RSS is just too technical for the average Joe to understand, much less care to use it.
Second, the majority of RSS feeds are junk. Most give you a really short headline with nothing in the way of content. You still have to click to read the full story, so there isn't much draw to it.
You are falling for the business spin on things. If fees increase so will volume of transactions, and thus their bottom line. Banks that are able to overcome this hurdle will grab a huge chunk of market share through low prices all the while keeping good security.
The fault here lies with two parties, the bank for not doing enough, and end users for not caring enough about security. I feel that end users should still be partially responsible for their actions. I mean, there are people out there that, despite repeated warnings, will keep getting themselves hacked and scammed. I think most of us know people like that. And really, the only remedy for them is to yank out their computers and never let them go online again.
It's one thing to make banks more responsible for security breaches, but it's another to force them to be completely at fault, when there are so many points of entry for a crook. From the internet router from the ISP, to the user's home line, to his computer, to his keyboard, to the telephone, etc.
If you RTFA you'll notice some of the arguments against it.
But beyond that, common sense alone tells you winner takes all, and it continues to be that way, with google or with anyone else.
The entire pageranking algorythm is there to point you to the most likely result you're looking for. They base that on popularity, number of links coming in, and the importance of the referring sites linking you. The net effect is, the more popular you are, the more relevent you become and the higher ranked you are.
Also, when you type in say "windows" Google automatically assumes you're talking about the Windows OS. What if you were looking for real windows? The search engines are always assumming based on popular demand. This steers people's thoughts and pushes them in a non-neutral direction. As a word's context changes to favor a certain direction, search engines rank that as more relevent, which leads to it being more favorable, etc. Cycle repeats.
Ok every once in a while we would hear about these child prodigies that accomplish a lot while they're still young. Rather than put them down so quickly to salvage your own egos, wouldn't it be better to ask for a study to see what happens when they actually grow up?
Do these kids just max out at age 10 and eventually are equalled or even surpassed by their peers later on down the road? How are they when they are say 25, 30, 40?
Now that is what I really want to know. The final form of the adult.
Yes "some" investigative reporting. The only problem is, there's no oversight of media companies who abuse their positions. Nobody's watching the foxes (reporters and media companies).
The world gravitates toward efficiency. Instant delivery, little cost, up-to-date. How can newspapers compete?
Yellow pages are dying horrible deaths too, and I'm loving every minute of it. Just look at how these online yellow pages are trying to force ads and sponsored listings on the first page, making it ridiculously difficult to get local results you really want. Then look at how quickly you can find something via a search engine.
I guess expecting you to explain your points is a "motive".
It's obvious you had an ulterior motive. You're not interested in the discussion of how to make the computer system more reliable, you just want to talk about how to get rid of it altogether.
And I can also assume that you are a retard in that my earliest post specifically excluded any discussion of releasing violent criminals.
Once again you're missing the point. Nobody has to address your original issue because it was totally irrelevent to the discussion at hand.
You continue to confuse the issue. The article and this discussion is talking about one thing, and you're going off in a tangent about something else.
At issue is the INTEGRITY of the computer system, which keeps track of when a prisoner is allowed out. If it's so buggy that it lets criminals out early, it can also keep prisoners longer than it should.
However, just because a computer system has bugs doesn't mean you should go and throw the baby out with the bath water. Instead you fix the system and apply more rigorous oversight of it.
It seems you have an ulterior motive. You just don't want prison to exist, so that all these violent criminals can be let out and free to terrorize the country. If you want that, I suggest you move to one of the lesser-developed countries. I'm sure the lack of cops and enforcement will be right up your alley.
I guess the number of people we incarcerate is irrelevant to you?
Where did I say that? Again that's a totally different topic. Stop trying to force feed your agenda, one that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
At issue is the control of the DNS root servers. Nobody forced anybody to use the current root servers. It was all done by choice, and it just so happened that those who innovated first and did it right got the pie.
Now suddenly all these other countries are crying foul and want control of it like little children squabbling in a school yard. Here are a few thoughts:
1) It has worked well so far, so why re-invent something that already works? Seems to me nations are just doing this for EGO (yes the U.S. has equal amount of it).
2) This entire setup is VOLUNTARY. If any nation sees the U.S. as abusing it, they're always free to set up their own and force their citizens to switch.
3) When you come late to a movie, you have no right to cry that you have no seats. Sit on the aisles and make sure that for the next movie, you arrive early.
You're at a T intersection trying to get home. You don't know which one to take, but there are two men standing there who know. One always tell a lie and one always tell a truth.
You can ask only one question (same question to each man) to find out how to get home.
It IS the parents' fault. They live in your house. You buy the computers and the internet connection. If you can't be bothered to watch your own children why should anyone else?
The government is already big enough. Let the parents do the parenting. Can't hack it? Don't bear children.
First of all, who dictates what is "adult content" and what isn't? Second, what harm is there in sexual content exactly? Half the world views it as something wonderful. Only in the U.S. is it so tightly regarded as "immoral".
Your strategy is also going the wrong direction. As anybody who's in the tech section might tell you, when security is of utmost importance, black lists don't work too well. White lists work much better.
Instead of forcing censorship and freedom on law-abiding citizens, why don't you propose we CENSOR kids instead? Force it upon kids so that they can ONLY surf *.kid websites. Force it so kids can't do ANYTHING unless they are expressly permitted under the law to do so? Hold parents accountable if you want to go that far.
You want to "protect" the kids? Then force the censorship on them, not the rest of us who want to enjoy our lives and not have to be restricted by what imaginative crime some unknown kid in some unknown corner of an unknown street might do in an unknown future.
The article is short on details. What patent are we talking about and how exactly did RIM violate it? And are other PDA/phones possibly violating this patent too?
This solution is too draconian to work. In real life much of the problem lies in ignorant users getting tricked. There also needs to be a tough love solution whereby stupid users get punished financially.
Right now, when someone gets their credit card stolen and a crook uses it to commit fraud, it's not the bank that gets to eat the loss, nor Visa/Mastercard/Discover/American Express. It's the merchant who gets it in the rear. The banks would love to make you think it's them protecting you, when in fact they're doing really little. After all, it's the merchants and not them eating the losses.
So, if say stupid Joe gives up his cc info to some crook, who is smart enough to circumvent most fraud screening methods like AVS, IP geography check, and inputs a fake phone number (remembere, phone numbers are not verifiable by AVS), the merchant really has no way of knowing it's fraud.
The bank wins, Joe wins (because he can do a chargeback), the crook wins, and the merchant loses.
Slashdot Mirror
All he has to do is stay away from computers for 3 years? He should be banned from using a computer for 10 years!
RSS is just too technical for the average Joe to understand, much less care to use it.
Second, the majority of RSS feeds are junk. Most give you a really short headline with nothing in the way of content. You still have to click to read the full story, so there isn't much draw to it.
Ooops I completely left that part out.
You are falling for the business spin on things. If fees increase so will volume of transactions, and thus their bottom line. Banks that are able to overcome this hurdle will grab a huge chunk of market share through low prices all the while keeping good security.
The fault here lies with two parties, the bank for not doing enough, and end users for not caring enough about security. I feel that end users should still be partially responsible for their actions. I mean, there are people out there that, despite repeated warnings, will keep getting themselves hacked and scammed. I think most of us know people like that. And really, the only remedy for them is to yank out their computers and never let them go online again.
It's one thing to make banks more responsible for security breaches, but it's another to force them to be completely at fault, when there are so many points of entry for a crook. From the internet router from the ISP, to the user's home line, to his computer, to his keyboard, to the telephone, etc.
If you RTFA you'll notice some of the arguments against it.
But beyond that, common sense alone tells you winner takes all, and it continues to be that way, with google or with anyone else.
The entire pageranking algorythm is there to point you to the most likely result you're looking for. They base that on popularity, number of links coming in, and the importance of the referring sites linking you. The net effect is, the more popular you are, the more relevent you become and the higher ranked you are.
Also, when you type in say "windows" Google automatically assumes you're talking about the Windows OS. What if you were looking for real windows? The search engines are always assumming based on popular demand. This steers people's thoughts and pushes them in a non-neutral direction. As a word's context changes to favor a certain direction, search engines rank that as more relevent, which leads to it being more favorable, etc. Cycle repeats.
Well no kidding. I have found that some of the most unsociable, least well-kept, most unfit people to be in IT (backoffice departments).
Often times people choose these professions because they lack any sort of social skills needed to interact with people.
Of course, I'll be flamed.
Holy crap that includes myself!! Please reverse the funny mod...
You sir are a short-sighted fool.
Had it not been for Roch's Tamiflu, would there be any others out there now?
You take away their right to profit, and they will not care to innovate. It's all about the money. But hey, you'd risk life over money right?
I for one, would rather pay $100 per dose, than no dose at all.
Some of the lamest most predictable "funny" comments are in this thread. People you're not funny.
They're able to do this openly because the government has given them a local monopoly. These fat cats do whatever they want. There's no competition.
Thank your polititians for making this possible.
Ok every once in a while we would hear about these child prodigies that accomplish a lot while they're still young. Rather than put them down so quickly to salvage your own egos, wouldn't it be better to ask for a study to see what happens when they actually grow up?
Do these kids just max out at age 10 and eventually are equalled or even surpassed by their peers later on down the road? How are they when they are say 25, 30, 40?
Now that is what I really want to know. The final form of the adult.
Yes "some" investigative reporting. The only problem is, there's no oversight of media companies who abuse their positions. Nobody's watching the foxes (reporters and media companies).
The world gravitates toward efficiency. Instant delivery, little cost, up-to-date. How can newspapers compete?
Yellow pages are dying horrible deaths too, and I'm loving every minute of it. Just look at how these online yellow pages are trying to force ads and sponsored listings on the first page, making it ridiculously difficult to get local results you really want. Then look at how quickly you can find something via a search engine.
Donations usually don't cut it. People say a lot of things, but don't follow through...
I guess expecting you to explain your points is a "motive".
It's obvious you had an ulterior motive. You're not interested in the discussion of how to make the computer system more reliable, you just want to talk about how to get rid of it altogether.
And I can also assume that you are a retard in that my earliest post specifically excluded any discussion of releasing violent criminals.
Once again you're missing the point. Nobody has to address your original issue because it was totally irrelevent to the discussion at hand.
You continue to confuse the issue. The article and this discussion is talking about one thing, and you're going off in a tangent about something else.
At issue is the INTEGRITY of the computer system, which keeps track of when a prisoner is allowed out. If it's so buggy that it lets criminals out early, it can also keep prisoners longer than it should.
However, just because a computer system has bugs doesn't mean you should go and throw the baby out with the bath water. Instead you fix the system and apply more rigorous oversight of it.
It seems you have an ulterior motive. You just don't want prison to exist, so that all these violent criminals can be let out and free to terrorize the country. If you want that, I suggest you move to one of the lesser-developed countries. I'm sure the lack of cops and enforcement will be right up your alley.
I guess the number of people we incarcerate is irrelevant to you?
Where did I say that? Again that's a totally different topic. Stop trying to force feed your agenda, one that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
Talk about confusing the issue.
At stake is the integrity of the system. It can just as well release a Ted Bundy early, or keep someone an extra decade.
At issue is the control of the DNS root servers. Nobody forced anybody to use the current root servers. It was all done by choice, and it just so happened that those who innovated first and did it right got the pie.
Now suddenly all these other countries are crying foul and want control of it like little children squabbling in a school yard. Here are a few thoughts:
1) It has worked well so far, so why re-invent something that already works? Seems to me nations are just doing this for EGO (yes the U.S. has equal amount of it).
2) This entire setup is VOLUNTARY. If any nation sees the U.S. as abusing it, they're always free to set up their own and force their citizens to switch.
3) When you come late to a movie, you have no right to cry that you have no seats. Sit on the aisles and make sure that for the next movie, you arrive early.
Who forced anybody to use these root servers in the first place?
No.
Here's the answer:
You ask each person, "which direction will the other guy point me to if I asked him which way will take me home?"
You're at a T intersection trying to get home. You don't know which one to take, but there are two men standing there who know. One always tell a lie and one always tell a truth.
You can ask only one question (same question to each man) to find out how to get home.
What question do you ask?
It IS the parents' fault. They live in your house. You buy the computers and the internet connection. If you can't be bothered to watch your own children why should anyone else?
The government is already big enough. Let the parents do the parenting. Can't hack it? Don't bear children.
First of all, who dictates what is "adult content" and what isn't? Second, what harm is there in sexual content exactly? Half the world views it as something wonderful. Only in the U.S. is it so tightly regarded as "immoral".
Your strategy is also going the wrong direction. As anybody who's in the tech section might tell you, when security is of utmost importance, black lists don't work too well. White lists work much better.
Instead of forcing censorship and freedom on law-abiding citizens, why don't you propose we CENSOR kids instead? Force it upon kids so that they can ONLY surf *.kid websites. Force it so kids can't do ANYTHING unless they are expressly permitted under the law to do so? Hold parents accountable if you want to go that far.
You want to "protect" the kids? Then force the censorship on them, not the rest of us who want to enjoy our lives and not have to be restricted by what imaginative crime some unknown kid in some unknown corner of an unknown street might do in an unknown future.
The article is short on details. What patent are we talking about and how exactly did RIM violate it? And are other PDA/phones possibly violating this patent too?
This solution is too draconian to work. In real life much of the problem lies in ignorant users getting tricked. There also needs to be a tough love solution whereby stupid users get punished financially.
Right now, when someone gets their credit card stolen and a crook uses it to commit fraud, it's not the bank that gets to eat the loss, nor Visa/Mastercard/Discover/American Express. It's the merchant who gets it in the rear. The banks would love to make you think it's them protecting you, when in fact they're doing really little. After all, it's the merchants and not them eating the losses.
So, if say stupid Joe gives up his cc info to some crook, who is smart enough to circumvent most fraud screening methods like AVS, IP geography check, and inputs a fake phone number (remembere, phone numbers are not verifiable by AVS), the merchant really has no way of knowing it's fraud.
The bank wins, Joe wins (because he can do a chargeback), the crook wins, and the merchant loses.