Two years ago I "trained" my wife not to click certain attachments. I implemented this training by leaving her alone in the office with the computer one day, and she happened to acquire a virus. Fortunately, she's reasonably smart and has not done it again.
Now, I have to worry about my 8-year-old son, who has just discovered he can play flash-based Star Wars games on the internet. He also has discovered he can find out about bugs and birds and science through Google. I expect that some day soon he will find out about viruses. (Anyone want to make odds on whether he discovers viruses before or after he discovers pr0n? I'm guessing the pr0n first, and then he'll start clicking on the Britney links.)
Anyway, a question for all of you: How do you train an 8-year-old to be independent on the computer but also be safe about what he clicks? (Yes, we use Firefox.) His six-year-old brother is also catching on fast.
I am not certain that computers would have gotten into an obsolete-in-eight-months cycle if not for Microsoft's programming for the next generation processor and memory. When Microsoft was pushing for use of the 386 for their system, I was using an 8086 or 286 with superior software.
Microsoft has been and will likely continue to be the primary corporate beneficiary of hardware escalation (OK, the hardware companies haven't been hurt by it). Thus, they should pay the bill.
Nah, I don't really think that. I think the consumer should pay, but through up-front fees that are collected when the machine is purchased. This should be a national policy, not a state-by-state policy.
Whatever the method, consumers end up paying directly, indirectly, or through a degrading environment.
Had they come out with at the same product 10 years later, (smaller form-factor, of course) it would've taken off. Timing is everything.
Only partly correct. The Newton designers made a fundamental design commitment to true handwriting recognition, and although they did a phenomenal job, they never could get it to work just right. Palm ate their lunch not on form factor, applications, price, or battery life, but on Graffiti. Hawkins simplified the Newton to a few very, very basic things that (a) worked and (b) users could understand.
Since no one will actually tune into the car they just cut off, all of the ranting will fall on deaf ears. It would just be an expensive way to encourage people to verbalize.
I don't see why these kids need openoffice. When I was a kid, nroff and troff were good enough for us, and I think it should be good enough for these kids nowadays. They're all soft. No wonder our education system is in the tank!
What we need now is scientists to figure out why it is that so many/. posters post exactly the same thing... and they all get modded up to +5 funny. Although it is really funny to read "A scarcasm detector! Now that's REAL useful!" twenty-three times.
What bothers me about this: whom does this really impact? People use library computers for two reasons: First, because they have no other computer to use. Second, because they want a certain amount of anonymity.
By requiring fingerprints to use this resource the library is saying two things simultaneously: (1) if you don't have your own computer (i.e. if you're poor), you are not trustworthy, and (2) if you are interested in anonymity, you must be doing something terribly wrong.
Both of these are patently un-American statements.
Library cards are used so the library can track inventory and penalize people who hold books too long. This new policy has nothing to do with tracking inventory and everything to do with limiting freedom.
It may be that the library directors are worried about their personal liability under the USA PATRIOT Act if Bad Guys use the computers. If that's the case, I wish they would just say it. They'd have my sympathy. But pretending that this is just like the library card's barcode is disingenuous.
Every American concerned with "freedom for all" must be against policies like this.
Seems like everyone is missing the real point of doing this. The aesthetic value! Forget those swoopy-doopy new tower cases. These aquariums are see-through and can really enhance a room, particularly when placed in a window with a nice view. And those ribbon cables really add interest and texture.
I'm sure we'll be seeing these on HGTV any day now as a new design feature!
If the website guy is correct and Vader forcechokes Padme, who dies giving birth, it contradicts Return of the Jedi when Leia tells Luke she vaguely remembers her mother, being sad and all that stuff.
Not necessarily. It is well known that eyewitness accounts of any event can differ dramatically, even immediately after the event. People who are in a bank robbery, for example, and never see the robbers, are likely to provide a description of the robbers in later tellings. This is not embellishment because their minds actually remember seeing the robber, even though in fact they did not.
the Patriot Act doesn't affect the vast majority of people in this country.
Congratulations. You have just illustrated the precise reason why the Ku Klux Clan must be allowed to march and why anti-abortion zealots must be allowed to picket near abortion clinics. It is not the rights of the majority that must be defended; it is the rights of the fringe that must be defended, particularly when those fringe groups may appear distasteful.
The trick is in determining what behaviors are harmful to society as opposed to exercise of freedom. What about polygamists? What about homosexuals? What about people who don't bathe every day? What about cigarette company executives? Somewhere, someone is offended by them for what is probably a legitimate reason.
The point is, if you love your own freedom, then you love their freedom as well. The reason this incenses so many of us so deeply is not because we want to hear swear words or see nipples on broadcast TV but rather this is another element in an ongoing pattern of the sitting American President and his administration putting his views (the views of "most of America" the ads constantly tell us) ahead of freedom.
Since when has it been acceptable to say those words on broadcast television?
Gotta agree with you there, but there is another phrase that was bleeped: blow job.
Neither "blow" (which admittedly has four letters) nor "job" is inherently offensive in the same manner that the other two words are. Why, then, the bleep? Because the FCC determined that the IDEA of "blow job" is offensive. This is what is so "chilling" about this action.
When a movie hits TV, usually "offensive" words are dubbed--"a--hole" becomes "jerk," etc. But what do you do with a phrase like "blow job"? You can't really find a euphamism for it because it's not the words that are offensive but rather the subject matter, the idea, the action it represents. You could dub it over and change it so the cops aren't talking about blow jobs but about something else... but that's censorship at its essence. Stop people from talking about something and force them to talk about something else.
There's GOT to be a better way to "protect children". Maybe... don't let them watch the show? Or maybe this isn't really about protecting the children but rather about saving Americans' souls, or protecting the sensitive ears of fundamentalist Christians who never watch PBS anyway because it's a hotbed of liberalism?
A show that's broadcast over the air is being censored by its corporate distributor (in this case PBS) in order to avoid the imminent fines by the FCC (either that or to maintain its wholesome image), and somehow it's the fault of the big bad Bush administration? This has "publicity stunt" written all over it.
This is a serious issue: The FCC is essentially defining moral standards for the country. While the FCC reports to Congress, the commissioners are appointed by the President, and the chair is also selected by the President. Thus, the FCC is largely an implementor of the President's policies while being subject to Congressional oversight.
Either way, the five members of the FCC should not define moral codes for the entire country, deciding which words and ideas are fit for consumers and which are not.
Yes, ideas: The words "blow" and "job" are not inherently offensive in the way that "f---" and "sh--" are. Why bleep them when combined, then? Because the idea is inherently offensive and immoral, according to the commission.
This is a scary thought, that five people appointed by the President can essentially kill free speech through certain mass media for the five years they are in office.
The next step of course is for the FCC to declare certain unpatriotic words as inappropriate and offensive, or non-Christian ideas as offensive. Honest broadcasters like PBS would be unable to air things that were out of favor with the current administration (yes, the Big Bad Bush administration) because they would not be able to pay the fines.
Publicity stunt, or another battle in the war on free speech terrorists (oh, did I say that out loud)?
Slashdot must be short on their hit quota for the month. If you count up the number of times Playboy and playmate appear on this page, slashdot is bound to be the top page returned when people search for those words.
I recommend the next story be about ideas for Paris Hilton's next Fox reality series such as "Paris Hilton Learns Linux" where she has to be stuck in a network operations center and be forced to install and configure various distributions. Lots of hits would be generated by that one, guys!
And speaking of Paris Hilton, has Marriott or Sheraton or any of them bought the google words "Paris Hilton" yet? Would that be trademark infringement or just poor taste? If they're still available, I think it would be great for a "hotel" with 4-hour rates and heart-shaped "love tubs" to snap them up.
For me, this article is all about the PHBs. In my experience, most of the web applications I've seen could be built quickly, cheaply, and reliably using PHP (or perl for that matter). But the PHBs get all caught up on "scalability" and "extensibility" and "portability" and "promotability" and "budgetability" and "sexappealability" and "studability" and think they have to plan for everyone in the world accessing every feature of the application at the same time, from two different computers.
The end result is a project that costs three times as much, takes twice as long, is half as reliable, and barely works.
This is not true for all projects in the world, and of course YOUR project is far too complex to be done in a scripting language, but in my experience 100% of the non-PHP web applications I've worked on (in largish teams, so it's not all due to my incompetence) would have been better delivered using PHP. And 100% of the web applications I've built using PHP have been unqualified successes.
The unintended consequence will be that people will not answer calls from numbers that their cell phones don't identify. That will reduce the annoying cell phone prattle in restaurants, movie theaters, etc., etc. and will make the streets a safer place to drive.
How long will it be before 3d holographic style stuff is available and we suddenly get unwanted "popup" salespeople materializing everywhere like on the bus, next to our bathtubs, on the golf course, etc.?
They had spent $7.50 each to see a 3 minute trailer and missed a wonderful movie.
My guess is they worked at the theater or were let in for free by a friend, just to see the trailer. If not, it's a shame they couldn't have spent that $22.50 on something a little more worthwhile like feeding hungry children or improving their nation's educational system. Or buying LOTR action figures.
Shoot, the 3d projected image is OK, but ever since I saw a real woman materialize in Logan 5's apartment in Logan Run, I've wanted one of THOSE things.
It would be interesting to take some of those really god-awful American Idol contestants and run their voices through one of these things, see what happens.
If I had one, I'd have to have one with little robot arms that it could throw up in disgust when I tried to sing.
This is pretty interesting because I have often thought the BSA's approach to self-policing licenses is way better then the RIAA's proposals for technology-based piracy prevention.
But the interview makes clear one point: the BSA should call for a voluntary audit on the part of the target company. This would achieve the BSA's presumed objective: reduction of piracy and compliance with licenses. If a company cooperates, the fine should be reduced.
Without trade organizations like the BSA, we'd all be swimming in technologically-enforced copy protection and licensing enforcement (see Intuit).
HIRE teens to go into the theater and "watch" a movie, meanwhile using their text messager to send messages to thousands of other teens saying the movie is awesome. Even better, they can use technology to pretend they are a friend of the recipient when they send the message.
Real-time text messaging marketing spam! Maybe I can patent this.
I don't see a lot of controversy or conspiracy theory in this article. The industry expert quoted all but says that the slowness of word-of-mouth was factored into past releases so that even bombs could recover their costs in the first weekend if they were hyped enough.
All this article says to me is that the movie industry was slightly blindsided by how text messaging changed the speed of the "word of mouth" effect. Doesn't seem like there's much conspiracy about this.
I find this fascinating, however, in that it shows that social systems tend toward democracy. Just as physical systems tend toward chaos and energy must be supplied to impose order, so it goes with social systems. The movie industry has imposed order by inserting money, thus maintaining control. With the democratization of the marketing message, however, they will have to change and learn how to harness the chaos... or insert MORE money per film (perhaps by giving away movie-related merchandise to all viewers or by further engaging viewers during the filming) to impose order on this more democratic system.
It's all relative. I'm sure there are people who balk at the fact that you probably spend ~$40/month on a broadband connection.
Indeed...
20% of the world's population lives on $ 1 per day.
50% of the world's population lives on $ 2 per day.
16% of the world's population do not read or write, and
65% of those are women.
6% of the world's population own half the world's resources.
1% of the world's population have a college education.
The estimated cost for basic child health and
nutrition and for providing primary education, safe water
and sanitation, and family planning is $34 billion.
yet...
Each year the world spends $400 billion on cigarettes.
Each year the world spends $245 billion on beer and wine.
Each year the world spends $40 billion on golf.
statistics provided by Global Impact quoting UNICEF and the UN
Slashdot Mirror
Two years ago I "trained" my wife not to click certain attachments. I implemented this training by leaving her alone in the office with the computer one day, and she happened to acquire a virus. Fortunately, she's reasonably smart and has not done it again.
Now, I have to worry about my 8-year-old son, who has just discovered he can play flash-based Star Wars games on the internet. He also has discovered he can find out about bugs and birds and science through Google. I expect that some day soon he will find out about viruses. (Anyone want to make odds on whether he discovers viruses before or after he discovers pr0n? I'm guessing the pr0n first, and then he'll start clicking on the Britney links.)
Anyway, a question for all of you: How do you train an 8-year-old to be independent on the computer but also be safe about what he clicks? (Yes, we use Firefox.) His six-year-old brother is also catching on fast.
I am not certain that computers would have gotten into an obsolete-in-eight-months cycle if not for Microsoft's programming for the next generation processor and memory. When Microsoft was pushing for use of the 386 for their system, I was using an 8086 or 286 with superior software.
Microsoft has been and will likely continue to be the primary corporate beneficiary of hardware escalation (OK, the hardware companies haven't been hurt by it). Thus, they should pay the bill.
Nah, I don't really think that. I think the consumer should pay, but through up-front fees that are collected when the machine is purchased. This should be a national policy, not a state-by-state policy.
Whatever the method, consumers end up paying directly, indirectly, or through a degrading environment.
Only partly correct. The Newton designers made a fundamental design commitment to true handwriting recognition, and although they did a phenomenal job, they never could get it to work just right. Palm ate their lunch not on form factor, applications, price, or battery life, but on Graffiti. Hawkins simplified the Newton to a few very, very basic things that (a) worked and (b) users could understand.
No, it is just the logical extension of blogging.
I don't see why these kids need openoffice. When I was a kid, nroff and troff were good enough for us, and I think it should be good enough for these kids nowadays. They're all soft. No wonder our education system is in the tank!
What we need now is scientists to figure out why it is that so many /. posters post exactly the same thing... and they all get modded up to +5 funny. Although it is really funny to read "A scarcasm detector! Now that's REAL useful!" twenty-three times.
What bothers me about this: whom does this really impact? People use library computers for two reasons: First, because they have no other computer to use. Second, because they want a certain amount of anonymity.
By requiring fingerprints to use this resource the library is saying two things simultaneously: (1) if you don't have your own computer (i.e. if you're poor), you are not trustworthy, and (2) if you are interested in anonymity, you must be doing something terribly wrong.
Both of these are patently un-American statements.
Library cards are used so the library can track inventory and penalize people who hold books too long. This new policy has nothing to do with tracking inventory and everything to do with limiting freedom.
It may be that the library directors are worried about their personal liability under the USA PATRIOT Act if Bad Guys use the computers. If that's the case, I wish they would just say it. They'd have my sympathy. But pretending that this is just like the library card's barcode is disingenuous.
Every American concerned with "freedom for all" must be against policies like this.
Seems like everyone is missing the real point of doing this. The aesthetic value! Forget those swoopy-doopy new tower cases. These aquariums are see-through and can really enhance a room, particularly when placed in a window with a nice view. And those ribbon cables really add interest and texture. I'm sure we'll be seeing these on HGTV any day now as a new design feature!
Not necessarily. It is well known that eyewitness accounts of any event can differ dramatically, even immediately after the event. People who are in a bank robbery, for example, and never see the robbers, are likely to provide a description of the robbers in later tellings. This is not embellishment because their minds actually remember seeing the robber, even though in fact they did not.
See the False Memory Syndrome Foundation and an NPR segment on All Things Considered.
Congratulations. You have just illustrated the precise reason why the Ku Klux Clan must be allowed to march and why anti-abortion zealots must be allowed to picket near abortion clinics. It is not the rights of the majority that must be defended; it is the rights of the fringe that must be defended, particularly when those fringe groups may appear distasteful.
The trick is in determining what behaviors are harmful to society as opposed to exercise of freedom. What about polygamists? What about homosexuals? What about people who don't bathe every day? What about cigarette company executives? Somewhere, someone is offended by them for what is probably a legitimate reason.
The point is, if you love your own freedom, then you love their freedom as well. The reason this incenses so many of us so deeply is not because we want to hear swear words or see nipples on broadcast TV but rather this is another element in an ongoing pattern of the sitting American President and his administration putting his views (the views of "most of America" the ads constantly tell us) ahead of freedom.
Gotta agree with you there, but there is another phrase that was bleeped: blow job.
Neither "blow" (which admittedly has four letters) nor "job" is inherently offensive in the same manner that the other two words are. Why, then, the bleep? Because the FCC determined that the IDEA of "blow job" is offensive. This is what is so "chilling" about this action.
When a movie hits TV, usually "offensive" words are dubbed--"a--hole" becomes "jerk," etc. But what do you do with a phrase like "blow job"? You can't really find a euphamism for it because it's not the words that are offensive but rather the subject matter, the idea, the action it represents. You could dub it over and change it so the cops aren't talking about blow jobs but about something else... but that's censorship at its essence. Stop people from talking about something and force them to talk about something else.
There's GOT to be a better way to "protect children". Maybe... don't let them watch the show? Or maybe this isn't really about protecting the children but rather about saving Americans' souls, or protecting the sensitive ears of fundamentalist Christians who never watch PBS anyway because it's a hotbed of liberalism?
This is a serious issue: The FCC is essentially defining moral standards for the country. While the FCC reports to Congress, the commissioners are appointed by the President, and the chair is also selected by the President. Thus, the FCC is largely an implementor of the President's policies while being subject to Congressional oversight.
Either way, the five members of the FCC should not define moral codes for the entire country, deciding which words and ideas are fit for consumers and which are not.
Yes, ideas: The words "blow" and "job" are not inherently offensive in the way that "f---" and "sh--" are. Why bleep them when combined, then? Because the idea is inherently offensive and immoral, according to the commission.
This is a scary thought, that five people appointed by the President can essentially kill free speech through certain mass media for the five years they are in office.
The next step of course is for the FCC to declare certain unpatriotic words as inappropriate and offensive, or non-Christian ideas as offensive. Honest broadcasters like PBS would be unable to air things that were out of favor with the current administration (yes, the Big Bad Bush administration) because they would not be able to pay the fines.
Publicity stunt, or another battle in the war on free speech terrorists (oh, did I say that out loud)?
First we had speeches. Then excerpts. Then sound bytes. Now sound nibbles? How soon to sound bits?
Was this demo in Jurassic Park? "Hey, this is Unix! I know this!"
Slashdot must be short on their hit quota for the month. If you count up the number of times Playboy and playmate appear on this page, slashdot is bound to be the top page returned when people search for those words.
I recommend the next story be about ideas for Paris Hilton's next Fox reality series such as "Paris Hilton Learns Linux" where she has to be stuck in a network operations center and be forced to install and configure various distributions. Lots of hits would be generated by that one, guys!
And speaking of Paris Hilton, has Marriott or Sheraton or any of them bought the google words "Paris Hilton" yet? Would that be trademark infringement or just poor taste? If they're still available, I think it would be great for a "hotel" with 4-hour rates and heart-shaped "love tubs" to snap them up.
For me, this article is all about the PHBs. In my experience, most of the web applications I've seen could be built quickly, cheaply, and reliably using PHP (or perl for that matter). But the PHBs get all caught up on "scalability" and "extensibility" and "portability" and "promotability" and "budgetability" and "sexappealability" and "studability" and think they have to plan for everyone in the world accessing every feature of the application at the same time, from two different computers.
The end result is a project that costs three times as much, takes twice as long, is half as reliable, and barely works.
This is not true for all projects in the world, and of course YOUR project is far too complex to be done in a scripting language, but in my experience 100% of the non-PHP web applications I've worked on (in largish teams, so it's not all due to my incompetence) would have been better delivered using PHP. And 100% of the web applications I've built using PHP have been unqualified successes.
I say let them call cell phones!
The unintended consequence will be that people will not answer calls from numbers that their cell phones don't identify. That will reduce the annoying cell phone prattle in restaurants, movie theaters, etc., etc. and will make the streets a safer place to drive.
How long will it be before 3d holographic style stuff is available and we suddenly get unwanted "popup" salespeople materializing everywhere like on the bus, next to our bathtubs, on the golf course, etc.?
My guess is they worked at the theater or were let in for free by a friend, just to see the trailer. If not, it's a shame they couldn't have spent that $22.50 on something a little more worthwhile like feeding hungry children or improving their nation's educational system. Or buying LOTR action figures.
Shoot, the 3d projected image is OK, but ever since I saw a real woman materialize in Logan 5's apartment in Logan Run, I've wanted one of THOSE things.
It would be interesting to take some of those really god-awful American Idol contestants and run their voices through one of these things, see what happens.
If I had one, I'd have to have one with little robot arms that it could throw up in disgust when I tried to sing.
This is pretty interesting because I have often thought the BSA's approach to self-policing licenses is way better then the RIAA's proposals for technology-based piracy prevention.
But the interview makes clear one point: the BSA should call for a voluntary audit on the part of the target company. This would achieve the BSA's presumed objective: reduction of piracy and compliance with licenses. If a company cooperates, the fine should be reduced.
Without trade organizations like the BSA, we'd all be swimming in technologically-enforced copy protection and licensing enforcement (see Intuit).
No, no... here's what they should do:
HIRE teens to go into the theater and "watch" a movie, meanwhile using their text messager to send messages to thousands of other teens saying the movie is awesome. Even better, they can use technology to pretend they are a friend of the recipient when they send the message.
Real-time text messaging marketing spam! Maybe I can patent this.
I don't see a lot of controversy or conspiracy theory in this article. The industry expert quoted all but says that the slowness of word-of-mouth was factored into past releases so that even bombs could recover their costs in the first weekend if they were hyped enough.
All this article says to me is that the movie industry was slightly blindsided by how text messaging changed the speed of the "word of mouth" effect. Doesn't seem like there's much conspiracy about this.
I find this fascinating, however, in that it shows that social systems tend toward democracy. Just as physical systems tend toward chaos and energy must be supplied to impose order, so it goes with social systems. The movie industry has imposed order by inserting money, thus maintaining control. With the democratization of the marketing message, however, they will have to change and learn how to harness the chaos... or insert MORE money per film (perhaps by giving away movie-related merchandise to all viewers or by further engaging viewers during the filming) to impose order on this more democratic system.
Or they could just make good movies.
Nah. Stupid idea.
Indeed...
65% of those are women.
yet...
statistics provided by Global Impact quoting UNICEF and the UN