An excellent point as well. I was attempting a more general argument, as it seems that there's a growingly popular perception that government can do no wrong.
Specifically though, I saw a local news report interview a local sherrief, how said exactly what you have stated. The sherrif then proceeded to push for police to protect children from strangers and the need for the Amber alert system. It was truely mind boggling that he felt police efforts and resources were best spent going after the 3% of strangers that would abuse a child and not the families.
Thanks, i'll check it out. I had found something else, but it doesn't have the best interface. I really just want to drag and drop music files into the ipod. I look forward to testing this one out.
Hmm, well the quick google search I did says that's not true. If the show is really popular, a writer can earn $30,000 / PER EPISODE. Not a bad chunk of change. Do writers on less popular shows earn less? Yup. But that only makes sense... bad shows don't make as much money. Interesting..
Book authors earn much much less.
Really? Steven King or Dean Koontz earn less than $15,000 / year? Again, interesting.
Hardly what I call rich.... in fact it's about the same rate as a Walmart employee. THIS is how you "thank" the people who provide your entertainment???
I think if what you were saying were true, they'd already be in another line of work. Unless you're talking about the authors that are truely unknown, still trying to get that first good book published. But somehow I doubt you know what you're talking about, given the variety of authors I find in any given bookstore.
It's a huge hassle and the only reason Apple gets away with it is because their solution, iTunes, is actually pretty darn good.. and it helps to have a previous technology to launch it with (QuickTime) and additional services that tie into it (iTunes Store).
Ugh. I hate iTunes, it's the worst part of dealing with an iPod and the reason I haven't gotten one myself (my wife has one). It's slow, buggy, crashes, and I'll be damned if I can figure out how to actually get a song onto or off the iPod (oh wait, can't get them back off.. thanks Apple!).
Odd.. I use Vista on my workstation at work, on my PC at home, and my wife uses it on her laptop. She finds the Apple commercials assuming; she has no problems with Vista, nor do I. Her 2G Ipod Nano though is a whole other story...
It is a privilege to be a writer, artist, musician.
Oh, is it? I didn't realize we could tell people not to be writers artists or musicians.
One should expect a living, but never, ever, riches.
How arrogant of you to decide that someone in a given profession should never make more money than you deem necessary.
The reason we're having this big to-do about "copyright" is because the advent of mass media made it possible for creative people to become super-wealthy. The only group of people who benefited from that were TV and movie execs, record label owners and publishing giants.
Really? It seems only a few of the creative people ever become "super wealthy." It's interesting that actors, writers, and musicans can afford million dollar mansions, since you claimn tney haven't benefited from copyright.
They dangle a small handful of uber-wealthy artists in front of the world, which creates millions of wannabe "stars" who will only be disappointed and poor. It's been bad for the arts and for the psyches of several generations of college dropouts.
Honestly? You don't think that perhaps those that don't make it don't have the talent? If you've ever watched reality TV, it amazes me how highly some of these "artists" think of themselves, when in reality they are actually really awful.
I'm encouraged and hopeful for a return to a more workmanlike model for making a living in the arts.
You mean where only the rich funded artists, and thus were the only ones that benefited from the artists' work?
The law exists to serve the public good, and if the public loses confidence in that law, then we have no law at all.
The public needs to stop and think. I for one don't care how much people would prefer to return to Dark Ages mentalities on crime and justice, it doesn't make it a good idea.
"It's for the children" stuff is not some abstract thing that you can so handily dismiss. With this decision, the courts have just given license to all of those who kidnap or exploit children to make this pornography, by giving them a cash cow.
It most certainly can be dismissed. The entire argument boils down to "the ends justify the means." Exactly the opposite of what our founders wanted, and for good reason. Oh, this ruling doesn't give a license to kidnap kids; it means cops must follow proper Constitutional procedure and get a warrant before searching. There are plenty of cases where those exploiting children HAVE been arrested following the letter of the law.
How would you feel about this man if it was your child's photograph on this man's notebook.
Ahh, good old "pleas to emotion" argument. That doesn't change the fact that a warrant should be required. I for one think it's a bad idea for police to be able to barge into anyone's house with cause and perform a search. I feel children are more in danger from that kind of behavior than requiring a warrant.
This judiciary system is madness.
No, you're reactionary knee jerk reaction given the historical evidence of what happens WITHOUT a 4th Amendment is madness. The laws are there to protect the people from the whims of those in charge. You don't believe it's an issue, you don't think it could ever happen... but it can and does all the time, all throughout history. If you're really that scared for your kids, I suggest you never let them out of your sight.
The rest of us will go on, realizing that our children are not in any danger, and that predators are not around every corner.
I'm saying that it's unknown if appendectomy is any better than a placebo operation.
No, it is known. Just look at TODAY'S numbers.
I'm also saying that there is no surgical procedure that has been demonstrated in a controlled study to be more effective than a placebo.
Neither of these are the same as saying that "surgery isn't any better than a placebo".
Yet that's what you're hinting at. Stop trying to play with semantics. Bypassing a blocked artiary is going to be more effective than pretending to do the bypass. We already know because people that don't get the bypass die. It's really pretty simple.
I'm suprised too. The scrapping isn't the problem in my mind. It's on the internet, and TOS are pretty much unenforcable for simply viewing the page.
Now, creating an account, there you seem to be entering a contract. The distributed computer scheme might be an "unauthorized use of computer system," and could very well enter into legally troubling territory.
I can explain your mortality rate and appendectomy; in 1908, they didn't exactly have the cleanest conditions to perform surgery. I'm willing to bet those that died passed as a result of infection during the surgery. Oh.. you might want to realize that the book you've sighted itself is 100 years old. So um, get some current facts.
These are the programs that no one touches, because of fear that the system is just too complex. This is why these things are not rewritten for the newest/popular programming language.
Hmm.. I don't quite follow. "The system" is fulfilling a set of business rules. If these rules aren't known.. well I see how that's a problem. But if they are, surely a new system can be written to abide by the same rules. At the rate for COBOL programmers, doesn't it at some point become cheaper to do just that?
Well, my response to that is: Oh well, tough shit.
Stupid people were willing to pay anything for a house and got themselves into crappy mortgages. Sure, banks are scum, which is why I only use credit unions... but so are the people that got themselves into this mess. They were greedy and stupid. I don't feel sorry for homeowners that are now in serious trouble because they can't afford the new interest rate on their house.
MS never appeared, and never intended to press charges. They even said they believed the headmaster didn't intentially violate their copyright. How's that karma biting them?
If anything, it's Russia that prosecuted the wrong guy that should be to blame.
I've shown things that can be done with NoScript that I argue cannot be done by standard IE settings. If I'm wrong, provide the evidence.
You haven't shown me anything, except a childish page that starts with "Hey, are you kidding? what are you doing here? There's no hope for you and no point in looking for security enhancements, while you keep using an unsafe wannabe web browser... Get a real browser first!"
You can block/allow sites via the security zones system in IE. However, whether or not it's "just fine" is highly dependent upon your perception. I'd argue that NoScript's method is much superior due to its ease of use. And that still ignores the things that NoScript does which have no parallel in IE settings.
Fine, then there's no point in discussing this further.
Yes, the end result--namely, sites being blocked/allowed to run JavaSript--is the same. However, only a fool would argue that a horse and a car are "just the same" or "just fine" because they both get you from point A to point B. Your argument, when applied to this situation, would argue the contrary.
Ahh... not able to properly argue your point.. so bring on useless, poor analogies! Wonderful.
I'm going to cut my losses here... there's no sense in continuing this discussion with you. IE can block JS; it can block Java; it can protect against XSS attacks. The same things NoScript provides. Using your crap analogy.. in this case I don't care if it's a horse or a porche that gets me there, as long as I can get there.
Sorry, but "robust" does not mean "works exactly like NoScript." Also, the OPs focus was ONLY on disabling Javascript. You can do that on IE just fine, and NOT for the whole internet. You can shut off Javascript, Java, ActiveX for restricted sites... then you add to your restricted sites list. The end result is largely the same; you don't have javascript for sites which you don't want javascript. Doing the "exact same thing" means "disablign Javascript for a specific site." Honestly, I think you need to get a grip.
That might be because either you've not been in the right place, or your biases are aligned such that the zealotousness is not apparent to you. Zealots are just as common on Windows, Mac, Linux, BSD, etc. IMHO.
I've spent a lot of time in both Linux newgroups and Windows ones. My experience is that the linux "community" suffers from alot more zealotry that the Windows one. Most people in the Windows groups are more focused on getting things done and possibly suggesting better ways, whereas most Linux responses were much less helpful.. basically "that is stupid, do it this way, or we won't bother to read your thread anymore. And don't mention MS."
Empasis mine. This is wrong and I belive I've outlined additional features that are beyond what IE (and default FF) do. Now it's your turn to show me how to do the features that I mentioned using straight IE settings, or admit your error.
No, you haven't. There's a reason I never bother with NoScript even though I use FF. I haven't found it to do anything useful that I can't do with the standard FF. What you're calling "robust" I call "useless." Which is what I stated to the OP, who only added that "robust" comment after stating flat out "there is NO way to turn of Javascript."
The fact is, you're trying to take the OPs idea of robust and define it, but the truth is you don't really know. You're making a lot of assumptions on his behalf, and again, I really fail to see why you bothered jumping in.
Slashdot Mirror
An excellent point as well. I was attempting a more general argument, as it seems that there's a growingly popular perception that government can do no wrong.
Specifically though, I saw a local news report interview a local sherrief, how said exactly what you have stated. The sherrif then proceeded to push for police to protect children from strangers and the need for the Amber alert system. It was truely mind boggling that he felt police efforts and resources were best spent going after the 3% of strangers that would abuse a child and not the families.
Thanks, i'll check it out. I had found something else, but it doesn't have the best interface. I really just want to drag and drop music files into the ipod. I look forward to testing this one out.
The average TV writer only earns $15,000 a year.
Hmm, well the quick google search I did says that's not true. If the show is really popular, a writer can earn $30,000 / PER EPISODE. Not a bad chunk of change. Do writers on less popular shows earn less? Yup. But that only makes sense... bad shows don't make as much money. Interesting..
Book authors earn much much less.
Really? Steven King or Dean Koontz earn less than $15,000 / year? Again, interesting.
Hardly what I call rich.... in fact it's about the same rate as a Walmart employee. THIS is how you "thank" the people who provide your entertainment???
I think if what you were saying were true, they'd already be in another line of work. Unless you're talking about the authors that are truely unknown, still trying to get that first good book published. But somehow I doubt you know what you're talking about, given the variety of authors I find in any given bookstore.
It's a huge hassle and the only reason Apple gets away with it is because their solution, iTunes, is actually pretty darn good.. and it helps to have a previous technology to launch it with (QuickTime) and additional services that tie into it (iTunes Store).
Ugh. I hate iTunes, it's the worst part of dealing with an iPod and the reason I haven't gotten one myself (my wife has one). It's slow, buggy, crashes, and I'll be damned if I can figure out how to actually get a song onto or off the iPod (oh wait, can't get them back off.. thanks Apple!).
Odd.. I use Vista on my workstation at work, on my PC at home, and my wife uses it on her laptop. She finds the Apple commercials assuming; she has no problems with Vista, nor do I. Her 2G Ipod Nano though is a whole other story...
It is a privilege to be a writer, artist, musician.
Oh, is it? I didn't realize we could tell people not to be writers artists or musicians.
One should expect a living, but never, ever, riches.
How arrogant of you to decide that someone in a given profession should never make more money than you deem necessary.
The reason we're having this big to-do about "copyright" is because the advent of mass media made it possible for creative people to become super-wealthy. The only group of people who benefited from that were TV and movie execs, record label owners and publishing giants.
Really? It seems only a few of the creative people ever become "super wealthy." It's interesting that actors, writers, and musicans can afford million dollar mansions, since you claimn tney haven't benefited from copyright.
They dangle a small handful of uber-wealthy artists in front of the world, which creates millions of wannabe "stars" who will only be disappointed and poor. It's been bad for the arts and for the psyches of several generations of college dropouts.
Honestly? You don't think that perhaps those that don't make it don't have the talent? If you've ever watched reality TV, it amazes me how highly some of these "artists" think of themselves, when in reality they are actually really awful.
I'm encouraged and hopeful for a return to a more workmanlike model for making a living in the arts.
You mean where only the rich funded artists, and thus were the only ones that benefited from the artists' work?
The law exists to serve the public good, and if the public loses confidence in that law, then we have no law at all.
The public needs to stop and think. I for one don't care how much people would prefer to return to Dark Ages mentalities on crime and justice, it doesn't make it a good idea.
"It's for the children" stuff is not some abstract thing that you can so handily dismiss. With this decision, the courts have just given license to all of those who kidnap or exploit children to make this pornography, by giving them a cash cow.
It most certainly can be dismissed. The entire argument boils down to "the ends justify the means." Exactly the opposite of what our founders wanted, and for good reason. Oh, this ruling doesn't give a license to kidnap kids; it means cops must follow proper Constitutional procedure and get a warrant before searching. There are plenty of cases where those exploiting children HAVE been arrested following the letter of the law.
How would you feel about this man if it was your child's photograph on this man's notebook.
Ahh, good old "pleas to emotion" argument. That doesn't change the fact that a warrant should be required. I for one think it's a bad idea for police to be able to barge into anyone's house with cause and perform a search. I feel children are more in danger from that kind of behavior than requiring a warrant.
This judiciary system is madness.
No, you're reactionary knee jerk reaction given the historical evidence of what happens WITHOUT a 4th Amendment is madness. The laws are there to protect the people from the whims of those in charge. You don't believe it's an issue, you don't think it could ever happen... but it can and does all the time, all throughout history. If you're really that scared for your kids, I suggest you never let them out of your sight.
The rest of us will go on, realizing that our children are not in any danger, and that predators are not around every corner.
I'm saying that it's unknown if appendectomy is any better than a placebo operation.
No, it is known. Just look at TODAY'S numbers.
I'm also saying that there is no surgical procedure that has been demonstrated in a controlled study to be more effective than a placebo.
Neither of these are the same as saying that "surgery isn't any better than a placebo".
Yet that's what you're hinting at. Stop trying to play with semantics. Bypassing a blocked artiary is going to be more effective than pretending to do the bypass. We already know because people that don't get the bypass die. It's really pretty simple.
What problems were you having? Also, was it just you, or the other patrions as well? I've used them before, and they are fairly easy to use.
I'm suprised too. The scrapping isn't the problem in my mind. It's on the internet, and TOS are pretty much unenforcable for simply viewing the page.
Now, creating an account, there you seem to be entering a contract. The distributed computer scheme might be an "unauthorized use of computer system," and could very well enter into legally troubling territory.
The problem is that you can end up on the hook legally, if there are legal ramifications. You clearly knew it was wrong, and did it anyway.
Duh. As I said: "Of course the mortality rate is much lower today".
Yet you're trying to use that information to say that surgery isn't any better than a placebo.
Um, if you want to know what happened 100 years ago, a book published 100 years ago is a pretty good source.
Again, the problem is that you then say "see, surgery isn't any better han placebo." Which isn't accurate.
I can explain your mortality rate and appendectomy; in 1908, they didn't exactly have the cleanest conditions to perform surgery. I'm willing to bet those that died passed as a result of infection during the surgery. Oh.. you might want to realize that the book you've sighted itself is 100 years old. So um, get some current facts.
Indeed, as is Vermont.
These are the programs that no one touches, because of fear that the system is just too complex. This is why these things are not rewritten for the newest/popular programming language.
Hmm.. I don't quite follow. "The system" is fulfilling a set of business rules. If these rules aren't known.. well I see how that's a problem. But if they are, surely a new system can be written to abide by the same rules. At the rate for COBOL programmers, doesn't it at some point become cheaper to do just that?
Oh, is that all? I thought it'd be something that violated every good programming principal and all that was holy.
Well, my response to that is: Oh well, tough shit.
Stupid people were willing to pay anything for a house and got themselves into crappy mortgages. Sure, banks are scum, which is why I only use credit unions... but so are the people that got themselves into this mess. They were greedy and stupid. I don't feel sorry for homeowners that are now in serious trouble because they can't afford the new interest rate on their house.
I don't think anyone is saying we can't talk about US Christain history.
MS never appeared, and never intended to press charges. They even said they believed the headmaster didn't intentially violate their copyright. How's that karma biting them?
If anything, it's Russia that prosecuted the wrong guy that should be to blame.
Well, that may be true, but the license seems to be perpetual and non-revokable. Or, more like ownership.
Sounds like where you live, housing is way over valued and needs to fall even further to be realistic.
I've shown things that can be done with NoScript that I argue cannot be done by standard IE settings. If I'm wrong, provide the evidence.
You haven't shown me anything, except a childish page that starts with "Hey, are you kidding? what are you doing here? There's no hope for you and no point in looking for security enhancements, while you keep using an unsafe wannabe web browser... Get a real browser first!"
You can block/allow sites via the security zones system in IE. However, whether or not it's "just fine" is highly dependent upon your perception. I'd argue that NoScript's method is much superior due to its ease of use. And that still ignores the things that NoScript does which have no parallel in IE settings.
Fine, then there's no point in discussing this further.
Yes, the end result--namely, sites being blocked/allowed to run JavaSript--is the same. However, only a fool would argue that a horse and a car are "just the same" or "just fine" because they both get you from point A to point B. Your argument, when applied to this situation, would argue the contrary.
Ahh... not able to properly argue your point.. so bring on useless, poor analogies! Wonderful.
I'm going to cut my losses here... there's no sense in continuing this discussion with you. IE can block JS; it can block Java; it can protect against XSS attacks. The same things NoScript provides. Using your crap analogy.. in this case I don't care if it's a horse or a porche that gets me there, as long as I can get there.
Well, if MS were interested in replacing Paint with Paint.Net, I'm sure they could work something out with the relevent parties.
You don't get that those same people, if unemployed, may shift their focus from doing coding to finding another job. Programmers need to eat too.
Sorry, but "robust" does not mean "works exactly like NoScript." Also, the OPs focus was ONLY on disabling Javascript. You can do that on IE just fine, and NOT for the whole internet. You can shut off Javascript, Java, ActiveX for restricted sites... then you add to your restricted sites list. The end result is largely the same; you don't have javascript for sites which you don't want javascript. Doing the "exact same thing" means "disablign Javascript for a specific site." Honestly, I think you need to get a grip.
That might be because either you've not been in the right place, or your biases are aligned such that the zealotousness is not apparent to you. Zealots are just as common on Windows, Mac, Linux, BSD, etc. IMHO.
I've spent a lot of time in both Linux newgroups and Windows ones. My experience is that the linux "community" suffers from alot more zealotry that the Windows one. Most people in the Windows groups are more focused on getting things done and possibly suggesting better ways, whereas most Linux responses were much less helpful.. basically "that is stupid, do it this way, or we won't bother to read your thread anymore. And don't mention MS."
Empasis mine. This is wrong and I belive I've outlined additional features that are beyond what IE (and default FF) do. Now it's your turn to show me how to do the features that I mentioned using straight IE settings, or admit your error.
No, you haven't. There's a reason I never bother with NoScript even though I use FF. I haven't found it to do anything useful that I can't do with the standard FF. What you're calling "robust" I call "useless." Which is what I stated to the OP, who only added that "robust" comment after stating flat out "there is NO way to turn of Javascript."
The fact is, you're trying to take the OPs idea of robust and define it, but the truth is you don't really know. You're making a lot of assumptions on his behalf, and again, I really fail to see why you bothered jumping in.