Damned if you do...
Seems to me like you're slating Apple for not having Flash on the phone, yet slating Google for putting Flash on android! Leave flash, it's dying. Slowly and painfully, but it's not as useful as it was in '04
16 posts • joined 10 Apr 2007
You used to have to pay TV license for having a radio set? They abolished it when TV was making enough money and becoming the main financial source for the beeb. Doesn't it stand to reason that the same will happen with TVs and the Internet?
As the internet increases in popularity, the TV set will decrease, meaning that the BBC have less money, and therefore need a new income. I don't have a problem with giving some money to the BBC, it's not like they're using the money to shoot puppies or something.
One thing that no one has pointed out, is that it's not the users' fault. If your car has an electrical error and suddenly your alarm goes off, or you drive into a ditch, this is not your problem. When your computer is infected with a bot, essentially the Operating System was faulty to begin with, to let this happen.
Having a test is not necessary, all people who go through the education system learn how to adequately use a computer nowadays. It's the previous two generations that are causing more of these problems, and I believe mainly because of XP. Vista has taken a few steps in this direction (with UAC, which just happens to be the name of the bad guys in doom), but it isn't yet enough for me to be sure that Windows is a safe operating system. The amount of systems that I've seen running XP when they just can't handle it is depressing, these are often the worst PCs to fix, because they still feel broken once there are no errors.
I really think you missed the point when you wrote this article. Education is the reason that bots appear on the 'net, people don't know how to stop them. You teach someone how to cook before they use a cooker, how to read before you give them The Simarillion, why not PCs? Just educate people and the problem will change and we'll have different things to complain about.
Ok, just get developer's toolbar for firefox (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/60) and click 'block cookies'. Then you'll be fine for searching for as long as you want without any pesky google geeks looking at your 'browsing preferences'
Although chemical weapons are not actually classed as WMDs, the media picks up and demonises them because they don't have any practical experience, and it becomes the norm. The same thing happens with Hacker and Cracker, the former has been used out of context so much that it is now the norm. Also with Mass and Weight, I don't say I weigh 500N, but that's what it means.
I think the author makes some very valid points about chemical weapons. Something like napalm or cluster bombs are much easier to kill people with, especially in crowded areas.
About Saddam... it's not very difficult to kill people living in villages, hence called because they are small. He probably could have just sent a quick few shells or two men with some guns and done the job exactly the same. In my opinion, I think he was training his men for using them against a real enemy. When he realised they weren't as useful as conventional means, he didn't bother using them again, which would be why no chemical weapons were used against soldiers in Iraq.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019