Well, some people just make me nervous... like people who wear black pants and leather jackets, walk into the plane, sit down, and have this tense forehead and just look downright antisocial. AFAIK it's just etiquette to at least say a simple "hi" or nod politely before you take your seat next to someone. Most people do. It makes people comfortable. Others just stare at you, stare at random parts of the aircraft, and have the tense wrinkles on their forehead. They just look sketchy.
And then there are those who don't know their way through security. I mean, come on, give me a break, it's not that difficult. Do what the dozens of others in front of you are doing. Once I watched this guy shove his luggage into the x-ray and just dart through the metal detector when the TSA guy was turning the other way. I mean, geez. He saw the dozen-odd people wait and stop at the metal detector, show the boarding pass, and move on when told to... and then this guy just darted right through. He *MUST* have had something to hide, and I was sure glad to see a TSA guy on the other end grab him and put him aside, at which point he started shaking nervously.
I'm fine with babies screaming and people having conversations. I don't mind if cellphones can be feasibly allowed and people be required to keep their conversations to a whisper.
What *does* bug me the most about travelling on planes: 1. Fat people. No offense, but I feel like I have a right to my entire seat and 50% of the armrest. I don't mean to offend obese people, but if they cannot respect my rights to that space without elbows and legs brushing against me for the entire flight, they need to purchase a first class seat or two seats or something. No, it's *not* ok to plop yourself down and arrogantly and comfortably take up the entire both armrests on both sides of you. If you are fat, it's your fault. Period.
2. Smelly people.
3. People who aren't nice about travel needs (like having to get up to go to the bathroom, get up to walk around because you have a medical condition that requires you to), people who argue with flight attendants about stupid stuff ("No! I paid for this seat and I'm *not* moving" [even though an old woman really needs that seat])
4. People who aren't nice to you. I was once on a flight and after the lights were turned off in cruising altitude, I slowly put my seat back to go to sleep. A couple of minutes later, the guy behind me started pounding on the seat, probably trying to tell me to put my seat back in the upright position. He didn't bother to talk at all, didn't bother to get up and at least signal at me nicely if he didn't speak English, he didn't do anything. He just kept pounding on my seat for the entire flight, periodically.
5. People who rest their hands on the top of the seat in front of them, in a fashion that causes their fingers to touch the person's hair in front, and refuse to remove their hand.
6. People who look so antisocial and angry-faced and silent that you can't figure out if they have some terrorist plot behind their eyes. Cheerful people are much easier to be around.
7. People who think that a flight is the place to hit on girls.
... then how do you deal with other peoples' in-person conversations in planes?
I personally have no issues with people having cell phone conversations, as long as they keep it to the same normal voice they would if they were talking to someone right next to them.
i think a good system would be to say if a post gets modded troll at least 6 times, it should get deleted completely. i would hate to see Slashdot banned in schools, to see Slashdot be a workplace risk, and something that can't be shared with youngsters.
I agree, I have no problems with people having conversations on cell phones for a long time, as long as it's in the same quiet tone of voice they would use in person.
I feel like personal computers with a single user are somewhat of an storage extension to the brain, and a sort of co-processor for the certain computational tasks the brain is inefficient at. I find the thought of someone searching my personal computer as invasive as searching my brain, if that were possible.
That said, there should be no reason to search someone's personal computer, unless they are a threat to humanity.
why does a master key even exist? if a system is to be secure, make it secure. don't allow some organization with a master key to be able to do stuff. if a master key exists to anything, it will be leaked in due time, if people want it.
second, why does the US government get rights? the organization in question should just relocate to another country where the US government has no jurisdiction.
finally, i thought.com/.net/.org were shared by the entire world and are not specifically "US" domain names. why is the US government trying to claim any sort of rights to them? what gives the US government the right to spoof and hack? especially if i am not even in the US? just because i have a.com domain name?
1. give me my flat tabs back! at least they used the right colours from the OS and the look was well-integrated.
2. stop the ugly animation of the beige bar every time a popup window gets blocked. that takes 10+ seconds when a site like digg.com is refreshing at evey step of the animation. it should appear, not animate.
3. when i hit F3 to find something, it should come up right away. the fact that it takes 3 seconds on any 1Ghz machine i have tried is absurd.
4. bring back the link navigation from mozilla where you started typing the text of the link and then hit enter to follow it.
5. make input text boxes follow the height: specification correctly in CSS. IE does do this, surprisingly, while firefox just adds a couple random extra pixels to the height.
6. get rid of the XML-based interface and use a hard-coded text file instead. i just did Edit->Preferences on my 1.6Ghz machine, and it is absolutely unreasonable that it took 2 full seconds to do that. it's a freaking property page! it should load in 0.1 second!
7. the error console, likewise, took 4 full seconds on a 1.6 Ghz machine for me on a page that is full of errors. really, now... the freaking error console is just lines of text!!! it should be displaying as fast as catting a text file into a console!! are they using XML for each error displayed or something? really, now... get rid of the happy little exclamation points and stop signs if that helps, but i doubt it... just please tell me what is taking my 1.6Ghz 4 full seconds to simply *display* errors that have already been processed. if it's "XML parsing" or some crap like that, really... come on... same with the download manager... it's a bunch of text and should come up in 0.01 seconds but takes me about 2.
This is probably a money-making plot on Microsoft's part. They will "open source" it, but then when you read the million pages of fine print, you find out that it isn't open-sourced under GPL, but instead, they'll probably rather put it under one of their own crafted licenses that says that if you modify and redistribute and portions of the code, you must include the string "I like porcupines" and a link to the Microsoft homepage.
And then when someone does redistribute it like other source code (without reading the M$ license), they'll sit quietly for about 3 or 4 years, while this person's redistributed code becomes ever more popular. Eventually, it will become incorporated in digital cameras worldwide, database software that drives the next Google, and your next-generation toaster.
Approximately 1 year after that happens, and $1 billion have been made off the redistributed code, Microsoft will sue for not following the license. They will cite the fact that "I like porcupines" is not in the code and that a link to the Microsoft homepage is not included. They will complain that the lack of a link to Microsoft will have decreased Vista sales by $3 billion (because, naturally, the price of their OS is probably 3 times that of the code in question). They will demand the profits, win the case, and said company will have the option of either paying the legal fees, or being bought out by Microsoft.
On another note, "open source" of itself does not always mean "free to redistribute", it just means you get to view the source.
Sorry for the comment abuse in replying to myself, but I guess I may not have been clear in my last sentence:
Yes, if I were designing a company, I _would_ sacrifice some company profits to promote happiness, as a human being. If this means a larger hiring department so that automated resume-readers can stop being used, great. If this means a larger IT department that can attack and kill all vulnerabilities while providing freedom, I'd do that too. If it means providing more vacation time to employees, I think that's very important, too. I would also, as an employer, firmly believe in 40-hour weeks and hire a larger work force if it turned out that any employees were spending 80-hour weeks regularly to get their jobs done.
I realize that all this decreases profits. But if I ran a company, making sure my employees and customers were happy, creative, and able to pursue other things in life for some time would be my #1 goal. If I could stay profitable keeping that goal, great (many, many companies do this really well, from what I've seen). If I couldn't keep up happiness and profits, I don't think it would be too ethical to stay in business, for I certainly wouldn't be too proud of it.
Yes, I know many companies aren't too interested in morale and employee happiness, but I feel like even though it is not necessarily profitable, that ought not to be 100% of the game.
There should be a human aspect to being a company -- that is, promoting good culture and true employee happiness is something I would morally/ethically expect out of a company, much in the same way that I would expect help from a friend or love from a parent.
I say this because a company is a bunch of human beings that in some cases perhaps ought to be a little more human. Driving straight for profit only, while killing happiness, extending work hours, or expecting too much out of an employee, is, IMHO, a bit immoral.
I suppose I take a somewhat slightly more European stance on work ethics, but I do consider life beyond work extremely important, and think that promoting happiness is very important for a country, perhaps in some cases more important than trying to inch your profits from $1 billion to $1.2 billion.
I see what you're saying as well, but I also feel that more successful companies also highly correlate with companies that have goals that aren't set in stone.
For example, an employee of Google assigned to a particular task (say, to code something) may spark an idea in their own time about a new project that may be really cool for Google as a company. They will be *far* more inclined to make it a part of the company if the work environment is enjoyable and fun for them; that includes being able to communicate with their family/kids over other e-mail, being able to do things that aren't related to work during work time for creativity's sake (as long as they get their work done), etc.
Also, I think this extends beyond research and development. Seriosuly, suppose you let Taco Bell cashiers the opportunity to surf the net when they aren't serving customers, as long as they will unconditionally appear and serve customers immediately when they arrive. I guarantee you they will be much happier people, and will be much more polite and happy with the customers, will enjoy working at the company, will consider to continue working at the company, and most of all, will be inclined to do their best at their job, rather than just do their job.
"but I thought it was one of those flexible OSes you could misconfigure so completely that explodes."
If ever, it explodes on you, not on other people, in general. Those sorts of misconfigurations are like you accidentally wiping your hard drive or deleting something important. There are very few if any viruses and worms for Linux, and an honest employee with a Linux machine is extremely unlikely to do damage beyond their own personal machine, even in the world of Linux vulnerabilities.
"the network/systems admins/engineers are more concerned with enabling safe but wide-ranging activities in the university environment, as opposed to the corporate environment, where anything not expressly allowed is forbidden."
Exactly, I believe the corporate environment should change to the former. I realize that it's harder for the IT department to keep up, but you'll have a hundred times happier employees, and those employees will be more willing to contribute more to the company than they are required to if they are happy.
Exactly; in the name of freedom and promoting a healthy living culture in which employees are able to enjoy their life at work so they are more active and enthusiastic in being productive and creative when they need to, I feel it is extremely important to not impose restrictions (and especially IT restrictions) on the way employees work. In particular, other than offensive, insulting, dangerous, or pornographic content (which I understand), corporations should not block or attempt to control the websites its employees can access at work. An employee who can check his/her personal mail whenever he/she feels like will be much happier at the workplace than one who isn't.
Simply installing and updating a latest virus scanner on all corporate machines should be relatively simple.
Also, employees should be permitted to bring their own computers to use on the corporate network. How do you stop viruses? 1. Demand a periodic inspection of all Windows computers to ensure that the user is using an approved virus scanner that is set to automatically update. 2. Freely allow Linux machines to be plugged into the workplace. They are highly unlikely to cause any problems. This is how at least two places I've worked at ran it, and employees were extremely happy.
Also, may I point out that my university (MIT) network has nearly no restrictions whatsoever on what you can plug in, what you can serve, and what you can run. I can run a mail server in the office if I want. I can run a web server in my dorm room. I can do essentially anything. The IS&T department here just has it structured pretty well so that nothing bad happens. Solid Unix/Linux servers, and automatic shut down of network drops that are spreading viruses or of Windows machines that appear vulnerable. It's great. I get freedom to do anything I want, and the network is very solid and reliable at the same time. I wish companies could do this too.
actually, that's not necessarily true. electromagnetic waves can be slowed down a lot, and the theory of electric impulses in nerves does not refer to plane waves, but movement of action potentials. it's a very different thing and their speed is heavily limited by the effective capacitances and inductances of the nerve, and the nerve's ability to keep the signal amplified.
also, sound doesn't travel at several km/sec - it's more in the region of hundreds of m/sec
They shouldn't be allowed to sue Wikipedia unless they are accusing Wikipedia of the damage itself. Providing a medium for someone else is not enough. Wikipedia setting up a website is like a paper company giving paper to a newspaper company. You sue the newspaper, not the paper company.
The very fact that someone could have conceivably sued Wikipedia is the reason why I'm afraid to start a business in this country. I don't want to waste a day of my life in court because some idiot decided to sue me instead of a user of my website. Courts should just dismiss stupid cases if the wrong person is being sued. As long as the case can actually even be brought to court, the law hinders people like me from developing anything new around here. I really wish that would change.
That could be a coincidence. Crime rates may be a result of lots of other factors including economic status of the average resident and others. I suggest you take a look at the stats of San Francisco, Toronto, Zurich, and Singapore - four cities whose statistics will show you no conceivable relation between gun control and crime rate.
Oh, and not to mention, they need to stop creating strange domain names. www.ezcardinfo.com for example is a legitimate website, but the domain hardly seems like it.
Financial institutions should have exactly ONE domain and have subdomains for all their other servers. If bankofamerica.com is the official website, I expect that to always be a part of my URL exactly. I also expect any e-mail to pass through servers at something.bankofamerica.com, not some other domain. For example, if I had a Visa card through BoA, I should be able to check its status at something like visa.bankofamerica.com, visa.com, or bankofamerica.visa.com (depending on whether BoA or Visa hosts it). But certainly not www.ezcardinfo.com or something stupid.
Why can't a phishing program just display the SiteKey? It's pretty easy to get a person's SiteKey off someone who's using wireless, anyway, since all the sitekeys have different file sizes...
Financial institutions should not worry about phishing attacks. It's not their job.
1. The user needs to learn how to check a domain name to determine if it's being phished. 2. Banking websites need to stop creating extraneous domain names. When I log into www.mitfcu.org (my institution's official homepage), the actual pages come from www.mitfcu-online.com (why?????) 3. Browsers are incorporating phishing protection these days already.
Oh, and not to mention, a 90Mhz system is PERFECTLY GOOD enough to learn basic Linux concepts, shell scripting, C, C++, Perl. There are millions of poor children in 3rd world countries dying to learn computer science. They don't need DirectX and 1 GB of RAM. Even the internet isn't prerequisite. They need ANYTHING that will run an interpreter or compiler.
So please, consider this. Even old 486 laptops with no HDD and which will run a stupid Knoppix boot CD will serve the above purposes.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, some people just make me nervous... like people who wear black pants and leather jackets, walk into the plane, sit down, and have this tense forehead and just look downright antisocial. AFAIK it's just etiquette to at least say a simple "hi" or nod politely before you take your seat next to someone. Most people do. It makes people comfortable. Others just stare at you, stare at random parts of the aircraft, and have the tense wrinkles on their forehead. They just look sketchy.
And then there are those who don't know their way through security. I mean, come on, give me a break, it's not that difficult. Do what the dozens of others in front of you are doing. Once I watched this guy shove his luggage into the x-ray and just dart through the metal detector when the TSA guy was turning the other way. I mean, geez. He saw the dozen-odd people wait and stop at the metal detector, show the boarding pass, and move on when told to... and then this guy just darted right through. He *MUST* have had something to hide, and I was sure glad to see a TSA guy on the other end grab him and put him aside, at which point he started shaking nervously.
I'm fine with babies screaming and people having conversations. I don't mind if cellphones can be feasibly allowed and people be required to keep their conversations to a whisper.
What *does* bug me the most about travelling on planes:
1. Fat people. No offense, but I feel like I have a right to my entire seat and 50% of the armrest. I don't mean to offend obese people, but if they cannot respect my rights to that space without elbows and legs brushing against me for the entire flight, they need to purchase a first class seat or two seats or something. No, it's *not* ok to plop yourself down and arrogantly and comfortably take up the entire both armrests on both sides of you. If you are fat, it's your fault. Period.
2. Smelly people.
3. People who aren't nice about travel needs (like having to get up to go to the bathroom, get up to walk around because you have a medical condition that requires you to), people who argue with flight attendants about stupid stuff ("No! I paid for this seat and I'm *not* moving" [even though an old woman really needs that seat])
4. People who aren't nice to you. I was once on a flight and after the lights were turned off in cruising altitude, I slowly put my seat back to go to sleep. A couple of minutes later, the guy behind me started pounding on the seat, probably trying to tell me to put my seat back in the upright position. He didn't bother to talk at all, didn't bother to get up and at least signal at me nicely if he didn't speak English, he didn't do anything. He just kept pounding on my seat for the entire flight, periodically.
5. People who rest their hands on the top of the seat in front of them, in a fashion that causes their fingers to touch the person's hair in front, and refuse to remove their hand.
6. People who look so antisocial and angry-faced and silent that you can't figure out if they have some terrorist plot behind their eyes. Cheerful people are much easier to be around.
7. People who think that a flight is the place to hit on girls.
... then how do you deal with other peoples' in-person conversations in planes?
I personally have no issues with people having cell phone conversations, as long as they keep it to the same normal voice they would if they were talking to someone right next to them.
i think a good system would be to say if a post gets modded troll at least 6 times, it should get deleted completely. i would hate to see Slashdot banned in schools, to see Slashdot be a workplace risk, and something that can't be shared with youngsters.
I use RimuHosting. They are a bit pricey, but they have been unbelievably reliable and their support is actually competent, quick and knowledgeable.
I agree, I have no problems with people having conversations on cell phones for a long time, as long as it's in the same quiet tone of voice they would use in person.
I feel like personal computers with a single user are somewhat of an storage extension to the brain, and a sort of co-processor for the certain computational tasks the brain is inefficient at. I find the thought of someone searching my personal computer as invasive as searching my brain, if that were possible.
That said, there should be no reason to search someone's personal computer, unless they are a threat to humanity.
why does a master key even exist? if a system is to be secure, make it secure. don't allow some organization with a master key to be able to do stuff. if a master key exists to anything, it will be leaked in due time, if people want it.
.com/.net/.org were shared by the entire world and are not specifically "US" domain names. why is the US government trying to claim any sort of rights to them? what gives the US government the right to spoof and hack? especially if i am not even in the US? just because i have a .com domain name?
second, why does the US government get rights? the organization in question should just relocate to another country where the US government has no jurisdiction.
finally, i thought
1. give me my flat tabs back! at least they used the right colours from the OS and the look was well-integrated.
2. stop the ugly animation of the beige bar every time a popup window gets blocked. that takes 10+ seconds when a site like digg.com is refreshing at evey step of the animation. it should appear, not animate.
3. when i hit F3 to find something, it should come up right away. the fact that it takes 3 seconds on any 1Ghz machine i have tried is absurd.
4. bring back the link navigation from mozilla where you started typing the text of the link and then hit enter to follow it.
5. make input text boxes follow the height: specification correctly in CSS. IE does do this, surprisingly, while firefox just adds a couple random extra pixels to the height.
6. get rid of the XML-based interface and use a hard-coded text file instead. i just did Edit->Preferences on my 1.6Ghz machine, and it is absolutely unreasonable that it took 2 full seconds to do that. it's a freaking property page! it should load in 0.1 second!
7. the error console, likewise, took 4 full seconds on a 1.6 Ghz machine for me on a page that is full of errors. really, now... the freaking error console is just lines of text!!! it should be displaying as fast as catting a text file into a console!! are they using XML for each error displayed or something? really, now... get rid of the happy little exclamation points and stop signs if that helps, but i doubt it... just please tell me what is taking my 1.6Ghz 4 full seconds to simply *display* errors that have already been processed. if it's "XML parsing" or some crap like that, really... come on... same with the download manager... it's a bunch of text and should come up in 0.01 seconds but takes me about 2.
8. make SVG faster, on par with Opera.
yes, i have... when i got a bunch of stuff that had rebates equal to their cost. free stuff is always good.
This is probably a money-making plot on Microsoft's part. They will "open source" it, but then when you read the million pages of fine print, you find out that it isn't open-sourced under GPL, but instead, they'll probably rather put it under one of their own crafted licenses that says that if you modify and redistribute and portions of the code, you must include the string "I like porcupines" and a link to the Microsoft homepage.
And then when someone does redistribute it like other source code (without reading the M$ license), they'll sit quietly for about 3 or 4 years, while this person's redistributed code becomes ever more popular. Eventually, it will become incorporated in digital cameras worldwide, database software that drives the next Google, and your next-generation toaster.
Approximately 1 year after that happens, and $1 billion have been made off the redistributed code, Microsoft will sue for not following the license. They will cite the fact that "I like porcupines" is not in the code and that a link to the Microsoft homepage is not included. They will complain that the lack of a link to Microsoft will have decreased Vista sales by $3 billion (because, naturally, the price of their OS is probably 3 times that of the code in question). They will demand the profits, win the case, and said company will have the option of either paying the legal fees, or being bought out by Microsoft.
On another note, "open source" of itself does not always mean "free to redistribute", it just means you get to view the source.
Sorry for the comment abuse in replying to myself, but I guess I may not have been clear in my last sentence:
Yes, if I were designing a company, I _would_ sacrifice some company profits to promote happiness, as a human being. If this means a larger hiring department so that automated resume-readers can stop being used, great. If this means a larger IT department that can attack and kill all vulnerabilities while providing freedom, I'd do that too. If it means providing more vacation time to employees, I think that's very important, too. I would also, as an employer, firmly believe in 40-hour weeks and hire a larger work force if it turned out that any employees were spending 80-hour weeks regularly to get their jobs done.
I realize that all this decreases profits. But if I ran a company, making sure my employees and customers were happy, creative, and able to pursue other things in life for some time would be my #1 goal. If I could stay profitable keeping that goal, great (many, many companies do this really well, from what I've seen). If I couldn't keep up happiness and profits, I don't think it would be too ethical to stay in business, for I certainly wouldn't be too proud of it.
Yes, I know many companies aren't too interested in morale and employee happiness, but I feel like even though it is not necessarily profitable, that ought not to be 100% of the game.
There should be a human aspect to being a company -- that is, promoting good culture and true employee happiness is something I would morally/ethically expect out of a company, much in the same way that I would expect help from a friend or love from a parent.
I say this because a company is a bunch of human beings that in some cases perhaps ought to be a little more human. Driving straight for profit only, while killing happiness, extending work hours, or expecting too much out of an employee, is, IMHO, a bit immoral.
I suppose I take a somewhat slightly more European stance on work ethics, but I do consider life beyond work extremely important, and think that promoting happiness is very important for a country, perhaps in some cases more important than trying to inch your profits from $1 billion to $1.2 billion.
I see what you're saying as well, but I also feel that more successful companies also highly correlate with companies that have goals that aren't set in stone.
For example, an employee of Google assigned to a particular task (say, to code something) may spark an idea in their own time about a new project that may be really cool for Google as a company. They will be *far* more inclined to make it a part of the company if the work environment is enjoyable and fun for them; that includes being able to communicate with their family/kids over other e-mail, being able to do things that aren't related to work during work time for creativity's sake (as long as they get their work done), etc.
Also, I think this extends beyond research and development. Seriosuly, suppose you let Taco Bell cashiers the opportunity to surf the net when they aren't serving customers, as long as they will unconditionally appear and serve customers immediately when they arrive. I guarantee you they will be much happier people, and will be much more polite and happy with the customers, will enjoy working at the company, will consider to continue working at the company, and most of all, will be inclined to do their best at their job, rather than just do their job.
"but I thought it was one of those flexible OSes you could misconfigure so completely that explodes."
If ever, it explodes on you, not on other people, in general. Those sorts of misconfigurations are like you accidentally wiping your hard drive or deleting something important. There are very few if any viruses and worms for Linux, and an honest employee with a Linux machine is extremely unlikely to do damage beyond their own personal machine, even in the world of Linux vulnerabilities.
"the network/systems admins/engineers are more concerned with enabling safe but wide-ranging activities in the university environment, as opposed to the corporate environment, where anything not expressly allowed is forbidden." Exactly, I believe the corporate environment should change to the former. I realize that it's harder for the IT department to keep up, but you'll have a hundred times happier employees, and those employees will be more willing to contribute more to the company than they are required to if they are happy.
Exactly; in the name of freedom and promoting a healthy living culture in which employees are able to enjoy their life at work so they are more active and enthusiastic in being productive and creative when they need to, I feel it is extremely important to not impose restrictions (and especially IT restrictions) on the way employees work. In particular, other than offensive, insulting, dangerous, or pornographic content (which I understand), corporations should not block or attempt to control the websites its employees can access at work. An employee who can check his/her personal mail whenever he/she feels like will be much happier at the workplace than one who isn't.
Simply installing and updating a latest virus scanner on all corporate machines should be relatively simple.
Also, employees should be permitted to bring their own computers to use on the corporate network. How do you stop viruses?
1. Demand a periodic inspection of all Windows computers to ensure that the user is using an approved virus scanner that is set to automatically update.
2. Freely allow Linux machines to be plugged into the workplace. They are highly unlikely to cause any problems.
This is how at least two places I've worked at ran it, and employees were extremely happy.
Also, may I point out that my university (MIT) network has nearly no restrictions whatsoever on what you can plug in, what you can serve, and what you can run. I can run a mail server in the office if I want. I can run a web server in my dorm room. I can do essentially anything. The IS&T department here just has it structured pretty well so that nothing bad happens. Solid Unix/Linux servers, and automatic shut down of network drops that are spreading viruses or of Windows machines that appear vulnerable. It's great. I get freedom to do anything I want, and the network is very solid and reliable at the same time. I wish companies could do this too.
because $300 hard drive gives you maybe 300-500 GB at the rate you mentioned, in flash cards that would mean $3000.
actually, that's not necessarily true. electromagnetic waves can be slowed down a lot, and the theory of electric impulses in nerves does not refer to plane waves, but movement of action potentials. it's a very different thing and their speed is heavily limited by the effective capacitances and inductances of the nerve, and the nerve's ability to keep the signal amplified. also, sound doesn't travel at several km/sec - it's more in the region of hundreds of m/sec
They shouldn't be allowed to sue Wikipedia unless they are accusing Wikipedia of the damage itself. Providing a medium for someone else is not enough. Wikipedia setting up a website is like a paper company giving paper to a newspaper company. You sue the newspaper, not the paper company.
The very fact that someone could have conceivably sued Wikipedia is the reason why I'm afraid to start a business in this country. I don't want to waste a day of my life in court because some idiot decided to sue me instead of a user of my website. Courts should just dismiss stupid cases if the wrong person is being sued. As long as the case can actually even be brought to court, the law hinders people like me from developing anything new around here. I really wish that would change.
That could be a coincidence. Crime rates may be a result of lots of other factors including economic status of the average resident and others. I suggest you take a look at the stats of San Francisco, Toronto, Zurich, and Singapore - four cities whose statistics will show you no conceivable relation between gun control and crime rate.
Oh, and not to mention, they need to stop creating strange domain names. www.ezcardinfo.com for example is a legitimate website, but the domain hardly seems like it.
Financial institutions should have exactly ONE domain and have subdomains for all their other servers. If bankofamerica.com is the official website, I expect that to always be a part of my URL exactly. I also expect any e-mail to pass through servers at something.bankofamerica.com, not some other domain. For example, if I had a Visa card through BoA, I should be able to check its status at something like visa.bankofamerica.com, visa.com, or bankofamerica.visa.com (depending on whether BoA or Visa hosts it). But certainly not www.ezcardinfo.com or something stupid.
Why can't a phishing program just display the SiteKey?
It's pretty easy to get a person's SiteKey off someone who's using wireless, anyway, since all the sitekeys have different file sizes...
Financial institutions should not worry about phishing attacks. It's not their job.
1. The user needs to learn how to check a domain name to determine if it's being phished.
2. Banking websites need to stop creating extraneous domain names. When I log into www.mitfcu.org (my institution's official homepage), the actual pages come from www.mitfcu-online.com (why?????)
3. Browsers are incorporating phishing protection these days already.
no - it's more like you left your car locked at night as best as you could, and police broke into it silently.
Oh, and not to mention, a 90Mhz system is PERFECTLY GOOD enough to learn basic Linux concepts, shell scripting, C, C++, Perl. There are millions of poor children in 3rd world countries dying to learn computer science. They don't need DirectX and 1 GB of RAM. Even the internet isn't prerequisite. They need ANYTHING that will run an interpreter or compiler.
So please, consider this. Even old 486 laptops with no HDD and which will run a stupid Knoppix boot CD will serve the above purposes.