After some thought and considerations, I assume that the reason that anonymity on the net is a fundamental right is because removing it would allow us to be observed in the privacy of our own homes. To say in the least, it would be like the government requiring you to install cameras in all the rooms of your house. As most computer do have webcams, I can also draw to the conclusion that if you're doing something online that somebody doesn't like and your identity is known because of the lack of anonymity online, it would be rather simple for some black hat hacker or government organization to, say, turn on the cam and observe you as you browse. So, I imagine that anonymity online is simply a right because violating it invades your privacy in your own home.
That isn't to say certain websites cannot or shouldn't require you to identify yourself to access them, but on a whole requiring your computer to identify who you are while you're online is about equivalent to some supposed V-Chip that observes you through your TV or taps your phone calls while you're phone sexing your girl.
It's because Google isn't hiding behind any need to protect anything that I'd rather give my so-called "rights" to them. Their agenda is well known and obvious: They are a corporation and are expected to behave like one, including first and foremost existing to turn a profit in spite of all else. Google may be corrupt, may be shady, but their agenda is clear and not muddled. On the other hand, the government's agenda is mixed, it's muddled, confused, sprawled, and a mess. We originally submitted to a government under the terms that under a government, we should be better off, because a government can protect us from each other. The amount of rights we hand to the government should be comparable to the amount of protection we want or need. However, this isn't the case, as the government had developed a patented strategy of giving us protection we don't want or need at all, usually under a clause of protecting the children or protection us from the evil terrorists. I'd rather take my chances with Google than with this sprawling mass that acts like a corporation run by a madman whose job is to protect us from ourselves. At least Google has a stable economy.
I am twenty two. They summed up the Ninth Amendment in a grand summary quite akin to, "states you have rights the constitution doesn't say you have, like privacy."
I mean, I know the actual text is kinda vague, but you know, what kinda rights? Unenumerated rights is a bit more specific.
And it would have never caught on anyways. With or without x86-64. Why? Same reason there are enterprises running out of date IBM computers and won't move up: Compatibility. I consider x86-64 a good thing because it gave us compatibility and still moved the game forward. And any forward momentum that allows us to keep going without having to reinvent every part of the wheel is good.
Uhm, maybe because no one else wanted to figure out the 32->64 bit scenario? Intel would rather shove a new micro-architecture down your throat and no one else could compete. Lucky for AMD, the whole NetBurst fiasco was blowing up in Intel's face at the time, or they never would have gotten anywhere. I don't think Fusion will be enough to trump Intel with Intel having another screwup like NetBurst, which doesn't seem to be happening, as since Core 2, Intel's designs have been top notch, albeit expensive. The only real thing AMD has going for it is that Intel doesn't really have anything primed as Larrabee seems to be dead in the water. Of course, Intel augmented AMD's 64-bit instruction set onto their CPUs and drowned their engineers with money to produce far more potent chips than AMD before, I can't imagine they wouldn't be able to do it again.
Anybody else remember when there were rumors in the air that IBM would scoop up AMD? That would have been a fun scenario.
I don't know, man. All the features I could ever want work great outta the box. As long as I'm locked into Android, there is no way I'll ever lose my contacts. When I format or switch to a new phone, my apps are all downloaded again automagically. If I don't like something about the OS, I can generally replace it with some third party application. When android tablets start coming out, if I get one, my custom "Android" will likely follow me onto it. I don't know, as someone who had to deal with people when they had synchronization problems with ActiveSync and their Windows Mobile phones (problems sync'ing generally mean loss of everything without some roundabout backup/restore of PIM), I can't get enough of Android's robust synchronization with "the cloud"
The "lockscreen" is the screen you see when you start up the phone from inactivity, or a powered-off screen. When the screen powers on, the lock screen is the first thing you see. You unlock it, whether via button, via some "intuitive" slide-to-unlock gesture, or some pattern or lock pin, to go to whatever application you left at. So by "aggressive use of the locked screen", they are just saying, "Dammit! Allow us to customize it," or they're saying put more useful information there. They mention widgets, so it's logical to say they want customization. Honestly, I think they just want a prettier clock and an animated battery "charging" widget. Oh, and maybe Tetris as a widget. Wouldn't that be awesome?
I thought it was a rather fair post. Tons of complicated options were presented, along with funny, though unhelpful, prods. I did not find the aforementioned post to be offtopic, as it's KISS principle provided an alternative solution to the CORE problem that the OP had, that he devised a complex solution to that created a new problem, in that he didn't know how to implement such a system to create his solution. The OPs problem isn't that he needs a system, it's that he has kids and is trying to solve the problem in an inefficient way.
Nor was it flamebait, nor redundant, nor trolling, nor overrated. So for what reason would someone mod it down? Plain disagreement, bias.
There is no -1, disagree. I think it's a fair point to say, "Don't mod me down cause you disagree." That's not the point of moderation. Moderation is to raise up the good posts and filter out the flames/trolls/spam/you.
So aggregation of news, which is best for the consumer because they get the best writers everyone could hire (theoretically speaking), sucks for the big guys, so shut it down? I too like to have my cake and eat it too.
Slashdot Mirror
It's been said before and it'll be said again: The pedophiles ARE thinking of the children.
After some thought and considerations, I assume that the reason that anonymity on the net is a fundamental right is because removing it would allow us to be observed in the privacy of our own homes. To say in the least, it would be like the government requiring you to install cameras in all the rooms of your house. As most computer do have webcams, I can also draw to the conclusion that if you're doing something online that somebody doesn't like and your identity is known because of the lack of anonymity online, it would be rather simple for some black hat hacker or government organization to, say, turn on the cam and observe you as you browse. So, I imagine that anonymity online is simply a right because violating it invades your privacy in your own home.
That isn't to say certain websites cannot or shouldn't require you to identify yourself to access them, but on a whole requiring your computer to identify who you are while you're online is about equivalent to some supposed V-Chip that observes you through your TV or taps your phone calls while you're phone sexing your girl.
It's because Google isn't hiding behind any need to protect anything that I'd rather give my so-called "rights" to them. Their agenda is well known and obvious: They are a corporation and are expected to behave like one, including first and foremost existing to turn a profit in spite of all else. Google may be corrupt, may be shady, but their agenda is clear and not muddled. On the other hand, the government's agenda is mixed, it's muddled, confused, sprawled, and a mess. We originally submitted to a government under the terms that under a government, we should be better off, because a government can protect us from each other. The amount of rights we hand to the government should be comparable to the amount of protection we want or need. However, this isn't the case, as the government had developed a patented strategy of giving us protection we don't want or need at all, usually under a clause of protecting the children or protection us from the evil terrorists. I'd rather take my chances with Google than with this sprawling mass that acts like a corporation run by a madman whose job is to protect us from ourselves. At least Google has a stable economy.
I'm sorry, you were saying...?
disregard that, wrong parent.
I'm sorry, you were saying something?
I am twenty two. They summed up the Ninth Amendment in a grand summary quite akin to, "states you have rights the constitution doesn't say you have, like privacy."
I mean, I know the actual text is kinda vague, but you know, what kinda rights? Unenumerated rights is a bit more specific.
And it would have never caught on anyways. With or without x86-64. Why? Same reason there are enterprises running out of date IBM computers and won't move up: Compatibility. I consider x86-64 a good thing because it gave us compatibility and still moved the game forward. And any forward momentum that allows us to keep going without having to reinvent every part of the wheel is good.
Uhm, maybe because no one else wanted to figure out the 32->64 bit scenario? Intel would rather shove a new micro-architecture down your throat and no one else could compete. Lucky for AMD, the whole NetBurst fiasco was blowing up in Intel's face at the time, or they never would have gotten anywhere. I don't think Fusion will be enough to trump Intel with Intel having another screwup like NetBurst, which doesn't seem to be happening, as since Core 2, Intel's designs have been top notch, albeit expensive. The only real thing AMD has going for it is that Intel doesn't really have anything primed as Larrabee seems to be dead in the water. Of course, Intel augmented AMD's 64-bit instruction set onto their CPUs and drowned their engineers with money to produce far more potent chips than AMD before, I can't imagine they wouldn't be able to do it again.
Anybody else remember when there were rumors in the air that IBM would scoop up AMD? That would have been a fun scenario.
I don't know, man. All the features I could ever want work great outta the box. As long as I'm locked into Android, there is no way I'll ever lose my contacts. When I format or switch to a new phone, my apps are all downloaded again automagically. If I don't like something about the OS, I can generally replace it with some third party application. When android tablets start coming out, if I get one, my custom "Android" will likely follow me onto it. I don't know, as someone who had to deal with people when they had synchronization problems with ActiveSync and their Windows Mobile phones (problems sync'ing generally mean loss of everything without some roundabout backup/restore of PIM), I can't get enough of Android's robust synchronization with "the cloud"
The "lockscreen" is the screen you see when you start up the phone from inactivity, or a powered-off screen. When the screen powers on, the lock screen is the first thing you see. You unlock it, whether via button, via some "intuitive" slide-to-unlock gesture, or some pattern or lock pin, to go to whatever application you left at. So by "aggressive use of the locked screen", they are just saying, "Dammit! Allow us to customize it," or they're saying put more useful information there. They mention widgets, so it's logical to say they want customization. Honestly, I think they just want a prettier clock and an animated battery "charging" widget. Oh, and maybe Tetris as a widget. Wouldn't that be awesome?
For crying out loud they just enabled JIT on 2.2.
...And it is MAGICAL!
I think it's that every release breaks compatibility and every release follows Firefox's development schedule. Epiphany originally used Gecko. See their reasons for switching: http://mail.gnome.org/archives/epiphany-list/2008-April/msg00000.html
The correct term would be coincidentally, not ironically.
WRONG!
It is three quotes and a double quote. The distinction is relevant!
I thought it was a rather fair post. Tons of complicated options were presented, along with funny, though unhelpful, prods. I did not find the aforementioned post to be offtopic, as it's KISS principle provided an alternative solution to the CORE problem that the OP had, that he devised a complex solution to that created a new problem, in that he didn't know how to implement such a system to create his solution. The OPs problem isn't that he needs a system, it's that he has kids and is trying to solve the problem in an inefficient way. Nor was it flamebait, nor redundant, nor trolling, nor overrated. So for what reason would someone mod it down? Plain disagreement, bias.
There is no -1, disagree. I think it's a fair point to say, "Don't mod me down cause you disagree." That's not the point of moderation. Moderation is to raise up the good posts and filter out the flames/trolls/spam/you.
So aggregation of news, which is best for the consumer because they get the best writers everyone could hire (theoretically speaking), sucks for the big guys, so shut it down? I too like to have my cake and eat it too.
Even so (joking aside this time), third party is not the correct verbiage to express that. Third party suggests made by a party external to Microsoft.
I, for one, nominate the Hellsing Manga for plot fodder.
Android... needs... more contact sync?
Internet explorer is third party? O.o
Midori?
Awesome, we need to have a completely anonymous leak site to even know how corrupt our government even is. What a statement!
I am suddenly enraged about a piece of software I had no idea existed, had no intention of using, and never even considered looking at before.
...Have I finally found the community I belong to...?