I agree that companies should have better security. I'd love to see a day when ever network runs on tested, trusted, open source software.
But those ends do not require the means you suggest.
I don't think it's appropriate to sue for negligence.
E.g. Some thug steals your car, and runs me over with it. If I survive, who is responsible for my injury? I blame the bastard who ran me over, not you because you didn't fortify your car.
On the good side, we should see some more professional visual development tools for linux. On that bad side, they will probably change the name again. Coral-Inprise-Borland sounds more like a law office than a software division.
Appologies--my original post contained no ettiquette. It might have degraded to flaming had it been recieved by someone with thinner skin. Jon, I must credit you on being a gentleman even to someone who disagrees with you. I should have done that to begin with. Privacy is important. But I don't think it is endangered. You were quite correct in your observation that technology provides ways for us to be monitored. However, you said nothing about the technologies that can protect privacy. That made the editorial feel somewhat one-sided.
I am temped to join the ranks of the antikatz. He has written insightful articles in the past, but his current editorials are schlock.
I am becoming quite sick of the theme, "we are all underdogs who are helpless against evil corporations who want to deprive us of our american rights."
We are not the underdogs, and we are not helpless. Katz has used mp3 and deCSS as examples to argue that large corporations are going to squash individuals. I interpret these events as demonstraiting that individuals are more powerful than ever. Corporations know this and are so scared that they are making examples of people.
I'm not surprised that corporations are using this fear tactic, but I'm quite dissapointed to see Katz exploiting it in another bleading heart, flag waving editorial.
I'm especially sick of his flag waving. I'm not even american.
I don't like doubleclick. They iconify a disturbing trend: a big brother keeping track of your habbits. (For the sake of selling you crap, no less.) This, however, is a stupid lawsuit. If the woman was genuinly concerned about privacy, she should do what many of us already do and filter out doubleclick before it arives at the browser. This individual is looking to raid some deep pockets, and she has targeted doubleclick because they are disliked enough that she may not look greedy compared to them. But this is still about greed. No, we don't like doubleclick, but is my enemy's enemy my friend?
It's good that people are setting goals for this technology on things like surgery that can benifit humankind. But realisticly, we'll see many mundane applications of molecular construction before we see great ones. We'll buy diamond-coated, stickless, scratchless fry pans before we buy diamond optical processors.
Have you considered re-drawing some of the earlier characters, e.g. Geek, Dude, and Relic, to make them more consistant in style with the ones you are creating now? (I recall you updating Mel Gibson. If he deserves it, certainly the mains do too.)
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that companies should have better security. I'd love to see a day when ever network runs on tested, trusted, open source software.
But those ends do not require the means you suggest.
I don't think it's appropriate to sue for negligence.
E.g. Some thug steals your car, and runs me over with it. If I survive, who is responsible for my injury? I blame the bastard who ran me over, not you because you didn't fortify your car.
On the good side, we should see some more professional visual development tools for linux. On that bad side, they will probably change the name again. Coral-Inprise-Borland sounds more like a law office than a software division.
Appologies--my original post contained no ettiquette. It might have degraded to flaming had it been recieved by someone with thinner skin. Jon, I must credit you on being a gentleman even to someone who disagrees with you. I should have done that to begin with. Privacy is important. But I don't think it is endangered. You were quite correct in your observation that technology provides ways for us to be monitored. However, you said nothing about the technologies that can protect privacy. That made the editorial feel somewhat one-sided.
I am temped to join the ranks of the antikatz. He has written insightful articles in the past, but his current editorials are schlock.
I am becoming quite sick of the theme, "we are all underdogs who are helpless against evil corporations who want to deprive us of our american rights."
We are not the underdogs, and we are not helpless. Katz has used mp3 and deCSS as examples to argue that large corporations are going to squash individuals. I interpret these events as demonstraiting that individuals are more powerful than ever. Corporations know this and are so scared that they are making examples of people.
I'm not surprised that corporations are using this fear tactic, but I'm quite dissapointed to see Katz exploiting it in another bleading heart, flag waving editorial.
I'm especially sick of his flag waving. I'm not even american.
I don't like doubleclick. They iconify a disturbing trend: a big brother keeping track of your habbits. (For the sake of selling you crap, no less.)
This, however, is a stupid lawsuit. If the woman was genuinly concerned about privacy, she should do what many of us already do and filter out doubleclick before it arives at the browser.
This individual is looking to raid some deep pockets, and she has targeted doubleclick because they are disliked enough that she may not look greedy compared to them.
But this is still about greed. No, we don't like doubleclick, but is my enemy's enemy my friend?
It's good that people are setting goals for this technology on things like surgery that can benifit humankind.
But realisticly, we'll see many mundane applications of molecular construction before we see great ones.
We'll buy diamond-coated, stickless, scratchless fry pans before we buy diamond optical processors.
The article also says the Queen is a "keen web surfer." Good for her! Do you suppose she reads Slashdot?
Maybe QueenE2 is Nitrozac.
Are you Canadian? (I became suspicious when Knowlton Nash appeared in the Sept.14 strip.)
Have you considered re-drawing some of the earlier characters, e.g. Geek, Dude, and Relic, to make them more consistant in style with the ones you are creating now? (I recall you updating Mel Gibson. If he deserves it, certainly the mains do too.)