The clue this would be the case during Jobs' keynote was the repeated use of Beatles albums and songs. None are on the iTunes Music Store today, all represent ripped CD contents on an iPhone.
However, that was a pre-production model of the phone and OS. By the time it is actually shipping, what was demoed may have different features or be modified by the carriers. Take the RAZR as an example. Some carriers disable certain features, even though they are technically in the phone. With the RAZR from Sprint, you can't transfer files via USB (without a hack) and bluetooth for phone to phone communication is disabled (no hack available to enable). Yet on other carriers, these features work. Also, some carriers let their RAZR branded phone be used like an mp3 player where you can copy ripped CDs to it, other do not. The RAZR has the capability, the carriers have disabled it.
What's to stop the same thing from happening with the iPhone? Apple has already announced only approved apps will be available to run on it, so that means that even though it is running OS X and surfing the internet, there must be something to stop you from just downloading apps and running them. That might be the case with being able to rip CDs, too. Since the iPhone doesn't have a cd player, it has no way of knowing that the CD you ripped on your computer is legal or not. By the time you want to transfer them to the iPhone, they are just a bunch of mp3s of questionable source.
All that is really known about the iPhone is that a) it runs some new but limited version of OS X, b) it has the ability to access iTunes like and play music like an iPod, c) it's not available yet and d) you can make phone calls on it. Just about everything else is speculation, including the ability to copy your own CDs to it.
I for one hope that you can copy your own CDs to it, however, nowhere, in any of the announcements or the demo by Jobs, was that specifically mentioned as a possibility.
You can easily fill up an iPod or iPhone with non-DRM music. Just rip it yourself.
Are you sure about that? I have a brand new RAZR from Sprint and while it has the capabilities to play mp3s you download from their store, it has no ability to copy your own to the phone (unless you want to save them as ring tones). What makes you think the iPhone would be different? While it is true that you can rip your CDs to an iPod, nowhere was it mentioned that that capability will be included with an iPhone. Downloading music for a fee is one of the revenue streams the cell phone companies are depending on. Why would they want to give that up?
[I]I dislike M$ as much as the next/. poster, but saying W2K is 'broken' in this case is a bit of a stretch. The gov't changed the rules governing daylight savings time; it's not like it *wasn't* right before.[/I]
It's not that W2K is broken that makes M$ an asshole in all of this. It's that they have a patch available for those who have paid for extended support, but they won't release it for the general public.
Since the cost to produce the patch has already been absorbed by M$, the only reason to withhold the patch is to make people frustrated with W2K to encourage them to upgrade. When you can readily fix something, but you don't, so that people will upgrade, well, then, your an asshole.
You'd be surprised. Some bakers do just want to make the best bread and keep their customers happy -- the store is just an avenue of expression that means that they can afford to do what they like.. I know a few people like that.
Yeah, but Paypal isn't a baker, it's a financial institution. Bakers don't have to deal with federal regulations related to wire transfers, money laundering, etc. The sad fact if somebody wanted to create an account to help slain solders or whatever, they should have done it through a local financial institution. Then they could have linked Paypal to that account to accept funds.
With all of the people blaming Paypal on this, are they really wanting Paypal to do background checks on their account holders to make sure they are who they say they are? If not, then it's too bad that this error occurred, whether a clerical mistake at Paypal or through the way the individual set up the account, but this isn't a case of Paypal trying to bully somebody. It's a matter of following the federal regulations imposed post 9-11.
While it is desirable to think that you could be a westerner, ethical and completely secular, as an individual, it is not totally possible. On a societal level, western society has been influenced by religion. Even pre-Jewish societies, had religious overtones that influenced their behaviors. Even tribes deep in the jungle that never heard of a mono-theistic God have developed some sort of religious cult. Sociologists say that the development of religion to explain natural phenomenon is a natural development. Atheism, on the other hand, is the application of reason to dispel the primitive notion of religion or the supernatural in controlling the world around us, so by definition it had to develop after religious superstition.
Since, even an Atheist in living a totally secular life is influenced by the culture around them, and that culture to some extent has been tainted by the influence of religion (for example, just about every western society celebrates Christmas, whether the Atheist personally does or not) and by contact with people who have other ethical frameworks, then the framework the atheist is using to build his/her secular ethics framework is also tainted, no matter how slight.
The only way, it could not be is if the framework being built is built totally on reason, without any external influence, but how can that occur in todays modern world? Besides, it's not really a framework until it has been tested and once tested, the test modifies the framework, which means that it again, is tainted.
So, I think that there always is a relationship. The question is how strong of an influence does that relationship create in the secular framework? The answer to that can vary quite a bit.
There was no mention of any particular religion or any particular dogma in my post, only that modern society ethics and religion are linked. As someone did point out in the East, there is Buddhism and Confucianism, which technically are not a religion, so I should have said in modern western society.
Even the most ardent proponent of an atheist philosophy would have to admit that since the western culture is based on a Judeao-Christian background, it and it's views are influenced by those teachings (right or wrong). That does not mean that one has to discuss ethics in that framework, but to ignore the influence of the underpinnings of the culture will surely give false results.
I agree whole heartedly that serious discussion of ethics can take place and should take place without requiring people to assert a particular dogma, however, that is not what the original poster stated, which was that they had no relationship. And that, for better or worse, is simply not true.
No. Religion has no bearing on ethics. It would be relevant to questions of religious morals, but ethical questions shouldn't have anything to do with religion.
While it is true that one could theoretically develop an ethical framework without religion, it is simply naive to assume that any ethics system in place in modern society is devoid of a religious influence and therefore ethics and religion are definitely linked together.
I never said that Unix was secure. I said that certain versions of it come with all of the ports closed, which make it much less of a problem for the botnets to work.
As for the fundamental architecture of NT being no different than Unix, well maybe, maybe not, but the security model sure is different. By default on Windows, everything is open and accessible unless you shut it down. Even if you don't enable file and print sharing, there are hidden administrative shares that can't be disabled without dropping to the command line. All kinds of ports are open for all kinds of services, even though those services aren't even running. Users automatically have administrator rights.
There are desktop versions of *nix that don't have any ports open except for those required by the services that are actually installed and running. There are desktop versions of *nix that the user account is just a user and not an administrator. There are desktop versions of *nix that have disable the root account. All of these, especially when combined, offer a tighter security model than Windows.
Sure, if a user clicks-on or downloads malicious software and executes it, then there is a problem. However, the post I was responding to was about how the user must learn all about TCP/IP and the like. Knowing everything there is to know about TCP/IP and locking down my computer, still won't protect me from responding to the email that says my paypal account has been suspended, click here. However, the more locked down it is, the harder it is for it to be compromised. Mac OS X and the various *nix are more locked down than Windows. Even the reviews of the soon to be released Vista point that out.
As for your comment about them being insignificant and that is why there aren't as many exploits, well I have to believe that the same people who right these exploits here the same charge about how secure they are. In the hacker world, they already are on the radar scope. Instead of direct attacks, however, the attacks have come against various application faults (ie browsers, email, etc) and not the OS itself. That's different than in the Windows world, where the OS is the open door (and why it is so much harder to fix the problem).
I do agree that the current residential computing model is at fault, but if I may ask, who gave us that model? Microsoft created this pandora's box, and now the lid can't be closed. Now, they say they are coming out with a new model - trusted computing - however, the OS wasn't rewritten from scratch, instead they've added another security layer on top of the already shaky foundation. Trusted computing, like the XP Firewall, only gives a false sense of security, sure it may stop the casual hacker, but the people who really know what they are doing, and they are the ones to worry about, will break it/have broken it.
Are MacOS and Linux inherently better? If you are talking about security models, how can they not be? Are they the solution? Well that's a totally different question.
(Oh and your point about XP having ports visible to the outside world has been moot for over a year, SP2 turned on the firewall externally giving the XP box the same attack surface as your Mac with everything bound to the local subnet, hence we haven't seen anything like blaster since).
Really? Every XP box has hidden files shares turned on automatically. There isn't anyway to turn them off without resorting to executing a batch file after Windows starts. If you are relying on the Window's firewall for security, it is only providing a false sense of security, at best. There have been numerous tech articles against it (yes, it is better than nothing, but it isn't a full firewall).
Many malware rely on open ports to do their dirty work (connecting to IRC is just such an example). Several Linux distros have all ports disabled, other than those needed for actual use. OS X has most ports disabled. Even with the Windows firewall, there are many ports that are open, because otherwise, all the "neat" things Microsoft has touted you can do won't work. The problem is, that they are open whether you do those neat things or not and they don't show as an open threat because Microsoft wants them to be open.
Try it for yourself. There are many security websites that you can hit that will "test" your pc and tell you what is at risk with the default Windows settings. In short, the default Microsoft security settings may stop the kid down the block, but they won't stop the real hacker any more than copy protection does on CDs. At best, it just makes it a little less convenient.
Being proficient with a computer is not optional if you want to own and use a computer. Learn about TCP/IP. Learn about NAT. Learn about not trusting everything. Learn about understanding how things work at least a little bit before you try to run. You don't need to be a security guru, but you can't get by thinking you can just use a computer and never have to learn anything more about it than that.
Ummm, most Mac OS X users don't have to know anything about TCP/IP or NAT, etc. Of course, they have an OS that has security built in at a very low level, not tacked on as an after thought. Windows, at least through XP, is still based on the notion that it wants to make it easy to connect to everything and everyone. As such, it's pretty open and malware takes advantage of that. OS X and the various *nix distros start at the other end of the spectrum where things are locked down unless you open them up (although OS X has more opened up than, say Ubuntu and various other linii).
As others have posted, if Windows shipped with all ports closed except those that were really needed, then the user wouldn't need to worry about all these things. They wouldn't be opening a port until they needed it for some specific application and then that application could explain the dangers, if any to having the port open. It's basically a compromise between ease of use and security. Microsoft chose to maintain it's ease of use model from the pre-internet days, when everything was local and has tried to add security on top. It just doesn't work that well.
So, the real choice is, it seems, that if you want a Windows pc, then you need to learn about TCP/IP, NAT, firewalls, etc. On the otherhand, if you just want to use your computer, either buy a Mac or put a secure Linux, like Ubuntu, on your pc. (I just use Ubuntu as an example, there are others, too)
You say you run a business, but then what would the business reason be to load Vista on such of a machine in the first place? You are still running your old software, so what did Vista get you that you didn't have before? Yes Vista runs on such a computer, but to reuse your question, "Who cares?" What in the world good be the business reason for running it as such?
As for your other comments about Dell, etc., it's your own business, do what you want, but, then again, your technical experience is not the same as the vast majority of small business owners. The original poster was talking about turnkey work for a small pharmaceutical company. They probably base their hiring on biochemistry expertise and not being able to field strip a pc. Likewise, most small retail, restaurants, manufacturing firms, etc., in short, most small business outside the IT industry are also not likely to be doing the things with a computer that you do.
So, back to the real world, that 90% of small business owners live in, people pay for technical support. By the way, how much time did it take to back up the old data files, verify the computer would run Vista, install Vista, install Office and virus checkers and whatever other software was needed, restore the backed up data files and then verify that everything was working as expected? I'm guessing at least 3.5 hours if you are honest about it).
Well, to be fair, you can also get a Mac for $599. I think the original poster was using prices for equipment spec'd for the industry he is in. Plus those entry level Dells may load Vista but will they have the horsepower to drive Vista full throttle? As for $300 annually for system maintenance, well that's only 3.5 hrs of service calls at $80/hour. It doesn't seem that out of line that a Windows box would require that amount of maintenance in a small business. Or maybe they have three computers and pay $1,000/yr retainer, who knows? Again, it seems reasonable for a small business. Of course if the business were larger and had their own IT staff, the actual cost would be higher, yet once you figure salary/benefits/overhead into the picture (100 computers per IT person at $30,000/yr + 20% for benefits and 10% for overhead = $390/computer).
While I don't use a Mac, since they switched to their Intel base, their hardware cost is only about 10% greater than a "comparably" equipped Windows computer. Their support cost in terms of hours required has already been documented numerous times to be less than Windows. In the end it should be cheaper to deploy Macs than Windows in a new installation. In an existing installation, however, businesses are faced with the cost of rewriting their legacy apps which far outweighs the other savings. However, thanks to Windows Terminal Server, it's possible to have the best of both worlds. Deploy Macs on the desktop and put the legacy apps on a Windows Terminal Server box. (This works for both Mac and Linux deployment quite well).
Percentage browser hits to a big site like Google or the BBC would be better for the intended purpose.
Possibly, however, that would only show what browser and not what OS platform. Firefox hits could from Windows,OS X or Linux, where IE could be from Windows or OS X (not counting using the various emulators on Linux).
If the real issue is to provide a streaming media that is can be accessed by anybody, it really is a mute point. Those are already readily available. It is just not the WMF format of Microsoft.
Most likely, however, they had some consulting firm design their process who used Microsoft tools and that is the only option they have. Of course, it is interesting that the EU makes Microsoft unbundle Windows Media Player for anti-trust reasons, and yet if you want to get their content, you have to install it. Seems to be a contradiction there.
Shouldn't the numbers be based on installed based and not market share? Installed based, particularly in Europe and Asia, has a much higher count of pre-Windows XP installs, at least according to the trade journals. I don't know about the Mac base, there. Obviously, market share would favor XP since every new Windows PC sold ships with it, but what of all of the millions of PCs that were shipped before?
Out of curiosity, where did you get your market share numbers from?
And lets not forget that besides built in cell phones, we will now have people checking and sending emails while they are driving! Doesn't anybody at Ford think of driver safety anymore?
If the concern is with stolen laptops, wouldn't it be simpler to just have some kind of wireless cell phone built in to the laptop? Then when it is turned on, it receives a signal saying it's okay to boot? If the laptop is reported stolen, then it won't get the boot signal. As an additional step, it could have a built in gps, like most cell phones do, to alert the authorities to where the stolen laptop is located.
I'm all for encryption keys, etc. But to expect all of the government workers to use them and keep them secure is crazy. The human is the weakest link in the process. How many people have passwords taped to their screens or keyboards? Why would anyone think this would be any different? Unless of course, they are going to also have those fancy key creators that many online banking sites use. But then, that would probably be in the bag with the computer, so the encryption drive would be accessible anyway.
If I recall, the first rule to data security is to control access to the equipment. If the government is having problems with stolen laptops, which by their very nature are easily accessible, it seems the next best thing would be to control the access by keeping the equipment from working without the proper authorization signal (and then do a thorough investigation as to how all of these laptops are getting stolen in the first place).
You are assuming that the information that people are posting is honest. What would have change from the pre-internet days, when people divulged what they wanted you to think about them, versus who they actually were? It happens all the time in ads for new homes and in personal ads, why would it be any different in blogs or postings elsewhere?
Social networking doesn't do anything towards social progress, it just makes people feel protected in spouting their opinions, when in reality it has the opposite effect. If anything social networking hinders social progress, because it eliminates the need for social interaction.
If it was up to Apple, they would be still on slow powerpc chips but it was the competition in the PC world that finally made them see the light. And you have to thank Microsoft for at least part of that.
That's not a very good example. If I recall, Apple chose to drop their legacy OS and switch to OS X. They also cose to switch to an Intel platform, not because they preferred the powerpc chips, but to get the performance and power consumption levels they required, they couldn't do it with their current platform.
It seems that Apple is willing to look at where they want to be down the road and make the changes to get there instead of throwing more and more resources in maintaining the status quo. What you see as a negative, many see as a positive.
Actually, the sample size of 1,000 was probably fine, or at least it would have been if they had used a truly random sample of credit cards. However, it is evident from their results, that they didn't. The failure was in trying to extrapolate results from data that wasn't statistically valid.
I think the real danger, whenever religion topics come up, is that we quickly jump to specific instances of religion, most usually Jewish/Christian/Muslim (JCM). And yet when talking about the anthropological purpose of religion, the JCM viewpoint leaves out the majority of world religions throughout history. Furthermore, it causes us to tend to focus on the current state of the JCM religions. Go back 200 years ago and you could draw very different conclusions just focusing on JCM and that time frame is relatively young in the time frame of these religions.
While it is true that religion can and has been used to manipulate people, it is also true that many people find comfort in it. Whether it was primitive man explaining the natural world around him or later on seeking to find their place in the universe, the manipulation of people by religious or political leaders was secondary to the "believer's" purpose. Besides, it is reasonable to assume that with or without religion these same leaders would have found other ways to manipulate the people. Playing on their religious beliefs just made it easier.
Even intolerance, in and of itself is not the problem. As stated previously, most people are intolerant of certain behaviours (murder, rape, pedophilia, etc.) regardless of religious beliefs. Where it becomes a problem, for the Atheist or the religious type is when it degenerates form intolerance towards certain behaviours into intolerance against certain peoples. And yes, your arguments show thatyou are not advocating intolerance on either side.
Even intolerance of certain behaviours can become a slippery slope into intolerance of any behaviours that the few in power deem wrong. As an example, leaders, no longer need to resort to fear of God and religion to manipulate society, they now do it with fear of violence from others, from outside. Whether is is weapons of mass destruction, or violent crime, or some other loss or destruction, and it works.
In the end, there are those who want to control everything and to do so, they are going to have to manipulate the masses. In the past it was through co-opting religion. Today, it is co-opting our rational fears and concerns. Regardless, the outcome is the same. Which is why I don't buy into the argument that the purpose of religion being that of control (however, I do admit it has been used for that).
Anyway, I've enjoyed the discussion, too. Have a good rest of the day.
There is so much rubbish in your post, I don't even know where to start. First off, your post is a very Christian-centric accusation against religion. Christianity isn't the only religion out there. Second, most of the abuses you mention are directed at a specific form of Christianity, Catholicism and they all occurred when the Catholic Church was more than just a religion, it was a political power. So,it would seem to support the argument of using religion for personal and political gain is the problem, not religion in and of itself.
As for forcing women to have babies, since prior to the early 60s, there really wasn't effective birth control, it seems that religious and non-religious types were having lots of babies. Here I just thought that prior to the industrial revolution, people had a lot of babies, because they needed a lot of help on the farm or the factory. I didn't know it was a secret conspiracy to get converts.
It seems like your rant and anger are really is directed at the Catholic Church and/or G*d. Since we live in a tolerant religious society, you're welcome to those feelings. But please, don't assume that Christianity is the only religion and that the whole world agrees with you.
Isn't the requirement captured in some sort of "turn the other cheek" thing (that far too many religious people ignore)? There is no such requirement in atheism. What do you call people who don't follow their own rules?
I believe that the "turn the other cheek" thing would only apply to Christians and there are a lot of other religions than Christianity on the planet. Obviously, though, by your last sentence, you were making a slur against Christians. Very subtle, but a derogatory remark, none the less.
But the power structure or manifesto for controlling people only applies to those who "choose" to follow that religion, not those who chose not to. The intolerance, on the other hand is directed at those outside the religion. Now from a very basic organizational view, if you are intolerant of outsiders and chase them all away, your organization or in this case, religion is going to die out, because there will be no new members. That has not been the case throughout history.
So, while there may be intolerance of specific behaviours found in various religions, which ultimately lead to moral behaviour, that is no different than intolerance of specific behaviours based merely on reason. As an example, most religious moral codes and those based on reason alone, would find pedophilia an intolerable act. Same with rape, murder, and a slew of other behaviours.
So, intolerance of specific acts must not be the problem with religion, because even non-religious views are intolerant of specific acts of their own choosing (many of which coincide with the religious ones).
No, it seems that the intolerance, in the way you are using it, has to deal with when religion is used to control the masses or is used to target a population. That isn't the purpose of any religion (which in some form or another is to find G*d or enlightenment or other such expressions). It is only when the real purpose of religion is co-opted, whether by religious leaders or others and it becomes a tool to further personal and political goals that the intolerance that leads to hate and war and other atrocities occurs.
Again, that isn't religion doing it, but is people using religion.
From Thomas Hardy to the Beatles to Dogma there are a million examples in the last century alone of religious people being intolerant of anything which even hints at atheism, or mocks/insults their religion. I have no idea how you've managed to construe it as the other way round except, perhaps, in the very small world of slashdot users.
If you remove the Islamic extremists and the Christian fundamentalist who use religion to further their political goals, then this statement is not true. While I have no idea whether the majority of the world's people have a religion of some sort or another, it is save to assume it is not a small minority. That said, most people in the world seem to be able to live in harmony with others regardless of their religious views. It only becomes an issue when those in power (political or otherwise) try and co-opt the religion for their own personal or political agenda that problems occur.
Intolerance and its cousin prejudice are not a product of people with religion, they are products of human nature.
More moderate people like you perpetrate the myth that religion can be balanced and forward thinking and therefore religion is allowed to continue existing.
It seems that yours is the extremist approach, not those that follow some sort of religion. It is always amazing that people with religion are required to tolerate those without, but those without religion don't have to do the same.
you have deluded yourself into believing in a god who is kind, just and fair when your own texts say that there was a lot of 'fire and brimstone' behind him.
That would be a correct statement if you only focus on the Hebrew Scriptures and leave out the Christian or New Testament ones. But, then again, the Christian ones re-interpreted the message and meaning of the Hebrew Scriptures and the 'fire and brimstone' wasn't part of it, but love and forgiveness was.
The real question is why does any time an evolution discussion come up, Slashdot turns into a religion bashing discussion. Even for the relatively small group of world-wide Christians that are fundamentalists and hold to the biblical account of creation, most do not.
I would have really thought the Slashdot discussion would have focused on the claim that these two groups of people evolved in a relatively short time and relatively recently. That would seem to beg the question of evolved from what? Where they not homo sapiens before this evoloution? Are they not homo sapiens now? If they were homo sapiens both before and after this genetic trait occurred, then technically, evolution hasn't occurred, just adaptation. You would think researchers would be more precise with their language.
Slashdot Mirror
The clue this would be the case during Jobs' keynote was the repeated use of Beatles albums and songs. None are on the iTunes Music Store today, all represent ripped CD contents on an iPhone.
However, that was a pre-production model of the phone and OS. By the time it is actually shipping, what was demoed may have different features or be modified by the carriers. Take the RAZR as an example. Some carriers disable certain features, even though they are technically in the phone. With the RAZR from Sprint, you can't transfer files via USB (without a hack) and bluetooth for phone to phone communication is disabled (no hack available to enable). Yet on other carriers, these features work. Also, some carriers let their RAZR branded phone be used like an mp3 player where you can copy ripped CDs to it, other do not. The RAZR has the capability, the carriers have disabled it.
What's to stop the same thing from happening with the iPhone? Apple has already announced only approved apps will be available to run on it, so that means that even though it is running OS X and surfing the internet, there must be something to stop you from just downloading apps and running them. That might be the case with being able to rip CDs, too. Since the iPhone doesn't have a cd player, it has no way of knowing that the CD you ripped on your computer is legal or not. By the time you want to transfer them to the iPhone, they are just a bunch of mp3s of questionable source.
All that is really known about the iPhone is that a) it runs some new but limited version of OS X, b) it has the ability to access iTunes like and play music like an iPod, c) it's not available yet and d) you can make phone calls on it. Just about everything else is speculation, including the ability to copy your own CDs to it.
I for one hope that you can copy your own CDs to it, however, nowhere, in any of the announcements or the demo by Jobs, was that specifically mentioned as a possibility.
You can easily fill up an iPod or iPhone with non-DRM music. Just rip it yourself.
Are you sure about that? I have a brand new RAZR from Sprint and while it has the capabilities to play mp3s you download from their store, it has no ability to copy your own to the phone (unless you want to save them as ring tones). What makes you think the iPhone would be different? While it is true that you can rip your CDs to an iPod, nowhere was it mentioned that that capability will be included with an iPhone. Downloading music for a fee is one of the revenue streams the cell phone companies are depending on. Why would they want to give that up?
[I]I dislike M$ as much as the next /. poster, but saying W2K is 'broken' in this case is a bit of a stretch. The gov't changed the rules governing daylight savings time; it's not like it *wasn't* right before.[/I]
It's not that W2K is broken that makes M$ an asshole in all of this. It's that they have a patch available for those who have paid for extended support, but they won't release it for the general public.
Since the cost to produce the patch has already been absorbed by M$, the only reason to withhold the patch is to make people frustrated with W2K to encourage them to upgrade. When you can readily fix something, but you don't, so that people will upgrade, well, then, your an asshole.
You'd be surprised. Some bakers do just want to make the best bread and keep their customers happy -- the store is just an avenue of expression that means that they can afford to do what they like.. I know a few people like that.
Yeah, but Paypal isn't a baker, it's a financial institution. Bakers don't have to deal with federal regulations related to wire transfers, money laundering, etc. The sad fact if somebody wanted to create an account to help slain solders or whatever, they should have done it through a local financial institution. Then they could have linked Paypal to that account to accept funds.
With all of the people blaming Paypal on this, are they really wanting Paypal to do background checks on their account holders to make sure they are who they say they are? If not, then it's too bad that this error occurred, whether a clerical mistake at Paypal or through the way the individual set up the account, but this isn't a case of Paypal trying to bully somebody. It's a matter of following the federal regulations imposed post 9-11.
While it is desirable to think that you could be a westerner, ethical and completely secular, as an individual, it is not totally possible. On a societal level, western society has been influenced by religion. Even pre-Jewish societies, had religious overtones that influenced their behaviors. Even tribes deep in the jungle that never heard of a mono-theistic God have developed some sort of religious cult. Sociologists say that the development of religion to explain natural phenomenon is a natural development. Atheism, on the other hand, is the application of reason to dispel the primitive notion of religion or the supernatural in controlling the world around us, so by definition it had to develop after religious superstition.
Since, even an Atheist in living a totally secular life is influenced by the culture around them, and that culture to some extent has been tainted by the influence of religion (for example, just about every western society celebrates Christmas, whether the Atheist personally does or not) and by contact with people who have other ethical frameworks, then the framework the atheist is using to build his/her secular ethics framework is also tainted, no matter how slight.
The only way, it could not be is if the framework being built is built totally on reason, without any external influence, but how can that occur in todays modern world? Besides, it's not really a framework until it has been tested and once tested, the test modifies the framework, which means that it again, is tainted.
So, I think that there always is a relationship. The question is how strong of an influence does that relationship create in the secular framework? The answer to that can vary quite a bit.
There was no mention of any particular religion or any particular dogma in my post, only that modern society ethics and religion are linked. As someone did point out in the East, there is Buddhism and Confucianism, which technically are not a religion, so I should have said in modern western society.
Even the most ardent proponent of an atheist philosophy would have to admit that since the western culture is based on a Judeao-Christian background, it and it's views are influenced by those teachings (right or wrong). That does not mean that one has to discuss ethics in that framework, but to ignore the influence of the underpinnings of the culture will surely give false results.
I agree whole heartedly that serious discussion of ethics can take place and should take place without requiring people to assert a particular dogma, however, that is not what the original poster stated, which was that they had no relationship. And that, for better or worse, is simply not true.
No. Religion has no bearing on ethics. It would be relevant to questions of religious morals, but ethical questions shouldn't have anything to do with religion.
While it is true that one could theoretically develop an ethical framework without religion, it is simply naive to assume that any ethics system in place in modern society is devoid of a religious influence and therefore ethics and religion are definitely linked together.
I never said that Unix was secure. I said that certain versions of it come with all of the ports closed, which make it much less of a problem for the botnets to work.
As for the fundamental architecture of NT being no different than Unix, well maybe, maybe not, but the security model sure is different. By default on Windows, everything is open and accessible unless you shut it down. Even if you don't enable file and print sharing, there are hidden administrative shares that can't be disabled without dropping to the command line. All kinds of ports are open for all kinds of services, even though those services aren't even running. Users automatically have administrator rights.
There are desktop versions of *nix that don't have any ports open except for those required by the services that are actually installed and running. There are desktop versions of *nix that the user account is just a user and not an administrator. There are desktop versions of *nix that have disable the root account. All of these, especially when combined, offer a tighter security model than Windows.
Sure, if a user clicks-on or downloads malicious software and executes it, then there is a problem. However, the post I was responding to was about how the user must learn all about TCP/IP and the like. Knowing everything there is to know about TCP/IP and locking down my computer, still won't protect me from responding to the email that says my paypal account has been suspended, click here. However, the more locked down it is, the harder it is for it to be compromised. Mac OS X and the various *nix are more locked down than Windows. Even the reviews of the soon to be released Vista point that out.
As for your comment about them being insignificant and that is why there aren't as many exploits, well I have to believe that the same people who right these exploits here the same charge about how secure they are. In the hacker world, they already are on the radar scope. Instead of direct attacks, however, the attacks have come against various application faults (ie browsers, email, etc) and not the OS itself. That's different than in the Windows world, where the OS is the open door (and why it is so much harder to fix the problem).
I do agree that the current residential computing model is at fault, but if I may ask, who gave us that model? Microsoft created this pandora's box, and now the lid can't be closed. Now, they say they are coming out with a new model - trusted computing - however, the OS wasn't rewritten from scratch, instead they've added another security layer on top of the already shaky foundation. Trusted computing, like the XP Firewall, only gives a false sense of security, sure it may stop the casual hacker, but the people who really know what they are doing, and they are the ones to worry about, will break it/have broken it.
Are MacOS and Linux inherently better? If you are talking about security models, how can they not be? Are they the solution? Well that's a totally different question.
(Oh and your point about XP having ports visible to the outside world has been moot for over a year, SP2 turned on the firewall externally giving the XP box the same attack surface as your Mac with everything bound to the local subnet, hence we haven't seen anything like blaster since).
Really? Every XP box has hidden files shares turned on automatically. There isn't anyway to turn them off without resorting to executing a batch file after Windows starts. If you are relying on the Window's firewall for security, it is only providing a false sense of security, at best. There have been numerous tech articles against it (yes, it is better than nothing, but it isn't a full firewall).
Many malware rely on open ports to do their dirty work (connecting to IRC is just such an example). Several Linux distros have all ports disabled, other than those needed for actual use. OS X has most ports disabled. Even with the Windows firewall, there are many ports that are open, because otherwise, all the "neat" things Microsoft has touted you can do won't work. The problem is, that they are open whether you do those neat things or not and they don't show as an open threat because Microsoft wants them to be open.
Try it for yourself. There are many security websites that you can hit that will "test" your pc and tell you what is at risk with the default Windows settings. In short, the default Microsoft security settings may stop the kid down the block, but they won't stop the real hacker any more than copy protection does on CDs. At best, it just makes it a little less convenient.
Being proficient with a computer is not optional if you want to own and use a computer. Learn about TCP/IP. Learn about NAT. Learn about not trusting everything. Learn about understanding how things work at least a little bit before you try to run. You don't need to be a security guru, but you can't get by thinking you can just use a computer and never have to learn anything more about it than that.
Ummm, most Mac OS X users don't have to know anything about TCP/IP or NAT, etc. Of course, they have an OS that has security built in at a very low level, not tacked on as an after thought. Windows, at least through XP, is still based on the notion that it wants to make it easy to connect to everything and everyone. As such, it's pretty open and malware takes advantage of that. OS X and the various *nix distros start at the other end of the spectrum where things are locked down unless you open them up (although OS X has more opened up than, say Ubuntu and various other linii).
As others have posted, if Windows shipped with all ports closed except those that were really needed, then the user wouldn't need to worry about all these things. They wouldn't be opening a port until they needed it for some specific application and then that application could explain the dangers, if any to having the port open. It's basically a compromise between ease of use and security. Microsoft chose to maintain it's ease of use model from the pre-internet days, when everything was local and has tried to add security on top. It just doesn't work that well.
So, the real choice is, it seems, that if you want a Windows pc, then you need to learn about TCP/IP, NAT, firewalls, etc. On the otherhand, if you just want to use your computer, either buy a Mac or put a secure Linux, like Ubuntu, on your pc. (I just use Ubuntu as an example, there are others, too)
You say you run a business, but then what would the business reason be to load Vista on such of a machine in the first place? You are still running your old software, so what did Vista get you that you didn't have before? Yes Vista runs on such a computer, but to reuse your question, "Who cares?" What in the world good be the business reason for running it as such?
As for your other comments about Dell, etc., it's your own business, do what you want, but, then again, your technical experience is not the same as the vast majority of small business owners. The original poster was talking about turnkey work for a small pharmaceutical company. They probably base their hiring on biochemistry expertise and not being able to field strip a pc. Likewise, most small retail, restaurants, manufacturing firms, etc., in short, most small business outside the IT industry are also not likely to be doing the things with a computer that you do.
So, back to the real world, that 90% of small business owners live in, people pay for technical support. By the way, how much time did it take to back up the old data files, verify the computer would run Vista, install Vista, install Office and virus checkers and whatever other software was needed, restore the backed up data files and then verify that everything was working as expected? I'm guessing at least 3.5 hours if you are honest about it).
Well, to be fair, you can also get a Mac for $599. I think the original poster was using prices for equipment spec'd for the industry he is in. Plus those entry level Dells may load Vista but will they have the horsepower to drive Vista full throttle? As for $300 annually for system maintenance, well that's only 3.5 hrs of service calls at $80/hour. It doesn't seem that out of line that a Windows box would require that amount of maintenance in a small business. Or maybe they have three computers and pay $1,000/yr retainer, who knows? Again, it seems reasonable for a small business. Of course if the business were larger and had their own IT staff, the actual cost would be higher, yet once you figure salary/benefits/overhead into the picture (100 computers per IT person at $30,000/yr + 20% for benefits and 10% for overhead = $390/computer).
While I don't use a Mac, since they switched to their Intel base, their hardware cost is only about 10% greater than a "comparably" equipped Windows computer. Their support cost in terms of hours required has already been documented numerous times to be less than Windows. In the end it should be cheaper to deploy Macs than Windows in a new installation. In an existing installation, however, businesses are faced with the cost of rewriting their legacy apps which far outweighs the other savings. However, thanks to Windows Terminal Server, it's possible to have the best of both worlds. Deploy Macs on the desktop and put the legacy apps on a Windows Terminal Server box. (This works for both Mac and Linux deployment quite well).
Percentage browser hits to a big site like Google or the BBC would be better for the intended purpose.
Possibly, however, that would only show what browser and not what OS platform. Firefox hits could from Windows,OS X or Linux, where IE could be from Windows or OS X (not counting using the various emulators on Linux).
If the real issue is to provide a streaming media that is can be accessed by anybody, it really is a mute point. Those are already readily available. It is just not the WMF format of Microsoft.
Most likely, however, they had some consulting firm design their process who used Microsoft tools and that is the only option they have. Of course, it is interesting that the EU makes Microsoft unbundle Windows Media Player for anti-trust reasons, and yet if you want to get their content, you have to install it. Seems to be a contradiction there.
Shouldn't the numbers be based on installed based and not market share? Installed based, particularly in Europe and Asia, has a much higher count of pre-Windows XP installs, at least according to the trade journals. I don't know about the Mac base, there. Obviously, market share would favor XP since every new Windows PC sold ships with it, but what of all of the millions of PCs that were shipped before?
Out of curiosity, where did you get your market share numbers from?
And lets not forget that besides built in cell phones, we will now have people checking and sending emails while they are driving! Doesn't anybody at Ford think of driver safety anymore?
If the concern is with stolen laptops, wouldn't it be simpler to just have some kind of wireless cell phone built in to the laptop? Then when it is turned on, it receives a signal saying it's okay to boot? If the laptop is reported stolen, then it won't get the boot signal. As an additional step, it could have a built in gps, like most cell phones do, to alert the authorities to where the stolen laptop is located.
I'm all for encryption keys, etc. But to expect all of the government workers to use them and keep them secure is crazy. The human is the weakest link in the process. How many people have passwords taped to their screens or keyboards? Why would anyone think this would be any different? Unless of course, they are going to also have those fancy key creators that many online banking sites use. But then, that would probably be in the bag with the computer, so the encryption drive would be accessible anyway.
If I recall, the first rule to data security is to control access to the equipment. If the government is having problems with stolen laptops, which by their very nature are easily accessible, it seems the next best thing would be to control the access by keeping the equipment from working without the proper authorization signal (and then do a thorough investigation as to how all of these laptops are getting stolen in the first place).
Just a thought.
You are assuming that the information that people are posting is honest. What would have change from the pre-internet days, when people divulged what they wanted you to think about them, versus who they actually were? It happens all the time in ads for new homes and in personal ads, why would it be any different in blogs or postings elsewhere?
Social networking doesn't do anything towards social progress, it just makes people feel protected in spouting their opinions, when in reality it has the opposite effect. If anything social networking hinders social progress, because it eliminates the need for social interaction.
If it was up to Apple, they would be still on slow powerpc chips but it was the competition in the PC world that finally made them see the light. And you have to thank Microsoft for at least part of that.
That's not a very good example. If I recall, Apple chose to drop their legacy OS and switch to OS X. They also cose to switch to an Intel platform, not because they preferred the powerpc chips, but to get the performance and power consumption levels they required, they couldn't do it with their current platform.
It seems that Apple is willing to look at where they want to be down the road and make the changes to get there instead of throwing more and more resources in maintaining the status quo. What you see as a negative, many see as a positive.
Actually, the sample size of 1,000 was probably fine, or at least it would have been if they had used a truly random sample of credit cards. However, it is evident from their results, that they didn't. The failure was in trying to extrapolate results from data that wasn't statistically valid.
I think the real danger, whenever religion topics come up, is that we quickly jump to specific instances of religion, most usually Jewish/Christian/Muslim (JCM). And yet when talking about the anthropological purpose of religion, the JCM viewpoint leaves out the majority of world religions throughout history. Furthermore, it causes us to tend to focus on the current state of the JCM religions. Go back 200 years ago and you could draw very different conclusions just focusing on JCM and that time frame is relatively young in the time frame of these religions.
While it is true that religion can and has been used to manipulate people, it is also true that many people find comfort in it. Whether it was primitive man explaining the natural world around him or later on seeking to find their place in the universe, the manipulation of people by religious or political leaders was secondary to the "believer's" purpose. Besides, it is reasonable to assume that with or without religion these same leaders would have found other ways to manipulate the people. Playing on their religious beliefs just made it easier.
Even intolerance, in and of itself is not the problem. As stated previously, most people are intolerant of certain behaviours (murder, rape, pedophilia, etc.) regardless of religious beliefs. Where it becomes a problem, for the Atheist or the religious type is when it degenerates form intolerance towards certain behaviours into intolerance against certain peoples. And yes, your arguments show thatyou are not advocating intolerance on either side.
Even intolerance of certain behaviours can become a slippery slope into intolerance of any behaviours that the few in power deem wrong. As an example, leaders, no longer need to resort to fear of God and religion to manipulate society, they now do it with fear of violence from others, from outside. Whether is is weapons of mass destruction, or violent crime, or some other loss or destruction, and it works.
In the end, there are those who want to control everything and to do so, they are going to have to manipulate the masses. In the past it was through co-opting religion. Today, it is co-opting our rational fears and concerns. Regardless, the outcome is the same. Which is why I don't buy into the argument that the purpose of religion being that of control (however, I do admit it has been used for that).
Anyway, I've enjoyed the discussion, too. Have a good rest of the day.
There is so much rubbish in your post, I don't even know where to start. First off, your post is a very Christian-centric accusation against religion. Christianity isn't the only religion out there. Second, most of the abuses you mention are directed at a specific form of Christianity, Catholicism and they all occurred when the Catholic Church was more than just a religion, it was a political power. So,it would seem to support the argument of using religion for personal and political gain is the problem, not religion in and of itself.
As for forcing women to have babies, since prior to the early 60s, there really wasn't effective birth control, it seems that religious and non-religious types were having lots of babies. Here I just thought that prior to the industrial revolution, people had a lot of babies, because they needed a lot of help on the farm or the factory. I didn't know it was a secret conspiracy to get converts.
It seems like your rant and anger are really is directed at the Catholic Church and/or G*d. Since we live in a tolerant religious society, you're welcome to those feelings. But please, don't assume that Christianity is the only religion and that the whole world agrees with you.
Isn't the requirement captured in some sort of "turn the other cheek" thing (that far too many religious people ignore)? There is no such requirement in atheism. What do you call people who don't follow their own rules?
I believe that the "turn the other cheek" thing would only apply to Christians and there are a lot of other religions than Christianity on the planet. Obviously, though, by your last sentence, you were making a slur against Christians. Very subtle, but a derogatory remark, none the less.
But the power structure or manifesto for controlling people only applies to those who "choose" to follow that religion, not those who chose not to. The intolerance, on the other hand is directed at those outside the religion. Now from a very basic organizational view, if you are intolerant of outsiders and chase them all away, your organization or in this case, religion is going to die out, because there will be no new members. That has not been the case throughout history.
So, while there may be intolerance of specific behaviours found in various religions, which ultimately lead to moral behaviour, that is no different than intolerance of specific behaviours based merely on reason. As an example, most religious moral codes and those based on reason alone, would find pedophilia an intolerable act. Same with rape, murder, and a slew of other behaviours.
So, intolerance of specific acts must not be the problem with religion, because even non-religious views are intolerant of specific acts of their own choosing (many of which coincide with the religious ones).
No, it seems that the intolerance, in the way you are using it, has to deal with when religion is used to control the masses or is used to target a population. That isn't the purpose of any religion (which in some form or another is to find G*d or enlightenment or other such expressions). It is only when the real purpose of religion is co-opted, whether by religious leaders or others and it becomes a tool to further personal and political goals that the intolerance that leads to hate and war and other atrocities occurs.
Again, that isn't religion doing it, but is people using religion.
From Thomas Hardy to the Beatles to Dogma there are a million examples in the last century alone of religious people being intolerant of anything which even hints at atheism, or mocks/insults their religion. I have no idea how you've managed to construe it as the other way round except, perhaps, in the very small world of slashdot users.
If you remove the Islamic extremists and the Christian fundamentalist who use religion to further their political goals, then this statement is not true. While I have no idea whether the majority of the world's people have a religion of some sort or another, it is save to assume it is not a small minority. That said, most people in the world seem to be able to live in harmony with others regardless of their religious views. It only becomes an issue when those in power (political or otherwise) try and co-opt the religion for their own personal or political agenda that problems occur.
Intolerance and its cousin prejudice are not a product of people with religion, they are products of human nature.
More moderate people like you perpetrate the myth that religion can be balanced and forward thinking and therefore religion is allowed to continue existing.
It seems that yours is the extremist approach, not those that follow some sort of religion. It is always amazing that people with religion are required to tolerate those without, but those without religion don't have to do the same.
you have deluded yourself into believing in a god who is kind, just and fair when your own texts say that there was a lot of 'fire and brimstone' behind him.
That would be a correct statement if you only focus on the Hebrew Scriptures and leave out the Christian or New Testament ones. But, then again, the Christian ones re-interpreted the message and meaning of the Hebrew Scriptures and the 'fire and brimstone' wasn't part of it, but love and forgiveness was.
The real question is why does any time an evolution discussion come up, Slashdot turns into a religion bashing discussion. Even for the relatively small group of world-wide Christians that are fundamentalists and hold to the biblical account of creation, most do not.
I would have really thought the Slashdot discussion would have focused on the claim that these two groups of people evolved in a relatively short time and relatively recently. That would seem to beg the question of evolved from what? Where they not homo sapiens before this evoloution? Are they not homo sapiens now? If they were homo sapiens both before and after this genetic trait occurred, then technically, evolution hasn't occurred, just adaptation. You would think researchers would be more precise with their language.