I was all set to unload six bills on this plus whatever the service cost, until it was revealed that it's a closed platform and Apple will not be releasing developer tools for it. As much technolust as I have for the device, if it's a locked appliance, I don't trust it.
I hope they change their minds about this, because I'm OK with the high price and the rest of the restrictions. But if I can't code for it, no sale.
I was waiting to be told when I could buy one. If this was a big campaign, they sure fell short in getting the broader word out. I didn't even realize you could order them yet.
I also didn't realize that, and don't understand why, it's a "limited time" thing. Why not just leave it open? I would have bought one. I'd do it right now if it was still available.
Was going to use mod points here, but replying instead:
The precedent is that anti-racist blogs are OK, but their opposite racist blogs are not OK.
That's right. I have no problem with that at all. Blogs that promote hatred of other people because of their race (/religion/sexuality/political orientation/etc) are most definitely not OK.
Now that you have set this precedent, what is next? Are Christian blogs OK, but athiest blogs are not? Or is it the other way around, that athiest blogs are OK, but Christian blogs are not? What about Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Bhudist, Rastafarian, Zorastarian? Or how about Scientologist?
Those are all fine, as long as they don't promote hatred and incite violence against others. Your right to free speech ends where my right not to be killed by a mob for my skin color begins. It's not about contrasting points of view, it's about open hatred and trying to spread and encourage hate.
It sounds like all the right things are happening here. Bad stuff is out there; people are outraged; it appears to violate applicable hate laws; the final step is for someone who's angry to go to court and get an order for them to come down, which Google is correctly waiting for. Google won't, and shouldn't, take them down just because someone complained; as another poster said, they want the government to tell them to. That's the proper procedure. And it seems pretty clear that it will happen.
N.B. Of course, it's dangerous and short-sighted to think that suppressing hate speech will suppress hate. People with their souls filled with hate are a huge problem and nothing here solves any aspect of that. There is some merit to the notion of "if there's a hornet in the room, I like to be able to see it." This is only about trying to control the spread of hatred. Nobody owes the haters a podium and a bullhorn.
A wireframe underneath is always a good idea, but you don't have to be as worried about the details of muscles and bones and surface anatomy, which is what I find the hardest. Bury it all in a sheet, and as long as it's basically right, it's easier to bluff your way through.:)
So what this database is telling the producers of kiddie porn is: if you distribute the stuff we already know about, there's a higher chance you'll get busted, so be safe and only produce/distribute fresh new material?
I don't think anybody is against the idea of nailing the kiddie pornographers and getting their "customers" into therapy or whatever they need, but I think this particular idea is a bad misfire.
Let's just add a little emphasis here... it's amazing how slippery you can be with vague qualifications slipped into your rhetoric.
Despite the rhetoric however, there is currently no evidence that broadband operators are going out of their way to block access to any widely used websites or similar online services. In fact, any significant discriminatory behavior on the part of broadband service providers ( BSPs ) would generally be financially counterproductive considering that BSPs make more money by carrying more traffic. On the rare occasion that a BSP may actively regulate traffic or impose differential pricing schemes on their network, it would likely be for rather sensible reasons. Network owners may want to discourage the use of certain devices on their networks to avoid system crashes, interference, or signal theft...
...and so forth. Yes, that's very slippery of you indeed, Representative Boehner. You're a capable politician.
Instead of being so preoccupied with maximizing consumer welfare within the confines of existing systems, "net neutrality" proponents would be better served to put more thought and energy into how future alternative networks may be created.
In other words, "If you don't like it, go make another internet; this one's ours."
Tell me, pchan... you seem pretty blasé about this. Do you have any feelings about what you're doing? It's cool that you tell us about it, but is someone holding your dog hostage or something? Or are you just being very well paid? No personal qualms about what you're helping to bring about? Feel like it's inevitible, so it might as well be you doing it? I'm honestly curious.
I can also see that I'll be getting off the tech train as a professional in the years ahead... this new world that's coming just doesn't interest me. I'll remain a hobbyist with my old hardware that still does what I tell it to do, for as long as I can keep it running, but I'm not going to play this game. I'll go back to hammering nails for a living.
ABN Amro's global head of strategy and engineering tells the WSJ, 'I'm not allowing Skype because I don't know what it does.'
I expect a few hundred flames of this statement, but it's a rock-solid security policy. Yes, this guy probably "should" know what Skype is in most people's opinions, but his default "deny" policy for anything he doesn't know is correct, and that attitude WILL prevent trouble. On a corporate network, especially one potentially carrying any kind of sensitive data, anything not specifically allowed should be denied. If employees can make a case about what any new service is and why they need it, it can be evaluated and perhaps allowed, but it should be denied by default.
Slashdot Mirror
If this is true, we shall be very angry!
And we shall write a letter, TELLING you how angry we are!
I was all set to unload six bills on this plus whatever the service cost, until it was revealed that it's a closed platform and Apple will not be releasing developer tools for it. As much technolust as I have for the device, if it's a locked appliance, I don't trust it.
I hope they change their minds about this, because I'm OK with the high price and the rest of the restrictions. But if I can't code for it, no sale.
Nah, America only bullies countries that suck.
And rapists only rape women who have it coming anyway, right? So it's OK.
No it doesn't.
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_a post.html
The book belongs to Samuel Its. It's Its's book.
Credit where credit is due: this article is from SecurityFocus. The Register just scraped it.
http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11420
I was waiting to be told when I could buy one. If this was a big campaign, they sure fell short in getting the broader word out. I didn't even realize you could order them yet.
I also didn't realize that, and don't understand why, it's a "limited time" thing. Why not just leave it open? I would have bought one. I'd do it right now if it was still available.
That's right. I have no problem with that at all. Blogs that promote hatred of other people because of their race (/religion/sexuality/political orientation/etc) are most definitely not OK.
Those are all fine, as long as they don't promote hatred and incite violence against others. Your right to free speech ends where my right not to be killed by a mob for my skin color begins. It's not about contrasting points of view, it's about open hatred and trying to spread and encourage hate.
It sounds like all the right things are happening here. Bad stuff is out there; people are outraged; it appears to violate applicable hate laws; the final step is for someone who's angry to go to court and get an order for them to come down, which Google is correctly waiting for. Google won't, and shouldn't, take them down just because someone complained; as another poster said, they want the government to tell them to. That's the proper procedure. And it seems pretty clear that it will happen.
N.B. Of course, it's dangerous and short-sighted to think that suppressing hate speech will suppress hate. People with their souls filled with hate are a huge problem and nothing here solves any aspect of that. There is some merit to the notion of "if there's a hornet in the room, I like to be able to see it." This is only about trying to control the spread of hatred. Nobody owes the haters a podium and a bullhorn.
DAMN KIDS! STAY AWAY FROM MY TUUUUUUUUUUUUBES!
(and here is some lowercase text to make the lameness filter ecstatic)
I'd pay sales tax on photons if it meant I really owned them. Then anybody who tried to restrict what I could do with them could go piss up a rope.
(Unless the Oppressors found a way to say that the photons are yours, but once you convert them back into bits, all their restrictions applied again.
Which they probably would.
btw, is the revolution any closer yet?)
A wireframe underneath is always a good idea, but you don't have to be as worried about the details of muscles and bones and surface anatomy, which is what I find the hardest. Bury it all in a sheet, and as long as it's basically right, it's easier to bluff your way through. :)
I personally find it a lot easier to draw a figure-covering trench coat or a cape than an anatomically correct (or exaggerated) human. :)
"how long before we see this resolution in a mobile phone?"
long.
I won't be buying one.
Thanks for thinking of me though!
On the proposed DVD album, the main audio mix is to be protected by the same software that already protects the content on normal DVDs.
No thanks.
Mods, fix this.
So what this database is telling the producers of kiddie porn is: if you distribute the stuff we already know about, there's a higher chance you'll get busted, so be safe and only produce/distribute fresh new material?
I don't think anybody is against the idea of nailing the kiddie pornographers and getting their "customers" into therapy or whatever they need, but I think this particular idea is a bad misfire.
Let's just add a little emphasis here... it's amazing how slippery you can be with vague qualifications slipped into your rhetoric.
...and so forth. Yes, that's very slippery of you indeed, Representative Boehner. You're a capable politician.
In other words, "If you don't like it, go make another internet; this one's ours."
I looked at Foxmarks, and they don't even let you run your own server? Feh.
You didn't look very hard, did you? Like, I don't know, in the FAQ? Yes, you can run your own server - any WebDAV or FTP server can be used.
+1, Terrifying
Tell me, pchan... you seem pretty blasé about this. Do you have any feelings about what you're doing? It's cool that you tell us about it, but is someone holding your dog hostage or something? Or are you just being very well paid? No personal qualms about what you're helping to bring about? Feel like it's inevitible, so it might as well be you doing it? I'm honestly curious.
I can also see that I'll be getting off the tech train as a professional in the years ahead... this new world that's coming just doesn't interest me. I'll remain a hobbyist with my old hardware that still does what I tell it to do, for as long as I can keep it running, but I'm not going to play this game. I'll go back to hammering nails for a living.
In mainstream politics, if you support equal and universal health care, YOU MUST SUPPORT STATE RUN HEALTHCARE.
Well, my serious question is: how else are you going to do it? What entity other than the state can provide universal health care?
Or, are you positing that either:
Legitimate questions, not a flame. I'm just not sure what you'd call any entity that provided universal health care other than "the state".
...American Idol is on.
...for paying attention to him.
currently 6 or 7 krona get you 10 dollars
You're off by a factor of 10. 1 USD = approximately 7.5 Swedish kroner (today).
I expect a few hundred flames of this statement, but it's a rock-solid security policy. Yes, this guy probably "should" know what Skype is in most people's opinions, but his default "deny" policy for anything he doesn't know is correct, and that attitude WILL prevent trouble. On a corporate network, especially one potentially carrying any kind of sensitive data, anything not specifically allowed should be denied. If employees can make a case about what any new service is and why they need it, it can be evaluated and perhaps allowed, but it should be denied by default.
...I'm waiting for artificial anti-gravity.
Wake me when it gets here.