is simple to do. You just create the popup, and then immediately check to see if it still exists, before the user could possibly have closed it. If you're even running the code at all, you must have JavaScript, but if the window doesn't exist immediately after being created, they must be blocking popups.
I write code to do this as soon as Mozilla introduced the feature, though I didn't release it for fear of misuse. I considered trying to get a patent and then sitting on it. I should have done that, and I apologize that I did not.
For instance, we're looking at the later appearance of the Klingons, when Worf told us that something happened to change their appearance that "we don't like to talk about".
That's still possible. All Worf said was that "it is a long story; we do not discuss it with outsiders." For all we know, this appearance-changing thing could well have only been for a hundred years or so. I can't believe I'm actually dredging this up, but remember the episode where Kahless -an Klingon from thousands of years in the past- was cloned? And yet he looked very similar to "the modern Klingon." So it's possible what whatever this thing was that changed their appearance was only a temporary phenomenon of some kind.
Of course, the writers could simply be casting "Summon Plot-Hole" again. I wouldn't be the first time.
And Picard told us that the war with the Klingons was sparked by a botched first contact with them. But that contact didn't seem to be botched.
Even that is still a possibility. Remember, we don't know what the High Council said to him in the end. It could still lead to war.
I'm a little disappointed with how contrived the disinfectant scene was. And the way the camera paused during it was just silly.
OK, you've got me there. Utterly gratuitous. I used to say that Seven of Nine was a great character, when she was actually being "7 of 9" and not "36 of DD." Seems we have that factor again in T'Pol.
Steganography is supposed to hide messages as well as possible. That's the whole point. So wouldn't a study just find the use of bad steganography, that is, stego that is easy to detect?
I'm no expert, but does this solve the licensing issues with libart?
If it does, that could mean native SVG support by 1.0 (the current implementation has licensing issues because of libart, if I am not mistaken). That would be a great thing for Mozilla.
We need to get people downloading these MP3's. Create a bunch of Net radio stations that play [i]only [/i]these songs, as "freedom stations" or something like that. Anyone else have input to the idea?
On a more serious note, what makes people think a fundamentalist Islamic group would hide pictures in porn? Wouldn't that require them to go against most of their fundamental beliefs and actually look at nakedness and fornication?
Others have already addressed the bit about them having nothing to do with the religion of Mohammed. Instead, I'll point out that it's not necessary for them to actually look at it, even. Just download pictures from known sites with wget or lynx, use some stego program to hide the stuff (you don't have to look at the image there), and send it off. On the other side, just assume all the images you get have messages in them; if they do, you know they're porn, so you don't look.
I would disagree. Every time some horrible event as Tuesday's attacks happens, the bookburners try to use it as ammunition to pass their agenda. It's at the point where media companies have started to act preempttively, bowing to their sick pressure before they even place it. Yes, in this particular case it's anime that suffers (why? I very much doubt the terrorists even knew what anime was, and if they did they would certainly not watch it). But it doesn't matter what the specific victim is; what matters is that censorship is taking place.
Certainly the ability to travel freely is a right. However, the various methods one might use to do this are not rights; all are privileges. Including driving. This is why we require licenses for drivers.
That said, I still think this is a Really Bad Idea, because it amounts to a search without a warrant. Furthermore, it has no way to tell if the driver has actually been drinking; it just tests for the presence of alcohol, so you don't even have probable cause; that makes it an unreasonable search as well.
The whole point of the article was to show the absurd philosophy behind the DMCA, namely that potential guilt = actual guilt (otherwise known as "guilty until proven innocent," which last I checked was unconstitutional) for what it really is.
I do admit to taking issue with the article's promoting the horrid misconception that only men can commit rape, however; the subjects of the DMRA should have been anyone with a set of genitals, or a mouth or rectum (if you consider forced anal or oral sex to be forms of rape, which most do).
----------
when you hit a page that needs java for the first time a thing pops up asking if you want to download the java thing with a big OK button
You don't understand. Even that is enough to scare many users off, because it "changes" their computer. It doesn't matter how easy you make it; making it necessary to install new software, no matter how easy you make that process, will frighten a very large portion of users so much that they won't do it. This is particularly true of Windows users, from what I've seen, but it happens in other communities too.
This is Microsoft's ace in the hole. It controls, to a large degree, what gets installed with a machine. If it comes with a computer, chances are the user will never switch, and they won't even upgrade what they have. It's stupid, but people are just that way. And Microsoft can ruthlessly exploit that.
----------
...well, no it isn't. But most users think it is. And that's all that matters, because they act on what they perceive, not what is real. Stupid? You bet. But it's the way things are.
Honestly: the average user is outright afraid to change anything on their computer. It's a "magic box" that will break if they do anything to it. You have no idea how many times I've seen this with users. They don't want to upgrade if they can possibly avoid it, and installing new software is even more to be avoided. I know one guy who got so mad when a beta release of some software he was using expired that he now boycotts that company because ""they released it for download, so it must have been ready for general use."
This is the fact Microsoft is banking on: computer-wise, the average user is a technophobe. Those of us who actually stay current are very much the exception. And because of this, anything Microsoft adds or removes is immediately crippled in the marketplace; users do not want it if they have to do anything whatsoever to get it.
----------
I'd make a modification to it, though. One which would, at least hopefully, ensure that my personal data got out only to who I wanted it to.
The basic idea is that the data is stored on a central server (or perhaps even a Freenet-like network) and encrypted. However, only the user has the decryption key. This key could be generated and/or stored in any number of ways; my favorite idea would be a USB dongle-type device (or "token") that could be worn or carried on a keychain. When a server requests a pieve of personal info, it sends a key I can use to encrypt it. Then, if I accept, I pull my personal data (still encrypted) from the "holding" server, decrypt it, re-encrypt it using the recipient's key, and send. Theoretically, if this were implemented right, the encryption and decryption could be handled right in the token, so that the decrypted data never even touches an untrusted hard drive or enters an untrusted computer's memory.
There is, of course, the problem of a token being stolen or lost. In this case, give the user the option to delete his personal data from the holding server, generate a new personal key, re-encrypt, and re-upload.
There is one chicken-and-egg point: getting the original personal data onto the token.
The big problem with this system: making the tokens and distributing them. But I think this could really work, if those two problems were overcome. Anyone else have any opinions on this one?
----------
If I were criticizing Katz for not judging the movie based on its medium, you would have a point.
However, I'm not criticizing him for not doing it. In fact, I couldn't have done that even if I wanted to, because to a rather large extent, he is judging the movie based on its medium. Go back and look it over. He clearly feels that this movie should be some kind of "cartoon", which it is not.
And I never said I hated his previous work. It's still very good. But something's happened to him lately; this is only the biggest sympton yet of a greater problem.
----------
You forget, we're spoofing software patents. The guy doesn't own a patent on walking, he holds a patent on movement (such is, more or less, how these things run).
----------
I'd been on the fence about this. But if someone who doesn't understand that amination is a medium and not a genre gives the movie such a negative review, I'm going to see it. I don't care how bad it is; I want this thing to succeed, and perhaps spread the word that animation isn't just kids' stuff.
And frankly, Katz, you disappoint me. It's obvious you don't get a lot of respect here; I was one of the relatively few who seem to be willing to give you a chance. But you lost it on this one. I expected so much better out of you; I actually liked many of your articles. No, I wasn't looking for a positive review. I was looking for a little respect of the technical achievements made in the film, though. And I was certainly expecting at least a little respect for animation, the opposite of which you exude in this article. For the author of the Hellmouth series to be this condescending and ignorant... well, perhaps it's just that I didn't see your true colors until now, or perhaps it's a recent development, but regardless, I very much dislike what I see.
----------
Child pornography is very different. The reason: the making of child pornography pretty much by definition involves one of the most hideous abuses of another human being possible: sexual exploitation of a child.
Now, before you say "why not just go after the makers?" consider this: child porn is not given out for nothing. Usually it involves paying money. Other times it's done in a trade. Even if no cost is involved, you're showing demand for the stuff. So by obtaining it, you've financed the operation, directly (by paying money) or indirectly (by providing more goods, which can later be sold, or by showing demand, which motivates further production). Under most legal definitions, that would make you an accomplice or accessory to the crime. That seems to be a fair enough reason to criminalize the stuff.
Now, things do get stickier in the case of hand-drawn or computer-generated child pornography, in which case it's quite possible (even probable, in the case of CG) that no living beings were ever used in the creation of the work. I don't know if this has been tested in a legal system or not. It would be interesting to see the results of such a case.
----------
This is FUD of a totally different sort. Microsoft realizes that they can't use FUD in terms of quality or interoperability when it comes to Open-SOurce stuff. So instead they're painting it as a threat to The American Way Of Life. And spreading their usual lies in the process, of course (have they claimed that anything compiled with GCC must be GPL'd yet? That's a common myth too).
----------
They say approximately the following:
NADIA - THE SECRET OF BLUE WATER
COPYRIGHT 1990, STUDIO GAINAX
Actually, it would be interesting to translate those. They supposedly got the guy who invented Klingon to invent their version of Atlantean, so it probably really does say something.
----------
And yet, the method is still effective. Anyone would be able to tell at a glance whether or not a disk was pirated. With a number for an antipiracy put into DVD boxes, this would provide the movie companies with a very effective method of stopping piracy: consumer policing. Believe it or not, most people actually don't want to pirate movies, and most would probably be more than happy to turn in pirated discs, as well as whoever sold the discs to them. And yet, this method would still allow legitimate copies to be made. It's the best of all worlds. It's not as effective at stopping all piracy as Draconian methods like watermarking, but it doesn't punish a single innocent, and in the end that's what is truly important.
----------
It seems there's a great reluctance on the Net to say what he actually did. It took quite a bit of work to find it.
The law in Oregon is wrong. It's far too broad. However, I'm going to have to support Intel on this. Schwartz should have told them what he was going to do, if he had no criminal intentions. By compromising the computers without forewarning, he put the rest of the company in not insignificant danger.
Yes, as it turns out, their system security was crap. That's not an excuse to go cracking it without warning them that you're going to do it.
Do I think he should go to jail for it? No. But I believe Intel's within their rights to fire him for it, and to demand compensation for fixing the mess. Had he only told them what he wanted to do (heck, call it a "security analysis by simulated break-in" even, if he really thought they wouldn't let him do it) the whole mess could have been avoided.
----------
My point was I simply don't like apple.
...and it saves money on having to pay techs that know both M$ and Apple.
...and while Apple has made a great step in including BSD in OS X you have to admit that they're worse than even M$ in trying to dumb down their OS.
What a great, informed, open-minded reason to refuse access. Geez, and people say Mac users are bigoted...
Having a unified IT environment makes things easier on the majority of the users...
No, it makes things easier on the techs. But the techs don't matter when it comes to ease of use; only the user matters.
Not really, it doesn't. While knowing multiple platforms is a marketable skill, knowing Macs doesn't tend to add that much to a person's salary.
I also get tired of some of the Apple users that claim that Apple is the best solution for everything IT related...
You have yet to refute it.
Making things easier isn't "dumbing down" the OS. Removing functionality from the OS would be, but Apple hasn't done that at all.
I also find it amazing that the Apple user base isn't insulted by this dumbing down.
What, because we're not arrogant pricks who think the "peasantry" shouldn't have access to computing because they haven't spent years learning things that are unnecessarily difficult? Dream on.
----------
UML is extremely useful, up to a point. The problem is when programmers become dependent on it. I've worked with programmers that are utterly paralyzed without a full, complete UML-based overview of the project. They're great at UML, but their reliance on it has cost them the ability to think on their feet. It's sad, because UML is supposed to be a tool, not a crutch. But to some programmers, it becomes exactly that.
----------
Well, the IT department was lying to you about everything but the instability.
In reality, MacOS-to-Netware connections are quite viable. I've seen and used several networks that actually do connect Macs to their NetWare networks, with no problems whatsoever. The software isn't always the easiest to find (Novell's site can help with that, even though they don't develop the actual client for MacOS), but it's there and it works.
OSX, as far as I know, is currently another matter (are there any NetWare clients for any Unix-based OS, actually, much less Open-Soruce ones?) But that should be fixed soon.
----------