I'm still waiting for the explanation of how majority opinion equals the special right to employ coercion as a means.
Because it's better than: Monarch's opinion = right to employ coercion as a means, which eventually yields tyranny Nobody's opinion = right to employ coercion as a means, which immediately yields anarchy (and eventually stabilizes into some other system of coercion, probably tyranny)
It's based on the hope that the majority will want what's right, which unfortunately is not always the case, but it's better than any alternatives I know of? Of course we put some rules about when majority opinion is not enough in our constitution, but that can only do so much. Also, in America, it's not the majority of the people that makes the laws (most of the time), but a majority of representatives chosen by the people. This is more practical than straight majority rules, but leads to more abuse of power.
No, that was an advertisement for Outside, not IRL (In Real Life). If you don't pay your landlord, I'm sure they'd be happy to hook you up with Outside, and, as advertised, with no monthly fees.
I also wonder why Apple really care? I mean they already signed the deal, and they're making 'reasonable' efforts to uphold their end of it, so why do they care enough about unlockers to bother with a patch aimed at preventing it? Esp. since they're getting more sales out of it....
From the transcript:
Toni Sacconaghi - Sanford Bernstein
And then, you raised the issue of the unlock intention. I presume that phones that are sold that ultimately are not subscribed to the AT&T network are not eligible for any payments from AT&T, correct?
Timothy D. Cook
That's correct. The payments on AT&T depend on being locked to AT&T, obviously
So, the question is: which will make them more money, the deal with AT&T or increased sales for an unlocked phone?
OK, I'm curious: what convinced you that Vista was junk?
OK, junk was probably not the right word (I apologize), but it was not an acceptable OS for my purpose, as is the case for many people who want to use their old software still and want the OS to slow down their computers as little as possible. So what I found unacceptable is that virtually none of my old software is fully compatible with it and it eats too many resources for my liking. I also had a few problems with my wireless. The wireless problems, however, may have been due to my old router which was a bit problematic, but I had far more problems with Vista than with XP or even Linux (once I got the Linux drivers set up right that is -- stupid Broadcom chipsets). My main issue was the software incompatibility though. If you want to buy all new software and have a high-end machine, Vista should not be too much of a problem from what I've seen personally (although I would still have my doubts). As I remember, there were even a couple of features I liked better about it, but they didn't impress me enough for me to remember what they were. Actually, if I had much choice, I wouldn't be using XP either, as I find the license completely repulsive, but that's another issue.
The point of my grandparent post was not to say that Vista is a horrible OS, but to emphasize the great grandparents point that there are enough problems with it that people want to avoid it when buying a new computer, and even (as in my case) get rid of it once they've got it.
This time, it's not just the old systems that are not getting upgraded. Brand new systems are still mostly shipping with XP. People don't trust the beast, and with good reason.
No kidding! I got a new computer with Vista, played around with Vista for a few days (long enough to determine that it was complete junk, and there was no way I would be satisfied with it), then dumped it and installed XP and Ubuntu dual boot. If there were an option of shipping the computer I got with XP I would have taken it, but I didn't really care, since I had a spare XP license anyway. If I didn't have a spare license, I probably would NOT have bought a Vista machine in the first place.
I would object to this system IF it recored _all_ plates and locations. Recording just the ones that came back with warrants or stolen I have no problem with.
Sorry. If you read the article to the very end you find this:
Every plate being scanned won't be tossed away but stored for future use. Once a warrant is issued on a plate, officers can pull up the previously scanned data, using coordinates on a map to pinpoint the exact location and time of the car when it was identified.
Kind of dumb that they put this information at the END of the article instead of in the headline. I thought there was not a problem until I got to the very end of the article. Still not sure it's illegal on technical grounds, but definitely not right for them to be tracking innocent people this way.
My question is, if you've already payed for Wow service and you can't use that service without "agreeing" to the new contract, is that contract even valid? I would hope not.
I've never seen one that gives 5s, but there are several in Utah that give both 10s and 20s (in fact I used one just a couple days ago). Most give just 20s though.
I believe they have the right to request the money back. If you accidentally gave them too much money when making a deposit, would you not expect to get it back as well? However, their means of getting the money back is wrong. They do not have the right to forcibly take the money back in whatever form they want, at least not unless you refuse to give it back. In the worst case with their method, who knows if you have enough money in your account to cover their overpayment, in which case you get overdraft fees for their mistake. Additionally, you would not get interest on the money they take from your account, when you would have if they hadn't made the overpayment in the first place. In other words they are fixing the mistake that was in your favor by making mistakes that are in their favor, and is akin to stealing.
That's simple. As I understand it, if you intentionally pay less than the agreed price for something, or intentionally take money that does not belong to you, that is stealing, and is illegal, regardless of whether it is $0.01 or $1 million. The only difference is that $0.01 probably doesn't matter to the victim, but $1 million does. What amount is significant depends on the victim.
The only thing worse than the local fox affiliate's dramatization of the story, is the attempted anti-fox spin in the/. blurb. I mean, yeah it's exaggerated and poorly done, but it's just a news story by a local fox affiliate. Who cares?
That just stems from the fact that the people NEVER come to a consensus. Therefore, the government is working in direct opposition to a portion of the people 100% of the time. (Note that they are also working FOR a portion of the people 100% of the time, but as people naturally tend to be critical this tends to go unnoticed.) Also, in a democracy you can count on portions of the government to work directly against other portions of the government the vast majority of the time, and as a result, 100% of the people have some portion of the government working against them the vast majority of the time. For instance, the democrats are trying to force a deadline for an Iraq pullout, while the republicans are trying to prevent a deadline. The result: those who want a deadline say the republicans are working against them and those who don't want it say the democrats are working against them. So everybody says on that issue that the government is working against them, because some portion of the government is.
Also MS is having trouble having people developing on their platform.
Huh? I'm not seeing any shortage of software made for Windows. I do see shortages of quality software made for Linux. (Don't be offended by the word "quality". Sure there are many truly excellent applications for Linux, but for some types of applications, the absolute best I can find is an unfinished piece of junk.) Not only that, but many (if not most) of the most useful Linux applications have ports to Windows, while there are relatively few Windows apps ported to Linux. And don't even get me started on drivers. You happen to have contradicted the number 1 reason, why I still dual boot all my computers. There's just too much software (including drivers) that's available for Windows and not for Linux.
I just thought of something interesting. What if FSF contributes patented code to MS OSS. Then if MS sues FSF for any patents, legitimate or not (as they seem to be threatening), then Microsoft can no longer (legally) use their own software without removing any FSF contributions. Of course I can't see FSF contributing code to Microsoft projects and, from what I hear, FSF has plenty of patents to counter-sue with anyway. But it might be a nice patent protection strategy for others.
That's why I use WordPerfect, the version from Corel Office 8, which is in my opinion the best Word Processor ever (they even made a version for Linux that I bought for $30). I never use all the other office applications, except for the rare spreadsheet so I can't really compare them. The only problem is compatibility, but that's not too bad. If I need to share a file, I convert it to RTF. If I need to read a.doc file, I use word reader, which is a free download. And if by chance someone ever sends me a.odf file, I do have Open Office, but don't use it much because it's still not up to the quality level of Word Perfect 8, although it is improving. I remember when I got Open Office 1.0 half the features were broken, and the help files (what would have been the only way to learn how to use it, if they were complete) were all filled with stubs indicating that the content was not yet available. And I had to ask myself "They called this 1.0 not 0.x?" I've seen far more mature products that the authors still felt were undeserving of being called 1.0. While the current version is GREATLY improved, I understand why even Microsoft haters would prefer MS Office over Open Office, even disregarding compatibility. What I can't understand is why anyone would prefer Word over WordPerfect, but I figure it's just ignorance.
If you read the article it seems unlikely that any treatment coming from this study would eliminate all fear, and it would take time with those it did eliminate. It would only allow you to overcome irrational fear by allowing the part of your brain that causes fear to learn that there is no longer anything to fear in a given situation. For example, someone who has social phobia because they were rejected by their peers as a child, may realize rationally that there is nothing to fear anymore (assuming their peers do not reject them as adults), but still have the fear anyway. Such a treatment would allow them to naturally overcome that fear more easily. However, if that same person undergoing the same treatment were in a war zone with people dying all around them, I doubt that fear would disappear, because the cause of the fear is still present. So to answer your question, it would target unnecessary fears while leaving rational fears in place.
You don't need to see Sicko or know anything about it, to say that Michael Moore makes propaganda. It's known from past experience. That doesn't necessarily mean that Sicko is propaganda, but from the perspective of someone who knows Michael Moore, but hasn't seen his latest film, it's safer to bet that it is than that it isn't. Personally, I believe the health care system is very broken, but that doesn't give me much incentive to see Sicko, because I don't consider Michael Moore to be credible. And that has nothing to do with fear of socialism. I'd just rather get my facts and opinions from people I can trust.
Speaking of "secret questions" the "improved security" (which is legally required in the US) at some Internet banking sites is worse than their original security. If you use Internet banking on a computer you've never used before (such as a public computer) you are asked for your mother's maiden name or some other dumb "secret question" (that's not really so secret) before you are asked for your password. The answer to this question is displayed on your screen in plain text and even worse if the browser's not set up right the answer will be stored and will appear on a drop down list the next time you visit the site (along with your account number or user name). So a person using that computer would still only need your password (at most), so there's no improvement. Here's the real catch. At some of these banking sites if you've forgotten your password (or you're breaking into someone else's account and don't know the password) you can reset it by using the same "secret question" and no further information is required. Thus the "improved security" ensures that the ignorant user makes all information necessary to access the account available to anyone who uses the same computer. And for such reasons I hate "secret questions" even more than I used to.
Yes, they are hackers. There's no question about that, but hacker is a vague term. Cracker is a more specific and descriptive term, and it does not mean someone who does something "awesomely evil". It means specifically someone who breaks through some security measure (like a safe cracker would for instance). A cracker does not necessarily do anything "evil" either. An example of what I would call a cracker is someone who's job it is to test a security system by trying to crack it, which can be very important inn assuring that the security system is effective.
What you are talking about in your post is the difference between "black hat" and "white hat" hackers, which, although most crackers are probably black hat, the two terms are not synonymous as I understand them. Also note that there can be black hat hackers who are not crackers. For instance, you could write adware or spyware without being a cracker, although malware that exploits security flaws may be more effective.
I'm not sure about Ancestory.com's policies, but familysearh.org doesn't make names of living people available unless they request it themselves. I don't remember exactly, but I think they wait a few years after the person's death as well. That alleviates at least some of the privacy concerns.
Personally, I've often had the opposite experience with comcast. I often get an $8 basic cable package because it discounts my comcast internet by $10 (internet cost without TV $60, internet cost with TV $50 + $8 = $58), then they always seem to forget that I'm not supposed to get the standard cable channels, so I get Internet + standard cable for two dollars less than the normal Internet price. Not only that, but whenever I've had any little problem with my service, they've had a guy out there to fix it within a couple days, and once within minutes.
They probably think if you're willing to spend over $2000 dollars a year on TV, they shouldn't have much problem getting a little more out of you, but if you're finding every possible way to cut costs like me, they know they have to take care of you or they'll lose you.
They advertise the maximum speed because everyone already knows the minimum speed: 0b/s. And everyone knows it will reach that speed on a somewhat regular basis, no matter what provider you have. As for the typical speed, do you really expect an ISP to give you any promises (or even estimates) about the quality of service they're going to provide? Then they might be legally required to live up to them.
Honestly though, they can't promise you a typical speed, because it depends on too many external factors (like the speed of the site you're downloading from or uploading to). And since there are so many variables already, they figure you won't notice if they throw in some variables of their own to save themselves money.
Why are you getting your fire extinguisher ready? Remember, this is Slashdot! There's more than just a grain of truth to what he said, it's a quarter truth. When he says, "This stuff is not easy to run," he's absolutely right. I'm wearing a T-Shirt at this very moment that quotes Torvalds saying, "The Linux philosophy is . . . 'Do it yourself.'" According to the cliche "If you want something done right, you have to do it yourself." But who ever said doing it yourself is easy? No moron is ever going to be able to understand Linux, as long as it remains a "do it yourself" operating system. And that's fine by me.
The FCC should fine people who promise explicit material and don't deliver, too.
IANAL, but I think that is called false advertising, which is illegal. (And sorry to point out minor errors, but I think you mean the FTC not the FCC.)
Slashdot Mirror
Because it's better than:
Monarch's opinion = right to employ coercion as a means, which eventually yields tyranny
Nobody's opinion = right to employ coercion as a means, which immediately yields anarchy (and eventually stabilizes into some other system of coercion, probably tyranny)
It's based on the hope that the majority will want what's right, which unfortunately is not always the case, but it's better than any alternatives I know of? Of course we put some rules about when majority opinion is not enough in our constitution, but that can only do so much. Also, in America, it's not the majority of the people that makes the laws (most of the time), but a majority of representatives chosen by the people. This is more practical than straight majority rules, but leads to more abuse of power.
So, do you have a better approach?
No, that was an advertisement for Outside, not IRL (In Real Life). If you don't pay your landlord, I'm sure they'd be happy to hook you up with Outside, and, as advertised, with no monthly fees.
From the transcript:
So, the question is: which will make them more money, the deal with AT&T or increased sales for an unlocked phone?
OK, junk was probably not the right word (I apologize), but it was not an acceptable OS for my purpose, as is the case for many people who want to use their old software still and want the OS to slow down their computers as little as possible. So what I found unacceptable is that virtually none of my old software is fully compatible with it and it eats too many resources for my liking. I also had a few problems with my wireless. The wireless problems, however, may have been due to my old router which was a bit problematic, but I had far more problems with Vista than with XP or even Linux (once I got the Linux drivers set up right that is -- stupid Broadcom chipsets). My main issue was the software incompatibility though. If you want to buy all new software and have a high-end machine, Vista should not be too much of a problem from what I've seen personally (although I would still have my doubts). As I remember, there were even a couple of features I liked better about it, but they didn't impress me enough for me to remember what they were. Actually, if I had much choice, I wouldn't be using XP either, as I find the license completely repulsive, but that's another issue.
The point of my grandparent post was not to say that Vista is a horrible OS, but to emphasize the great grandparents point that there are enough problems with it that people want to avoid it when buying a new computer, and even (as in my case) get rid of it once they've got it.
No kidding! I got a new computer with Vista, played around with Vista for a few days (long enough to determine that it was complete junk, and there was no way I would be satisfied with it), then dumped it and installed XP and Ubuntu dual boot. If there were an option of shipping the computer I got with XP I would have taken it, but I didn't really care, since I had a spare XP license anyway. If I didn't have a spare license, I probably would NOT have bought a Vista machine in the first place.
Sorry. If you read the article to the very end you find this:
Kind of dumb that they put this information at the END of the article instead of in the headline. I thought there was not a problem until I got to the very end of the article. Still not sure it's illegal on technical grounds, but definitely not right for them to be tracking innocent people this way.
My question is, if you've already payed for Wow service and you can't use that service without "agreeing" to the new contract, is that contract even valid? I would hope not.
I've never seen one that gives 5s, but there are several in Utah that give both 10s and 20s (in fact I used one just a couple days ago). Most give just 20s though.
I believe they have the right to request the money back. If you accidentally gave them too much money when making a deposit, would you not expect to get it back as well? However, their means of getting the money back is wrong. They do not have the right to forcibly take the money back in whatever form they want, at least not unless you refuse to give it back. In the worst case with their method, who knows if you have enough money in your account to cover their overpayment, in which case you get overdraft fees for their mistake. Additionally, you would not get interest on the money they take from your account, when you would have if they hadn't made the overpayment in the first place. In other words they are fixing the mistake that was in your favor by making mistakes that are in their favor, and is akin to stealing.
That's simple. As I understand it, if you intentionally pay less than the agreed price for something, or intentionally take money that does not belong to you, that is stealing, and is illegal, regardless of whether it is $0.01 or $1 million. The only difference is that $0.01 probably doesn't matter to the victim, but $1 million does. What amount is significant depends on the victim.
The only thing worse than the local fox affiliate's dramatization of the story, is the attempted anti-fox spin in the /. blurb. I mean, yeah it's exaggerated and poorly done, but it's just a news story by a local fox affiliate. Who cares?
That just stems from the fact that the people NEVER come to a consensus. Therefore, the government is working in direct opposition to a portion of the people 100% of the time. (Note that they are also working FOR a portion of the people 100% of the time, but as people naturally tend to be critical this tends to go unnoticed.) Also, in a democracy you can count on portions of the government to work directly against other portions of the government the vast majority of the time, and as a result, 100% of the people have some portion of the government working against them the vast majority of the time. For instance, the democrats are trying to force a deadline for an Iraq pullout, while the republicans are trying to prevent a deadline. The result: those who want a deadline say the republicans are working against them and those who don't want it say the democrats are working against them. So everybody says on that issue that the government is working against them, because some portion of the government is.
Huh? I'm not seeing any shortage of software made for Windows. I do see shortages of quality software made for Linux. (Don't be offended by the word "quality". Sure there are many truly excellent applications for Linux, but for some types of applications, the absolute best I can find is an unfinished piece of junk.) Not only that, but many (if not most) of the most useful Linux applications have ports to Windows, while there are relatively few Windows apps ported to Linux. And don't even get me started on drivers. You happen to have contradicted the number 1 reason, why I still dual boot all my computers. There's just too much software (including drivers) that's available for Windows and not for Linux.
I just thought of something interesting. What if FSF contributes patented code to MS OSS. Then if MS sues FSF for any patents, legitimate or not (as they seem to be threatening), then Microsoft can no longer (legally) use their own software without removing any FSF contributions. Of course I can't see FSF contributing code to Microsoft projects and, from what I hear, FSF has plenty of patents to counter-sue with anyway. But it might be a nice patent protection strategy for others.
That's why I use WordPerfect, the version from Corel Office 8, which is in my opinion the best Word Processor ever (they even made a version for Linux that I bought for $30). I never use all the other office applications, except for the rare spreadsheet so I can't really compare them. The only problem is compatibility, but that's not too bad. If I need to share a file, I convert it to RTF. If I need to read a .doc file, I use word reader, which is a free download. And if by chance someone ever sends me a .odf file, I do have Open Office, but don't use it much because it's still not up to the quality level of Word Perfect 8, although it is improving. I remember when I got Open Office 1.0 half the features were broken, and the help files (what would have been the only way to learn how to use it, if they were complete) were all filled with stubs indicating that the content was not yet available. And I had to ask myself "They called this 1.0 not 0.x?" I've seen far more mature products that the authors still felt were undeserving of being called 1.0. While the current version is GREATLY improved, I understand why even Microsoft haters would prefer MS Office over Open Office, even disregarding compatibility. What I can't understand is why anyone would prefer Word over WordPerfect, but I figure it's just ignorance.
If you read the article it seems unlikely that any treatment coming from this study would eliminate all fear, and it would take time with those it did eliminate. It would only allow you to overcome irrational fear by allowing the part of your brain that causes fear to learn that there is no longer anything to fear in a given situation. For example, someone who has social phobia because they were rejected by their peers as a child, may realize rationally that there is nothing to fear anymore (assuming their peers do not reject them as adults), but still have the fear anyway. Such a treatment would allow them to naturally overcome that fear more easily. However, if that same person undergoing the same treatment were in a war zone with people dying all around them, I doubt that fear would disappear, because the cause of the fear is still present. So to answer your question, it would target unnecessary fears while leaving rational fears in place.
You don't need to see Sicko or know anything about it, to say that Michael Moore makes propaganda. It's known from past experience. That doesn't necessarily mean that Sicko is propaganda, but from the perspective of someone who knows Michael Moore, but hasn't seen his latest film, it's safer to bet that it is than that it isn't. Personally, I believe the health care system is very broken, but that doesn't give me much incentive to see Sicko, because I don't consider Michael Moore to be credible. And that has nothing to do with fear of socialism. I'd just rather get my facts and opinions from people I can trust.
Speaking of "secret questions" the "improved security" (which is legally required in the US) at some Internet banking sites is worse than their original security. If you use Internet banking on a computer you've never used before (such as a public computer) you are asked for your mother's maiden name or some other dumb "secret question" (that's not really so secret) before you are asked for your password. The answer to this question is displayed on your screen in plain text and even worse if the browser's not set up right the answer will be stored and will appear on a drop down list the next time you visit the site (along with your account number or user name). So a person using that computer would still only need your password (at most), so there's no improvement. Here's the real catch. At some of these banking sites if you've forgotten your password (or you're breaking into someone else's account and don't know the password) you can reset it by using the same "secret question" and no further information is required. Thus the "improved security" ensures that the ignorant user makes all information necessary to access the account available to anyone who uses the same computer. And for such reasons I hate "secret questions" even more than I used to.
Yes, they are hackers. There's no question about that, but hacker is a vague term. Cracker is a more specific and descriptive term, and it does not mean someone who does something "awesomely evil". It means specifically someone who breaks through some security measure (like a safe cracker would for instance). A cracker does not necessarily do anything "evil" either. An example of what I would call a cracker is someone who's job it is to test a security system by trying to crack it, which can be very important inn assuring that the security system is effective.
What you are talking about in your post is the difference between "black hat" and "white hat" hackers, which, although most crackers are probably black hat, the two terms are not synonymous as I understand them. Also note that there can be black hat hackers who are not crackers. For instance, you could write adware or spyware without being a cracker, although malware that exploits security flaws may be more effective.
I'm not sure about Ancestory.com's policies, but familysearh.org doesn't make names of living people available unless they request it themselves. I don't remember exactly, but I think they wait a few years after the person's death as well. That alleviates at least some of the privacy concerns.
Personally, I've often had the opposite experience with comcast. I often get an $8 basic cable package because it discounts my comcast internet by $10 (internet cost without TV $60, internet cost with TV $50 + $8 = $58), then they always seem to forget that I'm not supposed to get the standard cable channels, so I get Internet + standard cable for two dollars less than the normal Internet price. Not only that, but whenever I've had any little problem with my service, they've had a guy out there to fix it within a couple days, and once within minutes.
They probably think if you're willing to spend over $2000 dollars a year on TV, they shouldn't have much problem getting a little more out of you, but if you're finding every possible way to cut costs like me, they know they have to take care of you or they'll lose you.
They advertise the maximum speed because everyone already knows the minimum speed: 0b/s. And everyone knows it will reach that speed on a somewhat regular basis, no matter what provider you have. As for the typical speed, do you really expect an ISP to give you any promises (or even estimates) about the quality of service they're going to provide? Then they might be legally required to live up to them.
Honestly though, they can't promise you a typical speed, because it depends on too many external factors (like the speed of the site you're downloading from or uploading to). And since there are so many variables already, they figure you won't notice if they throw in some variables of their own to save themselves money.
Why are you getting your fire extinguisher ready? Remember, this is Slashdot! There's more than just a grain of truth to what he said, it's a quarter truth. When he says, "This stuff is not easy to run," he's absolutely right. I'm wearing a T-Shirt at this very moment that quotes Torvalds saying, "The Linux philosophy is . . . 'Do it yourself.'" According to the cliche "If you want something done right, you have to do it yourself." But who ever said doing it yourself is easy? No moron is ever going to be able to understand Linux, as long as it remains a "do it yourself" operating system. And that's fine by me.
The FCC should fine people who promise explicit material and don't deliver, too.
IANAL, but I think that is called false advertising, which is illegal. (And sorry to point out minor errors, but I think you mean the FTC not the FCC.)