Sure you and I can use a command line FTP, but how many average users can? I hope your DSL/cable modem and any router you use allows you to configure it via telnet. Mine doesn't so I still couldn't connect to the internet to even use FTP.
As far as CD, sure I guess I could run downtown and buy a browser. Neither option sounds too nice though.
So writing to Microsoft Component X is bad. Instead they should create Microsoft Component Y, but this time without a little GUI so it cannot also run as a standalone.
What exactly do you have in mind for this API you are talking about? You realize its going to be some.dll or.ocx or.exe right. Then developers can program against that when they need for example browser functionality. What is it you don't like about the current situation again? Just that the component can also run stand-alone?
Sure, but then MS would have to make a MUCH more usable FTP client included in Windows and then SmartFTP/WS-FTP and all the other FTP client developers would be up in arms about that.
Somebody else had suggested, just having all the "extra" apps on a seperate CD. That is probably the best idea if this was required, but why put 95% of the people through the extra hassle for the 5% who think its unholy to allow IE on the computer?
OK fair enough, but without a browser included how are you going to get whichever one you want? Run across town to a store to buy it? Call a company and have them ship it to you?
Its fine to not want to use it, but not having it there at all would be a real pain in the arse.
Wasn't 100% sure, were you saying developers being forced to install 3rd party apps wasn't a bad thing?
I thought that was a bloody TERRIBLE thing!!!!! I remember back when this was the case and soon I'd have 2-3 apps for every purpose on my machine. And MUCH worse was when different applications needed the same 3rd party app, but both needed different versions!
AHHHHHHHH!!!!! I still have nightmares. I for one am very happy for developers to develop for IE and Media Player!!!!!
I think ya gotta give up. He seems like one of those guys who are also all pissy about IE being included in Windows.
"I don't want IE on my system!!! Just give me my OS and download whatever brower I want.....wait I guess I'll need IE to download that other browser. Screw it! I'll just order online and have it shipped to me.....wait that won't work either. Ah, what the hell, just give me the fr*#king IE"
Sometimes when a company fails it isn't because of anti-competitve behaviour. WinAmp and many other companies have been doing just fine. The issue is Real sucks monkey-butt, and were getting killed (not just by MS).
Whats the saying? Those who can do, those who cannot get lawyers.
I see what you are trying to say, but it really isn't the case. There is no paying for Media Player, its "free". Now your implying that they are just rolling the cost into Windows, but I don't agree with that.
They have offered Media Player as a free download for Mac OSX as well (I don't think they do that anymore, but not sure).
The issue was never about abuse of users in the way you are suggesting, it was about other companies (Real) not being able to compete because Media Player is bundled with Windows. Now you can argue it SHOULD have been about other issues, but the fact is the EU case was about other companies not being able to compete not about any user "abuse".
Are you kidding? All they need is a commercial with dancing shadows in front of pretty colors with a cool song in the background about Trusted Computing and the kids will be lined up around the block for these things!;-)
Re:Only going to work if it became standard
on
Advocating Dvorak
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, as soon as I hit submit I knew I should have stated an "unless you mean an exponential of 1.000...1" clause;-) You just cannot get away with any slips here;-)
Re:Only going to work if it became standard
on
Advocating Dvorak
·
· Score: 2
Dvorak eclipses it in terms of speed by an exponential amount.
Do you know what "exponential" means? Dvorak sounds cool and I might try it, but I have a REALLY hard time believing the above. I can currently type around 50 wpm, so if I switch to Dvorak I should be expecting at least 2500 wpm?
Not that I like this law, but its not as bad as you suggest. They don't have to filter both directions or even filter all "adult" content. They just need to filter based on a list provided by the states AG. So there is no need to search clients content or even search all 3-rd party content. They just need to have the ability to filter those sites listed by the AG.
Can anyone understand what this guy is saying? It seems like everything he says he says the opposite like 2 seconds later!
"We're not going to equip [the PS3 with] an HDD by default."
"So in order to declare that the PS3 is a computer, I think we'll have [the PS3's HDD] preinstalled with Linux as a bonus."
Basically he wants to have PS3 seen as a computer not just a game machine. OK, fine. He says to do this it will need as OS (Linux) to be installed on the HDD. OK, fine. But PS3 won't ship with a HDD. OK,.. but...I thought...WTF!
Please explain oath and affirmation. Does it say this oath and affirmation needs to come from the court? Or does it need to come from someone who took an oath to this country? Every FBI agent needs to take an oath prior to becoming an agent.
Neither of those really. What it means is the cop/agent who presents the "probable cause" evidence to the judge must swear the evidence is accurate, etc since there won't be an oportunity for the accused to rebut this "probable cause" evidence.
Fair enough about Wiki. Here is a link to the applicable section of federal rules of criminal procedure. To quote the most relavent section: (b) Authority to Issue a Warrant.
At the request of a federal law enforcement officer or an attorney for the government:
(1) a magistrate judge with authority in the districtor if none is reasonably available, a judge of a state court of record in the districthas authority to issue a warrant to search for and seize a person or property located within the district;
(2) a magistrate judge with authority in the district has authority to issue a warrant for a person or property outside the district if the person or property is located within the district when the warrant is issued but might move or be moved outside the district before the warrant is executed; and
(3) a magistrate judgein an investigation of domestic terrorism or international terrorism (as defined in 18 U.S.C. 2331)having authority in any district in which activities related to the terrorism may have occurred, may issue a warrant for a person or property within or outside that district.
I agree that the patriot act is for the most part fine. Its just a few parts that bother me and this new extension is type of thing that bothers me. I'd agree with your postion on time sensitive issues, but this really has nothing to do with that. There are already of plenty of "in pursuit" exceptions to search and seizure that account for those situations. This is about bank records etc. And if it is a national security issue, they could contact a judge for approval basically just as fast as they could contact thier bosses for approval. With faxes, email, cell phones, etc for important stuff you can get a judge to sign-off in a matter of minutes providing you have real probable cause. The only use for this I see is wanting to search without the probable cuase required by law.
I agree with most of what you are saying. The issue of competing rights is obviously true I just didn't want to go into a long winded discussion (as I sometimes do) about all the aspects of my thinking on such things. I just wanted to quickly say the basic thinking. Really you need to judge the net freedom effect (feedom gained minus freedom lost) and this is always pretty subjective and difficult to quantify.
I also completely agree about accountability. I however would extend that accountability past the high-level administrator and also include any congressman who for it or president who signs it. I mean what is the compelling reason for this? If there is something that important (national security) and you have the proof, you can get a judge to issue a warrent in a matter of minutes. Remember, this isn't about "in pursuit" cases which are already allowed to handle situations where a matter of minutes make a difference. These are about getting bank records, etc. We've moved past the days of Pony Express here! We have cell phones, faxes, email, etc, etc. The only reason to not put this before a judge is if you really don't have the probable cause the law requires.
I understand you are comfortable with all this and don't think they will be abused, but what do you base that on? Look at any regime which has welded these powers and you will see plenty of abuses (some quite shocking). I know this is the USA and all and we are supposedly the "good guys", but I find this type of blind faith quite disturbing.
Look at the language you quoted - Upon "probable cause" - it is assumed that the FBI will only do search and seizure upon "probable cause". So it can easily be argued that the Constitution is not violated. At least in your quote, nothing here says it has to be done by the court systems.
If you re-read this I think you will see the fourth amendment says you need more than just probable cause for search and seizures. You need a warrent and those warrents require probable cause supported by oath or affirmation.
Now there are many types of warrents, but in this context (as judges have upheld for centuries) it refers to a writ from a judge. This is ABSOLUTELY required or the 4th amendment has NO meaning. If any cop/agent and just say he feels he has probably cause (hey I got a feeling) then it means nothing. This is why a writ from a judge is required. The probable cuase must be brought before a judge who should unbiasedly judge if the probable cause is suffiecent. Without that, its nothing more than KGB time.
From Wikipedia: "A search warrant is a written warrant issued by a judge or magistrate which authorizes the police to conduct a search of a person or location for evidence of a criminal offense.
All jurisdictions with a rule of law and a right to privacy put constraints on the rights of police investigators, and typically require search warrants, or an equivalent procedure, for searches within a criminal enquiry. There typically also exist exemptions for "hot pursuit": if a criminal flees the scene of a crime and the police officer follows him, the officer has the right to enter an edifice in which the criminal has sought shelter.
Conversely, in authoritarian regimes, the police typically have the right to search property and people without having to provide justifications, or without having to secure an authorization from the judiciary."
This new expansion seems like they almost read this passage from Wikipedia about how authoritarian regimes work and said, "Damn that'd be nice! I want that!".
When it's convenient liberals dont mind changing the constitution (not that i'm saying i know anything about you, takeya), but then when it effects them they scream "injustice!".
I'm actually a registered republican, but as of late I've been feeling pretty out of touch with the party and by the current use of the word I guess I'm now a liberal (just a little background).
I cannot speak for others but my rational for liking or disliking a law or ammendment has nothing to do with it being "convienient" or not. I have a very simple test if I like it or not in cases like this. Does the law/ammendment grant more/expand rights and freedom or does it limit/take away rights and freedom? That is it!
If it gives more rights to people, then its good and I'm all for it. If it limits or takes away rights, then I'm against it. Simple as that. For example, Amendment XIII - Slavery Abolished, Amendment XIV - Citizenship rights, Amendment XV - Race no bar to vote, Amendment XIX - Women's suffrage. Those are all good. Amendment XVIII - Liquor abolished. That is bad.
Now I'm not an anti-patriot act nazi. Most of it is actually pretty common sense stuff, but there are some BAD parts as well. If this article is correct is seems they are expanding the bad parts instead of repealing them as we all hoped.
I really hope being against this type of expansion of the patriot act isn't a conservitive/liberal issue. It'd hope we could all agree this is not in our best interest and work together to try to convey those feelings to those in congress.
Again you are correct. Let me revise my previous post.
I was reading this thinking Apple might have been wrong all along. Then I read where the Apple CEO said Apple was RIGHT all along. That put my mind right at ease!
Your right. I was reading this thinking Steve Jobs might have been wrong all along. Then I read where Steve Jobs said Steve Jobs was RIGHT all along. That put my mind right at ease!;-)
I see no cause for legal action here. You've just paid your idiot tax, no big deal.
Seriously though it shouldn't be too big of a deal. Most applications will run on both PPC and Intel (fat binaries). There MAY be some apps in a couple years which aren't made to run on PPC, but I'm sure there will be an emulator for those.
I've found most Mac users I know, don't really need to worry about this as they just use the most basic applications which will certainly be supporting both. Of course these same Mac users could have had the same functionality from a $400 PC form Dell (with Linux or MS), but prefer to pay the extra couple grand for the cool looking boxes. So I don't feel too bad for them if this will cause them some minor problems;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Sure you and I can use a command line FTP, but how many average users can? I hope your DSL/cable modem and any router you use allows you to configure it via telnet. Mine doesn't so I still couldn't connect to the internet to even use FTP.
As far as CD, sure I guess I could run downtown and buy a browser. Neither option sounds too nice though.
Yes, easy for you. However, what percent of average PC users do you figure would be able do that?
;-)
Sometimes people who don't know about such things will actually try to use a PC. I know we shouldn't let them, but lets humor them a bit
So writing to Microsoft Component X is bad. Instead they should create Microsoft Component Y, but this time without a little GUI so it cannot also run as a standalone.
.dll or .ocx or .exe right. Then developers can program against that when they need for example browser functionality. What is it you don't like about the current situation again? Just that the component can also run stand-alone?
What exactly do you have in mind for this API you are talking about? You realize its going to be some
Sure, but then MS would have to make a MUCH more usable FTP client included in Windows and then SmartFTP/WS-FTP and all the other FTP client developers would be up in arms about that.
Somebody else had suggested, just having all the "extra" apps on a seperate CD. That is probably the best idea if this was required, but why put 95% of the people through the extra hassle for the 5% who think its unholy to allow IE on the computer?
Nor to subject the majority to the whims of the minority. Don't want to use it? Fine don't.
OK fair enough, but without a browser included how are you going to get whichever one you want? Run across town to a store to buy it? Call a company and have them ship it to you?
Its fine to not want to use it, but not having it there at all would be a real pain in the arse.
Have you used Real's server products or looked at thier pricing. Again, they suck monkey butt and have killed themselves ;-)
Wasn't 100% sure, were you saying developers being forced to install 3rd party apps wasn't a bad thing?
I thought that was a bloody TERRIBLE thing!!!!! I remember back when this was the case and soon I'd have 2-3 apps for every purpose on my machine. And MUCH worse was when different applications needed the same 3rd party app, but both needed different versions!
AHHHHHHHH!!!!! I still have nightmares. I for one am very happy for developers to develop for IE and Media Player!!!!!
I think ya gotta give up. He seems like one of those guys who are also all pissy about IE being included in Windows.
"I don't want IE on my system!!! Just give me my OS and download whatever brower I want.....wait I guess I'll need IE to download that other browser. Screw it! I'll just order online and have it shipped to me.....wait that won't work either. Ah, what the hell, just give me the fr*#king IE"
Sometimes when a company fails it isn't because of anti-competitve behaviour. WinAmp and many other companies have been doing just fine. The issue is Real sucks monkey-butt, and were getting killed (not just by MS).
Whats the saying? Those who can do, those who cannot get lawyers.
I see what you are trying to say, but it really isn't the case. There is no paying for Media Player, its "free". Now your implying that they are just rolling the cost into Windows, but I don't agree with that.
They have offered Media Player as a free download for Mac OSX as well (I don't think they do that anymore, but not sure).
The issue was never about abuse of users in the way you are suggesting, it was about other companies (Real) not being able to compete because Media Player is bundled with Windows. Now you can argue it SHOULD have been about other issues, but the fact is the EU case was about other companies not being able to compete not about any user "abuse".
Don't forget MAPS!
He didn't! Didn't you notice this line?
Everything else is mostly crap, which creates some buzz initially and then everyone forgets about it
Are you kidding? All they need is a commercial with dancing shadows in front of pretty colors with a cool song in the background about Trusted Computing and the kids will be lined up around the block for these things! ;-)
Yeah, as soon as I hit submit I knew I should have stated an "unless you mean an exponential of 1.000...1" clause ;-) You just cannot get away with any slips here ;-)
Dvorak eclipses it in terms of speed by an exponential amount.
Do you know what "exponential" means? Dvorak sounds cool and I might try it, but I have a REALLY hard time believing the above. I can currently type around 50 wpm, so if I switch to Dvorak I should be expecting at least 2500 wpm?
Not that I like this law, but its not as bad as you suggest. They don't have to filter both directions or even filter all "adult" content. They just need to filter based on a list provided by the states AG. So there is no need to search clients content or even search all 3-rd party content. They just need to have the ability to filter those sites listed by the AG.
Can anyone understand what this guy is saying? It seems like everything he says he says the opposite like 2 seconds later!
.. but...I thought...WTF!
"We're not going to equip [the PS3 with] an HDD by default."
"So in order to declare that the PS3 is a computer, I think we'll have [the PS3's HDD] preinstalled with Linux as a bonus."
Basically he wants to have PS3 seen as a computer not just a game machine. OK, fine. He says to do this it will need as OS (Linux) to be installed on the HDD. OK, fine. But PS3 won't ship with a HDD. OK,
Please explain oath and affirmation. Does it say this oath and affirmation needs to come from the court? Or does it need to come from someone who took an oath to this country? Every FBI agent needs to take an oath prior to becoming an agent.
Neither of those really. What it means is the cop/agent who presents the "probable cause" evidence to the judge must swear the evidence is accurate, etc since there won't be an oportunity for the accused to rebut this "probable cause" evidence.
Fair enough about Wiki. Here is a link to the applicable section of federal rules of criminal procedure. To quote the most relavent section:
(b) Authority to Issue a Warrant.
At the request of a federal law enforcement officer or an attorney for the government:
(1) a magistrate judge with authority in the districtor if none is reasonably available, a judge of a state court of record in the districthas authority to issue a warrant to search for and seize a person or property located within the district;
(2) a magistrate judge with authority in the district has authority to issue a warrant for a person or property outside the district if the person or property is located within the district when the warrant is issued but might move or be moved outside the district before the warrant is executed; and
(3) a magistrate judgein an investigation of domestic terrorism or international terrorism (as defined in 18 U.S.C. 2331)having authority in any district in which activities related to the terrorism may have occurred, may issue a warrant for a person or property within or outside that district.
I agree that the patriot act is for the most part fine. Its just a few parts that bother me and this new extension is type of thing that bothers me. I'd agree with your postion on time sensitive issues, but this really has nothing to do with that. There are already of plenty of "in pursuit" exceptions to search and seizure that account for those situations. This is about bank records etc. And if it is a national security issue, they could contact a judge for approval basically just as fast as they could contact thier bosses for approval. With faxes, email, cell phones, etc for important stuff you can get a judge to sign-off in a matter of minutes providing you have real probable cause. The only use for this I see is wanting to search without the probable cuase required by law.
I agree with most of what you are saying. The issue of competing rights is obviously true I just didn't want to go into a long winded discussion (as I sometimes do) about all the aspects of my thinking on such things. I just wanted to quickly say the basic thinking. Really you need to judge the net freedom effect (feedom gained minus freedom lost) and this is always pretty subjective and difficult to quantify.
I also completely agree about accountability. I however would extend that accountability past the high-level administrator and also include any congressman who for it or president who signs it. I mean what is the compelling reason for this? If there is something that important (national security) and you have the proof, you can get a judge to issue a warrent in a matter of minutes. Remember, this isn't about "in pursuit" cases which are already allowed to handle situations where a matter of minutes make a difference. These are about getting bank records, etc. We've moved past the days of Pony Express here! We have cell phones, faxes, email, etc, etc. The only reason to not put this before a judge is if you really don't have the probable cause the law requires.
I understand you are comfortable with all this and don't think they will be abused, but what do you base that on? Look at any regime which has welded these powers and you will see plenty of abuses (some quite shocking). I know this is the USA and all and we are supposedly the "good guys", but I find this type of blind faith quite disturbing.
Look at the language you quoted - Upon "probable cause" - it is assumed that the FBI will only do search and seizure upon "probable cause". So it can easily be argued that the Constitution is not violated. At least in your quote, nothing here says it has to be done by the court systems.
If you re-read this I think you will see the fourth amendment says you need more than just probable cause for search and seizures. You need a warrent and those warrents require probable cause supported by oath or affirmation.
Now there are many types of warrents, but in this context (as judges have upheld for centuries) it refers to a writ from a judge. This is ABSOLUTELY required or the 4th amendment has NO meaning. If any cop/agent and just say he feels he has probably cause (hey I got a feeling) then it means nothing. This is why a writ from a judge is required. The probable cuase must be brought before a judge who should unbiasedly judge if the probable cause is suffiecent. Without that, its nothing more than KGB time.
From Wikipedia: "A search warrant is a written warrant issued by a judge or magistrate which authorizes the police to conduct a search of a person or location for evidence of a criminal offense.
All jurisdictions with a rule of law and a right to privacy put constraints on the rights of police investigators, and typically require search warrants, or an equivalent procedure, for searches within a criminal enquiry. There typically also exist exemptions for "hot pursuit": if a criminal flees the scene of a crime and the police officer follows him, the officer has the right to enter an edifice in which the criminal has sought shelter.
Conversely, in authoritarian regimes, the police typically have the right to search property and people without having to provide justifications, or without having to secure an authorization from the judiciary."
This new expansion seems like they almost read this passage from Wikipedia about how authoritarian regimes work and said, "Damn that'd be nice! I want that!".
When it's convenient liberals dont mind changing the constitution (not that i'm saying i know anything about you, takeya), but then when it effects them they scream "injustice!".
I'm actually a registered republican, but as of late I've been feeling pretty out of touch with the party and by the current use of the word I guess I'm now a liberal (just a little background).
I cannot speak for others but my rational for liking or disliking a law or ammendment has nothing to do with it being "convienient" or not. I have a very simple test if I like it or not in cases like this. Does the law/ammendment grant more/expand rights and freedom or does it limit/take away rights and freedom? That is it!
If it gives more rights to people, then its good and I'm all for it. If it limits or takes away rights, then I'm against it. Simple as that. For example, Amendment XIII - Slavery Abolished, Amendment XIV - Citizenship rights, Amendment XV - Race no bar to vote, Amendment XIX - Women's suffrage. Those are all good. Amendment XVIII - Liquor abolished. That is bad.
Now I'm not an anti-patriot act nazi. Most of it is actually pretty common sense stuff, but there are some BAD parts as well. If this article is correct is seems they are expanding the bad parts instead of repealing them as we all hoped.
I really hope being against this type of expansion of the patriot act isn't a conservitive/liberal issue. It'd hope we could all agree this is not in our best interest and work together to try to convey those feelings to those in congress.
I only wish this logic always worked. I think gas should be free 'cause without it my car is just a worthless hunk of metal and plastic ;-)
Again you are correct. Let me revise my previous post.
;-)
I was reading this thinking Apple might have been wrong all along. Then I read where the Apple CEO said Apple was RIGHT all along. That put my mind right at ease!
Sorry about the previous confusion
Your right. I was reading this thinking Steve Jobs might have been wrong all along. Then I read where Steve Jobs said Steve Jobs was RIGHT all along. That put my mind right at ease! ;-)
I have spent over 4k on apple pppc hardware
;-)
I see no cause for legal action here. You've just paid your idiot tax, no big deal.
Seriously though it shouldn't be too big of a deal. Most applications will run on both PPC and Intel (fat binaries). There MAY be some apps in a couple years which aren't made to run on PPC, but I'm sure there will be an emulator for those.
I've found most Mac users I know, don't really need to worry about this as they just use the most basic applications which will certainly be supporting both. Of course these same Mac users could have had the same functionality from a $400 PC form Dell (with Linux or MS), but prefer to pay the extra couple grand for the cool looking boxes. So I don't feel too bad for them if this will cause them some minor problems