Of course, there is a lot of email that can NOT be encrypted. For example, my company has a strict policy that encrypting any communications can be cause for immediate termination. So while encrypting email is fine for personal communications sent through personal accounts via non-company networks and hardware, it still leaves a huge swath of communications open.
Frankly, I would love to see all email clients come with built-in encryption in such a manner that you NEED to create a key (it could be a very simple process) and that all email will be communicated via that key and encryption by default. Otherwise, all you have is a bunch of people (like me) who really wish we could communicate via encrypted methods all the time, but know that 95% of the people we communicate with will not, can not and do not have a way to receive and read them
In the long run, it won't matter. Denying a request to search your home or car or person will be probable cause in and of itself. And encrypting any communications will become enough probable cause in and of itself to consider you suspect.
I would love to see personal privacy and civil liberties upheld without any exception, but I think we are only heading downhill in the long run. I expect to see all expectation of privacy eradicated within my lifetime. You need only look to things such as the prevalence of public cameras on city streets to "stop crime" and parents fingerprinting their children as if having their fingerprints will somehow imbue them with a magical protection against kidnapping or molestation to see where society is headed.
New Year's is a god damn *retarded* reason to celebrate. OHMYGOD! My odometer hig six figures! Time to party!!!
Seriously. Come on. Be a man and VOLUNTEER to work shitty hours over holidays like this while all the lazy fucks go boozing. There's a reason some are successful and others aren't. Using any idiotic excuse to go get drunk and avoid work puts you in one of those categories. Guess which?
Wow. What dreamland are you living in? First off - don't shit where you eat. That means don't try and pick up on the chick down the hall in the other engineering group or anywhere else in your place of employment. Idiots.
And frankly, why would you want to try and make a work relationship "something more" with the hags that are in this industry? Eew. Raise your standards. You might want to check where you're working, too - if you think the environments in the tech industry are harsh toward women. There are plenty of women in the company I work for and a lot of them in the tech areas - many are sustaining or developer engineers on major products. Others are in tech support or QA. All of them are comparable to their male counterparts and treated accordingly. Some are great. Some are bad. Some are lazy. Some work hard. Just like the guys. And nobody treats them any differently because they're a chick. So really... stop making shit up just to promote a newspaper.
And, finally, who cares if a chick is a "computer science geek". If you're dating a girl because of what she has a degree in - you need to check to make sure you haven't lost your testicles.
So you're saying that simply squirting out a kid makes a parent more knowledgable about being a parent than someone like myself who, having somewhat raised more than one child over a period of time, has none?
Is there some magical thing handed out to parents that makes them infinitely more wise and experienced simply for having spread their legs and dropped seven pounds of gooey baby? If so, why are so many parents apparently not receiving this magical gift and doing such a shit-poor job at it?
Religious fanatics aren't nearly as self-rightous as the average defensive parent is.
My first computer was a VIC-20 in 1984, when I was six or seven years old. My family treated computers as a "toy" and it's the only computer I had until 1989 so it was mostly just used to play Rat-Race and Robotron 2084 (no manuals or anything, so I didn't have any way to learn how to do cool stuff with it).
Of course, the schools were always crammed full of "Apple IIe"s and Commodore 64s.
I wish I had that VIC-20 still. I kind of grew up just after all the really cool stuff. I wasn't even born until the same year the Atari-2600 came out and Apple and Microsoft came around. When I look back at all the stuff that happened between 1975 and 1985, I wish I had been born two decades earlier so I could have been a part of it.
Well, one option would be for them to just run their own "blog". Not every "blog" has to be hosted on some corporate cookie-cutter cut-and-paste site. There was a time on the internets way back when that you would actually make your own sites and not just pump some lame content into text area fields on someone else's site to create your own.
I must be missing something. Why on earth would Charlie Rose care to interview some random lawyer for an OSS project? If you're going to interview someone involved (which I doubt he'd care to do considering the subject in the first place) at least interview someone who makes decisions and isn't just a "wrangler". Christ, a secretary (aka "administrative assistant") is a "wrangler" for all that matters.
Because neither of your parties support the constitution. You both complain about the other invading the bank accounts or privacy or autonomy of the citizens, yet you each reach into the bank accounts, violate the privacy and override the autonomy of the citizens. Libertarians and consitutionalists would prefer to stand on the ideals that the country and freedom was supposedly founded on rather than compromise our ideals just so we can join the parties with existing influence that clearly can't handle their influence without corruption.
See, the problem with you *idiots* is that you're so wrapped up in your self-fed bullshit that you go around calling people "madlibs" and "liberals" and "right wing whackos" without any idea what the person's viewpoint is in the first place. For your information, I more or less consider myself a libertarian. A constitutionalist. From where I stand, both of your parties look retarded, self-serving and full of useless rhetorical hot-air.
You have to make money to continue to develop and support that software that you're selling and you can't do that if you sell it for $500 a pop across the board. The more people you have that use it, the more valuable it is to you and the more you pay to continue support and development of the product.
Perhaps you are a small business with twenty people and you want to buy and use some enterprise server software. A mailserver or something. Perhaps the pricing is $20 per user per year. The small business would then be paying $400/yr for their license.
Perhaps there is also a huge corporation with 50,000 users. Before applying any discounts or bulk accounting credits here, that would be $600,000/yr.
Seems fair to me. The other option would be to charge both companies the same price, which would be unfair to impossible for the smaller business. Should the guy with 20 users pay the same $200,000 licensing fee for a single installation that the 50,000 employee company does? Or should it be sold for $500 to both of them, so everyone can afford it but the company selling the software can't make any money off of it?
Companies need a way to make a profit. Rather than cutting out the small customers or practically giving it away to the big ones, they scale it based on per-user license, which isn't entirely unreasonable. I suppose the CPU/Machine license is just a variation on that although it truly does seem a lot more arbitrary.
And of course you buy a per-parking-space license for a car. Just try going to your local parking garage and paying one admittance and then taking up three parking spots with your one car and see what happens.
I don't use Google Talk, but I do use Jabber almost exclusively. Are you saying that Google doesn't have a "accept messages only from people on my contact list" option?!
By the way, this sounds like BS to me. "Jingle"? Christmas time? This sounds a lot like the google pigeon TCP/IP protocol thing.
Yes. Opera is free. As elsewhere pointed out - as in beer. As with many things "free" doesn't necessarily mean free. I doubt google is interested in Opera for the beer free but rather for the lack of the other kind of free.
Unless they just opensource the whole thing, which I doubt they could legally do since there are surely other entities with their own proprietary or licensed code included in Opera.
Star Wars never has been lowest common denominator
You're kidding me, right? It doesn't get more "lowest common denominator" than Star Wars! It's Star Trek - in a Movie format and that's pretty day "lowest common denominator".
I played WoW for about a month when it first came out (two days after released) and haven't touched it since. It's probably about the best MMORPG I've ever played, but it's stil just a level-treadmill. Nothing much exciting happens in it - even on a PvP server.
. If you're a parent, you're qualified to offer an opinion (not impose one). If you're not, don't tell this guy how to parent his children.
You're qualified to offer an opinion regardless. Being a parent doesn't escalate you to some grandious level of wisdom or insight. It means you are capable of combining sperm and egg. Congratulations on doing something dogs and hamsters can do, too.
Further, if you're asking for advice of any kind on here, whatever judgements or questions are raised about any aspect of it are completely legitimate. For example, if I said "I'd like to kill my husband. How could I device an undetectable poisonous meal that will kill him over the period of about one year?" - I wouldn't have the testicles to say "hey - I don't care about your judgement over me killing my husband! For whatever reason, I've decided that's what I'm going to do. All I want from you is advice on how to kill him!".
Anyway, I always found (as a child as well as the step-dad-type person for more than a short while) that the best way to limit computer, television and other activities is a not at all fancy one. And it's not at all new. See, you work hard to be a consistant and firm parent who has the respect of the child involved. When you have this, the child knows "the television goes off at 10:00 PM" means just that. They may ask if they can stay up and watch it a little longer, but they rarely argue or cry or throw a tantrum. They know what's expected of them and that it's okay to ask for more but they also know that what the adult says is what they're going to have to do. It's no too strict and it isn't depriving them of growing up or developing some sense of self-governance. It's just called parenting.
Believe it or not, children can be given expectations and rewards and punishments and still be very happy, balanced, behaved, good kids. If there is any sort of stress or violence or anger or fighting involved in something as simple as turning the television or computer off - then there are much greater problems and avoiding dealing with them by implementing mechanical means is a rather passive and ineffective way of attacking such a problem.
Note that I'm not saying this idea (the article's submitter" is a bad one at all. Just that there could be vairous circumstances that make it a good or bad choice. We don't really have enough information to judge, frankly (not that it would stop me or most of us). Hell, I wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibility that a child might ask his parents to implement something that tracks and limits his time becuase he doesn't want to get in trouble, but knows that he would have an easier time keeping track of and obeying the rules if there was some automated way of seeing how much time he had left or had used (not to mention, mom and dad won't think he's sneaking time on it when they go shopping or something).
But you know . . . I hope most parents don't go overboard, either. You're not going to produce the next Lins Torvalds if you limit the child to AIM and certain websites and one hour of computer time per day. They do need ample time and freedom to really explore. Just think back to your own heyday of exploration (though for some of us that's still ongoing!).
Slashdot Mirror
Well, in America, we have guns and tasers. So you can slap us and run away, but you're not going to get very far.
Of course, there is a lot of email that can NOT be encrypted. For example, my company has a strict policy that encrypting any communications can be cause for immediate termination. So while encrypting email is fine for personal communications sent through personal accounts via non-company networks and hardware, it still leaves a huge swath of communications open.
Frankly, I would love to see all email clients come with built-in encryption in such a manner that you NEED to create a key (it could be a very simple process) and that all email will be communicated via that key and encryption by default. Otherwise, all you have is a bunch of people (like me) who really wish we could communicate via encrypted methods all the time, but know that 95% of the people we communicate with will not, can not and do not have a way to receive and read them
In the long run, it won't matter. Denying a request to search your home or car or person will be probable cause in and of itself. And encrypting any communications will become enough probable cause in and of itself to consider you suspect.
I would love to see personal privacy and civil liberties upheld without any exception, but I think we are only heading downhill in the long run. I expect to see all expectation of privacy eradicated within my lifetime. You need only look to things such as the prevalence of public cameras on city streets to "stop crime" and parents fingerprinting their children as if having their fingerprints will somehow imbue them with a magical protection against kidnapping or molestation to see where society is headed.
New Year's is a god damn *retarded* reason to celebrate. OHMYGOD! My odometer hig six figures! Time to party!!!
Seriously. Come on. Be a man and VOLUNTEER to work shitty hours over holidays like this while all the lazy fucks go boozing. There's a reason some are successful and others aren't. Using any idiotic excuse to go get drunk and avoid work puts you in one of those categories. Guess which?
Made more what? Copies? Coasters?
Dont' get pissed at me just because nobody likes your crappy little fanboy wet-dream canceled series.
I doubt there are 100,000 people who would watch Firefly for *free*. Much less PAY for it. I sure as hell wouldn't.
Wow. What dreamland are you living in? First off - don't shit where you eat. That means don't try and pick up on the chick down the hall in the other engineering group or anywhere else in your place of employment. Idiots.
And frankly, why would you want to try and make a work relationship "something more" with the hags that are in this industry? Eew. Raise your standards. You might want to check where you're working, too - if you think the environments in the tech industry are harsh toward women. There are plenty of women in the company I work for and a lot of them in the tech areas - many are sustaining or developer engineers on major products. Others are in tech support or QA. All of them are comparable to their male counterparts and treated accordingly. Some are great. Some are bad. Some are lazy. Some work hard. Just like the guys. And nobody treats them any differently because they're a chick. So really... stop making shit up just to promote a newspaper.
And, finally, who cares if a chick is a "computer science geek". If you're dating a girl because of what she has a degree in - you need to check to make sure you haven't lost your testicles.
So you're saying that simply squirting out a kid makes a parent more knowledgable about being a parent than someone like myself who, having somewhat raised more than one child over a period of time, has none?
Is there some magical thing handed out to parents that makes them infinitely more wise and experienced simply for having spread their legs and dropped seven pounds of gooey baby? If so, why are so many parents apparently not receiving this magical gift and doing such a shit-poor job at it?
Religious fanatics aren't nearly as self-rightous as the average defensive parent is.
My first computer was a VIC-20 in 1984, when I was six or seven years old. My family treated computers as a "toy" and it's the only computer I had until 1989 so it was mostly just used to play Rat-Race and Robotron 2084 (no manuals or anything, so I didn't have any way to learn how to do cool stuff with it).
Of course, the schools were always crammed full of "Apple IIe"s and Commodore 64s.
I wish I had that VIC-20 still. I kind of grew up just after all the really cool stuff. I wasn't even born until the same year the Atari-2600 came out and Apple and Microsoft came around. When I look back at all the stuff that happened between 1975 and 1985, I wish I had been born two decades earlier so I could have been a part of it.
Well, one option would be for them to just run their own "blog". Not every "blog" has to be hosted on some corporate cookie-cutter cut-and-paste site. There was a time on the internets way back when that you would actually make your own sites and not just pump some lame content into text area fields on someone else's site to create your own.
I must be missing something. Why on earth would Charlie Rose care to interview some random lawyer for an OSS project? If you're going to interview someone involved (which I doubt he'd care to do considering the subject in the first place) at least interview someone who makes decisions and isn't just a "wrangler". Christ, a secretary (aka "administrative assistant") is a "wrangler" for all that matters.
Because neither of your parties support the constitution. You both complain about the other invading the bank accounts or privacy or autonomy of the citizens, yet you each reach into the bank accounts, violate the privacy and override the autonomy of the citizens. Libertarians and consitutionalists would prefer to stand on the ideals that the country and freedom was supposedly founded on rather than compromise our ideals just so we can join the parties with existing influence that clearly can't handle their influence without corruption.
See, the problem with you *idiots* is that you're so wrapped up in your self-fed bullshit that you go around calling people "madlibs" and "liberals" and "right wing whackos" without any idea what the person's viewpoint is in the first place. For your information, I more or less consider myself a libertarian. A constitutionalist. From where I stand, both of your parties look retarded, self-serving and full of useless rhetorical hot-air.
Very good point. Where else are you going to get an already existing userbase of dipshits without buying into AOL?
Let's think of it this way . . .
You have to make money to continue to develop and support that software that you're selling and you can't do that if you sell it for $500 a pop across the board. The more people you have that use it, the more valuable it is to you and the more you pay to continue support and development of the product.
While I'd tend to agree, his impeachment process had NOTHING to do with murders and was only about lying about a BJ.
I wish people like you who throw around retarded statements about "liberal media" would have a habit of getting beat up or killed.
How many crimes does Monkeyboy have to commit before he is held to account?
As many as he likes, as long as they don't involve consensual sex and hummers.
Am I the only one that counted out how many letters are in "Jesus" when I read that?
Well, let's see here.
Perhaps you are a small business with twenty people and you want to buy and use some enterprise server software. A mailserver or something. Perhaps the pricing is $20 per user per year. The small business would then be paying $400/yr for their license.
Perhaps there is also a huge corporation with 50,000 users. Before applying any discounts or bulk accounting credits here, that would be $600,000/yr.
Seems fair to me. The other option would be to charge both companies the same price, which would be unfair to impossible for the smaller business. Should the guy with 20 users pay the same $200,000 licensing fee for a single installation that the 50,000 employee company does? Or should it be sold for $500 to both of them, so everyone can afford it but the company selling the software can't make any money off of it?
Companies need a way to make a profit. Rather than cutting out the small customers or practically giving it away to the big ones, they scale it based on per-user license, which isn't entirely unreasonable. I suppose the CPU/Machine license is just a variation on that although it truly does seem a lot more arbitrary.
And of course you buy a per-parking-space license for a car. Just try going to your local parking garage and paying one admittance and then taking up three parking spots with your one car and see what happens.
Uh. "Star Wars" was "Star Trek in movie format" before there were Star Trek movies.
I don't use Google Talk, but I do use Jabber almost exclusively. Are you saying that Google doesn't have a "accept messages only from people on my contact list" option?!
By the way, this sounds like BS to me. "Jingle"? Christmas time? This sounds a lot like the google pigeon TCP/IP protocol thing.
Yes. Opera is free. As elsewhere pointed out - as in beer. As with many things "free" doesn't necessarily mean free. I doubt google is interested in Opera for the beer free but rather for the lack of the other kind of free.
Unless they just opensource the whole thing, which I doubt they could legally do since there are surely other entities with their own proprietary or licensed code included in Opera.
Yes. As in beer. Thanks for repeating my point.
Star Wars never has been lowest common denominator
You're kidding me, right? It doesn't get more "lowest common denominator" than Star Wars! It's Star Trek - in a Movie format and that's pretty day "lowest common denominator".
I played WoW for about a month when it first came out (two days after released) and haven't touched it since. It's probably about the best MMORPG I've ever played, but it's stil just a level-treadmill. Nothing much exciting happens in it - even on a PvP server.
. If you're a parent, you're qualified to offer an opinion (not impose one). If you're not, don't tell this guy how to parent his children.
You're qualified to offer an opinion regardless. Being a parent doesn't escalate you to some grandious level of wisdom or insight. It means you are capable of combining sperm and egg. Congratulations on doing something dogs and hamsters can do, too.
Further, if you're asking for advice of any kind on here, whatever judgements or questions are raised about any aspect of it are completely legitimate. For example, if I said "I'd like to kill my husband. How could I device an undetectable poisonous meal that will kill him over the period of about one year?" - I wouldn't have the testicles to say "hey - I don't care about your judgement over me killing my husband! For whatever reason, I've decided that's what I'm going to do. All I want from you is advice on how to kill him!".
Anyway, I always found (as a child as well as the step-dad-type person for more than a short while) that the best way to limit computer, television and other activities is a not at all fancy one. And it's not at all new. See, you work hard to be a consistant and firm parent who has the respect of the child involved. When you have this, the child knows "the television goes off at 10:00 PM" means just that. They may ask if they can stay up and watch it a little longer, but they rarely argue or cry or throw a tantrum. They know what's expected of them and that it's okay to ask for more but they also know that what the adult says is what they're going to have to do. It's no too strict and it isn't depriving them of growing up or developing some sense of self-governance. It's just called parenting.
Believe it or not, children can be given expectations and rewards and punishments and still be very happy, balanced, behaved, good kids. If there is any sort of stress or violence or anger or fighting involved in something as simple as turning the television or computer off - then there are much greater problems and avoiding dealing with them by implementing mechanical means is a rather passive and ineffective way of attacking such a problem.
Note that I'm not saying this idea (the article's submitter" is a bad one at all. Just that there could be vairous circumstances that make it a good or bad choice. We don't really have enough information to judge, frankly (not that it would stop me or most of us). Hell, I wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibility that a child might ask his parents to implement something that tracks and limits his time becuase he doesn't want to get in trouble, but knows that he would have an easier time keeping track of and obeying the rules if there was some automated way of seeing how much time he had left or had used (not to mention, mom and dad won't think he's sneaking time on it when they go shopping or something).
But you know . . . I hope most parents don't go overboard, either. You're not going to produce the next Lins Torvalds if you limit the child to AIM and certain websites and one hour of computer time per day. They do need ample time and freedom to really explore. Just think back to your own heyday of exploration (though for some of us that's still ongoing!).