All of this talk about sending emails and snail mail to representatives will never happen effectively as is. Picture this: A room full of people packed in like sardines. Each one of them turns to face you and says "what can one person do?"
People can be so closely tied together and STILL not make a difference because they don't believe they can. If you want to make a difference, I hate to say it but you may need to form an actual group of some sort. A leader may help.
Honestly, though, 2000 slightly related emails to a senator mean nothing. When he gets 5000, all saying the same things, backed by an organization with the power of 5000 people behind it, they have to respect that.
I'm not saying that sending a letter is worth nothing, but it could be worth so much more if it was organized properly.
## begin sarcasm ##
You nailed it, bud. The American Government has always been honest and true to what it says. Politicians never lie, so we know that every hacker will be free to go when this war is over. They would never jump on the opportunity to go after someone after that helped the U.S.!
## end sarcasm ##
Ironically, it isn't even Uncle sam that is putting out this message. In fact, the government has nothing to do with it. Even if you did become a hero, it would be in the eyes of the "Cyberangels"... and I'm sorry, but that just sounds too much like a cheap movie title where cameron diaz learns how to be an 31337 haX0r...
This has escalated to a personal level for me. The very first time I heard the word "draft" I about had to change my boxers.
This "new" type of war, going after small factions with ground troops... this will have high casualty rates. On top of that, we will have to send in hundreds of men at every target, over and over. We're going to run out of men in a hurry.
Then I, the 18-26 year old in good health, get a call. I am called to active duty so that I, your basic computer nerd, can be taught how to shoot a gun and aim for the head.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I would opt for another solution. Granted this will be tough, but I don't think that more American lives need to be lost over this.
I also agree that Afghanistan is almost already ruined, so there's no use going to war with them. What would we have to gain? The Taliban would seem like hero's for defending the people of Afghanistan...then guess what, suddenly there's a whole new group of people that want to join in the holy war against the U.S.
Bin Laden is a smart guy...he would be dead or in jail if he wasn't. I don't think we have a prayer of getting through this like Desert Storm. People will die if we get cocky and think we'll just toss 'em around like Iraq.
One last thing I'd like to mention is this: When America fought the revolutionary war against England, we were far outnumbered and didn't have a chance. But we were fighting with our hearts, and had a purpose.
By waging a holy war, Afghani's now have that same sort of purpose. They may be far outnumbered and technology inferior, but I'd put my odds on the man fighting with his heart any day of the week.
"the distribution of Broadcast 2000 enhanced to unacceptable levels the risk of an individual experiencing significant financial damage due to the extremely expensive nature of high end video production and the high risk inherent in professional video business marketing"
Can someone dumb this down a little for me please.
Basically they are saying that by distributing Broadcast 2000, there was an increased amount of risk for someone to do something stupid and mess up their expensive equipment (and sue the software company for their own mistake). It's pure logic...the more people using something, the more likely someone is to do something stupid.
This is the number one rule of computing at its best: CYA, no one else will.
As far as OS's go, Microsoft has always played catch-up in terms of technology. (Win95 was matching macintosh `84, for example)
With the new HP/Compaq merger pending, I doubt either of the two hopeless companies will keep their head above water high enough to help support any sort of effort from Microsoft. Without the iPAQ or jornada, how can Pocket PC 2002 increase the already dwindling %10 of the marketshare it currently has?
On a side note, there is no prayer for it when the jornada is $600...I can get a Palm for $200 that will do more. I know the features well because I sell the jornada, and the price is just not worth the features over the palm. Tough sale to make, even at the sub-$400 pricetag for the 525 and 545 that they currently have.
Special circumstances are special circumstances... He was wearing a microphone, addressing a group of reporters that day. Of course they are going to run a newsworthy item like that.
Quick story: During the democratic national convention in LA, I was approached by a guy with a camera, and he asked me a few questions. On camera, I gave a brief interview (my 15 seconds of fame). At the end, he had to ask "Do you give MTV news permission to use this footage?"
I could sue him for using that without my permission (if I had said no). The same holds for recording conversations. If you don't have my permission to record me, you can't record me. I can sue you for it.
Try this one: any idiot can get a screen capture program and copy whatever their screen shows to file. If the image is too big, a simple stitching will fix that. Are these programs going to be illegal now too?
The bottom line: if you want me to see it, I'll be able to steal it.
If someone takes a picture of me out on the street, i have no right to keep them from publishing it. If i don't want people to take pictures of me doing something, i don't do it in a public place.
Have you ever seen "Cops" on fox? Notice the blurred out faces of some people. If you could use any footage you wanted then those peoples faces wouldn't be blurred.
The way it works is this: If you are going to use the footage for commercial purposes (ie Television program) then you need permission from the person in the video/photograph. However, using footage for non-commercial reasons has generally been allowed.
If the internet adopted a law like this (exist currently?) then there would be no problem. It's when the lines of legality are blurry that we run into frivolous lawsuits of this nature.
Anyone else notice the amount of people dedicated to researching security for M$? Interesting to see that they still have major security holes in all of their releases. Yet again I am convinced that they leave their software buggy on purpose, so that upgrades are easier to sell.
...with the author's conclusion that peer-to-peer networks can be "fenced in." Yes, AOL/MSN/Earthlink can block access to known Bearshare backbone servers, and yes that may be detrimental to the speed of those users searches. However, that doesn't cut them completely off. It seems to me that this would simply slow down searches (forcing them to move at the speed of the slowest user connected) but not completely remove all functionality. Peer-to-peer advocates seem to have the stronger side of this right now, but the packet headers do show promise on the side of controlling things.
Anyone seen CNN's story about all this? They have a nice rendition of the virus: An evil sperm trying to break through the monitor to infect the innocent virgin IIS system.
Beautiful. Personification at its best.
Slashdot Mirror
All of this talk about sending emails and snail mail to representatives will never happen effectively as is. Picture this: A room full of people packed in like sardines. Each one of them turns to face you and says "what can one person do?"
People can be so closely tied together and STILL not make a difference because they don't believe they can. If you want to make a difference, I hate to say it but you may need to form an actual group of some sort. A leader may help.
Honestly, though, 2000 slightly related emails to a senator mean nothing. When he gets 5000, all saying the same things, backed by an organization with the power of 5000 people behind it, they have to respect that.
I'm not saying that sending a letter is worth nothing, but it could be worth so much more if it was organized properly.
Just
my ($.02)
"Linux is a follower, not an innovator"
That Microsoft team has been watching too much Elmer FUD recently.
maybe the bonehead armed forces might stop bombing their own men.
## begin sarcasm ##
You nailed it, bud. The American Government has always been honest and true to what it says. Politicians never lie, so we know that every hacker will be free to go when this war is over. They would never jump on the opportunity to go after someone after that helped the U.S.!
## end sarcasm ##
Ironically, it isn't even Uncle sam that is putting out this message. In fact, the government has nothing to do with it. Even if you did become a hero, it would be in the eyes of the "Cyberangels"... and I'm sorry, but that just sounds too much like a cheap movie title where cameron diaz learns how to be an 31337 haX0r...
This has escalated to a personal level for me. The very first time I heard the word "draft" I about had to change my boxers.
This "new" type of war, going after small factions with ground troops... this will have high casualty rates. On top of that, we will have to send in hundreds of men at every target, over and over. We're going to run out of men in a hurry.
Then I, the 18-26 year old in good health, get a call. I am called to active duty so that I, your basic computer nerd, can be taught how to shoot a gun and aim for the head.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I would opt for another solution. Granted this will be tough, but I don't think that more American lives need to be lost over this.
I also agree that Afghanistan is almost already ruined, so there's no use going to war with them. What would we have to gain? The Taliban would seem like hero's for defending the people of Afghanistan...then guess what, suddenly there's a whole new group of people that want to join in the holy war against the U.S.
Bin Laden is a smart guy...he would be dead or in jail if he wasn't. I don't think we have a prayer of getting through this like Desert Storm. People will die if we get cocky and think we'll just toss 'em around like Iraq.
One last thing I'd like to mention is this: When America fought the revolutionary war against England, we were far outnumbered and didn't have a chance. But we were fighting with our hearts, and had a purpose.
By waging a holy war, Afghani's now have that same sort of purpose. They may be far outnumbered and technology inferior, but I'd put my odds on the man fighting with his heart any day of the week.
"the distribution of Broadcast 2000 enhanced to unacceptable levels the risk of an individual experiencing significant financial damage due to the extremely expensive nature of high end video production and the high risk inherent in professional video business marketing"
Can someone dumb this down a little for me please.
Basically they are saying that by distributing Broadcast 2000, there was an increased amount of risk for someone to do something stupid and mess up their expensive equipment (and sue the software company for their own mistake). It's pure logic...the more people using something, the more likely someone is to do something stupid.
This is the number one rule of computing at its best: CYA, no one else will.
As far as OS's go, Microsoft has always played catch-up in terms of technology. (Win95 was matching macintosh `84, for example)
With the new HP/Compaq merger pending, I doubt either of the two hopeless companies will keep their head above water high enough to help support any sort of effort from Microsoft. Without the iPAQ or jornada, how can Pocket PC 2002 increase the already dwindling %10 of the marketshare it currently has?
On a side note, there is no prayer for it when the jornada is $600...I can get a Palm for $200 that will do more. I know the features well because I sell the jornada, and the price is just not worth the features over the palm. Tough sale to make, even at the sub-$400 pricetag for the 525 and 545 that they currently have.
Special circumstances are special circumstances... He was wearing a microphone, addressing a group of reporters that day. Of course they are going to run a newsworthy item like that.
Quick story: During the democratic national convention in LA, I was approached by a guy with a camera, and he asked me a few questions. On camera, I gave a brief interview (my 15 seconds of fame). At the end, he had to ask "Do you give MTV news permission to use this footage?"
I could sue him for using that without my permission (if I had said no). The same holds for recording conversations. If you don't have my permission to record me, you can't record me. I can sue you for it.
Try this one: any idiot can get a screen capture program and copy whatever their screen shows to file. If the image is too big, a simple stitching will fix that. Are these programs going to be illegal now too?
The bottom line: if you want me to see it, I'll be able to steal it.
If someone takes a picture of me out on the street, i have no right to keep them from publishing it. If i don't want people to take pictures of me doing something, i don't do it in a public place.
Have you ever seen "Cops" on fox? Notice the blurred out faces of some people. If you could use any footage you wanted then those peoples faces wouldn't be blurred.
The way it works is this: If you are going to use the footage for commercial purposes (ie Television program) then you need permission from the person in the video/photograph. However, using footage for non-commercial reasons has generally been allowed.
If the internet adopted a law like this (exist currently?) then there would be no problem. It's when the lines of legality are blurry that we run into frivolous lawsuits of this nature.
Anyone else notice the amount of people dedicated to researching security for M$? Interesting to see that they still have major security holes in all of their releases. Yet again I am convinced that they leave their software buggy on purpose, so that upgrades are easier to sell.
...with the author's conclusion that peer-to-peer networks can be "fenced in." Yes, AOL/MSN/Earthlink can block access to known Bearshare backbone servers, and yes that may be detrimental to the speed of those users searches. However, that doesn't cut them completely off. It seems to me that this would simply slow down searches (forcing them to move at the speed of the slowest user connected) but not completely remove all functionality. Peer-to-peer advocates seem to have the stronger side of this right now, but the packet headers do show promise on the side of controlling things.
Anyone seen CNN's story about all this? They have a nice rendition of the virus: An evil sperm trying to break through the monitor to infect the innocent virgin IIS system. Beautiful. Personification at its best.