I agree with Rob here and I am a Christian also (an Orthodox too,by the way!). The biggest problem is with the people taking the Bible out of context and taking it literaly. I will say it loud and clear "The Bible is not a science or history, text book" it never claimed to be it and it never was. If anyone uses it as one, don't listen to them. The Bible is a book about our relationship with God, it is a book about faith, about love, about examples of such, about God and about human nature. It sure has elements of history in it, but it is still not a history text book.
I also don't think it is the Churches job to dictate science (like it happened in the West in the Middle Ages), but by the same token it is not scientists' job to say what faithful should believe in. If science discovers beyond a reasonable doubt that evolotion took place then a reasonable Christian would say that God made it that way and so on. As rabid and extreme as some Christians can be the liberal atheists are just as bad. Their determination and fanaticism to prove that soemone/something doesn't exist is somewhat admirable
As far as I know science hasn't proven or disproven beyond any doubt any core Christian doctrine. So the scientists can go back to work and discover how the physical world works (even if they believe it is all just a probability) and the religious folk can move along too and worry about their relationship with God. If someone is both then more power to them.
Good point, I just think that Occam's Razor argument doesn't apply. The question of whether there is a designer or not, is more funtamental than what Mr. Occam said. But even if we apply Occam's Razor, someohow it still seems "easier" to me to believe in a creator than in the probability of us being here because we came out of "soup" of hydrocarbons. Also it would have been "easier" for us to just become extinct on so many occasions. I am just saying that someone can use the same principle for the opposite point of view with just about the same success.
The way I see it the gaming is half technical stuff and half marketing. A company can be very innovative but if it doesn't pass on the news and the hype to the consumer (a horde of pimply-faced, hormone-crazed teenage boys) then the game probably won't do that well.
Also, when he says that games stayed the same, he says it as if the gaming industry has decided to just stop changing and wanting to fall behind and loose money. Perhaps the consumers don't want the games to change. I personally like the good-ol first person shooter with a good story behind it. The compnies conduct marketing research and they find out what the average kid wants and if the consumer wants it then it will make money and that is a GoodThing (tm) even if some CS prof thinks it shouldn't be that way.
That's is probably true. That happens a lot in the govt institutions. I don't know if anyone remembers but in the news a while a go was this woman who worked as a translator for CIA and she said her boss would tell her to create extra long delays in translation on purpose so he can pitch to the higher-ups how they need more funding and such. Of course one would want to think NASA has higher standards than that. They probably also know that one more failures and they might end up not getting any funding
That's what I said, what the fuck does the family have to do with the movie industry. Heck, the bill had to pass, it had the word "family" in, nobody wants to vote against family. The lawmakers are just as dumb and ridiculous as the people who elected them. How exactly is my family now more entertained than before? Why don't they add national security in there too, it would have passed much faster.
Or, maybe the bill is self-referencial and the whole process of trying to stop people from sharing or distributing by threats is entertaintment for the whole family.
How about I plant copies of a pre-release on somebody's computer the let the feds come and jail him for 3 years? Don't like your neighbour -put the latest peace of crap from Hollywood in the shares on his windows 98 machine and watch him burn. Can you imagine going to jail for distributing "Big Momma's House" - fun times!
Clearly I have purchesed a serious camera before (not Nikon!) and clearly I often use RAW files and even more clearly I would want to be able to open them in Photoshop with all the additional data and metadata that is available. I also doubt that professionals who spend $10,000 on a single lense would be too excited about not being able to open and edit the RAW files. I just don't see the average Joe wanting to do that
What I am telling you is that the digital camera market is still developing at fast pace. A 6 megapixel camera that 4 years ago was an arm+leg now costs 75% its price. You say you are an amateur and spent $5000 on a camera and accessories, and I purchased a camera recently too and am looking for getting another one in the future. Just that makes two of us shopping and looking at new cameras and even small features like the ability to edit the RAW files could end up changing people's choices. It is not like 20 or 30 years ago where one good quality camera would last for decades (I still have a perfectly usable 35mm 34 year old camera by the way) so people would be locked into a brand. So people shop for cameras more often and that means they compare and evaluate features and brands more often.
Well, I was just being blatant. They would be more subtle of course. The whole issue is negative and if Adobe (who's product will not function as expected - i.e. open all Nikon's RAW files) doesn't inform the customer it would be shooting itself in the foot, since the everyone will just blame Adobe for not opening the file. I was just implying that the customer should be informed about who's who in this situation. Maybe some people will decide not to buy Adobe instead, who knows, I am just not sure what other option profesional photo editors have.
Presumptuous or not all one company has to do is to scare of the other one, just a little bit to nudge its decision. They would not be lying ot the customer merely telling them the truth that if the customer has an expensive Nikon DSLR camera and wants to edit the RAW data then it would not be possible and then they present the reason. Otherwise the customer would rather blame Adobe and say, "stupid Adobe, can't open my RAW Nikon files"
"MS is installing key and web loggers to help improve customers' experience"
Me: "I cannot log into my yahoo email account anymore" MS Overlords: "We changed the password for you to improve the security of your email and to provide a better customer experience. Send us a payment of $100 and we'll deliver your new password"
Well, I, for one, welcome our new MS data logging overlords.
Nikon has well known products but so does Adobe. What if Adobe prints in a huge black font in its manual, product box or emails to customers the message that unfortuantely due to lack of cooperation from Nikon they will not provide opening and editing of Nikon RAW files. Maybe someone (or many!) avid Adobe Photoshop users will eventually want to upgrade thier digital camera, and I wonder if they would remember that Nikon RAW files don't "work" in Photoshop and choose another camera. A little far fetched but still possible.
On the other side, someone who is a big Nikon fan, wants to go shopping for the best photo editing software, well, they pretty much have no choice, Adobe Photoshop is only product they would want. So anyway you look at it, Nikon seems to be at a disadvantage (i.e. shooting themselves in the... lense)
Wow, that was a hard comment to read. I wanted to respond and I'll say first that I am a Christian too. And I would argue that I am not sure I can agree that people totally choose to be gay. I believe there is some genetic predisposition there. Definetly not as overblown as others think (do you know there is a gene called GAY? Somewhat implying that overexpression of that gene would turn someone automatically gay?)
Then there is your assumption (as I understand) that people choose to be gay to shock their parents, make a statement, experiment, be different. I think it is not as simple as that, and there is probably something in the middle. I think that gays have a genetic predisposition to being who they are. Not all who have that predisposition will become gay and not all that don't have it will be straight. But that is just that a predisposition. I have a predisposition to diabetes, someone has a predisposition to be a good runner, or someone may be predisposed to cancer. It doesn't mean that ultimately all those things will happen to each one of the individuals. It is up to the individual to choose what they become and that sometimes means fighting and resisting certain predisposition, whether genetic or formed by habit or learned or otherwise acquired. Sometimes there is not much specifically a person can do if they are predisposed to Parkinson's or cancer as far as we we know. But the idea that one should fight and resist presiposition and temptations goes in the face of the today's American society's motto "Always be happy and be comfortable" because sometimes to do the right thing means being uncomfortable, or means being unpopular. So if I am predisposed to diabetes or obesity I should probably eat stuff that is good for me and exercise even though that will make me "uncomfortable" at times. If I have a predisposition to being a good athlete, it would be waste not develop it, but I surely don't have to, if I don't want to. I think the same thing goes for being gay, some poeple will let that determine who they are and they will choose to be gay at some point, some people can suppres it and I think they can overcome it, even if it means they will be "uncomfortable"
Notice how I have not said so far whether or not being gay is wrong. I'll say it now, I am not a moral relativist ("you are right, I am right", "you are ok, I am ok") I personally believe it is wrong to act on gay tendencies. Also I will not say that is just my subjective opinion, I think it is generally wrong (objectively). [ if that doesn't get me modded down on Slashdot then I don't know what will].
Having said that I think the whole issue homosexuality is too overblown and hyped up by both Christians and gay activists alike, both acusing and pointing fingers at each other that most people (whatever their beliefs) will see both as a little too extreme to identify with. Any issue related to sexuality if so overblown, why aren't people just as rabbid about theft, pride, deception and greed. Those can be just as damaging and serious sins. Why are Christians accusing anyone and say they are "going to Hell" and that's it. That is not very Christian at all. (I not implying you do this, I am just talking in general) I don't think sexual (or anykind of) discrimination should take place. And I would agree with you here that this shouldn't even be an issue. Microsoft or any company should have to have policies regarding the treatment of gay, straight, religious or racial groups. They should just be making money, provide thier product and look at qualifications not who the person chooses to have sex with, or what they look like.
The idea was that it would be a nightmare for them to monitor everyone at the same time and track my machine's lifetime over various IPs, P2P and various file fragments that where shared. But yeah, they could say that if you share 100Gb of realased file fragments, even if there are no full files then you are guilty. But in this case the lawmakers still think that AlGore invented the Inernet so they specify exaclty that if you share at _least 1_ leaked file, you'd be guilty. The geeks respond with never sharing 1 file again, instead sharing 0.2 or 0.5 of a file.
But I guess in the end that is why we need lawyers who can twist and change the meanings of things and that is why EULAs are 5 pages long and nobody can understand them. At some point, someone found a loophole and they had to patch it and so on.
I agree. I recently hit the University and the local library. There are plenty of really good older and classic films I have not seen and they are free and usually much better works than what is comming out right now. Then there are some art movie theatres around that are much cheaper and show much better movies.
I see, but in that case it is still messed up because it would seem easy for someone to plant any file into my full-of-trojans machine (as an example) and then report me to the authorities. Then would I still be liable? What if I am guilty and then remove all the protection software and infect my computer with trojans when they come to take it, I'll say, sorry I am a sociology professor and I have no clue how to use computers, it has been acting "strange" lately.
To fix this loophole they would have to prosecute the ones that they can prove weren't infected with anything and just did it to themselves to get away.
Good point, what about part of file. What if instead of having a single full file, I have fragments of files and I have the rest of the fragments in My Documents directory. Everyone on a P2P network would also do the same, but would have different fragments shared. Then if I want use/play the file, I would combine the fragments and have a full file in a non-shared folder somewhere. This means I can both share and use the files yet I am not sharing any single full file.
Would that work as a quick dirty fix? Anyone know what is the smallest part of the content that I would be found guilty for sharing. The lowest limit it 1 bit, I know I can have 1 bit without them coming after me. But then there is the full file on the other extreme, I know I will go to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison for that. So where is the cutoff limit?
It seems the bastards cannot legally check my non-shared directories without physically taking my machine away, but they can easily see and record what I share.
Not, just next time before you put a copy of a song you made of your CD into your shared folder,think twice, you might want to just go and rape someone (preferably a lawmaker who makes such laws). You'll be a criminal in either case but could get away with less for rape.
Well I see your point. But the problem is not whether Microsoft should be forced to be philantropic and volunteer their format or not. It is obviously up to them. The problem is that if they claim to be so _nice_ and say that the formats will be open but then have you read and sign EULAS that have hundreds of exceptions and restriction then they are not really opening the format and are just baiting other companies and users to use the format, then years later find a way to sue everyone who uses the open format, or demand royalties or something like that.
It is not the idea that is bad it is the fear that if the idea is comming from a big corporation, especially Microsoft (the least "open" software company) then it probably doesn't mean what it seems to mean on the surface and is PR hype, marketing or just "dust in the eyes" type thing. Remember the Blockbuster "no late fees." it doesn't matter that it sounded ridiculous and unreal and people should have read the fine print, the problem is that the marketing was designed to trick and lie people and I don't think MS is better than that.
"Why should I have to sign an agreement?" one audience member demanded to know.
What would the agreement do? The standard is either open or not (specification is published or withheld). Does it mean that any program that reads the file in this "open" format is bound by this agreement? I can see someone writting "Here, I sent you a powerpoint presentation and I also had to attach the 3 page agreement that you have to sign and send to Microsoft along with your name, date of birth, social security # and all your bank information. Then you can open and use my file. If you don't Bill Gates will come in person and take your firsborn child. Have a nice day, -Your dearest friend Jojo"
I think Michael is talking about home desktop system where users just want to change wallpaper, burn CDs, connect their usb toys to the computer, use a joystick, install and un-install programs and other such things. You are thinking about servers connected to the network that hold lots of important data, have to administered by an expert and perhaps serve many users. Those are the two extremes, typically Linux is on the server extreme, while most poeple at home still run Windows 98 that came with their computers in the late 90's. Then there the more realistic grey area in the middle, where people as myself are, that want the machine to be both a desktop but sometimes run some services and be secure too.
Now Linspire is trying to move Linux into that home desktop market, which I have to give it to them, is a lot harder than have Linux replace traditional UNIXes in the server market (which already is happening at a fast rate). So while I agree that it is a lot more secure to run services not under root, I don't think the average home user (think moms, grandmas, and sociology teachers;) should be expected to know about root, suid bits, and quotas. Most will unaliterally choose the more usable system over a more secure one if they couldn't get both.
So the best that can happen is to find some compromise, like accept the fact that some deskto p home systems will be less secure but still expect the user to type in an "administrative" password once in a while.
Agree, this is more like news for the marketing and general folk who don't know what hash is. From the news post the implication is that they can generate another file with the same hash as a given file. If they had indeed found a crack in all the hash algorithms (all SHAs and MDs) the news wouldn't be about P2P but about a major breakthrough in cryptography.
To be honest I have noticed that too. I went to High School here in US for my sophomore year and the most striking thing is how stigmatized and marginalized those who 'think' are, they are the nerds and anyone who hangs out with them is just considered lame, while anyone who hangs out with the football jocks and parties all the time is considered popular. Somehow after many generation this has entered into the social phyche that even for adults (who ones were the jocks and nerds) thinking is for 'lamers', the true way to be is to somehow strike it big (win the lottery, have a friend find a high paying job in some office, o just have money fall from the sky) and live and party until the end. To be honest I don't want to make a lot of money if it means doing something I don't enjoy, I happen to enjoy Computer Science, electronics and any other kinds of science ever since I can remember. I would always ask my mom and dad how things worked, I took the family TV appart when I was 12 to see what was inside (I am surprised I didn't get killed just shocked badly by the static charge accumulated on the CRT's surface) it is just something in me that I always want to build things and find out how stuff work. I stayed an extra quarter in college just so I can take some Quantum Computing classes, everyone though I was some kind of a masochistic freak, but I just really want to learn that stuff.
I also had many classmates like your brother, they didn't like highschool or college math but they liked computer games very much or hacking and that helped them drive all through the nasty first year math and physics classes so they can get a CS degree. Some dropped out but many stayed and they probably didn't end up writting games but now they have a good CS degrees and got jobs and seem to be liking them.
Yeah that was my point. Most people have the attitude that they have the _right_ to be happy. And dammit they are going to be happy and fully exercise their right. If they are not happy they will complain and cry and sue - whatever it takes. By "happy" it usually means driving a bigger car than their neighbour and buying $200 shoes when they already have $80,000 in debt, if anyone accuses them of spending - stay away! that will start yelling how they deserve and have the right to be happy.
Trying to persue happiness is different, they have the right to give it a shot. The university is there, with good grades you can get in good schools, and since highschool is free,then getting good grades there will probably ensure you'll find a nice full scholarship to take care of your college too. Then also libraries are free, you can drive on the highways all through the country, move wherever you want, find whatever job you like that will hire you, invest in whatever you like, lay around all day and be poor and happy or work like a slave 60 hours a week and be happy that way. But there is no guarantee that the attempt to try to be happy will succeed and if it doesn't then someone should be sued.
People have so many credit cards and so much debt in this country. You would think with all the affluence there would be none of that, but everyone is brainwashed by the society and media that they need to have more, eat more and see more to be happy. If anyone cannot do that, then there is whole market of "happy" drugs, just go the doctor and complain how sad you are that you cannot pay for the golf membership anyomore and you get your paxil or prozac and, 'boom!' you are happy again!
And then in the end we all die and that's all. The poor and afluent, the CEO and the bums, all die, very simple. I wish people would keep that in mind and that would give them a better perspective, like: maybe I should spend more time with the kids instead of slaving all year to buy them expensive clothing and eat out every night and try to make them happy that way? Or maybe I should volunteer to help someone, or just go see my friends and family instead of sitting in the cubicle churning overtime hours?
I remember my mom opted to take a janitor's job just so she could be home with me and help me with my school and just spend more time with me. Then I was annoyed cause that meant not having all the expensive toys I wanted but now I am more than grateful to her for that. I don't mind if I watched black and white TV couse we couldn't afford color, but I remember all the good times I spent with my parents especially my mom and not by myself on the streets while they worked day and night at job just to buy more material things we didn't need.
Anyway that is my perspective on things, I hope I can live up it and do what my parent did, If I can at least do that I could say that I would happier.
Thank I didn't realize that. They technically also have my Gmail, with my name, all my friends' names, where I work, where I shop, the passwords to some websites I visit. They know what I search for if I log in to Gmail then, from the same IP do a a google search. I don't even know who to trust anymore.
People make the mistake that there are many more others to keep track of and that is just too many, which may have been true 20 years ago, but not now when one can get a 2 Gig free inbox. I know, I know what do I have to hide, it is just I get one of those feelings like in the dream of being naked in public. Not much unusual there to see it is just that I don't want everyone one to see it.
Slashdot Mirror
I also don't think it is the Churches job to dictate science (like it happened in the West in the Middle Ages), but by the same token it is not scientists' job to say what faithful should believe in. If science discovers beyond a reasonable doubt that evolotion took place then a reasonable Christian would say that God made it that way and so on. As rabid and extreme as some Christians can be the liberal atheists are just as bad. Their determination and fanaticism to prove that soemone/something doesn't exist is somewhat admirable
As far as I know science hasn't proven or disproven beyond any doubt any core Christian doctrine. So the scientists can go back to work and discover how the physical world works (even if they believe it is all just a probability) and the religious folk can move along too and worry about their relationship with God. If someone is both then more power to them.
Good point, I just think that Occam's Razor argument doesn't apply. The question of whether there is a designer or not, is more funtamental than what Mr. Occam said. But even if we apply Occam's Razor, someohow it still seems "easier" to me to believe in a creator than in the probability of us being here because we came out of "soup" of hydrocarbons. Also it would have been "easier" for us to just become extinct on so many occasions. I am just saying that someone can use the same principle for the opposite point of view with just about the same success.
Also, when he says that games stayed the same, he says it as if the gaming industry has decided to just stop changing and wanting to fall behind and loose money. Perhaps the consumers don't want the games to change. I personally like the good-ol first person shooter with a good story behind it. The compnies conduct marketing research and they find out what the average kid wants and if the consumer wants it then it will make money and that is a GoodThing (tm) even if some CS prof thinks it shouldn't be that way.
That's is probably true. That happens a lot in the govt institutions. I don't know if anyone remembers but in the news a while a go was this woman who worked as a translator for CIA and she said her boss would tell her to create extra long delays in translation on purpose so he can pitch to the higher-ups how they need more funding and such.
Of course one would want to think NASA has higher standards than that. They probably also know that one more failures and they might end up not getting any funding
hey, it's not a sin to aspire. i know i'll sign anything that has the word "linux" or "beer" in it
Or, maybe the bill is self-referencial and the whole process of trying to stop people from sharing or distributing by threats is entertaintment for the whole family.
How about I plant copies of a pre-release on somebody's computer the let the feds come and jail him for 3 years? Don't like your neighbour -put the latest peace of crap from Hollywood in the shares on his windows 98 machine and watch him burn. Can you imagine going to jail for distributing "Big Momma's House" - fun times!
What I am telling you is that the digital camera market is still developing at fast pace. A 6 megapixel camera that 4 years ago was an arm+leg now costs 75% its price. You say you are an amateur and spent $5000 on a camera and accessories, and I purchased a camera recently too and am looking for getting another one in the future. Just that makes two of us shopping and looking at new cameras and even small features like the ability to edit the RAW files could end up changing people's choices. It is not like 20 or 30 years ago where one good quality camera would last for decades (I still have a perfectly usable 35mm 34 year old camera by the way) so people would be locked into a brand. So people shop for cameras more often and that means they compare and evaluate features and brands more often.
Well, I was just being blatant. They would be more subtle of course. The whole issue is negative and if Adobe (who's product will not function as expected - i.e. open all Nikon's RAW files) doesn't inform the customer it would be shooting itself in the foot, since the everyone will just blame Adobe for not opening the file. I was just implying that the customer should be informed about who's who in this situation. Maybe some people will decide not to buy Adobe instead, who knows, I am just not sure what other option profesional photo editors have.
Presumptuous or not all one company has to do is to scare of the other one, just a little bit to nudge its decision. They would not be lying ot the customer merely telling them the truth that if the customer has an expensive Nikon DSLR camera and wants to edit the RAW data then it would not be possible and then they present the reason. Otherwise the customer would rather blame Adobe and say, "stupid Adobe, can't open my RAW Nikon files"
"MS is installing key and web loggers to help improve customers' experience"
Me: "I cannot log into my yahoo email account anymore"
MS Overlords: "We changed the password for you to improve the security of your email and to provide a better customer experience. Send us a payment of $100 and we'll deliver your new password"
Well, I, for one, welcome our new MS data logging overlords.
On the other side, someone who is a big Nikon fan, wants to go shopping for the best photo editing software, well, they pretty much have no choice, Adobe Photoshop is only product they would want. So anyway you look at it, Nikon seems to be at a disadvantage (i.e. shooting themselves in the
Then there is your assumption (as I understand) that people choose to be gay to shock their parents, make a statement, experiment, be different. I think it is not as simple as that, and there is probably something in the middle. I think that gays have a genetic predisposition to being who they are. Not all who have that predisposition will become gay and not all that don't have it will be straight. But that is just that a predisposition. I have a predisposition to diabetes, someone has a predisposition to be a good runner, or someone may be predisposed to cancer. It doesn't mean that ultimately all those things will happen to each one of the individuals. It is up to the individual to choose what they become and that sometimes means fighting and resisting certain predisposition, whether genetic or formed by habit or learned or otherwise acquired. Sometimes there is not much specifically a person can do if they are predisposed to Parkinson's or cancer as far as we we know. But the idea that one should fight and resist presiposition and temptations goes in the face of the today's American society's motto "Always be happy and be comfortable" because sometimes to do the right thing means being uncomfortable, or means being unpopular. So if I am predisposed to diabetes or obesity I should probably eat stuff that is good for me and exercise even though that will make me "uncomfortable" at times. If I have a predisposition to being a good athlete, it would be waste not develop it, but I surely don't have to, if I don't want to. I think the same thing goes for being gay, some poeple will let that determine who they are and they will choose to be gay at some point, some people can suppres it and I think they can overcome it, even if it means they will be "uncomfortable"
Notice how I have not said so far whether or not being gay is wrong. I'll say it now, I am not a moral relativist ("you are right, I am right", "you are ok, I am ok") I personally believe it is wrong to act on gay tendencies. Also I will not say that is just my subjective opinion, I think it is generally wrong (objectively). [ if that doesn't get me modded down on Slashdot then I don't know what will].
Having said that I think the whole issue homosexuality is too overblown and hyped up by both Christians and gay activists alike, both acusing and pointing fingers at each other that most people (whatever their beliefs) will see both as a little too extreme to identify with. Any issue related to sexuality if so overblown, why aren't people just as rabbid about theft, pride, deception and greed. Those can be just as damaging and serious sins. Why are Christians accusing anyone and say they are "going to Hell" and that's it. That is not very Christian at all. (I not implying you do this, I am just talking in general) I don't think sexual (or anykind of) discrimination should take place. And I would agree with you here that this shouldn't even be an issue. Microsoft or any company should have to have policies regarding the treatment of gay, straight, religious or racial groups. They should just be making money, provide thier product and look at qualifications not who the person chooses to have sex with, or what they look like.
I bet my sister-in-law can beat your sister-in-law up. ANd don't make me bring my third cousin into this, you wouldn't want to mess with him. ;)
But I guess in the end that is why we need lawyers who can twist and change the meanings of things and that is why EULAs are 5 pages long and nobody can understand them. At some point, someone found a loophole and they had to patch it and so on.
I agree. I recently hit the University and the local library. There are plenty of really good older and classic films I have not seen and they are free and usually much better works than what is comming out right now. Then there are some art movie theatres around that are much cheaper and show much better movies.
I see, but in that case it is still messed up because it would seem easy for someone to plant any file into my full-of-trojans machine (as an example) and then report me to the authorities. Then would I still be liable? What if I am guilty and then remove all the protection software and infect my computer with trojans when they come to take it, I'll say, sorry I am a sociology professor and I have no clue how to use computers, it has been acting "strange" lately.
To fix this loophole they would have to prosecute the ones that they can prove weren't infected with anything and just did it to themselves to get away.
It seems the bastards cannot legally check my non-shared directories without physically taking my machine away, but they can easily see and record what I share.
Not, just next time before you put a copy of a song you made of your CD into your shared folder,think twice, you might want to just go and rape someone (preferably a lawmaker who makes such laws). You'll be a criminal in either case but could get away with less for rape.
It is not the idea that is bad it is the fear that if the idea is comming from a big corporation, especially Microsoft (the least "open" software company) then it probably doesn't mean what it seems to mean on the surface and is PR hype, marketing or just "dust in the eyes" type thing. Remember the Blockbuster "no late fees." it doesn't matter that it sounded ridiculous and unreal and people should have read the fine print, the problem is that the marketing was designed to trick and lie people and I don't think MS is better than that.
What would the agreement do? The standard is either open or not (specification is published or withheld). Does it mean that any program that reads the file in this "open" format is bound by this agreement? I can see someone writting "Here, I sent you a powerpoint presentation and I also had to attach the 3 page agreement that you have to sign and send to Microsoft along with your name, date of birth, social security # and all your bank information. Then you can open and use my file. If you don't Bill Gates will come in person and take your firsborn child. Have a nice day, -Your dearest friend Jojo"
Now Linspire is trying to move Linux into that home desktop market, which I have to give it to them, is a lot harder than have Linux replace traditional UNIXes in the server market (which already is happening at a fast rate). So while I agree that it is a lot more secure to run services not under root, I don't think the average home user (think moms, grandmas, and sociology teachers
So the best that can happen is to find some compromise, like accept the fact that some deskto p home systems will be less secure but still expect the user to type in an "administrative" password once in a while.
Agree, this is more like news for the marketing and general folk who don't know what hash is. From the news post the implication is that they can generate another file with the same hash as a given file. If they had indeed found a crack in all the hash algorithms (all SHAs and MDs) the news wouldn't be about P2P but about a major breakthrough in cryptography.
I also had many classmates like your brother, they didn't like highschool or college math but they liked computer games very much or hacking and that helped them drive all through the nasty first year math and physics classes so they can get a CS degree. Some dropped out but many stayed and they probably didn't end up writting games but now they have a good CS degrees and got jobs and seem to be liking them.
Trying to persue happiness is different, they have the right to give it a shot. The university is there, with good grades you can get in good schools, and since highschool is free,then getting good grades there will probably ensure you'll find a nice full scholarship to take care of your college too. Then also libraries are free, you can drive on the highways all through the country, move wherever you want, find whatever job you like that will hire you, invest in whatever you like, lay around all day and be poor and happy or work like a slave 60 hours a week and be happy that way. But there is no guarantee that the attempt to try to be happy will succeed and if it doesn't then someone should be sued.
People have so many credit cards and so much debt in this country. You would think with all the affluence there would be none of that, but everyone is brainwashed by the society and media that they need to have more, eat more and see more to be happy. If anyone cannot do that, then there is whole market of "happy" drugs, just go the doctor and complain how sad you are that you cannot pay for the golf membership anyomore and you get your paxil or prozac and, 'boom!' you are happy again!
And then in the end we all die and that's all. The poor and afluent, the CEO and the bums, all die, very simple. I wish people would keep that in mind and that would give them a better perspective, like: maybe I should spend more time with the kids instead of slaving all year to buy them expensive clothing and eat out every night and try to make them happy that way? Or maybe I should volunteer to help someone, or just go see my friends and family instead of sitting in the cubicle churning overtime hours?
I remember my mom opted to take a janitor's job just so she could be home with me and help me with my school and just spend more time with me. Then I was annoyed cause that meant not having all the expensive toys I wanted but now I am more than grateful to her for that. I don't mind if I watched black and white TV couse we couldn't afford color, but I remember all the good times I spent with my parents especially my mom and not by myself on the streets while they worked day and night at job just to buy more material things we didn't need.
Anyway that is my perspective on things, I hope I can live up it and do what my parent did, If I can at least do that I could say that I would happier.
People make the mistake that there are many more others to keep track of and that is just too many, which may have been true 20 years ago, but not now when one can get a 2 Gig free inbox. I know, I know what do I have to hide, it is just I get one of those feelings like in the dream of being naked in public. Not much unusual there to see it is just that I don't want everyone one to see it.