I love it. Debunking the Debunking of the Debunking. Not that we are caught in a recursion but since it is on the internet, and the internet sites are done with computers, and since if it comes from the computer it must be correct, then I have just debunked your debunking of the debunking of the debunking. So thererererere.
Thanks for the information. I think the "needed" to be is a subjective decision and my point of coffee being made from boiling water is still a reasonable common sense assumption. If the coffee were cool enough to not burn then I would say the coffee temperature was too cool and possibly dangerously cool for food products. (140 degrees I think is the standard for a minimum, that would burn you at that temperature but not as badly).
I agree completly that the weak cup construction is a valid issue. The argument for that would be the savings on the environment of minimizing the waste product but there is a point where it is too weak. It should not be that the lid is necessary to not have it collapse in your grip. They should have been nailed on that but I don't think the coffee temperature should have been an issue.
"The coffee was an average on 45 degrees hotter than anywhere else. It was so hot it caused 3rd degree burns. McDonalds had been repeatedly warned about the dangers of their coffee and had done nothing about it."
Boiling water does this. It would be resonable to assume that fresh coffee was made with boiling water, a kind of common knowlege sort of thing. Just because competiters don't keep their coffee hot because it has been sitting around for a long time, and tasting like it, you wouldn't think that common sense and common knowlegde would be overriding issues her. I think that hot water judgement was overturned or at least the award was overturned.
I can see a suit for too sharp steak knife suit to Outback because the competitor's plastic knife offering is duller.
"And the person who does it in Java, should be given a shot in the head."
Well how many of those old systems written on old non supported hardware are in hospice. At least with Java you can move the code aside to another box when the original big iron rusts into dust.
Just remember CAR and CDR really stand for the contents of the address register and the contents of the data register on the original system Lisp was written on.
" And what is the problem? Somebody with a proper brain and the right combination of computer science educatino and experience should have not much problems in mastering the use of those behemoths, no?"
You forget that we are talking about old computing models. It would be almost the same as taking someone that gets driven around in a limo and ask them to start driving a Model T where they have to get out and hand crank the engine and then double shift to change gears ( I think you needed to do both for that model but that was before my time).
So there is a whole new mindset to organizing work and a whole new level of patience involved that video game playing teenagers might not take to even with training.
The same would be said for a down shift from VB programming to assembler programming. You are working a much lower level. Not as easy if you have not been exposed or had the background in slow torture with little or no automatic tools.
Of course is you get new Cobol programmers the companies will jettison the old ones quicker than you can say Abend. We are talking a wonderful job security here for the soon to retire crowd. A lot of new stuff is getting written in Java and J2EE so there is a transition going on in some areas. That transition will give a shot in the arm to new software development, a mini boom, over the next 10 years. Hopefully that work will be done at home rather than abroad.
Well maybe the maintancence programming but the initial software development was usually done by someone with more training. But back then there was so much more demand than could be serviced by CS programs
Quite correct. There are two approaches, one that teaches specifics about a language and/or an operating system. For the time spent these people can start to be productive very quickly but only to a point and if you shift envirionments (language/OS..) then you have to do a lot of relearning.
In our CS ciriculum hopefully we are teaching core, first principle ideas which, although for a particular envirionment you are new to, you need some training, but much less and that should be true with each new environment. And the productivity improvement curve should be longer and stronger as that core training helps in all aspects of the CS problem solving domain.
Done, secure computer. Well of course you need to not plug it in inside a bank vault as well. Then its secure, well unless the earth parts so don't use a Bank in California. Then there is the sun expansion that will cover the earth, so you can only set up a secure computer aggrement/expectation for a few hundred million years. By then there may be more portable solutions.
"In which country is this law? Certainly not the US."
Yes, that is true here in the U.S. My understanding is that it is illegal to intercept mobile phone or cell phone or mobile phone or any number of military or commercial transmissions. I understand it is also true the the restiction for Ham radios is at the manufacture and sale of same in the U.S. Many manufactures have to limit radios for sale in the U.S. but have easy work arounds to get those radio's to listen to more bands.
Your right people will not notice the change directly probably but will experience a harder time with their radios.
The public park analogy is close but the electromagnetic spectrum was originally considered public domain. The government started to regulate it it keep the peace and then it progressed to leasing certain spectra to common carriers, then passing laws to make it illegal to listen in on those frequencies (which before were public domain). Then they passed laws to restrict any short wave radio to not be able to tune any band not explicitly Ham or commercial short wave.
Now it appears as though the corporate interests are being given more of the pie. The U.S. governement does not own the electromagnetic spectrum as it is really a world or universe resource. I don't see any mention of what effect it the interference will have on other countries or ongoing research in say tagged animal studies.
I don't imagine that the entire phone wire network will be without problems or leakage. It will come into your PC's your radios, your TV's and cause new and intermittent problems. Not me mention pace makers and medical equipment. Remember you only have to have a piece of wire or a board trace the lentgth of a harmonic of the frequency to build up a galloping gurtey effect in any circuit.
I don't think this has been well thought out.
It will be so much easier to eaves drop on others as well.
I don't think that the "Process of Evolution" is in question as a theory. That Process is demonstratable and scientific.
It can be shown to work not only through tests but the process coupled with ideas from genetics has created a whole new field of Genetic Algorithms. Using the priciples of evolution and genetics together I have written myself a short program that will converge on a the solution of the square root of a number. The process is very useful.
The "Theory" is question is the family tree with all its branches. Much of that is detective work and there are some grey areas and gaps in the tree. That is where the theory comes in not in the Process of Evolution.
The answers that "Creationism" and its various sanitized pseudo versions provides just stop the process of investigation and stop the process of science. I don't think we can afford to stop thinking and questioning.
The worlds if flat. Thats my story and I am sticking to it. The Bible would have told us that the world was round if it was, so there.
"and their lives will not be really affected by which way they believe Man got to his present state."
On the contrary. If someone comes away with an idea of someone's (God perhaps, or the CIA) hand in control of destiny and that science is really a tool of satan well then several thing might occur.
His Christian church attendance might go up.
He might surrender his will to the authority of the Church or his pastor.
He might get into the habit of surrendering authority to others and become a good Republican having not only theological but political issues decided for him with a fear of questioning authority.
We might continue to have Authoritarian "Leadership" in the government rather than a representative government.
For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
Our system of government only works with active questioning free thinking indivduals who are willing to challenge un-truth and hypocracy at all levels. Without that our system is lost.
I knew of a case once where a Chicago Paper had a service to research topics to the public for free, until one fellow who was trying to do a big business deal found in the papers returned to him by someone who did not want to do business with him, an article that sevice had found on his being a scoff law with hundredes of unpaid parking tickets.
He sued the paper and the end result is that the service was discontinued. So law suites can bring presure if not nuisance pressure to cause things to happen. I hope that does not happen here.
I was talking about responsibility and who should be considered to be responsible for a problem. In this case the responsibility and the blame if you will for distruction caused by a computer virus lies with the virus creator and releasor. Those responsible for causing damange to someone elses property or possessions should pay a price for those actions, or as we say they should take the responsibility, because certainly in a free society you are allowed to act but if you act badly you have to take the consequences.
Does intent have a part to play. Certainly. Did the Sasser worm teen get off lightly, I think much too lightly. Maybe if someone that causes millions of dollars of ecomonic and other damage around the world can get off with a shake of a finger, I think we will see more young teens think the joy ride is worth the risk.
There is something about effective penalties that does deter. Just look at those countries the hack off the hands of theives. I am not suggesting hacking off any particular body part but in these cases, hacking off the virus creators computer seems approriate. If a drunk driver has an accident in most states they loose the privilege of driving. I would hate to see us resort to having to have a license to use a computer but if things keep going as they are we may head in that direction sooner than later. If we don't clean up our own shop then the non-computer legistators and law officials will find a way to do it for us.
Be responsible, condemn those who are not acting responsibly.
"As you correctly point out, admins and users are at fault here"
I would use the argument that if our streets were not safe from muggers then a muggee is responsible if they do not carry a can of mace or a gun or drive in an armored car. I contend that, as society does, penaties are made for mugging, and police actively seek out to apprehend and the justice system exact justice (that is the intent). So if your analogy of the real world is true, then the responsibility always lies with the perpetrator not the one that got hit.
It is a subtley of language that exposes that bias in your text. "are at fault here" I suggest that there is prudent action that can be taken but no one should be held at fault for someone else doing something bad. It is an improper shift of blame.
Sorry for putting words in your mouth but given the usual rant about "don't bother us we didn't do anything so wrong besides someone else is doing far worse so what I am doing is not so bad." You were only ranting about the last part not the first part. The issue was penalty and I was making the point that penalty should be exacted for that kind of behaviour, I did not suggest the death penalty nor was defending the death penalty for an economic crime.
Certainly most people do not know what a firewall is and would not have the faintest idea that they are free or where to look.
Actualy you have hit the nail on the head, just the wrong head. Your statement
"The real tragedy here is that his son hasn't come to visit and installed those applications for him already! Get the hell off slashdot and visit your dad!"
shows precisely the trouble with many peoples thinking. It is the same thinking that blames someone who was mugged because the they should have carried a gun and a flack jacket and a can of mace and a whistle and a GPS enabled 911 phone, and not realize that none of that should be necesary and the sole responsibily "THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY" for the damage is from the Mugger/Hacker. I would counter "Get the hell off Slashdot if you don't take responsibilty for your actions and don't hold others accountable for theirs"
You are correct in the sense that Hacking is a general term used for good and bad behaviour's.
Courts (Judgets (people) and juries of peer (folks like you and me)) (at least in the US) listen to the charges and decide guilt or innocence and then depending on the court, have some say on the penalties, so usually maximum penalties only are the worst that can be given unless they are mandatory.
So the suggestion for Hacking penalties is of course only for behaviours that adversly affect computers other than the "Hackers" own computer.
I guess you would have to judge whether creating a worm or virus that does "mischief" to another's computer is worth more than a smile. Say wipes out their hard drive.
Most of the computers out there are not corporate computers, they are peoples computers like yours or mine. If you look at the landscape of protected computers. Protected from viruses and worms and such, then you are looking at a much larger landscape of peoples home computers, not corportate well protected computers.
My father has a computer, he is 89. He is not computer savy. He is wanting to get into digital photograph. If he does and has all his images stored on his hard drive (not backed up of course because he is not computer savy and does not know about how bad things our there really are for unprotected computers). His hobby is photograph and has spent maybe 60yr doing it but not digitally. If he would get into digital photography and have all his new pictures on his hard drive and have them distroyed by some "Idiots" virus. It would the same as if someone set fire to his boxes of negatives. It would be an irretrivable personal loss. He does not have that many years left and it would be a hard blow to him.
But you say, he does not deserve to have those pictures unless he knows enough to have a firewall and active virus protection (he is on a pension and money is precious) and he should have a backed them up (a CD writer is nice but extra money) and he should know how to back them up (the time for that education is effectivly passed believe me). So his loss is his fault not the fault of the "Weeny" that built the virus and wound it up and let it loose on the internet to cause damage.
There are many local personal stories of loss like this that have nothing to do with dollars lost and may represent the real tragedy of viruses on the population. We tend to like to have a number to measure things but there are other immeasurable kinds of losses that need to be considered when considering the cost of something.
Virus's do not have any social value, they have a social cost. There should be a penalty for someone who exacts that cost on society. What may happen as a result of all the virus/spam activity that is going on is that we end up with a loss of freedom.
In that we all loose for someones "fun" and loose deeply and for a long time. We need to bring some responsibility to the community.
Well the spin is that they want to lessen Government's involvmement but I think there may be several other reasons. Republicans don't want to pay for someone else or be responsible for someone else, even when that involves say elderly being hungry or homeless. The second issue is, why have civil servants working on this problem when you can have a few stock traders and portfolio managers getting rich off the "Private" accounts. It opens up a whole new growth industry for those stock trader types. (I am sure that a dollar or two from this constituency has found its way into the legistators war chests or wherever). The third and more sinister motive I heard on a TV business talk show about the subject years ago. One Republican proponent for the system said that the other side was afraid to give people their own stock portfolios because it would turn then into Republicans. I suspect this final motive is a powerful one for the business interests. If you have people's retirement futures directly connected to the performance of business then they would be more favorable towards business. Currently people don't see the connection between business and Social Security, with much of it in government bonds I think anyway.
So this is consistant with the issue at hand in that with SS gutting by government taking a benefit and selling it out to a private concern is quite the same as allowing local governments the power to take peoples land away (kind of like a retirement benefit built up over the years and directly a place to live) and giving it to a private concern who will make a profit off it and funnel some of that profit back to the local governement in taxes and political contributions.
It makes me sick really. But I think my point is that a Bush appointee to the bench would probably have voted for this ruling not against for the reasons stated in this and my earlier post
I can't imagine that a Bush II appointee would rule the other way. Bush and company (emphasizinge company) have made billions on privatizing and using public fund for private use. Here is an example of a local govenrment deciding whats best for the community, taking someones private property away to sell/give it to a wealthy developer.
I don't think we have seen in any of Bush II's actions anything that would say that he is against a government authority excercising "Leadership" and deciding that a particular private project was best for the community. Look at "Privatitizing" socical security. The handing over of construction work in Iraq to Haliburton, the use or stated desire to use public money to fund Religious groups and schools. The use of private companies to do military support operations in Iraq. Lets not forget the "Leadership" shown in abandoning the Geneva Convetions on treatment of war prisoners. Bush II is into "Leadership" not representation when it comes to running the government.
I'm sorry, you do have a right to know as the device becomes to some extent your accuser and you have a right to confront and question your accuser. Another replier makes the same point.
The issue here is that the device might be fine under the standard calibration procedures which might be done in a temperature/humidity controlled environment, but the test you are given might be done in 120 heat on a very humid day and might and might have just been taken out of the policemans air conditioned car. It might also be mid day and in bright outdoor sunlight. The device might be using infrared light or some sensor that is temperature or heat sensitive or goes haywire when the temperature changes. As anyone that has tracked down failing parts in an electronic circuit with freeze spray can identify with even other parts, capacitors, resistors, IC's can be marginal and/or temperature sensitive.
You have a right to confront your accusers and to verify that not only was the device calibrated but that it works correctly and calibratedly under the conditions that the test was given. Don't you think.
Then there are the voting machines that the voting machine company won't release the source on and that leaves no paper trail. Aren't you getting just a little nervous.
I don't advocating drunk driving at all. I advocate complete information about an acusation. Look at the maticulous rules of evidence and chain of documentation needed to handle evidence to insure that the objects kept are the ones taken from the crime, and that no tampering was done. I think the same principle should apply to any device that give evidence.
Slashdot Mirror
I love it. Debunking the Debunking of the Debunking. Not that we are caught in a recursion but since it is on the internet, and the internet sites are done with computers, and since if it comes from the computer it must be correct, then I have just debunked your debunking of the debunking of the debunking. So thererererere.
Thanks for the information. I think the "needed" to be is a subjective decision and my point of coffee being made from boiling water is still a reasonable common sense assumption. If the coffee were cool enough to not burn then I would say the coffee temperature was too cool and possibly dangerously cool for food products. (140 degrees I think is the standard for a minimum, that would burn you at that temperature but not as badly).
I agree completly that the weak cup construction is a valid issue. The argument for that would be the savings on the environment of minimizing the waste product but there is a point where it is too weak. It should not be that the lid is necessary to not have it collapse in your grip. They should have been nailed on that but I don't think the coffee temperature should have been an issue.
"The coffee was an average on 45 degrees hotter than anywhere else. It was so hot it caused 3rd degree burns. McDonalds had been repeatedly warned about the dangers of their coffee and had done nothing about it."
Boiling water does this. It would be resonable to assume that fresh coffee was made with boiling water, a kind of common knowlege sort of thing. Just because competiters don't keep their coffee hot because it has been sitting around for a long time, and tasting like it, you wouldn't think that common sense and common knowlegde would be overriding issues her. I think that hot water judgement was overturned or at least the award was overturned.
I can see a suit for too sharp steak knife suit to Outback because the competitor's plastic knife offering is duller.
no thats ((shudder))
Here Here, thats the ticket.
"And the person who does it in Java, should be given a shot in the head."
Well how many of those old systems written on old non supported hardware are in hospice. At least with Java you can move the code aside to another box when the original big iron rusts into dust.
Just remember CAR and CDR really stand for the contents of the address register and the contents of the data register on the original system Lisp was written on.
" And what is the problem? Somebody with a proper brain and the right combination of computer science educatino and experience should have not much problems in mastering the use of those behemoths, no?"
You forget that we are talking about old computing models. It would be almost the same as taking someone that gets driven around in a limo and ask them to start driving a Model T where they have to get out and hand crank the engine and then double shift to change gears ( I think you needed to do both for that model but that was before my time).
So there is a whole new mindset to organizing work and a whole new level of patience involved that video game playing teenagers might not take to even with training.
The same would be said for a down shift from VB programming to assembler programming. You are working a much lower level. Not as easy if you have not been exposed or had the background in slow torture with little or no automatic tools.
Of course is you get new Cobol programmers the companies will jettison the old ones quicker than you can say Abend. We are talking a wonderful job security here for the soon to retire crowd.
A lot of new stuff is getting written in Java and J2EE so there is a transition going on in some areas. That transition will give a shot in the arm to new software development, a mini boom, over the next 10 years. Hopefully that work will be done at home rather than abroad.
Well maybe the maintancence programming but the initial software development was usually done by someone with more training. But back then there was so much more demand than could be serviced by CS programs
Well you paycheck will be late this month due to one of our critical support programmers being put in a home by his anonymous coward daughter.
Quite correct. There are two approaches, one that teaches specifics about a language and/or an operating system. For the time spent these people can start to be productive very quickly but only to a point and if you shift envirionments (language/OS ..) then you have to do a lot of relearning.
In our CS ciriculum hopefully we are teaching core, first principle ideas which, although for a particular envirionment you are new to, you need some training, but much less and that should be true with each new environment. And the productivity improvement curve should be longer and stronger as that core training helps in all aspects of the CS problem solving domain.
I miss my Univac 1108 and Burroughs 6800. Then there was the IBM 360. Ah those were the days.
Done, secure computer. Well of course you need to not plug it in inside a bank vault as well. Then its secure, well unless the earth parts so don't use a Bank in California. Then there is the sun expansion that will cover the earth, so you can only set up a secure computer aggrement/expectation for a few hundred million years. By then there may be more portable solutions.
"In which country is this law? Certainly not the US."
Yes, that is true here in the U.S. My understanding is that it is illegal to intercept mobile phone or cell phone or mobile phone or any number of military or commercial transmissions. I understand it is also true the the restiction for Ham radios is at the manufacture and sale of same in the U.S. Many manufactures have to limit radios for sale in the U.S. but have easy work arounds to get those radio's to listen to more bands.
Your right people will not notice the change directly probably but will experience a harder time with their radios.
The public park analogy is close but the electromagnetic spectrum was originally considered public domain. The government started to regulate it it keep the peace and then it progressed to leasing certain spectra to common carriers, then passing laws to make it illegal to listen in on those frequencies (which before were public domain). Then they passed laws to restrict any short wave radio to not be able to tune any band not explicitly Ham or commercial short wave.
Now it appears as though the corporate interests are being given more of the pie. The U.S. governement does not own the electromagnetic spectrum as it is really a world or universe resource. I don't see any mention of what effect it the interference will have on other countries or ongoing research in say tagged animal studies.
I don't imagine that the entire phone wire network will be without problems or leakage. It will come into your PC's your radios, your TV's and cause new and intermittent problems. Not me mention pace makers and medical equipment. Remember you only have to have a piece of wire or a board trace the lentgth of a harmonic of the frequency to build up a galloping gurtey effect in any circuit.
I don't think this has been well thought out.
It will be so much easier to eaves drop on others as well.
I don't think that the "Process of Evolution" is in question as a theory. That Process is demonstratable and scientific.
It can be shown to work not only through tests but the process coupled with ideas from genetics has created a whole new field of Genetic Algorithms. Using the priciples of evolution and genetics together I have written myself a short program that will converge on a the solution of the square root
of a number. The process is very useful.
The "Theory" is question is the family tree with all its branches. Much of that is detective work and there are some grey areas and gaps in the tree. That is where the theory comes in not in the Process of Evolution.
The answers that "Creationism" and its various sanitized pseudo versions provides just stop the process of investigation and stop the process of science. I don't think we can afford to stop thinking and questioning.
The worlds if flat. Thats my story and I am sticking to it. The Bible would have told us that the world was round if it was, so there.
"and their lives will not be really affected by which way they believe Man got to his present state."
On the contrary. If someone comes away with an idea of someone's (God perhaps, or the CIA) hand in control of destiny and that science is really a tool of satan well then several thing might occur.
His Christian church attendance might go up.
He might surrender his will to the authority of the Church or his pastor.
He might get into the habit of surrendering authority to others and become a good Republican having not only theological but political issues decided for him with a fear of questioning authority.
We might continue to have Authoritarian "Leadership" in the government rather than a representative government.
For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
Our system of government only works with active questioning free thinking indivduals who are willing to challenge un-truth and hypocracy at all levels. Without that our system is lost.
I knew of a case once where a Chicago Paper had a service to research topics to the public for free, until one fellow who was trying to do a big business deal found in the papers returned to him by someone who did not want to do business with him, an article that sevice had found on his being a scoff law with hundredes of unpaid parking tickets.
He sued the paper and the end result is that the service was discontinued. So law suites can bring presure if not nuisance pressure to cause things to happen. I hope that does not happen here.
I was talking about responsibility and who should be considered to be responsible for a problem. In this case the responsibility and the blame if you will for distruction caused by a computer virus lies with the virus creator and releasor. Those responsible for causing damange to someone elses property or possessions should pay a price for those actions, or as we say they should take the responsibility, because certainly in a free society you are allowed to act but if you act badly you have to take the consequences.
Does intent have a part to play. Certainly. Did the Sasser worm teen get off lightly, I think much too lightly. Maybe if someone that causes millions of dollars of ecomonic and other damage around the world can get off with a shake of a finger, I think we will see more young teens think the joy ride is worth the risk.
There is something about effective penalties that does deter. Just look at those countries the hack off the hands of theives. I am not suggesting hacking off any particular body part but in these cases, hacking off the virus creators computer seems approriate. If a drunk driver has an accident in most states they loose the privilege of driving. I would hate to see us resort to having to have a license to use a computer but if things keep going as they are we may head in that direction sooner than later. If we don't clean up our own shop then the non-computer legistators and law officials will find a way to do it for us.
Be responsible, condemn those who are not acting responsibly.
"As you correctly point out, admins and users are at fault here"
I would use the argument that if our streets were not safe from muggers then a muggee is responsible if they do not carry a can of mace or a gun or drive in an armored car. I contend that, as society does, penaties are made for mugging, and police actively seek out to apprehend and the justice system exact justice (that is the intent). So if your analogy of the real world is true, then the responsibility always lies with the perpetrator not the one that got hit.
It is a subtley of language that exposes that bias in your text. "are at fault here" I suggest that there is prudent action that can be taken but no one should be held at fault for someone else doing something bad. It is an improper shift of blame.
Sorry for putting words in your mouth but given the usual rant about "don't bother us we didn't do anything so wrong besides someone else is doing far worse so what I am doing is not so bad." You were only ranting about the last part not the first part.
The issue was penalty and I was making the point that penalty should be exacted for that kind of behaviour, I did not suggest the death penalty nor was defending the death penalty for an economic crime.
Certainly most people do not know what a firewall is and would not have the faintest idea that they are free or where to look.
Actualy you have hit the nail on the head, just the wrong head. Your statement
"The real tragedy here is that his son hasn't come to visit and installed those applications for him already! Get the hell off slashdot and visit your dad!"
shows precisely the trouble with many peoples thinking. It is the same thinking that blames someone who was mugged because the they should have carried a gun and a flack jacket and a can of mace and a whistle and a GPS enabled 911 phone, and not realize that none of that should be necesary and the sole responsibily "THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY" for the damage is from the Mugger/Hacker. I would counter "Get the hell off Slashdot if you don't take responsibilty for your actions and don't hold others accountable for theirs"
You are correct in the sense that Hacking is a general term used for good and bad behaviour's.
Courts (Judgets (people) and juries of peer (folks like you and me)) (at least in the US) listen to the charges and decide guilt or innocence and then depending on the court, have some say on the penalties, so usually maximum penalties only are the worst that can be given unless they are mandatory.
So the suggestion for Hacking penalties is of course only for behaviours that adversly affect computers other than the "Hackers" own computer.
I guess you would have to judge whether creating a worm or virus that does "mischief" to another's computer is worth more than a smile. Say wipes out their hard drive.
Most of the computers out there are not corporate computers, they are peoples computers like yours or mine. If you look at the landscape of protected computers. Protected from viruses and worms and such, then you are looking at a much larger landscape of peoples home computers, not corportate well protected computers.
My father has a computer, he is 89. He is not computer savy. He is wanting to get into digital photograph. If he does and has all his images stored on his hard drive (not backed up of course because he is not computer savy and does not know about how bad things our there really are for unprotected computers). His hobby is photograph and has spent maybe 60yr doing it but not digitally. If he would get into digital photography and have all his new pictures on his hard drive and have them distroyed by some "Idiots" virus. It would the same as if someone set fire to his boxes of negatives. It would be an irretrivable personal loss. He does not have that many years left and it would be a hard blow to him.
But you say, he does not deserve to have those pictures unless he knows enough to have a firewall and active virus protection (he is on a pension and money is precious) and he should have a backed them up (a CD writer is nice but extra money) and he should know how to back them up (the time for that education is effectivly passed believe me).
So his loss is his fault not the fault of the "Weeny" that built the virus and wound it up and let it loose on the internet to cause damage.
There are many local personal stories of loss like this that have nothing to do with dollars lost and may represent the real tragedy of viruses on the population. We tend to like to have a number to measure things but there are other immeasurable kinds of losses that need to be considered when considering the cost of something.
Virus's do not have any social value, they have a social cost. There should be a penalty for someone who exacts that cost on society. What may happen as a result of all the virus/spam activity that is going on is that we end up with a loss of freedom.
In that we all loose for someones "fun" and loose deeply and for a long time. We need to bring some responsibility to the community.
Well the spin is that they want to lessen Government's involvmement but I think there may be several other reasons. Republicans don't want to pay for someone else or be responsible for someone else, even when that involves say elderly being hungry or homeless. The second issue is, why have civil servants working on this problem when you can have a few stock traders and portfolio managers getting rich off the "Private" accounts. It opens up a whole new growth industry for those stock trader types. (I am sure that a dollar or two from this constituency has found its way into the legistators war chests or wherever).
The third and more sinister motive I heard on a TV business talk show about the subject years ago. One Republican proponent for the system said that the other side was afraid to give people their own stock portfolios because it would turn then into Republicans. I suspect this final motive is a powerful one for the business interests. If you have people's retirement futures directly connected to the performance of business then they would be more favorable towards business. Currently people don't see the connection between business and Social Security, with much of it in government bonds I think anyway.
So this is consistant with the issue at hand in that with SS gutting by government taking a benefit and selling it out to a private concern is quite the same as allowing local governments the power to take peoples land away (kind of like a retirement benefit built up over the years and directly a place to live) and giving it to a private concern who will make a profit off it and funnel some of that profit back to the local governement in taxes and political contributions.
It makes me sick really. But I think my point is that a Bush appointee to the bench would probably have voted for this ruling not against for the reasons stated in this and my earlier post
I can't imagine that a Bush II appointee would rule the other way. Bush and company (emphasizinge company) have made billions on privatizing and using public fund for private use. Here is an example of a local govenrment deciding whats best for the community, taking someones private property away to sell/give it to a wealthy developer.
I don't think we have seen in any of Bush II's actions anything that would say that he is against a government authority excercising "Leadership" and deciding that a particular private project was best for the community. Look at "Privatitizing" socical security. The handing over of construction work in Iraq to Haliburton, the use or stated desire to use public money to fund Religious groups and schools. The use of private companies to do military support operations in Iraq. Lets not forget the "Leadership" shown in abandoning the Geneva Convetions on treatment of war prisoners. Bush II is into "Leadership" not representation when it comes to running the government.
I'm sorry, you do have a right to know as the device becomes to some extent your accuser and you have a right to confront and question your accuser. Another replier makes the same point.
The issue here is that the device might be fine under the standard calibration procedures which might be done in a temperature/humidity controlled environment, but the test you are given might be done in 120 heat on a very humid day and might and might have just been taken out of the policemans air conditioned car. It might also be mid day and in bright outdoor sunlight. The device might be using infrared light or some sensor that is temperature or heat sensitive or goes haywire when the temperature changes. As anyone that has tracked down failing parts in an electronic circuit with freeze spray can identify with even other parts, capacitors, resistors, IC's can be marginal and/or temperature sensitive.
You have a right to confront your accusers and to verify that not only was the device calibrated but that it works correctly and calibratedly under the conditions that the test was given. Don't you think.
Then there are the voting machines that the voting machine company won't release the source on and that leaves no paper trail. Aren't you getting just a little nervous.
I don't advocating drunk driving at all. I advocate complete information about an acusation. Look at the maticulous rules of evidence and chain of documentation needed to handle evidence to insure that the objects kept are the ones taken from the crime, and that no tampering was done. I think the same principle should apply to any device that give evidence.