"What a load of shit! Fucking Americans... did your grandfather once sipped some Guiness and now you think it makes you qualified to comment on the Northern Ireland issue?"
Why did you assume he was American? So you equate America with misinformation, and assumed he was American? You might consider you are a bigot.
"1) Our freedoms will be eroded and we _will_ be terrorised by the spectre of metal detectors, exposive sniffers and body searches when untertaking any normal, day-to-day, things like getting on a bus or entering a shop."
You fail to understand, that by taking away your security, terrorists have already eroded your liberty. Now hard choices need to be made concerning what's the best compromise to maximise liberty through increasing security without undermining other liberties.
"Security costs money. Of course, the money gets spent on expensive and showy equipment, not on better training of security personnel (or screening of security personnel - some TSA screeners look like they should have their mittens safety-pinned to their coats)."
How are you going to train security personnel to see through people's clothing without equipment?
"Steal a Movie, get fined Thousands of dollars, go to Jail for dozens of years, never expect to use a computer or have any rights or freedoms again. "
Jail time only applies to releasing a not-yet-released movie onto the internet. This can result in a loss of millions in revenue for a major film. It doesn't apply to the average p2p sharer. If anything the sentence on the Sasar worm creator was extremely light, not what you're trying to argue, badly.
"Cause proprietary software makers who use BSD software do not contribute back their changes. I guess you gotta share the belief that proprietary software is inheriently bad for consumers to truely appreciate that argument though."
"belief" being the key word in your statement. There is no evidence to support your claim.
" If a shop owner leaves the back door to his shop open all night, and a teenager breaks in and steals something... yes, the teenager is ultimately responsible, and should suffer some punishment, but the shop owner is a dumb shit too, and shouldn't get all bent out of shape about getting robbed.
Now replace "leaves the back door open" with "runs Windows on a server", etc.'
When your so-called secure linux server gets ransacked, you'll wake up and realize that Linux isn't secure either. No code written in c is secure. You can't prove Linux is secure, and I can show plenty of counter-examples which show it isn't at any given point in time.
Your analogy sucks because Windows does include security measures. A better analogy would be saying the person breaking in to the shop licked the lock. Certainly effort was used to bypass security measures in Windows, so your analogy of simply walking into an open door is misleading.
" Universities are theoretically in the business of providing advanced education and doing research. I fail to see where providing a captive market for private companies benefits either of these. Furthermore, doing so would involve at least some staff time and other university resources which could be used instead to further the main goals of research and education."
The captive market for music already exists. Their options are to either spend a lot of time blocking packets to unclog their network, spend more money on better networking, or subscribe to this service, which unclogs the network and removes fear of legal liability if they can make it work.
When I interviewed at Intel, they spent all day asking technical questions and little time selling me on the company. I believe Google does the same thing too. Maybe it's Sorkin who's the arrogant one to assume that he is beyond questioning.
Let's do the math. To guarantee an iPod mini and 50 free songs, you need to buy a block of 100K songs, which costs about $100K. An iPod mini is worth at most $250, and 50 songs is worth about $50. So your net gain is 0.3%. It's sad that these types of promos actually get people to buy more stuff.
" Funding Israel's random killing of everyone who actually lived there"
I think you're a little confused about who's doing the random killing in that region. Have you noticed that violence there has decreased susbstantially since the death of Arafat. The whole cycle of violence claim way bs. There was no cycle. It was cause-efect. Hamas, etc. attacks, Israel retaliates. Attacks stop. Retaliation stops.
Your assessment of Saudi Arabia is a little oversimplified but somewhat accurate. Bin Laden doesn't like us supporting the Saudi Govt., because they are not as fundamentalist as he would like.
It was necessary in WWII, and essentially worked. If there is an agressor that won't listen to reason, the only way to oppose this threat is with force.
The war on terror is necessary, just like a police force is necessary to fight crime. The way the war on terror is currently being fought, however, is certainly questionable.
"Terrorism is just a bad name for rebellion, wether you agree with the rebellion or not, if the rebels win they become revolutionaires if they lose they were terrorist, but I let you guess who looks like the empire and who looks like the rebels in this."
No terrorism is a subset of rebellion that uses the tactic of killing cililians on purpose to create fear. Not all rebellions involve this tactic.
Yes, it was extremely arrogant to aid Israel and Kuwait against destruction. You're simply defending racists like Bin Laden who are no better than the KKK, by blaming America for their racist policies of destruction to non-muslims.
"Do you really, really, believe that Bin Laden decided to spend several years planning the 9/11 attack, sacrifice several people, kill thousand of innocent people just because he wanted, without a reason? Do you really be that terrorist are the "bad guy" that decides to kill random people "
Bin laden kills because he's a racist. He doesn't like Jews so he believes Israel should be destroyed and he doesn't like western culture, so he thinks American soldiers should not be in Saudia Arabia, even if invited by the Saudi govt.
to steal the spoils of the successful. You hypocrites bitch about software patents, but allow these losers to do the same thing. I had an idea, but MS stole my ideas and my customers, so they owe me money. Pathetic.
"This is more like leaving your front door wide open and handing out floor plans to people passing by on the street, any reasonable person would assume that you wanted them to go inside.. and I think that is all that needs to be proven in court... what a reasonable person would be expected to think..."
No, it's more like expecting people to stay the hell off your lawn even though you didn't put up a fence or a no trespassing sign. Just because the technology invited you does not mean the user of the technology did. Making that assumption that the two are equivalent is not very insightful.
"I suggest we let them know that if you broadcast an SSID into the public airwaves and then grant DHCP leases across it you are authorizing access to your network."
Your can't use an analogy to prove intent. Yes, the technology granted the person access, but that doesn't mean the user meant to grant access. A key grants access to an automobile, but finding someone's key doesn't enter his house.
The tablet pc is such a hot item and so many people are writing directly on their monitors using Microsoft technology that, clearly, the reason Go failed was because of Microsoft bullying. The market for their this technology dwarfs even the cuecat.
That's the problem with architecture as well
on
Is Programming Art?
·
· Score: 1
People are so busy trying to be creative in architecture, that they design junk which doesn't fit the site and isn't functionally optimal. Same thing pops up in programming. With the Longhorn preview article, there were two main types of comments about translucent UI. 1. Apple had this years ago. 2. What a waste of time, fix security problems instead If people treat programming more like building furniture and less like creating a painting, you'll get something easy to use and stylish, as well as robust.
Economists talk about natural and artificial barriers to entry in markets, that produce monopolies. An artificial barrier is usually due to govt. regulation. OS's have a natural barrier to entry since customers number 1 concern with a new OS is that it runs their existing software. So, to start a new OS, you need at minimum to get software vendors to port their software to your OS. An even better scenario is if your OS can run existing binaries. If you don't run existing software, you'll need to find a niche market who don't care about existing products for the app you're supporting
" Let me let you in on a little secret. Take the cd. Drag it to the trash. It pops out! Amazing."
Throwing your cd in the trash means eject it. That's brilliant. Why can't you just right click on the cd and select eject or hit the eject button on the cdrom? Oh yeah, Mac mice only have one button and no eject button on cdrom.
" Personally, I'm distrustful of them because the US veto has consistently kept them from being effective. When the #1 threat to world peace and prosperity has a veto on anything you do, your options are pretty limited..."
Yes, vetos of ridiculous resolutions by anti-semetic nations condemning Israel for defending itself is hampering world peace and prosperity.
Slashdot Mirror
"What a load of shit! Fucking Americans... did your grandfather once sipped some Guiness and now you think it makes you qualified to comment on the Northern Ireland issue?"
Why did you assume he was American? So you equate America with misinformation, and assumed he was American? You might consider you are a bigot.
"1) Our freedoms will be eroded and we _will_ be terrorised by the spectre of metal detectors, exposive sniffers and body searches when untertaking any normal, day-to-day, things like getting on a bus or entering a shop."
You fail to understand, that by taking away your security, terrorists have already eroded your liberty. Now hard choices need to be made concerning what's the best compromise to maximise liberty through increasing security without undermining other liberties.
"Security costs money. Of course, the money gets spent on expensive and showy equipment, not on better training of security personnel (or screening of security personnel - some TSA screeners look like they should have their mittens safety-pinned to their coats)."
How are you going to train security personnel to see through people's clothing without equipment?
"Steal a Movie, get fined Thousands of dollars, go to Jail for dozens of years, never expect to use a computer or have any rights or freedoms again.
"
Jail time only applies to releasing a not-yet-released movie onto the internet. This can result in a loss of millions in revenue for a major film. It doesn't apply to the average p2p sharer. If anything the sentence on the Sasar worm creator was extremely light, not what you're trying to argue, badly.
"Cause proprietary software makers who use BSD software do not contribute back their changes. I guess you gotta share the belief that proprietary software is inheriently bad for consumers to truely appreciate that argument though."
"belief" being the key word in your statement. There is no evidence to support your claim.
" If a shop owner leaves the back door to his shop open all night, and a teenager breaks in and steals something... yes, the teenager is ultimately responsible, and should suffer some punishment, but the shop owner is a dumb shit too, and shouldn't get all bent out of shape about getting robbed.
Now replace "leaves the back door open" with "runs Windows on a server", etc.'
When your so-called secure linux server gets ransacked, you'll wake up and realize that Linux isn't secure either. No code written in c is secure. You can't prove Linux is secure, and I can show plenty of counter-examples which show it isn't at any given point in time.
Your analogy sucks because Windows does include security measures. A better analogy would be saying the person breaking in to the shop licked the lock. Certainly effort was used to bypass security measures in Windows, so your analogy of simply walking into an open door is misleading.
" Universities are theoretically in the business of providing advanced education and doing research. I fail to see where providing a captive market for private companies benefits either of these. Furthermore, doing so would involve at least some staff time and other university resources which could be used instead to further the main goals of research and education."
The captive market for music already exists. Their options are to either spend a lot of time blocking packets to unclog their network, spend more money on better networking, or subscribe to this service, which unclogs the network and removes fear of legal liability if they can make it work.
The rest of your post is just anti-MS FUD.
"I download my MP3s legally. I don't need a college administrator to impinge upon those rights."
If you're downloading mp3s of popular songs, it's not ethical, regardless of whether or not it is legal where you live.
When I interviewed at Intel, they spent all day asking technical questions and little time selling me on the company. I believe Google does the same thing too. Maybe it's Sorkin who's the arrogant one to assume that he is beyond questioning.
Let's do the math. To guarantee an iPod mini and 50 free songs, you need to buy a block of 100K songs, which costs about $100K. An iPod mini is worth at most $250, and 50 songs is worth about $50. So your net gain is 0.3%. It's sad that these types of promos actually get people to buy more stuff.
" Funding Israel's random killing of everyone who actually lived there"
I think you're a little confused about who's doing the random killing in that region. Have you noticed that violence there has decreased susbstantially since the death of Arafat. The whole cycle of violence claim way bs. There was no cycle. It was cause-efect. Hamas, etc. attacks, Israel retaliates. Attacks stop. Retaliation stops.
Your assessment of Saudi Arabia is a little oversimplified but somewhat accurate. Bin Laden doesn't like us supporting the Saudi Govt., because they are not as fundamentalist as he would like.
"You cannot bring about peace with war."
It was necessary in WWII, and essentially worked. If there is an agressor that won't listen to reason, the only way to oppose this threat is with force.
The war on terror is necessary, just like a police force is necessary to fight crime. The way the war on terror is currently being fought, however, is certainly questionable.
"Terrorism is just a bad name for rebellion, wether you agree with the rebellion or not, if the rebels win they become revolutionaires if they lose they were terrorist, but I let you guess who looks like the empire and who looks like the rebels in this."
No terrorism is a subset of rebellion that uses the tactic of killing cililians on purpose to create fear. Not all rebellions involve this tactic.
" america's astoundingly arrogant foreign policy?"
Yes, it was extremely arrogant to aid Israel and Kuwait against destruction. You're simply defending racists like Bin Laden who are no better than the KKK, by blaming America for their racist policies of destruction to non-muslims.
"Do you really, really, believe that Bin Laden decided to spend several years planning the 9/11 attack, sacrifice several people, kill thousand of innocent people just because he wanted, without a reason? Do you really be that terrorist are the "bad guy" that decides to kill random people "
Bin laden kills because he's a racist. He doesn't like Jews so he believes Israel should be destroyed and he doesn't like western culture, so he thinks American soldiers should not be in Saudia Arabia, even if invited by the Saudi govt.
to steal the spoils of the successful. You hypocrites bitch about software patents, but allow these losers to do the same thing. I had an idea, but MS stole my ideas and my customers, so they owe me money. Pathetic.
" In the case of business, it's a matter of law, so it's not my definition, but that of the United States."
But the law is so vague, it's an open book for abuse and corruption.
"This is more like leaving your front door wide open and handing out floor plans to people passing by on the street, any reasonable person would assume that you wanted them to go inside.. and I think that is all that needs to be proven in court... what a reasonable person would be expected to think..."
No, it's more like expecting people to stay the hell off your lawn even though you didn't put up a fence or a no trespassing sign. Just because the technology invited you does not mean the user of the technology did. Making that assumption that the two are equivalent is not very insightful.
"I suggest we let them know that if you broadcast an SSID into the public airwaves and then grant DHCP leases across it you are authorizing access to your network."
Your can't use an analogy to prove intent. Yes, the technology granted the person access, but that doesn't mean the user meant to grant access. A key grants access to an automobile, but finding someone's key doesn't enter his house.
The tablet pc is such a hot item and so many people are writing directly on their monitors using Microsoft technology that, clearly, the reason Go failed was because of Microsoft bullying. The market for their this technology dwarfs even the cuecat.
People are so busy trying to be creative in architecture, that they design junk which doesn't fit the site and isn't functionally optimal. Same thing pops up in programming. With the Longhorn preview article, there were two main types of comments about translucent UI.
1. Apple had this years ago.
2. What a waste of time, fix security problems instead
If people treat programming more like building furniture and less like creating a painting, you'll get something easy to use and stylish, as well as robust.
Economists talk about natural and artificial barriers to entry in markets, that produce monopolies. An artificial barrier is usually due to govt. regulation. OS's have a natural barrier to entry since customers number 1 concern with a new OS is that it runs their existing software. So, to start a new OS, you need at minimum to get software vendors to port their software to your OS. An even better scenario is if your OS can run existing binaries. If you don't run existing software, you'll need to find a niche market who don't care about existing products for the app you're supporting
Seriously, people shouldn't even waste their time reading the front page blurb on this one.
" Let me let you in on a little secret. Take the cd. Drag it to the trash. It pops out! Amazing."
Throwing your cd in the trash means eject it. That's brilliant. Why can't you just right click on the cd and select eject or hit the eject button on the cdrom? Oh yeah, Mac mice only have one button and no eject button on cdrom.
" Personally, I'm distrustful of them because the US veto has consistently kept them from being effective. When the #1 threat to world peace and prosperity has a veto on anything you do, your options are pretty limited..."
Yes, vetos of ridiculous resolutions by anti-semetic nations condemning Israel for defending itself is hampering world peace and prosperity.