> Why should MSFT be held to some high standard > for a tool that they include in their software?
You're kidding, right?
This isn't a mission critical piece of software included with Windows OS. It's an extraneous tool included with Word to help and guide people to realize that there might be an issue with their writing.
The University of Washington associate professor has embarked on a one-man mission to persuade the Redmond company to improve the grammar-checking function in its popular word-processing program. Krishnamurthy is also trying to raise public awareness of the issue.
It's a tool that's not meant to take the place of actual proof-reading. The grammar checker included w/Word should only alert you to the possibility of some generic issues. If you are turning in, presenting, or distributing some paper you created I would suggest that you take the time and check over it yourself. After you check over it I suggest you have someone else check it over too.
Microsoft calls that the fundamental issue. Responding to an inquiry about Krishnamurthy's examples, the Microsoft Office group said in a statement that the grammar checker "was created to be a guide and a tool, not a perfect proofreader." Microsoft also makes that point in Word's product documentation.
Why should MSFT be held to some high standard for a tool that they include in their software? They should be forced to change it because some college student doesn't understand that "Marketing are good" isn't grammatically correct? Blame the student and their previous education not a tool that MSFT offers.
"If you're a grad student turning in your term paper, and you think grammar check has completely checked your paper, I have news for you -- it really hasn't," he said.
Perhaps require your students to hand in a draft first and you can tell them. In my experience very few professors cared about grammar, spelling, or even the basic content of the paper. How are these students supposed to know what they are doing is wrong if no one will take the time to teach it to them? MSFT is supposed to do that now?
"If you're including a feature in a widely used program like Microsoft Word, it's got to pick up more things than it currently does," he said. "I agree, the English language is very complicated, but I think we should expect more from grammar check."
Come on. I expect that out of my college education I should have at least earned the right to have a professor take the time out of their busy schedule to check over my paper for me. Most would glance over it and say it's fine. I only had *two* that actually spent the time to tear my papers down and show me what was wrong so that I wouldn't make those mistakes again. Does this professor want to do that or does he just want to berate MSFT for not doing it?
But how did a marketing and e-commerce professor become a grammar-checking crusader?
The professor is careful to point out that he's not out to bash Microsoft. But he says the company is spending too much energy on extraneous capabilities, while neglecting core features such as the grammar checker.
Sounds like bashing to me especially considering he's a Marketing prof with a background in e-commerce. I wonder what his intentions really are for this "one man crusade". The grammar checker is not a core feature IMHO. I use it as a tool to give me some quick direction but I certainly don't consider it to be the end-all and I certainly wouldn't tell my students to use it if I was a professor.
just because he's ignorant of two relatively niche applications doesn't mean you know 100 times more than him.
If you're so concerned about WEP and MAC filtering why wouldn't you be using encrypted IM clients, encrypted tunnels for POP auth, and stopping programs you are using from phoning home?
He's using industry buzz in general conversation but fails to understand how to even minimally protect himself. That's how I know.
Perhaps if they were paid more than your typical McDonalds employee they'd be a bit better than said fast-food dispensers.
I had a discussion with a friend about people in the IT world (I'm not one of them). One works for a large corporation's IT department. He was unaware of SSH, VNC, but was concerned that the wireless router they use in their house doesn't use MAC filtering or WEP. He also has a piece of software phoning home to Toshiba constantly, uses an unencrypted IM client, and gives you a blank stare when you talk about SSH tunnels to a squid proxy.
In this case the unpaid amateur knows 100x what the well paid IT professional does.
As long as the market continues to allow that sort of crap to go on the computing world will continue to suffer as a whole.
1. Zonealarm was good a couple of years ago. Now it's all bloated, very slow to load, and crashes a lot (last time I checked at least). Try Syngate free version instead.
Check again. I've been using it w/o issue since I started running Windows again in 2002. It's at the latest free version and my Windows XP machine has a better uptime than my Linux box.
2. Use only one anti-spyware software. remember, we don't want conflicts do we? it'd be worst these days because most anti-spywares offer "real-time" stuff...potential conflicts.
An obvious troll. Just to clarify... SpyBot and AdAware catch stuff that the other one doesn't. It is necessary to run them both at the same time. SpywareBlaster has no effect on AdAware as it doesn't do the same thing but SpyBot does recommend it now.
If its a explorer.exe dll module (or iexporer), kill explorer from Task Manager, then run cmd to delete that dll from dos mode.
It's people like you that make the computing world "scary" and "difficult".
I know what you mean, but I have seen old computers that use the Intel 8086. They have been running pretty much non-stop for decades and their cases have never been opened once.
Exactly, and who put them into place when they originally put them online? People who spent the time learning how to properly operate a computer. In this day and age we have a limitless resource of information easily accessed with two clicks.
If people are unwilling to spend the time necessary to learn even the most basic skills necessary for the general upkeep of their machines then how can they seriously expect them to work flawlessly?
But because computers are so complex, it's inevitable, and usually not very long, before they stop working as they should.
This is your first mistake. Computers are not inherently complex (even Windows). People have a habbit of making computers more complex than they need to be (i.e. installing whatever whenever and expecting it to remain on there and stable forever). If people would just take the time to understand that they do not need 10000 things in their tray and took the 10 minutes to read exactly what each of those things they installed did they would quickly learn what the Uninstall Program feature is for.
When a domestic appliance goes wrong, you can ring a repair man. When your car breaks down you can call the garage. But when your computer system goes wrong, who do you call?
Google or a manual. Just like I did for my burned out tail-light on my car, the squeaking dryer, and the rattling my engine made when it spun a rod. Now, in the case of the spun rod there was nothing *I* could do without taking it to the dealer to repair but at least I had an idea of what to expect when they told me what was wrong with it.
The simple truth is that although computer systems are sold as consumer goods like fridges or washing machines, there's no computer equivalent of a qualified service engineer who you can get to come around and fix things.
You bought software or your hardware from somewhere I would guess (if you built this stuff on your own you have enough knowledge to fix it on your own). Take it to them. Dell, Gateway, Apple, whoever. If you're talking about software issues, call the company of the software you installed, oooh, it's Spyware problems. You only have yourself to blame for not researching carefully what you put on your computer. Just because you can modify your computer more easily than most pieces of hardware you own does not mean you should be absolved of all responsibility when it breaks. I wish that more people would understand that.
It seems incredible, but millions of families and thousands of businesses have no-one to turn to but a bunch of unqualified amateurs to fix the most complicated pieces of equipment that have probably ever existed. It's a scary thought.
What do you suggest? A school where they teach spyware removal? Or do you propose they learn about securing their networks (wireless and wired), their computers w/firewalls, spyware and virus protection (and frequent scans/updates), and keeping abreast of new news about OS updates and protections to the latest and greatest things out there? Why not spend the 20 minutes reading one of my posts or the 10000000 other posts out there that tell you exactly what you need to know:
1. Get a software firewall (ZoneAlarm) that tells you when an internal software package is calling home. 2. Get AdAware, SpyBot, and SpywareBlaster. Keep them up to date and scan frequently. 3. Install all the latest updates for your OS and keep them up to date. 4. Don't install something that you don't understand. Check with Google first. It's not hard to spend the 5 minutes with a Google search on the name of the program you want to install to find out if it phones home (and if you don't at least you have ZoneAlarm to give you a heads up). 5. Get some sort of virus protection (i.e. NAV or AVG) 6. Realize that regular maintenance is required for ANY piece of hardware (cars, HVAC, etc). Do you not change your oil every ~3000 miles? Do you not check your air filters in your home every month or two? Do you not add water softener salt every month?
I just gave five pieces of software that are free, easily found on reputable/major distribution sites, and that have probably been repeated elsewhere thousands of times. It amazes me that someone who claims that he can fix other people's problems didn't find this software and then had the audacity to claim that the software out there sucks.
If only more people were w
Re:No matter how careful you are, you aren't enoug
on
ID Theft Made Easy
·
· Score: 1
Would contend, however, that they do not have a right to not only record, but keep that recording, of public information?
IANAL so I couldn't answer that but I am just as much in my rights to have a reasonable expectation that the information will not be recorded and linked to my CC # (which was the original point of this discussion) for malicious use.
I have as much of a right to request that the information be given back to me (it is my information afterall) as they have to take it in the first place.
Re:No matter how careful you are, you aren't enoug
on
ID Theft Made Easy
·
· Score: 2, Informative
There are many different sections to LexisNexis and you can have access to any variety of them at a time based on your security. I know of two individuals with access to this information that have nothing to do with law enforcement.
See here for information on LexisNexis' available public records.
Re:No matter how careful you are, you aren't enoug
on
ID Theft Made Easy
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Go ahead and get mad at a gas station clerk if you want.
In the instances I listed above I never made a single mention of being "mad" or "upset" with the individuals doing their job. I just asked for the slip of paper w/my license plate number on it back. Perhaps you should not assume so much and just read what's at face value.
Re:No matter how careful you are, you aren't enoug
on
ID Theft Made Easy
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
They can get very little, actually, without access to police computers.
You could not be more wrong. You can get a ton of information including name, address, previous addresses, DOB, etc. This isn't from some police database either. It's records that are available through individuals that have access to databases like Lexis Nexis.
Even if they could, it's no different from just driving around. You proudly display your license plate to hundreds of people each day.
But I don't display my CC # right next to it.
No matter how careful you are, you aren't enough!
on
ID Theft Made Easy
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
One man "provided all his information without question, but returned five minutes later asking for it back, as he thought that we could use it to gain access to his online bank account," Sellick recalled. "We gave him back his survey form, but did not provide any evidence of who we were. If we had been fraudsters, he would have been too late."
I refuse to do business with any Lakeville Liquor store in Lakeville, MN because they require a license swipe to verify my birthday. While they claim on a sign on the counter that they respect my privacy what does that really mean? Do the clerks know that those machines can store an XLS spreadsheet of all the information scanned? Do they know if those that own/operate the stores use that information later? Perhaps it's just to CYOA if some question arises from authorities later but how can I be so sure? I can't so I drive the two and a half miles out of my way to get my wine/beer somewhere else that doesn't scan. I make sure to tell the clerks that I buy there because they don't scan. Most don't care but perhaps someone will overhear me.
The manager at the Lakeville store sure did. I asked "are you going to scan that?" and when the clerk said she was I told her I would like my license back and that I was sorry that I couldn't do business with them. The clerk had no problems with it but the manager muttered that I was an "asshole" under his breath. Somehow I'm the asshole for protecting my privacy. If only more people would refuse to hand over their personal information. What happens if someone robbed the liquor store and stole the little scan box along with the register, would you be a bit more concerned then?
How about the gas station that writes down your license plate information when you purchase gas w/o paying at the pump. It's just for their economic safety they say. Do you know how much information you can get on the owner of a car from their license plate? What happens if I go inside, buy a few items, and pay w/my credit card? They now have my CC # and my personal information. That's enough for ID theft as well. I saw the clerk write down my license plate and I asked them for the paper when I left. They were a little confused as to how I knew they did that and they were VERY confused as to why I would want that back. I didn't feel the need to educate them on it though.
Even I am not immune to this sort of scamming for info. While out drinking with friends (drunk actually) I was approached by an attractive female working for Marlboro. She would give me cheap cigarette coupons and a free Zippo lighter if I let them give me a survey. Drunk, distracted, and clueless, I swiped my license and took the survey. I have been getting coupons and various "gifts" in the mail since. I could have been completely duped by these people and not had a single clue. Luckily they were who they said they were and I'm not seeing any miscellaneous charges being rung up by any cigarette companies trying to cover their lawsuits with my money. Anyone (no matter how careful) can be owned. By the way - I don't even smoke cigarettes.
So, just because we know a company (or its representatives) we should not trust them with our personal information and the more people that are willing to trade over their private/personal information for a bottle of wine, a 12 pack of cheap beer, or a free Zippo might want to think twice.
Nevertheless, most of the transfers that we reviewed were executed between parties bound by agreements forbidding additional sharing or disclosure of the passenger information. Of the more than 12 million records transferred, a passenger's data was inappropriately disclosed to the public in only one instance. In this instance, a government contractor's inappropriate disclosure of information was inadvertent.
So, because it was a government contractor and not the government itself I should be fine with the one slip up because the contractor just didn't have the proper amount of care necessary to carry out the task with the proper amount of security necessary?
Let me guess, the person who's information was divulged has little or no option of recourse against the contractor. Of course this report doesn't say anything about that. Will the contractor be used again? Why wasn't the contractor listed in the report so that everyone knows who they are. After all, they leaked someone's private info, I think the public should at least know that they shouldn't be dealt with at any time.
TSA's policy environment with respect to privacy has changed substantially since its inception. From its inception, TSA recognized personal privacy and confidentiality as important concerns. Especially in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attacks, finding a balance between these concerns and transportation and aviation security was a difficult challenge.
There is no need for a balance. Regardless of the emergency state of the nation people's privacy should not take a back seat. We all know Ben Franklin's comment and it rings true here.
Regardless of passenger data sharing, lists of known problem individuals, etc, people are going to get on that plane and cause problems (whether directly or indirectly). We are always a step behind and trying to close holes that were used in the past. The terrorists will always find some hole we haven't closed because they haven't used it before.
Our weak attempts at ending terrorism do nothing but erode our freedoms and that's exactly what they want to have happen. Way to go!
Scary stuff, and yet it's evem scarier how little the general public has caught on.
They have caught on to what they were told to. They seriously believe that they are now safer that their privacy has been eroded. They are dazzled with big numbers and small reported incident numbers (i.e. how many people were affected by the Patriot Act).
People want to be told what to think. They want to be told they are safe and they will seriously believe they are. People who think otherwise are labeled "paranoid" and not worthy of belief. Only those that continually fill the heads of their citizens with spin are worthy of listening to. Who are we kidding? How is the public supposed to "catch on" when they are bombarded by government sponsored propaganda centered around the positive influence the TSA has had on airline safety? If we watched network-sponsored TV news we might have had a different view on the whole situation right? The government propaganda pieces looked and sounded quite legit as they were meant to. So the people that don't rely on personal research and news from multiple outlets really did believe the TSA was doing things in their best interests.
What I believe is scary is that people just shrug it off and say, "all administrations do these things." Perhaps, but this one was caught and you still don't care.
At.99 a song, how can anyone justify P2P piracy anymore? If nine bucks for an entire album is still too much, then clearly your incentive for piracy is not a "communications movement" to "empower the individual," but is basic human nature--wanting something for free so you don't have to pay for it.
You and your trolling....99 *is* too much for a song and $9.99 *is* too much for an album when there is no physical medium and you have DRM which locks you to listening to that song on a handful of devices at a reduced sound quality.
Now, CDs are a completely inexpensive medium but have high quality. It's certainly not worth $12.99+ for a CD being that the medium costs are so low but it's certainly worth more than what DRM'd/low quality/near free distribution of digital files are.
Even chimpanzees in social experiments will try to swipe a banana if they learn they don't have to give something back in return.
TROLL. This was unnecessary. I am giving something back in return when I purchase something of iTMS (and even if I don't). I'm giving them browsing statistics. What was listened to, seen, and purchased. They get to have a ton of data to sort through now to better market their wares to the people.
That should be worth some money back don't you think?
Despite the fact that there is no shortage of bands/musicians trying to land these horrible contracts... go figure!
Imagine that. Not caring about ownership of music they created for a chance to make big money! The RIAA was *the* only way to make it big for so long and now that we have inexpensive and near free distribution costs the RIAA does not need to exist anymore. Sadly it will take time before everyone realises that.
I'm still waiting for the story to appear on Slashdot where the RIAA sued someone for buying a CD.
They sued someone for supposedly downloading/uploading when they didn't. I think that's worse. YMMV.
It's always "the evil RIAA" with no mention of the human beings whose music you're actually taking and depriving revenue for because you want it for free.
It's not the artists music when they are RIAA backed. It's the RIAA's music and no matter how much the RIAA claims that they have nothing but the artists' best interests in mind they prove time and time again that they only have their own best intentions in mind.
Now, when there is a GPL violation it is sometimes by a corporate company (i.e. a company that distribute SOHO routers) that is using GPL'd software to drive their product w/o giving credit where it is due. The Slashdot community gets pretty pissed off when the corporations shits on the little guys.
Now, the RIAA is a corporation (convicted of price fixing none-the-less) that is shitting on the little guys in two different arenas. Both the artists (their monetary share of the profits are nil) and the consumers who purchase the music distributed by them.
I think that's the personal justification most Slashdotters use. But then again I'm speaking for a large majority in general terms.
I would agree that P2P helps the little artists. What is not as well known is that the label execs (many of whom I know and work with) rely on P2P statistics to decide which records to promote and which songs to shoot videos for.
Yeah because no big names allow their music to be distributed by P2P right? Grateful Dead, Phish (remember these are two of the largest touring bands ever), and a recent notable Wilco (#1 alternative rock album), Los Lonely Boys (quite famous recently for whatever reason), etc.
Just because Ashlee Lipsynchson and various other talentless popular artists don't do it doesn't mean it doesn't help the "big" artists.
So do other programs though. People use Word because it's what everyone else uses and in order to be 99% compatible you have to use it too.
I have no problems with Word and I think it works just fine (better than OO, Abiword, etc) but I think that the reason it became so popular was the close file format.
Sort of but that's not the point. They are crappy work arounds for the proprietary format. If the XML isn't all fucked up like MSFT probably wants it to be then anyone can easily view the documents (and write them) in any current AND future program that can read standardized XML.
If MSFT can't close the document format and any program can correctly read/write documents in the way they were intended what advantage does MSFT have.
That's why MSFT doesn't want this and everyone else does.
BBC Worldwide said in a statement: "After a thorough investigation by BBC Worldwide's Canadian broadcast partner, the source of the leak of episode one of the new Doctor Who series has been traced to a third party company in Canada which had an early preview copy for legitimate purposes. The individual responsible for the leak has had their employment terminated by that company as a result.
So basically they didn't like the possiblity of negative press over the viral advertising issue and decided to issue a vague statement that doesn't prove anything and instead leads me to believe even more now than before (I didn't care at all before) it's a cover up.
There is competition. I can go with the more expensive DSL that's slower (2048/256), makes me have a voice line, doesn't block ports, and gives me ISP choice or I can go with Cable which is cheaper, makes me have CATV as well, blocks all server ports, and is faster (3000/384).
I chose DSL.
So you are saying that somehow, if DSL had competition, it would get faster? They are slower with Cable competition so I really don't see your point.
Well, as long as certain sections of the book aren't being copied at the same time I don't see the problem.
If someone is copying information out of a reference book as part of fair-use and that book cannot leave the library why can't someone else be accessing a completely different section of the same book?
I never can fully understand these patent writeups but I want to know if this will only allow you to search through full-texts of books you have proven you own.
Why can't you be shown a snippet of the text through fair-use? You should be able to retrieve that information freely w/o restriction IMHO but IANAL.
What about libraries that own these books. Could they setup a link to this searchable database so their patrons could look through books that the library owns? That sounds like a good idea to me;)
Slashdot Mirror
> Why should MSFT be held to some high standard
> for a tool that they include in their software?
You're kidding, right?
This isn't a mission critical piece of software included with Windows OS. It's an extraneous tool included with Word to help and guide people to realize that there might be an issue with their writing.
The University of Washington associate professor has embarked on a one-man mission to persuade the Redmond company to improve the grammar-checking function in its popular word-processing program. Krishnamurthy is also trying to raise public awareness of the issue.
It's a tool that's not meant to take the place of actual proof-reading. The grammar checker included w/Word should only alert you to the possibility of some generic issues. If you are turning in, presenting, or distributing some paper you created I would suggest that you take the time and check over it yourself. After you check over it I suggest you have someone else check it over too.
Microsoft calls that the fundamental issue. Responding to an inquiry about Krishnamurthy's examples, the Microsoft Office group said in a statement that the grammar checker "was created to be a guide and a tool, not a perfect proofreader." Microsoft also makes that point in Word's product documentation.
Why should MSFT be held to some high standard for a tool that they include in their software? They should be forced to change it because some college student doesn't understand that "Marketing are good" isn't grammatically correct? Blame the student and their previous education not a tool that MSFT offers.
"If you're a grad student turning in your term paper, and you think grammar check has completely checked your paper, I have news for you -- it really hasn't," he said.
Perhaps require your students to hand in a draft first and you can tell them. In my experience very few professors cared about grammar, spelling, or even the basic content of the paper. How are these students supposed to know what they are doing is wrong if no one will take the time to teach it to them? MSFT is supposed to do that now?
"If you're including a feature in a widely used program like Microsoft Word, it's got to pick up more things than it currently does," he said. "I agree, the English language is very complicated, but I think we should expect more from grammar check."
Come on. I expect that out of my college education I should have at least earned the right to have a professor take the time out of their busy schedule to check over my paper for me. Most would glance over it and say it's fine. I only had *two* that actually spent the time to tear my papers down and show me what was wrong so that I wouldn't make those mistakes again. Does this professor want to do that or does he just want to berate MSFT for not doing it?
But how did a marketing and e-commerce professor become a grammar-checking crusader?
The professor is careful to point out that he's not out to bash Microsoft. But he says the company is spending too much energy on extraneous capabilities, while neglecting core features such as the grammar checker.
Sounds like bashing to me especially considering he's a Marketing prof with a background in e-commerce. I wonder what his intentions really are for this "one man crusade". The grammar checker is not a core feature IMHO. I use it as a tool to give me some quick direction but I certainly don't consider it to be the end-all and I certainly wouldn't tell my students to use it if I was a professor.
just because he's ignorant of two relatively niche applications doesn't mean you know 100 times more than him.
If you're so concerned about WEP and MAC filtering why wouldn't you be using encrypted IM clients, encrypted tunnels for POP auth, and stopping programs you are using from phoning home?
He's using industry buzz in general conversation but fails to understand how to even minimally protect himself. That's how I know.
Perhaps if they were paid more than your typical McDonalds employee they'd be a bit better than said fast-food dispensers.
I had a discussion with a friend about people in the IT world (I'm not one of them). One works for a large corporation's IT department. He was unaware of SSH, VNC, but was concerned that the wireless router they use in their house doesn't use MAC filtering or WEP. He also has a piece of software phoning home to Toshiba constantly, uses an unencrypted IM client, and gives you a blank stare when you talk about SSH tunnels to a squid proxy.
In this case the unpaid amateur knows 100x what the well paid IT professional does.
As long as the market continues to allow that sort of crap to go on the computing world will continue to suffer as a whole.
1. Zonealarm was good a couple of years ago. Now it's all bloated, very slow to load, and crashes a lot (last time I checked at least). Try Syngate free version instead.
Check again. I've been using it w/o issue since I started running Windows again in 2002. It's at the latest free version and my Windows XP machine has a better uptime than my Linux box.
2. Use only one anti-spyware software. remember, we don't want conflicts do we? it'd be worst these days because most anti-spywares offer "real-time" stuff...potential conflicts.
An obvious troll. Just to clarify... SpyBot and AdAware catch stuff that the other one doesn't. It is necessary to run them both at the same time. SpywareBlaster has no effect on AdAware as it doesn't do the same thing but SpyBot does recommend it now.
If its a explorer.exe dll module (or iexporer), kill explorer from Task Manager, then run cmd to delete that dll from dos mode.
It's people like you that make the computing world "scary" and "difficult".
I know what you mean, but I have seen old computers that use the Intel 8086. They have been running pretty much non-stop for decades and their cases have never been opened once.
Exactly, and who put them into place when they originally put them online? People who spent the time learning how to properly operate a computer. In this day and age we have a limitless resource of information easily accessed with two clicks.
If people are unwilling to spend the time necessary to learn even the most basic skills necessary for the general upkeep of their machines then how can they seriously expect them to work flawlessly?
But because computers are so complex, it's inevitable, and usually not very long, before they stop working as they should.
This is your first mistake. Computers are not inherently complex (even Windows). People have a habbit of making computers more complex than they need to be (i.e. installing whatever whenever and expecting it to remain on there and stable forever). If people would just take the time to understand that they do not need 10000 things in their tray and took the 10 minutes to read exactly what each of those things they installed did they would quickly learn what the Uninstall Program feature is for.
When a domestic appliance goes wrong, you can ring a repair man. When your car breaks down you can call the garage. But when your computer system goes wrong, who do you call?
Google or a manual. Just like I did for my burned out tail-light on my car, the squeaking dryer, and the rattling my engine made when it spun a rod. Now, in the case of the spun rod there was nothing *I* could do without taking it to the dealer to repair but at least I had an idea of what to expect when they told me what was wrong with it.
The simple truth is that although computer systems are sold as consumer goods like fridges or washing machines, there's no computer equivalent of a qualified service engineer who you can get to come around and fix things.
You bought software or your hardware from somewhere I would guess (if you built this stuff on your own you have enough knowledge to fix it on your own). Take it to them. Dell, Gateway, Apple, whoever. If you're talking about software issues, call the company of the software you installed, oooh, it's Spyware problems. You only have yourself to blame for not researching carefully what you put on your computer. Just because you can modify your computer more easily than most pieces of hardware you own does not mean you should be absolved of all responsibility when it breaks. I wish that more people would understand that.
It seems incredible, but millions of families and thousands of businesses have no-one to turn to but a bunch of unqualified amateurs to fix the most complicated pieces of equipment that have probably ever existed. It's a scary thought.
What do you suggest? A school where they teach spyware removal? Or do you propose they learn about securing their networks (wireless and wired), their computers w/firewalls, spyware and virus protection (and frequent scans/updates), and keeping abreast of new news about OS updates and protections to the latest and greatest things out there? Why not spend the 20 minutes reading one of my posts or the 10000000 other posts out there that tell you exactly what you need to know:
1. Get a software firewall (ZoneAlarm) that tells you when an internal software package is calling home.
2. Get AdAware, SpyBot, and SpywareBlaster. Keep them up to date and scan frequently.
3. Install all the latest updates for your OS and keep them up to date.
4. Don't install something that you don't understand. Check with Google first. It's not hard to spend the 5 minutes with a Google search on the name of the program you want to install to find out if it phones home (and if you don't at least you have ZoneAlarm to give you a heads up).
5. Get some sort of virus protection (i.e. NAV or AVG)
6. Realize that regular maintenance is required for ANY piece of hardware (cars, HVAC, etc). Do you not change your oil every ~3000 miles? Do you not check your air filters in your home every month or two? Do you not add water softener salt every month?
I just gave five pieces of software that are free, easily found on reputable/major distribution sites, and that have probably been repeated elsewhere thousands of times. It amazes me that someone who claims that he can fix other people's problems didn't find this software and then had the audacity to claim that the software out there sucks.
If only more people were w
Would contend, however, that they do not have a right to not only record, but keep that recording, of public information?
IANAL so I couldn't answer that but I am just as much in my rights to have a reasonable expectation that the information will not be recorded and linked to my CC # (which was the original point of this discussion) for malicious use.
I have as much of a right to request that the information be given back to me (it is my information afterall) as they have to take it in the first place.
There are many different sections to LexisNexis and you can have access to any variety of them at a time based on your security. I know of two individuals with access to this information that have nothing to do with law enforcement.
See here for information on LexisNexis' available public records.
Go ahead and get mad at a gas station clerk if you want.
In the instances I listed above I never made a single mention of being "mad" or "upset" with the individuals doing their job. I just asked for the slip of paper w/my license plate number on it back. Perhaps you should not assume so much and just read what's at face value.
They can get very little, actually, without access to police computers.
You could not be more wrong. You can get a ton of information including name, address, previous addresses, DOB, etc. This isn't from some police database either. It's records that are available through individuals that have access to databases like Lexis Nexis.
Even if they could, it's no different from just driving around. You proudly display your license plate to hundreds of people each day.
But I don't display my CC # right next to it.
One man "provided all his information without question, but returned five minutes later asking for it back, as he thought that we could use it to gain access to his online bank account," Sellick recalled. "We gave him back his survey form, but did not provide any evidence of who we were. If we had been fraudsters, he would have been too late."
I refuse to do business with any Lakeville Liquor store in Lakeville, MN because they require a license swipe to verify my birthday. While they claim on a sign on the counter that they respect my privacy what does that really mean? Do the clerks know that those machines can store an XLS spreadsheet of all the information scanned? Do they know if those that own/operate the stores use that information later? Perhaps it's just to CYOA if some question arises from authorities later but how can I be so sure? I can't so I drive the two and a half miles out of my way to get my wine/beer somewhere else that doesn't scan. I make sure to tell the clerks that I buy there because they don't scan. Most don't care but perhaps someone will overhear me.
The manager at the Lakeville store sure did. I asked "are you going to scan that?" and when the clerk said she was I told her I would like my license back and that I was sorry that I couldn't do business with them. The clerk had no problems with it but the manager muttered that I was an "asshole" under his breath. Somehow I'm the asshole for protecting my privacy. If only more people would refuse to hand over their personal information. What happens if someone robbed the liquor store and stole the little scan box along with the register, would you be a bit more concerned then?
How about the gas station that writes down your license plate information when you purchase gas w/o paying at the pump. It's just for their economic safety they say. Do you know how much information you can get on the owner of a car from their license plate? What happens if I go inside, buy a few items, and pay w/my credit card? They now have my CC # and my personal information. That's enough for ID theft as well. I saw the clerk write down my license plate and I asked them for the paper when I left. They were a little confused as to how I knew they did that and they were VERY confused as to why I would want that back. I didn't feel the need to educate them on it though.
Even I am not immune to this sort of scamming for info. While out drinking with friends (drunk actually) I was approached by an attractive female working for Marlboro. She would give me cheap cigarette coupons and a free Zippo lighter if I let them give me a survey. Drunk, distracted, and clueless, I swiped my license and took the survey. I have been getting coupons and various "gifts" in the mail since. I could have been completely duped by these people and not had a single clue. Luckily they were who they said they were and I'm not seeing any miscellaneous charges being rung up by any cigarette companies trying to cover their lawsuits with my money. Anyone (no matter how careful) can be owned. By the way - I don't even smoke cigarettes.
So, just because we know a company (or its representatives) we should not trust them with our personal information and the more people that are willing to trade over their private/personal information for a bottle of wine, a 12 pack of cheap beer, or a free Zippo might want to think twice.
Nevertheless, most of the transfers that we reviewed were executed between parties bound by agreements forbidding additional sharing or disclosure of the passenger information. Of the more than 12 million records transferred, a passenger's data was inappropriately disclosed to the public in only one instance. In this instance, a government contractor's inappropriate disclosure of information was inadvertent.
So, because it was a government contractor and not the government itself I should be fine with the one slip up because the contractor just didn't have the proper amount of care necessary to carry out the task with the proper amount of security necessary?
Let me guess, the person who's information was divulged has little or no option of recourse against the contractor. Of course this report doesn't say anything about that. Will the contractor be used again? Why wasn't the contractor listed in the report so that everyone knows who they are. After all, they leaked someone's private info, I think the public should at least know that they shouldn't be dealt with at any time.
TSA's policy environment with respect to privacy has changed substantially since its inception. From its inception, TSA recognized personal privacy and confidentiality as important concerns. Especially in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attacks, finding a balance between these concerns and transportation and aviation security was a difficult challenge.
There is no need for a balance. Regardless of the emergency state of the nation people's privacy should not take a back seat. We all know Ben Franklin's comment and it rings true here.
Regardless of passenger data sharing, lists of known problem individuals, etc, people are going to get on that plane and cause problems (whether directly or indirectly). We are always a step behind and trying to close holes that were used in the past. The terrorists will always find some hole we haven't closed because they haven't used it before.
Our weak attempts at ending terrorism do nothing but erode our freedoms and that's exactly what they want to have happen. Way to go!
Scary stuff, and yet it's evem scarier how little the general public has caught on.
They have caught on to what they were told to. They seriously believe that they are now safer that their privacy has been eroded. They are dazzled with big numbers and small reported incident numbers (i.e. how many people were affected by the Patriot Act).
People want to be told what to think. They want to be told they are safe and they will seriously believe they are. People who think otherwise are labeled "paranoid" and not worthy of belief. Only those that continually fill the heads of their citizens with spin are worthy of listening to. Who are we kidding? How is the public supposed to "catch on" when they are bombarded by government sponsored propaganda centered around the positive influence the TSA has had on airline safety? If we watched network-sponsored TV news we might have had a different view on the whole situation right? The government propaganda pieces looked and sounded quite legit as they were meant to. So the people that don't rely on personal research and news from multiple outlets really did believe the TSA was doing things in their best interests.
What I believe is scary is that people just shrug it off and say, "all administrations do these things." Perhaps, but this one was caught and you still don't care.
At .99 a song, how can anyone justify P2P piracy anymore? If nine bucks for an entire album is still too much, then clearly your incentive for piracy is not a "communications movement" to "empower the individual," but is basic human nature--wanting something for free so you don't have to pay for it.
.99 *is* too much for a song and $9.99 *is* too much for an album when there is no physical medium and you have DRM which locks you to listening to that song on a handful of devices at a reduced sound quality.
You and your trolling...
Now, CDs are a completely inexpensive medium but have high quality. It's certainly not worth $12.99+ for a CD being that the medium costs are so low but it's certainly worth more than what DRM'd/low quality/near free distribution of digital files are.
Even chimpanzees in social experiments will try to swipe a banana if they learn they don't have to give something back in return.
TROLL. This was unnecessary. I am giving something back in return when I purchase something of iTMS (and even if I don't). I'm giving them browsing statistics. What was listened to, seen, and purchased. They get to have a ton of data to sort through now to better market their wares to the people.
That should be worth some money back don't you think?
Despite the fact that there is no shortage of bands/musicians trying to land these horrible contracts... go figure!
Imagine that. Not caring about ownership of music they created for a chance to make big money! The RIAA was *the* only way to make it big for so long and now that we have inexpensive and near free distribution costs the RIAA does not need to exist anymore. Sadly it will take time before everyone realises that.
I'm still waiting for the story to appear on Slashdot where the RIAA sued someone for buying a CD.
They sued someone for supposedly downloading/uploading when they didn't. I think that's worse. YMMV.
And my point is that it doesn't matter. No matter the size of the band P2P does nothing but help the artists gain popularity and distribution.
It's always "the evil RIAA" with no mention of the human beings whose music you're actually taking and depriving revenue for because you want it for free.
It's not the artists music when they are RIAA backed. It's the RIAA's music and no matter how much the RIAA claims that they have nothing but the artists' best interests in mind they prove time and time again that they only have their own best intentions in mind.
Now, when there is a GPL violation it is sometimes by a corporate company (i.e. a company that distribute SOHO routers) that is using GPL'd software to drive their product w/o giving credit where it is due. The Slashdot community gets pretty pissed off when the corporations shits on the little guys.
Now, the RIAA is a corporation (convicted of price fixing none-the-less) that is shitting on the little guys in two different arenas. Both the artists (their monetary share of the profits are nil) and the consumers who purchase the music distributed by them.
I think that's the personal justification most Slashdotters use. But then again I'm speaking for a large majority in general terms.
I would agree that P2P helps the little artists. What is not as well known is that the label execs (many of whom I know and work with) rely on P2P statistics to decide which records to promote and which songs to shoot videos for.
Yeah because no big names allow their music to be distributed by P2P right? Grateful Dead, Phish (remember these are two of the largest touring bands ever), and a recent notable Wilco (#1 alternative rock album), Los Lonely Boys (quite famous recently for whatever reason), etc.
Just because Ashlee Lipsynchson and various other talentless popular artists don't do it doesn't mean it doesn't help the "big" artists.
So do other programs though. People use Word because it's what everyone else uses and in order to be 99% compatible you have to use it too.
I have no problems with Word and I think it works just fine (better than OO, Abiword, etc) but I think that the reason it became so popular was the close file format.
Sort of but that's not the point. They are crappy work arounds for the proprietary format. If the XML isn't all fucked up like MSFT probably wants it to be then anyone can easily view the documents (and write them) in any current AND future program that can read standardized XML.
If MSFT can't close the document format and any program can correctly read/write documents in the way they were intended what advantage does MSFT have.
That's why MSFT doesn't want this and everyone else does.
BBC Worldwide said in a statement: "After a thorough investigation by BBC Worldwide's Canadian broadcast partner, the source of the leak of episode one of the new Doctor Who series has been traced to a third party company in Canada which had an early preview copy for legitimate purposes. The individual responsible for the leak has had their employment terminated by that company as a result.
So basically they didn't like the possiblity of negative press over the viral advertising issue and decided to issue a vague statement that doesn't prove anything and instead leads me to believe even more now than before (I didn't care at all before) it's a cover up.
There is competition. I can go with the more expensive DSL that's slower (2048/256), makes me have a voice line, doesn't block ports, and gives me ISP choice or I can go with Cable which is cheaper, makes me have CATV as well, blocks all server ports, and is faster (3000/384).
I chose DSL.
So you are saying that somehow, if DSL had competition, it would get faster? They are slower with Cable competition so I really don't see your point.
Well, as long as certain sections of the book aren't being copied at the same time I don't see the problem.
If someone is copying information out of a reference book as part of fair-use and that book cannot leave the library why can't someone else be accessing a completely different section of the same book?
I never can fully understand these patent writeups but I want to know if this will only allow you to search through full-texts of books you have proven you own.
;)
Why can't you be shown a snippet of the text through fair-use? You should be able to retrieve that information freely w/o restriction IMHO but IANAL.
What about libraries that own these books. Could they setup a link to this searchable database so their patrons could look through books that the library owns? That sounds like a good idea to me
Umm, no one will be lugging a laptop around with them when they are walking along. A lot of people carry a cell phone.
Thus the market share isn't decreasing in size and *a* "device" might be obsolete but the technology will not.