some 39 states and the District of Columbia have passed laws entitling their residents to credit freeze rights
Residents have always had credit freeze rights. This law doesn't grant any new rights to anyone. It takes away the right of credit reporting bureaus to abstain from providing credit freeze services. I'm agnostic in my judgment of this move, but please don't obfuscate the meaning of "right" in the political context. I have the right to a trip to Disneyland, and Disneyland has the right to deny me admission if I don't buy a ticket. If Government passed a law making admission to Disneyland free, it wouldn't be granting me a right, but removing one from Disneyland (or more accurately, from the owners of Disneyland--the right to charge admission to enter their property).
When an official standard-defining body releases a "standard" and Microsoft does its own thing resulting in the creation of a different de facto standard, Microsoft gets raked through the coals for ignoring standards.
So Microsoft changes their approach. They are attempting to get their architecture accepted by an official standard-defining body.
Now the popular opinion is that this is manipulative and will fortunately amount no nothing because there is an alternative that is on its way to becoming a de facto standard, which is what really matters.
The only constant in this culture is that Microsoft is the bad guy. The principles espoused by the community change as needed to maintain Microsoft's role as a bad guy.
They all end up having to work the fields, muttering about how much it sucks.
It was hilarious, and an extremely to-the-point comment on the shortcomings of Rand's "philosophy".
It might have been hilarious, but has nothing to do with Rand's philosophy (the scare quotes are unnecessary BTW). As I recall, the producers who retreated to Galt's Gulch were portrayed even in Atlas Shrugged as performing mundane tasks themselves due to the shortage of 'unskilled' labor. This isn't a philosophical point.
So, then the question fundamentally comes down to, "What do you fear the most?"
1. An inefficient government running roughshod over you (taxation, interference in property rights, tyranny of the majority, etc).
2. Powerful, unaccountable private entities running roughshod over you (monopolies, externalities, inequity of power, etc).
That's the fundamental question?
The fundamental difference between government and private is that the government has a monopoly on the use of physical force (if a person or group in the private sector initiates the use of physical force, they are committing a crime).
Compared to the government, what is a "powerful, unaccountable" private entity? Since a private entity cannot use physical force, its power to fuck up your life will never rival that of the government. As for accountability, corporations are more accountable to their customers than politicians are to their constituents. Why? If you don't like a politician, you wait until the next election and vote for the other guy, and you have accomplished practically nothing (when is the last time an election was decided based on one vote?) If you don't like a corporation, you abstain from doing business with them, and while the effect of that will be negligible, negligible is better than zero.
In both cases, the fear comes from what one perceives other people will do--whom will the population vote into office; which businesses will the population choose to support. But guess what--the same people are making both choices. People do not suddenly become angels when it's time to vote. In both areas people will make choices that you disagree with. Why some people consider it a good idea to give the more powerful entity even more power in other to control the less powerful entity is something I will never understand.
how about paying back a little to the hand that giveth.
They're paid back plenty--open source coders use Google. Or does only self-sacrificial help count?
This is incredibly pointless and damaging. Corporations are abstract entities; they do not act. People act. When people do bad, you need to punish the people. This is personal responsibility. Destroying the corporation as well accomplishes nothing good, and it does additional damage to a hell of a lot of people who had nothing to do with the original wrongdoing.
Since a video game costs $55. And how much is Mac OS X 10.3 Panther again? I seriously can't think of a fairer price for Windows. Not that it matters... Microsoft is screwed regardless of what they charge for it.
Under antitrust laws, a company can be charged with "predatory pricing" if it sets prices below those of its competitors, because the competitors might as a result go bankrupt. It can be charged with "monopoly pricing" if it sets prices that are deemed too high, because then it is supposedly bilking consumers of their hard-earned income. But if it therefore decides to set prices at the level of those of its competitors--it can be charged with "collusion" or "conspiracy," because now it is said to be no longer "competing." - Reference
the courts have ruled that Msft's bundling and pushing IE with every OS purchase is good for the consumer. Let business be free to manipulate their customers! It's good for the economy.
It doesn't violate anyone's rights. That people will choose to download Navigator less because Microsoft has already provided them with an adequate browser is not something Microsoft should have to pay for.
the absence of basic infrastructure (power, water, sewage) is a real obstacle to their goals; not to mention the monumental lack of security in many parts of the country.
The lack of security, which you treat as an afterthough, is actually the essential part. If people feel safe, they will build the infrastructure. It's hard to invest in the future when you know that there's a good chance of your profits being looted or destroyed.
They shouldn't need a separate program to stop Outlook from doing something stupid. It should just not do something stupid in the first place.
Every default install of Outlook Express 6 I've seen has the security option "Do not allow attachments to be saved or opened that could potentially be a virus" checked, and uses the "Restricted" zone for browsing email. I've never had a virus due to Outlook Express. Outlook is too bloated for my tastes and so I'm not very familiar with it, but I find it easier to believe that this "Outlook is insecure" mantra is just another part of Slashdot's "Microsoft can do no right" attitute, than to believe that Outlook is so radically less secure than Outlook Express.
Anyone have particularly informative links that detail Outlook's security flaws?
Why, is Nader the guy who will forbid employers like me from hiring whom I want? Or am I supposed to look at this from the perspective of the worker, and vote for the guy who will force other employers to hire me as opposed to the more deserving guy in India? Am I supposed to be throwing away my freedom of choice or my self-esteem by voting for him?
the chaos that would result from everyone and their mother grabbing whatever bandwidth they felt they needed and filling it up with whatever the hell they felt like putting in it is less palatable still
From the article:
What if disputes over spectrum arose? The answer is simple. Whoever owned the rights to that slice of virtual real estate would locate the illicit broadcaster, march into the local courthouse and get a restraining order to pull the plug on the transmitter. Trespass is hardly a new idea, and courts are well-equipped to deal with it.
There is nothing monopolistic about making your product available to as many people/organizations/governments that you can.
Actually, there is. Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act states that "every person who shall... attempt to monopolize... any part of the trade or commerce... shall be deemed guilty of a felony." In the 1945 antitrust case United States v. Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA), Judge Learned Hand judged that "It was not inevitable that it (ALCOA) should always anticipate increases in the demand for ingot and be prepared to supply them. Nothing compelled it to keep doubling and redoubling its capacity before others entered the field. It insists that it never excluded competitors; but we can think of no more effective exclusion than progressively to embrace each new opportunity as it opened, and to face every newcomer with new capacity already geared into a great organization, having the advantage of experience, trade connections and the elite of personnel."
Perhaps you meant to say that there's nothing wrong with what Microsoft is doing.
XP T-shirts that say "Yes you can." (Thanks for the permission by the way;)
"Yes you can" is meant to imply that M$ gives you the ability. Permission would be "Yes you may."
"A public figure is often condemned for an action that is taken unfairly out of context but nevertheless reflects, in a compelling and encapsulated manner, an underlying truth about that person." - Marti Hearst
It may just be me, but I don't think that the feel of Lord of the Rings would really suit The Hobbit. The Hobbit is much more of a fairy tale than an epic, unlike Lord of the Rings... I don't think the same presentation, &tc. would really be best for The Hobbit.
Why would the presentation be the same? If you're assuming that Peter Jackson is limited to LOTR-type presentation, you should learn something about his work.
i don't see where my rights are being trampled
I guess you're not a VOIP service provider.
Re:I know this is tongue-in-cheek article, but ...
on
The Science of Love
·
· Score: 1
In other words, their thoughts produce the chemicals, which obviously is opposite of saying the chemicals produce the thoughts. It's a which comes first, the chicken or the egg problem.
The chemicals are the thoughts (feelings, actually).
Google AdWords is really helping make my small business. AdWords is excellent, though it has a problem. At one point I had sixteen different ads, one for each type: INTJ, INTP, etc. The clickthrough rate was low. I then learned that I can increase the clickthrough rate significantly by having "jobs" and "careers" as negative matches, and now my clickthrough rate is way above Google's required minimum. But Google is still disabling ads because of their history. I spoke with Google about this, but they didn't offer a solution, so now I'm going back twice a day to re-enable the keywords, and I'll have to do this until Google's system figures out that the clickthrough rate is good for these ads.
Don't try to change your type. Just be aware of how it affects your interactions with others, and change your actions.
It's not "good" or "bad" to be INTJ. But knowing it gives you insight into how you tend to interact with certain situations, so that you can both put yourself in situations that are good for you, and adjust the way you react to situations that are less "good" for you.
If you don't like your type, there's a good chance that it's because you spend time around people who don't get that type. You should try finding people of your type.
Slashdot Mirror
Residents have always had credit freeze rights. This law doesn't grant any new rights to anyone. It takes away the right of credit reporting bureaus to abstain from providing credit freeze services. I'm agnostic in my judgment of this move, but please don't obfuscate the meaning of "right" in the political context. I have the right to a trip to Disneyland, and Disneyland has the right to deny me admission if I don't buy a ticket. If Government passed a law making admission to Disneyland free, it wouldn't be granting me a right, but removing one from Disneyland (or more accurately, from the owners of Disneyland--the right to charge admission to enter their property).
Note the +5 moderation on this comment.
When an official standard-defining body releases a "standard" and Microsoft does its own thing resulting in the creation of a different de facto standard, Microsoft gets raked through the coals for ignoring standards.
So Microsoft changes their approach. They are attempting to get their architecture accepted by an official standard-defining body.
Now the popular opinion is that this is manipulative and will fortunately amount no nothing because there is an alternative that is on its way to becoming a de facto standard, which is what really matters.
The only constant in this culture is that Microsoft is the bad guy. The principles espoused by the community change as needed to maintain Microsoft's role as a bad guy.
It might have been hilarious, but has nothing to do with Rand's philosophy (the scare quotes are unnecessary BTW). As I recall, the producers who retreated to Galt's Gulch were portrayed even in Atlas Shrugged as performing mundane tasks themselves due to the shortage of 'unskilled' labor. This isn't a philosophical point.
That's the fundamental question?
The fundamental difference between government and private is that the government has a monopoly on the use of physical force (if a person or group in the private sector initiates the use of physical force, they are committing a crime).
Compared to the government, what is a "powerful, unaccountable" private entity? Since a private entity cannot use physical force, its power to fuck up your life will never rival that of the government. As for accountability, corporations are more accountable to their customers than politicians are to their constituents. Why? If you don't like a politician, you wait until the next election and vote for the other guy, and you have accomplished practically nothing (when is the last time an election was decided based on one vote?) If you don't like a corporation, you abstain from doing business with them, and while the effect of that will be negligible, negligible is better than zero.
In both cases, the fear comes from what one perceives other people will do--whom will the population vote into office; which businesses will the population choose to support. But guess what--the same people are making both choices. People do not suddenly become angels when it's time to vote. In both areas people will make choices that you disagree with. Why some people consider it a good idea to give the more powerful entity even more power in other to control the less powerful entity is something I will never understand.
Rather than limit the rights of the states this ruling gives them more power. While robbing individual citizens of the right to keep their property.
how about paying back a little to the hand that giveth. They're paid back plenty--open source coders use Google. Or does only self-sacrificial help count?
This is incredibly pointless and damaging. Corporations are abstract entities; they do not act. People act. When people do bad, you need to punish the people. This is personal responsibility. Destroying the corporation as well accomplishes nothing good, and it does additional damage to a hell of a lot of people who had nothing to do with the original wrongdoing.
Since when is $100-$200 for an OS a 'low price'?
Since a video game costs $55. And how much is Mac OS X 10.3 Panther again? I seriously can't think of a fairer price for Windows. Not that it matters... Microsoft is screwed regardless of what they charge for it.
I don't see the point of tabbed browsing. Care to explain it to me?
the courts have ruled that Msft's bundling and pushing IE with every OS purchase is good for the consumer. Let business be free to manipulate their customers! It's good for the economy.
It doesn't violate anyone's rights. That people will choose to download Navigator less because Microsoft has already provided them with an adequate browser is not something Microsoft should have to pay for.
That means innocent until proven guilty last time I checked.
Identical bugs is proof.
the absence of basic infrastructure (power, water, sewage) is a real obstacle to their goals; not to mention the monumental lack of security in many parts of the country.
The lack of security, which you treat as an afterthough, is actually the essential part. If people feel safe, they will build the infrastructure. It's hard to invest in the future when you know that there's a good chance of your profits being looted or destroyed.
Unless they're made aware of other inside jobs of this, they'll probably stay happily oblivious to anyone else wanting to make a fast buck.
AOL said that they are thoroughly reviewing and strengthening their internal procedures in response to this.
They shouldn't need a separate program to stop Outlook from doing something stupid. It should just not do something stupid in the first place.
Every default install of Outlook Express 6 I've seen has the security option "Do not allow attachments to be saved or opened that could potentially be a virus" checked, and uses the "Restricted" zone for browsing email. I've never had a virus due to Outlook Express. Outlook is too bloated for my tastes and so I'm not very familiar with it, but I find it easier to believe that this "Outlook is insecure" mantra is just another part of Slashdot's "Microsoft can do no right" attitute, than to believe that Outlook is so radically less secure than Outlook Express.
Anyone have particularly informative links that detail Outlook's security flaws?
Why, is Nader the guy who will forbid employers like me from hiring whom I want? Or am I supposed to look at this from the perspective of the worker, and vote for the guy who will force other employers to hire me as opposed to the more deserving guy in India? Am I supposed to be throwing away my freedom of choice or my self-esteem by voting for him?
the chaos that would result from everyone and their mother grabbing whatever bandwidth they felt they needed and filling it up with whatever the hell they felt like putting in it is less palatable still
From the article:
What if disputes over spectrum arose? The answer is simple. Whoever owned the rights to that slice of virtual real estate would locate the illicit broadcaster, march into the local courthouse and get a restraining order to pull the plug on the transmitter. Trespass is hardly a new idea, and courts are well-equipped to deal with it.
There is nothing monopolistic about making your product available to as many people/organizations/governments that you can.
Actually, there is. Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act states that "every person who shall... attempt to monopolize... any part of the trade or commerce... shall be deemed guilty of a felony." In the 1945 antitrust case United States v. Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA), Judge Learned Hand judged that "It was not inevitable that it (ALCOA) should always anticipate increases in the demand for ingot and be prepared to supply them. Nothing compelled it to keep doubling and redoubling its capacity before others entered the field. It insists that it never excluded competitors; but we can think of no more effective exclusion than progressively to embrace each new opportunity as it opened, and to face every newcomer with new capacity already geared into a great organization, having the advantage of experience, trade connections and the elite of personnel."
Perhaps you meant to say that there's nothing wrong with what Microsoft is doing.
XP T-shirts that say "Yes you can." (Thanks for the permission by the way ;)
"Yes you can" is meant to imply that M$ gives you the ability. Permission would be "Yes you may."
"A public figure is often condemned for an action that is taken unfairly out of context but nevertheless reflects, in a compelling and encapsulated manner, an underlying truth about that person." - Marti HearstIt may just be me, but I don't think that the feel of Lord of the Rings would really suit The Hobbit. The Hobbit is much more of a fairy tale than an epic, unlike Lord of the Rings... I don't think the same presentation, &tc. would really be best for The Hobbit.
Why would the presentation be the same? If you're assuming that Peter Jackson is limited to LOTR-type presentation, you should learn something about his work.
i don't see where my rights are being trampled I guess you're not a VOIP service provider.
In other words, their thoughts produce the chemicals, which obviously is opposite of saying the chemicals produce the thoughts. It's a which comes first, the chicken or the egg problem.
The chemicals are the thoughts (feelings, actually).
Google AdWords is really helping make my small business. AdWords is excellent, though it has a problem. At one point I had sixteen different ads, one for each type: INTJ, INTP, etc. The clickthrough rate was low. I then learned that I can increase the clickthrough rate significantly by having "jobs" and "careers" as negative matches, and now my clickthrough rate is way above Google's required minimum. But Google is still disabling ads because of their history. I spoke with Google about this, but they didn't offer a solution, so now I'm going back twice a day to re-enable the keywords, and I'll have to do this until Google's system figures out that the clickthrough rate is good for these ads.
Don't try to change your type. Just be aware of how it affects your interactions with others, and change your actions.
It's not "good" or "bad" to be INTJ. But knowing it gives you insight into how you tend to interact with certain situations, so that you can both put yourself in situations that are good for you, and adjust the way you react to situations that are less "good" for you.
If you don't like your type, there's a good chance that it's because you spend time around people who don't get that type. You should try finding people of your type.
He's asking for gaming advice.
The article goes into Myers-Briggs personality theory, on which my dating site is based. Nice.