I've used NeoOffice for a little over 1 1/2 years. I have found that the interoperability with M$ Office is excellent, which is important to me as I am a health care consultant and work in environments that use Windows and M$ Office exclusively. There are many complaints that the application is slow but I have not found this to be the case. It is slower to launch than Word or Excel and it takes a bit longer to open a document, but that costs me maybe four minutes a day. Drinking less coffee will often lessen the annoyance people feel over these things. In actual use, NeoOffice looks and feels mostly like a Mac application. The major difference is in how preferences are managed, which is radically not Mac-like.
There are several issues in NeoOffice which are inherited from the OpenOffice.org project that cause performance bottlenecks. The NeoOffice team has been methodically replacing them, resulting in an application that is faster with each iteration. Hopefully that trend will continue. In the meantime, I find NeoOffice perfectly usable on a daily basis in my job.
The Shell petrol station in Reykjavik already sells hydrogen. It's not clear who to exactly right now, but Shell obviously believes it has a future.
Yes, so then we all switch to hydrogen only to discover that water vapor is also a greenhouse gas and that the increase in local humidity from a million cars burning hydrogen becomes the new crisis. Heck, some parts of the desert Southwest have seen local microclimate changes from too many swimming pools humidifying the air. Sustainability is not a problem of technology, it's a problem of lifestyle. It's not that we burn carbon fuels, it's that billions of us burn carbon fuels and at ever-increasing rates. Billions of us burning hydrogen will just create other massive problems.
God (if s/he existed) forbid that we just scale our lives down a bit and walk or ride bike.
How about we wait until they've sold *one* until we predict that they'll sell 20 million 2 years from now.
It's interesting to read the pundits. Many of the computer industry people are predicting the iPhone will be a relative failure, while we have folks like Business Week predicting "blockbuster." I think many of the computer industry pundits are tired of Jobs and just want to see him get some egg on his face. Heck, I've been a Mac user since 1986 and I'm tired of Jobs. A little of his personality goes a long way.
As far as predicting the future goes, I think "blockbuster." The iPhone is in the same price range as phones people are already buying (Treo, etc) and those already made to look stodgy and last year by a product that isn't even for sale yet. The cool factor will triumph yet again. Maybe someday Apple will figure out how to sell computers as effectively as they sell music and phones.
Why the OpenOffice people are hostile to this project is something I've stopped
wondering about... today's announcement of the "first" port of OOO to Mac not
using X11 just shows how badly a project hurts itself when it refuses to work
with others
I use NeoOffice every day for hours each day. It's a polished and effective port of OpenOffice. The reason the OpenOffice.org folks aren't working with the NeoOffice folks is twofold: (1)Not Invented Here and (2) the NeoOffice folks keep finding broken stuff and major limitations in OpenOffice.
It's not that. It's that in America, music is not an art form- it's a product. Record companies have used the word "product" to describe music for decades. The recording industry is hostile to art, it is only interested in a marketable commodity. Which is why we have basically had 30 years of ABBA clones- albeit raunchier- on our pop charts (except for hip hop).
It's also why music sales are plummeting. The "product" sucks and it's not worth buying. I've bought a total of two newly-recorded CDs in the last five years. The recording industry hasn't figured out that it's flogging a dead horse. Instead of looking at the repetitive and declining quality of their "product," they have decided to blame the Internets and the Google and "pirates" and housewives who don't even own computers. It's sadly hilarious- an industry that has finagled near total control over the rights of its customers and yet still thinks its customers are victimizing them.
"Have you any idea how much tyrants fear the people they oppress?"
... so-called "intellectual property" already is far more protected than real property.
A few years ago I decided to play devil's advocate in a discussion about copyright and promoted the concept of "permanent copyright" in which the material never passed into the public domain. It was a fascinating thing to try to promote, because quite rapidly it becomes clear that the permanent copyright is simply untenable.
20 years' copyright protection is enough. I'm not an author or an artist, and like most people I get paid for today's work once rather than getting paid over and over and over for the rest of my life. The position that someone should work once and get paid perpetually for doing so is not workable.
Moving to a "software as service" model such as Web applications is a step back to the mainframe days, in which someone else controls the software you use. The benefit of the personal computer was that the software resided on the user's computer, under the user's control. This increased the freedom of the user. The free-as-in-speech software movement further increased the freedom of the user by allowing the user to own, modify, improve and share the software. This can't happen with the "software as service" model.
The free/open source software community in particular should resist this erosion of user freedom. After all, user freedom is what free/open source software is all about. Why should it be lured into giving that up? The question, as always, it who benefits: the company hosting the web applications (who can easily spy on everything you do with their software and even create a EULA in which you agree that they own the material you create with said software; most users just click "OK" and never actually read the EULA) or the user?
Back in the day, when users were confined to terminals with access to the mainframe at the whim of the sysop, PCs with their own software were supposed to set us free from those shackles. Free to develop their own creativity. Free from timesharing computer resources. Free from someone else having access to every file, every preference, every.conf. They threw a big hammer through Big Brother's face during the Super Bowl and everything.
So what's the attraction to going backwards to putting Big Brother in charge again? Having your data on someone else's server, with its security only as good as the least honest person with access to the server? Having no choice over the software you use every day and being dependent on the choices, preference s and whims of the person running the server ("What? You preferred Emacs? Sorry, now you're using vi.")? Having to look at ads all day long so that you don't have to pay for software?
All these things that are supposed to be so much hipper like IMAP and googlapps just give your control over your data to someone else blindly on faith that they are trustworthy. What a crock!
Lots of people have something to gain by hyping global warming. Politicians looking for power, actors trying to look "caring", socialists making another attempt to weaken the United States.
LOL! The Republicans have weakened the US more in the past six years than the "socialists" could ever have hoped to achieve!
That said, it is indeed important to be sober and accurate about climate change. There have been huge atmospheric composition changes in the past 40 years, in particular, with the measured amount of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide increasing dramatically. There are multiple contributing factors including fossil fuel combustion and deforestation and desertification. At the same time, particulates in the atmosphere have resulted in a decrease in sunlight reaching the ground, and the sun is currently at its lowest output of total solar irradience in its 11 year cycle- and coincidentally the lowest in 30+ years despite a theoretical long term trend towards higher average solar output. That would seem to clearly indicate that the changes in mean global temperature seen especially in the past half-decade are terrestrial in nature. We're not all going to die tomorrow, but the long term trends are concerning.
You don't have to buy anything, just walk up to a representative sample of people who think that global warming is anthropogenic and say, "actually I think it's probably just a natural cycle."
The shock, hostility and downright hatred you will come across will very quickly render claims of death threats highly believable.
Puh-leeze. IME (which may certainly be different than your E) is that the anger and hostility come from those who believe "it's just a natural cycle." I'm pursuaded by the available science that climate change is clearly happening, with a clear and significant trend, and that human involvement is compellingly implicated in the data. As a scientist myself, I also recognize that we are discussing vast complex dynamic systems here and that further science may reveal further information. Look, for example, at the recent EU policy paper which reduced the predicted rise in ocean levels by about 35%, based on new information and new models. Even without global scientific data, I can tell that local weather patterns have changed dramatically and persistently in the past 15 years.
If you're not persuaded by the data, then you're not persuaded. Not much I can do about that. But jeez, cut the crap. I have been attacked way too many times by rabid, vehement Gore-hating disbelievers that climate change is a "natural cycle" and that therefore there is "nothing we can or should do about it" and the
"hateful liberals should just STFU." But that parallels my all-too-often experience with Internet conservatives: they come out swinging, all fangs and claws, and then characterize any response other than total capitulation as an "attack" on their values. That's the Internets for ya- a bully pulpit for whackos of all stripes. Fortunately all my conservative personal friends are sane!
Overbroad patents seem to be the most troublesome thing. Patents should be limited to operable technologies and abstract ideas should not be patentable. An example is the idea of "one click purchasing." The technology to provide that service would be patentable, but not the idea of one-click purchasing. Ditto having a Web site that makes recommendations to customers based on past purchases- the technology would be patentable but the idea would not. I've picked on Amazon.com in both cases, but there are plenty of similar ideas that have been patented and over which litigation has occurred. Great for trial lawyers but not so much for just about anyone else.
When you make any sort of investment, like buying insurance or a retirement plan, you don't ask how evil the corporations are. All you want is the biggest return for the lowest price, which means the portfolios that will make your investment will be composed of stock from the companies with biggest profit.
Speak for yourself. I actually do try to direct my 401(k) investments away from the most egregiously evil companies I can. After several years of pressure, my employer's plan is finally adding some socially responsible investment options. FWIW, my wife's 401(k), which is all socially responsible funds, has been outperforming my more traditional portfolio for years (except for 2006).
From the summary: legislation enacted with Google's help is projected to save the company some $89 million in taxes over 30 years.
Or you could look at it as costing North Carolina's taxpayers $89,000,000 that they should have gotten to improve their schools, infrastructure, health care, reduce homeowner's taxes, reduce income taxes, etc.
The summary misses the point by a country mile, as do some of the comments in response. Disclosing security vulnerabilities is fine and appreciated. But doing so in the way that this clown did it is not. He used poor judgment and is paying the price for that.
Good companies dont treat the fired or laid off employees like dirt. Those who are not fired/laid off are watching how the company treats those who are fired/laid off. Usually they are friends/acquaintences. There is feedback. I make sure that even those who are fired by me get some subscription to placement/job search companies, decent health coverage for some months. Our company gives time for them to cash the stock options after they leave.
May be if would not be such a cynic if you read some of the articles by Robert Axelrod of Univ of Michigen on "Evolution of Cooperation", "Complexity of Cooperation", and BBC shows like "Nice Guys Finish First" by Richard Dawkins.
Seems like they don't teach this approach very often in MBA programs.
Yes, I can watch DVDs out of the box, but if I want to watch anything in fullscreen in Quicktime I need to buy a £20 pro update, or import them into iTunes (not iMovie) and watch them in front row.
Just put the.mov,.mpg, etc. in the "Movies" folder and launch FrontRow. Navigate to the movies from there. You don't need to import the file into anything. Hope this makes life a little simpler!
You know, it's strange, but I don't recall getting a copy of the source code for my ECU when I bought my last car. And I don't see any way I can upgrade it in place; the manufacturer owns the code and generally epoxies the ECU so it can't be easily tampered with. Hell, they generally try not to release the error codes to anyone either!
The same could be said for the circuits in my toaster, my microwave, my hard disks, the BIOS, the office aircon, etc etc etc
Yes, in my car I can cut the ECU wires and replace the ECU, or put in a piggyback ECU in series or parallel with the car's ECU, but it's definitely not the same as fixing it if it's broken, or improving it where it's weak. And I don't have control over it, so following your logic, I don't have control over my car. In some ways those modifications are rather similar to installing Linux or BSD on your PC.
You're creating a false comparison. Your car, toaster, air conditioner, microwave don't spy on you (unless you wear a tinfoil hat) and phone home (currently, anyway). Your car, toaster, air conditioner, microwave don't contain private information about you which can be compromised to your detriment. You can sell your car, your toaster, your air conditioner, your microwave without the buyer potentially being treated like a criminal. GM is not going to spy on you and sue you for doing something to your ECU; GE is not going to check to make sure you are using approved bread; Fridigaire is not going to disable your air conditioner if it doesn't like the temperature you set it at; Coldspot is not going to report you to the lactopolice for putting raw milk you bought from a farmer in your fridge.
You don't own non-free software. You own a license to use it, a license which abridges your rights in favor of the power and profitability of the publishing company. They can revoke your license, because that's what licenses are about. You have the illusion of ownership and nothing more. If you think that's satisfactory, then do nothing about it.
This only underscores the fact that there are major downsides to using non-free-as-in-speech software and few upsides. Do you want to own the software you paid for, or do you want Microsoft to own it? That's the current situation: you do not own your software. You can't fix it if its broken, can't improve it if it has weaknesses. Not only do you not own it, but you barely even have control over it! And that in turn, means that you do not have control over your computers. The only business for whom this is a good idea is Microsoft.
People wouldn't stand for this with their cars or their toasters, but they go along with it for the most crucial part of their businesses! Whatta scam!
Ebay knows about this type of fraud and other types and they do very little to combat.
Considering how eBay gets paid (e.g., they get more money when the closing bid is higher), it behooves them to allow and even to encourage shill bidding to jack up the auction price. Follow the money!
The question separates whether a politician's stance on privacy would influence your vote from whether you would vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton./p>
For me, the answer to the first point is "definitely yes." I place a very high value on my privacy, whether we are talking about protecting my privacy from government or from business. I surf with cookies turned off, for example, and accept them on a case-by-case basis. It's amazing sometimes that a single Web page may try to set 10 cookies, half of which belong to third party sites.
The answer to the second question is "it depends." It depends on who the alternatives are, for one thing. HRC versus Rudy Guiliani? HRC versus John McCain? HRC versus Jeb Bush? HRC versus Mike Huckabee? Hillary gets my vote.
I am getting so disgusted with how people's fear, insecurity, and single-minded drive for personal safety is driving public opinion and laws toward a police state. (...)
Idiots. They don't realize what they are losing because their fredoms and rights are being nibbled away a little at a time, all in the name of personal safety.
What's driving that is not people's fear but the creation of and manipulation of fear by companies that profit from fear. The security industry and the insurance industry are two of the biggest examples of this phenomenon. The RIAA and MPAA are trying the same tack. As always, if you want to know why things are happening in the public sector they way they are, follow the money back to the private sector.
Slashdot Mirror
It's about time that these folks laid out their agenda explicitly. No need for conspiracy theories when it's out on the table.
I've used NeoOffice for a little over 1 1/2 years. I have found that the interoperability with M$ Office is excellent, which is important to me as I am a health care consultant and work in environments that use Windows and M$ Office exclusively. There are many complaints that the application is slow but I have not found this to be the case. It is slower to launch than Word or Excel and it takes a bit longer to open a document, but that costs me maybe four minutes a day. Drinking less coffee will often lessen the annoyance people feel over these things. In actual use, NeoOffice looks and feels mostly like a Mac application. The major difference is in how preferences are managed, which is radically not Mac-like.
There are several issues in NeoOffice which are inherited from the OpenOffice.org project that cause performance bottlenecks. The NeoOffice team has been methodically replacing them, resulting in an application that is faster with each iteration. Hopefully that trend will continue. In the meantime, I find NeoOffice perfectly usable on a daily basis in my job.
The Shell petrol station in Reykjavik already sells hydrogen. It's not clear who to exactly right now, but Shell obviously believes it has a future.
Yes, so then we all switch to hydrogen only to discover that water vapor is also a greenhouse gas and that the increase in local humidity from a million cars burning hydrogen becomes the new crisis. Heck, some parts of the desert Southwest have seen local microclimate changes from too many swimming pools humidifying the air. Sustainability is not a problem of technology, it's a problem of lifestyle. It's not that we burn carbon fuels, it's that billions of us burn carbon fuels and at ever-increasing rates. Billions of us burning hydrogen will just create other massive problems.
God (if s/he existed) forbid that we just scale our lives down a bit and walk or ride bike.
(BTW, I believe he is once again the artist known as Prince... it'd be nice for the industry to keep better tabs on their talent)
Yes, he is now The Artist Fomerly Known As The Artist Formerly Known As Prince. He's now called "Prince" for short.
How about we wait until they've sold *one* until we predict that they'll sell 20 million 2 years from now.
It's interesting to read the pundits. Many of the computer industry people are predicting the iPhone will be a relative failure, while we have folks like Business Week predicting "blockbuster." I think many of the computer industry pundits are tired of Jobs and just want to see him get some egg on his face. Heck, I've been a Mac user since 1986 and I'm tired of Jobs. A little of his personality goes a long way.
As far as predicting the future goes, I think "blockbuster." The iPhone is in the same price range as phones people are already buying (Treo, etc) and those already made to look stodgy and last year by a product that isn't even for sale yet. The cool factor will triumph yet again. Maybe someday Apple will figure out how to sell computers as effectively as they sell music and phones.
Why the OpenOffice people are hostile to this project is something I've stopped wondering about... today's announcement of the "first" port of OOO to Mac not using X11 just shows how badly a project hurts itself when it refuses to work with others
I use NeoOffice every day for hours each day. It's a polished and effective port of OpenOffice. The reason the OpenOffice.org folks aren't working with the NeoOffice folks is twofold: (1)Not Invented Here and (2) the NeoOffice folks keep finding broken stuff and major limitations in OpenOffice.
You Americans hate music... huh?
It's not that. It's that in America, music is not an art form- it's a product. Record companies have used the word "product" to describe music for decades. The recording industry is hostile to art, it is only interested in a marketable commodity. Which is why we have basically had 30 years of ABBA clones- albeit raunchier- on our pop charts (except for hip hop).
It's also why music sales are plummeting. The "product" sucks and it's not worth buying. I've bought a total of two newly-recorded CDs in the last five years. The recording industry hasn't figured out that it's flogging a dead horse. Instead of looking at the repetitive and declining quality of their "product," they have decided to blame the Internets and the Google and "pirates" and housewives who don't even own computers. It's sadly hilarious- an industry that has finagled near total control over the rights of its customers and yet still thinks its customers are victimizing them.
"Have you any idea how much tyrants fear the people they oppress?"
... so-called "intellectual property" already is far more protected than real property.
A few years ago I decided to play devil's advocate in a discussion about copyright and promoted the concept of "permanent copyright" in which the material never passed into the public domain. It was a fascinating thing to try to promote, because quite rapidly it becomes clear that the permanent copyright is simply untenable.
20 years' copyright protection is enough. I'm not an author or an artist, and like most people I get paid for today's work once rather than getting paid over and over and over for the rest of my life. The position that someone should work once and get paid perpetually for doing so is not workable.
Moving to a "software as service" model such as Web applications is a step back to the mainframe days, in which someone else controls the software you use. The benefit of the personal computer was that the software resided on the user's computer, under the user's control. This increased the freedom of the user. The free-as-in-speech software movement further increased the freedom of the user by allowing the user to own, modify, improve and share the software. This can't happen with the "software as service" model.
The free/open source software community in particular should resist this erosion of user freedom. After all, user freedom is what free/open source software is all about. Why should it be lured into giving that up? The question, as always, it who benefits: the company hosting the web applications (who can easily spy on everything you do with their software and even create a EULA in which you agree that they own the material you create with said software; most users just click "OK" and never actually read the EULA) or the user?
Hint: it's not the user.
Back in the day, when users were confined to terminals with access to the mainframe at the whim of the sysop, PCs with their own software were supposed to set us free from those shackles. Free to develop their own creativity. Free from timesharing computer resources. Free from someone else having access to every file, every preference, every .conf. They threw a big hammer through Big Brother's face during the Super Bowl and everything.
So what's the attraction to going backwards to putting Big Brother in charge again? Having your data on someone else's server, with its security only as good as the least honest person with access to the server? Having no choice over the software you use every day and being dependent on the choices, preference s and whims of the person running the server ("What? You preferred Emacs? Sorry, now you're using vi.")? Having to look at ads all day long so that you don't have to pay for software?
All these things that are supposed to be so much hipper like IMAP and googlapps just give your control over your data to someone else blindly on faith that they are trustworthy. What a crock!
Lots of people have something to gain by hyping global warming. Politicians looking for power, actors trying to look "caring", socialists making another attempt to weaken the United States.
LOL! The Republicans have weakened the US more in the past six years than the "socialists" could ever have hoped to achieve!
That said, it is indeed important to be sober and accurate about climate change. There have been huge atmospheric composition changes in the past 40 years, in particular, with the measured amount of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide increasing dramatically. There are multiple contributing factors including fossil fuel combustion and deforestation and desertification. At the same time, particulates in the atmosphere have resulted in a decrease in sunlight reaching the ground, and the sun is currently at its lowest output of total solar irradience in its 11 year cycle- and coincidentally the lowest in 30+ years despite a theoretical long term trend towards higher average solar output. That would seem to clearly indicate that the changes in mean global temperature seen especially in the past half-decade are terrestrial in nature. We're not all going to die tomorrow, but the long term trends are concerning.
What if what "was done about it" was the wrong thing? And what iof nothing needs to be done about it?
By that logic, there's no reason to do anything. Just stay bed. Unless that's the wrong thing. However can we decide?
You don't have to buy anything, just walk up to a representative sample of people who think that global warming is anthropogenic and say, "actually I think it's probably just a natural cycle."
The shock, hostility and downright hatred you will come across will very quickly render claims of death threats highly believable.
Puh-leeze. IME (which may certainly be different than your E) is that the anger and hostility come from those who believe "it's just a natural cycle." I'm pursuaded by the available science that climate change is clearly happening, with a clear and significant trend, and that human involvement is compellingly implicated in the data. As a scientist myself, I also recognize that we are discussing vast complex dynamic systems here and that further science may reveal further information. Look, for example, at the recent EU policy paper which reduced the predicted rise in ocean levels by about 35%, based on new information and new models. Even without global scientific data, I can tell that local weather patterns have changed dramatically and persistently in the past 15 years.
If you're not persuaded by the data, then you're not persuaded. Not much I can do about that. But jeez, cut the crap. I have been attacked way too many times by rabid, vehement Gore-hating disbelievers that climate change is a "natural cycle" and that therefore there is "nothing we can or should do about it" and the "hateful liberals should just STFU." But that parallels my all-too-often experience with Internet conservatives: they come out swinging, all fangs and claws, and then characterize any response other than total capitulation as an "attack" on their values. That's the Internets for ya- a bully pulpit for whackos of all stripes. Fortunately all my conservative personal friends are sane!
Overbroad patents seem to be the most troublesome thing. Patents should be limited to operable technologies and abstract ideas should not be patentable. An example is the idea of "one click purchasing." The technology to provide that service would be patentable, but not the idea of one-click purchasing. Ditto having a Web site that makes recommendations to customers based on past purchases- the technology would be patentable but the idea would not. I've picked on Amazon.com in both cases, but there are plenty of similar ideas that have been patented and over which litigation has occurred. Great for trial lawyers but not so much for just about anyone else.
When you make any sort of investment, like buying insurance or a retirement plan, you don't ask how evil the corporations are. All you want is the biggest return for the lowest price, which means the portfolios that will make your investment will be composed of stock from the companies with biggest profit.
Speak for yourself. I actually do try to direct my 401(k) investments away from the most egregiously evil companies I can. After several years of pressure, my employer's plan is finally adding some socially responsible investment options. FWIW, my wife's 401(k), which is all socially responsible funds, has been outperforming my more traditional portfolio for years (except for 2006).
From the summary: legislation enacted with Google's help is projected to save the company some $89 million in taxes over 30 years.
Or you could look at it as costing North Carolina's taxpayers $89,000,000 that they should have gotten to improve their schools, infrastructure, health care, reduce homeowner's taxes, reduce income taxes, etc.Clearly, disclosing security vulnerabilities doesn't pay.
The summary misses the point by a country mile, as do some of the comments in response. Disclosing security vulnerabilities is fine and appreciated. But doing so in the way that this clown did it is not. He used poor judgment and is paying the price for that.
Good companies dont treat the fired or laid off employees like dirt. Those who are not fired/laid off are watching how the company treats those who are fired/laid off. Usually they are friends/acquaintences. There is feedback. I make sure that even those who are fired by me get some subscription to placement/job search companies, decent health coverage for some months. Our company gives time for them to cash the stock options after they leave.
May be if would not be such a cynic if you read some of the articles by Robert Axelrod of Univ of Michigen on "Evolution of Cooperation", "Complexity of Cooperation", and BBC shows like "Nice Guys Finish First" by Richard Dawkins.
Seems like they don't teach this approach very often in MBA programs.Makes me wonder how they fire the security guards.
They are given a cement parachute.
Yes, I can watch DVDs out of the box, but if I want to watch anything in fullscreen in Quicktime I need to buy a £20 pro update, or import them into iTunes (not iMovie) and watch them in front row.
Just put the .mov, .mpg, etc. in the "Movies" folder and launch FrontRow. Navigate to the movies from there. You don't need to import the file into anything. Hope this makes life a little simpler!
You know, it's strange, but I don't recall getting a copy of the source code for my ECU when I bought my last car. And I don't see any way I can upgrade it in place; the manufacturer owns the code and generally epoxies the ECU so it can't be easily tampered with. Hell, they generally try not to release the error codes to anyone either!
The same could be said for the circuits in my toaster, my microwave, my hard disks, the BIOS, the office aircon, etc etc etc
Yes, in my car I can cut the ECU wires and replace the ECU, or put in a piggyback ECU in series or parallel with the car's ECU, but it's definitely not the same as fixing it if it's broken, or improving it where it's weak. And I don't have control over it, so following your logic, I don't have control over my car. In some ways those modifications are rather similar to installing Linux or BSD on your PC.
You're creating a false comparison. Your car, toaster, air conditioner, microwave don't spy on you (unless you wear a tinfoil hat) and phone home (currently, anyway). Your car, toaster, air conditioner, microwave don't contain private information about you which can be compromised to your detriment. You can sell your car, your toaster, your air conditioner, your microwave without the buyer potentially being treated like a criminal. GM is not going to spy on you and sue you for doing something to your ECU; GE is not going to check to make sure you are using approved bread; Fridigaire is not going to disable your air conditioner if it doesn't like the temperature you set it at; Coldspot is not going to report you to the lactopolice for putting raw milk you bought from a farmer in your fridge.
You don't own non-free software. You own a license to use it, a license which abridges your rights in favor of the power and profitability of the publishing company. They can revoke your license, because that's what licenses are about. You have the illusion of ownership and nothing more. If you think that's satisfactory, then do nothing about it.
This only underscores the fact that there are major downsides to using non-free-as-in-speech software and few upsides. Do you want to own the software you paid for, or do you want Microsoft to own it? That's the current situation: you do not own your software. You can't fix it if its broken, can't improve it if it has weaknesses. Not only do you not own it, but you barely even have control over it! And that in turn, means that you do not have control over your computers. The only business for whom this is a good idea is Microsoft.
People wouldn't stand for this with their cars or their toasters, but they go along with it for the most crucial part of their businesses! Whatta scam!
Considering how eBay gets paid (e.g., they get more money when the closing bid is higher), it behooves them to allow and even to encourage shill bidding to jack up the auction price. Follow the money!
The question separates whether a politician's stance on privacy would influence your vote from whether you would vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton./p>
For me, the answer to the first point is "definitely yes." I place a very high value on my privacy, whether we are talking about protecting my privacy from government or from business. I surf with cookies turned off, for example, and accept them on a case-by-case basis. It's amazing sometimes that a single Web page may try to set 10 cookies, half of which belong to third party sites.
The answer to the second question is "it depends." It depends on who the alternatives are, for one thing. HRC versus Rudy Guiliani? HRC versus John McCain? HRC versus Jeb Bush? HRC versus Mike Huckabee? Hillary gets my vote.
I am getting so disgusted with how people's fear, insecurity, and single-minded drive for personal safety is driving public opinion and laws toward a police state. (...)
Idiots. They don't realize what they are losing because their fredoms and rights are being nibbled away a little at a time, all in the name of personal safety.
What's driving that is not people's fear but the creation of and manipulation of fear by companies that profit from fear. The security industry and the insurance industry are two of the biggest examples of this phenomenon. The RIAA and MPAA are trying the same tack. As always, if you want to know why things are happening in the public sector they way they are, follow the money back to the private sector.
...and when you try to push too many cars through the pipes, they get clogged up.