You're omitting the other part of the judge's point. Yes, searches cannot be "unreasonable" (as defined by whatever laws), but also "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause."
There are different times when these apply. When it comes to airport security, you are consenting to having your person and belongings searched. Being searched is not forced upon you; you can always choose another form of travel. Since you have consented--by sheer virtue of being an airline passenger--the rules of 'reasonable' and 'warrants' do not apply.
The notions of 'reasonable' and 'warrants' come into play when you do not consent to a search. Police officers cannot subject you to a search (without a warrant & without consent) unless they have strong evidence you are in the process of committing a crime, etc. Otherwise, law enforcement must petition a judge with their claim, and the judge rewards the search warrant based upon the merits of those claims.
It is my understanding warrants are *absolutely* required for non-emergency searches when the property owner is not present. Regardless of whether the search is "reasonable" or not, this portion of the Patriot Act is unconstitutional because search warrants are being granted without the required "probable cause."
No probable cause == no search warrant. No search warrant & no consent == no search. Any other way requires a change to the constitution.
I agree, although refusing to deliver NDR emails is overkill. Sending abbreviated NDRs instead would work just as well, without denying the utility of valid NDRs.
By "abbreviated," I mean mail servers should look at incoming apparent NDRs, drop most of the message content, and provide summary information instead. So instead of getting a fake NDR with a SPAM payload, you'd get something like "Your message addressed to fakeaddress@someplace.com, with subject beginning 'First three words,' could not be delivered. [...]"
People will still (temporarily) get a number of bogus NDR messages, but once spammers see nothing but the first three words of the NDRs are getting through, they'll give up on using the technique. Any messages crafted to exploit the first three words of these summary/abbreviated NDRs would be fairly pathetic compared to normal SPAM, plus they would be easily captured by updated spam filters. (Subjects like "pr0z@c ch3@p www.cheap-prozac.com" would be a total give-away.);-)
Let's flip this around... Let's say this woman was a man, and she had a habit of flashing her naked body at passing little girls. From what I understand, this would receive a prompt visit from law enforcement, regardless of how much "privacy" was assumed from being inside ones home.
In other words: If the public can see it without trespassing, it's the same as if you were physically out in public. If you can't do it out in public, or you'd rather not have the public see it, don't do it in front of a completely transparent window. Or better yet, CLOSE YOUR CURTAINS. End of story.
If you live in a medium-to-large sized county, many of you may be (un)pleasantly surprised to learn your county auditor has already done exactly the same thing. Many county auditors (for the purposes of keeping track of property and related taxes) take a picture of every building and numbered lot. Many of these same auditors have placed their records on the web, since it is all public information.
The only difference between Google and these county auditors web sites is a better interface and wider reach.
The moral of the story: If you want privacy, build a privacy fence, plant tall shrubs or bushes, or close your curtains if all else fails.
Yeah, you're right. FAT32 is dying. That's why XP and newer essentially defaults to (or at least strongly recommends) NTFS. (The 2GB file size limit with FAT32 is one of the many reasons for this.)
If you're going to fault Microsoft for backing an dying format, at least pick the one they're currently using.;-) It'd be like chiding them for FAT16... which is actually dead to my knowledge.
Well, in all fairness, I think you're confusing 'simplicity of use' or 'simplicity of interface' with 'simplicity of feature set.'
I think it's fair to say when most people talk about 'simplicity,' they envision an object fulfilling its intended role in a manner that is straightforward, while being extremely easy to use. A device made in this manner should not have *fewer* features than required, but at the same time it should also not burden the user with more than is required.
In my mind, simplicity is the marriage between ease of use and elegant design.
It may be engineered as a preemptive move, but I don't see how it will have any blocking affect. Do we really believe Democrats will think to themselves: "Oh, I don't need to investigate now, there's this other [decidedly smaller] investigation going on. That's good enough."
If the Democrats really want to start a far reaching investigation into the matter, they will. There can be multiple investigations occurring simultaneously. In fact, given the limited scope of this current investigation, I doubt there would be very much overlap at all. If the Democrats see a value to the current investigation, they may "wait and see," but they are certainly smart enough to start a new investigation should this current probe bear nothing of importance.
Inoshiro's comment *was* humorous, since I highly doubt you meant to associate the viola with your original comment. I believe the word you were looking for was "voila." You might want to read up on the Wikipedia 'humor' link you supplied, possibly following that up with a quick look at a dictionary.:-P
Your last sentence makes the point perfectly. Any system that starts to move around buttons and tools based upon your usage is just asking for trouble. This sort of behavior will cause lots of "where the hell did it go"-type of reactions. How would your "intelligent" computer system react to you trying to find a button that it moved? Would it pop up some comics and porn on the screen because it assumes your drunk?
Instead of making the systems unpredictably reactive, more thought and planning should go into designing the systems and interfaces. If software manufacturers could research just *how* people use the software in a variety of settings, it can help them respond to an actual *need* in the marketplace. Coupled with an initial dialog that asks questions about how the software will be used most often, is allows the interfaces to be laid out intelligently from the start.
Learning a better designed interface from the beginning is a hell of a lot easier than relearning a continuously changing interface designed by an active "intelligent" operating system.
I'm sorry, I have to ask: How long has it been since you've performed said repairs? You seriously do freelance work for a company that has "tens of thousands of PCs," and you encountered bizarre RAM timings in the BIOS? NT 4.0 drivers? *Seriously?* NT 4.0?! What year is this? Do people even call memory modules "RAM sticks" any more?
Two *years* ago I worked for a computer recycler, whose job it was to take the end-of-life workstations from one of the largest insurance companies in the country. We're talking about receiving tens of thousands of PCs every *week.* When I left that job, two *years* ago, almost all of the systems we received from this company had either Windows 2000 or Windows XP installed--and these systems were at the *end* of their life cycle; it says nothing about the machines currently being used by the organization.
Anyway, I get the feeling you're reaching a little far back into your memory to offer some sort of anecdote about poor IT configuration and support, and trying to pass it off as a recent experience. There simply is NO way an organization would have machines using NT 4.0 drivers at the workstaion level within the past four years. I mean, seriously--how long has NT 4.0 been outside of the support cycle?
Maybe if we were talking about more than 5 years ago, fine--I would buy your story. But then again, dealing with funky RAM settings and bizarre NT 4.0 drivers, these sorts of things were par for the course several years ago. Supporting workstations today, by comparison, is a much simpler ordeal. Finding drivers on the Internet is commonplace. Compare that to several years ago when you sometimes had to dial a manufacturer's BBS in order to download working drivers.
All I'm saying is either *you* or *that company* is stuck in the past, because I can tell you from ample experience--NT 4.0 and bizarre RAM timings are not the kinds of issues encountered in the majority of workstation support these days. Sure, we deal with flaky device drivers, corrupted files and failing hard drives, but unless there's a time machine involved, it's certainly not taking place on a workstation running NT 4.0, unless you meant ten thousand *servers*, since there are a number of sad companies still dealing with NT 4.0 on servers.
Good point, but since the phone was tied to that subscriber's account, it would at the very least be theft of service. Now if the phone is actually owned (contractually) by the service provider until the contract is fulfilled, it could possibly be theft of the device if you refuse to return it upon request.
The cars honked at you because they thought you were a bum? Don't you think that's a bit of a stretch? In truth, they honked at you either because they wanted to startle you (because many people are assholes), or because you were walking down a road without adequate pedestrian space, placing yourself and the drivers at risk.
Sometimes you have no choice, there's only one place to walk and it's on a busy road without a sidewalk. There are lots of times, however, when I see people walking down a dangerous road only inches from traffic, when a perfectly good sidewalk (or quiet access road) is only ten or twenty feet to the right. That sort of thing frustrates me to the point I might consider honking, since if that person had taken a moment to look around their environment, they would have found a perfectly suitable place to walk.
Pedestrians (and bicyclists) need to educate themselves about the environment in which they want to travel. For example, at first glance it may look like I need to ride my bike along a rather busy road to get from my apartment to downtown. But if I take a second to research my route, it turns out there is a wonderful paved bike trail that snakes along the river the entire way, saving me time without risking my life.
Like I said, sometimes you have no choice. But I think everyone (pedestrians and motorists alike) are better off researching their routes ahead of time.
When I was a teenager, me and my girlfriend snuck in a whole rotisserie chicken. It was delicious, if not messy and extremely wonderfully smelling.;-) We left the container and a pile of bones behind; I'm sure the cleaning crew was non-thrilled.
Well, except in this context the most recent upcoming January in essence becomes the current January.
For example: If on Thursday I told you about a party that was happening "next Friday," you certainly wouldn't be thinking "tomorrow."
The same sort of logic needs to be used for months, but frequently people simply do not *think* before they speak (or write, in this case).
Re:Proof that first to market doesn't equal succes
on
Rio Brand Closes Doors
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
It makes me think of the Playstation. Sony released its system after Sega's Dreamcast, and found themselves with a great success. Now Microsoft seems to be doing everything possible to be "first to market" with the next-gen console. Will MS be one of the lucky ones to win from being first, or one of the many to lose from being too quick to jump?
*Brave* young woman? I agree she is talented and motivated, and extremely lucky to have such supportive parents with access to resources that allow her to explore her interests. But *brave*? I understand the odds are stacked against her, and such a feat was previously unheard of in her country, but bravery implies some sort of personal risk and even peril should one follow a certain course of action. This girl simply followed her interests, along with gentle coaxing from a loving parent. Her story is inspirational, yes, but seeing as her family, country, and even Microsoft have been accepting her with open arms, I believe "brave" is just a bit of a distortion of the truth.
=) Nah... I just noticed everyone was pouncing on the "media," but oddly enough wasn't taking a shot at Slashdot itself; I was attempting to fill the void.
And what about the title of the Slashdot story itself? "iPod Dangerous When Wet."?!?! The iPod was perfectly safe when it was wet. It only reacted because the battery was compromised by the stupid kid, which would happen wet or dry.
While not as bad as the titles of the linked stories, it seems Slashdot isn't above dumbass sensationalist headlines themselves.
Actually, the term has been co-pted by anyone working on such a scale, much to the behest of Eric Drexler, the scientist who originally coined the term to describe extremely tiny machines.
There's only one problem with my using this thing-- My bedroom is a disaster area. This stupid thing would be lucky to make it a foot from my bed before being stuck against a mountain of clothes or a pile of junk.
In my case, the only way this would survive is to strap it to the ceiling or give it wings. (Although I'm sure if enough time passes my clothing piles might actually touch the top of my room.)
*Any* popular software manufacturer who decided to port an application to Linux is a *good* thing.
The biggest stumbling block for mainstream Linux viability is its perceived difficulty to use *and* there being far fewer popular titles available.
Nero, while duplicating what other (open source) developers have done, may not be doing anything cutting edge with their application, at least they are doing *something*, and doing it for *free* (to their existing paid customers).
If it helps even one non-Linux use to think themselves "Hmmm, maybe there is something to this whole Linux thing. Maybe I should try it!" -- that is a great thing.
As far as your statement about my first point, didn't I already say this could be debated? What's the point of repeating what *I* said?;-) But, to argue against my own point, I guess: In a society, there is a certain amount plasticity with regard to behavioral standards. In the United States, at least, walking around staggering drunk all the time is unacceptable. In another culture, maybe this would be okay. If the entire society deems a behavior utterly common, there is no discussion of addiction. But, this really has to be an extreme example--like breathing, since while eating is commonplace and acceptable, there are food addictions. I've never really heard of a breathing addiction, although maybe someone who can't stop hyperventilating could be addicted to breathing. Heh. Anyway, you have to use whatever boundaries are created by the culture in question to decide what an "excess" really is. BUT DON'T GET HUNG UP ON THIS POINT, it really is not at all the a very important factor in determining addiction. (An excess could equal binge drinking, but binge drinking is not necessarily alcoholism. So let's just move beyond the concept of excess, because really it's just a potential indicator of an underlying problem, not a proof of one.)
Point two: Sure, if they don't *want* to stop, it can't be answered--but there are people who really want to stop, but can't, like with the physical addiction associated with heroin use. Again, this is a clue to a potential problem, but not a failing point. Just because this question may not apply (or can't be answered) does not mean we're not talking about addiction.
Point three: The comparison to a hunter is poor, I believe. The hunter is making a choice to go hunting. And while it's not very fair to his wife or family, it is a conscious decision. It's not like a drug addict having a relapse, knowing there will be someone there to pick up the pieces, since in the drug addict's case, when you get down to the core, they would never *choose* to place themselves into the pit they eventually find themselves in. The hunter makes the choice knowing full well what they're going into.
Going hunting once a year is more like having a once-a-year bender, which is not the same as being the alcoholic. Again, we're talking about *choices* here. We're talking about complete and utter abandonment of responsibilities. The hunter may not be very nice for placing stress on his family every year, but that's not the point. The hunter has established some sort system and foundation that provides for his choices of activities once a year. You don't have to be an addict to be an asshole.
There are other very specific ways to define addiction. Unfortunately, I don't have my psychology text in front of me, so I can't list them. They are all very specific and much like point #3, however. They were defined over the years of helping people who *want* to be helped. They were studied and created by using the scientific process. This is *not* marketing bullshit. These definitions were created by doctors and scientists who really want to help people, and not just "sell" them on products and services.
Accusing the doctors and scientists of merely trying to sell something is like accusing firefighters of just trying to make a buck rather than save people from burning buildings. ("Well, the firefighter gets a paycheck, doesn't he?! He must just be in it for the payoff!")
Firefighters aren't running around starting fires, just like the doctors and scientists did not simply "dream-up" addiction. Addiction is a real problem affecting real people who want to be helped. Any notion of simply dismissing addiction is ignorant and completely insensitive.
...continuing what I said in an earlier post, there are specific Psychological ramifications from labeling someone an "addict" or "addicted to an activity." Certain important questions to ask:
1. Do you do this activity beyond the socially acceptable maximum? (Yeah, this one could be debated as being 'popular nonsense.')
2. Could you stop doing this activity if you wanted to?
3. (This one is probably the most important...) Has doing this activity prevented you from fulfilling important responsibilities, such as work, romantic partner, social and familial duties, upkeep of physical wellbeing?
Granted, if there has never been a romantic partner or social contact, this one could be more difficult to gauge, but getting fired and letting yourself become very unhealthy are pretty clear-cut signs of an addiction. (In terms of drugs, being unhealthy could be becoming horribly emaciated, and with video games and the Internet, maybe it's becoming horribly overweight and not bathing.)
Slashdot Mirror
You're omitting the other part of the judge's point. Yes, searches cannot be "unreasonable" (as defined by whatever laws), but also "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause."
There are different times when these apply. When it comes to airport security, you are consenting to having your person and belongings searched. Being searched is not forced upon you; you can always choose another form of travel. Since you have consented--by sheer virtue of being an airline passenger--the rules of 'reasonable' and 'warrants' do not apply.
The notions of 'reasonable' and 'warrants' come into play when you do not consent to a search. Police officers cannot subject you to a search (without a warrant & without consent) unless they have strong evidence you are in the process of committing a crime, etc. Otherwise, law enforcement must petition a judge with their claim, and the judge rewards the search warrant based upon the merits of those claims.
It is my understanding warrants are *absolutely* required for non-emergency searches when the property owner is not present. Regardless of whether the search is "reasonable" or not, this portion of the Patriot Act is unconstitutional because search warrants are being granted without the required "probable cause."
No probable cause == no search warrant. No search warrant & no consent == no search. Any other way requires a change to the constitution.
I agree, although refusing to deliver NDR emails is overkill. Sending abbreviated NDRs instead would work just as well, without denying the utility of valid NDRs.
;-)
By "abbreviated," I mean mail servers should look at incoming apparent NDRs, drop most of the message content, and provide summary information instead. So instead of getting a fake NDR with a SPAM payload, you'd get something like "Your message addressed to fakeaddress@someplace.com, with subject beginning 'First three words,' could not be delivered. [...]"
People will still (temporarily) get a number of bogus NDR messages, but once spammers see nothing but the first three words of the NDRs are getting through, they'll give up on using the technique. Any messages crafted to exploit the first three words of these summary/abbreviated NDRs would be fairly pathetic compared to normal SPAM, plus they would be easily captured by updated spam filters. (Subjects like "pr0z@c ch3@p www.cheap-prozac.com" would be a total give-away.)
Let's flip this around... Let's say this woman was a man, and she had a habit of flashing her naked body at passing little girls. From what I understand, this would receive a prompt visit from law enforcement, regardless of how much "privacy" was assumed from being inside ones home.
In other words: If the public can see it without trespassing, it's the same as if you were physically out in public. If you can't do it out in public, or you'd rather not have the public see it, don't do it in front of a completely transparent window. Or better yet, CLOSE YOUR CURTAINS. End of story.
If you live in a medium-to-large sized county, many of you may be (un)pleasantly surprised to learn your county auditor has already done exactly the same thing. Many county auditors (for the purposes of keeping track of property and related taxes) take a picture of every building and numbered lot. Many of these same auditors have placed their records on the web, since it is all public information.
The only difference between Google and these county auditors web sites is a better interface and wider reach.
The moral of the story: If you want privacy, build a privacy fence, plant tall shrubs or bushes, or close your curtains if all else fails.
Yeah, you're right. FAT32 is dying. That's why XP and newer essentially defaults to (or at least strongly recommends) NTFS. (The 2GB file size limit with FAT32 is one of the many reasons for this.)
;-) It'd be like chiding them for FAT16... which is actually dead to my knowledge.
If you're going to fault Microsoft for backing an dying format, at least pick the one they're currently using.
Well, in all fairness, I think you're confusing 'simplicity of use' or 'simplicity of interface' with 'simplicity of feature set.'
I think it's fair to say when most people talk about 'simplicity,' they envision an object fulfilling its intended role in a manner that is straightforward, while being extremely easy to use. A device made in this manner should not have *fewer* features than required, but at the same time it should also not burden the user with more than is required.
In my mind, simplicity is the marriage between ease of use and elegant design.
It may be engineered as a preemptive move, but I don't see how it will have any blocking affect. Do we really believe Democrats will think to themselves: "Oh, I don't need to investigate now, there's this other [decidedly smaller] investigation going on. That's good enough."
If the Democrats really want to start a far reaching investigation into the matter, they will. There can be multiple investigations occurring simultaneously. In fact, given the limited scope of this current investigation, I doubt there would be very much overlap at all. If the Democrats see a value to the current investigation, they may "wait and see," but they are certainly smart enough to start a new investigation should this current probe bear nothing of importance.
Inoshiro's comment *was* humorous, since I highly doubt you meant to associate the viola with your original comment. I believe the word you were looking for was "voila." You might want to read up on the Wikipedia 'humor' link you supplied, possibly following that up with a quick look at a dictionary. :-P
Your last sentence makes the point perfectly. Any system that starts to move around buttons and tools based upon your usage is just asking for trouble. This sort of behavior will cause lots of "where the hell did it go"-type of reactions. How would your "intelligent" computer system react to you trying to find a button that it moved? Would it pop up some comics and porn on the screen because it assumes your drunk?
Instead of making the systems unpredictably reactive, more thought and planning should go into designing the systems and interfaces. If software manufacturers could research just *how* people use the software in a variety of settings, it can help them respond to an actual *need* in the marketplace. Coupled with an initial dialog that asks questions about how the software will be used most often, is allows the interfaces to be laid out intelligently from the start.
Learning a better designed interface from the beginning is a hell of a lot easier than relearning a continuously changing interface designed by an active "intelligent" operating system.
Getting them hooked while at school? Reminds me of Apple. ;-)
I'm sorry, I have to ask: How long has it been since you've performed said repairs? You seriously do freelance work for a company that has "tens of thousands of PCs," and you encountered bizarre RAM timings in the BIOS? NT 4.0 drivers? *Seriously?* NT 4.0?! What year is this? Do people even call memory modules "RAM sticks" any more?
Two *years* ago I worked for a computer recycler, whose job it was to take the end-of-life workstations from one of the largest insurance companies in the country. We're talking about receiving tens of thousands of PCs every *week.* When I left that job, two *years* ago, almost all of the systems we received from this company had either Windows 2000 or Windows XP installed--and these systems were at the *end* of their life cycle; it says nothing about the machines currently being used by the organization.
Anyway, I get the feeling you're reaching a little far back into your memory to offer some sort of anecdote about poor IT configuration and support, and trying to pass it off as a recent experience. There simply is NO way an organization would have machines using NT 4.0 drivers at the workstaion level within the past four years. I mean, seriously--how long has NT 4.0 been outside of the support cycle?
Maybe if we were talking about more than 5 years ago, fine--I would buy your story. But then again, dealing with funky RAM settings and bizarre NT 4.0 drivers, these sorts of things were par for the course several years ago. Supporting workstations today, by comparison, is a much simpler ordeal. Finding drivers on the Internet is commonplace. Compare that to several years ago when you sometimes had to dial a manufacturer's BBS in order to download working drivers.
All I'm saying is either *you* or *that company* is stuck in the past, because I can tell you from ample experience--NT 4.0 and bizarre RAM timings are not the kinds of issues encountered in the majority of workstation support these days. Sure, we deal with flaky device drivers, corrupted files and failing hard drives, but unless there's a time machine involved, it's certainly not taking place on a workstation running NT 4.0, unless you meant ten thousand *servers*, since there are a number of sad companies still dealing with NT 4.0 on servers.
Good point, but since the phone was tied to that subscriber's account, it would at the very least be theft of service. Now if the phone is actually owned (contractually) by the service provider until the contract is fulfilled, it could possibly be theft of the device if you refuse to return it upon request.
The cars honked at you because they thought you were a bum? Don't you think that's a bit of a stretch? In truth, they honked at you either because they wanted to startle you (because many people are assholes), or because you were walking down a road without adequate pedestrian space, placing yourself and the drivers at risk.
Sometimes you have no choice, there's only one place to walk and it's on a busy road without a sidewalk. There are lots of times, however, when I see people walking down a dangerous road only inches from traffic, when a perfectly good sidewalk (or quiet access road) is only ten or twenty feet to the right. That sort of thing frustrates me to the point I might consider honking, since if that person had taken a moment to look around their environment, they would have found a perfectly suitable place to walk.
Pedestrians (and bicyclists) need to educate themselves about the environment in which they want to travel. For example, at first glance it may look like I need to ride my bike along a rather busy road to get from my apartment to downtown. But if I take a second to research my route, it turns out there is a wonderful paved bike trail that snakes along the river the entire way, saving me time without risking my life.
Like I said, sometimes you have no choice. But I think everyone (pedestrians and motorists alike) are better off researching their routes ahead of time.
When I was a teenager, me and my girlfriend snuck in a whole rotisserie chicken. It was delicious, if not messy and extremely wonderfully smelling. ;-) We left the container and a pile of bones behind; I'm sure the cleaning crew was non-thrilled.
Well, except in this context the most recent upcoming January in essence becomes the current January.
For example: If on Thursday I told you about a party that was happening "next Friday," you certainly wouldn't be thinking "tomorrow."
The same sort of logic needs to be used for months, but frequently people simply do not *think* before they speak (or write, in this case).
It makes me think of the Playstation. Sony released its system after Sega's Dreamcast, and found themselves with a great success. Now Microsoft seems to be doing everything possible to be "first to market" with the next-gen console. Will MS be one of the lucky ones to win from being first, or one of the many to lose from being too quick to jump?
*Brave* young woman? I agree she is talented and motivated, and extremely lucky to have such supportive parents with access to resources that allow her to explore her interests. But *brave*? I understand the odds are stacked against her, and such a feat was previously unheard of in her country, but bravery implies some sort of personal risk and even peril should one follow a certain course of action. This girl simply followed her interests, along with gentle coaxing from a loving parent. Her story is inspirational, yes, but seeing as her family, country, and even Microsoft have been accepting her with open arms, I believe "brave" is just a bit of a distortion of the truth.
Man I wish I had his job. "OpenSource projects: Opposite in every way from Microsoft. Now where's my paycheck?!" =)
=) Nah... I just noticed everyone was pouncing on the "media," but oddly enough wasn't taking a shot at Slashdot itself; I was attempting to fill the void.
And what about the title of the Slashdot story itself? "iPod Dangerous When Wet."?!?! The iPod was perfectly safe when it was wet. It only reacted because the battery was compromised by the stupid kid, which would happen wet or dry.
While not as bad as the titles of the linked stories, it seems Slashdot isn't above dumbass sensationalist headlines themselves.
Actually, the term has been co-pted by anyone working on such a scale, much to the behest of Eric Drexler, the scientist who originally coined the term to describe extremely tiny machines.
'Nano' Suddenly a Gigantic Label
I believe he is using a new word, instead of nanotechnology, to describe his vision - but I can't seem to find it anywhere.
There's only one problem with my using this thing-- My bedroom is a disaster area. This stupid thing would be lucky to make it a foot from my bed before being stuck against a mountain of clothes or a pile of junk.
In my case, the only way this would survive is to strap it to the ceiling or give it wings. (Although I'm sure if enough time passes my clothing piles might actually touch the top of my room.)
*Any* popular software manufacturer who decided to port an application to Linux is a *good* thing.
The biggest stumbling block for mainstream Linux viability is its perceived difficulty to use *and* there being far fewer popular titles available.
Nero, while duplicating what other (open source) developers have done, may not be doing anything cutting edge with their application, at least they are doing *something*, and doing it for *free* (to their existing paid customers).
If it helps even one non-Linux use to think themselves "Hmmm, maybe there is something to this whole Linux thing. Maybe I should try it!" -- that is a great thing.
As far as your statement about my first point, didn't I already say this could be debated? What's the point of repeating what *I* said? ;-) But, to argue against my own point, I guess: In a society, there is a certain amount plasticity with regard to behavioral standards. In the United States, at least, walking around staggering drunk all the time is unacceptable. In another culture, maybe this would be okay. If the entire society deems a behavior utterly common, there is no discussion of addiction. But, this really has to be an extreme example--like breathing, since while eating is commonplace and acceptable, there are food addictions. I've never really heard of a breathing addiction, although maybe someone who can't stop hyperventilating could be addicted to breathing. Heh. Anyway, you have to use whatever boundaries are created by the culture in question to decide what an "excess" really is. BUT DON'T GET HUNG UP ON THIS POINT, it really is not at all the a very important factor in determining addiction. (An excess could equal binge drinking, but binge drinking is not necessarily alcoholism. So let's just move beyond the concept of excess, because really it's just a potential indicator of an underlying problem, not a proof of one.)
Point two: Sure, if they don't *want* to stop, it can't be answered--but there are people who really want to stop, but can't, like with the physical addiction associated with heroin use. Again, this is a clue to a potential problem, but not a failing point. Just because this question may not apply (or can't be answered) does not mean we're not talking about addiction.
Point three: The comparison to a hunter is poor, I believe. The hunter is making a choice to go hunting. And while it's not very fair to his wife or family, it is a conscious decision. It's not like a drug addict having a relapse, knowing there will be someone there to pick up the pieces, since in the drug addict's case, when you get down to the core, they would never *choose* to place themselves into the pit they eventually find themselves in. The hunter makes the choice knowing full well what they're going into.
Going hunting once a year is more like having a once-a-year bender, which is not the same as being the alcoholic. Again, we're talking about *choices* here. We're talking about complete and utter abandonment of responsibilities. The hunter may not be very nice for placing stress on his family every year, but that's not the point. The hunter has established some sort system and foundation that provides for his choices of activities once a year. You don't have to be an addict to be an asshole.
There are other very specific ways to define addiction. Unfortunately, I don't have my psychology text in front of me, so I can't list them. They are all very specific and much like point #3, however. They were defined over the years of helping people who *want* to be helped. They were studied and created by using the scientific process. This is *not* marketing bullshit. These definitions were created by doctors and scientists who really want to help people, and not just "sell" them on products and services.
Accusing the doctors and scientists of merely trying to sell something is like accusing firefighters of just trying to make a buck rather than save people from burning buildings. ("Well, the firefighter gets a paycheck, doesn't he?! He must just be in it for the payoff!")
Firefighters aren't running around starting fires, just like the doctors and scientists did not simply "dream-up" addiction. Addiction is a real problem affecting real people who want to be helped. Any notion of simply dismissing addiction is ignorant and completely insensitive.
...continuing what I said in an earlier post, there are specific Psychological ramifications from labeling someone an "addict" or "addicted to an activity." Certain important questions to ask:
1. Do you do this activity beyond the socially acceptable maximum? (Yeah, this one could be debated as being 'popular nonsense.')
2. Could you stop doing this activity if you wanted to?
3. (This one is probably the most important...) Has doing this activity prevented you from fulfilling important responsibilities, such as work, romantic partner, social and familial duties, upkeep of physical wellbeing?
Granted, if there has never been a romantic partner or social contact, this one could be more difficult to gauge, but getting fired and letting yourself become very unhealthy are pretty clear-cut signs of an addiction. (In terms of drugs, being unhealthy could be becoming horribly emaciated, and with video games and the Internet, maybe it's becoming horribly overweight and not bathing.)