I think that's exactly the point he was trying to make when he said "It's absurd to expect ordinary members of the public to think about what they're allowed to do [with CDs, digital downloads, etc]... and then ask themselves whether it's legal or not.". Because downloading music became so easy and so anonymous so quickly, it entered into the ordinary workflow of people's lives and users that download are so numerous that the chances of any one of them getting caught are infinitesimal at best. Geeks get really up in arms about it and so does the recording industry, but in between are hundreds of millions if not billions of people who genuinely don't care about the politics of it beyond "Is what I'm doing illegal and can I get caught easily?". I hate to break it to the recording industry, but the number of people who are acclimated to downloading music—legally or otherwise—is increasing rapidly, and the number of people who prefer to physically walk into a music store or best buy/walmart/whatever to buy a CD is dwindling fast.
That's actually a really good point, but I don't think most people think of it that way. The airlines have now trained customers to think that they're paying for the privilege of not having to schlep their luggage onto the plane, not for the extra weight it will add to the airplane.
Re:behavioral problems have virtually disappeared
on
The Wi-Fi On the Bus
·
· Score: 1
If you completely disregard the value of social skills, you're not very intelligent. That's what I said and I stand by it. Disregarding the value of social interactions and the value of being able to navigate those interactions effectively and the value of being likable is a stupid thing to do. Intelligence is but one part of what makes you successful, yeah, but understanding what will make you successful is part of being intelligent.
Re:behavioral problems have virtually disappeared
on
The Wi-Fi On the Bus
·
· Score: 1
I know some very intelligent people who were left in the dust career wise by less intelligent people because they just wouldn't learn to relate to people - and I mean wouldn't and not couldn't. They degrade people skills as being for the cheer leaders and "jocks" and sales droids.
Then, in the end, they're not that intelligent are they? I was picked on a lot in school, 'cause if I'm being perfectly honest here I am a huuuuge nerd. There's just no point in denying that when I'm here, posting this comment on Slashdot. The difference came when about halfway through high school I found out that a couple of people I'd written off as total douchebags were actually very smart, and their behaviour was largely a social ruse. I figured I could do the same.
Also, one thing that seriously helped was going to college all the way across the country from where I went to high school. Nobody I met in my first year at college knew I was a huge nerd in high school so they didn't treat me like one, then by the time I had to retreat into myself more because of my heavy computer science courseload, I already had a nice circle of friends going. I'm not saying the transition is easy but it is possible if you have made the decision to see yourself differently, and thus have everyone else perceive you differently. Things like Asberger's make it a lot harder but not impossible.
We don't let horse and buggy on the interstate anymore, no matter HOW rich the idiot is. There's no reason to put up with IE6's shit anymore either.
I'm amish, you insensitive clod!!!
Seriously though, that's just about the most eloquent way I've heard it being put. I didn't have mod points so I decided to go with the above comment instead. Enjoy.
Why not force an upgrade to IE7 or 8 and separate the ActiveX functionality into a plugin IT personnel at companies that depend on that functionality can install. That way ordinary users who don't have the plugin installed don't have the security headaches ActiveX implies, and companies get to keep their ancient software.
That extinction level event was just as probable a thousand years ago and it didn't happen. This is the flaw in the "it's not a matter of if, but when" thing, because there's a certain probability of it happening tomorrow and there's another probability of the human race dying out in some other way—like as a result of global warming or resource depletion here at home—long before something like that happens. I'd rather my tax money be spent sending robots to do all the interplanetary exploration until it's cheap and safe enough to send humans instead. While I'm on the subject: RIP, Spirit!
This is something I've never really understood. What is the rationale, if any, for making it so that the web browser updates the system? If you uninstall IE, can you still update your system?
The problem wasn't that a browser is really important and everyone needs one; the problem was that Microsoft had integrated their browser into the operating system in such a way that the operating system itself could not work without it, effectively making it impossible to uninstall it even if the user preferred another browser. Part of what makes other browsers more secure than IE de facto is that they don't have their tentacles as deep into the system as IE does. I'm sure someone will shoot back that it's not true, but really if you have a browser that's able to change system settings like IE can without asking for a password first, you're doing it wrong.
Nobody's really proposing that windows ship without a web browser; I think the current idea is to force them to give users a choice of web browser when they install it.
Nah it's a pretty standard UPnP system with well-documented open source programs you can run it on, like ushare (http://ushare.geexbox.org/). Like I said: pretty simple.
Methinks it would avoid any anti-trust issues as well.
How is that? Microsoft could (irony!) sue for anticompetitive practices. It's not like that stuff gets any less illegal when people other than Microsoft do it.
I don't think many people in the US are willing to admit it, but part of the reason why the Russians beat us into space was that they were willing to accept more risk than us. The US has a space exploration record largely lacking in tragedy, and the Russians definitely have had more incidents, but as a result they were able to move forward slightly faster than us.
I don't think there's anything wrong with that as long as the people you are sending to their potential demise know the risks and know what they're getting into. No matter what the risk though there are people out there who would sign up for this without hesitation. I say there's nothing wrong at all with looking into it.
Don't hold Christianity up like it's so much better than the others, since in the US at least it's the Christians who are pushing through the most discriminatory laws. Them and godforsaken Joe Lieberman.
No one's asking you, personally, to apologize for Turing's treatment. You're not the one who did it, obviously, but the UK's government was, and it's still around as an entity. If they would just acknowledge that it was wrong and acknowledge Turing's contributions to the world before his untimely death, it would not only make a lot of people feel better but, more importantly, it would acknowledge that such a thing won't happen again. That last bit is the most important part and I think that a refusal to apologize can seem like an inability to admit wrongdoing.
Think of it like the US Government apologizing for slavery. There were no reparations attached to it, so all it took to make it happen was an acknowledgment that slavery was wrong and that until the mid-19th century the US Government was complicit in its continuation. Even though the people making the apology were not slaveowners and the people accepting it were never themselves slaves, it's still important to recognize that it did happen, in this country, and that it won't happen again. As my family wasn't even in this country during that time, and we were enduring our own oppression in Europe, I don't find it necessary myself to apologize but I do think that the government who was complicit needs to. Same deal for the UK.
"Tend to" doesn't mean "necessarily do" though, and even though it's a large organization, it's *our* large organization, and it can run however we make it run.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that's exactly the point he was trying to make when he said "It's absurd to expect ordinary members of the public to think about what they're allowed to do [with CDs, digital downloads, etc]... and then ask themselves whether it's legal or not.". Because downloading music became so easy and so anonymous so quickly, it entered into the ordinary workflow of people's lives and users that download are so numerous that the chances of any one of them getting caught are infinitesimal at best. Geeks get really up in arms about it and so does the recording industry, but in between are hundreds of millions if not billions of people who genuinely don't care about the politics of it beyond "Is what I'm doing illegal and can I get caught easily?". I hate to break it to the recording industry, but the number of people who are acclimated to downloading music—legally or otherwise—is increasing rapidly, and the number of people who prefer to physically walk into a music store or best buy/walmart/whatever to buy a CD is dwindling fast.
That's actually a really good point, but I don't think most people think of it that way. The airlines have now trained customers to think that they're paying for the privilege of not having to schlep their luggage onto the plane, not for the extra weight it will add to the airplane.
If you completely disregard the value of social skills, you're not very intelligent. That's what I said and I stand by it. Disregarding the value of social interactions and the value of being able to navigate those interactions effectively and the value of being likable is a stupid thing to do. Intelligence is but one part of what makes you successful, yeah, but understanding what will make you successful is part of being intelligent.
I know some very intelligent people who were left in the dust career wise by less intelligent people because they just wouldn't learn to relate to people - and I mean wouldn't and not couldn't. They degrade people skills as being for the cheer leaders and "jocks" and sales droids.
Then, in the end, they're not that intelligent are they? I was picked on a lot in school, 'cause if I'm being perfectly honest here I am a huuuuge nerd. There's just no point in denying that when I'm here, posting this comment on Slashdot. The difference came when about halfway through high school I found out that a couple of people I'd written off as total douchebags were actually very smart, and their behaviour was largely a social ruse. I figured I could do the same.
Also, one thing that seriously helped was going to college all the way across the country from where I went to high school. Nobody I met in my first year at college knew I was a huge nerd in high school so they didn't treat me like one, then by the time I had to retreat into myself more because of my heavy computer science courseload, I already had a nice circle of friends going. I'm not saying the transition is easy but it is possible if you have made the decision to see yourself differently, and thus have everyone else perceive you differently. Things like Asberger's make it a lot harder but not impossible.
American Science and Surplus (http://www.sciplus.com/) in Chicago just needs to be mentioned here. That place is magical.
That's a good start and all, but we need good musicians to speak out too.
We don't let horse and buggy on the interstate anymore, no matter HOW rich the idiot is. There's no reason to put up with IE6's shit anymore either.
I'm amish, you insensitive clod!!!
Seriously though, that's just about the most eloquent way I've heard it being put. I didn't have mod points so I decided to go with the above comment instead. Enjoy.
Why not force an upgrade to IE7 or 8 and separate the ActiveX functionality into a plugin IT personnel at companies that depend on that functionality can install. That way ordinary users who don't have the plugin installed don't have the security headaches ActiveX implies, and companies get to keep their ancient software.
That extinction level event was just as probable a thousand years ago and it didn't happen. This is the flaw in the "it's not a matter of if, but when" thing, because there's a certain probability of it happening tomorrow and there's another probability of the human race dying out in some other way—like as a result of global warming or resource depletion here at home—long before something like that happens. I'd rather my tax money be spent sending robots to do all the interplanetary exploration until it's cheap and safe enough to send humans instead. While I'm on the subject: RIP, Spirit!
You get about 20% more "clear sky" (Sites in Nevada have over 80% clear weather).
Are you really arguing against orbital solar by saying there's more clouds in space?
This is something I've never really understood. What is the rationale, if any, for making it so that the web browser updates the system? If you uninstall IE, can you still update your system?
The problem wasn't that a browser is really important and everyone needs one; the problem was that Microsoft had integrated their browser into the operating system in such a way that the operating system itself could not work without it, effectively making it impossible to uninstall it even if the user preferred another browser. Part of what makes other browsers more secure than IE de facto is that they don't have their tentacles as deep into the system as IE does. I'm sure someone will shoot back that it's not true, but really if you have a browser that's able to change system settings like IE can without asking for a password first, you're doing it wrong.
Nobody's really proposing that windows ship without a web browser; I think the current idea is to force them to give users a choice of web browser when they install it.
Nah it's a pretty standard UPnP system with well-documented open source programs you can run it on, like ushare (http://ushare.geexbox.org/). Like I said: pretty simple.
I am intrigued by your ideas, TheRaven64, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
As of last year or so the Xbox 360 plays MPEG-4 files just fine. I have mine play them over the network from my server.
c) We all know IE is way more promiscuous than other browsers.
Oh yeah. IE is a total whore.
Methinks it would avoid any anti-trust issues as well.
How is that? Microsoft could (irony!) sue for anticompetitive practices. It's not like that stuff gets any less illegal when people other than Microsoft do it.
I've gotta agree with adamdoyle's post. If someone sent me a resumé with the reply address configured that way, I'd probably think it was pretty neat.
How do you handle the replies? This is cool enough I might just try to do it.
Oops forgot this is slashdot. How insensitive of me!
It's the highlight according to TFA.
I don't think many people in the US are willing to admit it, but part of the reason why the Russians beat us into space was that they were willing to accept more risk than us. The US has a space exploration record largely lacking in tragedy, and the Russians definitely have had more incidents, but as a result they were able to move forward slightly faster than us.
I don't think there's anything wrong with that as long as the people you are sending to their potential demise know the risks and know what they're getting into. No matter what the risk though there are people out there who would sign up for this without hesitation. I say there's nothing wrong at all with looking into it.
Don't hold Christianity up like it's so much better than the others, since in the US at least it's the Christians who are pushing through the most discriminatory laws. Them and godforsaken Joe Lieberman.
No one's asking you, personally, to apologize for Turing's treatment. You're not the one who did it, obviously, but the UK's government was, and it's still around as an entity. If they would just acknowledge that it was wrong and acknowledge Turing's contributions to the world before his untimely death, it would not only make a lot of people feel better but, more importantly, it would acknowledge that such a thing won't happen again. That last bit is the most important part and I think that a refusal to apologize can seem like an inability to admit wrongdoing.
Think of it like the US Government apologizing for slavery. There were no reparations attached to it, so all it took to make it happen was an acknowledgment that slavery was wrong and that until the mid-19th century the US Government was complicit in its continuation. Even though the people making the apology were not slaveowners and the people accepting it were never themselves slaves, it's still important to recognize that it did happen, in this country, and that it won't happen again. As my family wasn't even in this country during that time, and we were enduring our own oppression in Europe, I don't find it necessary myself to apologize but I do think that the government who was complicit needs to. Same deal for the UK.
"Tend to" doesn't mean "necessarily do" though, and even though it's a large organization, it's *our* large organization, and it can run however we make it run.
Since when is someone completely missing the humour in a post "insightful"?