Attribute me to someone else's words in whatever way that helps you understand the sentiment. However, whether the word 'impossible' is even weakened to the point of 'inconvenient' we'd still have a right to be concerned, and depending on the degree, to intervene.
Yeah, but looking at your UID it would seem you're not a digital native. You're an immigrant. These kids, whom we're discussing, may have all had laptops since they were tiny. Taking them away at this point could be equally as irritating as what you're describing. Think about it, when '534799' was assigned to you ten or so years ago, were you eight? If not, then maybe you're not strictly the target audience for the debate...
FaceTime is also built-in into all the new iPhones and iPod touches, will be in the next iPad and there's also a beta version for Mac OS X, not to mention rumors of FaceTime for Windows. Is the userbase of FaceTime already bigger than Skype?
Then why not get a video camera to record the precious memories and then e-mail the files to whoever? Better quality footage and easier to use.
Easier to use?? You don't have my video camera. Unless the people on the other end want multi-gig files in a proprietary format, the phone-to-phone solution would be VASTLY easier.
...there are plenty of other stores to purchase things from...
Either your test is too broad or you never want to purchase non-grocery things from local stores. Even accepting that it were true that Walmart hadn't ever negatively impacted your freedom to choose other options, I'd think you could still imagine the essence of what I meant without nitpicking the full rigor of it being true against your own, anecdotal, evidence.
And, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, there are many people / governments with the ability to decrypt it. So both for licensing reasons and for security reasons it had to be prohibited.
Because these people/governments lack the ability to intercept your copper/GSM/other types of calls??
- Will your peers ignore your warnings while continuing to drive Amazon to such levels of success as to make it impossible for you to purchase books from anywhere else?
If you cannot imagine a 'yes' answer to this question, then I can only assume there's not a Walmart in your neighborhood.
Look, I concede that Amazon is not the government, but again it is really, really simplistic thinking to refute that claim (which I genuinely went out of my way to illustrate that I was NOT making.)
It is possible, my friend, for things to be hazardous even while not being the government. It truly is.
Meanwhile, CYA and collect your paycheck. Let those with the MBA's make the calls and take the heat, and NEVER bicker with the end user. You're not paid enough to deal with their crap.
Sample bias again. TFA says 20% were affected, not 1%. Just because it didn't happen to you and your friends doesn't mean that the people who actually analyzed the problem suck at math.
It's sheer laziness to not patch your software. Yes, sometimes, a buggy update is unleashed upon the world. However, this is a case in point against running unpatched software.
No, commodore64 is right. There needs to be a reason to patch and that reason needs to outweigh both the hassle of doing it AND the risk that something new will be broken.
If you're not handing over fresh new dollar bills for a piece of software, expect it to be assembled with the bare minimum effort. This includes all patches. The likelihood that one of this will suck worse than the problem they're attempting to fix is very, very high.
You're suffering from sample bias. Newer software is also 'broke' and you also don't know that. I think the point would be, if it is 'broke' but not impacting you in a way that you'd know it, do you care? In some cases yes, in other cases no.
Hmm. Seems to me their biggest problem is that they allowed clients with a known bug to become supernodes; if 50% of the network had upgraded, they should only have been creating supernodes from the upgraded clients.
If they had the power to stop bugged clients from becoming supernodes, why not just use that same power to make them patch? You're sort of assuming that they ever imagined that this could have happened. It's pretty clear that they didn't...
It's subtle, but it's there at the bottom where they admit 'we need to test our crap first and we need some way of making people patch' - which is kind of a known thing in the modern software world.
Making your day at work "less boring" by enabling you to do non-work related shit with company resources is not what my job is about. It is about ensuring the continued operation of the company's network - and skype is a liability.
Careful there, BOFH. Here I'll help:
Making your day at work "less boring" by enabling you to do non-work related shit with company resources is none of my business. Get it requested through the proper channels and you can have it. I don't make the business decisions here, I just do what the company needs done to be successful.
Also to claim amazon or google or whoever has some kind of monopoly is ridiculous.
This would be ridiculous, but for a few simple tests:
A) Can the owners of a Kindle/etc use their device to read whatever they wish from wherever they wish?
B) Can the purchasers of ebooks keep them forever, as with a physical book?
So here we can see that, while not a 'monopoly' exactly, these ebook guys are wielding extraordinary power over their customers AFTER THE SALE. That last part is key. You can't exactly get your money back from the purchase of the device and every single book on it once you run afoul of one bad experience with a policy. So there's no going back once you decide to buy. And many, many, many of these purchasers have absolutely no idea that this stuff is even possible, let alone commonly done.
This opens up another test:
C) Are the wielders of this power applying it fairly and with the same value system as their customers?
Because THAT's the truly salient point. If they're taking dollars from people, using them in a manner contrary to their wishes, and refusing to give them back upon dispute, then we have a problem.
'Monopoly' is the wrong word, but that's an amateur's point to make. It's just a language gap. Pick whatever other word you wish, but to argue that 'no monopoly' == 'no problem' is totally, completely false. Particularly in a future world where paper books simply do not happen, we need to fix these gaps. Applying and subsequently rebutting the wrong label is just wasting everyone's time.
So you have gay erotica, and the title has rape in it. Magic word? Please calm down. It's a keyword. If you're trying to keep a clean selection, you aren't going to want to promote rape. And if your book is entitled something about rape and is in the erotica section, chances are that it's promoting rape even if fictionally.
It seems you empathize with Amazon because you have something in common - neither of you can be bothered to actually read things before making judgement calls. Observe:
"How To Rape A Straight Guy" has a very provocative title, yes, and its narrator, Curt, is a very in-your-face sort of guy who thinks he can get even with the world by assaulting men. But it winds up hurting innocent people and destroying him. I even have a moment of foreshadowing in it, where Curt as a 6-year-old boy watches a cousin of his torture a dog until it bites him, then the boy's father kills the dog and goes off to buy another one. The moral of the whole book being, if you treat a man like a dog his whole life, you shouldn't be surprised if he bites you. And the sad reality is, when he finally does bite back, he's the one who's punished. Does that sound like porn?
"Rape In Holding Cell 6", both volumes, is about corruption in the judicial system, and its main character, Antony, is investigating the brutal rape and murder of his lover in the county jail. He finds a legal and political system that thinks it can get away with anything and nearly drives himself insane in his quest for revenge, a quest that threatens to harm the innocent as well as the guilty as he becomes exactly what he hates. Does that sound like porn?
So the first case is a cautionary/morality tale and the second case is the investigation of a rape.
Ignorance is powerful. Moreso than knowledge. That being the case, 'chances are' you, and Amazon, are in the wrong here.
Did you not see my earlier post, here, answering your challenge? Did you choose simply not to respond? I would have expected, at a minimum, a 'thank you'. You seemed to be passively asserting that there was nothing in the leaks, so surprise might have been in order as well. I just wasn't quite expecting silence...
Best choice for him, not for the people, of course. Or are you making excuses for fascists?
Well, unfortunately the 'best choice' for that entire group of people likely is fascism. Now, for the individual three peoples, I don't know. Two of them would be very, very poor. I think a true democracy, however, would split them ideologically and culturally and let the money/oil fall where it may. Since THAT's not going to happen, I worry about the impending violence and war - things for which a fascist usually corners the market.
Goldblum would not have been seen, by a kid, as a scientist. He wasn't depicted that way. There was no lab, for example.
As I said in the post adjacent to here, that you might find with very, very little effort, 'protagonist' is swappable with 'good guy' in the way that I used it with no loss of meaning.
But you wouldn't care about such things, because of the nerd rage and all.
Sadly,your new subject is quite wrong too, the role of science in Jurassic Park is far more realistic. The characters of the scientists are much more credible in that. Avatar was just a cartoon, both visually and scriptwise. Though these days your average Marvel comic has a more nuanced story than that film.
I wonder if maybe you'd ever be willing to read even the summary. Here I'll help:
'Kids get turned on by the emotion.' Interestingly enough although movies work hard to get the science right, many make errors ranging from the understandable to the egregious, but that's ok, say the panelists. 'Even if a film or media product is not very accurate, that becomes a teaching moment,' says Arvind Singhal. 'So there's room for everything.'
I'm very sorry you didn't like Avatar. I'm further sorry that you're obsessed with trashing it to the point of not being able to have a rational conversation about a topic even tangentially related to that film. Please do me a favor and never speak to me again. Meanwhile, I'll make a note in my 'things to not say on slashdot' file that Avatar incites ridiculous throngs of idiots to argue about minor nuances despite there being a larger topic at hand. Meanwhile, kindly find some means to have sex with yourself. Thanks!
Slashdot Mirror
WTF are you talking about? I'm supposed to generate for you sales figures for a device that doesn't exist??
You like how I, what, exactly?
Did you likewise miss the concurrent users number?
No need to reply, I'm sure your Cupertino paycheck won't bounce.
Attribute me to someone else's words in whatever way that helps you understand the sentiment. However, whether the word 'impossible' is even weakened to the point of 'inconvenient' we'd still have a right to be concerned, and depending on the degree, to intervene.
Isn't "hulu for magazines" commonly called 'the world wide web'?
Yeah, but looking at your UID it would seem you're not a digital native. You're an immigrant. These kids, whom we're discussing, may have all had laptops since they were tiny. Taking them away at this point could be equally as irritating as what you're describing. Think about it, when '534799' was assigned to you ten or so years ago, were you eight? If not, then maybe you're not strictly the target audience for the debate...
Just learn to ignore the typing, which is no worse than someone scribbling like mad on paper. T
I second this. If you cannot abide the sound of keystrokes then you are in big trouble once you finally settle into your slave pen - er, cubicle.
FaceTime is also built-in into all the new iPhones and iPod touches, will be in the next iPad and there's also a beta version for Mac OS X, not to mention rumors of FaceTime for Windows. Is the userbase of FaceTime already bigger than Skype?
No?
In what world is this even remotely possible?
From this source we can see that:
Skype added 39 million registered users in the fourth quarter to end the year with a total of 560 million.
36 percent of Skype-to-Skype calls as of the end of the fourth quarter included video
At peak times, 23 million users are logged into Skype (as of March 2010).
Only 47 million iPhones and eight or so million iPads were sold in 2010.
So you could make a claim that iStuff was growing faster than Skype, you would have no basis for claiming that it was already a larger userbase.
Remember, these are SKYPE USERS compared to iSTUFF OWNERS. Those owners may or may not even be aware FaceTime is on their device.
Then why not get a video camera to record the precious memories and then e-mail the files to whoever? Better quality footage and easier to use.
Easier to use?? You don't have my video camera. Unless the people on the other end want multi-gig files in a proprietary format, the phone-to-phone solution would be VASTLY easier.
...there are plenty of other stores to purchase things from...
Either your test is too broad or you never want to purchase non-grocery things from local stores. Even accepting that it were true that Walmart hadn't ever negatively impacted your freedom to choose other options, I'd think you could still imagine the essence of what I meant without nitpicking the full rigor of it being true against your own, anecdotal, evidence.
And, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, there are many people / governments with the ability to decrypt it. So both for licensing reasons and for security reasons it had to be prohibited.
Because these people/governments lack the ability to intercept your copper/GSM/other types of calls??
- Will your peers ignore your warnings while continuing to drive Amazon to such levels of success as to make it impossible for you to purchase books from anywhere else?
If you cannot imagine a 'yes' answer to this question, then I can only assume there's not a Walmart in your neighborhood.
Look, I concede that Amazon is not the government, but again it is really, really simplistic thinking to refute that claim (which I genuinely went out of my way to illustrate that I was NOT making.)
It is possible, my friend, for things to be hazardous even while not being the government. It truly is.
Then you're either enjoying bickering with the end users or this is an imaginary scenario...
Good luck with that. Welcome to 2010's economy.
Meanwhile, CYA and collect your paycheck. Let those with the MBA's make the calls and take the heat, and NEVER bicker with the end user. You're not paid enough to deal with their crap.
Sample bias again. TFA says 20% were affected, not 1%. Just because it didn't happen to you and your friends doesn't mean that the people who actually analyzed the problem suck at math.
It's sheer laziness to not patch your software. Yes, sometimes, a buggy update is unleashed upon the world. However, this is a case in point against running unpatched software.
No, commodore64 is right. There needs to be a reason to patch and that reason needs to outweigh both the hassle of doing it AND the risk that something new will be broken.
If you're not handing over fresh new dollar bills for a piece of software, expect it to be assembled with the bare minimum effort. This includes all patches. The likelihood that one of this will suck worse than the problem they're attempting to fix is very, very high.
You're suffering from sample bias. Newer software is also 'broke' and you also don't know that. I think the point would be, if it is 'broke' but not impacting you in a way that you'd know it, do you care? In some cases yes, in other cases no.
Hmm. Seems to me their biggest problem is that they allowed clients with a known bug to become supernodes; if 50% of the network had upgraded, they should only have been creating supernodes from the upgraded clients.
If they had the power to stop bugged clients from becoming supernodes, why not just use that same power to make them patch? You're sort of assuming that they ever imagined that this could have happened. It's pretty clear that they didn't...
It's subtle, but it's there at the bottom where they admit 'we need to test our crap first and we need some way of making people patch' - which is kind of a known thing in the modern software world.
Making your day at work "less boring" by enabling you to do non-work related shit with company resources is not what my job is about. It is about ensuring the continued operation of the company's network - and skype is a liability.
Careful there, BOFH. Here I'll help:
Making your day at work "less boring" by enabling you to do non-work related shit with company resources is none of my business. Get it requested through the proper channels and you can have it. I don't make the business decisions here, I just do what the company needs done to be successful.
Also to claim amazon or google or whoever has some kind of monopoly is ridiculous.
This would be ridiculous, but for a few simple tests:
A) Can the owners of a Kindle/etc use their device to read whatever they wish from wherever they wish?
B) Can the purchasers of ebooks keep them forever, as with a physical book?
So here we can see that, while not a 'monopoly' exactly, these ebook guys are wielding extraordinary power over their customers AFTER THE SALE. That last part is key. You can't exactly get your money back from the purchase of the device and every single book on it once you run afoul of one bad experience with a policy. So there's no going back once you decide to buy. And many, many, many of these purchasers have absolutely no idea that this stuff is even possible, let alone commonly done.
This opens up another test:
C) Are the wielders of this power applying it fairly and with the same value system as their customers?
Because THAT's the truly salient point. If they're taking dollars from people, using them in a manner contrary to their wishes, and refusing to give them back upon dispute, then we have a problem.
'Monopoly' is the wrong word, but that's an amateur's point to make. It's just a language gap. Pick whatever other word you wish, but to argue that 'no monopoly' == 'no problem' is totally, completely false. Particularly in a future world where paper books simply do not happen, we need to fix these gaps. Applying and subsequently rebutting the wrong label is just wasting everyone's time.
Not quite. If the author is to be believed, the 'rape' titled books are being censored on the basis of a single word in their title.
So you have gay erotica, and the title has rape in it. Magic word? Please calm down. It's a keyword. If you're trying to keep a clean selection, you aren't going to want to promote rape. And if your book is entitled something about rape and is in the erotica section, chances are that it's promoting rape even if fictionally.
It seems you empathize with Amazon because you have something in common - neither of you can be bothered to actually read things before making judgement calls. Observe:
"How To Rape A Straight Guy" has a very provocative title, yes, and its narrator, Curt, is a very in-your-face sort of guy who thinks he can get even with the world by assaulting men. But it winds up hurting innocent people and destroying him. I even have a moment of foreshadowing in it, where Curt as a 6-year-old boy watches a cousin of his torture a dog until it bites him, then the boy's father kills the dog and goes off to buy another one. The moral of the whole book being, if you treat a man like a dog his whole life, you shouldn't be surprised if he bites you. And the sad reality is, when he finally does bite back, he's the one who's punished. Does that sound like porn?
"Rape In Holding Cell 6", both volumes, is about corruption in the judicial system, and its main character, Antony, is investigating the brutal rape and murder of his lover in the county jail. He finds a legal and political system that thinks it can get away with anything and nearly drives himself insane in his quest for revenge, a quest that threatens to harm the innocent as well as the guilty as he becomes exactly what he hates. Does that sound like porn?
So the first case is a cautionary/morality tale and the second case is the investigation of a rape.
Ignorance is powerful. Moreso than knowledge. That being the case, 'chances are' you, and Amazon, are in the wrong here.
Did you not see my earlier post, here, answering your challenge? Did you choose simply not to respond? I would have expected, at a minimum, a 'thank you'. You seemed to be passively asserting that there was nothing in the leaks, so surprise might have been in order as well. I just wasn't quite expecting silence...
Are you an ambassador to this planet?
I think I can safely claim that title at this point, yes.
Best choice for him, not for the people, of course. Or are you making excuses for fascists?
Well, unfortunately the 'best choice' for that entire group of people likely is fascism. Now, for the individual three peoples, I don't know. Two of them would be very, very poor. I think a true democracy, however, would split them ideologically and culturally and let the money/oil fall where it may. Since THAT's not going to happen, I worry about the impending violence and war - things for which a fascist usually corners the market.
Goldblum would not have been seen, by a kid, as a scientist. He wasn't depicted that way. There was no lab, for example.
As I said in the post adjacent to here, that you might find with very, very little effort, 'protagonist' is swappable with 'good guy' in the way that I used it with no loss of meaning.
But you wouldn't care about such things, because of the nerd rage and all.
Sadly,your new subject is quite wrong too, the role of science in Jurassic Park is far more realistic. The characters of the scientists are much more credible in that. Avatar was just a cartoon, both visually and scriptwise. Though these days your average Marvel comic has a more nuanced story than that film.
I wonder if maybe you'd ever be willing to read even the summary. Here I'll help:
'Kids get turned on by the emotion.' Interestingly enough although movies work hard to get the science right, many make errors ranging from the understandable to the egregious, but that's ok, say the panelists. 'Even if a film or media product is not very accurate, that becomes a teaching moment,' says Arvind Singhal. 'So there's room for everything.'
I'm very sorry you didn't like Avatar. I'm further sorry that you're obsessed with trashing it to the point of not being able to have a rational conversation about a topic even tangentially related to that film. Please do me a favor and never speak to me again. Meanwhile, I'll make a note in my 'things to not say on slashdot' file that Avatar incites ridiculous throngs of idiots to argue about minor nuances despite there being a larger topic at hand. Meanwhile, kindly find some means to have sex with yourself. Thanks!
I never said he was. However, how do you assume a democracy will peacefully resolve such an issue?
I'm betting they won't. There will be civil war.