I'm not sure why I'm compelled to comment here, usually i'd just let this go, but something in this (Rakishi's) comment really pissed me off. It might be the block caps, it might be because it's 4 a-fecking-m, but seriously, whats your problem? The guy was suggesting something that may have helped him avoid shitting away 2 years of his life, explain to me please how that's selfish? If an addiction warning lable could have helped him, then odds are, it would have helped someone else, and if not, then really no harm done and who gives a shit, eh? Someone said that logically that would mean putting a label on EVERYTHING. He said no, he only wants labels on things that he thinks right now he may get addicted to. That is selfishness. He only cares about himself and believes that everything should be changed for his sake and ONLY his sake. Likewise the fact that logically you'd need to put labels on a lot of other things that are addictive to other people doesn't seem too occur or matter to him, apparently those other people are not worth helping.
Not quite sure I understand this sentence. It quite clearly was/is capable of getting him and others addicted, and of course its based on what he thinks would help him, what else was he gonna suggest? Basically, as far as I can tell, warning lables on addictive shit is a good idea. Be it gambling/wow, whatever. People dropping their lives, cash, home, jobs, family or anything else for that matter on this stuff is good for neither them nor society in general, and any reduction of it is fine by me. EVERYTHING can be addictive to someone, warning labels are pointless because you'd need one on everything. I gave a giant list in my post, let me add to it now: porn, blackberries, email, internet and cellphones.
That's what YOU want and only what YOU want. It's utterly selfish because it's only based on what you think would keep you from getting addicted and not even what is capable of getting you addicted. What about the guy addicted to caffeine? What about the guy addicted to fantasy sports? what about the guy addicted to starcraft (ie: see South Korea)? What about the guy addicted to some tv show (I'm sure they exist)? What about the guy addicted to anime? What about the guy addicted to sex?
Why? If you don't care enough about your own life to protect it then why should the government care and why should the rest of us pay for it?
There are of course economic arguments for certain laws (be it cost to society indirectly or directly) however even those are arsine. Unless people themselves decide to not act stupid you will just need to pile on laws till it's beyond absurd.
I mean the logical conclusion of your argument is that we should all be brainwashed or have computer ships shoved into our heads to control 99.99% of our behavior, to prevent us from doing anything that might be considered as even possibly dangerous. don't forget to put that bubble wrap on before you leave the house or the voice in your head may compel you to.
Hell, all 3k students at my old high school have.edu emails. Actually some of them had a good 1.5K edu accounts each, including most of the faculty ones, due to lax network security.
Then there are all the large amounts of people who do real world research or work but don't have.edu accounts (ie: corporate or government).
mmm of course practically it probabblly would be. Look at music, with physical formats I can legally order a copy from practically anywhere in the world. It will almost certainly come in under the import duty/vat threshold so no problems there.
With legit online music I am far more limited, Most vendors are either heavilly geographically restricted or of questionable legality to use. Because it is the vendor and thier customer working together to do the copying they are involved with copyright at a much more direct level than with physical media and that gives the copyright holder far more power. I buy sci-fi e-books from Baen's webscription: no drm, unlimited downloads and a half dozen formats including online reading. They're also I think one of the few ebook retailers actually making money so the model may catch on more widely. I simply don't buy drm ebooks or music, the non-drm ones exist and have advantages over physical books.
I most be a silent majority, but I hate reading on the computer and screens. So do I but paper books are all too often a pain to get and take a while to acquire. A lot of them also aren't in print which theoretically wouldn't be a problem with non-drm e-books.
Not to mention they're much harder to lose due to catastrophic computer failure. Mu, neither is lost due to catastrophic computer failure. Yet paper books can be destroyed, burned, dropped into a puddle and destroyed in tons of such ways. E-books I can simple re-download or restore from backup.
You only need the 1024bit security when the attacker can download the file and crack it at his leisure. But then, the failure is that you did not prevent the attacker from downloading that file. BS, that whole argument assumes no other vulnerabilities including relatively minor ones. I mean the whole bloody POINT of only storing encrypted password is so that a hacker doesn't gain everything from getting such a list. Want a perfect example? Disgruntled ex-IT employee with a copy of the encrypted password list.
My high school had half it's user passwords cracked (including the principal's) by someone because they got access to the passwd file. Thankfully the network admin was not stupid enough to have a short password. The file was shadowed after a previous incident however a number of new computers were installed were it was un-shadowed.
So everyone except you and your group is wrong and inferior? And you call them prejudiced, short sighted and unwilling to accept those who are different...
People are in control, their's no excuse for prejudice. So then autistic people should have no trouble acting so that others don't have problems with them. Oh wait, everyone is perfect and capable of altering the way their mind works in utter detail except autistic people...
Humans evolved society and social behavior for a reason and most can deal with it (to various degrees). If someone is blind you don't make them a sniper, you don't create a touch based vision (that's inferior) just for him.
It's sher arrogance to assume the rest of society needs to bend backwards for you at their detriment simply because you can't do it for them.
So it's evil because they're good at it and people are idiots?
Movie companies constantly try to get as many people interested in their movie and compel them to watch it. Lotteries constantly try to get the masses of poor to buy into them despite almost no chance of someone gaining from it. Adult education companies constantly try to get as many poor people to take their sub-par and often worthless courses.
If you don't get the point he's trying to make and see some of the bullshit the pharmaceutical industry has been pulling then I don't know what to tell you. No I simply don't see them as much different from other companies, you people on the other hand seem to perceive them as inherently different. If you hold something to higher standards then that doesn't mean the people running it must as well.
This isn't revolutionary I'm sure, but this kind of candor shocked me, These people really are as evil as people say. Why does this make them evil? Is is because they tell scientists to research the most profitable diseases? Yet you don't seem to mind the untold billion that is spent to create entertainment products of all sorts. After all if those evil musicians didn't waste their time on such things we would have more resources to invest in medical research. How dare people try and make what others want instead of what you consider best for society.
And lots of security experts disagree, I trust security experts to analyze security over five political science majors and one user interaction computer scientist.
The US is also filled with tons of educated extremists, many of which would probably gladly lead an armed revolt if they could. The point is that they can't, a general with no army isn't going to do much. In some societies there is a mass of people who have little to lose and those are the army used by extremists.
If there is easy access to education and economic prospects than these people have a much less risky alternative to armed revolt. It's rather hard to convince a well fed man with opportunities to fulfill his desires (or for his children to fulfill theirs) that he should risk his life to gain the opportunities he already has.
First, let me say I *don't* like this new Web 2.0 crap with the Forum... You can disable it using the prefs (or whatever it's called) link in the floating options box on the left. I'd give more details but I disabled mien already and have no desire to re-enable it.
Then your company gains a reputation for being unsafe and not caring, loses 5% of your potential future consumers and a lot more money than that recall would have cost.
So your position is that if we do all those things, we'll stop being a target for terrorists? You don't think that maybe lots of them will continue to hate us anyway simply because we have religious and personal freedom? They could probably care less about our "freedoms" except that it gives them a great propaganda tool with which to gain new recruits (ie: fight against the godless "heathens"). War is in large part about which side can better BS to it's own people and the enemy. They have more than enough enemies closer to home which they can attack, the US would be a waste of resources to target if it didn't interfere so much. I'm sure some of the brainwashed suicide bombers would disagree but I doubt most of the leaders do except for propaganda value.
They also don't particularly dislike our "freedom" from what I understand but like fundamental Christians they believe that our "freedom" has made us immoral. Likewise both groups believe that this is an unavoidable result of such freedom and that this freedom must be curtailed for our own good. However just like we could care less about another genocide in Africa (as long as it doesn't affect our import of something) terrorists could probably care less about what immoral acts we do as long as they don't get effected by them.
Finally if they did hate our freedom, there are enough countries with religious and personal freedom closer to them which are much easier to blow up in. Like most of Europe.
Well while it'd be nice if the 10000+ packages (which include everything except for the kitchen sink) that make up a full debian install had fewer lines of code than a kernel, windows environment and some light apps it's not easy to do.
As such, ACID should be updated to include the new doctype option for IE. Given there is is going to be no new doctype, from what MS is saying, this won't be of much use. Of course had you read even the article SUMMARY instead of ranting about how people shouldn't bash MS you'd have known this. Then again you can't karma whore by being reasonable and responding to the actual issue instead of a strawman so I guess that's out of the question for you.
No you're missing the point. The GP wants it so that every single time you want to release ANY code (no matter how small in size) as GPL you would need to pay ~$50 to the government and fill out a copyright registration form. Note that this form needs to currently be sent in physically with a print out of the source code (of up to 50 pages). That's not even counting whatever hell would happen if you tried to register additions to an existing GPL work by another author. Can't be anonymous either so everyone needs to know your real name if you contribute some code somewhere.
If you don't then the GPL can't apply as the work has no copyright thus is public domain.
I realize the difference and I should have said something else, I need more sleep so sorry. Also even the BSD takes advantage of copyrights for both keeping the original authors listed and removing liability. People don't often make their work public domain or with truly no strings attached. It would kill what people nowadays consider to be open source software in most regards and not replace it with anything equivalent.
Most people were I work do just that or at least for jobs that don't actually need you to be there 9am sharp. It's accepted behavior and we simply don't schedule meetings early. Some do the opposite and come in extra early but they're less common.
Slashdot Mirror
That's what YOU want and only what YOU want. It's utterly selfish because it's only based on what you think would keep you from getting addicted and not even what is capable of getting you addicted. What about the guy addicted to caffeine? What about the guy addicted to fantasy sports? what about the guy addicted to starcraft (ie: see South Korea)? What about the guy addicted to some tv show (I'm sure they exist)? What about the guy addicted to anime? What about the guy addicted to sex?
Why? If you don't care enough about your own life to protect it then why should the government care and why should the rest of us pay for it?
There are of course economic arguments for certain laws (be it cost to society indirectly or directly) however even those are arsine. Unless people themselves decide to not act stupid you will just need to pile on laws till it's beyond absurd.
I mean the logical conclusion of your argument is that we should all be brainwashed or have computer ships shoved into our heads to control 99.99% of our behavior, to prevent us from doing anything that might be considered as even possibly dangerous. don't forget to put that bubble wrap on before you leave the house or the voice in your head may compel you to.
Hell, all 3k students at my old high school have .edu emails. Actually some of them had a good 1.5K edu accounts each, including most of the faculty ones, due to lax network security.
.edu accounts (ie: corporate or government).
Then there are all the large amounts of people who do real world research or work but don't have
With legit online music I am far more limited, Most vendors are either heavilly geographically restricted or of questionable legality to use. Because it is the vendor and thier customer working together to do the copying they are involved with copyright at a much more direct level than with physical media and that gives the copyright holder far more power. I buy sci-fi e-books from Baen's webscription: no drm, unlimited downloads and a half dozen formats including online reading. They're also I think one of the few ebook retailers actually making money so the model may catch on more widely. I simply don't buy drm ebooks or music, the non-drm ones exist and have advantages over physical books.
Parent is an idiot or a troll, not informative.
To quote the link itself, where it is written in large bold print right above what was quoted (emphasis mine):
FIXED in Firefox 2.0.0.12
My high school had half it's user passwords cracked (including the principal's) by someone because they got access to the passwd file. Thankfully the network admin was not stupid enough to have a short password. The file was shadowed after a previous incident however a number of new computers were installed were it was un-shadowed.
Humans evolved society and social behavior for a reason and most can deal with it (to various degrees). If someone is blind you don't make them a sniper, you don't create a touch based vision (that's inferior) just for him.
It's sher arrogance to assume the rest of society needs to bend backwards for you at their detriment simply because you can't do it for them.
Movie companies constantly try to get as many people interested in their movie and compel them to watch it. Lotteries constantly try to get the masses of poor to buy into them despite almost no chance of someone gaining from it. Adult education companies constantly try to get as many poor people to take their sub-par and often worthless courses. If you don't get the point he's trying to make and see some of the bullshit the pharmaceutical industry has been pulling then I don't know what to tell you. No I simply don't see them as much different from other companies, you people on the other hand seem to perceive them as inherently different. If you hold something to higher standards then that doesn't mean the people running it must as well.
Some would agree, after all a variant of this kept bush in office for two terms now.
And lots of security experts disagree, I trust security experts to analyze security over five political science majors and one user interaction computer scientist.
The US is also filled with tons of educated extremists, many of which would probably gladly lead an armed revolt if they could. The point is that they can't, a general with no army isn't going to do much. In some societies there is a mass of people who have little to lose and those are the army used by extremists.
If there is easy access to education and economic prospects than these people have a much less risky alternative to armed revolt. It's rather hard to convince a well fed man with opportunities to fulfill his desires (or for his children to fulfill theirs) that he should risk his life to gain the opportunities he already has.
Government mandates also include grinding, shredding and melting the hard drive then storing the molten brick for 50+ years.
Then your company gains a reputation for being unsafe and not caring, loses 5% of your potential future consumers and a lot more money than that recall would have cost.
They also don't particularly dislike our "freedom" from what I understand but like fundamental Christians they believe that our "freedom" has made us immoral. Likewise both groups believe that this is an unavoidable result of such freedom and that this freedom must be curtailed for our own good. However just like we could care less about another genocide in Africa (as long as it doesn't affect our import of something) terrorists could probably care less about what immoral acts we do as long as they don't get effected by them.
Finally if they did hate our freedom, there are enough countries with religious and personal freedom closer to them which are much easier to blow up in. Like most of Europe.
Well while it'd be nice if the 10000+ packages (which include everything except for the kitchen sink) that make up a full debian install had fewer lines of code than a kernel, windows environment and some light apps it's not easy to do.
No you're missing the point. The GP wants it so that every single time you want to release ANY code (no matter how small in size) as GPL you would need to pay ~$50 to the government and fill out a copyright registration form. Note that this form needs to currently be sent in physically with a print out of the source code (of up to 50 pages). That's not even counting whatever hell would happen if you tried to register additions to an existing GPL work by another author. Can't be anonymous either so everyone needs to know your real name if you contribute some code somewhere.
If you don't then the GPL can't apply as the work has no copyright thus is public domain.
I realize the difference and I should have said something else, I need more sleep so sorry.
Also even the BSD takes advantage of copyrights for both keeping the original authors listed and removing liability. People don't often make their work public domain or with truly no strings attached. It would kill what people nowadays consider to be open source software in most regards and not replace it with anything equivalent.
Congratulation you just killed open source.
Most people were I work do just that or at least for jobs that don't actually need you to be there 9am sharp. It's accepted behavior and we simply don't schedule meetings early. Some do the opposite and come in extra early but they're less common.