I don't get the "laptops" part of your comment title. Do you suggest tossing the laptop in the dishwasher? I can't imagine so...
So instead, the user has to open up the laptop (eek), get out the keyboard module, toss that in the dishwasher, and while it's in there / drying, carry on typing on the laptop using his spare.. laptop keyboard that everybody has laying around? Sounds like they'd have to borrow/purchase an external (USB/whatever) keyboard as well?
LinkScanner, the component they're talking about, works in Firefox as well - so no, using Firefox does not 'keep you safe'.
Nor is this about the users of the thing in the first place - either they like its functionality (security theatre-advance warning blabla) and leave it on, or they don't and they switch it off.
This is about the poor, poor admins who are suddenly seeing bogus traffic and omgosh it's spoofing user agents at that! *changes his user agent to 'cry more, Taco' in FF and hits F5.. repeatedly*
Just didn't see one in the extensions list in a search for 'history' before it: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/2965 Unfortunately, it's only for older FireFox versions and 'experimental' at that.
ForwardFork is also similar, and also similarly dead.
Makes you think if there's a reason; one post (in Referrer History) notes that as javascript, it's just too slow, and would have to be added in the core. If it's not in FF3 yet (I'm still on v2), then I guess they didn't see fit to do so.
Honest question - I've been behind computers since, oh, age 8. So I'm well over 20 years of computer use now, but let's say well over 10 of which were in a reasonably matured body.
So I grab a standard 10x keyboard, I sit down about a foot away from it.
1. arms and hands down along body 2. bring lower arms up. You'll look stupid at this point. 3. turn hands over so that they face palm down 4. swivel lower arms so that your arms make a / \ shape. Your hands should now be positioned above the keyboard. Congratulations.
Now here's the thing - my hands did not rotate on any of the axes with the wrist as the pivot. They are quite simply lined up with my lower arms.
Perhaps if I was classically trained with the 10-finger method; My indexfingers are still on f and j, but my middle fingers are on e and o, ring fingers on w and p and my pinkies pretty much just linger in the genera area where they end up, ready to hit tab or backslash although in general (I've not taped myself, I would say that I hardly use them at all. I just caught myself hitting the right shift to get the ( and I'm sure I'll hit it again for the ) yup ).
So I can only imagine people moving their arms even further in, ending up with a/\ and adjusting their wrists in the exact opposite angles. Yeah, I guess that could get rather painful after a few hours, let alone several years.
Or maybe everybody's body is different and so some people get problems regardless on a 'straight' keyboard, and others don't.
I'll state up front that I absolutely -hate- the "something you have" part of security when that 'something you have' ends up being a fat card reader that won't fit anywhere convenient, not even in your notebook carrying bag, and you can't just use anywhere as it has to be plugged into a USB port which is not always available/accessible, and/or is prone to mechanical failure (e.g. the non-USB 'calculator' type which might fit in a pocket but if something bangs into your bag, the thing is dead.)
So anyway.. in NL we have both of the above types from some banks.
Then there's the Postbank (largest bank, used to be gov't run, along with postal services, etc.), which works with codes.
Their website requires you to log in via SSL, username/password and then - when making a transaction - provides you with a code. You look that code up in a list and return another code that's associated with that code. The code they choose is random, the code you send back has no correlation to the input code other than what's on their end, done. Prone to phishing? Perhaps, although all attempts so far have failed miserably. But just in case, they added an additional service - you can enter your cell phone number in your profile and have the code you should be sending back sent to you via text message, along with the amount of money involved in the transaction, etc.
I don't know the exact technical details of how the latter works - I'm sticking to just a list and due diligence when banking as I'd hate to have to rely on my phone working / having signal / not being out of credits (when abroad - besides, I usually get a pay-as-you-go card when I am, as it's cheaper to make and receive calls then) / etc. when I -have- to make some payment.
why wait? I can understand if this were to be mandatory by government or something, but it's not. Genetic diversity is not hurt by 0.000001% of the population of the Earth choosing to avoid N% chance of surfacing>-embryos implanted when the rest will happily do their thing.
For all you know, the embryos that'd get tossed in favor of one with the defect (by random choice) will hold the one 'mutated' gene that will be needed 10,000 years down the road.
It's not quite unlike time travel. It's only an issue if you're coming back from the future and are afraid of changing history as there's no telling if the end result is better or -worse- than the situation from which you came. But -before- the time travel, that wasn't known either, and events simply played out the way they did. Same here. Yes, 5,000 years down the road we might say "d'oh!" but heck, shit happens.
"What guarantee would we've had that his sisters would've brought us the same view of the cosmos?"
What guarantee did we have that Stephen Hawking would have been, well, Stephen Hawking at the time he would've still been a cluster of cells in a petri dish / whatever?
None. Or, rather, the same guarantee as for the next cluster of cells over.
So as per the parent, the choice becomes a lot more simple... given everything else the same, you'd pick the one that's far less likely to have genetic defects.
Of course everything else is -not- the same, but it's one thing to consider, and to consider hard, if you're going the route of choosing in the first place.
Now if only we could agree on that pesky "human being... created" part.
Conception != created. The cells may not split. The cells may not settle. The embryo may be aborted by the body long before it enters anything like a zygote state. And so forth. And so on.
''What if you were aborted because you have a "defect"? That would have sucked huh?''
That question can't be answered because it rests on a logical fallacy.
If you were aborted, you would never have existed. If you never existed, you would never have been in a position to contemplate the question.
The question plays on emotions of those who are already alive, people who have lived some life already - be it geriatrics with full lives, middle-aged, the young, kids or even newborns / their family.
This is about IVF embryo selection. A selection is already made. As we cannot foretell the lives that any child will lead, any question of "well what if this embryo that is certain to die of young age is the next Einstein!?" becomes moot as you could ask the very same question of the embryo in the 'next tube over' determined to -not- have the same disorder. Once you realize that, then making the choice between the two is easy. Making the choice to make that choice in the first place may remain the hard part, for some.
Of course, given the choice and not taking the choice, then 16 years down the road realizing that, yep, your kid's dead because indeed he was certain to die at young age, might make you ponder not having made that choice. Or you could just accept that that's how life goes and be thankful for the 16 years you did have with the kid. Similarly, let's say the 'healthy' one was chosen and turns out it ends up stillborn. You might wonder about the choice you made there, then, as well.
That's the fun thing about all of this - they're highly personal decisions and everybody has to live with that decision either which way.
That's also where government regulation comes into play, imho. If everything becomes a choice then this puts undue stress on the (hopeful) parents-to-be. That's also in part why the Dutch government currently is going with a case-by-case scenario - so selecting by "blue eyes, blonde hair" as some proposed is right out. Life-threatening disorders, predispositions, etc. are the bits being looked at - on a case-by-case scenario. I say in part, because the other part is just plainly the conservative religious party going "zomg! playing god!!!" and threatening to let the government collapse over the issue if they didn't get their way. (They're a minority party but together with two bigger parties just barely make the ruling majority; so if they go, the entire thing goes.)
I had to re-read that twice before I realized you're part of the large group of people transforming the English language (nothing wrong with that) so that "would have", "could have" and "should have" become "would of", "could of" and "should of", probably by virtue of the "*'ve" variant -sounding- like 'of'.
And, as I said, that's fine - I'm not a big fan of it, but languages to change over time; thank goodness for that or we'd still be writing like shakespeare but without the literary quality.
But to then replace any and all 'have' with 'of'?
--- Of you thought of the consequences of doing that?" I think you ofn't thought that through ---
I don't find it that difficult of a question. It only ever becomes difficult once you throw in religion or, at least, religious ideals. Not necessarily Christianity/etc. registered religions, but beliefs of a soul, etc.
If the child is not yet at an age where it can exist outside of the human female body, then it's not a person. Medical science is constantly pushing that further and further back, having clean rooms and whatnot in which babies born a month, 2 months, 3 months early have survived. Don't ask how most of those way-early-born kids are doing these days as then the aforementioned comes back into play.
So let's define this quite easily.. if there is more than a 50% chance that the child could survive outside the human female body, then it's a 'person' as far as legal matters go. Said 50% to be determined by actual case studies continually drawn up (open to fraud, I know, but there you go) so that as science progresses, it can be pushed further back if need be.
I do say 'the human female body', because eventually somebody is going to come along and say "well, what if you transplanted the fetus completely to another woman??". At that point, you'd be better off using all that time and energy in convincing the people to give the kid up for adoption.
You might wonder "well what if they manage to have the child survive after even just 1 month?". Well, great, then the woman can abort the child and the medical scientists can grow the then-person in their vat and give him or her up for adoption or whatever the plan is. The woman still gets her way (no further pregnancy, no child, etc.) and those opposed to abortion get their way (the child still lives, etc.)
You have to start asking yourself, on either side, though - whether that's really the situation we want to run into.
"a) if someone is a person, you cannot use "privacy" as an excuse for terminating them. For example, I cannot invite you to my private home then kill you, then say the government cannot violate my privacy."
Yes, yes you can.
If they only have weak suspicions against you and decide to raid your house without any warrant to do so, find the guy's body or whatever *key* piece of evidence that leads to them pointing at you, you very well -can- say that the government violated your privacy. It -can- be ruled an unlawful gathering of evidence, etc. etc.
If they did get a warrant, then you're screwed, of course, as the judge decided that the case's importance trumps your privacy importance.
"As if the internet didn't have enough arbitrary hodge-podge already."
It does - just look at Slashdot. It's hardly an 'organization' (.org), especially now that it's owned by a commercial entity (.com). Heck, it started out as somebody's personal little site.. happened to be an american (.us).
Tons more examples of current sites being on domains that they 'shouldn`t' be in, and also a lot of examples of where that is the case simply because sites change over time.
So if all of it is pretty much arbitrary anyway, then why not do away with it?
Heck, some people already have... *entirely*
For example: http://bi/ ( disregard any re-direction by browser to www.bi.com ; open a shell, go ping 'bi'. If you're on windows, go ping 'bi.' or it will look for a local host)
I understand the many technical, psychological, financial, etc. reasons against this. But in terms of organization - we don't have any anyway.
If only one answer is correct, then why are you using checkboxes? Use radiobuttons, man. ( ) Option A ( ) Option B
Silly ASCII user interfaces aside... This isn't to stop full-on pirating. In the end, if somebody really, really, really wants to, they'll just completely reverse-engineer the authentication and set up a local server (128.0.0.1) for the software to contact. The local server then says everything is A-OK and the game continues. (There's more complex implementations, of course.)
But what it does stop is one gamer taking the legitimate game and burning a bunch of copies for his friends, going over to their house with a portable HDD with the game and making a copy, going to school and tossing it on every machine there, tossing it in their shared files folders for P2P programs, etc. Actually, no, it doesn't stop them from doing -that-... but if they do, their friends will just come back to them saying they need a key or the thing won't run. Whoops.
And now that one gamer, or that friend, will have to decide "well I want to play this game with my friend, it was pretty awesome at his place, so do I... ( ) Think it's worth the $40 and buy it ( ) Think it's worth $N and I'll split the full cost with my friend who really, really, really wants to play the game with/against me. ( ) Think it's not worth any money* and warez it instead ( ) Think it's not worth any money and thus completely ignore it. ?"
That's a bigger barrier than "uhmm, dude.. this game is supposed to be commercial.. I know it runs fine on my machine after you copied it onto the thing and all, but isn't that kinda iffy?"
Anyway... re: the third option *if it's not worth any money, then you probably don't think it's worth anything.. so why warez it? If, on the other hand, you think it's worth your time to play it, have fun with it, etc.. then it's probably worth money.. so again, why warez it?
------
Now... if anybody purchases the game but isn't a bit fan of the 'calling home' bit for authentication... I'd say go for it and get the cracked copy.
Playing the warez copy without purchasing the game doesn't send any "we hate DRM/authentication/etc." signal. It only sends the "I'm a cheapskate who wants to play his games for free" signal. Sending a letter stating you were going to purchase the game, then noticed in a review/news story that it called home, and went with equivalent Competitor's Product X which doesn't use the DRM/authentication.. that sends a signal; however tiny.
Whenever you (the user) visit some guy's house (a website), I (Safari) will automatically dump scorpions all over your face (desktop). Luckily, they're quite docile little scorpions so as long as you don't touch them (run the downloaded files), you'll be fine. But then along comes my roommate (Internet Explorer), grabs one of the scorpions and plants it stinger smack dab on your jugular.
Clearly, then, my roommate is to blame. So, never interact with my roommate and oh-by-the-way enjoy walking around with scorpions on your face.
Did I mention that some of those scorpions are excellent at camouflaging themselves? They can make themselves look like the darndest and most benign things... perhaps they'll masquerade themselves as your glasses (some random program you tend to use a lot). You put on your glasses (run the program) like you do every day and *ZING*.
But hey, you probably use an operating system (say, OS X) that I (Safari) runs on that doesn't just let you put your glasses on - perhaps it recognizes that they're not even your glasses, and warns you. Good for you! Say, how are all those scorpions down your pants (download directory) working out for you?
But the above are really just bad analogies. Suffice to say that there's really no good reason to allow a website to litter your desktop -or- your downloads directory with a bunch of files.. but if you -can- think of one: great! you'll be one of those who will check the "allow websites to automatically download files to my computer" checkbox... once (if ever) that makes in, that is.
=====
Disclaimer: I like Apple (yes, dear commenter from a previous thread.. re-read my post. I do like Apple.), but they can suggest I install it all they want whenever QuickTime goes and updates itself, I'm not touching it - I'm quite fine with FireFox (2.. 'll wait for the v3 dust to settle.)
No offense, but unless there's been a breakthrough in archival methods of digital data, why do we have to re-visit this question every few months with only a minor change?
One time it's digital files, then it's digital music, now it's digital video. Unless you are willing to go analog* with your digital data, the answers are the same now as they were 2 months ago, 6 months ago, 1 year ago. Yes, for 2 years ago nobody might have suggested Blu-Ray or HD-DVD as they weren't particularly affordable/available. But given their medium (the same in principle as a CD-R or a DVD-R), I wouldn't expect them to get recommended no either (discussions about their life being too short, anecdotal evidence of CD-Rs with warez from 10 years ago still working, blablabla) and instead you'll see tape and/or harddisks (oh but that's too expensive (wtf?), and drives fail, too! oh noes!)
Seriously. Hit the previous stories on archiving digital data (doesn't matter much what the data is, although I *suppose* with audio and video you get some slight tolerance you do not get with, say, binaries.) Then come back. Bit too late to get this off the front page now, I suppose.
* spend the cash and get it transferred to film. Actual film; they tend to last pretty well when canned and stored appropriately - the hundreds of old-old-old movies having been released onto DVD should be testament to that; any deterioration tends to show up as color shifting/loss, noise and the occasional splotch; as opposed to an unreadable file / stuttering when playing back / block artifacts forming from fill-in. The former being, to me, less objectionable. Just keep in mind that it's now analog and any copy you make from it to another film is just going to degrade further and further.
...you do realize that this is commonplace everywhere, right? They usually attach them to things like anti-child porn or anti-terrorist bills (okay, not that extreme, perhaps). That way if anybody votes against the bill (you can't vote against the tiny part attached to it), the person slipping that part in will point and say "see!? He wants the terrorists to win! He likes child porn!"
indeed not - personally I don't connect to any network, even if it says "come on in! the coffee's on me!" without finding out just who the heck's wireless that is and whether it's really okay to use it.
But google for "using wep deserve" or so; yes, it's absurd, but there are lots of people who do think this way. And given the existence of tools that automate the procedure of grabbing MAC/WEP and adjusting system settings to enable a logon, there's plenty others who promote this notion.
have explicit nor implicit (and the operating system automatically connecting is, apparently, not considered implicit; although the lawmakers realize this behavior and weigh this into any potential court cases) access to. Smartass:P
"as I have never cracked a WEP or WPA password scheme" Have you ever spoofed a MAC address? Have you ever connected to an access point that did not broadcast its SSID? Have you ever connected to an access point that says "private", "stay out", or otherwise?
If 'yes' to any of the above; I don't know about the U.S. law, but in The Netherlands you would still be guilty of "computerhuisvredebreuk"; meaning so much as tresspassing on a computer network
Then again, a great many people seem to think that even WEP encryption is an open invite to use the system, given the easy of cracking it.
...by encrypting, they made it as difficult as possible for you to make that copy. You can still make a copy; not a 1:1 copy, you may get degradation of quality, but that wasn't a particularly huge issue for most of us back in the day of copying VHS videos either. yea olde 'analog' hole. It is not cracking -or- 'bypassing' any time of encryption/etc. By the time the 'analog' device records the output, that output is no longer encrypted. Nor is it copyright infringement because it falls back to fair use.
I'm certainly not saying the laws, as written, are just; far from it. But we also shouldn't be confusing "fair use" with a "right".. they are fundamentally different things. If we want to have a "right" to make copies of media for a particular purpose, we'll have to get that written into law. Good luck with that (and I do mean that; I've written letters.. who else here has?..now if only I'd get (non-boilerplate) replies.)
"fair use" does not mean you have the -right- to make a copy. Having the -right- to make a copy would imply that whoever hands you the original would be disallowed from doing anything that would prevent you from making that copy. That's simply not the case. They're perfectly allowed to make it as difficult as possible for you to make a copy as they want. It's just that once you -do- manage to make a copy, they can't scream bloody copyright infringement, as it's considered fair use... at least, if you made that copy for one of the various purposes that are covered by fair use.
"He called his legal insurance, and they said they'll pay for those six months ADSL. Cheaper than having a lawyer work a court case. Amazing:)"
Going to court over this as a principle is what would be amazing. Now the ADSL provider simply wins, and your friend doesn't really *win* anything other than not having to pay the ADSL provider, while that legal insurance company is out 6 months ADSL (doesn't cost that much - but apparently enough for your friend not wanting to pay for it) which - if they do this with enough cases - they'll simply recuperate from the legal insurance monthly fees from -everybody- who signs up with them.
That said - if your friend went into contract and they have a 6 month cancellation term, then the reasons for breaking with them doesn't usually matter very much; unless the ADSL provider themselves were in breach of contract (thus potentially nullifying the contract as a whole). It's likely there was no case to be made in the first place.
No, really - I mean this. Although there's certainly going to be some bad apples in the land of universal power bricks, if they are certified to specs then they shouldn't be able to fry any motherboard. If anything, their output might fluctuate -down- causing your laptop to think it's off power (unless it's dumb and simple thinks that having any plug in the jack means it's on an adapter; much like headphone jacks (which is a great way to silence devices.. just carry a little headphone plug without any headphones with you and stick it into the headphone jack. bye-bye sound from speakers.).
That doesn't explain your wires 'breaking' though. I don't know what you do with our laptop, but breaking wires like that is extremely difficult. Unlike fixed electrical wiring (such as in housing), which is a single core, these are multiple superthin strands that together act as a single core... but breaking them all is something that is quite the chore even if you were to flex and bend the wire into 180 degree bends for 24 hours; you'll break the shielding first.
Perhaps you meant that the wires broke at the soldering points - that's far more common, though with most plug designs this means you'd have to put stresses on the thing that are so high that you're far more likely to break the soldering of the power jack onto the motherboard itself (that's why I take mine apart and freefloat them as a precaution - tiny little wiggles over the course of months or years tend to do that to any jack.)
I'm not calling you a liar, but I am calling the equipment you've purchased utter crap; the laptop for getting fried in the first place (a volt or 2 over should not end up frying any motherboard, even if supplied continuously) and the adapter makers for either A. outputting to much juice that cause the frying and/or B. having wires that break.
"While I'd obviously" really? It's not that obvious from the text above that line.
"much rather see some generic standard take hold, I can't see that happening because these add-on peripheral things are clearly such an awesome cashcow for consumer electronics makers. In the meantime, I'm happy to let Apple rule the roost." And it's definitely non-obvious here. If anything, I'd say it's obvious you love Apple (nothing wrong with that; certainly not calling you a fanboy or anything juvenile of the sort. I love Apple, in general, too.) and as a result of this love for Apple, will happily take it up the tailpipe from Apple when it comes to their connector (and as much as I love Apple - I do not love their connector.)
You are happy to let Apple rule the roost.. what roost is that? The 'mp3 player' roost? The 'smartphone' roost? They may be the most popular in the former, and gaining a shitload of traction in the latter, but they're hardly ruling it.
Moreover, they're -way- off on ruling the power connector roost. Yes, they made a decent connector for power+data, congratulations Apple, even if ignoring that USB could already do this. Yes, they made a much -better- connector for power (+data) with the magnetic variant. That one I would *happily* include as a "must have" for universal power supplies if that type of connector becomes much more prevalent (patents and licensing on that from Apple are holding that back - good job Jobs, it keeps that 'exclusivity' aspect going.)
But while it isn't, and Apple is charging for licenses*, most manufacturers are not going to sell a universal power supply with an added Apple-licensed connector costing them $NNNNNNNNN when only a fraction of the users actually use the thing. They can throw in 8 different types of 5mm round plugs (this in itself annoys the hell out of me; they occupy the same space, only the inner diameter differs. wtf. but at least they don't have to pay any license money for it so I guess they stamp them out by the millions for cheap) and cover the vast majority of users and tell those who do have an iPod / iPhone / whatever to purchase a separate product.
* As of 2006/May/11 - couldn't spot a newer reference. "Previously Apple charged 1.5% of the wholesale price per unit for use of their proprietary iPod dock connector, but as of yesterday (May 10th) the dock connector license is a flat fee of $4 USD." $4 USD! On a simple universal charger of $29.99, that's 13%. And that is why most aren't going to include one in the base pack.
That said - companies might do well to offer one as an extra. For sale off of their website. $4+S&H+marginal profit. Question is whether Apple Legal is going to see that connector as a device on its own (thus the $4), or whether they say "oh no no no my dear man, that connector is to go with your power supply. So we will be charging you $4 per power supply."
But then, who's going to pay $4 + S&H + a marginal profit for a little plug nub (shiny, white and "Made for iPod / compatible with iPhone"-logofied as it may be) when you can get a full-on charger elsewhere for $10, and can then charge your iPod / iPhone in parallel with whatever non-Apple device you've got hanging off of your universal power supply?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't get the "laptops" part of your comment title. Do you suggest tossing the laptop in the dishwasher? I can't imagine so...
So instead, the user has to open up the laptop (eek), get out the keyboard module, toss that in the dishwasher, and while it's in there / drying, carry on typing on the laptop using his spare.. laptop keyboard that everybody has laying around? Sounds like they'd have to borrow/purchase an external (USB/whatever) keyboard as well?
LinkScanner, the component they're talking about, works in Firefox as well - so no, using Firefox does not 'keep you safe'.
Nor is this about the users of the thing in the first place - either they like its functionality (security theatre-advance warning blabla) and leave it on, or they don't and they switch it off.
This is about the poor, poor admins who are suddenly seeing bogus traffic and omgosh it's spoofing user agents at that! .. repeatedly*
*changes his user agent to 'cry more, Taco' in FF and hits F5
Just didn't see one in the extensions list in a search for 'history' before it:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/2965
Unfortunately, it's only for older FireFox versions and 'experimental' at that.
Similarly (also not maintained), Referrer History:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1756
ForwardFork is also similar, and also similarly dead.
Makes you think if there's a reason; one post (in Referrer History) notes that as javascript, it's just too slow, and would have to be added in the core. If it's not in FF3 yet (I'm still on v2), then I guess they didn't see fit to do so.
Honest question - I've been behind computers since, oh, age 8. So I'm well over 20 years of computer use now, but let's say well over 10 of which were in a reasonably matured body.
So I grab a standard 10x keyboard, I sit down about a foot away from it.
1. arms and hands down along body
2. bring lower arms up. You'll look stupid at this point.
3. turn hands over so that they face palm down
4. swivel lower arms so that your arms make a / \ shape.
Your hands should now be positioned above the keyboard. Congratulations.
Now here's the thing - my hands did not rotate on any of the axes with the wrist as the pivot. They are quite simply lined up with my lower arms.
Perhaps if I was classically trained with the 10-finger method; My indexfingers are still on f and j, but my middle fingers are on e and o, ring fingers on w and p and my pinkies pretty much just linger in the genera area where they end up, ready to hit tab or backslash although in general (I've not taped myself, I would say that I hardly use them at all. I just caught myself hitting the right shift to get the ( and I'm sure I'll hit it again for the ) yup ).
So I can only imagine people moving their arms even further in, ending up with a /\ and adjusting their wrists in the exact opposite angles. Yeah, I guess that could get rather painful after a few hours, let alone several years.
Or maybe everybody's body is different and so some people get problems regardless on a 'straight' keyboard, and others don't.
I'll state up front that I absolutely -hate- the "something you have" part of security when that 'something you have' ends up being a fat card reader that won't fit anywhere convenient, not even in your notebook carrying bag, and you can't just use anywhere as it has to be plugged into a USB port which is not always available/accessible, and/or is prone to mechanical failure (e.g. the non-USB 'calculator' type which might fit in a pocket but if something bangs into your bag, the thing is dead.)
So anyway.. in NL we have both of the above types from some banks.
Then there's the Postbank (largest bank, used to be gov't run, along with postal services, etc.), which works with codes.
Their website requires you to log in via SSL, username/password and then - when making a transaction - provides you with a code. You look that code up in a list and return another code that's associated with that code. The code they choose is random, the code you send back has no correlation to the input code other than what's on their end, done.
Prone to phishing? Perhaps, although all attempts so far have failed miserably. But just in case, they added an additional service - you can enter your cell phone number in your profile and have the code you should be sending back sent to you via text message, along with the amount of money involved in the transaction, etc.
I don't know the exact technical details of how the latter works - I'm sticking to just a list and due diligence when banking as I'd hate to have to rely on my phone working / having signal / not being out of credits (when abroad - besides, I usually get a pay-as-you-go card when I am, as it's cheaper to make and receive calls then) / etc. when I -have- to make some payment.
why wait? I can understand if this were to be mandatory by government or something, but it's not. Genetic diversity is not hurt by 0.000001% of the population of the Earth choosing to avoid N% chance of surfacing>-embryos implanted when the rest will happily do their thing.
For all you know, the embryos that'd get tossed in favor of one with the defect (by random choice) will hold the one 'mutated' gene that will be needed 10,000 years down the road.
It's not quite unlike time travel. It's only an issue if you're coming back from the future and are afraid of changing history as there's no telling if the end result is better or -worse- than the situation from which you came. But -before- the time travel, that wasn't known either, and events simply played out the way they did. Same here. Yes, 5,000 years down the road we might say "d'oh!" but heck, shit happens.
"What guarantee would we've had that his sisters would've brought us the same view of the cosmos?"
What guarantee did we have that Stephen Hawking would have been, well, Stephen Hawking at the time he would've still been a cluster of cells in a petri dish / whatever?
None. Or, rather, the same guarantee as for the next cluster of cells over.
So as per the parent, the choice becomes a lot more simple... given everything else the same, you'd pick the one that's far less likely to have genetic defects.
Of course everything else is -not- the same, but it's one thing to consider, and to consider hard, if you're going the route of choosing in the first place.
hear, hear!
Now if only we could agree on that pesky "human being ... created" part.
Conception != created. The cells may not split. The cells may not settle. The embryo may be aborted by the body long before it enters anything like a zygote state. And so forth. And so on.
''What if you were aborted because you have a "defect"? That would have sucked huh?''
That question can't be answered because it rests on a logical fallacy.
If you were aborted, you would never have existed. If you never existed, you would never have been in a position to contemplate the question.
The question plays on emotions of those who are already alive, people who have lived some life already - be it geriatrics with full lives, middle-aged, the young, kids or even newborns / their family.
This is about IVF embryo selection. A selection is already made. As we cannot foretell the lives that any child will lead, any question of "well what if this embryo that is certain to die of young age is the next Einstein!?" becomes moot as you could ask the very same question of the embryo in the 'next tube over' determined to -not- have the same disorder.
Once you realize that, then making the choice between the two is easy. Making the choice to make that choice in the first place may remain the hard part, for some.
Of course, given the choice and not taking the choice, then 16 years down the road realizing that, yep, your kid's dead because indeed he was certain to die at young age, might make you ponder not having made that choice. Or you could just accept that that's how life goes and be thankful for the 16 years you did have with the kid.
Similarly, let's say the 'healthy' one was chosen and turns out it ends up stillborn. You might wonder about the choice you made there, then, as well.
That's the fun thing about all of this - they're highly personal decisions and everybody has to live with that decision either which way.
That's also where government regulation comes into play, imho. If everything becomes a choice then this puts undue stress on the (hopeful) parents-to-be. That's also in part why the Dutch government currently is going with a case-by-case scenario - so selecting by "blue eyes, blonde hair" as some proposed is right out. Life-threatening disorders, predispositions, etc. are the bits being looked at - on a case-by-case scenario. I say in part, because the other part is just plainly the conservative religious party going "zomg! playing god!!!" and threatening to let the government collapse over the issue if they didn't get their way. (They're a minority party but together with two bigger parties just barely make the ruling majority; so if they go, the entire thing goes.)
"At least of the courage"?
I had to re-read that twice before I realized you're part of the large group of people transforming the English language (nothing wrong with that) so that "would have", "could have" and "should have" become "would of", "could of" and "should of", probably by virtue of the "*'ve" variant -sounding- like 'of'.
And, as I said, that's fine - I'm not a big fan of it, but languages to change over time; thank goodness for that or we'd still be writing like shakespeare but without the literary quality.
But to then replace any and all 'have' with 'of'?
---
Of you thought of the consequences of doing that?"
I think you ofn't thought that through
---
I don't find it that difficult of a question. It only ever becomes difficult once you throw in religion or, at least, religious ideals. Not necessarily Christianity/etc. registered religions, but beliefs of a soul, etc.
If the child is not yet at an age where it can exist outside of the human female body, then it's not a person. Medical science is constantly pushing that further and further back, having clean rooms and whatnot in which babies born a month, 2 months, 3 months early have survived. Don't ask how most of those way-early-born kids are doing these days as then the aforementioned comes back into play.
So let's define this quite easily.. if there is more than a 50% chance that the child could survive outside the human female body, then it's a 'person' as far as legal matters go. Said 50% to be determined by actual case studies continually drawn up (open to fraud, I know, but there you go) so that as science progresses, it can be pushed further back if need be.
I do say 'the human female body', because eventually somebody is going to come along and say "well, what if you transplanted the fetus completely to another woman??". At that point, you'd be better off using all that time and energy in convincing the people to give the kid up for adoption.
You might wonder "well what if they manage to have the child survive after even just 1 month?". Well, great, then the woman can abort the child and the medical scientists can grow the then-person in their vat and give him or her up for adoption or whatever the plan is. The woman still gets her way (no further pregnancy, no child, etc.) and those opposed to abortion get their way (the child still lives, etc.)
You have to start asking yourself, on either side, though - whether that's really the situation we want to run into.
"a) if someone is a person, you cannot use "privacy" as an excuse for terminating them. For example, I cannot invite you to my private home then kill you, then say the government cannot violate my privacy."
Yes, yes you can.
If they only have weak suspicions against you and decide to raid your house without any warrant to do so, find the guy's body or whatever *key* piece of evidence that leads to them pointing at you, you very well -can- say that the government violated your privacy. It -can- be ruled an unlawful gathering of evidence, etc. etc.
If they did get a warrant, then you're screwed, of course, as the judge decided that the case's importance trumps your privacy importance.
"As if the internet didn't have enough arbitrary hodge-podge already."
It does - just look at Slashdot. It's hardly an 'organization' (.org), especially now that it's owned by a commercial entity (.com). Heck, it started out as somebody's personal little site.. happened to be an american (.us).
Tons more examples of current sites being on domains that they 'shouldn`t' be in, and also a lot of examples of where that is the case simply because sites change over time.
So if all of it is pretty much arbitrary anyway, then why not do away with it?
Heck, some people already have... *entirely*
For example: http://bi/
( disregard any re-direction by browser to www.bi.com ; open a shell, go ping 'bi'. If you're on windows, go ping 'bi.' or it will look for a local host)
I understand the many technical, psychological, financial, etc. reasons against this. But in terms of organization - we don't have any anyway.
If only one answer is correct, then why are you using checkboxes? Use radiobuttons, man.
( ) Option A
( ) Option B
Silly ASCII user interfaces aside...
This isn't to stop full-on pirating. In the end, if somebody really, really, really wants to, they'll just completely reverse-engineer the authentication and set up a local server (128.0.0.1) for the software to contact. The local server then says everything is A-OK and the game continues. (There's more complex implementations, of course.)
But what it does stop is one gamer taking the legitimate game and burning a bunch of copies for his friends, going over to their house with a portable HDD with the game and making a copy, going to school and tossing it on every machine there, tossing it in their shared files folders for P2P programs, etc.
Actually, no, it doesn't stop them from doing -that-... but if they do, their friends will just come back to them saying they need a key or the thing won't run. Whoops.
And now that one gamer, or that friend, will have to decide "well I want to play this game with my friend, it was pretty awesome at his place, so do I...
( ) Think it's worth the $40 and buy it
( ) Think it's worth $N and I'll split the full cost with my friend who really, really, really wants to play the game with/against me.
( ) Think it's not worth any money* and warez it instead
( ) Think it's not worth any money and thus completely ignore it.
?"
That's a bigger barrier than "uhmm, dude.. this game is supposed to be commercial.. I know it runs fine on my machine after you copied it onto the thing and all, but isn't that kinda iffy?"
Anyway... re: the third option *if it's not worth any money, then you probably don't think it's worth anything.. so why warez it? If, on the other hand, you think it's worth your time to play it, have fun with it, etc.. then it's probably worth money.. so again, why warez it?
------
Now... if anybody purchases the game but isn't a bit fan of the 'calling home' bit for authentication... I'd say go for it and get the cracked copy.
Playing the warez copy without purchasing the game doesn't send any "we hate DRM/authentication/etc." signal. It only sends the "I'm a cheapskate who wants to play his games for free" signal. Sending a letter stating you were going to purchase the game, then noticed in a review/news story that it called home, and went with equivalent Competitor's Product X which doesn't use the DRM/authentication.. that sends a signal; however tiny.
bah, if you want bad analogies...
The first attack was more like this...
Whenever you (the user) visit some guy's house (a website), I (Safari) will automatically dump scorpions all over your face (desktop). Luckily, they're quite docile little scorpions so as long as you don't touch them (run the downloaded files), you'll be fine.
But then along comes my roommate (Internet Explorer), grabs one of the scorpions and plants it stinger smack dab on your jugular.
Clearly, then, my roommate is to blame. So, never interact with my roommate and oh-by-the-way enjoy walking around with scorpions on your face.
Did I mention that some of those scorpions are excellent at camouflaging themselves? They can make themselves look like the darndest and most benign things... perhaps they'll masquerade themselves as your glasses (some random program you tend to use a lot). You put on your glasses (run the program) like you do every day and *ZING*.
But hey, you probably use an operating system (say, OS X) that I (Safari) runs on that doesn't just let you put your glasses on - perhaps it recognizes that they're not even your glasses, and warns you. Good for you! Say, how are all those scorpions down your pants (download directory) working out for you?
But the above are really just bad analogies. Suffice to say that there's really no good reason to allow a website to litter your desktop -or- your downloads directory with a bunch of files.. but if you -can- think of one: great! you'll be one of those who will check the "allow websites to automatically download files to my computer" checkbox... once (if ever) that makes in, that is.
=====
Disclaimer: I like Apple (yes, dear commenter from a previous thread.. re-read my post. I do like Apple.), but they can suggest I install it all they want whenever QuickTime goes and updates itself, I'm not touching it - I'm quite fine with FireFox (2.. 'll wait for the v3 dust to settle.)
No offense, but unless there's been a breakthrough in archival methods of digital data, why do we have to re-visit this question every few months with only a minor change?
One time it's digital files, then it's digital music, now it's digital video. Unless you are willing to go analog* with your digital data, the answers are the same now as they were 2 months ago, 6 months ago, 1 year ago. Yes, for 2 years ago nobody might have suggested Blu-Ray or HD-DVD as they weren't particularly affordable/available. But given their medium (the same in principle as a CD-R or a DVD-R), I wouldn't expect them to get recommended no either (discussions about their life being too short, anecdotal evidence of CD-Rs with warez from 10 years ago still working, blablabla) and instead you'll see tape and/or harddisks (oh but that's too expensive (wtf?), and drives fail, too! oh noes!)
Seriously. Hit the previous stories on archiving digital data (doesn't matter much what the data is, although I *suppose* with audio and video you get some slight tolerance you do not get with, say, binaries.) Then come back. Bit too late to get this off the front page now, I suppose.
* spend the cash and get it transferred to film. Actual film; they tend to last pretty well when canned and stored appropriately - the hundreds of old-old-old movies having been released onto DVD should be testament to that; any deterioration tends to show up as color shifting/loss, noise and the occasional splotch; as opposed to an unreadable file / stuttering when playing back / block artifacts forming from fill-in. The former being, to me, less objectionable. Just keep in mind that it's now analog and any copy you make from it to another film is just going to degrade further and further.
...you do realize that this is commonplace everywhere, right? They usually attach them to things like anti-child porn or anti-terrorist bills (okay, not that extreme, perhaps). That way if anybody votes against the bill (you can't vote against the tiny part attached to it), the person slipping that part in will point and say "see!? He wants the terrorists to win! He likes child porn!"
It's not too unlike trying to slip in a vote on software patents at an agricultural meeting.
( citation needed? mkay : http://news.zdnet.co.uk/itmanagement/0,1000000308,39185041,00.htm )
indeed not - personally I don't connect to any network, even if it says "come on in! the coffee's on me!" without finding out just who the heck's wireless that is and whether it's really okay to use it.
But google for "using wep deserve" or so; yes, it's absurd, but there are lots of people who do think this way. And given the existence of tools that automate the procedure of grabbing MAC/WEP and adjusting system settings to enable a logon, there's plenty others who promote this notion.
have explicit nor implicit (and the operating system automatically connecting is, apparently, not considered implicit; although the lawmakers realize this behavior and weigh this into any potential court cases) access to. Smartass :P
"as I have never cracked a WEP or WPA password scheme"
Have you ever spoofed a MAC address?
Have you ever connected to an access point that did not broadcast its SSID?
Have you ever connected to an access point that says "private", "stay out", or otherwise?
If 'yes' to any of the above; I don't know about the U.S. law, but in The Netherlands you would still be guilty of "computerhuisvredebreuk"; meaning so much as tresspassing on a computer network
Then again, a great many people seem to think that even WEP encryption is an open invite to use the system, given the easy of cracking it.
...by encrypting, they made it as difficult as possible for you to make that copy. You can still make a copy; not a 1:1 copy, you may get degradation of quality, but that wasn't a particularly huge issue for most of us back in the day of copying VHS videos either. yea olde 'analog' hole. It is not cracking -or- 'bypassing' any time of encryption/etc. By the time the 'analog' device records the output, that output is no longer encrypted. Nor is it copyright infringement because it falls back to fair use.
..now if only I'd get (non-boilerplate) replies.)
I'm certainly not saying the laws, as written, are just; far from it. But we also shouldn't be confusing "fair use" with a "right".. they are fundamentally different things. If we want to have a "right" to make copies of media for a particular purpose, we'll have to get that written into law. Good luck with that (and I do mean that; I've written letters.. who else here has?
"fair use" does not mean you have the -right- to make a copy. Having the -right- to make a copy would imply that whoever hands you the original would be disallowed from doing anything that would prevent you from making that copy. That's simply not the case. They're perfectly allowed to make it as difficult as possible for you to make a copy as they want. It's just that once you -do- manage to make a copy, they can't scream bloody copyright infringement, as it's considered fair use. .. at least, if you made that copy for one of the various purposes that are covered by fair use.
"He called his legal insurance, and they said they'll pay for those six months ADSL. Cheaper than having a lawyer work a court case. Amazing :)"
Going to court over this as a principle is what would be amazing. Now the ADSL provider simply wins, and your friend doesn't really *win* anything other than not having to pay the ADSL provider, while that legal insurance company is out 6 months ADSL (doesn't cost that much - but apparently enough for your friend not wanting to pay for it) which - if they do this with enough cases - they'll simply recuperate from the legal insurance monthly fees from -everybody- who signs up with them.
That said - if your friend went into contract and they have a 6 month cancellation term, then the reasons for breaking with them doesn't usually matter very much; unless the ADSL provider themselves were in breach of contract (thus potentially nullifying the contract as a whole). It's likely there was no case to be made in the first place.
Sounds like your laptop sucks.
No, really - I mean this. Although there's certainly going to be some bad apples in the land of universal power bricks, if they are certified to specs then they shouldn't be able to fry any motherboard. If anything, their output might fluctuate -down- causing your laptop to think it's off power (unless it's dumb and simple thinks that having any plug in the jack means it's on an adapter; much like headphone jacks (which is a great way to silence devices.. just carry a little headphone plug without any headphones with you and stick it into the headphone jack. bye-bye sound from speakers.).
That doesn't explain your wires 'breaking' though. I don't know what you do with our laptop, but breaking wires like that is extremely difficult. Unlike fixed electrical wiring (such as in housing), which is a single core, these are multiple superthin strands that together act as a single core... but breaking them all is something that is quite the chore even if you were to flex and bend the wire into 180 degree bends for 24 hours; you'll break the shielding first.
Perhaps you meant that the wires broke at the soldering points - that's far more common, though with most plug designs this means you'd have to put stresses on the thing that are so high that you're far more likely to break the soldering of the power jack onto the motherboard itself (that's why I take mine apart and freefloat them as a precaution - tiny little wiggles over the course of months or years tend to do that to any jack.)
I'm not calling you a liar, but I am calling the equipment you've purchased utter crap; the laptop for getting fried in the first place (a volt or 2 over should not end up frying any motherboard, even if supplied continuously) and the adapter makers for either A. outputting to much juice that cause the frying and/or B. having wires that break.
"While I'd obviously"
really? It's not that obvious from the text above that line.
"much rather see some generic standard take hold, I can't see that happening because these add-on peripheral things are clearly such an awesome cashcow for consumer electronics makers. In the meantime, I'm happy to let Apple rule the roost."
And it's definitely non-obvious here. If anything, I'd say it's obvious you love Apple (nothing wrong with that; certainly not calling you a fanboy or anything juvenile of the sort. I love Apple, in general, too.) and as a result of this love for Apple, will happily take it up the tailpipe from Apple when it comes to their connector (and as much as I love Apple - I do not love their connector.)
You are happy to let Apple rule the roost.. what roost is that? The 'mp3 player' roost? The 'smartphone' roost?
They may be the most popular in the former, and gaining a shitload of traction in the latter, but they're hardly ruling it.
Moreover, they're -way- off on ruling the power connector roost. Yes, they made a decent connector for power+data, congratulations Apple, even if ignoring that USB could already do this. Yes, they made a much -better- connector for power (+data) with the magnetic variant. That one I would *happily* include as a "must have" for universal power supplies if that type of connector becomes much more prevalent (patents and licensing on that from Apple are holding that back - good job Jobs, it keeps that 'exclusivity' aspect going.)
But while it isn't, and Apple is charging for licenses*, most manufacturers are not going to sell a universal power supply with an added Apple-licensed connector costing them $NNNNNNNNN when only a fraction of the users actually use the thing. They can throw in 8 different types of 5mm round plugs (this in itself annoys the hell out of me; they occupy the same space, only the inner diameter differs. wtf. but at least they don't have to pay any license money for it so I guess they stamp them out by the millions for cheap) and cover the vast majority of users and tell those who do have an iPod / iPhone / whatever to purchase a separate product.
* As of 2006/May/11 - couldn't spot a newer reference.
"Previously Apple charged 1.5% of the wholesale price per unit for use of their proprietary iPod dock connector, but as of yesterday (May 10th) the dock connector license is a flat fee of $4 USD."
$4 USD! On a simple universal charger of $29.99, that's 13%. And that is why most aren't going to include one in the base pack.
That said - companies might do well to offer one as an extra. For sale off of their website. $4+S&H+marginal profit. Question is whether Apple Legal is going to see that connector as a device on its own (thus the $4), or whether they say "oh no no no my dear man, that connector is to go with your power supply. So we will be charging you $4 per power supply."
But then, who's going to pay $4 + S&H + a marginal profit for a little plug nub (shiny, white and "Made for iPod / compatible with iPhone"-logofied as it may be) when you can get a full-on charger elsewhere for $10, and can then charge your iPod / iPhone in parallel with whatever non-Apple device you've got hanging off of your universal power supply?