"...distrusting your government will not allow tyranny..." in the long term!
Ourt Constitution was oraganized as it is precisely because the Framers didn't trust government to hold the peoples' best interests at heart - precisely because they had personnally witnessed the failure of the British government to do just that!
Distrusting the government doesn't mean you aren't patriotic, doesn't mean you aren't loyal to the Unitied States, and doesn't mean you aren't loyal to democratic principles. Distrusting the government IS being patriotic, IS part of loyalty to the U.S., and IS loyal to democratic priciples!
I voted for Bush, and have been largely Republican in my voting practices since Reagan. But Bush's actions in the last year may drive me to vote otherwise in the next election - why? Because the Republican party has gone too far in the Conservative direction, and the country needs to be dragged back to the middle again, at least in my opinion. I'm sorry, but war on terror or not, I firmly believe that warrantless searches as Bush authorized them are not legal. There are ways to get that kind of thing done democratically, with Congress' approval, so at least our Representatives have a chance to know about it. It's what we pay them for!
And that illustrates just why we should distrust the gov't. - because sometimes people in the gov't do things that violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the Constitution.
It is that distrust that helps gets things set back on course again, eventually.
There was a big 'to do' about this very issue when Apple first came out with Widgets. It was discovered that the "open safe files..." checkbox was on by default, and any problems/exploits could be stopped by unchecking that box.
So this is OLD news.
What's more upsetting is that Apple hasn't made the unchecked state of that box the default...
Sorry about the lateness of this post, but I have to correct a misstatement of yours.
According to common American business law, yes, a contract requires "offer, acceptance, and consideration". (and if you live outside the US, YMMV.)
But, contrary to your post, when you buy a piece of software, there IS consideration involved. Consideration, legally in this sense, means an item of value.
You give the manufacturer (through the retailer) money, they give you the copy of the software. You have then exchanged consideration (i.e., items of value), so the contract between you is thereby legal and binding. You could exchange candy, food, clothing, or any other items, as if bartering, but they must be items that are, in and of themselves, of tangible value.
As in, you and your neighbor enter into a contract to allow each other to use each others' decks, for instance. You draw up the paper contract stipulating the terms, and you each give one another a dollar. In reality, you are each no richer or poorer than before, but according to contract law, you now have a valid contract, which can, and will be, enforced by a court of law should either of you violate the terms and the other decide to sue for enforcement.
"Felber's research shows that any mass moving faster than 57.7 percent of the speed of light will gravitationally repel other masses lying within a narrow 'antigravity beam' in front of it. The closer a mass gets to the speed of light, the stronger its 'antigravity beam' becomes."
Sounds like a spacecraft wouldn't need shielding - it's "antigravity beam" just pushes stuff outta the way! Of course, shielding against radiation is still gonna be required, but as long as you don't run into any planets, you should be ok.
Read the article, folks! Then you won't sound stupid.
And going to inappropriate sites CAN get them fired. It has happened before. If we can keep them from doing just the stupid, thoughtless things average users do, it'll still reduce our load appreciably, though.
If they can figure out how to make themselves local admins, then more power to 'em, but they won't. Our group security policies will put 'em back the next time they log in. Repeated instances of infected machines can get them isolated from using the network, and that's devestating to doing their jobs.
I can understand. I do desktop support, and I've seen PCs with over 400 spyware items we've had to remove, and that's behind a professionally maintained firewall. The user HAD to get that stuff by visiting sites where it was downloaded.
We are now locking down the desktop for our users to cut back on this crap.
Tracking cookies in and of themselves are not malware. Spyware is an app, perhaps in java, that specifically targets user's info and sends it independently back to a parent server/site. It may be stand-alone, or it may be part of another app, but a tracking cookie in and of itself is NOT spyware!
Not to denigrate the threat - its real, and is a lot more criminal now than it used to be, but I think these companies over play the numbers like this to sell and for no other reason.
Why shouldn't the anti-spyware companies do it? The anti-virus people over hype the threats all the time anyway. The press plays along cause it sells newspapers and ups the ratings...
Your post is so full of problems I'm not sure if I have time to mention them all!
"Christians don't sign execution warrants..."??? Excuse me? The history of Europe and the Catholic church is rife with examples of the church, on its own authority, not only killing people, but ordering masacres, torturing people, etc.
"Christians don't hate Jews, Muslims, gays, blacks, drug addicts, or anybody else."
Read the f'ing Bible yourself! It is full of references to Jews and other non-believers in a derogitory manner, including laws given in Deuteronomy requiring people believing differently having to be killed!
The commandment against killing, written in the original hebrew, uses the word for murder, not killing in general. The God of the old testament not only condones killing, but requires the Jewish people to commit killings and masacres, as many as 80,000 in one case!
Take any political position you want, at any time in history, and you can find a bible reference to support it and put God on your own side. Even the Nazis did that.
I think that Papal infallability was a political device that the church needed at the time to combat the dwindling secular power of the Church. I'm sure that there was more to it than that, and some of that includes strictly internal religious politics, but it must have been nice to just up and tell the world "Hey, folks, when I issue one of these papers, you can't disagree with me - I'm God's man on the spot, and I can't be wrong!"
Can you reference your statements on the "Church of Christ"? I grew up in that church, and was NEVER taught anything near that! As a matter of fact, we were taught an amazing amount of tolerence regarding other faiths, and our focus was on the Bible as an article of faith, not the doctrine of a priesthood or an organized church. We were taught that a belief in God was the ticket to heaven, regardless of the particular faith that got you there.
So, ironically, you ARE right that we wouldn't "listen" to the Vatican - we don't recognize it as having any authority over us, but it IS recognized as being the center of a very influential part of the Christian faith.
I thought AOL tried to create their own network - and were pretty successful for a while until the content on the Internet in general got bigger than what they could create themselves. then their attempts to monopolize people's internet connection started pissing people off, and they started leaving in droves (especially after their failure to provide a stable online connection!)
So unless Google has something very different in mind...
If this lady's in her 80's, she probably doesn't HAVE underage children, in which case, if there IS a computer in the house, it very well may belong to the kids, with no presumption of oversight on her part.
RTFA - it says SHE Doesn't Own A Computer! If anybody else is in the house that DOES own one, the RIAA has to sue them, not her.
It says she Doesn't Own A Computer! That means even if she still has kids at home, there's no computer for them to steal files on! If there IS a computer there, it obviously belongs to her kids (grown up by now at her age) - all facts that a junior private eye could discover with one hand tied behind his back and both eyes blindfolded!
Slashdot Mirror
"...distrusting your government will not allow tyranny..." in the long term!
Ourt Constitution was oraganized as it is precisely because the Framers didn't trust government to hold the peoples' best interests at heart - precisely because they had personnally witnessed the failure of the British government to do just that!
Distrusting the government doesn't mean you aren't patriotic, doesn't mean you aren't loyal to the Unitied States, and doesn't mean you aren't loyal to democratic principles. Distrusting the government IS being patriotic, IS part of loyalty to the U.S., and IS loyal to democratic priciples!
I voted for Bush, and have been largely Republican in my voting practices since Reagan. But Bush's actions in the last year may drive me to vote otherwise in the next election - why? Because the Republican party has gone too far in the Conservative direction, and the country needs to be dragged back to the middle again, at least in my opinion. I'm sorry, but war on terror or not, I firmly believe that warrantless searches as Bush authorized them are not legal. There are ways to get that kind of thing done democratically, with Congress' approval, so at least our Representatives have a chance to know about it. It's what we pay them for!
And that illustrates just why we should distrust the gov't. - because sometimes people in the gov't do things that violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the Constitution.
It is that distrust that helps gets things set back on course again, eventually.
"Apple needs to hire a competant security geek and give him authority to issue smackdowns on bad design."
I couldn't have said it better!
There was a big 'to do' about this very issue when Apple first came out with Widgets. It was discovered that the "open safe files..." checkbox was on by default, and any problems/exploits could be stopped by unchecking that box.
So this is OLD news.
What's more upsetting is that Apple hasn't made the unchecked state of that box the default...
Imagine projected screens and keyboards. What would a laptop look like? How small would it get?
Combine this with the new and up and coming larger flash memory, and you get a whole new product...
Who needs a better battery when the screen and hard drive (the two largest power drains) are no longer so power hungry?
Imagine what Ives could do with that!
"The world is not out to get you."
No, just your money! LOL!
Sorry about the lateness of this post, but I have to correct a misstatement of yours.
According to common American business law, yes, a contract requires "offer, acceptance, and consideration". (and if you live outside the US, YMMV.)
But, contrary to your post, when you buy a piece of software, there IS consideration involved. Consideration, legally in this sense, means an item of value.
You give the manufacturer (through the retailer) money, they give you the copy of the software. You have then exchanged consideration (i.e., items of value), so the contract between you is thereby legal and binding. You could exchange candy, food, clothing, or any other items, as if bartering, but they must be items that are, in and of themselves, of tangible value.
As in, you and your neighbor enter into a contract to allow each other to use each others' decks, for instance. You draw up the paper contract stipulating the terms, and you each give one another a dollar. In reality, you are each no richer or poorer than before, but according to contract law, you now have a valid contract, which can, and will be, enforced by a court of law should either of you violate the terms and the other decide to sue for enforcement.
"Felber's research shows that any mass moving faster than 57.7 percent of the speed of light will gravitationally repel other masses lying within a narrow 'antigravity beam' in front of it. The closer a mass gets to the speed of light, the stronger its 'antigravity beam' becomes."
Sounds like a spacecraft wouldn't need shielding - it's "antigravity beam" just pushes stuff outta the way! Of course, shielding against radiation is still gonna be required, but as long as you don't run into any planets, you should be ok.
Read the article, folks! Then you won't sound stupid.
And going to inappropriate sites CAN get them fired. It has happened before. If we can keep them from doing just the stupid, thoughtless things average users do, it'll still reduce our load appreciably, though.
Perhaps, but they really don't fit the definition of malware, not as used by the majority of web sites, although they can be used that way...
If they can figure out how to make themselves local admins, then more power to 'em, but they won't. Our group security policies will put 'em back the next time they log in. Repeated instances of infected machines can get them isolated from using the network, and that's devestating to doing their jobs.
I can understand. I do desktop support, and I've seen PCs with over 400 spyware items we've had to remove, and that's behind a professionally maintained firewall. The user HAD to get that stuff by visiting sites where it was downloaded.
We are now locking down the desktop for our users to cut back on this crap.
Tracking cookies in and of themselves are not malware. Spyware is an app, perhaps in java, that specifically targets user's info and sends it independently back to a parent server/site. It may be stand-alone, or it may be part of another app, but a tracking cookie in and of itself is NOT spyware!
...assuming the teachers know the difference, too?
Disclaimer:
Not to denigrate the threat - its real, and is a lot more criminal now than it used to be, but I think these companies over play the numbers like this to sell and for no other reason.
Why shouldn't the anti-spyware companies do it? The anti-virus people over hype the threats all the time anyway. The press plays along cause it sells newspapers and ups the ratings...
Aaannd just where ya gonna get the air to hover in? Backpack it in?
Your post is so full of problems I'm not sure if I have time to mention them all!
"Christians don't sign execution warrants..."??? Excuse me? The history of Europe and the Catholic church is rife with examples of the church, on its own authority, not only killing people, but ordering masacres, torturing people, etc.
"Christians don't hate Jews, Muslims, gays, blacks, drug addicts, or anybody else."
Read the f'ing Bible yourself! It is full of references to Jews and other non-believers in a derogitory manner, including laws given in Deuteronomy requiring people believing differently having to be killed!
The commandment against killing, written in the original hebrew, uses the word for murder, not killing in general. The God of the old testament not only condones killing, but requires the Jewish people to commit killings and masacres, as many as 80,000 in one case!
Take any political position you want, at any time in history, and you can find a bible reference to support it and put God on your own side. Even the Nazis did that.
Warning! Off-topic comment ahead...
I think that Papal infallability was a political device that the church needed at the time to combat the dwindling secular power of the Church. I'm sure that there was more to it than that, and some of that includes strictly internal religious politics, but it must have been nice to just up and tell the world "Hey, folks, when I issue one of these papers, you can't disagree with me - I'm God's man on the spot, and I can't be wrong!"
Can you reference your statements on the "Church of Christ"? I grew up in that church, and was NEVER taught anything near that! As a matter of fact, we were taught an amazing amount of tolerence regarding other faiths, and our focus was on the Bible as an article of faith, not the doctrine of a priesthood or an organized church. We were taught that a belief in God was the ticket to heaven, regardless of the particular faith that got you there.
So, ironically, you ARE right that we wouldn't "listen" to the Vatican - we don't recognize it as having any authority over us, but it IS recognized as being the center of a very influential part of the Christian faith.
I thought AOL tried to create their own network - and were pretty successful for a while until the content on the Internet in general got bigger than what they could create themselves. then their attempts to monopolize people's internet connection started pissing people off, and they started leaving in droves (especially after their failure to provide a stable online connection!)
So unless Google has something very different in mind...
I meant in the 21st century - where have you been for the last ten years...of slipping education sales for Apple?
If only they can do that in the US...
"Marie Lindor, a home health aide who has never bought, used, or even turned on a computer in her life,"
If she DOESN'T even OWN a computer, WHY WOULD SHE HAVE AN INTERNET CONNECTION?
"Read the f****** article", people!
If this lady's in her 80's, she probably doesn't HAVE underage children, in which case, if there IS a computer in the house, it very well may belong to the kids, with no presumption of oversight on her part.
RTFA - it says SHE Doesn't Own A Computer! If anybody else is in the house that DOES own one, the RIAA has to sue them, not her.
RTFA, people!
It says she Doesn't Own A Computer! That means even if she still has kids at home, there's no computer for them to steal files on! If there IS a computer there, it obviously belongs to her kids (grown up by now at her age) - all facts that a junior private eye could discover with one hand tied behind his back and both eyes blindfolded!