I agree that wasting computing power doesn't seem to be the most logical thing to do, but the cost to send email is too low. The amount of junk snail mail that one gets is limited by the cost of paper and postage. I fully believe that the cost to send email needs to be increased. In that regard, I'd prefer a system that wastes my CPU time to send an email to a system that requires me to pay a postage to send an email. Part of that reasoning is that I don't believe anyone should be able to profit from my sending of an email, I prefer the monthly fee to access the internet. Those who use the internet less might disagree with me, but for now that is my opinion.
As a general user I would only accept emails that have "paid" there time using a system such as this. It would be a quick and easy way for the system to become univerally used as people would migrate to using the system if they wanted their emails read.
I wasn't in Boston, so I don't know exactly how this all worked, but my understanding is that if you wanted to be protesting right at the Fleet center you had to be in the "cage". But what about if I wanted to walk down a street with a sign? Now, I know that were surely a lot of streets closed, but no point in walking down those with my sign if no one else is there. Furthermore, who is stopping you from walking down the street in San Francisco or Chicago? IMO they shouldn't let anyone on the Fleet center property unless they have a ticket for the event, whatever it may be. But in lieu of that, forcing the meager number of protestors that showed up to be in a controlled environment does not seem to be equivalent to bombing a website. No one is stopping you from expressing your opinion they are just requiring that on the Fleet center property, you may protest in a specific location. You think if I feel that my protest would be better expressed from the roof of the center that I should be allowed to go there?
Additionally, I can come up with several good reasons for putting protestors in a specific area but I can't come up with one good reason for blocking the free distribution of information on the internet just because someone disagrees with it.
Finally, it is NOT your right or duty to interfere with the civil rights of others. Republicans are not the only members of the government. Democrats are not the only members of the government. Where do you get the idea that your right to free speech is more important than another person's or group's right?
Seems to me the problem isn't so much that the fresh install doesn't block viruses and worms so much as the fact that there are computers with viruses and worms living on your network. Removing the computer with the virus from the network should be priority one.
I said gone, because in the past, they have gone through some rough times (i.e. a war being fought on top of them).
This in no way means that they are not currently going through rough times and/or will not go through rough times in the future.
Just to be fair, they probably each had a civilian friend/relative that was killed by their government before the war as well.
On an unrelated note: Why don't we just be happy for a country that has gone through some VERY rough times? I for one am excited to see that they have something good to cheer about. I can't help but cheer that team on!
I hope that I haven't missed someone else posting this message, but the article does not state that the fingerprints are being run against the terrorist database. It says that the largest deployment of biometrics in the US is being compared with the database. They are referring to the airport security. There is nothing to indicate that these fingerprints are being compared with any database or that that is even feasible at this point in time.
Car drivers are required to go through several hours of training before receiving a license. Maybe you should have to go through training to receive a license to drive Microsoft Windows.:-)
I can see it now: "Now match the Windows Error messages with their likely causes. You must get 17 out of 20 correct to pass..."
People know that it is illegal to share software with their friend, but they do it anyway. True, people may not understand the details of copywright law, but they know it is illegal to share software. If they didn't know, they learned when they tried to install Windows XP on two computers and could only activate one.
And, I'm sorry, but I do know people who feel that it is worthwhile to purchase software than to get it illegally. Some people feel they have more to lose than to risk breaking the law over a couple hundred dollars worth of software. I KNOW that there are plenty of people on this board who aren't concerned, but I think its being overly general to say that the average user doesn't have a problem stealing software.
Finally, thanks to the music industry individual people have become targets of copywright infringement law suits. To make an example out of people, I think that they purposely chose everyday people who sometimes only shared a few songs. What makes you think that software companies won't see this cue and want their piece of that? It has made me more wary of downloading music and downloading software. Maybe I'm the only person in the world who thinks this way...
Believe it or not, some people actually do want to follow the law. For these people using pirated versions of software is not a likely option. Some people want to do it because they are afraid of getting caught and some do it just because its the right thing to do.
For the average home user who doesn't want to break the law this is a perfect solution. Most home users don't need powerful networking abilities or multiple user logins. In fact, the fewer bells and whistles that exist the less there is to confuse them.
Finally, as far as moving to Linux... The average home user is scared enough to install Windows, what makes you think they are going to install an operating system that they've never seen before, since most people use Windows at their job. Further, I wouldn't exactly call Linux the most user friendly of environments, its geared toward people who want a lot of functionality and have the time to mess with every little detail.
It seems to me that this is a good idea if the price drop matches the drop in functionality.
I disagree:
First, you stated that the evidence speaks for itself, yet you siad that there is no evidence, so how can the evidence speak for itself.
That said, there are *several* rational explanations for the results you spoke of:
For example, it is possible that Microsoft has increased the number of patents that it is submitting, Microsoft has obtained more skilled attorneys to aid in its patent prosecution.
None of these rule out the possiblity that people have been paid off, but they are all rational explanations. I would argue that they are generally more rational than the explanation that someone was paid off and somehow that person was able to influence a plurality of patent examiners. All this while covering it so carefully that none of the Microsoft watchdogs were able to detect the scheme.
I'm not saying that Microsoft is altruistic and right, but using circumstantial events as evidence just doesn't convince me. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but there are too many people willing to jump on the Microsoft is evil bandwagon.
Are you implying that Bill Gates paid off "the government" who intern informed the USPTO that patent examiners are to approve Microsoft patents even if they are "bullshit"? Are you also implying that George Bush has somehow influenced these patent examiners to approve "bullshit" patents?
Slashdot Mirror
Just because someone has a patent doesn't mean that people can't carefully make a device to do a similar thing.
I agree that wasting computing power doesn't seem to be the most logical thing to do, but the cost to send email is too low. The amount of junk snail mail that one gets is limited by the cost of paper and postage. I fully believe that the cost to send email needs to be increased. In that regard, I'd prefer a system that wastes my CPU time to send an email to a system that requires me to pay a postage to send an email. Part of that reasoning is that I don't believe anyone should be able to profit from my sending of an email, I prefer the monthly fee to access the internet. Those who use the internet less might disagree with me, but for now that is my opinion.
As a general user I would only accept emails that have "paid" there time using a system such as this. It would be a quick and easy way for the system to become univerally used as people would migrate to using the system if they wanted their emails read.
I wasn't in Boston, so I don't know exactly how this all worked, but my understanding is that if you wanted to be protesting right at the Fleet center you had to be in the "cage". But what about if I wanted to walk down a street with a sign? Now, I know that were surely a lot of streets closed, but no point in walking down those with my sign if no one else is there. Furthermore, who is stopping you from walking down the street in San Francisco or Chicago? IMO they shouldn't let anyone on the Fleet center property unless they have a ticket for the event, whatever it may be. But in lieu of that, forcing the meager number of protestors that showed up to be in a controlled environment does not seem to be equivalent to bombing a website. No one is stopping you from expressing your opinion they are just requiring that on the Fleet center property, you may protest in a specific location. You think if I feel that my protest would be better expressed from the roof of the center that I should be allowed to go there?
Additionally, I can come up with several good reasons for putting protestors in a specific area but I can't come up with one good reason for blocking the free distribution of information on the internet just because someone disagrees with it.
Finally, it is NOT your right or duty to interfere with the civil rights of others. Republicans are not the only members of the government. Democrats are not the only members of the government. Where do you get the idea that your right to free speech is more important than another person's or group's right?
Seems to me the problem isn't so much that the fresh install doesn't block viruses and worms so much as the fact that there are computers with viruses and worms living on your network. Removing the computer with the virus from the network should be priority one.
I said gone, because in the past, they have gone through some rough times (i.e. a war being fought on top of them). This in no way means that they are not currently going through rough times and/or will not go through rough times in the future.
Just to be fair, they probably each had a civilian friend/relative that was killed by their government before the war as well.
On an unrelated note:
Why don't we just be happy for a country that has gone through some VERY rough times? I for one am excited to see that they have something good to cheer about. I can't help but cheer that team on!
-Mike
Hmm...what if God exclusively used spam to communicate with people...
I hope that I haven't missed someone else posting this message, but the article does not state that the fingerprints are being run against the terrorist database. It says that the largest deployment of biometrics in the US is being compared with the database. They are referring to the airport security. There is nothing to indicate that these fingerprints are being compared with any database or that that is even feasible at this point in time.
Car drivers are required to go through several hours of training before receiving a license. Maybe you should have to go through training to receive a license to drive Microsoft Windows. :-)
I can see it now: "Now match the Windows Error messages with their likely causes. You must get 17 out of 20 correct to pass..."
People know that it is illegal to share software with their friend, but they do it anyway. True, people may not understand the details of copywright law, but they know it is illegal to share software. If they didn't know, they learned when they tried to install Windows XP on two computers and could only activate one.
And, I'm sorry, but I do know people who feel that it is worthwhile to purchase software than to get it illegally. Some people feel they have more to lose than to risk breaking the law over a couple hundred dollars worth of software. I KNOW that there are plenty of people on this board who aren't concerned, but I think its being overly general to say that the average user doesn't have a problem stealing software.
Finally, thanks to the music industry individual people have become targets of copywright infringement law suits. To make an example out of people, I think that they purposely chose everyday people who sometimes only shared a few songs. What makes you think that software companies won't see this cue and want their piece of that? It has made me more wary of downloading music and downloading software. Maybe I'm the only person in the world who thinks this way...
For the average home user who doesn't want to break the law this is a perfect solution. Most home users don't need powerful networking abilities or multiple user logins. In fact, the fewer bells and whistles that exist the less there is to confuse them.
Finally, as far as moving to Linux... The average home user is scared enough to install Windows, what makes you think they are going to install an operating system that they've never seen before, since most people use Windows at their job. Further, I wouldn't exactly call Linux the most user friendly of environments, its geared toward people who want a lot of functionality and have the time to mess with every little detail. It seems to me that this is a good idea if the price drop matches the drop in functionality.
-Mike
First, you stated that the evidence speaks for itself, yet you siad that there is no evidence, so how can the evidence speak for itself.
That said, there are *several* rational explanations for the results you spoke of: For example, it is possible that Microsoft has increased the number of patents that it is submitting, Microsoft has obtained more skilled attorneys to aid in its patent prosecution.
None of these rule out the possiblity that people have been paid off, but they are all rational explanations. I would argue that they are generally more rational than the explanation that someone was paid off and somehow that person was able to influence a plurality of patent examiners. All this while covering it so carefully that none of the Microsoft watchdogs were able to detect the scheme.
I'm not saying that Microsoft is altruistic and right, but using circumstantial events as evidence just doesn't convince me. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but there are too many people willing to jump on the Microsoft is evil bandwagon.
Are you implying that Bill Gates paid off "the government" who intern informed the USPTO that patent examiners are to approve Microsoft patents even if they are "bullshit"?
Are you also implying that George Bush has somehow influenced these patent examiners to approve "bullshit" patents?