Beyond red flag words: circumventing access control of any kind (electronic or physical) without written authorization from an authorized person, and maybe an opinion letter from a lawyer. That should be an automatic "no".
I mean, these are simple questions. You don't need an MBA to analyze decisions with those questions. Somehow people with their heads in software don't take even a minute to ask these questions, and they should.
I'm sure he understood implicitly that it was illegal. It isn't that people "don't ask these questions," it's just that they're willing to break the law to get ahead.
We have had some pretty impressive kill ratios in recent history, though. It's due to our air and artillery support, and those vehicles cost millions of dollars.
I think that investing in a higher quality of infantry equipment and training, and using fewer numbers of infantry in specialized armor-support roles, is a viable strategy.
And, another poster had an excellent point -- most of the money is spent on "defense" contractors in this country. That means the money returns directly to our economy. It also means that the gov't will tax the money it spends as income! They'll tax it at every level in the company that they pay it out to, and then when those employees spend the money on other products, they'll tax it from THOSE companies, too. And so on and so forth.
So basically, we recoup a significant portion of the expenditures over time, invest in our own economy, AND save soldier's lives. How cool is that?
There's no way a victim can deal with those by just ignoring them
You're correct here. However, let me refer you to part of my original post:
Of course, if someone were harassing you online, or sending you threats, there would be a record of that and you could report it to the proper authorities -- if you chose to do so. That's how things work already -- I don't think it's the job of the proper authorities to investigate our private lives, in order to determine if there are any crimes occurring. I value my privacy, and I'm willing to take the responsibility of reporting crimes committed against me to keep it.
Besides, deciding whether or not to report an abusive e-mail is exactly the sort of decision people are forced to make in their adult lives; depriving children or teenagers of the responsibility for making these sorts of decisions could give us adults who won't be able to handle getting a nasty e-mail from a co-worker. That would be bad.
So, yes, I'd agree with you that you couldn't "simply ignore" slanderous comments made on another user's page -- but you could still report them. And it isn't like people haven't dealt with this in the past, it's just that in the past it used to be as simple as someone writing "Susie is a slut" on the bathroom wall.
This is the same thinking that says if you ignore a bully he will leave you alone.
No, it isn't. Actually, the best way to make someone stop bullying you is to hit them square in the nose. It only takes one time.
But I don't think the school is behaving reasonably; there's no need to "baby" the kids on the internet outside of class. If they're being harassed, they can "fight back" by filing a police report, or letting a school counselor know about the issue themselves.
I agree with you that someone could be bullied online, but I don't agree that this is the best way to deal with it. After all, learning how to deal with bullies is a part of growing up.
The BBC is running a story on UK schools being told by the education minister to fight cyberbullying
What I don't get here is that "Cyberbullying" seems like the sort of thing that can't have too much of an effect on someone. I mean, if someone leaves you a "mean" comment on Myspace, you can just delete it and remove them from your friends list -- then all they can do is send you messages. Except, you can stop that too. There's a button for blocking all incoming messages from a user. It says "ignore user." "Cyberbullying" can be completely ended with a few clicks of a button; it's far less of an issue than "Physicalbullying," because in those situations the victim doesn't have a sense of control (and is sometimes in physical danger).
Of course, if someone were harassing you online, or sending you threats, there would be a record of that and you could report it to the proper authorities -- if you chose to do so. That's how things work already -- I don't think it's the job of the proper authorities to investigate our private lives, in order to determine if there are any crimes occurring. I value my privacy, and I'm willing to take the responsibility of reporting crimes committed against me to keep it.
Besides, deciding whether or not to report an abusive e-mail is exactly the sort of decision people are forced to make in their adult lives; depriving children or teenagers of the responsibility for making these sorts of decisions could give us adults who won't be able to handle getting a nasty e-mail from a co-worker. That would be bad.
What you're overlooking here is that smart people are more likely to want jury duty. I did Mock Trial in high school, I'd be downright giddy if I got to be on a jury.
$10 billion for a site that has 34 million active users ~= $300 per user. Hmm. I think this site is highly overvalued. But let MS waste their money if they want.
There's a glaring hole in your analysis -- you haven't actually analyzed Facebook's revenue. It's possible that, through advertising, Facebook actually is worth ~$300 per user. I wouldn't know, I haven't seen any of the figures.
Of course, whether or not that's a worthy investment on the part of the advertisers is another question entirely, but I think there's probably something to Microsoft's investment, and it probably has something to do with a spreadsheet we haven't seen, with factors we haven't considered.
When I was 12 or younger, I "hacked" this program. It was as simple as copying the text of a key program file to the clipboard, deleting it in the file, surfing porn for as long as I desired, and pasting the text back into the file after I was done.
Most kids, though, won't realize/notice what's happening if you install a simple keylogger. Hell, adults don't even notice when that happens (speaking from personal experience).
Of course, most parents feel compelled to tell the kids about the monitoring software. Still, there are ways to disguise and hide the program folder so that your average preteen isn't going to find it. I mean, most kids wouldn't even think of doing something like installing a second OS -- and if they did, you'd probably notice the extra partition and be immediately suspicious.
and I'll probably go to prison for dereliction of duty
Everything you say except this is pretty much correct.
Still, there's a difference between acting to prevent a catastrophe, and later deciding to charge the person with a crime. Wouldn't it be enough to embarrass them with some press coverage, and have airports enact a new security regulation explicitly forbidding the display of such devices?
I mean, they claim it was a hoax device, but she never said "this is a bomb." It was also not apparently made to specifically resemble a known make of explosives (a cast-model pack of TNT would be a different story, but this was just a couple of circuit boards and "putty"). Is she guilty of a crime for how the officers interpreted what she was wearing? Not in this slashdotter's opinion -- yes, the police acted reasonably in confronting her, and she was a bit naive to wear that sort of apparel after the events of 9/11, but she wasn't attempting to cause any trouble and fining her would be unjust.
There is absolutely no question that it would be a breach of an implied term of his contract to actively discourage people from buying CDs produced pursuant to the contract
Why is there absolutely no question? "IAAL" is great and all, but you really need to give us an explanation beyond that.
How about buying a mac mini for work and multimedia and the game system of your choice for gaming? Wouldnt be more expensive and is way more fun.
Yours, Somebody happy with a mac mini and a wii
You're obviously not much of a gamer. Yes, consoles can be fun, but they don't hold a candle to a PC.
Can I play Civilization 4 on the Wii? No. Can I download and install user-created mods for my Xbox360 copy of Oblivion? No. Can I tweak the graphics settings on any console to find the right balance of image quality and performance? No. If I get to feeling a little nostalgic, and want to play Baldur's Gate 2 again, can I install that on the Playstation 3? No. Could I play Supreme Commander or Company of Heroes on a console? Again, no.
A Wii would be fun, and I'd consider buying one, but a Wii could never replace my PC as a gaming machine. I know that tons of other PC gamers feel the same way.
A console has limited functionality and a very limited library of games. In my opinion, having a console instead of a PC would be like having a tricycle instead of a mountain bike -- the former is easy to use and always works, but it's built for children and you can't go many places on it. The latter has a bit of a learning curve, but it's built for adults and you can go practically anywhere on it.
It only takes me three clicks from the home page to see your recent comment history, which is a veritable cornucopia of short-sighted political commentary to contradict.
In any case, I like how you've ignored the issue at hand to attack me instead. It really lends a lot of credibility to your "argument."
You don't protest against our troops during a war.
You know what? They're not protesting against the troops. They're protesting for the troops. "The troops" don't deserve to be there, they deserve to be here with the rest of us, at home with their families.
Do you think they enjoy war? That they wake up every morning and say "by golly, I wish those protesters would stop trying to end this war, because I love it here!"
The notion that protesting the war hurts the soldiers is absurd. War is what hurts the soldiers. They risk everything for us, and we owe it to them not to call on them unless it's really necessary. And we also owe it to them to protest when someone sends them overseas, to die in the middle of a desert, for something that wasn't really necessary.
Warning Serious problems might occur if you modify the registry incorrectly by using Registry Editor or by using another method. These problems might require that you reinstall your operating system. Microsoft cannot guarantee that these problems can be solved. Modify the registry at your own risk.
But, the instructions are only 7 steps long. The disclaimer is there for idiots who can't follow a simple 7-bullet list of steps.
And man, it's not like reinstalling your operating system is some sort of incredibly difficult chore. I've had to do it numerous times. It's routine computer maintenance.
Microsoft's laziness aside, if "businesses, schools, and grandmothers" are using computers in their day-to-day lives, they ought to know how to operate and maintain the things... kind of like how you ought to know how to check your car's fluids, change a tire, etc.
Of course, there are two entire industries built on people's ignorance of how to maintain both computers and cars, so, I know that I'm dreaming here. People love convenience too much.
But more to the point, the how-to isn't hard, and people ought to be more comfortable learning how to maintain their machines (whatever they may be).
It was a Freudian idea called "Catharsis." Unfortunately, though I haven't read the study myself, I heard about a study in a social psychology class that showed that the "pressure boiler" theory isn't really correct -- in reality, if people attempt to relieve stress by hitting a pillow (or something similar), it doesn't make them less likely to be violent; it actually increases the likelihood of that violent response. In short, taking aggression out on a punching bag makes you more likely, not less, to take aggression out on other things at other times.
Could this mean the end of the infernal beast that is Gateway? Will we no longer be subject to their shoddy assembly-line computers and annoying marketing campaigns?
If only Dell would go down the tubes, too. Then maybe people would have to figure out how to put together their own computers... it's not that complicated, and you save a huge wad of cash by doing it. Hell, you can even look up a how-to guide online.
The economy would likely benefit if people saved money by working on their own equipment, displacing all of those assembly-line workers and retail tycoons into more productive jobs -- jobs which would become available, eventually, since the money saved would be put into other areas of the economy, creating larger overall markets for other businesses.
Not to mention that the country would probably benefit passively, as a whole, if people were suddenly aware of all the tasks you could apply computers to (as a result of being forced to assemble their own). It would make businesses and gov't agencies in every sphere more optimized.
Slashdot Mirror
Beyond red flag words: circumventing access control of any kind (electronic or physical) without written authorization from an authorized person, and maybe an opinion letter from a lawyer. That should be an automatic "no".
I mean, these are simple questions. You don't need an MBA to analyze decisions with those questions. Somehow people with their heads in software don't take even a minute to ask these questions, and they should.
I'm sure he understood implicitly that it was illegal. It isn't that people "don't ask these questions," it's just that they're willing to break the law to get ahead.
We have had some pretty impressive kill ratios in recent history, though. It's due to our air and artillery support, and those vehicles cost millions of dollars.
I think that investing in a higher quality of infantry equipment and training, and using fewer numbers of infantry in specialized armor-support roles, is a viable strategy.
And, another poster had an excellent point -- most of the money is spent on "defense" contractors in this country. That means the money returns directly to our economy. It also means that the gov't will tax the money it spends as income! They'll tax it at every level in the company that they pay it out to, and then when those employees spend the money on other products, they'll tax it from THOSE companies, too. And so on and so forth.
So basically, we recoup a significant portion of the expenditures over time, invest in our own economy, AND save soldier's lives. How cool is that?
told me my credit card was used at itunes, bestbuy, and qvc.. online
What sort of criminal would steal a credit card to buy things he could have just pirated in the first place?
I mean, at the very least he could have like, ordered a pizza or something instead. But that just sounds silly.
There's no way a victim can deal with those by just ignoring them
You're correct here. However, let me refer you to part of my original post:
Of course, if someone were harassing you online, or sending you threats, there would be a record of that and you could report it to the proper authorities -- if you chose to do so. That's how things work already -- I don't think it's the job of the proper authorities to investigate our private lives, in order to determine if there are any crimes occurring. I value my privacy, and I'm willing to take the responsibility of reporting crimes committed against me to keep it.
Besides, deciding whether or not to report an abusive e-mail is exactly the sort of decision people are forced to make in their adult lives; depriving children or teenagers of the responsibility for making these sorts of decisions could give us adults who won't be able to handle getting a nasty e-mail from a co-worker. That would be bad.
So, yes, I'd agree with you that you couldn't "simply ignore" slanderous comments made on another user's page -- but you could still report them. And it isn't like people haven't dealt with this in the past, it's just that in the past it used to be as simple as someone writing "Susie is a slut" on the bathroom wall.
This is the same thinking that says if you ignore a bully he will leave you alone.
No, it isn't. Actually, the best way to make someone stop bullying you is to hit them square in the nose. It only takes one time.
But I don't think the school is behaving reasonably; there's no need to "baby" the kids on the internet outside of class. If they're being harassed, they can "fight back" by filing a police report, or letting a school counselor know about the issue themselves.
I agree with you that someone could be bullied online, but I don't agree that this is the best way to deal with it. After all, learning how to deal with bullies is a part of growing up.
The BBC is running a story on UK schools being told by the education minister to fight cyberbullying
What I don't get here is that "Cyberbullying" seems like the sort of thing that can't have too much of an effect on someone. I mean, if someone leaves you a "mean" comment on Myspace, you can just delete it and remove them from your friends list -- then all they can do is send you messages. Except, you can stop that too. There's a button for blocking all incoming messages from a user. It says "ignore user." "Cyberbullying" can be completely ended with a few clicks of a button; it's far less of an issue than "Physicalbullying," because in those situations the victim doesn't have a sense of control (and is sometimes in physical danger).
Of course, if someone were harassing you online, or sending you threats, there would be a record of that and you could report it to the proper authorities -- if you chose to do so. That's how things work already -- I don't think it's the job of the proper authorities to investigate our private lives, in order to determine if there are any crimes occurring. I value my privacy, and I'm willing to take the responsibility of reporting crimes committed against me to keep it.
Besides, deciding whether or not to report an abusive e-mail is exactly the sort of decision people are forced to make in their adult lives; depriving children or teenagers of the responsibility for making these sorts of decisions could give us adults who won't be able to handle getting a nasty e-mail from a co-worker. That would be bad.
who aren't smart enough to get out of jury duty
What you're overlooking here is that smart people are more likely to want jury duty. I did Mock Trial in high school, I'd be downright giddy if I got to be on a jury.
$10 billion for a site that has 34 million active users ~= $300 per user. Hmm. I think this site is highly overvalued. But let MS waste their money if they want.
There's a glaring hole in your analysis -- you haven't actually analyzed Facebook's revenue. It's possible that, through advertising, Facebook actually is worth ~$300 per user. I wouldn't know, I haven't seen any of the figures.
Of course, whether or not that's a worthy investment on the part of the advertisers is another question entirely, but I think there's probably something to Microsoft's investment, and it probably has something to do with a spreadsheet we haven't seen, with factors we haven't considered.
When I was 12 or younger, I "hacked" this program. It was as simple as copying the text of a key program file to the clipboard, deleting it in the file, surfing porn for as long as I desired, and pasting the text back into the file after I was done.
Most kids, though, won't realize/notice what's happening if you install a simple keylogger. Hell, adults don't even notice when that happens (speaking from personal experience).
Of course, most parents feel compelled to tell the kids about the monitoring software. Still, there are ways to disguise and hide the program folder so that your average preteen isn't going to find it. I mean, most kids wouldn't even think of doing something like installing a second OS -- and if they did, you'd probably notice the extra partition and be immediately suspicious.
criminal scum
Hey! I'm sure I'm not the only criminal offended by this sort of rhetoric.
Actually, that's a fairly standard practice in the U.S. too.
and I'll probably go to prison for dereliction of duty
Everything you say except this is pretty much correct.
Still, there's a difference between acting to prevent a catastrophe, and later deciding to charge the person with a crime. Wouldn't it be enough to embarrass them with some press coverage, and have airports enact a new security regulation explicitly forbidding the display of such devices?
I mean, they claim it was a hoax device, but she never said "this is a bomb." It was also not apparently made to specifically resemble a known make of explosives (a cast-model pack of TNT would be a different story, but this was just a couple of circuit boards and "putty"). Is she guilty of a crime for how the officers interpreted what she was wearing? Not in this slashdotter's opinion -- yes, the police acted reasonably in confronting her, and she was a bit naive to wear that sort of apparel after the events of 9/11, but she wasn't attempting to cause any trouble and fining her would be unjust.
There is absolutely no question that it would be a breach of an implied term of his contract to actively discourage people from buying CDs produced pursuant to the contract
Why is there absolutely no question? "IAAL" is great and all, but you really need to give us an explanation beyond that.
Have you read his contract?
from the point of view of an average luser ...
Fixed.
And 10 years from now, the technology will be much smarter. We'll scan a person with one of these things and tell what they're actually thinking.
Yeah, I'll believe that as soon as I get my flying car highway.
Damn ... that's low-tech.
Does your car have a combustion engine, or do you power it with your feet like Fred Flintstone?
How about buying a mac mini for work and multimedia and the game system of your choice for gaming? Wouldnt be more expensive and is way more fun.
Yours,
Somebody happy with a mac mini and a wii
You're obviously not much of a gamer. Yes, consoles can be fun, but they don't hold a candle to a PC.
Can I play Civilization 4 on the Wii? No. Can I download and install user-created mods for my Xbox360 copy of Oblivion? No. Can I tweak the graphics settings on any console to find the right balance of image quality and performance? No. If I get to feeling a little nostalgic, and want to play Baldur's Gate 2 again, can I install that on the Playstation 3? No. Could I play Supreme Commander or Company of Heroes on a console? Again, no.
A Wii would be fun, and I'd consider buying one, but a Wii could never replace my PC as a gaming machine. I know that tons of other PC gamers feel the same way.
A console has limited functionality and a very limited library of games. In my opinion, having a console instead of a PC would be like having a tricycle instead of a mountain bike -- the former is easy to use and always works, but it's built for children and you can't go many places on it. The latter has a bit of a learning curve, but it's built for adults and you can go practically anywhere on it.
It only takes me three clicks from the home page to see your recent comment history, which is a veritable cornucopia of short-sighted political commentary to contradict.
In any case, I like how you've ignored the issue at hand to attack me instead. It really lends a lot of credibility to your "argument."
You don't protest against our troops during a war.
You know what? They're not protesting against the troops. They're protesting for the troops. "The troops" don't deserve to be there, they deserve to be here with the rest of us, at home with their families.
Do you think they enjoy war? That they wake up every morning and say "by golly, I wish those protesters would stop trying to end this war, because I love it here!"
The notion that protesting the war hurts the soldiers is absurd. War is what hurts the soldiers. They risk everything for us, and we owe it to them not to call on them unless it's really necessary. And we also owe it to them to protest when someone sends them overseas, to die in the middle of a desert, for something that wasn't really necessary.
I hate to break it to you, but they don't. They get rats that are perfectly capable of walking, and then sever their spinal cords surgically.
Warning Serious problems might occur if you modify the registry incorrectly by using Registry Editor or by using another method. These problems might require that you reinstall your operating system. Microsoft cannot guarantee that these problems can be solved. Modify the registry at your own risk.
But, the instructions are only 7 steps long. The disclaimer is there for idiots who can't follow a simple 7-bullet list of steps.
And man, it's not like reinstalling your operating system is some sort of incredibly difficult chore. I've had to do it numerous times. It's routine computer maintenance.
Microsoft's laziness aside, if "businesses, schools, and grandmothers" are using computers in their day-to-day lives, they ought to know how to operate and maintain the things ... kind of like how you ought to know how to check your car's fluids, change a tire, etc.
Of course, there are two entire industries built on people's ignorance of how to maintain both computers and cars, so, I know that I'm dreaming here. People love convenience too much.
But more to the point, the how-to isn't hard, and people ought to be more comfortable learning how to maintain their machines (whatever they may be).
It was a Freudian idea called "Catharsis." Unfortunately, though I haven't read the study myself, I heard about a study in a social psychology class that showed that the "pressure boiler" theory isn't really correct -- in reality, if people attempt to relieve stress by hitting a pillow (or something similar), it doesn't make them less likely to be violent; it actually increases the likelihood of that violent response. In short, taking aggression out on a punching bag makes you more likely, not less, to take aggression out on other things at other times.
Epic satire.
filtered digg
I wouldn't underestimate the inherent value of putting a filter on that ... thing.
Could this mean the end of the infernal beast that is Gateway? Will we no longer be subject to their shoddy assembly-line computers and annoying marketing campaigns?
If only Dell would go down the tubes, too. Then maybe people would have to figure out how to put together their own computers ... it's not that complicated, and you save a huge wad of cash by doing it. Hell, you can even look up a how-to guide online.
The economy would likely benefit if people saved money by working on their own equipment, displacing all of those assembly-line workers and retail tycoons into more productive jobs -- jobs which would become available, eventually, since the money saved would be put into other areas of the economy, creating larger overall markets for other businesses.
Not to mention that the country would probably benefit passively, as a whole, if people were suddenly aware of all the tasks you could apply computers to (as a result of being forced to assemble their own). It would make businesses and gov't agencies in every sphere more optimized.
>_> What, I can dream.