while they do not violate any laws, secret printer tracking dot codes may violate the human right to privacy guaranteed by the EU's Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
Nevertheless, in the UK it's probable that such codes will become not only permissible, but compulsory. After all, how might terrorist propaganda be traced to its source otherwise?
I'd like to think the above paragraph is a joke. But it's not. Night is falling on the UK.
Notice how he carefully avoids saying anything about how people might need this device?
Yes and no. It is true that there is something deeply wrong with UK teenagers. They are broken. It's obvious to anyone. It is an uniquely British problem. They are (in my subjective experience) certainly more violent, ignorant, uncultured, selfish, obese, and downright dangerous than any of their European contemporaries. The only positive note is that they are so fat and unhealthy that most of them won't live long enough to breed or pass on their twisted values to their offspring. Someone really should be investigating what has gone so horribly wrong - it was NOT like this 20 years ago. It was never this bad.
That doesn't mean that it should be legal to treat them like animals. This kind of practice is just another example of the steady descent towards totalitarianism that the UK is heading straight for. It's probably too late already.
This is the New Labour Generation. Today's teens' first days of school were during the first days of Tony Blair's Regime.
I think Orwell should've tilted his book 2084, probably is going to be true by then.
No. It's mostly true today, especially in the UK. Hopefully by 2084 there will be a revolution and the fascists will finally be out of power. Considering how fat, drunk, and apathetic most of the population is, the revolution sure isn't going to be anytime before then.
Yes - The government is admitting to using spy satellites on its own citizens. I find that very surprising.
It's now too late to be surprised. It's too late for anything. Now the Government is so comfortable, so complacent admitting they are doing things like this, it just means that it is too late to change anything. It's over. Forget democracy, your vote will have no effect in changing this.
Just be thankful you are not in an evil totalitarian regime, like the UK.
countertops that can identify food placed on it and suggest recipes
A whole house that has pop-up ads. That's not my future, I promise you. I'm thinking those bastards at the Sirius Cybernetic Corporation had a hand in the design.
Not sure that means anything at all. Just because we haven't found any matches doesn't mean there aren't any. The percentage of humanity alive that's been fingerprint checked is tiny. There's very little cross checking from country to country. Fingerprints haven't been around for much more than 100 years -- there's probably very little research been done into them in the past 50 years or so.
We all assume they are unique, and now it is a widely accepted fact, that few would ever think to challenge -- but actually the statistical sample that's based on isn't large at all. It may well not be true.
I know it is unlikely that there are matches, but it's not impossible.
I also wonder whether fingerprints are truly unique? Perhaps there's just a very huge number of variants. It's not like it easy to be sure is it? Just because no-one's found duplicates doesn't mean there aren't any -- after all I bet no-one's even looking for dupes. What if they weren't unique?
What if each of us has at least one person out there with identical fingerprints? Food for though huh? Probably would even stand up in court if you had a good enough lawyer.
So if you report it to Yahoo, unless they are totally incompetent (which they are) or in bed with the spammers (which they are too), you could reasonably expect them to actually take some action against the originator (and even if they did, the spammer would just create a new account).
Quite correct. Yahoo -- the company who has repeatedly allowed its advertisers to install spyware on your computer. The company whose accounts are responsible for a significant amount of spam on the net -- they are one of the primary root causes of all spam. Whose spam filters don't work. Whom, when you report a mail as spam -- even repeatedly -- still send mail from the same source to your inbox regardless. The company whose inability to control spam (from Yahoo accounts) destroyed the eGroups community that it purchased.
This Yahoo? Remind me why we are believing they can pull this off?
The best thing Yahoo can do to solve the spam issue is to cease trading. Fortunately, that is their certain future.
Some of the Internet's most powerful companies -- including Yahoo, Google, PayPal and AOL.
Ok, I'll give them Google.
AOL is essentially deceased. PayPal isn't a big deal outside of the eBay community (which itself is slowly contracting). And as we all know Yahoo has been less and less relevant over the past couple of years, and is set to die any moment.
Ignoring for a second just how much more functionality Vista delivers over Windows 3.1, you need to a) include the price of DOS, and b) account for inflation. Windows 3.1 ("Full Version" retailed at US$150. I couldn't find a price for DOS 5.0 in 1991 with a cursory search, so I'll estimate it at about US$50.
So much of your post is short-sighted. You are not seeing the big picture at all. The OP was essentially correct.
Firstly, your rate of inflation is deeply suspect.
Secondly, "just how much more functionality vista delivers" -- actually not that much more utility at all, in all truth. Yes, there's the Networking and Internet tools now that 3.1 didn't have. But in reality Vista is essentially much the same set of tools (especially true if you compare 3.11 rather than 3.1). Which only goes to further prove how horrifically bloated it is.
Thirdly, forget the DOS price. Then, as now, most machines came bundled with MS products, the only reason to pay for 3.1 or vista is to upgrade from the previous version. (despite MS attempts to squeeze more cash out of everyone with 7 versions of vista) You didn't need to upgrade DOS as well as windows. So that's a non sequitur.
Fourthly, hardware and software has -- almost exclusively -- become cheaper over the past 20 years. This is true for OSX and its predecessors. This is NOT true for Windows.
In particular OSX Leopard is cheaper than Vista, and it has has far more utility, as well as being a more advanced operating system.
No, sorry. As I said the OP is correct. MS is well aware that it has sewn up the corporate market, and that this means that many people will choose to use MS products at home since they are familiar with them. They are deliberately using this advantage to maximize the cost of the software. In fact they are probably required to do so by corporate law. Understandable, but not admirable.
Just as with the browser market, the day will come when they have competition again in the OS market. That's the only time MS customers are going to get a fair deal.
Why isn't NoScript just a mandatory extension at this point? It seems like it would be pretty unobtrusive with default settings at a slightly reduced paranoia level.
No. People should have a choice. It's also important that Firefox begins to slim down and stop the feature bloat that is slowly developing.
While I understand the benefits of NoScript. I used it briefly and found it just far too intrusive to be useful -- which is a reflection on the fact that many websites are running stupid pointless scripts that no-one needs -- especially the big corporate content ones. Any such site is rendered useless by NoScript, and it is a pain to have to have to keep whitelisting them.
The core issue is still IE. All the bad practices that bad developers have used all stem from coding for IE, or historically therefrom. Most Corporate content websites are still written in some form of Microsoft CMS or coding, they are still using ActiveX, or redundant Flash, or pointless javascript. They are big, slow, and irritating to use.
It never ceases to amaze me that huge corporations like Google and Apple have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that Less is More, and Less is much more successful.
And yet every other big website is cluttered with 10,000 dropdown menus, flashing graphics and other such inane practices. Everyone hates this. It's clear as day, and yet the bad practices continue...
While I don't disagree that Microsoft is in a slow downward spiral. I'm not sure I understand the rest of your post.
Yahoo has sharks circling. This is because it's dying much faster than MS. Yahoo, is essentially an empty brand name, content, and a database -- i.e. just like AOL before it. It has executives who have never understood its client base, nor cared for one single second long enough to find out what they want. It is astonishing that it survived the 1st dotcom crash -- it was in trouble then. Even now, in its final throes, they trundle out yet another doomed to fail product in "unlimited" webhosting. Except it is not unlimited. Just another Yahoo lie that will backfire like all the rest.
The only bad thing about this is that Yahoo is so toxic that it may have brought MS down faster. Nevertheless Yahoo will be a dead name before MS is, and it won't take 5 years. Both are, however, definitely dying.
That suggests to me that there's maybe some management issues. What an incredibly dumb waste of money. The Seas and Oceans are huge areas, much of which is still unknown about them. Huge empty wildernesses...
And yet the cables are laid in what seems to be busy shipping channels in easy anchor reach?
You get what you pay for. Your mileage may vary. My girlfriend's parent's Vista box has been raped by Azureus, Norton (they uninstalled AVG, and then a license of Windows Live OneCare I gave them), Yahoo! install CD add-ons, and overlapping parental controls (Vista AND ISP) that keep even the admin account from sending e-mail or surfing the web.
All I can say is "Don't fuck up your computer." And don't buy one that comes pre-fucked either; it's not really a time-saver. As for your 8GB Xeon... if you don't want it, I'll take it.
Yes... true, but isn't the pre-fucked thing the problem for most people -- one, the example of your girlfriend's parents box proves?
The average user in the street buys a pc from a big retailer. It WILL come bundled with all sorts of crap, Norton being just one example.
MS doesn't seem to be accounting for this when they designed Vista, since many of these add-ons are screwing the machines. It was noticeable with XP, but it's crippling with Vista. You shouldn't NEED to be an IT expert to make your PC "just work" -- with Vista you pretty much do need to be.
Part of it is also the fact that MS operating systems are not whole systems. With a Mac, the average user does not need any additional software whatsoever.
Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to Riyadh (or wherever) please set your clocks back five hundred years.
The irony of this is though that in the future, if Muslims boycott Wikipedia they'll be the ones 500 years advanced, since they'll have to study reality as opposed to the wikialty crap that people in the west will dogmatically trust. Anyone who trusts information on Wikipedia more than info on a MySpace profile is a moron and deserves all that happens to them.
Every cult, political group, lunatic fringe, nazi, and pedant on Earth is changing Wikipedia to suit themselves. Wikipedia Staff censor it every day. It is disingenuous and discriminatory to single out Muslims (or actually Islamists, since the article is wrong). They are only the tip of the censorship iceberg.
The true censorship begins and ends with Jimmy Wales himself. Maybe as a result of this he'll go into hiding. Can't see that as being a bad thing at all.
All of that on Wikipedia? How does Jimmy Wales sleep at night?!
Good question. When Muslims try to censor Wikiality it's somehow bad, but when people try to tell the truth about Ayn Rand it's somehow OK to censor? (as one tiny example of many)
Pot, meet kettle.
The only thing you can be sure of, is that you can NEVER be sure of Wikipedia.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd like to think the above paragraph is a joke. But it's not. Night is falling on the UK.
That doesn't mean that it should be legal to treat them like animals. This kind of practice is just another example of the steady descent towards totalitarianism that the UK is heading straight for. It's probably too late already.
This is the New Labour Generation. Today's teens' first days of school were during the first days of Tony Blair's Regime.
...Quizaganda.
Just be thankful you are not in an evil totalitarian regime, like the UK.
Mod parent up!
It's working! 95% of the votes so far are for "As many as I like; I own it."
And I think we can safely say we now pwn that poll.
So...
When a grown-up told you that something was naughty what was the first thing you did when their back was turned?
Exactly. Expect copyright infringement to grow exponentially as a direct result of this MS program.
...anyone involved in Reality TV would go on strike. Permanently, and forever. It's hard to imagine anything more anti-geek than Reality TV.
Welcome back writers. Congrats on your win. We need you, more than ever.
I knew the West Wing was correct. There IS a Military Shuttle!
Not sure that means anything at all. Just because we haven't found any matches doesn't mean there aren't any. The percentage of humanity alive that's been fingerprint checked is tiny. There's very little cross checking from country to country. Fingerprints haven't been around for much more than 100 years -- there's probably very little research been done into them in the past 50 years or so.
We all assume they are unique, and now it is a widely accepted fact, that few would ever think to challenge -- but actually the statistical sample that's based on isn't large at all. It may well not be true.
I know it is unlikely that there are matches, but it's not impossible.
Here's a bigger can...
I also wonder whether fingerprints are truly unique? Perhaps there's just a very huge number of variants. It's not like it easy to be sure is it? Just because no-one's found duplicates doesn't mean there aren't any -- after all I bet no-one's even looking for dupes. What if they weren't unique?
What if each of us has at least one person out there with identical fingerprints? Food for though huh? Probably would even stand up in court if you had a good enough lawyer.
Mod parent insightful.
And the UK is currently leading the competition. I doubt if even China or North Korea could catch them now.
This Yahoo? Remind me why we are believing they can pull this off?
The best thing Yahoo can do to solve the spam issue is to cease trading. Fortunately, that is their certain future.
AOL is essentially deceased. PayPal isn't a big deal outside of the eBay community (which itself is slowly contracting). And as we all know Yahoo has been less and less relevant over the past couple of years, and is set to die any moment.
1999 called and wanted its powerbrokers back.
Oh, but I bet they do around their office.
Yes -- essentially.
And the only reason we moved from Web 1.0 to web 2.0, and the only reason we need to move from Web 2.0 to Web 3.0 is...
We are still stuck on Search 1.0
Well, ok, to be fair to Google -- Search 1.5
Sorry, but we won't see much improvement in utility until someone rolls out Search 2.0. That is a product LONG overdue.
Firstly, your rate of inflation is deeply suspect.
Secondly, "just how much more functionality vista delivers" -- actually not that much more utility at all, in all truth. Yes, there's the Networking and Internet tools now that 3.1 didn't have. But in reality Vista is essentially much the same set of tools (especially true if you compare 3.11 rather than 3.1). Which only goes to further prove how horrifically bloated it is.
Thirdly, forget the DOS price. Then, as now, most machines came bundled with MS products, the only reason to pay for 3.1 or vista is to upgrade from the previous version. (despite MS attempts to squeeze more cash out of everyone with 7 versions of vista) You didn't need to upgrade DOS as well as windows. So that's a non sequitur.
Fourthly, hardware and software has -- almost exclusively -- become cheaper over the past 20 years. This is true for OSX and its predecessors. This is NOT true for Windows.
In particular OSX Leopard is cheaper than Vista, and it has has far more utility, as well as being a more advanced operating system.
No, sorry. As I said the OP is correct. MS is well aware that it has sewn up the corporate market, and that this means that many people will choose to use MS products at home since they are familiar with them. They are deliberately using this advantage to maximize the cost of the software. In fact they are probably required to do so by corporate law. Understandable, but not admirable.
Just as with the browser market, the day will come when they have competition again in the OS market. That's the only time MS customers are going to get a fair deal.
If they were serious about WGA they'd just set the background to goatse.jpg
While I understand the benefits of NoScript. I used it briefly and found it just far too intrusive to be useful -- which is a reflection on the fact that many websites are running stupid pointless scripts that no-one needs -- especially the big corporate content ones. Any such site is rendered useless by NoScript, and it is a pain to have to have to keep whitelisting them.
The core issue is still IE. All the bad practices that bad developers have used all stem from coding for IE, or historically therefrom. Most Corporate content websites are still written in some form of Microsoft CMS or coding, they are still using ActiveX, or redundant Flash, or pointless javascript. They are big, slow, and irritating to use.
It never ceases to amaze me that huge corporations like Google and Apple have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that Less is More, and Less is much more successful.
And yet every other big website is cluttered with 10,000 dropdown menus, flashing graphics and other such inane practices. Everyone hates this. It's clear as day, and yet the bad practices continue...
While I don't disagree that Microsoft is in a slow downward spiral. I'm not sure I understand the rest of your post.
Yahoo has sharks circling. This is because it's dying much faster than MS. Yahoo, is essentially an empty brand name, content, and a database -- i.e. just like AOL before it. It has executives who have never understood its client base, nor cared for one single second long enough to find out what they want. It is astonishing that it survived the 1st dotcom crash -- it was in trouble then. Even now, in its final throes, they trundle out yet another doomed to fail product in "unlimited" webhosting. Except it is not unlimited. Just another Yahoo lie that will backfire like all the rest.
The only bad thing about this is that Yahoo is so toxic that it may have brought MS down faster. Nevertheless Yahoo will be a dead name before MS is, and it won't take 5 years. Both are, however, definitely dying.
Every three days?
That suggests to me that there's maybe some management issues. What an incredibly dumb waste of money. The Seas and Oceans are huge areas, much of which is still unknown about them. Huge empty wildernesses...
And yet the cables are laid in what seems to be busy shipping channels in easy anchor reach?
Is this really the best we can do? It cannot be.
The average user in the street buys a pc from a big retailer. It WILL come bundled with all sorts of crap, Norton being just one example.
MS doesn't seem to be accounting for this when they designed Vista, since many of these add-ons are screwing the machines. It was noticeable with XP, but it's crippling with Vista. You shouldn't NEED to be an IT expert to make your PC "just work" -- with Vista you pretty much do need to be.
Part of it is also the fact that MS operating systems are not whole systems. With a Mac, the average user does not need any additional software whatsoever.
Every cult, political group, lunatic fringe, nazi, and pedant on Earth is changing Wikipedia to suit themselves. Wikipedia Staff censor it every day. It is disingenuous and discriminatory to single out Muslims (or actually Islamists, since the article is wrong). They are only the tip of the censorship iceberg.
The true censorship begins and ends with Jimmy Wales himself. Maybe as a result of this he'll go into hiding. Can't see that as being a bad thing at all.
Pot, meet kettle.
The only thing you can be sure of, is that you can NEVER be sure of Wikipedia.