Unfortunately, aiming your 2nd protected piece at an FBI agent or other government official wiretapping your email/phone conversations will pretty much strip you of all 10 - including that fair trial one.
More to the point, it's not even that relevant. MS can install updates without reboots too, like the latest.NET Framework 1.1 update for instance, which unlike the original install of the framework, didn't require a reboot on my PC. Heck, Windows Update often runs without rebooting.
Read the fine print:
...which looks to see if it can clear that part of the system so that it can be updated. If it can do that, it does, and that happens without a reboot.
And if it CAN'T clear that part of the system? <mentok voice>REBOOT!</mentok voice>
So, I'm not sure how this is much different than before, aside from Vista will try to unload unused system dlls as well as non-system dlls?
You see where this leads. Without the ability to share information on threats, the ability to remove and protect against them is essentially nullified. The DMCA is a damn horrible awful thing for consumers.
True - imagine a world where you couldn't share any information regarding any threat. See a person with dynamite strapped to them? Don't say anything, you could be sued for removing their coat to see the bomb. Car built with bad brakes? Don't say anything, you'll be prosecuted for removing the tire which protects the brakes.
Sharing information is the very cornerstone of freedom, and using the DMCA to control information is quite evil.
What, are you nuts? Ever watched The Daily Show? Or wonder why "politician" is almost synonymous with "corruption?"
Unless this is meant as some sort of satire, which I hope to GOD it is and I sincerely apologize for missing the sarcasm you probably meant to inflect, this is hardly the fault of the masses. If the actions of the masses defined ANY law at all, 65+ MILLION people trading songs would set a precedent saying trading was just fine.
Slashdot spends almost half of its time posting stories regarding corruption in the seemingly back-door deals between government and big business, as laws like the DMCA get passed again and again, as corporations write laws, as copyright is allowed to continue to crush innovation - and you tell me this isn't the fault of those whom gladly trade their virtue in for power and money?
Not necessarily true. I worry about the courts these days - more and more, they show they are on the side of corporations over people (emminent domain, anyone?) Who really knows what the outcome of this will be, but it's gonna be a stunner, and I would imagine have some relatively broad consequences. No?
Submitter, aka PlayfullyClever trying to use the/. crowd's love for linux+entertainment to bump up his google page rank on the site he just registered yesterday?
Man, I've been trying to do that for weeks now and Slashdot keeps rejecting my submissions. CLICK ON THE LINK IN MY SIG! DO IT! DO IT!
Since I don't know, is GoogleOS an extension of anything, like UNIX? Because I don't BELIEVE it is, which points to their prepensity (sp?) to create things from scratch, so that they're just that much better.
I didn't mean to call psychology a pseudo-science - what I meant to say was that it seems some psychologist (especially school psychologists, IMHO) seem quick to come up with new "diseases" and classify just about everyone.
As for saying the consequences were different, I didn't compare their severity, just that liver disease is a consequence that is probably harder to relate to an internet addiction than alcoholism.
Anyway, thanks for your post... severe addiction is not something I can empathize with, so it's good to hear about it from someone close to it.
No offense to ClamAV, which I currently use, but if an engineering team rivaling the brain power of MIT research teams or NASA decides to make a virus scanner and release it for free, well... I'm gonna at least give it a try.
Interesting, although I'm also against individual classifications of addiction. There are truely some people with addictive personalities, but I don't see much difference (aside from consequences) of alcohol addiction and internet addiction - it's just what particular medium satisfies the person's addictive nature. (Also, many people of addiction are addicted to more than one particular thing.)
So does the internet need a completely different classification? I don't think so. And is everyone that spends hours on the internet mentally ill? Not at all. Let's not dismiss all addictive personalities as not a true illness, but also lets realize that the current state of psychology does tend to classify just about everyone with some disorder just to prove their worth.
Perhaps we should also consider the difference between a historical text and a factual text. Unfortunately, an "encyclopedia" blurs the line, as history should be factually based.
One can use Wikipedia for things like information on physics, chemistry, biology, and other sciences, books, television shows, etc., etc.
Unfortunately, in this instance/entry, history is open to interpretation/revision, and so may not be entirely provable or factual. Wikipedia walks a dangerous line in some instances, and while it's hard to fault the website (rather, I am in awe of the community effort) every entry must be taken with that proverbial grain of salt.
Man, I wish my failing business model made me worth $40+ billion, amassed billions in a disposable cash warchest, gave me a monopoly over personal computing and a good chunk of server computing, employed tens of thousands, and gave my business millions of followers...
I think I'll stick with stealing the morning newspaper from the paperboy's bike to get my news.
Boy, that just went from paranoid to paranoid...er. Companies track trends, its true. My fear is not that Yahoo has some clue as to what I read (shit, when you search for "xxx boobies" they probably know who you are) but it's when the government gets the ability to subpoena that information that I start to get scared.
Which is why we need to show this for what it really is: extending the financial income of those voting for the bill.
That's half the story. The other half is that power corrupts, and those with power strive to make it absolute. To many in power, privacy laws stand in the way of achieving perfect control through unlimited access to information on the citizens they proport to protect.
History, time and again, shows us exactly what comes from totalitarianism, which is where we are headed - a state that knows everything, and thus believes it can control everything. Government surveillance is merely the first step in control - being able to observe any behavior.
However, following closely behind is "controlling" such behavior. Then we start to see erosion in freedoms of speech, assembly ("freedom zones"), press, to the point of controlling media, information, even what people read or their levels of education, all in a nod to the "greater good."
This is a scary, greased up near-zero friction slippery slope with a locomotive sliding down it - good luck stopping said locomotive. We can bitch all we want on Slashdot, but the Patriot Act still stands, and legislation like that mentioned above is introduced almost daily. How does one - or even one group - fight such a relentless onslaught, such a tireless battle?? Most people in the US don't know and don't care about these erosions until it's just a little too late.
Call it conspiracy theory if you like, but I'm nervous.
They say this is an agreement, but I'm failing to see what Cohen is getting, other than a promise to not be sued. I RTFA, but I didn't see where in exchange for blocking illegal downloads, Cohen was going to help develop video distribution software or anything.
It's even simpler than this. What this is is a repeatable pattern of using an invasive technology, showcasing an instance where it does some good, and people accepting that particular little anecdote as sufficient enough reason to give up the very privacy the technology invades. Being watched constantly will ensnare ner-do-wells - it's true.
But there's that "at what price?" question just hanging there with these little privacy invasions like a noose around its neck. It's great that this murdered woman's killers were caught. But at the price of being constantly watched, constantly scanned, for the rest of my life? No, thank you.
Shows often hop on a hot-topic issue to prompt more viewership. This move is relatively unsurprising. What will be interesting to see is if the game is actually blamed, or the show exhonorates (sp?) the game, dismissing what the kids emulate and acknowledging that personal responsibility is capable of dettering anyone from a mass murder spree, GTA be damned.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, aiming your 2nd protected piece at an FBI agent or other government official wiretapping your email/phone conversations will pretty much strip you of all 10 - including that fair trial one.
Yeah, ok, coat/bomb one was bad analogy. Stick with the tire/brakes one. You own the car. :)
More to the point, it's not even that relevant. MS can install updates without reboots too, like the latest .NET Framework 1.1 update for instance, which unlike the original install of the framework, didn't require a reboot on my PC. Heck, Windows Update often runs without rebooting.
...which looks to see if it can clear that part of the system so that it can be updated. If it can do that, it does, and that happens without a reboot.
Read the fine print:
And if it CAN'T clear that part of the system? <mentok voice>REBOOT!</mentok voice>
So, I'm not sure how this is much different than before, aside from Vista will try to unload unused system dlls as well as non-system dlls?
True - imagine a world where you couldn't share any information regarding any threat. See a person with dynamite strapped to them? Don't say anything, you could be sued for removing their coat to see the bomb. Car built with bad brakes? Don't say anything, you'll be prosecuted for removing the tire which protects the brakes.
Sharing information is the very cornerstone of freedom, and using the DMCA to control information is quite evil.
They'll frecking bury it, they have done it before, they will do it again, ....
Just like MSN's updated search engine burried Google's? Google seems to have the right bug spray to keep from getting bitten by Microsoft.
... are the words "no, seriously." Rarely is a comment both side-splittingly funny and profoundly insightful at the same time. Bravo.
What, are you nuts? Ever watched The Daily Show? Or wonder why "politician" is almost synonymous with "corruption?"
Unless this is meant as some sort of satire, which I hope to GOD it is and I sincerely apologize for missing the sarcasm you probably meant to inflect, this is hardly the fault of the masses. If the actions of the masses defined ANY law at all, 65+ MILLION people trading songs would set a precedent saying trading was just fine.
Slashdot spends almost half of its time posting stories regarding corruption in the seemingly back-door deals between government and big business, as laws like the DMCA get passed again and again, as corporations write laws, as copyright is allowed to continue to crush innovation - and you tell me this isn't the fault of those whom gladly trade their virtue in for power and money?
PLEASE.
Not necessarily true. I worry about the courts these days - more and more, they show they are on the side of corporations over people (emminent domain, anyone?) Who really knows what the outcome of this will be, but it's gonna be a stunner, and I would imagine have some relatively broad consequences. No?
Done and done!
Man, I've been trying to do that for weeks now and Slashdot keeps rejecting my submissions. CLICK ON THE LINK IN MY SIG! DO IT! DO IT!
Gotta troll and get some first posts...
Since I don't know, is GoogleOS an extension of anything, like UNIX? Because I don't BELIEVE it is, which points to their prepensity (sp?) to create things from scratch, so that they're just that much better.
I didn't mean to call psychology a pseudo-science - what I meant to say was that it seems some psychologist (especially school psychologists, IMHO) seem quick to come up with new "diseases" and classify just about everyone.
As for saying the consequences were different, I didn't compare their severity, just that liver disease is a consequence that is probably harder to relate to an internet addiction than alcoholism.
Anyway, thanks for your post... severe addiction is not something I can empathize with, so it's good to hear about it from someone close to it.
No offense to ClamAV, which I currently use, but if an engineering team rivaling the brain power of MIT research teams or NASA decides to make a virus scanner and release it for free, well... I'm gonna at least give it a try.
Interesting, although I'm also against individual classifications of addiction. There are truely some people with addictive personalities, but I don't see much difference (aside from consequences) of alcohol addiction and internet addiction - it's just what particular medium satisfies the person's addictive nature. (Also, many people of addiction are addicted to more than one particular thing.)
So does the internet need a completely different classification? I don't think so. And is everyone that spends hours on the internet mentally ill? Not at all. Let's not dismiss all addictive personalities as not a true illness, but also lets realize that the current state of psychology does tend to classify just about everyone with some disorder just to prove their worth.
Perhaps we should also consider the difference between a historical text and a factual text. Unfortunately, an "encyclopedia" blurs the line, as history should be factually based.
One can use Wikipedia for things like information on physics, chemistry, biology, and other sciences, books, television shows, etc., etc.
Unfortunately, in this instance/entry, history is open to interpretation/revision, and so may not be entirely provable or factual. Wikipedia walks a dangerous line in some instances, and while it's hard to fault the website (rather, I am in awe of the community effort) every entry must be taken with that proverbial grain of salt.
Man, I wish my failing business model made me worth $40+ billion, amassed billions in a disposable cash warchest, gave me a monopoly over personal computing and a good chunk of server computing, employed tens of thousands, and gave my business millions of followers...
I think I'll stick with stealing the morning newspaper from the paperboy's bike to get my news.
Boy, that just went from paranoid to paranoid...er. Companies track trends, its true. My fear is not that Yahoo has some clue as to what I read (shit, when you search for "xxx boobies" they probably know who you are) but it's when the government gets the ability to subpoena that information that I start to get scared.
Oh sure, 'cause that's worked rather flawlessly in the past. Just ploppin them down.
That's half the story. The other half is that power corrupts, and those with power strive to make it absolute. To many in power, privacy laws stand in the way of achieving perfect control through unlimited access to information on the citizens they proport to protect.
History, time and again, shows us exactly what comes from totalitarianism, which is where we are headed - a state that knows everything, and thus believes it can control everything. Government surveillance is merely the first step in control - being able to observe any behavior.
However, following closely behind is "controlling" such behavior. Then we start to see erosion in freedoms of speech, assembly ("freedom zones"), press, to the point of controlling media, information, even what people read or their levels of education, all in a nod to the "greater good."
This is a scary, greased up near-zero friction slippery slope with a locomotive sliding down it - good luck stopping said locomotive. We can bitch all we want on Slashdot, but the Patriot Act still stands, and legislation like that mentioned above is introduced almost daily. How does one - or even one group - fight such a relentless onslaught, such a tireless battle?? Most people in the US don't know and don't care about these erosions until it's just a little too late.
Call it conspiracy theory if you like, but I'm nervous.
"at eachother's throats"
They say this is an agreement, but I'm failing to see what Cohen is getting, other than a promise to not be sued. I RTFA, but I didn't see where in exchange for blocking illegal downloads, Cohen was going to help develop video distribution software or anything.
Was this good for anyone other than the MPAA?
Now now... I wouldn't say that it "crashes" so much as "fits in with the family of Microsoft products."/>
It's even simpler than this. What this is is a repeatable pattern of using an invasive technology, showcasing an instance where it does some good, and people accepting that particular little anecdote as sufficient enough reason to give up the very privacy the technology invades. Being watched constantly will ensnare ner-do-wells - it's true.
But there's that "at what price?" question just hanging there with these little privacy invasions like a noose around its neck. It's great that this murdered woman's killers were caught. But at the price of being constantly watched, constantly scanned, for the rest of my life? No, thank you.
I wonder if he liked it...
Shows often hop on a hot-topic issue to prompt more viewership. This move is relatively unsurprising. What will be interesting to see is if the game is actually blamed, or the show exhonorates (sp?) the game, dismissing what the kids emulate and acknowledging that personal responsibility is capable of dettering anyone from a mass murder spree, GTA be damned.
(Sorry for the poor spelling.)
I guess not every joke has to wait until April 1.