I've linked to this in the past, but the privacy statement on the scroogled web page clearly states that they have the right to do exactly what Google is doing.
"We use the information we collect to provide the services you request. Our services may include the display of personalized content and advertising."
They aren't cloning KDE. They're just redoing Unity in QT. They already had Unity 2d in QT, so they'll probably just pick up where they left off with that.
The cost of getting android drivers for free, is that it restricts their kernel choices. On the desktop, though, it looks like they are using a smart strategy to use enough of the existing linux driver infrastructure ( mesa,ect) that they'll work with the existing open source drivers without modification.
Its not a bad plan, but writing a new display manager isn't trivial.
The US & china would have to have an extradition agreement first. If that were in place and a us company had broken the Chinese laws while doing business in China, then yes I think that would be fair.
Yeah, they'd like getting a percentage and funneling it through there accounting systems before "paying" artists any money. A great system would be for them to collect a huge chunk of money, but get to decide which artists they pay money to and how much.
But I think, they, being the greedy sons of guns they are, would actually ask for both systems at the same time.
Yeah, what I'm saying is that even in a bad area like Detroit the majority of the population isn't killed despite the rampant murders. Global warming is bad, but not that bad. Even if it were, as I said in my first post we cannot eliminate our dependance on coal within the next 10 years. So, lets try and reduce its impact as much as possible while working as much as possible to make sure we do go off coal in 10 years. We can do both.
Also, there is no war. There is no credible threat of war. You sound as crazy as the yk2 doomsday folk. If I didn't understand the science, and based my opinion of global warming based off of your ramblings I would think it was all crap.
In summary, YOU ARE NOT HELPING. Please return to reality.
Coal pollution negatively affects lungs, heart, and nervous system of the human body. That matters. What you are proposing is akin to saying that the police shouldn't investigate any robberies at all, because there are murders to solve.
We already burn a crap load of coal for our electricity. Wouldn't it be great if we worked to make it clean-er ( at least in terms of soot and mercury released into the air)? There isn't much on the horizon that could replace coal over night. We should try to find something will all due haste, but it wouldn't hurt to get the low hanging fruit. Its pretty much what Obama is doing now and its a sensible approach.
Says who? If you are for background checks, but don't like the idea of a registry, you should advocate for a background check without a registry. Not advocate agains all registries.
He didn't mention any kind of record keeping by any federal agency. Maybe by brining it up, he was anticipating that being a part of it, but assuming ill will of the other party gets you nowere in civilized debate.
But the only reason for using one is to make use of the service that I already pay for. If they are going to refuse my efforts to make their system work for me, I should have an automatic penalty free exit oppretunity from any/all contracts.
If you re-read the comment above, he didn't mention assalut weapons or a gun registry and you didn't respond to the issues he raised.
It would be pleasant if people on both sides of an issue could actually understand each other and agree that they actaully agree on some things. I guess that would be too much damage to people's world view where one side is "bad" and the other is "good".
That's a poor attempt to Godel me. "Do not murder people" is absolutely a result of social scientific research. Take a look at ethics. There can be good societal reasons based on research for ethical behavior. Or do you beleive that we must necissarily inject religeous reasoning into our laws?
Don't have time to tear your argument apart. Political ideology should rise to a standard higher than a personal preference.
I like consuming ham => no consequence to me. I want to elect a governement that requrires all citezens to consume ham => Problem for me.
He still uses consevatisim as the benchmark for his thinking. This stuff is good, *because* its consevative. Rather than conservatisim is good because of this.
No, it doesn't. There are two parts to the new regulation.
1) New cell boosters must meet stricter standards of non-interference.
That's great. No objection here.
2) Carriers must approve of the use of each and every one of these boosters, even the new ones that meet the stricter standard. If you have multiple carriers connected devices, you must have the booster approved by each carrier.
The insanity here is not in choosing a R or D, but the absolutist manner in which he identified himself as a conservative. Its like saying that I'll always believe that the theories of Issac Newton for life are absolutely true, regardless of what experiments show. You should always be willing to recalibrate your theories in light of new information. I suspect there is something else behind the conservativisim that is his real goal in life, politics, economics,etc that is unspoken. That is what the focus should be rather than the generic conversation stopper of "conservativisim".
Yeah, you don't quite understand what I'm suggesting. I don't really want to specify it any further. But basically I was imagining something less comprehensive. The goal of Oxford was to raise awareness. My suggestion still has that in mind, raise awareness about phishing, but punish fewer people.
My solution sucks as a long term solution, but as a short term solution its better and more effective than what oxford did. Ban or warn users after one suspicious email. Turn that on for one day out of every month to get people's attention. IT will become the enemy, such that people that don't *have* to use university email, won't. Which will keep out the rifraff who are most likely to get their accounts compromised. Which will reduce the odds of being labeled as a spam domain. Which will improve the quality for users that are responsible. That is, if you don't get fired by administration first for banning all the social science professors.
Actually, I do know a system admin at a local university. I'll ask him the feasibility of it is. If it will work for his college, it should work for any college (given their minuscule budget and high enrollment)
I can't tell if you misunderstood me, or are just wrong. They are harvesting email addresses from students, profs, etc. There is a limited resource of available oxford.edu addresses. They wouldn't be able to send many emails if they used a different account for each one. Even if they did, the filter should just usie ranking system like spam assasin to red flag outgoing emails likely to be spam. One bad email sent, block that message, send notice to user. five sent, block account. Even if there are a lot of false positives, you would only punish those doing something kind of wrong (sending out messages that look like spam) , rather than punishing everyone by blocking Google docs. It seems like a no-brainer to me.
I can't believe that Microsoft didn't improve their mobile platform because they were afraid of hurting their own success. It was never a market leader. The market shrank rather than grew for a while. Blackberry, Symbian, even Sun ate their lunch long before Apple showed up. They just didn't care enough about the segment, and were too distracted by the longhorn/vista failure to pay much attention. And when they did react, they decided to purchase an inovative company (danger) who's creative genius had already moved on to the next big thing ( Andy Rubin creator of Android) used Sun's platform and forced them to create something ( the kin) on the terrible windows mobile platform.
You give them way too much credit. They didn't think it was worth investing in. They were more interested in trying to create an ipod knockoff ( zune) than think about phones.
Its not all fake, its %33 fake. However, that isn't 1 out of every 3 bottles, thats 1/3 of each bottle. So, you know, take your risks as you see fit. I'd rather go without honey than eat the contaminated stuff.
No. Just making it non human is already an advantage in some respects. I would gladly replace myself with a self-driving car if it was as good as myself. I might even be willing to pay double for a car with that feature. I mean leather seats, climate control, wood paneling interior, crazy powerful engines, are features I wouldn't pay an extra dime for. Luxury for luxury's sake is stupid, imho. As is speed for speed's sake. But give me a car that drives itself, I 'll buy one right now for twice the price that my existing car is.
Slashdot Mirror
I've linked to this in the past, but the privacy statement on the scroogled web page clearly states that they have the right to do exactly what Google is doing.
"We use the information we collect to provide the services you request. Our services may include the display of personalized content and advertising."
http://privacy.microsoft.com/en-us/default.mspx
They aren't cloning KDE. They're just redoing Unity in QT. They already had Unity 2d in QT, so they'll probably just pick up where they left off with that.
The cost of getting android drivers for free, is that it restricts their kernel choices. On the desktop, though, it looks like they are using a smart strategy to use enough of the existing linux driver infrastructure ( mesa,ect) that they'll work with the existing open source drivers without modification.
Its not a bad plan, but writing a new display manager isn't trivial.
The US & china would have to have an extradition agreement first.
If that were in place and a us company had broken the Chinese laws while doing business in China, then yes I think that would be fair.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_law_in_the_United_States#Countries_with_diplomatic_relations_but_no_extradition_treaty
Yeah, they'd like getting a percentage and funneling it through there accounting systems before "paying" artists any money. A great system would be for them to collect a huge chunk of money, but get to decide which artists they pay money to and how much.
But I think, they, being the greedy sons of guns they are, would actually ask for both systems at the same time.
Yeah, what I'm saying is that even in a bad area like Detroit the majority of the population isn't killed despite the rampant murders. Global warming is bad, but not that bad. Even if it were, as I said in my first post we cannot eliminate our dependance on coal within the next 10 years. So, lets try and reduce its impact as much as possible while working as much as possible to make sure we do go off coal in 10 years. We can do both.
Also, there is no war. There is no credible threat of war. You sound as crazy as the yk2 doomsday folk. If I didn't understand the science, and based my opinion of global warming based off of your ramblings I would think it was all crap.
In summary, YOU ARE NOT HELPING. Please return to reality.
That's kind of crazy.
http://www.psr.org/news-events/press-releases/coal-pollution-damages-human-health.html
Coal pollution negatively affects lungs, heart, and nervous system of the human body. That matters. What you are proposing is akin to saying that the police shouldn't investigate any robberies at all, because there are murders to solve.
We already burn a crap load of coal for our electricity. Wouldn't it be great if we worked to make it clean-er ( at least in terms of soot and mercury released into the air)? There isn't much on the horizon that could replace coal over night. We should try to find something will all due haste, but it wouldn't hurt to get the low hanging fruit. Its pretty much what Obama is doing now and its a sensible approach.
Ok, that is a fair and honest response. Its a starting point for a good conversation.
"But, you almost have to in this day in age."
Which is why our government sucks. We have no civilized debate.
Says who? If you are for background checks, but don't like the idea of a registry, you should advocate for a background check without a registry. Not advocate agains all registries.
He didn't mention any kind of record keeping by any federal agency. Maybe by brining it up, he was anticipating that being a part of it, but assuming ill will of the other party gets you nowere in civilized debate.
But the only reason for using one is to make use of the service that I already pay for. If they are going to refuse my efforts to make their system work for me, I should have an automatic penalty free exit oppretunity from any/all contracts.
If you re-read the comment above, he didn't mention assalut weapons or a gun registry and you didn't respond to the issues he raised.
It would be pleasant if people on both sides of an issue could actually understand each other and agree that they actaully agree on some things. I guess that would be too much damage to people's world view where one side is "bad" and the other is "good".
That's a poor attempt to Godel me. "Do not murder people" is absolutely a result of social scientific research. Take a look at ethics. There can be good societal reasons based on research for ethical behavior. Or do you beleive that we must necissarily inject religeous reasoning into our laws?
Don't have time to tear your argument apart. Political ideology should rise to a standard higher than a personal preference.
I like consuming ham => no consequence to me.
I want to elect a governement that requrires all citezens to consume ham => Problem for me.
He still uses consevatisim as the benchmark for his thinking. This stuff is good, *because* its consevative. Rather than conservatisim is good because of this.
No, it doesn't. There are two parts to the new regulation.
1) New cell boosters must meet stricter standards of non-interference.
That's great. No objection here.
2) Carriers must approve of the use of each and every one of these boosters, even the new ones that meet the stricter standard. If you have multiple carriers connected devices, you must have the booster approved by each carrier.
That makes no sense at all.
The insanity here is not in choosing a R or D, but the absolutist manner in which he identified himself as a conservative. Its like saying that I'll always believe that the theories of Issac Newton for life are absolutely true, regardless of what experiments show. You should always be willing to recalibrate your theories in light of new information. I suspect there is something else behind the conservativisim that is his real goal in life, politics, economics,etc that is unspoken. That is what the focus should be rather than the generic conversation stopper of "conservativisim".
Yeah, you don't quite understand what I'm suggesting. I don't really want to specify it any further. But basically I was imagining something less comprehensive. The goal of Oxford was to raise awareness. My suggestion still has that in mind, raise awareness about phishing, but punish fewer people.
My solution sucks as a long term solution, but as a short term solution its better and more effective than what oxford did. Ban or warn users after one suspicious email. Turn that on for one day out of every month to get people's attention. IT will become the enemy, such that people that don't *have* to use university email, won't. Which will keep out the rifraff who are most likely to get their accounts compromised. Which will reduce the odds of being labeled as a spam domain. Which will improve the quality for users that are responsible. That is, if you don't get fired by administration first for banning all the social science professors.
Actually, I do know a system admin at a local university. I'll ask him the feasibility of it is. If it will work for his college, it should work for any college (given their minuscule budget and high enrollment)
The big bang theory does not require a collapse. It allows that as a possibility, but does not require it as an outcome.
I can't tell if you misunderstood me, or are just wrong. They are harvesting email addresses from students, profs, etc. There is a limited resource of available oxford.edu addresses. They wouldn't be able to send many emails if they used a different account for each one. Even if they did, the filter should just usie ranking system like spam assasin to red flag outgoing emails likely to be spam. One bad email sent, block that message, send notice to user. five sent, block account. Even if there are a lot of false positives, you would only punish those doing something kind of wrong (sending out messages that look like spam) , rather than punishing everyone by blocking Google docs. It seems like a no-brainer to me.
Why wouldn't oxford have just set up outbound email scanning? Once they detect an email account is spamming, cut off the user.
I can't believe that Microsoft didn't improve their mobile platform because they were afraid of hurting their own success. It was never a market leader. The market shrank rather than grew for a while. Blackberry, Symbian, even Sun ate their lunch long before Apple showed up. They just didn't care enough about the segment, and were too distracted by the longhorn/vista failure to pay much attention. And when they did react, they decided to purchase an inovative company (danger) who's creative genius had already moved on to the next big thing ( Andy Rubin creator of Android) used Sun's platform and forced them to create something ( the kin) on the terrible windows mobile platform.
You give them way too much credit. They didn't think it was worth investing in. They were more interested in trying to create an ipod knockoff ( zune) than think about phones.
Its not all fake, its %33 fake. However, that isn't 1 out of every 3 bottles, thats 1/3 of each bottle. So, you know, take your risks as you see fit. I'd rather go without honey than eat the contaminated stuff.
No. Just making it non human is already an advantage in some respects. I would gladly replace myself with a self-driving car if it was as good as myself. I might even be willing to pay double for a car with that feature. I mean leather seats, climate control, wood paneling interior, crazy powerful engines, are features I wouldn't pay an extra dime for. Luxury for luxury's sake is stupid, imho. As is speed for speed's sake. But give me a car that drives itself, I 'll buy one right now for twice the price that my existing car is.