I will strongly recommend that, whatever you think you want to say when asked that question, under no circumstances you answer with "well, yes; it's paper no?".
Parents reaaaaaally do not like that answer, trust me.
In that case, I'm submitting my proposal for a new device to the Department of Homeland Security tonight. It consists of a big glass cage with a sign inside. All passengers are required to go into the cage and follow the instructions stated on the sign.
The sign will read "Press the Red button if you are a terrorist" and it will be followed by two big bright buttons: one red that says "I am a terrorist"; and one yellow that says "I am not a terrorist".
If they press the yellow button, the cage opens and they can continue with their business. If they press the red button, the cage will lock and an alarm will sound and the proper authorities will be called to attention.
After initial testing, we found that there was a high incident of false-positives, so we have implemented the following changes: When the big red button is pressed, a second sign will appear which says "Are you sure?", giving the user chance to confirm his answer.
We believe this will eliminate all terrorist activity quickly, since the instructions are clearly stated on the sign.
>> In hindsight - and discounting all technical failures, operators errors and violent attacks by organized military air-defense of whatever country - the major reason for loss of life in air travel is violence by terrorists.
And in further hindsight, how does terrorism rank once you actually, you know, compare it with other threats and failures?
>> What I've heard about the situations regarding Moslems is that the Moslems do not accept the culture they are surrounded by. It's one thing to maintain one's own culture (I am an Orthodox Jew), but it's quite another to try and force your new neighbors to cater to your prejudices.
Yeah, kinda like those pesky foreigners, you know, the pilgrims, that crossed the pond and could not reconcile their differences with the local cultures they encountered.
Weren't the northern states, in the old system, capable of declining trade with slave-enabling states? If so, this would have affected their economic viability in a substantial way; and coerced them, eventually, to only be allowed trade amongst themselves. Thus, their potential for economic growth would have been limited. This seems particularly unsustainable to me, and eventually could have prompted the slave-enabling states to change their ways. This is not unlike imposing economic sanctions on hostile foreign countries--except that they would be bretheren, and geographically bound, thus offering a higher incentive.
I don't personally subscribe to the idea that "them states had slaves, they were e-veel, so they must be stopped immediately!!!!0ne" justification for the Civil War. Many things happen in the lead to it, most importantly the cessation of some states, which--for evident reasons--could not be tolerated by the Union. But some of these events were sparked by the chain reaction of the Union attempting to impose control on each (hitherto) soverign state.
As the grandfather post says, the Federal Government wanted to excert control over the individual states, it went to war to this end, and it won. And we have to live now with the historical consequenes of this event--for better or for worse. Our nation change significantly hence, in spirit and vision--again, for better or for worse.
>> I just can't see local councils or corporations solving these problems without the money or incentives from the government.
That's an interesting fallacy. If you consider that the income of the Fedreal Government is actually the tax payers' money; then it follows that if you reduced the size of such government in any substancial manner, it's income greatly falls. Thus, the tax payers, including individual citizens, private corporations, and even local councils--in essence any entity that funds the Federeal Government, directly or indirectly--would then have substantially more resources which could be put to other greater uses.
In short, why does the local public school, say, depend so much on Federal funds? Most likely because there aren't enough local funds to sustain it. But if there were enough local funds locally, then there is no need for Federal funds.
Moreover, if the funds come in a more direct manner from the tax payers, instead of having to depend on the whims of a large and bureaucratic Federal Government; then the chance of such funds actually being applied to those thing which concern said tax payers increases.
-dZ.
>> I'd rather be exposed to somene being able to know where I go on the open street than being subject to the abuse of a car thief.
I understand perfectly and sympathize. Of course, that is your prerrogative, as I'm sure it makes you feel safer.
I, on the other hand, rather take the risk of being "subject to the abuse of a car thief"--being very much aware of the chances of this occurrence--than be exposed to "someone being able to know where I go". It does not make me feel any safer, and it is my informed opinion that the benefits of it are debatable.
Why should your personal choice be imposed on me, if I don't share your conforming views?
>> I have no objection to surveillance, as long as two conditions are met: (1) it should be limited to public places and (2) the whole system should allow auditing and controls.
It's great that you have no objection to surveillance, and your conditions are very well taken. If everybody shared your views on this matter, I'm sure they'll agree that those conditions are very reasonable.
I, however, have some pointed objections to surveillance, and if such a system is going to be imposed on the entire populace, I too have some additional conditions that should be met: (3) it should be limited to those who do not object to it; and (4) it should be paid solely by those who requested or did not object to the project.
Why should you get to dictate the conditions and not me? And more to the point, why should your lack of objection translate into an imposition to all those who do object?
The point of this comment is not to argue the merits of such a system or to criticize your particular views, but to point out a flaw in what is a very common argument regarding surveillance: "I am fine with it, therefore everybody must subject to it."
I think the question was more of a philosophical one: If people believe unlikely concept X, why can't they also believe unlikely concept Y? There is little proof of either one, so they should be either equally discarded, or equally considered.
Or in other words, why would they automatically discount unlikely concept Y when they can accept the possibility of unlikely concept X without any more evidence than just seeing it in a movie?
Note that I just tried to clarify the original poster's comment; I said nothing about the merits of such inquiry.
>> I suppose it's good business sense to write software for the most popular platform. With around 75% of the OS hits being from Windows, it would be prudent to sink resources into a windows browser, rather than Mac or Linux.
The problem with this plan is that Google, on the surface, has attempted to positioned themselves as the hacker-friendly, open-source-loving, free-for-all platform of the Internet. Especially during a time when a lot of people, developers, and companies have embraced the WWW as a browser- and system-agnostic environment. Thus, building a Windows-specific Web Application platform seems a bit contradictory. Furthermore, as others have pointed out, the Windows dependencies of the code seem to go much deeper than would have been expected for a potential cross-platform application, suggesting that they are part of the design.
All this makes the availability of non-Windows versions an after-thought, which may or may not come in the future, and which may or may not be maintained and supported in parallel. This in turn casts doubt on their potential as the hacker-friendly, open-source-loving, free-for-all platform of the Internet.
This is probably, as you say, good business sense if their goal is to reap immediate rewards. However, by exposing themselves as just another company, taking the quick road to market, doing what's good for the "bottom line", they may lose their geek apppeal, which--in my opinion--is the biggest reason they are so popular at the moment.
Slashdot Mirror
Which happened to be owned by Steve Jobs, too. Therefore, naming him as the inventor may be accurate (or at least around the realm of reality).
-dZ.
I will strongly recommend that, whatever you think you want to say when asked that question, under no circumstances you answer with "well, yes; it's paper no?".
Parents reaaaaaally do not like that answer, trust me.
-dZ.
So what you are saying is that Excel should be banned from the Congress?
-dZ.
In that case, I'm submitting my proposal for a new device to the Department of Homeland Security tonight. It consists of a big glass cage with a sign inside. All passengers are required to go into the cage and follow the instructions stated on the sign.
The sign will read "Press the Red button if you are a terrorist" and it will be followed by two big bright buttons: one red that says "I am a terrorist"; and one yellow that says "I am not a terrorist".
If they press the yellow button, the cage opens and they can continue with their business. If they press the red button, the cage will lock and an alarm will sound and the proper authorities will be called to attention.
After initial testing, we found that there was a high incident of false-positives, so we have implemented the following changes: When the big red button is pressed, a second sign will appear which says "Are you sure?" , giving the user chance to confirm his answer.
We believe this will eliminate all terrorist activity quickly, since the instructions are clearly stated on the sign.
Plez congres, I can has som monny?
-dZ.
Well, that's how they teach the technique of "grabbing" in Personal Attacker 101, duh!
-dZ.
>> In hindsight - and discounting all technical failures, operators errors and violent attacks by organized military air-defense of whatever country - the major reason for loss of life in air travel is violence by terrorists.
And in further hindsight, how does terrorism rank once you actually, you know, compare it with other threats and failures?
-dZ.
I agree. Diablo III could use some colored laser blasts everywhere too!
-dZ.
BeOS boots extremely fast (I seem to recall something like 5 to 10 seconds). And, of course, it comes with a standard text editor.
I'm not sure if you can get a copy any more, though.
-dZ.
>> What I've heard about the situations regarding Moslems is that the Moslems do not accept the culture they are surrounded by. It's one thing to maintain one's own culture (I am an Orthodox Jew), but it's quite another to try and force your new neighbors to cater to your prejudices.
Yeah, kinda like those pesky foreigners, you know, the pilgrims, that crossed the pond and could not reconcile their differences with the local cultures they encountered.
Oh wait...
-dZ.
Weren't the northern states, in the old system, capable of declining trade with slave-enabling states? If so, this would have affected their economic viability in a substantial way; and coerced them, eventually, to only be allowed trade amongst themselves. Thus, their potential for economic growth would have been limited. This seems particularly unsustainable to me, and eventually could have prompted the slave-enabling states to change their ways. This is not unlike imposing economic sanctions on hostile foreign countries--except that they would be bretheren, and geographically bound, thus offering a higher incentive.
I don't personally subscribe to the idea that "them states had slaves, they were e-veel, so they must be stopped immediately!!!!0ne" justification for the Civil War. Many things happen in the lead to it, most importantly the cessation of some states, which--for evident reasons--could not be tolerated by the Union. But some of these events were sparked by the chain reaction of the Union attempting to impose control on each (hitherto) soverign state.
As the grandfather post says, the Federal Government wanted to excert control over the individual states, it went to war to this end, and it won. And we have to live now with the historical consequenes of this event--for better or for worse. Our nation change significantly hence, in spirit and vision--again, for better or for worse.
-dZ.
>> Nobody likes 3D more than me ...
Ah! Congratulations! So it was you who won that survey?
-dZ.
Isn't that what the "Widgets", "Gadgets" and such do?
-dZ.
The better to view the ads with.
-dZ.
>> Anyone consider a navigation using speach input
I don't know about speach input, but sapple and smelon have been tried before.
-dZ.
>> ...must developers continue to inflict us with the 3D interface meme?
Actually, it's not so much developers as it is marketers.
My guess is that anything that can enhance the delivery of advertisements (think uncontrollably animated pictures!) is Teh Futuer to them.
-dZ.
Yeah, heh, beats reading and using your brain!
-dZ.
>> I just can't see local councils or corporations solving these problems without the money or incentives from the government.
That's an interesting fallacy. If you consider that the income of the Fedreal Government is actually the tax payers' money; then it follows that if you reduced the size of such government in any substancial manner, it's income greatly falls. Thus, the tax payers, including individual citizens, private corporations, and even local councils--in essence any entity that funds the Federeal Government, directly or indirectly--would then have substantially more resources which could be put to other greater uses.
In short, why does the local public school, say, depend so much on Federal funds? Most likely because there aren't enough local funds to sustain it. But if there were enough local funds locally, then there is no need for Federal funds.
Moreover, if the funds come in a more direct manner from the tax payers, instead of having to depend on the whims of a large and bureaucratic Federal Government; then the chance of such funds actually being applied to those thing which concern said tax payers increases.
-dZ.
If I had mod points I'd mod you up +5 Funninterstinsightful.
-dZ.
>> I'd rather be exposed to somene being able to know where I go on the open street than being subject to the abuse of a car thief.
I understand perfectly and sympathize. Of course, that is your prerrogative, as I'm sure it makes you feel safer.
I, on the other hand, rather take the risk of being "subject to the abuse of a car thief"--being very much aware of the chances of this occurrence--than be exposed to "someone being able to know where I go". It does not make me feel any safer, and it is my informed opinion that the benefits of it are debatable.
Why should your personal choice be imposed on me, if I don't share your conforming views?
>> I have no objection to surveillance, as long as two conditions are met: (1) it should be limited to public places and (2) the whole system should allow auditing and controls.
It's great that you have no objection to surveillance, and your conditions are very well taken. If everybody shared your views on this matter, I'm sure they'll agree that those conditions are very reasonable.
I, however, have some pointed objections to surveillance, and if such a system is going to be imposed on the entire populace, I too have some additional conditions that should be met: (3) it should be limited to those who do not object to it; and (4) it should be paid solely by those who requested or did not object to the project.
Why should you get to dictate the conditions and not me? And more to the point, why should your lack of objection translate into an imposition to all those who do object?
The point of this comment is not to argue the merits of such a system or to criticize your particular views, but to point out a flaw in what is a very common argument regarding surveillance: " I am fine with it, therefore everybody must subject to it."
-dZ.
True, but it did come with a Jean-Louis Gassee, which, arguably, worked the same way.
-dZ.
Sorry, we're fresh out of women's rights.
Vote for Palin: Nobody expects the Alaskan Politician!
And now for something completely different.
-dZ.
I think the question was more of a philosophical one: If people believe unlikely concept X, why can't they also believe unlikely concept Y? There is little proof of either one, so they should be either equally discarded, or equally considered.
Or in other words, why would they automatically discount unlikely concept Y when they can accept the possibility of unlikely concept X without any more evidence than just seeing it in a movie?
Note that I just tried to clarify the original poster's comment; I said nothing about the merits of such inquiry.
-dZ.
But, of course, believing the lie works too. Perhaps the grandparent should have said:
" a key to passing a lie detector test is to bring yourself to believe the lies you are telling."
-dZ.
>> In June, an Indian judge agreed, using BEOS to find a woman guilty of killing her former fiance.
Who would have thought that BeOS was so versatile! I wonder if I can download the scanner from BeBits.com...
-dZ.
>> I suppose it's good business sense to write software for the most popular platform. With around 75% of the OS hits being from Windows, it would be prudent to sink resources into a windows browser, rather than Mac or Linux.
The problem with this plan is that Google, on the surface, has attempted to positioned themselves as the hacker-friendly, open-source-loving, free-for-all platform of the Internet. Especially during a time when a lot of people, developers, and companies have embraced the WWW as a browser- and system-agnostic environment. Thus, building a Windows-specific Web Application platform seems a bit contradictory. Furthermore, as others have pointed out, the Windows dependencies of the code seem to go much deeper than would have been expected for a potential cross-platform application, suggesting that they are part of the design.
All this makes the availability of non-Windows versions an after-thought, which may or may not come in the future, and which may or may not be maintained and supported in parallel. This in turn casts doubt on their potential as the hacker-friendly, open-source-loving, free-for-all platform of the Internet.
This is probably, as you say, good business sense if their goal is to reap immediate rewards. However, by exposing themselves as just another company, taking the quick road to market, doing what's good for the "bottom line", they may lose their geek apppeal, which--in my opinion--is the biggest reason they are so popular at the moment.
-dZ.