I'm talking about people exhibiting a strong resistance to the concept of giving kids/teens new vaccines that claim to protect against things that aren't well-known childhood diseases that killed MANY people in the past.
I'm ALSO talking about a govt. that is rapidly headed down the road of FORCING the public to take such vaccines, regardless of our opinions (however well or poorly informed they may be) on them.
As it stands today, no - I don't think a "cocaine vaccine" would ever catch on as a good idea to immunize everyone against. It's just not that difficult to make people realize some big potential downsides of such a thing. I also think that with another 4 years of a presidential administration similar to the one we've had, we could easily enter an era where such things were enforced by federal law against our better sensibilities - and that's something we should all take some time to consider.
That's interesting, but I think the court erred. A restaurant is in the business of providing BOTH a service and the food/drinks one orders. The two are consumed as a "package deal" - but both aspects are present.
If you go to a restaurant or club, place an order, and the food/drinks are served to you, you're under an obligation to pay for them at that point in time. I'm in agreement that if I was forcibly ejected before I had the chance to finish my food or drinks, I'd probably want to fight paying for them -- but ultimately, I think you'd be at the mercy of management there. (To me, this is similar to a store selling you a product you decided you didn't want. You can ask or even demand they return it for your money back, but you can't just stop payment on a check you wrote them for it. They still have to approve your return, and while they probably would do so, they're probably not under LEGAL obligation to do so.)
Just like how a small retail store might weigh the pros and cons of refusing a return vs. the bad publicity that might create for them, the potential of a civil lawsuit they'd have to take out time to defend against, etc. - so a restaurant owner or manager would weigh those pros and cons if you determined you weren't going to pay for your food/drink order.
In this ever increasingly complex world we live in, it's really not at all surprising that "few parents have even bothered to look at what they are allowing to be pumped into their kids". It seems we've all entered into a pact with federal government where we give them a percentage of our earnings, and in return, we expect them to make these types of decisions for us using the best information possible.
Most people simply don't have the time to do the research necessary to determine if drugs X, Y and Z have any potential or suspected bad effects, and what specific levels of potential risks are associated with each of them, PLUS additional research to determine what negative side-effects they might incur for refusal to go along with the established program of "standards" (will the kid be barred from attending public school for the non-compliance, for example?).
Now, personally, I'd argue that if I wasn't forced to work so hard and so long just to get by (largely because govt. takes so much of my income away from me in the form of income tax, sales tax, etc.), I'd have the time and energy to look after more of this myself! But that would be the thinking of "fringe politics", along the likes of Ron Paul - who the mass media already wrote off as a "real" candidate for this next election.
Even *if* this were to end up marketed as a "preventative measure" - I can't really see it gaining much traction as a "required vaccine".
They've already got a vaccine to prevent HPV (genital warts), but it caused a huge firestorm of controversy when they started suggesting it become a mandatory vaccine (despite it only being effective if given to the younger population who haven't been exposed to HPV yet).
And here, HPV is a legitimate (and un-curable) disease, known to cause high incidents of cervical cancer in women. Cocaine isn't something people just "catch" involuntarily.
This sounds contradictory, but think about it. Who were always considered the "top dogs" of sheer numbers of patents? IBM? AT&T? Maybe even 3M?
All have some success stories from their respective research divisions, yet nothing remotely comparable to the number of patents they filed for.
Truthfully, a lot goes in to taking a "innovative idea" and taking it all the way through to become a marketable product in mass production. I think some of these big firms just like to pay a "think tank" to work on "anything you like", throwing all manner of things at the wall to see what sticks. This ends up being profitable for them because of all the lawsuits they can file over the trivial patents other people end up infringing on by accident - and means they're likely to eventually come up with something really innovative, at SOME point in time. (EG. Post-it notes!)
Smaller, more efficient businesses will do the R&D only on things focused squarely on a specific goal they've defined. They won't have huge numbers of patents, but will have ones relevant to their task at hand. These folks get more products to market per patent than the "big guys" do.
I used to think it was impossible for these small lasers to cause so much trouble... but where I live, there have been several news stories about people shooting relatively low-powered red lasers at cars going past and distracting/scaring the drivers. And just last month, I had it happen to ME! I was driving home when suddenly, a bright red beam flickered around the inside of my car for a couple of seconds. It really startled me, because it was much more "intense" of a light than you'd get from any other colored light you might drive past (like a neon sign), and rather than illuminating the inside of my car like a normal light would - it just seemed to bounce off any reflective surface while everything else stayed dark.
I doubt such a beam could really damage a driver's eyes, because they'd practically have to shine it at your face, head-on. But it's just a jarring thing to encounter when you aren't expecting it.
I absolutely agree, although the truth is, taking these types of sites down is equivalent to playing "whack-a-mole". Another will just pop right back up. If it had good readership/popularity before, there's no way that void will remain unfilled when it disappears. Someone out there is *always* looking for a popular topic to build a new web site around and get visitors.
Already, this new "9to5mac" web site seems to be coming up with an awful lot of fairly accurate rumors and informative facts. I imagine a lot of the "rumor info" they used to leak to thinksecret is simply getting redirected to them now.
I can't say I necessarily agree with your conclusion.
Destroying evidence is a willful gamble on the part of the accused. They're simply betting that without the additional information floating around, they stand a better chance of getting through the court case without incurring a huge loss.
It seems like a big leap of logic to conclude that this behavior proves the party believes they're guilty.
Just as likely, they're being realistic. In a perfect world, sure.... you should fight to "get the laws changed" if you think they're unjust. But realistically, legal battles are enormously expensive. Just like war, if your funds run out, you'll lose. Doesn't matter if you're "in the right" or not. So the average person is going to look for any available opportunity to shorten the complexity and length of their court case.
Often times, the "legal landscape" was built up by large corporations, who used large sums of money to get it there. (Paying off senators and congressmen to pass legislation that put things in their favor, etc. etc.) It's going to take a similar amount of money to reverse it again, in many cases.
Just to expand on the "Complexity isn't a good thing." statement a bit....
Microsoft is constantly trying to make their products "Bigger! Better! More!". The problem is, they ALSO insist on inter-twining and "integrating" everything with everything else that came before. (As perhaps the oldest example of this, every single OS they've made STILL has remnants of MS-DOS in them, in some shape or form. You can still create and run.BAT files with the same syntax they had in the MS-DOS era, for example. Meanwhile, just about every other OS on the market uses FAR more powerful batch/scripting languages, because they have no concerns about tying them to legacy MS-DOS methods.)
The complexity just keeps increasing for both their developers AND the end-users.
Just last night, I fought for hours (unsuccessfully) to correct problems with someone's Windows XP system who subscribed to "MSN Premium" services. Apparently, Microsoft finally decided to abandon the "MSN Messenger" client that was included (and subsequently update-patched via Windows Updates), in favor of an all new "MSN Live Messenger" client. In order to roll this out, they developed a whole new program called "Live Installer" - which lets a user check-mark various components they want or don't want and then auto-installs the appropriate files. Well, in typical Microsoft style - this "Live Installer" seems to have a lot of issues. On this lady's PC, it crashed about 3/4ths. of the way through installing the Live Messenger, and rendered the whole "MSN Explorer" web browser unusable. After much digging, I found a way to manually delete the whole thing - so Live Installer could get a fresh shot at installing, determining what was there, and re-downloading the messenger client. Turned out though, I must not have deleted quite enough. It kept insisting the Messenger component was already installed, despite it not being there at all! Then, MSN Explorer refused to log the lady on - because it kept telling me I needed to "visit http://msn.messenger.com/ and download Live Messenger first!" Argh!!
I think you're thinking along the right track.... but people keep forgetting that we already DO run quite a few applications at the same time on the typical PC. Users are often quick to say "I can only really work with one program at a time anyway. Anything else that's open is just sitting idle, minimized to my taskbar."
But that thinking doesn't consider anti-virus/anti-spyware software running in the background, or perhaps an anti-spam email filter. It doesn't account for system maintenance tasks that might be kicked off in the background (disk defragmenting, etc.).
It also neglects to consider a future where multiple PCs on a LAN might share their available processor time with an app that needs them, running on just one of those multiple PCs?
In the typical office environment, most PCs are doing little more than running someone's word processor or spreadsheet, but there may well be an administrator trying to compact a large database, compile an application, or even transcode some video - who would stand to benefit if the OS on all those systems allowed this kind of functionality.
(Apple's xgrid in OS X has promise in this area... but few programs seem to even be aware of it, and it often requires an OS X Server in the mix to co-ordinate the whole process. That makes it even more of a "niche" function.)
Umm, despite the typo in your message (the teacher told him "NOT to use Firefox"), I disagree that this is a simple case of "nothing to see here".
This is SOMETHING to see and take note of. I have friends studying to go into education right now, and they tell me the trend is moving towards teaching kids to be critical thinkers. Question authority when what you're told runs counter to what you've already learned.
We often speak of the system of "checks and balances" in government as a good and necessary thing, yet in education, it's sorely lacking. Students are considered "disobedient" and subject to punishment if they challenge a statement or order made by a teacher. Some people are currently trying to change this -- but it definitely meets with great resistance by the established ranks of educators who didn't learn to do things that way.
It's one thing to be disruptive in a class for the sake of chaos.... but another to defend one's position with logic and facts. An attempt to clarify that Firefox is a legitimate web browser choice, and not some type of game, malware, or other diversion from the task at hand is not "class disruption".
I was looking at one of these "top 10" lists over on ArsTechnica, and they recommended, among other things, "The Slanket". It's basically a large blanket with oversize sleeves sewn into it - so you can still easily use a laptop computer, work a TV remote control, etc. etc. while bundled up in it.
One of these will set you back about $45-50 (more like $30 if you want the child-sized version they offer), BUT - it appears nobody has these things in stock to ship before Christmas!
No matter which color I tried to select, their main web site said they were out of stock until mid-January. I tried placing an order on www.asseenontv.com, since they acted like they had at least 2 colors of them in stock and ready to ship. But again, doesn't look like it. They pre-authorized my credit card, but my order status never changed to "packaging for shipment" after over a week -- and now the temporary charge was removed from my card, with no sign of them actually charging for the order. I think they probably plan on taking orders, and not shipping them until mid-Jan. either!
I thought this was a great gift for one of my friends who *always* complains about the cold, and likes watching TV.... but I think I'm going to scrap it for this season.
That's not the point.... Technically, Steve Jobs receives a $1 annual salary at Apple Computer too, but obviously, he makes FAR more than that in reality, or he'd do something different. (Hint: stock options)
Of course, in some convoluted fashion, people buying MS software help fund IE development. But if the app is labeled as "free" and is made available to download on MS web sites at no charge, then it's free according to the laws of the land.
Every time ANYBODY offers something free (including those free sample candy bars you get in the mail every once in a blue moon, or "buy one, get one free" offers, it's got to be paid for somehow. But it doesn't change the fact that you, as the immediate recipient, received it at that point in time without any requirement of forking over money to complete said hand-out.
Well, if OS X can be accused of "cheating" because it's designed to work on a very limited/specific set of hardware configurations -- then it makes one wonder why Linux distros aimed directly at a *single* piece of hardware (like Sony's PS3) can't get everything right?
I'm not trying to knock Linux here.... But I'm just saying, we've had a decade or more of people putting out Linux distros (like Yellow Dog) that were for specific system configurations FAR less convoluted than Intel/x86 platforms - and I've yet to see one that gave a really satisfactory user-experience. The problem runs deeper than Linux developers just having too many hardware/peripheral combinations possible on today's x86 type PCs to anticipate everything.
They never even mastered making things work on vintage Macs (PowerMac 7x00 series, etc.) with PPC Linux distros intended for them.
Exactly right. Government has absolutely NO place dictating the manner in which a company chooses to distribute their software.
I fail to even grasp how this would benefit makers of other browsers like Opera, anyway? They seem to be working on the concept that users won't bother installing other products, if a comparable one is already included with their OS. That's logically flawed in several ways! #1. If you really build the "best in class" browser option out there, you're in a great position to bargain with the OS developer to buy the rights to include YOUR browser in a future OS version! #2. Opera costs money. IE doesn't. That won't change a bit if MS is forced to un-bundle it from the OS. People prefer free products to commercial ones, if there's no compelling benefit to paying the money. #3. A law requiring a software product be "unbundled" wouldn't likely extend to governing how much advertising they can do for the unbundled product. If MS was forced to remove IE from Windows, they'd simply design it with shortcuts or URLs to conveniently click to "get IE", and most people would still do that. EVEN if the law forced them to place shortcuts for the competing browsers on the desktop too - I'd bet MOST "average users" would select the Microsoft-branded offering over the others, assuming it was "more compatible" with their Microsoft-branded OS.
While those stories are funny, at least a couple, I'd also blame pretty squarely on Windows.
1. The user saying "It shouldn't matter." to not finding her camera as an option in your software is understandable, really. Those of us used to installing devices in Windows might just assume it's "common sense" to realize a device has to be attached before it will show up in a selection list. But things weren't traditionally that way at all. Before the advent of USB devices, not many things were really "auto-detecting" like that. If you didn't see it in a drop-down list in the software, that meant it wasn't supported. This was certainly the case with MS-DOS based software.
2. To this day, I'd like to strangle whoever at Microsoft thought it was a good idea to name their web browser "Internet Explorer", when they already had a "Windows Explorer"! That often causes confusion with users not very familiar with Windows. They hear "Explorer" and immediately think of the Internet - not a file manager/browser (or vice-versa).
3. When reading someone a registration key or serial number, I prefer saying alpha characters this way: "A as in Apple". That wards off some confusion, at times.
Even IF we, as a society, decide that keeping these "sex offender" lists available for public searching is a "good thing", we certainly need to modify the laws themselves first.
Right now, the law doesn't differentiate at all between the man who has sex with 4 year olds in a childcare facility while working there, and the man who has sex with a 15 year old who lies about her age, and possibly even produces a fake ID showing her age as older than she really is.
In my mind, it's clear that it's really the former person that most people get concerned enough about to want to know if they live near them. The other case amounts to an act that's considered perfectly LEGAL in many countries of the world. It revolves around the fact that the 15 year old had enough of at least a PHYSICAL appearance of an adult to be considered sexually attractive to the guy in question.
There's always going to be a problem when you're forced to draw lines at specific ages for what's "legal" and what's "illegal"... but at the very least, I find it very odd that the U.S. has such things as "PG-13" movie ratings (indicating the content, often including sexual innuendo, is "safe" for 13 year olds and up), and by 15, we're issuing driver's permits. (We're trusting them with a very expensive machine that they can easily kill or be killed with.) Yet, we still don't think a 14 or 15 year old can possibly be capable of "consenting to sex" with someone older?
I think it IS interesting that traditionally, Linux really found its "niche" with older, used hardware that people were trying to recycle. Costs of new hardware have dropped so much though, we're seeing a new situation here. The cost of the typical Microsoft pre-loaded operating system on a new PC can account for a large portion of its total cost.
If you can convince a consumer to pay more for a higher-end system, then he/she is still buying a piece of hardware with a price-point more like what we're used to seeing. But the trend is, consumers who don't need that much power, or that many "bells and whistles" (or who simply can't afford them) are buying budget-priced boxes with warranties, vs. buying other people's used/discarded PCs.
The high-end purchases are starting to go towards Apple, since they offer a complete hardware+software bundled solution with "elegance" and "style" (and they can all boot into Windows XP or Vista anyway, if one is so inclined).
The low-end is steadily creeping towards Linux, leaving Microsoft selling primarily to the "middle of the road" PCs. (By this, I mean name-brand boxes like HP/Compaq, Gateway or Dell, but offerings of theirs in that $400-600 price-point, just under where new Apple Macs generally start out at.) That and the "media center PC" niche, which Microsoft currently has a stronghold on - because no other OS fully supports DVR functionality and the like, integrated into it.
I know exactly what you mean, but I wouldn't say "no PC will ever elicit the same emotions that a C64 did".
I remember that whole era quite fondly, but I never owned a C64. I was one of the ones in the TRS-80 camp (the Tandy "Color Computer 2" and later the "Color Computer 3", to be exact). I can assure you the Radio-Shack computer owners were just as fond of their machines as C64 owners were of theirs. For that matter, so were the Atari owners and the Apple//e owners.
Back then, you just "picked a side" and defended it. It was usually based on which computer you were lucky enough to receive as an Xmas gift, or which one you managed to save your money up for and buy on sale first. (There were a few fanatics of various CP/M based computers too -- but generally, people using them "graduated" to something in the Atari/Commodore/Tandy/Apple camp, because those systems had color graphics, more commercial game titles for them, and better sound capabilities.)
Of course, there were other "factions" too like the TI99/4A and even the Coleco Adam.... but I daresay these never achieved the market popularity of the other brands.
VERY true, but the unfortunate reality is - you're preaching to the choir here. There's a reason Ron Paul has been most successful in the "Internet community". The more intelligent, intellectual types can follow the reasons behind some of his "more radical" beliefs, like abolishing the federal reserve, and phasing out the IRS. But those concepts require a fair bit of reading and long-term thinking to see how they're plausible.
By the same token, avid net users who read blog sites and news sites (like Slashdot!) are FAR more likely than average to select a candidate based on their individual stances, vs. voting for them "just because they told a funny joke" or "were the most stylishly dressed" during a TV appearance.
I think the responsibility for spyware/virus resistance has to ultimately lie at the feet of the operating system developer. The very idea that users should be expected to pay for commercial add-on software packages to prevent these problems is a triumph of marketing/advertising -- but is really a big ripoff for the consumers.
When you think about it, the entire idea of naming these mal-ware programs "virii" is all part of the marketing game. The average user understands how colds/flus and other infections work in the "real world". Eventually, you're going to get sick. There are some "common sense" measures you can take to reduce your risks (washing your hands often, insisting people cover their mouths if they cough around you, ensuring you've taken enough vitamins and got enough sleep, etc.) - but ultimately, nobody goes through life without ever catching a cold. Given enough time, one's immune system weakens enough to let something past that wouldn't have gotten past before.
In reality though, a computer virus doesn't have much in common with a real-life virus. Computers don't just spontaneously "catch" one because they're in close proximity to another machine that's already infected. In fact, assuming a computer is set up properly to begin with and it runs a specific set of tasks that don't get modified, it's almost certain it will NEVER get a "virus". (Take for example, a Novell Netware server that sits for years serving files and handling print services, but doesn't have any applications actually run on it. Have many virus issues with those?)
Nevermind that, though. It's MUCH more profitable to perpetuate the "scare tactics", making the "average user" think computer virii are inevitable.
IMHO, if developers can't build an OS that's truly resistant to mal-ware, then it's their job to at least include code that helps defend against it. Microsoft's inclusion of "Windows Defender" in Vista is a half-hearted start. It's the right idea, but a poor implementation - since competitor's products are noticeably better at doing the same job. Making all of this the OS developer's job makes the most sense, because it's THEIR code that's under attack. Nobody should know better than them how to protect it. Certainly, the "average end user" knows the least (and forcing them to learn more just lessens their enjoyment of the whole experience of using said product).
The days may be numbered when an I.T. manager recommending a Mac or Ubuntu would get "laughed out of the office"....
Today, yeah, most of the time, that's still correct. But how much of that is legitimate, and how much is just incorrect perception, perpetuated by people with no guts to attempt REAL changes?
I know as "network manager" of the company I work for, I put a Linux-based web proxy/filtering solution in place, the first month I started. I didn't really ask for permission first. I just re-used some old hardware that was sitting around, and since it cost nothing in software licenses, there was no budget approval required. For the last 2 years now, it's done it's job quite well, with almost no maintenance required.
Sometimes that's how you get changes started. You don't go around "recommending" something potentially controversial. You just implement it in a limited fashion, after making sure it's going to perform as intended. If all goes well, nobody even notices the change -- but the device sits there, justifying itself with its own good performance each day. Eventually, it will be realized it's part of the environment, and it will become a "given" that it's not only a "good choice", but probably a "best choice" because it has worked so well.
I do see this happening with Macs as well. Just last weekend, I did some computer work in an office, and noticed they had new Apple iMacs in the conference rooms, in the break room, etc. The offices themselves were still all using Windows boxes, but I'm sure the iMacs got put in due to their lack of spyware/virus issues, in all the places where they'd have a "low impact" on the day-to-day operations. Give them a couple years, and if they don't suffer massive hardware failures or something unexpected, they'll have silently proven themselves -- and somebody is going to start asking "Why don't we have some more of these around here?"
Some of each.... Does it really matter? Anonymity is a concept some people have chosen to employ LONG before the Internet came along. Look at all the book authors who chose to write under a "pen name", for example.
Like anything, it's up to the *reader* to make his/her own judgment calls about the validity of the information he/she reads. Sometimes, people who sign their name to a work are still just producing B.S. (Look at the best-selling "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" books. The author's PhD was from a diploma mill in California.)
Yeah, time has proven Nintendo had the best formula for new console sales. Still, I don't like all the attacks I see on the 360 and PS3, relative to it. In my mind, the Wii was so successful because it's such a different product. Sure, all 3 are "game consoles", but the Wii approaches things from a very different angle than the others.
I, for one, had *no* interest in a Wii, and still don't. I'm afraid I'm in the camp of those who wondered if the Wii was "just a novelty that would wear off". To me, buying a Wii has just as little attraction as buying "Dance, Dance Revolution". I want to relax/unwind with a good video game. I don't want a physical "workout" from it.
I really do get why Wii has been such a "smash hit"; it's because it appeals to the majority of the population out there who really didn't want to play traditional console games (or played them so casually, they felt no need to upgrade from whatever older, "outdated" system they still toy around with).
The PS3 and the XBox 360 were console system upgrades for "traditional gamers". Wii was not. The weaker hardware specs to achieve the lower price-point should indicate that. But beyond that, there's the fact that many of us in the "traditional gaming camp" want to be wowed by things like impressive sound f/x, cutting-edge graphics AND an entertaining game. We're not interested in flailing our arms and/or legs around wildly to make the game character move. (Especially when you tend to do your person vs. person gaming over the net, as opposed to socially, with multiple people in your living room - the physical movement stuff quickly loses its appeal.)
I went with a PS3 last year, and despite the slow release of good titles, I'm happy enough. The latest crop of games like Ratchet & Clank are making it look pretty darn good right now. And hey, the latest UT even supports a mouse and keyboard, plus all mods and custom levels out there... not just the "authorized" ones Sony or someone else lets you buy for it. Good stuff for a console!
Actually, some of the 3rd. party "unauthorized" apps for hacked iPhones make really clever use of the accelerometer.
The most recent one was an electronic level. It draws the little bubble level on the phone's display, and the bubble moves just like a real level, indicating the phone sitting level when the bubble is between the 2 lines. It works pretty well, and given the shape of the iPhone (not likely to be attached to some sort of belt clip or holster that prevents it from lying flat on a surface), it's a practical application for it too.
I also saw someone's experimental pedometer application. Not sure it's perfectly accurate, but seems to make a pretty good attempt at counting your steps as you walk or jog. (Yeah, Nokia did this first - but it's just worth noting they're doing it for iPhones now too.)
The little drawing applet for iPhones someone wrote is funny too. If you shake the phone, it erases the current drawing, sort of like an etch-a-sketch tablet.
I agree that shaking one's phone is probably not such a "practical" or "more efficient" way of working with it. It's done more for the "cute" or "cool" factor of it. But I like some of the other things the accelerometers make possible, like the iPhone's automatic screen orientation change when it sense you flipped it sideways.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not an "either, or" situation.
I'm talking about people exhibiting a strong resistance to the concept of giving kids/teens new vaccines that claim to protect against things that aren't well-known childhood diseases that killed MANY people in the past.
I'm ALSO talking about a govt. that is rapidly headed down the road of FORCING the public to take such vaccines, regardless of our opinions (however well or poorly informed they may be) on them.
As it stands today, no - I don't think a "cocaine vaccine" would ever catch on as a good idea to immunize everyone against. It's just not that difficult to make people realize some big potential downsides of such a thing.
I also think that with another 4 years of a presidential administration similar to the one we've had, we could easily enter an era where such things were enforced by federal law against our better sensibilities - and that's something we should all take some time to consider.
That's interesting, but I think the court erred. A restaurant is in the business of providing BOTH a service and the food/drinks one orders. The two are consumed as a "package deal" - but both aspects are present.
If you go to a restaurant or club, place an order, and the food/drinks are served to you, you're under an obligation to pay for them at that point in time. I'm in agreement that if I was forcibly ejected before I had the chance to finish my food or drinks, I'd probably want to fight paying for them -- but ultimately, I think you'd be at the mercy of management there. (To me, this is similar to a store selling you a product you decided you didn't want. You can ask or even demand they return it for your money back, but you can't just stop payment on a check you wrote them for it. They still have to approve your return, and while they probably would do so, they're probably not under LEGAL obligation to do so.)
Just like how a small retail store might weigh the pros and cons of refusing a return vs. the bad publicity that might create for them, the potential of a civil lawsuit they'd have to take out time to defend against, etc. - so a restaurant owner or manager would weigh those pros and cons if you determined you weren't going to pay for your food/drink order.
In this ever increasingly complex world we live in, it's really not at all surprising that "few parents have even bothered to look at what they are allowing to be pumped into their kids". It seems we've all entered into a pact with federal government where we give them a percentage of our earnings, and in return, we expect them to make these types of decisions for us using the best information possible.
Most people simply don't have the time to do the research necessary to determine if drugs X, Y and Z have any potential or suspected bad effects, and what specific levels of potential risks are associated with each of them, PLUS additional research to determine what negative side-effects they might incur for refusal to go along with the established program of "standards" (will the kid be barred from attending public school for the non-compliance, for example?).
Now, personally, I'd argue that if I wasn't forced to work so hard and so long just to get by (largely because govt. takes so much of my income away from me in the form of income tax, sales tax, etc.), I'd have the time and energy to look after more of this myself! But that would be the thinking of "fringe politics", along the likes of Ron Paul - who the mass media already wrote off as a "real" candidate for this next election.
Even *if* this were to end up marketed as a "preventative measure" - I can't really see it gaining much traction as a "required vaccine".
They've already got a vaccine to prevent HPV (genital warts), but it caused a huge firestorm of controversy when they started suggesting it become a mandatory vaccine (despite it only being effective if given to the younger population who haven't been exposed to HPV yet).
And here, HPV is a legitimate (and un-curable) disease, known to cause high incidents of cervical cancer in women. Cocaine isn't something people just "catch" involuntarily.
This sounds contradictory, but think about it. Who were always considered the "top dogs" of sheer numbers of patents? IBM? AT&T? Maybe even 3M?
All have some success stories from their respective research divisions, yet nothing remotely comparable to the number of patents they filed for.
Truthfully, a lot goes in to taking a "innovative idea" and taking it all the way through to become a marketable product in mass production. I think some of these big firms just like to pay a "think tank" to work on "anything you like", throwing all manner of things at the wall to see what sticks. This ends up being profitable for them because of all the lawsuits they can file over the trivial patents other people end up infringing on by accident - and means they're likely to eventually come up with something really innovative, at SOME point in time. (EG. Post-it notes!)
Smaller, more efficient businesses will do the R&D only on things focused squarely on a specific goal they've defined. They won't have huge numbers of patents, but will have ones relevant to their task at hand. These folks get more products to market per patent than the "big guys" do.
I used to think it was impossible for these small lasers to cause so much trouble ... but where I live, there have been several news stories about people shooting relatively low-powered red lasers at cars going past and distracting/scaring the drivers. And just last month, I had it happen to ME! I was driving home when suddenly, a bright red beam flickered around the inside of my car for a couple of seconds. It really startled me, because it was much more "intense" of a light than you'd get from any other colored light you might drive past (like a neon sign), and rather than illuminating the inside of my car like a normal light would - it just seemed to bounce off any reflective surface while everything else stayed dark.
I doubt such a beam could really damage a driver's eyes, because they'd practically have to shine it at your face, head-on. But it's just a jarring thing to encounter when you aren't expecting it.
I absolutely agree, although the truth is, taking these types of sites down is equivalent to playing "whack-a-mole". Another will just pop right back up. If it had good readership/popularity before, there's no way that void will remain unfilled when it disappears. Someone out there is *always* looking for a popular topic to build a new web site around and get visitors.
Already, this new "9to5mac" web site seems to be coming up with an awful lot of fairly accurate rumors and informative facts. I imagine a lot of the "rumor info" they used to leak to thinksecret is simply getting redirected to them now.
I can't say I necessarily agree with your conclusion.
Destroying evidence is a willful gamble on the part of the accused. They're simply betting that without the additional information floating around, they stand a better chance of getting through the court case without incurring a huge loss.
It seems like a big leap of logic to conclude that this behavior proves the party believes they're guilty.
Just as likely, they're being realistic. In a perfect world, sure.... you should fight to "get the laws changed" if you think they're unjust. But realistically, legal battles are enormously expensive. Just like war, if your funds run out, you'll lose. Doesn't matter if you're "in the right" or not. So the average person is going to look for any available opportunity to shorten the complexity and length of their court case.
Often times, the "legal landscape" was built up by large corporations, who used large sums of money to get it there. (Paying off senators and congressmen to pass legislation that put things in their favor, etc. etc.) It's going to take a similar amount of money to reverse it again, in many cases.
Just to expand on the "Complexity isn't a good thing." statement a bit ....
.BAT files with the same syntax they had in the MS-DOS era, for example. Meanwhile, just about every other OS on the market uses FAR more powerful batch/scripting languages, because they have no concerns about tying them to legacy MS-DOS methods.)
Microsoft is constantly trying to make their products "Bigger! Better! More!". The problem is, they ALSO insist on inter-twining and "integrating" everything with everything else that came before. (As perhaps the oldest example of this, every single OS they've made STILL has remnants of MS-DOS in them, in some shape or form. You can still create and run
The complexity just keeps increasing for both their developers AND the end-users.
Just last night, I fought for hours (unsuccessfully) to correct problems with someone's Windows XP system who subscribed to "MSN Premium" services. Apparently, Microsoft finally decided to abandon the "MSN Messenger" client that was included (and subsequently update-patched via Windows Updates), in favor of an all new "MSN Live Messenger" client. In order to roll this out, they developed a whole new program called "Live Installer" - which lets a user check-mark various components they want or don't want and then auto-installs the appropriate files. Well, in typical Microsoft style - this "Live Installer" seems to have a lot of issues. On this lady's PC, it crashed about 3/4ths. of the way through installing the Live Messenger, and rendered the whole "MSN Explorer" web browser unusable. After much digging, I found a way to manually delete the whole thing - so Live Installer could get a fresh shot at installing, determining what was there, and re-downloading the messenger client. Turned out though, I must not have deleted quite enough. It kept insisting the Messenger component was already installed, despite it not being there at all! Then, MSN Explorer refused to log the lady on - because it kept telling me I needed to "visit http://msn.messenger.com/ and download Live Messenger first!" Argh!!
I think you're thinking along the right track.... but people keep forgetting that we already DO run quite a few applications at the same time on the typical PC.
... but few programs seem to even be aware of it, and it often requires an OS X Server in the mix to co-ordinate the whole process. That makes it even more of a "niche" function.)
Users are often quick to say "I can only really work with one program at a time anyway. Anything else that's open is just sitting idle, minimized to my taskbar."
But that thinking doesn't consider anti-virus/anti-spyware software running in the background, or perhaps an anti-spam email filter. It doesn't account for system maintenance tasks that might be kicked off in the background (disk defragmenting, etc.).
It also neglects to consider a future where multiple PCs on a LAN might share their available processor time with an app that needs them, running on just one of those multiple PCs?
In the typical office environment, most PCs are doing little more than running someone's word processor or spreadsheet, but there may well be an administrator trying to compact a large database, compile an application, or even transcode some video - who would stand to benefit if the OS on all those systems allowed this kind of functionality.
(Apple's xgrid in OS X has promise in this area
Umm, despite the typo in your message (the teacher told him "NOT to use Firefox"), I disagree that this is a simple case of "nothing to see here".
This is SOMETHING to see and take note of. I have friends studying to go into education right now, and they tell me the trend is moving towards teaching kids to be critical thinkers. Question authority when what you're told runs counter to what you've already learned.
We often speak of the system of "checks and balances" in government as a good and necessary thing, yet in education, it's sorely lacking. Students are considered "disobedient" and subject to punishment if they challenge a statement or order made by a teacher. Some people are currently trying to change this -- but it definitely meets with great resistance by the established ranks of educators who didn't learn to do things that way.
It's one thing to be disruptive in a class for the sake of chaos.... but another to defend one's position with logic and facts. An attempt to clarify that Firefox is a legitimate web browser choice, and not some type of game, malware, or other diversion from the task at hand is not "class disruption".
I was looking at one of these "top 10" lists over on ArsTechnica, and they recommended, among other things, "The Slanket". It's basically a large blanket with oversize sleeves sewn into it - so you can still easily use a laptop computer, work a TV remote control, etc. etc. while bundled up in it.
.... but I think I'm going to scrap it for this season.
One of these will set you back about $45-50 (more like $30 if you want the child-sized version they offer), BUT - it appears nobody has these things in stock to ship before Christmas!
No matter which color I tried to select, their main web site said they were out of stock until mid-January. I tried placing an order on www.asseenontv.com, since they acted like they had at least 2 colors of them in stock and ready to ship. But again, doesn't look like it. They pre-authorized my credit card, but my order status never changed to "packaging for shipment" after over a week -- and now the temporary charge was removed from my card, with no sign of them actually charging for the order. I think they probably plan on taking orders, and not shipping them until mid-Jan. either!
I thought this was a great gift for one of my friends who *always* complains about the cold, and likes watching TV
That's not the point.... Technically, Steve Jobs receives a $1 annual salary at Apple Computer too, but obviously, he makes FAR more than that in reality, or he'd do something different. (Hint: stock options)
Of course, in some convoluted fashion, people buying MS software help fund IE development. But if the app is labeled as "free" and is made available to download on MS web sites at no charge, then it's free according to the laws of the land.
Every time ANYBODY offers something free (including those free sample candy bars you get in the mail every once in a blue moon, or "buy one, get one free" offers, it's got to be paid for somehow. But it doesn't change the fact that you, as the immediate recipient, received it at that point in time without any requirement of forking over money to complete said hand-out.
Well, if OS X can be accused of "cheating" because it's designed to work on a very limited/specific set of hardware configurations -- then it makes one wonder why Linux distros aimed directly at a *single* piece of hardware (like Sony's PS3) can't get everything right?
I'm not trying to knock Linux here.... But I'm just saying, we've had a decade or more of people putting out Linux distros (like Yellow Dog) that were for specific system configurations FAR less convoluted than Intel/x86 platforms - and I've yet to see one that gave a really satisfactory user-experience. The problem runs deeper than Linux developers just having too many hardware/peripheral combinations possible on today's x86 type PCs to anticipate everything.
They never even mastered making things work on vintage Macs (PowerMac 7x00 series, etc.) with PPC Linux distros intended for them.
Exactly right. Government has absolutely NO place dictating the manner in which a company chooses to distribute their software.
I fail to even grasp how this would benefit makers of other browsers like Opera, anyway? They seem to be working on the concept that users won't bother installing other products, if a comparable one is already included with their OS. That's logically flawed in several ways! #1. If you really build the "best in class" browser option out there, you're in a great position to bargain with the OS developer to buy the rights to include YOUR browser in a future OS version! #2. Opera costs money. IE doesn't. That won't change a bit if MS is forced to un-bundle it from the OS. People prefer free products to commercial ones, if there's no compelling benefit to paying the money. #3. A law requiring a software product be "unbundled" wouldn't likely extend to governing how much advertising they can do for the unbundled product. If MS was forced to remove IE from Windows, they'd simply design it with shortcuts or URLs to conveniently click to "get IE", and most people would still do that. EVEN if the law forced them to place shortcuts for the competing browsers on the desktop too - I'd bet MOST "average users" would select the Microsoft-branded offering over the others, assuming it was "more compatible" with their Microsoft-branded OS.
While those stories are funny, at least a couple, I'd also blame pretty squarely on Windows.
1. The user saying "It shouldn't matter." to not finding her camera as an option in your software is understandable, really. Those of us used to installing devices in Windows might just assume it's "common sense" to realize a device has to be attached before it will show up in a selection list. But things weren't traditionally that way at all. Before the advent of USB devices, not many things were really "auto-detecting" like that. If you didn't see it in a drop-down list in the software, that meant it wasn't supported. This was certainly the case with MS-DOS based software.
2. To this day, I'd like to strangle whoever at Microsoft thought it was a good idea to name their web browser "Internet Explorer", when they already had a "Windows Explorer"! That often causes confusion with users not very familiar with Windows. They hear "Explorer" and immediately think of the Internet - not a file manager/browser (or vice-versa).
3. When reading someone a registration key or serial number, I prefer saying alpha characters this way: "A as in Apple". That wards off some confusion, at times.
I'll just add to your comment instead.
... but at the very least, I find it very odd that the U.S. has such things as "PG-13" movie ratings (indicating the content, often including sexual innuendo, is "safe" for 13 year olds and up), and by 15, we're issuing driver's permits. (We're trusting them with a very expensive machine that they can easily kill or be killed with.) Yet, we still don't think a 14 or 15 year old can possibly be capable of "consenting to sex" with someone older?
Even IF we, as a society, decide that keeping these "sex offender" lists available for public searching is a "good thing", we certainly need to modify the laws themselves first.
Right now, the law doesn't differentiate at all between the man who has sex with 4 year olds in a childcare facility while working there, and the man who has sex with a 15 year old who lies about her age, and possibly even produces a fake ID showing her age as older than she really is.
In my mind, it's clear that it's really the former person that most people get concerned enough about to want to know if they live near them. The other case amounts to an act that's considered perfectly LEGAL in many countries of the world. It revolves around the fact that the 15 year old had enough of at least a PHYSICAL appearance of an adult to be considered sexually attractive to the guy in question.
There's always going to be a problem when you're forced to draw lines at specific ages for what's "legal" and what's "illegal"
I think it IS interesting that traditionally, Linux really found its "niche" with older, used hardware that people were trying to recycle. Costs of new hardware have dropped so much though, we're seeing a new situation here. The cost of the typical Microsoft pre-loaded operating system on a new PC can account for a large portion of its total cost.
If you can convince a consumer to pay more for a higher-end system, then he/she is still buying a piece of hardware with a price-point more like what we're used to seeing. But the trend is, consumers who don't need that much power, or that many "bells and whistles" (or who simply can't afford them) are buying budget-priced boxes with warranties, vs. buying other people's used/discarded PCs.
The high-end purchases are starting to go towards Apple, since they offer a complete hardware+software bundled solution with "elegance" and "style" (and they can all boot into Windows XP or Vista anyway, if one is so inclined).
The low-end is steadily creeping towards Linux, leaving Microsoft selling primarily to the "middle of the road" PCs. (By this, I mean name-brand boxes like HP/Compaq, Gateway or Dell, but offerings of theirs in that $400-600 price-point, just under where new Apple Macs generally start out at.) That and the "media center PC" niche, which Microsoft currently has a stronghold on - because no other OS fully supports DVR functionality and the like, integrated into it.
I know exactly what you mean, but I wouldn't say "no PC will ever elicit the same emotions that a C64 did".
//e owners.
.... but I daresay these never achieved the market popularity of the other brands.
I remember that whole era quite fondly, but I never owned a C64. I was one of the ones in the TRS-80 camp (the Tandy "Color Computer 2" and later the "Color Computer 3", to be exact). I can assure you the Radio-Shack computer owners were just as fond of their machines as C64 owners were of theirs. For that matter, so were the Atari owners and the Apple
Back then, you just "picked a side" and defended it. It was usually based on which computer you were lucky enough to receive as an Xmas gift, or which one you managed to save your money up for and buy on sale first. (There were a few fanatics of various CP/M based computers too -- but generally, people using them "graduated" to something in the Atari/Commodore/Tandy/Apple camp, because those systems had color graphics, more commercial game titles for them, and better sound capabilities.)
Of course, there were other "factions" too like the TI99/4A and even the Coleco Adam
VERY true, but the unfortunate reality is - you're preaching to the choir here. There's a reason Ron Paul has been most successful in the "Internet community". The more intelligent, intellectual types can follow the reasons behind some of his "more radical" beliefs, like abolishing the federal reserve, and phasing out the IRS. But those concepts require a fair bit of reading and long-term thinking to see how they're plausible.
By the same token, avid net users who read blog sites and news sites (like Slashdot!) are FAR more likely than average to select a candidate based on their individual stances, vs. voting for them "just because they told a funny joke" or "were the most stylishly dressed" during a TV appearance.
I think the responsibility for spyware/virus resistance has to ultimately lie at the feet of the operating system developer. The very idea that users should be expected to pay for commercial add-on software packages to prevent these problems is a triumph of marketing/advertising -- but is really a big ripoff for the consumers.
When you think about it, the entire idea of naming these mal-ware programs "virii" is all part of the marketing game. The average user understands how colds/flus and other infections work in the "real world". Eventually, you're going to get sick. There are some "common sense" measures you can take to reduce your risks (washing your hands often, insisting people cover their mouths if they cough around you, ensuring you've taken enough vitamins and got enough sleep, etc.) - but ultimately, nobody goes through life without ever catching a cold. Given enough time, one's immune system weakens enough to let something past that wouldn't have gotten past before.
In reality though, a computer virus doesn't have much in common with a real-life virus. Computers don't just spontaneously "catch" one because they're in close proximity to another machine that's already infected. In fact, assuming a computer is set up properly to begin with and it runs a specific set of tasks that don't get modified, it's almost certain it will NEVER get a "virus". (Take for example, a Novell Netware server that sits for years serving files and handling print services, but doesn't have any applications actually run on it. Have many virus issues with those?)
Nevermind that, though. It's MUCH more profitable to perpetuate the "scare tactics", making the "average user" think computer virii are inevitable.
IMHO, if developers can't build an OS that's truly resistant to mal-ware, then it's their job to at least include code that helps defend against it. Microsoft's inclusion of "Windows Defender" in Vista is a half-hearted start. It's the right idea, but a poor implementation - since competitor's products are noticeably better at doing the same job. Making all of this the OS developer's job makes the most sense, because it's THEIR code that's under attack. Nobody should know better than them how to protect it. Certainly, the "average end user" knows the least (and forcing them to learn more just lessens their enjoyment of the whole experience of using said product).
The days may be numbered when an I.T. manager recommending a Mac or Ubuntu would get "laughed out of the office"....
Today, yeah, most of the time, that's still correct. But how much of that is legitimate, and how much is just incorrect perception, perpetuated by people with no guts to attempt REAL changes?
I know as "network manager" of the company I work for, I put a Linux-based web proxy/filtering solution in place, the first month I started. I didn't really ask for permission first. I just re-used some old hardware that was sitting around, and since it cost nothing in software licenses, there was no budget approval required. For the last 2 years now, it's done it's job quite well, with almost no maintenance required.
Sometimes that's how you get changes started. You don't go around "recommending" something potentially controversial. You just implement it in a limited fashion, after making sure it's going to perform as intended. If all goes well, nobody even notices the change -- but the device sits there, justifying itself with its own good performance each day. Eventually, it will be realized it's part of the environment, and it will become a "given" that it's not only a "good choice", but probably a "best choice" because it has worked so well.
I do see this happening with Macs as well. Just last weekend, I did some computer work in an office, and noticed they had new Apple iMacs in the conference rooms, in the break room, etc. The offices themselves were still all using Windows boxes, but I'm sure the iMacs got put in due to their lack of spyware/virus issues, in all the places where they'd have a "low impact" on the day-to-day operations. Give them a couple years, and if they don't suffer massive hardware failures or something unexpected, they'll have silently proven themselves -- and somebody is going to start asking "Why don't we have some more of these around here?"
Some of each.... Does it really matter? Anonymity is a concept some people have chosen to employ LONG before the Internet came along. Look at all the book authors who chose to write under a "pen name", for example.
Like anything, it's up to the *reader* to make his/her own judgment calls about the validity of the information he/she reads. Sometimes, people who sign their name to a work are still just producing B.S. (Look at the best-selling "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" books. The author's PhD was from a diploma mill in California.)
Yeah, time has proven Nintendo had the best formula for new console sales. Still, I don't like all the attacks I see on the 360 and PS3, relative to it. In my mind, the Wii was so successful because it's such a different product. Sure, all 3 are "game consoles", but the Wii approaches things from a very different angle than the others.
... not just the "authorized" ones Sony or someone else lets you buy for it. Good stuff for a console!
I, for one, had *no* interest in a Wii, and still don't. I'm afraid I'm in the camp of those who wondered if the Wii was "just a novelty that would wear off". To me, buying a Wii has just as little attraction as buying "Dance, Dance Revolution". I want to relax/unwind with a good video game. I don't want a physical "workout" from it.
I really do get why Wii has been such a "smash hit"; it's because it appeals to the majority of the population out there who really didn't want to play traditional console games (or played them so casually, they felt no need to upgrade from whatever older, "outdated" system they still toy around with).
The PS3 and the XBox 360 were console system upgrades for "traditional gamers". Wii was not. The weaker hardware specs to achieve the lower price-point should indicate that. But beyond that, there's the fact that many of us in the "traditional gaming camp" want to be wowed by things like impressive sound f/x, cutting-edge graphics AND an entertaining game. We're not interested in flailing our arms and/or legs around wildly to make the game character move. (Especially when you tend to do your person vs. person gaming over the net, as opposed to socially, with multiple people in your living room - the physical movement stuff quickly loses its appeal.)
I went with a PS3 last year, and despite the slow release of good titles, I'm happy enough. The latest crop of games like Ratchet & Clank are making it look pretty darn good right now. And hey, the latest UT even supports a mouse and keyboard, plus all mods and custom levels out there
Actually, some of the 3rd. party "unauthorized" apps for hacked iPhones make really clever use of the accelerometer.
The most recent one was an electronic level. It draws the little bubble level on the phone's display, and the bubble moves just like a real level, indicating the phone sitting level when the bubble is between the 2 lines. It works pretty well, and given the shape of the iPhone (not likely to be attached to some sort of belt clip or holster that prevents it from lying flat on a surface), it's a practical application for it too.
I also saw someone's experimental pedometer application. Not sure it's perfectly accurate, but seems to make a pretty good attempt at counting your steps as you walk or jog. (Yeah, Nokia did this first - but it's just worth noting they're doing it for iPhones now too.)
The little drawing applet for iPhones someone wrote is funny too. If you shake the phone, it erases the current drawing, sort of like an etch-a-sketch tablet.
I agree that shaking one's phone is probably not such a "practical" or "more efficient" way of working with it. It's done more for the "cute" or "cool" factor of it. But I like some of the other things the accelerometers make possible, like the iPhone's automatic screen orientation change when it sense you flipped it sideways.