Off-hand, I'd guess it'd have to do with it being generally true that the act of invading another person's privacy has nothing to do with their sexual orientation or specific sexual activities. And if one mentions their specific orientation or activities, it would seem that that statement of generally has been violated and the person in question is speaking in specific intent upon those actions, either in defense of them or against them. The only other general reason I can readily think to violate that rule has to do with trying to paint an objective picture--as in a story, police bulletin, etc--which feels compelled to mention both the common and the uncommon for an audience who may have their own bias upon what words mean and for which the author feels it necessary to be explicit to make clear what transpired. After all, if a picture is worth a thousand words and most stories aren't a thousand words, at some level the author who wishes to paint a picture has to leave out a lot or decide to put only a little bit end. What truth they choose to include says something about the author.
Windows 2000 was part of the NT line and intended/marketed for business use.
Yet Windows 2000 supported DirectX, Power Users, and just about everything you'd want for a consumer desktop line.
XP unified the consumer line with the NT line for both professional and consumer desktop use.
Figuratively, perhaps. Marketing and MS's own development process wise, sure. But what functionality did XP have that make it a "consumer desktop"? A few tweaks like a "Welcome" screen, making everyone Admin by default in the Home version (which is only mildly different than the Win2k Pro line that made everyone a Power User by default), and a new UI (as since NT4, the NT and 9x line shared the same UI) designed to make the NT line look more kiddy-like to not scare people from the more "professional" NT line?
Seriously, though, if you can think of a few features XP has over 2k that made it more the consumer desktop, I'd like to hear it. The only thing I can think of possible is better driver support. But the truth is, since 98SE, there was a unified driver model as well between NT and 9x lines and the vast majority of hardware I saw, at least, used the new model and worked in 2000 just as well as 98SE/ME. That people thought of it as the new consumer line and marketed/developed software to be XP exclusive... But, rarely before then was software before 9x exclusive.
Your second reason is the REAL 800lb elephant in the room. If your high-powered graphics card can't keep up with the inefficiently-coded Aero, there is absolutely no chance that Windows-on-ARM (I forget what they're calling it) will be able to execute Aero;
Odd. I though the 800lb elephant in the room was that all 3D composite engines were a bad idea. I mean, in the best case, it's just as efficient as a 2D composite engine where unscaled, 100% opaque 3D textures replace 2D windows each of which may contain a 3D rendered scene. In the worst case, it's a massive collection of scaled, partially transparent 2D windows distorted in all manner of fashion each of which may contain a 3D rendered scene all vying for the limited memory available which appears quite otherwise if one presumes mostly exclusive access. So, it can quickly degenerate to turtles-all-the-way-down 3D effects which, if anything, is encouraged by the idea that 3D is no longer pushed exclusively towards a single application. And quite honestly, that's precisely where most, if not all, the optimization and focus has been with 3D hardware. I mean, consider the spinning video cube of BeOS back in the 90s and compare that with the idea of a spinning 3d cube showing multiple games. Hell, consider all the serious security concerns with 3D hardware, not just in their heavily closed nature (exclusion being the comparatively dismally performing Intel hardware) and the real decided lack of security compartmentalization. It's one reason why VRML never took off and Google's 3D efforts are seemingly doomed to fail, as no one in their right mind would trust the 3D hardware itself to do the job and meanwhile doing it in software is so very crippling to most expected uses (including gaming).
Besides, I imagine Aero is about as efficiently-coded as can be imagined. But once you start to acknowledge how much 3D hardware puts some work in the software driver and inherently that translates into an extra bit of redirection every time that function is called upon, it quickly can translate that lower end hardware has degenerative behavior at seemingly random times. The only way to compensate for this is to write a lot of functionality in software and to pre-test for those conditions on various hardware to compensate, but that invariably
so MS is simply deprecating it, and hiding the fact that it's a dog, by saying "Look at our fresh new look!"
Granted to that. Still, I imagine it has more to do with the idea of "a fresh new look" inherently. I mean, there might be 101 ways to do glossy 3D. But, if you want to see something as radically new, better, you want to make it look radically different, even if it's fundamentally the same underneath. I mean, consider the relatively small difference between Windows 2000 and XP yet the rather huge shift of support behind XP. I'd say that had a lot to do with XP literally looking different. Now, whether flat is some sort of way to move people towards a new platform, I have no idea. I mean, it's been done plenty of times before (buttons/icons keep seeming to switch from some version of flat to 3D and back again). And certainly there's a psychological effect that "a simpler look must be faster", even if it's literally just changing the graphic tiles used. But as many other people have stated, the seeming MS (Ubuntu and others are on the same bandwagon) idea of unifying the look/feel/interface between tablets and desktops is probably just a bad idea. I mean, while I might have the psychological need for my underpowered (relatively to a desktop) tablet to be simple, fast, etc, I rather think the whole reasons are overpowered (relatively to general daily needs) desktops are around today is precisely my need for the opposite need for a inflated eyecandy, blazing fast, etc interface. Slapping the same face on both just means my tablet appears too slow (as for all the simple design, the desktop even with eyecandy is likely to be actu
Well, let's see... According to Wikipedia, at least, the US spends ~35% of GDP on social programs in the US, of which 21% is through government, 10% is through charitable giving, and 4% is through private organizations. In comparison, in France and Sweden it's 30% to 35% of GDP of which a larger majority is through government. To me that indicates two things: that there seems to be some sort of innate threshold of just how much people are willing to spend on social programs as a nation and that in the US it's structured that a lot more of that spending is done through individual choice. Still, if suddenly the government were to simply stop collecting taxes and spending them for social programs, I don't presume that either more people would start contributing to charity nor those already contributing would be able to fill in that 21% gap--if everyone has a $5,000 smaller tax burden yet only 50% of people contribute to charity, that implies each person already contributing would have to contribute that $5,000 currently going to taxes plus an additional $5,000 to make up the difference.
Of course, it could be argued that the money being spent is really unnecessary and wasteful, yet by all accounts the French system actually provides better health care and other services for everyone and, again, its social program spending is about the same percentage of GDP as the US. Certainly, I don't think the government has anything close to 50% overhead on most programs and simply denying a lot of people benefits because they are "unworthy" is more an excuse for a lack of funds than to accept that private charity alone isn't sustainable. But, then, it's quite possible the above figures are off as I don't know if they include things like private healthy insurance, private pensions, etc which may or may not be necessary to provide some sort of parity to the French (or other similar) systems to make a useful comparison.
What is most significant is that poor/needy people don't starve/freeze/whatever to death--certainly, not unless they go out of their way to do so. Using the government as a compulsory system clearly works and functions that "what [I] do with my money *is* [significant] to [me]", but it's also significant to me what you do with your money since there's no way I can provide welfare/healthcare/social security alone. I mean, if it were truly the case that charity was enough, then certainly it should be true that the US's social program spending would be higher, if nothing else to guarantee health care for everyone--and not just the emergency care mandated by government on hospitals. Obviously that point breaks down because the people who do contribute are too poor to contribute more--which speaks volumes about what the rich aren't doing with their money-- and/or people are oblivious to the need to contribute more--which speaks volumes about the way the situation in the US has been so twisted that politicians routinely speak as if the US health care system was the best in the world, ignoring how pragmatically its not because there's not enough spending for those in need, which tends to support the idea that charity is more a token gesture by people than a concerted effort by people to stay informed and resolve actual problems.
But, I guess it's easier to focus on who and how the money is collected than on, you know, taking to task politicians and charities to deliver results upon their mandate on the money they already have and likely will have. That'd seem to be a much bigger issue.
I'm pretty sure that's not the same thing. Apple is saying that only they have the right to build machines that can run their software, not that you can't write/sell software to run on their machines.
1. Write software that runs on Apple hardware.
2. Get an injunction to stop Apple from building Apple hardware as "only [I] have the right to build machines that can run [my] software."
3.. Profit!
Feel free to extend the analogy by making that software wildly popular and pre-installed by virtually all retail stores. You know, totally logical.
Well, I guess the USA shouldn't have laws about murder, rape, theft, or parking hours. Because, you know, the biggest violaters will ignore whatever's being done, and the smaller violaters will simply close shop and violate even more in China. Oh, right, that's not how the world works. *Some* big violaters will ignore whatever's being done, but most will be compelled to comply, dare they be hounded by the government, journalists, etc; otherwise, you'd see a lot more flagrant violation of tons of regulations, laws, etc, above and beyond the ones that are usually about cutting corners until one gets caught. And *some* small violaters will simply close shop and violate even more in China, but most will be compelled to comply because the cost of moving the business and being away from their current local target market and/or shifting to a new local market that may already be saturated is too much of a cost and/or too much of a risk; otherwise, most would have probably left already for China as you seem to be painting it as some sort of bastion of economic freedom, lack of regulation, and prosperity, which it clearly isn't; I mean, you more or less wrote that the USA is just like China.:)
Seriously, if you believe that China and India are trying to get the US to "come to the table" on this, you're swallowing a ridiculous narrative, again put forth typically by AGW proponents who see the US as the villain here,...
You say that as if the US isn't the villain here? For how many decades was the US the number one CO2 emitter, both per-capita and total per country?
instead of seeing things as they really are — namely, things like the fact that China is set to emit 50% more greenhouse gases than the US by 2015 [scientificamerican.com].
So...if China were set to use 50% more whale blubber than the US by 2015...we should really make sure to keep using whale blubber for the sake of no longer being number one whale blubber user in total (although still higher per-capita)?
Note: It doesn't matter that China has more people in the context of the climate change argument! If you identify some level x of greenhouse emissions as being a "bad" thing, then China emitting far more than the US is an extremely bad thing in terms of the effects that it would cause.
No doubt. That sort of makes it even more critical that the US, Europe, etc cut their greenhouse emissions if China and/or India can't or won't reduce their own emissions.
You can argue that the US may be in a position to make the most impact, but with China set to significantly outpace the US in emissions and oil consumption, I think you need to take a look at what value the US taking a disproportionate hit in emissions control
Well, let's see. The US in 2008 produced ~18% of CO2 emissions (~5.4 mmt) and China produced ~23% (~7.0 mmt)--ie, ~12.4 mmt total. If the US were to cut emissions in half alone and China were to go up to 150% of the US's 2008 figure, then China would release ~8.1 mmt and the US would release ~2.7 mmt which totals ~10.8 mmt. Ie, the total would be less than the 2008 figures. If one instead presumes that China were to go up to 150% of it's own 2008 figure, then it'd be ~10.5 mmt for China and again ~2.7 for the US, the total would be ~13.2 mmt. This figure would obviously be greater than 2008, but it'd still be better than ~15.9 mmt (assuming that the US were to simply not grow in CO2 emission production).
— and the dramatic impact that would have on our economy —
Well, now we are to the meat of the situation, I think. Your concern is the economy, not the environment*.
would actually do for climate change that would be positive.
The only "positive" change would be to either stop burning fossil fuels entirely or to start sequestering CO2 in a greater amount than the amount released. To make an analogy, it's like we are on a train headed towards a brick wall. We're still having the discussion of whether the brick wall is really there and people, like you, seem so very adamant about even *slowing down* because one of the other engines on the train may decide to speed up on its own.
Put it another way: do you think that the evidence supports that China (or India, or any other developing economies) would be a better steward of this responsibility?
Well, let's see... Relatively few countries are involved in the Kyoto Protocols (total GHG emissions covered under member countries is only ~20%). The Protocols themselves do nothing to have net zero effect on CO2 emissions but instead aim to merely cap CO2 emissions (again, equivalent to at best slowing down the train wreck, but doing nothing to actually stopping it happening). And few countries in the Kyoto Protocol, AFAIK, are actually even meeting their targets for capping CO2 (and other GHG) emissions. So, overall, I'd say it's been generally a clusterfuck when it comes to developed countries and their commitment to climate c
"Developing a patch, especially for three different applications, can be costly and time consuming. Developing these patches consumes development resources, then must run through a QA process,..."
Developing software, especially three different applications, can be costly and time consuming. Developing software consumes development resources, then must run through a QA process (which obviously failed here)...
... and the patch needs to be communicated and distributed to users....
.. and creating a marketing campaign and distribution channels is a large and complex process....
... And for a company like Adobe with a massive customer base using its Photoshop, Illustrator, and Flash Professional, the bandwidth cost alone can be substantial....
ditto
... For a popular product that was just over two years old, providing a fix to address a serious security flaw its what customers deserve....
Creating stable, secure products is what customers deserve.
... And while Adobe may have originally tried to sneak by without addressing the issue and pushing users to upgrade to its new product, the company made the right move in the end."
Adobe may want to cut corners, but in the end, they don't have the lock-in to really piss their customers off. A lot of their larger consumers (corporations) who were planning to upgrade by choice who felt they were being made to by Adobe's decision now have reason to reconsider, even if they "made the right move in the end". Because who knows if they'll "[make] the right move in the end" the next time? The one good thing? Journalism and popular opinion made a difference.
PS - It's really hard to not be overly snarky, since Adobe's very business is software development. So, trying to spin it as some sort of extra cost to do patching seems even more absurd than all those businesses which could at least say that IT and software development is there for support to do their job and not as an end in itself. Given how much of Adobe's business is in high ticket software, it's especially hard to understand why they were so slow to be committed to support, since beyond the direct software itself, one presumes the high price is tied to a commitment. Certainly, it's the other way around--even corporations with middle management mostly shielded from their decisions don't seem likely to blow potentially millions on a product and a company who, in company terms, will disappear support-wise overnight. I mean, isn't it just standard process in most companies to, even if they're internally dead-set against doing work on an issue, to smile politely and say how they will/are looking into the issue? Otherwise, you may end up with a PR snafu.
I really don't under Dr James Hansen's complaint about Obama's statement. It seems pretty clear to me that there are three issues at hand: that climate change exists, that Canada (just like about any other nation*) is more interested in its own short-term economic well-being than its long-term economic well-being, and that if there's any real interest in attacking big issues like climate change there has to be a process in place such that short-term interests aren't allowed to override long-term interests except in real emergencies, for which there should be long-term planning to account for the presence of such issues. When it comes to the Keystone Pipeline, as I understand it, Congress was trying to push construction of it unilateral to any standing policy and process to approve such pipelines and other works.
If Hansen's issue is with the policy and process, he should make the case to change the policy and process, not attack Obama for trying to faithfully carry out his duty as Executive of the Government. That Obama's hands are effectively tied in that, only able to make the rhetorical comments of the need for long-term change--which he made--, his duty is to approve the Keystone Pipeline iff the proper policy and procedure is followed and to argue against circumventing that process, either for or against that pipeline regardless of his personal feelings, is entirely proper and right. Hansen's real complaint should be against Canada for not having the policy and process in place to allow for the short-term excavation and exploitation of those tar sands, damn the future, and Congress for not only trying to circumvent the current policies and processes but further that those policies and processes, being insufficient, should be modified to accommodate stricter guidelines such that if and when tar shale, sands, etc are excavated and exploited, there won't be a last-minute appeal to try to the consideration of what, if any, government involvement there should be.
I mean, I know it's fun and everything to attack the President because as he generally has some leeway in how to act when it comes to the law, but do we really want another Unilateral President like Bush, who decides who is or is not a citizen, who is or is not a person, etc and then execute the laws as he sees fit? The whole point of a representative democracy is to have a person that represents you, but clearly a single person as President cannot adequately represent the will of the people. Neither, really, can Congress. Leaning too strongly on the idea of "representative" really just turns the office of President into a four year dictator, and that's clearly undesirable. No, Obama is doing exactly what he is meant to do, to try to speak to the will of the people, even if they're not exactly shouting cries about the environment as loudly right now as they are speaking about the need for jobs. Because, in the end, as much as his words have weight, it's Congress who actually carries out the act of legislation and has the power to have real effect. The President may try to rally the people to direct their Congressmen to act--and to that, I'd readily admit Obama isn't charismatic enough and is failing in that point--, but it's invariably in the hands of the people to effect change. But, I guess it's hard to get Hansen and others to accept that you can't bully a few politicians for the people's own good. And if the people refuse to speak loudly enough, then clearly the people can be fucked over. And since Canada is run under the same sort of system, well, it does little to pretend that Canada isn't just as guilty of being a global warming contributor and failed to meet the Kyoto Protocol--although they finally got around to admitting to it and pulling out of their commitment.
*Democracies behave this way. Even dictatorships behave this way, although they generally have and are more willing to brutally repress any sort of uprising. Of course, given conditions bad enough, that may not be enough. I can only say I'm thankful I've never had to consider the choice between possible slow starvation, torture, death in police custody, or possible martyrdom in an uprising. I certainly don't think I'd really consider rising up over global warming.
In MegaUpload's terms of service (which I cannot directly link since the site is offline, and the robots.txt prevents Archive.org to pull of a cached version of it, and since it's been offline long enough to not be listed in the public Google Cache) I'll link you to an excerpt of someone referencing their terms of service.
"...A Justice Department spokesman told DigitalTrends that, in this case, users didn’t have a right to expect their files back, because Megaupload had warned them on its terms-of-service and website FAQ to make copies of their files and that the users assumed responsibility for any loss of data..." Source: GCN (http://s.tt/1aAHU) Emphasis mine.
The TOS says specifically that the user needs to make copies. Nobody forced them to use the service, they willingly agreed to these terms to create their accounts. If you don't like the terms then don't do business with the company. You seem like an intelligent and rational person, surely you can see the mistake of agreeing to things that you've not read first, why is it any different here?
Um...because the government is the cause of that "any loss of data" and, again, due to at best a questionable basis? You see, the point is the TOS is between Megaupload and the user. It's not between the government and the user. Perhaps you've heard of tortious interference? I really don't know if the government's action rises to the level of intentional contractual interference. But the point could be raised.
I wouldn't trust any third party, be it through the internet or through a local bank. I mean, if the Eye of Sauron is really that interested, at that point they'd have to go after me directly anyways, so that's about the best security I could have.
Even on your person there is no where things are safe in a country really. All businesses must follow laws in their respective countries. Seizures can and do happen, the US is not special in this regard.
Hence the "about the best security I have". If a government wants to seize me, it's rather irrelevant (at least to me) if my data is or isn't seized at that point. The only way I can have better security is if (a) the data is for a group and hence other members who are unknown to the country can hold the data or (b) I have a reasonable belief that the data would be used to incriminate me in some fashion (and hence I won't just be seized unilaterally) and they wouldn't guess where I did the data otherwise. But, since we were talking about a hypothetical "Eye of Sauron", I don't think (b) really applies. Meanwhile, I'm not part of any sort of group.:)
Why? Would you serious upload hundreds or thousands of office documents to Megaupload?
I wouldn't, but users of the site collectively did. I'd be very curious to see what the make up of the stored data was. Regardless, it's easy to do using something called an archive (tar, zip, rar, 7z etc.). People uploaded gigs of binary data in bite sized files to the site.
Which is a point I raised, about whether to count the one archive or the hundred files in the archive. And I also noted, a lot of those files are probably duplicates.
I mean, how often has the hammer been dropped on the RIAA or MPAA as an organization with members seemingly dedicated to questionable accounting practices and hence questionable tax returns?
I'll raise you Hollywood accounting practices and tax haven countries. Parasites the lot of them.
The "MPAA...members" covers Hollywood accounting practices. Oh, and tax haven countries would, I assume, include loophole countries? It's a funny, thing, too, how Ireland has such bursting corporate tax revenue.
You say it's not their fault, then what happened to their copy? If you lose your copy (and it's obviously important since you're backing it up) you replace it ASAP to keep up the duplication. Why didn't this happen?
Well, I'd disagree with the "it's obviously important since you're backing it up". Backing up is cheap. Backing up to a free, file-sharing site is even cheaper. When the intent is to both backup and share, then there might be the incentive to upload things and not even remember you had them hosted until later. I know personally I've uploaded tens of patches and other small files on all sorts of sites because, at the time, it wasn't that big a deal. And if I were to, much later, find them missing from my HD and one of my general backups, I can certainly imagine them being lost when I finally discover they were being hosted on Megaupload or a similar site.
I want you to answer this honestly, in your opinion:
Is it or is it not a good idea to back up files at a place where illegally distributed software/music/movies are hosted?
It's a bad idea, I'd say. So, I guess I shouldn't use Youtube to upload videos. They deal with illegally distributed music/video all the time, and in Germany they want proactive filtering.
Is doing business with a company that willingly and knowingly breaks laws in host country where they do business a sound idea?
Very true. I guess I shouldn't do business with Microsoft at all, knowing they broke anti-trust laws. And let's not consider the countless other businesses who willingly and knowingly break laws on a regular basis, just to pay a fine after the fact because that's cheaper. Okay, it's sound business to do business with them, and you're at fault if they suddenly disappear. It'd be nice, though, if legal procedure were actually followed when that happens.
Do you consider it wise risking your data disappearing when the Eye of Sauron/authorities gaze may focus on it at any point in time and deny you access?
You're right, I should never host any of my data in the US because the federal government is the Eye of Sauron*. And God knows the US isn't a democracy, so we can't be upset about that and try to change it instead of simply accepting that the gaze of evil may fuck us over.
If you answer yes to any of these the backup strategy is flawed and you might be in for a surprise. Remember these 500 servers were located in a country where what they were doing is illegal (this is not open for dispute, it's not legal distribute files which you do not have the rights to, or to pay people who participate in this behavior). It's simple honestly, if there are important files which need to be kept you make backups and keep these backups in a safe place. The affected users failed at the safe place part.
And to this part, I don't disagree. You see, I don't disagree that there was a fault in the idea that Megaupload or similar sites aren't a great long-term backup solution. The problem is, that as flawed as it was, it was another basket. And as much as the files could have disappeared for a hundred reasons that the uploader had no reason to be upset about, the reason that happened was the government coming in and fucking the uploader over. If the government had acted legitimately, well, then at least I'd at least entertain the idea that the uploader as at fault.
I have millions of files on my HD, with ~500 servers let's use a Wild Ass Guess at 500gb per machine on the low end it's easy to see it being in the millions if thinking about office documents and the like.
Why? Would you serious upload hundreds or thousands of office documents to Megaupload? I can see using it to host archives of source, archives of beta programs, etc. I guess once you consider the extracted files, that could reach into
I love how your rant really just goes off the deep end, especially with you interjecting a totally irrelevant idea: that any of the data involved was sensitive or significantly important in any way and that I at any time claimed millions of files were lost.
The point is, a person may well have used Megaupload for relatively unimportant files. Never the less, if their HD crashes and with Megaupload gone, the files are lost. You can argue, quite obviously, that important files would have multiple backups and hence if you lost your important files because of Megaupload closing, you got what you deserved. My retort is obvious: there was no justification for making important or unimportant files inaccessible. If it were possible, legally, to shut down a site like Megaupload for sharing freeware files--as copyright is all about controlling the who and what of copying--then clearly there is an intrinsic harm to all those people who are no longer able to use Megaupload to share their own files, no matter how unimportant they are.
To argue that it's a fault of not having enough baskets when two should have been sufficient and would have been (their own HD and the Megaupload servers) if legal procedure had been adequately followed only demonstrates the accepting of a corrupt system and laying the blame upon the victims of that corruption. That the victims are small in number (again, I do *not* believe the files lost were in the millions but likely at most in the thousands) or their specific grievances are small is beside the point because it is all a demonstration of government abuse that should not be tolerated, period. It sickens me how you want to whitewash and distort the situation instead of just acknowledging what happened.
I mean, I'd be at least a little less sickened if you were to say something like "Megaupload was trying to game the system, a lot of innocent victims who used their services for legitimate purposes were hurt, and I'm willing to accept that because I believe it's the only way to accept a copyright system on the internet, where there's always going to be innocent victims swept up when you're trying to punish or stop obvious offenders who would use those victims like a shield". At least then you'd show some sign of grey, to say you recognize some idea that on a case-by-case basis, it might be necessary to accept collateral damage. Instead, you want to blame the indigenous villagers because "they shouldn't have been there; they should have known it was a war zone". And all the while ignoring these villagers were the ones that already moved multiple times; it just happened that the fighting followed them.
It bothers me when people put all of their eggs in one basket and something unforeseen happens. If I understand your claim correctly when users upload a file to a website, the original file disappears? This is akin to people who don't test backups, while it sucks, it's your own damned fault.
So, it's their fault the government destroyed their backups? I mean, how do you "test" that the government won't destroy your backups?
PS - By definition, a backup is a second copy. Hence, there was more than "one basket". If nature destroys the original and the government destroys your backup, it can hardly be called "your own damned fault". Now, if you want to argue the actual figure of lost files is probably in the thousands and not in the millions, well that's a different story...
personal responsibility? this is empowering person responsibility. I have the option to have it turned off for me. How is exercising that not taking perosonal responsibility?
This is you exercising personal responsibility in the same way it's personal responsibility when you tell the bartender not to serve you any alcoholic beverages, no matter how many times you request them. Ie, it's not personal responsibility at all but instead shifting the onus of responsibility on a third party. Opting-in or opting-out doesn't really change the fact. If you don't want to view something, then don't request it.
Shut it at the ISP,. and I don't have to worry so much about being tricked by an add,
How many ads have you been tricked into viewing that turn out to be porn? Really? The closest I can imagine is clicking an ad or news item that contains something NSFW, often censored anyways. And to that, just stop (a) clicking ads*, (b) viewing news sites that host such content, and (c) generally just close the page, as it's not like anyone is forcing you to look. Oh, and feel free to try to sue the people involved for committing fraud, but good luck tracking the person down and winning the court case.
or plop up,
How's a pop-up different than an ad, exactly?
or malware.
So, instead of, oh, removing the malware, you want to keep the malware installed and simply block *just* the porn the malware is loading? Uh huh...
* I'll raise one point in your favor. Some web pages are crap and will use javascript events to load ads even though you clearly didn't click them. To that I state, again, stop viewing those web pages if they annoy you like that because the issue is more the fraudulent ad loading, not the ad content. The second option is to use some extension/tool to block the javascript hooking on those events, although that's admittedly of a more dubious line and really not one of personal responsibility or integrity; after all, it hardly sends a message to use a web site of dubious behavior and give them presumably some revenue in ad views while simultaneously depriving them of the fraudulent ad loading money--the ethical high road might leave you out of a lot of web sites, but then that's generally how ethics work.
and with the millions of dollars they are paid, how many of them donated to research?
What? I don't understand why I need to pay for research when my employer endangers me.
You don't "need" to step out of the path of a speeding car. But if you have the means, why wouldn't you? Hence, if you think your employer is endangering you and you have the means to find out, why wouldn't you?
PS - Last I checked, the problem with coal mines isn't the unknown risk. It's that (1) too many coal mines don't follow the extant regulations, (2) regulators don't or can't really punish mines that aren't following regulations, (3) the coal mining industry isn't lobbying to strengthen enforcement nor punishment for regulations, and (4) even if the first three were true, coal mining is a dangerous job as a simple fact which is why coal miners make ~$60,000/year. Given the median NFL player salary is $700,000, I'd say they have the resources to fund the research to establish guidelines for regulations as well as the funds to lobby for those regulations. I doubt the net result of that will be a median NFL player of $700,000 (as they're likely to need a lot of substitutes), but the overall effect would be something like how the coal mining industry is, including things like wrongful-death suits.
Wake up. Almost all corporations do this. HP does this. IBM does this. Dell does this.
So, HP, IBM, Dell, etc hate America too? Or are you trying to say "it's okay because everyone else does it"?
It's not called 'hating America,' it's called 'loopholes.'
Why did those miners die? Why did all that oil leak from that well? It's not murder; it's not even killing. Nor is It gross negligence. It's called 'loopholes'. It's certainly not 'hating America'*.
If you were beholden to shareholders and you were in charge of a corporation, you would do it too, I bet. And if not...you would never be in charge of a corporation for long.
Remember kids: once the first CEO decides to suck the blood of a virgin to gain greater power and such actions become sanctioned by the corporation's shareholders, well, we just have to accept that vampirism is a necessary trait of being a CEO. I mean, after all, we as a nation are beholden to those same shareholders and to their decisions upon CEOs. I mean, it's not like incorporation happens under the sanction and regulation of a government, so it's not like we can make any rules or stipulate any expectations about things.
*As an aside, I do agree it's not 'hate America'. It might be 'hate Americans'. I mean, corporations have their tentacles in the US government just fine, so that part of America is pretty good for them. Sure, there's still all those pesky Americans demanding they pay *something*; I'm sure if they had full say, their tax rate would be zero. Create jobs? Well, sure, if it's effectively the government paying for them. I mean, it's not like a company would spend money on employees otherwise. Oh, right, the reason they hire people is because it's necessary to achieve those profits they desire; and negatively, they don't go around creating jobs for the mere benefit to the people they employ (cronyism not withstanding). And as for loopholes? Why, sure, there's even plenty of cheerleaders on the side arguing about the fairness of loopholes that legitimize all sorts of damage a corporation commits that would never be accepted at the personal level (well, traffic accidents seem the real exception), all because it might damage the economy if corporations were set to the sort of standard we hold real people to. The real absurdity, then, is why everyone doesn't just become a corporation to gain those same sorts of loopholes. I'm sort of surprised Bermuda or some other nation hasn't pushed more for tax shelters for the average American under that same logic. I mean, it aggregate, that represents potentially billions of dollars.
Well, I guess the question then becomes, is this strata similar to, say, shatter-resistant glass? And if so, what do you imagine would happen if you first (a) drilled through several separate panes/layers of shatter-resistant glass over a lower chamber of gas and then (b) stared pumping water into that chamber greatly increasing the pressure, even if it's for a short time, then sucking out the gas and water greatly decreasing the pressure? I mean, I recognize rock is a lot harder than glass. But, if drilling fractures rock along the way and there's a sudden shift in pressure, I could certainly see that that causing a bubbling up of gas and waste water. I mean, as I understand it, things like gysers function, although that's admittedly only on the order of 2 kilometers, and I can readily see that making a huge difference. Then again, gysers are a byproduct of water seeping down naturally then up which I'd presume limit both the time scale and the likely depth while forcing water down much further might have a rather different effect.
Having said all that, yes, waste disposal is probably a bigger issue anyways, given I'd presume that's of a much larger volume.
Of course it rains, the problem is that it does not necessarily rain where the water was harvested. Harvesting deep water reservoirs does not somehow change the fact that a region is a desert or arid region with little rainfall.
Perhaps not. But the region a few hundred miles to the east/west (depending on wind patterns) might see a change. I'd image that it'd relate heavily to things like the degree of water conservation and exploitation. That isn't, of course, to say such a change is a good thing. It's just, I wouldn't entirely dismiss the idea that it'd have an effect on the region. Once you involve enough humans doing the same activity, it can easily turn into firewood for the stove wiping out a forest, many wells emptying an aquifer and changing rainfall patterns, or several million cars heating up the Earth. So, I'd guess it'd be at least a decade before noticeable changes occurred and perhaps fifty years before those changes become critical to some degree. Whether anyone cares enough or not about those changes...
Hmm... Reconsidering, I think you're right. If Google had deprecated Dalvik with a replacement two years ago and considering the rapid cycle of smart phone replacement, then the issue of backwards compatibility with probably be virtually a non-issue at this point. Of course, that presumes that Google could have whipped up another VM and library that was both Java-like enough to support a transition yet different enough that Oracle's suit would be a non-issue, and I can't imagine that that wouldn't have taken at least a year or two in itself*. Still, yes, it would have been a wiser move if the point is to avoid the stupid lawsuit(s).
*And I think a year or two is incredibly optimistic. Version 1 of Java,.NET, and just about every other comprehensive platform is almost always enough of a failure that it's not until at least version 2 before wide scale adoption takes place--it's after all, very difficult to know exactly what to include the version and how to do everything right; even cloning another, successful platform often isn't enough. So, people would likely still develop for Dalvik for quite a while and Google would still be under Oracle's thumb. Meanwhile, trying to force a switch can backfire, just resulting in people abandoning the platform altogether. But, even if it took three or four years, lawsuits like the one between Oracle and Google drag on for years, so yes, a plan to switch near the start would have been smart and I agree you're right it was dumb of Google not to act.
But it is just insanely stupid for Google not to have already moved the core Android libraries away from Java, so that the java interface just becomes a wrapper.
Except that's precisely what Oracle is suing over. AFAIK, Dalvik does support JVM-based binaries; and Android uses a subset of Apache's implementation of the Java SE standard, not any code from Sun/Oracle. So, as long as they support backwards compatible with wrappers of a Java-like library, assumedly Oracle would still be interested in continuing the lawsuit. Meanwhile, trying to clone or mimic another language/platform would potentially risk another lawsuit.
And remember, Android started before Oracle owned Java, so presumably Google went with their Java-like platform precisely because they thought Sun would see them in the clear; but then things changed. So, even if Python or C# or a Python-like language were in the clear today, they may face a lawsuit tomorrow. And to remain backwards compatibility, they'd again be in the same boat of yet another wrapper and still facing a lawsuit.
So, their only real choice is what? To produce a wholly unique language (again, remember all the talk about how Oracle could face the wrath from C's developers if their logic on copyrighting the Java language holds, so it might not even be enough to just develop a new library) and give up all backwards compatibility on Android apps to greatly reduce the risk of lawsuits? That doesn't seem exactly a great compromise, especially given how baseless the lawsuit likely is. I mean, I understand the point of Oracle defending it's trademark, and it's possible Google or others have went to far in talking about Java when it comes to Android--although given it's speaking about the Java language, it's a bit dicey no matter how you look at it given how vague the line is on where the language and its components begin and end when they're source compatible to various degrees--, but since it seems Oracle isn't merely trying to squash the seeming polluting of their trademark like Sun's lawsuit against MS, I don't exactly see there to be any clear way in which Oracle is fighting for anything specific that they can lay claim to and I don't see what Google could reasonably have done to avoid the confusion that naturally arises in trying to differentiate the ecosystem as a whole from some of its core components when they share the same name. I do know that except for tech sites, I never really even hear any mention of Java when it comes to Android and even then, it's almost always with the provision that what Android offers is a Java-like language and not Java as we know it itself.
Millions of users who used megaupload for backups, or for distributing their own material and nothing else, _and_ who have no other copy of the data?
And why the "_and_ who have no other copy of the data"? If you used megaupload for backups, well, now you've lost access to your data for that purpose. If you used it to distribute your own material to others, well you've against lost access to your data for that purpose. Sure, you can setup a new backup service somewhere else, but that still means you've been inconvenienced and under questionable justification. Having said that...
Might the submitter be just slightly exaggerating?
And to this, I agree. I doubt megaupload itself had millions of users for backup and distribution (although I could be wrong). But, I don't doubt that megaupload and other similar services have lost millions of users for those purposes, due to the chilling knowledge that without even the ability to charge and extradite them under US law, they still can be shut down at will; hence, any free or semi-free service for file sharing or backup is now quick to tuck its tail and try to limit access and to make even legitimate access arduous enough that the pretext of "for the children^Wpiracy" will even be more clear, presuming that will protect them. So, there are those who are inconvenienced by the loss of megaupload directly and indirectly and further inconvenienced with the possible inability to find alternatives.
Now, one could argue that such services inherently have the property that they'll be used by pirates, their owners will inherently be enriched by them, and hence such a market for free/semi-free file sharing shouldn't commercial exist--meanwhile, fully commercial and well filtered sites can remain because they have the resources to monitor and block offenders*. I am not quick to argue for that, however, as the same logic could be used for all sorts of free/semi-free services like photo sharing sites, email, etc. It's already enough of a poison pill that other, non-legal speech can be used to shut down services without adding yet another arm when it's even harder to qualify or quantify. After all, both sides can say whatever numbers they like, but we have no third party with either the ability or the desire to track down the users (both uploaders and downloaders) of sites like Megaupload; nor, am I aware, of efforts to do the same for photo sharing sites, email, etc, to have some base of comparison. But, then again, maybe we do have the scholarly work to back up one side or both in their assertions. That, to me, would be much more interesting and informative than hearing lawyers squabble over something that there seems to be no evidence for currently and might not exist.
*Consider the situation with Youtube and Gema, and how difficult it is to reasonably find and block even repeat offenders, even if one wanted to. And consider the story of IOS being a safer market presumably because it's tied to accountability through credit cards; yet, Android has a similar setup with credit cards, so does that really help? Of course, that story is quite is unclear on what "policies that enforce accountability" mean and how viable it really is if you took credit cards or a similar cost/identification out of the equation; maybe they enforce accountability some other way. And for all we know, Megaupload had a similar policy in place as Apple. But even if they were "lax", even presuming that's how Google is, is there any real serious talk of legally holding Google as an accomplice in malware infections (or guilty of neglect) anymore than we could hold MS legally guilty for their platform being favored for the same? Of course, in the end, intent does enter into it. Ie, if Megaupload actually wanted for there to be copyright infringement... But, a policy of rewarding sharing on a site devoted to sharing being used to implicate Megaupload is absurd as seeing Youtube's (and hence Google's) po
I think the issue fundamentally is this: Google wants to allow as many people to use the Android name as possible, but sticking to the Java spec for Android would have complicated matters with licensing (look no further than how GNU and Apache both have different names and considerations for their own Java/Java-like implementations). So, it made more sense to base the technology on Java yet make it legally different and not sign any contracts with Sun/Oracle to use the Java trademark. Meanwhile, MS went the other way, going out of their way to sign a contract to use the Java trademark and then intentionally made it Windows specific, knowing full well that it went against the idea of the Java ecosystem. To me, it seems clearly a different situation.
"Somewhat idiots" is the term I used. And the point still stands. Because you can't think of how "Joe six-pack" will use the tools today and don't have the foresight to see how they'll be used in a decade, you don't see the point of including those tools in the standard version. Well, congratulations, you're arguing the same idea of people sticking to the 9x line instead of the NT because, you know, what use would "Joe six-pack" have with all the power? The answer is obvious today, that layers of security, even if not directly enforced by "Joe six-pack"'s actions, can still have the effect of increasing security. And who knows, maybe "Joe six-pack" will want to use those tools.
It's certainly not limited to absurd examples like using a VM to protect a browser against credit card theft, which is absurd a concept as DRM to prevent piracy--you know, giving the lock *and* the key to the pirate. But, obviously one can run suspect programs in a VM if one choses. One can even run non-suspect programs in a VM precisely to avoid the whole issue of updating, since a VM that blocks network access is reasonably safe so long as the host isn't compromised--at which point, keeping the VM up to date is probably pretty pointless.
Meanwhile, even if you lose data precisely because of the encryption you use, but it's the sort of personal data you have ready access to yourself but don't want others to have ready access to, then losing the data is by far the best fail safe way to go. And odds are good anyways that the data loss won't be localized to your personal data or the encryption key; it'll likely hit everything (the whole HD) or some other random file. I guess, of course, that can vary heavily on if you store all your personal data in one file...but odds are good, again, that the total data is so small, it's likely to be an all or none affair, with or without the encryption.
In any event, just because people don't known their using a security feature doesn't mean they aren't, in much the same way that as much as most people don't spend much time tinkering under the hood of their car, clearly indirectly a lot of people benefit from the fact that there is a hood and many components of a car are relatively accessible. Of course, adding VMs and encryption as standard isn't quite the same thing, but then I'm not exactly sure how better to make a car analogy.:)
Either you're trolling or you are vastly overestimating the general public computer abilities. Do you really expect Joe six-pack to setup a separate user account to run his programs? Even if he has a knowledgeable friend who sets this up for him, now try to explain to him why he can't apply a system-wide wallpaper he downloads or install a game without becoming Administrator (which, by the way, defeats to large extent the usefulness of user accounts in the first place)? As for encryption, I'm not really sure of how it protects credit card, tax, etc information if someone steals your laptop or for the general 99% of the time in standard computer use where the data is made unavailable, but I do know that it makes it much more difficult to recover data in case of hardware failure, sometimes impossible if the encryption depended on some certificate because it's really likely that the one or two copies of your certificate are the first things to go; and, as we all know whether or not you backup the certificate is the critical part, not actually backing up the relevant data in question such that data recovery from hardware failure is mostly a moot point.. You can argue that Microsoft should offer a simpler line of products, but I don't think those features are particularly useful in regards to security for the general public; I mean, what have separate user accounts, UAC, browser sandboxing technology (which could be virtual machine based, if one liked), or passwords really done for the general public?
Really, there's a lot of things that have been done and could continue to be done to make a computer not only more secure but also more consistent in what people expect. Clearly MS has demonstrated (ex. with XP Mode, IE's sandbox, and UAC) that it's possible to integrate security, although it's obviously hard to do it seamlessly and still maintain security. Such things are obviously not panaceas, but then security is a process and such things are tools meant to mitigate the risk. Obviously, the other end of it being a process is that Joe six-pack will have to become educated or he'll start to suffer the consequences, although I acknowledge that the point of expecting results--ie, that installing malware and having one's credit card number stolen would be seen as gross neglect--is probably at least a decade away. However, the sooner the tools become available and the sooner they're integrated not only into the OS itself as a standard but also as an expectation by and of the general public, the sooner Joe six-pack will be quite competent to use the tools to his needs. Personally, I see that vision of the future a lot more empowering than to just presume people are somewhat idiots and will stay that way.
Probably a stupid hypothetical situation/question, but say you were desperately ill, to the point that you literally slept 20 hours straight, on an important day with important clients losing an important deal yet your company didn't fire you; would you really quit because that decency/consideration really risks "bringing the entire company down with you"?
Slashdot Mirror
Off-hand, I'd guess it'd have to do with it being generally true that the act of invading another person's privacy has nothing to do with their sexual orientation or specific sexual activities. And if one mentions their specific orientation or activities, it would seem that that statement of generally has been violated and the person in question is speaking in specific intent upon those actions, either in defense of them or against them. The only other general reason I can readily think to violate that rule has to do with trying to paint an objective picture--as in a story, police bulletin, etc--which feels compelled to mention both the common and the uncommon for an audience who may have their own bias upon what words mean and for which the author feels it necessary to be explicit to make clear what transpired. After all, if a picture is worth a thousand words and most stories aren't a thousand words, at some level the author who wishes to paint a picture has to leave out a lot or decide to put only a little bit end. What truth they choose to include says something about the author.
Yet Windows 2000 supported DirectX, Power Users, and just about everything you'd want for a consumer desktop line.
Figuratively, perhaps. Marketing and MS's own development process wise, sure. But what functionality did XP have that make it a "consumer desktop"? A few tweaks like a "Welcome" screen, making everyone Admin by default in the Home version (which is only mildly different than the Win2k Pro line that made everyone a Power User by default), and a new UI (as since NT4, the NT and 9x line shared the same UI) designed to make the NT line look more kiddy-like to not scare people from the more "professional" NT line?
Seriously, though, if you can think of a few features XP has over 2k that made it more the consumer desktop, I'd like to hear it. The only thing I can think of possible is better driver support. But the truth is, since 98SE, there was a unified driver model as well between NT and 9x lines and the vast majority of hardware I saw, at least, used the new model and worked in 2000 just as well as 98SE/ME. That people thought of it as the new consumer line and marketed/developed software to be XP exclusive... But, rarely before then was software before 9x exclusive.
Odd. I though the 800lb elephant in the room was that all 3D composite engines were a bad idea. I mean, in the best case, it's just as efficient as a 2D composite engine where unscaled, 100% opaque 3D textures replace 2D windows each of which may contain a 3D rendered scene. In the worst case, it's a massive collection of scaled, partially transparent 2D windows distorted in all manner of fashion each of which may contain a 3D rendered scene all vying for the limited memory available which appears quite otherwise if one presumes mostly exclusive access. So, it can quickly degenerate to turtles-all-the-way-down 3D effects which, if anything, is encouraged by the idea that 3D is no longer pushed exclusively towards a single application. And quite honestly, that's precisely where most, if not all, the optimization and focus has been with 3D hardware. I mean, consider the spinning video cube of BeOS back in the 90s and compare that with the idea of a spinning 3d cube showing multiple games. Hell, consider all the serious security concerns with 3D hardware, not just in their heavily closed nature (exclusion being the comparatively dismally performing Intel hardware) and the real decided lack of security compartmentalization. It's one reason why VRML never took off and Google's 3D efforts are seemingly doomed to fail, as no one in their right mind would trust the 3D hardware itself to do the job and meanwhile doing it in software is so very crippling to most expected uses (including gaming).
Besides, I imagine Aero is about as efficiently-coded as can be imagined. But once you start to acknowledge how much 3D hardware puts some work in the software driver and inherently that translates into an extra bit of redirection every time that function is called upon, it quickly can translate that lower end hardware has degenerative behavior at seemingly random times. The only way to compensate for this is to write a lot of functionality in software and to pre-test for those conditions on various hardware to compensate, but that invariably
Granted to that. Still, I imagine it has more to do with the idea of "a fresh new look" inherently. I mean, there might be 101 ways to do glossy 3D. But, if you want to see something as radically new, better, you want to make it look radically different, even if it's fundamentally the same underneath. I mean, consider the relatively small difference between Windows 2000 and XP yet the rather huge shift of support behind XP. I'd say that had a lot to do with XP literally looking different. Now, whether flat is some sort of way to move people towards a new platform, I have no idea. I mean, it's been done plenty of times before (buttons/icons keep seeming to switch from some version of flat to 3D and back again). And certainly there's a psychological effect that "a simpler look must be faster", even if it's literally just changing the graphic tiles used. But as many other people have stated, the seeming MS (Ubuntu and others are on the same bandwagon) idea of unifying the look/feel/interface between tablets and desktops is probably just a bad idea. I mean, while I might have the psychological need for my underpowered (relatively to a desktop) tablet to be simple, fast, etc, I rather think the whole reasons are overpowered (relatively to general daily needs) desktops are around today is precisely my need for the opposite need for a inflated eyecandy, blazing fast, etc interface. Slapping the same face on both just means my tablet appears too slow (as for all the simple design, the desktop even with eyecandy is likely to be actu
Well, let's see... According to Wikipedia, at least, the US spends ~35% of GDP on social programs in the US, of which 21% is through government, 10% is through charitable giving, and 4% is through private organizations. In comparison, in France and Sweden it's 30% to 35% of GDP of which a larger majority is through government. To me that indicates two things: that there seems to be some sort of innate threshold of just how much people are willing to spend on social programs as a nation and that in the US it's structured that a lot more of that spending is done through individual choice. Still, if suddenly the government were to simply stop collecting taxes and spending them for social programs, I don't presume that either more people would start contributing to charity nor those already contributing would be able to fill in that 21% gap--if everyone has a $5,000 smaller tax burden yet only 50% of people contribute to charity, that implies each person already contributing would have to contribute that $5,000 currently going to taxes plus an additional $5,000 to make up the difference.
Of course, it could be argued that the money being spent is really unnecessary and wasteful, yet by all accounts the French system actually provides better health care and other services for everyone and, again, its social program spending is about the same percentage of GDP as the US. Certainly, I don't think the government has anything close to 50% overhead on most programs and simply denying a lot of people benefits because they are "unworthy" is more an excuse for a lack of funds than to accept that private charity alone isn't sustainable. But, then, it's quite possible the above figures are off as I don't know if they include things like private healthy insurance, private pensions, etc which may or may not be necessary to provide some sort of parity to the French (or other similar) systems to make a useful comparison.
What is most significant is that poor/needy people don't starve/freeze/whatever to death--certainly, not unless they go out of their way to do so. Using the government as a compulsory system clearly works and functions that "what [I] do with my money *is* [significant] to [me]", but it's also significant to me what you do with your money since there's no way I can provide welfare/healthcare/social security alone. I mean, if it were truly the case that charity was enough, then certainly it should be true that the US's social program spending would be higher, if nothing else to guarantee health care for everyone--and not just the emergency care mandated by government on hospitals. Obviously that point breaks down because the people who do contribute are too poor to contribute more--which speaks volumes about what the rich aren't doing with their money-- and/or people are oblivious to the need to contribute more--which speaks volumes about the way the situation in the US has been so twisted that politicians routinely speak as if the US health care system was the best in the world, ignoring how pragmatically its not because there's not enough spending for those in need, which tends to support the idea that charity is more a token gesture by people than a concerted effort by people to stay informed and resolve actual problems.
But, I guess it's easier to focus on who and how the money is collected than on, you know, taking to task politicians and charities to deliver results upon their mandate on the money they already have and likely will have. That'd seem to be a much bigger issue.
Feel free to extend the analogy by making that software wildly popular and pre-installed by virtually all retail stores. You know, totally logical.
Well, I guess the USA shouldn't have laws about murder, rape, theft, or parking hours. Because, you know, the biggest violaters will ignore whatever's being done, and the smaller violaters will simply close shop and violate even more in China. Oh, right, that's not how the world works. *Some* big violaters will ignore whatever's being done, but most will be compelled to comply, dare they be hounded by the government, journalists, etc; otherwise, you'd see a lot more flagrant violation of tons of regulations, laws, etc, above and beyond the ones that are usually about cutting corners until one gets caught. And *some* small violaters will simply close shop and violate even more in China, but most will be compelled to comply because the cost of moving the business and being away from their current local target market and/or shifting to a new local market that may already be saturated is too much of a cost and/or too much of a risk; otherwise, most would have probably left already for China as you seem to be painting it as some sort of bastion of economic freedom, lack of regulation, and prosperity, which it clearly isn't; I mean, you more or less wrote that the USA is just like China. :)
You say that as if the US isn't the villain here? For how many decades was the US the number one CO2 emitter, both per-capita and total per country?
So...if China were set to use 50% more whale blubber than the US by 2015...we should really make sure to keep using whale blubber for the sake of no longer being number one whale blubber user in total (although still higher per-capita)?
No doubt. That sort of makes it even more critical that the US, Europe, etc cut their greenhouse emissions if China and/or India can't or won't reduce their own emissions.
Well, let's see. The US in 2008 produced ~18% of CO2 emissions (~5.4 mmt) and China produced ~23% (~7.0 mmt)--ie, ~12.4 mmt total. If the US were to cut emissions in half alone and China were to go up to 150% of the US's 2008 figure, then China would release ~8.1 mmt and the US would release ~2.7 mmt which totals ~10.8 mmt. Ie, the total would be less than the 2008 figures. If one instead presumes that China were to go up to 150% of it's own 2008 figure, then it'd be ~10.5 mmt for China and again ~2.7 for the US, the total would be ~13.2 mmt. This figure would obviously be greater than 2008, but it'd still be better than ~15.9 mmt (assuming that the US were to simply not grow in CO2 emission production).
Well, now we are to the meat of the situation, I think. Your concern is the economy, not the environment*.
The only "positive" change would be to either stop burning fossil fuels entirely or to start sequestering CO2 in a greater amount than the amount released. To make an analogy, it's like we are on a train headed towards a brick wall. We're still having the discussion of whether the brick wall is really there and people, like you, seem so very adamant about even *slowing down* because one of the other engines on the train may decide to speed up on its own.
Well, let's see... Relatively few countries are involved in the Kyoto Protocols (total GHG emissions covered under member countries is only ~20%). The Protocols themselves do nothing to have net zero effect on CO2 emissions but instead aim to merely cap CO2 emissions (again, equivalent to at best slowing down the train wreck, but doing nothing to actually stopping it happening). And few countries in the Kyoto Protocol, AFAIK, are actually even meeting their targets for capping CO2 (and other GHG) emissions. So, overall, I'd say it's been generally a clusterfuck when it comes to developed countries and their commitment to climate c
Developing software, especially three different applications, can be costly and time consuming. Developing software consumes development resources, then must run through a QA process (which obviously failed here) ...
.. and creating a marketing campaign and distribution channels is a large and complex process. ...
ditto
Creating stable, secure products is what customers deserve.
Adobe may want to cut corners, but in the end, they don't have the lock-in to really piss their customers off. A lot of their larger consumers (corporations) who were planning to upgrade by choice who felt they were being made to by Adobe's decision now have reason to reconsider, even if they "made the right move in the end". Because who knows if they'll "[make] the right move in the end" the next time? The one good thing? Journalism and popular opinion made a difference.
PS - It's really hard to not be overly snarky, since Adobe's very business is software development. So, trying to spin it as some sort of extra cost to do patching seems even more absurd than all those businesses which could at least say that IT and software development is there for support to do their job and not as an end in itself. Given how much of Adobe's business is in high ticket software, it's especially hard to understand why they were so slow to be committed to support, since beyond the direct software itself, one presumes the high price is tied to a commitment. Certainly, it's the other way around--even corporations with middle management mostly shielded from their decisions don't seem likely to blow potentially millions on a product and a company who, in company terms, will disappear support-wise overnight. I mean, isn't it just standard process in most companies to, even if they're internally dead-set against doing work on an issue, to smile politely and say how they will/are looking into the issue? Otherwise, you may end up with a PR snafu.
I really don't under Dr James Hansen's complaint about Obama's statement. It seems pretty clear to me that there are three issues at hand: that climate change exists, that Canada (just like about any other nation*) is more interested in its own short-term economic well-being than its long-term economic well-being, and that if there's any real interest in attacking big issues like climate change there has to be a process in place such that short-term interests aren't allowed to override long-term interests except in real emergencies, for which there should be long-term planning to account for the presence of such issues. When it comes to the Keystone Pipeline, as I understand it, Congress was trying to push construction of it unilateral to any standing policy and process to approve such pipelines and other works.
If Hansen's issue is with the policy and process, he should make the case to change the policy and process, not attack Obama for trying to faithfully carry out his duty as Executive of the Government. That Obama's hands are effectively tied in that, only able to make the rhetorical comments of the need for long-term change--which he made--, his duty is to approve the Keystone Pipeline iff the proper policy and procedure is followed and to argue against circumventing that process, either for or against that pipeline regardless of his personal feelings, is entirely proper and right. Hansen's real complaint should be against Canada for not having the policy and process in place to allow for the short-term excavation and exploitation of those tar sands, damn the future, and Congress for not only trying to circumvent the current policies and processes but further that those policies and processes, being insufficient, should be modified to accommodate stricter guidelines such that if and when tar shale, sands, etc are excavated and exploited, there won't be a last-minute appeal to try to the consideration of what, if any, government involvement there should be.
I mean, I know it's fun and everything to attack the President because as he generally has some leeway in how to act when it comes to the law, but do we really want another Unilateral President like Bush, who decides who is or is not a citizen, who is or is not a person, etc and then execute the laws as he sees fit? The whole point of a representative democracy is to have a person that represents you, but clearly a single person as President cannot adequately represent the will of the people. Neither, really, can Congress. Leaning too strongly on the idea of "representative" really just turns the office of President into a four year dictator, and that's clearly undesirable. No, Obama is doing exactly what he is meant to do, to try to speak to the will of the people, even if they're not exactly shouting cries about the environment as loudly right now as they are speaking about the need for jobs. Because, in the end, as much as his words have weight, it's Congress who actually carries out the act of legislation and has the power to have real effect. The President may try to rally the people to direct their Congressmen to act--and to that, I'd readily admit Obama isn't charismatic enough and is failing in that point--, but it's invariably in the hands of the people to effect change. But, I guess it's hard to get Hansen and others to accept that you can't bully a few politicians for the people's own good. And if the people refuse to speak loudly enough, then clearly the people can be fucked over. And since Canada is run under the same sort of system, well, it does little to pretend that Canada isn't just as guilty of being a global warming contributor and failed to meet the Kyoto Protocol--although they finally got around to admitting to it and pulling out of their commitment.
*Democracies behave this way. Even dictatorships behave this way, although they generally have and are more willing to brutally repress any sort of uprising. Of course, given conditions bad enough, that may not be enough. I can only say I'm thankful I've never had to consider the choice between possible slow starvation, torture, death in police custody, or possible martyrdom in an uprising. I certainly don't think I'd really consider rising up over global warming.
Um...because the government is the cause of that "any loss of data" and, again, due to at best a questionable basis? You see, the point is the TOS is between Megaupload and the user. It's not between the government and the user. Perhaps you've heard of tortious interference? I really don't know if the government's action rises to the level of intentional contractual interference. But the point could be raised.
Hence the "about the best security I have". If a government wants to seize me, it's rather irrelevant (at least to me) if my data is or isn't seized at that point. The only way I can have better security is if (a) the data is for a group and hence other members who are unknown to the country can hold the data or (b) I have a reasonable belief that the data would be used to incriminate me in some fashion (and hence I won't just be seized unilaterally) and they wouldn't guess where I did the data otherwise. But, since we were talking about a hypothetical "Eye of Sauron", I don't think (b) really applies. Meanwhile, I'm not part of any sort of group. :)
Which is a point I raised, about whether to count the one archive or the hundred files in the archive. And I also noted, a lot of those files are probably duplicates.
The "MPAA...members" covers Hollywood accounting practices. Oh, and tax haven countries would, I assume, include loophole countries? It's a funny, thing, too, how Ireland has such bursting corporate tax revenue.
Well, I'd disagree with the "it's obviously important since you're backing it up". Backing up is cheap. Backing up to a free, file-sharing site is even cheaper. When the intent is to both backup and share, then there might be the incentive to upload things and not even remember you had them hosted until later. I know personally I've uploaded tens of patches and other small files on all sorts of sites because, at the time, it wasn't that big a deal. And if I were to, much later, find them missing from my HD and one of my general backups, I can certainly imagine them being lost when I finally discover they were being hosted on Megaupload or a similar site.
It's a bad idea, I'd say. So, I guess I shouldn't use Youtube to upload videos. They deal with illegally distributed music/video all the time, and in Germany they want proactive filtering.
Very true. I guess I shouldn't do business with Microsoft at all, knowing they broke anti-trust laws. And let's not consider the countless other businesses who willingly and knowingly break laws on a regular basis, just to pay a fine after the fact because that's cheaper. Okay, it's sound business to do business with them, and you're at fault if they suddenly disappear. It'd be nice, though, if legal procedure were actually followed when that happens.
You're right, I should never host any of my data in the US because the federal government is the Eye of Sauron*. And God knows the US isn't a democracy, so we can't be upset about that and try to change it instead of simply accepting that the gaze of evil may fuck us over.
And to this part, I don't disagree. You see, I don't disagree that there was a fault in the idea that Megaupload or similar sites aren't a great long-term backup solution. The problem is, that as flawed as it was, it was another basket. And as much as the files could have disappeared for a hundred reasons that the uploader had no reason to be upset about, the reason that happened was the government coming in and fucking the uploader over. If the government had acted legitimately, well, then at least I'd at least entertain the idea that the uploader as at fault.
Why? Would you serious upload hundreds or thousands of office documents to Megaupload? I can see using it to host archives of source, archives of beta programs, etc. I guess once you consider the extracted files, that could reach into
I love how your rant really just goes off the deep end, especially with you interjecting a totally irrelevant idea: that any of the data involved was sensitive or significantly important in any way and that I at any time claimed millions of files were lost.
The point is, a person may well have used Megaupload for relatively unimportant files. Never the less, if their HD crashes and with Megaupload gone, the files are lost. You can argue, quite obviously, that important files would have multiple backups and hence if you lost your important files because of Megaupload closing, you got what you deserved. My retort is obvious: there was no justification for making important or unimportant files inaccessible. If it were possible, legally, to shut down a site like Megaupload for sharing freeware files--as copyright is all about controlling the who and what of copying--then clearly there is an intrinsic harm to all those people who are no longer able to use Megaupload to share their own files, no matter how unimportant they are.
To argue that it's a fault of not having enough baskets when two should have been sufficient and would have been (their own HD and the Megaupload servers) if legal procedure had been adequately followed only demonstrates the accepting of a corrupt system and laying the blame upon the victims of that corruption. That the victims are small in number (again, I do *not* believe the files lost were in the millions but likely at most in the thousands) or their specific grievances are small is beside the point because it is all a demonstration of government abuse that should not be tolerated, period. It sickens me how you want to whitewash and distort the situation instead of just acknowledging what happened.
I mean, I'd be at least a little less sickened if you were to say something like "Megaupload was trying to game the system, a lot of innocent victims who used their services for legitimate purposes were hurt, and I'm willing to accept that because I believe it's the only way to accept a copyright system on the internet, where there's always going to be innocent victims swept up when you're trying to punish or stop obvious offenders who would use those victims like a shield". At least then you'd show some sign of grey, to say you recognize some idea that on a case-by-case basis, it might be necessary to accept collateral damage. Instead, you want to blame the indigenous villagers because "they shouldn't have been there; they should have known it was a war zone". And all the while ignoring these villagers were the ones that already moved multiple times; it just happened that the fighting followed them.
PS - Did I out rant you, enough?
So, it's their fault the government destroyed their backups? I mean, how do you "test" that the government won't destroy your backups?
PS - By definition, a backup is a second copy. Hence, there was more than "one basket". If nature destroys the original and the government destroys your backup, it can hardly be called "your own damned fault". Now, if you want to argue the actual figure of lost files is probably in the thousands and not in the millions, well that's a different story...
This is you exercising personal responsibility in the same way it's personal responsibility when you tell the bartender not to serve you any alcoholic beverages, no matter how many times you request them. Ie, it's not personal responsibility at all but instead shifting the onus of responsibility on a third party. Opting-in or opting-out doesn't really change the fact. If you don't want to view something, then don't request it.
How many ads have you been tricked into viewing that turn out to be porn? Really? The closest I can imagine is clicking an ad or news item that contains something NSFW, often censored anyways. And to that, just stop (a) clicking ads*, (b) viewing news sites that host such content, and (c) generally just close the page, as it's not like anyone is forcing you to look. Oh, and feel free to try to sue the people involved for committing fraud, but good luck tracking the person down and winning the court case.
How's a pop-up different than an ad, exactly?
So, instead of, oh, removing the malware, you want to keep the malware installed and simply block *just* the porn the malware is loading? Uh huh...
* I'll raise one point in your favor. Some web pages are crap and will use javascript events to load ads even though you clearly didn't click them. To that I state, again, stop viewing those web pages if they annoy you like that because the issue is more the fraudulent ad loading, not the ad content. The second option is to use some extension/tool to block the javascript hooking on those events, although that's admittedly of a more dubious line and really not one of personal responsibility or integrity; after all, it hardly sends a message to use a web site of dubious behavior and give them presumably some revenue in ad views while simultaneously depriving them of the fraudulent ad loading money--the ethical high road might leave you out of a lot of web sites, but then that's generally how ethics work.
You don't "need" to step out of the path of a speeding car. But if you have the means, why wouldn't you? Hence, if you think your employer is endangering you and you have the means to find out, why wouldn't you?
PS - Last I checked, the problem with coal mines isn't the unknown risk. It's that (1) too many coal mines don't follow the extant regulations, (2) regulators don't or can't really punish mines that aren't following regulations, (3) the coal mining industry isn't lobbying to strengthen enforcement nor punishment for regulations, and (4) even if the first three were true, coal mining is a dangerous job as a simple fact which is why coal miners make ~$60,000/year. Given the median NFL player salary is $700,000, I'd say they have the resources to fund the research to establish guidelines for regulations as well as the funds to lobby for those regulations. I doubt the net result of that will be a median NFL player of $700,000 (as they're likely to need a lot of substitutes), but the overall effect would be something like how the coal mining industry is, including things like wrongful-death suits.
So, HP, IBM, Dell, etc hate America too? Or are you trying to say "it's okay because everyone else does it"?
Why did those miners die? Why did all that oil leak from that well? It's not murder; it's not even killing. Nor is It gross negligence. It's called 'loopholes'. It's certainly not 'hating America'*.
Remember kids: once the first CEO decides to suck the blood of a virgin to gain greater power and such actions become sanctioned by the corporation's shareholders, well, we just have to accept that vampirism is a necessary trait of being a CEO. I mean, after all, we as a nation are beholden to those same shareholders and to their decisions upon CEOs. I mean, it's not like incorporation happens under the sanction and regulation of a government, so it's not like we can make any rules or stipulate any expectations about things.
*As an aside, I do agree it's not 'hate America'. It might be 'hate Americans'. I mean, corporations have their tentacles in the US government just fine, so that part of America is pretty good for them. Sure, there's still all those pesky Americans demanding they pay *something*; I'm sure if they had full say, their tax rate would be zero. Create jobs? Well, sure, if it's effectively the government paying for them. I mean, it's not like a company would spend money on employees otherwise. Oh, right, the reason they hire people is because it's necessary to achieve those profits they desire; and negatively, they don't go around creating jobs for the mere benefit to the people they employ (cronyism not withstanding). And as for loopholes? Why, sure, there's even plenty of cheerleaders on the side arguing about the fairness of loopholes that legitimize all sorts of damage a corporation commits that would never be accepted at the personal level (well, traffic accidents seem the real exception), all because it might damage the economy if corporations were set to the sort of standard we hold real people to. The real absurdity, then, is why everyone doesn't just become a corporation to gain those same sorts of loopholes. I'm sort of surprised Bermuda or some other nation hasn't pushed more for tax shelters for the average American under that same logic. I mean, it aggregate, that represents potentially billions of dollars.
Well, I guess the question then becomes, is this strata similar to, say, shatter-resistant glass? And if so, what do you imagine would happen if you first (a) drilled through several separate panes/layers of shatter-resistant glass over a lower chamber of gas and then (b) stared pumping water into that chamber greatly increasing the pressure, even if it's for a short time, then sucking out the gas and water greatly decreasing the pressure? I mean, I recognize rock is a lot harder than glass. But, if drilling fractures rock along the way and there's a sudden shift in pressure, I could certainly see that that causing a bubbling up of gas and waste water. I mean, as I understand it, things like gysers function, although that's admittedly only on the order of 2 kilometers, and I can readily see that making a huge difference. Then again, gysers are a byproduct of water seeping down naturally then up which I'd presume limit both the time scale and the likely depth while forcing water down much further might have a rather different effect.
Having said all that, yes, waste disposal is probably a bigger issue anyways, given I'd presume that's of a much larger volume.
Perhaps not. But the region a few hundred miles to the east/west (depending on wind patterns) might see a change. I'd image that it'd relate heavily to things like the degree of water conservation and exploitation. That isn't, of course, to say such a change is a good thing. It's just, I wouldn't entirely dismiss the idea that it'd have an effect on the region. Once you involve enough humans doing the same activity, it can easily turn into firewood for the stove wiping out a forest, many wells emptying an aquifer and changing rainfall patterns, or several million cars heating up the Earth. So, I'd guess it'd be at least a decade before noticeable changes occurred and perhaps fifty years before those changes become critical to some degree. Whether anyone cares enough or not about those changes...
Hmm... Reconsidering, I think you're right. If Google had deprecated Dalvik with a replacement two years ago and considering the rapid cycle of smart phone replacement, then the issue of backwards compatibility with probably be virtually a non-issue at this point. Of course, that presumes that Google could have whipped up another VM and library that was both Java-like enough to support a transition yet different enough that Oracle's suit would be a non-issue, and I can't imagine that that wouldn't have taken at least a year or two in itself*. Still, yes, it would have been a wiser move if the point is to avoid the stupid lawsuit(s).
*And I think a year or two is incredibly optimistic. Version 1 of Java, .NET, and just about every other comprehensive platform is almost always enough of a failure that it's not until at least version 2 before wide scale adoption takes place--it's after all, very difficult to know exactly what to include the version and how to do everything right; even cloning another, successful platform often isn't enough. So, people would likely still develop for Dalvik for quite a while and Google would still be under Oracle's thumb. Meanwhile, trying to force a switch can backfire, just resulting in people abandoning the platform altogether. But, even if it took three or four years, lawsuits like the one between Oracle and Google drag on for years, so yes, a plan to switch near the start would have been smart and I agree you're right it was dumb of Google not to act.
Except that's precisely what Oracle is suing over. AFAIK, Dalvik does support JVM-based binaries; and Android uses a subset of Apache's implementation of the Java SE standard, not any code from Sun/Oracle. So, as long as they support backwards compatible with wrappers of a Java-like library, assumedly Oracle would still be interested in continuing the lawsuit. Meanwhile, trying to clone or mimic another language/platform would potentially risk another lawsuit.
And remember, Android started before Oracle owned Java, so presumably Google went with their Java-like platform precisely because they thought Sun would see them in the clear; but then things changed. So, even if Python or C# or a Python-like language were in the clear today, they may face a lawsuit tomorrow. And to remain backwards compatibility, they'd again be in the same boat of yet another wrapper and still facing a lawsuit.
So, their only real choice is what? To produce a wholly unique language (again, remember all the talk about how Oracle could face the wrath from C's developers if their logic on copyrighting the Java language holds, so it might not even be enough to just develop a new library) and give up all backwards compatibility on Android apps to greatly reduce the risk of lawsuits? That doesn't seem exactly a great compromise, especially given how baseless the lawsuit likely is. I mean, I understand the point of Oracle defending it's trademark, and it's possible Google or others have went to far in talking about Java when it comes to Android--although given it's speaking about the Java language, it's a bit dicey no matter how you look at it given how vague the line is on where the language and its components begin and end when they're source compatible to various degrees--, but since it seems Oracle isn't merely trying to squash the seeming polluting of their trademark like Sun's lawsuit against MS, I don't exactly see there to be any clear way in which Oracle is fighting for anything specific that they can lay claim to and I don't see what Google could reasonably have done to avoid the confusion that naturally arises in trying to differentiate the ecosystem as a whole from some of its core components when they share the same name. I do know that except for tech sites, I never really even hear any mention of Java when it comes to Android and even then, it's almost always with the provision that what Android offers is a Java-like language and not Java as we know it itself.
And why the "_and_ who have no other copy of the data"? If you used megaupload for backups, well, now you've lost access to your data for that purpose. If you used it to distribute your own material to others, well you've against lost access to your data for that purpose. Sure, you can setup a new backup service somewhere else, but that still means you've been inconvenienced and under questionable justification. Having said that...
And to this, I agree. I doubt megaupload itself had millions of users for backup and distribution (although I could be wrong). But, I don't doubt that megaupload and other similar services have lost millions of users for those purposes, due to the chilling knowledge that without even the ability to charge and extradite them under US law, they still can be shut down at will; hence, any free or semi-free service for file sharing or backup is now quick to tuck its tail and try to limit access and to make even legitimate access arduous enough that the pretext of "for the children^Wpiracy" will even be more clear, presuming that will protect them. So, there are those who are inconvenienced by the loss of megaupload directly and indirectly and further inconvenienced with the possible inability to find alternatives.
Now, one could argue that such services inherently have the property that they'll be used by pirates, their owners will inherently be enriched by them, and hence such a market for free/semi-free file sharing shouldn't commercial exist--meanwhile, fully commercial and well filtered sites can remain because they have the resources to monitor and block offenders*. I am not quick to argue for that, however, as the same logic could be used for all sorts of free/semi-free services like photo sharing sites, email, etc. It's already enough of a poison pill that other, non-legal speech can be used to shut down services without adding yet another arm when it's even harder to qualify or quantify. After all, both sides can say whatever numbers they like, but we have no third party with either the ability or the desire to track down the users (both uploaders and downloaders) of sites like Megaupload; nor, am I aware, of efforts to do the same for photo sharing sites, email, etc, to have some base of comparison. But, then again, maybe we do have the scholarly work to back up one side or both in their assertions. That, to me, would be much more interesting and informative than hearing lawyers squabble over something that there seems to be no evidence for currently and might not exist.
*Consider the situation with Youtube and Gema, and how difficult it is to reasonably find and block even repeat offenders, even if one wanted to. And consider the story of IOS being a safer market presumably because it's tied to accountability through credit cards; yet, Android has a similar setup with credit cards, so does that really help? Of course, that story is quite is unclear on what "policies that enforce accountability" mean and how viable it really is if you took credit cards or a similar cost/identification out of the equation; maybe they enforce accountability some other way. And for all we know, Megaupload had a similar policy in place as Apple. But even if they were "lax", even presuming that's how Google is, is there any real serious talk of legally holding Google as an accomplice in malware infections (or guilty of neglect) anymore than we could hold MS legally guilty for their platform being favored for the same? Of course, in the end, intent does enter into it. Ie, if Megaupload actually wanted for there to be copyright infringement... But, a policy of rewarding sharing on a site devoted to sharing being used to implicate Megaupload is absurd as seeing Youtube's (and hence Google's) po
I think the issue fundamentally is this: Google wants to allow as many people to use the Android name as possible, but sticking to the Java spec for Android would have complicated matters with licensing (look no further than how GNU and Apache both have different names and considerations for their own Java/Java-like implementations). So, it made more sense to base the technology on Java yet make it legally different and not sign any contracts with Sun/Oracle to use the Java trademark. Meanwhile, MS went the other way, going out of their way to sign a contract to use the Java trademark and then intentionally made it Windows specific, knowing full well that it went against the idea of the Java ecosystem. To me, it seems clearly a different situation.
"Somewhat idiots" is the term I used. And the point still stands. Because you can't think of how "Joe six-pack" will use the tools today and don't have the foresight to see how they'll be used in a decade, you don't see the point of including those tools in the standard version. Well, congratulations, you're arguing the same idea of people sticking to the 9x line instead of the NT because, you know, what use would "Joe six-pack" have with all the power? The answer is obvious today, that layers of security, even if not directly enforced by "Joe six-pack"'s actions, can still have the effect of increasing security. And who knows, maybe "Joe six-pack" will want to use those tools.
It's certainly not limited to absurd examples like using a VM to protect a browser against credit card theft, which is absurd a concept as DRM to prevent piracy--you know, giving the lock *and* the key to the pirate. But, obviously one can run suspect programs in a VM if one choses. One can even run non-suspect programs in a VM precisely to avoid the whole issue of updating, since a VM that blocks network access is reasonably safe so long as the host isn't compromised--at which point, keeping the VM up to date is probably pretty pointless.
Meanwhile, even if you lose data precisely because of the encryption you use, but it's the sort of personal data you have ready access to yourself but don't want others to have ready access to, then losing the data is by far the best fail safe way to go. And odds are good anyways that the data loss won't be localized to your personal data or the encryption key; it'll likely hit everything (the whole HD) or some other random file. I guess, of course, that can vary heavily on if you store all your personal data in one file...but odds are good, again, that the total data is so small, it's likely to be an all or none affair, with or without the encryption.
In any event, just because people don't known their using a security feature doesn't mean they aren't, in much the same way that as much as most people don't spend much time tinkering under the hood of their car, clearly indirectly a lot of people benefit from the fact that there is a hood and many components of a car are relatively accessible. Of course, adding VMs and encryption as standard isn't quite the same thing, but then I'm not exactly sure how better to make a car analogy. :)
Either you're trolling or you are vastly overestimating the general public computer abilities. Do you really expect Joe six-pack to setup a separate user account to run his programs? Even if he has a knowledgeable friend who sets this up for him, now try to explain to him why he can't apply a system-wide wallpaper he downloads or install a game without becoming Administrator (which, by the way, defeats to large extent the usefulness of user accounts in the first place)? As for encryption, I'm not really sure of how it protects credit card, tax, etc information if someone steals your laptop or for the general 99% of the time in standard computer use where the data is made unavailable, but I do know that it makes it much more difficult to recover data in case of hardware failure, sometimes impossible if the encryption depended on some certificate because it's really likely that the one or two copies of your certificate are the first things to go; and, as we all know whether or not you backup the certificate is the critical part, not actually backing up the relevant data in question such that data recovery from hardware failure is mostly a moot point.. You can argue that Microsoft should offer a simpler line of products, but I don't think those features are particularly useful in regards to security for the general public; I mean, what have separate user accounts, UAC, browser sandboxing technology (which could be virtual machine based, if one liked), or passwords really done for the general public?
Really, there's a lot of things that have been done and could continue to be done to make a computer not only more secure but also more consistent in what people expect. Clearly MS has demonstrated (ex. with XP Mode, IE's sandbox, and UAC) that it's possible to integrate security, although it's obviously hard to do it seamlessly and still maintain security. Such things are obviously not panaceas, but then security is a process and such things are tools meant to mitigate the risk. Obviously, the other end of it being a process is that Joe six-pack will have to become educated or he'll start to suffer the consequences, although I acknowledge that the point of expecting results--ie, that installing malware and having one's credit card number stolen would be seen as gross neglect--is probably at least a decade away. However, the sooner the tools become available and the sooner they're integrated not only into the OS itself as a standard but also as an expectation by and of the general public, the sooner Joe six-pack will be quite competent to use the tools to his needs. Personally, I see that vision of the future a lot more empowering than to just presume people are somewhat idiots and will stay that way.
Probably a stupid hypothetical situation/question, but say you were desperately ill, to the point that you literally slept 20 hours straight, on an important day with important clients losing an important deal yet your company didn't fire you; would you really quit because that decency/consideration really risks "bringing the entire company down with you"?