"Hey boss look at this cool new feature that I added, it saves the customer money!"
"Well John, that a nice feature. I guess that I am employing to many of you if you have time to implement un-requested features that don't help us. Enjoy the unemployment line..."
OP,
You sound some what security conscious so I would ask you the question: Would you let the IT guy plug a small server into your home network. Would you let IT guy plug the server into your home network if he gives you a regular user account on the machine? Would you let IT guy plug the server into your home network if he gives you a root account on the machine? If you are actually security conscious I assume that you would answer no to all 3 questions. A better solution would be: why not plug your little server into your home network and punch open the hole in your own firewall. You would have full control, and would never have to give IT guy an account. In the mean time you can keep pushing them to set up the service on an official hospital machine.
Why do leading US politicians advocate cold blooded murder by government troops?
Because he is effectively a terrorist. In all of the reports that I have read I have yet to hear revelations about the US killing babies and doing horrible things. If those were the kinds of things being reported this case would be very different. Instead diplomatic cables claiming the the Prince of England is an ass have been released. That only serves to hurt the US's relationship with other nations, and generally hurt its international standing. If these same documents had been released by Osama Bin Laden we would say it is yet another terrorist attack. Instead they have been released by a person who in the past has done good things in the name of public disclosure of information. I fail to see the value in this latest release and as a result I am right in line with whichever US politicians are advocating cold blooded murder.
In some (not all) cases the content owner is deprived of a sale. That sale would likely have put money into the pocket of the content owner. In that case the content owner has been stolen from. Don't get me wrong; I don't for a moment believe that EVERY download is a lost sale. If a person downloads something that they would have otherwise ended up buying, then the content owner has been deprived of a sale and has been stolen from. The flip side is that if after downloading content a person ends up purchasing the content because of the 'preview' they have added a sale. While I don't have any proof I believe that the former far exceeds the later.
As I stated in my first post: If he died from obesity, shame on his family for not helping him. Shame on them for letting someone eat themselves to death. If I die because no one tries to stop me from killing myself then my family and friends DON'T deserve condolences. Friends don't let friends kill themselves.
I am not arguing that he doesn't have a right to be saved. I am arguing that the he is the person most responsible for saving himself. If people don't take care of themselves NO amount of medical treatment can save them. I am saying to the OP that better access to health care might have saved him, or maybe not eating that umteenth BigMac would have saved him. The OP is arguing that better health care was necessary to save him. I question THAT claim.
Because this is all speculation I would like to reiterate that if he was a healthy, active person my most sincere condolences go out to his loved ones.
Did he eat right and exercise regularly? Having a massive heart attack at age 40 sounds like he wasn't taking very good care of himself to begin with. Ya, it would be great if healthcare took care of everyone who ate themselves to death but lets be realistic, people need to take responsibility for their own health. If he was an avid athlete and just dropped dead then my sincere condolences go out to his family and friends. If he ate himself to death then to his family and friends I say shame on you for letting him kill himself.
Searching for "Why is windows so popular" returns a top hit of: HowStuffWorks "What is Linux and why is it so popular?"
I am not sure that either Google or Microsoft are trying to bash each other. I think that there are just a lot more people who want to know why macs are expensive and the search engine pushes it to the top.
That article isn't even consistent. Elsewhere It says that the total solar energy reaching earth is 3.8 YJ/year. The earth uses 500 Exa J/year. That means that the entire surface of the earth only produces about 1900x the power we need. If you factor out the oceans as 2/3 the earth's surface you are down to 633x our current power needs. (That doesn't even take into account that the south pole is a pretty lousy place to get solar energy because the sun's rays are never normal to it). Lets also assume that you don't want to kill forests. 30% of the earth's land is covered by forest [www.earth-policy.org/indicators/Forest/2006.htm]. That takes up down to 422x total energy needs. Take out for farmland it there will be less. And the worst part is that forestland and farmland are highly concentrated around places that have good sunlight. You don't see many trees in Antarctica. We probably could get enough energy but it isn't quite as large is you suggest.
Add a section to your resume that covers your internet presence. Look at the disambiguation section of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AndrewDressel
for an example. Note: I am not Andrew Dressel.
Don't know the law in the EU but in the US it looks like making a statement in good faith or making a true statement are both defenses. This means that if the scientist has done a reasonable amount of research and believes that the machine is bogus then he will pass the test and wouldn't be held liable for libel.
How do you figure that they don't have the ability to decrypt? They might decide that a brute force attack isn't worth their time but they certainly could.
Slashdot Mirror
Can I be the first to implement it?
"Hey boss look at this cool new feature that I added, it saves the customer money!"
"Well John, that a nice feature. I guess that I am employing to many of you if you have time to implement un-requested features that don't help us. Enjoy the unemployment line..."
OP, You sound some what security conscious so I would ask you the question: Would you let the IT guy plug a small server into your home network. Would you let IT guy plug the server into your home network if he gives you a regular user account on the machine? Would you let IT guy plug the server into your home network if he gives you a root account on the machine? If you are actually security conscious I assume that you would answer no to all 3 questions. A better solution would be: why not plug your little server into your home network and punch open the hole in your own firewall. You would have full control, and would never have to give IT guy an account. In the mean time you can keep pushing them to set up the service on an official hospital machine.
Why do leading US politicians advocate cold blooded murder by government troops?
Because he is effectively a terrorist. In all of the reports that I have read I have yet to hear revelations about the US killing babies and doing horrible things. If those were the kinds of things being reported this case would be very different. Instead diplomatic cables claiming the the Prince of England is an ass have been released. That only serves to hurt the US's relationship with other nations, and generally hurt its international standing. If these same documents had been released by Osama Bin Laden we would say it is yet another terrorist attack. Instead they have been released by a person who in the past has done good things in the name of public disclosure of information. I fail to see the value in this latest release and as a result I am right in line with whichever US politicians are advocating cold blooded murder.
In some (not all) cases the content owner is deprived of a sale. That sale would likely have put money into the pocket of the content owner. In that case the content owner has been stolen from. Don't get me wrong; I don't for a moment believe that EVERY download is a lost sale. If a person downloads something that they would have otherwise ended up buying, then the content owner has been deprived of a sale and has been stolen from. The flip side is that if after downloading content a person ends up purchasing the content because of the 'preview' they have added a sale. While I don't have any proof I believe that the former far exceeds the later.
Ha I have the best of both worlds... I write code in a basement cubicle.
no more horribly loud "Come visit California Ads'!
As I stated in my first post: If he died from obesity, shame on his family for not helping him. Shame on them for letting someone eat themselves to death. If I die because no one tries to stop me from killing myself then my family and friends DON'T deserve condolences. Friends don't let friends kill themselves.
I am not arguing that he doesn't have a right to be saved. I am arguing that the he is the person most responsible for saving himself. If people don't take care of themselves NO amount of medical treatment can save them. I am saying to the OP that better access to health care might have saved him, or maybe not eating that umteenth BigMac would have saved him. The OP is arguing that better health care was necessary to save him. I question THAT claim. Because this is all speculation I would like to reiterate that if he was a healthy, active person my most sincere condolences go out to his loved ones.
Did he eat right and exercise regularly? Having a massive heart attack at age 40 sounds like he wasn't taking very good care of himself to begin with. Ya, it would be great if healthcare took care of everyone who ate themselves to death but lets be realistic, people need to take responsibility for their own health. If he was an avid athlete and just dropped dead then my sincere condolences go out to his family and friends. If he ate himself to death then to his family and friends I say shame on you for letting him kill himself.
Searching for "Why is windows so popular" returns a top hit of: HowStuffWorks "What is Linux and why is it so popular?" I am not sure that either Google or Microsoft are trying to bash each other. I think that there are just a lot more people who want to know why macs are expensive and the search engine pushes it to the top.
That article isn't even consistent. Elsewhere It says that the total solar energy reaching earth is 3.8 YJ/year. The earth uses 500 Exa J /year. That means that the entire surface of the earth only produces about 1900x the power we need. If you factor out the oceans as 2/3 the earth's surface you are down to 633x our current power needs. (That doesn't even take into account that the south pole is a pretty lousy place to get solar energy because the sun's rays are never normal to it). Lets also assume that you don't want to kill forests. 30% of the earth's land is covered by forest [www.earth-policy.org/indicators/Forest/2006.htm]. That takes up down to 422x total energy needs. Take out for farmland it there will be less. And the worst part is that forestland and farmland are highly concentrated around places that have good sunlight. You don't see many trees in Antarctica. We probably could get enough energy but it isn't quite as large is you suggest.
Add a section to your resume that covers your internet presence. Look at the disambiguation section of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AndrewDressel for an example. Note: I am not Andrew Dressel.
Don't know the law in the EU but in the US it looks like making a statement in good faith or making a true statement are both defenses. This means that if the scientist has done a reasonable amount of research and believes that the machine is bogus then he will pass the test and wouldn't be held liable for libel.
How do you figure that they don't have the ability to decrypt? They might decide that a brute force attack isn't worth their time but they certainly could.