It probably won't be long before some clever ad makers create a secondary level ad within an ad that seems static at normal speeds and becomes a more active/interesting animation as people fast forward with their DVRs.
Can you imagine the game addict who gets caught stealing from Ma's purse..., "No mom, I'm not on drugs! I just needed 40 bucks more to get a Level 60 Tier 2 Epic Hunter..."
Uh, 46% of Amricans believe the creation story is literally accurate and 40% believe in the watered down "God did it over millions of years" version. That leaves a majority of christians that believe in literal creationism (and a really, really, small few that aren't religious in the first place). I really don't see why people, particularly in the US, have to be politically correct about seeing litteral creationists as a Christian thing without a qualifier. It's those who aren't creationists that are the exception.
(I took the numbers from Sam Harris' the End of Faith, pg.17, and he was using Gallup numbers.)
This has ALL been hashed out before and it still leaves us with no better real understanding of what to do...
lock everyone in a room - the music industry, the unions, the performers, the record companies, the publishers, the ISPs - and tell them you can't be let out until you sort it all out.
They won't sort it out because the pie is a fraction of what it was and it's shrinking, so someone doesn't get to eat. Who's going to volunteer to lose their job today?
in the end the numbers will be so huge it'll iron itself out.
This is more pie in the sky idealistic bs that has already been said by too many people. Businesses don't just let their revenue "sort tself out", that's a good way to bring about a premature extinction.
This guys' comments are hardly worthy of/. attention because these are old ideas and he's not even presenting them well.
These losses of privacy and requiremens to "show our papers" has been ongoing, even within the US. It immediately reminds me of John Gilmore's protest against having to show his papers in order to take a domestic US flight (or travel on Amtrack or stay in a hotel). If he didn't have anything dangerous on his person, why did he have to prove his identity? This stuff is not really making anyone more secure, but it might make the airlines more money by preventing transference of tickts.
Perhaps people just feel more secure when they believe something is being done. even if nothing is, and even if it really sucks.
It is not enough to ask what bills a congress person votes for or against. One must also ask why they voted the way they did, aside from just the face of the bill. You have to ask what else was in the bill that was objectionable and what other proposals were kept from the floor for a vote because the majority party tends to control what legislation gets consideration.
A simple up or down analysis does the minority party a diservice by not considering what their alternative would have been when they voted no and by not looking deeping into reasons a person might have wanted to "vote for it before they were against it". That line is used against Kerry often, but that's because he's so bad at explaining that a considerate senator must consider the whole bill and its alternatives, not just the political expediancy of its title and prominent sections.
IE: A poltician is not "against the troops" because he voted against a military spending bill that fails to supply adequate body armor. He may be backing a better bill that goes further and gives the troos that neccessary protection.
The DMCA does have that nasty 1201 section which makes tools of circumvention illegal.
No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that -
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
I would love to input the data spewed out by all of the talking heads who make their political predictions (and other useless nonsense predictions) and are so often wrong. Then we could post disclaimers at the bottom of the screen when they talk: (...Mr. Speak-for-my-Party has only been correct 25% of the time and he was on both sides of the issue for 75% of his correct predictions).
That must be why macs have such a huge market share? Apple knows how to do many things (primarily how to look cool) and have demonstrated market savvy with the ipod, but to suggest generally that they know how to sell a product is to ignore the fact that their "cool", "they just work" computers are not in most computer users homes. Obviously, it is Microsoft that understands better the importance of monopoly to sell a product, regardless of whether or not it is inferior.
The best thing going for the ipods is that they are being sold in every corner electronics store, and the mac marketing plan will need to follow suit if it is ever to aquire significant market share.
I'm a teacher and I like to do work after school at Panera because there are less distractions there. No colleagues/students/parents stopping by to discuss/chat & no temptation to pick up the phone when it rings (& I live out of my district, so I don't bump into people I know there). So many people, like teachers, work longer than their contract indicates, and places like Panera offer a chance to get a great deal of work done during that overtime in a nice environment without distractions & without making your home into a workplace.
(And yes, the state of the US education system is my fault. We give people what they pay for:P )
One of the keys to understanding the making of a violent criminal is the development of the cerebral cortex. This is the region of the brain that gives us control over our deeper animal instincts and through which we feel compassion and a sense of what is right and wrong. The development of this critical area of the brain is stunted when children do not feel safe. Children brought up in very violent and threatening environments can have this area so retarded that it barely exists at all, which creates a true sociopath with no remorse for actions and no concept of right or wrong.
Do kids in secure environments playing violent games injure their cerebral cortex development? It's worth looking into, but it seems like most kids who don't develop this region of the brain and become violent criminals are in REAL violent and dangerous situations on a regular basis (like growing up in projects around shooting and drug dealing and not knowing if you will have food or if you will be hurt or killed from day to day).
Do the kids playing games really feel they are not safe? I doubt it. Not in the way that damages the cerebral cortex to create violent sociopaths. I just don't think people bring this angle up because it is much more difficult to deal with violence created by being poor in the middle of a violent black market than it is to say some video games should be banned.
Perhaps he doesn't get the job, and there are countless other reasons someone may destroy their credit record that we can all agree deserves sympathy. The idea here is that *most* people with a bad credit record have demonstrated public irresponsibility on a level that deserves scrutiny.
Will all people who declared chapter 7/11 have a problem with diorganization/responsibility? No, but most of them will.
Will all people who have great resume's make great employees? No, but most will. And if you're the best candidate for a job except for your credit rating, a smart employer will ask you to explain that blemish and end up hiring Little Suzy's dad despite the finaces.
The variables that need to be addressed are vast. Aside from the material needs I wonder if they are addressing the IT needs. The quickly changing variables such as adjustments from the moon gravity to atmospheric disturbances to maintenance and repair will require great models and this thing will need an amazing nervous system to detect problems before they bocome disasters.
BTW: Where will the lower parts of this thing fall when there is a disaster?....
Dells (or PCs) are 'good enough' is not crap, it's reality for most PC users. Otherwise they would have changed systems.
Total Crap Arguments against PCs:
- Viruses will destroy your PC... This is crap in my experience because I don't know people who really have their PCs destroyed by viruses. I use AVG free edition and I have had no problems loosing a PC (or even data) due to a virus since I started using computers in the 80's. I back my computer up regularly because a long time ago I lost data due to a power surge, so my data is reasonably safe.
- Macs are SO much better... This is also just crap. I love using mac or PC and am adept with both. I can do most anything on my PC that I can do on a mac using inexpensive software that I don't have to repurchase with a new computer (no, it doesn't come that way out of the box & doesn't 'just work' without some setup on my part, having a choice is that way sometimes). The only program that I have not found an affordable equivalent for is imovie, which is the one app that I miss on a PC (PC equivalents exist, but they suck).
- "lengthy shutdown procedure"?!?... What? My PC can be configured many ways for my needs with regard to standby & hibernation. My standby mode is quickly ready when I open the top.
- Screen resolution & heat issues... This is less of a crap argument, my Toshiba laptop is also hot compared to macs (although my screen resolution is great) but I need a number pad in my work and one thing I love about my Toshiba is that I could get a huge screen with a built in numberpad on laptop that is not even available with other brands (mac included). I don't want to tote around a USB number pad.
- " 'good enough'='good enough for what I know how to do on a computer'"... Nice way of putting it. That is the real difference between PCs and macs. The knowledge of the user (& their app. library) can make one PC much better than another while macs require no choice from users out of the box. For that reason, I agree that for many people the mac is a great choice. I just think that the crapping on PCs reaches a state of exaggeration that makes it tough to take some pro-mac apologists seriously.
All of this, however, makes NO difference to most consumers. Macs have no chance of taking over the world until they are available for people to play with in every corner store like Best Buy, Circuit City, and (god forbid) Walmart. People will buy dells online because they know what they are getting in a PC, but they will not change OS in the same way. Apple stores are few and far between and average people will not make a major change like an OS unless it is as convenient as the corner store for them.
This article is not just administrivia, it's important coverage that will be many people's introduction to an important organization.
The reporter, Anick Jesdnun, probably did not have an axe to grind with EFF, rather, he probably didn't dig very deeply to figure out some important EFF history (not all his fault, it would be nice if EFF had better talking points prepared). He covered the move from DC to SF, but the critically important item he barely touched on was EFF's transitions since Shari Steele took the reigns.
Before Steele was brought in EFF was becoming an impotant think tank. She started bringing in lawyers like Cindy Cohen to implant some teeth back into the old dog and now, after some bumps in transition, EFF is poised to to take real bites out of crime (and by crime I mean cases like AT&T's crime against us all by playing the governments patsy).
Most criticisms I read about EFF apply to its wishy-washy think-tank era before Steele's changes could take effect. They are taking on more at a time, and more important things than they did 5 years ago not simply because of 9/11, it's because Steele rebuilt EFF to be able to take these things on. I shudder to think how the year 2000 EFF would have handled this chaos precipitated by 9/11.
Since the 21st century is only about 6 years old, isn't a statement like that just a little premature?
He was making a statement with vision and foresight, not making a TOP 10 list for cases that have already taken place. Look here, www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/ for AT&T case details. While you read, consider what the next century will look like if EFF loses this and future cases like it.
Sure, we've already seen things like eschelon and carnivore, but this is by far the boldest power grab by the US government to formally & non-apologetically establish itself as Big Brother over US citizens. This case, in concert with the related ACLU case, has the *potential* to be the precedent that stops this government from using tech companies to become Big Brother for the next century. I'd say that would make it one of the most important privacy & free speech cases of the 21st century. Now they need to win and they're going to need help to fight this goliath of a case.
Slashdot Mirror
It probably won't be long before some clever ad makers create a secondary level ad within an ad that seems static at normal speeds and becomes a more active/interesting animation as people fast forward with their DVRs.
No kidding!
Can you imagine the game addict who gets caught stealing from Ma's purse..., "No mom, I'm not on drugs! I just needed 40 bucks more to get a Level 60 Tier 2 Epic Hunter..."
-The kid's going to rehab
Uh, 46% of Amricans believe the creation story is literally accurate and 40% believe in the watered down "God did it over millions of years" version. That leaves a majority of christians that believe in literal creationism (and a really, really, small few that aren't religious in the first place). I really don't see why people, particularly in the US, have to be politically correct about seeing litteral creationists as a Christian thing without a qualifier. It's those who aren't creationists that are the exception.
(I took the numbers from Sam Harris' the End of Faith, pg.17, and he was using Gallup numbers.)
This has ALL been hashed out before and it still leaves us with no better real understanding of what to do...
/. attention because these are old ideas and he's not even presenting them well.
lock everyone in a room - the music industry, the unions, the performers, the record companies, the publishers, the ISPs - and tell them you can't be let out until you sort it all out.
They won't sort it out because the pie is a fraction of what it was and it's shrinking, so someone doesn't get to eat. Who's going to volunteer to lose their job today?
in the end the numbers will be so huge it'll iron itself out.
This is more pie in the sky idealistic bs that has already been said by too many people. Businesses don't just let their revenue "sort tself out", that's a good way to bring about a premature extinction.
This guys' comments are hardly worthy of
These losses of privacy and requiremens to "show our papers" has been ongoing, even within the US. It immediately reminds me of John Gilmore's protest against having to show his papers in order to take a domestic US flight (or travel on Amtrack or stay in a hotel). If he didn't have anything dangerous on his person, why did he have to prove his identity? This stuff is not really making anyone more secure, but it might make the airlines more money by preventing transference of tickts.
Perhaps people just feel more secure when they believe something is being done. even if nothing is, and even if it really sucks.
It is not enough to ask what bills a congress person votes for or against. One must also ask why they voted the way they did, aside from just the face of the bill. You have to ask what else was in the bill that was objectionable and what other proposals were kept from the floor for a vote because the majority party tends to control what legislation gets consideration.
A simple up or down analysis does the minority party a diservice by not considering what their alternative would have been when they voted no and by not looking deeping into reasons a person might have wanted to "vote for it before they were against it". That line is used against Kerry often, but that's because he's so bad at explaining that a considerate senator must consider the whole bill and its alternatives, not just the political expediancy of its title and prominent sections.
IE: A poltician is not "against the troops" because he voted against a military spending bill that fails to supply adequate body armor. He may be backing a better bill that goes further and gives the troos that neccessary protection.
Just a thought.
The DMCA does have that nasty 1201 section which makes tools of circumvention illegal.
No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that - (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
But that's just for the US. Everyone else, enjoy.
I would love to input the data spewed out by all of the talking heads who make their political predictions (and other useless nonsense predictions) and are so often wrong. Then we could post disclaimers at the bottom of the screen when they talk:
(...Mr. Speak-for-my-Party has only been correct 25% of the time and he was on both sides of the issue for 75% of his correct predictions).
Apple knows how to sell a product.
That must be why macs have such a huge market share? Apple knows how to do many things (primarily how to look cool) and have demonstrated market savvy with the ipod, but to suggest generally that they know how to sell a product is to ignore the fact that their "cool", "they just work" computers are not in most computer users homes. Obviously, it is Microsoft that understands better the importance of monopoly to sell a product, regardless of whether or not it is inferior.
The best thing going for the ipods is that they are being sold in every corner electronics store, and the mac marketing plan will need to follow suit if it is ever to aquire significant market share.
I'm a teacher and I like to do work after school at Panera because there are less distractions there. No colleagues/students/parents stopping by to discuss/chat & no temptation to pick up the phone when it rings (& I live out of my district, so I don't bump into people I know there). So many people, like teachers, work longer than their contract indicates, and places like Panera offer a chance to get a great deal of work done during that overtime in a nice environment without distractions & without making your home into a workplace.
:P )
(And yes, the state of the US education system is my fault. We give people what they pay for
One of the keys to understanding the making of a violent criminal is the development of the cerebral cortex. This is the region of the brain that gives us control over our deeper animal instincts and through which we feel compassion and a sense of what is right and wrong. The development of this critical area of the brain is stunted when children do not feel safe. Children brought up in very violent and threatening environments can have this area so retarded that it barely exists at all, which creates a true sociopath with no remorse for actions and no concept of right or wrong.
Do kids in secure environments playing violent games injure their cerebral cortex development? It's worth looking into, but it seems like most kids who don't develop this region of the brain and become violent criminals are in REAL violent and dangerous situations on a regular basis (like growing up in projects around shooting and drug dealing and not knowing if you will have food or if you will be hurt or killed from day to day).
Do the kids playing games really feel they are not safe? I doubt it. Not in the way that damages the cerebral cortex to create violent sociopaths. I just don't think people bring this angle up because it is much more difficult to deal with violence created by being poor in the middle of a violent black market than it is to say some video games should be banned.
C'mon Slashdot. This isn't news relevant to nerds or stuff that matters.
A)Voting matters
B)If you think that article isn't for nerds, you clearly didn't read it.
Perhaps he doesn't get the job, and there are countless other reasons someone may destroy their credit record that we can all agree deserves sympathy. The idea here is that *most* people with a bad credit record have demonstrated public irresponsibility on a level that deserves scrutiny.
Will all people who declared chapter 7/11 have a problem with diorganization/responsibility? No, but most of them will.
Will all people who have great resume's make great employees? No, but most will. And if you're the best candidate for a job except for your credit rating, a smart employer will ask you to explain that blemish and end up hiring Little Suzy's dad despite the finaces.
The variables that need to be addressed are vast. Aside from the material needs I wonder if they are addressing the IT needs. The quickly changing variables such as adjustments from the moon gravity to atmospheric disturbances to maintenance and repair will require great models and this thing will need an amazing nervous system to detect problems before they bocome disasters. BTW: Where will the lower parts of this thing fall when there is a disaster?....
Dells (or PCs) are 'good enough' is not crap, it's reality for most PC users. Otherwise they would have changed systems.
Total Crap Arguments against PCs:
- Viruses will destroy your PC... This is crap in my experience because I don't know people who really have their PCs destroyed by viruses. I use AVG free edition and I have had no problems loosing a PC (or even data) due to a virus since I started using computers in the 80's. I back my computer up regularly because a long time ago I lost data due to a power surge, so my data is reasonably safe.
- Macs are SO much better... This is also just crap. I love using mac or PC and am adept with both. I can do most anything on my PC that I can do on a mac using inexpensive software that I don't have to repurchase with a new computer (no, it doesn't come that way out of the box & doesn't 'just work' without some setup on my part, having a choice is that way sometimes). The only program that I have not found an affordable equivalent for is imovie, which is the one app that I miss on a PC (PC equivalents exist, but they suck).
- "lengthy shutdown procedure"?!?... What? My PC can be configured many ways for my needs with regard to standby & hibernation. My standby mode is quickly ready when I open the top.
- Screen resolution & heat issues... This is less of a crap argument, my Toshiba laptop is also hot compared to macs (although my screen resolution is great) but I need a number pad in my work and one thing I love about my Toshiba is that I could get a huge screen with a built in numberpad on laptop that is not even available with other brands (mac included). I don't want to tote around a USB number pad.
- " 'good enough'='good enough for what I know how to do on a computer'"... Nice way of putting it. That is the real difference between PCs and macs. The knowledge of the user (& their app. library) can make one PC much better than another while macs require no choice from users out of the box. For that reason, I agree that for many people the mac is a great choice. I just think that the crapping on PCs reaches a state of exaggeration that makes it tough to take some pro-mac apologists seriously.
All of this, however, makes NO difference to most consumers. Macs have no chance of taking over the world until they are available for people to play with in every corner store like Best Buy, Circuit City, and (god forbid) Walmart. People will buy dells online because they know what they are getting in a PC, but they will not change OS in the same way. Apple stores are few and far between and average people will not make a major change like an OS unless it is as convenient as the corner store for them.
This article is not just administrivia, it's important coverage that will be many people's introduction to an important organization.
The reporter, Anick Jesdnun, probably did not have an axe to grind with EFF, rather, he probably didn't dig very deeply to figure out some important EFF history (not all his fault, it would be nice if EFF had better talking points prepared). He covered the move from DC to SF, but the critically important item he barely touched on was EFF's transitions since Shari Steele took the reigns.
Before Steele was brought in EFF was becoming an impotant think tank. She started bringing in lawyers like Cindy Cohen to implant some teeth back into the old dog and now, after some bumps in transition, EFF is poised to to take real bites out of crime (and by crime I mean cases like AT&T's crime against us all by playing the governments patsy).
Most criticisms I read about EFF apply to its wishy-washy think-tank era before Steele's changes could take effect. They are taking on more at a time, and more important things than they did 5 years ago not simply because of 9/11, it's because Steele rebuilt EFF to be able to take these things on. I shudder to think how the year 2000 EFF would have handled this chaos precipitated by 9/11.
Since the 21st century is only about 6 years old, isn't a statement like that just a little premature?
He was making a statement with vision and foresight, not making a TOP 10 list for cases that have already taken place. Look here, www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/ for AT&T case details. While you read, consider what the next century will look like if EFF loses this and future cases like it.
Sure, we've already seen things like eschelon and carnivore, but this is by far the boldest power grab by the US government to formally & non-apologetically establish itself as Big Brother over US citizens. This case, in concert with the related ACLU case, has the *potential* to be the precedent that stops this government from using tech companies to become Big Brother for the next century. I'd say that would make it one of the most important privacy & free speech cases of the 21st century. Now they need to win and they're going to need help to fight this goliath of a case.