the problem with laws like this one is that they have are a good example of how government is too big. why should i care if this website discriminates against blind people? if the cinema did something to discriminate against women, i'd just go to another cinema. chances are, after a time, most cinemas would either not discriminate against women or not be around any more. that's the great thing about a free market economy. you don't need to pay the government. your dollar is your vote, quite literally.
okay, yes, they have the *right* to sue, but they probably wouldn't be that successful. failing to provide a website which caters to disabled persons is not illegal. deliberately not providing the information is. nobody said that blind people couldn't call and ask for information.
stupid people will be stupid. doing illegal things to try to change that situation is stupid. and illegal. thus you will make a futile (stupid) effort to make things better and get your ass sued by the people who are smarter than you but, nonetheless, stupid.
what you're missing is the fact that there's no such thing as perfect security. anything is hackable, though some things are very very extremely hard. thus, bearing this in mind, and wearing our tinfoil hats like good little children, we would like to secure the headers as well. if mr. malicious knows you're sending data to your credit card company, he'll be willing to work hard to find out what's inside. if he has to work hard to find out where you're sending the data, that's one more deterrent.
you don't have to be totally hack-proof, just moreso than any other potential target.:)
i did not realize that it was, but ftr, i read comic books, trashy novels, textbooks (for fun), "classic" literature, poetry, and a hell of a lot of plays.:)
as i said in my previous post, there is more to literature than just characters and plot. for example, prose. comic books are primarily dialogue, so this doesn't come in much. however, i think you are forgetting that the "pretty pictures" frequently contain a large portion of the content. the images from a graphic novel are generally quite thought provoking, if the reader takes the time to really look at them. this is a major element of the comic book genre that is missing in the novel. certainly, the words of a novel can create a lot of interesting imagery, but the artist behind a graphic novel can give you a much better idea of exactly what he/she had in mind. it's different, and less interactive in some ways, but not necessarily dumber.
saying that graphic novels and novels are practically the same thing because they have narrative and dialogue as a basis is like saying that reading a book and seeing a movie are the same thing. they're both arts, but they take very different forms.
of course, this begs the question: were novels *ever* mainstream? if so, when? perhaps this question just demonstrates my ignorance of american culture in general. i know that i have always, and continue, to read novels, but my sister simply doesn't enjoy them. i don't know which is more indicative of society at large.
that depends on what you're looking for in literature. if you're looking for great prose and a mastery of the english language, you're absolutely right. you're going to find that in umberto eco and toni morrison and not in a graphic novel. however, if, as the previous poster cited, you're interested in a complex, interesting story and character development, you can find that in the watchmen, transmetropolitan, or any of a number of other comics. graphic novels are almost totally a different artform than literature, and i don't think it's fair to compare the two.
"yeah, man, last week i hacked into my parents genome while they were sleeping. dude, there's some fucked up shit there. did you know my mom once had the clap?"
"dude, that's nothing. i hacked professor katz the other day. dude, that guy has had *everything*"
they have very little economic incentive to reduce the price of a linux box, simply because they have to pay less. people will still pay it and because enough people still want windows, MS 0wnx0rs them.
(well, okay, not literally, but in the same way that clan eit 0wnz j00!!!)
you could argue, though, that 'good' saves you time in the long run because you don't have to patch and patch and patch and eventually scrap it and redesign.
ignorance isn't always the fault of the programmer, but if he doesn't have the knowledge, ignorance is still the problem.
i think a major part of the problem is that security is not an idea which is ingrained in young programmers from the start. i believe this is because teachers don't want to overwhelm students who are learning a whole new set of ideas already, but it's critical that security be something that is kept in mind at all times when programming. i mean, nobody ever *means* to introduce security bugs. there are a few simple techniques which take only a little more time and can save you a lot of heartache later on. for example, *checking* for buffer overflow. most of the time you won't need to, but if it's a part of your style, you'll never have to worry about it.
true, but, as the article says, only about 1 in 100 people call to complain. that brings the figures up to 42,900,000. no matter how stupid people are not to call, that's a much more significant number.
perhaps this is just my ignorance. i don't, myself, have a hotmail account. however, (waxing philosophical, now, watch out) i think that people do have some ability to block it out and not connect the hotmail - ms - windows dots. especially with such a crappy service like hotmail. people say, 'that can't be the same ms. i mean, ms makes windows.'
and then there are people like my dad, who are totally fed up with microsoft but are too scared to install something else.
agreed. it's crappy customer service, but you know, if people don't associate hotmail with microsoft (and i'd bet a good deal don't, especially if the ms customer service when you call is usually better), ms doesn't lose any customers. i mean, i didn't know ms owned hotmail until today (already have plenty of other reasons to hate them). perhaps it's simply not worth it to them to investigate every claim and easier to close down accounts and let people open new ones.
i agree. there appears to have been a kneejerk reaction to this judge's decision to hear the case. i guess this is partly because the the language used in the article is pretty slanted and partly because, well, it's slashdot. no rulings have been made yet. the guy just decided to hear both sides.
also, if you RTFA, you'd see that there's a critical part of the utah law that makes it slightly less cut and dried than spyware vs. not.
Regardless of consent, the Utah law bars companies from installing software that reports its users' online actions, sends any personal data to other companies, or pops up advertisements without permission. It contains some loopholes: Advertisements served by ordinary HTML or JavaScript are exempted, as are the ordinary "cookies" often used to help personalize Web pages.
regardless of consent makes this a critical issue. what is considered an advertisement? if you download a trial version and it asks you if you want to register, is that an advertisement? it's worth thinking about a little bit.
Slashdot Mirror
the problem with laws like this one is that they have are a good example of how government is too big. why should i care if this website discriminates against blind people? if the cinema did something to discriminate against women, i'd just go to another cinema. chances are, after a time, most cinemas would either not discriminate against women or not be around any more. that's the great thing about a free market economy. you don't need to pay the government. your dollar is your vote, quite literally.
okay, yes, they have the *right* to sue, but they probably wouldn't be that successful. failing to provide a website which caters to disabled persons is not illegal. deliberately not providing the information is. nobody said that blind people couldn't call and ask for information.
stupid people will be stupid. doing illegal things to try to change that situation is stupid. and illegal. thus you will make a futile (stupid) effort to make things better and get your ass sued by the people who are smarter than you but, nonetheless, stupid.
at least someone will be able to find my remote control
you don't have to be totally hack-proof, just moreso than any other potential target. :)
as i said in my previous post, there is more to literature than just characters and plot. for example, prose. comic books are primarily dialogue, so this doesn't come in much. however, i think you are forgetting that the "pretty pictures" frequently contain a large portion of the content. the images from a graphic novel are generally quite thought provoking, if the reader takes the time to really look at them. this is a major element of the comic book genre that is missing in the novel. certainly, the words of a novel can create a lot of interesting imagery, but the artist behind a graphic novel can give you a much better idea of exactly what he/she had in mind. it's different, and less interactive in some ways, but not necessarily dumber.
saying that graphic novels and novels are practically the same thing because they have narrative and dialogue as a basis is like saying that reading a book and seeing a movie are the same thing. they're both arts, but they take very different forms.
of course, this begs the question: were novels *ever* mainstream? if so, when? perhaps this question just demonstrates my ignorance of american culture in general. i know that i have always, and continue, to read novels, but my sister simply doesn't enjoy them. i don't know which is more indicative of society at large.
that depends on what you're looking for in literature. if you're looking for great prose and a mastery of the english language, you're absolutely right. you're going to find that in umberto eco and toni morrison and not in a graphic novel. however, if, as the previous poster cited, you're interested in a complex, interesting story and character development, you can find that in the watchmen, transmetropolitan, or any of a number of other comics. graphic novels are almost totally a different artform than literature, and i don't think it's fair to compare the two.
too bad they died so much younger . . . or is it?
"yeah, man, last week i hacked into my parents genome while they were sleeping. dude, there's some fucked up shit there. did you know my mom once had the clap?"
"dude, that's nothing. i hacked professor katz the other day. dude, that guy has had *everything*"
and we haven't even gotten into Kris Kringle v. the KKK
(well, okay, not literally, but in the same way that clan eit 0wnz j00!!!)
ignorance isn't always the fault of the programmer, but if he doesn't have the knowledge, ignorance is still the problem.
i think a major part of the problem is that security is not an idea which is ingrained in young programmers from the start. i believe this is because teachers don't want to overwhelm students who are learning a whole new set of ideas already, but it's critical that security be something that is kept in mind at all times when programming. i mean, nobody ever *means* to introduce security bugs. there are a few simple techniques which take only a little more time and can save you a lot of heartache later on. for example, *checking* for buffer overflow. most of the time you won't need to, but if it's a part of your style, you'll never have to worry about it.
true, but, as the article says, only about 1 in 100 people call to complain. that brings the figures up to 42,900,000. no matter how stupid people are not to call, that's a much more significant number.
but the moonwalk will live on forever!
mmmmm, tasty buff boys . . . .
and then there are people like my dad, who are totally fed up with microsoft but are too scared to install something else.
agreed. it's crappy customer service, but you know, if people don't associate hotmail with microsoft (and i'd bet a good deal don't, especially if the ms customer service when you call is usually better), ms doesn't lose any customers. i mean, i didn't know ms owned hotmail until today (already have plenty of other reasons to hate them). perhaps it's simply not worth it to them to investigate every claim and easier to close down accounts and let people open new ones.
wow, that's beautiful. i think i'll have to start using that one.
Ms. Claus
123 North Pole
North Pole, NP
(123)456-7890
mclaus@gmail.com
true, but it may also be the case that linux is just more secure. we won't *really* know until linux acquires a large clueless userbase.
free internet could benefit education in america too. that would be nice.
if i had mod points, i would mod you up as informative. :)
also, if you RTFA, you'd see that there's a critical part of the utah law that makes it slightly less cut and dried than spyware vs. not.
Regardless of consent, the Utah law bars companies from installing software that reports its users' online actions, sends any personal data to other companies, or pops up advertisements without permission. It contains some loopholes: Advertisements served by ordinary HTML or JavaScript are exempted, as are the ordinary "cookies" often used to help personalize Web pages.
regardless of consent makes this a critical issue. what is considered an advertisement? if you download a trial version and it asks you if you want to register, is that an advertisement? it's worth thinking about a little bit.