If people want their privacy to be kept, they should block the infrared portion of the electromagnetic spectrum from leaving their property into public airspace (whether it be the street or the air). Police should be able to use any information they happened to obtain, without a warrant. Imagine a case where a police is sitting walking past a house down the street, and two people are talking quite loudly as they plan to murder someone. Should the policeman be forced to get a warrant if he wants to use what he heard? It's the same issue. The soundwaves left the private property into a place the policeman had every right to be. Whatever he obtains when in that place should be admissable in court.
People can, and do, use methods every day to evidence of their private matters from escaping their private property. An example of this is visible light from the electromagnetic spectrum. We stop that from escaping our property by building walls. If a policeman driving down a street see's us commiting a crime on our front lawn, he is allowed to use the evidence of what he saw to arrest the person. Infrared is no different.
Same thing also applies with the e-nose. If you don't want a policeman to be able to detect certain substances on you, you keep it concealed to stop him from detecting it via visible light. Now you'll have to stop him from being able to detect it via his e-nose. This isn't a case of the policeman violating people's privacy, it's a case of people not taking enough care to secure their privacy. The policeman isn't slipping an e-nose into your bag and accessing the data from it via wifi. He's in a place where he's allowed to be, merely walking around. Anything he finds (whether it be because he saw it via infrared, visible light or e-nose) should be admissable (it's not like he's forcing you to strip down, it's also not like he's walking through your house without your permission a court order).
Do they mention why openness is a good thing? Or are they simply supporting it because it's the latest fad? Last I checked, Microsoft documents were accessible on all modern OSes, so it can't be because Microsoft documents wouldn't be accessible to the general public.
I RTFA and it doesn't say one simple question "Why is Massachusetts doing this?" Now I can think of numerous reasons, but did OASIS? Or is OASIS simply justifying it's existence (however brief it might have been/will be) by creating an expensive (sorry, but migration IS expensive) procedure that will have to take place over a year? Beauraucrats love making policies, is this simply another example of that, without regard to the advantages and disadvantages?
The slashdot articles are also fairly free of any real reason. One cites some vague legal concerns (that frankly seemed devoid of any real information) while the other makes mention of a non-Microsoft format (called Voleware). If whatever they were using Voleware for wasn't meeting their needs, fine. But why this big policy change state-government wide? Why change all of the formats (when most of them CAN be opened under all modern operating systems)? Were the costs and disadvantages discussed along with the advantages? I can't see any indication of that. Does anyone that know more about this want to shed some light?
It's better then Windows. Palm doing away with PalmOS would allow the software giant to gain more of a hold on the PDA market, decreasing the need for Microsoft to compete with it's software features in it's PDA's.
Competition is a good thing, as it fosters development. Another company losing it's OS department and climbing into bed with a competitor doesn't foster development, and the people that lose out are the customers.
So, by using some implicit logic here, we all should accept Linux because even though it has its faults, it's free?
I didn't say that, and don't even think my logic says that. My logic is, if Company X produces product Ya, whereas I can get product Yb for free, I'm going to need product Ya to be damn good for me to get that instead. Is Yb perfect? No. Should it be used in place of something that's better? hell no. But should it be used in place of something that's just as good? Why wouldn't you want to?
Microsoft has attacked Linux's development method, saying how much better theirs was. People bought into it. Now we learn that they've been lying all this time, and that their development method is just "as bad" as Linux's. When you lie to people in order to get them to buy your "state of the art" product, people are going to expect it to be good. When they learn you've lied, they're going to be pissed, and it's fair for them to criticize Microsoft for this.
That's what I said. I don't know where this "implied logic" that Mac should be selling like pancakes comes from.
The difference being, Windows is touted as a professional OS built by professional coders, upheld to a high standard, etc, etc, etc. Simply put: People expect more when they have to pay for it. Microsoft has constantly criticized projects such as Linux, because the code isn't built by a central authority. Now we learn that Windows is made pretty much like Linux. I think criticizing Microsoft for this is definitely justifiable.
But for most people, movies do need to be seen relatively soon as they come out.
Or what? They die?
Slashdot is filled with guys that can't socialize (and hence, get dates). To some degree, that is affected by an inability to realize that if someone asks you about the latest movie; they're trying to start a conversation -- not looking to get preached to about the evil movie industry.
Oooh, you're sure to get modded up. Criticizing slashdot and/or people who com here (bonus points for mentioning their inability to date). However it's quite likely that the person attempting to start a conversation won't like the same movies you do. I know I have quite different tastes to those I talk to regularly, despite this my ability to have a conversation isn't hampered.
The reason for the quicker turnaround is theatres are now seen as one big advertisement for a movie. I guess the movie distributors have decided it's not very good to have an advertisement shown 12 months before the product is released. It wasn't always like that, with theatres being seen as advertisements for the movies, which is why there was once a longer turnaround.
I'm sick of paying $7 + $5 for movie popcorn and a drink
A much simpler alternative to revamping the movie distribution system is to merely wait a few months for it to be released on DVD. You know people, not getting what you want IMMEDIATELY isn't a bad thing.
The point of a comment like "open source zealots should...." is to call people who use linux zealots. It serves no purpose other then that. The astro turfers
Oh the irony is astounding. let me guess, you only want equal rights for people like yourself?
The best way to disregard anyone's opinion who doesn't agree with you is to give them a label and imply it to be derogatory. Way to go with keeping an open mind, if this is how liberals (who claim to be open minded) act, no wonder most americans believe bush's "you're either with us or against us" garbage.
Listening to other people's point of view is all well and good. But no-one should feel like they have to listen to the hatred and bile that are chick tracts. And while that takes things to an extreme, that disregard for other people's opinions and that propaganda is extremely common on the internet. Just stay here at slashdot for a while.
Having said that, I have managed to find a message board with mixed people, and they are fairly nice and keep the propaganda to a minimum. But these places on the internet are rare and few. I don't blame people for wanting to avoid people like Chick. Why are people so much more extreme on the internet? Well they're extreme in real life, but Penny arcade made a good point with a comic that said "Anonymity + opinion = fuckwad." People who might be nice and able to take differing opinions in real life, don't NEED to do so on the internet because they don't care about the people they interact with. They act nice in real life, because they care about people's opinions who they interact with. On the internet, this is no longer the case. They can act one way on one message board, another way on another message board, and no-one will ever know.
There's a danger that if we don't have some level of shared interaction, it can be destructive to our social cohesion.
Sure, and we can all die tomorrow. But that doesn't mean it is likely to happen.
Way back when, people would live in small villages and were limited to interaction with those in the village (and those travellers who happened to be passing through). Small communities tend to result in people having the same opinion on most things. Society was able to survive in this mode for quite a long time. It's only been recently that the idea of exposing yourself to differing opinions and seeing other people's side of things has gained wide-acceptance.
The internet encouraging people to only interact with those who share their opinion will not be the end of society as we know it.
Given the fairly different ecologies of Mars and Earth, I'd say it would have to just be a co-incidence (unless it's external pressures such as the sun causing it, although I doubt the sun has THAT much influence). Although don't worry, the Republicans would still use it as evidence against global warming.
Here's my hypothesis: the users that we hear about all the friggin time on Slashdot who can't keep the spyware off their computers are the ones who click "Install" every time they're prompted about an ActiveX control.
Well it's wrong for me. I use Firefox but my parents use IE and I constantly have adware on my computer (an adware scan a week gets rid of it all though). My father isn't stupid enough to install anything without knowing what it is, my mother only does internet banking (and she'd freak if it came up asking her to install anything).
Now while I do have less adware then I did when my brother used the computer (he DID hit install on anything that popped up), I do still have adware.
Yup, I was speaking hypothetically and wasn't talking about the real world. My point was, given X amount of time, Firefox will eventually become more secure IF their response time is faster then IE's.
It's anecdotal of course, but it is my own, direct experience.
I wasn't responding to you, but the AC who replied to you (if you check, you'll see I'm not replying to your comment). He was claiming he hasn't ever had any problem with viruses or adware using IE, I was pointing out there's not having problems, and not noticing the fact you do have viruses and adware on your computer. While the same can be said about Firefox users, I tend to assume they're more cluey (they've discovered another browser after all) over security and DO run scans on their computer on a regular basis.
Are you deliberately spreading FUD? Firefox 1.0.7 is right here. (if you were going for funny, I don't see the joke)
They've been building 1.5 (Deer Park) for at least one or two months. I'm assuming they finished working on 1.0.7 before they began work on 1.5, so 1.7 isn't exactly new.
When was the last time you ran an adware scan and a virus scan? You may have no problems you've detected, but it's quite possible that you've been exploited quite a bit.
It's also possible you've got a more secure system. Are you using a router? Hardware firewall? A software one besides the Windows XP one? Many people run Windows XP with no security except what comes with it (which is why it has a Firewall since SP2, regardless of how bad or good it is, it's better then nothing) and a virus scanner (occassionally an adware scanner as well). These differences may be why you have a much more secure system despite using IE.
Or it could be you surf only a very few, very trustworthy websites, while other people here aren't as discriminating. In that instance, it is better to use something other then IE.
A butcher is somewhat of an expert in the field (I know this because presumingly I've been shopping from him for quite some time). The OP might or might not be an expert, but even if he does claim to be one, I have no way to know that for sure.
Slashdot Mirror
If people want their privacy to be kept, they should block the infrared portion of the electromagnetic spectrum from leaving their property into public airspace (whether it be the street or the air). Police should be able to use any information they happened to obtain, without a warrant. Imagine a case where a police is sitting walking past a house down the street, and two people are talking quite loudly as they plan to murder someone. Should the policeman be forced to get a warrant if he wants to use what he heard? It's the same issue. The soundwaves left the private property into a place the policeman had every right to be. Whatever he obtains when in that place should be admissable in court.
People can, and do, use methods every day to evidence of their private matters from escaping their private property. An example of this is visible light from the electromagnetic spectrum. We stop that from escaping our property by building walls. If a policeman driving down a street see's us commiting a crime on our front lawn, he is allowed to use the evidence of what he saw to arrest the person. Infrared is no different.
Same thing also applies with the e-nose. If you don't want a policeman to be able to detect certain substances on you, you keep it concealed to stop him from detecting it via visible light. Now you'll have to stop him from being able to detect it via his e-nose. This isn't a case of the policeman violating people's privacy, it's a case of people not taking enough care to secure their privacy. The policeman isn't slipping an e-nose into your bag and accessing the data from it via wifi. He's in a place where he's allowed to be, merely walking around. Anything he finds (whether it be because he saw it via infrared, visible light or e-nose) should be admissable (it's not like he's forcing you to strip down, it's also not like he's walking through your house without your permission a court order).
Do they mention why openness is a good thing? Or are they simply supporting it because it's the latest fad? Last I checked, Microsoft documents were accessible on all modern OSes, so it can't be because Microsoft documents wouldn't be accessible to the general public.
I RTFA and it doesn't say one simple question "Why is Massachusetts doing this?" Now I can think of numerous reasons, but did OASIS? Or is OASIS simply justifying it's existence (however brief it might have been/will be) by creating an expensive (sorry, but migration IS expensive) procedure that will have to take place over a year? Beauraucrats love making policies, is this simply another example of that, without regard to the advantages and disadvantages?
The slashdot articles are also fairly free of any real reason. One cites some vague legal concerns (that frankly seemed devoid of any real information) while the other makes mention of a non-Microsoft format (called Voleware). If whatever they were using Voleware for wasn't meeting their needs, fine. But why this big policy change state-government wide? Why change all of the formats (when most of them CAN be opened under all modern operating systems)? Were the costs and disadvantages discussed along with the advantages? I can't see any indication of that. Does anyone that know more about this want to shed some light?
Is PalmOS really so great?
It's better then Windows. Palm doing away with PalmOS would allow the software giant to gain more of a hold on the PDA market, decreasing the need for Microsoft to compete with it's software features in it's PDA's.
Competition is a good thing, as it fosters development. Another company losing it's OS department and climbing into bed with a competitor doesn't foster development, and the people that lose out are the customers.
So, by using some implicit logic here, we all should accept Linux because even though it has its faults, it's free?
I didn't say that, and don't even think my logic says that. My logic is, if Company X produces product Ya, whereas I can get product Yb for free, I'm going to need product Ya to be damn good for me to get that instead. Is Yb perfect? No. Should it be used in place of something that's better? hell no. But should it be used in place of something that's just as good? Why wouldn't you want to?
Microsoft has attacked Linux's development method, saying how much better theirs was. People bought into it. Now we learn that they've been lying all this time, and that their development method is just "as bad" as Linux's. When you lie to people in order to get them to buy your "state of the art" product, people are going to expect it to be good. When they learn you've lied, they're going to be pissed, and it's fair for them to criticize Microsoft for this.
That's what I said. I don't know where this "implied logic" that Mac should be selling like pancakes comes from.
software development can work on such a grand scale.
If what you're hoping to produce is bug-riddled unsecure software.
However their development method does explain the numerous problems with Windows.
If you're going to continue to post this troll, PLEASE replace >1% with 1%! I've seen this so many times, and it's always got that same typo.
Don't be such a hypocrite.
The difference being, Windows is touted as a professional OS built by professional coders, upheld to a high standard, etc, etc, etc. Simply put: People expect more when they have to pay for it. Microsoft has constantly criticized projects such as Linux, because the code isn't built by a central authority. Now we learn that Windows is made pretty much like Linux. I think criticizing Microsoft for this is definitely justifiable.
We did go there in January? Cool, I didn't know a person had landed on any celestial body outside of Earth's gravity well.
Or are you a bot, so therefore consider a probe to be a fellow citizen of yours?
But for most people, movies do need to be seen relatively soon as they come out.
Or what? They die?
Slashdot is filled with guys that can't socialize (and hence, get dates). To some degree, that is affected by an inability to realize that if someone asks you about the latest movie; they're trying to start a conversation -- not looking to get preached to about the evil movie industry.
Oooh, you're sure to get modded up. Criticizing slashdot and/or people who com here (bonus points for mentioning their inability to date). However it's quite likely that the person attempting to start a conversation won't like the same movies you do. I know I have quite different tastes to those I talk to regularly, despite this my ability to have a conversation isn't hampered.
The reason for the quicker turnaround is theatres are now seen as one big advertisement for a movie. I guess the movie distributors have decided it's not very good to have an advertisement shown 12 months before the product is released. It wasn't always like that, with theatres being seen as advertisements for the movies, which is why there was once a longer turnaround.
I'm sick of paying $7 + $5 for movie popcorn and a drink
A much simpler alternative to revamping the movie distribution system is to merely wait a few months for it to be released on DVD. You know people, not getting what you want IMMEDIATELY isn't a bad thing.
The point of a comment like "open source zealots should...." is to call people who use linux zealots. It serves no purpose other then that. The astro turfers
Oh the irony is astounding. let me guess, you only want equal rights for people like yourself?
Ha! I haven't been able to metamoderate in years (even though my Karma has consistently been Excellent).
The best way to disregard anyone's opinion who doesn't agree with you is to give them a label and imply it to be derogatory. Way to go with keeping an open mind, if this is how liberals (who claim to be open minded) act, no wonder most americans believe bush's "you're either with us or against us" garbage.
Listening to other people's point of view is all well and good. But no-one should feel like they have to listen to the hatred and bile that are chick tracts. And while that takes things to an extreme, that disregard for other people's opinions and that propaganda is extremely common on the internet. Just stay here at slashdot for a while.
Having said that, I have managed to find a message board with mixed people, and they are fairly nice and keep the propaganda to a minimum. But these places on the internet are rare and few. I don't blame people for wanting to avoid people like Chick. Why are people so much more extreme on the internet? Well they're extreme in real life, but Penny arcade made a good point with a comic that said "Anonymity + opinion = fuckwad." People who might be nice and able to take differing opinions in real life, don't NEED to do so on the internet because they don't care about the people they interact with. They act nice in real life, because they care about people's opinions who they interact with. On the internet, this is no longer the case. They can act one way on one message board, another way on another message board, and no-one will ever know.
There's a danger that if we don't have some level of shared interaction, it can be destructive to our social cohesion.
Sure, and we can all die tomorrow. But that doesn't mean it is likely to happen.
Way back when, people would live in small villages and were limited to interaction with those in the village (and those travellers who happened to be passing through). Small communities tend to result in people having the same opinion on most things. Society was able to survive in this mode for quite a long time. It's only been recently that the idea of exposing yourself to differing opinions and seeing other people's side of things has gained wide-acceptance.
The internet encouraging people to only interact with those who share their opinion will not be the end of society as we know it.
Given the fairly different ecologies of Mars and Earth, I'd say it would have to just be a co-incidence (unless it's external pressures such as the sun causing it, although I doubt the sun has THAT much influence). Although don't worry, the Republicans would still use it as evidence against global warming.
I love that. The parent (and its parent) made the exact same joke as everyone else, and yet got modded offtopic. Way to go mods.
Here's my hypothesis: the users that we hear about all the friggin time on Slashdot who can't keep the spyware off their computers are the ones who click "Install" every time they're prompted about an ActiveX control.
Well it's wrong for me. I use Firefox but my parents use IE and I constantly have adware on my computer (an adware scan a week gets rid of it all though). My father isn't stupid enough to install anything without knowing what it is, my mother only does internet banking (and she'd freak if it came up asking her to install anything).
Now while I do have less adware then I did when my brother used the computer (he DID hit install on anything that popped up), I do still have adware.
You pull that number from your ass?
Yup, I was speaking hypothetically and wasn't talking about the real world. My point was, given X amount of time, Firefox will eventually become more secure IF their response time is faster then IE's.
It's anecdotal of course, but it is my own, direct experience.
I wasn't responding to you, but the AC who replied to you (if you check, you'll see I'm not replying to your comment). He was claiming he hasn't ever had any problem with viruses or adware using IE, I was pointing out there's not having problems, and not noticing the fact you do have viruses and adware on your computer. While the same can be said about Firefox users, I tend to assume they're more cluey (they've discovered another browser after all) over security and DO run scans on their computer on a regular basis.
Are you deliberately spreading FUD? Firefox 1.0.7 is right here. (if you were going for funny, I don't see the joke)
They've been building 1.5 (Deer Park) for at least one or two months. I'm assuming they finished working on 1.0.7 before they began work on 1.5, so 1.7 isn't exactly new.
When was the last time you ran an adware scan and a virus scan? You may have no problems you've detected, but it's quite possible that you've been exploited quite a bit.
It's also possible you've got a more secure system. Are you using a router? Hardware firewall? A software one besides the Windows XP one? Many people run Windows XP with no security except what comes with it (which is why it has a Firewall since SP2, regardless of how bad or good it is, it's better then nothing) and a virus scanner (occassionally an adware scanner as well). These differences may be why you have a much more secure system despite using IE.
Or it could be you surf only a very few, very trustworthy websites, while other people here aren't as discriminating. In that instance, it is better to use something other then IE.
wouldnt you rather take the butchers word for it?
A butcher is somewhat of an expert in the field (I know this because presumingly I've been shopping from him for quite some time). The OP might or might not be an expert, but even if he does claim to be one, I have no way to know that for sure.