What you probably mean is that "cost" and "untility/quality" are separate axes. After all there is plenty of expensive "crap" around.
So, other than telling me that you think I should have used words approved by you, have you actually said anything different than I did?
Nothing I said precludes "expensive crap" or "cheap and awesome". The poster said "better because its free" -- free doesn't make for better unless your only measure is cost. Ergo, "free" and "better" are on separate axes. Feel free to imagine your own magic quadrant system.
Yet anyone who actually needs a smartphone - ie, not for insipid use - needs some basic things
I guess it depends on how you define "need", smartphone", and "insipid".
If you assert that everyone who doesn't want to use it the way you want to define it is doing it wrong... then on general principles I will have to inform you that you're wrong. All people making categorical statements are full of shit. No exceptions.:-P
There is no "right" way to use technology, only the way you need to/want to.
Now, I'm in the minority in that I absolutely don't want a smart phone (at least until they become much cheaper)... but the overwhelming majority of people I know with them don't do any of the big three you describe.
From what I can tell, it's sending videos, googling, looking at You-tube, texting, and playing games. That's it. Well, Facebook I guess.
I would be curious to see real metrics on usage of these things. I think, at the very least, it would be very enlightening.
I'm not corporate in the way you want it to mean. But, I work for a large (30,000+) consulting corporation and wear a tie when I'm on client site. I don't have a BlackBerry, but I do use Outlook and Office at work. And when I'm not at work, they're the last things I want. I'm also old enough to want to draw a very clear line between my work and the rest of my life.
It's like you live in a cave.
Or, it's like I don't necessarily agree with all of the whining that everybody needs calendaring and word. Or the implication that anybody who bought a device which can't do this must have clearly chosen wrong. Because the overwhelming argument, as I've seen is "but what about spreadsheets" -- so far you've not done much better.
I'm not even saying that some people don't want this functionality. I'm merely pointing out that there is a huge (and quite likely larger) market of people who aren't interested in PIM and Outlook and Office. It's that vast sea of people who use it for... well, everything else except business apps.
My son is in 7th grade and there are kids that transfer home work digitally with their device.
I honestly don't know if I should be impressed, or feel sorry for the little bugger as he grows up with a digital leash. Hopefully he will learn to find some balance on that.
My god, it's like multiple types of consumers can coexist in the same market, and the people who want a highly customizable device can coexist with those who don't.~
They might even accept that it's OK for someone not to use Outlook and Excel and not judge them for it.~
I can almost imagine some wacky form of free market economy where people could buy the device they want and have everyone else would shut up about it.~
You might even conclude that the device which sells more units is more reflective of what people want.~
Why, in my spare time, I could invent some wacky new punctuation to convey the fact that I'm sneering as I type this.~
Seriously, I'm not some Luddite who lives in a cave. I'm aware of these devices, and why people buy them. I'm pointing out that the complaining about not being able to have business apps on their phone might not apply to everybody. Technology for the sake of technology is as pathetic as eschewing technology because it's technology.
If your 7th grader needs to sync with his Outlook calendar and run spreadsheets, well, that's rather unfortunate. When I was in 7th grade, I rode my skateboard home from school.;-)
But, hey, you feel free to use whatever tech makes you feel all squishy inside, and I will as well.~
After 2000, before 2004 for that particular person. I've seen the same on other dishes more recently, but I don't see it very often (satellite that is).
May be our latitude (I'm a fair bit North of you) and because our dishes are only tilted up about 15-20 degrees... who knows. But, I've definitely seen it on numerous occasions, and still occasionally see it in bars when they have satellite TV.
Saying the iPhone "just works" is a bit disingenius due to the... lack of actual work applications.... snip...
If 'just working' for you is having a unified UI across multiple 'personal' devices slated for different roles so you can check Facebook statuses and your gmail/iCal/whatever and play games, sure. the iPhone 'just works' by those requirements. Just don't expect anything 'complex' (such as anything a common PDA was capable of as recent as uh almost 10 years ago).
And, now, be honest... what percentage of the actual total market for cell phones/smart phones wants to do anything more than that "just works" threshold you deride?
I would say that less than 50% (as a starting point) of people need to sync with their Outlook calendars, view MS Project, or view a spreadsheet. If you do, buy a BlackBerry. I'm betting it's considerably below 50%. The number of people who want to install a web server on their phone? Vanishingly small I'm thinking. So, really, what are we talking, 10-15% of the market? Still, maybe even less??
And, I have to say, as a long-time UNIX geek who now has Linux, FreeBSD, XP, Vista, several iPods, and an iPad... hearing people detracting from the iPhone (or any Apple product) by saying that you can't do "PIM and Office integration to do work" is friggin' hilarious. To me it only reinforces that whole "I'm a PC/I'm a Mac" whereby the PC wants to do all sorts of "fun" things like pie charts... traditional "business" apps aren't why I have an iPad (or why anybody I know owns an iPhone). That's not who they're selling to. And yet, the most common thing I see is "ZOMG, how will I make teh spreadsheets and sync wiff my Outlook?" -- do you also have one of those calculators with the hand crank and the roll of paper?
Any device I buy with my own money likely isn't going to do any "PIM and Office integration" -- ever. And, those millions of teenagers who IM and do Facebook and play games? I bet they care even less. It really is about understanding how people actually use the device. I question if the supposed benefits of Android really are of benefit to most people. I would argue the market for people buying phones that "just work" as you describe is larger, and therefore more profitable to pursue.
Isn't this the same "Cathedral vs. the Bazaar" argument?
Close. Except in this case, you put the Bazaar in the lobby of the Cathedral and get the Apple store -- lots of people are still free to make free stuff and put it in the Bazaar. But, someone keeps tabs on the kids running through the aisles with sharp sticks and tries to impose some order.:-P
And, bad metaphors aside, a lot of the stories I've been seeing on Slashdot seem to indicate that either carriers (Verizon?) or phone manufacturers (Motorola?) have been adding changes which are incompatible with newer versions, lock out functionality, or lock you into something.
Not owning an Android (or any smart phone), it's hard not to look at the whole thing like Linux in the late 90's. There's a million distros, some of them are compatible, some not. If you're lucky the software/OS runs on the hardware you have, but if not, you're in for some fun.
That and the fact that you get the exceedingly vocal minority (hard core tech users who want to port scheme to their phone) whining really loud about how their phone is more free than Apple's because... well, because they can port scheme and compile a new window manager. I'm all for your freedom to choose, I just don't think the vast majority of users will even care about the "open-ness" of Android. In fact, for most consumers, it's probably either a net-zero, or even a detriment.
As of right now, everything always looks greyed out, and the minimize/maximize/close buttons aren't located where they're supposed to be, and they're vertically oriented instead of horizontally.
Huh? You mean on OSX or Windows?
On my iTunes right here on my desktop (10.0.1.22 -- the latest version available on Vista 64), the minimize/maximize/close buttons are in the exact same place they are on my Mozilla, Notepad, and Task Manager -- they're also not vertically aligned.
I do see what you mean about things looking greyed out though. Though, compared to the ugly thing I've seen the last few times I've inadvertently opened Windows Media Player, I'll stick with iTunes. As always, Your Mileage May Vary.
Best approach seems to be to just leave the windows open.:-P
I used to own a Jeep with a soft-top years ago.
I used to lock my doors and all that, until a friend pointed out that it was essentially a tent -- anybody who knew how the zippers etc. worked would just open it; anybody who didn't would just cut it.
At that point, I stopped keeping anything of value in it, and just put one of those things that locks your clutch to the steering wheel. Occasionally someone would rifle through my cassettes. But, there was nothing of value to take, and no obstacles for someone who really wanted to see the inside to compel them to cut through the roof.
Of course, that's also why I don't think I'd own a convertible again.:-P
See, I don't see that as any specific kindness. Honestly that sounds like the thief was less dickish than they might of been but there is nothing kind about stealing your property.
Often, the data on the computer is worth more to you than the computer. The data is irreplaceable, the laptop is just hardware.
As much as they stole his property, they gave him back the only thing he cared about. I'm not saying it was kind, per se, but it was fairly thoughtful (for someone who has just stolen things from you).
Wasn't there a story only a few months back here on Slashdot where a lady had had () stolen and basically said she didn't care about the laptop, but wanted her data back?
Real junkies-turned-rockstars OD early. As do rockstars-turned-junkies. But there's really only a certain personality type or two that would genuinely flush everything down the toilet like that. It isn't as common as you've been led to believe, and it selects contrary to the traits that make someone a rock legend.
Not without some precedent though.
Eric Clapton, George Harrison, The Stones, Aerosmith, Motley Crue, Guns and Roses, Kurt Cobain, CCR... probably countless I can't even think of off the top of my head... the whole notion of rock legends being users of some pretty hardcore drugs is exceedingly well documented, and not what you'd call a front. The ones that survive it and keep going are some of the biggest legends there are.
Many of them turned around and stopped using. But, in a huge amount of cases, I don't believe that the whole drug thing was a "front". It's more like documented fact.
Now, in the case of Simmons at least, he absolutely wasn't using them, and I don't think ever claimed he did.
What's going on here. He's over 60, and a musician, didn't he do a lot of drugs in his youth? Why isn't he dead yet?
Doesn't drink. Doesn't smoke. Doesn't do drugs. Says he never did, nobody has ever contradicted him on that.
Also claims to have humped everything that ever came along, which you can take with a grain of salt. I'm sure his own count is inflated, but I'm sure he's never wanted for willing females.
Gene Simmons is a nice Jewish boy who has always been about making money and selling his brand. He's not your typical aging rocker -- having watched a couple episodes of his TV show, he's an out of date old fool of a narcissist who is obsessed with his own image and making money in the worst possible way.
In short, he's absolutely part of the problem with the RIAA mindset. As has been pointed out in this thread, advocating prison rape for file sharers (or Anonymous, or whomever he was referring to) goes to demonstrate he's a bit of a loon, and has way crossed the line.
I thought he was irrelevant before his TV series. Now he's irrelevant, pathetic, and a lot more lame than I ever thought he was. At least his son seems to treat him like the old troll that he is.
Because religion, in the West, has never suppressed science.
Bullshit.
Religion in the West tries to do this all the time. For example, Tennessee vs Scopes, and anybody who tries to get creationism taught in schools. Or preventing experiments no fetal stem cells. Or outlawing abortion because God told them so. Or gay marriage because some obscure passage in the bible says so. Any number of ways in which religion tries to control both science and society.
There's loads of examples, and it's getting worse -- the fundamentalists try very hard to push back anything which goes against their "view" of how the world works, and force the rest of us to toe the line.
I'm sorry, but those of us who don't believe in God are often appalled to listen to some of the shit that gets said. And for you to try to say that the West has never allowed religion to suppress science is utter crap.
They made the toys with money provide by the government.
People need to remember who they work for and look for a new employer if they don't like the conditions.
Look, just because the federal government funds it, doesn't mean they get to decide what the facts and conclusions are. Science is objective, the government isn't.
This government is basically trying to muzzle the scientists and make sure that any facts they have that contradict the wishful-thinking they use to justify policy aren't used. It's essentially a blanket gag order.
Seriously, unless you're a Canadian and/or have been following this closely, it really is difficult to explain the extent to which they are stifling the free exchange of information. Under current policy, I'm not sure that these scientists could confirm their belief in Gravity without permission from the government.
This isn't a matter of "we paid for it, so we get to do anything we like with it". This is undoing decades of precedent where the scientists who work for federal agencies are still independent to do the science, and the government tries to use the science to arrive at policy. They're going straight to policy, and ignoring/quieting the science where it's inconvenient.
Are you seriously suggesting that results are never fabricated?
No, he's saying that it is absurd to think that every scientist in the employ of the Canadian government is systematically corrupt.
We're not talking about one or two scientists in isolation. We're talking about "Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada"... so the union of Canadian Federal employees with professional designation. Like, Lawyers, Accountants, Scientists, and Engineers.
The current Harper government has basically told them that they can't speak publicly about the science that they're subject matters in -- unless they ask in advance for permission and their points are vetted by the government. Hell, there was an example this summer where a scientist was barred from talking about historical results.
This has absolutely nothing to do with corrupt scientists, and everything to do with a government that is completely muzzling everybody lest scientific facts (and, yes, theories) that they don't agree with be spoken.
Nobody is saying that all scientists are 100% of the time ethical. But, this government is saying that 100% of the time, scientists can't say anything on public record unless it's been vetted by the government. This is about controlling information and facts to be sure the ones they don't like aren't used.
Stop talking about why a hypothetical scientist may fudge his work, and understand that this is being applied to every single scientist employed by, or funded by, the Federal Government of Canada -- and a Government which currently doesn't want their agenda to be derailed by actual facts.
Sure, it's normal to ban something if it's been proven to be harmful, but I can't think of anything that hasn't been banned because there's no proof that it isn't harmful.
Part of the problem with that is that everybody seems to want to start with the position that "this is safe unless you can irrefutably prove otherwise", and they go ahead and load everything up with chemicals/whatever and assume it's safe. Which does lead to stuff that you might expect to be dangerous being used until someone can prove it is dangerous. Pharma companies do it all the time, and, have been proven to have lied about risks they knew were there. Think Thalidamide, for instance.
I don't always trust people when they say "oh, sure, this radioactive corn with spiders-silk genes must be perfectly healthy there's no proof to the contrary". The companies introducing these things want us to believe that their chemicals are safe, but it's all discovered after-the-fact.
Assuming everything is safe generally leads to companies pursuing profit with absolutely no regard for if their product is safe. Then they get the rules changed so they're not actually required to tell you about what's actually in it because it hasn't yet been proven to be a possible risk. I wouldn't trust Monsanto on any claims they make about product safety, and I think that to a certain extent, companies should be doing more testing before they release it to the market.
You can go ahead and eat the experimental green goo -- personally, I'd rather they had to put it on the label so I could choose, instead of just saying that it hasn't been proven harmful. It's too damned late by the time they 'discover' that a something we've never tested is, in fact, dangerous.
You state that you have done that. Unlike someone who just leaves it unencrypted with a default SSID, you DO have a right to expect people not to use it freely (even if they crack the password).
Yes, well, I know how to do it, and I have done so. I'm not talking about me in the specific, but as an abstraction -- what has a hypothetical person done, and what does that imply about what they've consented to. You know, Joe average who bought a linksys from Best Buy, and it defaults to being wide open. Have they consented to anything?
I just can't fully wrap my head around the idea that unlocked door (or wifi) is actual implicit permission to enter the premises (or use the wifi). If, to turn your example around, if I'm entirely surrounded by private residences, why would you assume an unsecured wifi means public when everything else is assumed to be private? You have no reasonable expectation of any right to walk into my home, so how do you arrive at the notion that the wifi is public?
I'm not sure of what the legal definition is, or if there is enough case law to actually say. That's my point. I'm specifically I'm saying I am not sure one way or the other that this whole notion of "implied consent" is correct. It's a theory, but that's it -- and everybody here is mostly talking from a purely technical perspective, and what they think.
It's all well and good for a bunch of Slashdot geeks to say that since you've not secured your wifi that is implied consent. I just think for the most part, it's people talking out of their backsides with no real consideration of the legal issues.
Now, tell me case law to support it, and I will cede the point. Until then, I suspect that this is a very gray area, and it is going to vary hugely depending on where you live.
At this point, I'm merely saying "is that true" to some of these analogies. I think too much of this is very gray, and nowhere near as cut and dried as the binary thinkers on Slashdot seem to think it is.
IANAL but if they don't have a warrant they cannot come onto your property and in theory they do not have the legal protections. In actuality...
It's one thing to shoot someone who you feel is an intruder and threatening your life, which is what Castle Doctrine is for.
It's another thing entirely to shoot law enforcement because you don't want them on your property. Once they've identified themselves, you can say "no warrant, go away".
I don't think you can shoot them after you know they're police and then claim self defense.
Try this on my property, you WILL get shot. No warrant, not invited, attempting to tamper with something of mine means risking lawful execution by Castle Doctrine law.
I would suggest you be sure you understand all of the warnings you need to be giving to prove you have complied with all that is required of you.
I believe you would need to believe you were in grave peril before you open fire. Shooting a federal agent isn't the kind of thing they're likely to give you any leeway on. Don't give him a chance to identify himself, and you could be seriously screwed. I doubt that Castle Doctrine gives you a blanket exception to shoot anybody out near your car -- though, it's state by state, so you might live in one that allows for the "shoot first ask questions later".
Hell, now if you do it, it might get identified as premeditated since you've just told everybody you would shoot any such person.
Except Facebook doesn't sell or give this information to advertisers
Unfortunately, I don't think I believe Facebook when they say anything about privacy. They seem to do everything they can to make sure that at some point you make all of your information public.
Their track record on privacy is, IMO, a joke. They don't seem to care. I think Zuckerhead is on record as saying as much.
Umm... I'm not sure where the Neutral Zone should go.
Ummmm... isn't the Neutral Zone still in the Alpha quadrant?
That should cover the Federation, Cardassians, Romulans and Klingons at least, no? It's not like it's "somewhere else", it's just a buffer zone between people already in the Alpha Quadrant.
Your hypothetical unsecured wireless router is broadcasting beyond the boundaries of your property, and by the protocol it is using, is announcing itself to the world as being available for anyone to use. Why shouldn't anyone be able to use it?
And, to answer a question with another question...
The closest example I can think of to this is satellite and other telecoms signals. Does the fact that a signal reaches you give you the legal right to use it? Or is it still considered private?
I know broadcasters have argued that the signal is still theirs and you can't use it without their permission.
I don't think any single analogy will cover all of the bases. And, I don't really claim to have an answer... mostly just questions.;-)
Interesting. Standard setup in the U.S., from major Cable/DSL/Fiber ISPs is a flat-rate, unmetered connection that is limited by data rate (and ISP whim).
Here in Canada, you get X Gigs/month at one rate. As you go over that, you essentially pay per gig. I had understood that even in the US, "unlimited" came with footnotes that essentially say "unlimited does not mean unlimited".
So, yes. I'm arguing that the nature of open wifi accessible from public space gives implicit permission.
I'm not saying that's false, and I'm not saying it's true. I'm saying it seems a bit of a gray area, and I'm willing to bet most of what we're saying here doesn't have sufficient case law to actually say much more than what we think. Which seems to be something that happens a lot with tech. Something becomes trivial, but has ramifications, and nobody has fully explored them and what to do about them.
From a technical standpoint, this will soon be moot. Just about every WAP sold recently now comes with one of those "push button to secure network" features, making it brain-dead to lock your network.
Technology both gets us into, and out of some of these things. In the spots in between, it's not often 100% clear on what is right, what is wrong, and what should be worked around until we have something better.
Slashdot Mirror
So, other than telling me that you think I should have used words approved by you, have you actually said anything different than I did?
Nothing I said precludes "expensive crap" or "cheap and awesome". The poster said "better because its free" -- free doesn't make for better unless your only measure is cost. Ergo, "free" and "better" are on separate axes. Feel free to imagine your own magic quadrant system.
You're on your own for "untility", though.
I guess it depends on how you define "need", smartphone", and "insipid".
If you assert that everyone who doesn't want to use it the way you want to define it is doing it wrong ... then on general principles I will have to inform you that you're wrong. All people making categorical statements are full of shit. No exceptions. :-P
There is no "right" way to use technology, only the way you need to/want to.
Now, I'm in the minority in that I absolutely don't want a smart phone (at least until they become much cheaper) ... but the overwhelming majority of people I know with them don't do any of the big three you describe.
From what I can tell, it's sending videos, googling, looking at You-tube, texting, and playing games. That's it. Well, Facebook I guess.
I would be curious to see real metrics on usage of these things. I think, at the very least, it would be very enlightening.
I'm not corporate in the way you want it to mean. But, I work for a large (30,000+) consulting corporation and wear a tie when I'm on client site. I don't have a BlackBerry, but I do use Outlook and Office at work. And when I'm not at work, they're the last things I want. I'm also old enough to want to draw a very clear line between my work and the rest of my life.
Or, it's like I don't necessarily agree with all of the whining that everybody needs calendaring and word. Or the implication that anybody who bought a device which can't do this must have clearly chosen wrong. Because the overwhelming argument, as I've seen is "but what about spreadsheets" -- so far you've not done much better.
I'm not even saying that some people don't want this functionality. I'm merely pointing out that there is a huge (and quite likely larger) market of people who aren't interested in PIM and Outlook and Office. It's that vast sea of people who use it for ... well, everything else except business apps.
I honestly don't know if I should be impressed, or feel sorry for the little bugger as he grows up with a digital leash. Hopefully he will learn to find some balance on that.
My god, it's like multiple types of consumers can coexist in the same market, and the people who want a highly customizable device can coexist with those who don't.~
They might even accept that it's OK for someone not to use Outlook and Excel and not judge them for it.~
I can almost imagine some wacky form of free market economy where people could buy the device they want and have everyone else would shut up about it.~
You might even conclude that the device which sells more units is more reflective of what people want.~
Why, in my spare time, I could invent some wacky new punctuation to convey the fact that I'm sneering as I type this.~
Seriously, I'm not some Luddite who lives in a cave. I'm aware of these devices, and why people buy them. I'm pointing out that the complaining about not being able to have business apps on their phone might not apply to everybody. Technology for the sake of technology is as pathetic as eschewing technology because it's technology.
If your 7th grader needs to sync with his Outlook calendar and run spreadsheets, well, that's rather unfortunate. When I was in 7th grade, I rode my skateboard home from school. ;-)
But, hey, you feel free to use whatever tech makes you feel all squishy inside, and I will as well.~
Man, I'll give you some human excrement for free ... that doesn't make it better.
Free crap is still free crap. Not saying that the Google app is, in fact, crap. Merely that "free" and "better" are on separate axes.
After 2000, before 2004 for that particular person. I've seen the same on other dishes more recently, but I don't see it very often (satellite that is).
May be our latitude (I'm a fair bit North of you) and because our dishes are only tilted up about 15-20 degrees ... who knows. But, I've definitely seen it on numerous occasions, and still occasionally see it in bars when they have satellite TV.
And, now, be honest ... what percentage of the actual total market for cell phones/smart phones wants to do anything more than that "just works" threshold you deride?
I would say that less than 50% (as a starting point) of people need to sync with their Outlook calendars, view MS Project, or view a spreadsheet. If you do, buy a BlackBerry. I'm betting it's considerably below 50%. The number of people who want to install a web server on their phone? Vanishingly small I'm thinking. So, really, what are we talking, 10-15% of the market? Still, maybe even less??
And, I have to say, as a long-time UNIX geek who now has Linux, FreeBSD, XP, Vista, several iPods, and an iPad ... hearing people detracting from the iPhone (or any Apple product) by saying that you can't do "PIM and Office integration to do work" is friggin' hilarious. To me it only reinforces that whole "I'm a PC/I'm a Mac" whereby the PC wants to do all sorts of "fun" things like pie charts ... traditional "business" apps aren't why I have an iPad (or why anybody I know owns an iPhone). That's not who they're selling to. And yet, the most common thing I see is "ZOMG, how will I make teh spreadsheets and sync wiff my Outlook?" -- do you also have one of those calculators with the hand crank and the roll of paper?
Any device I buy with my own money likely isn't going to do any "PIM and Office integration" -- ever. And, those millions of teenagers who IM and do Facebook and play games? I bet they care even less. It really is about understanding how people actually use the device. I question if the supposed benefits of Android really are of benefit to most people. I would argue the market for people buying phones that "just work" as you describe is larger, and therefore more profitable to pursue.
Close. Except in this case, you put the Bazaar in the lobby of the Cathedral and get the Apple store -- lots of people are still free to make free stuff and put it in the Bazaar. But, someone keeps tabs on the kids running through the aisles with sharp sticks and tries to impose some order. :-P
And, bad metaphors aside, a lot of the stories I've been seeing on Slashdot seem to indicate that either carriers (Verizon?) or phone manufacturers (Motorola?) have been adding changes which are incompatible with newer versions, lock out functionality, or lock you into something.
Not owning an Android (or any smart phone), it's hard not to look at the whole thing like Linux in the late 90's. There's a million distros, some of them are compatible, some not. If you're lucky the software/OS runs on the hardware you have, but if not, you're in for some fun.
That and the fact that you get the exceedingly vocal minority (hard core tech users who want to port scheme to their phone) whining really loud about how their phone is more free than Apple's because ... well, because they can port scheme and compile a new window manager. I'm all for your freedom to choose, I just don't think the vast majority of users will even care about the "open-ness" of Android. In fact, for most consumers, it's probably either a net-zero, or even a detriment.
Forget about snow. A friend used to lose his TV signal about 45 minutes before it rained.
Huh? You mean on OSX or Windows?
On my iTunes right here on my desktop (10.0.1.22 -- the latest version available on Vista 64), the minimize/maximize/close buttons are in the exact same place they are on my Mozilla, Notepad, and Task Manager -- they're also not vertically aligned.
I do see what you mean about things looking greyed out though. Though, compared to the ugly thing I've seen the last few times I've inadvertently opened Windows Media Player, I'll stick with iTunes. As always, Your Mileage May Vary.
I used to own a Jeep with a soft-top years ago.
I used to lock my doors and all that, until a friend pointed out that it was essentially a tent -- anybody who knew how the zippers etc. worked would just open it; anybody who didn't would just cut it.
At that point, I stopped keeping anything of value in it, and just put one of those things that locks your clutch to the steering wheel. Occasionally someone would rifle through my cassettes. But, there was nothing of value to take, and no obstacles for someone who really wanted to see the inside to compel them to cut through the roof.
Of course, that's also why I don't think I'd own a convertible again. :-P
Often, the data on the computer is worth more to you than the computer. The data is irreplaceable, the laptop is just hardware.
As much as they stole his property, they gave him back the only thing he cared about. I'm not saying it was kind, per se, but it was fairly thoughtful (for someone who has just stolen things from you).
Wasn't there a story only a few months back here on Slashdot where a lady had had () stolen and basically said she didn't care about the laptop, but wanted her data back?
Not without some precedent though.
Eric Clapton, George Harrison, The Stones, Aerosmith, Motley Crue, Guns and Roses, Kurt Cobain, CCR ... probably countless I can't even think of off the top of my head ... the whole notion of rock legends being users of some pretty hardcore drugs is exceedingly well documented, and not what you'd call a front. The ones that survive it and keep going are some of the biggest legends there are.
Many of them turned around and stopped using. But, in a huge amount of cases, I don't believe that the whole drug thing was a "front". It's more like documented fact.
Now, in the case of Simmons at least, he absolutely wasn't using them, and I don't think ever claimed he did.
Doesn't drink. Doesn't smoke. Doesn't do drugs. Says he never did, nobody has ever contradicted him on that.
Also claims to have humped everything that ever came along, which you can take with a grain of salt. I'm sure his own count is inflated, but I'm sure he's never wanted for willing females.
Gene Simmons is a nice Jewish boy who has always been about making money and selling his brand. He's not your typical aging rocker -- having watched a couple episodes of his TV show, he's an out of date old fool of a narcissist who is obsessed with his own image and making money in the worst possible way.
In short, he's absolutely part of the problem with the RIAA mindset. As has been pointed out in this thread, advocating prison rape for file sharers (or Anonymous, or whomever he was referring to) goes to demonstrate he's a bit of a loon, and has way crossed the line.
I thought he was irrelevant before his TV series. Now he's irrelevant, pathetic, and a lot more lame than I ever thought he was. At least his son seems to treat him like the old troll that he is.
Bullshit.
Religion in the West tries to do this all the time. For example, Tennessee vs Scopes, and anybody who tries to get creationism taught in schools. Or preventing experiments no fetal stem cells. Or outlawing abortion because God told them so. Or gay marriage because some obscure passage in the bible says so. Any number of ways in which religion tries to control both science and society.
There's loads of examples, and it's getting worse -- the fundamentalists try very hard to push back anything which goes against their "view" of how the world works, and force the rest of us to toe the line.
I'm sorry, but those of us who don't believe in God are often appalled to listen to some of the shit that gets said. And for you to try to say that the West has never allowed religion to suppress science is utter crap.
Look, just because the federal government funds it, doesn't mean they get to decide what the facts and conclusions are. Science is objective, the government isn't.
This government is basically trying to muzzle the scientists and make sure that any facts they have that contradict the wishful-thinking they use to justify policy aren't used. It's essentially a blanket gag order.
Seriously, unless you're a Canadian and/or have been following this closely, it really is difficult to explain the extent to which they are stifling the free exchange of information. Under current policy, I'm not sure that these scientists could confirm their belief in Gravity without permission from the government.
This isn't a matter of "we paid for it, so we get to do anything we like with it". This is undoing decades of precedent where the scientists who work for federal agencies are still independent to do the science, and the government tries to use the science to arrive at policy. They're going straight to policy, and ignoring/quieting the science where it's inconvenient.
No, he's saying that it is absurd to think that every scientist in the employ of the Canadian government is systematically corrupt.
We're not talking about one or two scientists in isolation. We're talking about "Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada" ... so the union of Canadian Federal employees with professional designation. Like, Lawyers, Accountants, Scientists, and Engineers.
The current Harper government has basically told them that they can't speak publicly about the science that they're subject matters in -- unless they ask in advance for permission and their points are vetted by the government. Hell, there was an example this summer where a scientist was barred from talking about historical results.
This has absolutely nothing to do with corrupt scientists, and everything to do with a government that is completely muzzling everybody lest scientific facts (and, yes, theories) that they don't agree with be spoken.
Nobody is saying that all scientists are 100% of the time ethical. But, this government is saying that 100% of the time, scientists can't say anything on public record unless it's been vetted by the government. This is about controlling information and facts to be sure the ones they don't like aren't used.
Stop talking about why a hypothetical scientist may fudge his work, and understand that this is being applied to every single scientist employed by, or funded by, the Federal Government of Canada -- and a Government which currently doesn't want their agenda to be derailed by actual facts.
Yeah, it's called Parliament. :-P
But, seriously, I'm sure that all of the other provinces have groups that try to push equally stupid things.
Part of the problem with that is that everybody seems to want to start with the position that "this is safe unless you can irrefutably prove otherwise", and they go ahead and load everything up with chemicals/whatever and assume it's safe. Which does lead to stuff that you might expect to be dangerous being used until someone can prove it is dangerous. Pharma companies do it all the time, and, have been proven to have lied about risks they knew were there. Think Thalidamide, for instance.
I don't always trust people when they say "oh, sure, this radioactive corn with spiders-silk genes must be perfectly healthy there's no proof to the contrary". The companies introducing these things want us to believe that their chemicals are safe, but it's all discovered after-the-fact.
Assuming everything is safe generally leads to companies pursuing profit with absolutely no regard for if their product is safe. Then they get the rules changed so they're not actually required to tell you about what's actually in it because it hasn't yet been proven to be a possible risk. I wouldn't trust Monsanto on any claims they make about product safety, and I think that to a certain extent, companies should be doing more testing before they release it to the market.
You can go ahead and eat the experimental green goo -- personally, I'd rather they had to put it on the label so I could choose, instead of just saying that it hasn't been proven harmful. It's too damned late by the time they 'discover' that a something we've never tested is, in fact, dangerous.
Yes, well, I know how to do it, and I have done so. I'm not talking about me in the specific, but as an abstraction -- what has a hypothetical person done, and what does that imply about what they've consented to. You know, Joe average who bought a linksys from Best Buy, and it defaults to being wide open. Have they consented to anything?
I just can't fully wrap my head around the idea that unlocked door (or wifi) is actual implicit permission to enter the premises (or use the wifi). If, to turn your example around, if I'm entirely surrounded by private residences, why would you assume an unsecured wifi means public when everything else is assumed to be private? You have no reasonable expectation of any right to walk into my home, so how do you arrive at the notion that the wifi is public?
I'm not sure of what the legal definition is, or if there is enough case law to actually say. That's my point. I'm specifically I'm saying I am not sure one way or the other that this whole notion of "implied consent" is correct. It's a theory, but that's it -- and everybody here is mostly talking from a purely technical perspective, and what they think.
It's all well and good for a bunch of Slashdot geeks to say that since you've not secured your wifi that is implied consent. I just think for the most part, it's people talking out of their backsides with no real consideration of the legal issues.
Now, tell me case law to support it, and I will cede the point. Until then, I suspect that this is a very gray area, and it is going to vary hugely depending on where you live.
At this point, I'm merely saying "is that true" to some of these analogies. I think too much of this is very gray, and nowhere near as cut and dried as the binary thinkers on Slashdot seem to think it is.
It's one thing to shoot someone who you feel is an intruder and threatening your life, which is what Castle Doctrine is for.
It's another thing entirely to shoot law enforcement because you don't want them on your property. Once they've identified themselves, you can say "no warrant, go away".
I don't think you can shoot them after you know they're police and then claim self defense.
I would suggest you be sure you understand all of the warnings you need to be giving to prove you have complied with all that is required of you.
I believe you would need to believe you were in grave peril before you open fire. Shooting a federal agent isn't the kind of thing they're likely to give you any leeway on. Don't give him a chance to identify himself, and you could be seriously screwed. I doubt that Castle Doctrine gives you a blanket exception to shoot anybody out near your car -- though, it's state by state, so you might live in one that allows for the "shoot first ask questions later".
Hell, now if you do it, it might get identified as premeditated since you've just told everybody you would shoot any such person.
Unfortunately, I don't think I believe Facebook when they say anything about privacy. They seem to do everything they can to make sure that at some point you make all of your information public.
Their track record on privacy is, IMO, a joke. They don't seem to care. I think Zuckerhead is on record as saying as much.
Ummmm ... isn't the Neutral Zone still in the Alpha quadrant?
That should cover the Federation, Cardassians, Romulans and Klingons at least, no? It's not like it's "somewhere else", it's just a buffer zone between people already in the Alpha Quadrant.
And, to answer a question with another question ...
The closest example I can think of to this is satellite and other telecoms signals. Does the fact that a signal reaches you give you the legal right to use it? Or is it still considered private?
I know broadcasters have argued that the signal is still theirs and you can't use it without their permission.
I don't think any single analogy will cover all of the bases. And, I don't really claim to have an answer ... mostly just questions. ;-)
Here in Canada, you get X Gigs/month at one rate. As you go over that, you essentially pay per gig. I had understood that even in the US, "unlimited" came with footnotes that essentially say "unlimited does not mean unlimited".
I'm not saying that's false, and I'm not saying it's true. I'm saying it seems a bit of a gray area, and I'm willing to bet most of what we're saying here doesn't have sufficient case law to actually say much more than what we think. Which seems to be something that happens a lot with tech. Something becomes trivial, but has ramifications, and nobody has fully explored them and what to do about them.
Technology both gets us into, and out of some of these things. In the spots in between, it's not often 100% clear on what is right, what is wrong, and what should be worked around until we have something better.
Cheers