Yes, a system could be properly configured to avoid these pitfalls, but it depends on the computer owner, the OS people, and the application people. Using full disk encryption eliminates all of these pitfalls.
I would think all of these could be addressed by the people setting up the system (assuming a environment where the average user doesn't have admin access, but the system is set up by an IT shop that does): you know what software is installed, you should know where it stores data, and you control where the user can store data. So you ought to know what places can end up with sensitive data and what cannot.
Full Disk Encryption gives you the access overhead that comes with encryption/decryption for every access to the hard disk. Why not just encrypt the sensitive data if you want to avoid leaks of the sensitive data?
Plus, a lot of the recent newsworthy leaks would be avoided or minimized by using encrypted access to sensitive databases via an application on the laptop, rather than people copying large databases of sensitive data to their laptop to take it home and work on it, and then losing the laptop.
Does any half-way intelligent person take Postmodernism seriously? Postmodernism is the String Theory of philosophy, one of those theories that nests itself in a safe defensive position where nothing can really be proven or disproven.
Postmodernism is, insofar as it is theory at all, a critical theory rather than a scientific/empirical one, and critical theories aren't propositions that are proven or disproven, but frameworks for interpretation. (It's a completely distinct use of the word "theory".)
What I find ironic is that slashdot, a site dedicated to all things technological, has become the homebase for a group of people who seem to be against change of any kind.
Being against empty buzzwords that convey no meaning is not being against change.
They want to turn back the clock to the days when the web was basically the same as gopher.
Having used gopher and the web when it was very young, I feel pretty confident in saying that the web was never basically the same as gopher. Plus, no one here that I can tell wants to abandon new technologies, they just wish society would abandon the use of buzzwords that are unconnected to any specific technology, practice, or any other actual referent in the real word, but instead are used to sound like they refer to something new, particularly "Web 2.0".
Why did prices go up this year if we had all that Iraqi oil in our control?
Because, contrary to the expectations of Bush Administration officials (like Paul Wolfowitz, who claimed that Iraq's oil would pay for the costs of reconstruction and more besides; the same official who explained the difference in Bush Administration policy toward Iraq [which there was only the vaguest indication might be producing WMDs] and North Korea [for which there was a near certainty, now confirmed dramatically, that they were] with the explanation that North Korea, unlike Iraq, did not swim in a sea of oil) prior to the war, we have not, in fact, secured control of the oil, or even secured Iraq at all, and in fact we've made the entire Middle East more volatile through the invasion.
Your argument against GP's sig seems based on the premise that the war was competently executed, and therefore if it was for oil, we must now have that oil. But the war has not been, rather manifestly, competently executed.
This is obviously the reason to do it. Noone besides NDA-bound game developers will even know how these chips work. This automatically shuts out home-brew developments, mod chips and all that.
The console market is homebrew-unfriendly all around, but is Microsoft really any worse than anyone else in this regard? Heck, their plans for XNA GSE seem to be downright homebrew friendly, compared to the norm in the console market.
, but how come no one ever calls MS out on the fact that Vista is basically still playing catch up to OS X
Because, as has been demonstrated in every Microsoft windows release since the first, no one cares that Microsoft Windows $foo is playing catch up to Mac OS $bar.
Plus, its old news. Its like every article that mentions the Earth having to point out that the Earth is roughly spherical. Yeah, there was a time when that was news to people and interesting, but now its just a given.
Why pay a premium for an Apple computer when you can buy an equivalent Dell system for less money?
Which Dell model, exactly, can you purchase with OS X? Assuming the answer is "none", I think your characterization of the Dell system as "equivalent" is a bit misplaced.
Along the same lines, why buy an Apple cell phone when you can buy a Nokia phone for less money?
I don't think Nokia makes a phone that seemlessly connects with iTunes, or handles video from iTunes.
There are oodles of people with existing iTunes libraries (some iPod owners, some not) for whom an iTunes phone is a major selling point. Now, if you want to say "why by an Apple phone if a Motorola phone is cheaper", well, do we know that an Apple phone will be cheaper than an otherwise-similarly-equipped Apple-licensed Motorola iTunes phone?
...to wit, people spend $300 (and up) on video iPods, people buy third-party, licensed iTunes phones without the ability to play iTunes video content, yes, I think its quite likely that people will care about Apple-made phones with iTunes and, especially, iTunes video capability, particularly if they have the kind of data capacity that video iPods have.
Heck, I'd replace my current SLVR for one in a heartbeat, assuming it was a good phone as well as an iPod: the SLVR is a nice phone, but the storage capacity is really limited.
With nVidia making CPUs, and of course Intel and AMD/ATI (DAAMIT) making CPUs, how could nVidia expect to grab any market share? No offence to the nVidian engineers, but their product would have to be miles above the Intel/DAAMIT offerings in order to make most people even consider a system with an nVidia CPU.
No, it wouldn't. It would have to be either cheaper for OEM's to consider it, or offer some other selling point that AMD or Intel wasn't offering, or, preferably, both; which is how AMD (and Cyrix and others) got marketshare competing with Intel in making PC processors in the first place, years ago.
A CPU-GPU combination would certainly meet the second qualification, and its not inconceivable that such a combination could also outperform a similar-cost separate CPU and video subsystem setup.
Most people don't care who makes the CPU in their computer, the idea is getting it to sell to OEMs, who are the decision-makers that matter.
Video cards have fast RAM subsystems. They use fast, expensive chips and they have controllers designed for blazing fast (and exclusive) access. You can't just throw normal, slow, system RAM at it and expect it to perform the same.
Of course, Nvidia could plan to use blazingly fast RAM like that used on video cards now as the system RAM on motherboards supporting their CPU-GPU hybrid, which would solve the problem nicely, though it might drive the price up quite a bit. (Then again, it would improve system performance in other ways, and perhaps Nvidia sees the future as demanding faster RAM access for more and more applications besides traditional GPU-heavy ones, in which case this kind of thing would make a lot of sense.)
What you've been smoking? have you even read a page from that website before making that foolish comment
Nothing. Yes. Do you have a substantive criticism? VDARE's writers, on their website, complain of the level of immigration (both legal and illegal), and its ethnic makeup, and when they get around to recommending policy rather than just ranting, recommend policy changes to address all of those, including more restrictive rules for legal immigration, exactly as I said. What is your problem?
Which is to say they are opposed to enforcing the current laws.
No, its not. It is to say that they are opposed to reforms that anti-immigration groups push that, in the name of "enforcing existing laws", would add new laws on top of them (enhanced penalties, increased documentation requirements, penalties for other people doing things not currently illegal that are perceived as somehow distantly contributing to violations of existing laws, etc.) and instead prefer that reform be centered around fixing the ways in which the current laws are broken, rather than piling more bad laws on top of existing bad laws.
Meaning they are in favor of those laws being violated.
Um, no. Even if it meant that they were against enforcement of existing laws, it would not mean they are in favor of those laws being violated. For instance, I am not in favor of, say, people giving money to the Republican Party. If there was a law against it, I would be against people violating that law. Nevertheless, I would see such a law as an unjust law, and would not support enforcing that law.
Opposing forcibly preventing or punishing an action is not the same as supporting the action.
If that's not "pro-illegal-immigration", what the hell is?
Actually supporting violation of the laws, rather than merely disagreeing with proposals to pile new laws to reinforce the existing broken laws. The people who actually (whether out of self-interest or some idea of what is "right" to them) seek to actually promote violation of the laws; people who are actually pro-illegal-immigration exist (often, they are supporters of outwardly tough but practically largely unenforceable limits on immigration, defenders of the status quo and proposals that would pile more rules that are similarly impractical to enforce on top of the status quo), most especially the people that profit from the exploitability of a large population of people who are in a status that makes them unlikely to assert legal labor rights or otherwise present an obstacle to illegal activity.
Let's be honest, though. Tomb Raider sold heavily on sex appeal rather than story line. The movie itself was less than spectacular.
I don't know, compared to the other video game movies I've seen, Tomb Raider was far and away superior in every way. Sure, sure, Angelina Jolie is easy on the eyes, but its not like many video game movies don't aim to provide that kind of eye candy and use it as a selling point (and, to be fair, in both Tomb Raider and many other video game franchise movies, it'd be hard to be even remotely faithful to the source material otherwise.)
The total return on Tomb Raider was less than it would cost to finance a $200,000,000 movie, much less make a profit on it.
Well, sure, so if the extra $120 million spent on it wouldn't provide any increase in quality that would affect box office, it wouldn't be well spent. OTOH, I don't think its all that reasonable to conclude that because an $80 million dollar movie wouldn't have made a profit if nothing was changed but the cost was $200 million, that a $200 million movie in the same genre can't make a profit.
Yeah, it seems the pro-illegal-immigration (pro-open-borders) people like to omit the "illegal" part a lot.
I've seen people who describe themselve as supporting open borders, and lots of people with different views on immigration, and none of them are "pro-illegal-immigration".
Admittedly, many of them think the fundamental problem with illegal immigration is that the immigration laws are broken and should be fixed and enforced, rather than being enforced in their current broken form. But that's not "pro-illegal-immigration" its just pro-reformed-legal-immigration.
OTOH, a lot of people who make arguments based not on the legal status of immigration but about reducing the total level of immigration like to hide behind the word "illegal" and pretend that they are anti-illegal-immigration, but their concern is very much about reducing the level of immigration, not so much about the legal status of immigrants.
Or anti illegal immigration? I've never visited VDARE, but I'm pretty sure there's a difference between groups that want to enforce immigration laws and those that want to stop all immigration.
Yes, and there is a difference between people that want restrictive immigration laws to be enforced (anti-immigration) and those that don't particularly care what the immigrations laws are, so long as they are enforced (anti-illegal-immigration).
VDARE is in the former category, specifically advocating reduced immigration through a more restrictive rules for legal immigration. They also advocate geographic preferences that would favor European immigrants, which is one of the main reasons they get labelled by many as a "hate" group. But they themselves state their principal goal as reduced immigration (not merely reduced illegal immigration), so anti-immigration is indisputably a fair description.
Most masterial identified in a category available for blocking by censorware is speech, and many categories are entirely, or mostly, 1st Amendment protected material.
While I wouldn't be surprised if Google eventually sells the platform, at substantial cost, for enterprise clients, right now they aren't selling you anything, their offering to give you the service.
The problem isn't always adequately budgeting time and/or resources, its that employers and employees often have a different opinion on what resources are the company's to budget.
For instance, salaried full-time employees often think that 40 hours of their time a week are dedicated company resources to be budgeted, and that the rest of their time really belongs to them, but may go to the company to meet a real unusual need.
Many employers seem to think that full 24 hours a day of the time of each salaried employee belongs to the company and can be budgeted by the company, but its usually best to given employees some of that, but no more than about 128 hours a week without special controls, for personal tasks as a grudging concession to morale and health of the workforce.
In a prior age, this would be like them going around *saying* they saw the assistant principle kissing another female.
No, it would be like them publishing it in fixed form, like a newsletter, and distributing it publicly, not like them going around and saying it.
Would we hold the parents financially responsible for that?
For them saying it? We wouldn't hold the parents responsible, since there wouldn't be much of an argument that the parents should monitor their children's speech. Heck, for the speech case, we probably wouldn't hold the kids liable without actual damages, because the there isn't "slander per se", only libel, so actual damages need to be proven for any liability.
OTOH, if the parents had a printing press in the basement that the kids made use of to print up a newsletter with these allegations, yeah, I can see a very similar response. You need to compare apples to apples, or, more directly, libels to libels.
But doesn't there need to be damage for it to be libel?
Not if its liber per se, which accusations of homosexuality have generally been held to be.
How is being called a lesbian at all damaging to her?
Its damaging because of the way it is viewed in society. That homosexuality is increasingly granted some legal protection is far from saying that it is generally accepted as normal, even if you and I might agree that it should be. Since the principal reason, as I understand, for the designation of certain types of accusations as negligence per se not requiring proof of damages is that they socially viewed as immoral, and thus (whether it ought to or not) a false accusation will tend to stick with the target and tar them, I don't think its at all wrong for such accusations to still be considered libel per se (especially in Texas, which was still actively trying to enforce laws against consensual adult gay sex until the US Supreme Court told them to knock it off 3 years ago, certainly not a place on the frontline of social acceptance of homosexuality.)
I've done a few defamatory things in my youth against other classmates and teachers. In the instances that I was caught, I just got a couple days of in-school suspension. That sucked enough that I didn't do it again until I transferred to a new school.
OTOH, this apparently was done from outside of school; not all states and districts give schools the same degree of latitude to punish offenses, even if they relate somehow to school, that aren't at school, especially when the incidents aren't student-to-student and therefore related to protecting the students in the school. And, frankly, I think restricting the use of school procedures, where those punished have far fewer rights and less recourse against summary imposition of punishment, narrowly is quite appropriate and desirable.
think the reactions here reflect more on the posters than on the teens - apparently being gay is such a horrible thing to most Slashdotters that accusations of it amount to libel.
If by "Slashdotters" you mean "people in the community at large" and if you meant to put a "false" before "accusations" and an "under the law" after libel, you'd have a pretty fair statement of the applicable tort law regarding libel per se.
Slashdot Mirror
I would think all of these could be addressed by the people setting up the system (assuming a environment where the average user doesn't have admin access, but the system is set up by an IT shop that does): you know what software is installed, you should know where it stores data, and you control where the user can store data. So you ought to know what places can end up with sensitive data and what cannot.
Full Disk Encryption gives you the access overhead that comes with encryption/decryption for every access to the hard disk. Why not just encrypt the sensitive data if you want to avoid leaks of the sensitive data?
Plus, a lot of the recent newsworthy leaks would be avoided or minimized by using encrypted access to sensitive databases via an application on the laptop, rather than people copying large databases of sensitive data to their laptop to take it home and work on it, and then losing the laptop.
Postmodernism is, insofar as it is theory at all, a critical theory rather than a scientific/empirical one, and critical theories aren't propositions that are proven or disproven, but frameworks for interpretation. (It's a completely distinct use of the word "theory".)
Being against empty buzzwords that convey no meaning is not being against change.
Having used gopher and the web when it was very young, I feel pretty confident in saying that the web was never basically the same as gopher. Plus, no one here that I can tell wants to abandon new technologies, they just wish society would abandon the use of buzzwords that are unconnected to any specific technology, practice, or any other actual referent in the real word, but instead are used to sound like they refer to something new, particularly "Web 2.0".
If we went to war for oil, where is it?
In the ground.
Because, contrary to the expectations of Bush Administration officials (like Paul Wolfowitz, who claimed that Iraq's oil would pay for the costs of reconstruction and more besides; the same official who explained the difference in Bush Administration policy toward Iraq [which there was only the vaguest indication might be producing WMDs] and North Korea [for which there was a near certainty, now confirmed dramatically, that they were] with the explanation that North Korea, unlike Iraq, did not swim in a sea of oil) prior to the war, we have not, in fact, secured control of the oil, or even secured Iraq at all, and in fact we've made the entire Middle East more volatile through the invasion.
Your argument against GP's sig seems based on the premise that the war was competently executed, and therefore if it was for oil, we must now have that oil. But the war has not been, rather manifestly, competently executed.
Good news would be if batteries were replaceable, which is hardly an unusual feature.
The console market is homebrew-unfriendly all around, but is Microsoft really any worse than anyone else in this regard? Heck, their plans for XNA GSE seem to be downright homebrew friendly, compared to the norm in the console market.
Because, as has been demonstrated in every Microsoft windows release since the first, no one cares that Microsoft Windows $foo is playing catch up to Mac OS $bar.
Plus, its old news. Its like every article that mentions the Earth having to point out that the Earth is roughly spherical. Yeah, there was a time when that was news to people and interesting, but now its just a given.
Which Dell model, exactly, can you purchase with OS X? Assuming the answer is "none", I think your characterization of the Dell system as "equivalent" is a bit misplaced.
I don't think Nokia makes a phone that seemlessly connects with iTunes, or handles video from iTunes.
There are oodles of people with existing iTunes libraries (some iPod owners, some not) for whom an iTunes phone is a major selling point. Now, if you want to say "why by an Apple phone if a Motorola phone is cheaper", well, do we know that an Apple phone will be cheaper than an otherwise-similarly-equipped Apple-licensed Motorola iTunes phone?
...to wit, people spend $300 (and up) on video iPods, people buy third-party, licensed iTunes phones without the ability to play iTunes video content, yes, I think its quite likely that people will care about Apple-made phones with iTunes and, especially, iTunes video capability, particularly if they have the kind of data capacity that video iPods have.
Heck, I'd replace my current SLVR for one in a heartbeat, assuming it was a good phone as well as an iPod: the SLVR is a nice phone, but the storage capacity is really limited.
No, it wouldn't. It would have to be either cheaper for OEM's to consider it, or offer some other selling point that AMD or Intel wasn't offering, or, preferably, both; which is how AMD (and Cyrix and others) got marketshare competing with Intel in making PC processors in the first place, years ago.
A CPU-GPU combination would certainly meet the second qualification, and its not inconceivable that such a combination could also outperform a similar-cost separate CPU and video subsystem setup.
Most people don't care who makes the CPU in their computer, the idea is getting it to sell to OEMs, who are the decision-makers that matter.
Of course, Nvidia could plan to use blazingly fast RAM like that used on video cards now as the system RAM on motherboards supporting their CPU-GPU hybrid, which would solve the problem nicely, though it might drive the price up quite a bit. (Then again, it would improve system performance in other ways, and perhaps Nvidia sees the future as demanding faster RAM access for more and more applications besides traditional GPU-heavy ones, in which case this kind of thing would make a lot of sense.)
Nothing. Yes. Do you have a substantive criticism? VDARE's writers, on their website, complain of the level of immigration (both legal and illegal), and its ethnic makeup, and when they get around to recommending policy rather than just ranting, recommend policy changes to address all of those, including more restrictive rules for legal immigration, exactly as I said. What is your problem?
No, its not. It is to say that they are opposed to reforms that anti-immigration groups push that, in the name of "enforcing existing laws", would add new laws on top of them (enhanced penalties, increased documentation requirements, penalties for other people doing things not currently illegal that are perceived as somehow distantly contributing to violations of existing laws, etc.) and instead prefer that reform be centered around fixing the ways in which the current laws are broken, rather than piling more bad laws on top of existing bad laws.
Um, no. Even if it meant that they were against enforcement of existing laws, it would not mean they are in favor of those laws being violated. For instance, I am not in favor of, say, people giving money to the Republican Party. If there was a law against it, I would be against people violating that law. Nevertheless, I would see such a law as an unjust law, and would not support enforcing that law.
Opposing forcibly preventing or punishing an action is not the same as supporting the action.
Actually supporting violation of the laws, rather than merely disagreeing with proposals to pile new laws to reinforce the existing broken laws. The people who actually (whether out of self-interest or some idea of what is "right" to them) seek to actually promote violation of the laws; people who are actually pro-illegal-immigration exist (often, they are supporters of outwardly tough but practically largely unenforceable limits on immigration, defenders of the status quo and proposals that would pile more rules that are similarly impractical to enforce on top of the status quo), most especially the people that profit from the exploitability of a large population of people who are in a status that makes them unlikely to assert legal labor rights or otherwise present an obstacle to illegal activity.
I've seen people who describe themselve as supporting open borders, and lots of people with different views on immigration, and none of them are "pro-illegal-immigration".
Admittedly, many of them think the fundamental problem with illegal immigration is that the immigration laws are broken and should be fixed and enforced, rather than being enforced in their current broken form. But that's not "pro-illegal-immigration" its just pro-reformed-legal-immigration.
OTOH, a lot of people who make arguments based not on the legal status of immigration but about reducing the total level of immigration like to hide behind the word "illegal" and pretend that they are anti-illegal-immigration, but their concern is very much about reducing the level of immigration, not so much about the legal status of immigrants.
Most masterial identified in a category available for blocking by censorware is speech, and many categories are entirely, or mostly, 1st Amendment protected material.
While I wouldn't be surprised if Google eventually sells the platform, at substantial cost, for enterprise clients, right now they aren't selling you anything, their offering to give you the service.
The problem isn't always adequately budgeting time and/or resources, its that employers and employees often have a different opinion on what resources are the company's to budget.
For instance, salaried full-time employees often think that 40 hours of their time a week are dedicated company resources to be budgeted, and that the rest of their time really belongs to them, but may go to the company to meet a real unusual need.
Many employers seem to think that full 24 hours a day of the time of each salaried employee belongs to the company and can be budgeted by the company, but its usually best to given employees some of that, but no more than about 128 hours a week without special controls, for personal tasks as a grudging concession to morale and health of the workforce.
No, it would be like them publishing it in fixed form, like a newsletter, and distributing it publicly, not like them going around and saying it.
For them saying it? We wouldn't hold the parents responsible, since there wouldn't be much of an argument that the parents should monitor their children's speech. Heck, for the speech case, we probably wouldn't hold the kids liable without actual damages, because the there isn't "slander per se", only libel, so actual damages need to be proven for any liability.
OTOH, if the parents had a printing press in the basement that the kids made use of to print up a newsletter with these allegations, yeah, I can see a very similar response. You need to compare apples to apples, or, more directly, libels to libels.
Not if its liber per se, which accusations of homosexuality have generally been held to be.
Its damaging because of the way it is viewed in society. That homosexuality is increasingly granted some legal protection is far from saying that it is generally accepted as normal, even if you and I might agree that it should be. Since the principal reason, as I understand, for the designation of certain types of accusations as negligence per se not requiring proof of damages is that they socially viewed as immoral, and thus (whether it ought to or not) a false accusation will tend to stick with the target and tar them, I don't think its at all wrong for such accusations to still be considered libel per se (especially in Texas, which was still actively trying to enforce laws against consensual adult gay sex until the US Supreme Court told them to knock it off 3 years ago, certainly not a place on the frontline of social acceptance of homosexuality.)
OTOH, this apparently was done from outside of school; not all states and districts give schools the same degree of latitude to punish offenses, even if they relate somehow to school, that aren't at school, especially when the incidents aren't student-to-student and therefore related to protecting the students in the school. And, frankly, I think restricting the use of school procedures, where those punished have far fewer rights and less recourse against summary imposition of punishment, narrowly is quite appropriate and desirable.
If by "Slashdotters" you mean "people in the community at large" and if you meant to put a "false" before "accusations" and an "under the law" after libel, you'd have a pretty fair statement of the applicable tort law regarding libel per se.