A more valid position is "We would prefer nonproliferation but we cannot tolerate being stuck without them if someone else doesn't hold up their end of the bargain"
Nonproliferation requires trust. We get MAD because no country can be trusted NOT to abuse the enviable position of being the last one to dispose of their nukes...or not.
Suppose that we started deproliferating and all the nukes are "gone". Suddenly one country starts laughing its ass off as it reveals a secret stash of nukes that it planned on secretly hoarding much like an ace stowed in the sleeve at poker.
If everyone else was honest, that country is now king of the world by virtue of the fact that it is the only one with nukes. Game over for all the poor naive slobs that trusted the cheater to play fair.
Country A: Hey, let's deproliferate! Country B: You first Country C: Yeah, you first Country A: No, you first Country B: Ok, I'll get rid of my nukes if you will Country A: Cross my heart Country C: *gets rid of some nukes* Country A: *gets rid of some nukes* Country B: *gets rid of all nukes* Ok, that's the last of mine. Country C: *gets rid of all nukes* Good riddance. Ok, A. You're turn. Country A: *keeps his nukes* Countries B & C: Hey we had a deal! Country A: I'm altering the agreement. Pray that that I do not alter it further. Countries B & C: *pwned*
Only a naive fool would give up bargaining power without a guarantee that he isn't going to get screwed.
Nukes won't be going away any time soon. It's impossible to deproliferate in such a way that the last guy with a nuke can be trusted.
As far as your example of an employee embezzling funds, that ceases to be a civil issue, and under agency theory the bank would be on the hook anyway as the one who proximately caused the problem, particularly since the malware would have nothing to do with the employee.
Even a half decent law student who knows anything about negligence knows about "proximate cause". Sadly, I wrongly assumed that you would be intelligent enough that I wouldn't have to mention it.
I do agree that a bank has a "duty of care" to protect the consumer's money. That is after all the bank's job. What is NOT their job is keeping their customer's computers malware free.
When you squeeze the nobility, it's the peasant's who feel the pinch.
As long as despotic dictators have their hands on the country's purse strings, no amount of aid is going to help if it has to go through official channels where corrupt politicians get to raid the till.
We'd have to literally bomb the countryside with food packages. Maybe drop a bundle or two of MREs. Manna from heaven, as it were.
Case 1 is entirely bank responsibility Case 2 is where the bank is responsible by default thanks to limitations of liability.
What I disagree with is a customer with a malware infested machine getting freebie insurance from the bank.
My opinion:
The bank is presumably liable for all unauthorized transactions, but can escape liability if they prove the consumer was negligent. And having an insecure machine should be considered negligente.
That goes without saying. But after the bank has done all it can to keep things secure, it's really not their fault if an end user gets their machine pwned.
And putting the bank into the position of covering for losses they can't prevent is effectively forcing them to provide free insurance.
1) Why should the bank be held responsible for something that is clearly the customer's responsibility? I.e. securing their fucking computer?
2) Maybe this will encourage folks to keep their computers locked down.
Mind you, I think that the bank should bend over backwards to help catch the bad guys. However, they cannot and should not be expected to police their client's computers...and likewise expecting them to pony up for something they can't prevent is also unfair.
The real enemy in this case, as usual, is the crook that did the hacking in the first place.
Regardless of who is at fault to what degree, the owner of the account the information was sent to most likely was
A) oblivious to what happened, or B) unscrupulous and was planning to take advantage of the gold mine that landed in his lap.
Considering the potential for harm, the judge in this case was right to act, at least in principle. Mind you, I don't know if the law was on his side since the recipient was effectively an innocent bystander.
That said, there may very well be laws that regulate the possession of confidential information. Considering that the information belonged to a financial institution, that may be the case.
Often times, I have received email with a footer that cites the information as confidential and stating that the recipient is required by law to delete it if it was sent in error.
Bottom line, the nincompoop that got the info was almost certainly up to no good. You don't just not notice a honking huge spreadsheet being plopped in your inbox.
The bank that sent this needs to get its ass kicked. If they find out that the recipient was in on anything, he needs sanctioned as well.
The only reason prohibition led to violence is that it displaced legitimate business and gave the mafia a monopoly on bootlegging. I don't know about you, but if I had to drink, I'd much rather get boozed up by the local brewery's honest hops than Tony Pizzano's "special blend" which could have who knows what added to it.
The problem wasn't prohibition, the problem was the mafia. We should have focused our efforts on busting up the mob, because attacking a weed at the roots is much more effective than just lopping off the tops whack-a-mole style.
In fact, I'm in favor of prohibition in principle for the following reasons:
* Alcohol is bad for your health * Alcohol kills people. In fact, alcohol related deaths exceed deaths of tobacco, pot, and cocaine combined. This last point DOES give the government just cause to regulate it. Protecting the public is, after all, the government's job.
I think the correct move for alcohol is:
1. Unless otherwise noted below, leave it the fuck alone. 2. Keep it out of the hands of minors. 3. Make DUI a felony.
As far as the government is concerned, people have every right to do to their own bodies whatever the hell they wanna.
Only when someone tries to swing his fist past my nose should the government intervene.
Prohibition led to violence because we the people were addicted to alcohol.
It's sorta why people get hurt when the cops don't walk on eggshells while hostages are involved.
Giving government the fight of our lives because they tried to take our booze away doesn't mean alcohol is good, all it means is that we want it.
It's not so much that alcohol is good and the government needs to back the fuck off. Rather, alcohol is a skilled hostage-taker of a drug and we need to use some strategificationizing.
If congress yanks funding, they get the wrath of the public for crippling our troops. If the administration pulls them out, they lose shitloads of face.
If both sides stay at status quo, our soldiers will die.
"Very well, the existing appropriation will carry the navy halfway around the world and if Congress chooses to leave it on the other side, all right" -- Roosevelt.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, isn't it thanks to shenanigans like that that we're even IN a recession in the first place?
A more valid position is "We would prefer nonproliferation but we cannot tolerate being stuck without them if someone else doesn't hold up their end of the bargain"
Nonproliferation requires trust. We get MAD because no country can be trusted NOT to abuse the enviable position of being the last one to dispose of their nukes...or not.
Suppose that we started deproliferating and all the nukes are "gone". Suddenly one country starts laughing its ass off as it reveals a secret stash of nukes that it planned on secretly hoarding much like an ace stowed in the sleeve at poker.
If everyone else was honest, that country is now king of the world by virtue of the fact that it is the only one with nukes. Game over for all the poor naive slobs that trusted the cheater to play fair.
Country A: Hey, let's deproliferate!
Country B: You first
Country C: Yeah, you first
Country A: No, you first
Country B: Ok, I'll get rid of my nukes if you will
Country A: Cross my heart
Country C: *gets rid of some nukes*
Country A: *gets rid of some nukes*
Country B: *gets rid of all nukes* Ok, that's the last of mine.
Country C: *gets rid of all nukes* Good riddance. Ok, A. You're turn.
Country A: *keeps his nukes*
Countries B & C: Hey we had a deal!
Country A: I'm altering the agreement. Pray that that I do not alter it further.
Countries B & C: *pwned*
Only a naive fool would give up bargaining power without a guarantee that he isn't going to get screwed.
Nukes won't be going away any time soon. It's impossible to deproliferate in such a way that the last guy with a nuke can be trusted.
mod parent up
Iran has a valid point. Why indeed should it be condemned when the major superpowers have stockpiles of missles?
I think that iran's point is that the US is in the position of a pot calling the kettle black.
Whether the US rightly enjoys the privilege of outranking Iran in terms of nuclear armament is another matter entirely.
I wonder...what if Iran were to join the UN Security Council?
Iran's policies and motivations are naturally fit to be condemned, but their logic in accusing the US of PKB is sound.
...ass
Speaking of which, how durable is this memory?
RAM operates a few orders of magnitude faster than CD-RW...how many writes can it handle?
That was kinda implied.
As far as your example of an employee embezzling funds, that ceases to be a civil issue, and under agency theory the bank would be on the hook anyway as the one who proximately caused the problem, particularly since the malware would have nothing to do with the employee.
Even a half decent law student who knows anything about negligence knows about "proximate cause". Sadly, I wrongly assumed that you would be intelligent enough that I wouldn't have to mention it.
I do agree that a bank has a "duty of care" to protect the consumer's money. That is after all the bank's job. What is NOT their job is keeping their customer's computers malware free.
Again, agreed, that the bank should do everything it can to keep things secure.
However, they should not eat the cost of something that is beyond their control.
When you squeeze the nobility, it's the peasant's who feel the pinch.
As long as despotic dictators have their hands on the country's purse strings, no amount of aid is going to help if it has to go through official channels where corrupt politicians get to raid the till.
We'd have to literally bomb the countryside with food packages. Maybe drop a bundle or two of MREs. Manna from heaven, as it were.
Hey, that sounds like a good idea in some cases.
I agree.
Case 1 is entirely bank responsibility
Case 2 is where the bank is responsible by default thanks to limitations of liability.
What I disagree with is a customer with a malware infested machine getting freebie insurance from the bank.
My opinion:
The bank is presumably liable for all unauthorized transactions, but can escape liability if they prove the consumer was negligent. And having an insecure machine should be considered negligente.
I do, of course, advocate that banks (or any other organization handling sensitive information) do all they can to secure their sites.
* SSL certs
* HTTPS encryption
* DNSSEC
* whatever else
That goes without saying. But after the bank has done all it can to keep things secure, it's really not their fault if an end user gets their machine pwned.
And putting the bank into the position of covering for losses they can't prevent is effectively forcing them to provide free insurance.
My two cents
1) Why should the bank be held responsible for something that is clearly the customer's responsibility? I.e. securing their fucking computer?
2) Maybe this will encourage folks to keep their computers locked down.
Mind you, I think that the bank should bend over backwards to help catch the bad guys. However, they cannot and should not be expected to police their client's computers...and likewise expecting them to pony up for something they can't prevent is also unfair.
The real enemy in this case, as usual, is the crook that did the hacking in the first place.
Rich people can "sin" more because they have more money to spend on sinning.
That is true for almost all taxes, really. Money is money.
Riiight... ...And what do you think aiming does?
So let me get this straight...
You want mexican refugees to go through legal channels that are just as full of bullshit as the ones they're trying to get away from back home?
Regardless of who is at fault to what degree, the owner of the account the information was sent to most likely was
A) oblivious to what happened, or
B) unscrupulous and was planning to take advantage of the gold mine that landed in his lap.
Considering the potential for harm, the judge in this case was right to act, at least in principle. Mind you, I don't know if the law was on his side since the recipient was effectively an innocent bystander.
That said, there may very well be laws that regulate the possession of confidential information. Considering that the information belonged to a financial institution, that may be the case.
Often times, I have received email with a footer that cites the information as confidential and stating that the recipient is required by law to delete it if it was sent in error.
Bottom line, the nincompoop that got the info was almost certainly up to no good. You don't just not notice a honking huge spreadsheet being plopped in your inbox.
The bank that sent this needs to get its ass kicked. If they find out that the recipient was in on anything, he needs sanctioned as well.
I see no problem.
Google is just protecting itself from unscrupulous end-line telcos.
A friggin superbowl could crash the network.
Come on AT&T, beef up the pipes!
The only reason prohibition led to violence is that it displaced legitimate business and gave the mafia a monopoly on bootlegging. I don't know about you, but if I had to drink, I'd much rather get boozed up by the local brewery's honest hops than Tony Pizzano's "special blend" which could have who knows what added to it.
The problem wasn't prohibition, the problem was the mafia. We should have focused our efforts on busting up the mob, because attacking a weed at the roots is much more effective than just lopping off the tops whack-a-mole style.
In fact, I'm in favor of prohibition in principle for the following reasons:
* Alcohol is bad for your health
* Alcohol kills people. In fact, alcohol related deaths exceed deaths of tobacco, pot, and cocaine combined. This last point DOES give the government just cause to regulate it. Protecting the public is, after all, the government's job.
I think the correct move for alcohol is:
1. Unless otherwise noted below, leave it the fuck alone.
2. Keep it out of the hands of minors.
3. Make DUI a felony.
As far as the government is concerned, people have every right to do to their own bodies whatever the hell they wanna.
Only when someone tries to swing his fist past my nose should the government intervene.
I dunno, I think you can get DHMO banned purely as an environmental pollutant.
How many of those updates actually require a reboot to become effective?
By comparison, only updates to the kernel or a core library like glibc and important stuff like that requires an actual reboot on ubuntu.
Price changes usually have their biggest impact when you don't have competition.
Consumers are only willing to pay 60 dollars because they have little choice other than to do with out.
Besides, if consumer willingness to shell out the dough was a reasonable standard, then why do we even need competition in the first place?
Prohibition led to violence because we the people were addicted to alcohol.
It's sorta why people get hurt when the cops don't walk on eggshells while hostages are involved.
Giving government the fight of our lives because they tried to take our booze away doesn't mean alcohol is good, all it means is that we want it.
It's not so much that alcohol is good and the government needs to back the fuck off. Rather, alcohol is a skilled hostage-taker of a drug and we need to use some strategificationizing.
However, the administration knows that congress critters won't dare yank the purse strings away, so they have no incentive to pull out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_(game)
If congress yanks funding, they get the wrath of the public for crippling our troops.
If the administration pulls them out, they lose shitloads of face.
If both sides stay at status quo, our soldiers will die.
"Very well, the existing appropriation will carry the navy halfway around the world and if Congress chooses to leave it on the other side, all right" -- Roosevelt.