Actually, retention doesn't matter. If the information is collected, a citizen can not be guaranteed ANYTHING after that point. It is just like being fingerprinted. It doesn't matter if you are cleared of a crime, they will be retained "forever". Every time they run prints, yours will be "searched", without probable cause. Even if there is a law requiring them to be "removed" from a database, you can be very assured that they are still retained in the hands of some type of agency.
In an era dominated by cheap almost limitless storage, tons of computing power, and fast networks, once information is collected, the game is over. "Guarantees" about how that information will be used, by whom, and for how long are pretty much meaningless. Call me paranoid if you like, but I have had the satisfaction of saying "I told you so" to many people for many years...
Perhaps the police should then rely on good old-fashioned police work instead of trying to force a police state where private businesses are required to do it for them.
Undercover agents can "test" bars and fine them severely. That should be enough. Liability on the part of bars should be limited to what is "reasonable". Scanning or copying ID's is simply not acceptable.
Really? You mean that keeping records of people intending to drink alcohol, the time, the location, who you might be going with, and hold onto that information for some unknown time, and share that information with unknown people or organizations.... you mean doing that could be considered a violation of an individual's privacy??
It still amazes me that people that live in countries that supposedly support an individual's rights allow themselves to be treated like branded cattle this way.
To the legislators that create such stuff, and to the people who support such legislation: Keep on waxing that slippery slope...
Here's one American wishing Europe would do just that- find that something that is a "most hurtful alternative" as you put it.
Hint- it already exists... it is FOSS (Linux, BSD, FireFox, OpenOffice, Apache, etc, etc). You would be doing the whole world a favor. Take the billions of euros funneled to MS each year and funnel it into FOSS organizations/projects instead. You will end up with more control, security, and choices while ultimately spending much, much less. And those resulting improvements in FOSS will be available to everyone in the whole world.
> I have a hard time fathoming why Microsoft would have to do this but not Apple...
Because, for now, Microsoft is a huge, damaging monopoly that destroys competition, choice, and freedom. Apple is a tiny, non-damaging, single-area monopoly (for now). If Apple were to do the same thing (be forced to have no default browser), it wouldn't change anything. Plus, Apple doesn't design the OS around the browser like MS does.
But requiring MS to do it- well, that means 90% of the market will have a browser choice from the get-go. I don't think it is all that much of a remedy (to being a damaging monopoly), and it is certainly "too little too late", but it does have a certain logic to it.
Um, no. In all those cases (and many others), their motive was to suck people in and then shut it down, in an attempt to force people to their OS. I remember it well.
>GoToMeeting and crap like that. Many of those are Windows only. That's kind of annoying.
Yeah, it is more than KIND OF annoying. Sometimes it is extremely annoying. Especially when 3/4 of those stupid webinars are nothing but some slide show that could have been done in plain HTML + Javascript, or Flash if they REALLY had to have something fancy.
And it is further annoying that sites like "GoToMeeting" base their whole product on things like VNC, which is FOSS and multiplatform in the first place!
> Hey dude - people only pay for MS licensing if it makes business sense.
Sorry, I disagree with that.
Many businesses just buy right into the MS product line, purchasing whatever products they sell that MIGHT be useful, without EVER looking at any competing products... and especially not FOSS.
And there are plenty of businesses that pay for MS licensing for things THEY DON'T EVEN USE!
Most corporations could save lots of money if they only purchased licenses for what they really needed and used FOSS products where appropriate.
Although that is good news, I would comment thusly:
1) Did you try it using Firefox on a non-MS-Windows computer?
2) The article is really about some type of browser-based MS-Office, not Sharepoint. So even if Sharepoint might work, it doesn't mean MS-Office will (I should think the odds would be much lower)
3) Microsoft has a nasty habit of allowing things to work with non-MS products/browsers/OS's AT FIRST. Then later that support starts to dwindle and disappear.
Yeah, it sounds like the article is confusing free, online, other-party-hosted applications with non-free, online, self-hosted applications. Both have existed for a long time.
Since Microsoft's main bread and butter is MS Office, why would they offer a "free" version- offline or online, other than trialware, crippleware, or sampleware?
>dogs make far better pets. [...]that will happily sleep at your feet or otherwise leave you undisturbed for hours at a time
That is just YOUR opinion, though. I think cats make far better pets. They, too, will leave me undisturbed for hours at a time and yet happily sleep in my lap.
They are interesting, soft, beautiful, loving, playful, relatively easy to care for, trainable (not as much as a dog, though), flealess (indoor), generally quiet, have a long lifespan, and self-grooming.
Yeah, I thought about it after I posted and realized that speed vs. following distance was probably not directly related. But my point was still generally valid-
With the proper following distance for your speed, you don't have to reduce speed to maintain reasonable safety.
The old "2 second rule" might be OK for any speed, but only under "normal" weather and traffic conditions. When conditions deteriorate, you have to make it a 3 or 4 second rule, instead.
"Slowing down" is not really what is needed in most cases...
Which do you think is safer or more effective: slowing down 15% or increasing following distance 15%? I am betting following distance is FAR more critical to accident avoidance. Speed is rarely "the" problem, unless there is a great speed differential in the traffic on the road.
Personally, I always try to leave more distance... and the worse the conditions, the more distance I add. That extra second (or more) can make a big difference.
I seriously doubt you can seat seven people [properly, safely] in a Tesla sedan with two front bucket seats and one rear bench. Perhaps 4 comfortably (2+2) or 5 uncomfortably (2+3), like most sedans.
Where have YOU been? Didn't you know that over the past 20 years, the SSN has turned into the National ID Number? It doesn't matter that there was EXTREME concern that this might happen way back when the SSN was invented, it happened anyway.
Your right to privacy and anonymous purchasing disappeared a long time ago, so get used to it. "Credit checks" were just the first step. After that, it was manipulated for tax purposes. Then it spread to all kinds of interesting other "must have" situations or they refuse service. Even several doctor's offices I went to (and no, they weren't running a credit check nor was I on Medicare/Medicaid) HAD to have my SSN. PROSPECTIVE employers insist they HAVE to have the SSN. Movie rental places seem to think they HAVE to have your SSN. It took MANY YEARS of fighting before the citizens in my state FINALLY had the SSN removed as the mandatory driver's license number.
The package will be nice and complete once the Fed starts to force collection of fingerprints and DNA from everyone; it is coming... Most Americans don't have any understanding about privacy and security. "If you have nothing to hide" and all that, is the typical, brainless, response.
Re:Carrier Exclusivity Might Kill It
on
Palm Pre Reviewed
·
· Score: 1
I do not agree that the Palm will "almost certainly have to remain a single carrier device". Palm smartphones have been available from several carriers for many years. From what I read on PreCentral.net, Verizon has already expressed interest in carrying the Pre.
But Android does, indeed, have a wider possible appeal. It isn't tied to any particular hardware company (like Palm and Iphone are).
In any case, it is nice having all these new, functional, flashy, Linux based phones surfacing, finally:)
Re:Carrier Exclusivity Might Kill It
on
Palm Pre Reviewed
·
· Score: 1
Unless I am mistaken, you just listed carriers that are not in the US. Whether by design or not, the G1 and Android is still single carrier in the USA (I admit that my postings are USA-centric).
I suspect that by the time any other carrier in the USA has either the iphone or android, the Pre will also be available on other carriers.
Re:Carrier Exclusivity Might Kill It
on
Palm Pre Reviewed
·
· Score: 1
In most ways, Sprint is no worse than any other wireless carrier. They have a fast and reliable network with excellent coverage, great roaming agreements, and reasonable rates. But pretty bad customer service. But, then, I hear complaints about customer service from people using EVERY cell provider.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, retention doesn't matter. If the information is collected, a citizen can not be guaranteed ANYTHING after that point. It is just like being fingerprinted. It doesn't matter if you are cleared of a crime, they will be retained "forever". Every time they run prints, yours will be "searched", without probable cause. Even if there is a law requiring them to be "removed" from a database, you can be very assured that they are still retained in the hands of some type of agency.
In an era dominated by cheap almost limitless storage, tons of computing power, and fast networks, once information is collected, the game is over. "Guarantees" about how that information will be used, by whom, and for how long are pretty much meaningless. Call me paranoid if you like, but I have had the satisfaction of saying "I told you so" to many people for many years...
Perhaps the police should then rely on good old-fashioned police work instead of trying to force a police state where private businesses are required to do it for them.
Undercover agents can "test" bars and fine them severely. That should be enough. Liability on the part of bars should be limited to what is "reasonable". Scanning or copying ID's is simply not acceptable.
So it has nothing to do with trying to enforce drinking ages. Instead it is just more "paper's please" government tracking of citizens.
I am sure that will make everyone there feel even better about being branded cattle...
Really? You mean that keeping records of people intending to drink alcohol, the time, the location, who you might be going with, and hold onto that information for some unknown time, and share that information with unknown people or organizations.... you mean doing that could be considered a violation of an individual's privacy??
It still amazes me that people that live in countries that supposedly support an individual's rights allow themselves to be treated like branded cattle this way.
To the legislators that create such stuff, and to the people who support such legislation: Keep on waxing that slippery slope...
Here's one American wishing Europe would do just that- find that something that is a "most hurtful alternative" as you put it.
Hint- it already exists... it is FOSS (Linux, BSD, FireFox, OpenOffice, Apache, etc, etc). You would be doing the whole world a favor. Take the billions of euros funneled to MS each year and funnel it into FOSS organizations/projects instead. You will end up with more control, security, and choices while ultimately spending much, much less. And those resulting improvements in FOSS will be available to everyone in the whole world.
> "OK, Joe...which engine do you want in your new Chevy? A Chevy, Ford, Toyota, Chrysler, Nissan, or Honda engine?"
If Chevy had 90% of the market, were declared a damaging, predatory monopoly, and you could load a new engine as easily as a browser...
sure, why not?
Oh, you mean the same as the perspective of.....
"Oh look, I can't use this MS Windows computer at all without reading a f*ing, 20 screen EULA in tiny fonts and then agree to it?"
But you are right in such that both will be meaningless to the majority of users.
> I have a hard time fathoming why Microsoft would have to do this but not Apple...
Because, for now, Microsoft is a huge, damaging monopoly that destroys competition, choice, and freedom. Apple is a tiny, non-damaging, single-area monopoly (for now). If Apple were to do the same thing (be forced to have no default browser), it wouldn't change anything. Plus, Apple doesn't design the OS around the browser like MS does.
But requiring MS to do it- well, that means 90% of the market will have a browser choice from the get-go. I don't think it is all that much of a remedy (to being a damaging monopoly), and it is certainly "too little too late", but it does have a certain logic to it.
Um, no. In all those cases (and many others), their motive was to suck people in and then shut it down, in an attempt to force people to their OS. I remember it well.
How about Foxbase? How about IE for Mac? How about MS-Word for Unix? Are three enough?
I wasn't aware the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights addressed having a "respectful workplace".
We should all expect one, and we should all strive to make it that way. And most HR offices will have policies about it. But it is not a "right".
Hello, fellow non-MS-Windows site
>GoToMeeting and crap like that. Many of those are Windows only. That's kind of annoying.
Yeah, it is more than KIND OF annoying. Sometimes it is extremely annoying. Especially when 3/4 of those stupid webinars are nothing but some slide show that could have been done in plain HTML + Javascript, or Flash if they REALLY had to have something fancy.
And it is further annoying that sites like "GoToMeeting" base their whole product on things like VNC, which is FOSS and multiplatform in the first place!
> Hey dude - people only pay for MS licensing if it makes business sense.
Sorry, I disagree with that.
Many businesses just buy right into the MS product line, purchasing whatever products they sell that MIGHT be useful, without EVER looking at any competing products... and especially not FOSS.
And there are plenty of businesses that pay for MS licensing for things THEY DON'T EVEN USE!
Most corporations could save lots of money if they only purchased licenses for what they really needed and used FOSS products where appropriate.
Although that is good news, I would comment thusly:
1) Did you try it using Firefox on a non-MS-Windows computer?
2) The article is really about some type of browser-based MS-Office, not Sharepoint. So even if Sharepoint might work, it doesn't mean MS-Office will (I should think the odds would be much lower)
3) Microsoft has a nasty habit of allowing things to work with non-MS products/browsers/OS's AT FIRST. Then later that support starts to dwindle and disappear.
Yeah, it sounds like the article is confusing free, online, other-party-hosted applications with non-free, online, self-hosted applications. Both have existed for a long time.
Since Microsoft's main bread and butter is MS Office, why would they offer a "free" version- offline or online, other than trialware, crippleware, or sampleware?
Why does the poster sound so surprised by the licensing and prerequisites? It is not like this is new behavior for Microsoft.
And you can bet it won't work with any other operating system except MS Windows, and won't work with any browser except IE.
Nothing new to see here... move along...
>dogs make far better pets. [...]that will happily sleep at your feet or otherwise leave you undisturbed for hours at a time That is just YOUR opinion, though. I think cats make far better pets. They, too, will leave me undisturbed for hours at a time and yet happily sleep in my lap. They are interesting, soft, beautiful, loving, playful, relatively easy to care for, trainable (not as much as a dog, though), flealess (indoor), generally quiet, have a long lifespan, and self-grooming.
Yeah, I thought about it after I posted and realized that speed vs. following distance was probably not directly related. But my point was still generally valid-
With the proper following distance for your speed, you don't have to reduce speed to maintain reasonable safety.
The old "2 second rule" might be OK for any speed, but only under "normal" weather and traffic conditions. When conditions deteriorate, you have to make it a 3 or 4 second rule, instead.
"Slowing down" is not really what is needed in most cases...
Which do you think is safer or more effective: slowing down 15% or increasing following distance 15%? I am betting following distance is FAR more critical to accident avoidance. Speed is rarely "the" problem, unless there is a great speed differential in the traffic on the road.
Personally, I always try to leave more distance... and the worse the conditions, the more distance I add. That extra second (or more) can make a big difference.
OK, that would make sense... I think. Hard to picture, though.
I seriously doubt you can seat seven people [properly, safely] in a Tesla sedan with two front bucket seats and one rear bench. Perhaps 4 comfortably (2+2) or 5 uncomfortably (2+3), like most sedans.
Where have YOU been? Didn't you know that over the past 20 years, the SSN has turned into the National ID Number? It doesn't matter that there was EXTREME concern that this might happen way back when the SSN was invented, it happened anyway.
Your right to privacy and anonymous purchasing disappeared a long time ago, so get used to it. "Credit checks" were just the first step. After that, it was manipulated for tax purposes. Then it spread to all kinds of interesting other "must have" situations or they refuse service. Even several doctor's offices I went to (and no, they weren't running a credit check nor was I on Medicare/Medicaid) HAD to have my SSN. PROSPECTIVE employers insist they HAVE to have the SSN. Movie rental places seem to think they HAVE to have your SSN. It took MANY YEARS of fighting before the citizens in my state FINALLY had the SSN removed as the mandatory driver's license number.
The package will be nice and complete once the Fed starts to force collection of fingerprints and DNA from everyone; it is coming... Most Americans don't have any understanding about privacy and security. "If you have nothing to hide" and all that, is the typical, brainless, response.
I do not agree that the Palm will "almost certainly have to remain a single carrier device". Palm smartphones have been available from several carriers for many years. From what I read on PreCentral.net, Verizon has already expressed interest in carrying the Pre.
But Android does, indeed, have a wider possible appeal. It isn't tied to any particular hardware company (like Palm and Iphone are).
In any case, it is nice having all these new, functional, flashy, Linux based phones surfacing, finally :)
Unless I am mistaken, you just listed carriers that are not in the US.
Whether by design or not, the G1 and Android is still single carrier in the USA (I admit that my postings are USA-centric).
I suspect that by the time any other carrier in the USA has either the iphone or android, the Pre will also be available on other carriers.
In most ways, Sprint is no worse than any other wireless carrier. They have a fast and reliable network with excellent coverage, great roaming agreements, and reasonable rates. But pretty bad customer service. But, then, I hear complaints about customer service from people using EVERY cell provider.