More layers mean more people can siphon more money off from the taxpayers. More people benefiting at the public expense, means more campaign contributions to the re-election funds of those who move power from the people to the government.
Did the government give people who owned horses coupons to buy fords?
No, but the government didn't outlaw the sale of horsefeed, either. The analog-to-digital switch is not merely technological; it is also something caused by government.
Not that I really disagree with your conclusion, but it's more complex than you're saying it is.
its TELEVISION, not national defense or health care.
Yeah, that's a the big one. For all the debate on the topic, the stakes are pretty small. No decision (switch now, switch later), even the wrong one, can be all that bad.
No, the anology here would be: A woman asks out what seems to be a nice man for dinner. At dinner he slips a roofy into her drink..
I just don't think that's a realistic analogy when we're talking about the internet, where the default expectation of foreign code is that it is hostile. In real life, sociopaths are rare enough
that you don't necessarily have to wonder if this guy is Ted Bundy. On the 'net, you know plenty of people are out to get you.
At least make it, "A woman visiting a warzone on an alien planet, asks out what seems to be a man, but he shows up wearing an encounter suit. In plain view he drops a mysterious pill into her drink right in front of her, and says, 'try this; it's amazing!.'"
The analogy just doesn't work. When you look at how someone becomes part of a botnet, it's often a Windows user choosing to execute something. It's social, not technical, not force.
The closes I can get to a rape analogy is that a woman seeks out a man, asks him for sex, does the deed, and then the next morning decides he wasn't the guy she was looking for. He was supposed to be a pretty screensaver, and instead turned out to be a spambot. There he is, in her bedroom, writing letters and taking stamps out of her desk.
The guy's an asshole, probably a con artist and maybe a thief, but he's not a rapist. It's just not in the same league of injustice.
Linux? You kidding? Have you seen the desktop market share of it?
You don't need to see the desktop share; you just need to see the desktop. That's when you say, "Hey, this'll work great," and then Microsoft says, "Ok, I'll sell you Windows for 50 cents per unit and under the table we'll send a hooker to the PO signer's house," and suddenly they're not looking so profitable.
I don't know if you heard, but there was a war on. Killing on that scale was happening already. The bombs ended it.
And I would even add, that the Japanese lives lost from those two bombs, turned out to be insignificant compared to the loss of life that this tech could have ended up taking (WW3, and history isn't done yet). We're lucky the toll has been so low so far.
But this tech's time had arrived and we were going to have a nuclear-armed world regardless of what this team did. If nuclear arms are coming, it is very rational for someone to decide that their own country should be one of the ones who has them. What other decision could possibly be better? (Go on, answer that.) It's a lesser-of-two-evils thing.
Got that Steve? You're not allowed to drop dead unless you're standing on stage at the AGM - and no naughty gentle breaking of bad news to your loved ones before it is publicly announced. Actually, fuck medical ethics, the markets are at stake: your doctors should report directly to the shareholders, not you.
I get the point: yes, human freedom and dignity are threatened here. That's bad.
But we're not just talking a person or even a business. We're talking about a publicly-traded corporation, a system that we as a society had already decided to heavily regulate before Steve Jobs was even born, and certainly before he owned even a penny's worth of stock.
When you decide to play that game, either by taking a leadership role in a corporation or by buying a significant amount of stock (and apparently Jobs has done both, further opening possibilities of conflicting interest), you consent to the rules. I wouldn't say it's as dramatic as a Faustian bargain, but there some micro-deal-with-the-devil there. If you don't want to subject yourself to this possibly-inhumane treatment, then you don't have to: run a sole proprietorship out of your garage, instead. Don't sell out.
Suppose I have a friend who, over a couple of beers, tells me a secret tidbit about a business he works at. In a free society, our private communications are private and it's ridiculous to think that's anyone's business but our own. But if that business is a public-traded corporation and I'm going to make a killing by selling/buying stock to/from other less-informed investors, a lot of people would be screaming at SEC to "do something" about me and my friend.
Should companies publish regular updates on their CEO's blood pressure and cholesterol level so that shareholders can properly assess the odds of him popping an artery just before a crucial rights issue?
I believe the SEC's position is that yes, those things should be disclosed to everyone IF they're being disclosed to anyone. And if Jobs himself happens to be one of the stockholders, then it gets really interesting.
First of all, no, the cell phone isn't put on the internet
It can be. Phones are just little PCs. We haven't the mass cellphone disaster yet, where people get the sudden reality check that they know even less about these devices' security than their PCs. When a bunch of people get all their pics and messages sucked off their iPhones without the user wanting to forward any of them, that could change.
Seriously, I give the "authorities" some big-thinking credit here, even if they are evil and their statement only happened to be inadvertently insightful. Unless they're using OpenMokos or something like that, the kids don't know where the pictures are stored, how easily/difficultly anyone can access them, or how securely they are transmitted to the people they do opt to share with. They don't know the risks and implications. Even most techies don't know.
It's definitely something to think about and a good issue to publicize. It's just a shame it'll get lost in the noise of the stupid decision to charge people with violating themselves by not getting their own consent to a likely-harmless act, since they don't have the capacity to give that consent but they'll still be held responsible for the decision, whatever that means.
Actually, that's an example of Firefox3 screwing up in a situation where every other browser (even Firefox2) does a better job. It ought to allow me to see the page, without "adding a security exception" and risking accidentally leaving the 'permanent' box checked.
The UK is NOT a free society, it has become a totalitarain dictatorship and its government has no right or validity to do this.
[emphasis mine] What about the fact that UK voters keep approving of this nonsense? Goofy shit is happening in UK with civil liberties, but it's been happening long enough, and under the command of democratically elected leaders, that I have to assume the people not only consent, but enthusiastically approve.
Yep, downloads and executes (or autoloads from freshly inserted disk) and installs malware without all that pesky save-as, chmod +x crap.
C'mon, the article explicitly says she wants internet access. You've got to be insane to give Windows to a "normal person" if you know they're going to be connected to the internet, precisely because of the "dangerous stuff 'just works'" problem. These three things just don't go together: 1) Windows 2) networks 3) computer novices. Change any 1 and you can have a working system, but all 3 together are lethal.
Her Verizon High-Speed Internet CD won't load, so she can't access the internet.
Ubuntu can't network out-of-the-box, and needs a Verizon CD? Whoa!
She also can't install Microsoft Word, which she says is a requirement for MATC's online classes... MATC also says it promises to accept any of Schubert's papers or class documents using whatever software she has installed.
Sounds like somebody doesn't have their story straight. FUD should be consistent within an article if you want people to believe it.
Holy crap, dude, you've got it completely backwards. If the president that you currently support pulls the same shit as Bush, you should be happy if he gets hounded.
There are still many ways states can distinguish themselves, though. Try re-legalizing slavery. Have a governor declare himself the State Duke for life. Totally outlaw alcohol. Declare pi to be 3.0. Require residents to quarter soldiers.
It's not a requirement of DTV. It's a requirement of having sold the analog. It's also a (moral?) requirement of having told the broadcasters they won't be allowed to broadcast analog anymore and will have to supply DTV if they wanted to stay open. (Remember when your local PBS station was begging for contributions to upgrade their equipment? It's kind of lame to make 'em scrape up the money and then say, "Aw, just kidding.")
The time to complain about dropping analog was several years ago, when the government first started bullying the market. Now the market is committed, so a switcharoo will cause additional harm. If the government breaks their word on this, then I want them to shut up and stop giving their word. But we just elected a big-government liberal with yes-we-can plans, so let's be consistent and have the government micromanage things for the "greater good," and that means telling people they're not allowed to do things the uncool outdated way anymore: adios analog.
Slashdot Mirror
More layers mean more people can siphon more money off from the taxpayers. More people benefiting at the public expense, means more campaign contributions to the re-election funds of those who move power from the people to the government.
Everyone wins.
Except the peo-- NO, I SAID EVERYONE WINS.
No, but the government didn't outlaw the sale of horsefeed, either. The analog-to-digital switch is not merely technological; it is also something caused by government.
Not that I really disagree with your conclusion, but it's more complex than you're saying it is.
Yeah, that's a the big one. For all the debate on the topic, the stakes are pretty small. No decision (switch now, switch later), even the wrong one, can be all that bad.
I just don't think that's a realistic analogy when we're talking about the internet, where the default expectation of foreign code is that it is hostile. In real life, sociopaths are rare enough that you don't necessarily have to wonder if this guy is Ted Bundy. On the 'net, you know plenty of people are out to get you.
At least make it, "A woman visiting a warzone on an alien planet, asks out what seems to be a man, but he shows up wearing an encounter suit. In plain view he drops a mysterious pill into her drink right in front of her, and says, 'try this; it's amazing!.'"
The analogy just doesn't work. When you look at how someone becomes part of a botnet, it's often a Windows user choosing to execute something. It's social, not technical, not force.
The closes I can get to a rape analogy is that a woman seeks out a man, asks him for sex, does the deed, and then the next morning decides he wasn't the guy she was looking for. He was supposed to be a pretty screensaver, and instead turned out to be a spambot. There he is, in her bedroom, writing letters and taking stamps out of her desk.
The guy's an asshole, probably a con artist and maybe a thief, but he's not a rapist. It's just not in the same league of injustice.
You don't need to see the desktop share; you just need to see the desktop. That's when you say, "Hey, this'll work great," and then Microsoft says, "Ok, I'll sell you Windows for 50 cents per unit and under the table we'll send a hooker to the PO signer's house," and suddenly they're not looking so profitable.
By that thinking, all wrongdoings by anyone, should always be kept secret from the public.
Maybe there are reasons for not releasing the info, but those reasons are weak and overwhelmingly outweighed.
I don't know if you heard, but there was a war on. Killing on that scale was happening already. The bombs ended it.
And I would even add, that the Japanese lives lost from those two bombs, turned out to be insignificant compared to the loss of life that this tech could have ended up taking (WW3, and history isn't done yet). We're lucky the toll has been so low so far.
But this tech's time had arrived and we were going to have a nuclear-armed world regardless of what this team did. If nuclear arms are coming, it is very rational for someone to decide that their own country should be one of the ones who has them. What other decision could possibly be better? (Go on, answer that.) It's a lesser-of-two-evils thing.
I get the point: yes, human freedom and dignity are threatened here. That's bad.
But we're not just talking a person or even a business. We're talking about a publicly-traded corporation, a system that we as a society had already decided to heavily regulate before Steve Jobs was even born, and certainly before he owned even a penny's worth of stock.
When you decide to play that game, either by taking a leadership role in a corporation or by buying a significant amount of stock (and apparently Jobs has done both, further opening possibilities of conflicting interest), you consent to the rules. I wouldn't say it's as dramatic as a Faustian bargain, but there some micro-deal-with-the-devil there. If you don't want to subject yourself to this possibly-inhumane treatment, then you don't have to: run a sole proprietorship out of your garage, instead. Don't sell out.
Suppose I have a friend who, over a couple of beers, tells me a secret tidbit about a business he works at. In a free society, our private communications are private and it's ridiculous to think that's anyone's business but our own. But if that business is a public-traded corporation and I'm going to make a killing by selling/buying stock to/from other less-informed investors, a lot of people would be screaming at SEC to "do something" about me and my friend.
The whole point of the coupon program is that they're not usable for anything close to that cool. The answer to the submitter's question is: none.
I believe the SEC's position is that yes, those things should be disclosed to everyone IF they're being disclosed to anyone. And if Jobs himself happens to be one of the stockholders, then it gets really interesting.
Zombie sympathizer.
Keeping us safe from the terrorists.
If you're going to say that, then send a copy of your letter to your legislator too, please.
It can be. Phones are just little PCs. We haven't the mass cellphone disaster yet, where people get the sudden reality check that they know even less about these devices' security than their PCs. When a bunch of people get all their pics and messages sucked off their iPhones without the user wanting to forward any of them, that could change.
Seriously, I give the "authorities" some big-thinking credit here, even if they are evil and their statement only happened to be inadvertently insightful. Unless they're using OpenMokos or something like that, the kids don't know where the pictures are stored, how easily/difficultly anyone can access them, or how securely they are transmitted to the people they do opt to share with. They don't know the risks and implications. Even most techies don't know.
It's definitely something to think about and a good issue to publicize. It's just a shame it'll get lost in the noise of the stupid decision to charge people with violating themselves by not getting their own consent to a likely-harmless act, since they don't have the capacity to give that consent but they'll still be held responsible for the decision, whatever that means.
Actually, that's an example of Firefox3 screwing up in a situation where every other browser (even Firefox2) does a better job. It ought to allow me to see the page, without "adding a security exception" and risking accidentally leaving the 'permanent' box checked.
[emphasis mine] What about the fact that UK voters keep approving of this nonsense? Goofy shit is happening in UK with civil liberties, but it's been happening long enough, and under the command of democratically elected leaders, that I have to assume the people not only consent, but enthusiastically approve.
The day you install Linux for her, instead of just giving her a Gentoo stage 1 tarball.
Yep, downloads and executes (or autoloads from freshly inserted disk) and installs malware without all that pesky save-as, chmod +x crap.
C'mon, the article explicitly says she wants internet access. You've got to be insane to give Windows to a "normal person" if you know they're going to be connected to the internet, precisely because of the "dangerous stuff 'just works'" problem. These three things just don't go together: 1) Windows 2) networks 3) computer novices. Change any 1 and you can have a working system, but all 3 together are lethal.
Ubuntu can't network out-of-the-box, and needs a Verizon CD? Whoa!
Sounds like somebody doesn't have their story straight. FUD should be consistent within an article if you want people to believe it.
Holy crap, dude, you've got it completely backwards. If the president that you currently support pulls the same shit as Bush, you should be happy if he gets hounded.
Creationism was already taken.
There are still many ways states can distinguish themselves, though. Try re-legalizing slavery. Have a governor declare himself the State Duke for life. Totally outlaw alcohol. Declare pi to be 3.0. Require residents to quarter soldiers.
What about it? They decided it's a bad idea and are willing to take a stand against it.
Well, now you have. A tag is as a reliable rumor as anything else.
Huh? They were all downloadable last time I checked (a few months ago, I guess). Got a link to a not-downloadable one?
It's not a requirement of DTV. It's a requirement of having sold the analog. It's also a (moral?) requirement of having told the broadcasters they won't be allowed to broadcast analog anymore and will have to supply DTV if they wanted to stay open. (Remember when your local PBS station was begging for contributions to upgrade their equipment? It's kind of lame to make 'em scrape up the money and then say, "Aw, just kidding.")
The time to complain about dropping analog was several years ago, when the government first started bullying the market. Now the market is committed, so a switcharoo will cause additional harm. If the government breaks their word on this, then I want them to shut up and stop giving their word. But we just elected a big-government liberal with yes-we-can plans, so let's be consistent and have the government micromanage things for the "greater good," and that means telling people they're not allowed to do things the uncool outdated way anymore: adios analog.
If you can't catch them or they're outside your jurisdiction, then your "solution" can't be implemented. So, what's your plan b?