My twin boys started using the Leapfrog computer at about 2.5 years old. At 3, they know how to use the mouse and the interface well enough to choose and play the games ! Seriously, 3yo and they can use the mouse (it's a Mac-like 1-click)
They know the alphabet, and love playing the games where you use the keyboard to pick letters. Likewise, they use the arrows to play the puzzle games, and YES, they can do all this at 3 ! They even know how to load carts and turn the thing on (they know how to turn on/off nearly everything though, lol)
"I'm not quite sure if you actually RTFA"
- um, this is Slashdot... of course I didn't read the article:)
So, it seems that it's not like they are just dumping it out there... they have some freaky looking panda handing it around. You are right that it's still using OUR machines to distribute THEIR content for them... they should pay us:)
Thanks for the reply, and for not yelling "you jacka$$" at me or anything:) (this is Slashdot after all)
I'm seen a ton of the usually P2P and "Piracy" comments... let's look at the other part of what they want to do...
Use a P2P network that they didn't build, didn't buy or contribute to, didn't ask permission to be on, all in order to promote their content and make money.
Who are the real "pirates" here ? NBC it seems. Why doesn't someone just build a filter that prevents NBC from placing content on the network ? Shouldn't NBC put money into BitTorrent, or be accused of stealing themselves ?
"it is just not written in a manner that is going to connect well with a modern audience"
- Shall I suggest the comic book, or the new blog version perhaps ? (just kidding)
I've read nearly everything in the series, and this book matches up well to the style and stories that you'll find in The Similrillion or Lost Tales. If you enjoyed those, especially Lost Tales, you may enjoy Children of Hurin. Yes, it's not a style that mimics the latest J.D. Robb, but then it isn't supposed to, that's one of the things that appeal to me about the text.
Um... "Viacom was reporting the news and providing commentary on the advertisement."
You obviously aren't familiar with the WebJunk show:) It's a clip-show, which is a show comprised of video clips from multiple sources. It's most defintitely NOT a news show or a critical commentary, it's pure entertainment (albeit, that's an arguable point;)
Calling WebJunk a news show is like calling America's Funniest Videos a documentary
I think Viacom is a clear violator here, the copyright owner however is probably exercising fair use when he posts a segment (not the whole show) and makes relevent commentary on it.
And to get more directly to the topic at hand, this guy in no way violated anyone's copyright, yet he was slapped with a violation notice, and it seem that the big boys get to do that with impunity these days (whether they are correct or not).
That section you just described is the "we are doing this because..." part, and is NOT the description of what acts qualify to repeal a person's 5th amendment rights. In fact, political acts are included and guilt will only be determined through a secret process outside the courts.
Maybe these folks should sell the items at $1M each, with an "instant rebate" of $999,995:)
Seriously though, has it come to the point that a manufacturer can end someone's livelyhood on the mere suggestion that they "sold stuff below the price I want my stuff sold at"
Um, we aren't talking about "authorized resellers" and contracts there, we are talking about people being allowed to sell things that they own (have purchased or otherwise legally obtained). I guess that selling an (unopened) item at a yard sale would be illegal in your world... as far as I'm concerned, the manufacturer gives up any right to control the selling/transfer of an item I own when it becomes mine, used or otherwise, and I have an absolute right to sell it to whomever I please in any manner I please.
Unless you personally agree to some terms that state otherwise (and these people have not), you should be free to sell things without having to get permission and without being told what price you can put on it.
hehe, what's your stand on re-gifting birthday presents, would you outlaw that as well since it obviously implies that the manufacturer's item is not desirable
Not sure that it's OT, since it's commenting on the actual posting:)
That's a freaky email hash... really complicated, it's the address in reverse with some extra dots and with @ spelled out... the real addy is "theBadAstronomer" @ "gmail.com"
I have to agree with you that dgatwood is taking a bit of a novice approach to enterprise computing here... I'm in IT at a large company, and most of what is mentioned there is not practical, and in fact, not practiced.
That being said, the best practices that are followed in a large enterprise environment are rather well understood and pretty standard these days (from what I've seen). In my almost 3 years at my current gig, I have never, not even once seen or even heard of any malware or virus issues, or of any serious breach of data security, and I have a ton of data that I personally oversee the security of.
Patches are applied on schedule to servers and client machines (yep, the Tuesday thing).
Client machines run a variety of anti-virus, anti-malware software (also maintained regularly).
Machines that leave the premises (laptops) are fully encrypted.
Client machines are "locked down" tight unless you have a business case that requires otherwise (most users can't even *see* their C drives !) ...
That's just a few things that are done, there's also network security, firewalls, proxies, etc... And importantly, this is all done without a major investment in staffing (most everything is standardized, automated, etc). Security is always about putting up barriers, it's never been about being 100% secure. You need to take any and all reasonable steps to prevent issues from occuring, and these days, there's quite a bit you can do without incurring any huge unreasonable costs (well, at least in the private sector).
Surely, an agency that commands such a massive budget, and one that was created with a promise to be an improvement over the status quo in goverment, should be able to better secure the data that they are responsible for. And if they can't, especially given the nature of their mandate, there's an issue here.
In any case, even discussing it (as the GAO and Congress are) can lead to improvements, and ultimately, that's what they need to do. And I wouldn't be surprised if there's an associated request for budget after any recommendations there:)
Sure, I'm certain that some of the items are just typical malware (which still indicates a lack of acceptable security on internal machines) but from TFA:
"In one instance, hacker tools for stealing passwords and other files were found on two internal Homeland Security computer systems. "
"Congressional investigators, expected to testify Wednesday during an oversight hearing about the department's security lapses, determined that persistent weaknesses "threaten the confidentiality, integrity and availability of key DHS information and information systems," according to a new report from the Government Accountability Office being released later in June."
- if the experts at the GAO are willing to make that sort of assertion in a Congession hearing, I tend to believe this is more than a case of finding "Bonzai Budy" on some ticket kiosks...
One might also ask, "how many keyloggers, viruses, and break-ins are acceptible" at the DHS these days ?
I agree that without a comparision it's difficult to determine if these numbers are "good" or "bad" in a sense, but one may argue that any security breach at the DHS is an issue. Having this occur at any agency with the word "security" in the name certainly add to the hype, but isn't some attention justified here ?
I mean, what if your bank admitted to 200 serious security breaches, would you still feel safe banking there ? Even if they could state that the other banks had just as many ? Would you feel safe banking *anywhere* at that point ? And the systems DHS maintains are a bit more important to protect than your checking account.
I agree that you need more information to make a fully qualified judgement here, but is it neccessary that we know all the details before making any judgement at all in this case ? We know that there were at least 800 serious security breaches reported, just one would have me concerned...
Seems a simple enough solution... have the ISPs that don't participate charge those that do to have messages originating from their systems delivered, or converesly, if Verizon doesn't pay google, then google won't accept SMTP from Verizon (well, maybe not at that scale, but it would be nice to see).
If the people who scrape together and risk the money to pay the huge staff of creative people, for YEARS, to produce something that can only recoup all of that effort and cost once the work starts to sell find that there's simply no way to make it worth the trouble
Yeah, and there's nobody forcing this industry to spend what they spend, and no reason that our tax dollars should go towards protecting the business based on your premise that "it costs a lot to do it" - seriously, profit protection should be a cost laid to the one making the profits, how do I profit from DHS making special reports to a single industy entity ? Why should WE have to pay to get it done ? What they are describingg is literally the definition of facism (corporate/govt parterning, laws designed to protect the "connected" organizations only).
You first need good solid laws, with solid reasoning, that protect EVERYONE equally. If the DHS discovers that MY copyrighted work is being traded, or even FOSS is being abused, then they should have the SAME OBLIGATION to me to report the data. It's not right that one industry has coopted the use of DHS (tax dollars). As for the extreme penalty, wow, copying CDs is literally worse than murder and rape @! Make the penalty fit the crime, make it enough to discourage the behavior (fine, minimal jailtime - 30 days), and enforce it equally (ie: if a Senator/Judges/Cops daughter is caught, they go to jail).
Oh, and remember when that RIAA guy copied "This Movie Not Yet Rated" for internal review, then distributed and admitted to it... would you propose that he be put in jail ??? I bet not, and that exposes your bias here. Equal protection under the law, without it, you have facism.
Your ability to talk down to people is amazingly well developed. I imagine it's your parents that taught you that, mostly by example, and as such, that's why you feel so powerless frightened and alone. Degrading other people isn't the best way to make a point.
You seem to be making the argument that we should cast a judgement over the entire world, then line up everyone by order of the biggest sin. By doing so, you can identify the causes that are worthy of addressing (being worthy, that's not something you are familiar with is it?).
Well let me tell you something... I do have an understanding of human nature. It is because of human weakness that we have laws, laws based on moral codes. The laws of America, it's highest laws in fact, include the right to a trial, the right to be protected against cruel and inhuman punishment, the right to speak freely. The prisoners in gitmo are prisoners of America. As such, we apply our laws and thus our moral code to them, and we exhibit these in the way we as a people handle the situation. So far, it has been to ignore our highest laws, ignore our moral standards, and now, you would advocate that we ignore the problem altogether because there is other suffering in the world.
It's is a weak man who abandons his morals in times of trouble. In fact, by ignoring this and allowing this, it demonstrates that these morals are simply relative to the situation, which implies that they aren't morals at all.
I understand that you feel the way you do, and I can guess why. I suggest that you either stand up for what's right, or please sit back down. Let those folks that do have conviction and courage, those folks who love America and what it stands for, let those people show you the way so that one day maybe you can learn what it is to be worthy.
Um, the way I see it, you serve your customers by giving them good advice, not by misleading them then fleecing them. If you do otherwise, you aren't a salesman, you are con-artist.
You might see one lost Vista sale (shortsighted), but if you recommend it to them and it's not a good value, the store gets the black eye, and that can mean multiple sales lost over the next few years.
Just look at the reputation that stores like Best Buy have...:)
We should take a vote using GEMS to see if the Diebold software is good or not:) I'm predicting a landslide !
Seriously though, I'm a little disapointed in the comments so far. First, this is not a political/partisan issue. Second, you don't need the source code to evaluate the operation of this software. Sure, it would be easier if we had it, but are you telling me that nobody here knows how to run a debugger or decompile some simple windows code ??? How many of you are drooling at the chance to take a whack at this stuff ? Go to it !@
For you people whining about no source code, how about you leave the real hacking to the real hackers and go back to your QA jobs:) Besides, I think it will be interesting to see what people come up with *without even having the source* - it's more of a real world test that way.
There's a photo of it here. It's sitting there in the middle of the table (actually, just a little to the left of the middle).
Seriously though, how funny would that demo be... "I've created this material lattice that re-directs visible light such that nobody can ever see it ! oh wait, I had it here somewhere... D'oh !"
Basically, neat trick for radar/MW, lousy for visible light. Why even go there ?
All kidding aside, based on the Table of Contents this seems to be just an updated version of "How to Design A Website", albeit it looks a bit more detailed than those versions of the past. I like that they mention things like "backups" and other useful topics for the serious mom-and-pop sites (at least they will know what a backup is!)
Still, imagine what those books from the 90's would look like to a modern website developer...:)
The reviewer mentions that "none of it addresses advanced topics" which to me indicates that yeah, it's great for getting started (as the title suggests) but you should read it fast... the content is probably already out of date. In my opinion, the dead-tree versions of "How to Design a Website" are a bit of an anachronism in this day and age.
One other poster mentioned it, but didn't provided the link to The Subservient Chicken. Alternately creepy, and at the same time addictive ! Try making it moonwalk or do yoga:)
Assuming a world where people record themselves all day became a reality. A large part of the recording would I assume, be of the subject watching the earlier recordings...
So you would have a recording of a person watching their recording... then let's say they watch that...
Ok, yeah, other people would be watching the recording... so you would have recordings of *them* watching someone else's recording, and so on. Pretty soon, you'll have to get someone to get up and actually *do* something - and those people would be highly compensated (think of the advertising revenue for life-tapes of "The Guy who went skydiving that one time")
Perhaps even reality TV is just the first step to this new nightmare vision of the future...:)
Slashdot Mirror
My twin boys started using the Leapfrog computer at about 2.5 years old. At 3, they know how to use the mouse and the interface well enough to choose and play the games ! Seriously, 3yo and they can use the mouse (it's a Mac-like 1-click)
They know the alphabet, and love playing the games where you use the keyboard to pick letters. Likewise, they use the arrows to play the puzzle games, and YES, they can do all this at 3 ! They even know how to load carts and turn the thing on (they know how to turn on/off nearly everything though, lol)
http://www.leapfrog.com/gaming/clickstart/
That's a good one
My birthday is coming up soon, so I asked her for a Quickie.
You should have seen her response !
"I'm not quite sure if you actually RTFA"
- um, this is Slashdot... of course I didn't read the article
So, it seems that it's not like they are just dumping it out there... they have some freaky looking panda handing it around. You are right that it's still using OUR machines to distribute THEIR content for them... they should pay us
Thanks for the reply, and for not yelling "you jacka$$" at me or anything
I'm seen a ton of the usually P2P and "Piracy" comments... let's look at the other part of what they want to do...
Use a P2P network that they didn't build, didn't buy or contribute to, didn't ask permission to be on, all in order to promote their content and make money.
Who are the real "pirates" here ? NBC it seems. Why doesn't someone just build a filter that prevents NBC from placing content on the network ? Shouldn't NBC put money into BitTorrent, or be accused of stealing themselves ?
Sorry Mr. Peck, but that was the most schizophrenic review I have ever read :) I can't decide if you love it or hated it. Perhaps you should stick to reviewing the latest Walkman or Digital Photo Frames :)
"it is just not written in a manner that is going to connect well with a modern audience"
- Shall I suggest the comic book, or the new blog version perhaps ? (just kidding)
I've read nearly everything in the series, and this book matches up well to the style and stories that you'll find in The Similrillion or Lost Tales. If you enjoyed those, especially Lost Tales, you may enjoy Children of Hurin. Yes, it's not a style that mimics the latest J.D. Robb, but then it isn't supposed to, that's one of the things that appeal to me about the text.
I tried to post the answer, but the lameness filter won't allow it.
Um... "Viacom was reporting the news and providing commentary on the advertisement."
You obviously aren't familiar with the WebJunk show
Calling WebJunk a news show is like calling America's Funniest Videos a documentary
I think Viacom is a clear violator here, the copyright owner however is probably exercising fair use when he posts a segment (not the whole show) and makes relevent commentary on it.
And to get more directly to the topic at hand, this guy in no way violated anyone's copyright, yet he was slapped with a violation notice, and it seem that the big boys get to do that with impunity these days (whether they are correct or not).
That section you just described is the "we are doing this because..." part, and is NOT the description of what acts qualify to repeal a person's 5th amendment rights. In fact, political acts are included and guilt will only be determined through a secret process outside the courts.
Read it again...
Maybe these folks should sell the items at $1M each, with an "instant rebate" of $999,995
Seriously though, has it come to the point that a manufacturer can end someone's livelyhood on the mere suggestion that they "sold stuff below the price I want my stuff sold at"
It would seem so judging by the cases mentioned.
Um, we aren't talking about "authorized resellers" and contracts there, we are talking about people being allowed to sell things that they own (have purchased or otherwise legally obtained). I guess that selling an (unopened) item at a yard sale would be illegal in your world... as far as I'm concerned, the manufacturer gives up any right to control the selling/transfer of an item I own when it becomes mine, used or otherwise, and I have an absolute right to sell it to whomever I please in any manner I please.
Unless you personally agree to some terms that state otherwise (and these people have not), you should be free to sell things without having to get permission and without being told what price you can put on it.
hehe, what's your stand on re-gifting birthday presents, would you outlaw that as well since it obviously implies that the manufacturer's item is not desirable
Not sure that it's OT, since it's commenting on the actual posting
That's a freaky email hash... really complicated, it's the address in reverse with some extra dots and with @ spelled out... the real addy is "theBadAstronomer" @ "gmail.com"
I have to agree with you that dgatwood is taking a bit of a novice approach to enterprise computing here... I'm in IT at a large company, and most of what is mentioned there is not practical, and in fact, not practiced.
That being said, the best practices that are followed in a large enterprise environment are rather well understood and pretty standard these days (from what I've seen). In my almost 3 years at my current gig, I have never, not even once seen or even heard of any malware or virus issues, or of any serious breach of data security, and I have a ton of data that I personally oversee the security of.
Patches are applied on schedule to servers and client machines (yep, the Tuesday thing).
Client machines run a variety of anti-virus, anti-malware software (also maintained regularly).
Machines that leave the premises (laptops) are fully encrypted.
Client machines are "locked down" tight unless you have a business case that requires otherwise (most users can't even *see* their C drives !)
That's just a few things that are done, there's also network security, firewalls, proxies, etc... And importantly, this is all done without a major investment in staffing (most everything is standardized, automated, etc). Security is always about putting up barriers, it's never been about being 100% secure. You need to take any and all reasonable steps to prevent issues from occuring, and these days, there's quite a bit you can do without incurring any huge unreasonable costs (well, at least in the private sector).
Surely, an agency that commands such a massive budget, and one that was created with a promise to be an improvement over the status quo in goverment, should be able to better secure the data that they are responsible for. And if they can't, especially given the nature of their mandate, there's an issue here.
In any case, even discussing it (as the GAO and Congress are) can lead to improvements, and ultimately, that's what they need to do. And I wouldn't be surprised if there's an associated request for budget after any recommendations there
Sure, I'm certain that some of the items are just typical malware (which still indicates a lack of acceptable security on internal machines) but from TFA:
- if the experts at the GAO are willing to make that sort of assertion in a Congession hearing, I tend to believe this is more than a case of finding "Bonzai Budy" on some ticket kiosks...
One might also ask, "how many keyloggers, viruses, and break-ins are acceptible" at the DHS these days ?
I agree that without a comparision it's difficult to determine if these numbers are "good" or "bad" in a sense, but one may argue that any security breach at the DHS is an issue. Having this occur at any agency with the word "security" in the name certainly add to the hype, but isn't some attention justified here ?
I mean, what if your bank admitted to 200 serious security breaches, would you still feel safe banking there ? Even if they could state that the other banks had just as many ? Would you feel safe banking *anywhere* at that point ? And the systems DHS maintains are a bit more important to protect than your checking account.
I agree that you need more information to make a fully qualified judgement here, but is it neccessary that we know all the details before making any judgement at all in this case ? We know that there were at least 800 serious security breaches reported, just one would have me concerned...
Seems a simple enough solution... have the ISPs that don't participate charge those that do to have messages originating from their systems delivered, or converesly, if Verizon doesn't pay google, then google won't accept SMTP from Verizon (well, maybe not at that scale, but it would be nice to see).
If the people who scrape together and risk the money to pay the huge staff of creative people, for YEARS, to produce something that can only recoup all of that effort and cost once the work starts to sell find that there's simply no way to make it worth the trouble
Yeah, and there's nobody forcing this industry to spend what they spend, and no reason that our tax dollars should go towards protecting the business based on your premise that "it costs a lot to do it" - seriously, profit protection should be a cost laid to the one making the profits, how do I profit from DHS making special reports to a single industy entity ? Why should WE have to pay to get it done ? What they are describingg is literally the definition of facism (corporate/govt parterning, laws designed to protect the "connected" organizations only).
You first need good solid laws, with solid reasoning, that protect EVERYONE equally. If the DHS discovers that MY copyrighted work is being traded, or even FOSS is being abused, then they should have the SAME OBLIGATION to me to report the data. It's not right that one industry has coopted the use of DHS (tax dollars). As for the extreme penalty, wow, copying CDs is literally worse than murder and rape @! Make the penalty fit the crime, make it enough to discourage the behavior (fine, minimal jailtime - 30 days), and enforce it equally (ie: if a Senator/Judges/Cops daughter is caught, they go to jail).
Oh, and remember when that RIAA guy copied "This Movie Not Yet Rated" for internal review, then distributed and admitted to it... would you propose that he be put in jail ??? I bet not, and that exposes your bias here. Equal protection under the law, without it, you have facism.
Great idea ! Then all you would have to do is get all the Slashdotters to agree on a topic and you could change the world...
oh wait.... nevermind...
hehe... wow... I've been reading your posts...
Your ability to talk down to people is amazingly well developed. I imagine it's your parents that taught you that, mostly by example, and as such, that's why you feel so powerless frightened and alone. Degrading other people isn't the best way to make a point.
You seem to be making the argument that we should cast a judgement over the entire world, then line up everyone by order of the biggest sin. By doing so, you can identify the causes that are worthy of addressing (being worthy, that's not something you are familiar with is it?).
Well let me tell you something... I do have an understanding of human nature. It is because of human weakness that we have laws, laws based on moral codes. The laws of America, it's highest laws in fact, include the right to a trial, the right to be protected against cruel and inhuman punishment, the right to speak freely. The prisoners in gitmo are prisoners of America. As such, we apply our laws and thus our moral code to them, and we exhibit these in the way we as a people handle the situation. So far, it has been to ignore our highest laws, ignore our moral standards, and now, you would advocate that we ignore the problem altogether because there is other suffering in the world.
It's is a weak man who abandons his morals in times of trouble. In fact, by ignoring this and allowing this, it demonstrates that these morals are simply relative to the situation, which implies that they aren't morals at all.
I understand that you feel the way you do, and I can guess why. I suggest that you either stand up for what's right, or please sit back down. Let those folks that do have conviction and courage, those folks who love America and what it stands for, let those people show you the way so that one day maybe you can learn what it is to be worthy.
Um, the way I see it, you serve your customers by giving them good advice, not by misleading them then fleecing them. If you do otherwise, you aren't a salesman, you are con-artist.
:)
You might see one lost Vista sale (shortsighted), but if you recommend it to them and it's not a good value, the store gets the black eye, and that can mean multiple sales lost over the next few years.
Just look at the reputation that stores like Best Buy have...
We should take a vote using GEMS to see if the Diebold software is good or not
Seriously though, I'm a little disapointed in the comments so far. First, this is not a political/partisan issue. Second, you don't need the source code to evaluate the operation of this software. Sure, it would be easier if we had it, but are you telling me that nobody here knows how to run a debugger or decompile some simple windows code ??? How many of you are drooling at the chance to take a whack at this stuff ? Go to it !@
For you people whining about no source code, how about you leave the real hacking to the real hackers and go back to your QA jobs
There's a photo of it here. It's sitting there in the middle of the table (actually, just a little to the left of the middle).
Seriously though, how funny would that demo be... "I've created this material lattice that re-directs visible light such that nobody can ever see it ! oh wait, I had it here somewhere... D'oh !"
Basically, neat trick for radar/MW, lousy for visible light. Why even go there ?
All kidding aside, based on the Table of Contents this seems to be just an updated version of "How to Design A Website", albeit it looks a bit more detailed than those versions of the past. I like that they mention things like "backups" and other useful topics for the serious mom-and-pop sites (at least they will know what a backup is!)
Still, imagine what those books from the 90's would look like to a modern website developer...
The reviewer mentions that "none of it addresses advanced topics" which to me indicates that yeah, it's great for getting started (as the title suggests) but you should read it fast... the content is probably already out of date. In my opinion, the dead-tree versions of "How to Design a Website" are a bit of an anachronism in this day and age.
One other poster mentioned it, but didn't provided the link to The Subservient Chicken. Alternately creepy, and at the same time addictive ! Try making it moonwalk or do yoga
Assuming a world where people record themselves all day became a reality. A large part of the recording would I assume, be of the subject watching the earlier recordings...
So you would have a recording of a person watching their recording... then let's say they watch that...
Ok, yeah, other people would be watching the recording... so you would have recordings of *them* watching someone else's recording, and so on. Pretty soon, you'll have to get someone to get up and actually *do* something - and those people would be highly compensated (think of the advertising revenue for life-tapes of "The Guy who went skydiving that one time")
Perhaps even reality TV is just the first step to this new nightmare vision of the future...