"Whilst the point about non-IE browsers not being able to access the site is valid, the fact it takes 5.5 hours over a modem is not."
I failed to see anywhere on the Windows 2000 packaging or in the documentation anything that says "Internet connection required (not included)." I registered my OS, why shouldn't I at least get a little postcard in the mail informing me of this update? Why can't I just purchase the CD at the local software store if it's so "critical?"
"So? It does what it's supposed to do. Do you really think they're going to spend money on making it all nice and pretty when end users aren't going to even touch it? They provided the tool and it does the job it says it does - so what if there is no help file?"
The few of us consumers that might actually be interested in the help file would like it. Also, the help file would describe what the middleware does, allowing other software houses to make competing products.
And before you balk at that, remember that the settlement is supposed to forcibly open Microsoft open to more competition as punishment for anti-competitive practices. Including the help file is supposed to stimulate more competition.
"Call me skeptical, but this could just be an oversight. We all know that Microsofts testing is, ahem, a little erratic. It might not be though, but lets not jump to conclusions."
Unacceptable.
First off, it is Microsoft's assertion that they cannot remove Internet Explorer form the NT 5.* kernel, therefore the punishment needs to ensure that IE can be completely hidden and/or "turned off." They shouldn't be allowed to make any of these little "oversights," no matter what their intent. They have been convicted of a crime and this is their punishment. If these little "mistakes" do happen, they demonstrate that Microsoft is either unable or unwilling to meet the terms of the agreement and it's time to find a more fiting punishment.
Secondly, there is no logical or technical reason for Media Player to point to IE specifically instead of "default browser" in general. I'm nowhere near being a coder and even I know that's sloppy programming that wouldn't be expected of a first-year comp sci student.
Um... no. Language is meant to do one thing and one thing only: Allow communications. Nine times out of ten, using slang and jargon only limits the number of people that can understand you, not increase it.
If you want to youse 1337 $p33k with your friends and fellow net-heads, you go ahead and do that. But that kind of stuff doesn't belong in communications to the world in general (which is what English courses are supposed to teach you).
Of course, when it comes to evolution, if you use 1337 $p33k and 9 out of 10 people you write to can't understand a thing you just typed, guess who needs to do the evolving!
"Perhaps standardizing the slang and documenting it would be a better place for education."
The place for education is to teach students a codified, agreed-upon standard for spelling and grammar. They are to teach you the rules you have to follow if you expect yourself to be understood by the majority of English speakers. Slang and jargon are things used only by a minority of speakers (by definition) and teaching that those in English classes will only make things both more complicated and less useful. Imagine if we started teaching leagl-ese in high schools instead of normal Enlglish.
If you want it documented, talk to an etymologist.
"Language is the TCP/IP of brains."
Too specific. TCP/IP is just one networking protocol. But while we're using the metaphor...
"What the hell is this?"
"It's an IP address."
"But this number is HUGE! It's way too big to be an IP address!"
"Oh, well, I used IPv6."
"Why!?! 99% of the networking hardware on the planet doesn't understand IPv6! Everybody comunicates with IPv4. You won't be able to accomplish anything today using IPv6."
"But it's new and shiney and it should be taught in schools instead of IPv4! Protocols were meant to evolve!"
"A more exotic rendering using constructions like "sux0r" (although I know "sucks" doesn't appear in the Lord's Prayer; bear with me) would quickly start to resemble the 1000-year-old version."
What's always bugged me about the use of "sux0r" is the way it "reads" a lot like the word "succor," which means something completely different.
"* Do they take software makers to task for poor quality software and/or insecure software which create the majority of security expenses for industry and the government? * Do they demand more accountability from software vendors for these flaws, including potentially requiring opening specs or even source code up for inspection before using the software in mission-critical systems?"
Feds: "Well, gee. Doesn't the DMCA do that already? What more do you want us to do?"
> > "And in case you hadn't heard, there are much > > better (as decided by the UN) places to live and > > work - primarily because of people with your > > mindset."
From the looks of the article you pointed to, the US ranked sixth mostly because our life expectancy at the time was a hair under some of the others (and it looks like they were splitting hairs in at least the top ten). No mention of patriotic zealots.
"Ottawa is trying to figure out how to fix the way that the Canadian standard of living is only about 75% of the US without actually getting too involved in the US market"
Comments from a Canadian Parliament publication on the Canadian standard of living and the productivity gap. The table of contents of the whole thing can be found here. Needless to say, both of these topics have made the arguments for and against adopting either the US Dollar or a united North American currency in Canada to be more heated than it would be otherwise.
"You didn't answer my question, you just repeated it. Here, I'll post it again:
WHO keeps watch?"
My answer: ultimately, you do. If you have trouble understanding what a contract says when you read it or have difficulty trusting the other party, perhaps you should consider not signing it.
"Flipping burgers adds USD 5 per hour to your countries gross domestic product, while it takes highly skilled work to do the add the same 5 bucks per hour in a third world country."
300,000,000 x $5.00 x 40 x 52 = $3,120,000,000,000
That still leaves $6,880,000,000,000 unaccounted for. And that's even assuming that, if everybody was flipping burgers, people would want or could afford to buy those burgers.
"When the US of A applied for getting the UN seat in NY, you entered into contracts. Part of these contracts is that UN diplomats are not required to pay these traffic tickets. So, just honor your own contracts please"
In case you haven't noticed, we're paying the UN enough money to continue to be a part of the UN. We are meeting our obligations as spelled out by the UN Charter.
Cuts both ways, don't it?
"Moreover you know perfectly well that the US nonpayment of UN dues is not related to those traffic tickets but based on the US demand for more influence on UN policy than they already are entitled to based on the UN charta."
Try "A great many US taxpayers aren't happy with the UN in general and would be unhappy with their elected officials if they started paying more money than absolutely necesary."
"True enough, but I doubt that you could count any developed nations as part of that."
As an example, Ottawa is trying to figure out how to fix the way that the Canadian standard of living is only about 75% of the US without actually getting too involved in the US market (as Canadian productivity is also a bit lower than US and they'll get mauled).
And they're a G-8 member.
"In case you hadn't noticed, the US isn't really #1 at anything besides tooting their own horns."
If we really don't do anything better than anybody else, how is it that less than 5% of the world's population is responsible for over 25% of the planet's gross domestic product? Dumb luck?
"And in case you hadn't heard, there are much better (as decided by the UN) places to live and work - primarily because of people with your mindset."
Got links?
(Of course, I could be cynical and point out that this is the same UN that feels that Sudan is a better member of the Commission on Human Rights than the US. But I won't, if for no other reason than because at least three trolls will respond to that statement saying something to the effect of "John Ashcroft has made us worse than Sudan!" and will get modded up to +5 Insightful)
"Yes, but who, exactly keeps watch to ensure that one party isn't being taken advantage of."
"We don't envy American (Govt) war mongering, engineering of governments"
What, you're more proud of European government engineering? Proud of the examples certain EU members have mde of various African and SE Asian countries?
"We have better economic growth than the USA."
First off, after the past year I doubt it. Secondly, just because you're growing faster doesn't mean you've caught up yet.
"We have better social policy - we look after our poor people better. We have fewer homeless people, slums. We have accessible healthcare for all, not just the rich. We have a nicer climate overall."
These have beeen brought up so often that I'm actually getting curious whether or not anybody really has any data on this to back these up.
"We have more glorious beaches with fewer people."
Only if you assume all beaches in the US are on the Florida penninsula, southern California, or Oahu.
"We rarely have to queue for anything for more than five minutes."
And by that I assume you're suggesting that we do?
"Our hospitals are not full of gunshot wounded."
Oh really?
"You get to club us with a big stick if we put a trade tariff on,"
Unless it's GM food, huh? Or just about any produce, for that matter? Bananas ring any bells?
"You trash the world environment and you won't let anyone else attempt to clean up (Kyoto)."
About the only way we're preventing Kyoto from being implemented (which we aren't... or "weren't") is by not signing on. IMO, trying to claim that that is our way of actively trying to prevent outher countries from implementing Kyoto themselves is really stretching it.
"And while you're at it, you might get your UN dues paid."
We might, as soon as UN diplomats start paying off their NYC parking/traffic tickets.
"Disclaimer. I do have friends in the USA who are just as horrified by the pervasive ignorance of their compatriots as I am."
I dislike blind patriotism myself, but I fail to see how your post makes you any better than those you claim to dispise. You don't like how pro-American jingoists make overly-broad, baseless and unprovable statements, but you think that your anti-American jingoism is somehow better? "Proving" that the US is the Great Satan requires just as much proof as "proving" the US is utopian. And either way, silly little catch phrases bleated out by political activist sheep just won't cut it.
"I post anon because I don't like being attacked by the idiots in the majority."
You think you're in the minority here? Obviously you're new to Slashdot. I'm surprised there isn't a "+1 Anti-American" mod option yet.
We're talking about Hollywood here. They don't give a damn about such extraneous things as "character depth" or "plot development," all they want are what they consider to be sex symbols running around in skin-tight outfits. It's what brings in the money.
If you want a decent Superman, turn on Cartoon Network. You should know better by now to seek him at the movie theaters.
"If this technology is not implemented by open groups, I guarantee that Microsoft will solve it for you with something like Palladium [wired.com]. They control a huge share of e-mail accounts via hotmail.com and Outlook, and could easily leverage AOL as well. Of course, MS and AOL would choose the centralized trust model (like Verisign) rather than the distributed trust model."
You just inferred that relying on a solution from Microsoft, AOL, or Verisign is in all cases better than relying on a solution from the federal government.
You are officially a Libertarian looney and a Slashdot troll. Here's your card.
"You forget that companies are still required to install locks on their doors and put up signs that say "No trespassing"."
Only by insurance companies. "The car wasn't locked" isn't a valid legal defense for grand theft auto.
"In a few years it will be technologically feasible for the government to have cameras on every lamp post."
I fail to see how your analogy means anything. I didn't say anything about federal wiretaps or monitoring internet communications (but your apparent knee-jerk Libertarian reaction suggests you think otherwise). As I have mentioned many times elsewhere, I want nothing more (or less) than the expansion of current anti-junk-fax laws to include spam as well. Let me forward an example of spam onto the FCC if I so choose while also allowing me to seek a personal remedy in the courts.
(No, I'm not anti-Libertarian, I'm anti-knee-jerks. In this example, I fail to see how your "concern for personal rights" advocates anything other than anarchy.)
"Then, we won't need locks or keys, or passwords on computers."
The alternative you're offering is just as extreme, just as baseless, and robs me of my ability to defend my own personal rights just as surely as the nightmare scenario you're trying to paint (maybe you should start relying on something other than FUD for your arguments). The government isn't always bad, and the absence of government isn't always good.
"Admit it -- you voted for Bill Clinton!;-)"
Wasn't old enough the first time, and I voted against the second. But I fail to see how that matters.
"But this would be another precedent for the encroaching restrictions of people's freedoms on the internet."
Those "freedoms" you speak of are illusory at best, and the presence of the internet does not make an individual's freedom any more or less signifigant (as you seem to suggest). For example, you won't find yourself free from libel and slander lawsuits simply because you published on the internet instead of paper. Just ask the Church of Scientology.
Forget the internet for the moment. I am receiving communcations that use my personal resources against my will. Let's say it's from telemarketers. Without some sort of legal arrangement, I have one way and one way only to prevent these marketers from using my resources for their own personal gain, and it involves a visit to their offices with a sledge hammer.
But, in fulfilling their duty to regulate interstate commerce, the federal government has enacted a law that (supposedly) gives me legal recourse. If they call me after I've asked them to stop calling me, I don't need a sledge hammer, I just need to know how to use a small claims court.
Does the law involve the NSA listening in on my phone conversations? Let me put it this way: If the NSA is listening in on my conversations, it's sure as hell not so that they can monitor telemarketers. The law affirms my right to take personal, civil action against an offender that I may not otherwise have.
"The internet is not like a physical object or location. It spans the numerous localities, and"
My computer is a physical object. It resides in the State of Louisiana. As does the dial-up server (another physical object) I connect to to connect to the internet. While I doubt the e-mail server also resides in Louisiana, I'm quite sure it resides in the United States.
"involves very novel issues"
And it involves a very old concept, that of "interstate commerce." Something mentioned in this little document set to paper waaaay back in 1789. I see nothing in that document saying "unless the internet is invented."
"of entirely automated processes."
No, it's not entirely automated. Somebody has to set it into motion, don't they? Is it somehow not considered murder if I kill the victim with a Rube Goldberg device?
If you're so adamant about seeing government legislation in terms of black and white, why are you trying so hard to avoid seeing spam in a similar light?
"Sending e-mail should not be illegal."
Forget e-mail! Stop pretending that using the word "e-mail" somehow makes everything different!
Some forms of expression should be regulated. I didn't say "restricted" or "abridged," I said "regulated."
Nobody should have any form of expression they disagree with forced upon them. Reguardless of the medium.
Nobody should be able to make any sort of expression that causes immediate harm to another person. Reguardless of the medium.
Advertisers shouldn't be allowed to make intentionally misleading statements. Reguardless of the medium.
Advertisers shouldn't be allowed to use somebody else's medium without express permisison from the owner. Reguardless of the medium.
Nobody's expression should violate the property rights of anybody else. Reguardless of the medium.
As far as my rights as a human being and a citizen of the Unitd States are concerned, the existence of the internet changes nothing! It takes away none of my rights, nor those of anybody else. It gives me no new rights, nor does it give new rights to anybody else. The only rights I gain with the purchase of internet services is access to the provider's property within the limits of our business agreement. Nor do I voluntarily surrender my rights to privacy and property by agreeing to an AUP. Despite what you may think, the Bill of Rights was not rewritten within the past decade. There has been no need to.
"Receiving e-mail should not be mandatory"
Um... that's exactly the opposite of what you've been stating. Your arguments insist that e-mail receipt should be manditory to "protect" the so-called "rights" of the spammers.
"While the government can fight blatent abuse of a person or companies communication rights ; they have not (and I believe they can not) come up with legislation that actually makes spam illegal while allowing all legitimate communications to be made unhindered."
The law Fax.com was found to be guilty of breaking is Section 227 of Title 47 of the United States Code. The relevant text follows:
Restrictions on the use of automated telephone equipment:
It shall be unlawful for any person in the United States (...) to use any to use any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine(.)
...
In my opinion the solution to this problem is very simple: expand 227 U. S. C. 47 to prohibit unsolicited e-mail advertisements in exactly the same way it prohibits unsolicited fax advertisements. Nothing more, and certainly nothing less.
"Please, think carefully before invoking Big Brother to solve your problems! As convenient as it sounds, regulation of e-mail provides yet another disturbing precendent for government control of private communication."
This isn't about speech, this is about both commerce and property. It's commerce because these are e-mail advertisements and it's property because I pay for my e-mail account and my e-mail server. If they're interested in sending me spam, they can reimburse me for the use of my property. Or would you mind if I came by your house with a can of spraypaint and exercise my "freedom of speech" on your front door? Keying my personal expressions on the hood of your car?
Of course, if you still want to go with your knee-jerk Libertarian reaction and want to continue avoiding government intervention at all costs, I can always go buy a shotgun at Wal-Mart...
"Our founding fathers viewed governments as a last resort for problems that cannot be solved locally."
Making reference to "founding fathers" in political argument: +50 points on political crackpot scale.
"Think about it. Defining "spam" is about as easy as defining "offensive" content."
Is it a solicitation? (yes/no) Did I ask for it? (yes/no)
It's that easy!
"Subjective decisions about which e-mail messages are deemed worthy to be delivered should NOT be made by politicians."
See, that's why we have these things called "courts" and "juries." They make these kinds of decisions.
"There are very obvious technical solutions to the spam problem involving digital signatures."
I refer back to the shotguns Wal-Mart is selling. It is a technological measure that has the habit of solving many problems permanently.
"Consider the icon at the bottom of your browser, which informs you that an online merchant is "trustworthy" (i.e. their identity has been independently verified). It's not hard to see how this concept of "transitive trust" could be extended to e-mail, while preserving relative anonymity."
I don't give a damn about trustworthiness! I don't even want the damned things in my e-mail account! If they want to flood my account, they can pay for it! But they don't, because people who think all too similarly to you think that the internet is some magical, mystical place, a paralell universe where the rules of the real world just don't apply! Just because you're not the one paying for it doesn't mean e-mail is free!
"Basically, various groups would establish public-key databases containing validated e-mail signatures,"
Not only do I not want these God-forsaken messages anywhere near my account (which I pay for), I don't want to sacrifice any of my processor cycles or my network bandwidth! What you are offering is not a solution, only adding to the problem!
There only real solutions to the spam problem boil down to two camps:
1.) Government intervention (laws, etc.)
2.) Vigilantism (list of known-spammers, domain blocking, etc.)
Of course, if we have to rely on vigilante activities to preserve our rights and property as citizens, what's the point of government to begin with?
Of course, there's your argument right there, isn't it? I'm sorry, but personally I'd rather fine or jail spammers than shoot them.
"Mail servers could then be configured to reject any e-mail which is not signed with a recognized key."
My processor cycles! My hardware! My bandwidth!
"A similar scheme could be used for content regulation on web sites, etc. etc."
Apples and oranges. Websites require you to actively look for them, type in the URL, etc. ("pull") E-mail is exactly the opposite, where you have no control over what appears in your e-mail account ("push").
"So, if you sysadmins are finally ready to take action, please do something more proactive than simply deferring to Uncle Sam or some other imperial authority."
Why should sysadmins implement new technology at their own expense when they're not the ones who are responsible for producing the "need" for the new expense to begin with?
You know, graffiti wouldn't be such a problem if the bulding owners were more proactive about repainting their walls every time some new "art" appears. What? They'd have to buy the paint and sacrifice their own time to redo their walls? Well, that's better than government intervention in your book, isn't it?
"The good pictures will be from seperation and re-entry."
Um... no. Obviously you haven't seen this flick here (some stills are available here). The video from a similar camera mounted on a Delta II is simply stunning. Seriously, I can't begin to describe how beautiful it is, you need to go watch it. I have yet to get tired of watching it.
Re-entry pictures are going to be few if any. But I'm already drooling at the thought of video like this from a shuttle launch.
"I don't think anybody is beyond hope. How would you feel if you did a major crime and people told you that you were beyond hope, and it's probably better for you if they killed you anyway (rather than trying to rehabiliatize you)?"
Not familiar with the concept of triage yet, are you? I envy you. I'm not saying that it's all fun and games, I'm saying it's something that needs to be done.
Since this is ultimately something that needs to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, how about the case in question? How would you try to rehabilitate someone who holds so little value in human life as to kill several thousand in a single act and then laugh about it later? What can possibly be done for someone that can organize what happened on 9/11 and then continue to sleep soundly at night? I see no self-doubt in bin Laden at all and I don't believe there's a cure for that.
My saying this probably won't hold much sway with you, but if I were in bin Laden's shoes, I certainly hope someone would kill me.
"You seem to be confusing justice with retribution."
Neat trick, considering how I'm not talking about either. Both are a lost cause in this case, unless you are a religious person who believes in "divine justice/retribution/whatever."
I consider capital punishment in this case to be euthanasia. They can't be allowed to continue the way they are unchecked and any other alternative is essentially torture.
"One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, or something like that."
Yes, there are infinite shades of gray in between, but there is an absolute black and absolute white in the world. That's the basis for ideas like the Geneva Conventions and Hague Accords (two things that al Qaeda have actively sought to violate). After all, Hitler was just liberating the Fatherland from the Jewish scourge...
"You are not doing them a favour by killing them."
Yes, I am. That was my whole argument. Death by legal injection is likely the only humane solution to them.
"How many old enemies are now willing to go that much further because of it?"
Depends on the potential new enemies and how you kill them. Thought experiment: What if we happen to capture bin Laden alive? What if we put him on trial and then broadcast the trial live over Voice of America?
I wonder if there would be so many anti-American zealots in the Islamic world today if their government-controlled media outlets let them, say, learn about how the US courts are bending over backwards to give Moussaoui a fair trial. If this were the Saudi legal system, he'd probably have been beheadded months ago.
"The U.S.'s war in Afghanistan has killed thousands of civilians. War against Iraq would probably kill an order of magnitude more Iraqis. Where does that fall on your moral scale?"
We're not the ones actively targeting civillians. We're not the ones hiding behind civillians. Hell, we're the ones actively trying to find genuine military targets to strike.
We've invaded Afghanistan. Unlike the previous regime, we're not actively raping and pillaging our enemy civillian populations. We're not forcing our moral system on others (note that Afghanistan probably won't have anything resembling the First Amendment in the forseeable future).
Are the civillian deaths regrettable? Yes. Should we try to avoid them whenever we can. Yes. But, unlike our enemies, we do regret the civillian deaths (instead of cheering them) and we do try to avoid killing them whenever we can (instead of making sure they're in the cross-fire).
I fail to see how current US military actions fall into the same catetory.
This whole discussion reminds me of something Orwell once brought up: Freedom of speech hinders the war efforts of democratic societies and ultimately aid their non-democaratic enemies. And before you jump to conclusions, I'm not saying "do away with freedom of speech for the war effort," I'm just trying to point out that a year ago, if you publicly spoke out against al Qaeda and Taliban actions against civillians in Afghanistan, you'd be long dead by now. Maybe you should consider that before you start lumping us all together in one category next time.
(I am now predicting at least three responses to this post mentioning the name "Aschroft")
"I'm not trying to start something nasty here, but there have been over a thousand Civilian deaths in Afganistan so far, and some reports say up to three thousand. "
Was I cheering the civillian deaths? Was I chanting "kill all ragheads?" No, my opinion is that the higher-ups of al Qaeda, the ones who decided the attacks last year were a good idea and actively worked to support them, shouldn't have "leniency" from the death penalty. They are in a small class of people that are simply too far gone from the basics of civilization as to be unsalvagable.
As for the rest of the organization and perhaps the region as a whole, for the most part they just need a big dose of the First Amendment. Give them the ability to get information easily and let them decide for themselves (instead of the propoganda they've been force-fed) and they'll likely see the error of their ways. Unfortunately for everybody involved, that probably won't be coming any time soon...
" I was at work, wondering when my boss would get to the punchline.. "A plane crashed into the WTC.." "And??""
Could have been worse. The night before my roommate said he needed a ride someplace in the morning. I told him he'd have to wake me up and he said something to the effect "Don't worry, I will."
So of course I didn't believe him when he came in and woke me up that morning. The way he was talking/babbling, it sounded like a "conventional" attack, and I was left wondering who the heck would be so stupid to attack the US. So I didn't believe him until I started hearing the radio.
"On that date, an earthquake hit India, leaving 13,000 people dead."
Like it or not, acts of nature that kill thousands happen all th etime. Acts of lunatics that kill thousands, on the other hand, are a bit more rare.
At any rate, I still barely watch TV and I don't intend to watch any more or less TV today than usual.
It's not about death as revenge or justice as far as I'm concerned, it's about death because there's literaelly nothing else to do with these people. There's no way that human law can possibly carry out a "just" punishment against these people no matter what you do.
We're talking about people who think it's OK to kill thousands of civillians and actively seek to do so. This isn't just "misguided," it's just plain wrong, but these people have all but been programmed to think this way.
What would we do with them? Could we capture them and try to "de-program" them? Not very likely. When you're cheering the death of thousands of unwitting civillians, I'm tempted to say you're too far gone for rehabilitation.
And what if it were possible? Would you enjoy living another 50-60 years knowing you did so utterly reprehensible and wrong? Normal people in the US prison system have to go through counseling when they take part in an execution, and that's just one person. How much counseling would you have to go through for 2000+?
The only other "alternative" is to lock them up in a cell somewhere for the rest of their lives. And as far as I'm concerned, captial punishment is more humane than life in prison with no chance of parole. Nothing but you, the four walls around you, and your thoughts.
These people are too far gone to even try to set straight. We'd be doing everybody a favor (including them) by killing them.
Slashdot Mirror
"Whilst the point about non-IE browsers not being able to access the site is valid, the fact it takes 5.5 hours over a modem is not."
I failed to see anywhere on the Windows 2000 packaging or in the documentation anything that says "Internet connection required (not included)." I registered my OS, why shouldn't I at least get a little postcard in the mail informing me of this update? Why can't I just purchase the CD at the local software store if it's so "critical?"
"So? It does what it's supposed to do. Do you really think they're going to spend money on making it all nice and pretty when end users aren't going to even touch it? They provided the tool and it does the job it says it does - so what if there is no help file?"
The few of us consumers that might actually be interested in the help file would like it. Also, the help file would describe what the middleware does, allowing other software houses to make competing products.
And before you balk at that, remember that the settlement is supposed to forcibly open Microsoft open to more competition as punishment for anti-competitive practices. Including the help file is supposed to stimulate more competition.
"Call me skeptical, but this could just be an oversight. We all know that Microsofts testing is, ahem, a little erratic. It might not be though, but lets not jump to conclusions."
Unacceptable.
First off, it is Microsoft's assertion that they cannot remove Internet Explorer form the NT 5.* kernel, therefore the punishment needs to ensure that IE can be completely hidden and/or "turned off." They shouldn't be allowed to make any of these little "oversights," no matter what their intent. They have been convicted of a crime and this is their punishment. If these little "mistakes" do happen, they demonstrate that Microsoft is either unable or unwilling to meet the terms of the agreement and it's time to find a more fiting punishment.
Secondly, there is no logical or technical reason for Media Player to point to IE specifically instead of "default browser" in general. I'm nowhere near being a coder and even I know that's sloppy programming that wouldn't be expected of a first-year comp sci student.
"Language is meant to evolve."
Um... no. Language is meant to do one thing and one thing only: Allow communications. Nine times out of ten, using slang and jargon only limits the number of people that can understand you, not increase it.
If you want to youse 1337 $p33k with your friends and fellow net-heads, you go ahead and do that. But that kind of stuff doesn't belong in communications to the world in general (which is what English courses are supposed to teach you).
Of course, when it comes to evolution, if you use 1337 $p33k and 9 out of 10 people you write to can't understand a thing you just typed, guess who needs to do the evolving!
"Perhaps standardizing the slang and documenting it would be a better place for education."
The place for education is to teach students a codified, agreed-upon standard for spelling and grammar. They are to teach you the rules you have to follow if you expect yourself to be understood by the majority of English speakers. Slang and jargon are things used only by a minority of speakers (by definition) and teaching that those in English classes will only make things both more complicated and less useful. Imagine if we started teaching leagl-ese in high schools instead of normal Enlglish.
If you want it documented, talk to an etymologist.
"Language is the TCP/IP of brains."
Too specific. TCP/IP is just one networking protocol. But while we're using the metaphor...
"What the hell is this?"
"It's an IP address."
"But this number is HUGE! It's way too big to be an IP address!"
"Oh, well, I used IPv6."
"Why!?! 99% of the networking hardware on the planet doesn't understand IPv6! Everybody comunicates with IPv4. You won't be able to accomplish anything today using IPv6."
"But it's new and shiney and it should be taught in schools instead of IPv4! Protocols were meant to evolve!"
"A more exotic rendering using constructions like "sux0r" (although I know "sucks" doesn't appear in the Lord's Prayer; bear with me) would quickly start to resemble the 1000-year-old version."
What's always bugged me about the use of "sux0r" is the way it "reads" a lot like the word "succor," which means something completely different.
"* Do they take software makers to task for poor quality software and/or insecure software which create the majority of security expenses for industry and the government?
* Do they demand more accountability from software vendors for these flaws, including potentially requiring opening specs or even source code up for inspection before using the software in mission-critical systems?"
Feds: "Well, gee. Doesn't the DMCA do that already? What more do you want us to do?"
"but for those worried about the compatibility issues of DVD burners this one looks like a solution."
It's from Sony. I'm more concerned with their possibly crippling the device in one way or another, possibly with DRM crap.
> > "And in case you hadn't heard, there are much
> > better (as decided by the UN) places to live and
> > work - primarily because of people with your
> > mindset."
From the looks of the article you pointed to, the US ranked sixth mostly because our life expectancy at the time was a hair under some of the others (and it looks like they were splitting hairs in at least the top ten). No mention of patriotic zealots.
"Ottawa is trying to figure out how to fix the way that the Canadian standard of living is only about 75% of the US without actually getting too involved in the US market"
Comments from a Canadian Parliament publication on the Canadian standard of living and the productivity gap. The table of contents of the whole thing can be found here. Needless to say, both of these topics have made the arguments for and against adopting either the US Dollar or a united North American currency in Canada to be more heated than it would be otherwise.
"You didn't answer my question, you just repeated it. Here, I'll post it again:
WHO keeps watch?"
My answer: ultimately, you do. If you have trouble understanding what a contract says when you read it or have difficulty trusting the other party, perhaps you should consider not signing it.
"Flipping burgers adds USD 5 per hour to your countries gross domestic product, while it takes highly skilled work to do the add the same 5 bucks per hour in a third world country."
300,000,000 x $5.00 x 40 x 52 = $3,120,000,000,000
That still leaves $6,880,000,000,000 unaccounted for. And that's even assuming that, if everybody was flipping burgers, people would want or could afford to buy those burgers.
"When the US of A applied for getting the UN seat in NY, you entered into contracts. Part of these contracts is that UN diplomats are not required to pay these traffic tickets. So, just honor your own contracts please"
In case you haven't noticed, we're paying the UN enough money to continue to be a part of the UN. We are meeting our obligations as spelled out by the UN Charter.
Cuts both ways, don't it?
"Moreover you know perfectly well that the US nonpayment of UN dues is not related to those traffic tickets but based on the US demand for more influence on UN policy than they already are entitled to based on the UN charta."
Try "A great many US taxpayers aren't happy with the UN in general and would be unhappy with their elected officials if they started paying more money than absolutely necesary."
"True enough, but I doubt that you could count any developed nations as part of that."
As an example, Ottawa is trying to figure out how to fix the way that the Canadian standard of living is only about 75% of the US without actually getting too involved in the US market (as Canadian productivity is also a bit lower than US and they'll get mauled).
And they're a G-8 member.
"In case you hadn't noticed, the US isn't really #1 at anything besides tooting their own horns."
If we really don't do anything better than anybody else, how is it that less than 5% of the world's population is responsible for over 25% of the planet's gross domestic product? Dumb luck?
"And in case you hadn't heard, there are much better (as decided by the UN) places to live and work - primarily because of people with your mindset."
Got links?
(Of course, I could be cynical and point out that this is the same UN that feels that Sudan is a better member of the Commission on Human Rights than the US. But I won't, if for no other reason than because at least three trolls will respond to that statement saying something to the effect of "John Ashcroft has made us worse than Sudan!" and will get modded up to +5 Insightful)
"Yes, but who, exactly keeps watch to ensure that one party isn't being taken advantage of."
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
"We don't envy American (Govt) war mongering, engineering of governments"
What, you're more proud of European government engineering? Proud of the examples certain EU members have mde of various African and SE Asian countries?
"We have better economic growth than the USA."
First off, after the past year I doubt it. Secondly, just because you're growing faster doesn't mean you've caught up yet.
"We have better social policy - we look after our poor people better. We have fewer homeless people, slums. We have accessible healthcare for all, not just the rich. We have a nicer climate overall."
These have beeen brought up so often that I'm actually getting curious whether or not anybody really has any data on this to back these up.
"We have more glorious beaches with fewer people."
Only if you assume all beaches in the US are on the Florida penninsula, southern California, or Oahu.
"We rarely have to queue for anything for more than five minutes."
And by that I assume you're suggesting that we do?
"Our hospitals are not full of gunshot wounded."
Oh really?
"You get to club us with a big stick if we put a trade tariff on,"
Unless it's GM food, huh? Or just about any produce, for that matter? Bananas ring any bells?
"You trash the world environment and you won't let anyone else attempt to clean up (Kyoto)."
About the only way we're preventing Kyoto from being implemented (which we aren't... or "weren't") is by not signing on. IMO, trying to claim that that is our way of actively trying to prevent outher countries from implementing Kyoto themselves is really stretching it.
"And while you're at it, you might get your UN dues paid."
We might, as soon as UN diplomats start paying off their NYC parking/traffic tickets.
"Disclaimer. I do have friends in the USA who are just as horrified by the pervasive ignorance of their compatriots as I am."
I dislike blind patriotism myself, but I fail to see how your post makes you any better than those you claim to dispise. You don't like how pro-American jingoists make overly-broad, baseless and unprovable statements, but you think that your anti-American jingoism is somehow better? "Proving" that the US is the Great Satan requires just as much proof as "proving" the US is utopian. And either way, silly little catch phrases bleated out by political activist sheep just won't cut it.
"I post anon because I don't like being attacked by the idiots in the majority."
You think you're in the minority here? Obviously you're new to Slashdot. I'm surprised there isn't a "+1 Anti-American" mod option yet.
Ground-penetrating radar?
We're talking about Hollywood here. They don't give a damn about such extraneous things as "character depth" or "plot development," all they want are what they consider to be sex symbols running around in skin-tight outfits. It's what brings in the money.
If you want a decent Superman, turn on Cartoon Network. You should know better by now to seek him at the movie theaters.
"If this technology is not implemented by open groups, I guarantee that Microsoft will solve it for you with something like Palladium [wired.com]. They control a huge share of e-mail accounts via hotmail.com and Outlook, and could easily leverage AOL as well. Of course, MS and AOL would choose the centralized trust model (like Verisign) rather than the distributed trust model."
You just inferred that relying on a solution from Microsoft, AOL, or Verisign is in all cases better than relying on a solution from the federal government.
You are officially a Libertarian looney and a Slashdot troll. Here's your card.
"You forget that companies are still required to install locks on their doors and put up signs that say "No trespassing"."
;-)"
Only by insurance companies. "The car wasn't locked" isn't a valid legal defense for grand theft auto.
"In a few years it will be technologically feasible for the government to have cameras on every lamp post."
I fail to see how your analogy means anything. I didn't say anything about federal wiretaps or monitoring internet communications (but your apparent knee-jerk Libertarian reaction suggests you think otherwise). As I have mentioned many times elsewhere, I want nothing more (or less) than the expansion of current anti-junk-fax laws to include spam as well. Let me forward an example of spam onto the FCC if I so choose while also allowing me to seek a personal remedy in the courts.
(No, I'm not anti-Libertarian, I'm anti-knee-jerks. In this example, I fail to see how your "concern for personal rights" advocates anything other than anarchy.)
"Then, we won't need locks or keys, or passwords on computers."
The alternative you're offering is just as extreme, just as baseless, and robs me of my ability to defend my own personal rights just as surely as the nightmare scenario you're trying to paint (maybe you should start relying on something other than FUD for your arguments). The government isn't always bad, and the absence of government isn't always good.
"Admit it -- you voted for Bill Clinton!
Wasn't old enough the first time, and I voted against the second. But I fail to see how that matters.
"But this would be another precedent for the encroaching restrictions of people's freedoms on the internet."
Those "freedoms" you speak of are illusory at best, and the presence of the internet does not make an individual's freedom any more or less signifigant (as you seem to suggest). For example, you won't find yourself free from libel and slander lawsuits simply because you published on the internet instead of paper. Just ask the Church of Scientology.
Forget the internet for the moment. I am receiving communcations that use my personal resources against my will. Let's say it's from telemarketers. Without some sort of legal arrangement, I have one way and one way only to prevent these marketers from using my resources for their own personal gain, and it involves a visit to their offices with a sledge hammer.
But, in fulfilling their duty to regulate interstate commerce, the federal government has enacted a law that (supposedly) gives me legal recourse. If they call me after I've asked them to stop calling me, I don't need a sledge hammer, I just need to know how to use a small claims court.
Does the law involve the NSA listening in on my phone conversations? Let me put it this way: If the NSA is listening in on my conversations, it's sure as hell not so that they can monitor telemarketers. The law affirms my right to take personal, civil action against an offender that I may not otherwise have.
"The internet is not like a physical object or location. It spans the numerous localities, and"
My computer is a physical object. It resides in the State of Louisiana. As does the dial-up server (another physical object) I connect to to connect to the internet. While I doubt the e-mail server also resides in Louisiana, I'm quite sure it resides in the United States.
"involves very novel issues"
And it involves a very old concept, that of "interstate commerce." Something mentioned in this little document set to paper waaaay back in 1789. I see nothing in that document saying "unless the internet is invented."
"of entirely automated processes."
No, it's not entirely automated. Somebody has to set it into motion, don't they? Is it somehow not considered murder if I kill the victim with a Rube Goldberg device?
If you're so adamant about seeing government legislation in terms of black and white, why are you trying so hard to avoid seeing spam in a similar light?
"Sending e-mail should not be illegal."
Forget e-mail! Stop pretending that using the word "e-mail" somehow makes everything different!
Some forms of expression should be regulated. I didn't say "restricted" or "abridged," I said "regulated."
Nobody should have any form of expression they disagree with forced upon them. Reguardless of the medium.
Nobody should be able to make any sort of expression that causes immediate harm to another person. Reguardless of the medium.
Advertisers shouldn't be allowed to make intentionally misleading statements. Reguardless of the medium.
Advertisers shouldn't be allowed to use somebody else's medium without express permisison from the owner. Reguardless of the medium.
Nobody's expression should violate the property rights of anybody else. Reguardless of the medium.
As far as my rights as a human being and a citizen of the Unitd States are concerned, the existence of the internet changes nothing! It takes away none of my rights, nor those of anybody else. It gives me no new rights, nor does it give new rights to anybody else. The only rights I gain with the purchase of internet services is access to the provider's property within the limits of our business agreement. Nor do I voluntarily surrender my rights to privacy and property by agreeing to an AUP. Despite what you may think, the Bill of Rights was not rewritten within the past decade. There has been no need to.
"Receiving e-mail should not be mandatory"
Um... that's exactly the opposite of what you've been stating. Your arguments insist that e-mail receipt should be manditory to "protect" the so-called "rights" of the spammers.
Once again, I gratuitously quote myself:...
"Please, think carefully before invoking Big Brother to solve your problems! As convenient as it sounds, regulation of e-mail provides yet another disturbing precendent for government control of private communication."
This isn't about speech, this is about both commerce and property. It's commerce because these are e-mail advertisements and it's property because I pay for my e-mail account and my e-mail server. If they're interested in sending me spam, they can reimburse me for the use of my property. Or would you mind if I came by your house with a can of spraypaint and exercise my "freedom of speech" on your front door? Keying my personal expressions on the hood of your car?
Of course, if you still want to go with your knee-jerk Libertarian reaction and want to continue avoiding government intervention at all costs, I can always go buy a shotgun at Wal-Mart...
"Our founding fathers viewed governments as a last resort for problems that cannot be solved locally."
Making reference to "founding fathers" in political argument: +50 points on political crackpot scale.
"Think about it. Defining "spam" is about as easy as defining "offensive" content."
Is it a solicitation? (yes/no)
Did I ask for it? (yes/no)
It's that easy!
"Subjective decisions about which e-mail messages are deemed worthy to be delivered should NOT be made by politicians."
See, that's why we have these things called "courts" and "juries." They make these kinds of decisions.
"There are very obvious technical solutions to the spam problem involving digital signatures."
I refer back to the shotguns Wal-Mart is selling. It is a technological measure that has the habit of solving many problems permanently.
"Consider the icon at the bottom of your browser, which informs you that an online merchant is "trustworthy" (i.e. their identity has been independently verified). It's not hard to see how this concept of "transitive trust" could be extended to e-mail, while preserving relative anonymity."
I don't give a damn about trustworthiness! I don't even want the damned things in my e-mail account! If they want to flood my account, they can pay for it! But they don't, because people who think all too similarly to you think that the internet is some magical, mystical place, a paralell universe where the rules of the real world just don't apply! Just because you're not the one paying for it doesn't mean e-mail is free!
"Basically, various groups would establish public-key databases containing validated e-mail signatures,"
Not only do I not want these God-forsaken messages anywhere near my account (which I pay for), I don't want to sacrifice any of my processor cycles or my network bandwidth! What you are offering is not a solution, only adding to the problem!
There only real solutions to the spam problem boil down to two camps:
1.) Government intervention (laws, etc.)
2.) Vigilantism (list of known-spammers, domain blocking, etc.)
Of course, if we have to rely on vigilante activities to preserve our rights and property as citizens, what's the point of government to begin with?
Of course, there's your argument right there, isn't it? I'm sorry, but personally I'd rather fine or jail spammers than shoot them.
"Mail servers could then be configured to reject any e-mail which is not signed with a recognized key."
My processor cycles! My hardware! My bandwidth!
"A similar scheme could be used for content regulation on web sites, etc. etc."
Apples and oranges. Websites require you to actively look for them, type in the URL, etc. ("pull") E-mail is exactly the opposite, where you have no control over what appears in your e-mail account ("push").
"So, if you sysadmins are finally ready to take action, please do something more proactive than simply deferring to Uncle Sam or some other imperial authority."
Why should sysadmins implement new technology at their own expense when they're not the ones who are responsible for producing the "need" for the new expense to begin with?
You know, graffiti wouldn't be such a problem if the bulding owners were more proactive about repainting their walls every time some new "art" appears. What? They'd have to buy the paint and sacrifice their own time to redo their walls? Well, that's better than government intervention in your book, isn't it?
"The good pictures will be from seperation and re-entry."
Um... no. Obviously you haven't seen this flick here (some stills are available here). The video from a similar camera mounted on a Delta II is simply stunning. Seriously, I can't begin to describe how beautiful it is, you need to go watch it. I have yet to get tired of watching it.
Re-entry pictures are going to be few if any. But I'm already drooling at the thought of video like this from a shuttle launch.
"I don't think anybody is beyond hope. How would you feel if you did a major crime and people told you that you were beyond hope, and it's probably better for you if they killed you anyway (rather than trying to rehabiliatize you)?"
Not familiar with the concept of triage yet, are you? I envy you. I'm not saying that it's all fun and games, I'm saying it's something that needs to be done.
Since this is ultimately something that needs to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, how about the case in question? How would you try to rehabilitate someone who holds so little value in human life as to kill several thousand in a single act and then laugh about it later? What can possibly be done for someone that can organize what happened on 9/11 and then continue to sleep soundly at night? I see no self-doubt in bin Laden at all and I don't believe there's a cure for that.
My saying this probably won't hold much sway with you, but if I were in bin Laden's shoes, I certainly hope someone would kill me.
"Do you remember the dates Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed?"
The need for the use of the atomic bombs on Japan in August, 1945 can be seen in the way that two were required.
"You seem to be confusing justice with retribution."
Neat trick, considering how I'm not talking about either. Both are a lost cause in this case, unless you are a religious person who believes in "divine justice/retribution/whatever."
I consider capital punishment in this case to be euthanasia. They can't be allowed to continue the way they are unchecked and any other alternative is essentially torture.
"One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, or something like that."
Yes, there are infinite shades of gray in between, but there is an absolute black and absolute white in the world. That's the basis for ideas like the Geneva Conventions and Hague Accords (two things that al Qaeda have actively sought to violate). After all, Hitler was just liberating the Fatherland from the Jewish scourge...
"You are not doing them a favour by killing them."
Yes, I am. That was my whole argument. Death by legal injection is likely the only humane solution to them.
"How many old enemies are now willing to go that much further because of it?"
Depends on the potential new enemies and how you kill them. Thought experiment: What if we happen to capture bin Laden alive? What if we put him on trial and then broadcast the trial live over Voice of America?
I wonder if there would be so many anti-American zealots in the Islamic world today if their government-controlled media outlets let them, say, learn about how the US courts are bending over backwards to give Moussaoui a fair trial. If this were the Saudi legal system, he'd probably have been beheadded months ago.
"The U.S.'s war in Afghanistan has killed thousands of civilians. War against Iraq would probably kill an order of magnitude more Iraqis. Where does that fall on your moral scale?"
We're not the ones actively targeting civillians. We're not the ones hiding behind civillians. Hell, we're the ones actively trying to find genuine military targets to strike.
We've invaded Afghanistan. Unlike the previous regime, we're not actively raping and pillaging our enemy civillian populations. We're not forcing our moral system on others (note that Afghanistan probably won't have anything resembling the First Amendment in the forseeable future).
Are the civillian deaths regrettable? Yes. Should we try to avoid them whenever we can. Yes. But, unlike our enemies, we do regret the civillian deaths (instead of cheering them) and we do try to avoid killing them whenever we can (instead of making sure they're in the cross-fire).
I fail to see how current US military actions fall into the same catetory.
This whole discussion reminds me of something Orwell once brought up: Freedom of speech hinders the war efforts of democratic societies and ultimately aid their non-democaratic enemies. And before you jump to conclusions, I'm not saying "do away with freedom of speech for the war effort," I'm just trying to point out that a year ago, if you publicly spoke out against al Qaeda and Taliban actions against civillians in Afghanistan, you'd be long dead by now. Maybe you should consider that before you start lumping us all together in one category next time.
(I am now predicting at least three responses to this post mentioning the name "Aschroft")
"I'm not trying to start something nasty here, but there have been over a thousand Civilian deaths in Afganistan so far, and some reports say up to three thousand. "
Was I cheering the civillian deaths? Was I chanting "kill all ragheads?" No, my opinion is that the higher-ups of al Qaeda, the ones who decided the attacks last year were a good idea and actively worked to support them, shouldn't have "leniency" from the death penalty. They are in a small class of people that are simply too far gone from the basics of civilization as to be unsalvagable.
As for the rest of the organization and perhaps the region as a whole, for the most part they just need a big dose of the First Amendment. Give them the ability to get information easily and let them decide for themselves (instead of the propoganda they've been force-fed) and they'll likely see the error of their ways. Unfortunately for everybody involved, that probably won't be coming any time soon...
" I was at work, wondering when my boss would get to the punchline.. "A plane crashed into the WTC.." "And??""
Could have been worse. The night before my roommate said he needed a ride someplace in the morning. I told him he'd have to wake me up and he said something to the effect "Don't worry, I will."
So of course I didn't believe him when he came in and woke me up that morning. The way he was talking/babbling, it sounded like a "conventional" attack, and I was left wondering who the heck would be so stupid to attack the US. So I didn't believe him until I started hearing the radio.
"On that date, an earthquake hit India, leaving 13,000 people dead."
Like it or not, acts of nature that kill thousands happen all th etime. Acts of lunatics that kill thousands, on the other hand, are a bit more rare.
At any rate, I still barely watch TV and I don't intend to watch any more or less TV today than usual.
It's not about death as revenge or justice as far as I'm concerned, it's about death because there's literaelly nothing else to do with these people. There's no way that human law can possibly carry out a "just" punishment against these people no matter what you do.
We're talking about people who think it's OK to kill thousands of civillians and actively seek to do so. This isn't just "misguided," it's just plain wrong, but these people have all but been programmed to think this way.
What would we do with them? Could we capture them and try to "de-program" them? Not very likely. When you're cheering the death of thousands of unwitting civillians, I'm tempted to say you're too far gone for rehabilitation.
And what if it were possible? Would you enjoy living another 50-60 years knowing you did so utterly reprehensible and wrong? Normal people in the US prison system have to go through counseling when they take part in an execution, and that's just one person. How much counseling would you have to go through for 2000+?
The only other "alternative" is to lock them up in a cell somewhere for the rest of their lives. And as far as I'm concerned, captial punishment is more humane than life in prison with no chance of parole. Nothing but you, the four walls around you, and your thoughts.
These people are too far gone to even try to set straight. We'd be doing everybody a favor (including them) by killing them.