Could you word your requests a bit more carefully? I don't want to see a new law come into effect that says "If an agent takes more than four articles of stuff from an innocent civilian, the agent must charge the civilian a 'processing fee' of $100 per item."
Bad enough your stuff can be appropriated, but putting a limit on how much stuff can be taken before you start getting charges? Eugh!
I know of at least one organization which had a significant Y2K problem, even after making preparations.
Sadly, the preparations were "Hire someone to take the fall when the shit hits the fan so we can continue with business as usual. Er... hire someone to ensure Y2K preparedness."
The fatal glitch in the plan was that the person who got hired made friends with an exec in the parent company before the ball dropped. So, when things went south the hire got a silver parachute while the rest of the company folded.
Quite a mess. Should certainly count as a "significant problem".
I remember reading a Chapter from Freakonomics describing how temporarily imposing an economic contract (X happens, Y dollars change hands) on what had formerly been a social contract (X happens, you should feel proud/guilty) ended up permanently voiding the social contract.
While it's probably the case that MS is some combination of "Afraid bounties would bankrupt them" and "Using obscurity in place of security" and "Everything you don't want to be", I do wonder if they might accidentally be doing the Right Thing. Probably not, of course, but what if Mozilla and Google's Big Bounties actually ended up damaging the motivation of those who search for and report vulnerabilities because it's the right thing to do?
Anyone know how many other companies have substantial vulnerability bounties? Moreover, anyone know if there's any research on possible links between bounty offers and useful reports?
I recall reading somewhere [citation needed] that, rather than being completely useless and best removed, the appendix serves as a back-up repository of useful/necessary intestinal bacteria.
A car that will never sell anywhere in the US due to total inability to pass crash safety test. I'm actually surprised that it can be sold anywhere in the first world, to be honest.
Unable to pass crash safety tests that are calibrated to being pummeled by a Hummer sailing along at least 15 mph over the posted limit, or crash safety tests that are calibrated to similarly-sized vehicles operating within the posted safe limits?
Cuz, you know, if we're comparing apples to oranges anyhow, I'll point out that a SUV probably wouldn't stand up so well to being rolled over by an M1A1 Abrams main battle tank, so you should be surprised they can be sold anywhere in the first world as well.
Wouldn't the standard way to abuse the DMCA be to put some kind of trivial "Copy/access protection scheme" on the material being turned in? The teacher is given the necessary tool to unlock/access the content, but anyone else accessing the content (without the student's permission, of course) is bypassing/circumventing an access control feature.
How many of you pay upkeep costs to maintain (an internet connection | a vehicle)?
When I use my (internet connection | vehicle) to acquire something I want which is necessarily only accessible using such a connection, like (email | groceries), fine.
If I am required to (drive to the store | use my 'net connection) every ten days to re-activate my (food processor | offline, single-player game) - an item with no intrinsic need for (extracurricular driving | an internet connection) - I think the costs should be billable to the manufacturer.
Sure, you can put a label on the (appliance | game) that says "(reliable means of transportation | internet connection) required", but it's required because you want to require it for your benefit, not because it is an intrinsic requirement for (items which process food | offline single-player games).
I'm not interested in using my resources to cover the expenses incurred by requirements which exist solely for your benefit. Your bill for this 10-day-span's (driving | connection), and associated costs such as printing and postage, will be arriving shortly.
Would it actually be possible for consumers to 'game the system' if insurers weren't allowed to use testing?
I mean, in the short term, sure, I can see a surge of consumers (who, via private testing, know they're at higher risk) getting risk-appropriate insurance which (via a lack of test information) is offered at a lower-than-appropriate (appropriate to the relevant risks) rate... but after a few decades of accumulating data, wouldn't the basic metrics change? Wouldn't the insurance companies essentially be able to see "While the risk for disease X is 5% in the population, the risk for the same disease among those who buy our disease X insurance is 70%, so we will price our disease-X insurance with the expectation we'll have to pay out for 70% of our clients, rather than 5%"?
It just seems like, in the long run, the lack of testing for insurance companies would make no significant difference. In the short run, the system could be gamed, and whenever a new disease cropped up, insurance for that particular disease could be gamed (if 'highly overpriced insurance' didn't become the norm for new things), but in the long run you'd get about the same results from second-hand testing (see who applied for your policy because they got a positive private test) as from doing first-hand testing.
Granted, I don't like the idea of such data being a standard part of my medical history... I'm not advocating that insurance companies should get to do testing... I'm just not convinced that (in the long run) the situation would look that much different with and without insurance-testing. (I certainly admit, though, that the situation where testing exists at all is different from when testing doesn't exist... just that/if/ testing exists, insurance-visibility doesn't affect gamability that much.)
Slashdot Mirror
This seems like the kind of thing that should have been a chapter in Doctorow's "Car Wars" short story.
Could you word your requests a bit more carefully? I don't want to see a new law come into effect that says "If an agent takes more than four articles of stuff from an innocent civilian, the agent must charge the civilian a 'processing fee' of $100 per item."
Bad enough your stuff can be appropriated, but putting a limit on how much stuff can be taken before you start getting charges? Eugh!
More importantly, what're the commands to make emacs run it? Other than going through C-x M-c M-butterfly
I know of at least one organization which had a significant Y2K problem, even after making preparations.
Sadly, the preparations were "Hire someone to take the fall when the shit hits the fan so we can continue with business as usual. Er... hire someone to ensure Y2K preparedness."
The fatal glitch in the plan was that the person who got hired made friends with an exec in the parent company before the ball dropped. So, when things went south the hire got a silver parachute while the rest of the company folded.
Quite a mess. Should certainly count as a "significant problem".
I remember reading a Chapter from Freakonomics describing how temporarily imposing an economic contract (X happens, Y dollars change hands) on what had formerly been a social contract (X happens, you should feel proud/guilty) ended up permanently voiding the social contract.
While it's probably the case that MS is some combination of "Afraid bounties would bankrupt them" and "Using obscurity in place of security" and "Everything you don't want to be", I do wonder if they might accidentally be doing the Right Thing. Probably not, of course, but what if Mozilla and Google's Big Bounties actually ended up damaging the motivation of those who search for and report vulnerabilities because it's the right thing to do?
Anyone know how many other companies have substantial vulnerability bounties? Moreover, anyone know if there's any research on possible links between bounty offers and useful reports?
you're saying "1. We're not... 2. We're owned... 3. We're either... 4. We're probably ... 5. We're not... 7. But we did run..."
I see 1 through 5 and I see 7, but what's number 6?
If the ballot goes by market share, does that mean the top slot goes to IE6?
I recall reading somewhere [citation needed] that, rather than being completely useless and best removed, the appendix serves as a back-up repository of useful/necessary intestinal bacteria.
just stick a cow [model] into a blender and render to whatever resolution you would like.
Cow frappe? The /wrong/ way to make a milkshake?
A car that will never sell anywhere in the US due to total inability to pass crash safety test. I'm actually surprised that it can be sold anywhere in the first world, to be honest.
Unable to pass crash safety tests that are calibrated to being pummeled by a Hummer sailing along at least 15 mph over the posted limit, or crash safety tests that are calibrated to similarly-sized vehicles operating within the posted safe limits? Cuz, you know, if we're comparing apples to oranges anyhow, I'll point out that a SUV probably wouldn't stand up so well to being rolled over by an M1A1 Abrams main battle tank, so you should be surprised they can be sold anywhere in the first world as well.
Flus are annoying, they show up wether you want them to or not, right in the middle of something else you were doing.
I thought you were going to say "Telemarketer Flu"
Wouldn't the standard way to abuse the DMCA be to put some kind of trivial "Copy/access protection scheme" on the material being turned in? The teacher is given the necessary tool to unlock/access the content, but anyone else accessing the content (without the student's permission, of course) is bypassing/circumventing an access control feature.
So, would this do anything to prevent dumbness such as http://tinyurl.com/c6p4yl ?
How many of you pay upkeep costs to maintain (an internet connection | a vehicle)?
When I use my (internet connection | vehicle) to acquire something I want which is necessarily only accessible using such a connection, like (email | groceries), fine.
If I am required to (drive to the store | use my 'net connection) every ten days to re-activate my (food processor | offline, single-player game) - an item with no intrinsic need for (extracurricular driving | an internet connection) - I think the costs should be billable to the manufacturer.
Sure, you can put a label on the (appliance | game) that says "(reliable means of transportation | internet connection) required", but it's required because you want to require it for your benefit, not because it is an intrinsic requirement for (items which process food | offline single-player games).
I'm not interested in using my resources to cover the expenses incurred by requirements which exist solely for your benefit. Your bill for this 10-day-span's (driving | connection), and associated costs such as printing and postage, will be arriving shortly.
Would it actually be possible for consumers to 'game the system' if insurers weren't allowed to use testing?
/if/ testing exists, insurance-visibility doesn't affect gamability that much.)
I mean, in the short term, sure, I can see a surge of consumers (who, via private testing, know they're at higher risk) getting risk-appropriate insurance which (via a lack of test information) is offered at a lower-than-appropriate (appropriate to the relevant risks) rate... but after a few decades of accumulating data, wouldn't the basic metrics change? Wouldn't the insurance companies essentially be able to see "While the risk for disease X is 5% in the population, the risk for the same disease among those who buy our disease X insurance is 70%, so we will price our disease-X insurance with the expectation we'll have to pay out for 70% of our clients, rather than 5%"?
It just seems like, in the long run, the lack of testing for insurance companies would make no significant difference. In the short run, the system could be gamed, and whenever a new disease cropped up, insurance for that particular disease could be gamed (if 'highly overpriced insurance' didn't become the norm for new things), but in the long run you'd get about the same results from second-hand testing (see who applied for your policy because they got a positive private test) as from doing first-hand testing.
Granted, I don't like the idea of such data being a standard part of my medical history... I'm not advocating that insurance companies should get to do testing... I'm just not convinced that (in the long run) the situation would look that much different with and without insurance-testing. (I certainly admit, though, that the situation where testing exists at all is different from when testing doesn't exist... just that