Without getting into a flame war, he does have a point, although not a conclusive point its insightful. However it kinda breaks down when he brings in Windows: Even if Linux was very insecure, there are still plenty of OS's (generally *nix) that are far more secure than Windows will ever be, even if the kernel implementation itself has issues, the actual POSIX base is a far superior idea than the mess that is Windows, and that's talking about modern NT based Windows, 9x etc... that's just a joke pretending to be an OS.
Yes, i picked those two because they were big, but, while i see nike adverts all the time, i havn't seen a reebok advert in this country for years. Either way, when im in the shop nike and reebok mean nothing, if i thing a shoe looks totally gay im not gonna buy it, and usually only about 5 shoes in a shop look normal enough to buy..
yes but that only works for this case, if were talking about drinks etc then im going to go on taste alone, and unless your particular drink is totally unknown to the world its not going to change my mind - infact even if a drinks brand did catch my eye, i would still only buy it if i actually saw it on the shelf.
This ruling is just insane. Suggesting that hyper links can be illegal threatens the inter idea behind the web, it threatens search engines and automated sites and just basic liberty. I know this is just in Norway but judgements and laws have a habit of spreading like cancer. I've said it before and i'll say it again: Bin Laden and every other terrorist on earth doesn't scare me anything like the impending doom of bad legislation, corruption and politicians with hidden agendas.
I really don't understand this whole branding crap, I know what brands I like and don't like already, show me 24 hours worth of pepsi adverts and im still going to buy coke, my choice of where to shop or eat is based solely on where i currently am and what I already like. When I buy new shoes, I only buy the pair that I think look best, not Nike or Reebok: the pair that I think look best. I don't buy a car, gadget or computer because I like the brand, I buy it because of the price and the review. One thing however is more certain than anything else: if i was in charge of the IT system of a large company, I wouldn't by Cisco or IBM just because I 'remembered' their brands, but the fact that they had stuck their brand our their might make me feel safer with them than with Bobs-Network-Solutions even though I would be fully evaluating all possibilities.
I remember predicting it wouldn't last too, it was just a gold rush for the few viable business ideas, the trouble was all the stupid PHB investors had no idea what it was all about and just pumped millions into it assuming it was the next biggest thing. 'gotta invest in a dot com' - Im no economics expert, but I don't see why most of these companies needed more than about $20,000 to get off to a decent start, also why anyone would need a separate net shop for separate things - amazon for example does well because they sell everything to anyone, anywhere, theres not really room in the world for more than a few giants like that.. anyone who wasted millions and lost deserved their stupidity.
Yes I know, but only a stupid network executive would actually listen to these people. Of course, nowadays, most people have wide-screen tvs and then fucking complain that everyone looks squashed!
At some point in time someone must have invented the process of pan & scan and I would bet the horse that it was some PHB TV network producer with too much coke up his nose. pan & scan is like raping the director, although some directors feel its 'ok' to do this if they are getting enough money, im sure those same directors would feel it ok to pimp their daughters for the right price. Doing that to a film and then cropping it though! I don't know who would be sick enough.
WTF? I would have expected more from BT, if this is true then that guy deserves some compensation, and I would also demand that they double any figure and give the other half to the charity, on the condition that the fuck-face that started all this is fired.
Seriously, all I want to know is which fucking 'tard approved this story. You know what else - I might have believed it for 5 minutes if was a fully enclosing wrap-around sticker or small container, maybe even long enough to have bought one, but a sticker!? WTF!? these guys must really be marketing to the low end idiot.
It would be sooo much nicer to have an inkjet built into the drive, it would be able to work the exact same way as the laser (eg disk rotates, head moves side to side) either that or a thermal printer which would be much more compact and robust. It could work with pre-stamped blank labels or specially coated or pre-labelled disks or special inks and the radial motion of the disk would lower the resolution requirements of the print head. Although technically this is kinda like a thermal printer anyway, colour and high contrast is what people want.
Yes but with DVDs I can go home and rip the whole thing then take it back to the shop and complain that I was forced to watch 10 minutes of adverts on a product I paid good money for and then get a refund and a free rip:)
Actually it want stop anything of the sort, _current_ camera phones and in fact any other current camera won't be affected, anyone who is even remotely interested in taking voyeuristic or pedophilic pictures will just keep their current camera or by a second hand one or even just buy from a manufacturer that doesn't do this! Its very unlikely that film-based cameras will ever implement this technology because it will mean either allowing a full picture or not allowing any picture what so ever. Photographers will never ever accept it in professional cameras because half of them make their living from celebrities doing stupid things. If photographers threaten to boycott, the manufacturer isn't exactly going to tell them to piss off.
Now lets look at an example: Some kids are walking home from school when a strange man starts talking to them, offering to give them a lift, saying inappropriate things to them etc, they get scared and threaten to call the police so he walks off, one of them has a camera phone and tries to take a picture for the police, guess what, his face is blurred, parents aren't going to be happy about that.
If this technology is made mandatory by law, it should also be mandatory that ALL guns are sold with similar technology that disables them from being fired while pointed at someone who is carrying a device, even if those devices are only made available to police etc, this law must be enacted too, try convincing the NRA of that!?
I think there should be some sort of policy in all technology companies, dilbert style, that says that non-technical people who have absolutely no fucking idea what they are talking about should not be allowed to make product suggestions or patents. There is already a similar policy in the airline industry that says non-pilots shouldn't be allowed to fly planes and i hear it works very well!
This is one of those ideas with no thought behind it, its based on the assumption that like good little boys and girls we are all going to accept technology lock down - they haven't even figured out how they are going to persuade other companies to stick this in their cameras?! or is this going to be mandatory by law soon? well i've got news for any legislator who thinks for a fucking second they are going to dictate what i can do to my property in my own home. To me it seems like this idea was thought up not by a business minded person (who in their right mind would try and cripple only their companies products for no reason!?) but by a complete and total idiot, in fact i would like that idiot to come and explain themselves, slashdot?
How about instead they ditch those two, save all that money and instead spend it on a 45 minute long lesbian scene between t'pol and hoshi, no not some crappy kid-safe scene, a proper late-night special, go beyond the final frontier, the next generation, boldly! and it could even involve some elaborate time-travel scenario where they must get completely naked or else risk being stranded in a half-way dimension. Now tell me seriously that this episode won't get viewers?
proper sanctioning of the mouthpiece of an oppressive regime
Its only free speech if its something that at least a significant number of Americans think is ok - like Bon Jovi, otherwise its "terrorist propaganda" and we can't possibly have that sort of stuff on our free Internet can we? i mean for fucks sake who will think of the children if there's terrorist propaganda around mixing with their Tellytubbies websites?!! you can't go around giving terrorists a mouthpiece (because a website is like standing on a very large soap-box and shouting at people in the street with a mega-phone, scaring small children and hurting peoples hearing) also terrorists need to be censored because they use their websites to post secret messages to each other like "lets blow up the airport at 8pm, fuck you man Bon Jovi is cool!" (its a known fact that websites are the only way of disseminating information globally and easily without detection).
Again, you tell me who is going to think of the children? because it sure as hell isn't going to be the Iranian government, not unless Khatami has his own 'no child left behind' fund.
Ok so if it is some sort of terrorist website, there needs to be evidence - trials, quotes such as "The website was clearly used in planning a terrorist attack on this location at this time, here is the original message" But if this is just some right-wing propaganda website by Khamenei supporters then it should be treated with the same freedom of speech rights as a right-wing Bush site, just because the guy is a dick doesn't mean he can't talk about the dangers of not hanging little girls, and how letting adulterers off lashing is a liberal conspiracy, just like Bush supporters talk about gay marriage as a violation of their rights and why abortionists are responsible for terrorism.
Just remember to think of the children before you post.
Frankly im outraged, I think everyone here needs to write to their congressman or something. Also I have absolutely no idea what the story is about, thats the most confusing paragraph ive ever read. IBM PC's are national secuirty risks? Blocking sales? Something about communist China? I wish the government was this concerned with oil company ownership.
Well it just means that when the RIAA finally get around to suing you, you will only have to pay $95,000 per song instead of $100,000. Might not seem like much now but when you have 400 songs to pay for it adds up. Remember every time you download a song or use an unlicensed mp3 player you are STEALING erm potentially stealing.. er.. potentially denying to create a sale, for a fraction of a penny... so er i hope you can sleep at night knowing you might just have potentially denied some poor engineer, um.. patent holding board member, or a lowly dog-food eating musician.. er chauffeur driven mime artist, for a few pennys!
I think the solution is pretty simple: make sure kids understand the issues (ie that people can pretend to be anyone etc) and really understand them not just 'yes dad' understand. Until they do, they're just too young to use the internet (or at least chat rooms) on their own. We don't need any more laws, just competent parents and kids who understand good logic. Letting kids loose on the internet is basically like giving them a phone and letting them call random numbers and talk to anyone, there's a certain level of maturity where they can do that and not get hurt. Oh and if you're scared of them seeing the f-word then just don't give them internet approved access. Also filtering software needs to be put the other way around, instead of blocking certain sites it needs to only allow a specific list of sites that have been pre-, yes that means the beauty of the net is destroyed for your kids, but that's the only way that's going to work. In the long run, the sooner you teach your kids basic maturity and common sense the sooner you can let them use the net freely and let them judge for themselves what to see.
In Europe we have the right to see any personal data any organisation, business, government etc has on us including recordings of phone conversations, cctv, internal memos, databases, logs etc. and they have to keep it secure from everyone else. Kinda like medical records but for everything.
Slashdot Mirror
Was it Al Gore?
Without getting into a flame war, he does have a point, although not a conclusive point its insightful. However it kinda breaks down when he brings in Windows: Even if Linux was very insecure, there are still plenty of OS's (generally *nix) that are far more secure than Windows will ever be, even if the kernel implementation itself has issues, the actual POSIX base is a far superior idea than the mess that is Windows, and that's talking about modern NT based Windows, 9x etc... that's just a joke pretending to be an OS.
Ah but how much money have all the cancer research websites in the world collectively made from on-line donations?
Flame war in 3.. 2.. 1..
Yes, i picked those two because they were big, but, while i see nike adverts all the time, i havn't seen a reebok advert in this country for years. Either way, when im in the shop nike and reebok mean nothing, if i thing a shoe looks totally gay im not gonna buy it, and usually only about 5 shoes in a shop look normal enough to buy..
yes but that only works for this case, if were talking about drinks etc then im going to go on taste alone, and unless your particular drink is totally unknown to the world its not going to change my mind - infact even if a drinks brand did catch my eye, i would still only buy it if i actually saw it on the shelf.
This ruling is just insane. Suggesting that hyper links can be illegal threatens the inter idea behind the web, it threatens search engines and automated sites and just basic liberty. I know this is just in Norway but judgements and laws have a habit of spreading like cancer. I've said it before and i'll say it again: Bin Laden and every other terrorist on earth doesn't scare me anything like the impending doom of bad legislation, corruption and politicians with hidden agendas.
I really don't understand this whole branding crap, I know what brands I like and don't like already, show me 24 hours worth of pepsi adverts and im still going to buy coke, my choice of where to shop or eat is based solely on where i currently am and what I already like. When I buy new shoes, I only buy the pair that I think look best, not Nike or Reebok: the pair that I think look best. I don't buy a car, gadget or computer because I like the brand, I buy it because of the price and the review. One thing however is more certain than anything else: if i was in charge of the IT system of a large company, I wouldn't by Cisco or IBM just because I 'remembered' their brands, but the fact that they had stuck their brand our their might make me feel safer with them than with Bobs-Network-Solutions even though I would be fully evaluating all possibilities.
I remember predicting it wouldn't last too, it was just a gold rush for the few viable business ideas, the trouble was all the stupid PHB investors had no idea what it was all about and just pumped millions into it assuming it was the next biggest thing. 'gotta invest in a dot com' - Im no economics expert, but I don't see why most of these companies needed more than about $20,000 to get off to a decent start, also why anyone would need a separate net shop for separate things - amazon for example does well because they sell everything to anyone, anywhere, theres not really room in the world for more than a few giants like that.. anyone who wasted millions and lost deserved their stupidity.
Yes I know, but only a stupid network executive would actually listen to these people. Of course, nowadays, most people have wide-screen tvs and then fucking complain that everyone looks squashed!
At some point in time someone must have invented the process of pan & scan and I would bet the horse that it was some PHB TV network producer with too much coke up his nose. pan & scan is like raping the director, although some directors feel its 'ok' to do this if they are getting enough money, im sure those same directors would feel it ok to pimp their daughters for the right price. Doing that to a film and then cropping it though! I don't know who would be sick enough.
It occurs to me that they would have had his name and address from the donation, a break-down of communication would have gone something like this:
Log: Lynx - - 195.245.14.212
Windowz Admin: OMG WTF!?
Log: Lynx: Error 255 Is_not_IE
Windowz Admin: OMG WTF!? 0w3n3d? h4x0rd?
PHB: Whats all this then?
Windowz Admin: Hackers
Phone: Ring Ring, Ring Ring
Police: Metropolitan Police?
PHB: Hackers, Tsunami, Help!?
Police: Yes sir, the address?
PHB: The address?
Windowz Admin: [tap tap] 34 Solaris Road
Police: POLICE!
Lynx User: Okay?
Police: Down on the ground! down on the fucking ground!
Lynx User: Ahh? WTF? 0w3nd?
Police: 0w3nd h4x0r mother fucker.
Lynx User: Lawyer!
Lawyer: WTF?
Lynx User: Yes, WTF?
Judge: WTF is Lynx?
Lawyer: WTF is Solaris?
Expert: Shut up n00bs
Bail: Money
Lynx User: Poor
The Sun(tm): Hacker, lynch mob, page 3, Sun readers are tards.
BB: WTF?
Slashdot: WTF OMG?
WTF? I would have expected more from BT, if this is true then that guy deserves some compensation, and I would also demand that they double any figure and give the other half to the charity, on the condition that the fuck-face that started all this is fired.
Seriously, all I want to know is which fucking 'tard approved this story. You know what else - I might have believed it for 5 minutes if was a fully enclosing wrap-around sticker or small container, maybe even long enough to have bought one, but a sticker!? WTF!? these guys must really be marketing to the low end idiot.
They'll end up shooting you and sending the bill for the bullets to your parents. Don't go, don't fuck with draconian extremist nut case governments.
It would be sooo much nicer to have an inkjet built into the drive, it would be able to work the exact same way as the laser (eg disk rotates, head moves side to side) either that or a thermal printer which would be much more compact and robust. It could work with pre-stamped blank labels or specially coated or pre-labelled disks or special inks and the radial motion of the disk would lower the resolution requirements of the print head. Although technically this is kinda like a thermal printer anyway, colour and high contrast is what people want.
Sorry what was that!? UK customers are getting something thats not a rip-off? whats next, tube fairs going down!?
Yes but with DVDs I can go home and rip the whole thing then take it back to the shop and complain that I was forced to watch 10 minutes of adverts on a product I paid good money for and then get a refund and a free rip :)
Actually it want stop anything of the sort, _current_ camera phones and in fact any other current camera won't be affected, anyone who is even remotely interested in taking voyeuristic or pedophilic pictures will just keep their current camera or by a second hand one or even just buy from a manufacturer that doesn't do this! Its very unlikely that film-based cameras will ever implement this technology because it will mean either allowing a full picture or not allowing any picture what so ever. Photographers will never ever accept it in professional cameras because half of them make their living from celebrities doing stupid things. If photographers threaten to boycott, the manufacturer isn't exactly going to tell them to piss off.
Now lets look at an example: Some kids are walking home from school when a strange man starts talking to them, offering to give them a lift, saying inappropriate things to them etc, they get scared and threaten to call the police so he walks off, one of them has a camera phone and tries to take a picture for the police, guess what, his face is blurred, parents aren't going to be happy about that.
If this technology is made mandatory by law, it should also be mandatory that ALL guns are sold with similar technology that disables them from being fired while pointed at someone who is carrying a device, even if those devices are only made available to police etc, this law must be enacted too, try convincing the NRA of that!?
I think there should be some sort of policy in all technology companies, dilbert style, that says that non-technical people who have absolutely no fucking idea what they are talking about should not be allowed to make product suggestions or patents. There is already a similar policy in the airline industry that says non-pilots shouldn't be allowed to fly planes and i hear it works very well!
This is one of those ideas with no thought behind it, its based on the assumption that like good little boys and girls we are all going to accept technology lock down - they haven't even figured out how they are going to persuade other companies to stick this in their cameras?! or is this going to be mandatory by law soon? well i've got news for any legislator who thinks for a fucking second they are going to dictate what i can do to my property in my own home. To me it seems like this idea was thought up not by a business minded person (who in their right mind would try and cripple only their companies products for no reason!?) but by a complete and total idiot, in fact i would like that idiot to come and explain themselves, slashdot?
How about instead they ditch those two, save all that money and instead spend it on a 45 minute long lesbian scene between t'pol and hoshi, no not some crappy kid-safe scene, a proper late-night special, go beyond the final frontier, the next generation, boldly! and it could even involve some elaborate time-travel scenario where they must get completely naked or else risk being stranded in a half-way dimension. Now tell me seriously that this episode won't get viewers?
proper sanctioning of the mouthpiece of an oppressive regime
Its only free speech if its something that at least a significant number of Americans think is ok - like Bon Jovi, otherwise its "terrorist propaganda" and we can't possibly have that sort of stuff on our free Internet can we? i mean for fucks sake who will think of the children if there's terrorist propaganda around mixing with their Tellytubbies websites?!! you can't go around giving terrorists a mouthpiece (because a website is like standing on a very large soap-box and shouting at people in the street with a mega-phone, scaring small children and hurting peoples hearing) also terrorists need to be censored because they use their websites to post secret messages to each other like "lets blow up the airport at 8pm, fuck you man Bon Jovi is cool!" (its a known fact that websites are the only way of disseminating information globally and easily without detection).
Again, you tell me who is going to think of the children? because it sure as hell isn't going to be the Iranian government, not unless Khatami has his own 'no child left behind' fund.
Ok so if it is some sort of terrorist website, there needs to be evidence - trials, quotes such as "The website was clearly used in planning a terrorist attack on this location at this time, here is the original message" But if this is just some right-wing propaganda website by Khamenei supporters then it should be treated with the same freedom of speech rights as a right-wing Bush site, just because the guy is a dick doesn't mean he can't talk about the dangers of not hanging little girls, and how letting adulterers off lashing is a liberal conspiracy, just like Bush supporters talk about gay marriage as a violation of their rights and why abortionists are responsible for terrorism.
Just remember to think of the children before you post.
Frankly im outraged, I think everyone here needs to write to their congressman or something. Also I have absolutely no idea what the story is about, thats the most confusing paragraph ive ever read. IBM PC's are national secuirty risks? Blocking sales? Something about communist China? I wish the government was this concerned with oil company ownership.
Well it just means that when the RIAA finally get around to suing you, you will only have to pay $95,000 per song instead of $100,000. Might not seem like much now but when you have 400 songs to pay for it adds up. Remember every time you download a song or use an unlicensed mp3 player you are STEALING erm potentially stealing.. er.. potentially denying to create a sale, for a fraction of a penny... so er i hope you can sleep at night knowing you might just have potentially denied some poor engineer, um.. patent holding board member, or a lowly dog-food eating musician.. er chauffeur driven mime artist, for a few pennys!
I think the solution is pretty simple: make sure kids understand the issues (ie that people can pretend to be anyone etc) and really understand them not just 'yes dad' understand. Until they do, they're just too young to use the internet (or at least chat rooms) on their own. We don't need any more laws, just competent parents and kids who understand good logic. Letting kids loose on the internet is basically like giving them a phone and letting them call random numbers and talk to anyone, there's a certain level of maturity where they can do that and not get hurt. Oh and if you're scared of them seeing the f-word then just don't give them internet approved access. Also filtering software needs to be put the other way around, instead of blocking certain sites it needs to only allow a specific list of sites that have been pre-, yes that means the beauty of the net is destroyed for your kids, but that's the only way that's going to work. In the long run, the sooner you teach your kids basic maturity and common sense the sooner you can let them use the net freely and let them judge for themselves what to see.
In Europe we have the right to see any personal data any organisation, business, government etc has on us including recordings of phone conversations, cctv, internal memos, databases, logs etc. and they have to keep it secure from everyone else. Kinda like medical records but for everything.