So you absolutely need Word to mail merge with your IM clients, which are stored in your thunderbird contact list? Does your FTP client use an excel spreadsheet to keep track of your favorite warez sites and passwords?
Quit being a tool.
Your absolutist nonsense aside, if you can't mailmerge a bunch of stuff and send it out with thunderbird, the usefulness of a computer drops a lot. It starts looking like a glorified typewriter instead of the info appliance that it is. The proper way to deal with this is to look at what interactions are dangerous and proceed from there. That and sandboxing the user so they have limited abilities to destroy the computer should make it workable.
Imagine a world where only the "priesthood"
are granted programming licenses, with technology like Trusted Computing (and this OLPC stuff) used to
"enforce" such licensing schemes.
You've got it all wrong - this will be a technology bureaucracy, with programmers' products allowed to run only on the brick they built it on until blessed by some corporate functionary. Basically, it's Brazil.
What you're not factoring in is the increase in cost of studio time
Sorry, but recording studios can be built for pennies compared to what they cost 20 years ago - generally in the range of $10k when using an existing space. Sure, salaries and equipment rental still cost $$$, but if you're halfway reasonable, that's cheap, too.
marketing costs (have you seen the price of a 30s spot during the Super Bowl?)
who buys superbowl ads for a new band?
the costs to pay RIAA's troupe of lawyers and executives.
Bingo!
Does it have to be that expensive to produce music? Absolutely not! With modern technology, an aspiring artist can record RIAA-quality (ha!) music at home for a mere fraction of the cost of studio time. Grassroots marketing, word of mouth, and touring can make for both cheap and effective promotion.
So you're saying that the RIAA is jacking up their prices because they're less relevant than they were? The only reason the RIAA is still around is that nobody is willing to gut them like a fish, which is what would happen if the government were actually serious about anti-trust. Just try and get significant airtime for a non RIAA artist - when's the last time you heard prince on the radio (stuff from the past 4 years, mind)?
Buddy, we're talking about pressed CDs, not burned discs. Last I checked, in 1000 disc quantities, CDs cost roughly $0.90 - $1. That includes packaging and cover art.
THEY TOOK AN EFFING VIDEO OFF OF YOUTUBE. Not only that, but a video they had at least SOME basis to believe infringed on their copyright material.
Yeah, they took a video off youtube based on the name only. That's not reasonable by any stretch. What you're missing is that you can use this to lay the smackdown on anyone and they have a minimum 3 day window before they can get the content restored. This is a big hammer that can be used to hammer the fuck out of a small company and VIACOM knows it.
1. rather than have to prove/ disprove the veracity of 50 different ids, you only need to figure out the authenticity of one
Of course, 2-5 states worth of IDs will cover roughly 99% of the cases you see. Enacting minimum standards (picture, identifying info, and a hologram, say) would help the rest. I still see no reason for a national ID. It's a driving license.
one national id obviously superior than all the different state models.
Whenever someone says obviously, thatn means they don't have a real reason. One system means you only have to compromise it in one place and you're in. Shouldn't be too hard. You have to secure a million workers, while I have to get past 2 or 3.
Jack Thompson might be a nutjob, that however doesn't mean that violence in video games and other media isn't a problem.
The problem isn't that there's violence in video games. The problem is that violence is far more accepted than sex. I like violent games, but I also like boobs - given the choice, I might pick the violent stuff half the time, but there's really no market for that stuff that I can tell, and I blame the freaky christian right (same one that had an aneurysm over Janet Jackson's pixelated nipple).
The warped values towards anything sex related in this country is definitely a problem, but the presence of violence in games and media isn't causing much in the way of real world problems, aside from the whole thugged out teenager fad.
As an EDSer, I've seen plenty of my former colleagues take a "screw EDS" view in their new companies.
Isn't that the company that trains you in Cobol the first 2 weeks of your job, then tries to recoup the costs if you leave within 2 years? I'd think some of that ire is deserved.
(BTW, since when did the First Amendment - which explicitly states in its very first word that it applies only to Congress - restrict state governments?)
I don't believe you. Some states may not protect you from a lawsuit, but I have yet to see a state actually restrict what you can say about a former employee. It sounds like a 1st ammendment violation.
First thing: Bushco has been saying 'enemy combatant', not 'unlawful combatant'.
second thing: The convention also allows for treatment of resistance movements who haven't had time to go get a uniform. One thing worth noting is that a lot of the people in Gitmo aren't really POWs or criminals - we kidnapped them, or paid others to round them up, so they are in truth captives that we took when we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. These aren't terrorists. They're people in the wrong damn place, and you calling them such reflects more on you than anything else.
But the Geneva Convention has nothing to do with it.
You're right - the Geneva convention doesn't really cover mass arrest and transportation of civilians. That sounds like something for a war crimes tribunal.
The irony is that you actually think that this passage defends the Bush administration. Fact is, the guy giving that speech is an out of control renegade acting well outside the law. A criminal, if you will.
last I checked the Geneva Convention only protects prisoners of war, and civil due process--guaranteed by the US Constitution--only applies to US Citizens.
Well you never did check, because the Geneva convention declares the guys in Gitmo to be POWs if they aren't civilians, which they apparently aren't, and the Constitution applies to everyone on US soil, even Jose the Illegal alien.
In WWII did the soldiers decide they weren't going to fire at the enemy combatants because "they hadn't been proven guilty in front of a jury of their peers?" No, they shot at them, and if they captured them, they were sent to POW camps, where they were held as guilty until after the war (or they were traded). You don't try people in war like that, it just doesn't make sense, as all of your time would be spent on the obvious.
I guess you missed the part where Bush declared that the Gitmoees aren't POWs, German soldiers in WW2 aren't enemy combatants, and we aren't actually at war with anyone in particular. Aside from that, you're doing fine.
The people at gitmo are so unlikely to be innocent it's not even a question.
Based on what, exactly? You round up a bunch of people in Afghanistan and they're suddenly bloodthirsty animals? If they weren't then, they are now, and with good reason.
These are the prisoners who demand TVs during the world cup, than destroyed them during commercials.
Sound like fans to me.
These are people who will do anything to kill the western way.
Even if it means raising sheep in a village you've never heard of - suck on that!
I imagine the odds of one of them being innocent is much LESS than the odds that any given person in american prisons is innocent.
That's about 40%, right?
But all these big hot shot lawyers are clamoring to defend them. It's pure publicity on their part, they don't care about guilt or innocence, in fact, they want guilty parties to go free. if these lawyers cared about justice, they'd donate their time to help cases where people were legitimately screwed by the justice system.
So you see nothing wrong with throwing someone in a hole for 3 years, declaring them outside the Geneva convention, and outside civil due process? I hope they come for you tonight.
Slashdot Mirror
And we're supposed to believe that public wireless networks can be setup in the poorest cities in the world without a glitch?
Well, cellphones are a lot easier than land lines in africa - with land lines, people steal the wires.
It's much more likely that these laptops will be stolen and used for illegal purposes afterward.
Like what, exactly? If you've got roving bands of armed bandits, what the hell can a laptop do that even rates?
So you absolutely need Word to mail merge with your IM clients, which are stored in your thunderbird contact list? Does your FTP client use an excel spreadsheet to keep track of your favorite warez sites and passwords?
Quit being a tool.
Your absolutist nonsense aside, if you can't mailmerge a bunch of stuff and send it out with thunderbird, the usefulness of a computer drops a lot. It starts looking like a glorified typewriter instead of the info appliance that it is. The proper way to deal with this is to look at what interactions are dangerous and proceed from there. That and sandboxing the user so they have limited abilities to destroy the computer should make it workable.
Pity they're so badly set by default. Unix could do with allowing groups within groups.
Not really. You still only have one group acl for a given file.
Imagine a world where only the "priesthood" are granted programming licenses, with technology like Trusted Computing (and this OLPC stuff) used to "enforce" such licensing schemes.
You've got it all wrong - this will be a technology bureaucracy, with programmers' products allowed to run only on the brick they built it on until blessed by some corporate functionary. Basically, it's Brazil.
What you're not factoring in is the increase in cost of studio time
Sorry, but recording studios can be built for pennies compared to what they cost 20 years ago - generally in the range of $10k when using an existing space. Sure, salaries and equipment rental still cost $$$, but if you're halfway reasonable, that's cheap, too.
marketing costs (have you seen the price of a 30s spot during the Super Bowl?)
who buys superbowl ads for a new band?
the costs to pay RIAA's troupe of lawyers and executives.
Bingo!
Does it have to be that expensive to produce music? Absolutely not! With modern technology, an aspiring artist can record RIAA-quality (ha!) music at home for a mere fraction of the cost of studio time. Grassroots marketing, word of mouth, and touring can make for both cheap and effective promotion.
So you're saying that the RIAA is jacking up their prices because they're less relevant than they were? The only reason the RIAA is still around is that nobody is willing to gut them like a fish, which is what would happen if the government were actually serious about anti-trust. Just try and get significant airtime for a non RIAA artist - when's the last time you heard prince on the radio (stuff from the past 4 years, mind)?
Buddy, we're talking about pressed CDs, not burned discs. Last I checked, in 1000 disc quantities, CDs cost roughly $0.90 - $1. That includes packaging and cover art.
THEY TOOK AN EFFING VIDEO OFF OF YOUTUBE. Not only that, but a video they had at least SOME basis to believe infringed on their copyright material.
Yeah, they took a video off youtube based on the name only. That's not reasonable by any stretch. What you're missing is that you can use this to lay the smackdown on anyone and they have a minimum 3 day window before they can get the content restored. This is a big hammer that can be used to hammer the fuck out of a small company and VIACOM knows it.
No, they run the prisons.
1. rather than have to prove/ disprove the veracity of 50 different ids, you only need to figure out the authenticity of one
Of course, 2-5 states worth of IDs will cover roughly 99% of the cases you see. Enacting minimum standards (picture, identifying info, and a hologram, say) would help the rest. I still see no reason for a national ID. It's a driving license.
one national id obviously superior than all the different state models.
Whenever someone says obviously, thatn means they don't have a real reason. One system means you only have to compromise it in one place and you're in. Shouldn't be too hard. You have to secure a million workers, while I have to get past 2 or 3.
Sounds like you'd rather have someone honestly debating issues. Good luck with that - most tv 'debates' are mere attempts at manipulation.
Jack Thompson might be a nutjob, that however doesn't mean that violence in video games and other media isn't a problem.
The problem isn't that there's violence in video games. The problem is that violence is far more accepted than sex. I like violent games, but I also like boobs - given the choice, I might pick the violent stuff half the time, but there's really no market for that stuff that I can tell, and I blame the freaky christian right (same one that had an aneurysm over Janet Jackson's pixelated nipple).
The warped values towards anything sex related in this country is definitely a problem, but the presence of violence in games and media isn't causing much in the way of real world problems, aside from the whole thugged out teenager fad.
As an EDSer, I've seen plenty of my former colleagues take a "screw EDS" view in their new companies.
Isn't that the company that trains you in Cobol the first 2 weeks of your job, then tries to recoup the costs if you leave within 2 years? I'd think some of that ire is deserved.
(BTW, since when did the First Amendment - which explicitly states in its very first word that it applies only to Congress - restrict state governments?)
Since the 14th ammendment.
I don't believe you. Some states may not protect you from a lawsuit, but I have yet to see a state actually restrict what you can say about a former employee. It sounds like a 1st ammendment violation.
How much clue can you convey when that's becoming standard practice?
That's fairly accurate - why TF is it modded funny? Basically, unless you have a contract, all notice periods are a courtesy.
First thing: Bushco has been saying 'enemy combatant', not 'unlawful combatant'.
second thing: The convention also allows for treatment of resistance movements who haven't had time to go get a uniform. One thing worth noting is that a lot of the people in Gitmo aren't really POWs or criminals - we kidnapped them, or paid others to round them up, so they are in truth captives that we took when we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. These aren't terrorists. They're people in the wrong damn place, and you calling them such reflects more on you than anything else.
But the Geneva Convention has nothing to do with it.
You're right - the Geneva convention doesn't really cover mass arrest and transportation of civilians. That sounds like something for a war crimes tribunal.
The irony is that you actually think that this passage defends the Bush administration. Fact is, the guy giving that speech is an out of control renegade acting well outside the law. A criminal, if you will.
And that's the key difference. On US soil. The terrorists in Gitmo were never on US soil. Hence, no part of the constitution applies to them.
Which ones are those? We haven't tried many (any?) of them, so they're just people we captured while invading places. That makes them POWs.
The world moves forward but a lot of originally great OSS gets trapped in time once it is "good enough
So what exactly do you think Apache needs to be a better webserver?
last I checked the Geneva Convention only protects prisoners of war, and civil due process--guaranteed by the US Constitution--only applies to US Citizens.
Well you never did check, because the Geneva convention declares the guys in Gitmo to be POWs if they aren't civilians, which they apparently aren't, and the Constitution applies to everyone on US soil, even Jose the Illegal alien.
In WWII did the soldiers decide they weren't going to fire at the enemy combatants because "they hadn't been proven guilty in front of a jury of their peers?" No, they shot at them, and if they captured them, they were sent to POW camps, where they were held as guilty until after the war (or they were traded). You don't try people in war like that, it just doesn't make sense, as all of your time would be spent on the obvious.
I guess you missed the part where Bush declared that the Gitmoees aren't POWs, German soldiers in WW2 aren't enemy combatants, and we aren't actually at war with anyone in particular. Aside from that, you're doing fine.
The people at gitmo are so unlikely to be innocent it's not even a question.
Based on what, exactly? You round up a bunch of people in Afghanistan and they're suddenly bloodthirsty animals? If they weren't then, they are now, and with good reason.
These are the prisoners who demand TVs during the world cup, than destroyed them during commercials.
Sound like fans to me.
These are people who will do anything to kill the western way.
Even if it means raising sheep in a village you've never heard of - suck on that!
I imagine the odds of one of them being innocent is much LESS than the odds that any given person in american prisons is innocent.
That's about 40%, right?
But all these big hot shot lawyers are clamoring to defend them. It's pure publicity on their part, they don't care about guilt or innocence, in fact, they want guilty parties to go free. if these lawyers cared about justice, they'd donate their time to help cases where people were legitimately screwed by the justice system.
So you see nothing wrong with throwing someone in a hole for 3 years, declaring them outside the Geneva convention, and outside civil due process? I hope they come for you tonight.
I'm all for punishing terrorism, but it's statistically likely that there are a few genuinely innocent people in Guantanamo
Given the way they got most of the prisoners in there, it's more likely that 'there are a few guilty people in Gitmo'.
It solves the sniping problem. Keeping a bidding history with names, including the retracted bids, would definitely help with exposing shills.
That works fine until you need to run two things concurrently.