Yeah Reuters is great -- quick and to the point. There appears to be some discussion of allowing people to remove Fox news from personalized news in Google groups.
I tend to agree. The problem as I see it is that the poster probably doesn't know he is offending anyone. As you stated, if anything, it appears the advice being given is welcomed.
I know nothing about aviation, airfoils, propellers, etc. If I did perhaps I would be in a better position to judge. The only real problem I see is the excessive length of the recurring posts. I would just tell them that while their comments are welcome as long as they pertain to the topic and contribute to the discussion. They are just posting more than I feel they should to benefit the forum as a whole. If that doesn't work then other measures could be considered.
I'm in the same boat. I get the impression Google is aiming at the non-HTML masses. In principle, that is a good thing, I suppose. It just doesn't feel like it is mine without editing code with a text editor though. Google is fairly good at improving their products so maybe it won't always be that way. I get the feeling that "click a button - add a pretty picture " may be the future.
I'm all for research into new input devices but I see serious drawbacks to both touch screens and facial recognition. My computer screen gets filthy enough as is. If I eat potato chips or something I don't want further gunk there. The current state of technology also makes it difficult to be a precise as a mouse or track ball. A single point is easier to put where you want than the tip of a finger. One of the major complaints about the Iphone is the difficulty in typing from the screen.
As for facial recognition, do you really want a camera pointed at you all the time while you surf the web. This would seem to a Pandora's box of security concerns.
The documentation/instructions always make me smile. It seems to be a good program though (although I have nothing worth encrypting). I even emailed the development team to ask if any of them had been tortured by adversaries. I haven't heard back. I hope they are OK.
How plausible is it when a major selling point of the program? If someone will go through the trouble of forcing you to reveal a password you would think they would read the documentation.
If that is what you are up against you are better off to have a hidden volume so you can show torturers something before they remove all your fingers.
If you read the US Constitution carefully, there is a great deal of lassitude in this area. There are even provisions for suspending the Constitution in times of war or national emergency. This is exactly the tact the Bush administration has taken to justify wire tapping for the ubiquitous war on terrorism.
That certainly happens but it would surprise me that AV companies don't see the easy money too. A virus writer approached by a spammer or crime syndicate (or vice-versa) can't be that common of a scenario. AV companies have been in business for some time. There are some reputable free AV programs but there are bad apples everywhere.
The Ministry of Truth can put it in their memory holes. Besides, we have always been at war with Iraq. Unless it was Afghanistan... or Iran... or North Korea... or Venezuela... or Cuba... or The U.S.S.R.... or...
I have often suspected antivirus companies themselves. They are the ones who always benefit from the never ending array of new viruses. Sure, there are a lot of hacker want-to-bes that write them but are there really that many malicious hackers? I am sure there are more viruses than hackers. Just look at the list of viruses you antivirus "protects" against. There must be a few virus writers making a LOT of viruses. Who would do that and what would their motivation be?
The fact is every government has government class of weapon-cariers be they police, solders or otherwise. As long as we can keep them persuaded (or persuade ourselves) they are there to protect us and the general welfare we are safe. Based on many other cultures, we will allow almost anything as long as we are not starving.
Although they are generally tight lipped about it, carriers have traditionally handled responsibility for such exploits. As it becomes easier to "reach out and touch someone" anywhere in the world it will be interesting to see where the axe falls next.
It is true that the issue would not currently matter but smart phone technology will soon be big. Very big. It remains to be seen if Google can successfully make the transition into this area with so much competition from names like Apple, Research In Motion, Nokia, Palm and who knows who else by the time Android goes public.
IMHO Google has done a fairly good job in its software development (which is to say, I have personally had few issues). Being open source at least lets people know there is a problem. They will surly address the issue but there will likely be lots of such problems along the way.
The alternative is public projects. Public phones, public rest rooms, public libraries. Those things are more often than not done less expensively, quickly, and more efficiently by free market private enterprise. Government is sometimes useful in starting projects that would not otherwise be quickly developed by the free market alone such as the Internet but how far along would the Internet be without a free market?
That sounds very Libertarian. It sounds good but is difficult to implement. I wish I could be more pity but I have a bad cold and I am zonked with Nyquil. I better stop before I start talking about... about...
It seems to me/. is an effective megaphone. To the extent that people are aware of the issue, I don't think people like Ebay's decision (assuming the information presented here is correct and I think it is). I don't think it is fair in the sense one person or a very few can define the acceptable beliefs of others. That said, I know my personal belief system is not a majority so I have some empathy in that respect. I would never presume to speak for others who I felt might hold similar beliefs though. I should add I sell items on Ebay and intend to continue to do so but that is largely due to financial necessity.
O.K. I was being a little hyperbolic. My point was I doubt Ebay could make a compelling argument for this in the court of public opinion. While they are not an employer of the sellers the legislative courts have had great difficulty interpreting cases involving networking technology. I wouldn't put it past one.
Why negotiate? The article indicated the effects could be psychologically devastating. If that is true just use bullets. If you want them alive use a tazer or bean bags.
I am utterly baffled by this. Wiccans can list "magic" wands. Parapsychologist can list EMF meters for finding ghosts (i.e. radio towers) etc. But since when could one's beliefs be used as grounds to stop a free market? It is just silly. How far would I get if I claimed to be an angry Wiccan upset with other wand sellers? It looks to me like grounds for a religious discrimination lawsuit. As I understand it, that has been Scientology's tactic.
I have often been concerned by the subtle differences in meaning privacy have recently taken on. We must never forget networks share information. That is all they can do.
Privacy in a networked context can only refer to whom we share information, not prevent total access. Further, "private" is often used in a deceptive manor to imply some limitation placed on information when it just means privately owned (and can be shared by anyone).
I feel there should be some distinction between information transmitted in a public place, such as a public library where we know (or can reasonably expect) the information to be shared with others there and one's home but I am at a loss as to how to practically implement such a policy in a network environment.
There are fire walls security measures that can be implemented but in what sense is security security if no one is watching?
I had an ionizer too (until it broke). It was odd -- some of my family members could smell it, some couldn't. It could be a genetic thing. Some people say cyanide smells like walnuts. I can't smell that but I can smell ozone.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah Reuters is great -- quick and to the point. There appears to be some discussion of allowing people to remove Fox news from personalized news in Google groups.
I tend to agree. The problem as I see it is that the poster probably doesn't know he is offending anyone. As you stated, if anything, it appears the advice being given is welcomed. I know nothing about aviation, airfoils, propellers, etc. If I did perhaps I would be in a better position to judge. The only real problem I see is the excessive length of the recurring posts. I would just tell them that while their comments are welcome as long as they pertain to the topic and contribute to the discussion. They are just posting more than I feel they should to benefit the forum as a whole. If that doesn't work then other measures could be considered.
I'm in the same boat. I get the impression Google is aiming at the non-HTML masses. In principle, that is a good thing, I suppose. It just doesn't feel like it is mine without editing code with a text editor though. Google is fairly good at improving their products so maybe it won't always be that way. I get the feeling that "click a button - add a pretty picture " may be the future.
I'm all for research into new input devices but I see serious drawbacks to both touch screens and facial recognition. My computer screen gets filthy enough as is. If I eat potato chips or something I don't want further gunk there. The current state of technology also makes it difficult to be a precise as a mouse or track ball. A single point is easier to put where you want than the tip of a finger. One of the major complaints about the Iphone is the difficulty in typing from the screen. As for facial recognition, do you really want a camera pointed at you all the time while you surf the web. This would seem to a Pandora's box of security concerns.
The documentation/instructions always make me smile. It seems to be a good program though (although I have nothing worth encrypting). I even emailed the development team to ask if any of them had been tortured by adversaries. I haven't heard back. I hope they are OK.
How plausible is it when a major selling point of the program? If someone will go through the trouble of forcing you to reveal a password you would think they would read the documentation. If that is what you are up against you are better off to have a hidden volume so you can show torturers something before they remove all your fingers.
It could be.
If you read the US Constitution carefully, there is a great deal of lassitude in this area. There are even provisions for suspending the Constitution in times of war or national emergency. This is exactly the tact the Bush administration has taken to justify wire tapping for the ubiquitous war on terrorism.
That certainly happens but it would surprise me that AV companies don't see the easy money too. A virus writer approached by a spammer or crime syndicate (or vice-versa) can't be that common of a scenario. AV companies have been in business for some time. There are some reputable free AV programs but there are bad apples everywhere.
The Ministry of Truth can put it in their memory holes. Besides, we have always been at war with Iraq. Unless it was Afghanistan... or Iran ... or North Korea ... or Venezuela ... or Cuba... or The U.S.S.R. ... or ...
I have often suspected antivirus companies themselves. They are the ones who always benefit from the never ending array of new viruses. Sure, there are a lot of hacker want-to-bes that write them but are there really that many malicious hackers? I am sure there are more viruses than hackers. Just look at the list of viruses you antivirus "protects" against. There must be a few virus writers making a LOT of viruses. Who would do that and what would their motivation be?
Aquafina, bottled by Pepsi is tap water too.
The fact is every government has government class of weapon-cariers be they police, solders or otherwise. As long as we can keep them persuaded (or persuade ourselves) they are there to protect us and the general welfare we are safe. Based on many other cultures, we will allow almost anything as long as we are not starving.
Although they are generally tight lipped about it, carriers have traditionally handled responsibility for such exploits. As it becomes easier to "reach out and touch someone" anywhere in the world it will be interesting to see where the axe falls next.
It is true that the issue would not currently matter but smart phone technology will soon be big. Very big. It remains to be seen if Google can successfully make the transition into this area with so much competition from names like Apple, Research In Motion, Nokia, Palm and who knows who else by the time Android goes public.
IMHO Google has done a fairly good job in its software development (which is to say, I have personally had few issues). Being open source at least lets people know there is a problem. They will surly address the issue but there will likely be lots of such problems along the way.
The alternative is public projects. Public phones, public rest rooms, public libraries. Those things are more often than not done less expensively, quickly, and more efficiently by free market private enterprise. Government is sometimes useful in starting projects that would not otherwise be quickly developed by the free market alone such as the Internet but how far along would the Internet be without a free market?
I think everyone is a little bit Libertarian after a dose of Nyquil so it is not that hard to do (it seemed so at the time). I am better now.
That sounds very Libertarian. It sounds good but is difficult to implement. I wish I could be more pity but I have a bad cold and I am zonked with Nyquil. I better stop before I start talking about... about...
It seems to me /. is an effective megaphone. To the extent that people are aware of the issue, I don't think people like Ebay's decision (assuming the information presented here is correct and I think it is). I don't think it is fair in the sense one person or a very few can define the acceptable beliefs of others. That said, I know my personal belief system is not a majority so I have some empathy in that respect. I would never presume to speak for others who I felt might hold similar beliefs though. I should add I sell items on Ebay and intend to continue to do so but that is largely due to financial necessity.
O.K. I was being a little hyperbolic. My point was I doubt Ebay could make a compelling argument for this in the court of public opinion. While they are not an employer of the sellers the legislative courts have had great difficulty interpreting cases involving networking technology. I wouldn't put it past one.
Why negotiate? The article indicated the effects could be psychologically devastating. If that is true just use bullets. If you want them alive use a tazer or bean bags.
I am utterly baffled by this. Wiccans can list "magic" wands. Parapsychologist can list EMF meters for finding ghosts (i.e. radio towers) etc. But since when could one's beliefs be used as grounds to stop a free market? It is just silly. How far would I get if I claimed to be an angry Wiccan upset with other wand sellers? It looks to me like grounds for a religious discrimination lawsuit. As I understand it, that has been Scientology's tactic.
I have often been concerned by the subtle differences in meaning privacy have recently taken on. We must never forget networks share information. That is all they can do.
Privacy in a networked context can only refer to whom we share information, not prevent total access. Further, "private" is often used in a deceptive manor to imply some limitation placed on information when it just means privately owned (and can be shared by anyone).
I feel there should be some distinction between information transmitted in a public place, such as a public library where we know (or can reasonably expect) the information to be shared with others there and one's home but I am at a loss as to how to practically implement such a policy in a network environment.
There are fire walls security measures that can be implemented but in what sense is security security if no one is watching?
It might be. As I said, I never smelled it --but now that you mention it I think it was almonds.
I had an ionizer too (until it broke). It was odd -- some of my family members could smell it, some couldn't. It could be a genetic thing. Some people say cyanide smells like walnuts. I can't smell that but I can smell ozone.