Now uses Windows for it's everyday transactions with customers. I have to say that makes me every bit as nervous as an ATM using windows. Every time a transaction is finished I hear the classic windows "donk" sound, and it just makes me twitch...
I'd prefer a much more specific, secure system. Linux would be "OK", but actually I'd prefer something that is much more secure than that, or maybe a linux/unix flavor that aims for security above all else (inlcluding ease of use).
Or you could be like GWB, who has had four years to deliver on his many promises. Two of those four years were spent with complete Republican control of Congress and the White house (the SC is next but no one has left yet) but little of meaning has been done (with the exceptions of IRAQ, a horrible mistake, and Afghanistan, a good move)
Social Security: he wanted to reform/privatize it, an idea I fully support - it hasn't happened. Homeland Security: with less cops and firefighters on the streets after 9/11 (and they were the first responders BTW), I don't feel safer. No child left behind: Full funding as promised left WAY behind. Traditional education funds have been diverted to comply with the lack of funding. Medical reforms: The Gov't now is forbidden from exercising price bargaining for drugs, and now my business pays 25% more for my employees health insurance. That bill is scary. Employment: I wont even go there. The Deficit: No other president in War Time has decided we all need Tax breaks. The Military: We're over extended, and our soldiers mothers have to scarpe to get their sons body armor. No-bid Haliburton Subsidiaries drive armored trucks while our soldiers drive unprotected. Veterans Medical Medical Benfits have been cut.
Do be careful of being the pot calling the Kettle Black.
Without a Paper Trial, this system is not trustworthy.
I hate Diebold for political reasons, but I'd still be OK with the system, even though Diebold makes it, if it had a paper trail the voter could see and the Board of Elections could use in the event of trouble.
These people, OTOH, have a system I would trust: http://www.sequoiavote.com/
This test was in a vacuum,so of course it wouldn't have any issues.
I remain unconvinced of the security/reliability of paperless ballots, epecially Diebold. .
Why is is that every short-sighted "property owner" thinks their ownership of said property/service gives them the right to do whatever they want? Please show me the contract I signed indicating that the ISP is free to read all of my mail by virtue of my using their service.
Lets take a look at the United States Post Office. Their "property" and their "service", right? Even they have to follow rules and regulations regarding the snooping of mail.
Then there is the phone company. "I'm using their electrons", right? Their phone lines, right? Well, last time I checked, they and/or the the law enforcement/investigating body needed a wiretap order to listen in. The only exception being the customer asking and giving explicit permission to monitor the lines because of threats/harassment to the customer.
I'm not advocating that the rights of the user is absolute with email, but common sense dictates a level of privacy. You appear to miss this point completely; hence the use of the word "moron."
There may not be law (yet) against ISP owners who believe they "can capture it, log it, and read it to people on the street if I want to," because "it's MY server your email is stored on." but I'd love to see you, or the person you are advocating for, try it and see if you don't get in very hot water for excercising your very intersting belief that you can do whatever you want because it is "your server." The odds of your ass ending up on a legal flagpole here would increase exponentially if you tried this on a famous/rich/powerful person with a good lawyer or a public figure who had any significant stature.
Sometimes the law (and people like you, apparently) take a while to catch up with the advances in technology and the responsibilities it entails. Hopefully it won't take too long for either of you.
And since I didn't post AC this time, you now know who the other "moron" is.
I agree. Creationism can be benign or malignant. Creationism in its purest form is a matter of faith, not science, and is perfectly legitimate, but completely incompatible with Science. Faith and Science are, IMO, seperate but equal things, and they serve different ends. It's only when some bufoon attempts to mingle the two that real problems begin.
Creation a-la biblical style has its place. For many it can help answer the question of "why am I here?" and "what is the purpose of my life?" Science can explain details of HOW we got here and HOW life is what it is.
In summary:
Science can answer HOWs much more easily than why and is usually better off that way
Faith and Religion can answer WHYs much more easily than HOW and is usually better off that way.
Reasonable men and women of Faiths and and of not may both find this show interesting.
I hope its as good as COSMOS, but considering its just two episodes (I think, as i saw from their website) I think it'll just be "very good."
OK, I messed that one up. According to the NY Times (evil registration req'd) (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/23/busines s/23comp uter.html) The "deal" was a seperate one between the actual company CA and Judge Glasser. Kumar is just another greeedy bastard who got caught and will, if convicted, likely only spend time in a Federal White-Collar-Hotel Style prison.
Further, from the NY Times article: "In 1998, Mr. Kumar received a stock bonus of $330 million, among the biggest one-time payments ever given to an executive, though he later returned about $70 million in stock to settle a shareholder lawsuit. He was paid another $20 million in salary and bonuses from 1997 to 2004.
Of the top executives at Computer Associates in the late 1990's, only Charles B. Wang, the co-founder and chairman before Mr. Kumar, has not been indicted or entered a guilty plea. Prosecutors have never publicly mentioned Mr. Wang as a focus of their investigation, and a lawyer for Mr. Wang said he had no comment."
Sanjay Kumar, while he is a Greedy Bastard, could have been worse. If he had not agreed to "cooperate" and be charged personally, the Corporation itself could have faced charges, causing CA even more problems than it is already facing.
MS released a corporate version of Windows XP (along with Office XP and Office 2003), IMO, for two reasons:
1) Mass VLK rollout for large corporate networks where SysAdmins don't care to be bothered with an activation every time a new machine is installed/re-instralled/modified. This BY FAR the main reason MS did this.
2) corporate keys can be used to get the "file sharing effect" of illegally distributed copies as a mass marketing effect among those who would never have bought WinXP or its bretheren products anyway, but will have their friends/aqaintences become interested by seeing it in use. This idea is allluded to by you in your statement of "I believe MS likes having everyone use Windows, whether it's paid for or not."
And it is probably true.
But let me add that I believe that is a mere fringe benefit of software piracy to Microsoft. Microsoft would, IMO, fully prefer to have all of those who use its software aquire it in a LEGAL FASHION a-la sales or tranfer of ownership of a legally aquired product from a previous owner.
Before we all fully bash MS for its product activation I would remind those who will now mod me as troll that MS products did not used to require it. It was implemented as a response to truly massive and casual software piracy among Joe average users and people in the workplace. MS has stated before that Product Activation was never intended to stop pirates who are determined not to pay for their products in the first place, but rather to discourage casual piracy and educate users of what does constitute software piracy (for those who actually did not know, and they were quite a few). And if it pissed off illegal users in the process, well, I can't imagine how this could have caused MS to lose any sleep (there goes my karma again.)
Yes, the product actiavtion is a real pain. No, it doesnt stop illegal software sharing and distribution (read as: software piracy), but yes, it has, in fact, curbed casual piracy and was a legitimate, if not short sighted response, to illegal distribution and outright software piracy.
I don't mean to wholly defend Microsoft against it's nasty, Draconian, fairyland EULA agreements, Anti-Trust violations, Pac-Man Style if-you-can't-beat 'em-buy 'em aquisitions, breach of contract with its "affiliates" (read as: beholden subordinates), stifling of innovation via it's monopolistic sumo-weight throwing, or its sorry-ass excuse for a browser.
But they do, occasionally, have perfectly valid reasons for what they do.
I wonder what effect this will have on the ability of either parent company to provide better security/AV protection. IMO, Symantec has a faster response to secrity threats.
Will these aquisitions reinforce this mode for symantec or result in McAfee getting a bit better?
I'm not sure if this was the book, but at a library in Shaker Heights, Ohio, they had a terrible time keeping a book on two fathers in stock. It may have been "Daddy's Roomate" or something along the lines of "My Two Daddy's" or something like that.
Anyway, at the Library, they had a great deal of trouble keeping a legitimate intact copy in stock because the book was so often stolen, vandalized, etc. The main thing was some homophobe(s) or zealot(s) who were so insecure they felt threatened by enough by gay men they had to cut out pictures of one of the men from any page where two were present, so that kids would see only one daddy.
Stupid only really hurts yourself, but Ignorance and Bigotry hurts everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
Now uses Windows for it's everyday transactions with customers. I have to say that makes me every bit as nervous as an ATM using windows. Every time a transaction is finished I hear the classic windows "donk" sound, and it just makes me twitch...
I'd prefer a much more specific, secure system. Linux would be "OK", but actually I'd prefer something that is much more secure than that, or maybe a linux/unix flavor that aims for security above all else (inlcluding ease of use).
We're talking about our money, after all.
.
Or you could be like GWB, who has had four years to deliver on his many promises. Two of those four years were spent with complete Republican control of Congress and the White house (the SC is next but no one has left yet) but little of meaning has been done (with the exceptions of IRAQ, a horrible mistake, and Afghanistan, a good move)
Social Security: he wanted to reform/privatize it, an idea I fully support - it hasn't happened.
Homeland Security: with less cops and firefighters on the streets after 9/11 (and they were the first responders BTW), I don't feel safer.
No child left behind: Full funding as promised left WAY behind. Traditional education funds have been diverted to comply with the lack of funding.
Medical reforms: The Gov't now is forbidden from exercising price bargaining for drugs, and now my business pays 25% more for my employees health insurance. That bill is scary.
Employment: I wont even go there.
The Deficit: No other president in War Time has decided we all need Tax breaks.
The Military: We're over extended, and our soldiers mothers have to scarpe to get their sons body armor. No-bid Haliburton Subsidiaries drive armored trucks while our soldiers drive unprotected. Veterans Medical Medical Benfits have been cut.
Do be careful of being the pot calling the Kettle Black.
.
I support Kerry/Edwards
and I'd like to say you and yours had every right to take them down, as often as is neccessary.
Almost makes one tempted to get out a camcorder....
But I guess that would be getting too petty.
.
and I'll say it again.
Without a Paper Trial, this system is not trustworthy.
I hate Diebold for political reasons, but I'd still be OK with the system, even though Diebold makes it, if it had a paper trail the voter could see and the Board of Elections could use in the event of trouble.
These people, OTOH, have a system I would trust:
http://www.sequoiavote.com/
This test was in a vacuum,so of course it wouldn't have any issues.
I remain unconvinced of the security/reliability of paperless ballots, epecially Diebold.
.
"Given their record of fair play..."
Ha. Ha-ha-ha. Ha ha.
"Fair Play"
Oh yeah, Man. That was a good one.
.
I appear to have completely misunderstood you and the target of your reply.
:/
Please accept my apologies.
Nice to meet you as well
.
Why is is that every short-sighted "property owner" thinks their ownership of said property/service gives them the right to do whatever they want? Please show me the contract I signed indicating that the ISP is free to read all of my mail by virtue of my using their service.
Lets take a look at the United States Post Office. Their "property" and their "service", right? Even they have to follow rules and regulations regarding the snooping of mail.
Then there is the phone company. "I'm using their electrons", right? Their phone lines, right? Well, last time I checked, they and/or the the law enforcement/investigating body needed a wiretap order to listen in. The only exception being the customer asking and giving explicit permission to monitor the lines because of threats/harassment to the customer.
I'm not advocating that the rights of the user is absolute with email, but common sense dictates a level of privacy. You appear to miss this point completely; hence the use of the word "moron."
There may not be law (yet) against ISP owners who believe they "can capture it, log it, and read it to people on the street if I want to," because "it's MY server your email is stored on." but I'd love to see you, or the person you are advocating for, try it and see if you don't get in very hot water for excercising your very intersting belief that you can do whatever you want because it is "your server." The odds of your ass ending up on a legal flagpole here would increase exponentially if you tried this on a famous/rich/powerful person with a good lawyer or a public figure who had any significant stature.
Sometimes the law (and people like you, apparently) take a while to catch up with the advances in technology and the responsibilities it entails. Hopefully it won't take too long for either of you.
And since I didn't post AC this time, you now know who the other "moron" is.
.
except that only someone on your block can hear you, unless the signal is constantly repeated to extend range by fans/fellow radio low watt types.
Anyway, looks very cool to me.
Freedom of speech, even if a small voice. Rock On!
.
considering how Diebold is in his district and will proably crush him with massive donations to his opponent.
If he is very good and genuine, he may stand a chance, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Nifty Ideas for input, though. And I can appriciate a man who stands up for what he thinks is right.
of privacy as phones.
why sould it be that once I use a computer and/or the internet I must see my rights go down the tubes?
Hopefully, this is part of the reason why the Court is reconsidering its decision
I agree. Creationism can be benign or malignant. Creationism in its purest form is a matter of faith, not science, and is perfectly legitimate, but completely incompatible with Science. Faith and Science are, IMO, seperate but equal things, and they serve different ends. It's only when some bufoon attempts to mingle the two that real problems begin.
Creation a-la biblical style has its place. For many it can help answer the question of "why am I here?" and "what is the purpose of my life?" Science can explain details of HOW we got here and HOW life is what it is.
In summary:
Science can answer HOWs much more easily than why and is usually better off that way
Faith and Religion can answer WHYs much more easily than HOW and is usually better off that way.
Reasonable men and women of Faiths and and of not may both find this show interesting.
I hope its as good as COSMOS, but considering its just two episodes (I think, as i saw from their website) I think it'll just be "very good."
because I get to find out about interesting stuff like this which I might not normally be exposed to.
OK, I messed that one up. According to the NY Times (evil registration req'd)s s/23comp uter.html) The "deal" was a seperate one between the actual company CA and Judge Glasser. Kumar is just another greeedy bastard who got caught and will, if convicted, likely only spend time in a Federal White-Collar-Hotel Style prison.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/23/busine
Further, from the NY Times article: "In 1998, Mr. Kumar received a stock bonus of $330 million, among the biggest one-time payments ever given to an executive, though he later returned about $70 million in stock to settle a shareholder lawsuit. He was paid another $20 million in salary and bonuses from 1997 to 2004.
Of the top executives at Computer Associates in the late 1990's, only Charles B. Wang, the co-founder and chairman before Mr. Kumar, has not been indicted or entered a guilty plea. Prosecutors have never publicly mentioned Mr. Wang as a focus of their investigation, and a lawyer for Mr. Wang said he had no comment."
Nasty Greedy Bastards, all of them.
Sanjay Kumar, while he is a Greedy Bastard, could have been worse. If he had not agreed to "cooperate" and be charged personally, the Corporation itself could have faced charges, causing CA even more problems than it is already facing.
Stupid? Yes.
Stooopid? Probably not.
I always use the current president.
o v
It used to be bclinton@whitehouse.gov
now it is either
gwbush@whitehouse.gov
or
dcheney@whitehouse.g
MS released a corporate version of Windows XP (along with Office XP and Office 2003), IMO, for two reasons:
1) Mass VLK rollout for large corporate networks where SysAdmins don't care to be bothered with an activation every time a new machine is installed/re-instralled/modified. This BY FAR the main reason MS did this.
2) corporate keys can be used to get the "file sharing effect" of illegally distributed copies as a mass marketing effect among those who would never have bought WinXP or its bretheren products anyway, but will have their friends/aqaintences become interested by seeing it in use. This idea is allluded to by you in your statement of "I believe MS likes having everyone use Windows, whether it's paid for or not."
And it is probably true.
But let me add that I believe that is a mere fringe benefit of software piracy to Microsoft. Microsoft would, IMO, fully prefer to have all of those who use its software aquire it in a LEGAL FASHION a-la sales or tranfer of ownership of a legally aquired product from a previous owner.
Before we all fully bash MS for its product activation I would remind those who will now mod me as troll that MS products did not used to require it. It was implemented as a response to truly massive and casual software piracy among Joe average users and people in the workplace. MS has stated before that Product Activation was never intended to stop pirates who are determined not to pay for their products in the first place, but rather to discourage casual piracy and educate users of what does constitute software piracy (for those who actually did not know, and they were quite a few). And if it pissed off illegal users in the process, well, I can't imagine how this could have caused MS to lose any sleep (there goes my karma again.)
Yes, the product actiavtion is a real pain. No, it doesnt stop illegal software sharing and distribution (read as: software piracy), but yes, it has, in fact, curbed casual piracy and was a legitimate, if not short sighted response, to illegal distribution and outright software piracy.
I don't mean to wholly defend Microsoft against it's nasty, Draconian, fairyland EULA agreements, Anti-Trust violations, Pac-Man Style if-you-can't-beat 'em-buy 'em aquisitions, breach of contract with its "affiliates" (read as: beholden subordinates), stifling of innovation via it's monopolistic sumo-weight throwing, or its sorry-ass excuse for a browser.
But they do, occasionally, have perfectly valid reasons for what they do.
I wonder what effect this will have on the ability of either parent company to provide better security/AV protection. IMO, Symantec has a faster response to secrity threats.
Will these aquisitions reinforce this mode for symantec or result in McAfee getting a bit better?
And it's not just Microsoft doing it.
How about a class action lawsuit on those grounds? I've never heard of one on EULAs, and most need to be taken down a notch or two.
When I buy software, it's MINE and I'll do what I please with it, including reselling it for a profit, if I want to.
And yeah, copying and selling is clearly wrong - I'm not talking about that.
I'm not sure if this was the book, but at a library in Shaker Heights, Ohio, they had a terrible time keeping a book on two fathers in stock. It may have been "Daddy's Roomate" or something along the lines of "My Two Daddy's" or something like that.
Anyway, at the Library, they had a great deal of trouble keeping a legitimate intact copy in stock because the book was so often stolen, vandalized, etc. The main thing was some homophobe(s) or zealot(s) who were so insecure they felt threatened by enough by gay men they had to cut out pictures of one of the men from any page where two were present, so that kids would see only one daddy.
Stupid only really hurts yourself, but Ignorance and Bigotry hurts everyone.