If your restaurant services travelers on the interstate, you not only participate in the national economy by serving out-of-state guests, but you surely get almost all of your goods by way of the external economy, not local growers. You are only facially a part of the state economy--in reality, you're engaging in massive amounts of interstate commerce!
When I buy food, it's usually at a grocery store down the street or at a restaurant within my own town. When I put gas in my car, it's from the gas station around the corner. When I buy clothes, they are from clothes stores within a few miles of my house.
Now it's true that these stores probably buy their goods from out of state, so I have no problems with Congress exercising their authority of regulating commerce over their transactions with their out-of-state vendors, but my transactions take place entirely within the state where I live, so they should be keeping their hands off!
I have no evidence to support this, but it seems that this has nothing to do with technical support at all. My guess is that Dell has some awesome OEM pricing for Windows (maybe $25 a pop or so), and this deal with Microsoft is contingent on them not offering competing operating systems. If they started pre-loading Linux, their cost of Windows may go up substantially.
However, I could be way off base, so feel free to point it out if I am.
They claim to be comparing a PC to a Mac, but they're actually comparing Windows to Mac OS X (PC != Windows).
In one commercial, they talk about how Mac is virtually virus free, and in another they talk about how Mac can run Windows just like a PC (at which point it would become vulnerable to all of the same viruses as a PC running Windows).
If the commercial was, "Hi, I'm Windows" and "and I'm the Mac OS", then I'd have no problems with it.
If you are arguing that the acceptability of circumventing the process used would increase proportionately to the severity of the offense, and murder is unarguably more severe than stolen passwords, it would therefore be more acceptable to sidestep procedure to prevent further murders then it would to prevent stolen passwords, not the other way around.
In reality, I was simply trying to expose the ridiculousness of the previous post by pointing out that if we can follow a set of procedures for something as severe as murder, we can certainly follow a set of procedures for something as relatively harmless as stolen passwords. Apparently you missed that.
1) Call the police to report the crime, wait for them to arrest the suspect, perhaps allow him out on bail while the prosecutor collects evidence to build a case. All the while, this person is available to commit further crimes.
2) Testify in court any possible evidence that you have that might send the accused to prison for the crime you believe he's committed.
3) If that fails, pull out a gun and shoot the suspect, killing him without any due process. Sounds like the best solution of them all! You get the problem solved without having to go through the previous steps -- and the problem is solved much faster.
So to reiterate, if you suspect someone of a crime, do you diplomatically try to resolve the situation, or do you go straight to the top and slit the suspect's throat?
When it's a matter of protecting my community's safety, I'll take the knife over a kinder approach anyday,, and this is exactly what MySpace did. And they did nothing wrong.
Besides, Myspace's effort was entirely useless. Those usernames/passwords were already compromised, Fjodor's site was just one that had it from the many places it can be found.
That's true. Depending on how long it was there, it may have been crawled by Google and could be included in their next search index. If that happens, will Google be taken down for several hours as a result of such an email from MySpace? My guess is, probably not...
If they take away too much privacy, they might get caught in that crossfire.
The laws, of course, will apply only to us ordinary citizens and not the people that created them. The data on their systems must be kept secret to protect national security and defend against terrorists.
My only guess is that the credit bureaus are pimping our data - ALL of our data!
I remember about five years back when I was running credit reports for applicants. Even though the policy of the company was to require all of the blanks filled in on their application, the software we then entered that data into would pull the credit report of the individual even without us filling in all the gaps. The system would let us put in enough information to sufficiently identify someone (like a name and address), and it would fill in the gaps (like a missing social security number).
So in short response to your comment, yes, the credit bureaus do seem to be providing more than what is necessary to view a credit report.
I would imagine that the idea is to buy/lease all of the available dark fiber (not sure if even Google has that kind of money) so that there's nothing left for other providers to expand into as their demand increases by bandwidth usage continuing to go up.
Slashdot Mirror
If your restaurant services travelers on the interstate, you not only participate in the national economy by serving out-of-state guests, but you surely get almost all of your goods by way of the external economy, not local growers. You are only facially a part of the state economy--in reality, you're engaging in massive amounts of interstate commerce!
When I buy food, it's usually at a grocery store down the street or at a restaurant within my own town. When I put gas in my car, it's from the gas station around the corner. When I buy clothes, they are from clothes stores within a few miles of my house.
Now it's true that these stores probably buy their goods from out of state, so I have no problems with Congress exercising their authority of regulating commerce over their transactions with their out-of-state vendors, but my transactions take place entirely within the state where I live, so they should be keeping their hands off!
I think that's pretty much what I said, just without the genitalia reference.
I have no evidence to support this, but it seems that this has nothing to do with technical support at all. My guess is that Dell has some awesome OEM pricing for Windows (maybe $25 a pop or so), and this deal with Microsoft is contingent on them not offering competing operating systems. If they started pre-loading Linux, their cost of Windows may go up substantially.
However, I could be way off base, so feel free to point it out if I am.
What's inaccurate about the ad?
They claim to be comparing a PC to a Mac, but they're actually comparing Windows to Mac OS X (PC != Windows).
In one commercial, they talk about how Mac is virtually virus free, and in another they talk about how Mac can run Windows just like a PC (at which point it would become vulnerable to all of the same viruses as a PC running Windows).
If the commercial was, "Hi, I'm Windows" and "and I'm the Mac OS", then I'd have no problems with it.
If you are arguing that the acceptability of circumventing the process used would increase proportionately to the severity of the offense, and murder is unarguably more severe than stolen passwords, it would therefore be more acceptable to sidestep procedure to prevent further murders then it would to prevent stolen passwords, not the other way around.
In reality, I was simply trying to expose the ridiculousness of the previous post by pointing out that if we can follow a set of procedures for something as severe as murder, we can certainly follow a set of procedures for something as relatively harmless as stolen passwords. Apparently you missed that.
When someone is suspected of murder, do you:
1) Call the police to report the crime, wait for them to arrest the suspect, perhaps allow him out on bail while the prosecutor collects evidence to build a case. All the while, this person is available to commit further crimes.
2) Testify in court any possible evidence that you have that might send the accused to prison for the crime you believe he's committed.
3) If that fails, pull out a gun and shoot the suspect, killing him without any due process. Sounds like the best solution of them all! You get the problem solved without having to go through the previous steps -- and the problem is solved much faster.
So to reiterate, if you suspect someone of a crime, do you diplomatically try to resolve the situation, or do you go straight to the top and slit the suspect's throat?
When it's a matter of protecting my community's safety, I'll take the knife over a kinder approach anyday,, and this is exactly what MySpace did. And they did nothing wrong.
Besides, Myspace's effort was entirely useless. Those usernames/passwords were already compromised, Fjodor's site was just one that had it from the many places it can be found.
That's true. Depending on how long it was there, it may have been crawled by Google and could be included in their next search index. If that happens, will Google be taken down for several hours as a result of such an email from MySpace? My guess is, probably not...
If they take away too much privacy, they might get caught in that crossfire.
The laws, of course, will apply only to us ordinary citizens and not the people that created them. The data on their systems must be kept secret to protect national security and defend against terrorists.
"At that point, the Constitution may fail us, and we will have to turn to Congress to create rules that are better adapted for the information age."
Is it possible to mod the article +1 Funny?
My only guess is that the credit bureaus are pimping our data - ALL of our data!
I remember about five years back when I was running credit reports for applicants. Even though the policy of the company was to require all of the blanks filled in on their application, the software we then entered that data into would pull the credit report of the individual even without us filling in all the gaps. The system would let us put in enough information to sufficiently identify someone (like a name and address), and it would fill in the gaps (like a missing social security number).
So in short response to your comment, yes, the credit bureaus do seem to be providing more than what is necessary to view a credit report.
I would imagine that the idea is to buy/lease all of the available dark fiber (not sure if even Google has that kind of money) so that there's nothing left for other providers to expand into as their demand increases by bandwidth usage continuing to go up.