Cookies should only be able to store data you give a company. A cookie is not going through your computer and associate your cookie with your name, email address, credit card number, sexual proclivity, and so on.
Bull! I've been to seven sites today that have asked for that!
Mind you, they also asked whether I'd like a free tour/trial membership or a one month subscription.
...is that Nintendo never really intended to go "Head to Head" against PS3 or the XBox360. They deliberately didn't compete for the media centre console. Think about it. The price and technology difference, the control difference, the audience difference (i.e. not the hardcore console gamer), the games difference, etc. The Wii is practically a different product for a separate market. Didn't Microsoft say something along the lines of "you can buy a Wii and an XBox360 for the price of a PS3"?
We should have zero tolerance for these kind of people, particularly in positions of power.
Yes, but that's like the RIAA saying that most file-sharers use the Internet, so we should have a zero-tolerance policy on the Internet. A majority of people who are religious have core values that most would agree with. Only the religious "nuts"*, who get widely publicized, yet are a small minority, are the ones we should be worried about.
I could say that life is too important to be left to the mad scientists. By mad, I mean, of course, a scientist who doesn't share the same ethical boundaries as me. Unfortunately, religion is getting slammed so much and terrorism is such a focus today, that religious "nuts" are much more newsworthy than scientific "nuts".
*Notice that Islam was of very little influence on our morals. Therefore, we see the more extreme Muslims as religious "nuts". They don't count when I say "a majority of people who are religious..."
Sorry, I know this isn't my fight, but I couldn't pass this one up.
Believing in things without evidence of any kind is always stupid.
Wrong. Believing in something without evidence of any kind is fine, so long as you are prepared to change your view when some real evidence comes into play. If there is no evidence, then it might as well be true for all you know.
I have no insecurities in MY beliefs, because I only believe that which is proven.
Ever heard of empiricist philosophy? It's largely based around the idea that humans have gained all their knowledge through observation and habit. For example, we have observed that the shortest path between two points is a straight line. How do we know that works for all situations? How do we know that that logic won't change overnight? My point is that we really haven't proven anything. We can say that, based upon our observations, God cannot exist, but it isn't proof. Not to mention, he would be above the system, so to speak, if he did.
I can make educated guesses about the rest, and debate them for fun, but BELIEVING them would be stupid, and trying to convert other people to made-up or unproven beliefs would be doubly so.
WHY is it stupid? Why is believing something is false so stupid? Especially if the belief is harmless and can help you deal with life and be happy? What do you want from life? Happiness or absolute truth? I can tell you, the odds of you finding the latter are about as implausible as God existing.
If you think, as many people do, that religion is about believing in false deities, then you are wrong. That is a small sideshow. Religion is a set of laws, designed to guide people into sensible decisions without the need for a police force. Nowadays, society has changed, and many of the old laws are now outdated, but more still are still relevant. Most of our laws, and our morals and ideas, are based upon old religious morals and ideals. Society owes religion so much, yet now we cry "Religion is for idiots", not taking into account how much better we are for it.
If EULA's aren't enforcable, then why would the GPL be the same?
Good question.
The GPL grants extra liberties that would not normally be granted, such as the privilege to distribute and modify. You can choose to accept or reject those privileges, as well as the responsibilities, such as the responsibility to provide the source. However, the licence is a package. You can't take the good without the bad.
One only needs to visit schools even in the 3rd world to see how much discipline there is in schools over there.
It's funny you should mention that. I have a friend who went to Ghana to teach, as a volunteer, in a primary school. She said that the kids were very disciplined. They sat quietly, copied from textbooks in class, and read off the board in silence. However, they also had no courage or creativity. She couldn't for the life of her make them come up with any knowledge or ideas that they didn't specifically copy down in their notes. They also hated to be individual, or singled out. While they liked their "song and dance time", or whatever it was, they didn't like to be the one dancing. They preferred to stand in a circle, clapping to the beat for everyone else. I know that kids can be shy, but shyness was definitely overrepresented there.
She also said, in some weird equal and opposite reaction, the teachers were undisciplined. They would often abandon the children and go for picnics.
That sounds like BS. IANAL, but how exactly is this possible? Someone must own the machine in order to licence it. It can't be MS, since that would mean we would be paying them for the entire box. It probably isn't the OEMs, since they all have to agree to licence by the Windows EULA, which is unprofitable. People rather buy their hardware if they can help it.
Besides, doesn't the EULA refer specifically to software? Where in it does it specify hardware?
Well, for it to be irony, the implied meaning must differ from the stated meaning. What were you implying that was different than what you were stating?
Sort of. I was implying on one level that I agree with the original post, and that police shouldn't be afraid of a little accountability. On a deeper level, I was implying the opposite, hence the Orwell allusion. Thanks for making me spell it out.
No one was suggesting police officers should be under surveillance in their homes or even every minute they're on duty, only when they're interacting with the public.
Nineteen Eighty-Four was a hyperbole to a certain extent. It was supposed to show how precious privacy is, not how we don't want ourselves under surveillance 24/7. It doesn't actually matter if it's cameras in the street, cameras at work, or cameras in the home. They're all still privacy violation, and they all hurt, no matter who you are. Of course, there are benefits to employers when privacy is violated, and police happen to be employed by the general public. And considering they have such power, a little privacy sacrificed is worth it by most measures.
What I get sick of is people calling for complete transparency for police, completely disregarding the police themselves, and what they can cope with. Anyone would get stressed with total transparency, and police are no exception. Stress leads to sloppy jobs, police brutality, and the like. There needs to be some moderation in the system, or it will just keep getting worse. I know I'm not providing any helpful solution, but it's food for thought.
That's a bit like a car manufacturer worrying about the color of the seats while the breaks are still leaking.
No, it's a bit like a car manufacturer worrying about the colour of the seats, while it's hopelessly crippled by...erm...**AA mandated DRM...or something.
I hear of racist police often enough, and whenever it gets brought up, it's usually accompanied by the conclusion that police are not to be trusted/are too corrupt. I'm no racist, and I do respect that that situation is abuse of police power, but it really isn't a problem inherent in police. It's a problem inherent in people and in communities. The police are just representative of the larger problem. There should be no racial profiling by police if racism dies.
Sometimes they dont have the 'right attitude'.
A much more widespread problem. However, I think the problem is circular. If the public were a bit more polite to the police, in general, the police would be a bit more polite to the public. Still, I think police should make the first move in rectifying the situation.
What exactly do you mean by "government by hypocrisy"? The idea that police commit crimes in order to stop them?
If so, then that's BS. Police almost always have to commit a crime somewhere along the line. How do they catch people in car chases? They drive at a speed that no-one else can legally drive at. How do they subdue dangerous people? They have to use force that it would be criminal for any other person to use. This is admittedly hypocrisy, but hypocrisy is not a reason in itself to change the system.
Brutal beatings are much harder to justify over lesser amounts of force, but sometimes, it can be necessary. Especially if the person they are trying to arrest simply won't stop trying to hurt them.
Now you've got me all confused. Isn't the traditional stigma against the big city cops? Weren't the small town cops meant to be all informal and lenient with people, so as not to make enemies?
Slashdot Mirror
Mind you, they also asked whether I'd like a free tour/trial membership or a one month subscription.
You're right! Now I guess we don't have to search for alternatives to paying these guys money! Thanks for clearing that up.
It's called balance. I would be also worried if there were nothing but environmentalists.
...is that Nintendo never really intended to go "Head to Head" against PS3 or the XBox360. They deliberately didn't compete for the media centre console. Think about it. The price and technology difference, the control difference, the audience difference (i.e. not the hardcore console gamer), the games difference, etc. The Wii is practically a different product for a separate market. Didn't Microsoft say something along the lines of "you can buy a Wii and an XBox360 for the price of a PS3"?
I could say that life is too important to be left to the mad scientists. By mad, I mean, of course, a scientist who doesn't share the same ethical boundaries as me. Unfortunately, religion is getting slammed so much and terrorism is such a focus today, that religious "nuts" are much more newsworthy than scientific "nuts".
*Notice that Islam was of very little influence on our morals. Therefore, we see the more extreme Muslims as religious "nuts". They don't count when I say "a majority of people who are religious..."
Wrong. Believing in something without evidence of any kind is fine, so long as you are prepared to change your view when some real evidence comes into play. If there is no evidence, then it might as well be true for all you know.
Ever heard of empiricist philosophy? It's largely based around the idea that humans have gained all their knowledge through observation and habit. For example, we have observed that the shortest path between two points is a straight line. How do we know that works for all situations? How do we know that that logic won't change overnight?
My point is that we really haven't proven anything. We can say that, based upon our observations, God cannot exist, but it isn't proof. Not to mention, he would be above the system, so to speak, if he did.
WHY is it stupid? Why is believing something is false so stupid? Especially if the belief is harmless and can help you deal with life and be happy? What do you want from life? Happiness or absolute truth? I can tell you, the odds of you finding the latter are about as implausible as God existing.
If you think, as many people do, that religion is about believing in false deities, then you are wrong. That is a small sideshow. Religion is a set of laws, designed to guide people into sensible decisions without the need for a police force. Nowadays, society has changed, and many of the old laws are now outdated, but more still are still relevant. Most of our laws, and our morals and ideas, are based upon old religious morals and ideals. Society owes religion so much, yet now we cry "Religion is for idiots", not taking into account how much better we are for it.
The GPL grants extra liberties that would not normally be granted, such as the privilege to distribute and modify. You can choose to accept or reject those privileges, as well as the responsibilities, such as the responsibility to provide the source. However, the licence is a package. You can't take the good without the bad.
She also said, in some weird equal and opposite reaction, the teachers were undisciplined. They would often abandon the children and go for picnics.
...or does this sound a little like the communism vs. capitalism debate?
Don't go! What will happen to /. if all the smart people leave? Who will respond and moderate? Do we really need another Digg? Hello? Helloooo-oooo?
Besides, doesn't the EULA refer specifically to software? Where in it does it specify hardware?
Nineteen Eighty-Four was a hyperbole to a certain extent. It was supposed to show how precious privacy is, not how we don't want ourselves under surveillance 24/7. It doesn't actually matter if it's cameras in the street, cameras at work, or cameras in the home. They're all still privacy violation, and they all hurt, no matter who you are. Of course, there are benefits to employers when privacy is violated, and police happen to be employed by the general public. And considering they have such power, a little privacy sacrificed is worth it by most measures.
What I get sick of is people calling for complete transparency for police, completely disregarding the police themselves, and what they can cope with. Anyone would get stressed with total transparency, and police are no exception. Stress leads to sloppy jobs, police brutality, and the like. There needs to be some moderation in the system, or it will just keep getting worse. I know I'm not providing any helpful solution, but it's food for thought.
Ahh, screw it.
Anyone picking up the subtle irony here?
A much more widespread problem. However, I think the problem is circular. If the public were a bit more polite to the police, in general, the police would be a bit more polite to the public. Still, I think police should make the first move in rectifying the situation.
If so, then that's BS. Police almost always have to commit a crime somewhere along the line. How do they catch people in car chases? They drive at a speed that no-one else can legally drive at. How do they subdue dangerous people? They have to use force that it would be criminal for any other person to use. This is admittedly hypocrisy, but hypocrisy is not a reason in itself to change the system.
Brutal beatings are much harder to justify over lesser amounts of force, but sometimes, it can be necessary. Especially if the person they are trying to arrest simply won't stop trying to hurt them.
Now you've got me all confused. Isn't the traditional stigma against the big city cops? Weren't the small town cops meant to be all informal and lenient with people, so as not to make enemies?
On /. these days, I see way too much OMG POLICE BRUTALITY!!1 and not enough OMG THEY ARE ONLY T3H HUM4NZ!!!11