In my opinion, it should be the majority that gets to decide. From what I have seen, democrats in general tend to be in favor of supporting stem cell research. Plenty of republican women hold the opinion that abortion should be legal, and if that is the case, would agree with embryonic stem cell research. Even if 100% of republican men are against it, if democrats and republicans are anywhere near a 50/50 split, I would bet that the majority is in favor of embryonic stem cell research.
I have mod points today, but I couldn't resist asking: in what possible way is the parent's post funny?Insightful, yes;...but funny?
This paves the way for government (through the dominant political parties) to own the ISPs.
This is a BAD THING, do you really want your login and user data being held on neo-conservative servers?
This act will only demonstrate the demand (or otherwise) of such an ISP service. Once the demand is demonstrated others in the market will likely attempt to offer a service to rival the first entrant. I'd assume that competition based on privacy, freedom of speech and an assumption of innocence would be welcome here on Slashdot. I know I'd happily transfer to their service if they can operate a similar ISP in the UK.
And it's only an appreciable concern in trademark law if the competing product is sold in the same market; Lucas sells movie-merch toys, Wicked Lasers appear to sell a functioning laser. I'm not sure how they could be considered to be 'in the same market,' really.
Very few people will visit 'only the bank,' especially if they're just quickly checking email (or whatever), and don't want to have to reboot and log in first to do so.
The majority of users I have contact with resent having to enter passwords/user-verification at all. With banks they do, often at least, appreciate the value of the process. But they still take every opportunity to minimise the process, so what're these users to do when they can't have Firefox (et al) save their username/passwords?
Personally, I'm thinking they'll go back to using Windows, which can't be reasonably prevented by the institution, without cutting off a large user-base. Still, a nice -and, to me, novel- idea.
I pretty much agree, but I think the reason for posting the question on Slashdot, with its technically savvy audience, was probably more about prompting a discussion than getting an answer; it's a question that has no real answer available ('yes' or 'no' don't really cut it in this situation), whereas the discussion might throw up some interesting alternatives, different methodologies or perhaps a couple of sites that might help out with the purchasing process (take 'what you want' into account and then throws up a 'what you should buy,' perhaps).
The problem is that the OP has a fairly clearly defined opinion: he feels that the naming/numbering scheme is too complicated (so do I) and that suggests a bias. So the discussion is likely more interesting than any possible answer.
And, interestingly enough, the 'makers of small web browsers' now want their browsers to be more prominently displayed: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8551317.stm. Random clearly isn't enough.
Sigh. I do agree that all browsers should be given equal prominence/visibility, but at some point, surely, people have to accept limitations in screen real-estate?
Copyright is an incentive to create work, providing a period of exclusivity (for want of a better word) in which the author/creator/artist is able to monopolize on their created work. Copyright was not intended as, nor should it be allowed to become, a welfare system for artists. Surely the return on investment made in the creation of the work can be made, if it's going to be made, within a reasonable time span such as, for example, twenty years?
And if, in twenty-one years, the artist wants more money the artist should do more work. Why is this wrong?
It's been a while since I've last used Windows (I'm a health professional, not an IT specialist so...), but I was under the impression that parts of Vista's abysmal file-copy/network-copy was due to the DRM embedded in the OS? Also there's the aspects of HDCP, and CSS that preclude easily cutting/copying/pasting/recording of AV on Windows (when last I checked, but this has the caveat that it's been a while...though maybe only eighteen months, give or take).
I'd hazard that, flame-war aside, others might have better responses. For my part I'll apologise for a perhaps ill-thought-out or unsubstantiated post.
I'm not sure why you've been modded Troll, unless maybe you were felt to have lacked a point, but I only wish that most users were sufficiently interested and educated as to be aware of the DRM. Or the impact that it has on their machines, or its usability.
The last thing I want is a requirement to wear pants while working in my home office, thank you very much.
Uh...it's for video conferencing, or calling. I assumed you'd be having your face in the picture, unless...where are you wearing your pants? Maybe you should try a hat?
Do you have a geek card? Is it still probationary? I don't know how old you are, obviously, but I find it hard to believe that people on/. aren't familiar with the old, 'classic,' series. Mind you, I just hit thirty so this might be a case of 'get off my lawn!'
If it is, you have my sincere apologies.
For my part no one's ever lived up to Troughton (second Doctor), Davison (fifth Doctor) or Baker (Tom, fourth Doctor).
Eccleston was great, and he made it work again on BBC primetime after a hiatus of decades, but he still didn't have the joie de Vivre I associate with the Doctor as well as the melancholy.
I hope that Smith makes it work, or makes the role memorably his, but...I'm not yet convinced it's going to go well...But, as I said, it's possibly just a 'get off my lawn!'....sorry...
It seems that economics will set the price of a product at the intersection of supply and demand, and also drive the cost of an item towards its marginal cost (I'm not entirely familiar with the term, but it appears to be approximately the cost of manufacture). So it cost whatever it cost to develop the product, but now you can reproduce the developed, presumably, software at almost no cost (excepting the cost of the media or bandwidth). I'd suggest that if the free versions are as good as the paid-for version that you'd need to explore means of making the paid-for software more valuable. Either through more features or some form of support/assurance service.
Employees'(or prospective employees') personal lives should be strictly off limits unless the employee voluntarily discloses the information as per professional interview guidelines(such as listing interests on a resume' or answering an interviewer's questions).
Why? The information's both public and readily available. If someone's application for employment is dismissed because they appear to be a drunken stoner that enjoys whining about former employers then...why should the prospective employer not be aware of it?
If it was something that they obtained through the use of private detectives, or contacting previous employers then, maybe, fair enough the applicant should be warned. But if they're stupid enough to post any form of incriminating material online what makes you think they'd heed the warning in the first place?
Would you? Why..? You've seen how they calculate their losses "every download is a lost sale," what makes you think their calculations for returns are likely to be any more sane? Though they might have comedic value...
The U.K. government has lost the personal information of up to four million citizens in one year alone.
That's quite impressive, I assumed it was a much larger figure given all the stories. Mind you, that's just an estimate, so it probably is a larger figure. I do wish that people entrusted with this type of data, and any other type to be honest, would have to prove competence to be trusted with it.
The state's new (Democratic) attorney general has just issued a rule banning the practice of election workers taking the machines home with them the night before elections.
There had to be a rule issued to stop this? Could we not have a simple "don't be a moron" rule? In what way does it not look bad if people are taking the easily-hackable machines home with them?
I don't want to sound ungrateful, but is that the only reason? I accept that having one more secured web-server in the world is a righteous goal, and ethical too, but I was expecting rather more pros than just the one (albeit an important one).
I realise that this is hugely off topic, but is there any chance anyone can highlight the benefits of prepared/stored statements? I've been trying to read around on the subject but it seems to be hard to pin down the benefits, and then I come across this: http://www.tonymarston.net/php-mysql/stored-procedures-are-evil.html, which offers an insight, but seems moderately biased against it "because he's never bothered with it yet, why bother with it now. And get off my lawn!"
I agree with both of you, to be honest. It's hugely important that government and military, or indeed any expense paid for with tax-payers' cash, is highlighted and examined. Particularly when that expenditure was for something so pointless. Generals want nice, comfortable quarters on a plane? Fair enough, make the military planes comfortable for everyone, don't buy a 'pod' that's presumably removable (I haven't RTFAd) so's they don't have to share it with the commoners. I have this strange notion that the senior people in any organisation should lead by example, rather than seek luxury for themselves regardless of cost, while moaning that standards in the young 'uns have deteriorated.
I also agree with the GP that, really, this isn't news for nerds. Yes it matters, but it matters to everyone in the country in which the expenses were paid, not just nerds and geeks. This should be more for CNN or the BBC news, surely?
Slashdot Mirror
I have mod points today, but I couldn't resist asking: in what possible way is the parent's post funny? Insightful, yes; ...but funny?
This act will only demonstrate the demand (or otherwise) of such an ISP service. Once the demand is demonstrated others in the market will likely attempt to offer a service to rival the first entrant. I'd assume that competition based on privacy, freedom of speech and an assumption of innocence would be welcome here on Slashdot. I know I'd happily transfer to their service if they can operate a similar ISP in the UK.
And it's only an appreciable concern in trademark law if the competing product is sold in the same market; Lucas sells movie-merch toys, Wicked Lasers appear to sell a functioning laser. I'm not sure how they could be considered to be 'in the same market,' really.
Very few people will visit 'only the bank,' especially if they're just quickly checking email (or whatever), and don't want to have to reboot and log in first to do so.
The majority of users I have contact with resent having to enter passwords/user-verification at all. With banks they do, often at least, appreciate the value of the process. But they still take every opportunity to minimise the process, so what're these users to do when they can't have Firefox (et al) save their username/passwords?
Personally, I'm thinking they'll go back to using Windows, which can't be reasonably prevented by the institution, without cutting off a large user-base. Still, a nice -and, to me, novel- idea.
I pretty much agree, but I think the reason for posting the question on Slashdot, with its technically savvy audience, was probably more about prompting a discussion than getting an answer; it's a question that has no real answer available ('yes' or 'no' don't really cut it in this situation), whereas the discussion might throw up some interesting alternatives, different methodologies or perhaps a couple of sites that might help out with the purchasing process (take 'what you want' into account and then throws up a 'what you should buy,' perhaps).
The problem is that the OP has a fairly clearly defined opinion: he feels that the naming/numbering scheme is too complicated (so do I) and that suggests a bias. So the discussion is likely more interesting than any possible answer.
And, interestingly enough, the 'makers of small web browsers' now want their browsers to be more prominently displayed: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8551317.stm. Random clearly isn't enough.
Sigh. I do agree that all browsers should be given equal prominence/visibility, but at some point, surely, people have to accept limitations in screen real-estate?
And why does that matter?
Copyright is an incentive to create work, providing a period of exclusivity (for want of a better word) in which the author/creator/artist is able to monopolize on their created work. Copyright was not intended as, nor should it be allowed to become, a welfare system for artists. Surely the return on investment made in the creation of the work can be made, if it's going to be made, within a reasonable time span such as, for example, twenty years?
And if, in twenty-one years, the artist wants more money the artist should do more work. Why is this wrong?
It's been a while since I've last used Windows (I'm a health professional, not an IT specialist so...), but I was under the impression that parts of Vista's abysmal file-copy/network-copy was due to the DRM embedded in the OS? Also there's the aspects of HDCP, and CSS that preclude easily cutting/copying/pasting/recording of AV on Windows (when last I checked, but this has the caveat that it's been a while...though maybe only eighteen months, give or take).
I'd hazard that, flame-war aside, others might have better responses. For my part I'll apologise for a perhaps ill-thought-out or unsubstantiated post.
I'm not sure why you've been modded Troll, unless maybe you were felt to have lacked a point, but I only wish that most users were sufficiently interested and educated as to be aware of the DRM. Or the impact that it has on their machines, or its usability.
Uh...it's for video conferencing, or calling. I assumed you'd be having your face in the picture, unless...where are you wearing your pants? Maybe you should try a hat?
The more environmentally friendly and less wasteful colors are #0f0 and f00, thank you.
It ain't easy, being green.
Do you have a geek card? Is it still probationary? I don't know how old you are, obviously, but I find it hard to believe that people on /. aren't familiar with the old, 'classic,' series. Mind you, I just hit thirty so this might be a case of 'get off my lawn!'
If it is, you have my sincere apologies.
For my part no one's ever lived up to Troughton (second Doctor), Davison (fifth Doctor) or Baker (Tom, fourth Doctor).
Eccleston was great, and he made it work again on BBC primetime after a hiatus of decades, but he still didn't have the joie de Vivre I associate with the Doctor as well as the melancholy.
I hope that Smith makes it work, or makes the role memorably his, but...I'm not yet convinced it's going to go well...But, as I said, it's possibly just a 'get off my lawn!'....sorry...
You're saying the FBI are zombies..?
It seems that economics will set the price of a product at the intersection of supply and demand, and also drive the cost of an item towards its marginal cost (I'm not entirely familiar with the term, but it appears to be approximately the cost of manufacture). So it cost whatever it cost to develop the product, but now you can reproduce the developed, presumably, software at almost no cost (excepting the cost of the media or bandwidth). I'd suggest that if the free versions are as good as the paid-for version that you'd need to explore means of making the paid-for software more valuable. Either through more features or some form of support/assurance service.
Why? The information's both public and readily available. If someone's application for employment is dismissed because they appear to be a drunken stoner that enjoys whining about former employers then...why should the prospective employer not be aware of it?
If it was something that they obtained through the use of private detectives, or contacting previous employers then, maybe, fair enough the applicant should be warned. But if they're stupid enough to post any form of incriminating material online what makes you think they'd heed the warning in the first place?
I know, replying to my own comment...I didn't realise how redundant I was being 'til I saw it on the page...curses..! ;)
Would you? Why..? You've seen how they calculate their losses "every download is a lost sale," what makes you think their calculations for returns are likely to be any more sane? Though they might have comedic value...
That's quite impressive, I assumed it was a much larger figure given all the stories. Mind you, that's just an estimate, so it probably is a larger figure. I do wish that people entrusted with this type of data, and any other type to be honest, would have to prove competence to be trusted with it.
Why uncomfortable, did it touch you..? ;)
There had to be a rule issued to stop this? Could we not have a simple "don't be a moron" rule? In what way does it not look bad if people are taking the easily-hackable machines home with them?
I don't want to sound ungrateful, but is that the only reason? I accept that having one more secured web-server in the world is a righteous goal, and ethical too, but I was expecting rather more pros than just the one (albeit an important one).
Thanks though, much appreciated. =)
I realise that this is hugely off topic, but is there any chance anyone can highlight the benefits of prepared/stored statements? I've been trying to read around on the subject but it seems to be hard to pin down the benefits, and then I come across this: http://www.tonymarston.net/php-mysql/stored-procedures-are-evil.html, which offers an insight, but seems moderately biased against it "because he's never bothered with it yet, why bother with it now. And get off my lawn!"
Thanks for any help with this...
I agree with both of you, to be honest. It's hugely important that government and military, or indeed any expense paid for with tax-payers' cash, is highlighted and examined. Particularly when that expenditure was for something so pointless. Generals want nice, comfortable quarters on a plane? Fair enough, make the military planes comfortable for everyone, don't buy a 'pod' that's presumably removable (I haven't RTFAd) so's they don't have to share it with the commoners. I have this strange notion that the senior people in any organisation should lead by example, rather than seek luxury for themselves regardless of cost, while moaning that standards in the young 'uns have deteriorated.
I also agree with the GP that, really, this isn't news for nerds. Yes it matters, but it matters to everyone in the country in which the expenses were paid, not just nerds and geeks. This should be more for CNN or the BBC news, surely?
Steve? Is that you? Can I have my chairs back..?