If this passes I hope they do teach Spaghetti Monster Creationism, and debunk it in class, as a way of debunking creationism in general in a "hey doc, my...friend has this problem" kind of way.
Ummm... wow! I DARE you to try that argument with a true right wing ID religious nutjob. They somehow do NOT understand the connections trying to be made... FSM is silly nonsense, while their... myth... is 100% real fact. Even trying to point out that the only difference was the substitution of god for FSM still didnt gain them a clue. They still claimed there was nothing similar.
Try it... you will either have a very fun time realizing how idiotic some people are - or you'll end up committing murder once they push you totally over the edge. Lemme know which it turns out to be.
Drug seizures are quite a bit different... drugs... hmmm... illegal... seized. As are the tools used. How does one have to prove the illegality of drugs that are... illegal? One does not. In this case, the illegality of the linking, and the intent or lack thereof have not been established. There's the difference.
In addition, in the case of drugs, as pushed repeatedly during our "war on drugs", the argument has been made that such represents a clear and present danger - exigent circumstances - requiring quick and immediate action *before* due process. NO such argument can be made here.
Those are the differences I rather inadequately was trying to point out above. (a) Drugs are illegal to peddle on the streets. Period. End of story. They are deemed dangerous and an exigent circumstance requiring immediate action to protect other PEOPLE. Linking to online content must be proven to be illegal for EACH circumstance BEFORE it (each act) is deemed illegal - and there are plenty of exceptions in the law making it legal under various circumstances - name one where peddling controlled substances on the streets is legal (besides being a cop in a sting operation). Leaving the links up does not harm people in any way covered under the Constitution.
Oh, I'm not defending it by any means, I'm hugely politically active on the matter. I'm just tired of people saying the US is so much worse off. It's not. We should focus on trying to be a beacon to the world on individual freedoms and liberties. If anything, we should help people realize how much their own country invades on their freedoms.
In MANY respects it IS worse. This is something MOST people ignore.
Let's say you're in some third world country and dumping your industrial waste into the rivers. That's TERRIBLE... but, sadly, it's allowed in many such places.
Let's say you're in THIS country and doing the same thing. That's terrible, against the law, against the principles we were founded on, against common sense and the knowledge that we (in a supposedly educated country) have. And THAT is what makes it worse.
- We know better
- We have LAWS against a lot of this stuff
- We have a Constitution designed to protect us from this nonsense (not the water, but the subject of this/. story's thread)
- We have the education to understand the ramifications
- We claim a desire to prevent such things - all while it keeps happening.
That is why it's worse when it happens here. We know better.
Last I heard (as I believe these scenarios have been tried in court already) it was determined that merely linking is not a crime.
"Last I heard" is no substitute for looking up case law. The case law on this issue is unsettled. However, generally if the intention of the link was that those following the link would participate in copyright infringement, then that act of linking is illegal.
There's actually steps in the DMCA that must be followed - like takedown notices. After that, then perhaps it can be argued that linking is a crime.
Those "steps that must be followed" only apply to service providers who are not actively aware of infringing material. If you purposely link to material you know is breaking copyright, you have no right to receive a takedown notice first.
—A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection ( j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider referring or linking users to an online location containing infringing material or infringing activity, by using information location tools, including a directory, index, reference, pointer, or hypertext link, if the service provider—(1)(A) does not have actual knowledge that the material or activity is infringing;...(3) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in subsection (c)(3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity...
DMCA section 512(d). You have to both lack actual knowledge of infringement and respond expeditiously to a takedown notice to fall under this exception. If you fail (1)(A) (did you lack actual knowledge?), you fail the whole test and your link can be deemed infringing without even getting to (3) (did you respond to a takedown notice?).
You make a number of assumptions and have a number of misunderstandings.
First, Google has fought this battle. That aside, as you admit, there is no case law that sides on such actions being illegal in a fashion that applies to this.
Second, any company or individual who provides online services can be (and often is) considered a "service provider" - you are confusing an INTERNET service provider with an ONLINE service provider. Google is an OSP but not (or not really) an ISP.
Third, you are assuming guilt of the parties involved in deciding they knew the links went to content that infringed. I am not saying they didnt (or shouldnt have) know(n). I am saying you are deciding you are the judge and jury. But, that's what the courts are for.
Finally, thus, when you put this all together, it is (a) up to a court (not some random judge) to determine which factors make it willful infringement or not, (b) the takedown notice needs to be sent and either responded to (ie: material removed, counter notice, etc) or ignored.
See the point? The DHS has been skipping numerous steps. The sanctions imposed are those that should apply after guilt is determined - which at the least would require a court case to determine that the OSP is KNOWINGLY providing links to illegal content - or at the other end of the spectrum, filing due to lack of a response (or incorrect response) to a takedown notice.
But, apparently none of the above happened.
Please indicate which part of the DMCA or Constitution allows for DHS to ignore procedure. There is no "compelling reason" "in the best interests" (etc) that allows such. The only reason there is, is to cater to big businesses.
Yet, in their infinite idiocy, they fail to go after comp
Or Facebook should give you the option to stop being tagged.
But that wouldn't be in their interest I guess.
A lot of people tag irrelevant photos with all their friends name, just to get their attention. I have fought with my friends trying to tell them not to do that, some people just don't get it.
You can un-tag yourself and then no one will be able to tag you again. If you are tagged, you get an email notification (and a FB notification). It would be nice if they made it so that you could prevent people from tagging you as well.
It's legal for ICE to seize things that are part of a customs investigation. International trafficking in copyright-infringing materials is a customs issue. Linking to another site that has copyrighted content is probably a crime under the DMCA, and it's just the sort of "crime" that ICE has jurisdiction over.
Don't get me wrong, it's bullshit. I'm just saying I don't think it's an illegal seizure.
Really? Has the DMCA been amended? Last I heard (as I believe these scenarios have been tried in court already) it was determined that merely linking is not a crime. There's actually steps in the DMCA that must be followed - like takedown notices. After that, then perhaps it can be argued that linking is a crime.
This is where DHS is overstepping themselves. The DMCA was written to cover such scenarios and outlines pretty much every step that should happen before such domain seizures. DHS is stepping around those steps and going right for the kill.
So it's evil when Google mines my data and makes no attempt to hide the fact that they do, but it's ok when congress creates fusion centers that create profiles of average american citizens that have never committed any crimes and places wire taps on phones without proper warrants or just cause. I'm sorry, but I actually feel much safer trusting Google with my information than I do the federal government. Google just wants to make a profit, the federal government wants to control my life.
Apparently... sad, isn't it? And perhaps I misinterpreted your earlier post I responded to, in which case, my apologies.
Yes, when I think of out-of-control industries that are stamping on the rights of ordinary people, colluding to price-gouge us and passing legislation harmful to American interests, I think Google. Not the RIAA or MPAA or union-busting industries or economy-wrecking fraudulent financial groups or small-business-annihilating megamarts or the military-industrial complex or cable and phone companies. Definitely Google. Please oh please stop them before they voluntarily collect our publicly available SSNs and information we blast out over wireless on clear unencrypted channels.
Sadly, though I have mod points, I have already posted in this thread, otherwise I'd mod you up... hopefully someone else will.
If you think what the US does is substantially different from the rest of the first world, then you're wrong. The difference is we just bitch about it a lot more. If anything we're just catching up. Amazingly we still have preserved the freedom of speech a lot more than places like the UK, Germany, and Australia.
Ah, I guess that makes it alright as we continue this downward spiral? C'mon, your argument is that of an elementary school kid: "But they did this, which is worse!!!!" That's so childish. Nothing personal, but it's true - and I doubt you got away with it often in elementary school, thus I'm simply not letting you get away with it now.
We (the people, this country, it's elected representatives (who often seem to forget who they represent)) need to always hold ourselves to a higher standard, without succumbing to the "well, everyone else is doing it"/"well, they are doing worse" idiocy. Otherwise, we can justify every travesty we commit by finding someone else to point to - and that will accelerate our spiral downwards at an alarming rate.
Re:Yeah but how much is the ink cartridge?
on
Kidney Printer
·
· Score: 1
Show me a glossy CD/DVD label I can print with a laser. That's why I have inkjet. The matte labels are too thick and add too much weight unbalance to the disc.
There were (and probably still are) ones that did this. The Lexmark Color 1200 was one such printer. Single pass color printing, fast speeds, and selection of normal finish to glossy finish where it would fuse the fuser oil onto/into the toner. The results were pretty impressive. Not photo-glossy, but more of inbetween photo matte and photo glossy. Looked even better on glossy laser paper (which is sold for various color lasers... I have a big stack of it here by HP for the HP printers, such as our Color 4600). Such paper comes as labels, photo paper, letter sized paper, brochure paper, CD inserts, etc. And of course, cheaper to run than an inkjet (and supporting duplex and 13x19 printing).
So... there's both printer and paper/labels/etc covered.
Now, as for printing a CD label (ie: for on the disk), I think those things are terrible (the labels). and avoid them at all costs. Printing directly on a CD/DVD (even if not as glossy) looks much more professional - and for a truly professional look, buying a true CD/DVD printer (not an inkjet with a CD print tray) is even better.
I did however I couldn't see the relevance of them since the quotes would normally imply an exaggeration whereas your following sentences sort of contradicted that impression. But I sit corrected in any case.
LoL, sorry for the lack of clarification. Yeah, it's far from everybody... but a few million tablets that people seem to enjoy also does show that Apple and various Android tablet manufacturers are doing a phenomenal job in a market that's previously been a failure (while still not being the "everybody" that some reviewers allude to). Sorry, that's a bit more in line with what I was trying to say.:-)
Which means nothing. Other then IE has gotten the Most Improved Award.
Which also means nothing. Considering where they came from, (and numerous broken compatibility and speed promises), it's really not too hard for them to earn such an award. It's actually more shocking that it took them this long.
Just as long as we have competing browsers that have a fair market share (EI, FireFox, Chrome and Safari) I am happy once either side gets a good win (Like IE 5-6 did)
Yes... but the playing field is a lot different now. Microsoft no longer has the leverage to ensure the clear win they had back with IE6, or the decent win with IE5. It's not like Netscape wasn't faster - and heck, even better - back then. This time around, it will be based on the merits of the browsers (and personal preferences on UI and features).
Making it worse for Microsoft, there will be a lot of people who wont run IE9 simply because, no matter what's been promised, Microsoft has had an abysmal track record for delivering as promised (security, standards, timely fixes for bugs and security issues, etc). Me personally, I'd choose Chrome or Firefox over IE9 based solely on the security, standards, ability to actually uninstall extensions/plugins (unlike IE's "disable" (kinda) feature) and timeframes to security patch releases.
then that is where the trouble gets in where the winner separates from the standard and forces its own standards.
Meh. Microsoft had their reasons to do such. The Mozilla gang and Google (or even Opera nowadays)? Not so much. Microsoft is STILL the only one who has compelling reasons to do such things - the same reasons why the web interfaces for numerous of their online "cloud services" are lacking on non-IE browsers, and the same reason that a variety of their business software that has web interfaces needs IE, and the same reason why much of their programming tools for browser based stuff needs IE for full functionality, and the same reason why Silverlight does not have feature compatible options on other platforms (and like most of the rest of these things, regardless of what was promised).
Inotherwords, in relation to the standards thing, there's a good chance that we only need to worry if Microsoft wins this round - they are the ONLY one who has vested interests in NUMEROUS other areas that require their browser and non-standards compliant stuff tacked on.
I'm also glad to see that IE is competitive again. It's not that I want it to dominate every again but I am so sick and tired of feeling like emerging web technologies are held hostage by Microsoft's unwillingness (it's clearly not inability as IE9 is demonstrating) to build a browser that doesn't swallow testicles.
Competitive does not equal "Faster than Firefox, but slower than Chrome...: at least not in my mind. While speed increases play some part in the competitive nature of their offering, there are other things, such as... oh, I dunno... adherence to web standards, security, a plug-in mechanism that actually allows uninstalling unwanted plugins and extensions (as opposed to simply being able to semi-disable them), functionality, ease of use. unambiguous text indicating that numerous of the setup options (and the Bing Bar) make IE report anything from lotsa things to everything back to Microsoft (sorry, but "Help improve... (small print: click here to read this ridiculous legalese that says this means we track what you do)" does not satisfactorily portray that in my mind), and numerous other factors.
Since many of those factors are personal choice or based off personal needs (ie: ease of use and functionality), I'd say it's a bit too early to decide whether IE has become competitive. Let's wait until it's released and see (a) how it's adopted, (b) whether the final release actually adheres to web standards (like the last 3 releases have promised to do), and (c) see if they fix the other issues to bring it truly on par with the competition.
After a while they just become samey and it's like arguing over which word processor is best - the one that loads 13% faster or the one that runs spellchecker 8% faster.
I vote for spellchecker...
...oh, wait, was that a rhetorical question? Nevermind...
NT was designed from the ground up to be processor agnostic. I've even got a Byte Magazine around somewhere with a little news article about Microsoft first getting OS/2 NT V3 to boot up (to text mode).
It was a MIPS processor IIRC. This was before it booted on X86 and even before they officially switched it to Windows.
NT was intended to be designed from the ground up to be processor agnostic. In actuality, it ended up being (by the time there was more than just a text mode NT) hardly such. Things changed a LOT by the time NT 4 came out.
OS/2 was (and still is) tied to X86 and the PPC version had to have a new kernel, different device driver system as well as the last of the 16 bit API ported to 32 bit. Even the object format was ELF instead of OMF. Some of it was ported to X86 OS/2 like the GRADD video driver model.
Any OS that I know of, NT included, needs a different "kernel" (abstraction layer) for different hardware. OS/2's kernel *IS* much of the abstraction layer. All one megabyte of it. Oh, sorry, I mean... no, that's what I meant... one megabyte. The rest, such as the BASE device drivers, of course need to be ported... they interact with the hardware. That's nothing new on any platform. The higher level drivers, on the other hand, were largely device independent.
The problem for both was applications. OS/2 was ahead in that regard as IBM wrote an excellent JIT compiler to run DOS and WIN 3.1 in with I understand comparable speed to X86.
For PPC? Really? I thought they simply used a VDM technology... you know, just like they did on OS/2 Intel. The JIT was, if memory serves, being played around with for certain OS/2 executables.
Actually until the iPhone came out, touch was considered uninteresting in consumer devices. All the tablets I've ever seen were designed around stylus input, not touch.
When the iPhone came out it was a game changer in more ways than one - touch became the norm, capacitive screens instead of resistive ones, etc.
Nope, and I even mentioned such touch based usages. There's plenty more like POS systems. Efforts were made to hit the consumer market, but there were no apps suitable, regardless of whether a stylus or finger was the modus operandi.
Just to keep things in perspective... The transportation industry paid $37.4 billion in federal and state highway-user taxes. Commercial trucks make up 12.5 percent of all registered vehicles, but paid 36.5 percent of total highway-user taxes in 2006.
Granted, they travel more miles than private passenger vehicles, but they are also designed to impact the infrastructure less.
I understand the point you are trying to make, but you should always endeavor to ensure that facts are used properly. Commercial trucks, on a 1:1 ration (compared to remaining vehicles) drive VASTLY more miles. On a "commercial trucks on this side, all others here" the mileage for the commercial vehicles is still... VASTLY more. Hence, the use taxes they pay are more.
In addition, trucks cause quicker roadway deterioration. Even without looking at the studies and statistics, one can simply drive on certain old-pavement (ie: not recently paved) highways in the 1-2 truck lanes and notice the ruts being worn in them that largely do not exist in the car lanes.
I'd actually prefer they didn't. Joke as you will, it's an excellent opportunity for Linux to make inroads to the more casual user. The last one (netbooks) didn't get much time before Microsoft jumped in with XP netbooks.
If Microsoft's track record is a good indication, I would be happy if they DID go for it... can anyone count how many versions of Windows were targeted at tablets - and failed to get anywhere except niche markets like Home Depot's inventory carts? Heck, even skip the WinMo crap that was never suited for touchscreen.
"Everyone" wants a tablet nowadays. Apple and the various OEMs that build on Android are doing a phenomenal job. A blunder like taking iOS and Android on in markets they were designed for would do nothing except push interest even further away from any Microsoft offering. No bashing there - just a fact. Something similar happened in the smartphone arena... too little, too late, after too many broken promises of innovation and (planned) leadership in the market.If enough OEMs take the dive, then if (when?) Microsoft fails in this market again, it'll mean a bunch of vendors will be refitting overpowered devices with Android or some other Linux based option, providing us with higher end tabs at cheaper prices.
As I recall Windows NT 4.0 was independent of hardware. They had this concept they called HAL, which did all of the communication when it came to hardware. You had an alpha chip, no problem, just get a alpha HAL. I have in person seen Windows NT 4.0 running on other architectures, including alphas and apples of the day (long before they switched to intel equipment).
I'm guessing they dropped this capability with one of the newer incarnations...
Ummm... yeah, kinda... other than the massive portions that are monolithic and definitely tied to the hardware in NT 4. XP has a HAL as well... guess which other versions do also? As a matter of fact, most OS's have a device abstraction layer. Such does not make a multi-platform OS, as both IBM (OS/2 PPC) and MS (Windows NT for certain RISC schemes) can tell you via the problems they had getting their operating systems to run on non Intel compatible hardware. Even with how modular OS/2 was (in comparison to Windows), there were still various problems due to... rewriting and/or recompiling the rest of the OS.
What did you expect them to say - "No, we won't - we'll cede that market to our competitors, because our customers prefer products with crappy battery life"?
Parent is correct... and for even more reasons than indicated. (no, this next section is not a slam against MS... read through the whole thing) Sure, Win8 may bomb on such things (pick a reason: no interest, Microsoft yet again not fulfilling their promise to have something actually suitable for such devices, Win8's requirements being too absurd for such "minimalist" hardware, whatever)... but the simple fact is, it may gain traction and take off. On that possibility, there isn't one OEM with half a brain that would say "no, we aren't doing this" at this point in time. When the correct time comes to make a decision, they'll choose to (a) release some test bed units, (b) dive full in or (c) look away from Win8 and concentrate on other things - but now is definitely not them time for them to say no, especially under the possibility that they will need Microsoft's good will in the future (assuming Win8 proves suitable and desired on such devices).
There is only one person in the world who values my data enough to protect it properly, and that person is me.
Dam right. Trusting your email to a company who's main business is mining data can't be safe either.
Then again, since their business IS data, as you point out, it may just be important for them to keep it safe, after all...
Having your data spread out over god knows how many countries and subject to the whims of who knows what government agencies doesn't sound like a good idea.
As opposed to having it on your own hard drive and still being subject to the whims of who knows what government agencies, and NOT having the muscle that Google has to fight said agencies? If that's your big concern, I for one would be happier with them defending my data against the whims of who knows what government agencies than I would be in trying to do that myself and getting steamrolled by said government agencies - especially, as in the case with Google, they do indeed seem to make such an effort.
I run my own mail server and do nightly backups of my whole mailstore. Any decent linux admin should be able to setup a cheap virtual machine and a BackupPC server at home to do the same. In fact any decent linux admin should enjoy setting it up.
It is truly a good thing that all computer owners are decent linux admins...
Sarcasm/joke aside, what works for you - or others with the knowhow is not what works for... 90% of the computer using population. You know... people like the ones that come into our tech shop with "broken" computers because they bumped the power supply switch they dont even know exists (much less what it does)... or the ones who have no idea where their email, regardless of what service they are using, is stored? I've had people buy new computers and bring in their new and old ones and ask us to transfer their cloud-stored mail... and I've had people bring in machines (where, for instance, they use Outlook and some ISP non-web based mail solution) who think their mail is stored in magic-internet-land (when of course, it's local on their hard drive).
Google is actually better at storing email for me than my PC's hard drive - even with this failure. At least with Google they'll have the restore process going right now (I assume).
And you have assumed correctly!
Update 3: "One-third of users have now had their account access restored, according to Google"
Slashdot Mirror
If this passes I hope they do teach Spaghetti Monster Creationism, and debunk it in class, as a way of debunking creationism in general in a "hey doc, my...friend has this problem" kind of way.
Ummm... wow! I DARE you to try that argument with a true right wing ID religious nutjob. They somehow do NOT understand the connections trying to be made... FSM is silly nonsense, while their... myth... is 100% real fact. Even trying to point out that the only difference was the substitution of god for FSM still didnt gain them a clue. They still claimed there was nothing similar.
Try it... you will either have a very fun time realizing how idiotic some people are - or you'll end up committing murder once they push you totally over the edge. Lemme know which it turns out to be.
Drug seizures are quite a bit different... drugs... hmmm... illegal... seized. As are the tools used. How does one have to prove the illegality of drugs that are... illegal? One does not. In this case, the illegality of the linking, and the intent or lack thereof have not been established. There's the difference.
In addition, in the case of drugs, as pushed repeatedly during our "war on drugs", the argument has been made that such represents a clear and present danger - exigent circumstances - requiring quick and immediate action *before* due process. NO such argument can be made here.
Those are the differences I rather inadequately was trying to point out above. (a) Drugs are illegal to peddle on the streets. Period. End of story. They are deemed dangerous and an exigent circumstance requiring immediate action to protect other PEOPLE. Linking to online content must be proven to be illegal for EACH circumstance BEFORE it (each act) is deemed illegal - and there are plenty of exceptions in the law making it legal under various circumstances - name one where peddling controlled substances on the streets is legal (besides being a cop in a sting operation). Leaving the links up does not harm people in any way covered under the Constitution.
Oh, I'm not defending it by any means, I'm hugely politically active on the matter. I'm just tired of people saying the US is so much worse off. It's not. We should focus on trying to be a beacon to the world on individual freedoms and liberties. If anything, we should help people realize how much their own country invades on their freedoms.
In MANY respects it IS worse. This is something MOST people ignore.
Let's say you're in some third world country and dumping your industrial waste into the rivers. That's TERRIBLE... but, sadly, it's allowed in many such places.
Let's say you're in THIS country and doing the same thing. That's terrible, against the law, against the principles we were founded on, against common sense and the knowledge that we (in a supposedly educated country) have. And THAT is what makes it worse.
- We know better /. story's thread)
- We have LAWS against a lot of this stuff
- We have a Constitution designed to protect us from this nonsense (not the water, but the subject of this
- We have the education to understand the ramifications
- We claim a desire to prevent such things - all while it keeps happening.
That is why it's worse when it happens here. We know better.
Really? Has the DMCA been amended?
No.
Last I heard (as I believe these scenarios have been tried in court already) it was determined that merely linking is not a crime.
"Last I heard" is no substitute for looking up case law. The case law on this issue is unsettled. However, generally if the intention of the link was that those following the link would participate in copyright infringement, then that act of linking is illegal.
There's actually steps in the DMCA that must be followed - like takedown notices. After that, then perhaps it can be argued that linking is a crime.
Those "steps that must be followed" only apply to service providers who are not actively aware of infringing material. If you purposely link to material you know is breaking copyright, you have no right to receive a takedown notice first.
DMCA section 512(d). You have to both lack actual knowledge of infringement and respond expeditiously to a takedown notice to fall under this exception. If you fail (1)(A) (did you lack actual knowledge?), you fail the whole test and your link can be deemed infringing without even getting to (3) (did you respond to a takedown notice?).
You make a number of assumptions and have a number of misunderstandings.
First, Google has fought this battle. That aside, as you admit, there is no case law that sides on such actions being illegal in a fashion that applies to this.
Second, any company or individual who provides online services can be (and often is) considered a "service provider" - you are confusing an INTERNET service provider with an ONLINE service provider. Google is an OSP but not (or not really) an ISP.
Third, you are assuming guilt of the parties involved in deciding they knew the links went to content that infringed. I am not saying they didnt (or shouldnt have) know(n). I am saying you are deciding you are the judge and jury. But, that's what the courts are for.
Finally, thus, when you put this all together, it is (a) up to a court (not some random judge) to determine which factors make it willful infringement or not, (b) the takedown notice needs to be sent and either responded to (ie: material removed, counter notice, etc) or ignored.
See the point? The DHS has been skipping numerous steps. The sanctions imposed are those that should apply after guilt is determined - which at the least would require a court case to determine that the OSP is KNOWINGLY providing links to illegal content - or at the other end of the spectrum, filing due to lack of a response (or incorrect response) to a takedown notice.
But, apparently none of the above happened.
Please indicate which part of the DMCA or Constitution allows for DHS to ignore procedure. There is no "compelling reason" "in the best interests" (etc) that allows such. The only reason there is, is to cater to big businesses.
Yet, in their infinite idiocy, they fail to go after comp
Or Facebook should give you the option to stop being tagged.
But that wouldn't be in their interest I guess.
A lot of people tag irrelevant photos with all their friends name, just to get their attention. I have fought with my friends trying to tell them not to do that, some people just don't get it.
You can un-tag yourself and then no one will be able to tag you again. If you are tagged, you get an email notification (and a FB notification). It would be nice if they made it so that you could prevent people from tagging you as well.
It's legal for ICE to seize things that are part of a customs investigation. International trafficking in copyright-infringing materials is a customs issue. Linking to another site that has copyrighted content is probably a crime under the DMCA, and it's just the sort of "crime" that ICE has jurisdiction over.
Don't get me wrong, it's bullshit. I'm just saying I don't think it's an illegal seizure.
Really? Has the DMCA been amended? Last I heard (as I believe these scenarios have been tried in court already) it was determined that merely linking is not a crime. There's actually steps in the DMCA that must be followed - like takedown notices. After that, then perhaps it can be argued that linking is a crime.
This is where DHS is overstepping themselves. The DMCA was written to cover such scenarios and outlines pretty much every step that should happen before such domain seizures. DHS is stepping around those steps and going right for the kill.
So it's evil when Google mines my data and makes no attempt to hide the fact that they do, but it's ok when congress creates fusion centers that create profiles of average american citizens that have never committed any crimes and places wire taps on phones without proper warrants or just cause. I'm sorry, but I actually feel much safer trusting Google with my information than I do the federal government. Google just wants to make a profit, the federal government wants to control my life.
Apparently... sad, isn't it? And perhaps I misinterpreted your earlier post I responded to, in which case, my apologies.
Yes, when I think of out-of-control industries that are stamping on the rights of ordinary people, colluding to price-gouge us and passing legislation harmful to American interests, I think Google. Not the RIAA or MPAA or union-busting industries or economy-wrecking fraudulent financial groups or small-business-annihilating megamarts or the military-industrial complex or cable and phone companies. Definitely Google. Please oh please stop them before they voluntarily collect our publicly available SSNs and information we blast out over wireless on clear unencrypted channels.
Sadly, though I have mod points, I have already posted in this thread, otherwise I'd mod you up... hopefully someone else will.
If you think what the US does is substantially different from the rest of the first world, then you're wrong. The difference is we just bitch about it a lot more. If anything we're just catching up. Amazingly we still have preserved the freedom of speech a lot more than places like the UK, Germany, and Australia.
Ah, I guess that makes it alright as we continue this downward spiral? C'mon, your argument is that of an elementary school kid: "But they did this, which is worse!!!!" That's so childish. Nothing personal, but it's true - and I doubt you got away with it often in elementary school, thus I'm simply not letting you get away with it now.
We (the people, this country, it's elected representatives (who often seem to forget who they represent)) need to always hold ourselves to a higher standard, without succumbing to the "well, everyone else is doing it"/"well, they are doing worse" idiocy. Otherwise, we can justify every travesty we commit by finding someone else to point to - and that will accelerate our spiral downwards at an alarming rate.
Show me a glossy CD/DVD label I can print with a laser. That's why I have inkjet. The matte labels are too thick and add too much weight unbalance to the disc.
There were (and probably still are) ones that did this. The Lexmark Color 1200 was one such printer. Single pass color printing, fast speeds, and selection of normal finish to glossy finish where it would fuse the fuser oil onto/into the toner. The results were pretty impressive. Not photo-glossy, but more of inbetween photo matte and photo glossy. Looked even better on glossy laser paper (which is sold for various color lasers... I have a big stack of it here by HP for the HP printers, such as our Color 4600). Such paper comes as labels, photo paper, letter sized paper, brochure paper, CD inserts, etc. And of course, cheaper to run than an inkjet (and supporting duplex and 13x19 printing).
So... there's both printer and paper/labels/etc covered.
Now, as for printing a CD label (ie: for on the disk), I think those things are terrible (the labels). and avoid them at all costs. Printing directly on a CD/DVD (even if not as glossy) looks much more professional - and for a truly professional look, buying a true CD/DVD printer (not an inkjet with a CD print tray) is even better.
I did however I couldn't see the relevance of them since the quotes would normally imply an exaggeration whereas your following sentences sort of contradicted that impression. But I sit corrected in any case.
LoL, sorry for the lack of clarification. Yeah, it's far from everybody... but a few million tablets that people seem to enjoy also does show that Apple and various Android tablet manufacturers are doing a phenomenal job in a market that's previously been a failure (while still not being the "everybody" that some reviewers allude to). Sorry, that's a bit more in line with what I was trying to say. :-)
Which means nothing. Other then IE has gotten the Most Improved Award.
Which also means nothing. Considering where they came from, (and numerous broken compatibility and speed promises), it's really not too hard for them to earn such an award. It's actually more shocking that it took them this long.
Just as long as we have competing browsers that have a fair market share (EI, FireFox, Chrome and Safari) I am happy once either side gets a good win (Like IE 5-6 did)
Yes... but the playing field is a lot different now. Microsoft no longer has the leverage to ensure the clear win they had back with IE6, or the decent win with IE5. It's not like Netscape wasn't faster - and heck, even better - back then. This time around, it will be based on the merits of the browsers (and personal preferences on UI and features).
Making it worse for Microsoft, there will be a lot of people who wont run IE9 simply because, no matter what's been promised, Microsoft has had an abysmal track record for delivering as promised (security, standards, timely fixes for bugs and security issues, etc). Me personally, I'd choose Chrome or Firefox over IE9 based solely on the security, standards, ability to actually uninstall extensions/plugins (unlike IE's "disable" (kinda) feature) and timeframes to security patch releases.
then that is where the trouble gets in where the winner separates from the standard and forces its own standards.
Meh. Microsoft had their reasons to do such. The Mozilla gang and Google (or even Opera nowadays)? Not so much. Microsoft is STILL the only one who has compelling reasons to do such things - the same reasons why the web interfaces for numerous of their online "cloud services" are lacking on non-IE browsers, and the same reason that a variety of their business software that has web interfaces needs IE, and the same reason why much of their programming tools for browser based stuff needs IE for full functionality, and the same reason why Silverlight does not have feature compatible options on other platforms (and like most of the rest of these things, regardless of what was promised).
Inotherwords, in relation to the standards thing, there's a good chance that we only need to worry if Microsoft wins this round - they are the ONLY one who has vested interests in NUMEROUS other areas that require their browser and non-standards compliant stuff tacked on.
I'm also glad to see that IE is competitive again. It's not that I want it to dominate every again but I am so sick and tired of feeling like emerging web technologies are held hostage by Microsoft's unwillingness (it's clearly not inability as IE9 is demonstrating) to build a browser that doesn't swallow testicles.
Competitive does not equal "Faster than Firefox, but slower than Chrome...: at least not in my mind. While speed increases play some part in the competitive nature of their offering, there are other things, such as... oh, I dunno... adherence to web standards, security, a plug-in mechanism that actually allows uninstalling unwanted plugins and extensions (as opposed to simply being able to semi-disable them), functionality, ease of use. unambiguous text indicating that numerous of the setup options (and the Bing Bar) make IE report anything from lotsa things to everything back to Microsoft (sorry, but "Help improve... (small print: click here to read this ridiculous legalese that says this means we track what you do)" does not satisfactorily portray that in my mind), and numerous other factors.
Since many of those factors are personal choice or based off personal needs (ie: ease of use and functionality), I'd say it's a bit too early to decide whether IE has become competitive. Let's wait until it's released and see (a) how it's adopted, (b) whether the final release actually adheres to web standards (like the last 3 releases have promised to do), and (c) see if they fix the other issues to bring it truly on par with the competition.
After a while they just become samey and it's like arguing over which word processor is best - the one that loads 13% faster or the one that runs spellchecker 8% faster.
I vote for spellchecker...
...oh, wait, was that a rhetorical question? Nevermind...
NT was designed from the ground up to be processor agnostic. I've even got a Byte Magazine around somewhere with a little news article about Microsoft first getting OS/2 NT V3 to boot up (to text mode). It was a MIPS processor IIRC. This was before it booted on X86 and even before they officially switched it to Windows.
NT was intended to be designed from the ground up to be processor agnostic. In actuality, it ended up being (by the time there was more than just a text mode NT) hardly such. Things changed a LOT by the time NT 4 came out.
OS/2 was (and still is) tied to X86 and the PPC version had to have a new kernel, different device driver system as well as the last of the 16 bit API ported to 32 bit. Even the object format was ELF instead of OMF. Some of it was ported to X86 OS/2 like the GRADD video driver model.
Any OS that I know of, NT included, needs a different "kernel" (abstraction layer) for different hardware. OS/2's kernel *IS* much of the abstraction layer. All one megabyte of it. Oh, sorry, I mean... no, that's what I meant... one megabyte. The rest, such as the BASE device drivers, of course need to be ported... they interact with the hardware. That's nothing new on any platform. The higher level drivers, on the other hand, were largely device independent.
The problem for both was applications. OS/2 was ahead in that regard as IBM wrote an excellent JIT compiler to run DOS and WIN 3.1 in with I understand comparable speed to X86.
For PPC? Really? I thought they simply used a VDM technology... you know, just like they did on OS/2 Intel. The JIT was, if memory serves, being played around with for certain OS/2 executables.
Actually until the iPhone came out, touch was considered uninteresting in consumer devices. All the tablets I've ever seen were designed around stylus input, not touch.
When the iPhone came out it was a game changer in more ways than one - touch became the norm, capacitive screens instead of resistive ones, etc.
Nope, and I even mentioned such touch based usages. There's plenty more like POS systems. Efforts were made to hit the consumer market, but there were no apps suitable, regardless of whether a stylus or finger was the modus operandi.
Who is "everyone"? Not me or most of the people I know.
You didnt note the use of quotation marks in my post? Nor understand their meaning?
Just to keep things in perspective... The transportation industry paid $37.4 billion in federal and state highway-user taxes. Commercial trucks make up 12.5 percent of all registered vehicles, but paid 36.5 percent of total highway-user taxes in 2006.
Source: American Trucking Association
Granted, they travel more miles than private passenger vehicles, but they are also designed to impact the infrastructure less.
I understand the point you are trying to make, but you should always endeavor to ensure that facts are used properly. Commercial trucks, on a 1:1 ration (compared to remaining vehicles) drive VASTLY more miles. On a "commercial trucks on this side, all others here" the mileage for the commercial vehicles is still... VASTLY more. Hence, the use taxes they pay are more.
In addition, trucks cause quicker roadway deterioration. Even without looking at the studies and statistics, one can simply drive on certain old-pavement (ie: not recently paved) highways in the 1-2 truck lanes and notice the ruts being worn in them that largely do not exist in the car lanes.
Stupid question.
They'd also "consider" building 9.6GHz 8088 systems running MS-DOS powered by the blood of virgins if that's where it looked like the market might go.
Is there a website I can pre-order on?
I'd actually prefer they didn't. Joke as you will, it's an excellent opportunity for Linux to make inroads to the more casual user. The last one (netbooks) didn't get much time before Microsoft jumped in with XP netbooks.
If Microsoft's track record is a good indication, I would be happy if they DID go for it... can anyone count how many versions of Windows were targeted at tablets - and failed to get anywhere except niche markets like Home Depot's inventory carts? Heck, even skip the WinMo crap that was never suited for touchscreen.
"Everyone" wants a tablet nowadays. Apple and the various OEMs that build on Android are doing a phenomenal job. A blunder like taking iOS and Android on in markets they were designed for would do nothing except push interest even further away from any Microsoft offering. No bashing there - just a fact. Something similar happened in the smartphone arena... too little, too late, after too many broken promises of innovation and (planned) leadership in the market.If enough OEMs take the dive, then if (when?) Microsoft fails in this market again, it'll mean a bunch of vendors will be refitting overpowered devices with Android or some other Linux based option, providing us with higher end tabs at cheaper prices.
OK, finally we are moving away from x86 and toward RISC. We are only 20 years behind schedule, but hey, better late than never.
MS-DOS was running on ARM's x86 emulator in 1987.
Well, that's not quite the same as running natively on it... even though somewhat similar to how things run on today's 64bit CPUs.
As I recall Windows NT 4.0 was independent of hardware. They had this concept they called HAL, which did all of the communication when it came to hardware. You had an alpha chip, no problem, just get a alpha HAL. I have in person seen Windows NT 4.0 running on other architectures, including alphas and apples of the day (long before they switched to intel equipment).
I'm guessing they dropped this capability with one of the newer incarnations...
Ummm... yeah, kinda... other than the massive portions that are monolithic and definitely tied to the hardware in NT 4. XP has a HAL as well... guess which other versions do also? As a matter of fact, most OS's have a device abstraction layer. Such does not make a multi-platform OS, as both IBM (OS/2 PPC) and MS (Windows NT for certain RISC schemes) can tell you via the problems they had getting their operating systems to run on non Intel compatible hardware. Even with how modular OS/2 was (in comparison to Windows), there were still various problems due to... rewriting and/or recompiling the rest of the OS.
What did you expect them to say - "No, we won't - we'll cede that market to our competitors, because our customers prefer products with crappy battery life"?
Parent is correct... and for even more reasons than indicated. (no, this next section is not a slam against MS... read through the whole thing) Sure, Win8 may bomb on such things (pick a reason: no interest, Microsoft yet again not fulfilling their promise to have something actually suitable for such devices, Win8's requirements being too absurd for such "minimalist" hardware, whatever)... but the simple fact is, it may gain traction and take off. On that possibility, there isn't one OEM with half a brain that would say "no, we aren't doing this" at this point in time. When the correct time comes to make a decision, they'll choose to (a) release some test bed units, (b) dive full in or (c) look away from Win8 and concentrate on other things - but now is definitely not them time for them to say no, especially under the possibility that they will need Microsoft's good will in the future (assuming Win8 proves suitable and desired on such devices).
Just a few points...
There is only one person in the world who values my data enough to protect it properly, and that person is me.
Dam right. Trusting your email to a company who's main business is mining data can't be safe either.
Then again, since their business IS data, as you point out, it may just be important for them to keep it safe, after all...
Having your data spread out over god knows how many countries and subject to the whims of who knows what government agencies doesn't sound like a good idea.
As opposed to having it on your own hard drive and still being subject to the whims of who knows what government agencies, and NOT having the muscle that Google has to fight said agencies? If that's your big concern, I for one would be happier with them defending my data against the whims of who knows what government agencies than I would be in trying to do that myself and getting steamrolled by said government agencies - especially, as in the case with Google, they do indeed seem to make such an effort.
I run my own mail server and do nightly backups of my whole mailstore. Any decent linux admin should be able to setup a cheap virtual machine and a BackupPC server at home to do the same. In fact any decent linux admin should enjoy setting it up.
It is truly a good thing that all computer owners are decent linux admins...
Sarcasm/joke aside, what works for you - or others with the knowhow is not what works for... 90% of the computer using population. You know... people like the ones that come into our tech shop with "broken" computers because they bumped the power supply switch they dont even know exists (much less what it does)... or the ones who have no idea where their email, regardless of what service they are using, is stored? I've had people buy new computers and bring in their new and old ones and ask us to transfer their cloud-stored mail... and I've had people bring in machines (where, for instance, they use Outlook and some ISP non-web based mail solution) who think their mail is stored in magic-internet-land (when of course, it's local on their hard drive).
Google is actually better at storing email for me than my PC's hard drive - even with this failure. At least with Google they'll have the restore process going right now (I assume).
And you have assumed correctly!
Update 3: "One-third of users have now had their account access restored, according to Google"