And he won awards huh. Pretty safe speculating even though most of it some what exist today!
Surely that's the case in a ten year time frame? I mean, think about what is mainstream now (eg mobile phones, mp3s, internet shopping, etc). There isn't much ubiquitous technology about now that wasn't basically the realm of the geek and the early adopter ten or more years ago. Looking ahead ten years is really about sorting the fads from the trends in todays cutting edge.
Imagine if our criminal system convicted 99 innocent people for every true criminal, and attempts at reform have proven ineffective.
You must not have been paying attention during the last few decades. Its here and its called 'The War on (some) Drugs' - a war being lost even given the fact that drugs can't drive tanks, fly planes or even shoot guns.
You're right. I missed that bit. That makes it worse in my opinion. Surely for any sane person that should have rung some alarm bells? Here in the UK the government regularly runs adverts encouraging people to watch out for their 'age challenged' neighbours, especially during winter. You would think that counts double for critical utility companies. To cut off anyone's gas without any sort of contact (just ringing the door bell or sending a letter is not contact) is a fucking disgrace, to put it bluntly. However, mistakes do happen and they should simply have accepted some reasonable responsibility (along with neighbours, social services, family, etc) rather than throwing out a pathetic and obviously false excuse which just happens to help their agenda in discrediting the Data Protection Act (the act is a burden for companies, especially those holding customer details).
It is a bit of a misnomer, but it was using the privacy laws in a way opposed to their spirit - as an excuse for doing nothing to help an elderly couple who were obviously in some difficulty.
I know a few people here are saying 'why didn't they do something themselves - its not British Gas's fault', and there is a degree of validity to that. But on the other hand these people were almost 90 years old, had money, but didn't pay their bill - should that not set some alarm bells ringing? Even if you accept their pathetic excuse that they couldn't pass on any info because of the DPA, could they not have sent someone round to speak to them before cutting them off? A bill collector? Engineer? Anyone?
I guess all you libertarian, free-market Americans will disagree, but to me and many Brits cutting off someones critical utilities (it gets cold here) without any form of physical check (or any form of check beyond a couple of threatening letters) is an absolute abuse of your position as a utility supplier. Especially given that for the first 70+ years of these peoples lives British Gas was not a private company, but a public body.
I completely disagree. But then it wasn't really explained well enough, I think for non-Brits to understand the problem.
Yes, maybe BG were justified in cutting them off and maybe they followed the procedures to the letter, but after cutting off the gas supply to a couple who are both over 85 years of age they informed no-one. They then claimed that they wanted to tell someone in authority but were prevented by the Data Protection Act (the law in the UK that companies must follow when dealing with data they hold about private citizens). Now this might be strictly true, or actually a bit of a grey area, but these are peoples lives they are dealing with - old people who are perhaps not as able to look after themselves as well as they used to. Perhaps they couldn't get out the house to pay their bills - perhaps they could, but to say that you couldn't inform anyone because of the Data Protection Act is a bit like saying you couldn't drag someone out of a burning building because you would be guilty of 'breaking and entering'. Its strictly true but in spirit its not.
In the UK we call these kind of people 'jobsworths' - the kind of person who says things like 'I'd love to help you, but its more than my job's worth'
Here's the best reason of all - because we're geeks and we can. I just don't get all these replies basically implying that nobody should be allowed to run their own outgoing smtp server - the internet was built on the fact that anybody could run a server, host a website or send an email. Now its suggested that what? Only private companies can run servers? Only ISPs? Only if we have certain types of IP addresses? Only with a letter from our Mums?
Is is not possible that IE would want to drop IE completely? Given that MS failed to take over the Internet even with 95% penetration of their own browser on their own OS, and that the browser is now really a commodity (and going even further, that MS want to move on from the, for want of a better word, 'html' standards), perhaps they are building up to simply dropping support and development of IE completely - let Opera and Mozilla and anyone else fight it out and in the process get rid of one of the major holes in Windows _and_ one of the major factors in any anti-trust grumblings.
I mean look at it this way - IE gains them nothing but trouble these days. It did its work but really bought them nothing - no server monopolies, no MSN domination, no 'Windows for Toasters' and all the other things we knew Bill was plotting when he evetually realised the Internet wasn't some fad. From one perspective its now just money down the drain, but with anti-trust and security problems thrown on top.
Here's my solution (and why I think people are wrong when they complain that Linux/BSD should be as easy to use as Windows). If you want to run Windows as admin it should drop you down into some kind of CLI, or at least strip away the illusion that you're playing with some Fisher Price toy (after all, a networked computer can now cause serious harm).
If you want to run Windows without any knowledge, fine, but its like a black box. You can run your email, browse the web, write your letters. You want to install something, etc, you hire an experienced admin, like you would get an electrician to fix your wiring or a mechanic to fix your car. You want to admin it yourself, also fine but you're actually going to have to learn something about computing and the underlying OS.
You shouldn't have it both ways, because like I said, a netowrked computer just isn't a toy anymore. Its a device capibable of causing harm to others if used wrongly - a view reflected by changes in law and enforcement attitudes. We don't let people drive cars on public routes without testing they have some knowledge of the rules, codes and dangers of the road - if you can't do that you get the bus.
So what's the point? The point is Windows wants to give everyone the best of both worlds (or should I say _has_ to). An interface your Gran can use _and_ the privelages of a super-user. I'm not really sure that Linux, etc, should be trying to follow that lead.
Not true at all. Microsoft can do whatever they want - except go to another country and break their laws. So Microsoft can buy up all the SAPs they want so long as they don't trade in Europe.
To be honest I think that there's plenty of parents who don't how bad for you a McDonalds is. I've nothing against a Big Mac (mmmmm, grease) but its what I would call a treat, like chocolate or chips, not a meal or part of any kind of healthy diet.
I also knew you'd come back with the fact that it was children (that's not a dig, just a recognition) but the number is 50%, not one or two, so if you translate that down to adults you still have a large number who don't understand the nutritional value of a Big Mac and super size fries (did you know a child would have to run constantly for 3 1/2 hours to burn off the calories from one can of fizzy drink?). A 5% obesity rate is still a pretty big health problem for a country of 250 million (or even our 60 million here in the UK) - and not understanding the the nutritional value of an Extra Value Meal(tm) is a sure way to obesity. I'm not dissing the personal responsibility angle here - I'm a firm believer in it - but I'm just suggesting its not really an even battle, especially when you have poor, illeducated people (of which there are many) versus a multiple-hundreds of million dollar advertising budget.
I'm sorry, whilst nice in theory that is just wishful thinking. Not everyone has the critical thinking skills to understand the power that advertising has on them - and to be honest even those of us who are fully aware of it are still not immune.
Human nature is still very much ruled by subconscious effects and people like Mickey D's spend hundreds of millions a year to tune into those effects. As an example, an Australian study found that just over half of Australian 9 and 10 year-olds think that Ronald McDonald knows best what is good for children to eat.
There is no true freedom in the United States either. Why should a private person be prohibited from killing another, or performing sexual acts on whoever they want, or driving at whatever speed they want, or crossing the road wherever and whenever they want, or taking whatever they want?
I don't think you even know what freedom means, but then you are just a troll so why am I even bothering to reply. Goddammit!
Rights are defined by society. Society is the general population. So who's rights are more important? Content producers or society?
Copyright is not an absolute - it is one idea created a few hundred years ago by some moneyed landowners when information supply was scarce. So the question is - should commerce change with the times or should society stand still for commerce?
To put it another way - if we invented a eneergy to matter replicator tomorrow should we make it illegal to make a can of beans because it cuts into the profits of Heinz, inc?
I was going to give you one of my mod points for being the first Slashdotter to make me laugh out loud, but you're already at (5, funny) so you can just bask in the warm glow of my praise instead.
Eh, maybe I'm too drunk to be posting responses, but wasn't that the (modded funny) parent poster's point? If so why is this post 'insightful'? And if I'm wrong just mod me +20 'pissed'.
It won't work because most people, and especially companies, do not want to put a limit on who can email them. Simple as that.
I guess if you do what you suggest it will _feel_ successful because you will simply never know about the opportunities you have missed.
Speaking as a mail admin for a publicly listed company, I know my ass would be on the line if it turned out I was blocking legitimate mail from potential clients/employees/investors. Especially if I was doing it in as wholesale a manner as you suggested. As a mail admin its my responsibility to ensure the delivery of legitimate mail - stopping unwanted mail is merely a secondary courtesy.
I wonder if perhaps it's because you have a lot of developers that are physically isolated from the mass of US and Japanese developers, and have a chance to go their own ways
I'm sorry, but in the UK people are actually aware that a whole world exists outside their borders.
In fact taking your suggestion and reversing it creates a more likely suggestion - that its the UK's openness to the rest of the world that creates a melting pot of original ideas. Whereas the US and Japan, in their competition to determine who can be more isolationist, tend to follow the same old well worn pathways.
It acts as a barrier to other parties and independants, encourages a two party system and gives added legitimacy to the two parties. But then I'm not an American so knock yourselves out.
Those are pretty geeky stats. I manage a lot of commercial sites and we consistantly get 95% IE on 95% Windows. Less than 50% of users on IE is a huge deviation from the norm. I don't know if you were intending otherwise since you didn't comment.
Slashdot Mirror
Surely that's the case in a ten year time frame? I mean, think about what is mainstream now (eg mobile phones, mp3s, internet shopping, etc). There isn't much ubiquitous technology about now that wasn't basically the realm of the geek and the early adopter ten or more years ago.
Looking ahead ten years is really about sorting the fads from the trends in todays cutting edge.
You must not have been paying attention during the last few decades. Its here and its called 'The War on (some) Drugs' - a war being lost even given the fact that drugs can't drive tanks, fly planes or even shoot guns.
You're right. I missed that bit. That makes it worse in my opinion. Surely for any sane person that should have rung some alarm bells? Here in the UK the government regularly runs adverts encouraging people to watch out for their 'age challenged' neighbours, especially during winter. You would think that counts double for critical utility companies. To cut off anyone's gas without any sort of contact (just ringing the door bell or sending a letter is not contact) is a fucking disgrace, to put it bluntly.
However, mistakes do happen and they should simply have accepted some reasonable responsibility (along with neighbours, social services, family, etc) rather than throwing out a pathetic and obviously false excuse which just happens to help their agenda in discrediting the Data Protection Act (the act is a burden for companies, especially those holding customer details).
I know a few people here are saying 'why didn't they do something themselves - its not British Gas's fault', and there is a degree of validity to that. But on the other hand these people were almost 90 years old, had money, but didn't pay their bill - should that not set some alarm bells ringing? Even if you accept their pathetic excuse that they couldn't pass on any info because of the DPA, could they not have sent someone round to speak to them before cutting them off? A bill collector? Engineer? Anyone?
I guess all you libertarian, free-market Americans will disagree, but to me and many Brits cutting off someones critical utilities (it gets cold here) without any form of physical check (or any form of check beyond a couple of threatening letters) is an absolute abuse of your position as a utility supplier. Especially given that for the first 70+ years of these peoples lives British Gas was not a private company, but a public body.
Yes, maybe BG were justified in cutting them off and maybe they followed the procedures to the letter, but after cutting off the gas supply to a couple who are both over 85 years of age they informed no-one. They then claimed that they wanted to tell someone in authority but were prevented by the Data Protection Act (the law in the UK that companies must follow when dealing with data they hold about private citizens). Now this might be strictly true, or actually a bit of a grey area, but these are peoples lives they are dealing with - old people who are perhaps not as able to look after themselves as well as they used to. Perhaps they couldn't get out the house to pay their bills - perhaps they could, but to say that you couldn't inform anyone because of the Data Protection Act is a bit like saying you couldn't drag someone out of a burning building because you would be guilty of 'breaking and entering'. Its strictly true but in spirit its not.
In the UK we call these kind of people 'jobsworths' - the kind of person who says things like 'I'd love to help you, but its more than my job's worth'
Here's the best reason of all - because we're geeks and we can.
I just don't get all these replies basically implying that nobody should be allowed to run their own outgoing smtp server - the internet was built on the fact that anybody could run a server, host a website or send an email. Now its suggested that what? Only private companies can run servers? Only ISPs? Only if we have certain types of IP addresses? Only with a letter from our Mums?
I mean look at it this way - IE gains them nothing but trouble these days. It did its work but really bought them nothing - no server monopolies, no MSN domination, no 'Windows for Toasters' and all the other things we knew Bill was plotting when he evetually realised the Internet wasn't some fad. From one perspective its now just money down the drain, but with anti-trust and security problems thrown on top.
If its BSD tail (and why wouldn't it be) it'll be -F.
So it didn't work then?
If you want to run Windows without any knowledge, fine, but its like a black box. You can run your email, browse the web, write your letters. You want to install something, etc, you hire an experienced admin, like you would get an electrician to fix your wiring or a mechanic to fix your car. You want to admin it yourself, also fine but you're actually going to have to learn something about computing and the underlying OS.
You shouldn't have it both ways, because like I said, a netowrked computer just isn't a toy anymore. Its a device capibable of causing harm to others if used wrongly - a view reflected by changes in law and enforcement attitudes. We don't let people drive cars on public routes without testing they have some knowledge of the rules, codes and dangers of the road - if you can't do that you get the bus.
So what's the point? The point is Windows wants to give everyone the best of both worlds (or should I say _has_ to). An interface your Gran can use _and_ the privelages of a super-user. I'm not really sure that Linux, etc, should be trying to follow that lead.
Not true at all. Microsoft can do whatever they want - except go to another country and break their laws. So Microsoft can buy up all the SAPs they want so long as they don't trade in Europe.
I also knew you'd come back with the fact that it was children (that's not a dig, just a recognition) but the number is 50%, not one or two, so if you translate that down to adults you still have a large number who don't understand the nutritional value of a Big Mac and super size fries (did you know a child would have to run constantly for 3 1/2 hours to burn off the calories from one can of fizzy drink?). A 5% obesity rate is still a pretty big health problem for a country of 250 million (or even our 60 million here in the UK) - and not understanding the the nutritional value of an Extra Value Meal(tm) is a sure way to obesity. I'm not dissing the personal responsibility angle here - I'm a firm believer in it - but I'm just suggesting its not really an even battle, especially when you have poor, illeducated people (of which there are many) versus a multiple-hundreds of million dollar advertising budget.
Human nature is still very much ruled by subconscious effects and people like Mickey D's spend hundreds of millions a year to tune into those effects.
As an example, an Australian study found that just over half of Australian 9 and 10 year-olds think that Ronald McDonald knows best what is good for children to eat.
I don't think you even know what freedom means, but then you are just a troll so why am I even bothering to reply. Goddammit!
What a dark and scary world you've created for yourself. And the best thing for you is, its a self-fulfilling view.
Copyright is not an absolute - it is one idea created a few hundred years ago by some moneyed landowners when information supply was scarce. So the question is - should commerce change with the times or should society stand still for commerce?
To put it another way - if we invented a eneergy to matter replicator tomorrow should we make it illegal to make a can of beans because it cuts into the profits of Heinz, inc?
I was going to give you one of my mod points for being the first Slashdotter to make me laugh out loud, but you're already at (5, funny) so you can just bask in the warm glow of my praise instead.
Eh, maybe I'm too drunk to be posting responses, but wasn't that the (modded funny) parent poster's point? If so why is this post 'insightful'?
And if I'm wrong just mod me +20 'pissed'.
Is that you?
So does jailing everyone.
If mod chips are illegal then only criminal will use mod chips.
I guess if you do what you suggest it will _feel_ successful because you will simply never know about the opportunities you have missed.
Speaking as a mail admin for a publicly listed company, I know my ass would be on the line if it turned out I was blocking legitimate mail from potential clients/employees/investors. Especially if I was doing it in as wholesale a manner as you suggested. As a mail admin its my responsibility to ensure the delivery of legitimate mail - stopping unwanted mail is merely a secondary courtesy.
I'm sorry, but in the UK people are actually aware that a whole world exists outside their borders.
In fact taking your suggestion and reversing it creates a more likely suggestion - that its the UK's openness to the rest of the world that creates a melting pot of original ideas. Whereas the US and Japan, in their competition to determine who can be more isolationist, tend to follow the same old well worn pathways.
It acts as a barrier to other parties and independants, encourages a two party system and gives added legitimacy to the two parties. But then I'm not an American so knock yourselves out.
Those are pretty geeky stats. I manage a lot of commercial sites and we consistantly get 95% IE on 95% Windows. Less than 50% of users on IE is a huge deviation from the norm.
I don't know if you were intending otherwise since you didn't comment.
yippee