Judging from some of the posts over at the IE Blog, IE7 won't be a firefox killer. With a project that started in January and a beta due out in a couple of months, it looks more to be a stop gap measure than a full on new release.
Basically, it'll help prevent those that haven't already switched from doing so, but I doubt it'll be strong enough to bring back those who've already left.
I wouldn't be surprised to see an IE8 in longhorn though.
They would not know anymore about you then they do now....
From TFA:
At a minimum: name, birth date, sex, ID number, a digital photograph, address, and a "common machine-readable technology" that Homeland Security will decide on...Homeland Security is permitted to add additional requirements--such as a fingerprint or retinal scan--on top of those. We won't know for a while what these additional requirements will be.
Considering that you'll be required to show this card to open a bank account, it only stands to reason "for sake of convience" that it become a debit card also. This would be trivial.
I don't disagree that the lack of an ID card doesn't mean the things I speak of happening are impossible. What the ID card does though is virtually remove any difficultly whatsoever in making these things reality.
Your lack of concern is absolutley astounding.
Go to the bank, they have signature cards. Go to DMV and they have your picture on file
Um, I'm worried more about the guy who picks up your wallet, not the DMV or Bank.
Which all they are currently asking is pretty much your drivers license and passport rolled up into one
Two words: Cross Reference. Next to impossible now, all but standard with a new card.
You obviously do not design databases. If you did you'd know how powerful those two little words were.
Convenience. You no longer have to carry a passport AND drivers license.
Not an fair trade vs. the side effects. You may disagree, but that's all the more reason for public discourse.
What corporation gives you food and requires you to pay the video company late fees?
Good grief it's an example, and it's not that far off. Let me change it then, What company could refuse you live saving healthcare because you haven't paid your cable bill?
1. Security: Would you advocate a single username/password for all your computer accounts? So why advocate a single ID for your life? If my DL is stolen/lost, I don't need to cancel my CC. Could you imagine the disaster your life would be in if you couldn't travel/buy/rent a video/go to the bank without this card?
2. Democracy: This is being passed as part of an emergency military bill. Does it not merit its own debate and review? It seems that such a drastic change in everyday life should not take place without proper review.
3. Why?: How would this card benefit me? My wallet isn't that big, and I'd perfer if the airline wasn't able to access other areas of my life. Efficiency of government is not my concern, espescially when it goes against my self interests.
4. Abuse of Power: The federal gov't isn't the problem, it's the corporation that refuses to see me food until I pay their sister company's video rental late fees. It's the bank that won't give me a loan because people of my race have a higher default risk. It's the hacker that couldn't get into the fed Database, so instead asked a nice secretary at the rental car company for my information.
In the orignal VHS trilogy release, Lucas states that the wookies were a race of primitives that help the rebels defeat the empire on endor.
When he chopped up the original story into three, he wasn't sure that he would make the second two, and really wanted to include a wookie, so he made chewbakka a co-pilot, and upped his intellegence to boot.
When it was time for ROTJ, he needed "wookies". Hence the birth of the ewoks. No doubt with some marketing help.
Socialism requires government (see my definition, derived from Google's search, above);
Good god, let's not allow google to create our definitions shall we? Socialism has nothing to do with government at all, despite the prevailing opionion of the masses.
The stormy.org source that you quote doesn't return on my search result, but the site seems rather Libertarian (as in right-wing American Libertarian, as opposed to the socialist libertarian, from which the term first emerged); considering their inability to misappropriate terms, I have a tough time crediting them with an accurate defining of anything.
Your entire argument is based on a logical jump linking Government as required by Socialism, which is simply not true. The folks over at wikipedia do a better job than google on this one.
Your definition of socialism is much too narrow, hence your argument suffers.
Fascism and Socialism are polar opposites. In fact, fascism developed in Italy as a direct response to socialist/communist worker movements.
Socialists believe in the inherent dignity of individual man as the core tenet to a successful society. In this, they view government as a tool of the people, a necessary evil entrusted to deliver liberation to common man, often oppressed by those with power. Many Socialists question the role of government altogether, believing that the natural state of man is to live free from all forms of hierarchical rule.
Socialism IS NOT Communism, although Communism certainly stems from socialist principles. This incorrect yet popular belief of many uneducated people, mainly in the US arose from certain agendas being forwarded under a fear of Communism. Communism believes basically in rule of the proletariat, by force. The people as a singular entity, as opposed to the individual becomes the focus. You can see how such a change can make communism a rather hypocritical form of socialism when compared to it directly. The many differing forms of communism speak to this, as do the failures of stalinism and lennism in recent history.
Back to fascism.
Fascism is a belief in the power of the State as natural; above both the (singular) people and the individual. But don't take my word for it:
"Outside the State there can be neither individuals nor groups (political parties, associations, syndicates, classes). Therefore Fascism is opposed to Socialism, which confines the movement of history within the class struggle and ignores the unity of classes established in one economic and moral reality in the State."
- Mussolini
In saying this, fascists believe in the power of corporations as a reflection of state power and natural order. A great number of states have flirted with fascism, most of the time to the benefit of the free market.
In saying this, countries such as Japan and the US have economic policies that closely resemble those from fascist Italy. (I'm not saying they're fascist though.) Is it any wonder the support it recieved from prominent businessmen before it's splinter - Nazism - became the face of such unspeakable horror.
Fascim springs from strong business, a weak, propaganda filled media and an unconcerned populace. Socialist states tend to encorage diversity, weaker business and strong safety nets.
Knowing all of that, I'm sure you can now see how ludicrous your initial statement was.
Considering that no modern western government (with the exception of the USA) could survive a court challenge whereby they tax something that is illegal, this law has effectively made downloading songs legal in the Netherlands.
A similar thing has happened in Canada, where courts have ruled that downloading copyrighted music is more like a library than stealing. Canada's similar law helped them make that ruling.
The industry, by persuing these "royalty" laws is admitting defeat.
If I firebomb your house because I don't like your politics, I'm justified in saying that if you simply change your views you'll save yourself from a future firebombing?
That's some interesting logic you have there, it fits your posting name to a tee.
Many of today's big enviromental issues are mostly about supply.
They most certainly are not. Most have everything to do with money. People have made fortunes on being able to regulate the scarcity of resource supply. That covers the gamut of everything from Governments regulating logging rights to Exxon ensuring they make a profit.
They've been able to do this because of the relative difficulty and money involved in delivering these resources.
Sustainable economies are unatractive because of two reasons, they either remove the scarcity of obtaining the resource, thereby eliminating profit potential and undermining the market system itself (ie wind/tidal power), or they require a bit of a technological jump in order to be realized.
Solving the first problem requires nothing short of a revolution.
People talk of hydrogen cars etc. but if it can't be done now, why would it suddenly be possible in 25 years time?
It's amazing how things suddenly become possible when they are the only solution. Hydrogen cars are completely feasible today, it's just that there are more cost effective solutions avaiable. Once oil becomes 200-500% more expensive than it is today, the hydrogen cars will suddenly be "discovered".
Slashdot Mirror
I should change my sig... the dude gave up a while ago... so all my comments now are modded normally.
Judging from some of the posts over at the IE Blog, IE7 won't be a firefox killer. With a project that started in January and a beta due out in a couple of months, it looks more to be a stop gap measure than a full on new release.
Basically, it'll help prevent those that haven't already switched from doing so, but I doubt it'll be strong enough to bring back those who've already left.
I wouldn't be surprised to see an IE8 in longhorn though.
Fine Phizer.
Fine whoever make levitra.
I'm sure spam will stop right quick then.
the only time 've ever had an issue is when the user agent extension buggered up.
Check the mozilla forums.
By 2020, the base install for windows is going to be 640GB!
...all you do is drive the much lower rate even lower.
Not a smart move.
Just call up the friendly neighbourhood labour board. That's what they get paid for, and they're incredibly efficient.
They would not know anymore about you then they do now.... From TFA: At a minimum: name, birth date, sex, ID number, a digital photograph, address, and a "common machine-readable technology" that Homeland Security will decide on...Homeland Security is permitted to add additional requirements--such as a fingerprint or retinal scan--on top of those. We won't know for a while what these additional requirements will be. Considering that you'll be required to show this card to open a bank account, it only stands to reason "for sake of convience" that it become a debit card also. This would be trivial. I don't disagree that the lack of an ID card doesn't mean the things I speak of happening are impossible. What the ID card does though is virtually remove any difficultly whatsoever in making these things reality. Your lack of concern is absolutley astounding.
Go to the bank, they have signature cards. Go to DMV and they have your picture on file
Um, I'm worried more about the guy who picks up your wallet, not the DMV or Bank.
Which all they are currently asking is pretty much your drivers license and passport rolled up into one
Two words: Cross Reference. Next to impossible now, all but standard with a new card.
You obviously do not design databases. If you did you'd know how powerful those two little words were.
Convenience. You no longer have to carry a passport AND drivers license.
Not an fair trade vs. the side effects. You may disagree, but that's all the more reason for public discourse.
What corporation gives you food and requires you to pay the video company late fees?
Good grief it's an example, and it's not that far off. Let me change it then, What company could refuse you live saving healthcare because you haven't paid your cable bill?
Answer: GE
and the underwriters do not know what your race is - especially since they rarely if ever come in contact with you
They would with an ID card. That's my point.
The secretary at the car rental agency could just as easily give your drivers license which has a whole lot of info.
BUT MY DL ISN'T CONNECTED DIRECTLY TO MY BANK! That's my whole point!
1. Security: Would you advocate a single username/password for all your computer accounts? So why advocate a single ID for your life? If my DL is stolen/lost, I don't need to cancel my CC. Could you imagine the disaster your life would be in if you couldn't travel/buy/rent a video/go to the bank without this card?
2. Democracy: This is being passed as part of an emergency military bill. Does it not merit its own debate and review? It seems that such a drastic change in everyday life should not take place without proper review.
3. Why?: How would this card benefit me? My wallet isn't that big, and I'd perfer if the airline wasn't able to access other areas of my life. Efficiency of government is not my concern, espescially when it goes against my self interests.
4. Abuse of Power: The federal gov't isn't the problem, it's the corporation that refuses to see me food until I pay their sister company's video rental late fees. It's the bank that won't give me a loan because people of my race have a higher default risk. It's the hacker that couldn't get into the fed Database, so instead asked a nice secretary at the rental car company for my information.
Enough for you?
The notion of common law is effectivly abolished in states that have working constitutions.
In fact, unless the Constitution explicitly DENIES a right, then the people automatically have it.
Until a law is passed that takes it away.
I don't really think hardware keylogging is the focus of the article, but rather software keyloggers.
RFTA.
Huh?
Since when does your keyboard layout change a "q" to a "d"?
I think you're missing the idea behind keyloggers.
In the orignal VHS trilogy release, Lucas states that the wookies were a race of primitives that help the rebels defeat the empire on endor.
When he chopped up the original story into three, he wasn't sure that he would make the second two, and really wanted to include a wookie, so he made chewbakka a co-pilot, and upped his intellegence to boot.
When it was time for ROTJ, he needed "wookies". Hence the birth of the ewoks. No doubt with some marketing help.
has a commment moderation been more appropriate.
Regardless of your feelings on the war, people getting killed is bad.
You should have thought about that before you mounted an invasion, don't you think?
Socialism requires government (see my definition, derived from Google's search, above);
Good god, let's not allow google to create our definitions shall we? Socialism has nothing to do with government at all, despite the prevailing opionion of the masses.
The stormy.org source that you quote doesn't return on my search result, but the site seems rather Libertarian (as in right-wing American Libertarian, as opposed to the socialist libertarian, from which the term first emerged); considering their inability to misappropriate terms, I have a tough time crediting them with an accurate defining of anything.
Your entire argument is based on a logical jump linking Government as required by Socialism, which is simply not true. The folks over at wikipedia do a better job than google on this one.
Your definition of socialism is much too narrow, hence your argument suffers.
I suggest some further reading, quite frankly.
Fascism and Socialism are polar opposites. In fact, fascism developed in Italy as a direct response to socialist/communist worker movements.
Socialists believe in the inherent dignity of individual man as the core tenet to a successful society. In this, they view government as a tool of the people, a necessary evil entrusted to deliver liberation to common man, often oppressed by those with power. Many Socialists question the role of government altogether, believing that the natural state of man is to live free from all forms of hierarchical rule.
Socialism IS NOT Communism, although Communism certainly stems from socialist principles. This incorrect yet popular belief of many uneducated people, mainly in the US arose from certain agendas being forwarded under a fear of Communism. Communism believes basically in rule of the proletariat, by force. The people as a singular entity, as opposed to the individual becomes the focus. You can see how such a change can make communism a rather hypocritical form of socialism when compared to it directly. The many differing forms of communism speak to this, as do the failures of stalinism and lennism in recent history.
Back to fascism.
Fascism is a belief in the power of the State as natural; above both the (singular) people and the individual. But don't take my word for it:
- Mussolini
In saying this, fascists believe in the power of corporations as a reflection of state power and natural order. A great number of states have flirted with fascism, most of the time to the benefit of the free market.
In saying this, countries such as Japan and the US have economic policies that closely resemble those from fascist Italy. (I'm not saying they're fascist though.) Is it any wonder the support it recieved from prominent businessmen before it's splinter - Nazism - became the face of such unspeakable horror.
Fascim springs from strong business, a weak, propaganda filled media and an unconcerned populace. Socialist states tend to encorage diversity, weaker business and strong safety nets.
Knowing all of that, I'm sure you can now see how ludicrous your initial statement was.
Considering that no modern western government (with the exception of the USA) could survive a court challenge whereby they tax something that is illegal, this law has effectively made downloading songs legal in the Netherlands.
A similar thing has happened in Canada, where courts have ruled that downloading copyrighted music is more like a library than stealing. Canada's similar law helped them make that ruling.
The industry, by persuing these "royalty" laws is admitting defeat.
If you ask me it's a good compromise.
Of course, fascism is easier in socialist nations, Um, methinks you understand neither facism or socialism with a statement like that.
Can you say loser?
I though $13 was bad, sheesh.
Here.
Sure, they may not be the absolute latest, but unless you're hardcore, they've got enough.
If I firebomb your house because I don't like your politics, I'm justified in saying that if you simply change your views you'll save yourself from a future firebombing?
That's some interesting logic you have there, it fits your posting name to a tee.
the intire industry were lucky hacks... or are you suggesting there's something "skillful" about producing the next bit hit?
They most certainly are not. Most have everything to do with money. People have made fortunes on being able to regulate the scarcity of resource supply. That covers the gamut of everything from Governments regulating logging rights to Exxon ensuring they make a profit.
They've been able to do this because of the relative difficulty and money involved in delivering these resources.
Sustainable economies are unatractive because of two reasons, they either remove the scarcity of obtaining the resource, thereby eliminating profit potential and undermining the market system itself (ie wind/tidal power), or they require a bit of a technological jump in order to be realized.
Solving the first problem requires nothing short of a revolution.
People talk of hydrogen cars etc. but if it can't be done now, why would it suddenly be possible in 25 years time?
It's amazing how things suddenly become possible when they are the only solution. Hydrogen cars are completely feasible today, it's just that there are more cost effective solutions avaiable. Once oil becomes 200-500% more expensive than it is today, the hydrogen cars will suddenly be "discovered".