Really? Why haven't they found them after more than a YEAR of being there
We've found weapons in Iraq; we've found weapons that were shipped out of Iraq; we have extensive documentation of massive amounts of weapons that were in Iraq; and we have Iraq itself claiming to have the weapons. What more do you want?
"There is a definite connection between Iraq and 9/11."
How interesting. The 9/11 commission just declared none.
And then you have the president, vice president, etc, all making numerous statements that Iraq wasn't definitely connected to 9/11. That Rice misspoke once (or whatever) is surely not representative of the administration when the rest of it was repeating the oposite over and over.
The 9/11 commission's report was in full agreement with what the administration had been saying.
What is sad about Micaels's Moore movie is that it tries to complement the heavily missing work of the "new's media" in US.
No it doesn't. It tries to make Michael Moore a lot of money and spread his personal biases at the same time. The truth never enters in to any of his "documentaries". This is WHY he focuses on "powerful pictures, powerful reactions" and meaningless stunts instead of sold facts and reasoning that really get to the heart of the matter.
I am amazed how people focus on the details (whether Moore makes money or not, if he is biased, if he twists the truth)
Yeah, because the silly things like twisting the truth don't matter at all in a documentary. At least he's not corporate, right?
How about the complete lack of credibility of anything that ever comes out of Michael Moore's mouth?
How about his track record of spinning his stories harder than Fox News?
Seriously, the way Moore always shows a very small part of a story, harping on a moment out of context and then throwing irrelevant facts at it to make it more poignant, really leaves him with no credibility. It doesn't matter what kind of soruces he might parade out; his horrible bias ensures that he won't be releasing an honest documentary in his lifetime.
He once had a show called TV Nation where he basically made fun of various groups of people. It was hilarious, though in retrospect I don't think he was trying to be funny. He needs to stick to commedy.
What about our rights not to have to deal with this scumware?
This ruling does nothing to affect your right, you're still welcome to turn off your compuer.
Oh, but then you meant you want to operate your computer in the manner to which you're accustomed AND not deal with the "scumware".
Well that right is it's there with my right to eat for free at McDonalds every Wednesday: nonexistant.
Why do you people think you have such a right? You boot your computer and instruct it to install and run these programs (Yes, you do. If you didn't they wouldn't be run. Such is the nature of computers: it's just a hunk of metal doing what you tell it to and nothing else). You have no right to complain that your computer is doing what you tell it.
If you walk down the street handing people money you have no right to complain when people accept it. When you tell your computer to execute instructions from unauthenticated people over the internet you have no right to complain when it does.
I specifically said fraud should be illegal and prosecuted strongly. If you tell someone to install a filesharing program and it's really a virus, then this is fraud and should be prosecuted. However, if you send someone an unlabeled exe without making any claims to its contents and the user still opens it he is entirely responsible for the result.
Yes, I do blame the victims, then the victim is responsible.
Who says you have to have a popup, prompt, or installer to get permission?
Users end up running programs that in effect accept commands from other people on the internet without any authentication or restriction. This is the user's choice, as uninformed as it may be, and when a user tells his computer to execute any old command that comes across the wire he really has no place to complain when the computer does it.
Without an operator's instructions a computer is just a hunk of metal. That a computer does something, installing a program or whatever, itself indicates that the operator has told the computer to do it. Otherwise it wouldn't have been carried out.
Yes, fraud is bad, wrong, and should be fully prosecuted. However, this stuff is often not fraud.
A lot of times (I hear) things get installed on computers because users have, in effect, set their computers to accept commands and install stuff without any authentication at all. So long as no information is falsified, nothing wrong has happened. The computer is being used precisely as the operator set it up.
In the end a computer is just a hunk of metal sitting there until you tell it what to do. Nothing can happen in a computer without the operator's permission, though this permission doesn't have to be express (just as you don't have to give the mechanic permission to turn each screw individually).
The website does nothing. Without a computer to operate the website is never accessed. Only the computer does something.
In the end the only way anyone can install something on my computer is through my permission or through my decision to run software allowing the installation. Either way it is through MY decision, and hence MY responsibility.
These laws do nothing but try to blame the other party when I have given him permission to install things on my computer.
You DO instruct your computer to install this stuff.
Huge difference.
People need to take responsibilty for their own computer usage. If they're not informed enough to use a computer then they need to not use it. It's that simple.
This law is no different from one that would make it illegal to format your own hard drive and delete your own files. What, you didn't know that the file would be gone forever? Well obviously it's not your fault you weren't sufficiently educated. There oughta be a law...
Yes, it is very much like spam, a behavioral problem.
The computer operator instructs his computer to do things and allow things that he doesn't really intend.
Personally, though, I don't agree with laws that involve protecting people from themselves.
Those pointed to as the bad guys in this case are doing nothing that the computer's operator didn't tell his computer to do, at least indirectly. They're doing nothing wrong.
With the CDMA used by Verizon there is no need for different frequencies. Adjacent cells can all use the same frequency and the phone can communicate with them all at once.
Using "zombie PC's" is not necessary for spamming. If using a zombie PC is wrong, then prosecute that. Declare that it's wrong. But it's an entirely different matter than actual spamming.
Declaring spamming to be wrong because of the use of zombie PCs is like declaring the playing of football to be wrong because some players choose to use illegal performance enhancers.
His entire advertising cost is paid for by people willing to pay it, that is, people willing to accept messages from completely unknow strangers.
When you hand something over it's not theft, even when it's not in your interest to hand it over.
Re:They inherited it from Bell Atlantic Mobile...
on
Where's Your 'D-Spot?'
·
· Score: 1
Wow, three digits. I don't remember ever really pondering that.
I wonder if I can sell it on EBay:)
Re:They inherited it from Bell Atlantic Mobile...
on
Where's Your 'D-Spot?'
·
· Score: 3, Funny
You see this? This is the body of your comment. That little line above there? The one labeled "subject"? Yeah, that's where you're supposed to put a subject. There is no possible way to interpret the label "Subject" as "Put the first few words of your comment here." Besides, you'd have to reinterpret "Comment" as "Comment without the first few words which you decided to put in the Subject field" to complete your freakish interpretation of the process of submitting a comment.
Seriously, we label these fields for a reason. Subject in the subject field, comment in the comment field, username in the username field, and password in the password field. What's so hard about that?
You're being sarcastic, but there's actually some sanity to what you said.
The more we can tell that, for example, everyone has the stuff to make a bomb sitting in their closets, the more obvious it becomes that arresting people for such little reason is a bad idea.
If we know that one guy in the US has the stuff to make bombs, and there's an explosion, guess who we should suspect. But do that analysis again knowing that everyone has the stuff to make bombs. Suddenly that probably innocent guy has a lot less unwarranted suspicion.
Don't outlaw them; don't regulate them; just inform people about them and let the PEOPLE decide what information they're comfortable giving away.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? Why haven't they found them after more than a YEAR of being there
We've found weapons in Iraq; we've found weapons that were shipped out of Iraq; we have extensive documentation of massive amounts of weapons that were in Iraq; and we have Iraq itself claiming to have the weapons. What more do you want?
"There is a definite connection between Iraq and 9/11."
How interesting. The 9/11 commission just declared none.
And then you have the president, vice president, etc, all making numerous statements that Iraq wasn't definitely connected to 9/11. That Rice misspoke once (or whatever) is surely not representative of the administration when the rest of it was repeating the oposite over and over.
The 9/11 commission's report was in full agreement with what the administration had been saying.
What is sad about Micaels's Moore movie is that it tries to complement the heavily missing work of the "new's media" in US.
No it doesn't. It tries to make Michael Moore a lot of money and spread his personal biases at the same time. The truth never enters in to any of his "documentaries". This is WHY he focuses on "powerful pictures, powerful reactions" and meaningless stunts instead of sold facts and reasoning that really get to the heart of the matter.
I am amazed how people focus on the details (whether Moore makes money or not, if he is biased, if he twists the truth)
Yeah, because the silly things like twisting the truth don't matter at all in a documentary. At least he's not corporate, right?
How about the complete lack of credibility of anything that ever comes out of Michael Moore's mouth?
How about his track record of spinning his stories harder than Fox News?
Seriously, the way Moore always shows a very small part of a story, harping on a moment out of context and then throwing irrelevant facts at it to make it more poignant, really leaves him with no credibility. It doesn't matter what kind of soruces he might parade out; his horrible bias ensures that he won't be releasing an honest documentary in his lifetime.
He once had a show called TV Nation where he basically made fun of various groups of people. It was hilarious, though in retrospect I don't think he was trying to be funny. He needs to stick to commedy.
Right.
Like you said, users install the spyware.
They make the decision to run software including spyware, even if it's as a bundle, and so they really have no place to complain to the courts.
Complain to the software company all you want, but the company did nothing wrong.
What about our rights not to have to deal with this scumware?
This ruling does nothing to affect your right, you're still welcome to turn off your compuer.
Oh, but then you meant you want to operate your computer in the manner to which you're accustomed AND not deal with the "scumware".
Well that right is it's there with my right to eat for free at McDonalds every Wednesday: nonexistant.
Why do you people think you have such a right? You boot your computer and instruct it to install and run these programs (Yes, you do. If you didn't they wouldn't be run. Such is the nature of computers: it's just a hunk of metal doing what you tell it to and nothing else). You have no right to complain that your computer is doing what you tell it.
If you walk down the street handing people money you have no right to complain when people accept it. When you tell your computer to execute instructions from unauthenticated people over the internet you have no right to complain when it does.
I specifically said fraud should be illegal and prosecuted strongly. If you tell someone to install a filesharing program and it's really a virus, then this is fraud and should be prosecuted. However, if you send someone an unlabeled exe without making any claims to its contents and the user still opens it he is entirely responsible for the result.
Yes, I do blame the victims, then the victim is responsible.
Who says you have to have a popup, prompt, or installer to get permission?
Users end up running programs that in effect accept commands from other people on the internet without any authentication or restriction. This is the user's choice, as uninformed as it may be, and when a user tells his computer to execute any old command that comes across the wire he really has no place to complain when the computer does it.
Without an operator's instructions a computer is just a hunk of metal. That a computer does something, installing a program or whatever, itself indicates that the operator has told the computer to do it. Otherwise it wouldn't have been carried out.
Yes, fraud is bad, wrong, and should be fully prosecuted. However, this stuff is often not fraud.
A lot of times (I hear) things get installed on computers because users have, in effect, set their computers to accept commands and install stuff without any authentication at all. So long as no information is falsified, nothing wrong has happened. The computer is being used precisely as the operator set it up.
In the end a computer is just a hunk of metal sitting there until you tell it what to do. Nothing can happen in a computer without the operator's permission, though this permission doesn't have to be express (just as you don't have to give the mechanic permission to turn each screw individually).
The website does nothing. Without a computer to operate the website is never accessed. Only the computer does something.
In the end the only way anyone can install something on my computer is through my permission or through my decision to run software allowing the installation. Either way it is through MY decision, and hence MY responsibility.
These laws do nothing but try to blame the other party when I have given him permission to install things on my computer.
You don't agree to be mugged.
You DO instruct your computer to install this stuff.
Huge difference.
People need to take responsibilty for their own computer usage. If they're not informed enough to use a computer then they need to not use it. It's that simple.
This law is no different from one that would make it illegal to format your own hard drive and delete your own files. What, you didn't know that the file would be gone forever? Well obviously it's not your fault you weren't sufficiently educated. There oughta be a law...
Yes, it is very much like spam, a behavioral problem.
The computer operator instructs his computer to do things and allow things that he doesn't really intend.
Personally, though, I don't agree with laws that involve protecting people from themselves.
Those pointed to as the bad guys in this case are doing nothing that the computer's operator didn't tell his computer to do, at least indirectly. They're doing nothing wrong.
Personal responsibility take another hit.
With the CDMA used by Verizon there is no need for different frequencies. Adjacent cells can all use the same frequency and the phone can communicate with them all at once.
Ahh the magic of CDMA...
Using "zombie PC's" is not necessary for spamming. If using a zombie PC is wrong, then prosecute that. Declare that it's wrong. But it's an entirely different matter than actual spamming.
Declaring spamming to be wrong because of the use of zombie PCs is like declaring the playing of football to be wrong because some players choose to use illegal performance enhancers.
A spammer steals nothing.
His entire advertising cost is paid for by people willing to pay it, that is, people willing to accept messages from completely unknow strangers.
When you hand something over it's not theft, even when it's not in your interest to hand it over.
Wow, three digits. I don't remember ever really pondering that.
:)
I wonder if I can sell it on EBay
You see this? This is the body of your comment. That little line above there? The one labeled "subject"? Yeah, that's where you're supposed to put a subject. There is no possible way to interpret the label "Subject" as "Put the first few words of your comment here." Besides, you'd have to reinterpret "Comment" as "Comment without the first few words which you decided to put in the Subject field" to complete your freakish interpretation of the process of submitting a comment.
Seriously, we label these fields for a reason. Subject in the subject field, comment in the comment field, username in the username field, and password in the password field. What's so hard about that?
Immoral? Howso?
Good call.
Because I currently have numerous ways to get cable-like service, and this would be no different.
I have absolutely no objections; this sounds like a great idea.
The people so misguided as to have a problem with such an installation should probably be kept locked away in their [private] houses anyway.
It will always be a choice.
Even up to the point when it is actually MANDATED by law it will remain a choice.
Let's just make sure it's not mandated, and so the people can get what they want.
You completely overlook the ability that people have to simply avoid buying stuff that's tagged.
This is a MAJOR force, often even better than an on/off switch.
So basically he asked what this one offers and your answer was "blah blah blah blah something".
Thanks.
You're being sarcastic, but there's actually some sanity to what you said.
The more we can tell that, for example, everyone has the stuff to make a bomb sitting in their closets, the more obvious it becomes that arresting people for such little reason is a bad idea.
If we know that one guy in the US has the stuff to make bombs, and there's an explosion, guess who we should suspect. But do that analysis again knowing that everyone has the stuff to make bombs. Suddenly that probably innocent guy has a lot less unwarranted suspicion.
Don't outlaw them; don't regulate them; just inform people about them and let the PEOPLE decide what information they're comfortable giving away.
Of course, that's only a disadvantage if you oppose extending the range of marketing efforts, as I do.
Why, rationally, do you?
And in this entire reply you didn't once get into the matter of rights.
When you're really gunning to get rid of the Bush administration, sensibility and facts have little to do with anything.
I heard Cheney has authorized the CIA to make rude faces at your mom as well