Immediately after you've done the transactions through the web and you log out, the bank sends you an encrypted email with all your transactions in it.
Because though it's unfortunate, the majority of the world wouldn't know what to do with an encrypted email.
Not to start a battle here, but I've installed and run Ubuntu, FC4, FC5 linux desktops without problems on a PIII 700mhz w/ 128MB RAM. Yes, I have the flashy stuff turned off, but I would in Windows XP too. That makes me wonder how much of your problem is that you want to be able to say that Windows XP is "kicking ass" [from the link provided], vs actual issues.
"Gee, Bill, I asked you to send me that file a week ago -- didn't you refresh the personal Me-Bill RSS feed?"
You couldn't be more wrong. If the world you live in requires only one way and/or public communications (newsletters, blogs), then RSS is sufficient. However if you want to allow two-way communicate at an individual level with coworkers and business associates, email is a must. The solution to spam is simple -- don't supply your primary business e-mail address to electronic forms, web sites, or individuals you don't know.
I studied this a few years ago, comparing auctions for like goods across a wide range of categories, and found that a competitor needs to set negative fees to offer a value proposition to sellers
Could you provide some more info on what that's based on? do find it unlikely that someone would refuse to switch if, say, the fee is 1% instead of 3% (or whatever ebay charges).
Too many people where? On Slashdot? Get around a bit more and you'll find Google holds no special place in the hearts and minds of those the slashdot elite would derisively term "Joe Sixpacks."
This I have to disagree with. I know a good number of non-technical people who refuse to use anything but google for searches; and only slightly less who don't use a gmail account. These aren't technical people -- these are people who heard about google from a friend or associate, started using it, and found the products solid enough to keep using. It's not an accident that google is the top search engine.
worked in San Jose a few years ago and some joker took some pictures of himself with a bunch of guns and ammo and dropped them off at the local drug store for processing. An alert employee thought there was something wrong and reported the photos to the police.
My friends and I gathered our collections of guns a few years back, massed them on my bed, and took pictures with them. There were 30-40 of them. We did this because it amused us. I would've been pissed if someone called the cops on us while developing the picture.
That aside (it was an irrelevant response to an irrelevant argument), I can't believe the parents are defending this either.
I'm not saying whther you should or shouldn't -- frankly, I don't care either way. But what I AM saying is that it shouldn't be legitimized by saying "nobody is hurt by it".
I disagree -- particularly where you said "In no sense of the word can it be said that anyone here is being deprived of anything."
No matter how small a cut it may be, the artist/does/ receive a percentage of every sale. If someone is downloading music instead of buying it -- even if only to 'try it out first', then the artist is not getting that money. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
Disclaimer: I frequently 'try before I buy', but I won't justify it by saying "nobody is being deprived" -- because that's simply not true.
Just ask the artists, who also get royally screwed
That's my point exactly. They're already getting screwed by the companies, and by the for-profit "pirates", and by you and me, who try before we buy.
As far as the bulk of your post, I agree 100% -- people don't care about 'freedom' when it comes to software. If it even occurs to them to question what their default decision (MS Office in this case), they will want to know two things: 1. What does it cost? 2. Can I do everything I can do today?
However as far as "best" claims -- I was speaking more in terms of what precedents have been set under US law. If you look at most (US) advertising, you will see a lot of claims for things that are the "best"; but if you ever see "better", it's either a) something that can be substantiated (i.e., better than product X at doing Y) or b) so general as to be meaningless -- example, "Feel better, faster."
It's actually very interesting - if you pay close attention to the working of most advertising, you realize that almost of all of it promises you nothing at all. Here are some common tag lines that I've heard lately: "Makes you feel like you can breathe again" "Helps clear sinus" "Virtually unbreakable"
Sounds good, but what do they really claim? "Makes you feel like you can breath again" -- a close look shows that they claim nothing. They don't improve your breathing-- it just 'feels like' you can do so. "Helps clear your sinuses." Helps what? If that product isn't clearning my sinuses, andonly 'helps' clear them, what is actually doing the clearing? How much 'help' does it provide? "Virtually unbreakable". Of course, virtually means virtually nothing at all. Might as well advertise the product as "breakable" -- it means the exact same thing. "Feel better, faster". Note how this one doesn't even say that their product does anything at all? It just leaves it up to the listener to make the inference... but someone ever sued because it didn't make them "feel better, faster", they have only to say, "We didn't say that our product would do that."
Not only that, but the claims in the ad are dubious and subjective at best, if not outright untrue. For a start, I'd be expecting a call from Microsoft's legal team, followed by several others, over the claim to be the "world's best" at all those things.
That's the nature of the advertising beast. You can claim to be the best -- precisely because it's not a reasonable claim. in other words, nobody is going to read it and say, "Oh, they're the best! I have to go buy it now!"
On the other hand, you cannot claim to be better unless you can prove it. If the ad said "Better than Microsoft Office", they would be liable for claims of false advertising if they couldn't provide actual evidence that they're better than MS Office.
. Modern planes land themselves pretty much, they follow a radio signal to the end of the runway
But since that radio signal is on a completely different frequency, there's no chance of wifi interfering with it or any other of a plane's normal operations. Saying otherwise would be akin to saying that all of the normal over-the-air traffic near ground level (telephone, radio, television, satellite) could interfere with the plane's landing system.
Allowing users to rate individual search results for accuracy and relevancy would be good. Search algorithms could 'learn' from that, or at the very least they could be displayed alongside similar search results. On the other hand, I suppose the spammers would just rate their own ad pages high...
Press 1 to speak to Sales.
Press 2 to speak to Marketing.
Press 3 to be connected directly to the President's office in order to complain about unfair DRM tactics.
US law is "he is a sex offender -- he has no rights."
Here's the best part of that: it's very simple to qualify as a 'level one sex offender'. It might just be that he had sex with a seventeen-year-old when he was eighteen, and her parents got pissed about it.
Slashdot Mirror
Immediately after you've done the transactions through the web and you log out, the bank sends you an encrypted email with all your transactions in it. Because though it's unfortunate, the majority of the world wouldn't know what to do with an encrypted email.
Not to start a battle here, but I've installed and run Ubuntu, FC4, FC5 linux desktops without problems on a PIII 700mhz w/ 128MB RAM. Yes, I have the flashy stuff turned off, but I would in Windows XP too. That makes me wonder how much of your problem is that you want to be able to say that Windows XP is "kicking ass" [from the link provided], vs actual issues.
"Gee, Bill, I asked you to send me that file a week ago -- didn't you refresh the personal Me-Bill RSS feed?"
You couldn't be more wrong. If the world you live in requires only one way and/or public communications (newsletters, blogs), then RSS is sufficient. However if you want to allow two-way communicate at an individual level with coworkers and business associates, email is a must. The solution to spam is simple -- don't supply your primary business e-mail address to electronic forms, web sites, or individuals you don't know.
I studied this a few years ago, comparing auctions for like goods across a wide range of categories, and found that a competitor needs to set negative fees to offer a value proposition to sellers
Could you provide some more info on what that's based on? do find it unlikely that someone would refuse to switch if, say, the fee is 1% instead of 3% (or whatever ebay charges).
Indeed. Would this have even gotten onto /. if it were titled "a barcode wiki" instead of "social network barcode db"?
Sounds like somebody's an avid follower of Lazarus Long. Not that I disagree...
Isn't that Microsoft's decision to make?
Too many people where? On Slashdot? Get around a bit more and you'll find Google holds no special place in the hearts and minds of those the slashdot elite would derisively term "Joe Sixpacks." This I have to disagree with. I know a good number of non-technical people who refuse to use anything but google for searches; and only slightly less who don't use a gmail account. These aren't technical people -- these are people who heard about google from a friend or associate, started using it, and found the products solid enough to keep using. It's not an accident that google is the top search engine.
What an amazing grasp of the obvious!
worked in San Jose a few years ago and some joker took some pictures of himself with a bunch of guns and ammo and dropped them off at the local drug store for processing. An alert employee thought there was something wrong and reported the photos to the police.
My friends and I gathered our collections of guns a few years back, massed them on my bed, and took pictures with them. There were 30-40 of them. We did this because it amused us. I would've been pissed if someone called the cops on us while developing the picture.
That aside (it was an irrelevant response to an irrelevant argument), I can't believe the parents are defending this either.
I'm not saying whther you should or shouldn't -- frankly, I don't care either way. But what I AM saying is that it shouldn't be legitimized by saying "nobody is hurt by it".
Me too. I love when lawyers teach people a lesson by getting rich.
I disagree -- particularly where you said "In no sense of the word can it be said that anyone here is being deprived of anything."
No matter how small a cut it may be, the artist /does/ receive a percentage of every sale. If someone is downloading music instead of buying it -- even if only to 'try it out first', then the artist is not getting that money. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
Disclaimer: I frequently 'try before I buy', but I won't justify it by saying "nobody is being deprived" -- because that's simply not true.
Just ask the artists, who also get royally screwed
That's my point exactly. They're already getting screwed by the companies, and by the for-profit "pirates", and by you and me, who try before we buy.
As far as the bulk of your post, I agree 100% -- people don't care about 'freedom' when it comes to software. If it even occurs to them to question what their default decision (MS Office in this case), they will want to know two things: 1. What does it cost? 2. Can I do everything I can do today?
However as far as "best" claims -- I was speaking more in terms of what precedents have been set under US law. If you look at most (US) advertising, you will see a lot of claims for things that are the "best"; but if you ever see "better", it's either a) something that can be substantiated (i.e., better than product X at doing Y) or b) so general as to be meaningless -- example, "Feel better, faster."
It's actually very interesting - if you pay close attention to the working of most advertising, you realize that almost of all of it promises you nothing at all. Here are some common tag lines that I've heard lately: "Makes you feel like you can breathe again" "Helps clear sinus" "Virtually unbreakable"
Sounds good, but what do they really claim? "Makes you feel like you can breath again" -- a close look shows that they claim nothing. They don't improve your breathing-- it just 'feels like' you can do so. "Helps clear your sinuses." Helps what? If that product isn't clearning my sinuses, andonly 'helps' clear them, what is actually doing the clearing? How much 'help' does it provide? "Virtually unbreakable". Of course, virtually means virtually nothing at all. Might as well advertise the product as "breakable" -- it means the exact same thing. "Feel better, faster". Note how this one doesn't even say that their product does anything at all? It just leaves it up to the listener to make the inference... but someone ever sued because it didn't make them "feel better, faster", they have only to say, "We didn't say that our product would do that."
Not only that, but the claims in the ad are dubious and subjective at best, if not outright untrue. For a start, I'd be expecting a call from Microsoft's legal team, followed by several others, over the claim to be the "world's best" at all those things.
That's the nature of the advertising beast. You can claim to be the best -- precisely because it's not a reasonable claim. in other words, nobody is going to read it and say, "Oh, they're the best! I have to go buy it now!"
On the other hand, you cannot claim to be better unless you can prove it. If the ad said "Better than Microsoft Office", they would be liable for claims of false advertising if they couldn't provide actual evidence that they're better than MS Office.
. Modern planes land themselves pretty much, they follow a radio signal to the end of the runway
But since that radio signal is on a completely different frequency, there's no chance of wifi interfering with it or any other of a plane's normal operations. Saying otherwise would be akin to saying that all of the normal over-the-air traffic near ground level (telephone, radio, television, satellite) could interfere with the plane's landing system.
If you're drinking taquila, what's the "tequila" stuff I've got here?
All that aside, the possibility that CS was compromised was only speculation; nothing so far has indicated that this has happened.
'course, Windows 2000 was billed as "Based on NT Technology"
That might be part of their tactic. "Microhoo is abusing their position"... "Yasoft is leveraging their monopoly" They'd get laughed out of court.
Allowing users to rate individual search results for accuracy and relevancy would be good. Search algorithms could 'learn' from that, or at the very least they could be displayed alongside similar search results. On the other hand, I suppose the spammers would just rate their own ad pages high...
Then all you've done is made it so that the poor secretary has to sign for 1000 letters.
Press 1 to speak to Sales.
Press 2 to speak to Marketing.
Press 3 to be connected directly to the President's office in order to complain about unfair DRM tactics.
What could be simpler?
Hell yeah. I mean... we're talkin' five bars if you actually get struck!
US law is "he is a sex offender -- he has no rights."
Here's the best part of that: it's very simple to qualify as a 'level one sex offender'. It might just be that he had sex with a seventeen-year-old when he was eighteen, and her parents got pissed about it.