"Most people who work in an office do not read this website."
No, but many IT professionals do. Hopefully they educate their users to be wary of anything they dont own. It's not much different then opening an attachment from an email you receive.
This experiment also provides justification for draconian policies that disable USB on corporate machines. Regrettably, it is probably much safer and more effective to deny rather than educate. I'm sure many around here will protest such policies but there is a rationale behind them. And for environments that handle sensitive information, like a friggin bank, I hope to god that employees are prohibitted from using company machines for private purposes. Put a machine in the break room that has internet access, but no access to company resources, and let people use that machine for personal stuff.
Someone could have created a mod which created that scene rather than unlocking it. For the end-user, what the hell is the difference? They're just running hot-coffee-patch.exe. How culpable is a company for people modifying their software?
You are answering your own question. The company created and shipped the scene, not some end user. That is the difference, that is why the company has culpability.
"Take-Two must disclose all content to the ESRB when rating games"
Just to be sure, if I were Take Two,
If you plan to someday run a company you will need to learn to think through a couple of rounds of moves and countermoves.;-)
I'd hand them a hard-copy printout of every single line of code in the game. "You demanded everything. Well, here ya' go! Good luck going through all that."
And the ESRB responds: "With an attitude like that, no rating for you. Good luck talking to the buyer for Walmart."
... Diablo 2 came out in 2000. The latest patch came out in January 2006. That's just AMAZING to me: 5.5 years later they are still actively patching the game...
It was not just a patch, it had new content as well.
I think it is great that World of Warcraft (WoW) supports Macs, however I don't buy the argument that Windows gamers are leaning towards WoW because the rare Mac friend will be able to play. The Windows users are playing WoW because they are having more fun, I don't think that they would play a game with a monthly fee that was less fun so the rare Mac friend could join in. Now if it was a one time purchase, like Myth back-in-the-day, that would be different. You play Myth when you Mac buddy is ready, you play [insert Windows only title here] during you "normal" play.
What JFK did or did not is irrelevant because, at the time, wiretapping-at-will was legal.
No, much of what is being discussed on slashdot is the morality of such behaviors not merely their legailty. We see many complaints of what is currently legal and should not be due to morality. The Kennedy example of iconic liberal president spying on an iconic civil right leader makes a powerful example of my point that such behaviors are not specific to any administration or party. When a court decides that current surveilance is legal will you drop all complaints?
Once again I hear Contemporary Conservatism's tinny cry of moral equivalence, as it continues its long plunging fall from grace into the fetid pit of situationalism.
Are you implying that two wrongs make-up a righty's rationalisation for liberty's theft? Why did you just skip over the Nixon d ark e vil, when discussing unlawful executive acts of surveilling past? Why did you play the ugly card of moral relevancy by pulling it out from inside of your sleeve?
No one is making a moral equivalency point, rather a point that such behavior is not specific to an administration or a party. Nixon would therefore have been a far weaker example being in the same party. An iconic liberal president from the "other" party makes a far stronger example. It seems your political filter is set a little too high, dial it back a little and you might see the world a little clearer.
You think they would sue the ones actually responsible for making this all happen, you know, the fucking government?
Suing AT&T really misses the point...
Same reason RIAA sues kids, you sue the involved party with the fewer resources to defend themselves, hope for precedent to further future suits, etc. Of course when the weaker party is AT&T "fewer resources" is obviously relative.
Just have 2 stations. One on earth, one in orbit. In between the two would be nothing but space.
Have the station on earth "launch" the "elevator" and the station in space "catch" it.
The acceleration would kill you. That's the nice thing about the elevator, it could be a very mild ride.
I can just imagine what's in those documents... "here's a picture of your granddaughter next to one of our agents at school... here's a picture of your toothbrush - I wonder what's on it... Here's a picture of your wife sitting at home masturbating thinking she was alone (heh)... Here's a picture of you and your secretary."
Sorry, but with this administration, it's hard not to assume some underhanded strong-armin^^^^^ persuasion.
Excuse me, *this* administration. You lost quite a bit of credibility on that one. *Any* administration can do such things. Read up on President John F Kennedy and Attorney General Robert Kennedy's surveilance of Martin Luther King.
"Chinese-made Lenovo PCs are not allowed inside secure US networks."
Protectionism? Why?
It is common for the US to require products for the Defense Department to come from US companies. Italy's Baretta had to create a US subsidiary to get the Model 92 pistol accepted. Belgium's Fabrique Nationale had to create a US subsidiary to get a M16 rifle contract.
Besides the morally valid argument that US taxpayer's money should be spent in a way that provides maximum benefit to US citizens whenever practical, there is also the argument that disruption of supplies is more difficult when dealing with US firms. Consider that in the 1980s there were some nationalist Japanese that argued that Japan could use it's manufacturing clout to pressure the United States. They literally used as an example stopping shipments of key products to the Defense Department. While it's not a very likely scenario it *is* the Defense Department's job to worry about unlikely scenarios.
And those restrictions do not seem to apply to your financial information, nor do they seem to apply to the phone numbers you called.
Really. Where is the power granted to the Feds (per the 10th) to acces my private financial info, or to keep track of who I talk to (given that the freedom of assembly is explicitly mentioned in the 1st)?
They are granted via the power to collect taxes, wage war, and enact legislation to implement the preceding.
"The fact that we intentionally gave the government the power to govern us. Governing involves "force". For example you are forced to give the government your financial information so that they can tax you. Private financial info that you would not want your neighbor to know, unless (s)he's your accountant."
Yes, but we specifically restricted the power of the government. See the US Constitution, particularly Amendments 1, 4, 5, 9, and 10.
And those restrictions do not seem to apply to your financial information, nor do they seem to apply to the phone numbers you called. The contents of a telephone conversation, that would be different. More importantly that data (two points connected in a network) may belong to the phone company.
If a private citizen (say your neighbor across the street) attempted to spy on your personal business (say by intercepting your private telephone calls), would you consider it an initiation of force, or would you consider it an instance of voluntary association?... Now, if a private citizen is morally wrong to employ coercion against you (for example by spying on you) then what exactly puts government in the right when it does the same thing?
The fact that we intentionally gave the government the power to govern us. Governing involves "force". For example you are forced to give the government your financial information so that they can tax you. Private financial info that you would not want your neighbor to know, unless (s)he's your accountant.
In times of war investigatory and related power have always increased. However the American people only allow this during the emergency, Once the emergency is over things return to normal. Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt,... they all did things that would only be tolerated during war. The same thing is happening today. Part of what makes America great is that we are able to take powerful measures when necessary but it's just temporary. The power of checks and balances is not that it prevents excess, it is that it corrects excesses over time. In short, the sky is not falling.
To prevent any nonsense about the politicians being in control, the politician won't allow the people to [blah blah]. That is bunk. The people are firmly in control. Politicians only get away with what we *allow* them to get away with. There is a line that when crossed will annoy people enough to go to the polls and vote. Much of the normal idiocy we see our politicians commit falls short of that line. The problem is not really with the politicians, it is with where we place that line. However the fact remains that we place the line, we vote the idiots in or out of office.
By the way, you blew all credibility when you stated a willingness to accept the loss of a city rather than allow, in a time of war, such things as analysis of telephone and internet traffic, etc. Even if we take it further than that, scanning/listening for keywords and starting to record on a "hit", distasteful but in a time of war, especially in the modern technological context, it is probably a good idea. Now in a time of peace things are very different. Again, America has a pretty good track record of undoing the excesses that were necessary during emergencies. The only excesses that are allowed are the ones we tolerate.
Then there's the domestic phone call tracking. Even if this is not strictly illegal, it still smacks of wrong.... Why? Because there's no independant, "checks and balances" oversight... I'm more interested in making sure that another branch of the government is at least watching out to make sure that this data is not being abused. No, I don't need all of the details - that's why we have elected leaders whom I (hopefully) trust enough to look out for my interests - I just want to make sure those interests are protected by the process.
There is oversight. Congressional committees were informed years ago. However election season is upon us so there is a lot of fake outrage and posing for the cameras and microphones going on.
The fact that "later" those upgrades will be cheaper.
"Fact"? The units will come down in price significantly but upgrades may not do so at all, or the price reductions will be so minor that they are negligible. Well, at least until the end of the PS/3's lifespan. The consoles are loss leaders, they have to attract you to buy in. Upgrades are for people who have already bought in, and priced accordingly, and some upgrades are primarily for a minor segment of the market.
Slashdot Mirror
There ARE useful usb devices, like mouses and keyboards...
This experiment demonstrates why PS/2 keyboards and mice survive. Some environments require PC/2 keyboards and mice and they do disable the USB ports.
That and Dell probably saves $0.10, those dimes add up.
"Most people who work in an office do not read this website."
No, but many IT professionals do. Hopefully they educate their users to be wary of anything they dont own. It's not much different then opening an attachment from an email you receive.
This experiment also provides justification for draconian policies that disable USB on corporate machines. Regrettably, it is probably much safer and more effective to deny rather than educate. I'm sure many around here will protest such policies but there is a rationale behind them. And for environments that handle sensitive information, like a friggin bank, I hope to god that employees are prohibitted from using company machines for private purposes. Put a machine in the break room that has internet access, but no access to company resources, and let people use that machine for personal stuff.
Someone could have created a mod which created that scene rather than unlocking it. For the end-user, what the hell is the difference? They're just running hot-coffee-patch.exe. How culpable is a company for people modifying their software?
You are answering your own question. The company created and shipped the scene, not some end user. That is the difference, that is why the company has culpability.
"Take-Two must disclose all content to the ESRB when rating games"
;-)
Just to be sure, if I were Take Two,
If you plan to someday run a company you will need to learn to think through a couple of rounds of moves and countermoves.
I'd hand them a hard-copy printout of every single line of code in the game. "You demanded everything. Well, here ya' go! Good luck going through all that."
And the ESRB responds: "With an attitude like that, no rating for you. Good luck talking to the buyer for Walmart."
Maybe not, but there is no functional difference between the content not being shipped with it and being shipped but turned off.
Someone being able to turn the content on proves otherwise.
... Diablo 2 came out in 2000. The latest patch came out in January 2006. That's just AMAZING to me: 5.5 years later they are still actively patching the game ...
It was not just a patch, it had new content as well.
Quake 3 was released in 1999 ... It was a security update. But it was done in a timely manner
Starcraft 1998, similar story.
Lots of people working with Linux are making a lot more money than you. What was your point again?
His point was chess vs. poker, you know, the GP's analogy, not his analogy. You are following along right?
And nothing stops a mac guy from putting a radeon x1900 in his mac.
Purchasing an iBook, iMac, Mini, MacBook, MacBookPro certainly does.
I think it is great that World of Warcraft (WoW) supports Macs, however I don't buy the argument that Windows gamers are leaning towards WoW because the rare Mac friend will be able to play. The Windows users are playing WoW because they are having more fun, I don't think that they would play a game with a monthly fee that was less fun so the rare Mac friend could join in. Now if it was a one time purchase, like Myth back-in-the-day, that would be different. You play Myth when you Mac buddy is ready, you play [insert Windows only title here] during you "normal" play.
What JFK did or did not is irrelevant because, at the time, wiretapping-at-will was legal.
No, much of what is being discussed on slashdot is the morality of such behaviors not merely their legailty. We see many complaints of what is currently legal and should not be due to morality. The Kennedy example of iconic liberal president spying on an iconic civil right leader makes a powerful example of my point that such behaviors are not specific to any administration or party. When a court decides that current surveilance is legal will you drop all complaints?
Once again I hear Contemporary Conservatism's tinny cry of moral equivalence, as it continues its long plunging fall from grace into the fetid pit of situationalism. Are you implying that two wrongs make-up a righty's rationalisation for liberty's theft? Why did you just skip over the Nixon d ark e vil, when discussing unlawful executive acts of surveilling past? Why did you play the ugly card of moral relevancy by pulling it out from inside of your sleeve?
No one is making a moral equivalency point, rather a point that such behavior is not specific to an administration or a party. Nixon would therefore have been a far weaker example being in the same party. An iconic liberal president from the "other" party makes a far stronger example. It seems your political filter is set a little too high, dial it back a little and you might see the world a little clearer.
You think they would sue the ones actually responsible for making this all happen, you know, the fucking government? Suing AT&T really misses the point...
Same reason RIAA sues kids, you sue the involved party with the fewer resources to defend themselves, hope for precedent to further future suits, etc. Of course when the weaker party is AT&T "fewer resources" is obviously relative.
What if the base detaches from the ground? Such a device's acceleration toward earth would be very difficult to stop with ordinary thruster motors.
I believe the acceleration of the cable and car would be away from the earth, regardless of the car's original mode of ascent or descent.
Just have 2 stations. One on earth, one in orbit. In between the two would be nothing but space. Have the station on earth "launch" the "elevator" and the station in space "catch" it.
The acceleration would kill you. That's the nice thing about the elevator, it could be a very mild ride.
I can just imagine what's in those documents... "here's a picture of your granddaughter next to one of our agents at school... here's a picture of your toothbrush - I wonder what's on it... Here's a picture of your wife sitting at home masturbating thinking she was alone (heh)... Here's a picture of you and your secretary." Sorry, but with this administration, it's hard not to assume some underhanded strong-armin^^^^^ persuasion.
Excuse me, *this* administration. You lost quite a bit of credibility on that one. *Any* administration can do such things. Read up on President John F Kennedy and Attorney General Robert Kennedy's surveilance of Martin Luther King.
"Chinese-made Lenovo PCs are not allowed inside secure US networks."
Protectionism? Why?
It is common for the US to require products for the Defense Department to come from US companies. Italy's Baretta had to create a US subsidiary to get the Model 92 pistol accepted. Belgium's Fabrique Nationale had to create a US subsidiary to get a M16 rifle contract.
Besides the morally valid argument that US taxpayer's money should be spent in a way that provides maximum benefit to US citizens whenever practical, there is also the argument that disruption of supplies is more difficult when dealing with US firms. Consider that in the 1980s there were some nationalist Japanese that argued that Japan could use it's manufacturing clout to pressure the United States. They literally used as an example stopping shipments of key products to the Defense Department. While it's not a very likely scenario it *is* the Defense Department's job to worry about unlikely scenarios.
And those restrictions do not seem to apply to your financial information, nor do they seem to apply to the phone numbers you called.
Really. Where is the power granted to the Feds (per the 10th) to acces my private financial info, or to keep track of who I talk to (given that the freedom of assembly is explicitly mentioned in the 1st)?
They are granted via the power to collect taxes, wage war, and enact legislation to implement the preceding.
"The fact that we intentionally gave the government the power to govern us. Governing involves "force". For example you are forced to give the government your financial information so that they can tax you. Private financial info that you would not want your neighbor to know, unless (s)he's your accountant."
Yes, but we specifically restricted the power of the government. See the US Constitution, particularly Amendments 1, 4, 5, 9, and 10.
And those restrictions do not seem to apply to your financial information, nor do they seem to apply to the phone numbers you called. The contents of a telephone conversation, that would be different. More importantly that data (two points connected in a network) may belong to the phone company.
If a private citizen (say your neighbor across the street) attempted to spy on your personal business (say by intercepting your private telephone calls), would you consider it an initiation of force, or would you consider it an instance of voluntary association? ... Now, if a private citizen is morally wrong to employ coercion against you (for example by spying on you) then what exactly puts government in the right when it does the same thing?
The fact that we intentionally gave the government the power to govern us. Governing involves "force". For example you are forced to give the government your financial information so that they can tax you. Private financial info that you would not want your neighbor to know, unless (s)he's your accountant.
In times of war investigatory and related power have always increased. However the American people only allow this during the emergency, Once the emergency is over things return to normal. Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, ... they all did things that would only be tolerated during war. The same thing is happening today. Part of what makes America great is that we are able to take powerful measures when necessary but it's just temporary. The power of checks and balances is not that it prevents excess, it is that it corrects excesses over time. In short, the sky is not falling.
To prevent any nonsense about the politicians being in control, the politician won't allow the people to [blah blah]. That is bunk. The people are firmly in control. Politicians only get away with what we *allow* them to get away with. There is a line that when crossed will annoy people enough to go to the polls and vote. Much of the normal idiocy we see our politicians commit falls short of that line. The problem is not really with the politicians, it is with where we place that line. However the fact remains that we place the line, we vote the idiots in or out of office.
By the way, you blew all credibility when you stated a willingness to accept the loss of a city rather than allow, in a time of war, such things as analysis of telephone and internet traffic, etc. Even if we take it further than that, scanning/listening for keywords and starting to record on a "hit", distasteful but in a time of war, especially in the modern technological context, it is probably a good idea. Now in a time of peace things are very different. Again, America has a pretty good track record of undoing the excesses that were necessary during emergencies. The only excesses that are allowed are the ones we tolerate.
Then there's the domestic phone call tracking. Even if this is not strictly illegal, it still smacks of wrong. ... Why? Because there's no independant, "checks and balances" oversight ... I'm more interested in making sure that another branch of the government is at least watching out to make sure that this data is not being abused. No, I don't need all of the details - that's why we have elected leaders whom I (hopefully) trust enough to look out for my interests - I just want to make sure those interests are protected by the process.
There is oversight. Congressional committees were informed years ago. However election season is upon us so there is a lot of fake outrage and posing for the cameras and microphones going on.
The fact that "later" those upgrades will be cheaper.
"Fact"? The units will come down in price significantly but upgrades may not do so at all, or the price reductions will be so minor that they are negligible. Well, at least until the end of the PS/3's lifespan. The consoles are loss leaders, they have to attract you to buy in. Upgrades are for people who have already bought in, and priced accordingly, and some upgrades are primarily for a minor segment of the market.
Vista may well mark the end of the Windows era.
Finally, I've been waiting so long for the move to OS/2.
"Overrated" is overrated. It's a coward's moderation and/or a tool for abuse. At least the mod had the balls to risk meta-moderation.