I still run across ads now and then, as they're unavoidable in society.
That's just barely true! I browse with Firefox's adblocker so I can't remember the last time I saw a web ad. I watch 100% of television using a DVR, so I don't watch TV ads either. I don't go to the movies (2 small children) so don't see those ads. I listen exclusively to NPR so nothing there unless you count the sponsorship messages from the guy with the nasal voice. I don't live somewhere that has billboards, so I don't see those. I don't read the newspaper. The only ads I see are in my magazines, and those are extremely easy to skip. So I'm almost completely ad-free, and loving it.
Please. If you really believe in free speech, you shouldn't distinguish "Clinton is a moron" from "Buying my products is a good idea."
You're free to say that of course! However, the Supreme Court doesn't agree with you. There's a long history of distinguishing different kinds of speech and protecting them in different ways and to different degrees. Commercial speech versus political speech, for example. Like I said, your viewpoint is valid - just want to make sure you know it's at odds with US law.
True, but why invite people not friendly to MS to the campus and not have anyone there who can answer the hard questions? Either they're stupid and didn't realize the hard questions would come out, which I don't believe, or they knew they were coming, and purposely set it up so they wouldn't get answered. That is MS's right, and it's also appropriate for the author to document the questions he asked and the fact that they didn't get answered.
Lastly, I didn't intend for that comment to specifically address the OLPC software, but rather application software interfaces in general. It would be nice if it could be applied to both, but I recognize that the unique demands of the OLPC project may demand innovative solutions to hardware and systems constraints that would be less-than-ideal in a more typical environment.
Well good grief, I think we ended up agreeing! Is this really slashdot?;-)
Note that I'm not just referring to internal architecture here; I'm saying that it should be possible for the user to replace or supplement the supplied user-interface component with a completely separate, from-scratch implementation, if necessary, while retaining the same underlying model. It would be best if the supplied UI component were open-source (whatever the model's license might be), to maximize reuse and to capitalize on the flexibility of the design. It should, furthermore, be possible to access the model directly through a standard REPL (command-line) interface (Guile, Python, Ruby, etc.).
That all sounds great for a general-purpose computer, but is it necessary for OLPC? Don't get me wrong, if they can do that without sacrificing their others goals obviously they should. But if they cannot, then it's more important to have a system that the users can understand than one that they can alter.
To take a hardware example, a nail gun is not a replacement for a hammer...
I don't think your example is great. You're suggesting that in your analogy you would say "I want a hammer" and the developer would give you a nail gun. Well you didn't ask for an activity, you asked for a tool. If you're asking to start an activity, you would say "I want to drive nails" and then you would get an appropriate tool. If you just want to smash something and not drive nails, then you should have said "I want to smash something".
There is a role for guidance in UI design--a system that suggests a tool for a given job--but to design the whole UI around the notion that the UI designer personally knows what activities a user will want to perform and that the UI designer personally knows how the user will want to perform them is simply a mistake.
You may be considering yourself as the user, which would be a mistake. This system is designed so a 6-year-old who has never seen a computer can use it without being taught how. I think designing the system to remove as many choices as possible from the user is not just not a mistake, but probably the only way it could work.
Besides which, we're talking about *checking email* while driving. And the guy says there are some emails that are worth checking en route! If you're getting email that's so important it's worth risking your family's life to read it right away, it's time for a different job. And in case you think that doesn't actually risk anybody's life, then let me rephrase. If you're getting email that's so important it's worth making your children think you're risking your family's life to read it right away, it's time for a different job.
You admit that you haven't used it, so you wouldn't see the benefit.
I have a wireless access card for my office, so I'm familiar with how they work. I'm capable of imagining what it would be like to use it for purchasing something instead of opening a door, and I do not believe the difference in ease of use would justify any significant amount of time researching the matter, and certainly wouldn't justify any possible decrease in security.
How about the rest of my questions? How bad does it have to be to be illegal, how good to be legal, and what law sets the standards? That is, what's the name of the law? Sherman?
Well I don't shop at McDonald's, CVS, or workplace cafeterias, so maybe I haven't seen it.:-) No, I don't freak out because 1) it's an employee of the restaurant so I know who to come after if something happens (other than my credit card company) rather than a random snooper and 2) I get some benefit out of it. I don't see the benefit from "Blink".
Yeah, that's probably all true if you want to spend a lot of time on the phone finding someone who is willing and able to tell you anything useful about their standard, and then hours researching it. The problem in this particular case is... no matter how secure the system is, I don't get any benefit from it. Waving my card in the vicinity of a scanner is not easier than swiping it IMO, and it's a moot point anyway since I've never seen a POS terminal that even supports it. So the *best* case scenario is I'm no worse off than I was before. In my case my bank was quite willing to replace the card, and for anyone whose bank is not so nice, the microwave option takes a lot less time (3-5 seconds apparently) than the research. Maybe at some point they'll offer contactless features that are actually worthwhile, but for now opting out seems like the sensible choice.
I have no argument with that, but what does it have to do with how good the product is? If a monopoly produces a great product it's OK, but if it produces a crappy product it's illegal? How good does it have to be to be legal? How bad does it have to be to be illegal? What laws sets these standards?
Second, do you know whether there is any security around it or not? Some implementations have no security at all, others do mutual authentication and create encrypted sessions. You are considerably more secure using the latter of these than your traditional mag stripe.
Get educated before sticking your head in the sand.
Yes, but how? If you ask your credit card company about it, they certainly would not admit to having no security even if they don't. And I doubt you could get anything as specific as "mutual authentication and encrypted sessions." You'd probably just get some market-drivel about industry-standard best-practice security practices, and they'd clam up if you wanted specifics. I haven't tried it, but it's just hard to imagine a bank revealing anything at all about security. There are these studies, but AFAICT they're not talking about specific offerings from specific companies, probably to avoid legal threats. So where are we to get this information? I figured I could spend possibly fruitless hours trying to hunt it down, or just request a standard credit card.
They also have several designer colors: red peppermint, aqua wintergreen, tan ginger, and my personal favorite -- black liquorice.:)
Don't forget green spearmint, and there's a cinnamon - sort of dark red. Cinnamon-colored, I guess you could say. I could throw the sour flavors in there but they wouldn't be any good for storing cards.
Not surprised about HSBC. In fact surprising about some sense from Chase.
After I found out that my Blink credit cards from Chase were (probably unencrypted) RFID, I requested (via their website) a replacement without blink. They immediately complied. I thought they would put up a little more fuss, but no problem at all.
See, Google got the monopoly by providing the best software. Microsoft didn't provide the best software, but told its customers buy our crap, or don't buy anything at all.
Legally, what difference does the quality of products make? If you leverage a monopoly in one market to stifle competition in another, it's illegal. It doesn't matter if you have the best product or not.
That's fine, but I didn't say "sensuret", "sensur" or any other Scandinavian word. I said "censorship". I hope from its appearance on an English-language message board and the fact that the rest of the sentence was in English it was obvious that the word I used was an English word. If not, the link to an English-language dictionary defining the word should have made it clear.
This seems like such an obvious idea that it had to be somewhere before. Oh wait. It was Command and Conquer: Tiberian Dawn (the first one), you could drive over a infantry unit with vehicles.
For that matter, Dune 2 had that feature. I guess Westwood liked it well enough to use it again. Maybe the first Dune (I assume there was one) as well, but I've never seen that game.
"Censorship" means literally "evaluation"; Roman Censors [wikipedia.org] used to watch over the Republic's morals and had a few other duties (including the census).
Only in ancient Rome does censorship mean evaluation. The word's meaning has changed in the past couple millenia.
You can get in a pretty complicated legal situation if you don't hand over ID you've got in your pocket. If you left it at home, things are a lot simpler.
Legally, yes, but that doesn't prevent the cops from being dickwads about it. It's a risk I'm not interested in taking and I guess you are.:-)
How much of a pain in the @$$ are the police if they ask for your ID (you never know when this will happen) and you tell them how hard to stuff it and where? For that matter, how much of a pain are they if you tell them very politely that you don't have it with you? The only people who have any claim to getting your ID from you for any reason other than an optional transaction are the police (I believe their right to demand ID has been upheld by some courts). Your choice of course, but for my money it's not worth risking ticking off the people who at least arguably have a right to see my ID, and certainly believe they have that right and have the ability and probably the will to ruin my day, just for the possibility of getting to tell someone who doesn't have that right to blow off.
You are confused about the difference between being confused and disagreeing with you. I assure you the two do not necessarily coincide. I believe RMS's goals for the GPL apply to everyone who uses it. Some who use it share his goals, and some do not.
You know of a bunch of young people who own Macs, therefore you think there couldn't possibly be even more old people who own them? And that's informative?
Thanks, I was hoping it wasn't just me. Not to mention that my comment wasn't even about GPL, so slashdot is apparently not just pro-GPL, but pro-Stallman also. I guess that's not news.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
True, but why invite people not friendly to MS to the campus and not have anyone there who can answer the hard questions? Either they're stupid and didn't realize the hard questions would come out, which I don't believe, or they knew they were coming, and purposely set it up so they wouldn't get answered. That is MS's right, and it's also appropriate for the author to document the questions he asked and the fact that they didn't get answered.
Besides which, we're talking about *checking email* while driving. And the guy says there are some emails that are worth checking en route! If you're getting email that's so important it's worth risking your family's life to read it right away, it's time for a different job. And in case you think that doesn't actually risk anybody's life, then let me rephrase. If you're getting email that's so important it's worth making your children think you're risking your family's life to read it right away, it's time for a different job.
How about the rest of my questions? How bad does it have to be to be illegal, how good to be legal, and what law sets the standards? That is, what's the name of the law? Sherman?
Well I don't shop at McDonald's, CVS, or workplace cafeterias, so maybe I haven't seen it. :-) No, I don't freak out because 1) it's an employee of the restaurant so I know who to come after if something happens (other than my credit card company) rather than a random snooper and 2) I get some benefit out of it. I don't see the benefit from "Blink".
Yeah, that's probably all true if you want to spend a lot of time on the phone finding someone who is willing and able to tell you anything useful about their standard, and then hours researching it. The problem in this particular case is... no matter how secure the system is, I don't get any benefit from it. Waving my card in the vicinity of a scanner is not easier than swiping it IMO, and it's a moot point anyway since I've never seen a POS terminal that even supports it. So the *best* case scenario is I'm no worse off than I was before. In my case my bank was quite willing to replace the card, and for anyone whose bank is not so nice, the microwave option takes a lot less time (3-5 seconds apparently) than the research. Maybe at some point they'll offer contactless features that are actually worthwhile, but for now opting out seems like the sensible choice.
I have no argument with that, but what does it have to do with how good the product is? If a monopoly produces a great product it's OK, but if it produces a crappy product it's illegal? How good does it have to be to be legal? How bad does it have to be to be illegal? What laws sets these standards?
That's fine, but I didn't say "sensuret", "sensur" or any other Scandinavian word. I said "censorship". I hope from its appearance on an English-language message board and the fact that the rest of the sentence was in English it was obvious that the word I used was an English word. If not, the link to an English-language dictionary defining the word should have made it clear.
Censor
How much of a pain in the @$$ are the police if they ask for your ID (you never know when this will happen) and you tell them how hard to stuff it and where? For that matter, how much of a pain are they if you tell them very politely that you don't have it with you? The only people who have any claim to getting your ID from you for any reason other than an optional transaction are the police (I believe their right to demand ID has been upheld by some courts). Your choice of course, but for my money it's not worth risking ticking off the people who at least arguably have a right to see my ID, and certainly believe they have that right and have the ability and probably the will to ruin my day, just for the possibility of getting to tell someone who doesn't have that right to blow off.
You know of a bunch of young people who own Macs, therefore you think there couldn't possibly be even more old people who own them? And that's informative?
Thanks, I was hoping it wasn't just me. Not to mention that my comment wasn't even about GPL, so slashdot is apparently not just pro-GPL, but pro-Stallman also. I guess that's not news. :-)