" implying acceptance that Microsoft was at that time able to track at least that one e-mail and tag it at least 2 generations later to their e-mail address."
All it really implies is that they wanted to earn $50.
"How many time does it have to be said? DON'T USE IE. Period. End of story. Fin."
Has anybody ever used the term 'end of story' and it has really been the end of story?
Here, I'll un-end it: There are still sites that IE renders properly that Opera/Firefox do not. Not enough? Okay: Alt-browsers aren't that widely known yet. Not enough? Okay: The IE rendering engine is stupidly used all over the place, so the app still needs to be secured. Still not enough? Fine: Not everybody thinks alt browsers are so hot.
Don't use the phrase 'end of story', end of story.
What fancy-ass security feature in Firefox would prevent somebody from writing a plugin like this? Anything besides 'not a big enough user base to attempt it'?
"For crying out loud, people! How hard is it to download Firefox and switch? Especially with the new settings import wizard?"
For crying out loud, people! Nobody even knows what Firefox is!
Quit acting like everybody's a retard and start putting money into a Firefox ad campaign or something. Acting like a raging zealot isn't going to get people to switch.
Have you ever seen IBM's expensive monitors? Back in 01 they had one that could do like 3,500 pixels. Man that was a sight. I don't know how to describe it. The photos on that screen were like... luminescent film.
Heh my girlfriend gave me a strange look when I logged on to IRC from the bathroom. For some reason, reading in the bathroom is okay, but chatting on-line is the equivalent of announcing the desire for somebody to invent 7-day underwear.
"Did you read the next sentence? The quoted was a rhetorical question."
That doesn't prohibit me from answering. Your basic premise is severely flawed by the lack of data.
" but it does say something about how little most people care for their privacy."
No, it doesn't. The only thing it says is "people sent out emails." The rest is pure speculation with no data to back up any of it. Even somebody who was uppity about privacy wouldn't necessarily behave consistently here.
My point? This is one of those generalizatiosn that just plain isn't insightful.
"Seriously, do the people who fall for this even think to consider the ramifications of their e-mail being tracked by Microsoft in the first place?"
No. What they do consider is that with minimal effort, there's a small chance they'll make $50. If it never arrives, they have little to lose. This is hardly a useful IQ test.
" I think that people are minimizing the importance of software in our lives. What do you think is flying that Delta plane? Every component of a new car is run by software. Think about hospitals. Software has become critical, and people do not even think about it."
The diffrence is that the software you speak of is running on a controlled environment. So long as your plane isn't expected to run Solitaire on a whim, it stands to reason that Delta (Boeing?) can reasonably guarantee its safety.
"It seems only software companies are able to get away with selling defective products by tacking on long EULA's to them."
Duh. They get away with it because they cannot guarantee the environment in which the software is run. Do you think your car would have a stellar warranty if there were no roads?
Slashdot Mirror
" The question should be, "What fancy-ass special feature does Firefox NOT have."
That question inhibits Firefox's widespread adoption.
" implying acceptance that Microsoft was at that time able to track at least that one e-mail and tag it at least 2 generations later to their e-mail address."
All it really implies is that they wanted to earn $50.
"Why anyone is still running Internet Explorer when there are so many better alternatives?"
Can someone explain why preaching to the choir is a surefire way of getting an Insightful mod?
"How many time does it have to be said? DON'T USE IE. Period. End of story. Fin."
Has anybody ever used the term 'end of story' and it has really been the end of story?
Here, I'll un-end it: There are still sites that IE renders properly that Opera/Firefox do not. Not enough? Okay: Alt-browsers aren't that widely known yet. Not enough? Okay: The IE rendering engine is stupidly used all over the place, so the app still needs to be secured. Still not enough? Fine: Not everybody thinks alt browsers are so hot.
Don't use the phrase 'end of story', end of story.
What fancy-ass security feature in Firefox would prevent somebody from writing a plugin like this? Anything besides 'not a big enough user base to attempt it'?
"For crying out loud, people! How hard is it to download Firefox and switch? Especially with the new settings import wizard?"
For crying out loud, people! Nobody even knows what Firefox is!
Quit acting like everybody's a retard and start putting money into a Firefox ad campaign or something. Acting like a raging zealot isn't going to get people to switch.
Have you ever seen IBM's expensive monitors? Back in 01 they had one that could do like 3,500 pixels. Man that was a sight. I don't know how to describe it. The photos on that screen were like... luminescent film.
"Why would you fsck with SSL..."
Because there are no files to check, just packets?
"How does accepting that Microsoft wants to..."
Who accepted what? You don't even know if the people forwarding those messages took them seriously.
"All Your Antarctic Base Are Belong To Us!"
1999 called. The copyright on this joke hasn't expired yet.
Try building it out of the native turtle shells!
"ummmmm hello wifi?"
Heh my girlfriend gave me a strange look when I logged on to IRC from the bathroom. For some reason, reading in the bathroom is okay, but chatting on-line is the equivalent of announcing the desire for somebody to invent 7-day underwear.
"Did you read the next sentence? The quoted was a rhetorical question."
That doesn't prohibit me from answering. Your basic premise is severely flawed by the lack of data.
" but it does say something about how little most people care for their privacy."
No, it doesn't. The only thing it says is "people sent out emails." The rest is pure speculation with no data to back up any of it. Even somebody who was uppity about privacy
wouldn't necessarily behave consistently here.
My point? This is one of those generalizatiosn that just plain isn't insightful.
"Seriously, do the people who fall for this even think to consider the ramifications of their e-mail being tracked by Microsoft in the first place?"
No. What they do consider is that with minimal effort, there's a small chance they'll make $50. If it never arrives, they have little to lose. This is hardly a useful IQ test.
"Why do I even subscribe to Wired anymore, I can get the whole magazine in 2 weeks worth of articles on Slashdot, with full discussions..."
Bathroom reading, man.
"The Daily Show is the least biased reporting, so watch that."
Actually they're extremely biased, thing is they don't just stick to one side.
That doesn't sound so contradictory if you watch it. One day it's Bush sucks, the next it's Kerry's a loon. Etc.
"Needless to say, he's not my friend anymore. /True story."
Over the media's expression of politics? Can't say that's in my top 10 reasons to end a friendship.
"And how accurate are YOUR films?"
You don't have to be an artist to be a critic.
"If your aim is to use the plane as a suicide bomb, will it matter to you if are fingerprinted?"
Where in the article does this promise to make terrorism harder?
"...shouldn't we concentrate more on doing things to make mad people NOT want to blow us all up?"
Like caving in to extremist demands?
"Why, the phrase "Blue Screen Of Death" will take on a whole new meaning of course."
Anonymous Coward called, his copyright on this joke hasn't expired yet.
"More like suing Ford because they didn't put a shield over a bolt which several times had punctured gas tanks. Look up "Ford Pinto".'
Oh... so there were a bunch of assholes running around blowing up Pintos?
" I think that people are minimizing the importance of software in our lives. What do you think is flying that Delta plane? Every component of a new car is run by software. Think about hospitals. Software has become critical, and people do not even think about it."
The diffrence is that the software you speak of is running on a controlled environment. So long as your plane isn't expected to run Solitaire on a whim, it stands to reason that Delta (Boeing?) can reasonably guarantee its safety.
No fire? That blows.
"It seems only software companies are able to get away with selling defective products by tacking on long EULA's to them."
Duh. They get away with it because they cannot guarantee the environment in which the software is run. Do you think your car would have a stellar warranty if there were no roads?