I disagree. 'Corporate America' doesn't believe you have common sense. And I think, if you surveyed the population on these issues, they would be largely correct.
So Jon, your conclusion that everyone is too afraid to say why the Elisabeth Smart case is probably true. But it has nothing to do with media conglomerates, wealthy people, or race (which you correctly discarded). It has to do with sex. What you were afraid to say is that the pictures of this little girl were perfect to entice audiences in a sex crime story. Sex sells, especially sex with little girls. And especially when there's violence involved. This is America, and sure there is corporate greed involved, but its method of exploiting the story is being glossed over.
While that's an impressive, though a bit sad, display of vigilence, one cause of that particular email address being used is through the use of New York Times forums (though I doubt you did that), which, as the privacy policy states:
Members who post a message in our Forums make their e-mail address available to others through a feature of our Forums software, which could result in unsolicited e-mail from other subscribers or parties.
But seeing your method, I believe I'll undertake the same in order to confirm over some period. If the New York Times did in fact share your email address, TRUSTe and BBBonline would probably like to know about it. Thanks for the decent methodology.
Is this some sort of assertion that the New York Times uses your email address to spam you? Because that's really ridiculous, I registered over 2 (3?) years ago, and I've never received an email I didn't specifically request from them.
And why would it matter if they died because of evil humans? Evil humans are as much a part of nature as all other predators. There is no distinction between animals that died "because the weren't fit to survive in this world" and animals that died because of humans. Those animals that died because of humans obviously are not fit to live in this world either, a world occupied by "evil humans".
I wonder what it would take to replace XP's version of the explorer shell with the simple plain version that 2K used. I know that there is an appearance option that does something similar, but it's not good enough.
Just curious, but what's not good enough about it? With 1 setting (if I remember correctly, I'm using NT 4 at work right now), I was able to disable the new UI features to a Win 2000 default. It sped up my machine considerably, and there was no noticeable difference between XP and Win 2000 in a UI sense. Did I miss something?
The most likely reason you were informed that you sent out an infected e-mail is that Klez spoofs the From field. So if anyone who has you in their address book that was not responsible enough to take the precautions you did received and contracted the virus, there is a chance that it will be sent to other computers from your email address. See McAfee's description, most notably:
the worm has the ability to spoof the From: field (often set to an address found on the victim machine).
Um, so things that are free and not products? That's a slippery slope don't you think? That could easily be extended to include all "free" software, much of which the readers of Slashdot tout constantly. Apparently, none of those are "products" in your opinion.
I suppose you mean alienating every slashdot reader, but not anything close to everyone who ever will and does use the Internet. In case you haven't noticed, most people who use the internet couldn't care less about copyright, trademark, patent, or privacy issues. That is a relatively small community of users compared to the behemoth of the uninformed, uninspired, and unmotivated. Thus, I don't think PR is much of an issue.
Great, I can't wait the video game-like atmosphere our highways are going to have when people are no longer just talking on their cell phones, but playing GTA 3 on them also.
You know, it used to seem like the software security and freedom communities were pretty closely related. Apparently the NAS doesn't have the same lassaiz fairre attitude as most of the freedom advocates.
It's always interesting when those who call for freedom and security for themselves can only figure out how to do it by reducing the freedom of others. Now they want to legislate software standards? Come on, you have to be against that.
Haha, yeah I was really just curious. Didn't mean to jump to conclusions. I just wasn't clear that you were trying to make the point that the report was released purposely to detract from the Moxi story. It's certainly prudent to have a critical eye toward product announcements. It just seemed overly cynical when, in my view, the gist of the story was that something useful was going to be produced based on the XBox - an unfairly maligned product (IMO).
Sure, I understand that the product is vapor, but the fact that someone reported that there are plans to make it is not suspect. Are we saying that there are no plans to make it, and the report was just made up? I'm sure all reports of new products are exaggerated and hopeful in their timing, but it's not as if they are creative writing or fictional short-stories.
What is that supposed to mean? Why the quote marks? Are you claiming the article is not, in fact, a report? Or are you just injecting cynical sarcasm to boost your/. reputation as a Microsoft-hater?
Perhaps you really have a reason, I don't know, but some description of why you would characterize this as a "report" instead of a report would at least provide some clarity as to your thoughts on the matter.
Targets won't be machines
on
The Drone War
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Jon has a couple of failed assertions here. If he believes that two technologically advanced countries would send their mechanized armies to go off and fight each other while the populace sits back to see who wins, he's ridiculously incorrect.
If he thinks that mechanized warfare will lead to no casualty war, he's incorrect. (Um, what about the targets of all those high tech weapons. They certainly won't all be the other side's high tech weapons, they will be people).
If he uses this assertion to conclude that because the citzenry won't be involved in the offensive side of the wars, that they will be more inclined to go to war, then he is on shaky ground. I see no reason why the further mechanization of war could honestly lead one to believe that the "sacrifices of war" would be seriously reduced. Industry would still be destroyed. People would lose their jobs, and some would lose their lives. An aversion to this is exactly why conventional wars are no longer in favor, and why mechanization will not change that fact.
I do grant, the mechanization can lead to greater war between the advanced world and the conventional world, as we've already seen. But extending that to say that advanced countries will be more likely to go to war because technology reduces the costs of going to war is ludicrous and wrong.
Yes, they are. In order for DRM to work, technology must be used by the content providers to make their content secure. This is what they are customers of. The only reason it's in the end-user OS is so the DRM technology will be of any attractiveness to the content providers.
Look, don't blame Microsoft. If companies and organizations are clamoring for digital rights management software, software companies are going to produce it. Microsoft didn't go to the RIAA and say, "Hey, people are stealing your music, don't you want some digital rights management solutions?" The fact is if you don't want this type of thing occuring, your going to have to go after the content providers and your legislators, not the company supplying a requested product.
Slashdot Mirror
No they don't. They stand up and bitch to each other on geek-only websites about how no one else will stand up for them.
I disagree. 'Corporate America' doesn't believe you have common sense. And I think, if you surveyed the population on these issues, they would be largely correct.
FYI, Trillian does allow use of Yahoo! IM as well, though not Jabber.
You have only an "in-tray", not an "in-box"? I'm jealous. Most of the time I feel like I have an in-warehouse.
Hmm, no wasn't suggesting that. I was suggesting that it is covered because sex sells, pedophillic sex, adult sex, whatever, it doesn't matter.
So Jon, your conclusion that everyone is too afraid to say why the Elisabeth Smart case is probably true. But it has nothing to do with media conglomerates, wealthy people, or race (which you correctly discarded). It has to do with sex. What you were afraid to say is that the pictures of this little girl were perfect to entice audiences in a sex crime story. Sex sells, especially sex with little girls. And especially when there's violence involved. This is America, and sure there is corporate greed involved, but its method of exploiting the story is being glossed over.
Members who post a message in our Forums make their e-mail address available to others through a feature of our Forums software, which could result in unsolicited e-mail from other subscribers or parties.
But seeing your method, I believe I'll undertake the same in order to confirm over some period. If the New York Times did in fact share your email address, TRUSTe and BBBonline would probably like to know about it. Thanks for the decent methodology.
Is this some sort of assertion that the New York Times uses your email address to spam you? Because that's really ridiculous, I registered over 2 (3?) years ago, and I've never received an email I didn't specifically request from them.
And why would it matter if they died because of evil humans? Evil humans are as much a part of nature as all other predators. There is no distinction between animals that died "because the weren't fit to survive in this world" and animals that died because of humans. Those animals that died because of humans obviously are not fit to live in this world either, a world occupied by "evil humans".
Just curious, but what's not good enough about it? With 1 setting (if I remember correctly, I'm using NT 4 at work right now), I was able to disable the new UI features to a Win 2000 default. It sped up my machine considerably, and there was no noticeable difference between XP and Win 2000 in a UI sense. Did I miss something?
the worm has the ability to spoof the From: field (often set to an address found on the victim machine).
Don't look now, but you might notice this is a Reuters report. Yahoo doesn't write these articles themselves.
Um, so things that are free and not products? That's a slippery slope don't you think? That could easily be extended to include all "free" software, much of which the readers of Slashdot tout constantly. Apparently, none of those are "products" in your opinion.
Apparently the art of writing is dead.
I suppose you mean alienating every slashdot reader, but not anything close to everyone who ever will and does use the Internet. In case you haven't noticed, most people who use the internet couldn't care less about copyright, trademark, patent, or privacy issues. That is a relatively small community of users compared to the behemoth of the uninformed, uninspired, and unmotivated. Thus, I don't think PR is much of an issue.
Great, I can't wait the video game-like atmosphere our highways are going to have when people are no longer just talking on their cell phones, but playing GTA 3 on them also.
It's always interesting when those who call for freedom and security for themselves can only figure out how to do it by reducing the freedom of others. Now they want to legislate software standards? Come on, you have to be against that.
Haha, yeah I was really just curious. Didn't mean to jump to conclusions. I just wasn't clear that you were trying to make the point that the report was released purposely to detract from the Moxi story. It's certainly prudent to have a critical eye toward product announcements. It just seemed overly cynical when, in my view, the gist of the story was that something useful was going to be produced based on the XBox - an unfairly maligned product (IMO).
Sure, I understand that the product is vapor, but the fact that someone reported that there are plans to make it is not suspect. Are we saying that there are no plans to make it, and the report was just made up? I'm sure all reports of new products are exaggerated and hopeful in their timing, but it's not as if they are creative writing or fictional short-stories.
What is that supposed to mean? Why the quote marks? Are you claiming the article is not, in fact, a report? Or are you just injecting cynical sarcasm to boost your /. reputation as a Microsoft-hater?
Perhaps you really have a reason, I don't know, but some description of why you would characterize this as a "report" instead of a report would at least provide some clarity as to your thoughts on the matter.
If he thinks that mechanized warfare will lead to no casualty war, he's incorrect. (Um, what about the targets of all those high tech weapons. They certainly won't all be the other side's high tech weapons, they will be people).
If he uses this assertion to conclude that because the citzenry won't be involved in the offensive side of the wars, that they will be more inclined to go to war, then he is on shaky ground. I see no reason why the further mechanization of war could honestly lead one to believe that the "sacrifices of war" would be seriously reduced. Industry would still be destroyed. People would lose their jobs, and some would lose their lives. An aversion to this is exactly why conventional wars are no longer in favor, and why mechanization will not change that fact.
I do grant, the mechanization can lead to greater war between the advanced world and the conventional world, as we've already seen. But extending that to say that advanced countries will be more likely to go to war because technology reduces the costs of going to war is ludicrous and wrong.
Anyone who makes their IT purchasing and development decisions based on online polls deserves what they get.
Yeah, pretty convincing yourself. Sounds like you "took a shit on a piece of paper that show(ed) up in a. . .web forum".
Yes, they are. In order for DRM to work, technology must be used by the content providers to make their content secure. This is what they are customers of. The only reason it's in the end-user OS is so the DRM technology will be of any attractiveness to the content providers.
Look, don't blame Microsoft. If companies and organizations are clamoring for digital rights management software, software companies are going to produce it. Microsoft didn't go to the RIAA and say, "Hey, people are stealing your music, don't you want some digital rights management solutions?" The fact is if you don't want this type of thing occuring, your going to have to go after the content providers and your legislators, not the company supplying a requested product.