She did yell out to Bush and Jintao, which maybe could be considered disturbing the peace or something given the context. It was not a rally, not a demonstration, it was two heads of state with press coverage. So maybe it was in bad taste on her part, but I don't see how she did anything as bad as the press makes it out to be.
I think this law, while it might have some positive consequences, is bad overall. The first step to restricting freedom of speech is regulating speech. While we do have broad categories of "bad" speech such as speech designed to cause panic and mayhem ("fire" in a movie theater), or false claims (slander), there really isn't a whole lot of regulation by the government. This is a good thing. I want the government doing its job (defending my borders and protecting my rights) while I do my job. I don't see how regulating citizens' speech or removing their freedoms is the government's job in a country that prides itself on how free it is.
I refuse to watch movies on TV for many reasons, and this is one of them. Besides the fact that the image quality is poor, sound quality is poor, it is always pan and scan and not widescreen, movies are censored on TV, etc., I can't stand the advertisements. Watching a movie, to me, is not a casual thing. I don't demand the best, but if I am going to focus two hours on watching a movie, I want it to be a positive experience. That is why I only watch movies on DVD, although this is a pain sometimes as well. Some DVDs force us to watch ads anyway, and not all of us have DVD players that give us the freedom not to pay for the DVD twice -- once at the cash register, another with advertisements. I know there are ways around this too, but the principle is that I hate companies that do this (that means YOU, Universal).
Uranium ore is radioactive, but generally safe enough to handle with bare hands as long as you don't do it for a living. Anyway, decontamination is often very difficult. The most effective way to decontaminate is time. However, some of these components have been exposed for a very long time and have tons of radiation on them, and it would take more than the average human lifetime to decontaminate that way. I suppose some sort of smelting procedure would work, but it would be a huge pain in the ass. You're better off with a Yucca Mountain type of facility where you can just bury your waste and all your contaminated reactor parts.
The problem is that while technology advanced, we have not built new reactors to take advantage of it. Sure, we retrofitted our existing reactors, but modern designs such as pebble bed are incompatible with existing facilities. We have politicians to thank for this, same with our aging Peacekeeper and Minuteman III fleets of ICBMs. The "nuclear" topic has been taboo ever since Reagan's Star Wars project tanked, which is unfortunate. It is an amazing power source and an amazing deterrent to attacks on our home turf by foreign armies.
That is a very good point, but I have purchased software delivered electronically where I either was forced to read the EULA before purchasing or at least had the opportunity. I seem to remember some image or video editor, but it's been a while. I don't buy software anymore except for games, thanks to free software.
You took me way too seriously. Same with the other poster. Maybe I should have just come out and said that the idea of people reading EULAs willingly is bullshit.
you plug the HDMI connector into the back of the HD-DVD player and the other end into your TV. There is no step 2. Audio and everything is taken care of.
Your HDTV has surround sound built-in? It has hookups for at least 5.1 speakers? Cool, mine doesn't. I still need two cables: one to my TV (which only supports DVI, which isn't a problem as long as the player doesn't demand HDCP) and one to my amp.
I was always taught to respond to the car, not the lights. After being in a few close calls with drivers whose brake lights did not function, this lesson is engraved in my brain. It also made me get in the habit of checking the lights on my vehicles every month like I am supposed to (I still don't floss, though).
All caps, little white space, and tiny text boxes. I've seen them with three or four lines of text visible but the EULA is just huge, at least a hundred lines.
The best EULAs I have read are ones on web sites. The first one that pops into my mind is Sun's Java EULA. I make no claim about the contents, just the presentation -- I like it. You get to see the whole thing very easily. You are presented with the EULA before the software, unlike shrinkwrap EULAs. Contrast that to some of the shrinkwrap EULAs I've read, and it's night and day.
More importantly than picking a large sample size is picking a good sample -- quality over quantity. However, you still need enough people compared to your population. This number need not be very large, which is why sampling around 1,000 people out of 290,000,000 is statistically accurate. The real question, and I did not RTFA, is how large the population is and who is in it? Then you pick a good representative sample, using all those fancy statistics equations to figure out what size sample you need for your desired confidence level, and go survey.
With such a tiny sample size, the margin of error must be huge, say, 67% +/- 33%. That could give an actual result of 100% that rarely or never read EULAs, which makes more sense.
The fun in games is playing them NOT watching other people play them.
The "fun" in TV is living vicariously through other people, NOT doing something fun and interesting for yourself. While I think "major league gaming" on TV is a stupid idea, many couch potatoes across the country will have something else to watch for a minute or two as they flip channels.
I rarely use headphones, and when I do, I will not use the little ear buds. I've always had a suspicion about them negatively affecting hearing, and recent studies back up my natural skepticism. That and they really aren't comfortable, and don't sound good.
Anyway, I am one of those quiet people that doesn't like loud noises. Even listening to music, I don't like it so loud I can't have a conversation over it. The only time I ever intentionally crank up the volume is when watching/listening to DVDs on my home theater system. However, I don't use headphones and don't crank it up to the point my ears hurt, can't hear other noises, etc.
For the most part I think I take care of my ears. I don't listen to loud music, try to avoid loud areas, clean my ears with warm soap and water every day in the shower, etc. There are more than a few people who are blind, deaf, or have other sensory disabilities (e.g. autism). I am very grateful for not having those issues so I take care of my body. But I also know that my body will degrade over time. I want to keep it in as good a shape as possible, but I know it's just a matter of time.
The stats say 5% of people are deaf, what on earth do they do for a living?
The same things as everyone else. Well, certain occupations might be difficult or not allowed (e.g. military pilot is probably off limits), but I have personally interacted with deaf people in a variety of professions either as coworkers or clients. Honestly, you should do whatever you are trained to do. Just make adjustments as necessary to accomodate your hearing loss. It takes time for [potential] coworkers to adjust as well. Once they realize you are a productive member of the team, I am sure they will have no problem doing the little things that help such as facing you while speaking, focusing more on non-verbal communication, etc. Things they should do with people that hear fine because it is the professional thing to do (eye contact, good posture, actively listening, etc) but often don't.
About that 5% statistic... You would know better than I do, but I thought to be legally deaf you don't have to have complete hearing loss in both ears. One of my friends growing up had a deaf sister, but she could hear a little bit out of one ear. I am sure she is in that 5%, but most laymen would call her hard of hearing, not deaf. I would bet that most of that 5% aren't what most people consider deaf. In fact, most of us probably interact with people who meet that definition used to measure the 5% on a daily basis and think nothing of it.
That isn't abuse of the system, really. I cannot go and register a.cx,.tv, or.to domain on a whim. It has to be done through whatever organization that country set up to do it. If they want to restrict it to organizations and people that reside in that country, they are free to do so. If they want to whore themselves out and make tons of money by selling domain names to other people, they are free to do so. Two good examples of this are.to and.tv. The system isn't being abused, because those countries are free to restrict or not to restrict access.
Abuse would be a corporation somehow forcing a foreign, sovereign nation to give them a domain name with that country's TLD against their wishes.
It honestly doesn't take much. I went to college at the Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT), home to the National Technical Institute for the Deaf (NTID). The whole campus was rigged to be deaf-friendly, and it really wasn't a big deal. All it took was people being aware of the deaf issue. I am sure job interviews would be challenging with an employer that is not prepared with sign language or an interpreter, but beyond that, it mainly takes the willingness to work together. Some people make disabilities in the workplace out to be huge hurdles, and some employers balk at installing wheelchair ramps, desks to accomodate certain disabilities, etc. when it really isn't all that bad. People just need to calm down, think rationally, and realize that being deaf is a disability but is not a huge deal as far as employment goes.
If I were you I would look around for organizations designed to help deaf people, such as giving employment advice. As I mentioned, the interviewing process will likely be challenging at first. Maybe someone has a list of deaf-friendly employers that made accomodations in the past. I am sure there is help out there if you need it.
For only having two ears, we humans are very good at determining the direction sounds come from. Thanks to the shape of the ear being able to sort sounds based on direction, we are able to know where a sound came from and whether it is background noise or not. While I do not wear hearing aids, I do hear from people that do wear them that while the aids amplify sounds, they completely screw up our sense of direction as well as what is background noise, voices, oncoming traffic, etc. Because they are so large, they interfere with the natural shape of the ear and the brain's trained response to figuring out what sounds come from where.
Isn't there a better way? Are there hearing aids that are less obtrusive to the natural function of the ear while still amplifying sounds? And I am not talking about glasses. This seems to be the band-aid and duct tape solution to me. Sure, vision tends to suffer in elderly people with bad hearing, but this is not always true. What about a young hearing-impaired person who does not need glasses? I have a friend with razor-sharp vision (20/15) but thanks to a previous job, is nearly deaf. While he gets by without a hearing aid (mainly because of his pride), I am sure if there was something less obtrusive that would still work and not require him to wear glasses he doesn't need, he would use it.
I really am interested to hear what people have to say. My vision already sucks, I know when I get older my hearing will probably follow. I would like to start following what technology can do for stuff like this that I will probably have to deal with in my old age. Now get off my lawn, damn kids!
All new TLDs do is make it so companies have to spend another $15/year to protect their trademarks. How often do you see two domain names with the same name but different TLDs and they are truly different sites? Yes, there are some good examples (whitehouse.gov/com), but for the most part, the "other" sites redirect to the main site or are parked by domain squatters.
This may pose a problem with the 526,000+ people sharing the name Michael Smith.
Or the people who share names with companies. Or the people who share names with each other. There will be collisions. This plan will not work for its stated purpose. However, its stated purpose and its real purpose most likely are not the same. Odds are, this is just another plan to make more money for the registrars by opening up a new land rush of domain name registrations.
Jefferson is one of the people that helped write the Constitution, wrote quite a few papers back in the day pertaining to our government, and generally set the mood until Andrew Jackson came along and screwed everything up. We know quite clearly what he intended because he wrote about it. Same with the other founding fathers. Anyway, the beauty of this is that we don't care what technology you use. We only care about what it does. Yes, technology moves on. But the basic fundamentals of how it works, remarkably, don't advance as much as you'd think. The internet is similar to the telegraph networks of old, but you guessed it, technology makes it much more advanced. Still, the basic ideas are the same -- electronic signals going back and forth between two locations (with a few pit stops in the middle).
The reason people talk about Jefferson and friends is that they had a much smaller view of what government should do. Even with all the technology we have now, Jefferson, Washington, Hamilton, et al. would never have passed the DMCA, would never have given in to the media cartels, would never have allowed patents to be as frivilous and prevalent as they are today. Even the founding fathers who were more for restrictive government (I restrain from liberal/conservative as those lines have shifted significantly over time) would cringe at some of the junk that goes on today. I think we need to get back to the old-school way of thinking with our government. While they didn't have the internet back then, didn't have wireless email, didn't have DVDs and CSS, etc., I would trust them to regulate it a lot more than I do the current, post-WW2 regime. That is, they wouldn't regulate it. Companies would be free to restrict us, and we'd be free to circumvent that restriction. Patents for wireless email would never be granted.
You are correct, and in another message in this thread I reiterated that. Essentially, they make the mistake of assuming application developers give a shit about how to use the registry. While the registry does have ACL security tied into the rest of the OS's security model, their default behavior is to give Administrator privileges anyway, which essentially ignores any security barriers they put up. In the end, their relatively lax registry security (compared to Unix, where you have/etc and/usr/etc locked down) combined with extremely lax login security, makes for a very bad situation. We know what that causes -- the situation we're in now with malware, viruses, spyware, adware, and all that crap.
My opinion is that they can 'feel' however they want about it, but the fact is that I pay the SAME $14.99 a month for the SAME thing that they do....I should not get any lesser value for my same amount of hard earned cash simply because I have a job and a life.
Odds are you pay the same amount of hard earned cash for other services such as internet, cable TV, etc. yet I am sure other people use those more than you. Just because someone else watches more TV than you, should they be forced to stare at a blank screen because they choose to invest more time than you do?
Yours is a very selfish attitude. If you don't like how WoW rewards people with more free time than you, stop playing. Cancel your subscription. Whatever it takes to remove your negative, selfish attitude from the game. We don't need it.
Those ACLs don't help much for home users. By default on XP Home the Administrator password is blank, or just doesn't require a password. The first user account created automatically is a member of the Administrators group, and I doubt most home users do anything besides use the default account. This is bad security on Microsoft's part. From the perspective of someone sitting down at the computer to use it it probably doesn't matter much, but it is too easy for applications, both legitimate and malware, to use this lax implementation of security and hose the registry.
Slashdot Mirror
She did yell out to Bush and Jintao, which maybe could be considered disturbing the peace or something given the context. It was not a rally, not a demonstration, it was two heads of state with press coverage. So maybe it was in bad taste on her part, but I don't see how she did anything as bad as the press makes it out to be.
I think this law, while it might have some positive consequences, is bad overall. The first step to restricting freedom of speech is regulating speech. While we do have broad categories of "bad" speech such as speech designed to cause panic and mayhem ("fire" in a movie theater), or false claims (slander), there really isn't a whole lot of regulation by the government. This is a good thing. I want the government doing its job (defending my borders and protecting my rights) while I do my job. I don't see how regulating citizens' speech or removing their freedoms is the government's job in a country that prides itself on how free it is.
I refuse to watch movies on TV for many reasons, and this is one of them. Besides the fact that the image quality is poor, sound quality is poor, it is always pan and scan and not widescreen, movies are censored on TV, etc., I can't stand the advertisements. Watching a movie, to me, is not a casual thing. I don't demand the best, but if I am going to focus two hours on watching a movie, I want it to be a positive experience. That is why I only watch movies on DVD, although this is a pain sometimes as well. Some DVDs force us to watch ads anyway, and not all of us have DVD players that give us the freedom not to pay for the DVD twice -- once at the cash register, another with advertisements. I know there are ways around this too, but the principle is that I hate companies that do this (that means YOU, Universal).
Uranium ore is radioactive, but generally safe enough to handle with bare hands as long as you don't do it for a living. Anyway, decontamination is often very difficult. The most effective way to decontaminate is time. However, some of these components have been exposed for a very long time and have tons of radiation on them, and it would take more than the average human lifetime to decontaminate that way. I suppose some sort of smelting procedure would work, but it would be a huge pain in the ass. You're better off with a Yucca Mountain type of facility where you can just bury your waste and all your contaminated reactor parts.
The problem is that while technology advanced, we have not built new reactors to take advantage of it. Sure, we retrofitted our existing reactors, but modern designs such as pebble bed are incompatible with existing facilities. We have politicians to thank for this, same with our aging Peacekeeper and Minuteman III fleets of ICBMs. The "nuclear" topic has been taboo ever since Reagan's Star Wars project tanked, which is unfortunate. It is an amazing power source and an amazing deterrent to attacks on our home turf by foreign armies.
That is a very good point, but I have purchased software delivered electronically where I either was forced to read the EULA before purchasing or at least had the opportunity. I seem to remember some image or video editor, but it's been a while. I don't buy software anymore except for games, thanks to free software.
You took me way too seriously. Same with the other poster. Maybe I should have just come out and said that the idea of people reading EULAs willingly is bullshit.
you plug the HDMI connector into the back of the HD-DVD player and the other end into your TV. There is no step 2. Audio and everything is taken care of.
Your HDTV has surround sound built-in? It has hookups for at least 5.1 speakers? Cool, mine doesn't. I still need two cables: one to my TV (which only supports DVI, which isn't a problem as long as the player doesn't demand HDCP) and one to my amp.
I was always taught to respond to the car, not the lights. After being in a few close calls with drivers whose brake lights did not function, this lesson is engraved in my brain. It also made me get in the habit of checking the lights on my vehicles every month like I am supposed to (I still don't floss, though).
All caps, little white space, and tiny text boxes. I've seen them with three or four lines of text visible but the EULA is just huge, at least a hundred lines.
The best EULAs I have read are ones on web sites. The first one that pops into my mind is Sun's Java EULA. I make no claim about the contents, just the presentation -- I like it. You get to see the whole thing very easily. You are presented with the EULA before the software, unlike shrinkwrap EULAs. Contrast that to some of the shrinkwrap EULAs I've read, and it's night and day.
More importantly than picking a large sample size is picking a good sample -- quality over quantity. However, you still need enough people compared to your population. This number need not be very large, which is why sampling around 1,000 people out of 290,000,000 is statistically accurate. The real question, and I did not RTFA, is how large the population is and who is in it? Then you pick a good representative sample, using all those fancy statistics equations to figure out what size sample you need for your desired confidence level, and go survey.
With such a tiny sample size, the margin of error must be huge, say, 67% +/- 33%. That could give an actual result of 100% that rarely or never read EULAs, which makes more sense.
The fun in games is playing them NOT watching other people play them.
The "fun" in TV is living vicariously through other people, NOT doing something fun and interesting for yourself. While I think "major league gaming" on TV is a stupid idea, many couch potatoes across the country will have something else to watch for a minute or two as they flip channels.
I rarely use headphones, and when I do, I will not use the little ear buds. I've always had a suspicion about them negatively affecting hearing, and recent studies back up my natural skepticism. That and they really aren't comfortable, and don't sound good.
Anyway, I am one of those quiet people that doesn't like loud noises. Even listening to music, I don't like it so loud I can't have a conversation over it. The only time I ever intentionally crank up the volume is when watching/listening to DVDs on my home theater system. However, I don't use headphones and don't crank it up to the point my ears hurt, can't hear other noises, etc.
For the most part I think I take care of my ears. I don't listen to loud music, try to avoid loud areas, clean my ears with warm soap and water every day in the shower, etc. There are more than a few people who are blind, deaf, or have other sensory disabilities (e.g. autism). I am very grateful for not having those issues so I take care of my body. But I also know that my body will degrade over time. I want to keep it in as good a shape as possible, but I know it's just a matter of time.
The stats say 5% of people are deaf, what on earth do they do for a living?
The same things as everyone else. Well, certain occupations might be difficult or not allowed (e.g. military pilot is probably off limits), but I have personally interacted with deaf people in a variety of professions either as coworkers or clients. Honestly, you should do whatever you are trained to do. Just make adjustments as necessary to accomodate your hearing loss. It takes time for [potential] coworkers to adjust as well. Once they realize you are a productive member of the team, I am sure they will have no problem doing the little things that help such as facing you while speaking, focusing more on non-verbal communication, etc. Things they should do with people that hear fine because it is the professional thing to do (eye contact, good posture, actively listening, etc) but often don't.
About that 5% statistic... You would know better than I do, but I thought to be legally deaf you don't have to have complete hearing loss in both ears. One of my friends growing up had a deaf sister, but she could hear a little bit out of one ear. I am sure she is in that 5%, but most laymen would call her hard of hearing, not deaf. I would bet that most of that 5% aren't what most people consider deaf. In fact, most of us probably interact with people who meet that definition used to measure the 5% on a daily basis and think nothing of it.
You run a web server on your coffee maker?
That isn't abuse of the system, really. I cannot go and register a .cx, .tv, or .to domain on a whim. It has to be done through whatever organization that country set up to do it. If they want to restrict it to organizations and people that reside in that country, they are free to do so. If they want to whore themselves out and make tons of money by selling domain names to other people, they are free to do so. Two good examples of this are .to and .tv. The system isn't being abused, because those countries are free to restrict or not to restrict access.
Abuse would be a corporation somehow forcing a foreign, sovereign nation to give them a domain name with that country's TLD against their wishes.
But imagine if the internet was just a vast wasteland of porn and spammers.
That doesn't require any imagination.
It honestly doesn't take much. I went to college at the Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT), home to the National Technical Institute for the Deaf (NTID). The whole campus was rigged to be deaf-friendly, and it really wasn't a big deal. All it took was people being aware of the deaf issue. I am sure job interviews would be challenging with an employer that is not prepared with sign language or an interpreter, but beyond that, it mainly takes the willingness to work together. Some people make disabilities in the workplace out to be huge hurdles, and some employers balk at installing wheelchair ramps, desks to accomodate certain disabilities, etc. when it really isn't all that bad. People just need to calm down, think rationally, and realize that being deaf is a disability but is not a huge deal as far as employment goes.
If I were you I would look around for organizations designed to help deaf people, such as giving employment advice. As I mentioned, the interviewing process will likely be challenging at first. Maybe someone has a list of deaf-friendly employers that made accomodations in the past. I am sure there is help out there if you need it.
For only having two ears, we humans are very good at determining the direction sounds come from. Thanks to the shape of the ear being able to sort sounds based on direction, we are able to know where a sound came from and whether it is background noise or not. While I do not wear hearing aids, I do hear from people that do wear them that while the aids amplify sounds, they completely screw up our sense of direction as well as what is background noise, voices, oncoming traffic, etc. Because they are so large, they interfere with the natural shape of the ear and the brain's trained response to figuring out what sounds come from where.
Isn't there a better way? Are there hearing aids that are less obtrusive to the natural function of the ear while still amplifying sounds? And I am not talking about glasses. This seems to be the band-aid and duct tape solution to me. Sure, vision tends to suffer in elderly people with bad hearing, but this is not always true. What about a young hearing-impaired person who does not need glasses? I have a friend with razor-sharp vision (20/15) but thanks to a previous job, is nearly deaf. While he gets by without a hearing aid (mainly because of his pride), I am sure if there was something less obtrusive that would still work and not require him to wear glasses he doesn't need, he would use it.
I really am interested to hear what people have to say. My vision already sucks, I know when I get older my hearing will probably follow. I would like to start following what technology can do for stuff like this that I will probably have to deal with in my old age. Now get off my lawn, damn kids!
All new TLDs do is make it so companies have to spend another $15/year to protect their trademarks. How often do you see two domain names with the same name but different TLDs and they are truly different sites? Yes, there are some good examples (whitehouse.gov/com), but for the most part, the "other" sites redirect to the main site or are parked by domain squatters.
This may pose a problem with the 526,000+ people sharing the name Michael Smith.
Or the people who share names with companies. Or the people who share names with each other. There will be collisions. This plan will not work for its stated purpose. However, its stated purpose and its real purpose most likely are not the same. Odds are, this is just another plan to make more money for the registrars by opening up a new land rush of domain name registrations.
Jefferson is one of the people that helped write the Constitution, wrote quite a few papers back in the day pertaining to our government, and generally set the mood until Andrew Jackson came along and screwed everything up. We know quite clearly what he intended because he wrote about it. Same with the other founding fathers. Anyway, the beauty of this is that we don't care what technology you use. We only care about what it does. Yes, technology moves on. But the basic fundamentals of how it works, remarkably, don't advance as much as you'd think. The internet is similar to the telegraph networks of old, but you guessed it, technology makes it much more advanced. Still, the basic ideas are the same -- electronic signals going back and forth between two locations (with a few pit stops in the middle).
The reason people talk about Jefferson and friends is that they had a much smaller view of what government should do. Even with all the technology we have now, Jefferson, Washington, Hamilton, et al. would never have passed the DMCA, would never have given in to the media cartels, would never have allowed patents to be as frivilous and prevalent as they are today. Even the founding fathers who were more for restrictive government (I restrain from liberal/conservative as those lines have shifted significantly over time) would cringe at some of the junk that goes on today. I think we need to get back to the old-school way of thinking with our government. While they didn't have the internet back then, didn't have wireless email, didn't have DVDs and CSS, etc., I would trust them to regulate it a lot more than I do the current, post-WW2 regime. That is, they wouldn't regulate it. Companies would be free to restrict us, and we'd be free to circumvent that restriction. Patents for wireless email would never be granted.
You are correct, and in another message in this thread I reiterated that. Essentially, they make the mistake of assuming application developers give a shit about how to use the registry. While the registry does have ACL security tied into the rest of the OS's security model, their default behavior is to give Administrator privileges anyway, which essentially ignores any security barriers they put up. In the end, their relatively lax registry security (compared to Unix, where you have /etc and /usr/etc locked down) combined with extremely lax login security, makes for a very bad situation. We know what that causes -- the situation we're in now with malware, viruses, spyware, adware, and all that crap.
My opinion is that they can 'feel' however they want about it, but the fact is that I pay the SAME $14.99 a month for the SAME thing that they do. ...I should not get any lesser value for my same amount of hard earned cash simply because I have a job and a life.
Odds are you pay the same amount of hard earned cash for other services such as internet, cable TV, etc. yet I am sure other people use those more than you. Just because someone else watches more TV than you, should they be forced to stare at a blank screen because they choose to invest more time than you do?
Yours is a very selfish attitude. If you don't like how WoW rewards people with more free time than you, stop playing. Cancel your subscription. Whatever it takes to remove your negative, selfish attitude from the game. We don't need it.
Those ACLs don't help much for home users. By default on XP Home the Administrator password is blank, or just doesn't require a password. The first user account created automatically is a member of the Administrators group, and I doubt most home users do anything besides use the default account. This is bad security on Microsoft's part. From the perspective of someone sitting down at the computer to use it it probably doesn't matter much, but it is too easy for applications, both legitimate and malware, to use this lax implementation of security and hose the registry.