Apple doesn't give a rat's ass about what a small percentage of hackers do after they've paid Apple for the hardware. Why would they? Does anyone even have a plausible possibility?
Then why does every iPod get more difficult to open up? More difficult to replace the battery? More difficult to jailbreak? If Apple really didn't care what people did with their devices after they bought them, then why does Apple claim that jailbreaking their devices is _illegal_, even though the courts (despite heavy resistance from Apple) have said it isn't?
So it's worth sacrificing the rights of the few people who _actually do_ forget it in order to catch a couple "criminals" who did nothing more than have a specific string of ones and zeros?
But often the union organizers are in it for themselves rather then the members.
If that's the case, then you need to get a new union. Immediately.
My mother was one of the founders of the nurses union at the hospital where she works. Prior to unionizing, wages sucked. Working conditions sucked. Nurses were harassed by doctors, and fired if they complained. Nurses were told that if the equipment to lift an overweight patient onto another bed wasn't available, just lift them up yourself. Led to a lot of back problems with the nurses - but if they didn't do it, they'd be fired. When the movement to unionize started, the hospital hired private detectives to follow some of the organizing nurses. For a few days there was a detective parked outside of our house, 24/7 watching our family.
Now: wages are a lot better. Nurses aren't required to injure themselves. When doctors occasionally start screaming and swearing at a nurse, the nurse can complain without being fired - or just pull out their cellphone and say 'keep talking, I'm recording this' - that tends to solve the issue. Prior to the union, any nurse with the courage to do that would have been fired. And in general, relations between the nurses and management is a _lot_ better now. It was a bit strained at first, but it's improved immensely.
Of course, I'm not going to say that _all_ unions are _always_ good - there was this English teacher in my highschool for example who essentially decided she just wasn't going to teach anymore. We watched probably 10+ movies in her class, and did several huge assignments that just never got graded - a few more that never even got turned in. She was late nearly every day, and didn't even show up at least 5 days out of every month. At the end of the year she did "resign", but the rumor was that she would have been fired _much_ sooner, but she had tenure, and the union made it incredibly difficult to fire even teachers who were blatantly just not doing their jobs.
In my opinion, unions are generally good. Union organizers are generally good. But as with anything else, if they become too powerful, you will have problems. But then, without a union all that power belongs to the employer, which isn't a good situation either.
...so that instead of clicking one link, you can copy it, then go to another site, paste it in, _then_ click it and be redirected. Because that's exactly what we need - more intermediate steps.
the fact that the newspaper had links to share a link to the content on facebook or twitter or whatever - and thus should only really be read to have given implied consent to link, not to copy.
Except 90% of the time, when you share a link on Facebook, it copies a fairly large portion of the article into your news feed as well. I'm not sure if there's a way to turn that if, but if there is, I would say the validity of the argument rests of if that was enabled. And if that feature can't be or wasn't disabled, then I would say they most definitely gave a licence to copy at least on or two paragraphs from an article.
No, it means that if you put a button on your site saying "Click here to copy part of this story to your website!", you can't then sue people for copying parts of the story. It would be like YouTube suing people for using the embed links they post.
People said they were "moving too fast" as you put it. Not that floppy drives would never go away. A decade is hardly a short time span for technology. Had Apple waited a couple years, I doubt there would have been any complaints.
Everything is going to disappear eventually. Being the first person to get rid of it and then saying "I told you so!" when it eventually goes away is stupid. Floppy drives did not disappear because Apple got rid of them, they disappeared because they were obsolete. Flash, too, will not go away just because Steve Jobs wants it to. As much as I wish it would. It'll go away when something better replaces it. And unfortunately, it doesn't seem like HTML5 is really better. At least not by enough to drive any kind of dramatic shift. Maybe a slow downward spiral if we're lucky.
I used to love Stewart and Colbert. Then I realized how absolutely disturbing their shows are. There was a story on Colbert a while back that made me finally begin to realize this - A group of police officers (I think it was about 10) broke into the house of a bedridden 80-something year old woman...and for some reason decided they needed to taze her. Twice. And you know what the reaction to this story was? Riotous laughter. That story isn't funny. It's obscene.
Stewart and Colbert make people think it's ok to just laugh off all our problems - while they continue to get worse. What the hell is the point of having a couple sarcastic rallies? Hell, while they're at it they should send letters to their senators and representatives saying 'I have absolutely nothing to tell you.' Yeah, that'll show 'em! All they're doing is giving more support to Glenn Beck.
1) If you give all cars proper following distance, that shouldn't matter so much. But either way, just have the computer give more space to any car without the same system installed. I'd assume they can communicate somehow. Failing that, it could probably analyze driving patterns pretty quickly to tell who is driving somewhat erratically.
2) A computer can recognize people, it probably won't have much trouble recognizing small people. If there is a human by the side of the road, go x% slower. If it's a human under y feet tall, go an extra z% slower. Easy.
3) I would expect a computer to be better than humans at not getting thrown off by such illusions. Either way, if it's a serious problem, just add a zoom lens to a camera so it can zoom in on the object in question. Or even better - an infrared camera. A paper bag or scrap of tire isn't going to be giving off heat. A person or animal will.
4) Really? You think a giant shadow is going to throw off a computer? I'm pretty sure that won't be a problem. Otherwise there would be crashes every time the clouds moved. Plus, I would imagine that a digital camera would be able to adjust to changing light levels quicker than your own eyes.
WTF country timeframe are you living on? Never seen Ubuntu succeed? Not even once? On what sort of bizarre island is it impossible to find a single PC that Ubuntu can successfully run?
Language requirements and brands (and models) of computers tried would be also interesting to see. I find it simply unconceivable that you have never seen Ubuntu working right from the start.
Nope. Not even once. There's always some weird issue with the audio or the wifi or _something_. As for my own attempts - the last time I tried to install it on my own PC, the installer wouldn't even run (Mandriva, Arch, Slackware - hell, even Libranet - all install fine on the exact same PC.)
Language requirements are always US/English, computers are pretty much always Dell. Probably a couple other brands in there too, but I don't recall specifics. My PC is a Dell Vostro 1000. Only other one I remember any specifics about was an old Dell Inspiron. Took 3 days to get the wifi up on that one - when it worked straight off the install with Mandriva. Granted, the Dell branded broadcom chips (BCM43xx) have _terrible_ Linux support, but seriously, it's easier to install them on Arch than it is on Ubuntu. I think in the end we had to install ndiswrapper from source or something. And expecting a newbie to do something like that is absolute insanity. Though to be fair to Ubuntu, Mandriva did have some weird issues with ndiswrapper for one or two versions too. But I still don't know why the b43 or wl drivers wouldn't work on that Ubuntu install....
As a former Mandriva user (now on Arch) - there is very much a need for Mandriva to continue. It's the distro I always recommend to newbies, and as far as I know it's the only distro that is both extremely user-friendly and has excellent hardware support. I've seen far too many people give up on Linux because Ubuntu didn't like some piece of hardware. For a newbie's first Linux distro, you need to have at least basic support for _all_ hardware straight from the install. I've never seen Mandriva fail at that...and I've also never seen Ubuntu succeed.
No, they should merge all the good features of Ubuntu into Mandriva. That way you would not only have a good distro, but it would be one that wouldn't bail out during the install and would actually work with damn near any hardware you throw at it (i.e. Dell BCM43 chips - last time I tried to get one of those on Ubuntu it took _days_. On Mandriva it just worked.)
A lot of Ubuntu's critics say what they say because they think they are "too good" for it since it comes with training wheels on.
I don't hate it because it has training wheels. I hate it because it has some of the worst hardware support I've seen out of any Linux distro that I've tried. I've seen way too many people try Ubuntu, have some problem with poorly supported hardware (or the installer entirely refusing to run), and go 'wow, Linux sucks.' and give up. That is why I always recommend Mandriva. I have yet to find any hardware it won't run on. Even the weird Dell branded broadcom wifi chips usually work without any extra effort. The last time I tried one of those on Ubuntu it took _days_ to get it functioning. Trying different drivers, trying ndiswrapper, trying compiling ndiswrapper from source, wiping the hard disk and trying again...
Hell, I can get an Arch system up and running on my laptop in less time than it usually takes me to do (and fix) a fresh Ubuntu install. Actually, if I was doing the install for someone else, right now I would probably pick Arch. It's too rough for non-technical users to get installed, but once it's set up it is by far the cleanest, simplest, and most stable distro I've ever had the pleasure of using. After over 6 years using Linux, Arch is the distro that finally got me to entirely erase my Windows partition.
But of course, two wrongs don't make a right. Yes, the people burning the books are assholes. But the people getting all pissed off about it are no better. Don't feed the trolls.
there's really no difference between saying "you can't use this service for promoting Republican ideals" and saying "this service can't be used by for-profit entities"
I'm extremely confused as to how you think that is turning my own phrase against me. Are you insinuating that I am Republican? And if so, are you assuming that I would have a problem with a host that refuses to host Republican sites? FYI - I generally classify myself as a Libertarian Socialist.
My post was _not_ saying that businesses don't have the right to refuse to support those they don't agree with. It was a legitimate question directed at the parent post. In my mind, there is no difference between 'no hate speech' and 'no for-profit sites', and I was curious about the parent poster's opinion on that matter. In my mind a web host has every right to refuse to serve you for any reason they want. If they feel like running a random number generator and booting people whose numbers come up - go for it. Sell it as "Russian Roulette Hosting Co."
I wasn't asking if it was _legal_, I was asking if it was acceptable - specifically, if it was acceptable to Issac-1, since he's referred to banning hate speech as a "war on thought".
the whole idea behind the 1st Amendment is to protect and allow EXACTLY this kind of speech.
Yes. But it does _not_ protect your right to use somebody else's services to broadcast that speech. No different than banning spammers. Or giving a '-1: Troll' moderation.
Is it acceptable for a web host to host only Christian pages? Only Linux pages? Only non-profit pages? I mean I see your logic, but there's really no difference between saying "you can't use this service for hate speech" and saying "this service can't be used by for-profit entities"
The first amendment applies to _government_ restrictions on speech. Extending the right to free speech to cover private companies would make spam filtering illegal, it would make forum moderation illegal, it would make filtering bad words in online chats illegal, etc...
So if someone decides to stand in my front yard shouting at people passing by on the street, I'm "suppressing free speech" if I kick them off my lawn? I don't follow your logic. The right to free speech applies only to governments. If Rackspace doesn't want to sell their service to this church, they don't have to. It's no more a suppression of free speech than Facebook banning the accounts of spammers. Or Gmail filtering out spam messages.
ISPs are utilities, hosting companies are not. And it's about a Terms of Service violation - common carrier status has absolutely _nothing_ to do with this case. That's like getting pissed at Facebook for banning spammers. Or getting pissed at Comcast for booting people who are running web hosts from residential connections. And again, it's a hosting company - if you don't like the terms, there is a near infinite number of others out there for you to choose from. This isn't like an ISP, where some people only have a choice between Comcast and...Comcast.
Have you ever tried to use Wine in Windows? Last time I attempted was a couple years ago, but I remember spending hours trying to get the damn thing to work, only to eventually just give up. Wine is great on Linux, but the processes to get it installed and to use it for Windows could be greatly improved.
Uhh...my Chromium 5 for Linux has print preview and proper flash support. And the same file download behavior as browsers like Firefox - I open a file the browser doesn't handle, it downloads to the folder I've specified for downloads. How is that a problem? As I said, it's the same thing Mozilla does. I don't _want_ a browser to just start deleting my downloads on it's own. If I tell it 'yes, download this file', that file should stay where it is until I decide to delete it.
In higher level classes, no. And most universities with large classes lower the class size as the classes get more difficult. But I learned a hell of a lot from some of my freshman classes with 100+ students. What you do need is lots of TAs. All our tests for the one were in-class written essays. And they were graded quite thoroughly. I've gotten more out of my 100+ student physics classes and the one architecture class than I have out of some of my 20 student calc or stats classes. If the professor sucks, you won't learn anything no matter how small the class is. And if the professor knows what they're doing, they could probably teach a thousand students well. Again, this may not hold for _all_ classes, but there's certainly no reason to entirely dismiss larger class sizes.
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't so much say it's a British thing as much as a government thing. The NSA is pretty far ahead of academics with encryption technology too.
"It took the academic community two decades to figure out that the NSA "tweaks" actually improved the security of DES. This means that back in the '70s, the National Security Agency was two decades ahead of the state of the art."
(from http://news.cnet.com/Saluting-the-data-encryption-legacy/2010-1029_3-5381232.html)
Apple doesn't give a rat's ass about what a small percentage of hackers do after they've paid Apple for the hardware. Why would they? Does anyone even have a plausible possibility?
Then why does every iPod get more difficult to open up? More difficult to replace the battery? More difficult to jailbreak? If Apple really didn't care what people did with their devices after they bought them, then why does Apple claim that jailbreaking their devices is _illegal_, even though the courts (despite heavy resistance from Apple) have said it isn't?
So it's worth sacrificing the rights of the few people who _actually do_ forget it in order to catch a couple "criminals" who did nothing more than have a specific string of ones and zeros?
But often the union organizers are in it for themselves rather then the members.
If that's the case, then you need to get a new union. Immediately.
My mother was one of the founders of the nurses union at the hospital where she works. Prior to unionizing, wages sucked. Working conditions sucked. Nurses were harassed by doctors, and fired if they complained. Nurses were told that if the equipment to lift an overweight patient onto another bed wasn't available, just lift them up yourself. Led to a lot of back problems with the nurses - but if they didn't do it, they'd be fired. When the movement to unionize started, the hospital hired private detectives to follow some of the organizing nurses. For a few days there was a detective parked outside of our house, 24/7 watching our family.
Now: wages are a lot better. Nurses aren't required to injure themselves. When doctors occasionally start screaming and swearing at a nurse, the nurse can complain without being fired - or just pull out their cellphone and say 'keep talking, I'm recording this' - that tends to solve the issue. Prior to the union, any nurse with the courage to do that would have been fired. And in general, relations between the nurses and management is a _lot_ better now. It was a bit strained at first, but it's improved immensely.
Of course, I'm not going to say that _all_ unions are _always_ good - there was this English teacher in my highschool for example who essentially decided she just wasn't going to teach anymore. We watched probably 10+ movies in her class, and did several huge assignments that just never got graded - a few more that never even got turned in. She was late nearly every day, and didn't even show up at least 5 days out of every month. At the end of the year she did "resign", but the rumor was that she would have been fired _much_ sooner, but she had tenure, and the union made it incredibly difficult to fire even teachers who were blatantly just not doing their jobs.
In my opinion, unions are generally good. Union organizers are generally good. But as with anything else, if they become too powerful, you will have problems. But then, without a union all that power belongs to the employer, which isn't a good situation either.
...so that instead of clicking one link, you can copy it, then go to another site, paste it in, _then_ click it and be redirected. Because that's exactly what we need - more intermediate steps.
the fact that the newspaper had links to share a link to the content on facebook or twitter or whatever - and thus should only really be read to have given implied consent to link, not to copy.
Except 90% of the time, when you share a link on Facebook, it copies a fairly large portion of the article into your news feed as well. I'm not sure if there's a way to turn that if, but if there is, I would say the validity of the argument rests of if that was enabled. And if that feature can't be or wasn't disabled, then I would say they most definitely gave a licence to copy at least on or two paragraphs from an article.
No, it means that if you put a button on your site saying "Click here to copy part of this story to your website!", you can't then sue people for copying parts of the story. It would be like YouTube suing people for using the embed links they post.
People said they were "moving too fast" as you put it. Not that floppy drives would never go away. A decade is hardly a short time span for technology. Had Apple waited a couple years, I doubt there would have been any complaints.
Everything is going to disappear eventually. Being the first person to get rid of it and then saying "I told you so!" when it eventually goes away is stupid. Floppy drives did not disappear because Apple got rid of them, they disappeared because they were obsolete. Flash, too, will not go away just because Steve Jobs wants it to. As much as I wish it would. It'll go away when something better replaces it. And unfortunately, it doesn't seem like HTML5 is really better. At least not by enough to drive any kind of dramatic shift. Maybe a slow downward spiral if we're lucky.
I used to love Stewart and Colbert. Then I realized how absolutely disturbing their shows are. There was a story on Colbert a while back that made me finally begin to realize this - A group of police officers (I think it was about 10) broke into the house of a bedridden 80-something year old woman...and for some reason decided they needed to taze her. Twice. And you know what the reaction to this story was? Riotous laughter. That story isn't funny. It's obscene.
Stewart and Colbert make people think it's ok to just laugh off all our problems - while they continue to get worse. What the hell is the point of having a couple sarcastic rallies? Hell, while they're at it they should send letters to their senators and representatives saying 'I have absolutely nothing to tell you.' Yeah, that'll show 'em! All they're doing is giving more support to Glenn Beck.
Seriously, WTF?
1) If you give all cars proper following distance, that shouldn't matter so much. But either way, just have the computer give more space to any car without the same system installed. I'd assume they can communicate somehow. Failing that, it could probably analyze driving patterns pretty quickly to tell who is driving somewhat erratically.
2) A computer can recognize people, it probably won't have much trouble recognizing small people. If there is a human by the side of the road, go x% slower. If it's a human under y feet tall, go an extra z% slower. Easy.
3) I would expect a computer to be better than humans at not getting thrown off by such illusions. Either way, if it's a serious problem, just add a zoom lens to a camera so it can zoom in on the object in question. Or even better - an infrared camera. A paper bag or scrap of tire isn't going to be giving off heat. A person or animal will.
4) Really? You think a giant shadow is going to throw off a computer? I'm pretty sure that won't be a problem. Otherwise there would be crashes every time the clouds moved. Plus, I would imagine that a digital camera would be able to adjust to changing light levels quicker than your own eyes.
WTF country timeframe are you living on? Never seen Ubuntu succeed? Not even once? On what sort of bizarre island is it impossible to find a single PC that Ubuntu can successfully run?
Language requirements and brands (and models) of computers tried would be also interesting to see. I find it simply unconceivable that you have never seen Ubuntu working right from the start.
Nope. Not even once. There's always some weird issue with the audio or the wifi or _something_. As for my own attempts - the last time I tried to install it on my own PC, the installer wouldn't even run (Mandriva, Arch, Slackware - hell, even Libranet - all install fine on the exact same PC.)
Language requirements are always US/English, computers are pretty much always Dell. Probably a couple other brands in there too, but I don't recall specifics. My PC is a Dell Vostro 1000. Only other one I remember any specifics about was an old Dell Inspiron. Took 3 days to get the wifi up on that one - when it worked straight off the install with Mandriva. Granted, the Dell branded broadcom chips (BCM43xx) have _terrible_ Linux support, but seriously, it's easier to install them on Arch than it is on Ubuntu. I think in the end we had to install ndiswrapper from source or something. And expecting a newbie to do something like that is absolute insanity. Though to be fair to Ubuntu, Mandriva did have some weird issues with ndiswrapper for one or two versions too. But I still don't know why the b43 or wl drivers wouldn't work on that Ubuntu install....
As a former Mandriva user (now on Arch) - there is very much a need for Mandriva to continue. It's the distro I always recommend to newbies, and as far as I know it's the only distro that is both extremely user-friendly and has excellent hardware support. I've seen far too many people give up on Linux because Ubuntu didn't like some piece of hardware. For a newbie's first Linux distro, you need to have at least basic support for _all_ hardware straight from the install. I've never seen Mandriva fail at that...and I've also never seen Ubuntu succeed.
No, they should merge all the good features of Ubuntu into Mandriva. That way you would not only have a good distro, but it would be one that wouldn't bail out during the install and would actually work with damn near any hardware you throw at it (i.e. Dell BCM43 chips - last time I tried to get one of those on Ubuntu it took _days_. On Mandriva it just worked.)
A lot of Ubuntu's critics say what they say because they think they are "too good" for it since it comes with training wheels on.
I don't hate it because it has training wheels. I hate it because it has some of the worst hardware support I've seen out of any Linux distro that I've tried. I've seen way too many people try Ubuntu, have some problem with poorly supported hardware (or the installer entirely refusing to run), and go 'wow, Linux sucks.' and give up. That is why I always recommend Mandriva. I have yet to find any hardware it won't run on. Even the weird Dell branded broadcom wifi chips usually work without any extra effort. The last time I tried one of those on Ubuntu it took _days_ to get it functioning. Trying different drivers, trying ndiswrapper, trying compiling ndiswrapper from source, wiping the hard disk and trying again...
Hell, I can get an Arch system up and running on my laptop in less time than it usually takes me to do (and fix) a fresh Ubuntu install. Actually, if I was doing the install for someone else, right now I would probably pick Arch. It's too rough for non-technical users to get installed, but once it's set up it is by far the cleanest, simplest, and most stable distro I've ever had the pleasure of using. After over 6 years using Linux, Arch is the distro that finally got me to entirely erase my Windows partition.
But of course, two wrongs don't make a right. Yes, the people burning the books are assholes. But the people getting all pissed off about it are no better. Don't feed the trolls.
To turn your your own phrase against you
there's really no difference between saying "you can't use this service for promoting Republican ideals" and saying "this service can't be used by for-profit entities"
I'm extremely confused as to how you think that is turning my own phrase against me. Are you insinuating that I am Republican? And if so, are you assuming that I would have a problem with a host that refuses to host Republican sites? FYI - I generally classify myself as a Libertarian Socialist.
My post was _not_ saying that businesses don't have the right to refuse to support those they don't agree with. It was a legitimate question directed at the parent post. In my mind, there is no difference between 'no hate speech' and 'no for-profit sites', and I was curious about the parent poster's opinion on that matter. In my mind a web host has every right to refuse to serve you for any reason they want. If they feel like running a random number generator and booting people whose numbers come up - go for it. Sell it as "Russian Roulette Hosting Co."
I wasn't asking if it was _legal_, I was asking if it was acceptable - specifically, if it was acceptable to Issac-1, since he's referred to banning hate speech as a "war on thought".
the whole idea behind the 1st Amendment is to protect and allow EXACTLY this kind of speech.
Yes. But it does _not_ protect your right to use somebody else's services to broadcast that speech. No different than banning spammers. Or giving a '-1: Troll' moderation.
Is it acceptable for a web host to host only Christian pages? Only Linux pages? Only non-profit pages? I mean I see your logic, but there's really no difference between saying "you can't use this service for hate speech" and saying "this service can't be used by for-profit entities"
The first amendment applies to _government_ restrictions on speech. Extending the right to free speech to cover private companies would make spam filtering illegal, it would make forum moderation illegal, it would make filtering bad words in online chats illegal, etc...
So if someone decides to stand in my front yard shouting at people passing by on the street, I'm "suppressing free speech" if I kick them off my lawn? I don't follow your logic. The right to free speech applies only to governments. If Rackspace doesn't want to sell their service to this church, they don't have to. It's no more a suppression of free speech than Facebook banning the accounts of spammers. Or Gmail filtering out spam messages.
ISPs are utilities, hosting companies are not.
And it's about a Terms of Service violation - common carrier status has absolutely _nothing_ to do with this case. That's like getting pissed at Facebook for banning spammers. Or getting pissed at Comcast for booting people who are running web hosts from residential connections. And again, it's a hosting company - if you don't like the terms, there is a near infinite number of others out there for you to choose from. This isn't like an ISP, where some people only have a choice between Comcast and...Comcast.
Have you ever tried to use Wine in Windows? Last time I attempted was a couple years ago, but I remember spending hours trying to get the damn thing to work, only to eventually just give up. Wine is great on Linux, but the processes to get it installed and to use it for Windows could be greatly improved.
Uhh...my Chromium 5 for Linux has print preview and proper flash support. And the same file download behavior as browsers like Firefox - I open a file the browser doesn't handle, it downloads to the folder I've specified for downloads. How is that a problem? As I said, it's the same thing Mozilla does. I don't _want_ a browser to just start deleting my downloads on it's own. If I tell it 'yes, download this file', that file should stay where it is until I decide to delete it.
In higher level classes, no. And most universities with large classes lower the class size as the classes get more difficult. But I learned a hell of a lot from some of my freshman classes with 100+ students. What you do need is lots of TAs. All our tests for the one were in-class written essays. And they were graded quite thoroughly. I've gotten more out of my 100+ student physics classes and the one architecture class than I have out of some of my 20 student calc or stats classes. If the professor sucks, you won't learn anything no matter how small the class is. And if the professor knows what they're doing, they could probably teach a thousand students well. Again, this may not hold for _all_ classes, but there's certainly no reason to entirely dismiss larger class sizes.