Apple's warranties are absolutely worth it. The three year extended warranty is dirt frickin cheap compared to any repair you might need down the line. Hard drive failed? Replaced. Keys fell of your keyboard? Replaced. Little rubber feet come off the bottom of the laptop? Here's a sheet of extras, just in case they come off again in three years.
Seriously, if you buy a Mac, buy the extended warranty.
Man, the "unsend" feature is my favorite part of Outlook. Unfortunately, it only works right if everyone you sent the email to is also using outlook. Otherwise, you just get a second message saying the sender wants to recall the first.
Actually, it only works right if (a) the recipient uses Outlook and (b) they don't open the first message before they open the recall message. It's THAT STUPID.
We used to have Groupwise (or Gropeweird, as we called it) -- it had problems, but at least when you recalled a message, it magically disappeared from everyone's inbox (if it had not yet been read).
I haven't made it far through the article, but it's good so far...
"...in a more compelling form than is often expressed in popular discourse, the nothing to hide argument proceeds as follows: The NSA surveillance, data mining, or other government information-gathering programs will result in the disclosure of particular pieces of information to a few government officials, or perhaps only to government computers. This very limited disclosure of the particular information involved is not likely to be threatening to the privacy of law-abiding citizens. Only those who are engaged in illegal activities have a reason to hide this information. Although there may be some cases in which the information might be sensitive or embarrassing to law-abiding citizens, the limited disclosure lessens the threat to privacy. Moreover, the security interest in detecting, investigating, and preventing terrorist attacks is very high and outweighs whatever minimal or moderate privacy interests law-abiding citizens may have in these particular pieces of information.
"Cast in this manner, the nothing to hide argument is a formidable one. It balances the degree to which an individuals privacy is compromised by the limited disclosure of certain information against potent national security interests. Under such a balancing scheme, it is quite difficult for privacy to prevail.
...
"Many commentators had been using the metaphor of George Orwells 1984 to describe the problems created by the collection and use of personal data.51 I contended that the Orwell metaphor, which focuses on the harms of surveillance (such as inhibition and social control) might be apt to describe law enforcements monitoring of citizens. But much of the data gathered in computer databases is not particularly sensitive, such as ones race, birth date, gender, address, or marital status. Many people do not care about concealing the hotels they stay at, the cars they own or rent, or the kind of beverages they drink. People often do not take many steps to keep such information secret. Frequently, though not always, peoples activities would not be inhibited if others knew this information.
"I suggested a different metaphor to capture the problems: Franz Kafkas The Trial, which depicts a bureaucracy with inscrutable purposes that uses peoples information to make important decisions about them, yet denies the people the ability to participate in how their information is used.52 The problems captured by the Kafka metaphor are of a different sort than the problems caused by surveillance. They often do not result in inhibition or chilling. Instead, they are problems of information processingthe storage, use, or analysis of datarather than information collection. They affect the power relationships between people and the institutions of the modern state. They not only frustrate the individual by creating a sense of helplessness and powerlessness, but they also affect social structure by altering the kind of relationships people have with the institutions that make important decisions about their lives."
It's a great analysis of the issues, laying out what the heck privacy really is, anyway.
FTA: To understand the Warcart requires one understand a bit of history first. Wardriving, that is, driving with a laptop computer and tracking WiFi access points, first became popular around 2001.
Well, if we're going to talk about history, how about wardialing in the 1980s, clearly the precursor to wardriving. The name goes back to the movie Wargames, in which the main character writes a program to find compuers by dialing phone numbers in sequence -- so the first wardialers were called "WarGames Dialers".
As I recall, we could wardial thousands of phone numbers in a night and net several dozen modems... boy, that was awhile ago. Get off my lawn!
The only possible reason to hide is if you are uncertain about the outcome of your suit and thus remove any pretense of "libel" having occurred.
There, fixed that for you.
You may be sure of the merits of your suit, but unsure that the "facts" (note my quotes) will support the outcome you want. Therefore you may still want to reduce media exposure.
Of course, we may both be right: their intent could be to reduce media exposure, and an anonymous libel suit makes no sense. Until the courts decide, we won't know... and even then, there may be doubts.
I realize I am breaking some kind of Slashdot rule here, but I've googled this further.
On March 9, the Dean of Yale's law school wrote this: "The Washington Post ran a story about several of our students who have been personally targeted on an internet message board. While this message board purports to be about law school and law school admissions, it contains numerous sexist, racist, homophobic and other derogatory comments by anonymous posters. Some of these comments include the names and personal information of our students and other individuals, along with many false and hurtful assertions."
Furthermore, their names are stated clearly in this PDF of Ciolli's lawsuit against the two women.
From the article and the court documents it appears that the plaintiffs are both "Jane Doe"s. That means that their identity was not explicitly known to everyone (else the Jane Doe ploy makes no sense) and that it is the supposed attacker's identity which is being exposed instead.
The article notes that "the Jane Doe plaintiffs contend that the postings about them became etched into the first page of search engine results on their names," which strongly suggests that the posts included their real names, not just their online handles. If so, then the Jane Doe thing is to further distance their names from the media and search engines.
TFA says this: "The Jane Doe plaintiffs contend that the postings about them became [a] etched into the first page of search engine results on their names, [b] costing them prestigious jobs, [c] infecting their relationships with friends and family, and even [d] forcing one to stop going to the gym for fear of stalkers." Bracketed lettering added by me.
So [a] could actually be an issue if you are trying to learn about a woman who has applied to a job (as in [b]), or who has applied to join your nonprofit/neighborhood organization, or you're interested in dating, etc. Item [c] is vague, but when you read something like bizarrely sexual attacks on someone, you start to wonder strange things about them. Item [d] could be valid if you suspected that the online asshats were actually your classmates. Think about it: if you found someone's personal journal, and they had written all this rape stuff in it, AND they were classmates with people matching those names, you would probably report them. But this happened in a public forum.
Hmm. How about you post that under a real Slashdot handle? Or maybe/. can identify your IP number and, by extension, identify you if someone in law enforcement desired it.
FTS: "The couple's house is on a private road clearly marked as private property."
Back when this first made news, I looked up their house in Street View and saw no sign that the road was marked as private. It's clearly a lesser side-road, but there are zillions of those in the U.S. that are still actual public roads.
It'd be even funnier if one of his opponents also had a WoW account and they could duke it out online. You could record it and release the highlights. People love entertainment, you know. It'd be a modern gladiator fight.
Of course, people wouldn't be thrilled about their elected officials playing video games for hours. They're supposed to be dining with lobbyists or something, right?
I love that all the conservatives think I'm a liberal, and all the liberals think I'm conservative.
Anyway, you wrote: "Our state certainly needs to rid itself of corruption. If Stevens is convicted it will be a sad day. What he is charged with is so petty compared to the greater good he has done that will be a crying shame. And entirely his fault. He should of course take the blame for his actions. But that doesn't change the fact that it will hurt the state MORE if he is convicted... the damage comes from the hurt this does to the Republican party in Alaska."
I read you as follows:
"Stevens might be convicted." I'm assuming you mean "convicted" in the traditional sense, as in "because he was guilty."
"What he is charged with is so petty compared to the greater good." Following the above, it sounds like you're saying that if he is convicted, you are willing to overlook his lawbreaking (lying, accepting bribes, whatever it may be) because he has done great things, like bringing in lots of money and making all kinds of improvements.
"He should take the blame for his actions." So if he is guilty, you think he needs to face up to it.
"...it will hurt the state MORE if he is convicted..." So if he is guilty, it does not matter, because it's more important to keep him in office than apply laws to him. Otherwise it will hurt the Republican party badly.
Do I have that right?
If so, you are saying, in essence, that as long as he keeps the money [benefits, improvements, etc.] flowing, you are willing to overlook [forgive, sideline, ignore, etc.] lies and deception for the greater good of the Republican party [you]. Right?
What he is charged with is so petty compared to the greater good he has done that will be a crying shame.
So, you're saying... as long as he keeps the money flowing to you, you are willing to overlook lies and deception? Do you think he's clean as a whistle in all his other dealings, too?
I don't think it's a matter of modern games not having enough patience, I think it's a matter of gaming evolving into a more immersive and holistic experience.
I also wonder if the demographic of "gamers" has evolved. You used to be a pure computer geek to play games. Nowadays everybody plays them: rappers, punks, jocks, business types, etc. So puzzle games may still appeal to the kind of people who enjoyed them 20 years ago, but their percentage of the "gamers" industry has been reduced by an influx of new gamers.
Maybe it's be semantics. Innovation in UI and appearance, is still innovation. It doesn't matter if the hardware is the same: they have innovative ways of making the same hardware more usable. Especially if it means they succeed in a field where everyone else failed.
What does this mean?
on
Apple After Jobs
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
It means it might be a good time to buy Apple stock, since it will bounce back up after Jobs turns out to be as healthy as any other software titan.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple's warranties are absolutely worth it. The three year extended warranty is dirt frickin cheap compared to any repair you might need down the line. Hard drive failed? Replaced. Keys fell of your keyboard? Replaced. Little rubber feet come off the bottom of the laptop? Here's a sheet of extras, just in case they come off again in three years.
Seriously, if you buy a Mac, buy the extended warranty.
Didn't you hear? He's busy sending his son into space.
Man, the "unsend" feature is my favorite part of Outlook. Unfortunately, it only works right if everyone you sent the email to is also using outlook. Otherwise, you just get a second message saying the sender wants to recall the first.
Actually, it only works right if (a) the recipient uses Outlook and (b) they don't open the first message before they open the recall message. It's THAT STUPID.
We used to have Groupwise (or Gropeweird, as we called it) -- it had problems, but at least when you recalled a message, it magically disappeared from everyone's inbox (if it had not yet been read).
I haven't made it far through the article, but it's good so far...
It's a great analysis of the issues, laying out what the heck privacy really is, anyway.
In fact, they could also find computers, not just compuers.
FTA: To understand the Warcart requires one understand a bit of history first. Wardriving, that is, driving with a laptop computer and tracking WiFi access points, first became popular around 2001.
Well, if we're going to talk about history, how about wardialing in the 1980s, clearly the precursor to wardriving. The name goes back to the movie Wargames, in which the main character writes a program to find compuers by dialing phone numbers in sequence -- so the first wardialers were called "WarGames Dialers".
As I recall, we could wardial thousands of phone numbers in a night and net several dozen modems... boy, that was awhile ago. Get off my lawn!
The only possible reason to hide is if you are uncertain about the outcome of your suit and thus remove any pretense of "libel" having occurred.
There, fixed that for you.
You may be sure of the merits of your suit, but unsure that the "facts" (note my quotes) will support the outcome you want. Therefore you may still want to reduce media exposure.
Of course, we may both be right: their intent could be to reduce media exposure, and an anonymous libel suit makes no sense. Until the courts decide, we won't know... and even then, there may be doubts.
I realize I am breaking some kind of Slashdot rule here, but I've googled this further.
On March 9, the Dean of Yale's law school wrote this: "The Washington Post ran a story about several of our students who have been personally targeted on an internet message board. While this message board purports to be about law school and law school admissions, it contains numerous sexist, racist, homophobic and other derogatory comments by anonymous posters. Some of these comments include the names and personal information of our students and other individuals, along with many false and hurtful assertions."
Furthermore, their names are stated clearly in this PDF of Ciolli's lawsuit against the two women.
From the article and the court documents it appears that the plaintiffs are both "Jane Doe"s. That means that their identity was not explicitly known to everyone (else the Jane Doe ploy makes no sense) and that it is the supposed attacker's identity which is being exposed instead.
The article notes that "the Jane Doe plaintiffs contend that the postings about them became etched into the first page of search engine results on their names," which strongly suggests that the posts included their real names, not just their online handles. If so, then the Jane Doe thing is to further distance their names from the media and search engines.
TFA says this: "The Jane Doe plaintiffs contend that the postings about them became [a] etched into the first page of search engine results on their names, [b] costing them prestigious jobs, [c] infecting their relationships with friends and family, and even [d] forcing one to stop going to the gym for fear of stalkers." Bracketed lettering added by me.
So [a] could actually be an issue if you are trying to learn about a woman who has applied to a job (as in [b]), or who has applied to join your nonprofit/neighborhood organization, or you're interested in dating, etc. Item [c] is vague, but when you read something like bizarrely sexual attacks on someone, you start to wonder strange things about them. Item [d] could be valid if you suspected that the online asshats were actually your classmates. Think about it: if you found someone's personal journal, and they had written all this rape stuff in it, AND they were classmates with people matching those names, you would probably report them. But this happened in a public forum.
Hmm. How about you post that under a real Slashdot handle? Or maybe /. can identify your IP number and, by extension, identify you if someone in law enforcement desired it.
FTS: "The couple's house is on a private road clearly marked as private property."
Back when this first made news, I looked up their house in Street View and saw no sign that the road was marked as private. It's clearly a lesser side-road, but there are zillions of those in the U.S. that are still actual public roads.
Really? You think that it is a huge coincidence that since Google started this program, house prices all over the US have dropped considerably.
If I had mod points, I wouldn't know whether to mod you funny, or paranoid. I'm leaning toward funny.
(What do you mean, there is no longer a "paranoid" mod?!)
Mod parent funny. Doubly so if it's true.
It'd be even funnier if one of his opponents also had a WoW account and they could duke it out online. You could record it and release the highlights. People love entertainment, you know. It'd be a modern gladiator fight.
Of course, people wouldn't be thrilled about their elected officials playing video games for hours. They're supposed to be dining with lobbyists or something, right?
Plenty of old English sayings for this one.
"Live by the sword, die by the sword."
"What goes around, comes around."
"You reap what you sow."
Etc.
I love that all the conservatives think I'm a liberal, and all the liberals think I'm conservative.
Anyway, you wrote: "Our state certainly needs to rid itself of corruption. If Stevens is convicted it will be a sad day. What he is charged with is so petty compared to the greater good he has done that will be a crying shame. And entirely his fault. He should of course take the blame for his actions. But that doesn't change the fact that it will hurt the state MORE if he is convicted... the damage comes from the hurt this does to the Republican party in Alaska."
I read you as follows:
Do I have that right?
If so, you are saying, in essence, that as long as he keeps the money [benefits, improvements, etc.] flowing, you are willing to overlook [forgive, sideline, ignore, etc.] lies and deception for the greater good of the Republican party [you]. Right?
What he is charged with is so petty compared to the greater good he has done that will be a crying shame.
So, you're saying... as long as he keeps the money flowing to you, you are willing to overlook lies and deception? Do you think he's clean as a whistle in all his other dealings, too?
Could be. ThePlanet.com might react faster if the complaint was delivered by expensive lawyers or by law enforcement officials.
Give it time. It appears to be hosted in Texas at ThePlanet.com... we'll see how long they take to pull the server.
I don't think it's a matter of modern games not having enough patience, I think it's a matter of gaming evolving into a more immersive and holistic experience.
I also wonder if the demographic of "gamers" has evolved. You used to be a pure computer geek to play games. Nowadays everybody plays them: rappers, punks, jocks, business types, etc. So puzzle games may still appeal to the kind of people who enjoyed them 20 years ago, but their percentage of the "gamers" industry has been reduced by an influx of new gamers.
It seems like they're assuming an iPod touch screen surface would be required to have a multi-touch trackpad.
Hmm. My current MBP does multi-touch already. Heck, Apple's MBP marketing already states this.
And "maybe it's be" time that I start editing my posts more carefully. DOH!
Maybe it's be semantics. Innovation in UI and appearance, is still innovation. It doesn't matter if the hardware is the same: they have innovative ways of making the same hardware more usable. Especially if it means they succeed in a field where everyone else failed.
It means it might be a good time to buy Apple stock, since it will bounce back up after Jobs turns out to be as healthy as any other software titan.
Hmmm. I was just showing Cuil to someone and it returned 67,000 results for the "EngenderHealth" search. Maybe it is just database overload.