There are constitutional issues with any law that would deter an individual from bearing arms of any type. I doubt the Supreme Court would stand for a law that punishes a person for leaving a loaded gun lying around where anyone can pick them up.
Gun registration is required. Background checks are required. Both can deter gun ownership (as a matter of fact, I believe they were intended to deter gun ownership). The Supreme Court has not seen fit to strike down the laws that require either of those. Those who leave loaded guns lying around are typically charged with Negligence if that gun is discharged by someone else and results in bodily injury. The Supreme Court has not seen fit to overturn those convictions.
These constitutional issues do not have any bearing on computers. There's no constitutional right to own a computer or have access to one, or have access to the Internet. As such, it is reasonable to make those who possess computers and maladminister them to the extent that they cause mayhem and real financial damage to third parties, accountable.
True, there is no constitutional protection for the ownership of computers (unless one wants to try the argument that they are a means to free speech, but that's another discussion). As such it is possible to punish those who maladminister them. I doubt you would find many who would agree that it is reasonable (especially in the ways you describe).
If I left my car keys hanging on a nail in a bar together with a description of my car in the bar's parking lot, there are few that would argue I bear some responsibility when it's subsequently used by drunks and is driven into an expensive diner across the street, causing thousands of dollars worth of damage.
You would probably be charged with Negligence in that situation, because a jury of your peers would view the combination of actions and conclude that a reasonable person would have seen the danger in them. Actually, those actions might even qualify for Gross Negligence or Criminal Negligence, considering that they almost seem intentional.
However, I think that your analogy is overstated. In my opinion, failing to properly lock down a server is more like leaving your keys in your car or leaving the door unlocked. Neither of those actions would typically result in any charges against you even if the vehicle was stolen and used in a homocide.
It's time we took action.
Yes, it's time we took action. But against those who perpetrate the crimes, not against those who are also victims of them. Yes, it's the job of hired sysadmin to secure a company's servers. But, except on rare occasions, people who don't do their job well are fired, not prosecuted.
Your entire argument seems to depend on legally defining computers as dangerous weapons as opposed to tools.
Tools are unregulated and the owner is not responsible if someone steals their tool and uses it in a crime. If I leave a shovel leaning against the side of my house and someone takes it and uses it to kill someone, I am not legally responsible. Even if I knew that risk existed when I failed to secure the tool.
Guns are regulated and the owners are (somewhat) responsible for the actions taken with them, even by others and even without the owner's permission or knowledge. However, the owner is never held fully responsible for the actions of the person who took and used their gun. And the level of responsibility is negligible unless bodily injury results and there was a minor who has legitimate access to the premises involved.
Somehow, I don't think anyone is going to agree to classify computers as deadly weapons and make the penalties for their unauthorized use greater than those for the unauthorized use of firearms.
...I want to select the group of people whose reviews I trust, and the people whose reviews of reviewers I trust. Maybe the "tragedy of the commons" is ok for Slashdot, but I'd sure hate to have that affecting the reviews that I see for actual products. I want other people like me to review the products that I buy.
They already have this. It's called "Friends and Favorites." All you need to do is create an account with them to take advantage of it.
Here's the description from their FAQ:
Friends & Favorites is a service that puts you in touch with opinions and information from people who matter to you. Just add your friends and favorite reviewers to your Favorite People list. We'll gather up reviews, recommendations and opinions from your Favorite People and put it all right in front of you in your very own About You area.
Your Favorite People list is a group of other Amazon.com shoppers, friends, and favorite reviewers that you like and trust. If one of those people has created an About You area, or if you know that person's e-mail address, add him or her to your Favorite People list. Then, whenever one of your Favorite People writes a review, or comes up with an interesting recommendation, we'll put it on your customized Friends & Favorite home page. That way, you can keep track of people and opinions that matter.
You had fake leather? You were lucky! When I was a lad, we had to paint our bodies with hot sulfurous pitch if we wanted to even LOOK like we wore fake leather in a movie!
The author of the article addresses this issue. He points out that online forums or vendors will need to provide a way for you to give them a token along with your request (could be as simple as typing it into a form).
If you didn't want to deal with that, you could just place the domain of the forum or vendor on your whitelist.
Your cost isn't the inconvenience of fast forwarding, it's the extra you pay when you buy products at (say) the supermarket, where a significant portion of the price goes to support the advertising costs of the manufacturers.
When you need to buy something, specifically avoid anything you've seen advertised. If companies begin to see a negative correlation between advertising and revenue, they'll be forced to rethink their marketing model or risk going out of business.
Everything you're talking about is simple barrier to entry and therefore only half of the question. The other half is "Is there a sufficient profit potential to make it worth surmounting the barrier to entry?"
First of all, you have to assume there will some "e-token standard." The lack of an existing standard can actually help a first mover. Create a "standard" that makes your life easier, set up your code to isolate the implementation of that standard so you can replace it if necessary, and publish your "standard" if you want it to be widely adopted and become "the standard." As a first mover, you need to be aggressive but stay agile.
Next, you have to assume Hotmail, Yahoo Mail, and all the other free-email services will support it. No you don't. Create a service of your own. Make it free to users if you want to compete with Yahoo, et. al., or charge users if you prefer. This is the crux of the matter. Your system provides them with a benefit. How much are they willing to pay to partake of that benefit and is that enough to cover your startup costs and operating costs and provide you with a decent ROI (note to open source proponents: ROI doesn't necessarily mean cash...it can be as basic as that great feeling you get by having contributed to something successful)? Alternatively, provide those email providers with an easy way to implement your system and charge them for the opportunity to provide that benefit to their users. There are plenty of potential revenue models available. Again, the main questions are ROI and acceptable risk.
Next you need to somehow distribute the tokens to these different systems. Yes, but developing a solution to this is just another startup cost. If this is the key enabling technology for the system, perhaps you base your revenue model on providing this and letting Yahoo, et. al, worry about the rest.
I just don't see it happening to fix something that can be handled pretty well through filtering. The author of the article covers the shortcomings of filtering. Of course, this system would have to be significantly better than a filtering system (or easier to implement for the end user...or more effectively marketed...) for it to be worth the premium or it will never generate a profit.
Most new technologies look impossible to implement at first. Focusing on the possibilities rather than the obstacles is what separates entrepreneurs from 9to5ers.
If I replace just one word and remove just two others, we have the definition of politics:
counterprogramming - noun - to use the front-end of a software program to perform operations with which the backend program should have been able to do in the first place.
...becomes...
politics - noun - to use the front-end of a person to perform operations with which the backend should have been able to do in the first place.
Does anyone know if they were openly considering this before the FCC approved their merger? If not, then it seems that they might not have been completely open with the FCC during the hearings. In that case, would the FCC be able to intervene in some way?
why not instead ask what sort of security is going to be built into it.
Good point. I thought my reference to war drivers suggested that I thought standard wireless WEP would be inadequate, but I definitely could have been more clear. Especially since you missed my reference entirely.
So, now that we've gotten past the "comment style criticism phase", how about an answer? What king of security will prevent some guy with a laptop and a wireless card from coopting that kind of system?
Thank you for a reply that actually provides some real information. How difficult would it be for someone to get through all three levels of security in real time? Clearly, WEP is moot since it's already been proven to be inadequate.
The Reality Master is dedicated to viewing the world objectively; without emotionalism, wishful thinking, cynicism or silly prejudices. The pursuit of simple Truth.
This has won him few friends on Slashdot.:)
Clearly, he left out "with sarcasm".
So, you've done the easy part and levied a full serving of sarcasm. Care to actually add to the conversation and discuss the failure of WEP and your opinion of how this "translation of bits to bits" should be accomplished in this case? Oh yeah, and feel free to provide a few links so we can all be educated.
Sorry, should've held the parent post until I found the contract.
The pertinent clause is:
(ii) You also continue to have the benefit of a single full-time
assistant. (f) In addition, you shall be paid participation equal
to 10% of the profits derived during your life by Marvel
(including subsidiaries and affiliates) from the profits of any
live action or animation television or movie (including ancillary
rights) productions utilizing Marvel characters. This
participation is not to be derived from the fee charged by Marvel
for the licensing of the product or of the characters for
merchandise or otherwise. Marvel will compute, account and pay to
you your participation due, if any, on account of said profits,
for the annual period ending each March 31 during your life, on
an annual basis within a reasonable time after the end of each
such period.
Namely, that the source of the claim is not from any copyright or other rights as creator of the characters, but from a 1998 contract giving him royalties for the licensing of his creations, but not the actual comic book sales.
Looks like it's going to be a legal wrangle over whether movie profits can be considered to be royalties.
You're right. Bosses don't have to justify anything. But if you want to know why, IMO, it's in their best interest to treat their workers like adults (i.e. play it straight with them and trust them unless shown that they cannot be trusted) and even let them indulge their interests as long as the costs are not too high, please read my responses to the other three replies to my post.
Except the cycles aren't being "wasted" - they're just not happening.
Well, now, that depends on what I meant by "wasted", doesn't it. IMO, they're wasted if they're doing nothing;).
If they're really worried about the electricity cost of running those extra cycles, let them tell you that so you can fully realize that your boss is telling you not to do something you're interested in so the company can save under $50/year. And though they might not be swayed by the worthy cause, they should be swayed by inexpensive ways to keep their employees happy, since happy employees are more likely to be productive and more than make up for that cost with increased productivity and improved retention.
are afraid they'll get reamed if this stuff causes, or is blamed for causing, any problem with company IS resources
So, yes, I understand that bosses engage in risk management, sometimes to an unenlightened degree. That's fine. That's part of their job (except for the unenlightened part;) ).
However, allowing this sort of thing is most assuredly not an utter waste of time. It can help build morale and trust in the work environment; something that is very often lacking in IT shops. At the very least, telling the truth about why it's not allowed (remember, the thrust of the article was to disprove the perception that other workstation apps suffer if folding@home is running) is to be expected if the manager even hopes to generate loyalty and trust in return.
So, no, I haven't forgotten anything about how most bosses operate. It's just that I've worked for a couple of good ones (i.e. ones that trust that you're intelligent enough to grasp company priorities and decision-making processes and so refrain from feeding you insulting BS) and and now expect nothing less from them all.
Of course they're considering the risks, that's part of their job. But there are potential gains. Namely, morale. And there are ways to maintain IT worker morale even without permitting potentially hazardous applications on the network. Namely, telling the truth. Why? because it shows that you're being treated as an adult and builds trust between management and those being managed.
Remember, the purpose of the article was to show that folding@home has a negligible impact on the performance of the workstation for other applications. If this is the reason you were given for not being allowed to place the application on company workstations then your boss either doesn't understand the way these applications work or doesn't trust you with the truth. By refuting the reason given, you at least get to find out which it is.
...but it might help you get to the truth about why you're not being allowed to do it.
We all know that the vast majority of CPU cycles are wasted. If your boss is telling you that you can't do it because of the impact on the workstation, they're most likely lying to you. Most bosses either
don't understand the impact
don't trust you to be keeping the best interests of the business in mind when you load stuff like this onto company workstations
are afraid they'll get reamed if this stuff causes, or is blamed for causing, any problem with company IS resources
Of course, addressing these issues with your boss is far from easy, but if proving to them that workstation performance is not the issue forces them to raise the real issue then at least you have a chance.
Slashdot Mirror
There are constitutional issues with any law that would deter an individual from bearing arms of any type. I doubt the Supreme Court would stand for a law that punishes a person for leaving a loaded gun lying around where anyone can pick them up.
Gun registration is required. Background checks are required. Both can deter gun ownership (as a matter of fact, I believe they were intended to deter gun ownership). The Supreme Court has not seen fit to strike down the laws that require either of those. Those who leave loaded guns lying around are typically charged with Negligence if that gun is discharged by someone else and results in bodily injury. The Supreme Court has not seen fit to overturn those convictions.
These constitutional issues do not have any bearing on computers. There's no constitutional right to own a computer or have access to one, or have access to the Internet. As such, it is reasonable to make those who possess computers and maladminister them to the extent that they cause mayhem and real financial damage to third parties, accountable.
True, there is no constitutional protection for the ownership of computers (unless one wants to try the argument that they are a means to free speech, but that's another discussion). As such it is possible to punish those who maladminister them. I doubt you would find many who would agree that it is reasonable (especially in the ways you describe).
If I left my car keys hanging on a nail in a bar together with a description of my car in the bar's parking lot, there are few that would argue I bear some responsibility when it's subsequently used by drunks and is driven into an expensive diner across the street, causing thousands of dollars worth of damage.
You would probably be charged with Negligence in that situation, because a jury of your peers would view the combination of actions and conclude that a reasonable person would have seen the danger in them. Actually, those actions might even qualify for Gross Negligence or Criminal Negligence, considering that they almost seem intentional.
However, I think that your analogy is overstated. In my opinion, failing to properly lock down a server is more like leaving your keys in your car or leaving the door unlocked. Neither of those actions would typically result in any charges against you even if the vehicle was stolen and used in a homocide.
It's time we took action.
Yes, it's time we took action. But against those who perpetrate the crimes, not against those who are also victims of them. Yes, it's the job of hired sysadmin to secure a company's servers. But, except on rare occasions, people who don't do their job well are fired, not prosecuted.
Your entire argument seems to depend on legally defining computers as dangerous weapons as opposed to tools.
Tools are unregulated and the owner is not responsible if someone steals their tool and uses it in a crime. If I leave a shovel leaning against the side of my house and someone takes it and uses it to kill someone, I am not legally responsible. Even if I knew that risk existed when I failed to secure the tool.
Guns are regulated and the owners are (somewhat) responsible for the actions taken with them, even by others and even without the owner's permission or knowledge. However, the owner is never held fully responsible for the actions of the person who took and used their gun. And the level of responsibility is negligible unless bodily injury results and there was a minor who has legitimate access to the premises involved.
Somehow, I don't think anyone is going to agree to classify computers as deadly weapons and make the penalties for their unauthorized use greater than those for the unauthorized use of firearms.
They already have this. It's called "Friends and Favorites." All you need to do is create an account with them to take advantage of it.
Here's the description from their FAQ:
Hence my comment about using a whitelist as an supplementary method.
But it seems you were too busy spewing spittle all over your screen to consider that.
You had fake leather? You were lucky! When I was a lad, we had to paint our bodies with hot sulfurous pitch if we wanted to even LOOK like we wore fake leather in a movie!
The author of the article addresses this issue. He points out that online forums or vendors will need to provide a way for you to give them a token along with your request (could be as simple as typing it into a form).
If you didn't want to deal with that, you could just place the domain of the forum or vendor on your whitelist.
Your cost isn't the inconvenience of fast forwarding, it's the extra you pay when you buy products at (say) the supermarket, where a significant portion of the price goes to support the advertising costs of the manufacturers.
When you need to buy something, specifically avoid anything you've seen advertised. If companies begin to see a negative correlation between advertising and revenue, they'll be forced to rethink their marketing model or risk going out of business.
(place obligatory "when pigs fly" comment here)
Everything you're talking about is simple barrier to entry and therefore only half of the question. The other half is "Is there a sufficient profit potential to make it worth surmounting the barrier to entry?"
First of all, you have to assume there will some "e-token standard." The lack of an existing standard can actually help a first mover. Create a "standard" that makes your life easier, set up your code to isolate the implementation of that standard so you can replace it if necessary, and publish your "standard" if you want it to be widely adopted and become "the standard." As a first mover, you need to be aggressive but stay agile.
Next, you have to assume Hotmail, Yahoo Mail, and all the other free-email services will support it. No you don't. Create a service of your own. Make it free to users if you want to compete with Yahoo, et. al., or charge users if you prefer. This is the crux of the matter. Your system provides them with a benefit. How much are they willing to pay to partake of that benefit and is that enough to cover your startup costs and operating costs and provide you with a decent ROI (note to open source proponents: ROI doesn't necessarily mean cash...it can be as basic as that great feeling you get by having contributed to something successful)? Alternatively, provide those email providers with an easy way to implement your system and charge them for the opportunity to provide that benefit to their users. There are plenty of potential revenue models available. Again, the main questions are ROI and acceptable risk.
Next you need to somehow distribute the tokens to these different systems. Yes, but developing a solution to this is just another startup cost. If this is the key enabling technology for the system, perhaps you base your revenue model on providing this and letting Yahoo, et. al, worry about the rest.
I just don't see it happening to fix something that can be handled pretty well through filtering. The author of the article covers the shortcomings of filtering. Of course, this system would have to be significantly better than a filtering system (or easier to implement for the end user...or more effectively marketed...) for it to be worth the premium or it will never generate a profit.
Most new technologies look impossible to implement at first. Focusing on the possibilities rather than the obstacles is what separates entrepreneurs from 9to5ers.
A Janitor's job is to provide me with a clean working environment.
A Unix Sysadmin's job is...to provide me with a clean working environment.
So...what's your point? ;)
Sir! You offend me! When I implied that the front end was passing something, I was clearly referring to "legislation"!
;)
If I replace just one word and remove just two others, we have the definition of politics:
counterprogramming - noun - to use the front-end of a software program to perform operations with which the backend program should have been able to do in the first place.
...becomes...
politics - noun - to use the front-end of a person to perform operations with which the backend should have been able to do in the first place.
Does anyone know if they were openly considering this before the FCC approved their merger? If not, then it seems that they might not have been completely open with the FCC during the hearings. In that case, would the FCC be able to intervene in some way?
why not instead ask what sort of security is going to be built into it.
Good point. I thought my reference to war drivers suggested that I thought standard wireless WEP would be inadequate, but I definitely could have been more clear. Especially since you missed my reference entirely.
So, now that we've gotten past the "comment style criticism phase", how about an answer? What king of security will prevent some guy with a laptop and a wireless card from coopting that kind of system?
Thank you for a reply that actually provides some real information. How difficult would it be for someone to get through all three levels of security in real time? Clearly, WEP is moot since it's already been proven to be inadequate.
From the User Bio of Reality Master 101:
The Reality Master is dedicated to viewing the world objectively; without emotionalism, wishful thinking, cynicism or silly prejudices. The pursuit of simple Truth. This has won him few friends on Slashdot. :)
Clearly, he left out "with sarcasm".
So, you've done the easy part and levied a full serving of sarcasm. Care to actually add to the conversation and discuss the failure of WEP and your opinion of how this "translation of bits to bits" should be accomplished in this case? Oh yeah, and feel free to provide a few links so we can all be educated.
Or is empty sarcasm all you've got? ;)
So now some war driver is going to be able to intercept the communications between my touchscreen monitor and PC? I think I'll pass.
...the last few paragraphs of the posted article?
Wyman says he first used the name onstage in 1963. "In 1964 I adapted his name, and changed mine by deed poll," he writes in a footnote.
Me, I was born Jan. 11, 1961.
What I need now is a lawyer to ask Mr. Siegel that his client stop using a name I have claim to by several years.
um...er....0.002% of 3 million is 60, not 6 thousand (0.002% x 3million = 0.00002 x 3million).
Sorry, should've held the parent post until I found the contract.
The pertinent clause is:
(ii) You also continue to have the benefit of a single full-time assistant. (f) In addition, you shall be paid participation equal to 10% of the profits derived during your life by Marvel (including subsidiaries and affiliates) from the profits of any live action or animation television or movie (including ancillary rights) productions utilizing Marvel characters. This participation is not to be derived from the fee charged by Marvel for the licensing of the product or of the characters for merchandise or otherwise. Marvel will compute, account and pay to you your participation due, if any, on account of said profits, for the annual period ending each March 31 during your life, on an annual basis within a reasonable time after the end of each such period.
Note that profits are explicitly mentioned.
OK, there's a little more info here.
Namely, that the source of the claim is not from any copyright or other rights as creator of the characters, but from a 1998 contract giving him royalties for the licensing of his creations, but not the actual comic book sales.
Looks like it's going to be a legal wrangle over whether movie profits can be considered to be royalties.
You're right. Bosses don't have to justify anything. But if you want to know why, IMO, it's in their best interest to treat their workers like adults (i.e. play it straight with them and trust them unless shown that they cannot be trusted) and even let them indulge their interests as long as the costs are not too high, please read my responses to the other three replies to my post.
Except the cycles aren't being "wasted" - they're just not happening.
Well, now, that depends on what I meant by "wasted", doesn't it. IMO, they're wasted if they're doing nothing ;).
If they're really worried about the electricity cost of running those extra cycles, let them tell you that so you can fully realize that your boss is telling you not to do something you're interested in so the company can save under $50/year. And though they might not be swayed by the worthy cause, they should be swayed by inexpensive ways to keep their employees happy, since happy employees are more likely to be productive and more than make up for that cost with increased productivity and improved retention.
To quote from my original post:
are afraid they'll get reamed if this stuff causes, or is blamed for causing, any problem with company IS resources
So, yes, I understand that bosses engage in risk management, sometimes to an unenlightened degree. That's fine. That's part of their job (except for the unenlightened part ;) ).
However, allowing this sort of thing is most assuredly not an utter waste of time. It can help build morale and trust in the work environment; something that is very often lacking in IT shops. At the very least, telling the truth about why it's not allowed (remember, the thrust of the article was to disprove the perception that other workstation apps suffer if folding@home is running) is to be expected if the manager even hopes to generate loyalty and trust in return.
So, no, I haven't forgotten anything about how most bosses operate. It's just that I've worked for a couple of good ones (i.e. ones that trust that you're intelligent enough to grasp company priorities and decision-making processes and so refrain from feeding you insulting BS) and and now expect nothing less from them all.
Of course they're considering the risks, that's part of their job. But there are potential gains. Namely, morale. And there are ways to maintain IT worker morale even without permitting potentially hazardous applications on the network. Namely, telling the truth. Why? because it shows that you're being treated as an adult and builds trust between management and those being managed.
Remember, the purpose of the article was to show that folding@home has a negligible impact on the performance of the workstation for other applications. If this is the reason you were given for not being allowed to place the application on company workstations then your boss either doesn't understand the way these applications work or doesn't trust you with the truth. By refuting the reason given, you at least get to find out which it is.
...but it might help you get to the truth about why you're not being allowed to do it.
We all know that the vast majority of CPU cycles are wasted. If your boss is telling you that you can't do it because of the impact on the workstation, they're most likely lying to you. Most bosses either
Of course, addressing these issues with your boss is far from easy, but if proving to them that workstation performance is not the issue forces them to raise the real issue then at least you have a chance.