When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Would never have been possible if the British Government knew everything the American Colonies were doing-right down to their little "tavern talks". They might have had spies, but the amount of information that can be collected concerning modern technology absolutely dwarfs what the B.E. could have discerned. The "dissolving of political bands" would have been impossible.
Not saying that America should have a revolution, but honestly, the more the Government spies on us, the more it (and we) forget that we created it to serve *us*, not *itself*. That part about "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" seems to be forgotten more and more as time goes on.
This is why privacy is important- it is literally the foundation of our state (ideally) and root of civilized life as we know it. Now, of course, the US seems to be founded on lining its pockets and disenfranchising the people of their rights.
"Internet addiction" is not a disease in and of itself: it is a *symptom* of other mental issues. It doesn't deserve its own classification. Unlike physically related addictions, such as addiction to crack/cocaine or heroin which are caused by consuming the drug itself, "Internet addiction" is not caused by merely logging onto the internet. I think I understand what the writer is attempting to get at, but "addiction" is a poor choice of word.
My point is that internet useage can be managed, and quite easily. I would say it is easier to manage internet usage than manage alcohol consumption. Drinking a beer doesn't cause a compulsion to drink another beer- but repetitive daily abuse over a long period of time causes "Alcoholism". This is why you don't hear anyone talk about "Alcohol addiction", because the substance itself, when consumed, doesn't necessarily create a need in your body to find more alcohol- unless, of course, you are at a college frat party. Heroin, cocaine, and crack DO create this need at a much more accelerated rate, even when you only use them a few times.
Furthermore, most people develop Alcoholism because they have other mental issues (i.e, depression), and Alcoholism has had many clinical trials/case studies that demonstrate how alcoholics when removed from alcohol experience *extreme* withdrawal. Some say it is worse than crack or heroin. This is why I say that diagnosing "Internet addiction" as an addiction or stand alone disease is totally preposterous. People who are "addicted" to the internet most likely have other preexisting mental issues, for example: low self esteem, social anxiety disorders, obsessive compulsive disorders, schizophrenia, etc; and please excuse me, gentlemen, I don't think any of you have mental problems. This problems are the causes that lead them to play WoW every hour of their waking day because it is an environment which tolerates the symptoms of these diseases and to some degree alleviates them- in the case of social anxiety disorder, someone playing a MMORPG is "more removed" from the "social scene" of the game, and feels more comfortable. Finally, there are many people who play WoW all day because they have nothing more that they would like to do- and don't have any mental problems whatsoever. These people generally quit WoW with no issues.
Which brings me to my last point- I am no fan of people wasting their *entire* lives playing MMORPGs- but some of us make our living on the internet, and some of us have even been *aided* by brief periods in our life where we have been "sucked in" to MMoRPG's. Someone on an earlier post mentioned playing MUDS. I was a pretty socially awkward kid before I started playing MUDs, and then I met a really sarcastic hacker who taught me how to stick it to a lot of the kids I didn't like, while also showing me a few neat tricks. I know people who have gotten through periods of divorce playing online games- and yeah, it was for a year or two, but they *got out*, and more importantly, it helped them through that rough period in their life. I would rather someone turn to the internet than alcohol.
The reason why I think this is total BS is that no person needs a "intervention" or a hospitalization or a series of medicines handed out to them just because they spend too much time on the internet. Unlike alcoholism or other mental illnesses/disorders, it is something that the individual can free themselves of, without outside intervention. Most of the time the free themselves just because they need to get a job or want a girlfriend.
This guy just wants his name in print. Give me a break, pal. Go focus on something serious for a change.
There are two places where they are going to try to nail Apple, reading the patent:
The portal 300 may distribute digital media assets, that is download them in their entirety, to a client media player device for use on that device subject to the licensing rights associated therewith... The portal applies a series of rights management rules associated with each user's tagged digital media assets to limit the user's access to and use to those periods to which the user's licensed rights of those assets applies. Depending upon the specific licensing arrangement between a digital media asset owner and the user, the rights management rules can provide for... a limited number of other individuals with which the user may share the asset.
I took out the parts which mostly don't apply to Apple. I also read later in the document something about a "private key" which would be located on each device (IE, iPod/Apple TV), that would prevent other parties from stripping all of the information from the device in a usable fashion. They are also going to try to prove that limiting a user to sharing the song five times (among five different users) was their idea.
That being said, I don't think they have a chance in hell. The wording of the patent is entirely too broad and doesn't relate to specifics concerning algorithms or methods of encryption or distribution. It is literally just a patent of a generalized idea - they could also sue Rhapsody, Zune, and Sirius Radio with the same patent (I took out some parts that related to "Streaming Media"). As soon as Apple brings out schematics/flow diagrams of the ways in which the iPod actually works - because it doesn't just "have a single encrypted key"- from my understanding, ZapMedia will lose, most likely because they actually don't have a product or software component that does anything close to what the iPod does. They also use the term "portal"...again, the language is too broad, because they state it both encompasses "a webpage or application", without getting into any of the nuts and bolts of how either would work. The "structural descriptions" are written in abstract language.
I'm no fan of blocking Firefox or Opera COMPLETELY for the iPhone (I use both), but the reason why they are preventing FireFox/Opera from having plugin architectures is due to the existence of Skype plugins for Opera/Firefox.
They aren't blocking Skype completely from the iPhone, they are preventing it from being able to operate over AT&T's cellular network. It can still operate under Wi-Fi. The reason for this is that iPhone plans allow UNLIMITED data transfer currently, and if AT&T wants it to stay that way, it has to prevent Skype from using 3G/EDGE because that will cut into their minutes-per-month pricing plans. That being said, Telecom companies are evil.
Honestly though, is this entirely unexpected? We will still see Firefox and Opera on the iPhone, possibly, and maybe Apple will relent and allow plugins that don't use the cellular network (like Pop-up blockers, Firebug), but can you really expect a company-no matter how much you question their ethics- to shoot themselves in the foot and destroy their entire buisness model?
The reason why Skype is allowed on most Windows Mobile devices is because AT&T charges money after the first 5000mb (don't trust that 0 cent per mb), AND they are getting an extra 35-65 dollars depending on your plan. With the iPhone, its included. They would be painting themselves into a corner if they allowed Skype on the iPhone to use the 3G network.
I'm sure you'll see lots of lovely apps for the iPhone.
Lastly: I'm not buying one of these stupid things, just so you know. I hate the cellphone I currently have. I run a desktop windows machine I built myself and I have an Apple MacBook. For christs sake though, it really does seem like too many people have a "Jump to Conclusions" mat.
In 1985, in a campaign initiated by then CBS Musical Instruments division president William Schultz (1926-2006), the Fender Electric Instrument Manufacturing Company employees purchased the company from CBS and renamed it the Fender Musical Instruments Corporation. Behind the Fender name, the Fender Musical Instruments Corporation has retained Fender's older models along with newer designs and concepts.
I'm talking about *now*. I know someone who works at a guitar store, and 1/3 Fender amps he gets have a busted or bad tube, and the same goes for Charvel, Jackson, and EVH. Except, with EVH, its nearly *every* amp. They sound good...after you fix them. The truth of the matter is, after Fender bought all these companies, they have hungry investors- and the hungry investors are pushing once-quality concerned guitar manufacturers to produce more numbers. My point still stands. It isn't who owns the company, its the size, and how greedy they get. Fender, just like MS, and just like Ford, is buying up smaller companies left and right. Google may certainly also go in the same direction.
"We told Poole what would happen on this issue, and we did"
...and it happened. I feel sorry for the people that work for Microsoft that actually have a degree of sense about them. Unfortunately, as a company gets larger, the chance that someone in that company will make a fool decision (or is a fool) increases.
Other similar cases: Ford, Fender. Both used to make great products, but as they got larger, someone got into the mix and absolutely screwed everything up. Now both companies face competitors that make twice the product at the same cost- or half of it. The reason why? They are smaller. Smaller companies have more to prove, along with fewer cooks in the kitchen, so the product is usually better.
..is long hair occasionally permissible? I'm just asking because I have long hair, although not pony tail long, it goes down to just underneath my chin, is a little curly, but I always wash it and comb it.
A lot of people tell me that I look better that way. It's not really "alternative", and I always wear suits, usually dark grey or dark blue. I'm a little concerned because honestly, I'm not as good looking with short hair- I look better with longer hair, at least that is what the majority of women have told me, and yes, I think I might be a little more concerned about their opinion than my bosses (at least while I'm not working), just being honest. At the same time, however, I've always seen myself in more of a managerial role- don't get me wrong, I like coding, but I enjoy interacting with people.
So...survey says? This is directed towards you MBA types. I'm also have good social skills and I'm not smarmy, if that helps. How much of an impact does "alternative hairstyle" make, when offset with good dress code?
...thinks these leaders are total dumbasses for not telling their members to shut off their own phones during 5pm and 7am?
Oh wait, and they are using *cellphones?* For their operations? And shutting them off is going to help them...how?
I was opposed to this war from the beginning (my opinion has since become more complex), but I think this technology will help end it.
If you read the article, it alludes to the fact that one of the main reasons we (the United States) are losing against insurgents (and have lost against guerrilla warfare in general), is because the manner in which they act and share information is vastly different from the way the US Army operates.
In the US army, systems like this have already existed, but have mostly "been developed for the upper echelons" (from the article), of the military hierarchy. In addition, soldiers had no real way of supplying information to their officers to be rapidly redistributed to the soldiers.
This is one of the main reasons why we have lost guerrilla wars (outside of a lack of support from the populace) has been that our opponents spread information amongst each other freely and act independently. Some of the sources quoted in this article want the military to re-organize they way they think about fighting a counter-insurgency war, and organize the ground troops more like special forces were organized in Afganistan, ie, giving them more independent authority to make action decisions.
While that might be a drastic step (I'm sure some of you are already fearing soldiers gunning down more Iraqis - and a part of me understands - although to tell you the truth I think most of our soldiers are much more disciplined than that), the truth of the matter is that *this* step *needed to be taken*. For the safety of their lives (and others), soldiers deserve to know who is a threat,who is a friend,what IED's look like in certain areas, where they have been planted before, where insurgents commonly shell troops with mortars, what "cover spots" are frequently used,and videos of past interviews of civilians. This way, friendly Iraqi civilians won't lose their lives, and hopefully our soldiers will be warned as to which "civilians" will take theirs.
Your reply is humorous, and it also illustrates a good point, taught to me by my father.
He has been an inner-city school teacher for some time now, and works right across from the projects in a school surrounded by eight-foot high barbed wire. He is one of the few white teachers in the entire city, let alone in the school district.
Yet, for some reason, the students respect him and he is one of the most effective teachers there- a "School Consulting" group of educational experts from Cambridge, England, actually approved of the way in which he was doing his job.
Why is he successful? A healthy dose of humor and camaraderie goes a long way. I remember I actually used to *enjoy* going to school with him when I had a day off from school or our vacations were staggered, because a lot of the comments "as an aside" in response to student's jabs were hilarious, not off color, and usually prompted the rest of the students to laugh with him. He wasn't a pushover, but he wasn't a total jerk (They "have his back"). He is also a good teacher, of course- recently he started implementing a system where kids could respond to questions he poses in class via the use of a wireless controller. This way, the kids aren't embarrassed if they are wrong or right (looking smart and stupid are both bad things in a public school), and he can address each student's educational needs without publicizing it. When he told me about what he was doing I was like "Wow, your my dad?".
Unfortunately, my point isn't the best because most of these kids can't afford to go on the internet, and teachers can't exactly "counter" a website that calls them "fat" or "pedophiles" without potentially losing their jobs. I remember when I was in high school, a few friends of mine started an outright *campaign* that questioned the sexuality (and sex) of one of our art teachers. Looking back at it, I'd like to state that they were savage bastards and all have luckily grown up to some degree. They called her house, left messages on her machine, and even made a website that had many photo shopped images and disgusting things said about her.
However, one day she found out about it, and all of them were suspended- internally- for two weeks. Turns out that someone decided to visit the website while in the computer lab, and the computer lab administrator did the right thing and blew a whistle. While as a kid I might have not always agreed with him (although he did let us play Starcraft in an area known as "The Pit", which was basically a cubicle with millions of computer parts and a couple of nerds he could task into doing something for the boon of the right to play a video game), now I see that yeah, he was right to do what he did, and my school took the appropriate action.
With that said, let me close with this: I don't think it needs to go further than what I described. Civil litigation is probably a step to far. You may only fan the fire. The best solution, for me at least, would be to suspend them-internally. Make them learn with no social interaction for a few weeks and see how they like it. I guarantee they will change their tune. While a school system technically has no responsibility for the moral education of their pupils, they should provide guidance, and even if the behavior is happening "outside of school", the motive for the behavior is happening "inside of it", so I think they have more than enough right in putting the kid in a room for a while. Also- suing them might set bad precedent, because it will teach them that the only way of stopping someone from doing something you don't like involves a lawsuit. Pedophilia stuff, however, might be the one case that would be an exception in my judgment as I see it. Because the stigma and penalties with sex offense are so high, a law suit might be warranted. I agree in this case with a previous poster that "teaching a kid a lesson by suing them might be an effective lesson" may be an appropriate solution, depending on the extent of the abuse.
Finally, develop a sense of humor. Even if you are a young twenty-something teacher, if a kid posting something on MySpace (aka, "fatass") stops you from getting laid or having a date, you have *other* problems.
In the public media, yes, you are correct, there isn't much debate about legal immigrants.
Internally within congress or in our bureaucracy, however, there might be a great deal of debate. Except, "Policies regarding awarding a foreign citizen an extended Visa" (of any type) just doesn't make for juicy headline news. I have a friend of mine from France who was educated in the United States (in a top 100 ranked school), and for a while she tried to get a visa to live in the US, but failed. From what she has told me, it is extremely difficult, even for people that speak english, are highly educated, and financially solid.
This is, however, off-topic. I tried Kimchi once, and while I can appreciate that it is a comfort food for some people, it really just was never my thing, and falls into a category of foods for me which also include "Vegimite".
I was *just* going to say that. From what I've heard, all the reports from PAX have been 100% positive.
I'd really hope on their part that this was a case of someone screwing Gen Con over, which resulted in LucasFilm not receiving their agreed-upon dues, and not the reverse. I don't know the details as to who ran the convention, but I'm sure many of you have been given an estimate- lets say , to renovate your kitchen- and when the smoke cleared, suddenly your bill was twice as large as you thought it would be. For some reason "Power Requirements, Cleaning Costs" pops into my head. It also could be the case, since Gen Con immediately filed Chapter 11, that they might know they are in the wrong, but just didn't have the money to write the check to Lucas Arts, and didn't want to take out a loan to pay them (winding up in more debt).
The lawsuit also seems to be more of a "principle" lawsuit than a "money grab" lawsuit. 150k for "unlawful behavior" is actually being pretty lenient on this scale- and especially when you are dealing with an extremely powerful company with one of the more valuable intellectual properties on the market.
I'm glad that the Gen Con indy convention is still going to go down, though. I'd like to think that not all conventions are run by thieves and liars, even if it is just my choice to be naive.
I agree with you. I am also a liberal, but I believe that Rush has his right to say what he believes- as do many of the "hate radio" (although I'm not sure how much I agree with that label) talk show hosts-that is one of the founding principles of this country, and an important one.
And, in this case, while he didn't understand why Time Machine wasn't backing up his mail (apparently it wasn't on his computer, so he would have had to configure his mail program to save to a local folder), I personally would like Apple to make a few improvements to Time Machine myself- for instance, I'd like it to back up other partitions on my drive, particularly my Boot Camp drive, but I understand that this might not be technically feasible. It would also be nice to change the frequency of updates, or allow for a manual backup. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't seem to figure out how to do that.
That would be *really* nice.
Even if he might be wrong, calling attention to a product that might need improvement isn't a bad thing. I'm also a little surprised as to how quickly this became a discussion about politics-and not Apple or Time Machine. But, then again, I guess it is an election year.
But I would like to remind the readers of Slashdot that not all Liberals are reactionary, or believe that global warming will destroy mankind, or believe in abortion, or believe that discussions of genetics as pertaining to race and sex are forbidden topics, or believe that terrorism isn't a real threat.
God, look at that. I am a programmer...its seeping into my grammar.
Do we even know what the Pope's speech was going to be about? Who said it was going to have anything to do with either a) faith or b) science?
1)He could have just wanted to talk about being a good scholar.
2)He could have just wanted to assure people that he wouldn't interfere with science...people are allowed to change, he made that comment in the early 1990's, and honestly-weren't some of us wearing ponytails and huge flannel shirts around our waists back then? Also: didn't he recently give a "official pope statement" that tried to re-affirm the Roman Catholic Church's position on evolution...mainly, that it accepts it as true?
3)He could have just given a very general, non political or religious speech, like one we see at university commencements.
It seems to me that the university, particularly this one professor, is the one starting the fire. I don't think that "the pope is being intelligent by cancelling", I think the professor is attempting to be manipulative of public opinion by making that statement, and the pope probably just didn't want a rock or whistle thrown in the direction of his pope-mobile. I mean, that thing costs money.
I'm not religious, I don't go to church every week, and I believe strongly in science. I'm actually really dissapointed with the way in which this Italian professor acted. It doesn't further the goals of science or faith-which are distinct. One deals with facts (science), and the other, belief.
I think Ratzinger wasn't even making a hard point in his speech in the 1990s. He is very much a scholar- his mind wanders this way and that, considering many options. There is no hard conclusion to his speech, which is a mistake on his part-it lets other people interpret it as they wish. Like said professor. In Ratzinger's comment on the citation he made in his speech that this professor seems to take issue with, "it makes his conclusion all the more drastic" , my translation of drastic was "irrational". I don't think that Ratzinger thinks Galileo "caused the atomic bomb". I think he thinks quite the opposite.
*cough* I responded at work at a online/retail store and neglected to read the post that he was commenting on. Sometimes Slashdot's comment system doesn't allow for the greatest instant visibility.
Thanks. I really appreciate that, I'm going to probably read both of those blogs every day.
Gary McGraw gave a presentation at the college I went to (Boston College), and he is a really entertaining and personable guy with slide shows that actually aren't completely pointless. He impressed me so much that I applied to work at Cigital, and was really intending to work there, but after the second phone interview (both of which went well, i was pending for a third) something very personal came up and I had to tell them I couldn't move to Virginia for a year for Gary's "boot camp".
I've kicked myself in the ass every day since about it. Oh well, family is family.
I will probably try to get a job there eventually though, all the people I talked to there were really cool and intelligent. Gary is a good guy, and I think hes onto something with the "low resolution server side security vector".
Plus, when I was telling people over the summer that I was going to be a professional hacker, there were some girls who actually though it was *cool*. Like I was a *renegade*. Hell *yes*.
If you have any more security blogs or security in gaming blogs, post them slashdotters:) I need reading material:)
You do realize that in many (most?) cases, we are mandated by law to protect our information on mobile devices with passwords/encryption? Yes.
You do realize the FCC already checked to make sure that Apple was following the law, right?
Ok. I was just checking.
Look- if your employees buy an iPhone and bring it to work, you don't have to support them joining the buisness network. If they complain, tell them that the company didn't furnish them with an iPhone and it was their personal telecommunications purchase decision. You sound like Apple should be sued for releasing a phone that was intended for personal use just because people decided to bring it to work- and use it in work.
Guess what? The responsibility , under HIPAA regulations, as far as your employees are concerned, falls with *the employer* and the *employees*, not the *systems they choose to run*. If you choose a faulty system, its your fault. I didn't see any Apple commercials with doctors talking about how well they could use their new tool to communicate to their nurses.
Essentially, ever since that incident, she has been creating a "security directive" every few months or so. I'm not going to conjecture as to if this is a political game or not, because even if she is genuinely concerned about this it is still in some ways a *game*, but I will say that it just won't work. Just like the "Don't Call" list, the "Opt-out" program will be squashed by heaps and heaps of legacy data and future data-mining, especially at the State level.
It is interesting that this was *never* an issue before the internet and national cross-referencing became publicly available, which brought it into the public mindset, primed for fear mongering. You can bet your bottom dollar that a while ago, there were people who were cross-referencing using...gosh...phone books, or 411. If someone really, really wants to find you-they will. You just better be prepared for *when* they find you, or reduce the amount of reasons *why* someone would want to find you. It's called "survival" and "manners, decency, and politics" respectively.
In my mind, this is interstate commerce, and I feel that the Federal Government should handle it....But then again, thats more money we are spending. It might be worth spending, however, if people would *stop calling my house*. I would also like some teeth to be in the legislation.
Furthermore, why isn't this kind of thing grouped underneath SPAM? SPAM, Calls of solicitation, and unauthorized reverse lookups all fall underneath the same category, in my mind- invasion of privacy. It would be nice if *for once*, the Government could create a branch of the government that had the sole job of protecting the privacy of citizens.
We all can dream.
Because then you are talking about either a) a legal process or b) a process of arbitration.
If a), then you are at the mercy of the country of origin that holds the registrar. That means that people who spam "P3N1S" enlargement emails can simply skip over to your nearest country-with-no-real-internet-legislation, and then *no one* will ever find out who they are, even law enforcement, outside of invading the physical location of the registrar, there is no guarantee that they will have to surrender the information even if your reason is legitimate, in your own country or speaking in the global moral sense.
If b), then see above but they won't even have to move to a country with no real internet legislation, they will just need to find a shady registrar.
I disagree with the idea that a domain name is not like a P.O box. An email address is a P.O box, a domain name is a building, essentially; and any building, whether or not it is commercial or residential or industrial, has a name listed on the deed. It's public record, and it's that simple.
*clap*
Thank you. Being "young" has nothing to do with "being good at computers". Thats a cultural stereotype that is absolutely bunk, probably stemming from comments from people like Bill Gates, stating that "there is no good hacker over the age of 13." Being a hacker involves open mindedness-thats what hes talking about, because a child has an open mind. Open mindedness, however, doesn't always yield positive results unless you are a) lucky or b) experienced, especially in computer science/information technology.
This dude deserves every penny he gets from them. Cultural eugenics d.n.e progress.
btw, im 23
[quote]
Ebay has announced that the CC#'s that were listed were NOT associated with the users' ebay or paypal accounts.
The guy had to have either:
A) Made them up
B) Gotten them somewhere else.
Regardless, he's just a troll trying to create bad press for eBay.
[/quote]
Ah. In light of this new information, my bet is on A).
1) It's a kid.
2) He might not have even gotten the CC#'s out of eBay's internal servers. In fact, I bet he didn't, and he was evesdropping on another network. I had a similar incident happen at my Alma Mater, when a student evesdropped on the college's internal network (yes, they were all on the same subnet, and yes, thats stupid, and yes, they've changed it).
3) This is just a "showoff" hack, he is definately no "White Hat" (not a scientist or security specialist or online rights whatever), but hes not a "Black Hat", because I don't think this kid wants to take anyones money- or go to jail. Lets call him a "Clown Hat".
4) Uh, its eBay? Why do eBay and "fraud" suddenly seem uncompatible:)
They are just trying to get at little startup bands that are fueling the DRM-free online music trade.
Honestly though, this is pretty ridiculous. Any band has the right to play any song they choose.
Slashdot Mirror
Would never have been possible if the British Government knew everything the American Colonies were doing-right down to their little "tavern talks". They might have had spies, but the amount of information that can be collected concerning modern technology absolutely dwarfs what the B.E. could have discerned. The "dissolving of political bands" would have been impossible.
Not saying that America should have a revolution, but honestly, the more the Government spies on us, the more it (and we) forget that we created it to serve *us*, not *itself*. That part about "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" seems to be forgotten more and more as time goes on.
This is why privacy is important- it is literally the foundation of our state (ideally) and root of civilized life as we know it. Now, of course, the US seems to be founded on lining its pockets and disenfranchising the people of their rights.
"Internet addiction" is not a disease in and of itself: it is a *symptom* of other mental issues. It doesn't deserve its own classification. Unlike physically related addictions, such as addiction to crack/cocaine or heroin which are caused by consuming the drug itself, "Internet addiction" is not caused by merely logging onto the internet. I think I understand what the writer is attempting to get at, but "addiction" is a poor choice of word.
My point is that internet useage can be managed, and quite easily. I would say it is easier to manage internet usage than manage alcohol consumption. Drinking a beer doesn't cause a compulsion to drink another beer- but repetitive daily abuse over a long period of time causes "Alcoholism". This is why you don't hear anyone talk about "Alcohol addiction", because the substance itself, when consumed, doesn't necessarily create a need in your body to find more alcohol- unless, of course, you are at a college frat party. Heroin, cocaine, and crack DO create this need at a much more accelerated rate, even when you only use them a few times.
Furthermore, most people develop Alcoholism because they have other mental issues (i.e, depression), and Alcoholism has had many clinical trials/case studies that demonstrate how alcoholics when removed from alcohol experience *extreme* withdrawal. Some say it is worse than crack or heroin. This is why I say that diagnosing "Internet addiction" as an addiction or stand alone disease is totally preposterous. People who are "addicted" to the internet most likely have other preexisting mental issues, for example: low self esteem, social anxiety disorders, obsessive compulsive disorders, schizophrenia, etc; and please excuse me, gentlemen, I don't think any of you have mental problems. This problems are the causes that lead them to play WoW every hour of their waking day because it is an environment which tolerates the symptoms of these diseases and to some degree alleviates them- in the case of social anxiety disorder, someone playing a MMORPG is "more removed" from the "social scene" of the game, and feels more comfortable. Finally, there are many people who play WoW all day because they have nothing more that they would like to do- and don't have any mental problems whatsoever. These people generally quit WoW with no issues.
Which brings me to my last point- I am no fan of people wasting their *entire* lives playing MMORPGs- but some of us make our living on the internet, and some of us have even been *aided* by brief periods in our life where we have been "sucked in" to MMoRPG's. Someone on an earlier post mentioned playing MUDS. I was a pretty socially awkward kid before I started playing MUDs, and then I met a really sarcastic hacker who taught me how to stick it to a lot of the kids I didn't like, while also showing me a few neat tricks. I know people who have gotten through periods of divorce playing online games- and yeah, it was for a year or two, but they *got out*, and more importantly, it helped them through that rough period in their life. I would rather someone turn to the internet than alcohol.
The reason why I think this is total BS is that no person needs a "intervention" or a hospitalization or a series of medicines handed out to them just because they spend too much time on the internet. Unlike alcoholism or other mental illnesses/disorders, it is something that the individual can free themselves of, without outside intervention. Most of the time the free themselves just because they need to get a job or want a girlfriend.
This guy just wants his name in print. Give me a break, pal. Go focus on something serious for a change.
I took out the parts which mostly don't apply to Apple. I also read later in the document something about a "private key" which would be located on each device (IE, iPod/Apple TV), that would prevent other parties from stripping all of the information from the device in a usable fashion. They are also going to try to prove that limiting a user to sharing the song five times (among five different users) was their idea.
That being said, I don't think they have a chance in hell. The wording of the patent is entirely too broad and doesn't relate to specifics concerning algorithms or methods of encryption or distribution. It is literally just a patent of a generalized idea - they could also sue Rhapsody, Zune, and Sirius Radio with the same patent (I took out some parts that related to "Streaming Media"). As soon as Apple brings out schematics/flow diagrams of the ways in which the iPod actually works - because it doesn't just "have a single encrypted key"- from my understanding, ZapMedia will lose, most likely because they actually don't have a product or software component that does anything close to what the iPod does. They also use the term "portal"...again, the language is too broad, because they state it both encompasses "a webpage or application", without getting into any of the nuts and bolts of how either would work. The "structural descriptions" are written in abstract language.
At risk of being modded down:
I'm no fan of blocking Firefox or Opera COMPLETELY for the iPhone (I use both), but the reason why they are preventing FireFox/Opera from having plugin architectures is due to the existence of Skype plugins for Opera/Firefox.
They aren't blocking Skype completely from the iPhone, they are preventing it from being able to operate over AT&T's cellular network. It can still operate under Wi-Fi. The reason for this is that iPhone plans allow UNLIMITED data transfer currently, and if AT&T wants it to stay that way, it has to prevent Skype from using 3G/EDGE because that will cut into their minutes-per-month pricing plans. That being said, Telecom companies are evil.
Honestly though, is this entirely unexpected? We will still see Firefox and Opera on the iPhone, possibly, and maybe Apple will relent and allow plugins that don't use the cellular network (like Pop-up blockers, Firebug), but can you really expect a company-no matter how much you question their ethics- to shoot themselves in the foot and destroy their entire buisness model?
The reason why Skype is allowed on most Windows Mobile devices is because AT&T charges money after the first 5000mb (don't trust that 0 cent per mb), AND they are getting an extra 35-65 dollars depending on your plan. With the iPhone, its included. They would be painting themselves into a corner if they allowed Skype on the iPhone to use the 3G network.
I'm sure you'll see lots of lovely apps for the iPhone.
Lastly: I'm not buying one of these stupid things, just so you know. I hate the cellphone I currently have. I run a desktop windows machine I built myself and I have an Apple MacBook. For christs sake though, it really does seem like too many people have a "Jump to Conclusions" mat.
I'm talking about *now*. I know someone who works at a guitar store, and 1/3 Fender amps he gets have a busted or bad tube, and the same goes for Charvel, Jackson, and EVH. Except, with EVH, its nearly *every* amp. They sound good...after you fix them. The truth of the matter is, after Fender bought all these companies, they have hungry investors- and the hungry investors are pushing once-quality concerned guitar manufacturers to produce more numbers. My point still stands. It isn't who owns the company, its the size, and how greedy they get. Fender, just like MS, and just like Ford, is buying up smaller companies left and right. Google may certainly also go in the same direction.
Other similar cases: Ford, Fender. Both used to make great products, but as they got larger, someone got into the mix and absolutely screwed everything up. Now both companies face competitors that make twice the product at the same cost- or half of it. The reason why? They are smaller. Smaller companies have more to prove, along with fewer cooks in the kitchen, so the product is usually better.
A lot of people tell me that I look better that way. It's not really "alternative", and I always wear suits, usually dark grey or dark blue. I'm a little concerned because honestly, I'm not as good looking with short hair- I look better with longer hair, at least that is what the majority of women have told me, and yes, I think I might be a little more concerned about their opinion than my bosses (at least while I'm not working), just being honest. At the same time, however, I've always seen myself in more of a managerial role- don't get me wrong, I like coding, but I enjoy interacting with people.
So...survey says? This is directed towards you MBA types. I'm also have good social skills and I'm not smarmy, if that helps. How much of an impact does "alternative hairstyle" make, when offset with good dress code?
...thinks these leaders are total dumbasses for not telling their members to shut off their own phones during 5pm and 7am? Oh wait, and they are using *cellphones?* For their operations? And shutting them off is going to help them...how?
"Limited mathematical abilities?" I wonder if they can shift left one bit...
I was opposed to this war from the beginning (my opinion has since become more complex), but I think this technology will help end it.
If you read the article, it alludes to the fact that one of the main reasons we (the United States) are losing against insurgents (and have lost against guerrilla warfare in general), is because the manner in which they act and share information is vastly different from the way the US Army operates.
In the US army, systems like this have already existed, but have mostly "been developed for the upper echelons" (from the article), of the military hierarchy. In addition, soldiers had no real way of supplying information to their officers to be rapidly redistributed to the soldiers.
This is one of the main reasons why we have lost guerrilla wars (outside of a lack of support from the populace) has been that our opponents spread information amongst each other freely and act independently. Some of the sources quoted in this article want the military to re-organize they way they think about fighting a counter-insurgency war, and organize the ground troops more like special forces were organized in Afganistan, ie, giving them more independent authority to make action decisions.
While that might be a drastic step (I'm sure some of you are already fearing soldiers gunning down more Iraqis - and a part of me understands - although to tell you the truth I think most of our soldiers are much more disciplined than that), the truth of the matter is that *this* step *needed to be taken*. For the safety of their lives (and others), soldiers deserve to know who is a threat,who is a friend,what IED's look like in certain areas, where they have been planted before, where insurgents commonly shell troops with mortars, what "cover spots" are frequently used,and videos of past interviews of civilians. This way, friendly Iraqi civilians won't lose their lives, and hopefully our soldiers will be warned as to which "civilians" will take theirs.
...the patrol leaders name who was one of the seeds of this project? Damn it! Demote him back to Sergeant now!
He has been an inner-city school teacher for some time now, and works right across from the projects in a school surrounded by eight-foot high barbed wire. He is one of the few white teachers in the entire city, let alone in the school district.
Yet, for some reason, the students respect him and he is one of the most effective teachers there- a "School Consulting" group of educational experts from Cambridge, England, actually approved of the way in which he was doing his job.
Why is he successful? A healthy dose of humor and camaraderie goes a long way. I remember I actually used to *enjoy* going to school with him when I had a day off from school or our vacations were staggered, because a lot of the comments "as an aside" in response to student's jabs were hilarious, not off color, and usually prompted the rest of the students to laugh with him. He wasn't a pushover, but he wasn't a total jerk (They "have his back"). He is also a good teacher, of course- recently he started implementing a system where kids could respond to questions he poses in class via the use of a wireless controller. This way, the kids aren't embarrassed if they are wrong or right (looking smart and stupid are both bad things in a public school), and he can address each student's educational needs without publicizing it. When he told me about what he was doing I was like "Wow, your my dad?".
Unfortunately, my point isn't the best because most of these kids can't afford to go on the internet, and teachers can't exactly "counter" a website that calls them "fat" or "pedophiles" without potentially losing their jobs. I remember when I was in high school, a few friends of mine started an outright *campaign* that questioned the sexuality (and sex) of one of our art teachers. Looking back at it, I'd like to state that they were savage bastards and all have luckily grown up to some degree. They called her house, left messages on her machine, and even made a website that had many photo shopped images and disgusting things said about her.
However, one day she found out about it, and all of them were suspended- internally- for two weeks. Turns out that someone decided to visit the website while in the computer lab, and the computer lab administrator did the right thing and blew a whistle. While as a kid I might have not always agreed with him (although he did let us play Starcraft in an area known as "The Pit", which was basically a cubicle with millions of computer parts and a couple of nerds he could task into doing something for the boon of the right to play a video game), now I see that yeah, he was right to do what he did, and my school took the appropriate action.
With that said, let me close with this: I don't think it needs to go further than what I described. Civil litigation is probably a step to far. You may only fan the fire. The best solution, for me at least, would be to suspend them-internally. Make them learn with no social interaction for a few weeks and see how they like it. I guarantee they will change their tune. While a school system technically has no responsibility for the moral education of their pupils, they should provide guidance, and even if the behavior is happening "outside of school", the motive for the behavior is happening "inside of it", so I think they have more than enough right in putting the kid in a room for a while. Also- suing them might set bad precedent, because it will teach them that the only way of stopping someone from doing something you don't like involves a lawsuit. Pedophilia stuff, however, might be the one case that would be an exception in my judgment as I see it. Because the stigma and penalties with sex offense are so high, a law suit might be warranted. I agree in this case with a previous poster that "teaching a kid a lesson by suing them might be an effective lesson" may be an appropriate solution, depending on the extent of the abuse.
Finally, develop a sense of humor. Even if you are a young twenty-something teacher, if a kid posting something on MySpace (aka, "fatass") stops you from getting laid or having a date, you have *other* problems.
In the public media, yes, you are correct, there isn't much debate about legal immigrants.
Internally within congress or in our bureaucracy, however, there might be a great deal of debate. Except, "Policies regarding awarding a foreign citizen an extended Visa" (of any type) just doesn't make for juicy headline news. I have a friend of mine from France who was educated in the United States (in a top 100 ranked school), and for a while she tried to get a visa to live in the US, but failed. From what she has told me, it is extremely difficult, even for people that speak english, are highly educated, and financially solid.
This is, however, off-topic. I tried Kimchi once, and while I can appreciate that it is a comfort food for some people, it really just was never my thing, and falls into a category of foods for me which also include "Vegimite".
I was *just* going to say that. From what I've heard, all the reports from PAX have been 100% positive.
I'd really hope on their part that this was a case of someone screwing Gen Con over, which resulted in LucasFilm not receiving their agreed-upon dues, and not the reverse. I don't know the details as to who ran the convention, but I'm sure many of you have been given an estimate- lets say , to renovate your kitchen- and when the smoke cleared, suddenly your bill was twice as large as you thought it would be. For some reason "Power Requirements, Cleaning Costs" pops into my head. It also could be the case, since Gen Con immediately filed Chapter 11, that they might know they are in the wrong, but just didn't have the money to write the check to Lucas Arts, and didn't want to take out a loan to pay them (winding up in more debt).
The lawsuit also seems to be more of a "principle" lawsuit than a "money grab" lawsuit. 150k for "unlawful behavior" is actually being pretty lenient on this scale- and especially when you are dealing with an extremely powerful company with one of the more valuable intellectual properties on the market.
I'm glad that the Gen Con indy convention is still going to go down, though. I'd like to think that not all conventions are run by thieves and liars, even if it is just my choice to be naive.
I agree with you. I am also a liberal, but I believe that Rush has his right to say what he believes- as do many of the "hate radio" (although I'm not sure how much I agree with that label) talk show hosts-that is one of the founding principles of this country, and an important one.
And, in this case, while he didn't understand why Time Machine wasn't backing up his mail (apparently it wasn't on his computer, so he would have had to configure his mail program to save to a local folder), I personally would like Apple to make a few improvements to Time Machine myself- for instance, I'd like it to back up other partitions on my drive, particularly my Boot Camp drive, but I understand that this might not be technically feasible. It would also be nice to change the frequency of updates, or allow for a manual backup. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't seem to figure out how to do that.
That would be *really* nice.
Even if he might be wrong, calling attention to a product that might need improvement isn't a bad thing. I'm also a little surprised as to how quickly this became a discussion about politics-and not Apple or Time Machine. But, then again, I guess it is an election year.
But I would like to remind the readers of Slashdot that not all Liberals are reactionary, or believe that global warming will destroy mankind, or believe in abortion, or believe that discussions of genetics as pertaining to race and sex are forbidden topics, or believe that terrorism isn't a real threat.
God, look at that. I am a programmer...its seeping into my grammar.
Do we even know what the Pope's speech was going to be about? Who said it was going to have anything to do with either a) faith or b) science?
1)He could have just wanted to talk about being a good scholar.
2)He could have just wanted to assure people that he wouldn't interfere with science...people are allowed to change, he made that comment in the early 1990's, and honestly-weren't some of us wearing ponytails and huge flannel shirts around our waists back then? Also: didn't he recently give a "official pope statement" that tried to re-affirm the Roman Catholic Church's position on evolution...mainly, that it accepts it as true?
3)He could have just given a very general, non political or religious speech, like one we see at university commencements.
It seems to me that the university, particularly this one professor, is the one starting the fire. I don't think that "the pope is being intelligent by cancelling", I think the professor is attempting to be manipulative of public opinion by making that statement, and the pope probably just didn't want a rock or whistle thrown in the direction of his pope-mobile. I mean, that thing costs money.
I'm not religious, I don't go to church every week, and I believe strongly in science. I'm actually really dissapointed with the way in which this Italian professor acted. It doesn't further the goals of science or faith-which are distinct. One deals with facts (science), and the other, belief.
I think Ratzinger wasn't even making a hard point in his speech in the 1990s. He is very much a scholar- his mind wanders this way and that, considering many options. There is no hard conclusion to his speech, which is a mistake on his part-it lets other people interpret it as they wish. Like said professor. In Ratzinger's comment on the citation he made in his speech that this professor seems to take issue with, "it makes his conclusion all the more drastic" , my translation of drastic was "irrational". I don't think that Ratzinger thinks Galileo "caused the atomic bomb". I think he thinks quite the opposite.
Ok, done.
*cough* I responded at work at a online/retail store and neglected to read the post that he was commenting on. Sometimes Slashdot's comment system doesn't allow for the greatest instant visibility.
Thanks. I really appreciate that, I'm going to probably read both of those blogs every day. Gary McGraw gave a presentation at the college I went to (Boston College), and he is a really entertaining and personable guy with slide shows that actually aren't completely pointless. He impressed me so much that I applied to work at Cigital, and was really intending to work there, but after the second phone interview (both of which went well, i was pending for a third) something very personal came up and I had to tell them I couldn't move to Virginia for a year for Gary's "boot camp". I've kicked myself in the ass every day since about it. Oh well, family is family. I will probably try to get a job there eventually though, all the people I talked to there were really cool and intelligent. Gary is a good guy, and I think hes onto something with the "low resolution server side security vector". Plus, when I was telling people over the summer that I was going to be a professional hacker, there were some girls who actually though it was *cool*. Like I was a *renegade*. Hell *yes*. If you have any more security blogs or security in gaming blogs, post them slashdotters :) I need reading material :)
Ok. I was just checking. Look- if your employees buy an iPhone and bring it to work, you don't have to support them joining the buisness network. If they complain, tell them that the company didn't furnish them with an iPhone and it was their personal telecommunications purchase decision. You sound like Apple should be sued for releasing a phone that was intended for personal use just because people decided to bring it to work- and use it in work. Guess what? The responsibility , under HIPAA regulations, as far as your employees are concerned, falls with *the employer* and the *employees*, not the *systems they choose to run*. If you choose a faulty system, its your fault. I didn't see any Apple commercials with doctors talking about how well they could use their new tool to communicate to their nurses.
Essentially, ever since that incident, she has been creating a "security directive" every few months or so. I'm not going to conjecture as to if this is a political game or not, because even if she is genuinely concerned about this it is still in some ways a *game*, but I will say that it just won't work. Just like the "Don't Call" list, the "Opt-out" program will be squashed by heaps and heaps of legacy data and future data-mining, especially at the State level. It is interesting that this was *never* an issue before the internet and national cross-referencing became publicly available, which brought it into the public mindset, primed for fear mongering. You can bet your bottom dollar that a while ago, there were people who were cross-referencing using...gosh...phone books, or 411. If someone really, really wants to find you-they will. You just better be prepared for *when* they find you, or reduce the amount of reasons *why* someone would want to find you. It's called "survival" and "manners, decency, and politics" respectively. In my mind, this is interstate commerce, and I feel that the Federal Government should handle it. ...But then again, thats more money we are spending. It might be worth spending, however, if people would *stop calling my house*. I would also like some teeth to be in the legislation.
Furthermore, why isn't this kind of thing grouped underneath SPAM? SPAM, Calls of solicitation, and unauthorized reverse lookups all fall underneath the same category, in my mind- invasion of privacy. It would be nice if *for once*, the Government could create a branch of the government that had the sole job of protecting the privacy of citizens.
We all can dream.
Because then you are talking about either a) a legal process or b) a process of arbitration. If a), then you are at the mercy of the country of origin that holds the registrar. That means that people who spam "P3N1S" enlargement emails can simply skip over to your nearest country-with-no-real-internet-legislation, and then *no one* will ever find out who they are, even law enforcement, outside of invading the physical location of the registrar, there is no guarantee that they will have to surrender the information even if your reason is legitimate, in your own country or speaking in the global moral sense. If b), then see above but they won't even have to move to a country with no real internet legislation, they will just need to find a shady registrar. I disagree with the idea that a domain name is not like a P.O box. An email address is a P.O box, a domain name is a building, essentially; and any building, whether or not it is commercial or residential or industrial, has a name listed on the deed. It's public record, and it's that simple.
*clap* Thank you. Being "young" has nothing to do with "being good at computers". Thats a cultural stereotype that is absolutely bunk, probably stemming from comments from people like Bill Gates, stating that "there is no good hacker over the age of 13." Being a hacker involves open mindedness-thats what hes talking about, because a child has an open mind. Open mindedness, however, doesn't always yield positive results unless you are a) lucky or b) experienced, especially in computer science/information technology. This dude deserves every penny he gets from them. Cultural eugenics d.n.e progress. btw, im 23
[quote] Ebay has announced that the CC#'s that were listed were NOT associated with the users' ebay or paypal accounts. The guy had to have either: A) Made them up B) Gotten them somewhere else. Regardless, he's just a troll trying to create bad press for eBay. [/quote] Ah. In light of this new information, my bet is on A).
1) It's a kid. 2) He might not have even gotten the CC#'s out of eBay's internal servers. In fact, I bet he didn't, and he was evesdropping on another network. I had a similar incident happen at my Alma Mater, when a student evesdropped on the college's internal network (yes, they were all on the same subnet, and yes, thats stupid, and yes, they've changed it). 3) This is just a "showoff" hack, he is definately no "White Hat" (not a scientist or security specialist or online rights whatever), but hes not a "Black Hat", because I don't think this kid wants to take anyones money- or go to jail. Lets call him a "Clown Hat". 4) Uh, its eBay? Why do eBay and "fraud" suddenly seem uncompatible :)
They are just trying to get at little startup bands that are fueling the DRM-free online music trade. Honestly though, this is pretty ridiculous. Any band has the right to play any song they choose.